Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 196

Quick 'N Dirty Evaluation Requested
I think that I may be offering myself as an example for the specialization debate, but I'd respectfully request a quick and honest evaluation of my chances if I were to make an RfA with my very meager edit count (a mere 287 in article space). I've been a member of WP since August, 2007. Why I even have the chutzpah to bother you good folks with what is probably a lost cause is this: I'm not now, nor probably ever will be, an extensive article–creator or article–mechanic or AfD contributor. (I've only created one article, though it got GA status; I've done some vandalism patrolling and more coordinate insertion and correction.) What I have done, however, is work at WP:Third Opinion where I think that I've built a fairly solid record of giving opinions and filtering requests. I've kept a record here. Because of that I think that I may have demonstrated the commitment to Wikipedia and the understanding of its processes needed for a sysop. Since my focus is on helping, rather than on editing per se (noting that 3O work is almost entirely performed on talk pages, not in article space), I'll probably never achieve the edit count needed under the normal standards to become a sysop. Why would I want to become one? Because of the "filtering requests" part of my 3O work. If you'll take a look at my 3O record, you'll see that I've denied quite a few requests because of incivility or edit warring. I'd like sysop status to be able to address those conduct concerns directly, rather than having to come hat–in–hand to a noticeboard to ask for them. Within those parameters, would an RfA have any chance, or will I need to wait until about the year 2135 when my edit count, adjusted for vandalism patrolling, may finally reach the threshold here? Wearing my asbestos britches, best regards. T RANSPORTER M AN  (TALK ) 17:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It won't happen. General minimum for articlespace edits is in the thousands, and general minimum for total edits seems to be around the 4k-5k range. You don't have a snowball's chance in hell, to be honest. Good for trying, though. → ROUX   ₪  18:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see 1420 edits in total, which presents a far more complete picture than I expected to see when you mentioned 287 in article space above. With a good nominating statement, I think you'd get a decent hearing but in the end, WP:EDITCOUNT would almost certainly rule the day. Fair or not, correct or not, that is the way RfA has been going. And don't count on the standards being the same over time; by 2135, you'll need even more edits. :-) Frank  |  talk  18:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I was pretty sure that's what I would hear, but I thought I'd at least ask. I've discovered any number of times, both positively and negatively, where the practice here varies from the letter of the rules, sometimes in view of WP:IAR and sometimes not, and was hoping against hope that there might be one here, too. I'll apply in a couple of centuries. (Would 15:00 (UTC) on June 25, 2210, be good for you?) Best regards, T RANSPORTER M AN  (TALK ) 18:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ooh, I'll be on WP:DIED by then. Useight (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I only had approximately 3.400 edits when I passed my RfA last August and User:Olaf Davis was recently promoted with something like 5.500. There's hope; centuries probably not required!  Consider again when you have something closer to 3 and a half, :)  Mae din \talk 19:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I concur that you don't have much chance (and from what I've read on RfA recently, some people don't think it's even okay to ask the question). You're a perfect example of why the content-creation mentality is off-base, though.  I've been looking a lot at 3O lately (an editor during my RfA said that more dispute resolution experience might be helpful, so I'm watching and learning), and your work there is outstanding.  Admins should demonstrate judgment, neutrality, and understanding of policy, all of which you do in spades.  I would vehemently support you, but I would be in the minority.  Damn shame, too.--otherlleft 00:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Application for BAG membership
I have accepted MBisanz's nomination of myself for membership of the Bot Approvals Group, and invite interested parties to participate in the discussion and voting. Josh Parris 03:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Automated edits
Have you seen this remark from a current RfA applicant: "'I do near' all my CSD tagging manually (due partly to concerns in my last RfA about a high automated edit count)'" That's what you get with "too many automated edits" opposes. --Pgallert (talk) 08:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think there is a level of control and extra element of thinking (and even a challenge) when the edits are done manually opposed to automated (that is just my thought, and Im sure there are those who diagree with me on this), its the users preference to use manual edits over automated (which ever works best for them) i believe (CSDs, Vandal reversions etc). I dont see it as a bad thing though if people choose to edit manually opposed to automated. However it does raise interesting points for sure how edits are assessed in RFA. We are quite demanding on mistakes in automated edits, but are we equally or more demanding on the process of manual edits?, do we treat them the same?, should we treat them the same?., and is it true that there is more thought process involved (time spent) in a manual edit opposed to an automatic edit (CSD/vandal hunting etc)?. Just some stray thoughts here on this topic Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I always interpret this objection as "can't be bothered to find the manual edits", though in some cases there may be few anyway. Manual edits, even vandal reversions, do offer a better insight into a candidate. I think the biggest advantage is that they give an opportunity to do other fixes to articles, and are not always just about undoing others' edits. Potential admins also need to learn to step away from the usertalk templates. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not all automated edits are equal, of course. Let's take CSD; does it take more thought to open the edit window, type in, save, open the creator's talk page, leave a note, and save again; over just letting Twinkle do all the technical details? The end results are the same, the decision required (does the page meet A3's criterion) is the same, but the time is about half. Of course, CSD is an interesting case, because, done right, half the edits it generates won't get caught by any automated edit counter, because they'll shortly be deleted. Doing it wrong, either way, will (rightly) bring opposition down on an RFA, but doing it right using the script can garner opposition for too many automated edits. Then, what about other scripts? HotCat was recently added to the automated edit counter, which had previously counted as manual. There are still dozens of other scripts that leave no trace a script was used unless someone knows what to look for in an edit summary, making the percentage count dubious in certain cases. Just more general thoughts- I imagine candidates with few non-automated edits will always have a next-to-impossible time at RFA. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, to do the same thing without scripts does not give any advantage over the automated process. It just takes longer. Particularly with CSD where you do not have much room for deviation or adaptation. How much thought went into any nomination cannot be measured anyway. Doing CSD manually is a bit like circumventing WP:DTTR by typing the very message that exists as template, manually on every talk page. How long until people will start doing AfD manually again because it produces 4 automated edits? It would be better to just accept that a) vandal fighters and admins have a lot in common, and many of the former want to become the latter, and b) someone who is an effective vandal fighter will have a lot of automated edits. So I want to object those opposes at RfA - reverting to the manual way of doing things will not necessarily raise the clue level of wikipedians. --Pgallert (talk) 10:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that opposing for correct use of tools is an unhealthy meme. I tend to discount a proportion of automated edits simply because hugglers in particular can rack up so many edits per hour, but I don't think one should be looking fer a percentage of nonautomated edits, more a demonstration of clue commitment and communication. An editor with 50,000 edits 90% of which are automated has done as many manual edits as an editor with 5,000 purely manual edits, and the other 45,000 automated edits should be considered a positive not a negative.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Trouble is - there is no definitive amount of "standard" edits required for and RfA, everyone seems to have their own opinion as to edits needed and the allowable proportion of automated edits. My own RfA started this long discussion on automated edits back in November, but nothing has really changed. I was lucky, my 85% automated edits, did not in the end kill the RfA - others might not be so lucky.  Ron h jones (Talk) 01:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we can or should agree a formal threshold for becoming an admin based on total edits, (I still think we could and should have a much lower threshold below which one can't self nominate - but the threshold below which almost no-one would seriously consider a an RFA is very different to the threshold for support). I do think that the process benefits from people discussing their !voting criteria, and this is a logical place for that sort of discussion. I think that a common mistake made by candidates is not to help the !voters by picking out their best contributions. We also have some !voters who may not appreciate just how misleading edit count is as a measure of an editors contributions, and I say that as an editor who is well aware that my 44,000 edits represent far less of a contribution than many editors with a fraction of that edit count. Checking all the articles with the word "preforming" and changing 90 of them to "performing" took me about 90 edits. Reviewing an article at WP:FAC might take as much time, but could result in one edit.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

RFA closed prematurely
As Frank is not available, could I ask someone to re-open my RFA? I had commented earlier about early closure at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Jmcw37 Thanks! jmcw (talk) 10:16, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've reopened the RfA for you. ( X! ·  talk )  · @527  · 11:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! jmcw (talk) 12:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for the delay. I think most agree that "premature" close is the right answer for your RfA. Regardless, I see it's been re-opened; I don't see anything different in the result, however. Frank  |  talk  02:10, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem - being pummeled for a few more days give me food for thought. jmcw (talk) 10:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have withdrawn my nomination. jmcw (talk) 13:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Requests for adminship by ebe123
Requests for adminship/ebe123 Somebody should point out to this very young and very new user that 10ish edits are not sufficent. Be friendly and do not bite the newby.--Stone (talk) 18:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Meh. It's untranscluded, so it's no big deal. ~ Amory ( u  •  t  •  c ) 18:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * RfAs are often created well in advance of transclusion. The editor could probably benefit from being adopted, but I don't assume that creating this page is actually an indication of running anytime soon.--otherlleft 18:55, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have left a little friendly note on their talk page anyway! -- Phantom Steve /talk &#124;contribs \ 19:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Stone (talk) 19:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The drought continues
We are now 22 months into a drought at RFA, and if anything that drought is getting worse. December 2009 and now January 2010 had only six successful RFAs each, making these months, along with three others, the joint worst since records began in March 2003 (Source User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month). Our total number of admins is broadly stable and may still even be slowly increasing, but the number of active admins has dropped from more than a thousand at peak to less than 900 today. I'm concerned about this both because of the practical issue that if it continues indefinitely we will at some point experience a shortage of admins, but also because a dwindling admin base risks exacerbating the admin non admin divide in two ways: Firstly the fewer active admins share the admin load the less time those admins will be spending as ordinary editors doing non-admin stuff. Secondly there is a wikigenerational gulf emerging between admins and non admins, three years ago people were becoming admins within months of starting editing. Now, the vast majority of admins have been wikipedians for more than three four years, it is rare to have an admin who first edited less than two years ago and almost inconceivable to have an admin who first edited less than twelve months ago (We have five admins whose first edits were in the last twelve months, one is a new account for an existing admin and three are bots. We have 35 admins whose accounts first edited 12-24 months ago, 4 are bots and at least two are second accounts)   That wouldn't matter in a community where most people were around for a decade, but this is a community where it has been said that most Wiki careers don't last three years.

I appreciate that there are those who don't consider RFA to be broken, but does anyone still dispute that the phenomena I've detailed are real?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  15:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm still very skeptical about panicking over this. If you think there is a big deal about this, go and nominate people you think are ready for it. If they are ready, I'm confident they'll get through the process (I'm one who doesn't think the process is broken). There will be many more planning for undertaking an RfA in future like myself, but who just don't think they'd pass just yet. Regards, --— Cyclonenim | Chat 15:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't panic when you see your car is approaching a corner, you just switch gears and turn the wheel. It's not a big deal, why panic? Of course, on the other hand, if instead you just sit there and do nothing, the consequences might be somewhat less than stellar. :-P
 * I'm not nominating people to RFA because the whole concept of RFA and nominating and soforth is no longer any good. It has been left to rot for too long, and frankly, it stinks. I'd as soon toss people into a cesspool - that being the physical counterpart to what RFA has become (if you disagree with it being a cesspool, perhaps we could reach consensus on it being a compost heap? ;-) . So nope, you're not getting any new noms from me, despite my being a rather good nominator before, if I do say so myself. :-) You know WP:100? That page was made when I "broke the bank" for the first time in WP history, right here on RFA.
 * Of course, if we make a spiffy new and clean version of RFA, I'll be here on the front lines. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * sofixit – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 15:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi! Experienced user here. Possible rose-colored glasses too. ;-)


 * I was the first person to ever write a nomination that got more than 100 supports on RFA, so it might be useful to give me a quick listen.


 * Right now I'm not explicitly boycotting RFA or anything (despite people occaisionally still asking me for a nom), but well... effectively I guess I am.
 * The reason for this is that I *do* feel that the system is broken. I do not believe that RFA is leading to higher quality administrators at all. Rather the opposite.
 * The bad has driven out the good. Instead of reviewing a person's actions and determining whether they have abilities to produce high-quality content, are good at negotiation, are able to form consensus, or able to mediate conflicts; people instead focus on number of edits and how long people have been here.
 * Also, the process is less a discussion on the candidate's merits so much as a straight up vote. Because a candidate's strengths and weaknesses are not really discussed as such (and certainly not in an atmosphere of "this is how you could still grow"), we generally end up with rather less than ideal candidates.
 * I mean seriously, once when I quizzed a potential RFA candidate a couple of months ago on what the founding issues were.... and they didn't know; AND people were saying "why would they ever need to know that?".  Ahhh... well, my criterion for adminship is "this dude(tte) won't break the wiki anytime soon", but well, if you don't know what an unbroken wiki is supposed to be like (as stated in founding issues), you're going to have some trouble not breaking it. ;-)


 * How we got here is fairly logical, I think. Originally we looked over someone's edits, and discussed them. Something in the order of 500-1500 edits over a month or two - perhaps 3, gives you a fair insight into a person's abilities. So of course some people started saying "well, we can't quite figure you out based on your current edit history yet, please come back when you have a couple more edits".
 * Somehow that habit has deformed into what we have now. Bother.


 * Anyway. We're going to have to come up with a way to revitalize the diverse subsystems of wikipedia. I think it's pretty obvious from the numbers right now that our system isn't going to last the full 100 years, so I guess it's time to do something about it. Overhauling is going to involve some WP:BOLD action I think, and possibly some discussion too. My favorite kind! I can't wait! :-)


 * --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC) TL;DR: undefined  :-)


 * Has anyone tried to identify what the greatest Wikipedia turnoffs are? If not, someone should. Lambanog (talk) 15:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, what do you mean by that? It sounds like it might be useful. Are you volunteering? :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "the vast majority of admins have been wikipedians for more than three years": This may shed some light. - Dank (push to talk) 15:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * 2 (future) board members on that list. I wonder how many admin candidates make it onto the board these days. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC) Yeah yeah, I know, mean comment... still...


 * Every few months, we'll get a new thread about the drought and/or that RfA is broken. Except, nobody knows how to fix either problem (and, really, they're one and the same problem). So, it doesn't get fixed. It won't get fixed. It won't get fixed until the project is literally, and blatantly, falling apart for lack of administrators. So, onwards and upwards to the great standards of RfA! If you attempt to apply here with anything less than two years experience and 30,000 edits, you're a flippin' incompetent newb who's probably out to hurt the project! Plus, if you don't have a bunch of automated scripts helping you, you'll never get to five zillion edits, so you MUST be incompetent if you don't use a script! How dare you apply here you frappin' idiot! --The Certified Idiot (Drool) 16:30, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually there have been a number of suggestions as to how we could improve the RFA process. But so far a combination of those who oppose specific improvements and those who are not yet convinced that we have a problem have prevented any largescale solution gaining consensus. I think the drought has now run long enough that it really can't be dismissed as a statistical fluctuation. But if anyone still thinks it is I would like to know how long it would need to continue before they conceded that the drought is a real phenomenon.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I know lots of things have been proposed. But, nothing ever gets implemented. The regulars at RfA have, as a group, the consensus making ability of a group of 50 cats trying to decide how best to divide up a three month dead rat. :) --The Certified Idiot (Drool) 17:01, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the drought is more a symptom of project-wide problems than a sign that RFA is structurally broken (and it's one of the less harmful symptoms). Such problems include: (1) Disaffection with the project, driven partly by the project's maturity and partly by the shrinking scope and vision of Wikipedia; (2) growing realization that existing administrative tools are not useful in solving most of the quality issues that arise on our highest-profile pages; and (3) increasing insularity and wariness of newcomers and non-experts. Such problems ultimately require a fix that transcends this one process. In the meantime, there's no meaningful backlog in accomplishing important administrative tasks, which is why I say that the drought is not a harmful symptom. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Meh, it's just a big job. Maybe if we can get a few cool heads together who know they can all AGF each other, we can go a long way. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think an RFC could be in order, but for real life reasons I hope it doesn't start for a few months. In the meantime I am trying to persuade some people to run.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:04, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * ... as far away from RfA as possible I hope you mean. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * .... No, but that is their usual response....  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No more RFCs please. That works about as well as RFA does :-P --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been clicking on names that I just assume are admins by their clueful comments on article talk pages, just to make sure. I've found at least one that I believe may have been overlooked. Now, as I'm not an admin, I don't feel qualified to review the details. Maybe this guy absolutely sucks at AFD tagging, I don't know. I don't feel right just plastering his name here, and I don't want him to be asked unless he's been vetted as a good candidate. Are there any admins who are willing to look over potential candidates by e-mail? Especially those who are passing familiar with the issues regarding science and fringe subject matter, which is the area this fella and I both work? Auntie E. (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to look, Aunt E. Jonathunder (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I guess as far as the "drought," I'm not denying it, I'm in the camp that doesn't see it as a serious problem. We're sometimes short on admins for a few hours at a time, but if you watch CSD, AIV, or other admin-related pages, any backlogs that crop up usually only last a few hours and are then cleared out. The worst CSD backlog I've seen recently was when there were about 90 A7s needing dealt with. I posted a note at WP:AN, and within an hour it was down to 30 articles left in the category. I realize that's just anecdotal, but it seems fairly typical. We could help avoid the times when there are no admins around if we could find some solid candidates in Australia or Asia though. Or Antarctica. We should find out if there are any Wikipedians down there, but I digress. RFA being "broken" is another matter. It's a mess, and terribly inconsistent as far as who gets through and who does not and why. Unfortunately I don't have a better idea. The thing I really don't like is the trend of asking the candidate to comment on whatever the "hot button" issue is right now. I'm sure we've all noticed the BLP quizzing that been going on lately in light of the furor over that issue. This seems wrong-headed to me. We're supposed to be analyzing the users experience in editing and doing admin-like tasks, not where they stand on the latest drama. Some folks seem to think it really is an "election" and they should only support those who they agree with, regardless of their abilities as a Wikipedian. But how to prevent that? I don't know. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think the "hazing" that happens at RfA is necessarily a bad thing. I've seen at least one candidate in recent memory whose responses to the criticism they received showed them to be unready to wield the mop.  I'm more concerned with the de facto requirements that applicants must fulfill in order to receive the requisite votes (not that it's a vote--*cough*).  I really don't see why a vandal-fighter needs to be familiar with XfD, or vice-versa.  Participants seem far too quick to disbelieve a candidate who expresses a lack of desire to take part in those areas.  Nobody is forced to edit Wikipedia.  We do so because we (ostensibly) enjoy it.  Why would we assume people will leap into areas they've never expressed an interest in as soon as they have more buttons to press?  AIV is in constant need of more admins.  What's wrong with promoting a few venerable vandal-fighters who've never stepped foot near XfD or a Project?  Is there an honest belief that they will cause disruption or go on some sort of deletion-spree if they get the mop?  It seems to me that there are a number of RfA participants who wish to maintain the "exclusivity" of adminship, when that is expressly not the point.  If an editor has a trustworthy history and an expressed desire to help out in an area that needs it, let them.  Should they wish to broaden their horizons in the future, trust them to read the applicable policies and observe how things are done before leaping in.  The idea that all applicants must have experience in all areas where admins are needed is just absurd. Worse, it's counter-productive.  Very few editors will naturally wish to participate in every area of the project, and so the tendency is for "hoop-jumpers" to be the only ones who meet everyone's expectations.  Rather than reward those who are careful to tick all the boxes before launching an RfA, why don't we simply give the tools to those who have an expressed desire and apparent ability to use them in a given area? Throwaway85 (talk) 04:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are many RFA !voters who oppose simply because a candidate is unfamiliar with an area of the pedia that they don't intend to work in, though it does sometimes happen and I'd agree that it isn't helpful. However there is a very common view at RFA that Vandalfighting may demonstrate a need for the tools, but a good candidate will have done something to build the pedia as well as protecting it. Some take that to an extreme and expect audited content, I think the dominant view is that RFA is an audit of a candidate's contributions and it is expected that they will have enhanced the pedia in some way, usually by writing content; But we also have people who take photos, write code, do gnomish edits or review articles. Many !voters also expect an admin to have good communication skills, and again vandalfighters may not have demonstrated that as so much can be done with templates. However I agree with you that wp:editcountitis is a problem, a few years ago people were making admin within weeks of joining and with hundreds of edits, and in those days it was thought that if you hadn't made admin before your 10,000 edit you never would. Now we have people refusing to even check a candidate's contributions if they have fewer than two thousand edits, few candidates succeed with less than 4,000 edits and I've even seen someone argue that people shouldn't run until they've done more than 5,000 edits. Equally over tenure, it is now quite rare for people to become admins in their first 12 months editing. Unless there are other redflagss I'm happy to support cluefull candidates with 2-4,000 edits and 6-12 months tenure, but with RFA as it is I wouldn't nominate them, and would advise they wait, even if I believe they are ready for adminship.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  14:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "I'm more concerned with the de facto requirements": no argument there, just a reminder: some opposes appear superficial, even if a lot of thought went into them. When you get turned down for a job, you don't get a letter that lists everything that went into the decision-making process; that would pointlessly provoke conflict.  You get a letter that either says nothing, or says something bland and general: we're looking for candidates with more experience in X.  Same thing happens at RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 15:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No one can really credibly object to specialisation. One of the main problems faced by editors who focus on vandalism is that they fail to adequately demonstrate that they understand when not to block good faith editors, delete content with potential, lock up every page because all anons are vandals, ignore all rules, or otherwise get in the way of the content building process. Far more damage is done by overzealous rollback, blocks, protections and deletions than allowing vandals to rampage in my opinion. RfA voters are rightly scared about appointing an admin for life who is going to constantly get in the way of building the encyclopaedia and drive people away. A well presented list of improved content, articles rescued, or well-treated noobs (not just reverting and banning but fixing and helping), can alleviate this problem. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Another problem faced by vandal-fighters when it comes to RfA's is that most of them use automated tools like Huggle. A lot of people seem to equate using Huggle as not having any sort of judgment, not thinking before they revert, as if we're some sort of bot. However that is not true. We still look at the diff when using Huggle, we still have to examine the diff to see if it is unconstructive or not, and we still sometimes have to decide what kind of warning to give the user. To oppose someone because they remove vandalism faster than if doing it manually is frankly hypocritical, because the longer vandalism stays on an article, the worse our credibility is as an encyclopedia.


 * On a side note, I focus on vandalism and I believe that I have demonstrated quite a few of these things. In particular, I'm relatively conservative when I request page protection, in fact I've only requested protection a few times lately because those articles are being attacked by 4chan, and even then it's my belief that the page should only be protected for an hour or so. I'm also conservative when doing CSD work, If I see an article that has a single shred of notability in it, I leave it alone and let other NPP's out there decide if they want to anything with the article. The Thing // Talk  // Contribs  21:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wish there were an easier way to filter out Huggle and other automated programs when looking at a person's edits. Your script is nice, but it still has the draw back that you have to load a page with 500 edits before you can filter out the huggles to get the ones you want. I remember an editor who did all his Huggle edits on one account and all his other edits on another account, which seems to me like an ideal solution, but that might lead to other problems of all kinds. -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 21:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You may be referring to IcewedgeHugglesGoats. Useight (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, these are things that are not easy to demonstrate when you're reverting lots of vandalism. Most RfA voters simply can't be bothered (and who can blame them) to trawl all the contribs looking for the relevant clue. So they look to other voters and copy them, copy their opposes when they can't see the advantages for themselves. It is possible however to present a decent case with some preparation. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Half of these problems could easily be solved if there were a script or a tool that could show contributions only to certain pages, such as UAA or AIV, one wouldn't have to sift through a bunch of pages of contributions if, say, a user has UAA contributions that are buried under AIV edits. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=#04B>The Thing // <font color=#078>Talk  // <font color=#0A5>Contribs  00:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, there is this one and this one, which both pretty much do what you want, but even so, they won't be much help for areas like AfD where there is no single page to post to. -- <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 00:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * And, here it is..., or at least a variant of my suggestion. Works great too... <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=#04B>The Thing // <font color=#078>Talk  // <font color=#0A5>Contribs  00:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It may be the culture of "assume bad faith" that exists towards admins that is discouraging the really wise people from trying RfA. Those that lack the wisdom to avoid such abuse are generally less likely to pass in my opinion. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * From time to time I read these threads and ponder whether or not I could be more of a help to the project were I an admin. I've come to several conclusions:
 * I don't have the slightest clue if I would be any good or not.
 * Every time I check, the edit-count standard seems to be a bit beyond my contributions, so I decide to think about it some more.
 * Nine of the ten rudest Wikipedians I have ever encountered are admins, so the process doesn't do much to weed out unpleasant folks.
 * Admins are all but expected to participate in the ever-expanding pseudo-bureaucracy, while editors can choose not to.
 * For the moment I'll continue to edit articles.--otherlleft 16:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You are a great example of a longstanding wikipedian who I think could do well at RFA, 4,500 edits is more than at least one recent successful candidate. As for the everexpanding pseudo bureaucracy, if you are talking about Arbcom, RFCs and ANI, I think that only a minority of admins get involved in the Drama boards. Hundreds just edit or quietly get on with admin stuff. Also re your concern over whether you'd be any good or not, why not take the User:Filll/AGF Challenge 2 Multiple Choice?  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  22:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with what Kim Bruning stated: "Instead of reviewing a person's actions and determining whether they have abilities to produce high-quality content, are good at negotiation, are able to form consensus, or able to mediate conflicts; people instead focus on number of edits and how long people have been here." Plus if editors keep hearing that "Being an admin is no big deal you just get some extra buttons." then why bother with the hassle at RfA. Also, I was contributing previously at RfA's but after seeing some of the lengths that edit summaries were scoured for an off moment in a reply, something not cited properly, or an article mistagged that turned me off. It seemed that it wasn't a pattern of mistakes/bad behavior but any mistake/bad behavior that was searched for, exposed and magnified beyond reason. I do realize that nothing should be hidden but it seems that some of this was from bad blood/partisanship between editors (you wouldn't believe how much I searched the archives to find out how some of these disagreements developed) but it's still discouraging to see. Now I do occasionally contribute here but it's for editor's that I've worked with in the past and feel that qualify. <font color="#1E90FF" face="Arial">Shine <font color="#000000">runner <font color="#000000" face="Arial">(talk)   17:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've only recently been interested in RfA (not from any personal ambition, but just to learn how things work), and I've followed quite a few and have !voted on several. I find myself agreeing with most of the points that most people have made here, on both sides of the debate (which, I know, is not exactly helpful). I can see that the number of recent successful nominations is low, and that could be a long-term problem. And I can see that there is often a near anally-retentive obsession with total number of edits, number of edits in area X or Y (regardless of whether the candidate has any intention of engaging in either X or Y), etc. But having said that, there have been a lot of nominations of late that simply had no chance whatsoever of being approved, and I find myself agreeing with pretty much every consensus that I have looked at, which suggests that it is still working despite its problems. Professionally I work partly in online admin where I'm paid to moderate a popular UK forum, and I know that you get far more abuse when you wield what users see as a badge and a gun (even if we try to insist that it's really just a mop and a bucket). So to be an admin, I think you need to show a lot more humility, more compromise, and more submission to the consensus than an editor does - and you should never use admin tools in personal disputes with other editors (which is where a few recent candidates have fallen down quite badly, and where at least one has had their mop taken away). And I do think that the 'hazing' approach of RfA has been working very well in eliminating candidates who can't handle pressure - if a candidate can't sit back and allow others to discuss their Wikipedia work without jumping to defend themselves against every comment, I really don't think they have the humility that is needed to be an admin. Boing!  said Zebedee  14:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing the drought. If there is one, it's due to the often-acidic reception many people receive when running for adminship or bureaucratship. Adminship should not be a big deal, and neither should bureaucratship. However, some participants in the discussions have such insanely high standards that very few people can live up to those standards. Back when I ran for adminship, people regularly ran after having about 2000-3000 edits, and they were regularly promoted. People tended to be more forgiving of possible missteps that had happened in the distant past, whereas now people are often given the third-degree for something stupid they did two, three, or four years ago (or even farther in the past sometimes) when they first started here, even if they have an excellent record since then. I agree with those who think the standards have gone up so high that many people see them as near-insurmountable and don't want to go through the intense stress and hazing. Yes, they need to be able to handle such things, but I think what many have to go through now is far beyond most things an admin has to deal with (or what a bureaucrat has to deal with, for that matter, which is much less stressful than anything an admin has to deal with). ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Nihonjoe. I've been assembling stats at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month. I think they show that comparing the last couple of years at RFA with the previous couple of years we are currently over twenty months into a marked drought of successful RFAs. If you think this is still some sort of statistical fluctuation, could you tell me how long the current trend for 6-14 RFAs per month would need to continue before you would consider we had an RFA drought relative to 2006/2007?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:31, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the previous couple of years were a "glut", and we're back to normal. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  13:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how many people would be less quick to oppose if there was a well-developed, in-use community de-adminship process. I can think of at least 2 or 3 recent opposes I'd convert into neutrals if there was such a process in place, and I don't oppose all that often. Ray Talk 18:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

graph

 * RfA stats work 2010-01-10 T1541.png
 * Here's a graphic summary of the RfA history in case it is helpful. - Pointillist (talk) 15:49, 10 February 2010 (UTC) Updated 17:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As the 2nd-newest admin, I'd like to say that althought my RfA was nice and friendly, most of the ones that I have seen over the last few months have been very harsh to the candidates, especially those that are not doing well. There seems to be an attitude of "let's kick them while they are down".
 * If I see a candidate who I think isn't ready, I generally go to the neutral section (or have since mid-Jan anyway!)- especially if I see that they have less than 50% support - if I saw their support to be getting towards 80% and I really thought they were not suitable/ready, then I might move from neutral to oppose - but as a rule, if the candidate is running at less than 50-60% support, they don't generally recover from that, so why pile on? While it looks like it is a struggle to get the mop, many people will be unwilling to even think about it. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 14:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is just an observation, Im not going to draw too many conclusions, but werent rollback and other tools for fighting vandalism populaized about the same time when the decline of number of admin applications occured (dec 2007/jan 2008)? Ottawa4ever (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good thought. Since the graph shows that the % successful (blue) did not change significantly since January 2006, the reason for the decline in successful RFAs (green) is not the result of changed standards but of a decline in requests (orange). As such, the discussion should not be about whether RFA became more complicated but about why fewer people ran. Since the graph indicates that the percentage of success roughly stayed the same, it's more likely that previously valid reasons for requesting adminship ceased to exist, such as access to rollback for vandal fighters or the creation of the account creators usergroup. It's certainly a thought, since the "rollbacker" usergroup was created in January 2008... Regards  So Why  22:07, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to prove a point but the % successful blue curve (five-month centered average success rate) did change significantly after 2006. It was 48% in Dec 2007, 45% the following month (Jan 2008) and hasn't exceeded 39% since then. The latest figure (five months around Nov 2009) is 30%. The data is here and I'd welcome a reality check on it. - Pointillist (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been an editor since 2004 and I think that there is probably some validity to what SoWhy Ottawa4ever noticed. As other tools became available, the tools of an admin became less compelling.  Combine the availability of alternative tools with the process of running the gauntlet that RFA has become, and it should be no surprise that many potential admins conclude the infliction of pain is not worth it. -- DS1953 <sup style="color:green;">talk  23:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That is true but 2007 is usually praised as a great year for RFA with very high promotion levels. The graph you made (good job btw :-)) shows that those high levels may not have been a result of less strict expectations back then (as some people argued in the past) but could be directly proportional to the number of candidates. Since (number of RFAs in total) * (% successful) = (number of successful RFAs) and since (% successful) stayed roughly the same since 2006 (i.e. somewhere between 30 to 50 %), we have to assume that the reason why (number of successful RFAs) dropped is mostly because of a drop in the number of (number of RFAs in total). But if (% successful) represents the expectations of the community (to a certain extend at least), then we can say that expectations have not changed drastically since 2007. Ottawa4ever makes a good point as to why less people could have submitted RFAs. The other reason of course is probably the drop in total editor growth that we have been experiencing for some time now (for various reasons: Wikipedia is nothing new anymore, quite a number of established users are excessively BITEy nowadays, the standards have changed etc.) Regards  So Why  23:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Going just by the graph, it would appear that something significant happened around January to February 2008. Was there a major policy shift, process change, or giant brouhaha that occurred at that time?  Did an external event have an influence like the opening of a competing website?  Did the drop in admin applications coincide with any other developments in Wikipedian participation patterns? Lambanog (talk) 09:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I went back and took a look at versions of this page from around January 2008. Seemed more active back then. I also notice The Economist article "The battle for Wikipedia's soul" came out March 2008.  Was that just coincidence or did someone notice something back then? I cannot see the article contents so cannot form an opinion. Lambanog (talk) 07:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks Pointillist. I think that shows three phases at RFA, an early period when there few RFAs and almost all were successful, a second phase from mid 2005 to early 2008 when lots of admins were appointed, but the community steadily got pickier, and then after Rollback was unbundled in Jan 2008 the current drought new normality which I shall now stop calling a drought, with 6-14 successful RFAs a month the norm for the current stage of the pedia. I would like to see us as a self governing community where all longterm, clueful editors are admins, few of whom feel the need to specialise in admin tasks. However this is clearly not the direction that we are headed in. But I now accept that at least our situation is sustainable as long as the number of active admins continues to be enough to do the key admin tasks. Though I still fear a growing disconnect between the admins and the rest of the community, not least because if it is true that few wiki careers last three years, that means that most active non-admin wikipediands have started editing since most of our admins went through RFA, and at current trends that wiki-generation disconnect will continue and widen. There is also the an undercurrent of increasing editcountitis underlying this, with increasing expectations at RFA driving candidates to delay their RFAs until they are more experienced, I suspect this is partly driven by the psychology of our system of super majorities, as on the occasions where a candidate has majority support but does not achieve consensus it is the majority who may get the subconscious message that they made the wrong call, and I fear this could be generating a ratchet effect that is driving up RFA requirements simply as a psychological effect of our valuing oppose !votes three times as highly as we value support !votes.   Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  16:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposal
Rather than attempt sweeping changes to RfA that would seek to change the culture and climate here, why not simply encourage more people to apply? If anything, the graph shows the lack of new admins to be mainly attributable to the lack of new applicants, while success rates have remained relatively constant since 2006. Instead of bemoaning the harshness that is RfA, why not encourage good editors in areas that need it to apply? If AfD, DYK, AIV, or any other area needs more admins, then encourage active editors in those areas to sign up. To take the pressure off, have several admins from that area co-nom, with each expressing support. Make it clear that that's the area they intend to patrol, and let the votes fall where they may. The attitude at RfA would be a difficult thing to change. The number of qualified editors applying, less so. If a nomination is made with broad support from well-respected nominators, I think the tone of the discussion will be much more congenial. Just look at Juliancolton's noms. If the general sense is that an editor seeks the mop to help the project rather than boost their ego, I believe the process would go much smoother. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Comparing the tone of each RfA to the nominator is an interesting question. There is a sense that self-noms have a harder row to hoe (has anyone ever reviewed the data to see?), but looking at the, oh, "bite percent" that candidates experience compared to who nominated them could yield intriguing info.  Not sure if there's any meaningful way to compile those data, however.  Thoughts?--otherlleft 13:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Encouraging more people to apply is problematical. Every now and then we seem to brainstorm possible admin candidates.  A lot of the people we come up with don't want the job (or for some reason don't want to go through Hell Week).--Wehwalt (talk) 13:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * A better solution would be to just award an adminship to suitable editors of long standing who have proved their worth in mainspace. The problem though would be this would eliminate most of the mouthy admins currently strutting about the site.  Giano   13:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And of course, as one of the "editors of long standing who have proved their worth in mainspace" you are completely neutral and unbiased in proposing that :P. Ironholds (talk) 11:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I think Giano has a good point. There are loads of good mainspace editors quietly working away building the pedia, making well referenced contributions and staying sensibly clear of wikispace. I'd be happy to support many of them at RFA in the unlikely event that they offered to run, even if their intended use of the tools was minor, looking at a previously deleted version before deciding whether to create an article, doing the occasional merge or Db-author deletion etc. I think we'd still need admins who are willing to delete the hundreds of articles that need to be deleted every day and block the innumerable vandals and spammers who would otherwise bury us. But if "suitable editors of longstanding" are willing to take up the mop I'd be happy to support them - after all we have no shortage of mops. Of course we might disagree as to what constitutes a "suitable editor of longstanding". I'd be looking for 12 months mainspace activity, 12 months clean block log, clueful, civil communication and a tendency to comply with policy. Others might have different criteria.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  12:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with most all, but it raises more issues about the "damned if you do and damned if you don't" atmosphere (at least I call it that). An editor with a long history quality mainspace edits is likely a good candidate. Common sense. Come to RfA and lack of policy know-how and communicating come up, and the issue of "needing tools". The prior a reasonable and the later an unreasonable concern. Conversely, there can candidates that spend time in wikispace in a non-drama-like manner, but are meh on large article writing. I don't see why it's not common sense to consider them acceptable. There are more editors like this than one might think like this (re: non-admins posting in this thread). They show no fear at COINs, will dig into some serious talk like the BLP mess, comment at stale and unresolved incident reports, comment to XfD, etc. Me? The ultimate sin of lots of ANI postings, but only because I hate seeing pointless conflict. Resolutions or trouting, most always. Mainspace seemingly a core concept of this "proved worth" worries me as further shutting the door to the WikiGnome and Elf types.
 * My edit count will always be a disaster. Nearly an even split in mainspace, wikispace and user talk, the last especially dubious. As-stands, it's downright strange-looking and I know I'd (theoretically, short career not considered) get opposes like mad based on it and nitpicking within wikispace boards. It would take a detailed check of my edit counts in all areas to get the big picture on what I like to do here... ex. it shows that 90%+ of my user talk posts are warning, notices, welcome templates, etc. I merely edit on what feels natural or where I think I can help. Nothing more and nothing less. There should never be a single oppose to someone following that philosophy. Can they demonstrate civil communicating? Knows policy? You know, the "do no harm" stuff. That takes experience, but not years of it.   ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

gobbleswoggler 2
Someone brought Requests for adminship/gobbleswoggler 2 to my attention on my talk page. This RFA is not transcluded right now, and so people should not be voting; yet this thing has three opposes. (However, it was briefly transcluded on 12 Feb. Can someone who is uninvolved take care of this?  Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nothing to take care of. If it's transcluded again, a discussion can be had at that point, if necessary. If anything, perhaps, those who commented on a non-transcluded RfA could be alerted to that, but even that is probably not necessary. Frank  |  talk  13:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Why, exactly, would anyone voluntarily do this to themselves?
I am sorry, but there is simply something wrong with the RFA process when, three hours into a candidacy, there are 15 questions but not a single vote. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of current administrators I know who would willingly go through this process again for any reason. It took me months to persuade a good candidate to subject himself to this process. Folks, please clean this up; this obsession of voting for people who share one's personal viewpoint down to the shoe size has gotten out of hand and is starting to have an adverse effect on the encyclopedia. This is absurd. Risker (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As usual, if you have a better idea I'm sure we'd all like to hear it. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Poor guy... &mdash;Dark 09:02, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been busy with other things. I can't speak for those who only posted a pile of questions. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, mine was only the 8th question, and I just added a temporary sympathetic neutral comment before I saw this discussion. As the candidate has expressed an interest in XfD, and there were XfD concerns the last time round, I'm not really surprised that people want to ask questions in that area and don't want to !vote until they've seen a few answers - I don't think the suggestion that it's all about sharing our personal views is entirely fair. But yes, there do seem to be rather a lot -- Boing!   said Zebedee  09:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That situation of all those questions with no votes is ridiculous and should not happen, but it rarely does happen. As someone who stood for admin in December and failled, but with a support of 64%, I don't think there is anything fundamentally wrong with the process as it allows extreme scrutiny of the candidate. I do think that in certain cases there are far too many people looking for reasons to oppose rather than to support and there are a couple of recent failiures (withdrawals) of candidates who clearly deserved to be given the mop far more than me e.g. Requests for adminship/Otherlleft and Requests for adminship/The Thing That Should Not Be. I think those are the cases that need examining because those are the people who should have the mop now and would certainly be doing lots of good with it. It is a loss to wikipedia that they did not get through (just as it is a loss that Juliancolton did not get to cratship). Maybe it is time to reconsider the supermajority needed but I think that before this is done firmer guidance needs to be given on what is an acceptable level to oppose on. Editcountitis must be stopped in all but extreme cases and I am treading on ground that I do not understand here but the one or two trolling opposes, or opposes from people who clearly don't understand the prosess should be completely taken out of the equation by the crats. Maybe they do this already but if so they should be more willing to state as such on those occasions and be open so that the general community is more aware of it and I don't just mean on the marginals but also on less marginal RfAs so we get a better sense of opposes that can be largely dismissed. This may need community support so maybe it is possible to have a community examination of some cases or a variety of votes to really get a sense of what editors at large think. Polargeo (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sympathetic, but who bells the cat?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * When I added my optional questions (there was one there already), I didn't expect there to be a flood before the candidate even had a chance to answer one! I have removed one of my questions (it was overtaken by events anyway) and trimmed down one of my others. I am veering towards supporting, but I want to see a couple of answers before I make a decision one way or the other. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 10:23, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why indeed? As I see it, the fact that the position is at present for the life span of the participant gives !voters a great deal of pause, along with the current rightly, or wrongly, perceived difficulty in desysopping problem administrators.  As the phrase goes, being an admin is no big deal... except when it is.  Suggest a fixed term of 3-5 years as a solution. Jusdafax   10:25, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly I fear the reverse would be the case. The fewer admins we have the more of their time will be spent on admin stuff and the less they will be engaged with the community as fellow editors. If desysopping bad administrators needs to be made even easier - and we've lost too many admins of late for desysopping to be considered as difficult as losing a UK driving licence, then propose changes or !vote for more desysop happy arbcoms. But a fixed term would be a recipe for a real admin shortage, - and I say that as one of the newer admins with only 53 weeks tenure who would have two to four years left under that proposal.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  13:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I think in this specific case, a look through the candidate's previous RfA reveals a number of opposes based on answers to questions that were posed (see, for example, opposes 6, 9, 10, and 13). I think the presence of many questions on this incarnation displays a level of good faith in giving the candidate the opportunity to display a difference to the community, rather than judging solely on edit count, number of RfAs, or - worst of all - answers a year ago. Yes, it's tedious, but absurd? Not necessarily so. Frank |  talk  13:06, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I see the situation very differently (than Risker). I'm not only not surprised there are a lot of questions before there are responses, I think its a good thing. Not a single one of the optional questions have been answered, yet some have already formed their responses. I don't challenge any one of those !votes, some may know the candidate well and don't need to see the answers before reaching a conclusion. But I like to see the candidates answers before reaching an opinion. Seems like this should be the natural state of affairs - ask questions, review answers, form opinion.-- SPhilbrick  T  13:19, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My votes are always open to change given further evidence but I feel that no matter what the answers to the questions may be I have a very legitimate oppose here. Given three supports in existance I thought it necessary to air my oppose concerns. Also I know we assume good faith but I do feel that the number of questions within such a short period of time was a little unreasonable and intimidating and I am glad to see that some of the editors have accepted this in good faith and reduced the questions. We cannot all be devoted to wikipedia 24/7, facing hoards of potentially tricky questions within the first 24 hours of a candidacy, if that was the case then wikipedia would be run by students and the unemployed. Polargeo (talk) 14:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As Polargeo mentioned, my RfA was close (72%), and one of the opposers later acknowledged that his reason for opposing (my comment here shortly before I was nominated, expressing that I was unsure if I would do a good job and noting that there's no shortage of rude admins) may have been a weak one. However, as has been noted, admins are forever.  You seem only to get your mop broken if you are discovered to have been a sock of a banned user or if you use your admin access to let a banned user "experiment" with Wikipedia.  For the most part the caution expressed by the community is understandable, and the question about whether there is a shortage is the subject of ongoing debate.  I would have to see another case of an editor's fifth RfA before I would weigh in on whether or not this one is being given undue scrutiny.--otherlleft 13:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I know of several ex-admins that have been desysopped or essentially forced into retiring who do not fall into your categories and I know this just from my day to day editing activities with no attempt at digging around (maybe that is just the area I edit in). I think the "community" caution you highlight is very misguided in this case and is likely to be due to the result of several very vocal trolls. Abuse of the mop is currently taken extremely seriously to the point that honest admins trying to make wikipedia a better place have fallen foul of the rules for just using their admin tools where they shouldn't have once or twice, even after long periods of exceptionally constructive contributions. Using admin tools in a controversial area is akin to permanently editing under extreme sanctions, admins tend to receive penatlies before they receive warnings which is in contrast to the way we treat new editors.. Polargeo (talk) 14:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * tl;dr to the above conversation, but to Risker: thank you for bringing this up. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Julian: great, you get to save time by not reading, but I end up wasting time looking up "tl;dr" to find that out.  Darn it.--otherlleft 17:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

So people try to discuss the candidate before kneejerk voting and they're the bad guys? Looks like major ABF to me Risker.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker had no objections to people discussing the candidate. &mdash;Dark 21:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Risker complained that there were questions, but not a single vote. Seems to me like it's an objection to asking questions before voting.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand this objection. I agree that the RFA process is dysfunctional, but I don't see why people would be expected to vote before the important questions have been answered. Looie496 (talk) 21:42, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well this is a perception, real or imagined, that an RfA which falls below some percentage is unlikely to recover. I didn't see this one in the "box" before it got any votes, so I don't know if they show up as a goose egg or not.--otherlleft 22:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, RFA's can show up in the box as 0/0/0: . Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looie496, there were already 3 questions answered, so one could already vote based on that.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 22:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I opine that the general level of drama on the English Wikipedia is directly proportional to the number of questions presented to a candidate in an RFA during that time. I don't know how much drama was going on last September, but I only got asked 12 questions total. –MuZemike 22:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a 5th nomination. That's bound to attract more scrutiny than say, a candidate with lots of edits and no noticeable controversy's first nomination. Andrevan@ 23:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The way the number of questions has increased over the years is clear proof we're placing too much importance on adminship. I propose we institute a rule that restricts participants to one question each. We'd have fewer questions, and they'd all be more useful. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded!  7  09:34, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a fair idea. But what about follow-up questions? Also, I'm not sure restricting the amount on communication between the candidate/!voters is such a good idea. Certainly in some cases far too many questions, some of which are pointless, are asked, but I'm not sure that what you suggest is the best way of preventing this. Personally I think one of the problems is the Q&A format, I think the discussion format, at BRFA for example, works better. - Kingpin13 (talk) 09:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We can't have it both ways – either we start placing restrictions, or we allow the flood to continue unstemmed. I think it's rarer than you imagine that a participant should need to ask more than one (well-crafted) question. Most of the information needed to make a fair assessment can be gleaned from the first three questions and the candidate's contributions. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 09:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * HANG ON this was an unusual situation. Far to many questions were asked in too short a period of time. This rarely happens. That does not make it right but does not suggest resorting to restrictive sanctions. Editors asking extra questions in such a short period of time should be notified of excess as some have been and have accepted this, end of story. Don't do it again :) Polargeo (talk) 12:02, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not uncommon for RfAs to contain an unreasonable number of questions. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 12:18, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have voted in every long running RfA (more than 3 days) since mid December. I failled an RfA myself in December (I voted in several before this time as well). This RfA is the first time I have considered the amount of questions in a short period of time to be completely over the top. A reaction of lets have some serious restrictions seems to be immediatism and lack of perspective. Polargeo (talk) 12:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not a great fan of the question section. I think there is a real risk that some editors might just !vote on the basis of that section rather than properly assessing the candidate themselves. Though of course you sometimes see diff supported questions where the questioner has come across something in the candidate's contributions that is worth discussing in that way. But I would advise anyone out there who is thinking of running to transclude your RFA at the beginning of an editing session rather than at the end, that way you are around to answer some of the early questions.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your dislike of the questions section but as admin tools often go so far beyond what an editor has done in the past it is extremely important that they can be assessed on their ability to deal with policy in other areas. Regularly the questions section is the only way of assessing this. Polargeo (talk) 13:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I think that questions are an important and necessary part of the RfA process. They usually address one of two things: matters of policy or general issues that are topical at the time of the RfA. The policy questions are useful because !voters can easily judge the amount of effort expended by the candidate in considering those questions (has he/she bothered to read the policy, thought about what it means, etc. etc.). While the candidate's views on general issues are less important, it does help to know that the candidate cares enough about the project to have given them some thought. I, personally, appreciated the questions asked in my RfA. I hadn't spent much time on WP pages and had not given much thought to policy before the RfA and the questions forced me to think about them. I would hate to see them go and always read the responses before !voting. --RegentsPark (talk) 13:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * True but the history of desysoping shows that knowledge of policy is less important than respect of it. Some of these questions are testing the candidate's stance on the policy rather than his understanding of it. If anything needs to be outlawed, it's these lose-lose questions that turn RfA into a political battlefield. Pichpich (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lose lose questions are usually quickly spotted by the experienced RfA regulars and pounced upon. They are wrong but should reflect worse on the questioner than the candidate. If a candidate has a bit of clue they are also easily avoided. However I see a lack of this sort of question in the current RfA, if you can point out an example then maybe that would be something to discuss as I dislike lose lose questions intensely. Polargeo (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also aren't you breaking your own anti-sockpuppet rules (see User:Pichpich) by commenting here. Polargeo (talk) 16:46, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes I am but this was unintentional. My bad. Pichpich (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The question section
The real question is this: what is the actual problem? Certainly there can be a lot of questions asked some RFAs. The currently-running one being a prime example. But I think we need to drill down further than "there are too many questions" as the problem. What is the real problem? Is it: 1) The excessive questions cause undue burden on the candidate; 2) People aren't examining the candidate, but rather relying on the questions; 3) The page is getting too long and unwieldy; 4) People are opposing because of unanswered so-called optional questions; or 5) Something else. I think that for 1, 2, and 4 we must remember that this is a volunteer project. As volunteers, we aren't required to answer the questions. As volunteers, we aren't required to sift through the candidate's contributions. As volunteers, we aren't required to support/oppose in regards to the candidate's answer, or lack thereof, of any particular question. Now, I'm not condoning the asking of scores of questions. Rather, I'm asking that should a policy regarding questions be put into place, please try to avoid making it too creepy and make sure it addresses the real problem. Fortunately, I think the problems 1, 2, and 3, if they are actual problems, could all simultaneously be resolved with a limit on the number of questions. Useight (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A strict limit is wrong because that could prevent very important questions being asked of the candidate on matters that may only come to light late in an RfA. If any limit was to be imposed I would prefer something along the lines of if there were 5 unanswered questions no more should be asked unless the candidate has had sufficient time to address them (say 24 hours). The only problem in the current RfA is 10+ questions being asked within 24 hours with no chance for a serious response, very intimidating. Polargeo (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Creating a rule like that is a prime example of instruction creep. The wording on such a rule would be something to the effect of: "Feel free to ask any questions unless your question(s) would put the total number of unanswered questions above five (only questions asked within the last 24 hours are included in the count. Otherwise your question will be reverted." Such a rule is excessively detailed and bureaucratic. Needless, if you ask me. I've been through six RFXs, and I welcomed every question as an opportunity to demonstrate something (knowledge, skill, interpretation, eloquence, etc). Useight (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, though, I was asked 26 optional questions over the course of those six, an average of 4.333 per RFX. Useight (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In all my RfX's, I probably got somewhere like 25 questions total. I think this has to do on mainly the person who is running. If it's a fairly high-profile person who has made his presence obvious and has shown good knowledge of policy, people won't ask them policy based questions. However, if it's a low-profile mainspace-editor, they're likely to get asked more policy questions to test their knowledge. ( X! ·  talk )  · @169  · 03:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The real issue is that most questions are completely and utterly irrelevant to the candidate. They're essentially boilerplates that are copied verbatim from RfA to RfA, asking the user to examine and spend their time deciphering random and complicated situations that never really happen in the real wiki. Some people seem to use questions to further their own agenda by opposing everyone who disagrees with their opinion. The RfA process, much like manyon en.wiki, is being abused and nothing is being done about it. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How about moving questions onto the talk page of the RfA to reinforce their optional nature? I'm troubled that there are opposes based on not answering optional questions (I think that alone doesn't warrant more than a "neutral"), but short of developing an "arguments not to use in an RfA debate" page (which is actually a good idea that someone's probably already thought of), I don't know what to suggest.--otherlleft 15:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't care where you move them, it is hard to stop people from opposing based on them or not answering them. Yes, all questions are optional, but only if you don't mind losing the !vote of the questioner and possibly others as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If the real issue is that a majority of questions are cookie-cutter and/or irrelevant to the candidate, then limiting the number of questions would obviously not be a useful endeavour. We'd have to limit the content of the questions, such as a list of cookie-cutter questions that can no longer be asked. But it would be excruciatingly difficult to get the RFA community to come up with that list. And, of course, there are going to be cases in which that cookie-cutter question could have been useful, but now we can't ask it. The only real option would be to put a rule into place that specifies that every question must in some way be associated with the candidate's history. Useight (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have an idea: let's have another really long conversation for a week or so about this, then when it's over we all give up and walk away and nothing changes. Oh, right, we already did that about a hundred times... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not so, Beeblebrox! Invariably the long conversation is linked to in a question at an RfA!  Wait for it . . . --otherlleft 14:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Honestly I don't see the problem. In my mind, there are good things here. First off, admins are going to have to deal with stressful situations. But more importantly, when I first saw the candidate in question, my knee-jerk response was to oppose. Instead of that, I asked an (admittedly the first) additional question to gauge the candidate where I did not see anything visible upon which to judge the candidate. The fact that people are asking questions instead of outright opposing is a good sign that people are giving candidates the benefit of the doubt. I have little doubt that if more experience in the areas questioned were present, there would have been less questions delivered to the candidate. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 22:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Vast Majority of questions are from RFA regulars and some ask questions regularly to candidates.Now Candidates normally run for a RFA when they are relatively free from the busy daily schedule and one finds that candidates normally have been regularly editing in months prior to a RFA.Now the issue of too many questions is a candidate may answer one question wrong and many users will oppose based on that one answer.Now answering his/her questions including regular ones is not mandotary and As this Admin refused to answer to questions even regular ones and got 100 votes How do closing crats deal with questions if a candidates gets one answer wrong or does not answer a question and people oppose.What will closing crats do if candidates do not answer optional questions and people oppose will they factor the votes as it after all optional.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For those too lazy to look at the link, he only got three additional questions and answered one of them. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But the candidate refused to answer the first 3 mandatory questions .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There appears to be no way there will be WP:CON on limiting the number of questions and but candidates can refuse to answer the optional questions if they wish and the point made by that admin is this I am intentionally not answering the questions, as they are optional. I'm happy with people commenting "neutral" if they don't know me well enough to support or oppose. If people are opposing simply for not answering optional questions, I hope the bureaucrat takes that into account. Whether I pass or fail should be determined based on people who are familiar enough with my editing to make to make an informed decision; RfA needs to change, and I would rather fail and start a discussion if that's what it comes down toPharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that is a bit bold, and that would likely sink you today unless a few good-standing editors started running their RFAs this way. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that questions should only be based on admin-related things, like "what would you in X situation", etc, not opinions on ongoing issues, etc, etc, which can get opposition, solely because someone doesn't agree with the opinion or doesn't like it. How is one's opinion relevant to the question if they can be trusted with the admin tools? Also, I agree on the comment that some of the RfA standards are too high. Just because of a mistake, does that mean that the candidate can never be trusted with the tools? Nobody's perfect, people are going to make mistakes. Why should some opposition be based on mistakes, and little slips? As Wehwalt said in my RfA, " the idea that an admin candidate has to know by heart all of the tricky deletion criteria annoys me. If this is an "open book exam", the book will still be there when the new admin does it for real. Sorry the opposes are not focusing on suitability, rather than minor mistakes.", I completely agree with the comment, but also with the opposition at my RfA, yes, I fully acknowledge that I could use more experience. Now don't take me as sour coming off of a failed RfA, but I really think majority of the opposition nowadays are based solely on answers to the questions, rather than checking the candidate's history thoroughly. Connormah (talk | contribs) 00:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the questions should focus more on administrator stuff than anything else. At my last RFA, I was asked two questions on flirtation on user talk pages. I've seen a few of them where the questions are really absurd. If anything, there should be a rule against asking questions that don't pertain to the administrator experience. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. Asking for a personal view on something I don't think would help support, or oppose, or even assess the candidate, they just seem to be asked for the sake of asking. Connormah (talk | contribs) 03:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think some standards are a bit high, but if they are transparent and advertised by the users criterian page that should be taken into consideration when considering there vote. My favourite questions, are questions a typical user would ask an admin, or scenarios that an admin would encounter; those to me assess wether an admin would be appropriate (at least to me). I also think that if a question is asked by a user they should be prepared to answer the question themsleves as if they were asked it. With the same seriousness the canidate is expected to treat the question being asked. I also think that if a user claims to be bold and not answer queries they can state so, but if someone posts the canidate questions they should respect the user by answering. The users should also respect the canidate and ask questions if they absolutely must have clarification on an issue, sometimes you do need clarification on something and a candidate should be open regardless of their preferences. They should feel free though to state their opinion in an RFA. Bascially here Im just feeling that users should ask questions, if they really need to know something, and not just on the principal of asking a question for the sake of asking a question. Sometimes text can be taken out of context and clarification is necessary. I like optional questions I hope the canidates answers them, but I also respect a user by stating they are optional. But to deny all questions isnt showing respect back to the asker I think, its a two way street for the canidate and the asker. Sorry for the ramble, those are just my opinions on queries in RFA. I dont expect everyone or want anyone to agree with my opinion. Its just an opinion, nothing more.Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the total number of questions being asked per month is actually less than it was a couple of years ago; But with far fewer RFAs these months the number of questions per RFA has gone up. I don't dislike the section per se, and I do think the three standard questions are worth keeping. I also think that the occasional bizarre question can be a good test of an admins ability to deal with unexpected queries. But I dislike questions that aren't tailored for that candidate, or that are soapboxing and trying to promote a policy change by identifying and opposing those who support a current policy.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the result of fewer RfAs is the fact that now the passing rate is quite lower than it used to be. I will agree that we need more admins, it always seems that there is a backlog either at RFPP, AIV, or UAA every day, and it's the same user(s) clearing them, but if they are not online all the time, so the damage gets out of control. Connormah (talk | contribs) 14:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

RFA is expected to have a discussion element. IMHO the question section is a valid way to hear the candidate talk, and get an idea as to who the candidate is. In an RFA if you took each individual question you could you could identify some that could be trimmed, but that's just the way a wiki works. Count me as one who doesn't see a large Q&A section as a huge problem. For the record I rarely ask questions, however I do read the section and consider before adding a support or oppose.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:02, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking solely as an editor, and nothing else, I do not necessarily count it against a candidate if they do not answer a question on an RfA. The questions are optional. I make my decisions based on a number of criteria, of which questions are usually less important. I find the candidates body of work over a long period of time much more important, but that's just my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would count ignoring a good, relevant question against a candidate. But I would count ignoring a shite question in favor of the candidate. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 17:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I oppose limiting the number of questions asked, although I think people should only be asking questions that directly relate to the specific candidate in question. I personally hate the stock questions. But would oppose the notion of having a limited number of questions we could ask. I rarely ask questions, but when I do it is because I am truly sitting on the fence. I usually only ask one or two questions, but with EveryKing I had to ask 4 or 5 questions to gain the comfort required to support. I would not want to place a limit on somebody who has legit questions related to a candidate.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:12, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At my RfA, I make it clear that I will not answer canned questions. Questions specifically for me will be of course welcome. If anyone insists on pasting canned questions anyway, my answer shall be "Sorry, no canned questions." I expect this, along with my crack team of nominators, to win me many, many supports. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 17:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And at least one detractor. I confess I have groaned when I’ve seen the canned ”ban versus block” for the 100th time. How on earth can anyone who has even been moderately paying attention, get this wrong? Then someone gets it wrong. And it convinces me they don’t have a clue. Saves the time of checking out their actual contributions. Having said that, if they are that clueless, they’ll almost certainly stumble somewhere else, but canned questions exist because someone, sometime, decided they were an efficient way to elicit useful information. If we think one or more of the canned answers are useless, we should debate the merits, and retire any that are useless. SPhilbrick  T  18:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with imposing a one question limit. Would reduce the overall number of questions and get people's priorities in order. Nobody should have to be subjected to pointless boiler plates. Blurpeace 09:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

My current request has 24 questions but I don't mind answering them. In fact at this time I have answered 23 of those, but since this is my 5th nomination I welcome that people are asking me questions to assess my current understanding rather than seeing the number 5 and adding an oppose vote. I'm a strong believer of being judged for what you've done on Wikipedia first and foremost, and for not being penalised for early mistakes or misunderstandings of procedures. Admins learn a lot in the role than they could ever do when being nominated so it's positive that people are looking at the bigger picture of my activities here before deciding how to vote. I'd agree with Shirik in that case. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 15:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good comment. I have no problem with the questions, I think they add considerable value to the process. However, this thread was started because of excessive questioning. I think it should be informally recognised or maybe even noted that editors running for admin may not have the time to respond to loads of questions per day and the expectations are sometimes too demanding. No editor should be taken seriously if they grumble that RfA questions are not answered quick enough if a period of at least 48 hours has not been given to answer 10 questions. These are often very tricky questions and need some time to consider. In my RfA I was asked to give a verdict on an extremely long deletion review of an article that had 4 AfDs and had been eventually been deleted. I couldn't see the content of the deleted article and declined to answer but I could have asked an admin for the deleted content and spent a week on that one question. Polargeo (talk) 15:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * before anyone states that one should just look at the DRV arguments in that case it was too entwined and confusing to assess the arguments without seeing the article. Polargeo (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Like many others, I think limiting questions is a bad idea. I would note that it is possible to avoid answering optional questions and still pass RFA. Back in July, for example, Skomorokh openly announced that optional questions would be treated as optional, and didn't even put the required questions into the standard format, yet passed quite easily. Having 40K edits and the respect of the community helped quite a bit there. An editor with less of a track record would probably have gotten a lot of flack for taking the same approach, because the Q&A would have been seen as much more essential for evaluating that person. I'm pretty sure that my own RFA passed as much because of my responses to the questions as because of my edit history. Limiting or deprecating the Q&A would have hurt my chances, not helped them. Occasionally the process might go off the rails with too many questions asked too quickly, but for the most part I don't think that is really a significant problem. --RL0919 (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for your comments at Community de-adminship/RfC
Community de-adminship/RfC went live today, and your comments are invited. For what it is worth, I personally do not see administrator !votes or expressed opinions as a conflict of interest despite the obvious fact that this is a proposal that impacts administrators directly. In any case, I believe the community needs to know the thoughts of a goodly cross-section of administrators as well as non-admin editors regarding this RfC proposal.

I also urge a discussion regarding this RfC here, on this page. Thanks, Jusdafax  02:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

The Rage Conspiracy "RfA"
Someone might want to have a look at: Requests for adminship/The Rage Conspiracy. See also Sockpuppet investigations/Dr Roots. Wine Guy ~Talk  00:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The user has 8 mainspace edits. The RFA can just be snowed, regardless of the sockpuppet concerns. --Tango (talk) 00:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess that was my point, but since I don't spend much time here I wasn't sure of the proper procedure. Also, since the page is not correctly formatted it doesn't appear on the main RFA page. Just wanted to be sure that someone was aware of this page's existence. Wine Guy  ~Talk  00:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Idea -- Change the format?
This is just food for thought. I've just been reading the above sections about the drought and the RFA gauntlet. One thing that comes up here and with other issues is the idea of discussions, in contrast to voting.

The RFA process could plausibly be structured in more of a discussion format, instead of the current format of nomination-questions-!votes. There could be sections for different issues, areas of knowledge and judgment, different types of tools. Maurreen (talk) 06:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * See Requests for adminship/Ironholds 2 and, more generally, WP:PEREN. I'm not saying it couldn't work, but so far, it hasn't. The RfA in question did not succeed; to what degree it was the candidate rather than the process is debatable, but I don't know of another RfA since that one which followed any similar format. Frank  |  talk  12:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Tally system (0/0/0)
Could someone explain how the tally system works as it seems complicated to me. What I want to know is what tallys qualify for what Results such as:


 * Successful
 * fail
 * closed per WP:SNOW
 * closed per WP:NOTNOW
 * consensus not reached
 * unsuccessful
 * withdrawn by bureaucrat
 * withdrawn by candidate
 * all other reasons

Any help will do as I currently can't understand how this system works. Thanks. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #DAA520	">Paul 23 87  22:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify the above I already know the definitions of these Results shown here but can't understand the required tallies to qualify for the result. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #DAA520	">Paul  23 87  22:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There are no hard cutoff points; the tally system is really for informational purposes only. Typically, support less than 50% results in "unsuccessful/fail", 50-70% results in a "consensus not reached", greater than 80% is "successful". Results in the 70-80% range will be either "no consensus" or "successful" depending on the discretion of the closing bureaucrat. These are not dependent upon the tally, however, these are only loose guidelines. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 22:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And of course something like a candidate withdrawing the nomination is not based on a tally of any kind, and "all other reasons" means you have to read the RFX page to see the explanation (presumably something unusual and probably not tally-related). WP:SNOW and WP:NOTNOW don't have specific tallies, but generally you'll only see such closes if there is considerably more opposition than support. --RL0919 (talk) 22:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn by candidate means exactly what it says- a candidate can withdrawn at any time, regardless of the tally. SNOW/NOTNOW generally happen when the tally is sharply towards the oppose; though often not a unanimous oppose. (People often post "moral support" or neutral on a clearly failing candidate to avoid piling on. "Withdrawn by bureaucrat" tends to happen after an RFA where the candidate has refused NOTNOW closure, yet the RfA doesn't have a chance- these are pretty rare. (It could also be listed if a 'crat did the original NOTNOW closure). All of these have one thing in common- the RFA did not run the full seven days. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Kirkoconnell
Would anyone care to close this? Dloh cierekim  04:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ by User:True Pagan Warrior. Connormah (talk &#124; contribs) 05:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Does anyone really care...
✅ 3 was moved to 2. Frank |  talk  12:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

...about Requests for adminship/gobbleswoggler 2? Requests for adminship/gobbleswoggler 3 was opened and closed in short order, but #2 had previously been deleted. Perhaps #3 should be referred to as (and renamed) #2, or #2 should be resurrected and logged...or Frank should find something better to worry about? Frank |  talk  02:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's odd that #2 was deleted as a WP:CSD, but it had been (briefly) transcluded and there were comments from other editors. Plus I'm not sure where the request for deletion is. But to answer your question directly, I don't think it is particularly important because there wasn't anything significant in it that will affect future RFAs, beyond the mere fact of its existence, which is already known. --RL0919 (talk) 02:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If memory serves, 2 got some responses without being transcluded.--~TPW 21:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it was transcluded for a whole minute! The candidate did not answer the 3 questions, and had 3 opposes but all three of those were added after it had been untranscluded. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 08:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

RfX boilerplates
I am proposing adding some boilerplate templates to the existing ones.

Any other suggestions are welcome. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #DAA520	">Paul 23 87  12:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Requests don't expire... They're live until closed or put on hold by a bureaucrat. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 14:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * An example of a request expiring is Requests for adminship/Rami R as it has passed it's scheduled end time. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #DAA520	">Paul 23 87  14:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec)The RfX report gives a different impression, which I agree isn't accurate. Perhaps instead of saying "expired" when the countdown is complete it should say "open pending bureacrat review" or some other message that makes it clear that comments are still welcome?--~TPW 14:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Scheduled end time" is just a minimum; RFAs don't expire. If no 'crat closes it for a week, then it will run for an additional week. (It does happen with some right-on-the-line cases.) – iride  scent  14:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with User:iride RfA's don't expire so have put a strikethrough the proposal above.

If anyone has any other suggestion for new boilerplates feel free to add them to the above Boilerplate proposal table. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #DAA520	">Paul 23 87  14:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand that RfXs don't expire; I was simply pointing out that the use of the word "expired" in the report probably confuses any number of editors and may, in part, have led to Paul2387's proposal. Since they don't expire, is there any particularly compelling reason why the report should state that they do?--~TPW 14:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree the wording should be changed. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 15:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Question that I entirely forgot the answer to: !votes after the "supposed to close" time? Valid or no? I know it's really rare. From what I recall, it's valid postings until marked as done and a 'Crat chitty-chat is plausible of not likely. If the EXPIRED is just meant as a notice and not a mandate handed down from above, it probably shouldn't be entirely red in the !vote box since discussion may-or-may-not be completed. Again, hinges on if accepted or not... I think it was Julian's RfB we had this issue? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datheisen (talk • contribs) 16:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, votes are valid until the RfX is put on hold or closed by a bureaucrat. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 16:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good good. Just wanted to make sure, since I know they are for XfDs... but XfD discussions don't have an angry red bar across the nomination. *Shrugs* This will make me sound like a total dick, but the panic red solicits action more towards supporting since a red background of anything else on Wikipedia is a sign of impending doom. Technically that's... not entirely fair? Yeah, stupidly picky, sorry. Could the template be changed to only adjust the 'time remaining' cell to red? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable. Ask our newest crat, who runs the bot that updates it. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 16:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed it to say "Pending closure..." ( X! ·  talk )  · @213  · 04:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Should we make a boiler plate stating that a request is pending closure, it would make it clear then which have reached there scheduled date and which haven't. <span style="font-variant:small-caps; color: #DAA520	">Paul 23 87  14:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the templates for when a 'crat is evaluating the discussion- or starting a 'crat chat- are sufficient. The 168 hour mark doesn't change anything until a 'crat (or anyone else, when the RfA is clearly failing) closes it.  Such a new template would at least discourage people from !voting after 168 hours, which I don't see consensus to do. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Ecw.technoid.dweeb
Should this RfA really have been closed so abruptly and immediately without any kind of input from either support or opposition? While the edit count was surely low, 1,800 + 400 or so deleted doesn't strike me as such a blatant WP:NOTNOW case unless there was significant (or even some) opposition. Thoughts? <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 01:57, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think these should be let run a little longer than 0-0-1. At the least the candidate will feel like they've had some hearing. Putting myself in the candidate's shoes, I'd be pretty put out at getting knocked off at 0-0-1. I'd like to see this re-opened, frankly. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't have an opinion one way or another regarding reopening it (although I'd be pushed to say reopen), but, in the nomination, the candidate states that they look forward to all comments. NOTNOW is supposed to counteract bitemarks - and I think this defeats that purpose. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 02:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was a precipitous close. We don't want hopeless RFAs to run on, but at least let the candidate get a little feedback, so they understand it wasn't just the closer shooting them down. But I would only re-open this particular one if the candidate wants that. No reason to put them through the process if they don't want to do it any more. --RL0919 (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the RfA should be reopened, as it was closed prematurely, before any support/oppose votes were cast, and before the contrib summary has been posted at the talk page. Nsk92 (talk) 02:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As above, I would ordinarily think it should ordinarily be re-opened too. But the candidate seems to have accepted the closure on his/her talk page, so I think we should leave alone. Trout to the closer though. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

I've re-opened it now as clearly premature. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would have been a good idea to ask Ecw first, the chances of a pass are not that high--<font color="Blue">Jac <font color="Green">16888 Talk 02:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps so, but this way, the candidate may receive good advice to use in working towards a future request. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fine either way. I would be interested to hear others' views on it, while I do not want to waste their time opposing a hopeless case. :-) It looks like, from the above discussion, that it's going the way of "reopen". Thanks. Cheers!☮<font face="Centaur"> —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 02:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * 0/0/1 closes are sometimes fine- when a candidate has never edited anything unrelated to the RfA, for example. But for an editor with ~2,200 edits and half a year here to get shut down at 0/0/1 and under half a hour isn't a good thing, IMO. That's almost BITEier than letting it sit too long and gathering a bunch of opposition. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Trust us, you're not wasting anyone's time by running an RfA. People come here out of interest, there's no rule stating that every RfA candidate has to get X number of votes or anything like that.   —  Soap  —  02:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. That makes me feel better about it being reopened. :-) Cheers!☮<font face="Centaur"> —Ecw.Technoid.Dweeb | contributions | talk 02:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to concur with Soap- no one's time is being wasted here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:25, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Would anyone care to close this? Dloh cierekim  04:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/Ecw.technoid.dweeb
 * Done by Bradjamesbrown. -  F ASTILYsock (T ALK ) 05:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Time to ditch RFB?
Given from the last several requests for bureaucratship, I think we're getting to a point where the community is no longer interested in promoting anymore admins to bureaucrats, that we have our fill of them. Perhaps it's time to ditch the RFB system and just hold elections (like with CUOS and ArbCom) on a need-only basis. Thoughts? –MuZemike 21:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone opined at my RFB that the community ought "Consider the possibility that [they are] letting the perfect be the enemy of the good". Tend to agree (with the statement, not that I am good =). –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 21:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There may be some merit to this suggestion. For my part (and I assume there are others who feel similarly) when there is no evident need for more b'crats, there becomes no need to promote new b'crats even when a qualified candidate steps forward.  Whether deserved or not, it's the kind of situation that can create the impression of "hat-collecting", "leveling-up" or some other kind of power-seeking going on.  While I do not agree with these assessments I do tend to agree that promoting users with no pressing need for new b'crats creates the impression that users are being rewarded for jumping through the right hoops with a shiny new title. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 21:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There may be no urgent need but I doubt the current crat pack would complain if their workload were spread thinner. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 21:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course, by holding promotions back to only the most eminently qualified candidates - even while citing opposes for "lack of need" - that exclusive club is created. If we gave the title to any old wonk that had the bit for three months without burning the barn down, there wouldn't be any feeling of reward. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  21:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Touche. I hadn't thought of it that way. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 22:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Very well said, Tan. We created that "hat-collecting"/"leveling-up"/etc. impression ourselves by transforming what was meant to be a "dull, technical position" (Jimbo Wales) to some kind of demigod-uber-admin status. And btw, with CHU boards untended for more than 2 weeks I don't think the "no need" argument is really valid anyway - not that it ever was. "Need" is not a valid way to judge capability anyway. Regards  So Why  22:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, if you want to stop more people from becoming a 'crat, take to the committee and see if you can get support, otherwise that argumetn lacks merit (IMHO.) We are not limited in number of 'crats.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We should not give up yet. X!'s RFB concluded recently as successful.  Nerdy Science Dude :)  (✉ click to talk • my edits • sign) 22:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point, SoWhy and Tan. Assuming we're going to hold on to these paranoia theories dearly, then perhaps we face some dichotomy between having bureaucratship be too exclusive (hence creating a cabal) or having it be too inclusive (hence being a "hat-collecting"/"leveling-up" vehicle). –MuZemike 00:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * By the same token, how about replacing RfA with elections to Admin on a need-only basis? At least it would give us an opportunity to discuss how much mopping we can afford in the long term, given that we seem to recruit our janitors from the ranks of our most effective contributors. - Pointillist (talk) 22:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know if too many people are willing to take that step for the following reasons:
 * We still get a quite few users who come up to RFA.
 * I don't know if we're willing to abandon the "!vote" system in favor of the "closed vote" system employed currently with ArbCom and AUSC elections; even though the former promotes the open-nature of Wikipedia in general, the latter helps eliminate that hive mind mentality that is seen in RFAs.
 * The possibility of an RFA passing (less the obvious SNOW fails) is still significantly higher than that of an RFB.
 * –MuZemike 00:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with MuZemike on this one. There would have to be some sort of discussion, and the consensus on the discussion would (probably) ruin the purpose.  <I>NativeForeigner</I> Talk/Contribs 00:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * RfB is even worse than RfA in some ways, although since they often directly contradict each other, that's not really a fair comparison. On the other hand, it's a good sign that we're 2 for 2 this year in terms of successful candidacies. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not only that, we're 2 for 2 this decade. Useight (talk) 05:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as a reasonably active crat, I welcome more people volunteering. The work is 99.96% tedium, running through the flavors of CHU, the occasional bot request, and the majority of RfX's are pretty self-evident. Rarely do we get a NihonJoe, a Riana, an Everyking, or a Kww. Yes, those times are important, and the 'crat must have the trust of the community, but having extra hands is a good thing, at least in my opinion, FWIW. -- Avi (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know I'm a rare find. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As a bystander, I always felt this way, especially after watchlisting WP:CHU. <I>NativeForeigner</I> Talk/Contribs 02:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rollback is arguably more powerful than the bureaucrat bit, and it's given out to people with 400 edits and a few weeks' worth of editing... – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rollback is no where near as powerful as crat. I can think of a few BEANS-y things a rogue crat could do that would be insane, not to mention a huge mess. J.delanoy <sup style="color:red;">gabs <sub style="color:blue;">adds  02:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One would think that the position's name would make it clear how unglamorous it is . . .--~TPW 04:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Rollback is more powerful than the bureaucrat bit? That's not a defensible position at all. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 05:37, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Which is why I said "arguably". Rollbackers can actually disrupt the mainspace itself. I place far more concern in the mainspace than in who gets promoted at 67% or what have you. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone can disrupt the mainspace (the woe of Wikipedia). Rollback is simply a faster version of undo, to which everyone has access. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 21:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that's not really what I meant. It's not really a big deal—all I'm saying is that the current perception of the bureaucrats' role is distorted. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 02:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what you are looking for is, that a person with rollback is more likely to cause unregulated problems. If there was ever a position/job that was more scrutinized than 'crat I do not know what it is.  If a 'crat promotes a bot/admin inappropriately, there are scores of people who will notice and raise a ruckus.  If a 'crat changes a name inappropriately, there are people who will notice and raise a ruckus.  Every action of a 'crat is under a microscope, so the odds of a 'crat creating a real problem are fairly slim.  A person with Rollback, however can go on a vandalism spree that might not be noticed.  Plus, we vett 'crats more than we do rollbackers.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

"Bureaucrats are users with the ability to: (1) promote other users to administrator or bureaucrat status; (2) grant and revoke an account's bot status; (3) and rename user accounts."
 * This thread was begun with an assertion that users are no longer willing to promote anyone. Requests for bureaucratship/X! 2 closed as successful a few hours ago. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In careful coordination a user with bad intentions could certainly misuse this, causing somewhat widespread havok. However, barring misclicks, it seems difficult to misuse this in good faith.
 * I have little knowledge of this, but bot flag couldn't do that much damage, especially if somebody was half looking at logs.
 * The renaming could be used disruptively, but it also certainly seems it could be undone, and it would be hard to mess up in good faith. In the event one messed up it seems fairly reversible. (I think)
 * Rollback could be a major pain, if the mass rollback script was used, and in normal circumstances is a great tool for edit warring.
 * Admins seem to get the really heavy duty stuff (blocks and protection)
 * Many users have rollback, and aren't placed under near as much scrutiny as crats. Although I don't really agree with Juliancolton, his view seems arguable per se. <I>NativeForeigner</I> Talk/Contribs 06:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ...and I was under the impression that crats have a red shiny 'promote all' button. &mdash;Dark 06:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My thought on this is that as we have relatively few RfBs (in the last 12 months, there have been 14 - 8 were unsuccessful and 6 were successful, although two of the unsuccessful ones were later successful - that's a promotion rate of 43%, or 50% if you ignore the 2 that later succeeded), then there is no problem with continuing with them. If we had 14 a month, with 80%+ failing, I would say that we should consider scrapping it, but with 14 in a year, it's not too much. The table below shows the RfB numbers/%age success rates: I think they look OK over the last couple of years.
 * {|class="wikitable"

!period !Successful !Unsuccessful !%successful
 * 09 Mar 2009 - 08 Mar 2010
 * 6
 * 8
 * 42.9%
 * 09 Mar 2008 - 08 Mar 2009
 * 4
 * 9
 * 30.8%
 * 09 Mar 2007 - 08 Mar 2008
 * 5
 * 22
 * 18.5%
 * 09 Mar 2006 - 08 Mar 2007
 * 3
 * 16
 * 15.8%
 * 09 Mar 2005 - 08 Mar 2006
 * 4
 * 18
 * 18.2%
 * 09 Mar 2004 - 08 Mar 2005
 * 9
 * 6
 * 60%
 * 17 Feb 2004 - 08 Mar 2004 (see note)
 * 14
 * 0
 * 100%
 * }
 * 60%
 * 17 Feb 2004 - 08 Mar 2004 (see note)
 * 14
 * 0
 * 100%
 * }
 * }


 * Note: the 'crat role was created 17 Feb 2004 with 6 crats chosen


 * Anyway, that's my 0.02: No, it should not be ditched. -- <font color="#307D7E">Phantom <font color="#55CAFA">Steve /<font color="#008000">talk &#124;<font color="#000080">contribs \ 08:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, we are actually the most open we've been to promoting new 'crats than we've been in years! Can I take back my support for X!, Useight, and Joe? ;-)--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 15:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

(I'm getting edit-conflicted too much here) Beeblebrox, I'm only referring to for bureaucrats in this context. Potential administrators are still different as far as the vetting and nominating of them as potential bureaucrats are. Looking at the last several RFBs (including X!'s whom I supported by the way), there seems to be far more of a reluctance to grant bureaucrat status to those existing admins. Hence, there may be a desire by the community to just plain ditch the current vetting and nominating of bureaucrats (via RFB) with a more formal fashion as with ArbCom, AUSC, etc. –MuZemike 08:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No it should not be ditched. Phantom Steve has given a good summary. I think specific elections tend to take the process even further away from the community in general. As has been shown a steady but small stream of crats is emerging from RfB and we do tend to trust those crats because we have vetted them so well. If it isn't broken then fixing it is likely to cause problems. Polargeo (talk) 10:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I confess that I was worried just before Nihonjoe ran ... we had had a troubling string of RfB failures, and it gave the impression that there was something about RfB that needed to be fixed. At this point, RfB seems to be puttering along nicely ... if it's not "fixed" to everyone's satisfaction, it's also not the most urgent problem we're facing.  The progress kind of parallels the progress in RfAs in general over the last 2 years for me ... RfA is far from "fixed", but it goes completely off the rails much, much less often than it used to, so it doesn't feel like something that demands as much attention these days, to me.  Just a subjective impression. - Dank (push to talk) 16:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I'm no fan of RfB by any means, but now's not the time to complain about it. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yea, I don't think it's fundamentally broken, but it is kind of ridiculous. I hardly ever even participate because there's always six thousand questions about closing specific RFAs, and it's just WP:TLDR. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was pretty suprised X! didn't get hit with the battery of how-wouldja-close questions. Maybe repeat customers are spared that turmoil? –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 21:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was pretty surprised as well. I was hit with the battery on number one (but not as much as some people; 35 RfAs to parse is ridiculous!), but this was a fairly easy RfB in terms of questions. Somehow,  passed with flying colors, and I was asked only 3 additional questions. ( X!  ·  talk )  · @965  · 22:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I tried to avoid it by posting a bunch of them myself, and I still got more of them. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I also didn't get that smattering of specific RFX-closure questions. Maybe they've fallen out of favor or maybe the repeat customers really are spared them more often. It'd be interesting to look back for some details. Useight (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Both RfA and RfB suffer from a ridiculous number of tedious "optional" questions. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  21:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And they're not even optional anymore. It's utterly misleading to suggest they are, as RfA presently does. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

RFB questions
Per my comment here, I went ahead and put together some details about RFBs and their oft-seen myriad of questions of "how would you close". Anyway, going through every RFB since the start of 2008, I got the following statistics:


 * Avg for successful: 8.82
 * Avg for unsuccessful: 7.38


 * Avg for 1st: 7.17
 * Avg for 2nd: 9.50
 * Avg for 3rd: 4.2
 * Avg for 4th: 21


 * Avg for 2010: 8.75
 * Avg for 2009: 16.91
 * Avg for 2008: 3.09

The data came from this table:

So, if anyone cares to look at it or can glean anything from it, great. If not, doesn't really matter to me. You may want to note, though, some some of the unsuccessful RFBs were closed very shortly after starting and that isn't taken into consideration in the data above. Useight (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, if you want to look up the answers as to how to answer the question, "How would you close this" look at Nihonjo and Mbiz's RfB's...--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 01:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that's interesting. the closure questioning trend seems to have taken off in December 2008 with Useight's first second RfB. The implication that repeat RfBs gather fewer closure questions doesn't seem to be correct: look at JulianColton, Nihonjoe & Avraham. It is more likely that the two most recent RfBs are anomalies. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  21:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My second RFB, actually. Useight (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops! Axl  ¤  [Talk]  22:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

No Big Deal
Since the "no big deal" quote seems to be misunderstood a bit nowadays, I've written a quick essay at User:Juliancolton/No Big Deal to explain why that quote is no longer applicable. Not sure if anything similar has been written before, but I was bored and in the mood to write something! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow (2/1/1) and the closing comment is "Well, since there seem to be no serious objections and two approvals, I made you a sysop.". Times have changed.-- SPhilbrick  T  18:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In other words, "no big deal" will someday get morphed into, if it's not already, Wikipedia's version of 640k ought to be enough for anybody =-) Dave (talk) 20:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That diff to those old RFAs is really telling. All you had to do was ask, it truly was not a big deal then, the most active request had only six respondents! I hadn't even heard of Wikipedia yet back then, so while I had realized that the no big deal thing was no longer valid, I hadn't realized there was such a dramatic difference between then and now at RFA. Thanks to Julian, very informative. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the expansion of the role brings back the idea of separating the roles. There are now admin tasks that were not when I got the bit, that I never go near. I'm comfortable and competent as a speedy deleter, and that's all that interests me. I know breaking adminship into specialties has been discussed and discounted before, but as Julian says, that was a long time ago.   Dloh  cierekim  04:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * In the past, objections have been made in RFA's that a candidate might stray out of the area/remit covered implicitly by the AFD once the adimin has all the buttons. That can be handled by the understanding that such actions, if done incorrectly, could result in a community dessyopping through a process like that now used for syssopping. One gets a limited remit and stays within it or else.  Dloh  cierekim  04:24, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, the days of, "er well, I've been here for quite a while now, so I might as well try to become an administrator." Just so you know, the shortcut WP:BFD isn't taken.  ;)--~TPW 05:43, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing a key point... the foundations lawyers perspective on granting access for all to see deleted content. In the foundation not wanting to grant the ability to see deleted content to everybody, even those vetted by an admin, but insist on their going through RfA, the Foundation has raised the standards and made it a bigger deal than when Jimmy said it..--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 21:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That raises one question for me... Who says you have to see deleted content in order to work in an area such as CSD? If one makes a mistake in deleting they would just have to ask a full administrator to undelete it. <font face="Segoe Print"><font color=#0040B0>The Thing // <font color=#007080>Talk  // <font color=#00A050>Contribs  15:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't want to have to create a whole new beaucracy to cover this. IMO if a person can delete content, then it is imperative that they be able to undelete it, elsewise you might have mistakes made.  I know that I've deleted material and the undeleted it.  Plus, CSD is one of the more touchy areas for byting new users.  Careless CSD'ers are one the the quick ways to garner opposes at RFA.  Deletion is one of the last, if not the last tool I'd want to see parsed out ala rollback.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 17:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

@Balloonman God no! We don't need that mess. Dloh cierekim
 * I don't think it's unreasonable to break up "adminship" into finer grained flags on a technical level, where possible. We did it with rollback after all. It would help make it less of a big deal. Gigs (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we have removed everything already that can be safely put into a separate group. The "big three" features, blocking, deleting and protecting, both need a RFA-like system to be granted since they can be used in a very destructive way and imho shouldn't be granted separately. If you block a vandal, you need to be able to protect pages against them or delete their mess. If you delete a vandal's page, you need to be able to block them. If you semi-protected a page, you need to be able to block the sleeper socks. Etc. etc. Having users who are only able to delete, block or protect will still require us to have a big selection process but will result in very ineffective rights to be granted on their own. Regards  So Why  16:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're missing the wood for the trees. The obvious split isn't block/protect/delete; it's controversial/uncontroversial. A system allowing "admins lite" only to block accounts with less than 10 edits; protect pages for less than 24 hours; delete pages less than 7 days old with fewer than 10 revisions, while requiring "full admins" to block established users, delete heavily edited pages, and impose lengthy protections, would allow the Hugglers to fight vandals while RFA would still be required for anything likely to cause drama. – iride  scent  16:11, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well your suggestions are afaik not supported by the software, so my thinking was naturally based on what is possible currently without changing the software. But even then: Protecting a page for 24 hours or blocking someone with less than 10 edits can be pretty controversial as well - any block/protection/deletion is potentially controversial. And of course, deletion requires being to be able to see deleted contributions which by "decree" of the Foundation requires a RFA-like process. Regards  So Why  16:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Almost anything can be incorporated into the software as far as I'm concerned. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

"Admin lite"
User:Iridescent suggested above, "allowing 'admins lite' only to block accounts with less than 10 edits; protect pages for less than 24 hours; delete pages less than 7 days old with fewer than 10 revisions."

I could see that for blocking and protecting, but not deleting. At first I thought the amount of text on the page might be a better proxy for quality than the number of revisions. But I reconsidered and doubt that a good bright line can be drawn. Maurreen (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Like every discussion here this is a waste of time that will change nothing. If the foundation's remit was really that only those who went through a hazing were allowed to see deleted content then the focus at RfA would be on whether you could trust editors to see deleted content, which it patently isn't. That's about as much of my life I'm prepared to waste on discussing this proposal, which will just get battered down no matter how sensible it may appear to a rational person. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced that the first two would be much use and I think the third would be a very bad idea. IMHO there are already too many mistakes being made at speedy deletion, and I don't want to hand the delete button out lightly or to have a group of editors who can only delete an article if they get in before the seven days or the tenth edit. I'm also uncomfortable with the idea of "do 10 edits to an article and only a full admin can delete it", and I speak as one of the newpage patrollers who has wp:hotcat which tends to do one minor edit per category...  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  00:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This matter has been discussed ad infinitum. RfA is (now) quite a big deal. It was inevitable given the size, scope and popularity of Wikipedia. The current RfA process (generally) produces good quality admins. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  21:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


 * No, I don't think this is the answer. You gotta have the judgment to know when to, when not to, and when to ask. If the judgment were lacking, harm could still be done under lite. Dloh  cierekim  21:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just see vandals getting around this edit limit anyway (Let alone the vagueness of applying the judgement to block a user). And to increase the edit limits, would require a formal process of RFA to grant the tools(which is what we already have). Besides Id like admins to be well balanced as much as possible in all areas to trust with the tools. However Thanks for being creative with the idea i do see elements of merit with it. I just disagree with it. Happy editing Ottawa4ever (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If we were to introduce an admin lite option I would prefer that it were done on the basis of two admin lites concurring to make a decision that would normally require an admin. I think that could be made to work at least for some urgent decisions like deleting vandalism and attack pages and blocking vandals. It would also be rather less gameable or newby biting than the system proposed above. However I fear it would both exacerbate our existing tendency to overcomplicate things, and as with the unbundling of rollback in early 2008 it could result in yet another hike in editcountitis and other expectations at RFA.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Bold text
This isn't yet another post about the correct method to use for RfAs, but instead a simple suggestion. At the moment, RfAs either have to use "Support" in bold text which is really annoying and "Oppose" in bold text which is annoying as well. I thought rfa was designed to be a discussion and not merely a vote. South Bay (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The bold text was just a convention that became common practice for whatever reason. Personally, I never put support or oppose, I just give my reasoning. It should be obvious about which way I'm going by what section I put it in. ( X! ·  talk )  · @240  · 04:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think they have to use Support and Oppose, its just a convention which has been assumed for whatever reason. Personally I don't find it annoying at all, as it helps users summarise their exact feelings with terms such as "Strong support", "Weak oppose", "Regretful oppose" and such, before then going on to clarify why. I personally also find it helps with the reading flow, as in an RfA where there is alot of discussion under the opposes it makes it alot easier to see where one thread of discussion ends and another separate point begins, especially if the indentation becomes messy. I'd say it's a harmless tradition at worst, but it's down to individual opinion really. --Taelus (talk) 11:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no problem either way. It is all fairly clear. I would hate for this to be "ruled on" one way or the other. Polargeo (talk) 12:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It certainly helps with the flow and with getting a feel for how the RFA is going. Sometimes I will add a comment without. It's pretty much to individual taste. For a while we had joke opposes iin the support section with an amusing or nonsensical rationale. Then if someone did not get the joke, they would question it or move it to the other section. Ah-- those were the days. ;) Dloh  cierekim  21:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If someone did that now, the RfA would tank. Hard. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  22:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That, and somebody would either ask you what was wrong with you or would just delete it as a nonsensical edit. April Fools joke anyone? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 05:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I never really got the point of appending a support or oppose modifier to your comment. It's obvious which header you put your post under, and your opinion should ideally be clear by simply reading your argument. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's more of a rhetorical point than anything else, "I support/oppose because ". Same with the modifiers strong, weak, moral, strongest-ever-no-wait-most-opposed-ever - they establish the premise for the upcoming reasoning. From my reading over time, the 'crats don't really put much weight on bold markup and not all that many other people do either. It does help demarcate sub-items for easy reading. Franamax (talk) 06:24, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * . . . . and here I thought it had to do with some bot's parsing function!--~TPW 12:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope, just counts lines. :) ( X! ·  talk )  · @556  · 12:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's just convention, and is a spillover from other discussions like WP:RFC or WP:AFD, where people will summarize with Keep or Delete, or Support or Oppose. Those discussions aren't usually structured like an RfA where simply making a comment in a particular section lets people see what your basic opinion is. They're not necessary in RfAs, and sometimes I feel a little silly using them, but I do it because everyone else does. And every once in a blue moon I'll say "weak" or "strong" in front of my !vote, to let people know how much conviction I have behind my opinion. --  At am a  頭 19:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Experience
When it comes to levels of experience, how long would most !voters expect candidates to be have been actively editing? 3 months? 6? at least a year? The reason I ask is because I know of someone who would in my opinion be a prime candidate for an rfa, some 40k edits, tons of csd, afd, prod, aiv, plus work with at least one project and plenty of editing, no bad disputes/blocks etc. However I've held off approaching them as they only started active editing in July, i was planning to wait a few more months Obviously i'm not asking you to say how you would !vote without knowing who it is, but what do you think? would the time be a deal-breaker or would they have a decent shot. Thanks--<font color="Blue">Jac <font color="Green">16888 Talk 02:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be on the safe side, I would wait just a little while longer before nominating the candidate. The only reason I say this is because I know many RfA regulars who like to see close to a year of active editing. My personal view is as long as the 40K edits aren't terrible localized and built up by huggle in under 6 months time, the chance of opposing diminishes greatly. Your call though, 8 months isn't bad. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 02:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As a general rule of thumb, probably no less than 7 months of experience will be successful at RfA. That's the lowest I've observed, over the past year or two. The community is more comfortable with 9 months (for particularly well-rounded candidates), and a year of experience is best. That's speaking in generalities.  Jamie S93 ❤ 02:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I still will support at 3 months and ~3,000 edits, if I see evidence of good judgment and no evidence of bad judgment. But I'm a relic.  Dloh  cierekim  04:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Really work with them for now and probably nom them in July. Better safe than sorry. I just barely have 40K myself.  Dloh  cierekim  04:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Editcountitis seems to have thankfully taken a backseat in terms of RfA vote determination; people are starting to recognize the importance of quality over quantity. However, tenure seems to have risen to the forefront in recent months. While Dloh makes a good point that in years past, only a few months of experience sufficed to prove suitability for the bit, we now have to scale our expectations for admin candidates in accordance with the growth and increased importance of Wikipedia. Like Jamie, I would now expect 6 or 7 months to be in the lower reaches of what would now be considered acceptable for a candidate. Glass  Cobra  20:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Tim Song passed his RfA today by a comfortable margin, and he only became truly active in August of last year (only 72 edits in July). That's around 7 months. Out of 21 opposing, I only see 3 people who based their objections primarily on tenure, and a few others who might have been objecting primarily on tenure (saying simply "not yet" or that a person needs "more experience" could be arguments for WP:EDITCOUNTITIS as much as tenure). Most people focused on a lack of article building as a reason for opposing. So I would say that if Jac16888's potential candidate has been around for 8 months and has made fantastic contributions with a high edit count in a variety of areas that they have a good chance. --  At am a  頭 23:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Its sillyness imo to oppose on experience for a user with less then a year. What matters is the approach and understanding rather then the time. I really can see no difference between 40K edits in 8 months and 40K edits in 12 but some still argue that someone with 40K edits needs more experience. Go figure. Spartaz Humbug! 20:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Same as Dloh here. I'll happily support a candidate with four or five months' experience if they're trustworthy—even when it's clear they're not going to pass then. In any case, I think the specs the OP lays out are fine for RfA (and I'm fairly certain I know which user he's talking about). – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 16:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We currently have 13 admins whose accounts were created in the last 15 months. But 8 are bots, one is a new account for an old admin and the most recent created of the other four was last May with an RFA nine months later this February. So whilst I have happily supported candidates with only 6 months tenure I would be very surprised if one succeeded at first attempt. But if they don't mind treating it as a two stage process and you think they qualify I'd suggest running now getting the feedback and they'll likely succeed in July.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To be fair a few of the accounts in that list were second accounts. <font style="color:#169999;"> f o x <font style="color:#AAAAAA">(formerly garden) 21:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My RfA was just over six and a half months since I signed up (one of the few non-bots at the bottom of WSC's list) and I didn't (still don't) have as many edits as Jac16888's potential candidate.&mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  22:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What about an editor that does little mainspace editing and spends more time fighting vandals and performing mundane tasks? A few years ago one editor tried to become an admin, but was rejected after what I believe was an extremely stressful process for them. One of the main reasons was that he had few mainspace edits, spending most of his time as a vandal fighter. I recently offered to nominate him, but he refused. Rin tin tin 1996 (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A high huggle count does bring out the WP:EDITCOUNTITIS. My 85% automated edits almost sunk my RfA (even though the other 15% amounted to over 5000 edits).  Ron h jones (Talk) 20:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

The Mop holders should have experience not only in vandal fighting and requests for whatever and asks for what ever. People will one time get to notice that this is a encyclopaedia and that they will interfere with the people writing. This GF5 I will TH6 and if you do not agree please announce it at WDF and !v. Writing an article and bring it up to B-class at least would be a minimum requirement. The number is not relevant but the quality. This might be different in vandal fighting or speedy deletions.--Stone (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Jac16888, it sounds as if the prospective candidate has approximately eight months' experience. While that's on the low side, most editors will judge a candidate by his experience rather than by his tenure. That said, many candidates aren't ready for the mop after just eight months - but there are always exceptional ones who have amassed the appropriate experience, displayed mastery of policy, and demonstrate a mature, calm, helpful approach to community projects. If the prospect meets those criteria, go for it. If you have any doubts, wait another 3-4 months and then re-examine. Best, Majoreditor (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Del / Inc partisanship
Id like to open up a thread on how we treat candidates based on perception of their position on the inclusionist <> deletionist spectrum.

The hostility directed at recent candidate MQS in his RFA due to perceived inclusionism is concerning, especially as that magnificent editor eschews the label inclusionist preferring to identify as an improve-inist. His actions match his words to as MQS has several times voted delete due to lack of notability.

Some have taken the attempted character assasination and real life attacks from negative elements of the community against admin candidates they dont like as evidence of evil intent, but I do not. Its common for the brutality of a factions methods to be inversely proportional to the weight of evidence supporting their ideology.

The vast majority of independent commenentators in the press  who express a preference  favour inclusionism. Rampant deletionism has been linked to our declining number of active editors. There is the example of citizendium, a project with much more restrictive entry criteria now deemed a failure. Inclusionism is fully compatible with the Vision of our noble project; the sum of human knowledge includes trivial information that deletionists deem unnoteable or academically embarrassing. Wikipedia is considered a global strategic resource because of the power of information – its availability helps us make better decisions and many find it inherently rewarding and reassuring. The benefits of comprehensive coverage are virtually limitless, for example even an article on the most obscure fictional character might have inestimable value if it helps a parent engage more fully with their child.

Outside of BLPs where theres a clear case to reduce the foundations exposure to potential legal issues, there doesn't seem to be anything in favour of the deletionist's beliefs except for their own opinion, as they have openly admitted.

There doesn't appear to be any support for deletionism which justifies the destruction of potentially useful articles and the negative effect on our collaborative environment. Despite the very strong case suggesting inclusionism is a much healthier attitude for the community and the wider purpose we serve, inclusionists typically remain respectful of the opposite view. Several of us who could much more fairly be labelled extreme compared to MQS have often voted to promote deletionists to adminship, we are happy to accept a balanced mix of admins rather than zelously push our own POV. Is it too much to ask for this respect to be returned by at least some deletionists? FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I suspect the other side would have the exact same statement, changing all the terms to their opposite, about Kww's last RFA. It's an intractable problem I agree.  MBisanz  talk 18:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "Is it too much to ask for this respect to be returned by at least some deletionists?" - Honestly, yes. Now, I don't consider myself a deletionist or an inclusionist. The only time I've ever been "accused" of one side or the other are a couple of times people called me an inclusionist. So I don't say this as a deletionist. But frankly, to end such a biased diatribe with a request for respect seems overly optimistic. You've basically said that deletionists are destroying Wikipedia, are clearly inferior to inclusionists, and have no rational basis in their beliefs, then ask for everyone to get along. You don't punch someone in the face and then ask them to join you for lunch as they're getting off the floor. Frankly, my opinion on the whole matter is that I don't care whether an administrator is an inclusionist or deletionist or anything in-between, if the administrator is closing AfDs or other discussions based on their own personal beliefs they shouldn't be an administrator in the first place. Because of that, I supported MQS in his RfA, despite how I feel about some of his arguments at AfD. --  At am a  頭 19:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed. MBisanz. <<EC>> It looks to me like Deletionists sink Inclusionist RFA's and Inclusionists sink Deletionist RFA's. Each rails against the evils of the other. The net negative is in the sense of futility of even submitting an RFA. The overall fatigue and disgust degrades and demeans us all, with the loss of capable people from the project. Like any civil war, this conflict destroy the very thing they are fighting over. Not that I'm assuming bad faith-- they simply cannot see beyond their own concepts of what the encyclopedia should be. And, I fear, matters will only worsen.  Dloh  cierekim  19:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Atama, viz " I don't care whether an administrator is an inclusionist or deletionist or anything in-between,"-- Indeed. Well said. Exactly.  Dloh  cierekim  19:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @MBisanz yes, youre probably right. But Id hope to the perceptive neautral there is all the difference in the world between the KWW & MQS RFA. For KWW, concerns about a possible hard line approach were at least as prominent as worries over deletionism – several opposers had supported more deletionist candidates like MzMcBride . For KWW, several of his opposers admitted the supporters were right in praising KWW many good qualities like his honest, upfront and helpful nature – the RfA as a whole was in no way a character assassination, the concern about a hard line attidue was directly relavent to the sue of the block button. Opposers complemented KWW and his supporrts for the quality of their defence, in sharp contrast to MQQ where the best defenders were actually told they were making themselves and their man look bad. There would good and bad points in both RFAs, but it seems fair to say KWW's opposition was considerably more respectful and less partisan with some explicitly denying they were opposing over deletionism. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * "There doesn't appear to be any support for deletionism which justifies the destruction of potentially useful articles and the negative effect on our collaborative environment. Despite the very strong case suggesting inclusionism is a much healthier attitude for the community and the wider purpose we serve, inclusionists typically remain respectful of the opposite view. " Hah. That's the start of a useful discussion which respects both sides.  "Hey guys your views are baseless and you never respect your opponents, how about we have a discussion?"  Do I need to link some RfA's with respectful inclusionist commentary? Protonk (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A more balanced opening might have been preferable, but moderates who can see both sides don't seem to address deletionist activism as boldly as they do when inclusionists get over enthusiastic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what that is supposed to mean. I'm just flummoxed you can't see the irony in devoting a little over 50% of your statement to how deletionists are destroying wikipedia then attempt to lecture us on comity. Protonk (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have long thought that this is mostly a false dichotomy. While there are substantial numbers of radical inclusionists who will fight to retain any article no matter how flawed just because they think it's "wrong" to ever delete an article that is not a hoax or an attack page, there are few if any radical deletionists who want to delete everything that isn't going to be a featured article someday. I was opposed by radical inclusionists at both of my RFAs, including a few comments that were outright lies, and I think in the end it may have actually helped me out since I was opposed by "the right people." Anyone who is so extreme that it seems impossible for it not to affect their objectivity is probably not going to get in, those of us with milder, more realistic philosophies still stand a chance if we haven't done anything too stupid in recent memory. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hardly requires mentioning at this point but there is something ironic and not exactly constructive in extolling the respectful nature of inclusionists while excoriating the deletionists' position by saying there is nothing in favor of their beliefs. For what it is worth, it is hardly unique among deletionists to sink the nominations of those percieved as inclusionists; my own first nomination was shot down due to a belief that I was "too deletionist".  The pendulum swings both ways; it always has, and I suspect it always will.  <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 22:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It does distinctly smack of small-town political squabbles to me. I don't think the issue is whether or not each "side" can play fair; there's a set of editors who liken this to a political spectrum and will do their level best to pigeonhole any candidate, and they can't all be neatly placed on just one end of the see-saw.  What it means is that we get admins who no one perceives as being particularly inclusionist or deletionist, which may be a good thing and is certainly what the community wants.  I don't know if narrowing the field of successful candidates in this manner really gets us admins better able to exercise good judgment, but it's certainly the trend at the moment.--~TPW 23:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The "divide" will likely always exist and swing back and forth. The disturbing aspect for me was the over-personalization, and what looked like "reasoning" that because I've decided you are an inclusionist, therefore I will oppose, so let's go looking for a few sample edits that will help me say "see, I knew it!". That and the "even though your answers are good, I know you don't really mean it" part, which really, how does anyone respond to that? And yes, holding up a mirror, it looks exactly the same from the other "side". Franamax (talk) 01:41, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just another sympton of the incessant factionalism on wikipedia.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 01:42, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I prefer to think of myself as an AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD-ist. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:58, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If everyone involved in such disputes had some content creation to speak of, I think the issue wouldn't be that much of a concern. However, if the parties involved do not have content creation in their background, their arguments are enervated by the absence of a certain moral dimension. I think it is easier to accept a deletionist argument from someone who has a track record of content creation than someone who doesn't. Having a group of deletionists who do not possess content creation background simply looks bad. Who is to say there are not a bunch of vandals hiding in that group? Of course the converse could be argued that there are trolls and provocateurs among the inclusionist camp. I'm left with the impression, however, that current practice and policy make the alienation of contributors due to heavy-handed deletionism more likely than out-of-control inclusionism. Perhaps a survey of former Wikipedian regulars could help establish one way or the other whether rampant deletionism or inclusionism is the greater turnoff. From what I notice, simply from the nature of their respective roles, deletionism run amuck is more likely a concern to article creators and inclusionism gone haywire is more likely to be a bother to administrators. Active administrators though are probably overrepresented in RfA. I notice that in the MQS candidacy a great deal of the opposes were from the more familiar RfA admin participants. There seems to be a blueprint for what a good admin looks like from that group and I'm not sure it is representative or that relevant to the broader population of Wikipedians. Lambanog (talk) 05:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, "the more familiar RfA admin participants" are those with more experience dealing with Wikipedia admins and the Wikimedia bureaucracy, and have more experience in how to recognise potential problems. Care to specify who you're thinking of regarding "potential vandals with no track record in content creation", or are you just firing indiscriminately in the hope that you hit something? "The more familiar RfA admin participants" are generally those who've invested the most into making this project into a useful and viable source of information instead of a cross between a social networking site and a free webhost for vanity publishers and no-hoper bands, and don't want to put people in a position of authority when there's a reasonable concern that they'll either carry out inappropriate deletions of valid content, or allow valid content to be subsumed under a sea of trivia. – iride  scent  (Triple Crown×12, but apparently a "potential vandal with no track record in content creation" since I happened to disagree with you on something) 08:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Two issues here. The potential vandal issue is more provocative but a lesser theoretical concern.  Have I seen an admin who I think is really a vandal in disguise?  No. I have encountered, however, at least one editor who made deletions as his exclusive contribution and the actual implementation made me seriously suspect the user was really a vandal.  That editor would not pass an RfA but it does make me wonder if there are other more sophisticated and subtle editors out there who have the same mentality.  Against a determined vandal there is probably no defense but the current practice that doesn't give much value to content contribution makes it a more easily exploitable weakness.
 * The second and more worrisome issue because of its apparent reasonableness is the contention that admins are the most experienced with admin issues so seeing admins dominate a venue like RfA shouldn't be a concern. I think that's fallacious.  The problem is self-reinforcement of admin biases with little countervailing force.  The worrisome analogy would be the engineering firm that after growing starts adding on more and more accountants, HR people, sales reps, etc. so that they end up supplanting all the engineers in management hollowing out the organization so that at the end it is no longer an engineering firm. If Wikipedia ever ceases to be about building an encyclopedia I don't see it transforming and reinventing itself into a consulting outfit specializing in policy enforcement and dispute management. Side note: not sure what the Triple Crown reference is for.  That would be evidence of content creation for me.  Perhaps I've used the term vaguely but additions to articles could be classified as content creation. Lambanog (talk) 09:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, so you've not actually found any genuine problems, but you're just flinging mud in the general direction of people who've dared to disagree with you in the hope that some of it sticks. Glad we've cleared that up. – iride  scent  09:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh I've seen genuine problems and since this seems to be an issue I presume others have as well. Simply the tone this issue seems to slide into is one.  Indeed I was tempted to vote for MQS simply because of the character assassination on display.  The reason I didn't? Kraftlos noted the <40% edits in article space. For someone labeled an extreme inclusionist who salvages articles that seemed oddly low.  The kind of articles being worked on wasn't particularly encouraging either and likely the cause for the extreme inclusionist accusations.  By my reckoning that did not indicate the content creation and contribution I was expecting. There are differences in various kinds of things labeled generally as inclusionist or deletionist.  The way this issue seems to blow up, however, precludes serious discussion. Lambanog (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * (ec) Lambanog's not mudslinging, but making excellent points about self reinforcing in-groups which can become increasingly hostile or indifferent to outside opinion. Anyway im glad youve at least offered a justification for deletionism in suggesting it prevents good content being subsumed by trivia. This seems to be another deletionist belief that has little bases in the actual experience of our readership. Some editors and especially deletionists do seem to make heavy use of the 'random page' feature especially when their hunting for targets, and via that method lesser articles do indeed crowd out the gems. But regular readers rarely if ever use random page - they get to pages of interest direct from google or by the internal search – at least this seems to be the case for colleagues and friends Ive heard talk about Wikipedia. So it seems unlikely most readers will even have to glance at the trivial pages, which only intrude into their experience in extremely rare cases. And of course, pages that are trivial to some will be just what others are interested – few general readers have the elite interests of some of our more academic members. I hope this doesn't seem disrespectful, as though we haven't talked before I have the utmost regard for your outstanding contributions ( haveing aspirations to promote Keynes to featured status Ive read much of the work of the best FA writers like yourself and Giano) but these deletionist beliefs just don't seem rational when one examines them. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not view myself as inclusionist or deletionist. However, I was absolutely horified by the tenuous porn links (with graphic pictures) MQS used in a recent AfD to try to keep a porn star in who was clearly non-notable by our usual standards and was deleted. I therefore switched to oppose and mentioned extreme inclusionism in my oppose. I do not have a problem with inclusionism (my initial support was mainly based on DGG's nom) but when a editor goes past a certain extreme line as MQS did I get more than a little concerned and I would like to defend my and other editors right to oppose based on this type of extreme inclusionism just as I would with extreme deletionism. Polargeo (talk) 09:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also stupidly trusting MQS to be a sensible editor I actually clicked on his AfD external links at work. I could be fired for this. An extreme inclusionist admin who takes his inclusionism to that sort of level is not something I would feel comfortable with. Polargeo (talk) 09:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The links were added to a RfA about a porno actress, MQS explicitly noted they were from genere sources, so adding them wasn't as irresponsible as it might sound. I agree porn is harmful for all sorts of reasons, but this incident wasn't at all representative of MQSs good nature. I first encountered him when I was new to wiki and didn't know about the mighty ARS. I been told the day before as church about our duty to help the hungry, and I came across an article for a food charity up for deletion. Sources on the internet were very hard to find, but Michael saved the article by adding several which were only available by pay to view or library visit. It felt like God had sent him. I could go on and on with examples of his good character. Can we please stop slagging him off by repeatedly referring to this one possible error of judgment which is no where near as bad its been made out when one looks at it in context. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was simply stating why I thought it was a good idea to oppose his adminship and why I mentioned extreme inclusionism. This one recent AfD is just that, one AfD, but it highlights some wider concernes with this candidate. It shows a lack of understanding of notability guidelines or a tendancy to interpret them in an extreme inclusionist way. Polargeo (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Its not so much any one person saying extreme inclusionist, which to some extent is a matter of opinion, its that so many did on such little apparent bases. There didn't seem to be many other links to illustrate a tendency, just the one glaring example.  Secondly,  Hans Adler seemed to agree the point MQS made about those links being used in context had merit.  Third, MQS explicitly accepted delete was the correct result, therefore his interpretation of guidelines cant be all that incompatible.
 * Showbiz people are often interested in public discussions about them – in the only AfD I took part in the subject even directly participated to try and save her article. They can find it distressing  to have everyone saying theyre not notable, and a voice or two in support makes it less of a blow even if it doesn't change the result.  If this example shows anything extreme about MQS its his extreme chivalry to the underdog position in being willing to step out of line to offer token support for a lost cause.  As others have stated, it seems deleteionists in general werent fairly assessing the candidates, they just lept on the first excuse to oppose. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the recent attitudes in MQS's RFA, then fair enough. I personally found it to be very over the top, even for RFA, which does get very personal. I was going to !vote oppose but didn't because he had already had enough grief which I thought was very unfair. (My reasons for opposing would have been that he was very concentrated on AfD, yet he was saying he wanted to use the tools in other areas, but I could not see much activity in those areas. Also had concerns about his view of reliable sources). If you want to launch into a full diatribe about deletionism then I would suggest here is not the right place to do it. Maybe you want to lash out at what you see as unfair treatment for someone on 'your side', which is perfectly understandable, but is not particularly helpful in terms of improving the RFA process, and making it easier on future candidates. Quantpole (talk) 13:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The porn links were over the top, and having used them so close to an RFA was a mistake. From a political viewpoint, you don't hand your opposition in a political contest (which RFA is) a hammer with which to beat on your candidacy. At the very least, you need to be prepared to handle the issue should it arise. For myself, I was willing to accept the notion that he would set aside his extreme views in favor of consensus. (Perhaps I'm just naive.) But then I try to find reasons to support rather than oppose. This RFA is just a subset or an example of the overall problem. Dloh  cierekim  14:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Definetly just a subset. In MQS's case Ive no doubt hes resillient enough not to be much affected, but some admin cadidates likely find that kind of "discussion" traumatic when its aimned at them. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * @Quantpole As a crat has described RfA as the "ritual heart of the encylopedia" this probably isn't the worst venue for talking about the relative merits of deletionism. Lashing out as you say is rarely helpful and perhaps I should have been clearer in saying inclusionists do respect the contributions of deletionist editors. Not just the exceptional few who also create beautiful articles but also those who rarely add content but mostly do deletion orientated housekeeping. Removing vandalism, trivia , deadlinks etc from good articles is essential. Without editors doing this sort of work, creative folk who lack good attention to detail wouldn't have this amazing platform for their work and the world would be much poorer. With a few exceptions, inclusionists RfA voting record seems consistent with this respect. Theres possibly only one or two editors more passionate about inclusionism than the great hearted A Nobody, but even he frequently votes for deletionists candidates as does myself & Ret Prof who said on MQSs RfA that he is much more inclusionist than the candidate.
 * Im not apologising for how I opened this thread however as while many deletionists are undoubtedly good faith contributors there seem to be fanactical elements in their ranks that don't seem to have a counterpart among inclusionists. Folk who are so sure theyre in the right theyre willing to stoop to character assassination and even off site harassment against their inclusionist "foes". Just possibly one or two will question their assumptions. Nothing has emerged to shake my view that deletionism would be unhealthy if allowed to become a dominant ideology of our project, or even that theres little rational bases for its more hard core expressions. If I had to guess its origin, its a mixture of excessive desire to impress a narrow elitist academic audience, and maybe misplaced emotional / intuitive beliefs based on that experience that including trivia is harmful to quality content in real world media like museums or printed encyclopaedia. Anyhow I think I've said my piece now so will bow out from the discussion, thanks very much for conceding the MQS RfA was very OTT! FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Do I get a sense of "them and us"? ;) Actually thought MSQ's RFA was mild compared to some I've seen. There was actually less incivility, rancor, and posturing than I'd expected. And do I perceive only one set of bad guys being recognized? This is the problem as I see it-- Both sides go over the top in opposing RFA's of their perceived nemises. And until the "them or us" behavior is set aside, these RFA's will continue to close as no consensus. Both sides have the numbers to sink the other's RFA's-- so stalemate. Both sides need to recognize that this strife is detrimental and find a way to cooperate instead of maintaining this destructive stalemate.  Dloh  cierekim  14:45, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It was not even as uncivil as my own failed RfA. But let us not hold this one RfA up as a straigt forward them and us. I am not a deletionist at all and I could provide examples of many AfDs where I have passionately argued for keep against heavy opposition but I was genuinely shocked by the quality of some of MSQ's AfD arguments. This is now being held up as an example of a del/inc debate just because the issue was mentioned. I really do think that many of the opposes had serious concerns regarding inclusionism and that it was these concerns rather than the general philosophy which lead to many of the opposes. Polargeo (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


 * As I have said before, I don't consider myself a "deletionist" but others have chosen to try and paint me with that brush a few times, yet I supported Michael's RFA. This battleground mentality has it's roots in the inclusionist camp. There the only ones that even have a camp to plot from. There is not an organized cabal of users whose stated goal is to delete as many articles as possible. Yet there is a cabal of extremist inclusionists who will do anything to stop an article from being deleted, and who regularly deliver one-two punches at RFA, at AFD, and anywhere else one of their members is subject to scrutiny or a crappy article is in danger of being deleted. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And I don't consider myself a "deletionist", but I opposed Michael's RFA. This is not a debate about inclusionism v deletionism no matter how much the ARS's more conspiracy-theorist minded members try to paint it as some kind of organized coup; it's an issue of different people with different backgrounds using different criteria to judge a borderline candidate. – iride  scent  17:43, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; I must have forgotten to invite y'all to the super-secret deletionist cabal. It's real cool ... <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 19:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I was invited...! – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Me, I rarely give a damn about allegations in an RfA of "extreme" inclusionism or deletionism? Should I? Who are these admins who've allowed their "extreme" inclusionist or deletionist stance to lead them to close AfDs improperly? -- Hoary (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)