Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 123

What's the purpose of these discussions
The Rfa home page is for letting us know who's up for Administrator nomination. What's the purpose of these discussion though. GoodDay (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is where people discuss RfA, propose new ideas, etc. Keilana | Parlez ici 23:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Mostly, it's for complaints about how RfA isn't working as well as it didn't used to. Along with lots of suggestions that require too much scary change to ever be implemented. --erachima talk 23:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

..isn't working as well as it didn't used to..?. GoodDay (talk) 23:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a common topic of discussion - how RfA used to work fine (in 2003-04) and how it's a cesspool now. Keilana | Parlez ici 23:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * When I said "as well as it didn't used to", I was joking that a lot of the topics about RfA not working are looking at the past a bit too favorably. We have archives of complaints about the same issues: low pass rates, absurd user requirements, etc. etc. etc. that go back years. --erachima talk 00:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's because no one has ever done anything about it. Although there is much disagreement over how best to judge suitability for adminship there does seem broad agreement that absurd reasons for voting no (or yes I suppose) is a bad thing. We really should get our heads together and do something about this particular aspect of the vote don't you think? Does anyone have any ideas on what could be done? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Smile! Yep, I've got some ideas. They're called User:Pedro/Net Positive combined with User:Pedro/RFA Standards. But plenty of people will disagree with those as well! Pedro : Chat  09:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Heya Theresa. I think we could possibly set up an alternate route to gain adminship, and gently ween people off of this one? --Kim Bruning (talk) 09:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That's not a bad idea at all. Start from scratch with a new proposal, allow candidates to choose which route they prefer.Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is at least possible that, given the combined bemoanings that have taken place on this talk page since at least 1861, there do not exist any more genuinely new proposals which could be started from scratch. In any case, the RfALull (not the same as a ROFL) will soon be over and, when about 20 candidates are up, this talk page will go quiet again — especially if most of the candidates look to be successful. Splash - tk 12:17, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Possibly, but the fact remains that it is becoming more and more difficult to become an admin and yet there is no evidence that is is necessary or desirable for the project, and no evidence that a higher quality of admin results. Stupid reasons for opposing that have little to do with a candidates likelyness of abuse of the tools are allowed and no one does anything about it despite it being seriously rude and against WP:AGF. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well that was tried, as you may remember, at Proposed adminship. Unfortunately nothing came of it :\ --Iamunknown 00:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So we should try something else. I don't know what yet but I'm willing to work with people. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Apparently proposed adminship had some issues? Track down the talk page and see what those issues were, and improve on it, then build a new system. We should aim at pressing a new system into service soonest, and work out the bugs on the fly: ready fire aim. --Kim Bruning (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC) ready fire aim doesn't have an article? 
 * Iamunknown's link looks very interesting. -Susanlesch (talk) 00:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool Down Blocks
Copying my comment from Requests for adminship/Bedford in the hope of some educated discussion. "Hell yes. God forbid he hadn't memorised a policy he'll never need to use. Seriously, what's the sudden lust for CDB questions...why can't we ask every candidate something like 'in what order should the relative DYK pages be changed?' and oppose them if they make a typo? Oh, wait. Because that'd probably be over the heads of the vast majority of people who oppose per CDB." If you do understand how DYK works, don't be offended by the above. But yeah, thoughts? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 23:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, some questions that some people ask are a bit silly. Even though it is important not to make cool down blocks, it hardly effects a user who is not an admin. As an RfA candidate is not an admin before a successful RfA, it is a bit unnecessary to know in my opinion. Captain   panda  00:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's necessary to know methinks since it could potentially have deleterious effects, however, it gets asked so often during RfAs that I feel it's lost the original intent. Now it's just repetition. No offense to those who ask it though, I think I have too.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's necessary to know, but other questions should be asked so it's not *Look at past RFA* *Copy and paste answer*  *Change wording*  *Save page* Not sure, but I may have been the original asker.  I know that I definitely didn't copy it from another's questions, but looked it up when I was getting policy questions for my admin coaching program.  Malinaccier (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yeah, I see and understand the point that it was once a relevant a "good" question. That said, I think we should probably ease up on it. It's like that phase we went through were everyone was asked how IAR works in relation to BLP, and it got to the point where copy pasting was taking place. So, any suggestions for a new question-for-everyone? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 00:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the questions that get asked on several rfas are pretty bad, since they're so generic that the answer can just be cut and pasted (and even if it isn't, there's usually just one correct answer, which doesn't show much in the way of original thought). The three questions on the template are good, since they at least require some personal insight. IMO the best optional questions are always those that are unique to the candidate, but if you really want a question to ask everyone, go with something a bit more broad than "how do you feel about so-and-so policy". - Bobet 00:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If the answer is right, or wrong, or a shade inbetween, different people will interpret the answer different ways and vote differently. So I guess that which questions they are makes not a whole lot of difference. I would support a "Stump the Stars" area though for admins who like to ask questions to stump each other rather than nominees. :-) -Susanlesch (talk) 00:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How about:
 * "What is your opinion on re-confirmation RFA's?", "In your opinion, should bans on the En-Wikipedia transfer over to the Simple English Wikipedia? Why or why not?", "Should there be an age limit for editing Wikipedia? For requesting adminship? Bureaucratship?", or "In your opinion, should registration be required for editing? Please explain."
 * The answers would indicate whether the user had knowledge of policy based on the arguments given, and would require much more thought... Malinaccier (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I like some of those. The reconfirmation one gets asked fairly often, but the others are excellent. Nice job, Malinaccier! :) Keilana | Parlez ici 01:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Thanks! Malinaccier (talk) 01:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And despite protestations, the question lives on: . As I've noted before: The only thing the question serves to accomplish is to distinguish regular participants at RFA from those who spend time elsewhere.  RFA regulars know that the question has a correct answer, and thus only people unfamiliar with RFA are weeded out.  I strongly suggest that these questions with right and wrong answers are unhelpful, because familiarity with RFA is not a useful indicator of success as an administrator. --JayHenry (talk) 23:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As with most RFA questions, it is pretty useless. Along with the difference between blocks and bans, and AOR.  Majorly  (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha. That's funny. Same editors keep cut and pasting the same questions, and the candidates keep cutting and pasting the policy back. the_undertow   talk  23:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One somewhat subversive way to stop these questions would simply to be to create a cheat sheet with the correct answers. Whenever the questions are asked, someone could link to the correct answers so that the candidate doesn't get punished for not being an RFA regular and is instead judged on the merit of his work at Wikipedia. --JayHenry (talk) 23:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just thinking the same exact thing - except the cheat sheet is simply the RfA archives.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, a candidate would most likely be crucified for repeatedly linking to the above - especially by users who are unfamiliar with these discussions.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You know what, I'll create a cheatsheet right now. Hopefully it will put the silly optional questions right out of fashion. I don't mind questions that are actually about or to do with the candidate, but 5 copy and pasted "optional" questions is just stupid.  Majorly  (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

One might argue that questions like "When should a cool-down block be used?" only distinguish those who participate at RfA and those who don't. However, the fact is that the nominees' answers to such questions can say a lot about the candidate. If a candidate can't even spend a few minutes to check Wikipedia policies or past RfA's for answers to these types of questions, then imagine what might happen if, sometime in the future, the editor is confronted with an unfamiliar situation and fails to act according to policies because he/she couldn't bother consorting them first. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 00:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But Stephen, my point is that the questions only have this effect if the candidate is not a regular participant at RFA. A regular participant at RFA could, in theory, be completely insane but would answer these questions correctly and it would tell us nothing about the candidate.  Likewise, an otherwise excellent user, not aware of the Trick-Question-Gotcha mentality of these questions, might give a really reasonable answer, but happen to have not noticed an RFA where the question was a big deal, or missed that there was a specific provision in WP:WIKILAW about the subject of the question.  Thus, the questions demonstrably fail to weed out poor candidates, but demonstrably do discriminate against non-RFA participants. --JayHenry (talk) 00:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that answers to these questions should be the sole factor in supporting or opposing a candidate. I'm just saying that it should at least be considered when deciding to support or oppose. Consider this scenario (which I made up): a new administrator sees two users in constant debate on different issues. The admin decides to apply cool-down blocks on both, believing that it would help calm things down because he/she does not know of the policy on cool-down blocks. The admin might have had good intentions when applying the blocks, yet the fact is that his/her action is against Wikipedia policy and would result in possibly-irreversible consequences (e.g. the blocked users deciding to not help Wikipedia anymore, even though they actively contributed to the project in a positive manner). Any potential candidate must be willing to do extra research if necessary to ensure their actions would not have unwanted consequences, and these questions help establish who possess this ability. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 02:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What if your scenario involves the two editors hurling personal attacks at each other? They'll get blocked, and the purpose is in practice still the same, cooling down, it's just worded differently. The whole question is about semantics, and giving a thoughtful answer shouldn't be punished. - Bobet 15:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My scenario is probably very unlikely. However, the cool-down block isn't my point though. I'm merely using it as an example of how an administrator's failure to consult policies because he/she couldn't be bothered to do so could result in undesirable consequences that might have a negative effect on the Wikipedia project. There are many aspects of a candidate to consider when supporting or opposing an RfA, and I feel that whether a user has the will to consult policies and guidelines should be one of the considerations, along with other ones. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 19:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, obviously, but asking this question and then putting on blinders regarding the answer is not the correct way to do it. Any candidate can give a much better answer than the regular "never", yet some would feel that shows they don't "consult policies and guidelines". It would mostly show that they don't blindly follow the wording of policies and guidelines without understanding them, which is much better in a candidate. - Bobet 19:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As I stated before, answers to these questions are NOT the sole factor in deciding to support or oppose. I would definitely agree that even if a user copies directly from the policies, it does not mean he/she is suitable for adminship. In my opinion, a candidate should be able to fully explain why these policies exist, and if a candidate accidentally slips up on one question but fully explains his/her rationale, we might consider forgiving him/her. However, if he/she repeatedly fails to show a lack of initiative to consult policies he/she isn't familiar with by answering these questions incorrectly, then I do not think the user would be suitable for adminship. We agree that copying these policies are not difficult, so what excuses do candidates have for not answering incorrectly? The only reason I can think of is that he/she could not bother checking. Stephenchou0722 (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Cheatsheet
See Requests for adminship/Cheatsheet. Feel free to add to it.  Majorly  (talk) 00:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

With this page, I hope to eventually phase out stock questions copy and pasted on RfAs. Proposing to ban such questions won't work; this is an alternative. Looking at Bedford's RfA, there's 26 questions added - 10 by just one user. That is one of the silliest things I've seen on an RfA. Especially, as far as I can see, every single question is a "stock" question - it could be on anyone's RfA, and it appears to have been asked for the sake of asking. Please add to the above page, and together we can put these questions to bed.  Majorly  (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * How exactly is rewarding somebody who can't even take the time to read WP:BLP or WP:BLOCK, a good idea? Asking about a cool down block may not be the most revealing question somebody can ask, but the "right answer" is stated explicitly within our blocking policy. Anybody who gets the question wrong either doesn't understand the blocking policy, or hasn't read it. Either way, I don't want them exercising the ability to place blocks. Feeding a candidate the "right answer" can only lead to bad things. - auburn pilot   talk  00:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the point (in addition to what has been stated) is discouraging questions which are easily accessible, and encourage revealing thought provoking questions.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Lol, AP - you think that not reading old RfAs is possible? I'm not saying that admins shouldn't be ignorant, but how exactly is pasting a question on every RfA in any way productive? If the user gets the answer wrong, they can be corrected and will know from now on. With the cheatsheet, they will already know the answer and not get things wrong.  Majorly  (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And btw, the cheatsheet is the alternative to looking at a successful RfA's answers. I think instead of spamming users with tons of questions that they can copy answers from other RfAs to, they can just read the cheatsheet.  Majorly  (talk) 00:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * AP, I would add to your scenario they either: don't understand, haven't read, or by far the most likely explanation: have read a very large number of our policies, but had not memorized this particular detail, and not being an RFA regular did not realize that some editors believed it to be of critical importance and that once pointed to the correct answer will not make that mistake and thus everyone, most importantly the encyclopedia, wins. After all, RFA regulars have already been fed the answers, so all this does is level the playing field. --JayHenry (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the sheet is a good idea. I'd much rather see an optional question like "What were you thinking with x edit here" or "Have a look at this AfD and tell us how you'd close it and why." the_undertow   talk  01:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The first one, fair enough. The second is a stock question though. But I suppose there's millions of XfDs out there, they could ask different ones so no one can "cheat".  Majorly  (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that my second suggestion was a stock question. I was actually thinking that an actual ripened and open AfD would be a great way to see how the admin would handle consensus in a very specific situation. I probably didn't make that clear. the_undertow   talk  01:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I absolutely think it's possible to pass an RfA without reading previous RfAs, and I'm not sure why you find my comment so funny. I admittedly don't participate in as many RfAs as I once did, but I have never seen a question that couldn't be answered by spending a few minutes reading our policy pages (something I would hope admins actually do). Are our candidates now so dumb they must be fed answers to easy questions? If so, I'm re-upping my participation at RfA. - auburn pilot   talk  01:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is possible, of course. I'm just trying to make it clear that asking stock questions is not the way to go about things.  Majorly  (talk) 01:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The number of questions is becoming (at times) pointless. It seems to me that they are an attempted shortcut around looking at a nominee's history and contribs. We're not electing lawyers here, we're just judging general fitness. It's not a matter of them knowing each and every policy but of their judgment. You can find that in the contribs, not in grilling them over policy details. The cool down question is a great example, there's a range of right answers (small but identifiable) but I see people rejecting nuanced answers and expecting quotes directly from the policy page. I'd like to see the optional questions phased out completely. RxS (talk) 01:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Auburn Pilot, are you also concerned that adminship coaching is subverting the process? An admin coach will also feed the exact same answers to the exact same easy questions.  And do you really think that Bedford, among the current crop, is too "dumb" to be an admin because he missed this question? --JayHenry (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I'd say it is subverting the process, but I've always found admin coaching to be odd. Post-rfa, I could understand, as it could give a new admin a way to test out the tools in realistic situations, but a classroom approach to passing an RfA doesn't seem right to me. As far as Bedford being dumb, I'd say he actually gave one of the better answers to that question that I've seen. It's not about being too dumb to be an admin (hell, if intelligence was a requirement, I'd have failed) but the general inability to read what is stated explicitly within policy. - auburn pilot   talk  01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then this is merely odd too, no? It is in its effect exactly the same as admin coaching.  The only difference is the format of the Wikitext. --JayHenry (talk) 01:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You and I are either missing each other, or are making points that really have no point. Yes, I think the cheat sheet is odd. Yes, I think training for an RfA is odd. But, I can see a difference in saying "when asked question X, respond Y" and actually giving somebody scenarios and having them respond as if they were an admin. One gives the false impression that somebody understands policy, the other demonstrates actual understanding of policy. - auburn pilot   talk  01:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I came to coaching post-esperanza, so I'm not that familiar with its history, but I sort of see it as a personalized extension of all the essays and guidelines on what adminship is. Also, I'll admit that since I've become involved in coaching, its basically been taking what was there already and clarifying and reformatting it.  So if there are any directional changes needed in the program, I plead guilty to not making them yet and innocent to obsructing them :) I do wish the program would get some more attention at least in what exactly makes a good RFA, is it performing the tasks that got previous admins the mop (ie. do xfd, rfpp, aiv) or is it more a personality thing.  MBisanz  talk 02:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that the BLP, IAR, and AOR questions be put on the cheatsheet. They are definitely not fact-recall questions.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 19:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Another way
A proposal:
 * Adopt Proposed_adminship per some discussion above. It isn't adoptable yet but it is a formidable start.
 * Give each new admin a sponsoring admin—any admin in good standing who can provide oversight. That would put to work the investment in coaching that has evolved outside the RfA process although the sponsoring admin could be any admin in good standing.
 * That admin who takes on the role of oversight is responsible for all admin chores performed by the new admin. The new admin's edits within the domain of adminship are on the record of the sponsoring admin for amount of time.
 * Make desysopping within that amount of time easy to do.

-Susanlesch (talk) 01:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I suppose that would basically mean that admins get secretaries?  bibliomaniac 1 5  Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 02:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, interesting idea. Some initial reactions:  I know though that I'd be scared (maybe a strong word), to put my bit and reputation on the line unless I knew the person to the point they'd be a Meatpuppet.  And I'm sure  would be a good person to bring into this discussion.  She and Ryan tried mentoring a newbie admin who was making lots of errors.  What was his name again...oh right Archtransit.   MBisanz  talk 02:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * But what happens when the newb admin does something stupid? The sponsoring admin would be responsible? Tiptoety  talk 02:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, Tiptoety, but maybe you have another idea. People who work together have at least as good and probably better idea of how a new secretary :-) will do than strangers who vote for RfAs, don't you think? -Susanlesch (talk) 02:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, but is adminship a sign of community trust, not just a single users. Tiptoety  talk 02:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Proposed adminship is a community decision as I understand the proposal. -Susanlesch (talk) 02:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing it more as a probationary period, so to speak - the "candidate" is able to actually demonstrate their understanding of the proper use of the admin tools by actually using them. I'm concerned that such a "live-fire" exercise might end up causing a bad block or a bad deletion or some such, but such things are easily fixed (except for the bad feelings engendered by a bad block). Have to think on this one... UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 03:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I don't think I like this. RFA could use a tune up, but this is too far in the "less bureacracy, not-a-big-deal" direction. Of course a new admin is going to get everything right when they have someone else (with a vested interest in the person not messing up) watching them like a hawk and they will be desysopped (and unlikely to ever regain adminship) if they screw up. Only an idiot would do anything remotely controverisal under those circumstances. I don't see Proposed adminship working at all either. Its not very often that an RFA can run its full course with zero opposition, and that's bascially what it would require. Mr.  Z- man  04:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I largely agree, except to note that any process that weeds out idiots is a process worth examining. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 11:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unanimity would have to go, yes certainly (and that isn't a difficult change to make). I thought Theresa Knott, Kim Bruning and Iamunknown were thinking along those lines but in keeping with the sentiments of the hour, fair enough, if the process "ain't broke don't fix it". -Susanlesch (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship from inexperienced editors; especially self-noms
I know we're not in the practice of dictating who can and cannot go for adminship, but wouldn't it make sense to have a strong note on the page before someone creates a RfA about experience and edits? Obviously someone being here a long time and/or having lots of edits doesn't make them qualified to have the tools, but I can safely say that no one who has been here for less than 2 months or has less than 1,000 edits or so is going to pass an RfA these days. I just saw two RfAs in quick succession from new editors like that. One was SNOW-closed and the other will be shortly, I'm sure. It just doesn't seem productive.  Enigma  message Review 04:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yea, right now all we have is a suggestion in Requests_for_adminship/nominate. Making that stronger or adding some warning to page generation field would be good idea IMO.  MBisanz  talk 04:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I added that note to the nomination page back in January, and I hope it's done some good, but it certainly hasn't stopped plenty of folks from nailing themselves up in the barrel and going over the falls. A warning actually in the page generation field sounds like a great idea. Darkspots (talk) 04:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My feeling on the situation is that if the editors don't pay attention to the first couple paragraphs of the page and go ahead and nominate themselves, they are probably new and will fail. This is what happens.  This is a regular occurance but not on a major scale; these nominations happen a few times every week/month (depending on the time of year) since the page was created.  You really can't help if people read the signs or not, or if they do did they make sense.  I don't care for warnings because I don't think a fear environment is welcoming- most users who pass RfA have been around for about a half a year.  Relatively speaking, this is still "new" in the context of the history of the project and RfA itself has changed quite a bit in subtle and not so subtle ways over the past ~5 years .  In summary: this will always continue to happen, as human behavior repeats itself.  Not that big of a deal considering the thousands of new users that we have every month.   Keegan talk 04:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Like a lot of things, it bothers some people more than others, seeing the newbies fall on their faces. I personally don't like it at all, and I don't think I'm alone.  You're probably right that it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things, but I think it matters to them.
 * Maybe the way to put the matter to people about to nominate themselves for adminship is not just about minimum requirements but to say something like "Wikipedia has 25 billion registered users (insert correct number) but only 1500 administrators--the only people who are made sysops are trusted members of the community who have gained that trust by making good contributions for a period of months or years" or some such folderol. Just to rephrase it differently--fools who rush in never think the prerequisites apply to them. Darkspots (talk) 04:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think we can do more to make it clear to inexperienced users that going for adminship immediately is not a good idea. Obviously you can't force people to read signs or directions, but you can make them stand out more, or put them in the right places. It definitely bothers me to see users bitten like that. I know it's their fault, but wouldn't you feel pretty embarrassed and down if you started an RfA and immediately got 10 opposes and then had it closed? I think having those RfAs not start in the first place would be beneficial to everyone involved with the RfA process, and to the future users who would not end up in that predicament.  Enigma  message Review 04:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are correct in your assessment that pre-pre-mature RfAs often end result in an unintentional form of newbie biting. If I remember correctly, you've participated in the six month long discussion here that pertains to these sorts of RfAs.  As you can see, not a lot has changed as far as random new editors requesting adminship, and being shot down in flames.  So I think the focus should continue on getting the community to pay attention to how they treat these candidates, rather than the candidates themselves.  Spot checkers, regular readers, regular contributors of RfA should know better behavior than one liners or fierce critique when it isn't even needed.  Helping, not hurting.  I don't forsee us ever having a policy on requirements for adminship other than registration, so I really don't think these filings will ever cease.  We should play nicer.  Bolding Oppose and Support in any RfA is passé these days anyway, IMO.  Removing that alone might help.   Keegan talk 04:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How about a special tool that makes an automated note for topics already discussed 3 billion times on WT:RFA? That'd be useful... We could test it out here... Because this is a topic that has been hashed over too many times to count. General feeling is that RFA is an open process, and restrictions are unfair and would be sketchy to draw up, and that its not too much of a deal to just SNOW close an RFA from a newbie, and that newbies can learn a lot from the opposes in order for them to grow better and have a chance at passing next time. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 04:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Just about every topic brought up here has been brought up before. That doesn't mean the concerns are not valid or that changes would not be welcome.  Enigma  message Review 05:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, AD, you've got the number of registered users on your userpage! Totally convenient to what I was saying above. 6,833,168.  I think saying "we have almost seven million registered users but only 1500 admins so you don't need to be an admin to contribute effectively, etc." does actually get the point across pretty clearly that we don't hand out +sysop with the registration booklet. Darkspots (talk) 05:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So, I've added some of my proposed language to Requests for adminship/nominate:. A bit stronger than before. Thoughts? Darkspots (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have been active for about a year, and have about 1300 edits, and yes, I know that's not a lot. I would not consider myself ready to become an admin for some time, even if interested, since I still bump into guidelines and situations I'm not that familiar with. I really don't think that time spent here or ever more importantly, the number of edits, has a lot to do with how well someone can be trusted with the buttons and the responsibility to make good judgments in contentious or borderline cases. I don't think those metrics measure that kind of maturity and judgment well enough to be used. Granted, there does need to be a minimum bar, but is having a few obviously inadequate self nominations cause enough of a problem for the process that something needs to be done? My guess is no. Some of us know when we are ready for additional responsibility, and will not seek or accept nomination before then. Maybe self nominations should be actively discouraged.  I would certainly !vote against someone with two months and <1000 edits, but I don't really know where the bar is. I remember someone having about 7500 edits and there was some concern about an insufficient edit count to win an RfA (it was successful, BTW). I find that rather unbelievable. There's more to being an admin that edit counts, since it's really about being trusted with the responsibility by the community. I'm one of those people that actually welcomes constructive criticism, even when it hurts. One of the concepts I learned was that honest and well intentioned feedback is a gift. So that a failed RfA can be considered feedback, and I see many comments say so. Other's don't, and they missed a chance to provide a candidate with useful information on how to grow enough too succeed. Another precept I learned is that if one acts like an admin, then many others will see that person as an admin. — Becksguy (talk) 05:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * "Obviously someone being here a long time and/or having lots of edits doesn't make them qualified to have the tools, but I can safely say that no one who has been here for less than 2 months or has less than 1,000 edits or so is going to pass an RfA these days." is what I stated above. Once again, edit counts and time don't make someone suitable to be admin, but a severe lack of experience and edits do tend to make someone unsuitable to be admin, or at least make it impossible for them to pass an RfA.  Enigma  message Review 05:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * To Darkspots: I think that's a good start.  Enigma  message Review 05:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the previous, Enigma. — Becksguy (talk)

(de-indent) How about this proposal? The RfA gets "split" into two sessions - a question session, and a "vote" session? No voting is allowed in the question phase, and no questions are allowed in the voting phase. This would help avoid "pile-on" votes, IMO, and allow users to make their own judgments based more on the answers to the questions instead of blindly voting support/oppose. ArcAngel (talk) 14:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You'd need to design it so that each session lasts a sufficient period of time. Right now you have a week of open debate, so you'd pretty much double that period. Since there seems to be a high level of stress during the normal RFA, would many people want to do that?
 * If there were a voting session, I would like to see it so that voting is secret, or closed, or such that only the bureaucrats can access the votes. But I don't see how that is technically possible under the current software. There are places only admins or bureaucrats can access, but us mere mortals would need to be able to edit for addition of our votes. Yngvarr (c) 15:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

MfD
Even if not for the right reasons, I feel like MfDing this place. I know, I understand, that no-one is pressuring me into commenting here, or even typing "WT:RFA" into the search. But this place is little more than a coffee lounge, where topics are cast away and then recycled, where speculations on nothing are made, where ideas are proposed and speedily rejected, and generally where people come to make the clichéd whine about our corrupt RFA process. The purpose of this page is becoming useless, and its repetition of topic nauseous. Sorry, just had to say it... -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you know how many pages I'd be taking to MfD everyday that look like this one? But yea, I wouldn't mind a radical restructuring now and then.  MBisanz  talk 05:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's pretty darn rude, really. "clichéd whine" and calling discussion of the RfA process "useless". It's not easy to make any changes, but even if changes are not made, I find the discussions here to be generally helpful.  Enigma  message Review 05:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not rude. It's an embittered response to over a year of constantly recurring discussion. And I wasn't referring to anyone in particular. Nevertheless, search the archives - you will find plenty of whining, and plenty of aimless talk. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 07:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, I rather enjoy coming here to find out the latest ideas about RFA. Sure, it will be difficult to change the RFA process, possibly just has hard as doing away with the Electoral College, but talking about it is the first step. Useight (talk) 05:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The first step honestly will never be taken. The same discussions have been occurring over and over for years with no visible effect. -- Naerii  05:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a core process of Wikipedia, with a lot of people who are involved and far more who are peripherally interested or have strong views. Lots of people see the same or similar problems and suggest "fixes", but 99% of the time the suggestions don't get enough support to be implemented. So they get suggested again, and again, and again - because folks don't read the archives and think the problem they see is new (it isn't). This isn't a failing of this page, or a reason to have it deleted. It isn't even really a failing - its just a predictable outcome based on the circumstances. If you find its frustrating you, take a break from it. Avruch  T 14:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * AnonDiss, whenever you see a repeated thread, you can always add this:

Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  14:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth Anonymous Dissident, I have recently had the exact feelings you are having. Every time I come onto this page, I feel that it is rehash of old discussions, and by old I only mean a few weeks. Seeing as you have been active on this page for at least twice as long as me, your frustration must be even greater. I guess the one positive is that it is clear consensus on most issues is not going anywhere. SorryGuy Talk  01:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Whatever you think about the questions...
...answering them on behalf of the candidate before the candidate gets to it is a bad idea. First, it is openly insulting to the questioner. Second, it presumes the candidate doesn't know or wouldn't think to look up the answer. Third, it isn't your RfA - the process grants editors the right to ask questions, grants the candidate the responsibility to answer or ignore them, and for everyone else there is a "discussion" section and a talkpage. We're all equally members of the community here, and there is no good reason to nullify a question asked in good faith. Avruch  T 14:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

ON the other hand....
...I can't help thinking that an editor's RfA is not the right place for pursuing issues like this. Not to mention that it's a multi-part, quite confusing issue with numerous traps (we don't re-open old AfDs, for example). Black Kite 17:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen that (or variants of it) asked on a few RfAs now. The basic question is "Do the ends justify the means?" in various cases where the method was wrong but the candidate may have agreed with the results.  Enigma  message Review 17:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, while I bear no personal feelings, this editor tends to support/oppose RfAs based on whether or not the candidate agreed with him on a given set of AfDs. For this particular editor, the question is probably very important. But yes, I agree it's an optional question that I would probably choose not to answer. Tan   |   39  17:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My main concern is that in EVERY AfD I have ever seen the candidate in, he has voted to delete. In those discussions, I have argued BOTH to keep and delete, but I have never seen the candidate argue to keep in any AfD we both participated in.  Thus, I need some reassurance that as an admin they would be willing to close as keep, even if they personally disagreed with the article or consensus and a good way of reassuring me would be if they acknowledge that AfDs that closed as delete in part due to sockpuppetry were invalid.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 17:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If they said that in relation to the example you've given in the question, I'd !vote Oppose to their RfA, because it would mean they wouldn't close the AfD correctly; that article is a list with no reliable sources and a clear Delete regardless of any sockpuppetry, and Xoloz's closing remarks were spot on. You need a better example. Black Kite 17:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * From my perspective where the candidate voted delete was incorrect, regardless of the closure, and thus for me to trust someone as an admin, I'd rather they be more inclusive. Plus, as we don't have a deadline, any AfD in which sockpuppetry may have played a role (including keeps) should be considered for deletion review as it is important that we have consensus based on as little suspect behavior as possible.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the basis of the question, but I'd prefer it to be slightly more theoretical. Get rid of all the diffs and make it easier for a candidate to give thoughts on the lasting effects of socks and how they can be dealt with. The current question seems like it can be a trap because of the wealth of specific cases it mentions. Gwynand | Talk/Contribs 17:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I primarily asked it, because I had asked a variation previously to Redfarmer who answered it so well, he actually persuaded me to change my stance. I figure if he could answer one question successfully enough for me to change my mind, it's reasonable to give someone else the same opportunity rather than just dig in as an oppose.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 19:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I actually really like the question, LGRdC, and have used the candidate's answers to your question and its variations in the past to help me determine whether I was supporting or opposing (OMG, don't ask me who, I won't remember...) but I agree with Gwynand's suggestion to make the question more theoretical (less diffs) so as to create less of an appearance of trapping someone (I strongly believe that isn't your intention, FWIW, just that it seems to have created that perception).  Cheers,   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have revised the wording based on the suggestions indicated here. Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not that happy about the Q on [List of characters in Grand Theft Auto III] in] that RfA either. It seems to be assuming something about the article in question. And it seems trivial, considering the desired answer is posted on the top of the article. DGG (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Answered on your talk page. Black Kite 23:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * and I replied there. DGG (talk) 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

While this wasn't explicitly stated - I don't think editors should oppose based upon a candidate's apparent adherence to quasi-wiki philosophies such as Deletionism and Inclusionism. Just because you've noticed a preponderance of "delete" !votes at AfD, it shouldn't really impact your decision - or, at the very least, be the deciding factor. One is not "better" or more desirable than another. It's about policy, strength of arguments, and the ability to communicate.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree, because why would I want admins that are likely to disagree with me? If I notice an overwhelming number of deletes in AfDs for articles that I think should be kept or for that matter say keeps for articles that I think should be deleted, then that means that my interpretation of policies and guidelines differs from the candidates and that in my opinion they are misinterpreting policies or guidelines, which would of course mean I do not believe they understand them well enough to enforce them.  Some of these AfDs were no consensus or even nomination withdrawn, which tells me that time was in effect wasted nominating and voting to delete articles that could have been spent (as obviously others did in order for the article to not be deleted or in at least one case for the nomination to be withdrawn) finding sources and improving the article.  Just going down AfDs, voting (not arguing) to delete does not really help the project, unless it's a hoax, libel, or copy vio (which can be speedied anyway).  After all, few articles, i.e. those that aren't hoaxes, libel, or copy vios, cannot be redirected somewhere.  By contrast, taking the time to search for sources and to work with others to improve the articles does benefit the project.  If I notice "deletes" for articles that there is some reasonable reason for keeping, I just don't see them as helpful as say using that time to improve the article in question or to focus on bringing articles that the account does care about up to better standards instead.  Anyway, if I seem to dwell on how the candidates will close AfDs, it's because half of what makes an admin different from a regular contributor pertains to deletion.  Admins can block and they can delete or restore articles.  Thus, their ability to delete or restore articles is significant aspect of the new tools they're granted by becoming an admin and so how they will use that half of their tools does need serious consideration.  It is also important, because contested closures can just result in deletion review or even insulted editors as well as in the case of deletion the removal of potentially a lot of work by many editors.  So, again, how an admin candidate will use those tools is arguably just as important as how they'll go about blocking and unblocking.  In some discussions, editors focus on blocks and unblocks, but it's a little harder to judge how someone would handle blocks and unblocks barring they have outright expressed as much on ANI threads about controversial blocks.  Now with deletion, their participation in AfDs does provide a window into how they might decide to closes AfDs.  Sincerely, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 22:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the whole premise of "Why would I want admins that are likely to disagree with me?" is flawed. I would hope that very few experienced Wikipedians vote in an RfA based on whether they have had some past dry disagreement in policy discussion. You should be looking for admins who will correctly interpret an AfD - an admin has no special place in the discussion itself, except to judge its outcome. That, for a good admin, will happen independently of that admins particular opinion on what the outcome should have been.


 * You seem to assume that admins who are more apt to argue for deletion than you will also incorrectly interpret discussions as to consensus - these seem to be two totally unrelated functions, and so I'm not sure why you conflate them. More importantly - what this does argue is that you, personally, would close an AfD against deletion because of your personal beliefs on deletion in general and regardless of the discussion consensus. That you might do this because of your strong adherence to inclusion does not necessarily indicate that others would as well, particularly as such an action would directly violate deletion policy.


 * Admins should not be selected based on ideology or adherence to a particular philosophy - they aren't representatives, remember, but functionaries and bureaucrats. Avruch  T 22:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree with that. I also think closing afd's is more about a candidate's judgement (based on the understanding of policies) and neutrality. There are better ways of evaluating how a candidate would close an afd. Seraphim&hearts;   Whipp 22:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion there's actually a really substantial problem here. LGRdC's question may not be the best way at addressing it, but the amount of deletionist sockpuppetry has gotten really disturbing, inarguably bad for the encyclopedia, and steps are not being taken to prevent this. I recently read a thread on ANI or AN where an editor had provided overwhelmingly obvious evidence of abusive sockpuppetry, but because of inclusionist/deletionist partisanship, the deletionists refused to evaluate the claim because of its source.  The administrator who correctly raised the issue was actually called "scabrous" for suggesting it be investigated.  A handful of deletionists failed to notice obvious harassment and abusive editing, and once it was revealed that the complainant had been correct all along, not one single editor apologized, either to the victim or to the admin who rightly put in motions the wheels to stop the abuse.  This is, to me, clear evidence that the partisanship had gone too far.  Stalking is worse than inclusionism and there's something badly amiss if editors are having trouble realizing this.  This needs to be fixed. --JayHenry (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That's actually a bit of a re-writing of that episode. As far as I could see, it wasn't a case of "refusing" to evaluate the claim - editors could see that there was the possibility it was correct - but they objected to the complainant forum-shopping it round RFC, RFAR, AN and ANI when it belonged fair and square at RFCU and SSP.  Since a couple of sock-puppeteers have been blocked recently - I even blocked one myself despite the fact they were !voting Delete on an AfD I started - I would like to see any further evidence of any such "deletionist sockpuppetry" taking place that you find out, because there have also been a lot of Keep !votes on certain classes of articles that have aroused my suspicion. Black Kite 00:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Black Kite, I do not believe that I am rewriting; it was certainly not my intent. It was reasonably raised at a related RFAR, in which the victim was being harassed.  It was arguably outside the scope of the case, so he was instructed to take the issue to RFCU and SSP, which he did.  The issue was raised at RFCU and SSP on March 19: Requests for checkuser/Case/Davenbelle, Suspected sock puppets/Davenbelle.  Following this, User:Nick following process, brought the issue to AN: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive136.  Although White Cat was correct that he was being wikistalked and harassed, he was criticized for devoting his energy to fixing the problem.  Actually Black Kite, you're the one who criticized him, when he was the one who correctly identified an abusive user.  I didn't realize you were party to this when I raised the thread.  "It would actually be very difficult for Merridew to stalk White Cat at the moment. That's because White Cat has only made 53 mainspace contributions this year; practically all of his other 1,200 edits have been pursuing his attempts to get Merridew blocked. You have to ask - who is making more contribution to the encyclopedia at this point?"  That's a rather stunning quote.  Another editor said "I don't know who Nick is, but I am disappointed that he has chosen to sanction these scabrous insinuations; I would naturally oppose any course of action that even approximates those called for above as completely inappropriate, bordering on hysterical overreaction."  If this isn't evidence of inclusionist/deletionist partisanship going too far, what is?  Someone needs to try to fix this problem, and kudos to LGRdC for at least trying. --JayHenry (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My point with that comment wasn't that Merridew wasn't a sock (I admitted that it was very possible) but to drive the point home that White Cat was spending so much of his time (some 1,200+ edits!) on Merridew, and if he'd not spent his time forum-shopping and gone to SSP to begin with, he could've used his time actually working on articles. However his reply was that he didn't want to edit because he feared he'd be stalked.  Which is up to him, of course. My other point is that LGRdC isn't choosing his examples very well; there is no point doing a lot of hand-waving about "deletionist sockpuppets" and then giving examples that, when you look at them, would probably have been closed Delete anyway even without the socks. Anyway, this probably isn't the right forum for this particular thread, so I'll stop there. Black Kite 01:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Probably" is not the same as "absolutely would be". And the fact that the one I brought to deletion review had a large number of supports for overturning and resulted in it being userfied with permission to move to mainspace after revising it suggests that at least some of my examples have indeed been persuasive for others.  Also, as a side not, I apologize if my typing is off at all tonight.  My father and I both managed to injure our hands during a freak accident while working on his tractor over the weekend.  The bottom line was that my left hand ended up pinched between the thumb and pointer finger by a jack stand while his right hand was even more significantly injured as some spring in the tractor malfunctioned causing two pieces of metal to in effect crush part of his hand (nothing like trying to assist someone else when you're simultaneously attempting to deal with your own wounds!).  There was so much blood and it occurred so violently, we thought at least one finger would have been totally severed.  When he got his hand out the finger was pretty well squashed especially at the base (it's still badly swollen, bled for a long time, even with dressing and ice, and a good portion of his hand is all puffy and bruised; we're still waiting for more x-ray results).  So, we had some back and forth emergency room time this weekend and I'm basically relying on my right hand rather than typing the proper way (my left isn't horrible or anything, although bruised and with a nasty blood blister)--all on top of having to have my car's brake's fixed!  So, again, sorry for any typos or "franticness" of edits.  Best, --  Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, whether or not someone agrees with me relates to understanding of policies. If I argue a certain way, it reflects my understanding of policy. If some argues a different way, then that means to me they are misunderstanding the policy. Also, I don't "vote" in RfAs or AfDs for that matter. It is my understanding that we come to conclusions based on consensus, i.e. discussions. For that reason I do not just say oppose or support and move on. Rather, I watch the RfA with an open-mind and have on several occasions changed my stances as the discussion progresses. As for interpreting an AfD, if I see someone almost always voting to delete in every AfD I've encountered them in, it very well could indicate an over zealousness to just delete material without understanding when to argue to keep. It's perhaps the only real way we can make any kind of assumption about how they may or may not interpret policy when closing AfDs. Moreover, ideology or philosophy could represent how an admin interprets policy and therefore influence how they close AfDs. I personally have not closed any AfDs and do not wish to do so; I prefer discussing and finding sources. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but to be fair, LGRdC, you !vote Keep on nearly every AfD you participate in, often with no real policy-based rationale, so any admin who ever votes Delete on an AfD is likely to be in conflict with you :) More seriously, admins are chosen for their judgement, and they're expected not to let their viewpoints affect their actions.  As you know, I tend to lean to the deletionist side, but I know that of the hundreds of AfDs I've closed, I've never closed one as Delete when I know I shouldn't.  After all, if I did that, I'd be dragged up at DRV every day. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 00:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah well, sometimes someone has to assume good faith rather than do a quick google search and write of an article as having no sources, or use the rather amusing and completely undefinable unencyclopedic. As far as closing debates, it is pretty open to interpretation..reminds me of the quote lies, damn lies and statistics really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I do argue to keep in the majority of AfDs I participate in and I always have some policy based reason (even if I do not provide a policy shortcut), but I have argued to delete more than just once or two token times and over the span of several months (some examples: Articles for deletion/Homosexuality in Kingdom Hearts, Articles for deletion/Insane Pro Wrestling, Articles for deletion/Butt harp, and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Screambox 2). Moreover, in most of the AfDs I argue to keep, I spend a good amount of time looking for sources and even in some of those that I've argued to delete, I still maybe at least corrected the grammar in the article in question (I always do at least some kind of search for sources, just to be sure that if I'm going to argue for delete sources really do not exist and it is indeed a hoax article). If I didn't have policy based reasons, I wouldn't have had this amount of support from others (admins and non-admins alike). Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 00:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I was being slightly flippant there (though you do have a tendency to throw in "It's Notable" !votes ) but the main point I'm making is that I think if people are being opposed at RFA purely because of their voting patterns at AfD - even if their !votes are in policy - that's a very slippery slope to start on. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you can rest assured that's not the case with me. It is a combination of things which I have detailed elsewhere ad nauseam. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it matters so much why anyone supports or opposes. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. As I said, there's really two functions that separate admins from everyone else: being able to block/unblock and being able to delete/restore. I find it difficult to really assess how someone will block or unblock. I can however make some impression on how they will delete/restore based on whatever ideology they may ascribe to or their voting/arguing habits. As for the examples, you provided of my arguments. In the Starship troopers case, I provided a link to a sourc search I conducted (hardly a vote) and by the way, I obviously think the close was incorrect (unsourced means no sources whatsover, there were at least primary evidence, you could maybe claim "insufficient sourcing," but unsourced is inaccurate) and editors did assert real-world notability (something that can be seen even in a work of fiction is something that can be seen in the real-world by people in the real world and when it's associated with major franchise seen by millions, it's notable). For the Centaur family, I didn't merely participate in the AfD, I also spent time improving the article under discussion, which I also did for the IQ one. Looking for sources and making attempts to improve the articles under discussion is not merely voting. Best, -- Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles  Tally-ho! 01:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Some specific rules
How about to make some specific rules regarding RfA. For example, an editor will not be eligible for administratorship unless he/she has at least 6 DYKs and created and expanded at least 5 B-class articles. It is upon discussion, but such a minimum level may be needed. Otherwise the support votes and oppose votes often based on the personal criteria of the individual voters. An universal rule will be appropriate.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 22:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PEREN. If it's not listed there, it should be.  There are several good admins that have 0 DYKs, 0 FAs, and 0 GAs.  Nothing wrong with specialists.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) You would not be able to get agreement on such criteria for precisely the same reason that we see so many support and oppose votes for a variety of reasons - specifically, people have different ideas about what is required for adminship (my RFA passed unanimously, and I don't meet a single one of your proposed criteria, for example). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * However nothing is stopping you making that your personal criteria. -- Naerii  22:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ecx2)I'd have to disagree with those standards as well. If those are your personal standards, fine, but people contribute in different ways to the encyclopedia. Not everyone participates in the GA process, the FA process, or even the DYK process.  Enigma  message Review 22:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A year and five months after my RfA passed, I still have 0 DYKs, 0 FAs, and 0 GAs. I've written all of 0 articles from scratch. EVula // talk //  &#9775;  // 22:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And of course people will point out that they don't meet those criteria and they're an admin. Almost as if they're willing you to say, "Well, I think you're a shit sysop". -- Naerii  22:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * EVula is a shit sysop. So is Keeper (who has less than EVula)  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you meant to say "EVula is the shit". Common typing error. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 00:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow. I was looking at 2006 RfAs, and all I can say is... things have changed. Greatly.  Enigma  message Review 22:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, and if you go back even further, people were getting adminship based on five people saying "He's one of the good guys." Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 22:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How many of those from back in the day are still active, or how many of those bred high-quality admins? Has the quality of administrators gone up in proportion with the more stringent process? Be kind of curious to see some rough stats of admins from 2006 compare to today (how many de-sysoped voluntarily perhaps due to retirement, or otherwise due to being rogue; how many still active, etc)... Yngvarr (c) 22:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Very few admins has been desysoped. However, it would be easy to do a quick cross-check of when admins were granted the sysop flag and when their last edits were (or last significant burst of activity was). I'll begin programming a script to do that forthwith. I assume public access is allowed to the records of when the sysop flag was granted? I'll have to check on that. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 22:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (several edit conflictsI wouldn't give much weight (yet) to Sarah LN's commentary. It's likely that he/she is a sock (go to his/her userpage).  As for the issue, the bureaucrats themselves used to be "promoted" under less stringent conditions, see this for example.  Here nor there really.  A different time, a different Wikipedia. I support our current system of promotion  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't have to take my word for it; see some of the links branching off from if you want to see how it was back in the olden days. Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 23:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent for Keepers comment) I'm not concerned about the sock issue, since that is sort of side-stepping the issue. I am wondering: has the quality of admins increased with the higher requirements now being placed on them? I hear everyone say "that was a different time", but if the quality of the process hasn't improved the quality of the candidates, what exactly makes it different? If an admin from three years ago was given the Ok because he's a good guy, and is still an admin in good standing, how does that compare to the admin who was de-sysoped after recently going thru a process that is supposed to screen such actions? Yngvarr (c) 23:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In my own brief (non-admin) tenure, I think I've only known of two admins being de-sysoped. I know for sure of one, and seem to recall another, but memory fades with age. Perhaps that's not a good query? What about those who have been subjects of RFCs or ArbComs? Not due to their editing, but solely for their admin actions. Yngvarr (c) 23:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a bad idea, at least regarding the number of articles etc.. Adminship widely doesn't concern skill in writing articles. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c) But there should be some sort of activity in logs, even if it is not writing articles. Block actions, deletions, etc, are all some sort of indication of activity. Yngvarr (c) 23:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

To respond to the original question, I do not believe that Otolemur crassicaudatus was saying we actually enact those standards, but that we simply add standards in general. As said above, such simply is not a good idea. As prior discussion has shown, no level can reach consensus so each keeps to their own opinions. Also note that WP:CREEP advises that we leave the process as simple as possible. SorryGuy Talk  01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * a list of inactive admins is available at .DGG (talk) 01:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Section break
My objection is that many editors are not promoted to administrators status only with a reason "This user does not have enough contribution in AfD's or in wikipedia policy talk pages". Why this logic is not applied in article contribution? Why talk page contribution is given much importance rather than mainsapce contribution? People get promoted to administrator's status with 0 article building, but no one has been able to become administrator with 0 contribution in AfD or MfD. Both should be treated equally.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 10:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback, Probationers and Flagged Revisions
I think that is commonly accepted that flagged rollback has been a success (its three month review is up this week). As discussed above in "A simpler approach" sysops are able to grant user rights in a new way. Has it set a precedent? Flagged revisions will be rolled out sometime within the year, beta testing has been going on for months and it is seen as the way forward to keep wikipedia respectable and avoid criticism of it being a minefield of truthiness.

My personal feelings are that users with "reviewer" status (not sure what the term will be) will be another elite handed out by a single sysop to anybody who makes the most convincing argument. Whereby rollback was really no more serious than having Twinkle, flagged revisions are going to be the most important thing that has hit Wikipedia with different levels of who decides what is ok and what is bad.

Rights traditionally have been given by consensus, ok maybe it is time to reform RFA, (no self noms, no project noms being largely overlooked lately). However handing out candy without consensus can't ever be good for the project. Yes editors do consider it as candy, a reward for staying clean of dispute and notching up 30,000 edits in 3 months with 10 GAs they stumbled across at peer review and 15 DYK on articles most other editors would have cleaned without ever submitting. Fortunately we have Rfa to weed out editors who game that kind of system - but can one or two sysops be able to if they are given a choice of x should be able to flag revisions? I dunno. The rollback precedent sucks and must never be used for probationers and especially not for flagged revisions. -- Bp E ps - t @ lk 21:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Errr... forgive me for not been up to speed here but I'm not sure what you're tring to communicate. "...time to reform Afd, (no self noms...." - I'm not sure why anyone would nominate their own article for deletion? Hardly seems likely! Can you give some pointers as to the thrust and meaning of your arguments, and quite why they relate to RFA; or just hit me with a stick if I'm being thick (probably the latter) Pedro : Chat  21:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's just a typo: "Afd" should read "RFA". --barneca (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (EC)This is true typo Afd -> RFA (Georgia always on my mind) sorry corrected -- Bp E ps - t @ lk 21:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be more in keeping with the rest of the context!! Thanks Barneca Has anyone got a link to the flagged revisions development? (on meta I think I remember seeing something, but I can't find it) Pedro : Chat  21:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I caught that (the typo), however, exactly what are we discussing here...the cynical drawbacks of bureaucracy? As long as there exists a hierarchy of user rights on Wikipedia, elitism will always run rampant - among a select few that is. Rollback was/is a contentious issue, but I don't really feel as though this will push candy feeding wiki policy.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Original concept is here though there are a couple of others on meta which work much better. If I can find you the others will post. -- Bp E ps - t @ lk 22:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Bpeps Pedro : Chat  22:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This looks an awful lot like an attempt to poison the well after a bit of sour grapes involving rollback. Mr.  Z- man  22:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. Z-man has this right.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The Z-Man speaketh the truth. undefinedUntil  22:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I remember reading that at WP:ANI a little while back - it didn't immediately click. I don't want to sound rude, but given what was said ad infinitum in that thread, why is it being dredged up again, and here at WT:RFA?  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * C'mon this isn't sour grapes - I discussed Flag RB before I applied Vandal problems with inexperienced users and here a "grant" on Wikia and probably a few other times that day. I didn't support it. The reason it is dredged up is because non-consensus decisions are a new turn in the way Wikipedia has operated. It certainly is relevant if ideas like probationers are even considered. -- Bp E ps - t @ lk 22:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh really? Where are the consensuses formed on WP:AIV, WP:RFPP, or WP:PROD? RFA and deletion debates are the only regular processes that use consensus. Oversight and checkuser are handed out often without even notifiying the community. ArbCom elections are a vote (does voting count as consensus?) but the final decision still rests with Jimbo and the people with the highest percentages are elected, even if that percentage is lower than what would be considered "consensus" on RFA. Almost every software change is made without voting or informing the community. You say that rollback has commonly been seen as a success then basically say that everyone who thinks that is wrong? I would also suggest that you go review the proposed system for flagged revisions. There are 2 levels of flaggers. In the current suggested system, the right to flag a revision as "sighted" (given a basic check, free of vandalism) will be given very liberally, possibly even automatically. "Reviewer" rights will be used far less frequently (if at all) on FAs and GAs. The actual implementation has not been decided yet, but people who barely understand how it works complaining about how horrible it will be (and randomly combining it with totally unrelated adminship proposals) certainly doesn't help things. Mr.  Z- man  23:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Arbcom has rules who can vote. AIV, RFPP and PROD are trusted to editors who have gone through consensus rigorously to make those decisions. Flaggers and Sighters, who will know the eventual proposal, my argument is that flagged revision rights should not be given in the way flagged rollback rights have been given. Do I have to explain more? -- Bp E ps -  t @ lk 23:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would say you don't have to explain more, though that would depend on your goal.  undefinedUntil  23:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggested new standard question
From my RFA, that User:The Fat Man Who Never Came Back asked:
 * "Please tell us which currently active administrators you respect the most and why."

It just seems to make sense. It's open ended, there is no theoretical right or wrong answer, and it (I'd hope) gives an insight into how someone thinks and views the role of adminship. Lawrence §  t / e  23:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I like it. If any question is to become a "standard" question (or at least an often seen question), I think it should be open ended.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  23:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strongly oppose - it is absolutely nothing to do with adminship. We should really have no standard questions, and the candidate says everything in a statement, but really, this one is not for standard.  Majorly  (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What (if anything), Majorly, would you like as a "standard" question, if not an open ended question that "can't be answered incorrectly" (hypothetically)... Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  23:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The current three are good. They give a brief background to the candidate, and how we should expect them to act if they should be promoted. Asking who their favourite admin is is about as useful as asking their favourite colour.  Majorly  (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not so sure I like questions like this: there are some admins that some users might think are great, but other users think should be desysopped, and things like "Oppose - candidate respects and/or trusts an admin that <always disagrees with me/blocked me/is untrustworthy/abusive>, and will most likely be like them." come to mind; plus, there's the reverse question to the above to think about as well, and both of these would turn any RfA ugly. I don't think I want RfAs to become like that. Acalamari 23:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So a user gets on, requests adminship, looks at the last successful RFA and lists each voting administrator as their most respected. I can see this happening over and over again even if on a minor scale. Malinaccier (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I like it as a question, but I definitely don't think it should be a standard one. No, not because I don't think I'd ever be listed as a "favorite admin" (I'm not even sure how well known I am around here), but because I don't think the question will give us a whole lot of insight into whether the candidate should be an admin or not. Useight (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Plus, it would, as others have mentioned, turn RFA into a "who you know" instead of "what you know." Useight (talk) 23:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw that question, and really disliked it. We want to diminish the extent RFA is a popularity contest. anyway, all it would do is weed out the people who are rash enough to pick someone controversial. DGG (talk) 01:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I personally think the best questions are ones where the candidate has to dig through their own contributions to show that they've had experience with a certain area. Tan   |   39  01:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not only is such a question a very bad idea for an addition to the standard questions, I don't like it being asked at all. If it were worded as "what traits in administrators do you think are most valuable?" or something along those lines, it would be fine as an optional question. But to ask a canidate to narrow it to actual administrators only opens the door for any number of conflicts. SorryGuy Talk  01:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I rarely place too much weight on questions, anyone can cut and paste or dole out pro forma answers, it's their conduct over the previous few months surely? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed - contribs are more important and more indicative. Orderinchaos 14:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That sort of question seems awfully loaded and weighted. I would strongly oppose the introduction of such a question as one of the standards. Besides not thinking we actually need additional standard query, I feel that the answer is likely to result in pile on supports or opposes based on the selection of the administrator. I'm definitely uneasy about a candidate lauded an admin whom many have had disagreements with.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 01:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Goodness, I didn't realize that people were discussing my question here. Generally, I share the concerns of those who opposed adding this to the standard trio of question--an addition I would never advocate (I confess I find the current three questions rather dull, but definitely useful, especially if answered well).  My question might have been a tad inflammatory, but it's certainly not useless (give me a break, Majorly--the sort of administrator one aspires to be is a hell of a lot more relevant than asking a candidate's "favourite colour," though I wouldn't be opposed to that question either).
 * I think many of the comments above reveal a distressing lack of good faith in candidates and in RfA voters themselves. The overwhelming majority of candidates I observe are capable of answering most questions honestly; while any quasi-political forum necessitates a certain degree of caution when answering questions from the "public," I do not believe that candidates typically game and manipulate their responses in a shameless attempt to curry favor with the gullible community.  Speaking of which, it is a gross insult to the average RfA voter's intelligence to presume that he/she would  would flatly disregard the candidate's contributions and automatically discount a candidate on the basis of the answer to one question.  The Fat Man is a populist and believes the community at large can be trusted to make good decisions; my question (which I found interesting at the time) did not impair their capacity to do so.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 15:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

RfA process
Good grief. I had no idea RfA's go through this heavy scrutiny. It sure makes me glad that adminship is not taken lightly. Still, I would probably think it over real hard before RfA'ing if I have to go through all this. Thanks to all who take the time to ask, review, and comment on these nominations. It sure does help Wikipedia stay as clean as possible! ~ RayLast  « Talk! » 15:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Try admin coaching first. It'll give you more confidence in yourself, and it'll help you develop your editing habits.  Jus tin  (Gmail?)(u) 18:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)