Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 240#Limited block button

Okay ... a lot of planning has gone into this, but I've found in the past that the more we talk about RfCs, the lower the chances of passing, so I'm just going to launch into this without much preamble, and we'll see how it goes. I'd like to start discussion here and get consensus on what to do, then move to a discussion at WP:VPP, then file an RfC over there. Hopefully it will pass, then we'll gather some data, then file a second RfC. In the end, what I'd like to see is this: I want the crats to have the option (after a crat chat) to give people who narrowly fail RfA the userright that lets them see deleted pages (called the "viewdeleted" right). Unbundling userrights in general is very well-trodden territory, and we know that the RfCs on viewdeleted have gone a different way than those on unbundling blocking, deleting, etc. There will always be a majority of voters who see real harm coming from letting non-admins block or delete, but no one has been worried that people will "go wild" with viewing deleted pages. People have other concerns ... and I agree with all this, actually:

• By itself, having this userright does people very little good.
• Letting more people see deleted pages causes potential legal problems for the Foundation.
• People don't want to set up any new vetting process for any userright where the bar is anywhere near the same bar you'd have to clear to pass RfA. The thinking is that it's the RfA process itself that is most of the problem, so creating a new similar process and a new hurdle to clear would be the worst outcome imaginable.

When we talk about failures of the RfA process, some problems are important but theoretical (will we have enough admins? Is the bar too high or too low?), and other problems are more immediate and carry more of an emotional punch ... I'm talking about what happens when dedicated, earnest, intelligent Wikipedians narrowly fail an RfA. People get upset, people lose enthusiasm, people push back against RfA, people who could pass RfA stop preparing and give up.

I'm proposing two RfCs to help soften the blow, the next time it happens. By my count, narrow defeats have happened 5 or 6 times so far this year. The first RfC would be: do we want to give some subset of just these people the viewdeleted userright? (I'm only looking to include a subset of these 5 or 6, the ones who want to participate, who want to try RfA again some day, and who have stayed out of trouble since the last RfA. If we need a larger sample size, we can look at people who narrowly failed last year.) There are many things admins do that can't be done right by anyone else ... in fact, others can't even learn how to do it right, not by themselves ... because they can't see a critical part of the picture, the pages that were deleted. (For instance, for anti-spam and anti-attack-page work, admins sometimes change their messages and approach ... I know that I did ... depending on whether the offenders are repeat offenders, and you need to be able to see deleted pages for that.) If that RfC passes, then I propose we sit back and see what happens ... and if nothing good happens, then we stop right there. But if some of these guys take advantage of the fact that they can see deleted material to get more involved, and if admins and others reach out to these people to help get them up to speed, then I think we'll be in a position where the second RfC might be able to pass, the one where we give the crats discretion (after a crat chat) to grant the viewdeleted userright to any candidate who demonstrates over the course of a 7-day failed RfA that they have sufficient community trust to merit the viewdeleted userright. If that passes, then we want to make sure that people don't discuss granting this new userright during the RfA ... that's one of the things that RfC voters have consistently said they don't want, complicating any voting process with new things to think about, new bars to jump over. RfAs will hopefully have a link to a page that lets people know that, to make the call on viewdeleted, crats are instructed to ignore anything said during the RfA specifically about the candidate's suitability for the new userright, and instead to use past input from the Foundation (I have some idea what the Foundation has said and will say, btw), past input from these RfCs about where the community sets the bar for this new userright, and general discussion during the RfA about suitability for adminship to arrive at the decision whether to grant viewdeleted or not.

Okay, so now I can say what for me is the main point of all this. Failing an RfA can be overwhelming, and can feel like a loss for everyone involved ... the candidate, their supporters, and the whole RfA community. It's a bigger deal after narrow losses. The new userright would allow us to recast a failure as a partial win, for everyone: the candidate would receive a tangible sign that the community trusted them enough to grant them an important userright, one that will help them contribute to Wikipedia and pass a future RfA, and the RfA community gets credit for doing what we can to address the problem and soften the blow. Some opposers probably won't see this as a win, but I think most will, because it could lessen the regret over opposing.

And I'm betting that some will oppose these RfCs for exactly this reason: it makes opposing easier, and therefore more RfAs will fail. But we can compensate for that: crats are completely capable of figuring out if the new userright is having a negative impact on RfAs. Crudely put, I think the RfC should carry a specific instruction to the crats: if it appears that the new userright is tilting the scales so that fewer people are passing, you're authorized to compensate for this by discounting votes, on the grounds that it's unfair for a new, technical change at RfA to arbitrarily raise the bar for new candidates.

Thoughts? - Dank (push to talk) 15:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

:I would find the right useful, particularly for examining deleted pages to establish vandal patters for edit filters. I have never had a definite view on rights unbundling per se, accepting some of the arguments on both sides. This proposal has been well thought out, and deserves serious consideration.

:All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC).

:So if this were a thing I would have a special userright because I missed my RfA by a hair?—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 18:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• What would be the proposed criteria for people to qualify for this right? Who are the people who need it but could not pass RFA? ϢereSpielChequers 18:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• :Could be useful for me for ACC work.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 18:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

:::Cyber and WSC: for part of the answer, I've pinged WhatAmIDoing to give us the WMF's perspective ... I think she's traveling, but not for long. For the other part, I didn't address those questions because it's not up to me, that's up to all of us to decide. So: Rich, for instance, wants to be able to see deleted pages. His RfA failed by a hair. My personal judgment, even going by nothing other than his RfA, is that he won't cause harm by looking at deleted pages, and if he thinks it would help him, I'm not going to argue, he probably knows what he needs. I don't have a problem with the fairness issue, if Rich can see deleted pages and others can't, because the RfA itself speaks to how much work he did to get where he is and how the community feels about him. But someone else might have an issue with Rich seeing deleted pages, and I have no problem with that ... that's the point of the RfCs, to work out where the consensus is.

:::Btw, I just got a comment on my talk page that I should come clean about canvassing ... except that I wasn't canvassing. I did post something neutrally worded, an hour or two after I posted here, on the talk pages of the 5 people who are most likely to fit the category of having RfAs this year that failed by a hair. Of course I notified them ... it would be wrong not to notify them, since they're the proposed subjects for this experiment. - Dank (push to talk) 19:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think this is going to be possible. The Foundation's position (expressed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Carrite&diff=prev&oldid=537113005 here] and possibly somewhere more official I'm not aware of) is that people have to go through a process at least as strenuous as RfA in order to get the right to view deleted pages. Giving some failed RfA candidates the right to view deleted pages would go against this. I would certainly recommend asking their opinion before having any wider discussion of this proposal. Hut 8.5 19:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• At the moment, my preference would be just to ask you to trust me on this until WAID gets back. I'm satisfied, after discussions with the WMF people who would be making the call, that they'll be fine with it. If your motion is seconded, if anyone else wants to hear from the WMF before anyone says another word, I can get someone else from the WMF to weigh in. - Dank (push to talk) 19:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• And btw, since I've brought up my previous conversations with the WMF, this would be a good time to say: for people looking for the cabal here, there isn't one. I got no input when putting this together from the Foundation, from the RFA candidates, from others interested in RfA reform, or from anyone else (other than family). All I did here was to review previous RfCs, as I've been doing for many years, and I tried to draft something that avoided all of the objections that have been raised in the past. Of course, that didn't leave me with much ... I couldn't do anything here to tackle any major RfA reform questions. Still ... even this small effort might accomplish something, because there are a lot of people out there who don't think RfA voters as a group can, or are willing to, help fix problems, and if we can get a broad consensus on this among RfA voters, that might demonstrate that the doubters are wrong. (I'm convinced that perception is unfair, applied to RfA voters on the whole, but it's definitely out there.) If we're really lucky, the candidates who wind up with this userright will get more help and training than failed RfA candidates have gotten in the past, and they'll come back to RfA sooner than they otherwise would have, and pass. That would be a significant win, I think, but we won't know for a while, even if the RfCs pass. - Dank (push to talk) 19:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• I actually believe viewdeleted to be one of the most dangerous admin rights, and the one most worthy of restriction. Deletions, blocks, and protects are all reversible, and all of them are logged, so abuses of them are easy to monitor. Viewing a deleted page doesn't show in any log, and it's irreversible; once someone has seen a copy of deleted information (which may well have been deleted because there's a good reason to hide it from the public), you can't exactly remove their knowledge of it. Unfortunately, viewdeleted can't really be removed from the standard "admin set" of tools because it's highly useful for a wide range of administrative tasks (it's the one that restricts me most as a non-admin – I can request deletions with {{tl|db}}, protections at WP:RFPP, and the like, but it'd be a huge waste of everyone's time to go off to WP:REFUND merely to determine if a WP:CSD#G4 deletion is correct or if a suspected spammer had made previous attempts to create pages that got immediately deleted). However, I really wouldn't like it being spread wider than the group of people who we already trust to perform general-purpose privileged tasks. --ais523 20:26, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Short reply: I respect your opinion, and I don't have a strong opinion on this myself. Longer reply on your talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 21:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• I think that I would like to know beforehand for each candidate whether this is a vote for viewdeleted or administrator. For some I see this could be useful, but not so many AFD candidates say this is what they need. If viewdeleted is all that is wanted then I expect that they will pass much more easily. A RF-viewdeleted discussion could happen in the same was as for AFD, but just asking for this permission. But I would say as a consolation prize it is not that useful. I would apply different criteria to such a candidate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• I see two questions here. First: before we're all done here, we're going to have a hundred requests to change the question, because what I'm proposing is, let's face it, weak sauce. I'm asking for something that doesn't even qualify as an admin button for (currently) 5 people. All I can say is: everything else has been tried, many times. But hey ... consensus on these questions does change over time. I don't want my RfC to interfere with anyone else's. If anyone wants to start a discussion on another proposal, please do, and if that goes well, file an RfC.
• Second: it's true that viewdeleted is a pretty poor consolation prize, but in a way, that's the point. If we make the alternative any pushable admin button, then RfA voters are never going to accept the restriction that they can't discuss openly whether the candidate should be entitled to the button ... it's too important not to discuss. If they're told to keep quiet about suitability for a blocking or deleting button, then voters will start talking in code with winks and nods, and all we'll accomplish is to make the RfA more confusing and even somewhat deceptive. It has to be something that doesn't get people riled up, and historically, voters haven't been very excited about viewdelete, because having viewdelete doesn't give you any power over other editors, and that's what people really care about. OTOH, viewdelete has the advantage that it's actually helpful if you're trying to learn how to be an admin. - Dank (push to talk) 20:58, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• In itself viewdeleted would be useful for particular nonadminstrators. Those that clerk at WP:REFUND could then give better advice or valid declines. People that nominate for G4 can see if the article is a duplicate. Some could see if a history restore is needed for attribution. Vandal patterns could be observed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• The ability to view deleted content is the admin tool that requires the most trust. Often personally identifying information is deleted and not oversighted till later. What is more is that it can be abused without being noticed. We don't have any peer review on what deleted content is viewed, one could be collecting private information and we would have no way of knowing. I would not be comfortable letting anyone use that tool unless I trusted them enough to use any admin tool. HighInBC 21:31, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• That is why I think it needs to be considered as a separate request with community support, not a consolation prize for near passes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
• Perfectly reasonable. I'm not arguing "viewdeleted good, buttons bad", it's just that this question of which userright is the least toxic is a question I don't have the luxury of having an opinion on, because there are so many other opinions out there ... I just have to go with the flow, or nothing will get done. Countless RfCs have shown that what most voters care most about is actual admin buttons, and from their rationales, it's clear that this has something to do with a perception of fairness and not wanting people to have power over other people unless they're well-trained and it's absolutely necessary. We don't get those complaints with viewdeleted, we get different complaints, but there's a chance something can be done about those complaints. It wouldn't bother me at all if the consensus tilts largely in favor of your position, and this userright is handed out rarely, though I doubt "rarely" will become "never", because some candidates fail RfA over technical issues that have nothing to do with trustworthiness or dedication. - Dank (push to talk) 21:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I was asked to take a look at this (as a "failed RfA") and so popped by. My question is if there is any way to separate deleted article content from other edeleted wikipedia content. I ask because I have often wanted to be able to recover deleted articles to work on or to move articles over a redirect - and have to delete to make way for move - and so having that ability as an unbundled right would be useful. (I originally asked for - and received - the file mover right, thinking that it also allowed file mover right... oh well...I occasionally use it anyway ) I actually share the concern that vandal deletions are a sensitive issue - particularly given that a CURRENT admin looked at a deleted file of mine during my RfA and then proceeded to post its contents in their entirety at an off-wiki site, so I know exactly the concern. (It was not sensitive content, luckily, merely an abandoned essay draft I no longer cared to pursue). Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(Technical note: sadly, as of now, we're talking about 6 barely-failed RfAs this year rather than 5. I have notified this candidate, the same as the others.) - Dank (push to talk) 21:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

{{od}} Comments On a positive note, this proposal shows evidence of thinking outside the box and trying to find creative solutions to problems. I like the fact that, to some extent, it ameliorates two problems with one solution. Unfortunately, I see some flaws and I'm unable to be fully supportive.

Maybe I'll lose some people but I want to explain my concerns with Venn diagrams. I'm too lazy to draw them so you will have to imagine them in your head.

• Let A= Set of editors with right to view deleted material (as a mnemonic, A means admins)
• Let B= Set of editors who would find the right to view deleted material useful (no mnemonic)
• Let C= Set of editors who recently ran for RfA and narrowly failed

Sets A and B have a lot of overlap but not perfect overlap. There are some admins who have the ability but haven't used it for quite some time and may never use it again. In contrast, there are some accomplished editors who would find the right useful but are not admins. E.g. OTRS agents trying to handle a permission statement for an image that has been deleted.

By definition, set A and C have no overlap.

The right to view deleted material is a right that deserves consideration for expansion beyond admins. I am very aware of the Foundations view on the subject, but think this is a hurdle that could be overcome if handled correctly.

If there were a lot of overlap between set B and set C, It might be a nice target case for a modest expansion of this user right. However, it isn't at all obvious to me that those who recently narrowly failed to pass the RfA hurdle are also likely to be doing things or want to do things where the user right would be helpful.(I'd be happy if someone presented some evidence to show I'm wrong because it would help me support this proposal).

I'd like us to seriously consider how to expand the view deleted material user right in a carefully considered way, but I'd prefer to target editors working in copyright areas or OTRS where the need is obvious. They may be other areas of work that are also candidates, but if I identify members of set B that are not currently members of set A, I fear that it would be mere happenstance that this group would coincide with Set C.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Rather than create a new user right group, we should expand the existing researcher (view deleted titles) user group. Epic Genius (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• This is a good idea, and is worth looking into. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw), 19:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Strange... I can't help but feel as if we've had this discussion before. I could be wrong, but I think someone actually made the same exact a very similar proposal several months back, only to be unceremoniously shot down for creating "a solution in search of a problem." Kurtis ^(talk) 18:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• Your proposal was to set up something that wasn't RfA to ask the community whether a candidate was dedicated and trustworthy enough for the viewdeleted userright. The proposal was rejected because the voters felt that we already have RfA for asking exactly those questions ... which is my point, as well. - Dank (push to talk) 18:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• Sorry, I misread your proposal. Fixed. But I stand by what I said at the time. Kurtis ^(talk) 18:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• That's actually the biggest doubt in my mind, too. I don't want to file an RfC that fails; the harder you push something that doesn't want to move, the more dug-in people get on their positions. The smaller the request, the more likely the RfC will pass. Admin work isn't sitting in a chair and pushing buttons all day (like George Jetson, if anyone remembers him.) There's a lot of work and thought that goes into it, so if someone has both the ability to see deleted pages and that tangible sign of community trust, that might mean that they're more willing to help out with various kinds of admin-y work, which might help them pass a future RfA. It might work that way. Can I get a show of hands on this? If people don't think it will work out that way, I'm happy to accept advice from you guys on this, and in that case, we'll try to figure out what's the least offensive, and most useful, admin button that could be added to this package. Other things would have to be changed about the proposal, and we'd have to deal with the "no sub-admins" issue successfully before filing the RfC ... but if the consensus is that viewdeleted isn't sexy enough by itself, I'm willing to investigate other possibilities. - Dank (push to talk) 23:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
• I'm trying to warm up to this idea, but the pieces just don't hang together. You want to hand out a consolation prize for narrowly failing an RfA. So you suggest the user right that is both the least useful in ordinary editing and the most legally problematic, and also is unlogged, so there's no benefit in performance evaluation in a subsequent RfA and no good way to know if someone is abusing the right. But you don't want voters to use RfA as a place to discuss whether the candidate should get the consolation prize, and you also don't want candidates to use a full RfA as a way to get it. This proposal sounds like what it is, honestly. It's like that last funny-shaped, too-dense cookie you made mushing together all the last little scraps of dough. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Thanks Opabinia. Sigh. If anyone else either sees it the same way, or thinks this view might take hold in the RfC, please say so. - Dank (push to talk) 01:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• Has this run out of steam? At some point I want to start a conversation at VPP. There are lots of questions to be answered (including whether we should do this at all) but the one I really don't want to put off is deciding between viewdeleted alone and viewdeleted plus some relatively inoffensive mini-admin-button. That has to get nailed down first. If we're done here, then I'll ping people who have commented so far (note: not canvassing) and try to continue at least that discussion on my talk page. I'll start a new section. - Dank (push to talk) 16:13, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Dank and everyone else,

Admins aren't in my team's remit, but let's say that makes me the ideal WMF staffer to answer Dank's question, since I can give you straight answers without having to worry about any repercussions. ;-) Because of time constraints, the fact is that Legal is unlikely to comment on any proposal unless and until there is a firm, settled proposal and their assent or rejection is actually necessary. When you read this, you should remember that I haven't spoken to Legal about this, and they will feel free to disagree with me if I've gotten it wrong. I'm replying based on my general knowledge of their POV.

What I've understood here is a proposal that would be identical to the RFA process, which they've already approved (and therefore are unlikely to un-approve of). For those who fall in or near what I'll call the "crat discretion zone", this proposal adds a discussion by one of the most trusted groups of editors, and either grants the right or doesn't on that basis. Crats would presumably consider things like whether the person is interested in relevant issues (e.g., vandal fighting or copyvios rather than page moves) as well as general trustworthiness (but perhaps in a more "I trust you not to copy attack pages to other websites" way, rather than the "I trust you not to lose your temper and block the world" way).

In principle, there is no objection to having some people have access to viewdeleted without them having access to other buttons. Some of you may have seen phab:T113109#1691041, which says basically that. IMO there is at least a significant chance that Legal would accept this proposal, if the community wanted to do this. (Full disclaimers apply; also, the Devil's in the details.)

In response to a few comments above:

Hut, I don't believe that the WMF requires RFAs to be "strenuous". The RFA process must be one that demonstrates the local community's trust in the candidate. That could be done by any number of methods. I don't believe that they require the exact cutoff thresholds currently in use. They don't require a certain number of participants, or that newbies be excluded. There is certainly no requirement that RFAs be unpleasant. I'm not even certain that there is a requirement that RFAs be public.

I've never paid any attention to the details of the logging systems, but you all know that temporary web requests logs exist (because they need them for de-bugging). That includes all pages, including admins who are viewing deleted pages. IMO it would be appropriate for admins to assume that if they're using admin rights, even passively, that there is at least a temporary log of that action. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 06:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

::Thanks kindly WAID. - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• What is the point of a consolation prize which the unsuccessful candidate may not need? Is the assumption that the participants in the RfA are clueless or wrong-headed so when they judged (by a small margin) that the candidate should not be trusted for admin, the participants were mistaken? Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Some candidates fail these days over the issue of trustworthiness; the crats have a good feel for these things, and they wouldn't give those candidates viewdeleted. But for most candidates, the close RfAs generally fail because adminning is a lot harder than it used to be, and voters are concerned the candidates won't make the right calls. For people who have been around RfA since roughly 2009, think back ... the requirements on the skillset needed have changed dramatically over the years, but what constitutes trustworthiness and dedication haven't changed a lot. In many of the near-miss RfAs these days, there's little evidence that the voters think the candidate isn't dedicated to Wikipedia or can't be trusted with private information. So the question isn't whether the voters are wrong; the question is why we're distorting the comments of the opposers to mean things that they're not saying. And ... before roughly 2009, the bar on trustworthiness and everything else was lower at RfA ... so can we trust the people who passed back then (including me) with the viewdeleted userright, or can't we? Where's the evidence that something horrible happened because we did trust them? - Dank (push to talk) 13:20, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

OK - Kudpung, WormTT, Biblo-guy (actually there used to be a really cool Biblo admin). Anyway - I have a few thoughts:

• 1) NO reply to votes. I mean none. If someone wants to discuss a person's !vote - it goes on the talk page. period.

The bullshit that goes on with various replies to a person's !vote is not only counter-productive to the process - it's ... it's ... well it's not only bullshit - but it begs for WP:DE. Meh - what do I know? — Ched :  ?  04:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

:I demur in part - if a vote is made upon a misapprehension of fact, then discussion of the fact is reasonable. Discussions which reach "À chacun son goût" levels should be hatted, in general. Sound fair? Collect (talk) 14:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

:"Biblo-guy"? Well, first of all, it's Biblio, and secondly, such an informal name as "guy" is completely inappropriate for my extremely intelligent, philosophical, dignified personage. ;) But seriously, I think it would be a good idea to move all discussion to the talk page. We can at least make the RfA pages look orderly, without discussions branching everywhere. --Biblioworm 15:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

::Pardon me for adding on to the banter, but I hope I'm the cool biblio admin. bibliomaniac15 23:16, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

:::Of course! - Dank (push to talk) 23:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

::::FWIW, I agree with Collect. A statement of purported fact which actually is wrong or a misinterpretation might have undeserved and unfortunate influence if it cannot be refuted on the main page where all !voters are more likely to see the refutation. Discussions on other matters or extended discussions about the fact or its significance past the initial statement and refutation should go to the talk page. If the question of whether the fact is correct or not carries on, perhaps a note that extended discussion about that point is on the talk page might be made for full disclosure. Otherwise, I support moving comments and discussions about votes and bases for votes to the talk page. Donner60 (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

I see the same faces having the same arguments at RfA. Since we have so few RfAs these days then perhaps they should be advertised in the site notice. This way we get an abundance of fresh eyes, get a more representative opinion from the community, and move forward with stale arguments.

RfA is probably the most important regular debate that Wikipedia has, I think it justifies some coverage. HighInBC 15:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with HighInBC wholeheartedly: we need a higher participation rate. Most recent successful RfAs have had about a hundred total participants, give or take, and that represents a small fraction of all active editors. Basic principles of good governance would suggest that a higher participation rate would be better for the project, the key being a higher participation rate coupled with informed participants. We have many active and informed editors who have rarely participated or have stopped participating. That said, when newbie participants see some of the comments made about candidates, many of them are going to be shocked -- and not in a good way -- and may be immediately turned off. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• To some degree, this might be useful (maybe as a watchlist notice, but not a site banner). But there is a danger in overcompensating the other way: we could wind up with a lot of clueless !votes that really wouldn't improve things at all. What we need is more input from editors who have actually thought about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Carefully wording the watchlist notice may help. Something about how important this is and a plea to examine the candidate's history (with links taking the newbie right to the candidate's history and to a couple of relevant policy pages). What we want is people who are Wikipedia newbies but who are intelligent and willing to put in at least some effort. A carefully wording notice will help that kind of user to participate productively. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Increasing participation is the best way to improve the process. I support this wholeheartedly. RO^(talk) 20:00, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• I do think this would be an improvement, since we would get fresh opinions from lesser-known members of the community. I don't think this would completely fix RfA, but it would perhaps contribute. --Biblioworm 20:21, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
• Wouldn't getting more people to participate in RfA require people to not find the process to be as awful as it is? Honestly RfA just has a reputation of being one of the worst things about Wikipedia when you get right down to it. GamerPro64 20:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

::{{edit conflict}} More people participating would mean input from a wider range of viewpoints, which is always a good thing. I also think there are a handful of people that attempt to either derail or push through candidates based on partisanship. The power of these cliques is diminished with great participation. Look at Liz's RfA for a good example of a concerted effort to derail that failed due to overwhelming participation. RO^(talk) 20:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

::I think we're talking about getting more people to vote in RfAs. The candidate may find it stressful; the typical voter probably won't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• There are a lot of good ideas being floated on this page. This is one of the best ones. We should announce RfAs site-wide and encourage more voting participation so that we elect admins who best represent the community's needs. I think it would also have a side benefit of attracting more users to become admins.- MrX 20:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

:*I agree with MrX. In fact, I would recommend that anyone who has a proposal to "fix RfA" learn a lesson from the hundreds of similar proposals that went down in flames and instead start with a proposal to increase RfA participation. I think that if we got a lot more more participants, some of them would look at some of the more problematic current participants and ask "why are you behaving this way?" --Guy Macon (talk) 21:11, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

::*I think proposals to "fix RfA" would still likely be needed. After all, although it's a good idea for the sake of getting a broader range of views, it's also taking a gamble. It might not have the effect intended. In fact, it might cause more problems if uninformed users fall for the faulty reasoning of a crafty, more experienced user who is determined to make the candidate fail. I support it just because I think it would be good for the wider community to be involved, not because I think it has a good chance of actually fixing the process. I will make sure to include this idea in the upcoming RfC, though. --Biblioworm 21:29, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

:::* Yep. While "more voters" may be a worthy goal in its own right, "more voters" won't necessarily get more people to run, nor will it necessarily make RfA more "pleasant". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

:*Providing we put some minimum on it such as "all watchlists of accounts with more than 1000 edits" then it would be a way to get input from a broader group of people. It should also encourage more editors to think about running. ϢereSpielChequers 03:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• I too think that proposals to "fix RfA" would still likely be needed, but I also think that, based upon the last 200 or so proposals having a 100% failure rate, that more proposals that are doomed to failure are not a good use of our time. (200 is my rough estimate of how many serious proposals have been posted in various places since the last suggestion that passed, which was unbundling rollback) That being said, if we can get a lot more people involved that could be a game changer and make it so that reasonable proposals can pass, at least on a trial basis. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Excellent suggestion. I think it is embarrassing that we regularly have RfAs where less than 200 people comment (compare, say, the German Wikipedia), and a sitenotice or watchlist notice might help. —Kusma (t·c) 21:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I think that wider, neutral notice is a good idea; RfA does have a group of "the usual suspect" who !vote and I wish there was a way to draw in a more balanced group individuals who are not RfA regulars but might be familiar (pro or con) with the actual candidate. Also, while a candidate is not supposed to canvass at all beyond posting notice at their user page, and supporters are similarly discouraged from such activity, opponents of the RfA appear freer to canvass for opinion-based !voting, certainly on their own talk pages, ( as [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Msnicki&oldid=681841302#The_Montanabw_RfAhere]). I would suggest that an appropriate neutral notice template that can be placed - other than by the candidate - at certain areas (such as, for example, wikiprojects) would also be a good idea. Montanabw^(talk) 17:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

:::I very much like WereSpiel's suggestion about setting a minimum experience level for receiving the advertising. That would help to reduce the introduction of clueless !votes. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

::::*Over the years at RfA in my experience most disruption is caused by long term users. Truly clueless new users are generally given the weight they deserve. HighInBC 15:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

:::*One simple way to do that could be to advertise at T:CENT instead of the watchlist, although that gives a self-selected sample again. —Kusma (t·c) 11:55, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that any form of advertising must not target specific people. It is very important that the selection of participants be neutral, and that we do not allow for a self-selection bias. I would like to judge consensus for the idea of putting active RfAs in the site notice here before going to MediaWiki talk:Sitenotice(or wherever these things are decided). Continued discussion is encouraged in the section above, people are also encouraged to challenge or question opinions they disagree with(it is called debating, no badgering). HighInBC 15:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support I strongly feel that if fresh eyes come to RfA they will quickly settle one way or another many of the perrenial disputes the usual crowd(me included) keep rehashing. Having a greater cross section of Wikipedia will give us fresh input on the community's view of administrators. It will reduce the amount of power minority views have to derail an RfA. Most importantly I hope it will replace the repetitive arguments at RfA discussions with fresh new ones. HighInBC 15:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Wider notice to bring in people who are registered users though, not the regulars - but also does not draw in the totally clueless would be nice. Perhaps something in the Signpost noting current pending RfAs would draw that neutral group. Montanabw^(talk) 17:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Partial (or complete?) oppose I see more harm than good in encouraging non-logged-in visitors who are much more likely than not to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's history and policies to participate in RfA. Advertisement forms such as site-notices and the like should, at a minimum, "target" only logged-in editors. I also favor more narrow targeting, such as targeting editors with over X edits and Y months of editing, but I'm flexible in that regard. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 19:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

:*That can be done with parser functions, and as non-logged in people cannot vote that makes sense. HighInBC 14:19, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• My apologies It seems this is in fact already being discussed here: Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_I/RfC#D:_More_participants. I don't know how I missed it. This section seems redundant to the larger discussion there. HighInBC 14:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• Participation at RfA has never been so high. The wrong kind of advertising may have the wrong effect: it might even bring more trolls from the peanut gallery and we have enough of those already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• I invite everyone here who cares about the encyclopedia and the role of admins to parse my RfA for anything that can be instructive or helpful that goes beyond my own unique strengths and shortcomings. I think that my willingness to throw my hat into the ring (and my intent to try again sometime in 2016) has been of help to the project as a whole to illustrate both its strengths and weaknesses. I was cautioned before running that many failed RfA candidates put up the "retired" tag at the end, and I did not; but most wikipedians are not me; I got nuked, but I'm still standing! That may not be the case for others - my experiences may have scared off many good potential admins: how do you attract them and reassure them that, my experience notwithstanding, they don't actually have to endure off-wiki doxxing, on-wiki stalking, on- and off-wiki canvassing by opponents, character assassination by every troll they've ever pissed off, dogpiling by the uninformed, and the impossibility of defending oneself from false accusations lest one look as nuts as the accuser in question? Somewhere in there, something useful can be found that will improve the RfA experience for others. I hope... Montanabw^(talk) 01:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

:::If I may (and I say this with obvious goodwill, as I !voted for you at your RfA), everything that happened to you at your RfA was fairly predictable because unfortunately, as someone said above, you have rubbed a fair number of people the wrong way over a long time (and also in your case, the people you have rubbed the wrong way were not the best kind of enemies to have when it comes to something like this). So only the quantity was surprising, not the activities themselves (and you were somewhat warned beforehand by several brave souls willing to speak frankly; I don't think enough people had the heart to warn you as thoroughly as they might have). So the only part of what you mentioned that comes up in most RfAs (and in many cases none of it does) is some much milder form and much lesser amount of "character assassination by every troll they've ever pissed off" and "dogpiling by the uninformed"; although most trolls move on and don't participate in RfAs, and most of the "dogpiling by the uninformed" in your case was because you actually chose not to rebut the opposes that actually warranted rebutting, and the only time you did so was on the talk page where almost nobody saw it until far too late. That decision not to rebut seemed noble at the time (because after all people were accusing you of being contentious or argumentative), but it was your own choice and wasn't imposed on you by anything or anyone. I think there are a couple of lessons here: (1) If you've pissed a lot of people off and over a long period, you're going to have a tough time at RfA, especially if the people in question are belligerent, immature, or hold grudges. (2) It's actually often helpful to sometimes (at least briefly) judiciously rebut, on-thread, misinformation that crops up on one's RfA, and to sometimes rebut judiciously and briefly when the rebuttal does not equate to or appear as nitpicking or whining. (3) Failed RfAs are a test of character, and I'm happy to say that you came through with flying colors with your head held high. Given the kind of meltdowns we've seen by persons with non-venomous and not particularly contentious but failed (for whatever reason) RfAs, I think this is remarkable. Softlavender (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

::::Heh, I have edited for nine years, I figured that I'd draw out people—it was the dogpiling that was troubling; of the oppose !votes, some had a legitimate complaint about my past behavior, others were, well... their actions speak for themselves. I don't know if rebuttal would have made much difference; I'm open to discussion about that point, though. I think that perhaps one simple RfA reform might be structural — a general "rebuttal" or "reply to comments" section for the candidate to address specific inquiries, misinformation or challenges, separate from the questions area. If you rebut on-thread, you a) may wind up saying the same thing multiple times to multiple people, so one stop shopping would be good, and b) Your rebuttal can become lost in a sea of text (might anyway, but a structure would be helpful). Montanabw^(talk) 04:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I actually think the opposite: that there should be some kind of experience requirement to !vote in RfAs. In the recent one we had several !votes from people with fewer than 200 total edits. IMO they can't possibly know what adminship involves and how to evaluate someone for it. Unless, of course, they are socks. --MelanieN (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• (I suspect they're mostly socks or meatpuppets, just saying...may be worth analyzing how many are under 100, under 50...) ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 04:02, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

:::I think it can be appealing for newish editors who find their way there. I'm far from sure that these would be predominately opposes though, as you are implying. I'm not against a 200 edit requirement btw. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

::::God knows the last thing we need is another damn "let's fix RfA proposal," but if we want to make it easier for newer and older editors to contribute to RfA, a few things might be useful:

::::*Adding another section specifically for editors who have been involved in contact with the nominee over time, highlighting only their positive and/or negative interactions with the nominee. If they want to !vote, they place the votes in the same sections as everyone else's. And, if possible, have that section opened and closed for a week or two before the pure voting period begins.

::::*Allow RfA's to take longer, or, at least, allow a designated period of, for example, two weeks, to give people to ask questions or make comments about the nominee, and maybe a few days or so for the nominee to respond. Then, basically, close down the discussion sections, although, of course, people might be permitting to add some observations in the RfA voting period, knowing that they aren't really likely to get any response.

::::*If we really want to make it easier for newer editors, the easiest way to do that is to make it easier for them to see all the relevant data in one place. Also, personally, I might want something more restrictive than 200 edits, as I know at least a few long-term contributors who clearly by their actions aren't competent to read instructions at the top of some noticeboards and other pages. John Carter (talk) 16:21, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::*7 Days is plenty long enough for RFA. If we had a glut of candidates and needed more time to scrutinise them I could see some merit in extending things even though that would risk losing some candidates. But it is tumbleweeds at RFA, no need to go out of our way to make the system less candidate friendly. ϢereSpielChequers 17:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Pinging User:WereSpielChequers (and acknowledging your work on this idea over the years). A recurring objection in the viewdeleted section above is that giving someone viewdeleted is pointless if they can't do anything with it. I don't agree, but I agree that many voters will disagree with me, that there has to be a bigger payoff than that. I'd like to suggest that we have another look at a limited-block button that lets people block and unblock certain new editors, say, those with fewer than 100 edits. The two relevant proposals of the last few years, neither of which achieved consensus, were Vandal fighter and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/3#Limited block/unblock. Note that neither of those proposals involved RfA ... therefore, viewdeleted wasn't on the table, and arguably, that's one of the reasons the proposals failed. You don't want to hide a history of creating attack, hoax or spam pages from the person making the call on using the block button. Excluding viewdeleted is also a bad idea if we want these people to handle WP:UAA, one of the most backlogged pages, since the pages the new users created, the ones you need to see to help you make the call to block, are often deleted before you arrive at UAA to handle the request. (Some voters are going to say that handling UAA takes a lot of judgment and finesse. I worked UAA for years, and that simply isn't true. Almost all of the work can easily be done by anyone who's trustworthy and dedicated enough to merit viewdeleted and/or limited block.) The main reason some people have favored unbundling this limited button in the past is, if a new account is engaged in serial vandalism, hoaxing or spamming, damage can be done and Wikipedians sometimes get very upset if you don't stop it quickly. Any thoughts on combining limited blocking with viewdeleted (regardless of whether or how RfA is involved)? - Dank (push to talk) 16:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Btw, the link that sheds the most light is Vandal fighter. As you can see in the oppose section, many of the opposers are requiring RfA. So for some of them, I'm guessing the question would boil down to this (and I don't personally have a position, it's a hard question): is there such a thing as "basic, no-frills" vandal-blocking? What's the cost vs. benefit for making this job available to the handful of people each year who don't quite pass RfA and are approved for this job by a crat chat (that is, if they even want that job)? - Dank (push to talk) 16:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

:Hi Dank, I intend to revive the vandalfighter proposal sometime, but have some stuff in real life to attend to. I am keen to keep it as simple and basic as possible to avoid it becoming an admin lite proposal. The vast majority of urgent but uncontentious blocks are for vandalism, and that is where I want to focus this userright. View deleted would be useful for a variety of editors, including regular RFA voters, but the combination of it not being logged, none of the uses for it being major or urgent, and of course the WMF sensitivities, presumably about viewing copyrighted material? Mean that I don't fancy the chances of any proposal to unbundle it. ϢereSpielChequers 17:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

::WAID just said above that it is logged, and that the WMF wouldn't be likely to be sensitive about it in this case. But I completely agree with your focus, that's an important direction to go, and best of luck, I hope you're successful. I'm attacking a different batch of problems. - Dank (push to talk) 17:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• I would support a more limited version of Vandal fighter, only allowing short-term blocks of IP vandals and perhaps of non-autoconfirmed vandals. These kinds of blocks do not require particularly complicated and nuanced judgement calls, and I think that this kind of a "Vandal fighter" status could be granted by any admin, without bothering the crats. I'd make the "Vandal fighter" status similar to rollback: easily granted and easily removed (again, by any admin), in case of misuse. Granting viewdeleted rights and the rights to short-term page protection seems more problematic to me, and looks like something that would require a higher level of confirmation than a quick decision by an admin or even a crat chat. Some deleted content contains sensitive info; the protection button can also easily be misused and misapplied, and protection is exactly the kind of area where a nontrivial judgement call is often required. In my experience with IP vandals, many of them will persist in trying to vandalize a particular page (or a group of pages) from the same IP address, but relatively few bother with the process of registering as a new user or a bunch of new users for the purposes of vandalizing, and fewer still try to vandalize from a bunch of different IP addresses (say created using a VPN server). Usually just blocking an IP vandal for something like 24-48 hours solves the problem. Thus, IMO, a user with a "Vandal fighter" status does not really need access to the protection button for most vandal-fighting situations. Creating this kind of a "vandal fighter" status would only help with AIV backlog and not with other admin-related backlogs, but it would require little bureaucracy and would still give many users a valuable admin-related record that can then help later, at a full RfA. Nsk92 (talk) 17:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• You realize that much of the time, the "AIV backlog" consists of reports which are unprocessed because they're not clear-cut vandalism, have been reported prematurely, or not vandalism at all? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:25, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• I don't know about Wikipedia, but in most organizations, that would mean that you need more people in triage, to kick the problematic cases upstairs. - Dank (push to talk) 18:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• What HighInBC said below. AIV reports are often left alone to see what further activity occurs (just like RFPP reports). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that blocking vandals does not require nuanced judgement calls. You need to know the difference between bad faith vandalism and good faith editing test or simply someone with an unpopular view. Going through AIV reports I see requests for vandal blocks that should not be done all the time. I think that blocking new users requires a lot of judgement and can do a lot of damage is applied incorrectly. HighInBC 18:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Even when not scouring through WP:AIV's history, I see at least one inappropriate AIV report by a rollbacker/reviewer. Blocking is not easy. Esquivalience ^t 20:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Also, admins are answerable for their blocks, both to the blocked editor and others. This requires clarity and civility in interactions, especially when your actions are being challenged. I'm not against unbundling of the tools if precise guidelines are set up but I am against giving admins the ability to grant access to editors to these tools without wider community input. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:07, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Block tool is very useful when a vandal fighter wants to block an IP address, after they vandalize after final warning, instantly, instead of reporting to AIV. Blockers should be able to block indefinitely but there should be very strict rules like block indefinitely only if the username is against the policy, if the account is vandlism only account. An experienced recent changes patroller will know how and when admin blocks users in different situations. Blockers can also help out in AIV and UAA. I have seen many instances where block tool would have been useful to stop further disruption to wikipedia. There are lot of experienced non-admins who will be able to use this tool for the benefit of wikipedia. Supdiop (T🔹C) 02:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

::They can work in SPI to block obvious socks and also in WP:ANEW. Supdiop (T🔹C) 03:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

:::Work in ANEW? Please, no. That board contains some of the toughest blocking situations around. The fact you even suggest that makes wonder if you really know the thought process that goes on before blocking. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

::::I was talking about users who are very experienced but don't have enough content creation or experience to pass RFA. We don't give them this right just like we give rollback right, do we? Supdiop (T🔹C) 03:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::You don't need content creation to pass RFA. For better or for worse, I suppose I'm Exhibit A for this. And if you don't have enough experience, what are you doing with the block button? I don't understand your last sentence. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::I meant ' enough experience with article creation to pass RFA ', I don't think community will trust them with delete button without content creation. Supdiop (T🔹C) 04:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::: I do have some concerns as to who would get the limited blocking user right, as it is a fairly serious grant of power. While there are certainly times I'd have preferred to immediately block an obvious vandal instead of reporting it at WP:AIV, I think it's really useful to have a second pair of eyes look at less obvious cases. And what would the threshold be for this user right? It's relatively easy to rack up a hefty counter-vandalism edit count using Huggle or Twinkle, so maybe a mere edit count wouldn't be the right threshold. But what else is there to use? If "almost an admin except for lack of content creation" is the threshold, then analogously to RfAs, wouldn't there have to be a !voting procedure to determine the granting of this user right? /wia /talk 05:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::::An RFC will be requested on candidate's talk page for 3 or more days. It will be closed by an uninvolved admin. If candidate doesn't get consensus, they will not get the right. A separate template will be created which will be placed on candidate's talk page, which will add the candidate name to a seperate category. Any user who want to get the right will need to create a new section on their talk page with the template requesting for comments. Is this good enough?

::::::::I feel that limited block right is not very useful because we can get vandals blocked very easily, it doesn't take much time. Why not give experienced users full block right and let them help more areas on wikipedia. Supdiop (T🔹C) 06:37, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::They can run a RFA if they want that. Again, content creation is not a barrier to a successful RFA. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 07:00, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support, as long as they can be unblocked also. VegasCasinoKid (talk) 06:23, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• I support a more limited "Vandal fighter" right than was proposed at the start of the year (i.e. just block/unblock of IPs and non-autoconfirmed, and probably limited to 31 hours, and leaving off the "Page Protector" part that the earlier proposal included – the latter should be a separate "unbundle" set). But it's the third hardest of the four obvious unbundles to get consensus for. (And figuring out the specific details – e.g. max blocking length – will be a chore in an of itself...) So I'm not sure if this is the right time to put this one forward – I'd advise waiting a few more months before letting this one fly... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Cautious support including UAA as suggested by Dank. We've seen good vandal fighters denied the mop (rightly, imho) because we don't think they have adequate experience to use the tools over the whole pedia. This would enable the best of these to work even more effectively in those areas where they are competent. I agree with IJBall just above that this should not include page protection. --Stfg (talk) 08:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support my idea - Supdiop (T🔹C) 04:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Slippery slope, obviously subject to abuse, very bad idea. Softlavender (talk) 04:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

::Are you opposing my idea or this whole thing? Supdiop (T🔹C) 04:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Blocking new users requires as much if not more experience and judgement as any other admin act. I see incorrect AIV reports asking for blocks all the time, from experienced users with rollback/reviewer and lots of trust. I don't believe that limiting to new users in any way mitigates the risk of allowing people to use the block tool. HighInBC 16:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• :I don't think I'd support this either, but there's a bit of a psychological difference between reporting a problem for someone else to look at, and actually acting on the problem yourself. If AIV never had any bad reports, that would be a near guarantee that reporting was too conservative and there were obvious vandals out there going unblocked. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• :: Agreed – asking someone else (e.g. an Admin) to look at something to determine whether there should be blocking, doesn't imply that the same editor would "block" under the same circumstances (esp. if said editor felt they were "involved"). To give an example, I once brought a username to WP:UAA because I thought it was suspect but wasn't sure, and sure enough Diannaa (I think) refused any action on it at UAA – but that doesn't mean if you guys had given me the Block Button at that point that I would have "blocked on sight"! Quite the contrary, I would have done the exact same thing – gone to UAA for advice... I do find a disquieting lack of trust/"assume bad faith" of our longer-term or veteran editors in these discussions. Any of the "problems" outlined can generally be dealt with by: 1) setting the new unbundled "user rights" qualification criteria high enough, 2) imposing the same "WP:INVOLVED" rules on editors with these new rights as we do on Admins (and probably adding on something equivalent to WP:ADMINACCT to these rights as well), and 3) allowing Admins the ability to "yank" these new user rights quickly (as we already do with Rollback, AWB, etc.) if somebody with them gets out of hand. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• :::Well, part of the problem is that rejecting an application or "yanking" a user right can be insulting and a cause of drama by itself. It's important that the result of increased backlog-clearing is worth the effort expended in doing the reviewing. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• :::: On the "rejecting an application" part, it depends how it's done – If it's via a "mini-RfA", then it could very well lead to hurt feelings. But it's an objective standard like "Right will only be granted to users with 50 valid reports to WP:AIV" (or something like that...), it's hard to imagine many getting bent out of shape by that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Weak oppose. This user right could be useful in certain cases of obvious vandalism, but in general I think the deleterious effects outweigh the salutary. Opening the floodgates for hundreds or thousands of users could get messy real fast. I could see users who have already tried and failed at RfA being granted this right, but what about those who haven't? Sure, a much more selective block power-granting procedure might avoid that particular problem, but then why not just go for the full administrator toolkit via the existing RfA process? Sounds like it could amount to a duplication of effort, and I'm just not sure about the viability of an RfA-lite for blocking powers. /wia /tlk /cntrb 19:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• : Of the four kind of "obvious unbundles", the XfD Moderator will be the one obviously require a "mini-RfA" (that's straight from the WMF, I gather). The "Vandal Fighter" one, I'm on the fence about – I suspect the community would feel more comfortable with a "mini-RfA" for this one as well, because it involves blocking. Even if they don't, I suspect the qualification criteria to get "Vandal Fighter" will be quite high. Thus, I suspect the number who end up with this right is more likely to be in the low hundreds (like Template Editor or File Mover) than in the thousands (like Pending Changes Review, which has virtually no qualification criteria to be granted the right; or Rollbacker). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:16, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Neither of the linked previous discussions presents evidence that there is really a significant and sustained backlog of uncontroversial blocks waiting to be made, and a few people here have indicated they don't see that. Most of these "unbundling" proposals seem to be based on what might pass, not on what's actually needed. The first step should be to find out which admin tasks are suffering from lack of attention to urgent issues, and whether the reason for the backlog is really a lack of manpower. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• : Unfortunately, the biggest backlogs that I think I've seen seem to be in the XfD area (e.g. TfD), which is the one area that is going to be especially problematic in terms of "unbundling". After that, WP:RM seems to get backlogged on occasion, which is an area that unbundling could potentially be achieved, if the technical issue of "being able to delete redirects but not articles" userright can be solved. Beyond that, while there aren't "persistent" backlogs, there are occasional backlogs (generally depending on the time of day and the day of the week) at AIV and RFPP, but that may have more to do with Admin distribution across timezones as much as anything... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• ::Well, if XfD gets too backlogged we can reduce the backlog by changing the procedure so that experienced, vetted editors are allowed to close XfDs (or specific types of XfDs depending on their area of expertise) up to but not including the actual deletion, much like the way Wikipedia:Templates for discussion closes now. Article, user, project-discussion, or other "regular"-page closes as delete or delete-and-redirect? Blank or redirect it and have an admin clean up later. File close as delete? Upload a dummy file on top of it and let an admin clean up later. Category closes as delete? De-populate it and replace its content with "This category is pending deletion, do not use it." Portals, WikiProject pages, maintenance categories, and other "complex" things go down to deletion? Clean everything up and make a list of pages that need deleting. This will free admins up for "urgent" things like deleting a page where a page-move is needed. This "delayed-actual-deletion" process also has built-in safeguards: Any editor, even those not "approved" to close XfDs in this way, has the technical ability to undo a rogue-XFD-closer's actions and, by invoking WP:IAR without being yelled at if the XFD's actions were clearly rogue. In most cases the admin's job would be reduced to making sure the recent edits were made by someone on the "approved" list, which is a task perfectly suited to a bot (in which case the admin's role is to make sure the bot made the last edit and the edit summary said "bot verified things are okay" or something similar), and maybe a very brief sanity check to make sure the decision wasn't off-the-wall-obviously-wrong.
• ::We could start this discussion today if we wanted to. While it wouldn't require any changes to editor's technical user-rights, a user-right to protect pages so they could be protected once blanked could be helpful (it would replace the "any editor can undo a rogue action" aspect with "any editor can complain about a rogue action before it's too late," which may be undesirable). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:15, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• I do not see any evidence that this is needed, especially given the risk of this idea. If there is a vandal/warrior that is causing active and sustained harm to Wikipedia and no admin shows up at AIV/AN3, you can request a speedy block (!admin A vandal/warrior is causing active harm to Wikipedia and they need to be swiftly blocked) at the #wikipedia-en IRC channel. Takes no more than one minute; no risk whatsoever; and no need to make a separate user right that would complicate things further. Esquivalience ^t 02:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose No one should have blocking power who has not been vetted and approved by the community. To the extent that there is a shortage in admins, the solution lies in recruiting competent editors willing to step up. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:28, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Ad Orientem. Blocking is a big deal. It's probably the most crucial tool in the bit, and it should not be unbundled. RO^(talk) 16:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Some of the IP vandalism that comes up at AIV (i.e. schools, or obvious "Your Mum" type stuff) is very straightforward, but a lot actually isn't. Except in the cases just mentioned, I am a lot more careful blocking IPs because quite often they get reported to AIV for simple ignorance of Wikipedia policy, language issues, or even technical issues, such as the continuing problems with Visual Editor. Whether or not you agree with IP editing, some of those IPs are people who will go on to be productive editors, and we cannot run the risk of people throwing out blocks just because sometimes edits are sub-par. Black Kite (talk) 22:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

This talk page, at 497,815 bytes), is curtly the second-longest page on Wikipedia; even though each section is archived 20 days after discussion ends. Any suggestions on how to make it shorter? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

:I need a little more feedback on how interested people are in a limited block button. If there's more interested for that than viewdeleted, then there are options for limited viewdeleted that would supplement limited block and wouldn't raise as many eyebrows. Once I get that feedback, I have no objection to archiving all the stuff above that's mine. - Dank (push to talk) 18:27, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

:Well, I archived all of the threads from September so that got the size down to 406,685....not a lot, I'll admit. I wish people would see if there were existing threads they could participate on rather than starting new threads. Aspects of RfA reform, which is what this talk page is almost all about, tend to get recycled every few weeks.

:By the way, Andy Mabbett, what is the longest page on Wikipedia? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

::Thank you for doing that. I meant that this is the second-longest talk page; the longest is Wikipedia talk:T1 and T2 debates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

:::Wow, I never knew that Terminator and Terminator 2 were such controversial topics! HighInBC 19:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

:"Any suggestions on how to make it shorter?" Ask people to stop raising repeated, hopeless suggestions to reform RFA. Leaky Caldron 21:42, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• There is only one solution: before discussing anything, try to utilize this talk page's archives first. Esquivalience ^t 22:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

::What I see is not so much "reform" but the same old shit being thrown at the same old wall, and when none of it sticks (not for the first time), bitching and moaning about "Why didn't even one stick?" and mutters about depriving people of the vote and altering consensus for this one issue alone and then, walking over to the wall and picking up the same shit and taking it back and going and doing it all over again and again (Einstein had something to say about this), with an apparent complete lack of understanding that the very repetition is making the whole place stink so bad that nothing will ever pass under present circumstances. To my mind, the way this topic is presently being approached is as time consuming and destructive as any matter that winds up at ArbCom. I would suggest closing all of these and a moratorium on anything but discussion for six months. Maybe some flowers will grow by then.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

:::No evidence Einstein ever said that. NE Ent 23:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

::::Any rebuttal to the other 99.94% of what I said?--Wehwalt (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::If you're talking about my threads, I'm available to talk any time, you know that. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::I'm not talking about anyone in particular. You have been more careful than almost anyone.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::{{ec}}Well, when, to use your metaphor shit is flying around the prudent thing to do is get out of the way, and bitching and moaning is hardly new to Wikipedia:: . It's certainly not consuming much of my time since I'm not reading it because I don't expect it will come to fruition, but bitching and moaning about that just adds to the general bitching and moaning. Folks here are volunteers, and if they chose to attempt to crack the "Rfa nut," who am I (or you) to begrudge them what they spend their own time on? Not sure why it's perceived as "destructive,"; wouldn't simply giving up in despair be more destructive than trying? NE Ent 01:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::Are those the only two alternatives? Really?--Wehwalt (talk) 02:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::::Those are the most likely ones; it is possible at some point the stars will align and one of the Rfa reform discussions will converge to consensus, which is why we're never going to declare a moratorium on discussion. NE Ent 11:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::::::My fear is that the incessant discussion will exhaust the community's patience for years to come. There is a need for admin reform at a certain level, but most of the proposals lack elementary protections. And until we take time to learn lessons from past efforts (which has been suggested by some), there's really very little point. But yes, on it will go.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:46, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

:Archive stuff? NE Ent 23:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

::Einstein once said that if stuff needed to be archived, you should just do it and not wait for permission. Nathan ^T 04:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

::Wehwalt's 22:55 is the most incisive post on the subject in years. Agree with every word (maybe not the Einstein bit ;) ). Leaky Caldron 09:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• What usually happens in such cases is that a {{tl|FAQ}} is created for the talk page which summarises the perennial topics and explains why they are not productive. I shall make a start on this by adding the template {{tl|round in circles}}. Note that the page is certainly too large currently as my browser struggles to edit the entire thing. Andrew D. (talk) 09:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

:* I've subpaged the Rfc; hopefully that will address the page length issue. I don't think the FAQ will be productive, as discussion about the FAQ will likely draw as much intention as the Rfc itself. NE Ent 11:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• There should also be an editnotice; something like this:

{{Editnotice

|header=Before commenting:

|headerstyle=font-size:1.5em; text-align:center

|style=background-color:#FF9966

|text=

type=fulltext

prefix=Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

break=no

width=50

searchbuttonlabel=Search archives

----

}}

- Esquivalience ^t 17:10, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

:People like to spout off their opinions without reading stuff. So let's give them more stuff to read to tell them not to do it! ;)

:I say let people gab. There is of course abundant evidence that endless chatter and repetitive RfCs do not actually do anything, but 95% of what's posted in RfA discussions ignores the existence of evidence anyway. The real value of these discussions isn't actually to change anything; it's to direct disputatious energy that might otherwise meddle in something else into a known productivity sink. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

:Just a technical detail: green print on a red background is one of the very worst choices for accessibility. --Stfg (talk) 16:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

::This talk page is a soap opera. A talk page is not the proper venue for a formal RfC anyway. IMO, RfCs should be on a sub page of the topic area they address, such as, for example: Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC to unbundle to the blocking tool; it also makes such archived discussions so much easier to locate. But try getting people to understand all that . Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{edit semi-protected|Wikipedia:Requests for adminship|answered=yes}}

Please add my admonship request. Freghttrain (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Freghttrain (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

: {{Reply to|Freghttrain}} This is seriously not a good idea on your part. An editor with only 10 edits so far will absolutely not gain the consensus of the community in an RfA. I doubt anyone will even transclude your request for you. I would urge you to withdraw this request, and come back in about a year's time after you have gained some experience. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:33, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

:See WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW for a more detailed explanation. Adminship rights are almost universally granted to users who have invested significant time and effort in the project. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:36, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

::{{reply-to|Wisdom89}} Re: "Adminship rights are almost universally granted to users who have invested significant time and effort in the project." If only that were even close to being true. Lots of people have invested significant time and effort to the project but along the way they either demonstrated that their judgment was lacking and fail RfA despite having learned from their mistakes, or they tick more than a few people off and fail RfA even if that RfA is years later. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:26, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

:::I think it was meant as a necessary, not as a sufficient condition. —Kusma (t·c) 05:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

::::That's not the way it was written. "Adminship rights are almost never granted to users who have not invested significant time and effort in the project" would be the way to write it as a "necessary" condition. The way it was written gives false hope. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::Technically correct given the original phrasing, but I feel you're being overly pedantic on a non-issue. To be completely honest, I don't quite care if the above user receives "false hope" regarding the RfA process. The bottom line is that the individual needs to amass the requisite experience before attempting again. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• {{ping|Freghttrain}} I suggest that you request speedy deletion under G7 criteria for your RfA and RfB.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

::And then there is this: Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucrat/Freghttrain. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:12, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

:::I've deleted both candidacies; neither stands any chance of passing at this time. Acalamari 22:56, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello. You are invited to comment on this RfC, which aims to identify the issue(s) with our current system for selecting administrators. Please do not comment in this section, but rather post any comments about proposals in the relevant section, or on the RfC's talk page for general matters. Thank you. --Biblioworm 00:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Which RfA (to date) received the most total votes? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (soliloquise) 20:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• DHMO #3 received the most total votes with 401 (299 in support) per Wikipedia:Times that 200 Wikipedians supported an RFX --Stabila711 (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A RfC has commenced on whether a limited unbundling of blocking for counter-vandalism should be tried for eight weeks, see Wikipedia:Vandalism/RfC for a trial unbundling of blocking. Esquivalience ^t 02:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Proposed: a new user right, called "vandal blocker".

• To obtain this new user right, candidates must go through the exact same RfA process that administrator candidates go through.
• Vandal blockers can only block non-autoconfirmed users, and only for a period of 48 hours or less.
• Vandal blockers can only unblock users that they themselves blocked.
• Vandal blockers can view deleted edits made by non-autoconfirmed users only, and only edits deleted in the last seven days.

If this proposal becomes a policy change (many steps to go before that happens), we will request that the Wikimedia software be modified to enforce the above restrictions.

A policy will be created for the vandal blocking user right as follows:

• Only unambiguous vandalism or spam may result in a vandal blocker block.
• Deleted edits viewed by a vandal blocker may only be used to support blocking vandals, and may never be revealed to anyone who does not have the view deleted user right.
• Any administrator may arbitrarily suspend the vandal blocking user right for up to seven days for any reason. Longer removals would require community discussion.

The basic idea here is to give certain trusted users the ability to make immediate short-term emergency blocks of unambiguous vandals while deferring to administrators regarding longer blocks, all the while limiting the damage that a vandal blocker can do. Making the vandal blocker go through the exact same RfA process that administrator candidates go through insures that the community trusts them to block (some) users and view (some) deleted messages.

This proposal also is a litmus test to see if the community will reject any sort of unbundling.

If this proposal gets sufficient support, I will create an actual policy proposal, modified after seeing the responses to this one.

Support? Oppose? Would support if only X. Y, and Z were fixed? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

:Oppose: Can't administrators already do things like this? Wouldn't it be unnecessary for a user to have to go through this process? I mean your idea {{pull quote|to give certain trusted users the ability to make immediate short-term emergency blocks of unambiguous vandals}}

:is something admins can do. What's the point of this? It sound like an under-powered admin to me. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 06:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

::The same "under-powered admin" argument was made when rollbacker was unbundled. The argument basically says that once a user right is assigned to administrators, it can never be unbundled, no matter how good the arguments for doing so are. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose respectfully. If someone is going to go through the same process as an RfA, then why not just just let it be an RfA? This seems like unnecessary bureaucratic creep. Again the answer to not enough admins, is more admins. Seriously, our time would be better spent looking for some decent editors, with a track record demonstrating that they have a clue with respect to guidelines and policies, that they possess common sense and a desire/willingness to help others, that they have at least some record in content creation and in some of the adminny things, and lastly no record of malicious behavior. Are we really that short of editors who can meet those standards? -Ad Orientem (talk) 06:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

:*Would you say that you object to the unbundling of the tools, or would you say that you object to the RfA requirement? --Guy Macon (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

:::Both. RfA should be for admins. And I don't think we need to be creating a lot of admin-lights. If we need more admins, and I concede that a compelling argument has been made to that effect, then let's recruit more admins. -Ad Orientem (talk) 07:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

::::Speaking as someone who would likely be a good admin (9 years, clean block log, 29,000 edits, WP:DRN volunteer mediator) I am unwilling to go through the hell that is RfA, nor do I believe that I would pass.

::::(To become an admin, stay away from all noticeboards, create content, and abandon whatever you are working on and move elsewhere whenever anyone disagrees with you. Do that for a year or two and you will pass your RfA with no problems. In other words, show that you have zero interest or experience in dealing with the kind of work admins are asked to do.)

::::All attempts to reform the system have gone down in flames. So how do you recruit admins in a way that hasn't been tried and failed many times already?

::::Also, what, specifically, is wrong with the idea of "admin-lights"? If doctors get by with "doctor-lights" (interns) working in hospitals, why can't we? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::Needless to say, I disagree with your second paragraph. Refrain from creating unnecessary drama when you participate on noticeboards and in disputes and make sure your points are rooted in policies and guidelines and you don't have to abandon anything. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::Good point. I should have specified "one easy way to become an admin is..." and thrown in an "in my opinion". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Tentative support of concept: If it is technically feasible. I keep thinking about my own RfA; my interest was to have tools that allowed content editing to go more smoothly and the ability to protect BLPs from trolling and User Pages from outing; dealing with the LTA, ANI, etc., was far lower on my to-do list. Vandal-blocking is very different from dealing with established users who create problems. A limit like this one, focusing on non-autoconfirmed users, would eliminate the bulk of the PITA (pain in the ---) edits and BLP violation problems that content editors run into on a daily basis. And for candidates such as myself, I think some of the concerns folks raised about use of the block button and access to revdel content would be allieviated. Montanabw^(talk) 07:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Regarding eliminating the bulk of the PITA edits and BLP violation problems that content editors run into on a daily basis, I think that vandal blocker would be an excellent tool for prolific and trusted content creators who otherwise have no interest in doing the kind of things administrators normally do. I think that a fair number of them would be willing to go through the RfA process to get such a useful tool.

::Also, you bring up BLP violations. Should I expand this to cover unambiguous BLP and/or copyright violations? Perhaps with an additional requirement that a single violation can be dealt with by reverting and that blocking is only for repeated and recent violations? I need to think about this some more. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

:::Guy Macon, only if you want to torpedo your proposal. There are plenty of disputes as to what is a BLP violation. And sometimes (it's rare, I grant you) editors miss the added text is coming from a mirror or CC-BY-SA compatible source. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:27, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Introducing more bureaucracy is rarely the right solution to a problem. Having an RfA like process is redundant. It _will_ suffer the same issues that RfA has, and then we have two of them to deal with. We can't fix RfA by doubling the problems. I'd much rather see a very limited block tool be given out liberally to anyone who has a certain set of criteria met; N thousands of edits, X months/years of clean block record. That sort of thing. No bureaucracy. Unilaterally revokable by any admin on misuse of tool. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

:* I have my doubts as to whether the community will accept even a limited ability to view deletions being handed out liberally without an RfA-like process, and I really doubt that the WMF legal team would ever allow such a thing. On the other hand, many have expressed the opinion that you really need to view at least some deleted content to do a proper job of blocking vandals. I would welcome comments from admins on the latter point. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

::* I don't think viewing deleted content should be part of the mix. I don't think it is necessary to be able to do so to understand if someone is blockable or not, and if it is required then a report to WP:AIV will do just fine. I don't think there should be anything stopping any editor in good standing, of reasonable experience, from stopping a IP/new account vandal from damaging the project. I think it should be auto-granted, and readily revokable if abused, or revokable on request of the person holding the privilege. When auto-granted, a posting to the editor's talk page explaining the new role should be sufficient. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

:::* If you are correct and viewing deleted content is not needed for vandal blockers, then I can modify the proposal so that any admin can grant the right, just as is done now with the rollbacker right.

::::Having never blocked anyone or viewed deleted content, I have no way of knowing whether viewing deleted content is needed for vandal blockers. Perhaps we can just assume that whatever admin deleted the content made a decision on whether to block the vandal, and thus conclude that vandal blockers only need to access publicly viewable information? I really have no way of knowing whether that would work. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:12, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::{{reply to|Guy Macon}} Isn't this the sort of thing that should be asked at the village pump? Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 20:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Guy Macon, Hammersoft, and Ad Orientem. This would really create another broken and overly complicated process. RO^(talk) 16:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Needless right; AIV handled by our current admins is fine right now. Also, given that nearly all RfA WP:NOTNOW candidacies are made by vandal fighters despite the multiple warnings about the seriousness of adminship, I don't have much faith in the responsible and trained use of a "vandal fighter" right. With great power comes not only great responsibility, but great integrity and sincerity. I do not trust the editors who genuinely want this right to have the mentality required for even limited blocking. Unless a convincing argument for this right comes forward, it will remain perennial.Esquivalience ^t 20:06, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

:On the contrary, the only way of knowing if this right will work or not is to try it out by giving such a right to experienced, prolific vandal fighters (there are some that are apathetic or opposed to running for RfA). If it works and curbs the AIV "backlog" is wiped out from existence, than that itself could be a convincing argument. Esquivalience ^t 01:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• Close but needs some changes. Autoconfirmed is a very low threshold, I would take it to 100 edits as very few vandalism only accounts ever get there. I would drop both the 48 hour limit to the blocks and the limitation on reasons for blocks. The norm for a vandalism only account is an indef block and if you limit these blocks to 48 hours you don't actually take much work off the remaining admins. Also I wouldn't put people through an RFA for this. It needs to be something that admins can award to people who are making accurate AIV reports. As for Esquivalence's point, I understand we've already had some gaps at AIV, and as the number of admins declines that can only get worse. AIV needs 24/7 coverage 365 days of the year and if we can't reform RFA we need to unbundle the block button. ϢereSpielChequers 21:05, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose precisely per Ad Orientem, although the thought and effort that went into the proposal is appreciated. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reasons as the above proposal. Blocking new users does not require less trust than the full set of admin tools. New users are our most important resource and they need to be treated with great care. HighInBC 21:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: Autoconfirmed is not statically defined I can be autoconfirmed one minute then non-autoconfirmed the next minute when I turn on TOR, assuming I am IP-block-exempt. The proposal would need tweaking to account for this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support general idea but it would only work if it really was significantly easier to get individuals to #Support or at least not #Oppose you if you were running for this restricted set of tools vs. the full bucket. I do have some issues with the specifics, but those can be hashed out later. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, block is the most sensitive tool an admin has because it is the easiest to piss an editor with. Giving it to someone as an "easier to get" alternative to full adminship just doesn't make any sense. Also, the RFA process is painful enough so we don't want people to go through it twice - first for "admin lite" then for "real sysop". Max Semenik (talk) 23:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support but with some of the same reservations as {{U|WereSpielChequers}}. What contributes to backlogs at AIV is that many reports are not vandalism, or are already stale. It's important to catch vandals who are on a spree in order to reduce the amount of cleaning up needed. Opposition to this proposal based simply on {{green|'It will create more bureaucracy'}} is not founded on any objective objective reasoning. Such a right will certainly not address the problems with RfA. It would however prepare us for such times when attrition reaches a level where the number of truly active admins is on the decline while vandalism is of course always going to increase steadily. Even any moves to improve the environment at RfA can only be made by introducing some additional rules to control the participation of the voters.

:If requests for this were to be reviewed at WP:PERM it could be based on the endorsement of two (better three) admins, while a rejection could be made by any one admin, and as long as it is understood that PERM never was, is not, and never should become an RfA-style discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Just noting that the current votes are all failing; if that turns around, then the discussion should probably move to VPP. But we're fine here for now. - Dank (push to talk) 01:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support in concept I'd shorten the maximum block duration. Maybe 7 hours. That will put a serious crimp in a vandal spree. If they come back after 7 hours, reblock and then look for an admin, because it is more than a bored kid. I might even change the name, and call it a Time-Out, although no need for new mechanics. I'm intrigued by the limits on viewing deleted material. The Foundation is very concerned about this right, but these limitations might make it more palatable. I'd also consider a shorter time. Maybe only deletions by non-autoconfirmed users only in the last three days. Open to discussion about the length. I agree the process for approval should be identical, but I can imagine some would gain acceptance for this, even if there's concern about the full tool set.--S Philbrick(Talk) 02:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• I'd Support adding this function, but why go through this with a voting process if we can obtain full sysop functions with the same process? VegasCasinoKid (talk) 06:38, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

:{{reply to|VegasCasinoKid}} is right. Why should a whole new process be created for this when admins can do the same? It all still is pointless. Catmando999 Check out his talk page! 10:19, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Guy Macon, as noted above, the first point of this proposal renders it redundant. For a proposal to succeed, it has to offer something different than we have now. Two suggestions: 1) Clarify the RFBR (Request for blocking right) process. For example, a five day community discussion focused only on the candidate's AIV reports and general demeanor. 2) Specify exactly who could be blocked and for what. Only new editors and IP's for blatant vandalism? If so, give some examples of what blatant vandalism is not (e.g., genre warring, adding unsourced info, socking, etc.) --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

:*Good advice. I will work on getting that done tonight. Meanwhile, I still have an open question as to whether vandal blocking really needs the ability to read deleted material. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Yet another hopeless Hail Mary pass into the endzone of RFA reform. Leaky Caldron 17:31, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

:*Hail Mary, full of grace. RfA is a disgrace. Nominations come in apace, most falling flat on their face. Reforms come bold faced, and disappear without a trace. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC) (rapidly retreating!)

::* Of course it is hopeless. We all knew that coming in. Only a fool would think that one more RFA reform proposal has any chance after over a thousand previous proposals have failed. Meanwhile, the number of new admins gets smaller and smaller, old admins get burnt out and leave, and the number of pages and users grows larger and larger. I didn't post an RFA reform proposal because I imagined that it had a chance. I posted it because it was the right thing to do. Nice poem, BTW. :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

:::*{{u|Guy Macon}}, but I thought we're losing contributors not gaining them. If we have less active editors now than before, don't we need fewer admins too? RO^(talk) 19:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

::::*We used to be losing editors, and we are still losing admins. But the 2015 pattern is for an increase in the "core community" September 2015 had 15.3% more editors saving over 100 edits in mainspace than September 2014. Of course the need for admins is not closely linked to community size, we need sufficient admins to cover AIV 24/7 365 days of the year whether the typical admin spending an hour at AIV needs to dish out one block or five; And the number of vandals is more closely linked to the number of edits per day than the number of regulars few if any of whom will be vandals. ϢereSpielChequers 15:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

:::*@Guy; just to be clear, I had no intent of mocking you or your proposal in any respect. Rather, I was aiming for humor and humor alone. @Rationalobserver; recent active editors has increased some of late, but even a dead cat bounces. The WMF's fundraising efforts have noted a declining viewership as well. Wikipedia isn't what it was. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is just a variation on the Wikipedia:Vandal fighters proposal which failed (for a number of good reasons) in March of this year. See also the 30-day RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 120#Proposed user right: Vandal fighter. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:55, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

:*If you look at those proposals, you will see that they failed largely because they did not contain a "To obtain this new user right, candidates must go through the exact same RfA process that administrator candidates go through" provision. This proposal, on the other hand, is failing largely because it does contain that provision. Same result, different reasons. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

::* Damned if you do, damned if you don't :) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

:::If that's the only important objection that you noticed in those discussions, you didn't read them very closely. Fundamentally, these proposals are flawed because short blocks of vandalism-only accounts don't result in reformed vandals; they just result in returning vandals with autoconfirmed accounts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:32, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

:*Oppose Don't think it's worth changing the system and bringing in junior-grade admin-lites until there is a showing that there are many times you simply cannot get an admin by posting at AN/I or going on IRC. I don't see the need, and agree with other posters that even blocking for limited periods may turn off new editors, and I'd rather see the judgment made by experienced admins. Also do not feel any attempt has been made to ponder on previous failed RfCs. Just another toss at the wall.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The point of the vandal-blocker idea is that you wouldn't need to go through an RfA to get it. Also, there's no reason at all for them to be able to view deleted edits. Jackmcbarn (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support I'd like the record to reflect that I do see merit in this concept. Having been active on the AIV side of Wikipedia for quite some time, I see the constant backlog that occurs over on said noticeboard – whilst I'm loathed to whine about the pile-up that occurs on AIV as I know that administrators do have lives outside of the project: the fact of the matter is we don't have enough people at AIV throughout a given day to block those engaged in vandalism. There have been occasions where I've reported a vandal, waited hours for a block, and in that waiting period I've had to revert more and more vandalism edits. It's proven quite frusturating when I do belive I could be improving the project in other areas, rather than baby-sitting a disruptive editor and making sure their behaviour has gotten administrative attention. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 14:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support this or something similar, depending on the amount of software modification needed. Peter James (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

----

• Question Are non-admins allowed to do non-admin-tool closures on AIV? "edits are not vandalism", "user insufficiently warned", etc.? If not, perhaps aiv-helper could be an acceptable user right. Choor monster (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

::It might be worth bringing this up at Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism and Wikipedia talk:Administrators. My only thought is that the admins who regularly work in this area are much less likely to label activity vandalism than the editors who report cases to investigate. And I think ordinary editors who care could act as aiv-helpers right now by making sure the editors making disruptive edits are properly warned. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Wikipedia:Rfc requests for adminship}}

{{Clear}}

I have created the Wikipedia:Generally accepted RfA principles page to prevent repeat RfCs on principles that already have respective consensus. It lists principles that are generally or at least significantly accepted by the community per consensus. I have already added one principle in; feel free to add more. Esquivalience ^t 22:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

:How does it prevent them?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

::I applaud the effort...but it's misleading for the info box to say the page as "communal consensus" when there has only been one editor to the page so far. It's a little early to declare the principles as reflecting a consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

:::It only exists to describe past consensus on principles per the thousands of RfCs, not to create new consensus. Esquivalience ^t 23:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::As long as supporters think that they can get to within crat chat range of consensus, if they only package it properly, I don't see it making a difference. It's like a video game, where they are trying for three stars on a screen. They'll hit the refresh key, select just a bit of a different angle, fire at a slightly different moment.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

:For what it may be worth, I've created WP:GARFAP as a shortcut to this. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

::Wikipedia:Good Article Request for Authors/Proposal??? Wikipedia:Good Article Review/Featured Article Promotions??? {{smiley}} davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

:::I don't know what you're saying, as all I see is a WP:WALLOFRED. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 01:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

::::Okay, I was trying to be funny and it didn't work. Sorry about that. By the way, when I read WALLOFRED my first thought was a bunch of people named Fred lined up against wall. But that would be a WALLO'FREDS not a WALLOFRED. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 01:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::Everyone knows that to create a proper WALLOFRED you need to start with a single, extremely wide Fred. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

Hi. I've nominated User:Wikicology. As usual, I can't seem to make it work —I don't know how to "substitute the time parser functions", etc. Could somebody please help me? I'll watch and observe how it is done. Thanks! David Cannon (talk) 00:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

: {{Done}} here – You just have to remove from around subst: and delete {{red ... request.}}. — JJMC89 (T·'''C) 00:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

:I one of the big reasons for an RfA failing is because the candidate can never can properly get the RfA transcluded and started. So I'm calling for a summary desysop of David Cannon for not knowing how to do that. :p Who agrees? :p—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Offline} 04:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

::Maybe if he were the candidate, but I think he's safe as the nominator. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 04:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC) 04:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

We can use edit filters to strongly discourage nominations of clear-WP:NOTNOW candidates where the nominators either don't use or ignore the tools at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate.

I recommend setting the bar of "automatically rejected NOTNOW" much higher than "autoconfirmed" but much lower than the typical "NOTNOW." Something like

• nominee has EITHER [90 days plus 100 edits] OR [nominee has any manually-granted :en or global user-right, such as steward].

If the nominee can't be detected, then proceed as if it is a self-nomination. Have the edit filter put up a big notice saying "If this is a nomination for an RFA then it will almost certainly fail and may be an embarrassment to the nominee. Please do not save it. If this is NOT a nomination for administratorship, go ahead and save it." Once it is saved, put a note on both the nominee's and nominator's talk page pointing them to RFA-related pages and instructions on how to gracefully withdraw the nomination in case the nominator saved the nomination anyway.

We can also do things for nominations where the nominee passes that minimum threshold, such putting up a notice asking them to confirm that they have read a "before you nominate someone for adminship" page before saving the edit and, once it is saved, adding a "thank you" note on their talk page and the page of the nominee.

The reason for not summarily preventing the creation of RFA-nomination pages is that new editors may legitimately create "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/*" pages may not actually be nominations, such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll. Since such pages may transclude Template:RFA or Template:RfA/subst as part of the discussion or documentation, we can't rely on the presence of key words from those templates to determine if this is a nomination or not.

If this idea is worth pursuing, a similar edit filter for RfB nominations with a much higher "bar" might be appropriate if there are enough premature RfB nominations each year to justify the use of an edit filter.

Is this idea worth pursuing? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 16:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

:Edit filters cannot edit pages directly. Esquivalience ^t 18:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

::The message wouldn't be saved in the page, it would be a warning that appears to the editor when attempting to save the page, specified in the box for "System message to use for warning:" - for example, on Special:AbuseFilter/148, MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-autobiography contains the message. If possible, it could be set to warn (or prevent creation) only for suspected self-nominations, similar to that filter. Peter James (talk) 20:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

:::An edit filter can add a tag to the edit summary. A bot that monitors recent edits can edit pages. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

::::I've seen several self-nominations rejected or deleted as NOTNOW, and for these no bot is needed, but I'm not sure that a filter for other nominations is desirable, because there are so few and there may be good reasons for those nominations. Peter James (talk) 22:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• How may RfA are rejected in a year per NOTNOW? A handful. There are already more words, doubtless with 000's more to come, than are used in 2 years of manual NotNow closes! A solution looking for a problem. Leaky Caldron 21:07, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

:*A filter set to disallow would prevent some of them, if it could be done without too many false positives; in exceptional circumstances a nominator could be found. Peter James (talk) 21:30, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

:*{{reply-to|Leaky caldron}} Short answer: At least 1-2 a month. Long answer: So far this year, almost half of the 36 "official" failed RfAs have been either NOTNOW (8) or SNOW (5). Another 6 were withdrawn with less than 10 "supports" and another 6 with 11-20 "supports". That's 8 that would've been told up front they would fail and possibly another 17 that might have been deterred with stronger up-front notices that they weren't likely to succeed. I'm not even counting the ones that didn't make it into Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological). 2014 had 15 of 40 fail as "NOTNOW" with 2 SNOWs. On the other hand, in 2013, only 4 of 40 were officially "NOTNOW" with 7 SNOWs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 21:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• There are also some considerations:

:*Will this edit filter adversely affect editing? Let's assume that 75 edits are being made per minute, and this filter will take 7.5ms (estimated considering multiple conditions + regex). This adds up to about {{#expr:(75*7.5*60*24) / 1000}} seconds every 24 hours. If one or two NOTNOW RfAs are filed each month, it would cost {{#expr:((75*7.5*60*24) / 1000 / 60) * 15 round 0}} to {{#expr:((75*7.5*60*24) / 1000 / 60) * 30}} minutes of editing time to stop one single NOTNOW RfA that could simply be identified and deleted in two minutes.

:*Will this filter increase hat collecting for the edit filter right? Almost every recent NOTNOW candidacy was made by a hat-collector. A filter may either remind them or direct them to the edit filter manager user right. They see "because even the smallest mistake in editing a filter can disrupt the encyclopedia, only editors who have the required good judgement and technical proficiency are permitted to configure filters" and they think, "ooh, very powerful" and rush to the Edit filter talk page and request permissions. Another time sink. Esquivalience ^t 01:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

::*Regarding the edit filter: I can be written efficiently enough so this is not a major issue. See Wikipedia:Edit_filter/Instructions#Making expensive operations cheaper. Regarding hat-collecting: Good question. I hadn't considered that aspect. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:07, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

:::* I am not sure whether using an edit-filter to head off the not-now requests for adminship is a suitable use of edit-filter-developer time... let alone server-time. But this discussion about unintended consequences, actually seems like it might be the right way to go, counterintuitively. Instead of dangling the awesome power of the edit-filter-userright before them, give them a good hard shove towards a place they might learn something.

:::::: {{talkquote| "Dear potential RfA candidate: an edit-filter (note: these filters are very boring stuff you would not be interested in) has detected that you have achieved an editicountitis score of 13 edits. Good work! But all truly powerful wikipedians must achieve *more* edits, and must achieve those edits by *helping* other wikipedians. Only the most helpful most wise wikipedians can become admins!! You must walk the path. The toughest most difficult work is found in the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel, helping truly beginning editors draft articles properly. Go forth bold wikipedian, and show your mettle in helping the people who seek assistance with wiki-policies, to understand them more deeply! When you have achieved NNNNN editcountitis in draftspace, and have successfully helped NNN other wikipedians, you may return here to RfA in glory!!1!111" }}

:::: Or something along those lines. My apologies in advance to the fine folks who volunteer at #wikipedia-en-help , but I didn't pick that out of a hat. AfC decline-message-templates currently already direct beginning wikipedians attempting to write their first article (often COI-encumbered and/or personally attached to the topic in question) to the same IRC channel, thus usually there is somebody clueful to walk the beginning editor through the basics of the wiki-policies. Adding some admin-wannabee-folks to the channel could be a net positive, since they can help by answering the easy questions... and show of their vast 13-editicountitis knowledge... plus, on IRC as opposed to en-wiki, any disruptive wannabee admins can be kickbanned by the IRC channel-ops, should the need arise. So crazy it just might work? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 10:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship

I will be going live with this RfC soon. Any thoughts/comments on the talk page would be welcome. - jc37 05:12, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

:Oh good, another adminship reform proposal. It's been so long since we've had one of those.

:I hope, when you start your RfC, that you explain in detail how this differs from this similar proposal rejected barely two months ago, which was based on the German recall process, and provide evidence that your formulation is responsive to specific criticisms of the binding recall proposal, the BARC proposal, and any other related proposal out of the large number discussed within the last six months. Given that this has been unsuccessfully proposed before but has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_removal_of_adminship&diff=687536836&oldid=532404553 minimally edited] since then, it would also be useful to explain why the 2013 criticisms no longer apply. Additionally, given the recent track record of very rapid arbcom desysoppings that subsequently became controversial, please describe specifically why you believe another desysopping process is needed at this time.

:If there is one thing about adminship reform for which there is overwhelmingly abundant evidence, it is that new proposals almost never present actual evidence that they might work, or even that they might be less likely to fail than the last failed proposal. Maybe this will be the exception? Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

::+1.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

:*Concur with Opabinia regalis. The 2013 proposal has been changed only to include phrasing allowing a seven day delay (which, granted, does answer a concern raised at recent reform proposals), and how ArbCom can handle outcomes. That's it. I too am curious to know how this proposal, absent significant changes, addresses the issues raised at recent reform proposals much less the concerns raised in 2013. I asked some months back for an example administrator who, if this were to pass, would be subjected to this process. Supposedly, answering that question would be a personal attack (nevermind this means the entire system would be one giant personal attack). If the German Wikipedia is any guide, there's something on the order of 140 active administrators out of the pool of ~580 active administrators who would lose their admin bit in the first year of implementation of this idea. So, it should be trivial to identify _one_ administrator who would be subjected to this. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

:Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_I/RfC#E:_Difficult_to_remove_admins is currently live and heading for no consensus. Please redirect your proposal to that or at least give us a six month break before reviving this perennial suggestion. ϢereSpielChequers 20:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

::I'm really restraining myself from saying "[http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l240/robo848/not_this_shit_again.jpg aww jeez, not this shit again]" but I think the community has now experienced a profound sense of exhaustion in these discussions. While some may still aspire to fixing RfA, there is just too much cynical resistance now in place to get anything passed through at this time. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• For starters: In any case, no system will ever fly that allows participation of the peanut gallery, trolls, and the people who are nether admins nor vote on RfAs, but who regularly and noisily participate in all such discussions. That's why BARC was proposed - at least it was a system adjudicated by a panel of trusted users rather than an angry mob.

:For the main course: Easier, faster, and more equitable admin review processes are demanded by a) those who want the criteria for adminship relaxed because they are too scared to go through the process as it stands, and b) those who in righteous indignation feel aggrieved by some admin action, or whose own RfA was unsuccessful.

:For the desert: Yes, 'Oh, this shit again!' - paticipants are either so entrenched in their own ideas on the subject that they oppose anyone else's suggestions, or they have no ideas whatsoever but resent the initiatives if those who do. This is very typical of a lot of participation on RfCs in general. On the other hand, at least {{U|jc37}} is being pro-active even if the timing is possibly wrong; at least it's better than RfCs that simply drone on and on with no clear objectives other than to remind us yet again that we already know what we already know; they are little else than WT:RfA on another page, and I question just how altruistic the motives are for launching such mammoth debates. Already admins themselves, neither jc37 nor the proposers of BARC have anything to gain (or lose) with their proposals which at least give the community something very solid to hammer not quite so very softly on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I encourage you to watchlist and give views at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll.

Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:Unfortunately, there's no real way to standardize your arbitrary scale of 1-10. I'm curious as to what we hope to learn from the numbers. Let's say for arguments sake that 20 people respond and the numbers range from 4-10, what exactly has the editor learned? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 14:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

::He has learned exactly that he would be facing uncertainty in an RfA. And in the case of 2, 4, 3, 1, 3, the the potential candidate will learn plenty too. Same goes for 8, 8, 9, 9, 9 etc. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:::Except the number isn't defined and is completely arbitrary. It's the same reason that the pain scale of "1-10" is so infuriating and largely useless in the hospital except for extreme cases. Also, a sample size of 5, 10, or even 20 is not at all representative of the community. Opt to do this if you wish, but I just don't think it's at all useful. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 14:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

::::I disagree, my friend. I think you are seeing this from a scientist's perspective. And even from such a perspective, 0 obviously relates to someone thinking 0% chance. Five would be around 50-50, etc.

::::And rating things on a scale of 1-10 has value. How strong do you want your coffee? How good is the pizza at that place?

::::This may already have helped one person [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Optional_RfA_candidate_poll&diff=687832174&oldid=687828648 avoid a bad experience] and may right now be helping another decide to run. It has also prompted good, experienced editors to post at their talk pages with guidance and further feedback.

::::This discussion should really take place at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll. Your views are welcome there. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::Fair enough and I do understand what you are hoping to accomplish with the poll even though the benefit isn't clear to me. Cheers Anna Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::Oh, and you're right - I tend always look at things too scientifically. I blame my lab. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 15:16, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::Saying that five is around 50-50 means that you are assuming the scale is actually a percentage representing the probability of passing. Although I guess most people will assume this, perhaps it might be worth while making more explicit?

:::::I have continued the discussion at {{section link|Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll|Participant feedback}}. isaacl (talk) 17:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::The problem I see is that RfAs are unpredictable. You never know who will show up to vote or what their reasons might be for their vote. You could have one resulting vote on Day #1 which is different than Day #4 which is very different from Day #7. I think it is misleading to imply that an informal poll would be in any a replication of the RfA process or prepare potential candidate for the process. At best, they can identify NOTNOW candidates and dissuade them from launching an RfA. But most serious candidates are a mixed bag, with varying levels of experience in different parts of the project and it's difficult to predict what a voter will say after digging through a candidate's contribution history. I know for myself, there were points I thought would be brought up that weren't, and other interactions I had that I thought were not very serious that some editors based their votes on. I don't think that a potential candidate poll would have unearthed these developments.

:::::I think the bottom line is that a candidate has to make the plunge and, more importantly, not withdraw at the first sign of opposition to ones candidacy. Many people do not want to look like they have "failed" and so candidates have withdrawn early from the process when things weren't going their way. But RfAs are a dynamic process and situations can change radically over seven days, both ups and downs. I don't know that there is any way to protect a candidate from the negative criticism that occurs in almost every RfA over the past few years except to tell them to "gird their loins" and stick with it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::I agree entirely with Liz here. I consider this an actively bad exercise, as it's explicitly asking for people to give first impressions, but RFA votes are based on a close analysis of editing patterns. (My approach to RFA is generally to look at Q2 & Q3 to see where the candidate sees themselves focusing, and examining their conduct in that field in detail; thus someone promoting themselves as a peacemaker will get their contributions to drama boards and high-traffic talk pages scrutinised; someone selling themselves as a content specialist will get their claimed "best work" picked over, etc. A first impression is useless as an indicator of what this kind of search will turn up.)

::::::I think it very likely that those who get low scores will be every bit as demoralised as those who actually fail RFA (it's not nice being told people don't consider you competent, whatever the venue), while a sizable proportion of those who get high scores will be encouraged to run at RFA, fail, and be all the more shocked and upset when they don't sail through. (Both myself and Liz can testify that even should you ultimately pass, getting heavy opposition in an RFwhatever is a soul-destroying exercise.) ‑ iridescent 18:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::::Good points. With great respect, a response to both of you in point form:

:::::::*{{gi|I think it is misleading to imply that an informal poll would be in any a replication of the RfA process or prepare potential candidate for the process. }}

::::::::The poll does not claim to replicate anything nor prepare anyone for anything. That is not its purpose.

:::::::*{{gi|At best, they can identify NOTNOW candidates...}}

::::::::*That is a bold claim. Already there are indications that that is not so.

:::::::*{{gi|I think the bottom line is that a candidate has to make the plunge...}}

::::::::*That is easy for you to say now. You went through the horrible process and passed. Tell that to the 6 out of 7 that failed. Plunge and fail has resulted in editors leaving the project for months or indefinitely. That should be prevented.

:::::::*{{gi|...it's explicitly asking for people to give first impressions, but RFA votes are based on a close analysis of editing patterns...}}

::::::::*Exactly. And anyone who would pass an RfA would know that.

:::::::*{{gi|...those who get low scores will be every bit as demoralised as those who actually fail RFA...}}

::::::::*I strongly disagree. Consider asking the 6 unsuccessfuls to be sure. One of the 6 commented "[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=687956112#Candidate_polling_page Had something like this existed, I would have absolutely taken advantage of it.]"

:::::::I still think that if this has a chance of improving the horrific rate of 6 out of 7 unsuccessfuls, it ought to be tried. You've stated what you believe to be cons. Here again are what I believe to be pros:

:::::::*It may prevent SNOWs.

:::::::*It could give a small taste of what it feels like to have a number of people give opinions.

:::::::*So far, those who have tried this have had kind posts at their talk giving guidance. A detailed analysis may be requested of the poster. This could initiate serious preparation for an actual RfA and possible nominations.

:::::::*It could improve the appearance of the Latest XfAs table. That table has a strong impact and right now it looks like a stop sign.

:::::::*For those who get high numbers, it may be the thing that finally removes the fear. Along with personal talk page feedback, the potential candidate could actually run and we get more admins.

:::::::If you object to any entity or individual that encourages people to run who will not pass, please keep in mind all of the nominators for the past 6 out of 7 unsuccessfuls. These are not nominators who just gave an opinion. They actually nominated for an actual RfA that ended in tears.

:::::::I am very curious to know what the past unsuccessfuls think of this. Their opinions are worth more than all of ours, I think.

:::::::Anyway, I encourage you to lessen any cons you perceive with a strong lead full of disclaimers and cautions.

:::::::Sorry for the long post. Respectfully, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Put this on main RFA page. - Supdiop (T🔹C) 23:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

An editor who has been active for 25 minutes has created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rabauter. It needs to be deleted but I don't know what CSD criteria would be appropriate for this page. Advice? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:Delete such candidacies with a manual edit summary; that's what I do, rather than a specific CSD criterion. I have deleted the page. Acalamari 21:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

::Thanks, Acalamari. I know that CSD criteria are strict. I appreciate you tending to this one. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:::CSD G6 would be the applicable criterion. Such deletions are well established as uncontroversial and encouraged as standard procedure. Swarm ♠ 21:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oh my. And here I thought WP:RFA was going to be deleted! Rats. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
• :Likewise. It certainly got my attention. :p—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Limited Access} 17:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

::*Must have been from theonion.wikipedia.org. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Support. {{smiley|tongue}} --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Oh, we're voting to delete WP:RFA? Ok cool! Support --Hammersoft (talk) 20:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

::I've adjusted the heading appropriately. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

:::And I've adjusted your adjustment. --MelanieN (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

::::I've added more information. ;) - Supdiop (T🔹C) 23:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::Tweaked it once more for the sake of tweaking. :D—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Online} 00:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::Four years late to the party... bibliomaniac15 07:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::* Oh come now, consensus can change, even if sus scrofa domesticus can't take on avian like properties. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I know this stuff gets repeated but I never noticed there was an X! tools setting to look at admin actions. Granted, that it only considers admin acts to be actions like blocks, unblocks, protection, removing protection, deleting a page, restoring a page and granting user rights and many actions as administrator lie outside this small group of acts. But it is still remarkable I think that out of the current administrators, less than 300 admins made 30 admin actions over 3 months (pointing out the obvious, we're talking doing 10 admin actions/month). Most of those at the top end of actions work in the CSD area, I think. Of course, I'm sure that the numbers fluctuate over the year but it still shows that the the currently active admin pool is not 1300 or 500 but even less than that.

Numbers are [https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/adminstats/?project=en.wikipedia.org&begin=2015-07-31&end= here]. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• I'm 186 with 110 actions and I pretty much consider myself semiretired. Scary. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

::What on Earth is that page? I have 681 something-or-others. 681 what? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

::Ahhhhh I see. It is actions in the past 92 days. Okay. I missed that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

:::{{ec}} 681 logged admin actions in the past 3 months. This list is a prime example of why editcounting is ridiculous; devote three months to resolving disputes in such a way that noone needs to be blocked and nothing needs to get protected, and you'll have zero logged actions and be flagged as "inactive"; go to WP:NPP and throw blocks and deletions around and you'll have a decent chance of driving away multiple good-faith users, but you count as a "highly active admin" and you get feted by the WMF. See also the wretched WP:WBE. ‑ iridescent 21:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

::::Wretched indeed! And don't get me started on the fetid fêted. Now if you'll excuse me, I have still have 3,324,655,765 n-dashes to fix. {{Oldsmiley|friend}} Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

::::Alternately, I think this shows the problem with what people consider adminship to be. As is, the "ideal admin" is expected to be police, diplomat, judge, janitor, editor, researcher, and technical expert simultaneously. Half the disagreement on most RfAs seems to me to be over these differing views of what an admin "should" be. Some people oppose candidates who don't have a lot of "content creation" work, while other people take the opposite tack and oppose candidates who aren't heavily involved in "admin areas" like AfD. The social role of "admin" has grown far beyond its roots as a set of software abilities that couldn't be made available to everyone because of the chaos that would ensue. In real world societies, we assign these roles to different people, because it's unrealistic to expect many people to be proficient in all of them. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 22:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

: The annoying part is that AdminStats is only semi-functional right now – a few months ago, it used to list all Admins, even those with zero logged actions, but it stopped doing that several months back. And no one seems to know why it stopped listing the "0 logged actions" Admins, nor does anyone seem to know how to restore that functionality. [sigh...] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

::IJBall, you can also check User:JamesR/AdminStats, look at All Totals, another admin stats tool. It is updated hourly. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

:::User:JamesR/AdminStats lists all logged admin actions since December 2004 with a few anomalies where non admins are credited with one or two admin actions. The combination of those two gave rise to the debunked but recurring myth that a large minority of admins have performed few or no admin actions. ϢereSpielChequers 11:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

::::I'm impressed to be at 1651 and I'm not an admin! Okay, I know why I am on the list and some of the other non-admins with actions are for the same reason.QuiteUnusual (talk) 11:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

::::WereSpielChequers, I have long wondered about the admins on this list who are listed as doing, say, less than 5 admin acts over the course of their adminship. I just thought that they chose not to exercise the tools. Now that I know this is incorrect, can you tell me how non-admins can be credited with admin actions? Is it a glitch in the stats compilation? Or were the actions that were once allowed to be performed by non-admins that later became reserved to admins? Or were non-admins granted temporary admin rights? Or will my curiosity about this anomaly never be answered? ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:46, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::Hi Liz, there's a small minority of admins who genuinely have few or no logged admin actions, the myth is that it is a large number. Apart from a gaggle of staff accounts and possibly the odd steward or global sysop, they presumably include a couple of people who are contenders for shortest ever career as admin, the other language admins who got admin rights here to edit the spam filter before the global spam filter moved to mediawiki wiki, probably some people who got admin rights before rollback and filemover were unbundled and only used those parts of the mop, and maybe even a few who got the extra buttons and then didn't use them. As for the people who have never been admins, definitely a glitch rather than temporary admin rights or an upbundling, but I'm conscious that I've been corrected twice as to what the exact glitch was so won't try to give my understanding of it. ϢereSpielChequers 16:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::I'm on the list because I have three real admin actions here as a Steward (they were deletes of pages with more than 5,000 revisions that requires a right that local admins do not have). There are a number of other Stewards (current and former) and global rights holders (staff, global interface editors, etc.) on the list too. I know nothing about the glitch so no comment on that - QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::::{{ping|Liz|WereSpielChequers}} Some non-admins are on there because they've moved semi-protected pages. Doing that creates an entry in the protection log ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=protect&user=Bazonka&page=&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_tag_log=1&hide_review_log=1&hide_thanks_log=1 example]). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

A solution! Let admins block a dummy account to create a count for "admin actions" in any case where they determined, as an admin, that a real editor should not be blocked! Say "{{u|BarnabyFitzPatrick}}" (whipping boy for young Prince Edward)? Collect (talk) 21:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

::::::First, I said that the stats didn't include many admin actions. Secondly, this is not a competition. At least, I don't have admin act-itis. I stumbled upon this tool, set it to track actions for the past three months and wanted to see how many active admins Wikipedia had. Not "highly active", just active and I don't think there are any brownie points depending where you are on the list, not by WMF, not by anyone.

::::::I arbitrarily chose 10 actions/month as a sign of activity and I was surprised that the number was under 300. I thought there were at least 500 admins that could be considered active when there are far less. This tool and information wasn't intended to focus on any individual admins and where they ranked but on the aggregate, to show that Wikipedia doesn't have enough active admins (which y'all knew anyway). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

:::::::There's a way to fix this. Make me an admin, I'll go an a mass protection and blocking spree, and completely screw with the edit filters to disallow further editing by anyone. There problem solved, in a way. :D :p—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 02:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

::::All joking aside, generally speaking, edit counts and admin action stats should be ignored. They contain no useful information. I have thousands of these actions and should not be commended for them. Any fool can delete advertisements and block profane usernames. The great admins have a skill set that rivals real-world judges. They accept the enormous challenge and responsibility of reading the situation properly, making the right call, and helping produce the best eventual outcome. It's a high art, if you ask me. It is also a huge investment in time and brain power. The best I can do is take a bit of the load off, so my betters can do their thing. But someone has to do it and I am not ashamed of it. Admins like Iridescent who have the skills to dwell at ANI negotiating tough disputes and handling the difficult judgement calls are a special breed. You are indeed appreciated. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::In all fairness, I gave up trying to talk people down some time ago, and my admin activity nowadays consists primarily of clearing out CAT:EX, and occasionally trying to explain policies to well-intentioned newcomers who either don't understand them, or don't understand why they exist. I agree wholeheartedly with the general point about editcounts, admin counts, article counts; a useful thought experiment is to head over to WP:WBFAN and see how many of the names listed are people you'd want to sit next to on a plane. ‑ iridescent 09:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

::::::This thread is funny. When I saw it I thought 'yeah, old news' but apparently it's always new news :) IIRC from the last time I looked at this, consistently over the last decade, about 30-35% of admin accounts take no logged admin actions in a given year. Relative to the pre-rollback days, we now have a higher proportion of total logged (non-bot) admin actions taken by a smaller group of admins, i.e. fewer hands are doing more of the work.

::::::And for the damned-lies-and-statistics files: I'm #44 on that list with 1398 admin actions. Well over 800 of those were done in one batch, from closing a single TfD, and I briefly locked the database doing it. But that made me over twice as good an admin, right? :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::::You do your share, girl. We plebs who voted for you to get the bit again are pleased. Besides that, your WT:RfA posts are usually pretty entertaining. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:18, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

:I'm on the list with 52 logged admin actions. I'm pretty sure my unlogged admin actions such as reviewing the deleted edits of RFA candidates took more time than those 52 logged actions. As for the hundreds of admins who are around but logged fewer than 30 admin actions in that quarter, collectively they did thousands of logged admin actions in those 90 days; We should not lightly dismiss their contribution, especially as many of them are that ideal of adminship, active editors who just occasionally wield the mop. That said an important role of the admin corps is to service WP:AIV and to be available for urgent G10 deletions and rev deletions, so those who want to work out our minimum need for admins need to think how to be sure we have enough to always cover those areas. An alternative and much better model is that as mops are free we should appoint as many admins as we can find suitable candidates. Do that and we no longer need worry about how few admins we could get away with before getting serious problems, and you overcome the problems of being dependent on a small number of admins who perforce lose touch with normal editing. ϢereSpielChequers 15:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{edit semi-protected|Wikipedia:Requests for adminship|answered=yes}}

64.251.137.41 (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

{{not done}} Please specify what do you want to edit. sst✈^discuss 14:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Wikipedia:Requests for adminship|answered=yes}}

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kitcher45

Kitcher45 (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

:{{not done}} With no edits other than filing an RfA, you are not going to gain adminship at this time. BethNaught (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

:Should the page Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kitcher45 be deleted at this point even though it will not be transcluded? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

::Yes. As such, I have deleted it. There's no point in transcluding it - we all know what the result will be. Acalamari 23:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Came across Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JonaQwer.. should it be deleted? {{User|JonaQwer}} has not been active for over a year.. JMHamo (talk) 19:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

:The editor was mentioned in an SPI just before they left, which is probably why they have gone...I'd say delete it (and their AFCs) as stale drafts. GiantSnowman 19:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

::For whatever it's worth, that RFA was mentioned in this archived RFA talk page thread. That's probably not a reason to keep it hanging around, though. Graham87 14:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It is worth noting that three successful RfAs closed in past 9 days...that must be a recent record. Or is this just a better time of the year to launch an RfA? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

:I blame the high quality of the candidates. HighInBC 01:13, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

: Statistical noise. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

::Good point {{u|Liz}}. Perhaps a few more watchers/participants have decided they who won't cop the BS in silence? Who knows? ;-) Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 07:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

:::This year is not exactly a bumper crop and will probably close with a famine. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

:It's just random variation. Look at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month: we have 47 days left this year to promote three more admins, or we will have dipped below 2014's abysmal figure of 22. BethNaught (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I have noticed that certain individuals are not going to RfA to make a point as much as before. Notice how these last few RfAs did not degenerate into a debate about what RfA should be? HighInBC 15:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

:Well, the fact that recent ones were less adversarial RfAs that those of the summer is hard not to see. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

: Recently sending one particularly vocal FA/GA sock back to the drawer has certainly helped with that... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Short-term surges as this one aren't very unusual. It may have something to do with the ongoing reform efforts. In 2013, for instance, promotion numbers briefly increased early in the year as the RFA2013 RfCs were ongoing. Around this time last year, there was a brief influx of candidacies parallel to an RfC proposing the total abolition of the RfA process. As I keep saying though, we must not be deceived. Consensus shows that the RfA process is broken and that we need more admins, and we are not going to get very far with brief increases inspired by reform efforts. Long-term increase is what we need. --Biblioworm 01:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
• Speaking of which ... the Phase I RfC of WP:RFA2015 is over, and Biblio has started to work on the Phase II page. (Thanks, Biblio.) Anyone have thoughts on what should happen in Phase II? The closer, ErrantX, found "clear consensus" for 4 proposals, and for 3 other proposals, he was optimistic enough to pass them through to Phase II. I liked his focus on the value of listening and adapting, for instance under Proposal A: "a good portion of the opposition talked about the vagueness of the question and in some cases even lightly supported the idea of some defined standards. It's likely that some well worded proposals in the next phase will find consensus". - Dank (push to talk) 14:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Anyone who reads this message is invited to voice their opinions on the Phase II RfC for the RFA2015 reform project. The purpose of this RfC is to find implementable solutions for the problems identified in Phase I of the project. Thank you. Biblioworm 20:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone.

As part of Phase II of WP:RFA2015, there will be a two-week proposal drafting period for the Phase II RfC. In this period, anyone may add proposals on how to fix the issues that passed through the Phase I RfC. The proposals should be added at Wikipedia:2015 administrator election reform/Phase II/RfC, under the relevant section. There are four main sections: "More participants", "Hostile environment", "Narrow discretionary range", and "High and undefined standards". The idea of active clerking also passed through Phase I, but since that is directly relevant to incivility I have made it a sub-section of "Hostile environment", and I merged the two issues of "High standards" and "Undefined standards" into one section, since they are both about standards and may be relevant to each other. (For example, standards may be high because they are undefined.) I have already added some proposals for issues A and C, so they can be used as examples for formatting. Remember that this RfC may have substantial effects on this process, so please be careful when putting together proposals. Under section A, add proposals on finding ways to expand participation; under section B, add proposals on how to fix the hostile environment at RfA; under section B1, add proposals on the specifics of clerking at RfA (who the clerks should be, how much authority they should have, etc.); under section C, add proposals on how to expand the narrow discretionary range; under section D, add proposals on how to fix the high and undefined standards (how the standards can be made reasonable, what the defined standards should be, etc.). --Biblioworm 00:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

:Evidently there was no interest in proposal drafting, so I did it myself and will be launching the RfC shortly. Biblioworm 20:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

::{{U|Biblioworm}} I think a lack of participation at your RFC proposal isn't necessarily evidence of "no interest" but perhaps exhaustion over the marathon of RFC proposals. I'm not sure the exact number but we've likely seen a few dozen RFC proposals over the past year for RFA so those who commented or worked on those proposals already feel like they've already said what they needed to say, and voted how they needed to vote. Your RFC proposal is certainly extensive so also could seem daunting. Anyway, just wanted to mention these as possible reasons for a lack of participation so you're not necessarily jumping to the wrong conclusions. Mkdw^talk 20:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

:::By "no interest", I meant that people apparently had no desire to draft proposals, which is understandable. Doing so takes a considerable amount of thought and time. That doesn't necessarily mean people aren't interested in the idea of the RfC itself. As for the "marathon of RFC proposals", this RfC is part of an organized reform project and contains new proposals that were a direct result of the Phase I RfC. I would note that several participants seemed to be rather eager for Phase II to start. Biblioworm 21:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

::::I was eager to see the next phase, and the fact that quite a few people have already started commenting on the various aspects is an indication that there were quite a few other people waiting to have their say. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 23:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

:::*The problem with putting all proposals, major and minor, on one page is that participants would have to take in a lot of information and arguments. If editors want changes to be made to the process, they should open at most two proposal RfCs every 30 days or so, multiple phases if needed. That way, participants can focus on individual changes instead of dozens and dozens of changes and alternatives. For example, if editors want RfA to be clerked and have arguments for it, they should start a new RfC page (such as Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Clerking proposal 2015) and propose there. Esquivalience ^t 21:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

:::::People who have been continuously involved with RfA issues and their reform for many years, such as {{U|WereSpielChequers|WSC}}, {{U|Worm That Turned}}, and me, generally agree (and history has shown) that changes for most major policy types are most successful when they come in small, stand-alone proposals at a time. As much as I wholeheartedly embrace any viable proposed solutions, I also loose interest in long, rambling RfC that require 30 minutes of my time or more to wade through the longer they get. There is also the fact that they only get around 30 or so participants per section which IMO is not really a representative consensus. I generally aim for a single proposal to attract 200 or more participants. There's also the fact that most closers are put off from having to close a dozen different sections of a RfC.. Anything to do with adminship involves major policy changes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Or should I say 'Guideline'? - Aye, that is the question. Here's something interesting you might have missed. Its talk page is even more vibrant. If you have time, you may wish to add your 2p. Don't worry, for once its not something *I* wrote. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in a RfC proposing clerking in RfAs; the discussion is here. Esquivalience ^t 01:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• With all respect, this has heavy overlap with the ongoing RfC at Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_II/RfC#B4:_Clerking_at_RfA. This is just too much right now. I recommend shelving it for the time being. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Agreed. We should wait to see what the consensus of the ongoing RfC is first before considering further large RfCs. Sam Walton (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Thirded: Too soon. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to existing proposal; having two concurrent discussions is at best confusing. —Kusma (t·c) 17:31, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
• It may be partly my fault for telling {{U|Esquivalience}} I would fully support reasonable proposals for clerking (which I do). It's certainly reasonable and worth commenting on, but the timing is unfortunate. I have made plenty of comments at this RfC that I feel very strongly it's one topic for a stand-alone RfC. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

{{Clear}}

{{collapsetop|Being dealt with at ANI}}

Supdiop is saying that he will create 20 non-stub articles in 20 days if he gets unblocked. I think we should accept this offer and unblock him. He is also saying that he will propose a new idea for RFA process if he gets unblocked. What do you think? - 183.83.231.107 (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

:Hmmmmm, my first thought is that, you are Supdiop. I say this because it is the only IP edit and the IP is from India and so is Supdiop. My second thought? Well, maybe a CU to prove it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

:{{edit conflict}} You're not Supdiop himself, per chance? Biblioworm 23:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

:Maybe Supdiop should heed the advice given to him multiple times and make use of the Standard offer instead of all this bargaining and pleading. clpo13_(talk) 23:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

:Wow, the IP sure is similar to the last one on [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Supdiop this list]. Supdiop, this is socking. If you want any chance at the standard offer, you should find another hobby for six months, or maybe a year or so. Also, I posted at your talk about your IRC statement. And now this? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

::Blocked for 24 hours. After reviewing the geolocations and behavior of his previous socks, it's crystal clear that this IP is Supdiop. Biblioworm 23:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

:::..... And the timetable resets again. Can't request an unblock until 12 June 2016. Although, we will certainly hear from him again. It's crystal clear by now he is and has been on a trolling mission for quite some time. Softlavender (talk) 23:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

::::I started an ANI thread here. I think it's time for the community to revisit this and decide what should be done. Biblioworm 00:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

:In any case this is the inappropriate place for such an appeal. Mkdw^talk 01:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• Supdiop is about to be site banned and range blocked by a large unanimous consensus at ANI.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

{{collapsebottom}}

{{Clear}}

Hi, what do you do when someone creates an RfA without adding it to the RfA page, as has occurred here: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RohithKumarPatali? Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

:Actually, can somebody close this per WP:NOTNOW? Thanks, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

::Can there be some kind of filter which is triggered whenever an RfA is started, even if it isn't added to the page? This is at least the fourth time I've encountered an RfA that nobody noticed. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

:::Well, to be fair, prospective admins should be able to follow the instructions to the letter, which includes transcluding their request to the main RfA page. clpo13_(talk) 19:34, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

::True. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:40, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

:::{{u|Rubbish computer}}, there's no need to formally close untranscluded RFA's. Please don't vote in them either. G6'd. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

::{{ping|NeilN}} Sorry about that, I also didn't notice the date. Thanks for letting me know, --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 19:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

:::If the editors haven't transcluded them, they haven't started the process, so there's no need to do anything with them. isaacl (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

:These RFA's should not be transcluded unless the candidate does so or they have requested someone else to do so. Mkdw^talk 21:47, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

::Yes, as long as they are not transcluded there is nothing wrong with starting an RfA page for oneself, preparing for one day when they might want to actually have an RfA. I imagine there are a lot of untranscluded RfAs sitting around or ones that might have been abandoned. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

:::Agree with {{u|Liz}}. An untranscluded RfA is just another page in wikispace. There's no need to transclude it for the creator (unless they ask you to) and there's no need to delete it if it's left untranscluded for the short or medium term. Really old ones might be deleted as useful cleaning up, but if there's any prospect of future use they may as well be left alone. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

::::I would suggest that stale un-transcluded RFAs that don't have a specific reason to be kept in WP:-space should be userfied after about a month or two. The editor can always move them back later. Likewise, very stale ones should be userfied rather than deleted. The editor can {{tl|db-user}} it later if he wants to. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)