Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 127

New Project
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 72 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help.

P.S. - Sorry for posting this here, but I didn't want to post on everyone's individual talk page (I started to, but I felt like I was spamming everyone). Useight (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Thoughts on personal comments in RfAs
I’ll try to restrict my comments here regarding any specific criteria for RfA voting, as within reason I believe any editor’s criteria that exists… exists. There should never be rules on what specific criteria are allowed, only community response to the strength of a particular criterion.

That being said, I believe the personal nature of current RfAs are becoming a detriment to the process and is the primary reason for that bad after-taste so many have after a failed RfA. Some specifics that I consider unduly personal:
 * Support votes that comment on the friendliness of the candidate, or otherwise complimentary statements that have little to do with the support vote (which is most often made with actual knowledge of candidate’s history).
 * While seemingly harmless, I see these type votes setting up the RfA to become much more personal about the candidate. How nice the candidate is apparently becomes apart of the support vote; consequently, oppose votes often appear to be nasty, among other things.


 * Oppose votes with caveat’s like “I’m sorry to do this but”, “User:X is really great for Z but unfortunately…
 * Why are you apologizing? If it is in the interest of WP:Civil, think about what you are really doing. You are making the process more personal. The candidate shouldn’t require an assertion that every oppose vote doesn’t hate him… it should be assumed.


 * In general, all the bad faith assumptions that are rampant (and often entirely wrong) regarding oppose votes, especially on the more prolific candidates with large, close votes.
 * This is where I see the participating editors becoming offended. They supported a candidate that they were friendly with and in many cases really can’t comprehend any oppose vote’s validity. They respond under the auspice of “trying to further understand the oppose vote” but in many cases are appalled at the oppose and feel the need to address it.

The WP:BITE cases aside, we need to stop being afraid of hurting the feelings of knowledgeable RfA candidates. How do we do this? By ceasing all the back-patting and apologies that fill up every big RfA. This is not ignoring the importance of CIVIL, rather I’m suggesting that the civil thing to do is keep emotion out of it. Ask yourself, “Why am I making this more personal, even if complimenting, when the process should be as impersonal as possible?” This goes for support, oppose, comments, everything. We need to be evaluating the merits of a candidate that would reflect their potential adminship. Of course I am NOT ignoring the importance of reviewing a candidates own civility, instead suggesting that compliments, apologies, or insults relating to the candidate should really have no place in the RfA.

Of course my long post here reads like an essay, although I consider it to be some of my personal thoughts on RfA and would like some discussion regarding it, hence posting it here. I admit my comments were general, and unfortunately sometimes sweeping for the sake of brevity. If anything needs clarification, let me know. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * May I ask what you mean about "friendliness" of the candidate? Personally, as admins are empowered to apply protective sanctions to editors, I have always felt that they must exhibit, over a period of time, the ability to remain calm and civil even when engaged in disputes, and also, in both word and deed, demonstrate a helpfulness to other editors. These criteria, in my mind, go a long way in helping to identify candidates who are less likely to respond inappropriately with the tools, and will act to reduce, instead of cause, inter-editor friction. As for essays… [[image:face-smile.svg|25px]] -- Avi (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This was definitely the toughest part to correctly word. The civility of a candidate is of utmost importance. The more friendly a candidate is, probably the more likely they are to be civil. On the other hand, I see several blunt admins who are great admins, and not particularly friendly, and I as well see several blunt editors who I think would make good admins. This might be off track to my point though, which is: Compliments shouldn't have much of a place in the RfA, especially when they seem to have little to do with the support vote. Compliments should (actually not sure on this) be part of IRC, email, chat, maybe user talk, but inclusion in the RfA seems to only add to the drama fest and wars that some RfAs become. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that apologizing for opposes is odd if adminship is no big deal. Dan Beale-Cocks 17:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to believe that giving a reason for voting against is useful, as the candidate may benefit from constructive feedback. Wording it in apologetic tone is probably a matter of politeness, I don't think it is a big problem. Pundit | utter  17:47, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pundit here. Whether or not I personally think RfAs are big deals, and whether or not RfAs are big deals, they are big deals to the candidate.  They are freeking nerve racking.  They are uncomfortable.  They are like having a spotlight shined in your eyes (who wouldn't wince?) while at the same time being strip searched.  They shouldn't be this way, but they are.  So, if I'm going to "oppose" one of my fellow editors, which admittedly I rarely do, I'm going to apologize to him/her, provide constructive criticisms, and then probably apologize again.  Nothing to do with civility, but politeness in fact.  Maybe its just my Scandinavian roots, but whenever criticism is given, it is prefaced and postfaced with an apology.  Just is.  RfA sucks.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To apologise for an oppose is nothing more than common courtesy. If your bank turns you down for a mortgage they are invariably polite about it. They still mean no, but they are polite. Franlkly, a little bit of common courtesy wouldn't go unmissed around Wikipedia - instead of people shouting acronyms such as AGF and CIV when, frankly, they have no clue if they are citing policy or guideline and indeed have rarely read the words behind the acronyms. We're a community. Courtesy to fellow editors costs us nothing. And if we extend courtesy we then have a right to see it reciprocated. Just my 2p. Pedro : Chat  19:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * NB. I just noted that both CIV and AGF are blue linked by User:Gwynand. My above commenty is very much generic and certainly not directed at Gwynand specifically. Pedro : Chat  20:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So, would you say then, Pedro, that you are apologizing to Gwynand for disagreeing with him? Tee hee!  :-)   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh! Got me! Yes, and in fact, many a true word said in jest and all that. In polite conversation I personally find that one tends to at least say "Sorry, but..." before disagreeing. But then I'm an old fashoined Brit so I'm probably wrong :) Pedro : Chat  20:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've heard that stereotype about you "old brits". You'd fit in quite well with us Scandinavian Minnesotans, who apologize for literally everything.  I've even heard this sentence "I'm sorry, but here's some money for you".  Also, "I'm sorry, but that is a beautiful dress".  And, the most ridiculous: "I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to take your wallet now.  So sorry."..... Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to say that you have a great sense of humor, Keeper76. :) Acalamari 21:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize Acalamari. Oh, wait....maybe there is a need to apologize...:-) Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "I don't mean to be rude but...", "I hope you don't mind me saying ..." etc are usually right beofre someone is fantastically rude. Sticking a big fat oppose is bad enough.  'polite' apologies probably don't help, especialy if the votee disagrees with what you've just said.   Dan Beale-Cocks  18:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree, I find that I'm more likely to put an apology before the explanation before somebody whom I have the most respect for. Generally somebody that I wanted to support.Balloonman (talk) 03:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Polite doesn't have to mean apologetic. Look at the advice given to people who have to make others redundant - first in most lists is don't apologize.  Dan Beale-Cocks  08:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's a cultural thing? "I don't want to be rude but..." is seen in much of the UK as a way of saying something that is, in fact, terribly rude.  Dan Beale-Cocks  08:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * One thing at RFAs that does bug me is that if I "Support Can be trusted" no one says anything. If I "Opppose Don't trust judgement" I have five threaded conversations asking me to explain and justify my reasoning, or calling my reasoning flawed.  If only we made supporters justify their supports, as much as we make neutral and opposes justify their opinions.  MBisanz  talk 08:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally I think it is a mistake to get into a debate with a person who opposes. If you think the complaint is unfounded, you should make a short comment to that effect, but don't debate the opposers.  When you debate the opposers you add fuel to their position.  You give them a pulpit to preach from and allow them to dig into the candidate more.  Generally, and oppose will be a paragraph in length, but when you debate the oppose, you give them the freedom to elaborate and provide more evidence that they are right.  You give them the permission they need to convince others. So instead of having one oppose, you end up with many opposes.Balloonman (talk) 16:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't question people who support because 'support' should be the default. It's reasonable that an editor saying another editor cannot be trusted with the tools should either be able to support that or allow their !vote to be weighted down.  Dan Beale-Cocks  20:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Requests for checkusership
I've moved this thread to Wikipedia talk:Requests for checkusership, the discussion has nothing to do with adminship and doesn't belong here (link to thread). --bainer (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Some thoughts on admin coaching
User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/On admin coaching

Thoughts? dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 05:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that sometimes we focus too much on passing RFA. However, I do believe that it isn't the core of what we're trying to teach. I use admin coaching as a way to see how someone's personality is like, then using their personality to encourage them to do good things. I don't like to have a strictly regimented coaching session. Coaching is like water, it depends on what size and shape the container is.  bibliomaniac 1 5  Do I have your trust? 05:29, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How eastern of you Bibliomaniac15. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh and my thoughts are: I like it. I'm wondering just how many successful RfA's have been due to coaching. Anyone know how that can be determined (besides the tedious manual way of course)? SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:15, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say none. But some have been helped by it.  Ultimately, passing or failing an RfA depends on the candidate.Balloonman (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on who the Admin Coach is and how they go about it. As an advocate of admin coaching, I think it is helpful for the person who is not quite ready for and RfA or a person (such as yourself) who has failed several RfAs.  But that is dependent upon what goes on during the Coaching.  To me, the admin coach shouldn't just give a series of questions and respond to the answers, but should look at the total candidate.  What are the candidates strengths/weaknesses.  How can those weaknesses be overcome?   And I'm not talking about merely in the RfA process, but as a general rule.  What areas do the coachees need to work in?  The admin coach shouldn't just ask questions, but encourage the coachee to spread their wings.  To try new areas.  A coachee who has flaws.  Some take coachees/coaches to get credit for doing so---thus gaming the system. I don't want the coachee who is ready for an RfA or will be ready in 2-3 weeks, I want the coachee who has an area that needs help.  I recently told a person that I didn't think coaching was the right move for him.  He is a tremendous candidate, but if he goes through coaching it WOULD BE gaming the system.Balloonman (talk) 05:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would comment but I find that I agree with Balloonman's comments a little too much.  Enigma  message 05:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I should note that when I do Admin Coaching, I tend to check my candidates edits on a routine basis. Checking to see if they are doing what I told them and are spreading their wings.  I don't want to be surprised when they go for RfA.Balloonman (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Since my last RfA was used as direct-to example in the above "essay" : ), I'll chime in. I disagree whole heartedly about the detriment of the admincoaching program. While, perhaps in some instances candidates are being polished just for the process, most of them are actually being coached quite fairly and accurately - with the benefit of the project in clear sight, not in simply passing the exam that has become RfA. In my case, for instance, no one told me what to say or how to answer questions. It was essentially a closer and more intricate WP:ER. I'll just say again, I think some of the opposition was complete and utter rubbish, but this isn't about me. It's about what I think about the program. Will I go through the process again? No. Why? Because it'll be used against me. Will I coach someone else? Nope. Why? Because I don't want anybody else to experience that.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 05:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm with you on that one Wisdom. Although tools would make what I like to do (WP:AFD) a lot easier, I've given up on adminship (and not because of my failed RfA, but because of other editors who have had real bad ones). At this point, I'd just rather be a trusted editor or some such name/title. Too much focus is spent on personal criteria. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah it can get pretty nasty. The reason I won't coach in the future or be coached again is because it's just not a fair criteria to be used against a candidate. I honestly think admincoaching is a benefit to the coachee, but, ultimately, if it's going weigh against them, nope don't do it.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 06:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some that it has been unfairly used against them (such as you.) But then there are others where it was cited as a reason for support--see the two candidates that I've successfully coached through the process.Balloonman (talk) 07:09, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

So, permission to speak freely ? Admin coaching is in complete violation of WP:NBD, the admitted goal is to make an administrator of an "experienced editor", using a "one to one" process. Worse, admin coaching is heavily advertised, soon, people will believe that admin coaching is a necessary step for adminship, it encourages lobbying, it gives impressions of off-community actions etc. Though I still try to find the benefits for Wikipedia, analyzing this individually, a candidate following "admin coaching" may lack: the capacity to find the answers and solve problems by himself, assurance and confidence in his knowledge, experience, capacities... which are needed for an administrator. Notions like self-questioning, discussion, request for third opinions, request for advise, etc, are not teachable. Briefly, an editor shall find the path for adminship by himself and not through a ad hoc process. Cenarium Talk 00:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In light of what has happened to the RfA process over the last 4-5 months, I think it's fairly certain to conclude that admininship is, in fact, a big deal.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 00:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) RFA itself is in violation of WP:NBD. Why should the fact that a candidate has been through admin coaching be used against them?  It's ridiculous that something positive in preparation of the rigors of RFA be used against a worthy candidate.  It's a lazy oppose, and is worth no more than an oppose based upon a candidate's age or the fact that they've self-nominated. &mdash;  scetoaux (T|C)  00:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Have I ever said that it was a reason to oppose a candidate ? WP:NBD is explained below the citation, WP:RFA doesn't violate this, but admin coaching violates it. Cenarium  Talk 00:54, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I never said that you said it. I was merely commenting on other stuff said earlier.  And as it is now, RFA does violate WP:NBD.  If adminship truly were no big deal, then we wouldn't have much need for admin coaching. &mdash;  scetoaux (T|C)  00:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A process is needed for adminship, it can't be left to the bureaucrat's discretion on a general basis, the community has to make the decision. Maybe having the community support in a RFA is a big deal, but the necessity of this support is comprehensible and in accordance with the whole WP:ADMIN. Mainly because administrators are trusted members of the community, and particularly in admin-related tasks. Admin coaching is not needed for community support, and admin coaching doesn't mean that the candidate will have community support. The main point is: admin coaching is not a substitute to community support. Therefore, admin coaching is unneeded, inefficient on its goal, and a source of dissensions. Cenarium  Talk 01:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Admin coaching is a result of the RFA process, not a cause of it, so if we have an NBD problem, lets fix it upstream (at RFA), instead of downstream (at Coaching).  MBisanz  talk 01:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm echoing MBisanz and Balloonman here, but while I agree coaching goes against the NBD concept, so does the process itself. RfAs over the past few months have been much, much more than a big deal, and it has resulted in many potential candidates being hesitant to go for RfA (we had a long thread a few weeks ago on this).  Enigma  message 02:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A RFA is supposed to decide whether a user has the community support for being granted admin tools or not. Admin coaching is completely unrelated to any sort of community support, doesn't accomplish anything that time, thoughts and advises can. I don't see how admin coaching is a result of the necessity to have community support, except if it's a magic potion on how to gain it or lure people. In this case, I can't help to think that it was doomed to be a miserable failure. If there is a problem with the RFA process, is it because it doesn't reflect the wish of the community, or the bureaucrats are too strict ? Or you think that the community should not be so involved in the decision ? In any case, the problems raised by admin caching (NBG issues particularly, advertising, for example, to a candidate who recently failed a RFA) are independent of this and real. Cenarium  Talk 02:36, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the notion that it is a 'miserable failure.' Or that it doesn't do anything that "time, thoughts and advises can."  When I coach somebody, I look at their contribution history and help them find areas where they need to grow.  If they are a strong vandal fighter, I encourage them to get involved with article building.  IF they are a strong article buidler, I encourage them to get involved with Admin like activities.  I try to push them to try new things (not just answer questions.)  The new things that I try with them are intended to help them better understand the entirety of the wiki-process in a guided manner with a person willing to help out and provide a critical eye.  Is it possible that they might venture into new areas on their own?  Yes, but a coach can help them spot their strengths/weaknesses.Balloonman (talk) 04:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That was not to be taken literally, I said "if it's a magic potion on how to gain it or lure people", otherwise stated, it would be "a miserable failure" if the goal were purely to pass a RFA. An editor review can bring a critical eye too, I think that admin coaching can be useful in some cases, but can also safely be avoided. Cenarium   (talk)  03:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is, any formal preparation for becoming an admin is suspect - all preparation should be done on one's own, with only random and sparce input from anyone who happens to care. Is there any case at all of a coached candidate who went on to abuse the tools? Where is the issue with coaching? There's these awkward claims of "factory-made admins", but where is one? Where is the robot admin who, having passed their RfA because of coaching, became an issue to Wikipedia? This entire argument is a "solution" in search of a problem - a convenient way for people to oppose candidates for the sake of opposing. And yes, I said it - there are many, many editors out there who like to oppose candidates simply to what - boost their own ego? Appear to be the wise, circumspect one who sagely sees the invisible badness lurking in the depths of the candidate? I don't know, but it happens far, far too often. Tan   |   39  02:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The community doesn't expect the candidate to have been through a formal ad hoc process, the support is based on trust, on the evolution in the candidate's contributions, etc. No formal process can substitute to the community support. Admin coaching is not really suspect, it's just a shortcut that misses the point. If it were only this, that wouldn't be so bad, but the aforementioned complications are. Yeah, sadly many editors think that they would fail their RFA, because for example, they have not been coached, so what to do ? Waiting for better days, or having a coach too? Yeah, admin coaching oversteps its said boundaries, difficult to ignore it nowadays. Cenarium  Talk 03:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there an issue with people saying, "hasn't been through coaching?" I don't think I've ever seen this. Far more often (if the former happens at all) is that editors now oppose because the candidate went through coaching. Tan   |   39  03:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Then we have to wonder if admin coaching is a service for the candidate himself. As for the other issue, I witnessed this kind of feelings due to the exceeding importance of admin coaching (e.g: can I really make it without coaching ?). Cenarium  Talk 03:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * response to Tan I don't think there's a problem with "factory made admins", but with editors who've been on WP for 5 weeks going into coaching, having the "wants to be an admin" UBX, offering adoption etc. These few but high profile users probably distract from the many users getting calm sensible advice about adminning.  Dan Beale-Cocks  14:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I agree with you, that people who haven't been on wikipedia for a few months shouldn't be up for coaching. I wanted to put some guidelines on the coaching page to that effect, but was shot down.  I can tell you that the people I coach, tend to be the ones who are 1-3 months away from running either in the number of edits/experience they have, but need some constructive criticism on what they need to do to be the best possible candidate they can be.  None of my coachees has been a sure fire pass (although, when I nominate them, I expect them to pass.)Balloonman (talk) 04:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry for my lengthy post, just a couple of thoughts that went wild... In adminship there are certainly elements of technological knowledge (e.g. recognizing prod rules, basic understanding of the licenses, etc.) and of organizational power-play (much as we want adminship to be no big deal, it will always be for some editors, sometimes just because of the wider editorial possibilities and the permission to delete/block, sometimes because of issues with authority, misplaced and attributed to the mop). Surely, coaching program is excellent in the first part: it helps people learn the rules and the policies much quicker than if they were on their own. However, in the symbolic sphere, apparently it is construed by some of the RfA participants as a sort of unfair advantage in the run to be recognized and be given the magnificent buttons. There is not much we can do about it, people will always crave honors, recognition etc. This very process of applying for symbolic gratification can actually be positive (just think how many articles were improved just because some editor desired a medal). The only thing the community can emphasize as often as possible, imo, is that we really all are equal. Sometimes I also tend to think that, in respect to NBD, it could be useful if administrators, while gaining some rights, also lost some of them in another area (e.g. rights to vote in AfD), to make this role not just "better" in abilities, but also more limited in some respects - but clearly this would be unreasonable, because administrators are in the same time often the most active contributors and editors. Anyway, coming back to coaching program - as long as it is not obligatory and as long as we do have successful candidates both from within the program and from the outside, it clearly does have advantages and a positive net value. It does not violate NBD, because it is about a voluntary knowledge transfer. However, one simple rule could break the asymmetry of power in the system: if it was the candidate who decided when s/he is ready to go for their RfA, and the mentor was OBLIGED in any case to vote in support and not comment in the voting. Even if some people would try to compromise this rule by entering the coaching program just for a couple of days to get one vote, the community would know that the coach always is in support and would not take this vote as anything more than fulfilling the pledge to the coaching program. The advantage, however, would be in making the role of a coach more equal and on par with the coached. All this said, I believe that coaching system is quite good as it is, anyway. Pundit | utter  01:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't see how you could possibly force someone to support a candidate. Doesn't that seem wrong to you? Why should they be forced to support if they don't feel their coachee is ready? How does that make sense?  Enigma  message 16:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts? Same as Dihydrogen's in this case. Wizardman 03:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am a coachee, you see. I don't want to go to RfA and be opposed on the basis of my admin coaching itself. If I were, I'd want the closing bureaucrat to assign the appropriate weight to these opposes. &mdash; scetoaux (T|C)  03:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Admin coaching clearly is a good a thing, as long as RfA participants do not oppose or support based on whether a candidate has had coaching. Epbr123 (talk) 08:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My 2p, but one thing that hasn't been mentioned is what the "coach" gets out of it. I'm working with a number of users (and of course Wisdom was one of them". The end result may be a nomination. The reason I work with them is simple. I believe adminship (as in being an admin) is no big deal. Therefore we should have as many admin as we can, provided they're not going to increase workload but take away from it. Given we are all here to improve Wikipedia, I would argue that succesful coaching leading to a succesful RFA (User:Accounting4Taste would be one case here, and I am sure he will be generous enough to cite him) is improving Wikipedia. I agree that coaching is more an ongoing editor review, and am not convinced by "Now go and comment on twenty XFD's and bring me the diffs" approaches which seem to be editing for editings sake. Fundamentally, however this can be seen as analogous to a driving test. Someone (the driving instructor) helps you in the technical aspects of driving, but it is up to you to actually pass the test. To carry this analogy further, I also feel coaches have a duty post a succesful RFA to provide a "motorway experience lesson" (this may be a Brit thing, so apologies) i.e. yep, you've passed but now I'm still here to help when you're not clear what action should be taken, or where one should take a particular problem. I wish I'd had a mentor on tap in my early days of adminship, when often I had to decline to help rather than meddle with a tool I wasn't sure about. Pedro : Chat  07:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That brings up an excellent point that I failed to mention earlier. The mentorship (and I truly view it as such) doesn't end after a successful or failed RfA. I will continue to defer to Pedro even if the formal coaching has ended. One can only assume that if an individual takes on a coachee, they already have a preconceived notion that the user will ultimately be a net positive on the project. They aren't coaching for the sake of prestige, but for the good of Wikipedia, otherwise, it's doomed from the start.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 08:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a good point, but I think it may be a little incomplete: as well as coaches having duties after a successful RfA, they must surely have some after an unsuccessful RfA as well? I know that successful coaching ought not to lead to an unsuccessful RfA (since unsuitable potential candidates should be advised that a application for them would not be a good idea), but I think the practical reality is that they cannot be ruled out, and so they should be included in the coach's duties. We then have a rather nice restatement of the idea of a "duty of care" advanced by myself and Malleus, previously. Such inclusive duties and responsibilities would seem work well within the underlying sim of improving wikipedia, as steps would then be being taken to help prvent otherwise good editors leaving as a result of a failed RfA, and in the context of an apparent inability to reform the RfA process to lessen its worse excesses, anything that can help good editors of failed RfAs stay as editors is probably useful. Finally, of course RfAs should not be opposed simply on the grounds of the candidate not having had coaching. DDStretch    (talk)  08:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I must say I share Cenarium's opinions here...for what that's worth. That said, good to see some hopefully fruitful discussion taking place. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I see a few people who are being coached making terrible terrible choices. They tend to be high profile, and probably give a bad name to the coaching process. All people need ( now, I've changed my criteria recently ) to get an RfA support from me is to talk to editors when warning them, or to attempt to fix an article before trying to baleet it, or to use RfCU a bit more instead of UAA (and preferably to not use either but to talk to editors). Dan Beale-Cocks 09:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I assume you mean RFCN; RFCU is for requesting CheckUser. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 09:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Bah, yes, thanks for the correction. Dan Beale-Cocks  14:18, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c in response to H2O's last but one message) Actually, yours (H2O's) and Cenarium's views have much in their favour, in my opinion. I believe that the whole RfA process is the problem. So, like MBisanz said, above, ideally we should be tackling that process, rather than constructing another component to fit into a Heath Robinson machine (alternatively, a Rube Goldberg machine.) Another large problem is treating the words of the founder as if they are chiselled in stone, immutable, and relevant for all time: the tools may have been no big deal at one point, but effectively now, for all sorts of reasons, they are viewed by many as a big deal. Thus, I agree with Scetoaux here. We can dislike this change in status, but we cannot easily put it back into the state it was. Continually mentioning the "no big deal" words will not make it so again, either; indeed, it may just make people who continually use the phase get viewed as having an unrealistic view of the status quo, leading to their other views getting more easily dismissed (the grounds for dismissing them would be unfair, it is true, but they would still be more easily dismissed.) As a practical means of achieving real change in similar circumstances, it has long been realised that an almost necessary step includes a clear and accurate self-assessment, acknowledged to oneself. Clinging onto WP:NBD or over-using it now will not help the wikipedia body of editors who care about the RfA process take this first practical step in reforming it. Acknowledge it as now being a big deal, and work to fix the process at its heart. To step into hypothetical situations for a paragraph, we might consider, amongst the methods of fixing it, instituting a planned and concerted effort to make it no big deal once more. But that fix would not remove the obligation first to acknowledge the current status of WP:NBD (that it no longer practically applies). Continuing with this hypothetically possible solution, it may well be that a good sub-goal would be to gain some insight into how "no big deal" lost its status because it would help maintain a status that would be thought to be a good one, and help prevent a slide into the sub-optimal functioning RfA process that we see today. This sub-goal, however, wouldn't be considered at all if one merely always repeats "no big deal" mantra. I've included this hypothetical solution, as it seems that the people who continually state "no big deal" would ideally like the phrase to reflect reality, and consequently, it is worth pointing out the advantages of still acknowledging now that it no longer practically applies. In summary, then, I believe the problem is a practical one, and therefore requires a practical solution grounded in reality. I think what I've said above could be usefully considered in the work to discover a practical solution.  DDStretch    (talk)  10:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with you that it's the process that's the main problem...in an ideal work, admin coaching would probably work. I disagree with calling adminship a big deal—I still think it's not, or shouldn't be, a huge deal (I'm aware of arguments in contrary to this, too :). That said, simply clinging on to NBD the way we currently do is not a good idea, as it's used as an excuse for too much. For example...
 * Oppose - candidate was spoon-fed everything he needed to pass RfA, but actually knows bugger all about the proejct.
 * Adminship is no big deal. How is coaching a bad thing?
 * Please read my comment in full...
 * Please WP:AGF, be WP:CIV, and don't WP:NPA.
 * WP:OMG.
 * And thus, no big deal wins over a logical and meaningful argument. That's a problem—not the ideology, but the current application of it. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 10:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm certainly not going to disagree with the notion that there a large deficiency in logical and meaningful argument: the poor skills in critical thinking and debate and argument is widespread, and I could catalogue a whole swathe of examples that I have seen only recently. But that is a much more widespread problem than can be dealt with on wikipedia. I appreciate what you say about the problem being the application of the ideology rather than the ideology itself, but I still think there is an issue over taking greater steps to distinguish between one's hopes or desires about the ideology as opposed to what effectively and practically happens (and we can see that in a number of messages in this thread, both prior to your message, and after it as well). Under these circumstances, it does seem reasonable to say that if one wishes to fix the process, then the perception that something is a big deal needs to be dealt with in some way, and just intoning WP:NBD need not be the most effective way forward to closer reach the desired solution to the problem. (For example, reducing the ridiculously over-bearing deluge of optional questions and other such complications in RfA would definitely lessen the degree to which, all round, it appears to be a very big deal indeed.)   DDStretch    (talk)  09:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Slightly off thread, and like a tired old record but.... No Big Deal is firstly a very old quote. Second my interpretation is this: adminship is no big deal - i.e. "Look at me, I'm a Wikipedia admin" does not impress, and that was the thrust Jimbo was going down (if you review the wider context of WP at the time it was made). Admin tools self evidently are' a big deal due to the enormous damage that can be done to this project with them. By that I don't mean deleting the main page ('cause you can't). I mean driving of newbies with poorly considered blocks and deletions. I believe NBD is still relevant, as we seem to have a lot of people that view adminship as some "amazing status" and they're wrong. But it's time we saw the quote in it's historcal context and that it refers to human beings and and not features of the mediawiki software. Pedro : Chat  10:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You can borrow brains, but you can't borrow character. Admin coaching gives coachees the knowledge needed to make good decisions, but doesn't teach them how to make good decisions. This is the best we can currently do, so I propose we stick with it. Malinaccier Public (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Having a coach gives a newly-minted admin a specific, trusted person to turn to for advice or insight, whereas a new admin might be reluctant to go to WP:AN and post a question. I also believe that any program that increases individual communication and collaboration between individual admins is a good thing. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 13:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) Time, thoughts and advises do as well, if not better, and it has not all these problems. I don't like the idea of a preferred confident, editors are encouraged to be bold, and ask questions to anyone in the knowledge. Ideally, it may be a good idea, but it turned out to have a number of undesired consequences (like Esperanza actually). Cenarium  Talk 13:47, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Being an admin is no big deal, meaning that it is not a status symbol; however, the process of becoming an admin necessarily involves determining where community trust lies, and thus may be a big deal for the candidate. Likewise, while coaching a candidate to pass RFA is almost certainly A Bad Thing, coaching to be an admin is surely productive. The problem is that each process may be called "admin coaching". Not to imply anything about any particular candidates or coaches - no names, no pack drill. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Elouqently sated. My thoughts as well. Pedro : Chat  16:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nicely said ShefSteel. I agree Admin Coaching is excellent, RfA coaching that is being called admin coaching is ruining an otherwise noble cause for building a better encyclopedia.  I would like to abolish the term "admin coaching" altogether, as it is likely a tainted name, and refer to the "process of mentoring an editor to help them grow in their policy knowledge, civility, maturity, trust, and respectability for the purposes of perhaps one day furthering the encyclopedia as a fair and balanced admin", something else.  How about "PMEHTGTPKCMTRPPODFEFBA"?  Says what it is, excludes what it isn't.  Specific, slightly (and only slightly) humorous, and harder to "game".   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  16:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And yet, gamed it will be. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If semantics is going to completely subvert the spirit of the project, yikes, my cynicism meter jumps.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 16:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, "what's in a name?" : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 16:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the appropriate Master William quote would be of course: "To be coached, or not to be coached?  That is the question".   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  17:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I went through quite a bit of admin coaching before I came an administrator, and I have to say my views on it are still positive. People comment that admin coaching should be more like a permanent editor review, that's exactly what mine was. The Rambling Man (my coach) gave helpful feedback on what I did in controversial situations, and gave suggestions on ways to diversify my experience and contributions, after that it was down to me; I feel I have got a lot out of it and is the way admin coaching should be. Even after the RFA, I did still feel I could get some motorway training which was helpful. It was never about getting x AIV reports, contributing to y AFDs, nominating z articles for speedy deletion, or generally just a check-list of RFA training. I am aware of WP:NBD, and generally agree with it, however I also agree with Pedro's comments that use of the tools themselves can be a big deal. Hence, I see nothing wrong with admin coaching if it is done probably and stays within the spirit of what admin coaching was originally about - being a better admin, not aiming purely on passing RFAs. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Camaron completely echoed my thoughts exactly. Very eloquently stated, and spot on.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's like the difference between those schools that concentrate on teaching the students to pass exams, and those that concentrate on teaching the students. Evidently Cameron's experience was beneficial because it did not focus on the short-term goal (RfA) but on the longer term goals of becoming a better editor and admin. I think it's good to remind ourselves of the basics of what wikipedia is about: on encyclopedia-building and dispute resolution. Anyone for Wikipedia:Admin Mentoring Or Encyclopedia-Building Advice? Simple but useful! S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a sucker for good acronyms. I would support WP:AMOEBA, although as Wisdom says, what's in a name?   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What if it stood for "Admin Mentoring for Outstanding Encyclopedia Building Advancement?" Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:10, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * What's in a name, indeed? The best WP:ACRONYMs are those where there's (almost) no need to look them up, no danger of misinterpreting the message - like AGF (no, really), or of course IAR. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) I think AMOEBA is a perfect choice of animalia to use for how admin coaching is supposed to work. An amoeba, for example, uses Binary fission, which simply put, means it splits itself instead of having sex to reproduce.  I've never even been tempted to have sex with one of my coachees.  At the same time, I would think that by giving a coachee all the help he/she needs, be it advice, answers to questions, exercises, drills, scenarios, activities, etc., to make them a better editor first, an admin second, I have in fact "split myself" by dividing the admin workload up by adding a new admin to attack the backlog.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  19:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * So let's take a look at User:Scetoaux/Admin coaching for an example. I hope Malinaccier doesn't mind my putting this up as an example.  My question is, how does this type of admin coaching compare to the type you find acceptable (coaching to be a good admin), or unacceptable (coaching to pass RfA)? &mdash;  scetoaux (T|C)  19:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's a fine and very organized methodology - however, I think what gets most people to oppose are those preparatory questions. That right there causes people to believe (I surmise) that the coach is simply teaching you to pass the RfA.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:42, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The page overall seems to aim to make people think and learn about a variety of areas of Wikipedia, to help with contribution - which to me seems to be a good thing. However, I can see why some might interpret it as just helping to pass RFA, even if this is not the case. Camaron | Chris (talk) 20:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That process is fine. But it points out some problems.  I don't know when you answered question 10, but blocking someone for a short but confusing username is pretty bitey and there's some discussion whether it's sensible to block good faith contributors just for confusing names.  And soft-blocking a vandal for a confusing username is not as good as hard-blocking a vandal that also has a confusing username.  Dan Beale-Cocks  20:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't block ";LKASD;MMFA;DSNFP;KE;AKND;LAKVCNDS;LKNFA;LDSKNF;EOINA;DOK"? I think it'd have to be a clearly exceptional case where a member with that username actually intended to contribute positively to the encyclopedia.  If I must, I'd then say instead that the username was disruptive. It does not convey intent to help the project.
 * But that is neither here nor there. I've stopped contributing to UAA for the time being, while the issues on username policy are being sorted out. &mdash;  scetoaux (T|C)  20:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems like it's just as well that you have. In what sense does any username "contribute positively to the encyclopedia"? In what sense is ";LKASD;MMFA;DSNFP;KE;AKND;LAKVCNDS;LKNFA;LDSKNF;EOINA;DOK" disruptive, and so deserving of a block? On the general point of admin coaching though, I guess that many people, myself included, have a low opinion of it because it is too often a cramming school, coaching candidates on how to pass an RfA. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see how a person that finds such a username acceptable on their own would be able to work positively within our community. It's general netiquette not to have a username that was made by mashing one's keyboard, or having a username that gives the appearance of such.
 * In any case, all of my reports to UAA, and that particular answer, were made before I knew about the policy changes. &mdash; scetoaux (T|C)  22:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There were two examples. I mentioned "short but confusing".  Some people go to UAA to report short but confusing names.  This is bad.  Good faith contributors shouldn't be blocked for a confusing name.  Bad faith contributors should be hard blocked for vandalism (or whatever) not soft blocked for the name.  Talk to the editor first, then take it to RFCN.  About the long name - I wouldn't block them just for the username, but I understand many admins would (and do) block.  But why?  There's talk about this at UAA, and I'd really like to hear why a long confusing name harms WP. There is, I think, a software imposed limit of 69 / 70 characters.  Dan Beale-Cocks  22:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not a big deal with me anyway. I'm changing my mind about this particular subject anyway, and I'm beginning to agree more with you guys. I'm just going to go with the flow and conform to the policy change. &mdash;  scetoaux (T|C)  22:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You see that's another problem - Yes, it's partly "common sense" WP:COMMON, but, administrators are supposed to be "role models" that most editors seek to either emulate or learn from - I see borderline usernames at UAA hardblocked all the time. I feel that it's unfair to penalize a candidate for a few "questionable reports" if they are led to believe that it is acceptable, and necessary, to do so.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with you there, and I've (very recently) changed my behaviour. I was guilty of saying that "admins should be perfect and must never make any mistakes ever".  (I probably owe a few people an apology.) I don't do that any more.  Now I say that anyone running for admin can have a support from me unless there are lots of stuff suggesting that they'll do harm.  They'll get a strong support if I'm aware of them.   Dan Beale-Cocks  08:42, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

admin coaching break 1
I coached just 1 admin: User:TangoTango I'm still not sure if it was me, or that he didn't really need my help. :-)

In other news, I haven't coached admins for a while, but I have started organizing Lectures, which at times can even useful to many admins, I would wager. Coming up next are talks by DGG and Vassyana. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unless I've missed something completely, how can you be an admin coach if you aren't an admin? &mdash; scetoaux (T|C)  23:40, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 *  I challenge you to find out! :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC) you've already looked at Special:Users. Where else might you look? You may need to dig very far back. :-)
 * Geez, Kim, it's not nice to tease the kids. Although, I will check out the lectures, thanks for the link. Risker (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Would it be spoiling the fun to say Kim was an admin who gave up the tools voluntarily, and thus could ask for them back at any time? Although it strikes me that after a period of years have passed an RfA should perhaps be required anyway. Avruch  T 00:14, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Kim, how about this concept..just answer his question.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, well obviously now it doesn't matter. Geez.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 00:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You and me both. ;-) The spoilsports! We're here to have fun, remember? --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC) if it isn't fun to be here, why volunteer?
 * Ah, see, I didn't think to look in the former admin list, but now that I know it seems obvious that I should have done that. And yes, I looked in Special:Users and saw that you were a rollbacker.  I had the absence of mind not to dig further. &mdash;  scetoaux (T|C)  01:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You were curious enough to look. :-) That's a good attitude already. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

@Avruch: I only handed in the admin bit, but I've continued to do admin-like tasks the whole time. Goodness! One of the reasons I handed in the bit was to prove that that was possible. :-) Try to see how long you can go without admin tools. See an edit war? Mediate between the participants. People assuming bad faith? Show them what happens when you apply good faith. Vandals that talk back? reason with them. People push POV? Explain how NPOV works. When you can do that for 3 months straight without touching the buttons, you can try and hand in your bit too. Then continue as before. :-) Once you manage to do that for 3 years, then you can make a remark about who needs to rerun for RFA. --Kim Bruning (talk) 00:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC) ''I don't like to beat my own drum, but that remark definitely earned a rebuke. :-P I do remember that the first few weeks without the bit were hard, I kept being tempted to request blocks of people at times. But I managed to learn to do without. :-) ''
 * One of the big things that I tell my coachees (and is a guiding principle when I !vote in RfA's) is that being an admin is not about the admin tools. One can be an admin without the tools and a person with the tools may technically be an admin, but isn't really.  Being an admin, IMHO, is about serving the community.  If people see you as an admin, then you are in fact an admin, even if the community hasn't given you the tools.Balloonman (talk) 04:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My point wasn't that you should have to go rerun an RfA, only that generically speaking it might make sense for the restoration of a bit three years after its been given up. It wouldn't be necessary in your case, but I think you may be something of an exception. Much changes in 3 years, after all, in both editors and Wikipedia. Additionally, I do the above, have for more than three months, and am not and have never been an admin. Those are just responsible editor tasks that, you're right, don't require admin tools. Avruch  T 12:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. You seem to have the right attitude then. I notice you actually don't have the bit, yet? Or... do you think you're so good you'll just never need it in the first place? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:16, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, no bit (as I mentioned above :-P). None of those things, which are all important, require +admin. Some other things that you and I don't do would require admin tools, but since we don't do those things... we've got what we need. Avruch  T 16:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The basics for adminship are easy to find out for an interested user, a personal research and learning on the subject show a capacity to make things out by oneself, a quality needed for adminship. There are times where other persons should be contacted, but most of the time, admin work is personal (xfd closes, speedy deletions, blocks for vandalism or username violation: these tasks rarely requires several people to discuss it). So admins need to show that they are responsible, able to make decisions, justify and reconsider those in a sensed way, alone, because there is not always someone reviewing your actions behind you and some can lead to irreversible damages. Indeed, there are fundamental policies and guidelines to know, some others to be aware of, same for areas of Wikipedia. Maybe admin coaching can point this out (excessively ?) and give a bunch of advises, but it doesn't replace a thorough and progressive effort of understanding by the candidate himself. If a user made this personal effort, admin coaching won't change much, and if he didn't made enough, then it won't have a significant impact on the issue of a RFA. Gaining community support for adminship requires this work, reflecting globally in the user contributions, it can be more or less long depending on the individual, and admin coaching has little effect on this (it works locally, for example, how to deal with a specific RFA question or how not to !vote in a deletion debate, but has no global effect, only a personal effort of understanding and gathering of experience can). Maybe it can stimulate this personal work, but we're not at school, are we ?, as I said above, any user can find out what the community excepts from an administrator. I think that candidates undergoing admin coaching are essentially looking for a feeling of security, thinking that they have more chances of succeeding etc. And, some users are astonished by that, sometimes a candidate has not done anything specific in the perspective to become a sysop, but is still promoted, because RFA is not really a matter of meeting some standards, but it's a matter of trust. And trust cannot be bought. Therefore, I think that admin coaching is not that useful, and with all these amassing issues surrounding this program, something should be done. Cenarium  (talk)  18:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)


 * What would you like, a ban on admin coaching? Or to have a number of people vote oppose on RfAs for any candidate that has been coached, regardless of the content or nature of the coaching? The discussion above makes clear that there is no monolithic nature of admin coaching - some of it is more properly RfA coaching, some of it is an extended examination that brings to the attention of a potential candidate things that Wikipedia is better off with them knowing, and others are more of an audition for a nomination. If each coaching is different, then some blanket "solution" to this non-problem is unwarranted. The problem really is in an RfA process that makes someone think they need to go to school just to pass - candidates that might otherwise pass no problem, if voters were reviewing their contributions instead of asking 25 questions. I used to post 3 or 4 standard questions, but I refuse to do that when my questions are followed up by 20 more of increasing specificity. In that sort of environment, where it is the RfA that makes the candidate rather than the other way around, I can certainly see why admin coaching and RfA coaching have become more popular. Avruch  T 21:34, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well said Avruch.  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  21:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not feasible to ban it, it's not feasible to expect everyone to champion it. It is what it is. I do not foresee it disappearing anytime soon. I do, however, foresee many discouraged/timid editors opting not to participate in it due to RfA, which is the source of the problem. The bottom line is this. Can admincoaching prove valuable? Yes. There you have it.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:40, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope, we obviously can't "ban" admin coaching, but we can try to fix some of the issues it has, for example: the constant advertising, the increasing impression of big deal it gives and others. What exactly do you think is wrong in the RFA process ? The community has been "traumatized" by some admin actions in the past, it's normal that now, the demand of trust and proof of "wisdom" is higher. Cenarium   (talk)  13:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Cenarium, you are 100% correct. Anybody can learn what is expected to become an admin and can do so on their own.  That being said, I'm one of top programmers in the country with a specific type of computer software.  I taught myself how to do it.  Anybody can, on their own, learn the software that I am an expert on, but that doesn't mean I would recommend it.  Some people will be able to become power users on their own.  Some people will need somebody to guide them.  Some people will need to be walked step by step through the programming.  Similarly, some people will respond very favorably to coaching while others won't.  Some people can benefit tremendously from it, others may be hampered.  The question isn't coaching, it is what happens in coaching.  Is the coaching personal or simply a series of exercises?Balloonman (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Series of exercises aren't bad if feedback is given and questions can be asked and responded to. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * (I also replied higher.) We have wp:aau for newcomers who really need someone to help them in a one to one way, we have wp:er for users who would like to have advises from others. Questions are easy to find and the kind of answers expected too. I agree, Balloonman, that a personalized admin coaching may have a positive and profound effect on the user, as long as it gives matter to thoughts, diversify one's contribs, and is not speedied. For this reason, the concept is praiseworthy. For example, I respect the way you handle admin coaching. This said, some candidates have been extensively coached, but failed to pass wp:rfa several times. So it depends on the user and on the quality and duration of the coaching. But this practice still has general negative effects, that, I think should be addressed:
 * It gives the impression that a RFA is an exam, the fixation, peaking to obsession, on questions particularly.
 * It makes RFA a bigger deal than it is, because it suggest that adminship needs extensive preparation.
 * The publicity around this gives the impression that admin coaching is standard, and a RFA has no chance to succeed without it.
 * In order to illustrate this, take a look at this RFA : really, no big deal, the candidate just had to read some pages for the weekend to familiarize with important areas and policies he may have missed. He was not aware of WP:CBD ? Really, it doesn't matter, as he'll still block for a valid reason, he has a sensed reason to do this, etc. A coached candidate who regurgitate the classic answer "cdbs should never be used per WP:CBD" will just show that he learned his lesson, but nothing else.
 * I still don't see what you think is wrong in the RFA process and I had the feelings that some are disappointed by this process because, even after an admin coaching or several RFAs, they have not been promoted, or have this feeling for others. Cenarium   (talk)  03:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * 2)Your claim that it makes it a bigger deal has already been addressed. It may be true slightly, but once again, I have to say that I don't think that anyone who has been closely watching RfAs over the past few months can actually say with a straight face that adminship is no big deal. As Pedro has stated repeatedly, Jimbo's statement and the essay surrounding it is very outdated. The core issue about RfA being a big deal or not is not admin coaching.
 * 3)Does it give the impression that RfAs have no chance to succeed without it? I strongly disagree. Admin coaching is becoming more standard and widespread, but I don't see where it says or implies that it's necessary. Does it state on WP:RFA that "You need not apply if you haven't been coached for at least x amount of time"? No. In fact, as Balloonman mentioned earlier, "I recently told a person that I didn't think coaching was the right move for him. He is a tremendous candidate, but if he goes through coaching it WOULD BE gaming the system." Did Balloonman reply "Yes, you must get into admin coaching immediately if you hope to pass an RfA within the year"?  Enigma  message 04:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * No big deal is outdated, I admit, but an extensive preparation for RFA is still not needed as you can see. I just said that I respect the way Balloonman handle admin coaching and didn't refer to him. Hopefully, admin coaching is not on the RFA page, but you can't say that it's not publicized. How many times have I seen a user who recently failed a RFA be proposed to participate in admin coaching. Cenarium   (talk)  11:52, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I personally find myself looking for two kinds of candidates to coach. First, I look for somebody on the Admin Coaching page that I think could run, but isn't ready for whatever reason (if they are ready, I will tell them so.)  The second place I look are for people who are solid candidates, but need a little fine tuning---these are generally people who have failed RfA's.  In this case, I look at coaching as a means to ensure that the candidate does what they were instructed to do in the RfA.  I also believe it is my duty as an admin coach to dig a little deeper into the candidate.  A lot of times there may be several reasons to object, but people latched onto one and never dug deeper.  In my opinion, it is the coaches responsibility to vet the candidate thoroughly so that if there are other reasons, they can be addressed.Balloonman (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you completely missed the point of my original post, so I'll back away. Tan   |   39  16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That problem being, as I understood the post in question, too many people giving candidates a cursory look, checking over the existing !votes, and then deciding which way to go based on that. Secret ballots (whether with or without a public discussion, with or without a no-!voting-period) wouldn't solve the problem Tanthalas was raising - inadequate scrutiny of the candidate. I'm not sure what would. We can make it harder for people to come to a "snap judgment" by providing less information about what others think (secret balloting and a pre-vote discussion would help with this) but we cannot force them to look deeper. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 17:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't say that everything is bad in admin coaching, it's helpful in some ways, but it still has a negative effect on the RFA process and how people view it. As per the "factory-made" admin, RFA is a safeguard. It's also a special case, and I'm talking of a diffuse effect. Cenarium   (talk)  13:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin Coaching break 2: What's wrong with RfA
I still don't see what you think is wrong in the RFA process. Here is what is wrong with the RfA process. It is broken. I would guess that the average RfA currently gets about 65-75 !votes. Of those 65-75 ! votes, I suspect that fewer than 10 people spend more than 10 minutes reviewing the candidate. I would guess that fewer than 2-3 people spend more than 40 minutes on the candidate. I would guess that 30-40 people look at the current !votes and decide based upon what other people have said! That is the problem. If a person comes along early in the !voting and gives a solid reason to oppose, that person can kill an RfA. If that same person comes along after say 20 supports have been cast, makes the exact same criticism, the RfA will probably pass.Balloonman (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like most political elections ;-) Tan   |   39  16:07, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * In most political elections that I'm familiar with voting is done in secret. Very much unlike the RfA process, where so many seem to jump on some "as per xxx" bandwagon. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose the voting is "secret", yes, but it's not like people don't advertise their vote. Also, I think many, many people do jump on a bandwagon in political elections. "Wow, that advertisement said candidate X was BAD, I'm gonna vote for the other guy." At any rate, I didn't mean to start some political argument here, I was more pointing out that a lot of the problems here, as in "real life", are just products of human nature. Tan   |   39  16:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ... and a lot of them aren't. The problem that Balloonman drew attention, for instance, is a procedural problem, caused by the RfA !voting process and the silly canvassing guidelines. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:24, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it is a catch 22. Since most people don't take the time to investigate potential candidates, it is up to those few of us who do, to let others know about any possible concerns.  A pure secret election would never work because people need a forum to share any major concerns.  You would also need a mechanism to change one's !vote after it was cast.  The system is broken, but I have yet to hear a better solution.Balloonman (talk) 16:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. But maybe the problem is that this discussion and the voting are interlinked, and take place in the same place and at the same time. In RL, for instance, discussion takes place in full public view, but voting takes place in secret. I can see no reason why RfA could not adopt a similar procedure, and be all the better for it. In fact I've already seen it proposed that there should be a period of discussion before voting is allowed to begin. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But therein we have another catch 22. We could have a period of discussion followed by a period of !voting... but in so doing, you take a week long process and turn it into a 2 or 3 week process.  Thereby making it a lot more stressful and a bigger deal than it is.  It becomes more like the Arbcom elections.Balloonman (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily, it depends. There is, for instance, no reason to prevent anyone placing their (secret) vote after say, 3 days of discussion have elapsed. As Dr Johnson once said, "Nothing will ever be attempted if every possible objection must first be overcome". --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this is that we are dealing with an electronic community. There are some people who can only edit on the weekends and some who can only edit on specific days of the week due to the nature of their job or access to the internet. I think 1 week has become the standard because it allows everybody to chime in even if they only have access once a week. Thus, a period of discussion followed by a period of !voting would by default be at least 2 weeks in length. I also think this would make the process a bigger deal because supporters would have to add a lot more rationale to their support or become overwhelmed by the opposers.Balloonman (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

This was said above - but, it's something that I've experienced and witnessed. What's the problem with RfA? Pile. On. Opposes. By. Users. Who. Don't. Want. To. Take. The. Time. I apologize for the emphasis  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 17:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * So what was the problem again? Balloonman (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * (ec) That's what it comes down to, isn't it? I can think of several examples of Candidates who would make fine admins, but failed at RfA due to inertia under the Oppose section. Conversely, I can think of only one admin who should not have become an admin at all, but whose RfA was quite successful. The process has a chilling effect. As Balloonman notes, though, there isn't a clear alternative that preserves open community input. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "I can think of only one admin who should not have become an admin at all, but whose RfA was quite successful". How quickly we forget... —  iride  scent  17:58, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point - and I'm sure others could list admins for whom "having second thoughts" would be an understatement. I wanted a recent example of a failed, successful RfA, and that was the best (worst?) one I could come up with. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 18:05, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I can think of two admins who I supported, but within a month of their getting the tools wished I hadn't. I won't mention their names, but they do exist.Balloonman (talk) 18:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent) Actually, it's possible to change one's vote by striking it and revoting/commenting. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh come on Balloonman! You can't dangle that gem and then not name names!  Where's your sense of drama?  And (a little) more seriously, RFA is absolutely the worst way to decide on who gets adminship.  Except for all the other ways. (or so I've heard).   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "RFA is absolutely the worst way to decide on who gets adminship. Except for all the other ways." is just another one of those old worn-out wikimantras isn't it? Have any of the other ways ever been tried?


 * Oh, I agree with you, bad form to mention Archtransit. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a take on the "Democracy is the worst form of government..." xenocidic (talk) 16:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with worn out wiki-mantras? I like em.  They're "no big deal".  ;-)   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  16:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
 * And in case my sarcasm in prodding balloonman wasn't abundantly clear and non serious, I am abundantly joking and not serious. Egads, don't name names.  No one else should be either, including naming Archtransit.   Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to wikilink the phrase "no names, no pack drill" in an earlier post and was distraught to learn that there's no article of that name. What is wrong with Wikipedia? S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Whatever you do, don't mention Archtransit. --barneca (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Feels good to be amongst fellow Fawlty Towers fans. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * ... or should I say fellow ''Flowery Tw**s", fans? :-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 19:39, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course you started, you invaded Poland, cough, I mean WT:RFA! -- Avi (talk) 19:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

 I stated long ago that I felt Arch was the new Godwin's when it came to RfA....in other words, how long will a thread on the "problems with RfA, etc" have to go along before Arch is mentioned? The answer is apparently: Not Far. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The problems raised by Balloonman are inherent to community discussions, it's also true for xfds. The problem is not the process itself, it's the counterproductive surroundings: the optional questions (not directly related to the candidate), admin coaching (it has been created before January 2006 based on the talk archives and in the pure Esperanza philosophy, it's not a result of a recent trend), the problem of nominations (some users are never proposed to be nominated though they are ready, some others have dozens of propositions - and are not necessarily ready). Why not to reform admin coaching ? It could be transformed it in a one-to-one editor review in userspace, with no explicit link with the RFA process. Like an advanced adoption program, we don't have anything of this kind. We'll have all the advantages of admin coaching, and it won't drastically affect the RFA process any more. Let me develop, a user willing to be a mentor may mention the areas where he's competent. a user willing to learn in an area can search for a skilled user in this area. The inverse can be done also. Incidentally, it may be helpful for a candidate for adminship. -- Cenarium   (talk)  23:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

12 promotions in April
As the successful candidacies page says, 12 were promoted last month. Just 12. The last time that few candidates were promoted was in February 2005. What does this say about RfA? Is it intimidating? Are there just that few good candidates out there? Wizardman 18:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm a good candidate. Would I pass? Dunno. Quick note. If no one gets nominated before May 5th, the RFA page may be blank for the first time in quite a while. D.M.N. (talk) 18:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There isn't enough fuel for the engine to keep running. N.B. I've co-nommed a candidate who's going up shortly. Rudget   (Help?) 18:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw an article a year or so ago that used stats to indicate that the growth in new users is panning out. I think this is just a probable side effect. -- Naerii  18:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the RfA page was devoid of nominations at one point within the last month or so, if I recall correctly. There is nothing wrong with self-nominations either, D.M.N. If you feel you are qualified go for it. However, be prepared, RfA is more brutal nowadays.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 18:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I know. See my comment on Rudget's talkpage. D.M.N. (talk) 18:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

And Wizard, what does it say? Well, I'd venture that it says RfA has become increasingly intimidating, inducing trepidation in even the most intrepid users. :) That smiley is to denote, well some facetiousness, but, on a serious note, I think I stand behind that.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined  /  C ) 18:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Are there really that many more active editors who are not admins than a year ago? Hard to tell as it requires one to know who is an admin or not while scanning entries. Tricky..... Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a fair number of editors whom others presume to be admins who aren't. And there are a lot of editors whose names never come up simply because they don't spend much time in meta-space. Strikes me you nominated one yourself recently. Risker (talk) 20:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not exactly hard to see who's an admin/developer/whatever and who isn't should you care... —  iride  scent  20:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a fact is that RfA is a more intimidating process than it was a few months ago. The number and complexity of questions has multiplied. I have little doubt that some potential candiates are scared off by it all. Majoreditor (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps pissed off might be more accurate. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Successful RfA candidiates then face the likes of Daniel Brandt and Don Murphy, who will seek to reveal their identities and harass them at work. Sometimes I'm surprised that anyone is willing to do this job. ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 21:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps that's why the majority of admins are schoolkids? They can't be harassed at work. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want, you can nominate me. I'm not sure I'll pass, but you never know. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you've not been watching. If you ever see me nominate anyone, then you have my permission to shoot me. I'm also outrageously ageist. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * So is 39 bad? S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 22:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Usually when people are ageist it's because they perceive the other person to be too young, and that usually only happens when that person is a teenager (like me, since I'm 17).
 * Give me some time to look through your contribs. Do you really want to be nominated?  I might be willing to do it. &mdash;  scetoaux (T|C)  22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Who knows? I'm not sure I'm ready, and I'm not that desperate for the tools. I certainly don't need the sort of dramaz I've seen in some recent RfAs. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 22:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, actually I'd be hesitant. You haven't done very much in the way of antivandalism (RPP, AIV) that I can see, and that would most certainly be used against you at RfA. &mdash; scetoaux (T|C)  22:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That being said, I had precisely zero edits at RPP/AIV when I nominated for admin a year ago and I got through the process unopposed (with two neutrals which believed I might lack experience but saw no reason to oppose). Orderinchaos 17:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, the demand for anti-vandalism experience hasn't been as strong lately. Being active with article building and showing some experience in an admin related area has been sought more.  In fact, I think for some of the regulars anti-vandalism is a little bit of a warning sign (because that is an area that often gets abused by over zealous power hungry teens!)  Heck, I haven't seen too many people rejected for lack of XfD experience lately.  So while it may be more challenging to pass, I think the expectations have broadened... for example, CapitalR had no meaningful XfD OR anti-vandalism in his background.Balloonman (talk) 21:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It could be that we're not looking hard enough for admin candidates, then again if I'm having trouble finding any then that's saying something. Wizardman 22:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you yourself looking? Just wondering.  I've seen quite a few people around that I would gladly nominate if I hadn't already seen that they were getting one from elsewhere, or had just turned one down. &mdash;  scetoaux (T|C)  22:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've been looking. I have two that want to run, but not yet (been waiting for a couple months now, maybe I should remind them), and I seem to be getting more people declining my offers of late. Wizardman  22:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hardly suprising really. What's the offer? Would you like to submit to an interrogation that would not disgrace the Spanish Inquisition in order to gain a few extra buttons that will divert you from building an encyclopedia? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How bad would it be to run 2 weeks after your last RfA? : )  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That would depend on whether you cared if your RfA passed or not. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Hence the smiley face. I certainly would care. hehe  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 22:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Wisdom... the keys for you to pass your next RfA is to make sure that you have admin coaching from 12 different people and that you get 100 to !vote before you transclude... ;-) Balloonman (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking at this from multiple angles, I think there are multiple causes. Dragon Flight's statistical analysis showed that page creation peaked in 2006.  Its reasonable to infer that editor involvement peaked then as well.  Given that RFAs occur after a person has been active on WP for some time, we may now be seeing the effects of that slowdown, a lagging indicator to be technical.  Second, RFA is hard to do, you've got to open yourself up to extreme public criticism and blame for the most minor of errors.  Third, given the activities of Brandt and Murphy in recent months, some of the people I've approached have been hesitent to put themselves in their sights by adding the (Administrator) flag to their username.  Lastly I'll say that if we had 12 promotions in April, than April was a net-negtive month for admin numbers I believe.  However, if anyone is interested in running, but is too scared to nom themselves, pop me an email and I'll take a look at your numbers and probably will nom you.   MBisanz  talk 23:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But then again, the backlog at WP:ADCO/RFC says that many still wish to become admins. Malinaccier (talk) 23:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
 * But those who are still interested are essentially Wiki-virgins... they've been around for next to no time. My criteria for an admin coachee is lower than it is for a candidate, but I have trouble finding coachees that are close to being ready---eg many of them would require 6+ to be ready.  That being said, I do recommend people go over there and take a looks.Balloonman (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the finding that page creation has to do with editor involvement. Page creation's dip was largely due to the late 2006 disabling of anonymous page creation.  Less pages were created as a result.  Subsequent dips may also reflect not less activity, but less topics that one might think to be notable enough to create.  The second and third points are interesting, however.  Ral315 (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll note Malinaccier that in my work there, a large number of the pple at ADCO/RFC either have no idea what being an admin is, are socks/banned users, or are there in hopes of getting around RFA scrutiny for things like blocks/editwarring.  MBisanz  talk 03:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)


 * For the curious, new account registration peaked at ~10500 per day in Jan/Feb 07, declined to ~8000 per day by Summer 07 and has stayed at or slightly below that level since then (with the exception of a negative excursion associated with the winter holidays in 07). Dragons flight (talk) 03:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that would provide more direct support for my assertion that the size of the pool of potential admins has declined, meaning we're seeing the throughput with fewer RfAs.  MBisanz  talk 04:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I've considered running from time to time (5000+ edits, AFD works, CSD work, AIV reports, etc) but three factors have kept my application on paper only:
 * I'd prefer to self-nom, and Oppose: per Kurt is getting too popular these days. Not that I think Kurt's opposes are wrong in some way, but the pile-ons they can cause can get out of hand.
 * Honestly, my editing time is limited by the amount of time I have, since my daughter was born, my editing rate has declined, so I would have to deal with a pile of Oppose: Not consistent !votes.
 * I don't do a ton of article expansion, so I can't claim GAs and FAs.
 * In the end, I don't have a pressing need to have the tools, admittedly it would be easier to fix the misplaced dabs that I come across and to edit protected pages to fix links to dab pages, but it's just doesn't seem worth the hassle. Burzmali (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It is amazing how RfA issues changes over time; they come in and out of vogue. Opposes "per Kurt" are kind of in and opposes per "no need for the tools" are out.  At the moment.  Contribution and namespace balance seems to be an fairly current issue too.  I'd run for RfA if I could say I would probably restrict myself to WP:AIV and other vandalism issues but it would not pass because most would probably say you have no other admin or project space experience.  But RfAs of users with contribs similar to mine have passed in the past.  Anyway, my point is that I think users who are serious about wanting to help as an admin and willing to commit to the often stressful RfA process will be very careful and only run if they feel they have a good chance of satisfying current RfA issues.  κaτaʟ aveno  TC 18:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * You could still run. To address your first concern, avoiding the "per Kurt" opposes is simple: ask an administrator that you know if they wouldn't mind nominating you for adminship.  As far as I know, asking for a nomination does not qualify as canvassing.  I encourage anybody that wishes to become an administrator to run, if they feel that they have at least a marginal change of succeeding.  Of course, there's nothing wrong with waiting, but in some cases now is better than never. &mdash;  scetoaux (T|C)  19:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * If any editor is considering running, and are concerned about nominating themselves, feel free to ask me if you wish. I make no guarantee I'll nominate, obviously, but I consider myself reasonably well aware of current RFA criteria and expectation. If people are holding back from self-nomination for whatever reason (not just for possible opposes based on a self-nomination, but perhaps due to not being sure if their RFA is likely to pass) please feel free to approach. And before anyone says "a candidate who is not sure if they'll pass shouldn't be a candidate in the first place" I'd like to note we're talking RFA not RFB. Humility and not wishing to boast about one's own achivements are often good traits IMHO and an ability to asses RFA consensus is not required of sysops. Pedro : Chat  20:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Asking another user to nominate you can easily be construed as, more or less, identical to a self-nomination, at least in the eyes of those who oppose per Kurt. I don't really think that solves that particular dilemma.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Or it may be that we're missing out on highly capable candidates who just need the confidence boost of "Yep, you'd be an asset, run". What's best for Wikipedia? Lots of potential admins who are highly capable but sit in the wings waiting a little push, or ever increasing backlogs of copyright issues, duplicate images, defamations and spam? Pedro : Chat  21:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there any reason we couldn't have both? No, wait. Isn't that what we have now? /me goes back to Admin survey. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 22:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * It isn't the ego boost that folks like me require, assuming I am representative of those with similar editing patterns. I visit RFA once or twice a week to see the goings on but don't really have any desire to get involved in teh drama.  I'll go a few rounds with other editors to make the encyclopedia a little better, but it just seems so worthless to commit to 5 days worth of knockdown, drag out brawls over things like your editing rate, potential god complex, and allocation of effort just to get a few buttons to try to help the encyclopedia in new ways.  Burzmali (talk) 23:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there anywhere we can see users with lots of edits who are not admins? It'd be quite an interesting list to look at.... D.M.N. (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * List of non-admins with high edit counts Pedro : Chat  21:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * How often is that page updated?  κaτaʟ aveno TC 22:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Updates are manual. Most of it now is users adding themselves or updating (as they pass certain thresholds). Some users have expressed the desire not to be on the list at all.  Enigma  message 23:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * While I don't oppose per self-admin, I do think it is much better to have somebody nominate you---particularly somebody who is an experienced admin with a solid track record. WHO nominates you can be important.  A strong nomination by a person who is known to dig into candidates background, will face less opposition than a self-nom.  The nomination by somebody else is a strong indicator of trust on that person's behalf.  It is a sign that the other person vetted you themselves.Balloonman (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI
The second incarnation of RfAOpposeBot brought some discussion to ANI.  Enigma  message 19:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)