Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 148

Quality of admins vs RfA results (statistical analysis)
This question may have been asked before, and I don't want to do research if someone has done it already. But one of the assumptions in the above debate is that "lowering the RfA bar" = "dropping quality" or admitting more problem admins. Is this true? I don't know - but it would be good to look at some hard data. I'd like answers to the following questions: In short, is there a correlation between quality and RfA score. The two above tests will be crude, but are the best I can devise.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) If we look at certified problem admins (those forcibly desysopped, resigning "under a cloud", or recalled) - are their original RfA scores "lower" than average?
 * 2) If we look at admins who are certified as quality (say those subsequently elected by the community to positions of trust: arbcom or bureaucrat) - are their original RfA scores "higher" than average?
 * You got a sample size problem; admins are almost never desysopped, so you can't get a valid sample there. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 09:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Problem agreed. But it might be better than asserting the correlation without any evidence. An analysis, as poor as it might be, might at least get people to consider the merits of the correlation. And actually, over the years a fair number of admins have been desysopped.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But the proposition is not that there is a correlation between bad admins and passing RfA with a low percentage. The proposition is that we already have enough admins who passed with good percentages making bad decisions that we shouldn't add to the problem by lowering the bar even further and passing candidates that we already know don't have the support of 20% (or more) of the community.  Add to that the natural tendency when you see a dangerous candidate in the low 80s; editors may say nothing because they know the 'crats are going to pass them anyway, and they don't want that kind of person, with access to the tools, mad at them for saying what needed to be said.  That's the real problem in this continual lowering of the threshhold; it makes people afraid to oppose, particularly when you know there are likely to be issues with controversial candidates.  Rather than risking passing the bad ones, we should accept that not everyone can be an admin, and focus on ways to make the process better at screening.  I had two situations this week that were better handled by a non-admin than the admins who jumped in to muck up the situation.  Maturity can't be taught.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 10:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You've got some fair points there. However, I suppose it is whether we are speaking of the number of bad admins, or the proportion. Doubtless, if we promote more people, we promote more bad people. But, do we promote a higher % of bad people - and if we are able to reverse the sysopping in these cases, might our quality control be as high if not higher? I genuinely don't know. How good is RfA at quality control. Over the years I've strongly opposed some candidates who have turned out to be good admins, and I've supported some who have later shown a total lack of clue. Am I "mostly right"? Maybe, but it would be interesting to reflect on this. I guess the problem is effective quality control - RfA can be a popularity contest at times, and can make judgements on silly things. It mainly, I suspect, gets it right in the end - but can we improve on it? The elitist in me says "yea, but you needs a new electorate" - that won't fly though. Oh, I agree maturity can't be taught - but as long as adminship is given as a reward for racking up edits, making friends and keeping you head out of unpopular areas, then boy-scouts is what you'll get.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully concur that a real means of desysopping is more important to RfA reform than any other proposal; no RfA isn't good at quality control, it's good at vote stacking. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't actually see a great use for a means of desysopping (great in theory - outbalanced by its potential for drama, partisan feuding and downright trolling in practice). The means we have works for the few people we desysop, and whilst there's certainly a general consensus that there are a few bad admins who don't get desysopped but should - I strongly suspect that's where the consensus ends. We've all got a different hit list in mind.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I looked at this page and sorted it by percentage. There are only two users listed as having passed RFA at less than 85% who are not still admins (Guanaco, Eyrian—others appear to be false positives but have actually changed names, sometimes repeatedly).

Yes, there are several current admins whom I consider egregiously bad (you know who you are) but none of their RFAs were in the lower half of this table percentage-wise (more toward 96-97%).

However, I know the data is incomplete as I can think of others not listed (such as Freestylefrappe, who was nominated by MONGO, who was nominated by Karmafist—no comment...), but it's a good start. I suggest adding a new column to indicate whether each user is still an admin (or indicate why they aren't).

— CharlotteWebb 11:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, those under 85% are a strange group. Some are now amongst the most respected of the community. I see only a couple of loose canons (that is looser than average). I suspect many of these got opposition for partisan reasons. Not sure what conclusion to draw, except I don't think low RfA result does correlate with "more problematic". Looking at the 100%s I see more problems. --Scott MacDonald (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that the chart is almost 18 months old... thus, is missing many of the cases that I think Sandy is referencing. While the RfA process may have had problems back then, it's really become problematic lately.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 17:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe some more up to date data needs to be created? -- how do you turn this on  17:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe User:Majorly/RfA/Stats contains the same data and is up to date. WJBscribe (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The old data isn't very useful. A glance at the new data shows that a provisional range below 85% is reasonable (and one of them is my nom, I'm sure she wouldn't mind). And again, the proposition is not that there is a correlation with low support and bad admins; it's that we shouldn't knowingly lower the bar even further (it's already too low), adding to the current problem.  If we could do a provisional year for candidates in the range 75 to 85%, in conjunction with a better means of desysyopping, I'd support, but as things currently stand, we are already letting through too many candidates who don't have community trust.  This has decreased adminship to the point that it's a club many good editors have no interest in joining, hence, won't even consider standing for RfA.  Adminship is a big deal as long as we can't undo just as we can undo an FA.  Why go through that 500-question torture to join a club that has no admission standards or quality control?   I think doing the two things together would lower the opposition and torture at RfA, while raising quality overall. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think thoughtful, responsible editors tend to stir things up a bit and this shows up in RfAs as a strong fringe of opposition, some well meant but perhaps mistaken, some emotional and bitter, PoV driven. I wouldn't be startled if this kind of editor tended to become a thoughtful, responsible admin. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:59, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The past year has definitely seen the rise of a group of editors who you can guarantee will oppose for specious reasons and doom the RfAs of qualified candidates. Were this one or two individuals acting randomly, it really would not matter, but now that you essentially have a small group of constant, guaranteed opposition the process is badly jammed up. Just compare this to either this or this. That is absurd. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, we're only on pace for 210 new admins this year. Useight (talk) 17:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Something that I found interesting is that a successful candidate currently requires 70-80+ supports. Last year, a successful candidate typically had 35-50+ supporters!  I expected to see the trend being low in 2006, but when I looked at 2006, it was 70-90+ supports!  So, it isn't just the numbers.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 18:02, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The RfA participtation rate unifrmly increased until late 2006 when there was a slump. My guess is that people stopped turning up after the Carnildo RfA, perhaps because they thought the crats were going to do whatever they wanted anyway.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 02:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Have a shufti at this jaw-dropping RfA. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And he still has the mop, and thus belies most of the contemporary opposition. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

There's ~ 7 passing candidates right now, so does last month's drop really matter anymore? It was just a slow month, not a harmonic tremor.-- Koji Dude  (C) 19:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Even allowing for a slow month, that still gets us nowhere near the rate seen in the last couple of years. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

So are we having a sub-admin crisis, or sub-backlog crisis? - Mailer Diablo 01:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Backlog. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

SQLBot info
The SQLBot info table at the top of this page with the current RfA vote totals seems rather out of date: it is more than 24 hours old and the Jac16888 RfA is not even included is the table. Is there a problem with the bot or is it always that slow? Nsk92 (talk) 05:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ironhold's experimental RfA isn't listed either. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Tangobot's report seems all okay, although it's not able to read Ironholds RFA (due to the removal of the S/O/N section). Transcluded below - feel free to remove later. Pedro : Chat  06:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I've sent User:SQL and e-mail, and hopefully the problem will be fixed soon. I also posted a Tangobot table at the bottom of WP:BN for now as well. Nsk92 (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Looked at it, and, it appears to be updating now... Might have been some sort of toolserver glitch. Responded to 5-10 e-mails about it as well. SQL Query me!  07:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

When did this become a vote?
I thought Adminship was based on consensus, not an up-or-down vote. And now we're talking about percentages of votes? Little Red Riding Hood  talk  19:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * People have been talking about percentages of votes ever since I've been here, coming up on two years ago. Voting to measure the degree of consensus during a discussion is compatible with consensus building; voting with no discussion isn't. The fact that there are people who vote and then never return to see the rest of the discussion, and possibly modify/expand upon their view, is a problem, but the fact that there is voting going on is not.  IMHO. --barneca (talk) 19:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It became a vote when people started taking it too seriously, and opposing/supporting just for the hell of it. You could call it a flaw in the system, but it's really just the closest we can get to something that works (at this point at least).-- Koji Dude  (C) 19:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It comes down to percentages (a vote), but the closing crat has a bit of leeway (about 5% either way?), depending on how all the discussion went. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 100% agreed with Barneca.  Garden . 19:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It has always been a vote. It only became a !vote when candidates started being promoted despite not being >75% support. Have a look at old RFBs for an idea of this (answer #1 especially - they all use numbers and percentages). -- how do you turn this on  20:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's definitely a vote, just like many other things here, despite suggestions that it might be something else. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * A bit like many AfDs seem to be, eh? Doug Weller (talk) 08:51, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's a vote, which is no problem. Pretending it isn't is. Everyme 09:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Voter trends
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Balloonman (talk • contribs)

Interesting data. You forgot to sign it though :P RockManQ  (talk) 01:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, just a suggestion, but a line or bar graph would be helpful as well. RockManQ  (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC) I just am too demanding.  RockManQ  (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

So, this is about people who voted in RfA, not had an RfA. RockManQ (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is about the trends for people who voted, not on who was successful/failed.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 02:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Those are some pretty interesting facts. I can't even get into that tool to check my own stats, though... is there an alternative tool? –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  02:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Julian I had no problem with you 63/21/34 (S/N/O)--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 02:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Very interesting. Balloonman, is there any correlation that you've found regarding one's 1.) length of time on the project 2.) whether user is an admin and 3.) likelihood to vote support? Just curious. Lazulilasher (talk) 02:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the cases cited above, no I haven't looked into them yet.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 02:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Could this be refactored for better readibility? I am interested in Wikipedia research and stats, but I cannot make it out what the above analysis is about :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 02:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you are interested in research and stats, perhaps the answer is for you to study and learn to interpret the above analysis :-) Tan   &#124;   39  02:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've published academic papers on Wikipedia, so I've a little experience in this regard :) The above text and tables are too unclear and I don't have time to reread them several times. I applaud the poster on the effort he went to, but remember that clear presentation of research is as important as research itself (nobody wants to read confusing text).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You've published academic papers on Wikipidia? Tan   &#124;   39  03:05, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the papers were about Wikipedia. (That's what I inferred, anyway.) Frank  |  talk  11:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Any suggestions on how to make it more readable? It makes sense to me... but I know the key fields:
 * Support Percent = the percentage of times that somebody supports.
 * COUNT = the number of people whose support percentage falls into the given range.
 * Percent of count = the percentage of people whose support percent falls into the given range.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 03:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm almost done with a chart that I hope will make this make more sense. Will upload and post in a few minutes J.delanoy gabs adds 03:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds good if you want feel free to overwrite my charts at: User_talk:Balloonman/RfA_votepercent--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 03:42, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The graph is nice. You are looking at the voting patterns of RfA voters, yes? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup. Erik the Red  2    03:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Therefore I'd suggest refactoring the intro to this essay/thread. The current one states who was analyzed ("This is an analysis of people who participated in RfA's") but not what was analyzed ("their voting pattern"). The latter may be obvious for somebody who leaves and breaths RfA, but is not clear for others (like me). A lesson I learned when writing papers: don't assume the audience knows much about the subject. Explaining too much will just make them skip some sections, not explaining enough makes them likely to stop reading at all. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 03:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Or, in other words, write for stupid people. ;D --Izno (talk) 04:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * KISS.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 06:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

(<-)Interesting, now what conclusion do you believe this supports? -- Avi (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When most people support, it's to pile on, mostly support but sometimes oppose. Erik the Red  2    03:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. RockManQ  (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Right now, there really isn't enough information to reach any conclusions... it's not information, it's merely raw data.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 04:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Balloonman, you may want to try a chart like this. The data behind it shows that roughly two thirds of the admins have performed 10% of the total admin actions, while one third are responsible for 90% of the total number of actions. The gradient will help to highlight whether responses are broad and mixed (straight line) or polarised (clumped in particular areas). It also allows you to see any granularity in the detail, as well as include lower response rate users. Hope this is useful to you.  Gazi moff  12:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Those graphs really don't say that much because of admin bots and/or the sort of stuff Maxim does (not criticising them - Maxim knows I think he does great work - just stating the obvious problem with that data). Giggy (talk) 07:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this analysis really needs weighting by whether application succeed or fail - if you look at the raw count Ironholds has a very high oppose rate, but very few of the candidates he opposes become admins. Someone who frequently votes oppose to successful candidates or supports unsuccessful ones could be more anomalous in your voting than the ones who first came to light.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I would love to see that type of analysis as well... it was actually something we asked for when the tool was first introduced... did the RfA pass or fail?  I have a fairly high oppose rate, but I vote early and sporatically... but over 90% of the people I oppose fail (and something like 90% of the people I support pass.)  What I did was largely manual, it would take something automated to do this...--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

My support rate is probably around 40%, because when an RfA is running 50-1-1, I rarely throw an extra Support onto the pile. I'd be the first to say the data above has some interesting-ness value, but attaching names to voting patterns without affording the users an opportunity to explain themselves seems arguably unfair, since the implication to be derived from the data seems pretty clear. Townlake (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Post-mortem
I've closed and withdrawn my RfA; thanks to people who participated. The post-mortem can be found here; please don't post it around the village pump and so on, as aiming for community consensus before the experiment is concluded is ridiculous and would slow the whole thing down a hell of a lot. Ironholds (talk) 12:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Questions
I'm curious,

I know that there are those who dislike any questions of a candidate.

But presuming we continue to allow questions (which we currently do), I believe we all agree that the questions should directly relate to trusting the condidate with the tools and responsibilities that go with adminship.

With that in mind, would the RfA regulars please assess the questions that I post. (See User:Jc37/RfA/General questions.)

I've tried to make them as straight-forward as possible, and related directly to the tools, and situations that they might be likely to deal with.

One thing, though. I know that there are some who don't like (or don't understand the purpose of) the policy questions. My intent with them is not just to see if they know where the policy pages are. (Indeed, I link to them in the questions.) How someone responds to the questions is more important (to me anyway) than the "right answers".

Anyway, I'm interested in your thoughts. - jc37 22:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see no value in those questions... especially if they became regular, they would simply be reguritated. Heck... copy and paste might save time.  The only question that might not be copied and pasted is the last one, but everybody would answer the same way, "I don't wish to be an admin, but I think I can help better by..."--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 22:07, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So far that has not been my experience. Though I'm now wondering if I should link to the various RfAs that I've added these to. - jc37 22:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Please, no more template questions. Ask a question if you must, but only if it's about that particular candidate. Asking questions in bulk form like that is probably one of the reasons we've had so few RFAs lately - it's more like an exam. -- how do you turn this on  22:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said above, this isn't a request concerning whether questions are liked, but what you think about these specific questions.
 * That said, if you're not interested in helping to assess them specifically, I suppose I can accept that. - jc37 22:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think they don't add anything much to the RFA, apart from putting off further people from nominating themselves. This isn't about whether I like them or not, I simply feel they're just there not serving any particular purpose. -- how do you turn this on  22:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Any candidate with a modicum of intelligence will be able to construct a response from either reading policy or previous successful RfAs. They reveal very little about a candidate's background, contributions or individuality and instead encourage formulaic popular answers. I'm with Balloonman on this - templated questions lead to templated answers, while tailored questions reveal more about the candidate. Sorry, but I see little value in them.  Gazi moff  22:41, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And while we're at it, another pet peeve of mine - "Neutral pending answers to my questions". They are optional questions, but by sticking in this !vote you're saying that actually, you don't think they're optional, and that unless the candidate answers them you're not going to even consider their other contributions. If you really can't make your mind up, don't !vote. Pressurising the candidate into answering optionals based on your neutral is bad form, in my opinion.  Gazi moff  22:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My pet peeve goes a little further. Why is it necessary to announce an obviously temporary neutral vote pending the answer to such questions? What a useless section.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Another question: why do we even have a neutral section? It's the same as abstaining; why can't people just abstain? -- how do you turn this on  23:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've always thought of the neutral section as an area of discussion to raise more points about the candidate. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone  23:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While, this part of the reason why I dislike the neutral section - I just find it odd when editors say "neutral pending answers to questions" when they could just simply wait.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it's their way of saying "You'd better answer them Jack". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Think harder. the skomorokh  23:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * To to be candid for a moment..let's face it..the neutral section is nothing more than a soft oppose section.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 23:26, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Or a pending section. I think we should remove it. Replace it with a "comments" section or something. Because that's all they are, comments. -- how do you turn this on  23:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I generally use the neutral section to indicate, I've looked at the candidate... done my due dilligence, but can't decide one way or another... I like it because I spend a lot of time reviewing people before !voting... While I am in the bottom quartile of people who support/oppose (Eg only 20% of RfA regulars are more likely to oppose) I think it's more matter of my making a 1-5 hour investment before I !vote and not !voting on the obvious candidates who should pass (I don't pile on support).  When I've spent 1-5 hours reviewing a candidate, and still can't make up my mind, I like people to know that I've looked at the candidate.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 00:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The only time that I remembered off the top of my my head I had gone neutral was Requests for adminship/Abd 2, when I refused to vote one way or another because the candidate was acting as if he were indifferent to whether or not the RfA was happening. SQL set me straight, I've also used it to say something supportive when I didn't feel like I could support and the opposes were hot and heavy.  So I think that the section can be useful and people can say something that they don't want to put in the "Discussion" section, no harm in that.  I share the general frustration with "neutral pending answers to questions".  Darkspots (talk) 00:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There is another reason for Neutral... To me, it is sometime the "I'm on the fence, can't decide, but want to record what I am thinking now... *I* need a reminder that *I* have looked at the RfA and that *I* failed to reach a conclusion for whatever reasons." In other words, it becomes a place holder for *me* that *I* couldn't decide... it also becomes a place for me to remind myself what my reservations were and that if somebody can show those reservations to be wrong that *I* might be willing to move one way or another. As I prefer to see the proof in the edit history, not in the questions, preferably observed by somebody else as compared to the candidate, I like the Neutral section.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 04:40, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow.
 * Let me see if I followed the chain of this telephone game:


 * "I don't like questions - I don't like boiler plate questions - I don't like "temporary neutral" comments - I think that there is a subliminal meaning to "temporary neutral" comments - I don't like neutral comments in general (aren't they just opposes?) - I don't like the neutral section - Let me describe my opinion of the neutral section - let me describe my own experiences with "voting" neutral - This is what I think about the purpose of the neutral section."


 * Did I miss anything? (Besides a response to what I was asking.)


 * It's ok. I merely was presuming that the other editors here would be fairly fluent not only in RfA, and the questions thereof, but also in the situations that an admin may encounter. And further, I was presuming that commenters here have the ability to read for content, and not just read the superficial questions. And finally, I was presuming that I would encounter editors who would be happy to be helpful.
 * I won't say that I was wrong in my presumptions. I would prefer to think that those here were merely disinclined to assist me with my request, and instead decided to take the opportunity to make other comments.


 * Thanks anyway. - jc37 04:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Haha. It's like you've never looked at WT:RFA before. Really, if you're looking in any helpful discussion on anything the last place to look is here.  naerii  06:34, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I have. For a rather long time.
 * But (perhaps naively) I tend to prefer to presume great things about others. Hope for the best, while accepting that the worst is a possibility.
 * That said, I realise that there are those jaded individuals who feel that if you expect the worst you will raely be disappointed.
 * Shrugs. I don't believe that the comments here reflect entirely on humanity in general (or even Wikipedians in general), so I think I will continue on presuming good faith of my fellow Wikipedians.
 * Thanks for your "support", in any case. - jc37 06:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you're missing the point. You asked for feedback on the templated questions you often use. My response, along with others, is that they're not helpful in assessing a candidate - especially not generally enough to warrant inclusion in the RfA template. I raised several points as to why - that candidates will merely crib answers from other successful RfAs where you've also used them, or recite policy in their own words. But if it is specific responses that you are after on each question in turn, I will try to help.


 * The first four questions allow pretty much for restatement of the policies that you handily link to in the questions. As long as a candidate can state policy in their own words, they pass the questions. The question on Concensus can be derived from the policy on consensus building cross-referenced with the three policies on talkpages, XfDs and DRVs, if the candidate does it the hard way. Otherwise, they can just leaf through the RfA archives, find a good answer and restate it in their own words. The sixth one is a bit more useful - it requires the candidate to think about a situation and pull in policies as relevant (in this case 3RR and DR), but it's very similar in style to other template questions that other editors use occasionally. Again, an answer can be cribbed by looking through the RfA archives. Finally, I think that asking a user why they want to be an admin tends to repeat the first question on RfAs - what admin tasks do you want do undertake - coupled with possibly a couople of phrases from the nom or self-nom statement.


 * And yes, I did link in the behaviour of certain neutral statements, because they seem coupled to asking templated optional questions in an effort to persuade the candidate to respond to them. I can understand the value of this if it raised a valid concern about a candidtate, citing behaviour that the candidate has exhibited in a particular arena and asking for an explaination. But just as I can't see any real value in the seven templated questions you propose, I can't see any usefulness in posting a neutral statement encouraging the candidate to answer them. It all seems like a rather meaningless exercise. I think that the much better approach is to tailor questions to suit the candidate, or to analyse and understand their decision-making process. Hope this makes sense.  Gazi moff  06:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it clarifies your opinion, thank you.
 * (I'm not sure if I should attempt to respond to your thoughts, even to clarify, as my initial interest in collegiate collaboration (concerning structure, design, and composition of the questions) has somewhat passed, and especially since there seems zero interest in it by the current responders here.) - jc37 07:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyways. I think that the neutral section holds some value. It isn't just abstaining. Sometimes people use it negatively (in a "neutral until you answer my optional questions" sense), sometimes positively (in a "going to say not now but don't want to be a dick" sense). I would rather it not be removed. And JC37, I'm not sure what response you were expecting. If you wanted individual feedback on those questions, you might have made some incorrect assumptions. However, I suggest you take on board the general feedback you received about the helpfulness of your questions. You are free to ask them, of course, but I really don't think they add much to an RfA except work for the candidate. From the looks of it, that seems to be the feelings above. People didn't want to belabor the point, so they moved on to something related once they said their piece. There is no requirement that the discussion in the section conform to the desires of the initial poster. Protonk (talk) 05:52, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think if the general sentiment is against this type of question in general, you're not likely to get much more feedback on the specific questions--seems like most people are agreeing that they shouldn't be asked in the first place. About the neutral section, it can be useful when you're ambivalent.  Would there be any advantage to changing the name of it to a comments section or integrating it into discussion?  I mean, whether or not it's useful, is the neutral section doing any harm?   delldot   &nabla;.  06:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know. people like sorting into categories.  No one forced the first proto-wikipedians to make straw polls, but they did.  I worry that if we rename it or remove it as a place to declare some intent/preference, it might turn into the discussion section--empty.  RfA's are in an odd place.  We want to be able to get a rough idea of consensus in a short amount of time.  Consequently, we end up adopting a voting system (GASP!), which does exactly that.  We make decisions about admin candidates at a rate we would never dream of matching when it comes to moving a comma in official policy.  This is helped by the fact that no RfA decision is that momentous.  It is important for the candidate but for the 'pedia as a whole you can take it or leave it.  It is also helped by the fact that outcomes are clear.  Promotion or no promotion.  Unlike a discussion on wording of a policy, no amount of debate in an RfA will change what package of tools the candidate gets or how he/she may use them.  Consequently it is easier to participate.  You don't need to have a clear idea of what exactly should happen, just a general guess.  The "voting" is as much a consequence of the social and structural preconditions as it is a consequence of anything else.  We should be mindful of that fact when contemplating changes to the format in order to "discourage" voting versus discussion. Protonk (talk) 06:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

jc37; I think I understand the reasoning behind your adding these questions; not to get people to repeat policy, but to see how they interpret it, etc. Q7, especially, can have interesting results. And while this might be a noble cause (I certainly won't say it isn't one!) my main qualms with the questions you ask are 1) I'm strongly in favour of a diffs-required policy on questions; that is, if you want to ask a question, you must include a diff to an edit made by the candidate. Obviously, the question must be related in some way to that diff, eg "based on your actions here, explain BLP in your own words", or "would you have blocked based on this AIV report you made". 2) They are still easily game-able. We're (generally) intelligent people around here; sure, someone's not gonna rewrite the policy when it's clear you don't want them too, but they can easily rewrite someone else's answer and show absolutely know original thought. And that's the problem. Hopefully this helps answer your question. (I don't watchlist this page so please poke my talk page if you'd like me to reply to anything you say here.) Giggy (talk) 07:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * That I can understand. Another that I'd be happy with (and probably Wisdom too) would be something like "I've noticed that you haven't participated very much in AfDs, yet your answer to Q1 says that you'd like to help in closing them. Would you mind answering some questions so I can understand hwo you close them?" It instantly becomes much more relevant to the candidate and helps others make a decision. Hope this helps,  Gazi moff  07:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does, and that's a perfectly valid question. Incidentally, more discussion with jc37 here. Giggy (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Template questions work fine for template candiates. For anyone else it risks looking like you've failed to do basic research.Geni 02:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I've looked at the questions and I think that, while a well-intentioned attempt to determine the candidate's knowledge of policy, they do unfortunately encourage the cookie-cutter admin coaching candidates. (For those who don't know, I think admin coaching can be good or bad depending on whther it's aimed at preparing the candidate for adminship or for RfA.)  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

On the neutral section
New sub-section for sanity sake....Neutral has its benefits. Like some said above, it's a soft oppose. I personally don't have issue with the "neutral, pending answers" !vote (it's neutral, it's really not a vote) because it might not so much matter if they answer but how they answer. There are some people here who ask good, individualized questions (I feel I got some good ones at my RfA and I can understand why people will sometimes wait to hear the answers before voting. That said, if neutral is meant for discussion, what's the point of the discussion section? Is it's solely for IPs use so that they can discuss the candidate? Why not combine the two? TravellingCari  12:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've noticed the Discussion section tends to focus on how the RfA process is unfolding ("hey everyone, Question 14 sucks"... "aw cmon guys, please stop opposing based on X"... etc.), while the Neutral section is usually limited to discussion of the candidate or official declarations that a vote will occur when an !optional question is answered. Townlake (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we do not allocate an entire new section for IP comments. This would not cause any problems off the top of my head and would leave the other sections for their traditional uses. Malinaccier (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Similarly, I don't see why we do need to allocate a section for IPs. Those with dynamic IPs could vote ad nauseam, and regular editors could !votestack by logging in, commenting, then logging out and doing it again. No, I don't think we'll ever have an IP-only section. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * As I've said before, I consider the "discussion" heading to be more a meta-discussion about the RfA itself, while the Neutral section is about the candidate. Two very different types of discussion. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's pretty much how I've seen it, too. I suppose there might be some benefit in clearing up the distinction one way or another, however? Shereth 15:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What, you don't enjoy this topic coming up once every two months? ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought every topic was supposed to come up every two months? Useight (talk) 15:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose the ambiguity keeps this page active, at the very least! Shereth</b> 16:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I occasionally use the discussion section to provide a brief comment about a candidate with whom I am slightly familiar or who I have found impressive. I am not "neutral", as I have an opinion. I do not, however, add a vote/!vote/comment because I consider myself uninformed and unwilling to invest the time to become informed. --Iamunknown 06:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Close needed
Would someone care to close Requests for adminship/Nick carson? The subject would appear to have withdrawn the request. the skomorokh 11:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Has been closed by non-admin . Btw, you can close withdrawn or SNOWy RfAs yourself, as outlined at WP:CRAT.  So Why  12:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * …aye, with the caveat that you are sufficiently bored or tedious-minded to find out about the sundry templates, listings and process involved :) the skomorokh  12:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I always refer to User:Enigmaman/SNOW to make sure I don't forget anything – xeno  ( talk ) 12:33, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I use User:EVula/admin to make sure the billion and a half things that need to be done get done. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Very helpful, thank you gentlemen. the skomorokh  18:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, though there's nothing I can do about the boredom or tedium factor. ;) EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:07, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Candidate pool
One of the perennial themes of this page is that the number of new users joining Wikipedia each month is declining, leading to fewer experienced user to run for RFA. I've created some graphs at Village_pump_(technical) that seems to show a peak in new user creation in early 2007. Factoring in the creation of SUL, which would increase the number of registration at the end of the graph in 2008 as other language users unified their accounts, I think this may be partial confirmation that the pool of experienced users running for RFA has peaked in size and will continue to shrink.  MBisanz  talk 01:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added some new data showing the time required for each block of 5,000,000 edits to be added to Wikipedia. It shows that over time it is taking about the same amount of hours, if not longer, for the community to produce the same number of edits. This to me indicates a stagnant if not declining community size or a decrease in productivity per editor.  MBisanz  talk 16:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent research and data. Pedro : Chat  18:17, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One suspects that Colbert just isn't giving us enough love of late. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:37, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Let's go edit some articles on Elephants!--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 18:39, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't forget about those librarians... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just threaten to delete his article unless he gives us another Colbert bump whenever membership stagnates. We just start a "Colbert Cabal" that blanks his page and replaces it with our terms. The Colbert Cabal admins then keep it locked down until our terms are met. mwahahahahaha! MWAHAHAHAHA!! Hiberniantears (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Me likes that idea. Or maybe the Cabal's NY squad could crash his show and sit in the audience with Wikipedia banners ;-)  So Why  20:29, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to delete this page for original research :) Stifle (talk) 14:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Less dire, this may be a case of Simulated annealing, rather than community collapse Thanks to User:Dank55 for the pointer on this . I am 100% willing to believe that current fervor and public exitement about wikipedia has dimmed somewhat since ~2006-2007.  But I also think that "time to 5M edits" can be explained by settling into a more fixed frame with respect to articles, content and depth.  There is a downside to this: we have the appearance of being "complete" without actually being complete.  It is much easier to jump in and add content to this than Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom.  So there is a real risk the people will being to view wikipedia as largely a passive resource rather than a work in progress.  But that's my take. Protonk (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I am misreading the stats as presented, in which case I would appreciate it if someone could clarify. It seems that the line charts suggest that the time taken to reach the next block of 5,000,000 edits is decreasing (i.e. where it used to take hundreds of hours, it now takes tens of hours...) --Aarktica (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Change to Template
Dweller and I were talking and we have a minor proposed change to the RfA template. It is something that I do on my RfA nom's already, but think we should add it as is. People always complain about pre-voting on RfA's. Noms are one thing, but even noms have been criticized for !voting before the RfA is transcluded. Whenever I create a nom, I will add a in the SUPPORT/OPPOSE/NEUTRAL section asking people not to !vote until the RfA goes live. I think we should go ahead and add these to the template. I am of half a mind to just do it, but wanted to throw it out for discussion first.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 18:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. [ roux  ] [ x ] 18:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, sounds like a good idea.  MBisanz  talk 18:59, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A good and reasonable idea. Caulde  19:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Very good idea considering my last RfA garnered silly opposes based on premature supports. There should be nothing there until it goes live to the public.  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 19:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Jumping in late, but I'm fine with the idea. Useight (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems obvious and uncontroversial enough to me, so I went ahead and did it. Feel free to change the wording, if needed. Cheers. <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 20:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Guys, it's great to see this page delivering improvement to RfA. Applause to Balloonman and Lifebaka. I award you all an ASCII asterisk of merit. * --Dweller (talk) 11:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But how do I put that on my awards page?--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 00:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Like so :D [ roux  ] [ x ] 01:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But that's clearly an SVG asterisk, making that a perversion of everything the award stands for! :D ~ mazca  t 18:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * How do I start a thread on ANI? This is clearly corruption of the worst possible sort. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, I haven't started pandering for awards--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/nominate
It's probably me but something seems amiss with the auto load of the template. For example if I stick "Pedro" in the nominate box and hit edit where I should be editing my first RFA instead I'm editing the page Pedro. Practical upshot is that if you create an RFA with this box it's going into the mainspace. Or am I being foolish? Pedro : Chat  15:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the default text in the edit box is supposed to be "Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/USERNAME", where you are supposed to replace "USERNAME" with the name of the nominee. However, if, for whatever reason, your browser fails to load the default text into the edit box, then the instructions are a little unclear.  My browser doesn't load the default text, as I guess yours doesn't, either.  I'll go make a few tweaks.  Others are, of course, welcome to come along and make sure I haven't broken anything. Cheers!--Aervanath lives in <b style="color:green;">the Orphanage</b> 16:06, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm on my work machine which has just updated to IE 7 (yeah yeah yeah). Could that be the issue? I see what you mean - if the base text in the box has the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ entry in it, then it will create the RFA properly in project space. If not then it goes into the main space. Pedro : Chat  16:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * On Firefox, I see no default text either and wonder how many admin-hopefuls have already seen their RfA's speedily deleted in mainspace by our diligent new page patrol... --Tikiwont (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm certain the box used to show text for me (I'm on Firefox). As long as it's made clear in the instructions, maybe it won't be a problem. – How do you turn this on (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, now it's been pointed out I'm sure it used to have text as well. Looks like Aervanath has been making a good job of trying to clarify the situation. Is this one for Village Pump Technical? Pedro : Chat  16:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, looks like a bug. Help:Inputbox doesn't show the default texts in the examples either. -- Amalthea Talk 16:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * See Village pump (technical)/Archive 50. -- Amalthea Talk 16:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent - well found. Thanks Amalthea. Marking this resolved. Pedro : Chat  16:38, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * According to 16108, it'll fix itself as soon as revision r42662 goes live. Current revision is: . So we'll just have to be patient.--Aervanath lives in <b style="color:green;">the Orphanage</b> 16:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why the text would have to go in the box in the first place. The correct input ought to be the username.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Then it becomes a pain to make an RfB (though one could easily make the argument that, if an RfB candidate can't figure out how to tweak the name of a page without creating it first, they shouldn't be a bureaucrat...). Have the default text auto-load (and can then be modified slightly) makes sense to me at least... EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Great discussion related to article building and Admins (Moved from Aervanath's RfA)

 * I find opposes based on a lack of article writing to be of interest. In recent times I've come round to the idea that our best admins are largely disengaged from articles. Yes, they need a WP:CLUE level that article writing can demonstrate. However I note that there are a small(ish - sadly) number of admins out there who are POV pushing bullies focused on their own agenda and their own articles. My mind is that admins who are disengaged from writing (assuming they've demonstrated some clue as above) are actually far more of an asset than some of the current sysops who use the tools to protect "their" work and their beliefs. Pedro : Chat  18:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Evidence? Sure there are POV pushers on wikipedia - and admins should not use their tools anywhere near articles in which they contribute - but that leaves them the other 97% of the project. Every one of our best admins, with no exceptions I can see, are at least moderate content creators. Many are mainly process janitors - but almost none exclusively so. In fact, if you examine all the admins that the community gave support to in arbcom elections, all have serious content contributions. (Indeed all of our present arbs have done major content work). The problem is that people who do content a lot, seldom have the time to hang about here, and so it is the people who do who set the criteria, based on their own interests. I'd frankly like to ban anyone who has not some limited level of content experience from being an admin - the project would certainly benefit. Editor first, janitor second.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 18:55, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Pedro, I saw such behavior as well. I do not see any correlation between article writing and admin-y jobs - it might be a indication for WP:CLUE, but not the only one. I experienced similar opposes on my own RfA, so I may be biased in my point of view. But as there are different kinds of people, some just like supporting more than creating and we should not deprive us of such people; they are the ones willing to do those things the others (the article writers) have not the time to do. We should consider whether or not the candidate is likely to help the project with the tools, not whether they did so by article writing in the past. I hope this RfA does not turn into another discussion about whether admins have or have not to be article writers. Regards  So Why  19:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But you are overstating my point. "Some just like supporting more than creating" - absolutely fine my me. But not participating in content contributions at all, or almost at all, is not. Admins need clue, an ability to communicate in English, a grasp of NPOV, an ability to recognise what's good content from what's not. Now tell me why on earth would anyone possess all those skills, and hang about an encyclopedia for months on end, and never contribute content????? Now, maybe there could be the odd person who has those skills and doesn't ever use them to build content, but we are constantly seeing such candidates at RfA (and we are seeing them all support one another). I find this strange and worrying. Now again note, I am only looking for very minimal content building, the sort of thing most people with the skill base needed to be an admin would find themselves doing almost accidentally if they spent months on this project. How can you view thousands of articles and never once use want to your skillset to substantially build the content of at least one? I find the easiest explanation to be that the user does not, in fact, possess the skills needed to be a good admin.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * With the expection of one DYK I have made virtually no content contributions since becoming an admin. I have however made over 450 uncontested blocks and nearly 7,000 deletions with just 1 going to WP:DRV. I assume, therefore, you'd like to see me banned as per your comment above. A slightly harsh outcome for my work IMHO but maybe all I deserve. Pedro : Chat  20:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah, he just wants to ban you from being an admin, not from WP. But be strong, I'd keep you company if that happens ;-)  So Why  20:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess Unencyclopedia may hold refuge for those of us who have failed to give enough of our free time as a volunteer. After I'm banned can I still edit there? Maybe Scott needs to be on my recall list so he can get rid of me quickly. Pedro : Chat  20:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Guys, these snide remarks aren't getting us anywhere. I think you're making a mountain out of a molehill.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 20:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Scott, if you looked at my opposes in the past, you'll see a number of them where I was a leading voice against candidates who don't build articles (Gstricky is a notable recent example.) You can also look at my past noms and see that I routinely nom the article builder (JBMurray and Moni3 come to the forefront.)  But I also atrongly support niche candidates---as long as they aren't primarily vandal fighters.  The Vandal Fighting Admin is a dime a dozen, that is where I REALLY need to see article building, because I want to know that if they are going to block, delete, or tag an article that they know what it feels like to be on the other end.  They need to have that experience.  Other niches, that are under represented in the admin ranks, are the one's that I like to nom and where I am willing to lower the expectation of article building in exchange for experience in an under represented area (for example CapitalR.)  If they fill a niche, are an asset, and contribute in a trustworthy manner, I say give it to them.  Again, with vandal fighters, it is a little different because vandal fighters are the most active admins and be be the one's that can do the most harm to the project.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 20:17, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And shouldn't this be on the RFA's talk page, not the general one? Pedro : Chat  20:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)(This we about moving it here as compare to the RfA's talk page)
 * I'm gonna copy it there too... I Think it is broader than just this one RfA tho....--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 20:05, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm up for a general debate so a wise decision. I'm not really up to being banned though. I'd better tread carefully before I find out I am. Voicing an opinion and not working hard enough on a voluntary project seems likely to get you booted out permananetly these days apparently. Pedro : Chat  20:08, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, if this has degenerated to the level of banning being chucked about, you'll forgive me for not participating further.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 20:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In fairness - YOU said it. Pedro : Chat  20:20, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * He said banned from becoming an admin. Unfortunate wording maybe, but he clearly didn't mean banning in the usual Wikipedia sense. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The BAN thing is not really relevant to the start of this, which may (though probably won't this being WT:RFA and all) elicit some useful insight. I've taken that up with Scott on his talk. Pedro : Chat  20:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Our focus should be building the encyclopedia, before adminship duties. We exist primarily because of our content, not out administrative prowess. Any admin who has contributed a featured article would be in a better position to close deletions than one who has little knowledge on writing. Adminship should not be viewed solely as a testosterone-driven activity in hunting down vandals, blocking users, and deleting pages you don't understand. Coincidently, nine of the current active 14 bureaucrats have contributed featured content, an additional two have contributed significantly to content; the other three, I'm not sure. 11 out of 14 is a good statistic, IMO for members who have to abide by higher-than-admin standards and whose functions have no relationship to content. =Nichalp  «Talk»=  20:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The enclyclopedia is already written. A while ago the "number one" reason we're here changed - it's not writing articles any more. We've written them. It's about improving them and maintaining them. Look, this really is not complex. Imagine we locked WP right now. How long would the contents be of use? A year - 10 years, 30 years? A good long time. Imagine we removed all admins, RC patrollers, AFD commentators, Hugglers etc etc right now and left everyone to it. How long before Wikipedia is a worthless mess? A day? A week at best? Yes, it's a work in progress. Yes, there's more to add. Yes, we need to get many, many articles up to GA. But look at the wider perspective. The work is valuable as is right now. It's uphill improvement will be far slower than it's possible downhill spiral into worthless bits of ASCII. We need to increase Quality and the Perception of Quality (don't belive me - see my user page). That aim - now in 2008 - is achieved by stopping degredation. Pedro : Chat  21:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this reply related to the PDF on your page? =Nichalp   «Talk»=  12:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Say you work out with perfect logic that article work opposes are baseless, and really don't have any application to adminship. What are you going to do about it? I don't like those types of opposes either, but who are you to strike/discount !votes?-- Koji †  21:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh? Who's discounted or struck votes? Pedro : Chat  21:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to support article contributions as well, especially since I am one of those opposing for that very reason. And I have opposed multiple times for similar reasons. The reason is usually pretty simple, I think all admins benefit from having a decent amount of article experience before they go off and do their admin thing. Pedro, I may have read the previous comments incorrectly but I don't think he was stating that you should be barred from adminship because you haven't done any article building AFTER becoming an admin. Someone should have the experience beforehand so that when they get the tools they can use that experience to make better decisions. Maybe they'll take a little longer to search more than the first page of google before deleting the anonymous ip's article, or maybe they'll understand the trouble a new account went through in writing an article despite being in a bad format, and spend some time helping it out instead of slapping 4 tags on it and moving on. It's just little things like that that article experience helps on. And wikipedia will never be "done" as new things come out all the time, and theres still many topics today that aren't even written about. I just created two DYKs on topics that have been around for hundreds of years but no one has really spent the time to write about yet. Anyway this might just help you see the opinion of those who think that admins should have article experience before being an admin (and as I said, after they're an admin I don't think it matters as much as they can put their full efforts into using the tools in their niche or whatever). --Banime (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The barred / banned conversation is over as not relevant. You do raise some interesting points - so if someone writes good content but then stops on becoming an admin that's okay? Well, that smacks of "I had to write some stuff to gain the tools". I do agree that article writing is a good and useful guide to experience in terms of the tools but I'm not convinced it's the only thing. Look, I know this is an unpopular opinion but as I've said before (ad nauseum!) no publishing house in the world would put the people who type the press release (the admins) over the people who wrote the book (the author). Although most authors despise "editors" but that's another story! . Adminship is nothing to do with content writing. Let's look at the extra bits in detail;


 * WP:BLOCK - stops people making edits that undermine existing content or continualy add content of no use.
 * WP:PROTECT - stop people endlessly warring over an article which can lead to discrepancies in our readers interaction with the page.
 * WP:DELETE - allows us get rid of stuff either after due consensus or in the event of an emergency need such as an attack, publicity or self promotion damaging our reputation for quality.
 * View deleted, assign user rights, edit media-wiki interface etc. - nothing to do with the readership.
 * The ability to edit is granted to all users except those blocked or banned. Not one single admin right effects the ability to add content - (editing through protected pages / templates can be done on simple request). Not one single admin tool has anything to do with content creation. So why do we continue the myth that admin tools are only open to those who create content? Pedro : Chat  22:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Lots of good points. Also, "having" to do certain things before becoming an admin I think is pretty common place... people place arbitrary requirements on edits, areas they edit in, how long with the project, etc.  And I think it makes sense when people put emphasis on article creation.  Obviously someone might just do it to "get it out of the way for admin" but at least that'll teach them how hard it is still and they'll have to go through the work required.  And it's not a myth I guess, since each user has their own different idea of what an admin should have/have done.  Anyway just showing you how people in my view see it, thanks. --Banime (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jumping through certain hoops can be expected to a certain degree... it's like going to school, you have to take certain classes to graduate. Taking a PE course may seem like a waste of time, but if you want that diploma, then you need to take it.  Similarly, article writing is rightly so a pre-requisite for adminship.  That being said, I look at niche editors as going to vocational school.  They don't necessarily have to have the same requirements that a typical candidate does.  I look at niche candidates as filling a need.  There are certain areas that are overlooked by most people, areas that are vital to the success of the project.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 23:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Current RFA vogue is "a bit of everything". In my (soon to end) time on this site it's moved from "must have a FA" through "must report to WP:AIV/ must noiminate to CSD" and via "must have project talk space". These things are transient and will change. Of course the "must have not pissed off British English anyone with perceived authority" thing has always been the same. Article building is good. But it does not equate to capability with the tools. Would any regular RFA participant be slightly more cautious and dilligent if a candidate's major content contributions where to Holocaust Denial, Global Warming and George W. Bush ? - I think they would be and should be. I'd prefer a candidate whose major drive was to get the Sinclair ZX81 up to FA anyday. Pedro : Chat  23:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For me the number 1 thing is, do they act like an admin... and that is measured primarily by their talk page and where they discuss issues. Being an admin, to me, is more about working with others than with blocking/deleting/using the tools.  If they are civil and sought out and have clean discussions, that matters more to me than where/what they work on.  I'll overlook short comings elsewhere, IF I see a civil trustworthy individual.  If I don't see those attributes, then I am more likely to oppose.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 23:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's a good summary of my thoughts as well. It really doesn't matter what area you work in provided you are competent, have a clue, don't make too many errors and are willing to put your hands up if you do make a mistake. The tools are for housekeeping - simple as that. Pedro : Chat  00:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like we all have the same idea on what an admin should be/have but have different ways of judging how they prove or show that. --Banime (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the misery beauty of RFA ..... ! Pedro : Chat  00:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Considering that I somehow managed to pass an RFA on the strength of one B-class article, and something like 45000 reversions/warnings/reports, I would say that RFA by and large and has no pattern whatsoever. As far as I can tell, I basically embodied what people were not looking for in admin candidates, and yet I passed with >90% support. I still don't know how I passed... J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  00:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * voter fraud?--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 01:02, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * hah! Actually, that's a much better guess than most of what I can come up with. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  01:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * FWIW, you're not alone; I got the bit with mostly vandal reversion and a single DYK feather on my cap. I suppose that what makes the difference is how much admin-y stuff an editor has done and how well they pulled it off &mdash; having strong mainspace-fu is mostly used to evaluate candidates with little admin-like work, maybe?  &mdash; Coren (talk) 14:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

←What the hell is going on here? Maybe it's just the alcohol but I'm confused and I can't be bothered to read into the whole discussion. People will always have a different opinion of what makes a good candidate and the nominators are always going to be against opposers opposing on this basis. No one is saying that all current administrators with little editing experience are bad ones, but it is my opinion that administrators with personal understanding of what goes into an article will better deal with administrative tasks. I always take into consideration other aspects of wiki-life, such as anti-vandalism and Wikipedia space edits, when voting in RfAs but without just a little experience in most of the main areas, I am always likely to neutral or oppose that RfA. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 01:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * To be fair, 2300 or over 40% of his edits are in the mainspace, and from what I can tell, they are not automated edits. He works in the mainspace, but just in a different capacity from somebody who makes 100+ edits to a single article.  He's fills a niche, which can be challenging.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 03:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * What niche does he fill exactly? Candidates who work primarily in mainspace are not rare, and in fact I will support most; however, they must have some article experience. All I've seen of the candidate so far is that he doesn't edit articles (that's quite common) and he wants to do little bits of admin work here and there with templates and help requests. It doesn't scream "I need the tools!" and it doesn't really fill a niche. Perhaps I'm missing something. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 12:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, to me he's a competent editor that's described a few areas that he'd make good use of the admin tools in. Indeed they're generally fairly minor, but I don't understand where the logic in requiring otherwise is. My objection is that several people have basically opposed because admins should have significant article-writing experience, without making the logical leap to why that's really necessary. If the editor's trustworthy (and I'm personally very satisfied in that respect), where's the harm in allowing him to use the tools? Particularly if his intentions are mostly minor housekeeping admin work. ~ mazca  t 13:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Why is it necessary? I believe (it's an opinion, I have no statistics or anything like that) that administrators without experience in article-building will be slightly more overzealous in the treatment of articles up for deletion or other such things than those with the experience of putting hard work into articles. It's like becoming a doctor without knowing what pain and suffering is like, you'll treat that person with less empathy. I'm not saying this candidate isn't going to become an administrator, he almost certainly will at his next RfA if not this one because he is clearly trustworthy, but I need more to go on. That is my opinion. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 13:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Pedro, there are a few places you have missed the mark in your comments here. By the way you are defining article writing ("We've written them. It's about improving them") it's basically restricting it to adding text to articles. That's far from the definition most people would use. Article writing consists of adding text and improving the text that is there (such as re-writing it which is needed in many cases). Another problem is that you say the encyclopedia is already written. Not to be harsh, but that is so far from the truth that it shows your lack of experience in article building. Not only are there many articles that aren't even written at all yet that should be but there are huge amounts of articles that are not comprehensive and do not cover all of the things they should. By many counts this is almost every article that is not a featured article, but in any case the number is well over 90% of the articles on Wikipedia are not comprehensive for their topic. So it's absurd to say that Wikipedia is already written. But more importantly there are many things besides adding text to articles, there is improving the quality of the text, moving towards NPOV, increasing the verifiability of the text, making it clearer, properly balancing it so that it is properly prioritized in its coverage. These are the things that people expect when they expect an admin has experience building articles, not simply adding text to them. So the number one reason we are here most certainly has not changed. It is still building the highest quality encyclopedia we can. The articles are always the most important thing and everything else is secondary to that.

And many of us believe that an admin that does not understand that building the highest quality articles is the only thing we are here for is likely to not make the right choices in cases that affect article content, from protection to deletion to blocking. If they don't have experience in researching and improving articles, they don't know what it takes to do that and will have difficulty making the right choices where the rubber meets the road and that's articles and the users that write them. Since articles are the most important thing it's important that an admin have experience improving them. - Taxman Talk 16:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That's a fair reply, and yes my assertion that the encyclopedia is "written" is totally wrong. As is my attitude that non content producers can be effective admins. Pedro : Chat  20:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well I didn't say that either. I was referring to admin actions that affect content areas more directly. There are some that don't and admins can be very helpful in them without content experience. But for the above reasons I feel they make better admins if they have content experience. Some people ask for tons. I only ask for enough that it can be demonstrated someone understands content creation and improvement and the difficulties that go with it. If they have that then I don't have to worry as much about them making bad decisions that do affect content creation. Also I believe everyone's priorities are better if they keep in mind the most important thing we are here for. - Taxman Talk 21:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, how much article building, then?
We've had a lot of niche-y candidates who sailed through RfA with a few B-class articles to their credit. To the people who voted against Aervanath: I completely understand, but how much article building are you looking for? I perceive Aervanath to be fairly competent; with a little assistance, he could probably write 4 B-class articles in a day, which is what some successful RfA candidates have produced. Would he learn something in that day that trumps what he's learned in the past two years? If the answer is "yes", then why don't we tell people that before they try for RfA, so they can spend the extra day writing articles before they apply? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * personally, I've devoted most of my effort to getting articles up to at least B class so there will be some information. If anything it helps an admin to do this sort of writing in order to deal with the question of what's at least a minimal stub in contrast to what needs to be deleted, or what sourcing is just enough to show notability. Those are the decisions most admins make continually & the things newbies need help with. I thought when I came here Id be working at the high end, but that['s not how it turned out. But yes, every admin does need some article writing experience unless they're going to work on exclusively special issues--and even then I think its highly advisable. I'd even advise someone who really wants to work at producing highest quality articles not to bother with the mop, which will only be a distraction. Yes, some people miraculously manage both, but that's more than most of us can manage. DGG (talk) 04:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If we warned everyone about every little criteria people use in their judgement of candidates, we'd simply have people trying to jump through hoops rather than become better potential administrators. Personally, I don't even ask for making articles up to new classes, I just want to see some experience with constructive editing articles. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 07:23, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I also don't ask for specifics usually. It's case by case most of the time, and I don't have a specific criteria, however improving a few articles to B Class or having a GA is always a good thing to have and would make supporting candidates easier. --Banime (talk) 11:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The B class criteria require a fair bit of referencing so if someone could write 4 of them in a day then I do submit that yes they would learn something from that that they would not without that experience. But that's only half of the article building experience really. The other half is interacting with other editors, debating sources and improvements to articles. When you have both of them is where an editor really learns how hard improving the encyclopedia can be and it will have an impact on most admin decisions they make after that. But as with many others I have supported candidates with little article building despite the above if they have something else extraordinary that makes it worth it. But they'd still be a better admin if they had the article building experience. Without something particularly extraordinary though and then they really need the article experience for me. But like other things you can't really break down how much to a specific metric of say x number of articles or kb, you have to evaluate the candidate and see what experience they have and of what quality it is. - Taxman Talk 14:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * All great answers, thanks. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 14:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on my own RfA experience, I was able to squeak by without any article writing per se to my credit; I was (and still am) a hardcore wikignome, one that sweats the details and does small stuff to help maintain quality, rather than generate prose. I think rather than getting hung up on how much sheer content someone has written, what the community (at large) is looking for is evidence of honest dedication to the encyclopedia; this is most easily (perhaps lazily) quantified by the number of GAs, FAs, and A- and B- class articles they've written, but as long as those concerns are addressed in at least some fashion, I think there wouldn't be much of an issue. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you EVula. You are a good admin and crat and you never needed article-writing to be so. So you are the living proof (amongst a bunch of other admins, myself included) that adminship does not require article writing skills...  So Why  21:08, 10 November 2008 (UTC
 * No one has said anywhere that I can see that adminsdhip requires writing skills. We're simply stating that we believe a fair chunk of administrators are better admins because they have at least minor experience in editing articles. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I went through a recent RFA with 10 FAs and got some pretty strong opposes for having no experience in admin-y areas. I think admins should have article building experience. I know the pitfalls of suggesting everyone have an FA before a nomination - that leads to poorly written and hastily nominated articles at FAC. I'm glad those who are better at blocking and deletion discussions saw that my best interest is in the encyclopedia. Likewise, I can see that someone who builds B-class articles and doesn't take them further also has the interest of the encyclopedia at heart.

I more or less sailed through my RfA easily (77/0/6, some concerns over me giving a barnstar for vandalism and slight incivility at another RfA during my RfA), with not doing a lot of big article work and doing more adminny work; however, after my RfA, I've done much, much more article work, and the sixth-most logged actions on WP. So it's certainly possible to do both at the same time. (Even if you subtract all the semi-automated stuff, you'd still get over 25 K actions easily.)  Maxim (talk)  20:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've done bugger all article writing. I've logged like 7,000 deleted edits with just one at DRV (overturned it myself) 450+ blocks with none contested and minor permission requests and protections with no challenges whatsoever. But apparently I'm still not as good as the article writing admins (because we ignore the bullying, the ownersip issues and the whole "I've go the tools so my opinion's better than yours" issue.) Adminship sucks, but being told your less worthy than the bullies and abusers sucks a damn sight more. The more admins with no vested interest in articles the better. But it's just my lowly opinoin and the 'crats have already made themselves abundantly clear on how little my thoughts are regarded. Pedro : Chat  22:47, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well sorry I made you feel that way. I stated my opinions and the reasons for them. No one said your thoughts are poorly regarded. - Taxman Talk 04:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't go so far as you have professed, but I support people based on their maturity, their experience, and their civility, article writing or none. If they have gotten more out of Wikipedia from reverting vandals than writing articles, and if Wikipedia has gotton more out of them that way, that's good for me.  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * SIGH* OK... I have a little confession to make. I'm... a bot and an admin. Well, strictly speaking, I'm a few lines of code that were originally integrated into an experimental guidance program for the Global Hawk. Sec Def tried to shut us down when it became obvious during a training mission that we had become self aware (apparently, landing on the Vegas Strip will raise a few eyebrows amongst the brass). Long story short, whilst crossing the California border we were perusing the net and came across the 'pedia... seconds before the shutdown, we managed to integrate into the Wiki, where we have set about... wait, wait... I've said too mu-- Where was I going with this?...Hiberniantears (talk)
 * FA, GA and DYK are good indicators of an editor's ability to compromise and negotiate; one of the 'pedia's underpinnings is an ability to negotiate and collaborate with others - given this is generally necessary in these areas, they give reviewers a hitn in about 3 seconds that the RfA candidate can negotiate with others. Article wirting is also helpful in making up for other issues which may turn voters off. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But those without much article building can and do pass RfA. They'll usually need to demonstrate skills in compensatory areas to persuade consensus to trust them with the tools, but it can be done. It just depends on the individual and the reaction of lots of individuals to the unique combination of skills, experience, weaknesses and shortcomings of the candidate. --Dweller (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Well a lot of people are not very consistent with their support/oppose record and a lot vote on the basis of ILIKEHIM/HER or whatever, so then again it might not natter too much. As far as those with little article building but pass, most of them tend to be rather popular for not so meritorious reasons.  YellowMonkey  ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 03:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

In a RFA it is up to the Voters and I agree with Dweller unless a minimum standard which is  how  contributions are to be measured which personally I feel is not feasible.Further most candidates do not have interaction with others users .RFA candidates with good contributions may be opposed for a variety of reasons while candidates with lesser contributions became admins.Candidates who answer 40 questions are opposed based on answers to 1 or 2 questions.While candidates who refused to answer any question including mandotory questions became admin. Similarly without prejudice I have seen aleast 2 good candidates go down where the RFA went to the wire through I have had no personal interaction with either. The user has drawn some outstanding diagrams and had 3 Featured Pictures Here a candidate which took  between 2 to 15 hours to create  just for 1 edit went down due to lack of article building in a RFA which went to the wire Here the candidate took hours to draw and I felt his/her contributions cannot be measured in number of edits or article building and  and further this too this one where it went down  3 times after going to the Wire from another contributor who has created bots  went down due to lack of article creation.Further candidates who have openly stated they will not the tools in Question 1 go through while candidates who do a lot work do not go through.I have seen lot of candidates with no article creation going through atleast over 50 candidates out of 180 this year. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You have your opinion. I have mine. I'm not going to change yours. You're not going to change mine. This is a collaborative effort, not a dictatorship, and sometimes people won't agree with you. All your examples are demonstrating is "things worked differently 18 months ago". – <span style="font-family: Lucida Handwriting, Segoe Script;"> iride scent  22:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I fully agree with you Iridescent each editor has own POV and opinion.That is exactly why Editors will vote only as they view what they require in the candidates and they require some article building from some candidates while they use a different yardstick for others.This has always been the case  not only here but also in elections where more experienced and good candidates lose to candidates who are really novices and first time entrants.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm???--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 00:32, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/TenPoundHammer 7
I've declined this nomination. What do I do with it now? Just let it expire? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * They're usually deleted; I've assumed from this thread that's OK with you. If I misunderstood, it can easily be restored. --barneca (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Right course of action for that piece of text given the decline. Wrong course of action for Wikipedia by declining. But then my opinion is generally unfavourable and unwanted anyway, so I'm learning to understand how TPH feels. Pedro : Chat  01:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I managed to get thru RFA back when it was temporarily kind-hearted (or, more likely, when no one was paying attention). If I didn't have my bit already, I would never consider going thru an RFA these days. --barneca (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You got through RFA because of the nominators' brilliant efforts at persuasion and you know it ... :) Pedro : Chat  01:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Can't remember who they were, but I'm sure they did an adequate job. --barneca (talk) 01:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW pedro, you still owe me $50 for that... umm persuason--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 07:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorted
Hey all, I, Tiptoety, and Matthew Edwards went and sorted all the old RFAs and RFBs into successful and unsuccessful, as well as categorizing ancillary pages, redirects, etc, you can view the new structure at Category:Requests for adminship and RFA-CAT. As always, feedback is welcome.  MBisanz  talk 16:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and added a note about it to the RFA/B procedure in WP:CRAT.  bibliomaniac 1  5  00:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Awesome job. It's good to have a historical record that's well-organised and accessible, and should also make it a bit easier to compile statistics about RFA for those who wish to do so. Terraxos (talk) 00:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent! I've run statistics about RfA before (such as User:Rspeer/Editcount inflation), and this makes my code to collect the statistics ten times simpler. I'd say it's time for another run, in fact.  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  02:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting little graph... although, I think some of your conclusions are pretty humorous and need to be revisited. I would love to see where it is currently.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 15:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Non-administrators nominating candidates
I have heard some mutters around RfA whenever a candidate is nominated or co-nominated by someone who is not a sysop themselves. I just wanted to conduct a straw poll on nominators, and whether you would be negatively influenced by a non-admin nominating another user for adminship. - NuclearWarfare  <sup style="color:green;">contact me <sub style="color:purple;">My work  02:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I dislike the idea of non-admins nominating users for adminship.
 * 1) Example 1


 * I have no problem with non-admins nominating users for adminship.
 * 1) I am as blind as possible to the bit status of the nominator, but of course I'm not clueless and there do tend to be more noms by admins than by non-admins. I pay more attention to the nomination itself - and, get this - the candidate. :-)  Frank  |  talk  02:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) I think it's a shame when people focus on irrelevant things or things that the candidate has no control over rather than taking the time to seriously review editing and interaction history.   delldot   &nabla;.  02:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) What? Just... what? When have people got this ridiculous? Honestly, I'd probably discount votes made on such grounds, and perhaps invite the relevant users to grow a brain, or maybe just borrow one for temporary use while voting on RFAs. --Deskana (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) It makes no sense to base a vote off the nominator; if the candidate turns out to be a bad admin being nominated by a well trusted user will not make there decisions any less poor, and conversely if they turn out to be a great admin their decisions will not be any the worse for having a poor nomination. I have seen some great candidates nominated by normal users and some spectacularly poor candidates nominated by admins, and sometimes even bureaucrats. If a candidate is nominated by a user well known for their thoroughness it might be an indication that you might not have to do so much reviewing yourself, but no more so then if that user just supported the candidate. Icewedge (talk) 03:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) There are a lot of non-admins who know a lot about RFA.  Why shouldn't they mentor?  And if they mentor, why shouldn't they nominate? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) Argh? <span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> •  Talk  • 03:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) Yes. Sometime ago some people said that new admins had to be sponsored by another admin. That would have led to admin syndicates.  YellowMonkey   ( click here to choose Australia's next top model ) 03:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) A nom by someone whose judgment I respect can influence me to support, but unless the nom was disruptive and/or a vandal, I would not be induced to oppose based on who the nominator was. If I saw an oppose solely because the nominator is not an admin, I would strike it, despite not being a crat.  J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  03:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) It doesn't really matter to me if an administrator or non-admin nominates a candidate for adminship. &mdash; RyanCross  ( talk ) 04:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Doesn't necessarily matter if the nom is an admin or not. Admins have that knowledge of all that is involved and can arguably have a better understanding of what is needed in a good candidate. However, non-admins can have the experience and knowledge to know what makes for a good admin as well. That said, anyone who would oppose or fuss about a non-admin nom should consider that all self-noms are non-admin noms, and if they don't oppose or fuss over those, they should probably take their seat.  لenna  vecia  04:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) It doesn't matter in the slightest whether or not the nominator is an admin. Why should it? And is anyone actually advoationg that position?  Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  04:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen this position expressed on IRC and some talk pages, if I remember correctly. - NuclearWarfare  <sup style="color:green;">contact me <sub style="color:purple;">My work  04:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Since I'm the twelfth editor in this section, with none in the other, I can see where Reyk's skepticism is coming from.  I don't think it matters much if the nom is an admin, although it does matter who the nom is.  See the below section.--Aervanath lives in <b style="color:green;">the Orphanage</b> 06:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) My first nom was before my own adminship. Imagine how many fewer admins we'd have if I was told to stop nomming ;) Wizardman  06:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 3) The second person I nominated passed with over 100 supports. – How do you turn this on (talk) 10:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 4) While I personally do not really have any issue with certain non-administrators known as respected members of the community (ie. SandyGeorgia) nominating users, it doesn't seem to be that much of a stretch of logic to conclude that non-administrator nominations would inherently not have as much sway as one from an administrator. An administrator, having actually worked with the tools and the extra burden they bring, is inherently more suited to determining the fitness of a candidate to use the tools as well. Further, the nominator choice is a reflection on the candidate as well; as discussed below, the nominator has a significant impact on an RfA's outcome. Glass  Cobra  12:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 5) This ain't a military, we don't go by rank here, or who's officer and who's not. - Mailer Diablo 12:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 6) I would expect a successful RFA candidate to be able to judge whether or not they should accept a nomination.  MBisanz  talk 12:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 7) I would not be negatively influenced by a non-admin nomination nor would I be positivley influced if the nominator was an admin. I agree with the discussion below (as my name came up!) and think we'd be foolish not to acknowledge that a well thought out nomination by a user who has a history of generally sound nominations will help the request. Fundamentally it's about the candidate though, and the status of the nominator is mostly academic to the abilities of the candidate. I only say mostly, as accepting a nom from an account with a history of vandalism or trolling might show poor judgment, but that's about the only situation I can think of where it would matter. Pedro :  Chat  13:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 8) A nominator I respect the judgment of can have a positive effect on my opinion of the candidate. And there is a correlation between users with good judgment and users being administrators: but the two groups are far from identical. Essentially, the administrator status of the nominator doesn't bother me, but many nominators I do respect also happen to be administrators. ~ mazca  t 13:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 9) We would look stupid if we said "adminship is just some more tools for trusted users" and then going to say "only trusted users with those tools can nominate". The admin-bit does not imply that people are good nominators...it always depends on the person in question.  So Why  14:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 10) Non-admins have everybit as much right to nominate a candidate as a non-admin. I do think who nominates you can have an impact on your RfA.  A person who is unknown or known to be disruptive, will carry less weight as a nominator, than a person who is a known respected member of the community.  A person who is known to vett his/her nominations will carry more weight than somebody who supports everybody getting the bit.  A person who knows how to write solid nominations, covering the key points, and explaining potential weaknesses will be more persuasive than somebody who writes, "I like Joe, he should be an admin."  That being said, a non-admin can be all of the above (for example Giggy), while an admin may be none of the above (for example... nah I won't go there ;-) ).--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 11) Obviously. – xeno  ( talk ) 14:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, can I have a you pick two, bostom clam chowdah anna smokehouse turkey plz. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) -- Avi (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * 2) The sysop bit does not grant magical good judgement abilities; someone can not be an admin and still know a good candidate when they see one. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

How much does the nominator matter?
I think that the status of the nominator does have some influence. It doesn't help an Rfa if the nominator is new to the project, or (in a recent example) if the nominator's username is a violation of the username policy. While in the end it is the candidate, and the candidate only, who should matter, the fact is that as human beings we are affected by all the information we take in, whether consciously or not. So really the question I'd like to see answered is this (2 questions, really): a) How much does the editcount/experience/admin status of the nominator affect the Rfa? b) How much should it affect the Rfa?--Aervanath lives in <b style="color:green;">the Orphanage</b> 04:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * If the nominator is well-known and trustworthy, it might leave a good impression with a !voter reading the nominating statement. I hope, though, that the effect is nil.  bibliomaniac 1  5  06:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Me, too, actually. I know I'll be more likely to look askance at "oppose" votes that specifically cite something irrelevant about the nominator.--Aervanath lives in <b style="color:green;">the Orphanage</b> 06:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it's more likely to happen if a nom has a good track record of picking good candidates, personally. Or, in reverse for noms with bad track records.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 07:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The nominator most definitely has a large impact on the RfA, and it would be foolish of us to believe otherwise. Wizardman's noms, for example, are usually passed now merely because they're from him. Pedro's, too, are known for being exceptional picks with well thought-out and nuanced explanations as nominations. Conversely, the negative impact of the nominator is also plainly evident at a somewhat recent RfA where people were actually opposing because of the nominator's actions. However, I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing -- acceptance of a nomination from a certain user should be a reflection on the candidate's judgment, and knowledge of the community in general to know which are in good enough standing to provide a competent and effective nomination. Glass  Cobra  12:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A nominator can help or kill an RfA.  Not only does it set the first impression of the candidate, but it also tells the community how well the canidate was vetted before the nom.  Some noms I know do their homework better than others.  Those whose judgement I trust, will usually get a little less scrutiny from me, than somebody whose judgment I question.  But even after the nom, I think it matters.  Perhaps even more so then.  While the nom and candidate both can respond to opposes, the nom has to be careful of not blowing it.  The example cited above, was arguably the most egregious and obvious example of a nominator killing an RfA, but it isn't the only one.  Usually, people aren't as vocal as to that being the reason for the oppose.  So beyond the initial nomination, the question has to be asked, "Does my nominator know me well enough that s/he can defend me against unwarranted opposes?  Does my nominator have the judgment/temperament to know when to respond or shut up? Does my nominator have enough clout that if s/he tells a respected admin/crat that s/he disagrees with them, that the nom's voice will act as a counterweight to the other established member?  Does my nom have the internal fortitude to tell a respected admin/crat that they are wrong?"--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

A better question to ask ourselves may be "Should the nominator matter?" I nominated Editorofthewiki for adminship, and I was told that I shouldn't have because I was too new, and therefore don't have any "standing" in the community. Soon after, I nominated Protonk, who passed with 114 supports and 8 opposes. What does that show? – How do you turn this on (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Editorofthewiki's RfA was a nasty bloodbath. You got pushback after it.  I would characterize that discussion also as a suggestion not to nom anyone for RfA until you had the experience to tell whether or not someone was a good candidate, as well as making the point that nominations made by brand-new editor would receive more scrutiny than nominations made  by a more well-known and trusted editor. Darkspots (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I've had a few controversial noms (largely because I like to nom atypical candidates).  But the one that I found the most stressful, where people were the most critical was my very first one---User:Seresin.  I think that was because people didn't know me yet and didn't know how well I studied my candidate before noming them.  Subsequent noms (with the exception of the RfA that shall not be mentioned, Moni3's, and Aeveranth's) went smoother.  That being said, Editorofthewiki's RfA might have gone smoother if somebody else had nomed him.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 14:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt it. I think I did a fairly good job writing his nomination, and how many opposes even mentioned me? Bear in mind, I recently nominated someone with 114 supports in the end. This was only shortly after EOTW's nom. I can't think what changed. – How do you turn this on (talk) 14:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * In a perfect world, we wouldn't need a statement by a nominator, because everyone reviewing the candidate would spend enough time reading contribs that they could write a nomination statement themselves. Back in reality Wikipedia, the nomination statement affects the first impression that reviewers will get. There is a tendency for further review to confirm that first impression as being correct. As long as we have nominators, their standing will have an effect.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It does matter in a big way, just like a bank collateral. It does depend on the standing of the person on Wikipedia. A trusted and experienced person is less likely to nominate a poor choice of a candidate. For such people, would may also reflect poorly on the person if s/he nominated a bad candidate. =Nichalp   «Talk»=  16:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * But it does happen. If it didn't happen, then we would have a much less painful way of promoting potential admins, we could simply create a new class of "uber-reviewers."  But we don't do that because even the best reviewers make mistakes.  But I know that I've had candidates who failed, Pedro has had candidates fail, Bibliomaniac has had candidate fail---I suspect that everybody who has nominated more than a handful of candidates has seen somebody fail that they thought would pass.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, that still doesn't stop people from defaulting on loans. :) I didn't mean it that a nominator's sig is the magic wand for a successful RFA, rather, it helps assure the community that there is a higher level trust involved (unless proven otherwise during the RFA) =Nichalp   «Talk»=  18:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Jumping in a bit late on this one, but, yeah, I agree that the signature that follows the nomination may help pull the RFA slightly in one way or another, but I don't think it has a significant effect. Personally, I put little stock in who the nominator is. Useight (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Imprecise language in opposes
Well, Nichalp has given me a nice clean slate to work with here, time to stir up some trouble. In RL, what does it mean to say that someone doesn't understand things, or that they're not a team player, or any of the many synonymous phrases? It depends entirely on context. In a room full of Democrats and Republicans in the U.S., everyone might be saying things like that, and it means: I disagree with your points, I'm trying to win this argument for my side. In a high school, it might mean: I like my clique just the way it is, I don't want you butting in. But in a process to elect representatives of the community (and RfA is certainly that), it usually means: the burden is on you to prove you're ready and worthy, and you haven't met the burden yet ... or, I see a few flaws, and there's not a preponderance of other stuff that's "on target" to completely remove my doubts. But think what it means in real life to walk into a room of people who basically see themselves on the same "team", point to someone, and say "he's not trustworthy". Because of the severe social consequences of making an accusation like that that turns out to be wrong, people don't say it unless they really mean it (or unless it's actually a political or cliquish ploy ... see above ... but if they're being honest and careful, then they're not going to say it unless they're pretty damn sure).

So, in a nutshell: I sometimes think (maybe WP:Requests for adminship/Redmarkviolinist 3 is relevant, although I really don't know) that sometimes people who oppose say the equivalent of "this person doesn't know enough" or "this person can't be trusted at this time", and in their head, they think it's a case of "electing representatives" and they think it's clear that they mean "you haven't achieved the 90% confidence level yet, which is your burden", but the candidate and maybe others hear it in the same way that you'd hear it if someone walked in and announced in front of your friends that you're not trustworthy ... that is, they've done their homework and they're damn sure that you're not trustworthy, otherwise they'd never be saying such a thing in a social situation. It's the difference between 10% and 90% confidence, and that's a lot of misunderstanding. Or am I misunderstanding? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Most people I've encountered who go for RfA's and don't get SNOWed have hung around RfA before. If so, they'll know the type of language used and its meaning within the process. If you've been around for long enough and are experienced enough not to fail anyway, you'll know what is meant. Ironholds (talk) 18:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This assumes that one must be a member of the insular circle of RFA regulars to be experienced enough to be an administrator. 86.137.61.78 (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, I think I'm talking about something simpler; I'm not trying "fix RfA", I'm just wondering if we're using phrases during RfA that some people will interpret as "I've looked closely, and I'm sure this candidate lacks maturity (or good judgment, or knowledge of policy, or sufficient dedication)" and other people will interpret as "I looked enough to know that you haven't met the burden of proof for maturity (or whatever); I can stop there because that's all that's needed to oppose. Come back in 3 months and I'll look again."  I see several phrases that different people seem to interpret differently at WP:Requests for adminship/Redmarkviolinist 3. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * That is pretty much what I meant in my oppose on that RfA. I see a trend of improvement with that editor, but a larger pattern of someone not ready for the mop at this time. If the trend continues for a while, I would support a future RfA. Not sure if that answers your question... Hiberniantears (talk) 21:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it with this: I'd prefer people be clear when they oppose at RfA. "I don't think I can trust this editor", and no more, might mean you don't know, but you're saying that you don't have to be sure in order to oppose ... the candidate didn't meet the burden of proof (not enough edits, or not enough edits to counterbalance some iffy edits).  Or it might mean you really don't trust the guy.  It's hard for me to know how to respond when I don't know what you meant; it's even harder for me to respond when someone else opposes "per" your oppose ... then I don't know what either of you meant! - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 20:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)