Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 229

Dead links in RfA toolbox
Apparently Template talk:RfA toolbox doesn't get much attention, so...

These links are expired:


 * 2nd row (Analysis):
 * NAC of AfD's
 * 4th row (Cross-wiki):
 * User rights
 * Log actions
 * Meta rights log

Thanks, Ansh666 07:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Toolserver is shutting down at the end of this month after which all tools will migrate to Wikimedia labs. None of the above are currently available on the labs site AFAICT - It might be an idea to contact their authors to see if they have plans to migrate their tools to the new server. Philg88 ♦talk 08:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be User:Dungodung and User:Scottywong. (Hope they get the pings and come check.) Ansh666 12:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * My tools have been moved to tool labs -- Filip  ( § ) 16:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, updated. Thanks for the heads up. Ansh666 03:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Count of votes
People come to view nominations. The first line contains these words:


 * Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (45/6/8); Scheduled to end 01:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Could that please be adjusted to not disclose the count of support and oppose? Such numbers may motivate readers to support the currently larger group (i.e., support in the example line I gave) without reading through the discussion thoroughly. --Gryllida (talk) 11:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence to support the proposition that people will be motivated to "support the currently larger group"? Pedro : Chat  12:08, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There's plenty of evidence for that. It's called the Bandwagon effect and its influence on how people respond to polls is well-studied; see Opinion_poll.  I presume it's the reason the old article feedback tool was designed to discourage users from viewing an article's existing ratings before rating it themselves. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:21, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Some kind of anonymous voting system would be required to counteract this though; seeing a large number of votes in one section compared to the other will cause the same effect as seeing the numbers at the top. Sam Walton (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But RFA is not a vote :) - Fair point Adrian, thank you. Pedro : Chat  13:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think it's much of a problem, anyways. Obvious pile-on votes are typically assigned lesser or no weight by bureaucrats, anyways, aren't they? Ansh666 12:31, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. "Support ~ " should be / is given far less weight than "Support well informed comment with diffs here. Given people are very much encouraged to explain their support/oppose I really can't see that there's that much of an issue. And anyway, the bloody great RFA counter with the Red/Amber/Green is far more likely to sway people than the inline count at the top of the RFA, surely? Pedro : Chat  13:37, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Removing the tally would not negate the bandwagon effect. An invisible vote would do that, but we actually find the ability to persuade others with your vote desirable at RFA. So this is a "problem" we're not trying to solve.--Atlan (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Atlan makes a persuasive argument about persuasive arguments, but I'd prefer the counter to be less prominent. bobrayner (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not really prominent at all, I didn't notice it was there until now. Unless you're talking about the giant green/red box counter table thing. Ansh666 04:46, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Everyone should be a administrator!!!
Its too harsh on people. I want to run but I cant. Boom parachute (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure the project's aims would be better served by assigning the rights of the sysop group to the autoconfirmed user group. I could see quite a few problems with everybody being able to block and delete, or worse, protect.  Snowolf How can I help? 16:50, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It is a recipe for chaos. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of autoconfirmed vandals too. Imagine vandals being able to just block good contributors and get away with editing fully protected page. I am sorry to say, but that is not going to happen. Dustin  ( talk ) 16:58, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. to my above comment... We try to soften the image a bit, but in the end Admins are Wikipedia's beat cops. We have to be careful who gets a badge and billy stick on here, just like we do in the real world. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Listen to what the others have said. There is a reason that the administrator group is selective. Still, if you manage to stay on Wikipedia for a good while, maintain good editing practices, and have civil discussions, you may eventually become a candidate for it. You can gain lesser rights more easily than administrator rights, such as reviewer and rollback rights. Dustin  ( talk ) 17:05, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that adminship should be a LOT less restrictive; and should be granted more easily to anyone who has edited Wikipedia for long enough in good standing, and has demonstrated an understanding of when and how to use the tools properly. However, that's a long way from "everyone".  It should be "everyone who isn't going to abuse them, as demonstrated by being a decent person for a good while"... -- Jayron  32  17:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Who said you "can't" be an admin? Yes WP:NOTNOW currently applies but get a few years of good, hard work under your belt and give it a go...! GiantSnowman 17:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC) I think it is enough that anyone can just ask to be an admin and that consensus decides if it should granted. Some tools have more potential for disruption than others, a demonstration of an understanding of how they should be used is essential. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 17:59, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with but equally it should be easier to take away. If we had a proper community-led recall process and we weren't selecting people for admin-for-life status, I think many would relax their super-critical demands on candidates. But no, not everybody - I can easily think of plenty who should not be admins (amongst both the current admin and non-admin ranks). Is there any chance we'd ever get the community to agree to a community-led recall process? I doubt it - there are too many existing admins who would oppose it in order to presersupport this userve their own unquestionable privileges, and judging by previous attempts there are too few non-admins who care enough to do anything about it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * on the last bit. It is unwise, and borderline rude, to tell people what their own internal thoughts and feelings are.  -- Jayron  32  17:56, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, fair point. I do think there is adequate evidence out there in the wider world that autocracy tends to be self-serving, but I do not mean to impute such motives to all admins who might oppose a community-led recall process. Having said that, I do remain convinced that some are indeed self-serving in their motives - but I will not offer evidence, because I don't want to personalize it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I will also say that this whole "admin for life" thing is a myth. Several admins have lost their priviledges. The community can and has resorted to arbcom to remove admins that ceased to meet the expectations of the community. When an admin acts out the community makes it clear to them and if they continue they lose the mop.

I cannot think of a single occasion where the community has come to a policy based consensus that someone should not be an admin and they remain an admin. After all, it is not a big deal. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 18:32, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Re: "it is not a big deal": If you actually believe that, then I think you're being hopelessly naive - judging by the RfAs and the discussions about administration I've seen over the time I've been active, I'd say it's vying for the title of the biggest deal Wikipedia has even seen. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Adminship itself is no big deal. Your edit button looks the same, people still revert you for dreadfully silly reasons, and your coffee is still weak in the morning. The community has opted to make RfA a big deal, complete with a week of interrogation and public shaming, but RfA and adminship are two different things. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:43, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree. In an ideal world it wouldn't be a big deal. But in the real world, it is. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How so? Nothing any admin can do is irreversible. Perhaps I'm simply lucky to have had an uneventful career as an admin, but I'm more inclined to believe that's the norm. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

How did everyone get from a question from [someone very young] with 5 edits who puts on his user page that he likes rap music and video games and wants to be an administrator. When I was [that young], I don't believe I ever said I wanted to be an administrator when I grew up. Seems like a lot of conversations on these pages all devolve into becoming an admin, recalling an admin, the problems with RfAs, etc. It's like that thing in the first book of Tolkien's trilogy: all paths lead down to that river (forget the name). Hopefully, Tom is around to pull everyone out of the tree.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it touched on a sore point - that at least some of us are opposed to the current self-serving admin culture? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But so many of us have sore points, . That doesn't necessarily mean we should use every opportunity to raise them, does it?--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Every opportunity? I suspect most neutral observers will find that a bit of an exaggeration. But can I ask you, do you assume that you are one of the admins I rail against? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:48, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Exaggeration? More like blatant hyperbole. :-) I'd have to follow you around to know that, and despite the fact that we've had two exchanges in the last couple of days, I'm not stalking you ("I am not a crook"). As for me being one of that select group of admins, the short answer is I have no idea. But I have no basis for thinking I'm on your shit list. I'd just as soon not even know, frankly. That way, I can maintain the illusion that I am the very model of a modern wikipedia administrator (hopeless, sorry). I'll stop babbling now, much as I enjoy it.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough ;-) For the record, and despite the fact that perhaps you'd rather not know and the fact that you and I might occasionally disagree, I actually think you're one of our best. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would be better to start a separate discussion about this stuff. The topic had shifted from the original point of "Everyone should be a administrator!!!" to a load of discussions regarding admins, the RfA process, and all of this other stuff. Dustin  ( talk ) 20:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

bbb23 I bet when you were [that young] Wikipedia was not in your head. So the comparision is faulty. I want to be an administrator. Boom parachute (talk) 20:17, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh, Wikipedia was not in my head or anywhere else for that matter.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You must acquire experience, be an editor for a while, and make significant contributions to the encyclopedia to imbue trust into the Wikipedia community before you can become an administrator. You may continue to want it though, and just make a good editor of yourself, and then someday make a request for adminship. Dustin  ( talk ) 20:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I had Wikipedia in my head at that age[...]. Still, because of this, I can say that you in calling the comparison faulty are not entirely correct. If you want to become an admin someday, then I would suggest doing something along the lines of what I have previously said. Dustin  ( talk ) 20:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

A Thought
If somebody runs for admin they should be automatic support unless there is something bad that they did. Boom parachute (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There are problems with that. The first to come to mind is that there could be an editor with only one edit that was good and no other edits. They had no bad edits, so there. Dustin  ( talk ) 20:29, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I've decided I dont want to be an admin right now
I must wait. Boom parachute (talk) 22:27, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * When I was a kid, every  boy  (well, almost) my  age wanted to  be a train  driver (engineer to  you  Americans) -  or county  class cricketers (but that's something  our cousins across the pont  won't  understand). That  was in  the days of steam when locomotives were and looked liked like beasts of power (and players still  wore whites for cricket and really  did drink  tea during  the breaks). Perhaps these young  kids that  join  Wikipedia with  the sole intention  of wanting  to  become an admin  some day have something  in  common with  those of us who  grew up  near a railway  line sixty  or seventy  years ago. To  let  them  down lightly  though, I  can assure them  that  that  admins of mine and Boing's generation are almost  certainly  not needing  to  look  for a hobby  with  a hand on the helm  of a powerful  machine or a cricket  bat  to  hit things with. We are not  beasts of power as some may  contend - are we????? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess that since Kumioko is not here to say it himself, I'll throw unbundling out there; and spare everyone the rest. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 09:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Per Votes
Lots of people in RfA or in general in other discussions too, votes per other user's arguments e.g. like Support/Oppose per User:GoodArgument etc. What if the User:GoodArguments later changes his opinion or to be specific his vote. What happens to these per votes ? -- Vigyani talkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 04:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "Per" votes that say nothing else would normally be given less weight anyway, so not sure it matters. I will sometimes do a "Per" vote but then expand on the first person's rationale or add more info, using the "per" to simply not duplicate an entire paragraph. If someone does a "Per Bob" vote, then Bob changes his vote from support to oppose (or the inverse), then weighing that vote is up to the Crat.  I imagine it varies from Crat to Crat, which is another reason why simple "Per" only votes without explanation are a bad idea. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  13:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The original support argument would still be visible, as it is customary to strike out a changed vote, not delete it outright. So the per vote would be still be classed as per the rational that had been used to support.  I do however agree with what Dennis says, supports are best supported with an actual rationale. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not a fan of "per" votes, but sometimes an editor says what needs to be said, succinctly and accurately. In such cases I see no reason to reinvent the wheel as it were. If another editor has covered the salient points and I agree with them, why do I need to post something new or go through the trouble of rewording what has already been expressed? That seems more like an exercise for grammar students... "Now class I want you to read the last two paragraphs on page 66 and rephrase them in your own words while retaining their meaning and correct grammar." -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for Crats at RFA, but when I'm closing AFDs and the like, "Per Bob" votes are weighted less because they don't really add to the discussion. Something as simple as "Per Bob, the coverage isn't WP:SIGCOV" would be fully counted as it at least attempts to explain why.  If you just say "Per Bob", how do I know you even read Bob's comments and not just parroting him because Bob agreed with you in your last AFD? Or are you sucking up to gain favor? Or that you just hate the article creator?  We don't know each editor individually nor their motivations, so we can only use their words, their logic.  Seeing some effort to explain the vote always gives the !vote more impact when determining consensus.  At least for me.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  17:56, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Though I appreciate the issue being addressed, which is a significant problem in an anonymous, online community, there are also notable downsides. The redundancy introduced means discussion threads are longer than necessary, both through the initial repetition of comments, and the multiplicity of subthreads that ensue when others feel compelled to reply to individual comments. In addition to discouraging participation, for discussions such as RfA, it also increases the degree of confrontation, since the subject under scrutiny has to see the same criticisms repeated over and over.
 * I think a more ideal approach would be what is typically done in the real world: build up a consolidated summary of pros and cons, and then the closer can evaluate the strengths of each, considering the support they received in the discussion thread. To further facilitate judging support, there can be a list of those who believe the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, and a list of those who believe the reverse, where each person can make an optional, brief summary statement, but all discussion would be kept to separate sections. This format can help prune redundant subthreads and limit repetition, which should make the whole discussion more readily accessible to more participants. isaacl (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As much as RFA sucks, it pales in comparison to some of the stress you will experience once you get the bit. If you can't handle criticism at RFA, you probably won't handle it if you get the bit.  Every action (even those that don't use the tools) will constantly be questioned, and often by those with less than good faith, and most of the time, all you can do is grin and bear it. You can't use real world solutions a Wikipedia, as in the real world there is accountability and here there is none.  Many RFCs are longer than the worst RFAs, sometimes 10x larger, so the redundancy and the space it takes up isn't really a problem.  Most RFAs are relatively easy to close compared to some RFCs. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  18:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree that redundancy isn't a problem; many people drop into a discussion and say, the previous discussion's too long so I didn't read it, but here are my thoughts, thereby kicking off another cycle of the same point-counterpoint discussion (and really I had RfCs and other contentious discussions in mind, which I agree are generally far worse than RfAs in this respect). Trimming down the repetition of the same points over and over will make it easier for prospective participants to understand the whole conversation and contribute positively. I agree the absence of accountability is an issue with many possible approaches, so if getting each person to express a brief summary of their viewpoint is the best tradeoff, so be it. Nonetheless, I think trying to avoid subdiscussions for each person's comments would be beneficial, as well as building up a consolidated list of pros and cons. isaacl (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Going from memory, I'm wanting to say that had suggested disallowing replies to votes previously and it wasn't received well.  I can see the logic in the proposal, but then you would have people making utterly false statements (that DOES happen) and you can't counter with proof.  For RFA, I fear we can only choose the lesser of two evils.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  19:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My suggestion was to have a separate discussion section where you can counter whatever points you like. This should maximize the chances of consolidating discussion, so a given point can be countered once, rather than repeatedly. (It of course won't guarantee it, but it should be easy to close down redundant subthreads by pointing to the main subthread.) Yes, some people feel it's harder to respond to other people when they can't do it immediately below their comments. Personally, I think the benefits gained in reducing repetition and having fewer subthreads to follow (all under a discussion section, rather than under each person's comments) make the tradeoff worthwhile. The 2012 pending changes RfCs followed this format, and I think were the better for it. isaacl (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Extended discussion can, and have, been moved to the talk page. I can recall at least on example where an extended neutral position was moved and discussed on a talk page. Probably a lot more of the extended replies should be moved to the talk pages. --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem is that often, very extended discussions are because someone is trying to cause drama in their oppose (supporters have no benefit from drama). Then you move it, then it becomes the great admin conspiracy, you and the candidate must be buddies, talk on IRC, he mows your lawn, etc.  A drama explosion that can drag into ANI, attract more contrarian viewpoints, so it is easier to tolerate the small drama on the page than move it and see the person throw a tantrum that SHOULD get them blocked, yet doesn't, as other admin know it will cause even more drama. We don't see it often, but it is always a risk and can turn what would have been a 95% RFA into a fail as people pile in to make a WP:POINT. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  19:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If there were a discussion section below the sections where editors gave their brief summaries, then there would be no conspiracy theories about hiding anything. And I do believe that discussion on the pros and cons raised by commenters is on-topic and so best belongs on the main page itself, not on the corresponding talk page. isaacl (talk) 22:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Technically, there IS such a discussion area, but for some reason it is put at the TOP of the votes. As you might know, it is seldom used, and generally for technical notes or discussion.  Moving that at the bottom would accomplish what you are saying.  I would have to think about the ramifications more before stating a firm opinion, but there is merit in that idea.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  23:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe a section could be created below the !votes, called "Comments" or "Additional comments" or "Replies" or something like that? Leaving "Discussion" where it is and for the limited purposes it now serves? --MelanieN (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that per votes become a problem when the original editor subsequently changes their position. I think the per a struck vote votes were half the opposition in my 2nd RFA. I would hope that the crats would weigh the rationale for the change of position, "OK now that you've shown me what that username means in French I see why you did that and will change position" being very different to ""despite that example I'm moving to neutral because of the way the candidate has comported themselves in this RFA". Better if the per voters revisit their vote after the person they are voting per changes their position, I have on a few occasions dropped a note to people who are in that position and I would suggest we do that more often, at least where the RFA might be a close call. Otherwise I think per votes are commendable, they avoid cluttering the RFA and add focus on what are hopefully the most pertinent arguments.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers 12:14, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I tend to come to RfAs either very early or very late. If I come to one very late, I don't see a problem using "Per" votes (often per several users, all making roughly the same point). I do, however, have a major problem with 's statement that he gives per votes less weight, because I can find no policy or guideline justification for doing that. There are areas where I would be okay with 'crats (or in other forums, closing admins) giving less weight to certain votes - mainly when the various forms of sock and meat puppetry are involved - but that's because we already have established policies and guidelines against those behaviors. It seems that Dennis Brown is saying that he had or will let his own personal feelings about per votes play an inappropriate role in closings. Unless he can point to a policy that justifies him doing it, it needs to stop immediately, or Dennis needs to step down. Sven Manguard   Wha?  18:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For starters, Closing discussions says " The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, those that show no understanding of the matter of issue." Someone that has explained their vote in a clear and concise manner using policy as a rationale has their vote weighted more than someone that says only  "Per Bob", as they haven't indicated they understand anything, and have only given their opinion.  It isn't a vote, we aren't a democracy.  It isn't about "my personal feelings", it is that when closing, you weigh the strength of the arguments and "Per Bob" isn't as strong as a fully rationalized, policy backed argument.  An editor can walk into an AFD and type "Per Bob" without even reading anything, so not all "Per Bob"s are created equal.  There is no way for the closer to know if they even read the discussion.  That doesn't mean the !vote is thrown out, just that it has less weight. I assume the Crats weight votes at RFA lower as well when they only contain a sig, or at least I would hope so. And no, I won't be stepping down.  The drama mongering isn't helpful, particularly when you don't understand the rationale.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  18:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What you say makes more sense in a discussion like AFD then RFA. RFA may not technically be a vote, but it's damn close.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is what I was talking about, AFD, seeing that I'm not a Crat and can't close RFAs. And I agree that RFA is a quazi-vote, as it has thresholds, unlike AFDs and RFCs can be closed against the numerical vote in some cases.  The basic concept holds true for any discussion though, that a well thought out and explained vote has more strength than a weak one that simply says "me too!".  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  19:17, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * &larr; I'm not sure why Y's "per X" vote would inherently be less influential than the comments of X himself. We're instructed to AGF unless we have reason to believe something untoward is afoot, and for all we know Y really does agree with everything X said, with nothing more to add. If X changes his mind, but the basis for his original opinion remains valid, then Y has the option of reviewing his vote (as do we all), but is not required to do so. If X's rationale is blown out of the water, then Y should most certainly revisit his "per X" post. Granted, it's likely in that situation that other people would have commented along the same lines of X and Y, just without the "per" syntax, so they would also do well to review any changes. Certainly I don't automatically discredit "per X" comments when closing XfDs and the like. If X raised some relevant, policy-based points, I'm at no liberty to assume Y in his "per X" is just brown-nosing or racking up edits. Frankly, I can't imagine all that many discussions are so borderline as to rest on a single "per" vote, so it might be a little drastic to suggest that particular admins surrender their bit, but I do think it's important to follow AGF whenever possible. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 19:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (EC)IMHO here's the difference. At AFD there's an inclusion policy and the discussion is to resolve the question, does this article fall on the delete side of that policy or not.  At RFA it'a a lot more vague question.  There's no policy line involved.  It's an open "Does user X have the support of the community or not".  The question itself is really a measure of percentage.  The only time I see a real strength of arguement in play at RFA is when it falls into that real borderline % zone.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why "per Bob" votes should have any different weight than Bob's does, as weighed by the criteria that Dennis has quoted in italics above. If Bob's argument is good, then "per Bob" contributes to forming a consensus that Bob has got it right. If Bob's argument is off-beam, then so is the "per Bob" vote. Of course I can write "per Bob" without reading the rest of the discussion, but I can also paraphrase Bob without reading the rest of the discussion. There's no reason why each person in a discussion need make a speech. A nod and an approving grunt are also assent. How many new takes on an issue should we realistically expect? --Stfg (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree with Stfg. If a previous !voter encapsulates your position sufficiently well, its merely expedient form. It is not so often that a !vote, which is being cited as "per", changes its position, when it ever does; I think at best a comment could ping !voters who had cited it, allowing the best opportunity for them to know of the change and act accordingly. Nothing further should be assumed without some other mitigating circumstance, like perhaps a false statement. Then, for as rare as I perceive its potential, I think we are safe with bureaucratic discretion. —John Cline (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As 'per' and ... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:42, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to add an additional point for consideration. One of my !voting criteria, when considering a candidate for advanced permissions, is to search Wikipedia namespace for the string "per Candidate's name", where candidate's name is the person being considered. I find it very useful for gauging a candidate's overall clue, as well as segregating important discussions where the candidate wielded influence, affecting the outcome. For example, consider per Dennis Brown, or per Kudpung . Plug in the names of successful candidates and compare those who did not succeed, and by all means, do a vanity search. But please, don't discount, dissuade, or devalue a "per" !vote; they are significant.—John Cline (talk) 04:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * If what you say is correct John, then you have been basing your votes on erroneous information. The searches you should have made are "per Dennis Brown", or "per Kudpung" . --Epipelagic (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So you would think, but what if someone says "per X and Y"? Searching "per Y" wouldn't turn those up. (In addition, you should probably include most, if not all, Talk: namespaces.) Ansh666 04:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Epipelagic, I had forgotten the quotation marks. If I led you to believe this is the basis of my !vote, then I certainly erred twice, for I only meant it is useful, for me, as a criterion. While I can see where other namespaces could be useful, I do generally stick with ns 4 and 5 because that is where most of the discussions I am hoping to scrutinize take place. Cheers.—John Cline (talk) 06:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you actually try without the quotation marks sometimes - it helps catch constructs like "per X and Y", "per above, especially Y", "per above: I agree with Y", etc. that people use (per normal speech) as opposed to the strict "per Y". Of course, then you do have to wade through irrelevant hits like Perth Airport or WP:PER, but it definitely increases the amount of useable material as well. Ansh666 07:09, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see you are yet another an "admin hopeful". With candidates like this the future of Wikipedia is, well, is what it is. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Pah, I'm only an "admin hopeful" because I hate waiting for G6's to get done. Were I to miraculously pass an RfA, I'd limit myself to practically only that. Ansh666 07:29, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * RfA's have nothing specifically to do with G6's. There is no general system on Wikipedia which allows user rights to be distributed rationally to the users who most need them. Instead we have a system where nearly all additional user rights are handed out to users who pass an RfA, regardless of whether they are appropriate for that user or not. The principal reward for passing an RfA is to be given draconic power over the productive content builders (the right to unilaterally insult and block them pretty much at whim). This odious system in now wholly under the control of the legacy admins and their entourages. Admins call this "community consensus". Admins are stupidly appointed for life, so the system can only progress further into the swamp it has made for itself. The principal strategy to ensure the survival of the system is a tacit conspiracy of silence. The specifics of the solid and well articulated body of criticism of the system must never be acknowledged by a user who hopes to pass an RfA or an admin who wishes to retain his or her bit. The principal purpose of an RfA is to make sure that users who pass the RfA are blind, or are willing to turn a blind eye, to the failings of the admin system. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you Ansh. I can't tell you how many times I have accidentally done a thing better than I had planed, nor was it originally my intent to warrant my comment as being free from error. Even Epipelagic replicated one of my mistakes; failing to check ns5, as he showed me the correct manner of search. If I conveyed anything at all, I hope it resembles that I do not think an adverse thing should be levied against a "per someone" !vote. Especially when it is demonstrably shown to generate useful content in itself. I would honestly like to see Dennis Brown moderate his chastisement of the "per" !vote, for it has been shown that he is one who wields influence, and his strong admonition can not help but to deter many from considering use of this !voting form.—John Cline (talk) 10:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's not elevate my comment to "chastisement", or make it sound like I throw out "Per" votes, that is absolutely not the case. Evaluating votes isn't binary, almost all votes lie in the gray area, and besides, I use "Per Bob" votes myself.  The most recent example is Articles for deletion/Children's immigration crisis.  I use a few more words to say "Per Bob" (verbosity is my Achilles heel), but I also add something to the "per" most of the time, using the "Per" to make my comment shorter, but not reduced to two words.  The times I don't add more rationale is when the outcome is rather obvious.  And AFD and RFA aren't the same thing.  AFD requires policy based rationales, RFA doesn't.  I don't know how I would view "Per Bob" votes in RFAs, I'm not a Crat and have no burning desire to become one.  RFAs have a threshold and have never passed with less than 50% support, whereas AFDs and other discussions do with somewhat regularity, even if they are statistically rare. My premise is simply that a !vote that explains itself is more powerful and persuasive than one that does not in polling discussions.  It is more a matter of nuance than using an ax, and I think people are reading too much into it. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  13:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Dennis Brown. I feel badly for mis-characterizing your comment. I didn't mean to vilify you in any way, though I see where my remarks strain credulity in that regard. So I'll ask that you grant me indulgence, this time, and believe me anyway; because it is true. "I didn't mean to aggrieve you, and frankly; I primarily agree with both your position, and your premise. You have intimated yourself clearly, from the outset, and endured undertones of unprovoked hostility, unwaveringly; with splendor and grace. I have no doubt that these attributes, explain, why you are known to wield influence. And I concur, that all confidence in your counsel, is not misplaced. In all candor, this is why it was paramount that I cause it to be unequivocally known that we are not at odds; to mitigate any possibility that one might wrongly perceive that we were. I apologize that it came with umbrage.—John Cline (talk) 17:49, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have been following this interesting discussion. As noted above, it has strayed away from RfAs into AfDs and RfCs where the issues are rather different, and where a "per Bob" comment may be given less weight than at RfA (which really does seem more like a count). My comment is that IMO you can avoid the whole question of "is this a genuine evaluation, or is it a lazy checkmark by someone who didn't really consider the issues?" by avoiding "per" and saying just a few words more. As in "Bob has made a very good case" or "Bob said it all" or "I agree with everything Bob said." Question for you admins: would you count something like that as a "per Bob" vote or as an actual evaluation? --MelanieN (talk) 18:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be a question for the 'crats rather than admins. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:38, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was actually wondering about how such votes would be evaluated at AfD or RfC, which is where this discussion had strayed. My impression about RfA is that, except in very close !vote situations, it doesn't matter whether a commenter eloquently describes their evaluation of the person, or whether their support !vote consists of "per Bob" or "sure" or "why not?" The count is the count, the meter shows red or green - and only if it shows yellow does 'crat discretion seem to come into play. But admin discretion DOES come into play in closing AfD and RfC discussions, and that is what I was asking about. I realize it's kind of off topic here but so is half the discussion. --MelanieN (talk) 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Anybody who says "Per Bob" obviously knows a wise and well-argued point when they see one; they should be applauded. bobrayner (talk) 15:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Per Bob -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, you got me! 0;-D --MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Wow, waaaay too much credit given, above. I'm as ordinary as tap water, as is my influence, I assure you. And for the record, I never mind being challenged on my actions or philosophy, even if mistakenly. It either steels my resolve, or gets me to see my mistakes and try a different thing, so nothing is really lost. I'm not afraid to be in the minority, either. Any way, these kinds of discussions are good for airing out ideas that don't get aired out anywhere else. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  23:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/AlanM1
I need help. I've never before nominated anyone here (my own RFA was not a self-nom), and I'm having trouble deciding whether I've followed the instructions completely, so I'd appreciate it if someone would properly transclude this nomination. Moreover, there's some weirdness with the time; on the nomination itself, we have a clear Scheduled to end 18:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC) statement, but on the main RFA page, I'm seeing an error message, ''Scheduled to end The time parser function has not been substituted. This is necessary to fix the end time and prevent it from constantly changing. Please substitute the parser function immediately.'' I can't imagine how it could be fine on one page and wrong on the other, so again I need some help. Nyttend (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * All you needed to do was purge the page, methinks - anyway, it's working fine now. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 18:32, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I could tell, the time just needed to be substed. Don't know why it only errored on the main RfA page, but I think I managed to fix it. &mdash; Lucas Thoms 18:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I had to make a small adjustment to the main RFA page but looks like it's showing up properly now. Purge didn't work for me until I removed the no current nominations tag. Mkdw talk 18:56, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Need attention from the community
I was taking a long wikibreak when I received a mail about the RfA of Alan. Interrupting my enjoyment of a vacation I have to search for a public cyber to post this comment. I’m very surprised to see that such a good candidate like was failing his RfA. I have no doubt and I can totally trust him with the tools. I don’t know why the community is so rude. If you speak kind words to others and encourage them, they are bound to improve in time. In language and literature, in poetry and the arts, in everything we must point out not the mistakes that people are making in their thoughts and actions, but the way in which they gradually are able to do these things better. Pointing out mistakes wounds an editor’s feeling. In AlanM1’s RfA,   has used a word ”too inexperienced” which is actually a negative word and leaves a bad feeling on the candidates mind. Instead of using that word, Kraxler should use words like, gain some more experience etc. Using negative words leaves a bad affect on the editor’s ability to contribute further besides being morose. And again ”The candidate's presentation does not provide any evidence that he is qualified to conduct administrator duties” by, was a clear example of such rudeness. I don’t know of which presentation he is talking about. I’m not here to say that everyone should support Alan and yes, Alan has to gain some experience but I’m talking about the RfA process.

"RfA is a horrible and broken process" said by Jimbo Wales here. RfA is something discourages candidates. Yes, it is ourself who makes the RfA such an awful place. Nowadays most of the editor decides the candidates knowledge about deletion policies by checking the number of AfD he has commented and by comparing the results with his !vote. But I don’t think it is the correct way, deciding the candidate’s ability by comparing and counting the no of AfD he has commented is not the perfect way. I know some editors who has less than 11 Afds, but they have very good knowledge about deletion policies etc. (One of them was my mentor) when asked for RfA they say they are afraid of the process. We have many good editors but they are just scared of this process. Nowadays, people oppose if they find the candidate have low amount of AfD comments and I’m not going to be surprise if someone ask in future RfAs that “oppose candidate havn’t contributed to AfC”. I think this is not the perfect way to judge a candidate. Participating in AfD must not be compulsory for becoming an admin. In Alan’s case he admitted that he will not going to use his tools for things which he don’t have sufficient amount of knowledge and expressed an intension not to get involved in AfD process in future. He is an expert coder, Technical experts with sysop tools are needed nowadays to edit cascade protected and MediaWiki pages (We have hardly 6-7 sysops with good knowledge of technical issues ex-,, Redrose56 etc.) Nevertheless, the community just overlooked his abilities and continued opposing for not participating in AfD. Is AfD is compulsory?? I don’t think so. Not every editor is same. Some like to create articles, some like to edit the existing ones, some like to patrol new pages and some like to take new ones for AfD. Every editor is different. Then why we are forcing them to follow the same rule?? Ah, sorry we actually don’t have any such rule! I’m very unsatisfied on how the community is reacting in RfAs.

To avoid this unfriendliness of the system, I propose for a creation of a guideline on how editors should comment on RfAs. A guideline will help to keep that place calm. I will propose my ideas after hearing opinions from the community about this proposal. I have read TL;DR and I’m sorry for that.  Jim Carter (from public cyber)  11:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Of all the people involved in this RfA, why am I being singled out? And Adoil Descended (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're not the only one. I have just used your comment as an example. It is not your fault dear, I have seen many such comments before. So, don't worry I'm not telling you, I'm telling the community.   Jim Carter (from public cyber)  12:32, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Personal opinion on the candidate does NOT belong here. Perhaps a discussion on the RFA's talkpage, and a well-phrased !vote, but the above is inappropriate for WT:RFA  the panda ₯’  12:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I know that. This was not the first candidate who faced similar reactions from the community. Nothing meant personally. This RfA is just an example I used. There are many similar RfAs where the candidate has to face harsh words. That is the reason why I'm proposing a new guideline for those who !vote.   Jim Carter (from public cyber)  12:43, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Jim, you are barking up the wrong tree. AFD/CSD/PROD performance is a completely 100% valid criteria to judge by, and any attempt to have it removed would be blown out of the water by the majority of people, even those that don't use it.  The only way to judge how they know the deletion policy is if they have some experience in one or more of those.  For that matter, that is the only way to LEARN deletion policy, so requiring that any admin have experience is perfectly logical. If you look at Alan's talk page, you see people trying to help, including towards a second run, when he's ready.  If you think that is harsh, wait until you get the bit.  THEN you learn the meaning of "harsh words". Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  12:52, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * You might want to have a look at Perennial proposals and follow the various links to previous proposals for reform etc. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

TLDR version: Jim Carter thinks AlanM1 is awesome and everyone who thinks otherwise is rude. This is yet another thread that suggests we should mollycoddle all candidates, lest their fragile egos are hurt. This time we can't even say "too inexperienced" with respect to a candidate. Ridiculous.--Atlan (talk) 12:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * huh?? ?? Did you said I think AlanM1 is awesome?? If I have used someone else's example than you might have said the same again. Actually the problem is the community itself too many people too many thoughts and that is the reason why RfA is such an unfriendly place. No one admits even everyone knows that RfA is full of rudeness. Those who want to carry on always answer "Ridiculous" instead of finding solution. Since telling the word Ridiculous is much easier than fixing a problem.   Jim Carter (from public cyber)  13:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you think "too inexperienced" is too rude to say in an RFA, then the problem is your threshold for rudeness, not the atmosphere at RFA. I think we can all agree that we should treat the candidate respectfully, whether you support or oppose him. But your suggestion that basic statements of opinion such as "too inexperienced" and "not qualified" go too far is, like I said, ridiculous and would make RFA unworkable if those were not allowed.--Atlan (talk) 13:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, "too inexperience" can be used when the candidate is too new, just joined etc. But in Alan's case, using that word is not perfect since he is not new, has more than 5000 edits. That means, he has atleast some experience. It is always better to use more polite words.  Jim Carter (from public cyber)  13:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * And what, pray tell, is a more polite way of saying you believe the candidate does not have enough experience to be an administrator?--Atlan (talk) 13:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

- Concerned with the attrition  of admins and the severe plummet  in  the number of candidates, four  years ago a group of editors began what  was to  become the largest  ever analysis of the admin  (s)election  process and to  discuss possible alternatives. In spite of all  the hard work  that  went  into  that  project, it  died out due to  persistent  negative 'collaboration' from  some editors, and the feeling  that  the community  just  did not  really  want  any  change at  all other than greatly  improving  the civility  level. However, although the number of candidates has not  increased significantly  enough  to  demonstrate an upward trend, RfAs today  are considerably less torturous than they  had been for many  years. If candidates find their RfA is going  heavily  against  them. perhaps they did not  read all  the RfA advice pages first.

Before taking time analysing  English  syntax and semantics in  an endeavour  to  prove that  some mild statements are potentially  toxic and/or not  made in  GF, I would  strongly  recommend comparing  today's RfAs with  those of a couple of years back that  precipitated Jimbo's statement. And since you mentioned advice for voters, you  may  also  wish  to  read WP:RFAV. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:11, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I pointed him to mine on my talk page, April of 2012. Two blocks, "jr high principal", claims of badgering, being delete-happy, socking, etc. It wasn't the worse RFA, just a typical contentious one. Today's are much milder by comparison. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  14:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Claims of badgering! You were lucky to have claims of badgering! There were a hundred and fifty of us living in t' shoebox in t' middle o' road... Yunshui 雲 水 14:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You had a road? And a shoebox!? Softie, I tell you-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:03, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I wish I had a British upbringing, just so I could get all these cultural jokes, but then I go listen to The Wall and change my mind. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  19:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How about "Bus air-conditioning broken? Feh! When I was a kid, I walked 10 miles to school; barefoot; in the snow; all year; uphill; both ways!" (with acks to Bill Cosby). —&#91;  Alan M 1  (talk) &#93;— 20:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I wasn't  even going  to  mention  my  RfA which  I  often use as an example of how really  nasty the process used to  be with  its lies and insults. Inevitably, one of the most  uncivil of the participants has since been desysoped. Many  of the oppsers deliberately  took snippets of discussions out  of context in  order to  brand me as a child hater and others simply  just  piled on without  doing  any  research  whatsoever. Being  a well   known editor  is just  about  the worst  thing for a potential admin  candidate, fortunately  I'm long  in  the tooth and have a very  thick  skin, and I  will  admit  my  RfA was a bit  of a personal  test  of the system I  had already begun  to  feel  very  concerned about. Nothing  to  the thick  hide you  need later if you're going  to  an active admin... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Your damned if you do, damned if you don't. Someone will always find something to object to. Not enough edits in admin areas, too many edits in admin areas, too many recent edits in admin areas. If someone has checked all the boxes, someone will probably complain that they were obviously settting themselves up for a run at RFA, and that should be held against them. But I agree, RFA is alot less brutal than it used to be.  Monty  845  15:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "......and if you tell that to the young people today, they won't believe you..." Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You kids get off my lawn! --j⚛e deckertalk 16:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I find it interesting that there seems to be some kind of distress at the thought of editors who reject adminship, either because of RfA or for other reasons. Admittedly RfA can be a bit like being invited to dinner by the Inquisition. But seriously, if you can't handle the stress of some pointed questions and people taking a look at your record then how are you going to react when someone starts calling you all kinds of names and saying mean things about you or they just tell you to go off somewhere and attempt a little asexual reproduction (they might word that differently)? There are a lot of editors who don't want to be admins for those and other perfectly good reasons, myself among them. Has anyone ever written an essay along the lines of "Why you might want to just say no to RfA?" If not, it's something that may be overdue. On a side note, is there really a shortage of admins? I have never had any trouble finding one when in need. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * .. (from WP:LA)... Out of 1407 Admins, only 43% of them are active (activity is defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months).. pretty low IMO.. Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 22:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmm you have a point. Maybe there needs to be an online convention of admins where you can all propose the names of editors you think would be good recruits. Or you could just start working down the list of admin wannabes. I see no shortage of editors who want the mop. In fact I can think of at least one editor I'd like to see in RfA. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Most of the active admin won't come near a board. There are probably 200-300 fully engaged admin, which is adequate most of the time.  And we do talk about candidates.  I've approached a number of people about getting the bit.  Some are admin now.  Others didn't want to sacrifice their freedom, which is a very good reason to not seek the bit, because you will lose much of it. Almost none say they are afraid of RFA. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  22:45, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am glad to hear that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * To discuss an ongoing RfA anywhere else than the actual Rfa and pertaining talk page is not good form, and might be seen as WP:CANVASSING. Besides, to say that "too inexperienced" is "a negative word", in the context of RfA, is ludicrous. Please don't expect me to post any more comments at this thread. Kraxler (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I too have taken a wikibreak and upon return voiced support for and when I find that an RfA has been closed with 47 for, 33 opposed and a boatload of "Neutral", it only further reinforces why I took the break.  WP is broken when it comes to admin rights, and I have a few suggestions. First, someone's vague "concerns" or "feelings" of opposition should be disregarded completely unless they can point to a specific issue with the nominee and his/her behavior.  Secondly, there should be no such thing as "neutral".  If you don't have an opinion, don't bother posting.  If you do post to "neutral" and say something like, "I was going to support, but I'm just not sure", then either do the work to form a lucid opinion or again, don't bother posting at all.  "Neutral" isn't informative in most cases.   Lastly, one Bureaucrat's review of a close nomination, such as that for  should not stand alone.  It should be subject to review.  I have witnessed the campaigning for support that goes on in the RfA process.  It would be folly to believe that there's not a similar trend afoot for those that the "anointed" don't want amongst their ranks.  Since Wiki obviously has all the volunteer resources it needs to sustain itself forever, I guess I might just head back to my wikibreak.  After all, when I see this type of dysfunction - that's been going on for years without any genuine effort to fix it - it's just too depressing. But then again, I truly believe in the mission of the project, so I won't disappear completely, but I am going to shun those of you who wield your mops as though they are swords.  Best of luck to all of you.   Vertium '' When all is said and done 13:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I've seen way too many RFAs where a perpetual Opposer finds some one poor edit, maybe the worst out of thousands, and says "Look how bad his editing is! We can't let someone be admin if he makes edits like this!" In some cases it might be giving back a harsh or sarcastic comment to someone whose attacks were over the top. In one case the Opposer found that someone in one AFD had searched for references and found one to support a Keep, but actually the ref was about a different person of the same name. Then it's "Horrors! The RFA candidate is a dedicated fraudster." Opposers dig for one error or intemperate comment out of thousands of fine edits and present it as representative, as if they were political candidates trolling for trash to use in a political ad, take out of context.  Once a staunch Opposer posts such a tidbit, others jump on the band wagon, commenting that we just can't give the bit to someone who edits like this, i.e. someone who isn't PERFECT. I actually don't complain about someone having the patience to do the unrewarding work of looking through the edit history. Even Sainthood candidates in the Catholic church (until 1983) had a "Devil's Advocate" appointed by the Pope. It is the lazy bandwagon-jumpers that I deplore, and the fact that not enough participants take the large view and consider whether the bad edit or comment is representative or a very rare stumble.  Edison (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned to hear that "received a mail about the RfA of Alan". It raises questions about canvassing and vote-stacking. Mkdw talk 21:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Naa.. not like that, I received a mail from Wikipedia which says, "Dear Jim Cartar, The Wikipedia page Requests for adminship has been changed by ... (Some links) ... Editor summary: /* Requests for adminship*/ AlanM1..." I got this message because I have enabled something which sends me a mail whenever something on my watchlist changes. I saw Alan's name in the Editor summary which dragged me here from my vacation. Cheers,   Jim Carter (from public cyber)  06:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please check my work?
Dear RFA experts: I am trying to create an RFA for another user. The instructions at WP:RFA said to follow the directions on the page, but I failed to detect any, except for a suggestion to check for errors by using the preview. I took a guess at what to put where. Here's my page so far: Requests for adminship/Dodger67. Is the page supposed to look like that? I don't see any comment characters to be removed as instructed in red, and there are an awful lot of square brackets where I would expect to see links. The guidelines have dire warnings about not following all of the steps correctly, and I don't want Roger to get off to a bad start because of an improper nomination. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 04:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Anne, see Requests for adminship/Nominate for instructions. At the bottom is a big blue button that says "nominate another user", and it has a changable text above. Change the "username" in the text into the username you want and click on the button to create a request page. At the instruction page you can find what to do next. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * PS, I suggest you simply start over. To delete the page you already created, you can add to it, which will request a deletion to the admins.
 * I have deleted it.  I had already done what you suggested above.  Please,, what instruction page are you talking about? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Anne, the thing you probably did wrong is you changed the "SUBPAGENAME" after clicking on the big blue botton. You only need to add the name before you click on it. This might sound confusing, so to make it easy, click on the button below and click on save. The rest comes later. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . I had already figured it out by just trying various things.  You are right that I changed the capitalized word. My mistake was thinking that if it said "user=" that meant I should put in the name of the user. I think it's right now.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 05:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * , good to see you worked it out. Good luck with the RFA. -- Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking for data
Is there a list of passed RfAs by support percent? I am sure there must be but I unable to find. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 21:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * WP:RCA gives the !vote counts - you'd have to calculate the percentages yourself Noyster  (talk),  07:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Raw percentage isn't particularly useful anyways; the closing bureaucrat(s) may or may not assign lesser or no weights to comments, particularly in closer ones. Remember, RfA is not a vote. Ansh666 07:34, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I know. That is why I am curious to see how low can the support ratio be pushed. I am looking for the most extreme cases of the closing bureaucrat doing just that. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 19:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * This is likely the lowest and there are some similar edge cases for other reconfirmation-type RfAs. These kind of questions come up a lot, consider searching the archives. benmoore 20:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I took a quick look through and here are some of the closest successful RFAs in the last 3 years: And some unsuccessful in the last 3 years: Mkdw talk 21:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/SarekOfVulcan 2 72.4%
 * Requests for adminship/Trappist the monk 71%
 * Requests for adminship/Mlpearc 73.2%
 * Requests for adminship/QuiteUnusual 69.6%
 * Requests for adminship/Σ 68.2%
 * Requests for adminship/Ktr101 5 68.6% (withdrawn)
 * Maybe consider all "reluctant" opposes as only half an oppose each? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Pointless. Unless you know what the closer was thinking when they reviewed the RfA, counting votes simply isn't a good way to judge it. Ansh666 21:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I doubt there is a formula for how the votes are tallied. I would imagine that the individual statements are weighed to determine an overall consensus. It does, however, highlight the range in which discretionary action has been taken. Mkdw talk 21:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Ben Moore, Mkdw. Antrocent (&#9835;&#9836;) 23:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's another close one with a contentious log of activity. Andrevan@ 22:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Carnildo_3 (61%), ^demon_3 (63%), Krimpet (67%), Danny (68%), Davemeistermoab (68%), Ryulong_3 (69%) - the only RfAs I'm aware of that passed with less than 70%. - Dank (push to talk) 13:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * That list is comprehensive apart from this one which doesn't really count because of the low participation. If you're interested in high-scoring unsuccessful RfAs there are CWY2190 (75%), Theopolisme 2 (74.8%), Connormah 2 (74.6%), Cobi 3 (72.9%). There are higher scoring unsuccessful RfAs if you include situations where the candidate withdrew and there are plenty of successful ones with percentages in the low 70s. Every RfA closed at the end of its time limit with over 75% support has passed.  Hut 8.5  21:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that  looking  for such  stats is particularly  useful. At WP:RFA2011 we examined literally  100s of RfAs. RfAs are each too  different and any  trend(s) that data would  appear to  demonstrate, would be as purely subjective as the voting. The issues that  had dragged the process into  the mire seems to  have cleaned themselves up  in  recent months now that  those who  deliberately  sought  to  wreck it have either been banned or have moved on to  new pastures for their disruptive hobbies. Or simply grown up. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Self-noms
Is there some sort of dislike for self-noms that I'm not aware of? I enjoy to read old RFA and I frequently see phrases against selfnoms. Even supports sometimes have "Despite being a self nom blah blah blah..." Anybody mind filling me on why these are looked down upon? wirenote (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally speaking, some like to see another respected/well-known editor nominate the candidate as a vote of confidence. I really haven't noticed the sentiment lately, but I wouldn't say it was ever an outright prejudice against self-noms. I self-nommed a few years ago and things went well, but I suppose I would fall under the "boring" class of editors—which I've got no problem with. Some editors respect the cluefulness it takes to gauge one's own readiness and others like to see a respected editor nominate a candidate. If there's an active disdain for self-noms, I'm not aware of it either. It really doesn't factor into my judging of a candidate. Tyrol5   [Talk]  01:58, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree there's no problem with self-noms other than the obvious - they're a wasted opportunity. RFA candidates are asking the community to trust them, even though most editors won't have worked with them before. Being nominated by another respected editor is like attaching a good reference to your CV. An example - Requests for adminship/MER-C 3, where an editor claimed expertise in copyright issues. The co-nomination by MoonriddenGirl - our most dedicated and expert copyright editor - put that claim beyond doubt. Euryalus (talk) 02:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My first RfA was a self nomination. My second nomination passed. Chillum 02:33, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Most self-noms nowadays are closed rapidly per WP:NOTNOW or WP:SNOW, very few make it through compared to those nominated by other trustworthy editors - in fact, there hasn't been a successful one this entire year. I didn't follow RfA too much back in the day, maybe this is why some people viewed it less-than-favorably. That, or they think that self-noms are prima facie evidence of power hunger. (Kudos if you get the reference) Ansh666 03:29, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sheesh, hard to believe that was 5 or so years ago already. My personal favorite, though, was having to get an endorsement from a WikiProject around the time I went through RFA.  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, those were the days. Hard though it may same for "newer" editors but I remember when a 100 AIV reports was generally considered enough evidence alone of needing the tools. Pedro : Chat  08:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Brings back memories - Kurt was one of my 3 opposes, it was almost a badge of honour. Black Kite kite (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Amusingly, my own RFA (from a couple weeks after yours) featured an oppose vote because someone else nominated me. I recall a few AN/ANI threads about those types of votes, because nearly every RFA was opposed by one or the other.  The glory days of RFA 2007.... Resolute 13:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

To answer the original question, WP:HATSHOP is probably part of the reason. However, we've kind of moved on from *cough* having too many nominators and from opposes based purely on the fact of self nomination; which is good. Basically, there's no real issue with self-noms, but it does add some weight to have one, maybe two nominators who are experienced users - or maybe specialists in a field the nominee intends to devote time to. They should never be mandatory though. Pedro : Chat  14:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Based on a quick look at some of the more recent (last year or so) RfAs, I'd have to say that there is a pronounced prejudice against self nominations. Is that a healthy development? I don't know. But that it exists seems pretty hard to deny. For anyone who really wants to be an Admin, I would strongly discourage self nomination. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty sure that's because the vast majority of self-noms are poorly informed new editors, at least as far as I can remember. Look at the last few edits in the history of WP:RfA for a shining example. Ansh666 02:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * IMO any genuine self nom by  an experienced  user stands a fair chance of passing. Let's keep  the noms by  newbs out  of the equation -  they  just  distort  the stats. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sad thing is, there have been so few of those lately. None so far this year, as far as I'm aware, at least not successful. There were 5 successful ones in the last half of last year, though, so there is that. Ansh666 17:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a popular mythology built up around self-noms, but in my time here I'm not convinced I've actually seen anything significant. I've seen a few people suggest they view self-noms with mistrust, but I'm pretty sure I've never seen anyone fail due to being a self-nom. Very few !voters are so stupid that they can't look beyond that trivial detail and judge things properly based on the candidate's contributions, and the very few stupid !votes that do show don't have any real effect on the outcome. We certainly should not be swayed by the large number of self-noms who fail, but that's because they're almost entirely newbies who wouldn't have a chance of passing no matter who nominated them. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know that it matters terribly and I would never hold a self nom against anyone, but human behavior being what it is, I wonder if a nom from a familiar face simply draws more attention (good or bad) and might create more interest/votes. I can think of a few individuals that if they nom'ed, I would be more curious about the candidate than had they not been the nom, thus more interested in participating.  In some cases (the last RFA for example) it even nudged me into supporting because of the trust I had in the nom in doing their own background check.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  19:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * With the exception of the ones that were snowed before I  even realised they  were there, and a few that  were quite obviously  going  to  fail; I  think  I've voted on  almost  every  RfA  over the past  four  years or more. It's never bothered me at  all  whether they  were self-noms or not,   I  do  the same research  for them  all - unless of course  has already  done it  for me ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just doin' my job, boss. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  21:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * After having looked through just about every successful and failed RFA in the past three years when mine was up, I'd say a self-nom from the right candidate will invariably succeed. It makes no difference as far as I can tell. Many selfies seem to fail more because the candidate is unsuitable for whatever reason rather than the fact that it was a selfie, and a nom and co-nom wouldn't make any difference in those cases. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ugh, don't say selfie for self-nominations. It's bad enough people taking their own pictures all the time without dragging the word into wikipolitics.  Rcsprinter123    (post)  @ 22:58, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would lighten up the mood a bit... maybe? § FreeRangeFrog  croak 23:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Asking for !votes from my peeps when I do my selfie RFA, yo. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  23:39, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder how many RfAs, self-nom or not, would pass were the nominee to use that sort of language... Ansh666 15:00, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm late to the table, but I think there's a simpler explanation. Every once in a while, someone moans about the dearth of qualified candidates and a number of people go searching for anyone who might be qualified, resulting in a few supported nominations. This means that self-noms, almost by definition, are editors who were not uncovered in one of those searches. It isn't easy to do all the work necessary to prepare oneself to be an admin, yet be so hidden that none of those who hang out here have seen them. This means that the population of self-noms is mostly the clueless newbies, along with a very small number of qualified candidates who managed to not get caught in the search sieve. -- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Please close my RfA
Please close my RfA as I have Withdrawn my candidacy. Note that at least one !vote has been added after I posted my withdrawal statement which should be removed from the final tally. Thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

AfD standards for RfA candidates
I've been following a lot of RfAs and saw that AfD participation is cited frequently in RfAs. Is there a standard people typically look for is % accuracy (result versus vote) or quantity? Upjav (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the exact expectations vary from one editor to another. But it is my personal and slightly jaundiced observation that some editors tend to feel very strongly when they see a candidate whose apparent record with respect to inclusionist/deletionist appears to be at odds with what that editor prefers. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * While it is obvious that too low a value is a red flag, I would also consider a close to 100% value a red flag. It would be easy to game the system, and someone whose votes always matched the result would be a hint that some games playing may be occurring.-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  19:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * My personal rule of thumb is that 80%+ of votes matching outcome tick my RfA box, 70-80% pause for thought, below 70% serious questions 50-60% no. There is also a rider on these criteria that persistent misunderstandings of policy/guidlines, rudeness and the like will immediately override the above. The minimum participation I would expect is at least 250 discussions. Per 's observation above, gaming the system by only voting for dead certs to go a particular way in the !vote will give me serious cause for concern as will a lack of reasonable policy/guideline based discussion in complex cases. I should add that AfD is only one element in the complex business of analysing a candidate's suitability for the mop. Philg88 ♦talk 19:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I find it best to read the AfDs to understand if there was an issue with inclusion/deletion standards. Chillum 19:55, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Counting % of AfD outcomes which match with how the candidate voted is among the worst type of bean counting that goes on on Wikipedia. If the candidate wants to work at AfD then AfD participation should be necessary, that's my bottom line. Then, I actually check what they write at AfDs rather than just looking at numbers. If they place short rationales at AfD without explaining themselves which go against better explained policy-grounded rationales, fine, that's a red flag, but simply counting numbers is lazy, and people doing this are the reason the "gaming of the system" mentioned by Sphilbrick even happens. AfDs are not all simple clear cut cases of keep or delete, sometimes the views on either side are justified depending on your opinion. – filelakeshoe (t / c) &#xF0F6;  20:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, some editors largely reserve their AfD participation for discussions that are finely balanced rather than wasting their time piling on to snow jobs. This is a good thing to do, but it is not going to result in an 80% hit rate. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The whole idea of judging AfD competence by percentage of votes that were or weren't in line with the final result is fundamentally wrong-headed from the start, for more than one reason. First, it confuses consensus decisions with being "correct". AfDs are decided by what we call "consensus" (by convention of wiki-jargon, not by what that word actually means in English), but consensus is no guarantee for truth, so having voted on the "losing" side is never per se a sign of being "wrong" (the irony being that if we were to apply the same kind of argument to the quality of RFA votes, many of the people who use this kind of argument about AfDs would turn out to be "bad" RFA voters). Not even if you persistently tend to vote on the same "losing" side does that constitute a sign of being wrong – if, let's say, you don't have the habit of going through all of a day's AfDs indiscriminately but feel attracted to the interesting, contested cases, where the outcome could go either way, then your likelihood of ending up on the "losing" side of the vote is quite high, no matter how intelligent and policy-informed your vote was. Finally, judging admin candidates by such a metric is measuring the wrong thing anyway – the thing to look out for in an admin is not where they would stand themselves in such debates, but to what extent they are able and willing to interpret and recognize the opinions of others independently of how they themselves would vote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We'd be better off, if anything, insisting on a strong record at DRV. Mkativerata (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)


 * My freshly closed RfA is a "good" example of the obsession with AfD performance here. "Advice for wannabe Admins: Do AfDs, nevermind the rest of the zillion and one other things that need to be done on WP, just do AFDs, because at RfA that's all anyone actually bothers to look at." IMHO it's grossly unbalanced and ultimately bad for the project because it will end up producing one-trick-pony admins who don't have a broad view over the full range of the issues affecting WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I notice that the Advice for RfA candidates doesn't mention Afd or Mfd at all, although there is a bullet point about it at Guide to requests for adminship, one among among many others. Should the advice page have an addition? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say it is pretty much covered by: "Review as many old successful and unsuccessful RfAs as possible, and be absolutely sure to generally meet the criteria required by regular !voters". Though I would change old to recent. A lot of RFAs revolve around aspects of deletion, especially where the candidate has been active in an aspect of deletion and says they intend to use the tools there. But you could have a candidate who simply wasn't active in deletion - I reckon a candidate with a GA or two who was active in dealing with vandalism could get through RFA.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 23:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, AfD is one place where a lot of comments are made about deletion; another is in the edit summaries that accompany CSD nominations. However, editors who are looking for evidence of competence in deletion areas can't see the second item; maybe that's why they tend to focus on the first.  I was lucky on my RfA that admins commented on my CSD record, which was extensive; I likely wouldn't have got through on this AfD record. Should the advice page recommend that future RfA candidates turn on the Twinkle CSD log, so that the editors can more data to consider? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed if my CSD record has been available for scrutiny I think it might have had a significant influence on the outcome of my RfA. I've initiated hundreds (if not thousands) of CSDs in the course of working at AfC - as opposed to the paltry few dozen AFD's I've been involved in which consequently were analyzed and grilled to the Nth degree. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That actually sounds like a good idea. And, taking it one step further, I manually annotate my own (CSD, PROD) so that I (and presumably others, if they cared enough) can see in the future if one was self-reverted, declined, sent to AfD, or whatever, especially if the links are still blue. Ansh666 05:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Dodger: Are you serious? You think the AFD comments at your RFA reflected voters' all-encompassing "obsession" with deletion policy? Come on, voters don't expect perfection, but they do expect knowledge of the basics. You think that's unreasonable? Administrators who screw up on deletion issues discourage the people who create this site's content and thus directly harm the project. AFD matters, and it matters a lot, and rightly so. Townlake (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Townlake - There's obviously hyperbole and caricature in my comment above but I believe the core of my statement does hold water - AFD performance has become the overwhelming single criterion for judging RfA candidates - to such an extent that I do believe there is a risk of creating one-dimensional admins who are masters of deletion but have almost no other relevant skills. We should be careful not to make a fetish of AFD "scores". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, even if a candidate had an exemplary AfD record I would still oppose based on failures in civility. Chillum 16:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * AfD is only one of many  criteria for review when considering  an RfA candiate.  It's #11 on  my  list  of 30 boxes to  tick, but those are not  in  any  order or priority and I  do  trade weak items for stronger ones. AfD is not  by  any  means the most  predominant  point  in  most  RfAs. It  just  happens that  sometimes the first  opposer singles one aspect  of adminship  out  where s/he finds the candidate is lacking and that  causes a pile on from  people who don't do their own research. RfA can sometimes be a bit  of a hit  and miss affair, for example in  the recent  RfA if  more voters had turned out  to  vote, the result  may well have been very different. Turn out is just as important as the actual way people vote. There aren't  many  true 'regular' voters on  RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Roger (Dodger67), I agree with that AfD is not always the predominant topic of discussion.  If a CSD log were available, editors may have found things with which to take issue in that, too; who knows?  I've seen some which focus on uncivil behaviour, some which are about inability to admit errors, edit warring, conflict of interest, lack of experience, no content creation, etc.  If an RfA focuses on one weakness (especially one that can be remedied) that is a credit to the candidate, since it likely means everything else was okay. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your last sentence . Genuine good faith candidates who failed must  understand that, and be encouraged to try again when they have addressed any  poignant issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I concede that my RfA is probably too fresh for me to have a properly neutral informed opinion of the process as a whole. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Before you try  again  in  a few months time, be sure to  read WP:RFAADVICE if you  had not  done so  already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * BTDT, but not a bad idea to make a note-to-self to study it again before going another round through the Inquisition, after all one should really try to avoid being burnt at the stake. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I remember that RfA. I didn't realise it had been filmed. :) Philg88 ♦talk 16:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Many of us look at experience with deletion policy closely, and if there are no CSD/PROD logs, then AFD is the only view we have. What is said at AFD is more important than the metrics, but the metrics are not worthless.  I had 1400 AFDs behind me with a solid 80/20 ratio, and over one hundred CSDs, with 90% (found to be higher later) success rate, yet I still found many opposing me, 31 to be exact, mainly due to being right 90%+ of the time on CSD being insufficient. I passed after agreeing to mentoring, in the low 80s. You shouldn't feel like you are being singled out, deletion policy concerns is a common topic at RFA and a legitimate one, as once you get the tools, it is easy to quietly undo a lot of hard work.  It isn't personal, although I understand it still stings. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  01:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You can play easily with the AfD % (select clear cases, wait until more editors comment and then place your !vote etc.). It is an imperfect statistics also because when you express a different opinion than is the actual outcome, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are wrong. All important points of view should be examined at an AfD, and valuable opinions don't have to be only on the "winning side". That's what matters, not someone's "percentage". So I wouldn't take the metric so seriously. What bothers me more is sloppiness in researching of a topic before an AfD or CSD nom, lack of imagination and constructivity or unwillingness to communicate and collaborate on improvement of the project. When I see more examples of sloppy CSD/PROD/AfD noms in an RfA candidate's contributions, and little willingness to help constructively, it's a worrying sign to me. Especially when they want to work in deletion areas as administrators. On a side note .. some editors see their failed AfD noms as lost personal battles which is completely wrong, but sometimes results in rancour rather than better understanding of a joint collaboration on a project where counter opinions actually contribute to better outcome for the project. But I digress. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)--Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Only now I noticed that I to some extent repeat what editor Fut.Perf. wrote above. My apologies, no plagiarism intended :) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with you both, anyhow! :-) Deb (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it needs to be said often. Second guessing what the consensus will be is boring and often easy. What an admin has to know how to do is ascertain what consensus has been established. --Stfg (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not overly concerned about percentages. What I oppose over is sufficient recent examples of egregious errors to be troubling (I no longer oppose over one bad CSD tag). Being slightly the "wrong" side of a borderline decision shouldn't bother us. Equally someone with a poor overall percentage but who has now learned and recently improved may be more ready than someone who still gets a certain CSD criteria wrong.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 12:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I think AfD activity is a very, very important metric. I my view the ability to delete articles is potentially a more damaging tool for abuse than the block or protect powers. It's not something that can be reduced to raw numbers. Defenses of articles from deletion are apt to be less frequently successful than opinions in favor of deletion. I like to look at a "win-loss" record for each of these two distinct activities. Failing to attempt to defend anything from deletion is a red flag to me. Trying and failing is no mortal sin; it is often an uphill fight and a success rate of over 50% would be pretty good. Very high "success" rates can be generated by piling on to obvious deletions, so the win-loss record there is not illuminating. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A while ago someone mentioned a tool that weighted !votes by order in order to discount pile-ons. Anyone have a pointer to it?  Thanks.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * @Lesser Cartographies:  You mean this one?  Philg88 ♦talk 13:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it was for AfD. The mention was over a year ago at least, so I may be misremembering what I thought I read.  Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fut.Perf. For candidates who are interesting in undertaking any form of deletion, I look for evidence of strong understanding of the deletion & notability criteria. Usually, that evidence is most easily found at AfD. I am not interested in percentage agreement with the close. (Low agreement is sometimes a sign of poor understanding, but some editors might choose to !vote only if they see a discussion is heading in the "wrong" direction.) Pile-on "Me too" !votes at AfD are irrelevant. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  13:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have only one thought here. When people are musing about the difficulties of finding suitable candidates for adminship or wondering why so few candidacies succeed, they need to look no further than this section. If someone is up to doing more studies, they should look at whether unsuccessful candidates continue to contribute at the same rate as prior to their RFA.  Risker (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at that a few years ago, it may not have changed since, though for a while a few of us were reaching out to rejected candidates and that may have helped. Short answer, some stay, but quite a few go, never to return.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 10:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you see a difference in the proportion who left of established editors compared to TOOSOON newbie applicants? Or was it about the same proportion of each leaving? BethNaught (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be s a complicated thing to measure, not least because the definitions of NotNow candidates have varied over time - I have seen that template used on people with thousands of edits rather than the hundreds of edits it is intended for; But also the normal retention rate varies over time and also dramatically between people with a few hundred edits and those with tens or even hundreds of thousands, and of course what matters is the increase in the attrition rate. At the time I was trawling through unsuccessful RFAs of several months earlier with a view to finding candidates to nominate, and what I found was that for a troubling proportion this was the rejection moment which prompted an immediate departure or probably accounted for them rapidly leaving afterwards. By contrast if we appoint someone as an admin it seems to greatly extend their wiki career, very few admins leave each year, hence our current situation of an admin cadre where 30% of all the admins ever appointed are currently still counted as active admins.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 14:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. That's interesting to think about. BethNaught (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Two links down again on Template:RfA toolbox
NAC of AfD's (2nd row, 4th link) and Log Actions (4th row, 3rd link). Ansh666 21:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there a great need for more admin
Just asking the question from the above. While it is probably a matter of the time of year that RFA's have slown down....is there really a great need for new Admin?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The lack of admin volunteers looking at RFPP and AIV during certain parts of the day sometimes gets bothersome when you've got a new editor/IP/socks cutting through articles. And WP:SPI is perpetually backlogged. --Neil N  talk to me 21:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia needs far fewer, not more admins, particularly the way we define an admin these days. The admin system needs liberating by shedding the legacy admins, that huge historical bulge appointed for life far back in the days when you had to do little more than ask in order to become an admin. Problems like those NeilN just referred to would be easily resolved by debundling what is now an enormous set of admin tools and privileges, and reassigning them to appropriate users on a needs basis. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Often times the apparent backlogs at AIV, and to a lesser extent, RFPP, are the result of borderline requests. So when there is a backlog at AIV, blatant vandalism usually gets processed quite quickly, and the backlog ends up being a bunch of people like music genre warrior #501, whose individual edits aren't obviously vandalism, but whose editing pattern is probably disruptive, and probably deserves a block. Or at RFPP where an established editor is having a dispute with an IP editor and requesting semi, but the IP editor's edits are disruptive enough that its not a clear no, (shouldn't use semi to let auto confirmed editors win edit wars, but also looks like a good faith dispute. Or a semi request for a page that is getting vandalized, just not really that frequently. Monty  845  23:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It isn't the time of year, in past years August has often had more RFAs than the average month for that year. June, July and August this year have seen a total of three new admins, that's the fewest in any period of three consecutive calender months since 2002. See User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_by_month. As for need, yes of course there is some minimal level of admin resource that the site needs to function. But rather than fixate on how many hours per month of active admin time we need before it will be necessary to appoint a large batch of poorly vetted admins (most of whom will probably turn out OK), and in the meantime accept a system that relies on a small group of "active admins" who have little wiki time for anything but admin stuff; I prefer to be more ambitious. What do we need to do to turn the site back into one where all clueful sensible established editors could be admins if they offered to take on part of the burden, and the admin tasks were more spread out with no need or much place for admins who aren't primarily editors?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 22:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The views of Epipelagic above are pretty close to my own. At Wikipediocracy there are some Hasten The Day-types who trumpet the decline in administrators as a metric tracking the coming doom of The Project. I see it instead as an inevitable demographically-related weeding out of those who got the tools too easily during the 2004-2007 days and who have by now gotten older and "got a life" and moved along. There is no obvious reason for there to be 7,000 rather than 700 rather than 70 administrators, so long as the key functions are being achieved expeditiously (and they more or less are). Unbundling of the tools is long overdue and if there are personnel shortages in this facet or that of WP that would seem the logical way forward. To me the far greater problem is the attrition of serious content writers. Carrite (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You confuse me Carrite. I thought it was the established view of the non-content writing networkers who now control Wikipedia that serious content writers tend to be dishonourable and toxic, and need banning from Wikipedia. Apparently this can be done with much kindness. We've got them on the run... you hardly hear a peep out of serious content writers today, certainly not on boards like this. But it is premature to rest on our laurels. Success in cleansing this group has not been fully achieved – some remain still working on articles in remote reaches of Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal from Cla68 regarding women candidates
As you know, there is currently an effort underway to narrow the gender gap in Wikipedia participation. This gap extends to WP's administrator corps. To help narrow the gap, I propose lowering the bar for confirming self-identifying female RfA candidates from the current 65% to 50%. I propose a binding vote below Cla68 (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Support:

 * 1) Cla68 (talk) 06:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Indeed to go one further, I support desopping all incumbent male admins and making all self-identified females admins for life whether they apply for the honour or not. The current admin system is terminally dysfunctional, and this move would, in one stroke, resuscitate and improve the system many times over. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose:

 * 1) This opens up a whole can o'worms about truthfulness in self-identification, and penalizes those who for whatever reason prefer to remain anonymous (and on-line anonymity is an important protective measure for women). RfA voters are free to apply whatever metrics they wish, including wanting more female administrators, but no such preferences should be institutionalized. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Giving one gender a lower standards than another is discrimination and is insulting to the gender favored. Frankly I am having a hard time believing this is even being suggested.We have less female admins because we have less female editors, we have less female editors because guys are more likely to be nerds(if you don't believe me go to a DEFCON conference). Chillum 06:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) I don't believe that women are treated less fairly at RfA, and have seen no evidence that it is a problem. Lack of women admins is a function of general lack of women on WP. Not only is this preposterous on grounds of equality, it would allow sysops of dubious merit to be elected simply by claiming to be female (which cannot be verified, and if verification were required, that would be a great breach of privacy). BethNaught (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) I agree with Chillum. Also 50% is very low, that is, half or close to half of the !voters good have perfectly good reasons to oppose but the candidate could still pass (50 S/40 O/10 N) which is far from consensus.  NickGibson3900  Talk 06:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) An RfA gauges a candidate's suitability for an admin role—their gender is not germane to that assessment so there should be no difference in where the "bar" is set.  Philg88 ♦talk 06:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Seriously? Say what you want about the men's rights movement (which, for the record, I don't support), but this is blatant sexism. If you fight a monster long enough, you come to resemble it, eh? Ansh666 07:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 7) While there is undoubtedly a problem with women's representation on Wikipedia, this is not the way to fix it, in my view. Strongly oppose.  Jus  da  fax   07:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 8) RfA is not an election where the votes are counted, but where the arguments are weighed.  Administrators must be people who are trusted by the community to use tools carefully and in accordance with policy.  If something is done to find and accept more women as administrators, it should not be changing this arbitrary number, but something else; perhaps contacting and encouraging female editors to prepare for adminship.  Also, making the process of actually applying or nominating someone for adminship more straightforward would help.  If I'd known how convoluted it was before I started to try to create a nomination, I likely wouldn't have ever done it. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 9) The qualifications needed to be an admin are not different depending on the sex of the individual. All this would do is to lower the quality of admins. It is also discriminatory. Focus your efforts on increasing the number of female contributors and the balance of male / female admins will follow. QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 10) Oppose as [removed] deeply misleading. I have changed the headline, because this is not a proposal from the actual Gender Gap force task and only serves to discredit the project. Iselilja (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a personal attack and untrue and I ask that you withdraw it. I am serious about this proposal as I have personal experience with how unfair and corrupted the RfA process is, so I know that this is the only real way to give all female candidates a fair shot at adminship. Cla68 (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well you're not a participant, so it is deceptive to claim to act on their behalf. BethNaught (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Was the initial headline "Proposal from the Gender gap task force" correct? Who have given you the right to speak on behalf of the project? Have you consulted and gained any support from your proposal from other members of the project? Iselilja (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think Cla68 is taking offense to calling their proposal "trolling", not the heading change. I personally think that's taking a bit too far (remember WP:AGF?). Ansh666 08:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have changed the oppose wording to "deeply misleading" (which it was when I "voted"). Iselilja (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think the original wording was "taking it too far". On the contrary, I rather suspect that this proposal is a case of someone with a long and vocal history of opposition to (what they perceive to be) gender-related "activism" on Wikipedia disrupting the project to make a point. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) No objection to more women admins, just not this way. If any women reading this are thinking of running and looking for a nominator feel free to email me. I've nominated candidates in the past and in my experience the only gender related discrimination at RFA is that boys and young men are at a disadvantage at RFA, at least until they are 18. I would be interested in seeing stats about the allegation that women are more likely to be blocked than men. My experience is that men are more likely to vandalise and to edit war and I understand those to be the main reasons for blocks.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers 08:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Dumb enough to be worth piling on, or pointy enough to simply ignore? Better be safe. GraniteSand (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose because on-line anonymity is an important protective measure for women, yes. And I just ask, how can ANYONE from the Gender gap task force say how many woman editors we have? How can ANYONE AT ALL say how may they are? Some editors might be actually women, without the statistics knowing about it - so how could anybody tell how many they are?   No such preferences should be institutionalized, as per Yngvadottir.  You never know who is a woman or a man, nor you should know. That is ain't nobody's business. Aren't men and women alike? All these speculations has to end. Hafspajen (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) Three fundamental problems with this all already noted above no doubt (I haven't checked): (1) discriminatory to preference one gender over another (2) how will female candidates prove their gender? (3) will create a two tier admin cadre: "real" ones and 2nd class admins. DeCausa (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 5) Absolutely oppose For all the reasons already mentioned above and also because such a rule cannot be enforced without WP:Outing the candidate. We need more female contributors, then the female proportion of admins will inevitably increase too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose For pretty much all the reasons given above. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion:
If women were held to a lower standard then more women admins would be less qualified and it would reflect badly on them. In addition the suggestion that they need some sort of lower standard also reflects badly on them. All of that aside it is sexist. I have difficulty believing that this is a serious suggestion. It fails the laugh test. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px Black;font-size:60%;color:SteelBlue">Chillum</b> 06:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you know that female editors are banned or blocked at a higher rate than male editors? Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * citation needed BethNaught (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, I fail to see the relevance. Ansh666 08:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The reason DEFCON lacks women is first and foremost because the computer security community is a notorious cesspit of sexism and general assholery, and DEFCON in particular is notorious for general assholery regardless of gender. The only people I know who enjoy DEFCON attend solely to participate full time in various competitions occurring there. Kobnach (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Many female editors have longer block logs because they often try to correct deficiencies in gender-based articles or BLPs, run afoul of the activists or misogynists owning those articles, and get themselves blocked because they haven't learned how to game the system like WP's established, entrenched activist editors. That's one reason why this measure is necessary. Cla68 (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The measure you are proposing will not address the problem you claim to have identified here. Having more female admins (or rather, to be accurate, more people who claim on WP to be female) will not prevent claimed female editors from being blocked by male or female admins if they engage in an edit war or violate other policies or behavioural standards. If any part of your statement is likely to be true it is that there is a problem with ownership of certain articles and this can and should be addressed wherever it occurs. It does not require an admin to be of a particular sex to deal with this. QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * What a great idea. How about those that pass below the standard threshold level have to wear a  A   badge next to their name.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What names? WP uses anonymous account titles, so there is no stigma attached to anything we do in WP.  "Scarlet As" mean nothing on WP. Cla68 (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Consequent discussion
Okay, I know this is closed but you guys have been a bit quick to condemn the proposal and some of your responses are reminiscent of those heard (in the UK, don't know about the US) whenever levelling a playing-field is suggested. Now, while I don't support the proposal (and I agree it's unworkable simply because of the anonymity issue), I do understand the reasoning behind it. There is a gender bias here, not in the selection process itself, but there is a serious question to be addressed. Deb (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The solution, I think, is to bring in more electable female candidates, and the rest should take care of itself. Are you proposing all-female shortlists? Those do as much harm in my view as more conventional sexism.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Since candidates don't run against each other, I don't know what you mean by all female shortlists in this context. I agree that there need to be more nominations of competent female editors. If WikiProject Admin Nominators were still around it could be something they could help with, perhaps. BethNaught (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there is a widespread misunderstanding of what "level the playing field" and "gender equality" means. Both of these terms imply that one wants to treat men and women equally, and give them equal opportunities.  Saying that you want to level the playing field at RfA implies that women are currently treated differently and have less opportunities, as if there is currently a de facto standard that women need to have 90% support to pass an RfA.  The playing field (at RfA) is already level, because men and women are already treated equally there.  The fact that there are less female admins is only a natural consequence of the fact that there are less female editors. Gender equality measures should strive to ensure that women are treated equally to men, not that they are given preferential treatment over men.  Giving women artificial advantages over men is not gender equality. <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#777777;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#227722;">| spill the beans _  14:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It may not be equality, but it can be levelling the playing field, which is something quite different. To take the metaphor a little further, suppose a team of four-foot midgets had to play basketball against a team of Dinka men.  They might be equally good players, but they wouldn't have much hope of winning.  The question is, would you think it was fair to handicap the other team? I think that depends which side you are playing on. Deb (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sports are a bad analogy: sports are about winners and losers. RfA is an interview for a theoretically unlimited number of jobs. In any case, the point of a game of basketball is to decide which team are better players. I know there are sports such as golf where handicaps are used, but both your analogy and the proposal above tend to reinforce my impression that that's wrongheaded. ... All that aside, we have an anonymity policy here, tattered though it is; anyone who wants to reveal their identity in whole or in part has a right to do so, but they have an absolute right not to, and that is the single most important levelling of the playing field on the internet as a whole, of which we are part. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As a woman I am deeply offended by this whole concept. It implies that women need some kind of thumb-on-the-scales, some kind of special consideration - that we can't make it on our own. I am even more offended to be compared to a "four foot midget" playing basketball - as if acknowledging that women simply can't do as good a job here as men. If I ever decide to run for admin, I will expect to be judged on my merits, and I totally reject the idea that I shouldn't have to meet the same standards as male candidates - or as non-gender-identified candidates (which applies to most editors here, despite the common fallacy of saying "he" about anyone who hasn't self-identified as female). --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Can I have an "AMEN!" please? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Melanie has hit the nail on the head. And who said women can't swing a hammer?    <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#447744;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#777777;">| converse _  23:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have some real-world experience with how affirmative action has helped women family and friends of mine get a needed leg up. To deny that affirmative action can be beneficial is really myopic. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Affirmative action is also illegal where I live (California), and bans on it have been upheld in the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional. And, as myself a member of a (racial) minority, I support this ban. Ansh666 00:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The US government has more checks and balances, transparency, and public watchdogs than Wikipedia's administration. Until WP gets its house in order, measures like affirmative action are necessary to help get things right. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see your point on the first part. Still don't see how having more specifically female administrators would actually help, though. I mean, it obviously wouldn't harm anything, but it won't lead to less female editors blocked or whatever you started this about. Ansh666 00:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Affirmative action requires that there is some real, measurable discriminatory practice or factor that is unfairly holding back the affirmed group. I don't see such practices at Wikipedia. There is no question in my mind that affirmative action was needed to make sure that African Americans, particularly underprivileged African Americans, could overcome decades of societal practice that stacked the deck against them. There are certainly areas where affirmative action for women was justified by ingrained discriminatory habits - for example in hiring and promotion, or in current government setasides for women-owned businesses. But I have yet to see any evidence that Wikipedia has any such discriminatory practices or factors. Add in the fact that gender is purely self-identified here, or not identified at all, and there is no justification IMO for giving some kind of advantage to users who self-identify as female. --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Deb, how can you describe making the standards for women lower as "leveling the playing field"? If one side is lower than the other then that is by definition not level. The current system has the same standards for both and does not require revealing of your gender. In other words it is level.

This whole proposal seems to be anti-equality and discriminatory against men. I don't think we were quick enough to condemn the proposal. The proposal is insulting to woman and sexist against men.

I seriously doubt any women truly seeking equality wants a special advantage that others don't have because that is not what the word equality means. <b style="vertical-align:20%;text-shadow:0px 0px 4px Black;font-size:60%;color:OrangeRed">Chillum</b> 16:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I was going to let this go, as I don't want to sound like the PC police, but please be judicious when using the word "midget" when describing someone with dwarfism.Two Kinds of PorkMakin'Bacon 16:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, okay, what is the correct word then? Deb (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Dwarfism, or even "little people"Two Kinds of PorkMakin'Bacon 19:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surprised by the outcry when someone dares to try to suggest positive action to improve the gender balance on this project, but I am disappointed. It simply shows a lack of awareness of the issues. For a start, I never said that women are not being treated equally at RfA, nor did I say that making the standards for women lower would be a way of levelling the playing field in this case; in fact, I said that it wasn't workable, even if there was evidence of discrimination against women - which I don't think there is. However, I'm appalled by some of the comments that have been made about a proposal that tries, albeit unsuccessfully, to address the issue of gender imbalance. We all know that there are far fewer female contributors than male, regardless of the fact that many contributors remain completely anonymous and give no clues as to their gender. Of course women don't want a special advantage, but most of us don't want the problem to be ignored either. I suspect that few of the contributors to this discussion have ever considered the question seriously and it's apparent that many would prefer to ignore it. I can only say that I have a lot of experience in the field of equal opportunities, and I'm used to hearing similar discussions; clearly many of you aren't aware of or don't fully understand the UK's long-standing legislation. But those who pour cold water on an idea that was suggested for the best motives and imply stupidity or facetiousness on the part of the proposer, through comments like "Dumb enough to be worth piling on", simply reveal their own ignorance. Deb (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * when someone dares to try to suggest positive action to improve the gender balance on this project? (emphasis mine) This is definitely not "positive action". If anything, it's negative action. Instead of solving inequality, it adds to it, where there has been no demonstrable difference to boot. Also, it would lower the standards of getting the tools, the use of which can make a powerful impact on how the community views not only the individual, but all communities they may be part of. I'm fairly certain that if this went through, it would do more harm than good to the intended cause. Ansh666 20:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See definition of "positive action" here: Deb (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't care about some fancy-pants legal definition. The connotation is clearly there. Ansh666 21:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean you prefer to ignore the dictionary definition of a term I used in its dictionary sense. Okay. Deb (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, been a bit fed up with things lately, on top of taking a technical writing class which condemns this exact type of thing. Yes, I could have phrased that better, but I also don't think it's wise to use such a specific and easily misunderstood term without, say, linking to its definition. Ansh666 19:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What is the percentage of total active editors that regularly contribute to RfA? Are there any figures for that? Is there any gender breakdown on active eds contributing? Irondome (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Deb. You may well be right in some of your reflections. I was one of those who reacted very negatively to the proposal; and in my case it was mostly because Cla misrepresented the proposal as coming from the Gender Gap task force and because I thought it was unserious to put up an RfC without prior discussion. I am a woman from Norway and well familiar with gender quotas in real life. So the idea is not strange to me (but I think you are right that it probably is for some of the other participants, which is yet a reason a concrete proposal about this should not be put up without a broad discussion first). For various reasons I don't think requiring less "approval rating" for women would be a good idea; for one thing I don't see any tendencies that women candidates have a harder time passing the RfA. But I am open to the idea that there may some things that hold women back from seeking adminship, for instance smaller network here. I think this is a thing the gender gap group can discuss, whether that is a problem and if so, what to do with it; the group itself may get the function as a kind of network for some women. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone above didn't believe me when I said that women are banned or blocked at a higher rate than men. It's 3.85% vs. 3.32%, as stated here.  WP's administrative processes, including RfAs, are so rigged, inconsistent, and unfair, that a quota or preferential system is necessary to narrow the gender gap in admins. Cla68 (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Your thoughts on the subject are so ridiculous that it is difficult to AGF and believe that you're not being sarcastic. <span style="font:small-caps 1.2em Garamond,Times,serif;color:#442244;letter-spacing:0.2em;">‑Scottywong <span style="font:0.75em Verdana,Geneva,sans-serif;color:#442244;">| confabulate _ 23:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * See thread below. I think we are all missing some intangible, but ultimately graspable series of approaches we can develop and discuss. The use of thanks, subject editing preferences for differing gender, the extent of development of relationships by subject..Irondome (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to nominate myself BMReditor (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC) for Administrator
I would like to nominate myself BMReditor (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC) as administrator as I would be able to help more with the features I'm currently without as a user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMReditor (talk • contribs) 16:35, 13 September 2014‎


 * See Adminship is not for new users and Advice for RfA candidates. You registered to Wikipedia yesterday. You have only made 7 edits. You have no chance whatsoever of becoming an administrator at this point in time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it would be a case of WP:NOTNOW. You may want to re apply for adminship once you are familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies and had enough experience.  ΤheQ Editor   Talk? — Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

How about a learning program for Admins?
IMHO, far too much attention is paid to whether Wikipedians (whether they know or even bother to research an individual or not) believe admin privileges should be granted to any given nominee.

In real life, you don't get a job just because someone thinks you will probably do a good job. Nor do you get one job (e.g. admin) just because you've done good work at another job (e.g. editor). That would be like making someone a Chief Financial Officer because they know how to balance a checkbook.

No... in real life, you receive training and certification in certain work. We had a similar program here on WP a while back - for anti-vandalism fighters, and I was one of the instructors, until someone decided that it was just better to let people learn it on their own and "self-certify". That's just nonsense.

Instead, if we really want to fix RfA (and I know there are many of you reading this that don't want to fix it), we need to build a set of criteria in which an individual must prove competency (it's called a rubric) and if they illustrate such competency (and pass whatever other criteria the community deems appropriate, such as number of edits, or tenure in the project) then they're given the mop. No more "votes", no more "campaigning", no more of the hurt feelings and vague rejection that goes on in the RfA now.

I can't be the only instructional designer on the project... this is what we do for a living, so it's certainly not impossible to build a training curriculum for admin as well. I won't do it alone, but I'd certainly be willing to help.

What say you all? Vertium '' When all is said and done 03:37, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I believe we do have or have had programs such as adminship coaching, mentoring, etc., which would be the place to start, as well as the existing admin policy pages. By the way, our current system does not have campaigning (and campaigning or canvassing often leads to strong opposes), and the yea/nay "votes" (usually called !votes meaning not-votes) are a discussion which develops based on the issues raised by the opposition. Based on whether the individuals have displayed competence in their contributions, they are evaluated; invalid !votes will be rejected. In the case of AlanM1, his nomination failed because he displayed an adversarial and combative position when probed about his views on the article deletion process, so if he wants to do a bit of AFD and run again maybe he'll have a better shot. Anyway, I always thought the problem with rubrics was that they hinge on subjective meanings or judgment calls. This way the community-at-large's wishes are expressed through our mechanism of consensus, rather than an individual or group's opinion. RFA is not broken - we continue to promote admins, and some would say the prevalence of "bad eggs" from past eras in which RFA was less selective has led to the tightening and selectivity we see today. So, I think building an admin training curriculum could be a good use of time, but I don't think that comes along with some kind of new RFA appointment process. Andrevan@ 05:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @Andrevan, Thank you for taking the time to comment, and thank you for your contribution to the project. I am, however, forced to disagree with you on several points.  While it would genuinely be fantastic if the "community-at-large" did participate in the process, we all know it doesn't happen.  I wonder aloud how many unique names I'd find if I studied the last 100 RfAs (maybe a good research project when I have a week with nothing else to do).  And your statement that the current system relies on consensus rather than an individual's or group's opinions.  Unfortunately, that's what consensus is... agreement based on the group's opinions, and ultimately, it's really one person's decision based on how he/she "reads" the opinions and the input from the group.  I know that's how we make decisions here, but it's still group opinion that's driving it.   But in any case, please don't read my suggestion as being borne in AlanM1's nomination alone.  That's just the most recent example. While I do think this RfA was handled poorly, I have participated in many RfAs and have expressed this concern for quite some time.  Your assessment that the rejection was based on defensiveness is really core to my point.  The current systems asks that everyone be nice and polite in order to get adminship, but if snarkiness and defensiveness disqualifies someone from getting the mop, then I have a list of people available who should probably have their adminship revoked.  In posts well above mine, people keep referring to how it "used to be" compared to "how it is now".  I've been on the project for 8 years now and I don't see any difference, so I'm not sure how long ago "used to be" is.  I am well aware of the concept of !votes, so please forgive my lapse in putting in the exclamation point, but you are mistaken in your statement that there is no campaigning.  I have received many messages asking for my support for nominees seeking adminship.  Perhaps you never have, but I have experienced it personally.  BTW, I have never participated in any RfAs where such participation has been sought, because I do agree that it should be competency based - we just disagree on the way competency is evaluated.  Lastly, I know you're a software engineer, so I'm surprised to hear you think an objective measurement of output would not be a better approach.  Competency models and rubrics are quite appropriate for any skills based learning and just the opposite of your assumption, seek to remove subjectivity.  Again I sincerely thank you for taking the time to comment because I do appreciate the insight your response provides.  If you and other bureaucrat colleagues truly believe that the process is can't be improved and there's no need for a new approval process, then it seems like even having a conversation about it won't bear much fruit.    Best wishes!   Vertium '' When all is said and done 09:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's tough to "remove subjectivity" - the "very good" and "excellent" categories on my rubrics when I was a kid (I think the last rubrics I had were in elementary school state tests) were always a hair different, and if the teacher liked me I'd get the nudge. Learning a high-level, complex skill is not about checking off a box in a list of arbitrary reductions or attempted distillations of that skill. Anyway, everything and everyone has a POV. The way to balance POVs is to represent them all and give appropriate weight, oh yeah, and post appropriate references. Sound familiar? The zen philosophy of wiki is that it works because of the wisdom of crowds. RFA works the same way, no better or worse than other processes here (such as AFD, which Alan might know if he had spent more time being a deletionist - to understand when that POV comes about). Adminship is about subtlety, judgment, and a little good luck and humor. Each user posts a POV and supporting references. When the support starts becoming a kerfluffle on the candidate's RFA page itself that's probably a bad sign for passing. Similarly, I think long-winded calls for RFA reform (including occasionally from users well-known with many accolades) are generally met with the difficulty of finding a better system that scales, is objective, and maintains the fundamental community commons that has built our project. Andrevan@ 05:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd like a training programme for existing admins. I find it very hard to keep up with the changes to guidelines and policies and this leads me to make errors and to stay away from areas I am not familiar with.Deb (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For areas your not familiar with, I bet you could find an admin with experience there who could give you some pointers. But your comment did get me thinking, it would be really nice if there was essentially a policy changelog for admits to reference. Basically a centralized place where policy changes, arbcom precedents, foundation edicts, and even just changes in common practices that admins will want to know about are recorded. To some extent you can get that from browsing AN and ARB/N archives, but one centralized location, not cluttered with other notices/announcements/discussion would be awesome. Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  13:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that there isn't one already is ridiculous, but then again there may be some who prefer it that way. Policy is easier to wield as a club when it's obscure and hard to locate, after all. Intothatdarkness 13:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * While we COULD make use of the course: setup to create a Wikipedia School; it would need dedicated staff to actually manage it. Also important is that "being trained" doesn't equal "being trusted" which is also an important part of the community approving admins. —  xaosflux  Talk 14:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly so. And for that reason, although a training programme is certainly an interesting idea, I wouldn't like it to supplant RfA. RfA is certainly rough, but that is because of the culture, and many editors understand this and try to influence the culture for the better. It remains the case that we need a voice as to who is entrusted with the tools to block and unblock editors, delete articles, see deleted material that the rest of us can't see, and prevent us from editing articles (while they can do so, leaving us to make requests on which they rule). --Stfg (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I was also thinking why we don't have a school were experienced admins will give lessions to potential editors, so that they can become successful in there future RfA. Just like we get a degree when we complete a university course which helps us to get a job in future. So, I was thinking if admins can teach potential editors, how to become successful admins. I mean train potential editors for adminship??  Jim Carter (from public cyber)  15:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * You mean like this?&mdash; Lucas Thoms 15:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As know, everything needed for a willing candidate has become a history, Editors review, Admin coaching etc. Now, I'm feeling that proposing new idea is just a time waste. Every good project end up like that.   Jim Carter (from public cyber)  16:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I applaud the positivity underlying this idea, but it's a non-starter. No matter what the classwork entails, it would be too easy for objectionable candidates to jump through the requisite hoops. Technical competence isn't enough; you can't teach a reputation of trustworthiness and fair play. Townlake (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Administratorship isn't supposed to be a big deal but it is. That's simply the state of the community. I know this is a tired gripe in a lot of corners but I believe we need to unspool admin tools. Just like rollback or reviewer permissions, we should have "delete" and "protect" permissions. There is no reason why trusted, established editors can't tackle these areas without more substantial, and nearly irrevocable, admin tool sets. RfA should largely be limited to people with special viewer rights, the ability to block, and the ability to view restricted material. GraniteSand (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

We did used to have WP:ADMINCOACH, which was a sort of policy training program, but it came to be viewed (rightly, in my opinion) as a "teaching to the test" approach and went inactive. There is also new admin school but it is more of a get-to-know-the-tools thing as opposed to a policy seminar. This isn't really done in pracrtice but any changes to administrative policies and priocedures should be prominently noted at WP:AN. Another idea could be a quarterly newsletter for admins detailing all policy changes that effect admins. Out of touch admins who got in way back before RFA was actually hard are, in my opinion, a problem that needs solving. Many of them do not keep up to date and maintain the cowboy attitiude that belongs in WPs past. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Everyone here is missing one very important point. There is no reason to educate the admins to prevent mistakes if there are no repercussions of abuse. If even flagrant abuses and violations of policy are ignored in the name of adminship, then what incentive is there for an admin to do this? There is none. Additionally, this idea infers that the admins are fallible and make mistakes when the culture of Wikipedia has been firmly established that the admin is always right. Unless you intend to fix those serious problems, then admin school or coaching is like making chicken salad out of chicken shit. I haven't edited since 2008 but lately all I see is a bunch of arrogant admins talking about how bad editors are. I hope you all know you really come off as a bunch of self centered jerks. It amazes me that you are all paid employees of Wikipedia. 71.163.243.25 (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest a 50% pay cut to all admins as a punishment for their arrogance! Monty  <sub style="color:#A3BFBF;">845  00:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh man, again?? Do we have to eat tree bark too? It made me sick the last time. § FreeRangeFrog croak 00:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Admins get PAID? When did that happen? (And how'd I miss that queue?) Oh wait... half of zero is zero. This is just a sneaky way for the admincabal to avoid accountability isn't it, since you can't count to zero.
 * As for the treebark, I almost misread your name to be TreeRangeFrog and thought you were merely talking about the food of your youth as a tadpole : ) -
 * But if you're concerned, try roasting it next time : ) - - of course, if you prefer, there's always french fried frog legs fricasseed. as an alternative. (In otherwords, you'd just be telling them: "Eat me!" : )
 * (and by the way - you won my laugh out loud moment of the day award : ) - jc37 19:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if there are specific cases of the changing policy, out of touch admin problem, but if there is a problem with distributing notice of significant changes, AN is definitely not the place. I was there and I can tell you that AN was not supposed to be the mess it is today when it was created. Andrevan@ 03:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * AN (or more specifically, ANI) is the mess it is because in  spite of being  an Aminstrators' Noticeboard, any newbie and clueless Tom, Dick, or Harry, especially  teenage admin  wannabees, can have their say. And that's why  many  admins, including  those who  are otherwise known for good social and judgemental skills won't  go  near  the place.


 * The problem with coaching future admins is that there are already plenty  of admin  wannabees who  have joined Wilipedia with  that  sole intention  in  mind -  and many  of whom certainly   do  have the wrong  reasons for wanting to  be. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)


 * @Kudpung, I don't see having a training program for those who want to be an admin as a bad thing, even if there are those who have the wrong reasons for wanting it. And I'm not sure, but it sounded a little like you were saying that someone who wants to be an admin should somehow color others' perception of them in a negative light. I'm pretty sure that anyone who is currently an admin (yourself included) wanted to be an admin or you wouldn't have undertaken the role.  I do recall the positive conversations you and I had while we were working on the revised CVUA program (though not sure how often that ever gets used any more), and that was actually the inspiration for the original suggestion.  Thanks for taking the time to make a comment.   All the best....  Vertium '' When all is said and done 01:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hi, I didn't  want to  be an admin - most  people with  my  age and background don't, but  a significant  number of users whom I  highly  respect  persistently  suggested by  email  that  I  should consider being  one. As  I  was already  heavily  engaged at  that  time on  an adminship  reform project having  been subject  to  some nasty  treatment  from at  least  three  rogue admins (all  since desysoped), I  thought  I  ought to run  for office and get  my  own  experience of what  it's like being an  RfA candidate, and what it's like being  an admin  afterwards.  At  least  it  would prove or disprove some of my  theories about  the actual  RfA process (which  it  did do  so admirably). Being  an admin  today is a thankless task but among  other reasons it  keeps me active on  Wikipedia -  not  only  from  the aspect  of protecting  the reputation  of adminship  in  general, but  also  being  bold enough  to  disapprove of admins who do not  show the corps in  a positive light (indeed, a few more have since been rightly  desysoped although  it  took  a long  time getting  rid of them) , but  also  to  disapprove of those who  tar  all  admins with  the same brush:


 * "'What we need to do is to build up an overwhelming body of evidence against the admin corps as a whole, not just waste our time by trying to pick them off one by one – not that I'm against that of course. But the system has to change, and to change it we have to work within the rules, however naive we may think them to be.' "


 * Unfortunately, although there are indeed still some rotten  apples in  the admin  barrel, that  very  statement itself is not  'within  the rules' - it  smacks of subversion and bloody revolution, things which  are not  conducive to the retention  of new editors who happen on such comments. Knowing  how to  deal  with  such  belligerence needs certain social skills that simply can't   be 'taught',  and many  admins who  attempt  to  address such  issues simply  end up  making  matters worse.   One either already  has such  qualities, or they  grow on  one -  those who  do  have them in  RL simply 'emerge'  as voices of reason in  troubled times, and often make the best  admins. A significantly  high  number of our active admins for example, go to  meet ups and Wikipedia conferences, where it  becomes apparent  that  they  are the same nice people they  appear to  be online. Those admins who  are unpleasant  online rarely  venture into  showing  their true colours in  real  life meetups. It's rare to  find these talents among  the younger users, but  it  does happen as demonstrated for example by  the people who  nominated me for adminship.


 * A bad person who somehow gets through RfA is going  to  be a bad admin.  Anyone who  follows this talk  page regularly (and there is a lot  of it) will  realise that  there is a general  consensus that  training  people to  be admins is probably not such a good idea, especially (and without including  those who  had an agenda such as Pastor Theo) perhaps those who  may  possibly still not yet have developed the required diplomatic skills which  they  would need in a real life environment.


 * There is still very  much  an antivandalism academy  today (I  know, because I  wrote the present  incarnation  of it). I  don't  know where the idea that   'until someone decided that it was just better to let people learn it on their own and "self-certify"  comes from. Admittedly the CVU does not  get  a lot  of movement on  its project  pages these days although  I  still  closely  monitor  it. It's better this way -  such projects are not  supposed to  be a social  gathering, and anti-vandalism does not  seem to  have suffered as a result of having  cut out  the MMORPG and cackle aspect. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay,, I take your meaning on whether someone wants to be an admin, but I'm still reluctant to believe that someone wanting to become an admin alone makes them unworthy of it. And I'm genuinely not trying to argue for the sake of argument, but it's a bit contradictory to have everyone claim that adminship isn't supposed to be the "big deal" and then still refer to it as "running for office".  This entire thread was begun because there are better ways to learn a skill than on-the-job trial-and-error.  Reading educates, but it does not train.


 * As to the comment of  "until someone decided that it was just better to let people learn it on their own and "self-certify"  comes from the fact that there is no one actually coordinating CVUA and that anyone can add themselves to the CVUA trainer list as noted when you expand the List of Trainers here .  While your claim of CVUA's existence is undeniable, it's utility or effectiveness does not share such certainty.  I've no doubt you monitor it, but I found that the tool formerly used to review Instructor Activity is no longer functioning.  While I do respect your opinion that there was a "MMORPG and cackle aspect" to CVUA historically (though I don't really know to what that refers), I am bewildered by your statement that it's "better this way".  Why?  I find no evidence that it's better to have a system no one uses than one that had a lot of activity and engaged editors into becoming vandalism fighters, "MMORPG and cackle" notwithstanding.   And who decides what a part of this project is or is not "supposed to be".  Isn't it "supposed to be" whatever achieves our overall goal of having an accurate encyclopedia?


 * And lastly, while you may not remember, I contributed to the revisions of the CVUA. In fact, you called my rubric, the "best thing to ever happen to the project" .  I'd hate to think that such tools are only valuable when they're used elsewhere than "behind the big curtain" (sorry, obscure Wizard of Oz reference).


 * Given the current state of the discussion, I'm going to consider this thread as having run its course and no longer (never really) viable, but I do thank each who took the time to contribute. I found it quite educational, and civil dialogue is always worthwhile, even if one doesn't achieve one's objective.  While this conversation might continue here, I'm not going to be following this page any longer, so if you have something to say that is directed towards me, I would appreciate you posting on my talk page.  Many thanks to all.   Vertium '' When all is said and done 12:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Faulty dates
The page states "No RfXs since 22:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC).—cyberbot I". The table below indicates that the most recent RfX was closed on 20th September. However the RfA was actually closed on 21st September. Axl ¤  [Talk]  09:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Complain to the bot handler, but I think you'll find he's retired leaving this as not the only code he's left unfinished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.10.28.142 (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh no, Cyber's on "indefinite wikibreak"? That's bad. ansh666 17:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the bot is actually factoring in a RFA attempt made on September 24 that was quickly reverted as the link was transcluded but the page did not exist. It's likely counting any attempts made, as opposed to ones that were "closed". Mkdw talk 15:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Category for currently open RfAs
I don't see any category for currently open RfAs. I have a tool that lets me know when a category is populated. For example if a page is added to the attack page category I get a notice.

If we put open RfAs into a category it would be easier to notice new applicants. The template is already removed from closed RfAs so we could just add it there.

Can anyone thing of any negative side effects of this? <b style="color:Black">Chillum</b><b style="vertical-align:15%;color:black;font-size:60%"> Need help? Type </b> 16:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * RfA tally is also used in RfA pages that have been created, but aren't live yet. Are you looking to get a ping when an RfA page is first created, or when it goes live?  If it's the former, then I don't see the harm in adding a category to the template.  If the latter, I don't think this works. But can your tool just let you know when a page has been edited?  Because live RfA's always correspond to an edit to WP:RFA. That's the only reason I even have WT:RfA on my watchlist; if I could watchlist WP:RfA and not WT:RfA, I would. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
 * "...if I could watchlist WP:RfA and not WT:RfA, I would..." Customizing watchlists.  Wifione  Message 12:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
 * p.s. I can definitely see the value in a calm, wise, helpful person getting pinged when an RfA page is first created, before it goes live. Early intervention and guidance is probably better than a cascade of NOTNOW votes on a newbie's live RfA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no excuse whatsoever for candidates ignoring this; it's splashed in their faces several  times during  the transclusion  process. IMO, although  we are supposed to  be nice to  newbs (and probably most admins are, if the rest of the community isn't), if they still go ahead they  deserve all they get. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Wait, people actually read edit notices? ansh666 05:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I tried to implement this but a stubborn bot would not let me hehe. I will try to contact the bot operator later, I think he/she may be on wikibreak. While I did not anticipate that the template was added prior to being made active I think it is beneficial to have the category populated at the time of creation. If I can get the bot to stop reverting me I will be sure to post the code for RfA notifications. <b style="color:Black">Chillum</b> 15:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Potential negative side effect: an increase in the frequency of well-meaning users transcluding unfinished RfAs on behalf of the candidate without their consent. – xeno <sup style="color:black;">talk 13:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)