Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 242

Problem with recent RfA, changes needed going forward...
I was monitoring the recent RfA for User "GeneralizationsAreBad" and noticed a disturbing trend among some of the "!voters". This user was co-nominated and one of the nominators has had some brushes with the community over his interest in articles related to the Adolf Hitler, Nazi Germany and the Schutzstaffel (SS). This issue was cited, repeatedly, as a reason to "oppose" this RfA. (see: #7, #20, #21 & #32 for examples). One thing should have nothing to do with other. Not only is it unnecessary to "air the dirty laundry" of the nominator, and possibly violate WP:NPA, but this has the added affect of unjustly smearing the candidate.

AFAICS, the candidate has no leanings towards Nazism or Fascism, yet it's possible that many people reading through the "oppose" comments could come away with such impressions. Not only could this unfairly affect potential "!votes", but adversely color any future interactions between this candidate and many other users. It appears this candidate has the potential to be an excellent Wikipedian and is already net-positive for the project. Many experienced and well-respected editors, and even some admins, supported this candidate, and the other co-nominator was an admin as well. That says a lot about the candidate, who's only failing here was inexperience. If this candidate continues to contribute the way they have so far, they are sure to become an admin in the future. That is, if they still want it after this RfA experience and if their candidacy isn't tainted by what is effectively a smear campaign. I would hate to see a potentially good admin chased off, as we currently have so few as it is. (take that as you will).

I suggest that all the "oppose" comments that refer to the nominator instead of the candidate be removed. Not just struck, but removed. I further suggest that guidelines be put in place that RfA participants are not to comment on nominators (or any one else for that matter), but just the candidate only. Any such remarks that violate this are to be removed immediately and can be done so by anyone, no exceptions. Barring this, some other remedy would be needed. Discuss. - the WOLF  child  22:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with the underlying point I think you're trying to make - oppose votes (or votes of any kind) should be based on the candidate themselves, and not the nominating editors. I'd be interested in hearing from the patrolling bureaucrats on this one - would you censor/edit oppose votes similar to the above? --  samtar talk or stalk 22:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Bureaucrats are loathe to remove votes in an RfA based on the rationale of the vote. Votes are removed if they are made by an IP or a sockpuppets (that is, an invalid status) but not the content. I also don't think the candidate should suffer guilt by association but the truth is that a candidate has to be as careful about selecting nominators as the nominators are about supporting a candidate. And I've seen much more flimsy reasons for opposing a candidate mentioned (like someone doesn't like an editor's signature) and those votes are not removed. Liz  Read! Talk! 22:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * So if "Bob" is running for admin and I vote "oppose" - "because I think Fred is a jerk!"... this makes sense to you? - the WOLF  child  01:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think voting oppose due to the nominating editors is roughly as sound as voting support due to the nominating editors, which seems to happen quite a fair bit. PeterTheFourth (talk) 22:58, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think either are particularly "sound". We should be voting based on the candidate's contributions and RfA answers. If a nominator is known to you, or just known to have a good reputation, then that should be encouraging to you that the candidate is worthy of the time and effort of examining their contributions and RfA answers... not just voting yes because you think the nominator is "good guy". Conversely, we shouldn't be outright dismissing candidates, just because the nominator is someone that somebody somewhere doesn't like. - the WOLF  child  01:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, neither are very good rationales, and I trust that when it comes to examining comments closely that the 'crats give them no more weight than seems warranted. They should probably discount most negatives more than positives, however. There's a major difference between opposing a candidate because one doesn't like the nominator, and supporting one because of one's trust in a nominator's prior review of the candidate's readiness. (I can envision a case where a negative is a strong one, e.g. "This is another completely unready candidate, the fifth such one the nominator has nominated this month", but nothing like that is the case here; this is someone angry about the alleged [and denied] historico-political beliefs of the nominator.  Similarly, a rationale like "I trust the nominator, despite them only being an editor for a week" would not be a sound rationale, but is also not related to the issue at hand here.) What's most disturbing to me about this instance is the Godwin's law component, the idea that any tenuous connection to the topic of Nazis or Hitler can be used to derail the candidacy (though technically that refers to one of the GL corollaries, not GL itself).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't !vote in this RFA, but I wouldn't describe it as failing due to the nominator. The first Oppose diff you cite names Ideology of the SS, this wasn't just edited by the nominator, it was cited by the nominator as an article that he and the candidate had both worked on. I can remember one or two RFAs where the nominator became the issue. But an oppose because someone was concerned about an article that both the candidate and the first nominator had worked on is not just about the nominator.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  23:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, let's look at the quote in full; It's no surprise that Ideology of the SS reads like a eulogy, since a main contributor, Jonas Vinther, is a self-professed neo-Nazi. But I can't understand why the candidate cites it as his best work (see Ideology_of_the_SS#Training_and_indoctrination for an example of breathless schoolboy adulation that displays an almost complete lack of familiarity with the source materials and/or the English language as used in an encyclopedia), nor why he would use this person's nomination here. Also, general lack of experience. - (emphasis mine). Perhaps now you see my point? The remarks are quite inflammatory and somewhat of a red-herring. Also, what choice did this candidate have as he was co-nominated by an admin, but this person makes no mention of that. - the WOLF  child  01:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between the scenario of people opposing because of something the nominator has done unrelated to the candidate and because of something the candidate has been involved in. Whether or not you agree that Ideology of the SS reads like a eulogy, that oppose is from someone who criticises it as reading like a eulogy and that "the candidate cites it as his best work". If the nominator was active in multiple areas, and a candidate was criticised for not being aware of one of the areas where they hadn't collaborated with the nominator then I could understand your concern. I can remember the RFA that spectacularly imploded after the nominator accidentally picked up the wrong laptop and replied to a comment whilst logged in as the candidate. That did fail because of the nominator's mistake, but such incidents are rare and I'm not seeing it here.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  11:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whether or not you agree that Ideology of the SS reads like a eulogy - Considering the community has granted that article GA status, I don't see it as an issue. That said, I provided multiple examples by way of diffs, but you are focused on only one, which is steering away from the larger picture. Perhaps if we had more structure to these RfA's, we wouldn't have so many of them "imploding" after such silly things as "disputing a signature" or accusations placed against the nominator with little or no consideration given the candidate. - the WOLF  child  11:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I stopped at the first diff that you gave, but you did start with that diff. I can assure you from my experience of many many RFAs it is very rare that people admit being spooked by things the nominator has done that don't involve the candidate. On the broader picture that RFA's frequently get derailed for reasons that I disagree with, yes we can agree on that. I have long argued that RFA would be improved by setting a "criteria for adminship" so that RFA debates can be about whether an individual candidate meets that criteria, and discussions about that criteria can take place elsewhere, abstractly. As a community we disagree as to what the minimum threshold should be at RFA for tenure, manual edits, audited content, time since last RFA and time since last block. At least two of those came up in that RFA. In real life if a job requires a clean driving licence or a working visa for a particular country you say that on the job ad and personnel don't shortlist applicants who don't meet that criteria. I would prefer that RFA was focussed on people scrutinising the candidate's edits and checking whether they thought they were ready for adminship.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I stopped at the first diff that you gave, but you did start with that diff. - I simply listed them in chronological order, as seen by their numbering. I would strongly suggest reading all four examples, especially the last two as they are the strongest. That said, I do however agree with some of your points in the remainder of your comment. Others... meh. - the WOLF  child  12:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I've read the rest and agree that at first glance they seem to focus on the nominator. But they are all part of one disconnected thread in the same RFA debate, I'm pretty sure that if the candidate hadn't edited in that area, and the first diff you mentioned hadn't started that topic, then either they wouldn't have happened or the people involved would have thought it necessary to spell out the connection with the candidate. Personally I'd be more concerned with your oppose. Even I, who one of our deletionist colleagues once accurately caricatured as a "hemp clad, patchouli smoking, sandal wearing inclusionist" couldn't give a hoot whether an RFA candidate has started any articles from scratch. With five million articles there is plenty of room for editors who never start new ones and only improve articles that others have started. I was also troubled by your advice to come back in "a couple of years", I've seen editors pass RFA with far less experience than that. Personally I wouldn't advise someone they had to wait that long unless they'd recently had an unusually egregious block or they were obviously immature.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  21:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy to have been described as a "hemp clad, patchouli smoking, sandal wearing inclusionist" - You have the right guy? 'Cuz I never wrote that. Personally I'd be more concerned with your oppose. - You go right ahead and be "concerned", I stand by my oppose. I was also troubled by your advice to come back in "a couple of years" - Really? I'm not troubled at all, I sleep just fine. Anyway... did you even participate in this RfA? Feel free to offer opinions after that fact, but at the end of day, there is just no way an editor with only 1,000 edits should be an admin. It's good that the nom was withdrawn. That said, I hope he is nominated again down the road because I'm sure with more experience he'll make a good admin. I just hope he's not nominated by someone who has edited too many articles about Nazis... or gays, or abortion, or whatever. - the WOLF  child  21:50, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies for any ambiguity, I've clarified that statement to make it clearer that you weren't the one who came up with that phrase. You read it in a way that I hadn't meant it to be read. The two bits of your oppose that trouble me are expecting a candidate to have created articles and to go away for two years after a failed RFA. Both are prime examples of what I perceive to be a major problem at RFA, our lack of an agreed job criteria, and voters adding novel criteria that don't help separate good candidates from bad. As for the issue with the nominator, I've followed RFA for years and I can assure you if the area where the candidate and nominator had both edited was something else such as pre columbian pottery or orchids anyone mentioning that the nominator had edited multiple Nazi related articles would have had people asking them what the relevance was to this RFA.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Not seeing the problem you're seeing. The overwhelming majority of opposers were perfectly reasonable. It doesn't look like concerns about the nominator ever caught on, and such opposition appears to have been negligible bordering on nonexistent. S warm   ♠  23:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Not seeing the problem you're seeing. - ...and I can barely contain my surprise at that. But just the same, imagine if you were to nominate a candidate, an excellent one, for RfA. Then IF I come along, see you as the nominator and don't even bother to examine the candidate. I just automatically oppose, and in my comments I go on and on about how I think you're not a very good admin, and have a bad attitude, yadda, yadda, yadda, and not even mention the candidate. Then some others come along and see that comment. Perhaps some of them don't like you either, and also vote "oppose", without bothering to look at the candidate or mention them in their comments. What if this leads to us losing a potentially good admin? If that happened... would you see a problem then? - the WOLF  child  01:49, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with Liz, Peter, and Swarm if they are firmly urging caution about any complete disassociation between the nomintor and candidate. One cannot disregard this as it naturally works both ways. We are not removing these comments. (Ha Liz, I remember that signature guy!) Prhartcom (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well TWC, I'm not saying I'd be okay with that. Obviously that's not fair. But assuming someone did that to a candidate I nominated, A) I would trust the community as a whole to look past and ignore it, B) I would trust the closing 'crats to not take those irrelevant opinions into account, in keeping with the overarching and longstanding community standards for adminship, and C) rather than placing a burden on the community to make changes to the process, I would address it directly with the editor or editors in question. Removing others' comments is extremely controversial and if this RfA is the example to justify doing so, it's not the strongest case. S warm   ♠  02:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm hoping most of you noticed that I closed my OP with the request that barring the removal of inappropriate voters comments, "that some other remedy be found". That is the purpose of raising this issue in the first, to see if perhaps some improvements can be made here. I think it's worthy of discussion and would certainly like to see some bureaucrats comment on this. - the WOLF  child  10:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I opposed this nomination very early, before reading the SS article, based purely on length on-wiki and that was the primary issue raised in the RfA. Actually the controversy was useful as it drew my attention to that article, which I found non-neutral. Sometimes RfAs can be useful in that capacity. But on the general issue, editors are influenced by nominators, usually positively, but it can also be negative. I would not want someone topic-banned from any subject, particularly something like Nazi articles, to nominate me for admin (not that I want that; I'm just talking theoretically). That's just common sense. Assuming GAB knew that, which I assume he did. Coretheapple (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rhetorical question: I wonder if people (like TWC here and User:SMcCandlish at the RfA) would whine about my oppose vote rationale if the nominator was an avowed KKK supporter, instead, and the article glorified the Ideology of the KKK? It seems that the Nazi party has a defiant aura of respectability within Wikipedia (see this list, for example, which I just found out about). Millions of middle-class American isolationists in the 1930s were the same - they regarded the KKK as a lower class organisation, but (more or less) approved of the Nazi party. zzz (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In regards to your "rhetorical" personal attack, no one is "whining" about anything, just pointing out the folly of dismissing a candidate based on the reputation of the nominator. Who cares if the nominator is Charles Manson himself? The candidate should be judged solely on contributions and RfA responses. Nothing was directed at you personally, so relax. - the WOLF  child  19:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The accused has denied the allegation already. Per WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:ASPERSIONS, Signedzzz is on dangerous ground here.  His statement above isn't even cogent; the objection he raised was the article (which is a WP:GA) had the wrong tone (with no evidence that this problem was due to the candidate), and that the user about whom he makes the accusation was a major contributor to its content. That's not an objection to his nomination or nominator. Signedzzz is changing his story in mid-stream and now trying to dig up additional mud to sling about the nominator, as a form of hand-waving.  The candidate is not responsible for out-lying impressions about one of the co-nominators.  Signedzzz is fortunate that the WWII/Nazis topic is (somehow) not subject to WP:AC/DS or what he's already said would be immediately actionable without even raising a WP:ANI request.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Blah, blah... hand-waving, WP:ANI... yada, yada... "additional mud to sling about the nominator" (my emphasis) - so that's a "no" then. zzz (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * What exactly is it that you're babbling about now?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:59, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It took you a month to come up with that?? zzz (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Insofar as the selection or acceptance of a nominator speaks to a candidate's judgment, I don't think we can discard such opposition. Consider this: would such a candidate, having been successfully frocked, fail to discern the character of a reporter, and accept a bad faith report from a disruptive user- acting on it administratively? It didn't seem to have a large impact on the linked RFA, besides. –xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 20:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreeing to let Jonas Vinters be a co-nominator was a mistake from the beginning for GAB; but if one was using that as a voting guide then that weight should have been off-set by Diannaa, the other co-nominator. In the end, GAB should be judged on his own merits; he has done good work here so far and know the process; turning my hat around, I can see where people would want him to get more content work under his belt and to branch out some-more. In the end, I believe the majority of oppose voting were of this mindset. Kierzek (talk) 02:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Our admin policy says that RfA should be decided through the lens of consensus. Our consensus policy makes it clear that arguments should be weighted based on their level of reason. I am pretty sure that 'crats would weight votes against the nominator very little, they are after all skilled at reading consensus. They don't need to remove it, just assign it less or no weight. It is unlikely to even be mentioned unless the decision is very close. <b style="color:Black">HighInBC</b> 14:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The point wasn't so much about how bureaucrats would weigh these comments, but the 'smear-effect' they have on the nominee. Just because one of the nominators has had issues with supposed pro-Nazi leanings, doesn't make the nominee a "Nazi-lover". It was comments to that affect that I had an issue with. That said, I'm not sure why you're addressing a month-old (and basically closed) issue, especially when there are other areas of the project that are in need of administrator attention. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  15:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Just as a user will benefit from a very good nomination, so will they suffer from a poor one. There is only so much to be done about that. When I was nominated I looked into the history of the person who offered the nomination, and found they were very much embraced by the community. If I had found they had a history of controversy I may have thought otherwise. The judgement of the candidate is relevant, and which nom they accept reflects their judgement.


 * I had not noticed the time-stamp, and found the conversation interesting. No need to delay archiving for my benefit. <b style="color:Black">HighInBC</b> 15:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but if others had an issue with some of your nominator's contributions to articles in relation to, say... ethnicity, would it be ok for them to label you as a "racist"? (and then oppose you because of it?) Would it be ok for others to oppose you simply because you had been called a racist? (without even viewing your history or considering any of your contributions?) That's basically what happened here, at least with some of the !votes. As was discussed above, the candidate was co-nominated, the other nominator was an admin, and there could have been several reasons why the nomination was accepted, despite one of the co-nominator's histories. But I think that's somewhat besides that point. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  15:41, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Question
I've considered applying for administratorship in the past, and I think now is the time. Is there a way that I should put my name on the main rfa page, or does someone do it for me? Thank you. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 08:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC) PS: If I post as an anon it's by accident, and I correct it later, or it's because I'm on an insecure device, in which case I note that it's me, and log in and correct the sig later (or, rarely, it's because the topic is controversial, and I don't want my edits to it showing up when nosy people research me; I edit under my real name here). Regardless, I never post misleadingly like I'm someone else, and it was a WP:JERK move toward both me and the anon to implying that I was. If you want to accuse someone of sock puppetry, there's an accountable process for that at WP:SPI, where you have to provide evidence; if you have none, making such an accusation is uncivil at best, and also WP:ASPERSIONS. For the record, I being snarky now (per WP:SPADE) with you. See the difference? Before you wind up for another rant, consider that your own future RfA (I'm betting you want one) will dredge up past examples of you losing your cool when you were validly given constructive criticism. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * AFAIK you can self-nominate. Check out Guide to requests for adminship. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  08:46, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Wolf. Is there a technical script that I put on there? When I've asked for page protection before, it required a certain kind of script that you type in. Is there a technical script for asking for adminship also? Johnsmith2116 (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps,, that if you were to read some of the advice pages, most especially WP:RFAADVICE, you'd find all the answers, and a great deal more. Then try your luck at WP:RRN. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:56, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Bare fact: If you can't figure even this much out, you are not ready to be an admin yet.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:29, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Bare fact:" you should keep your snarky comments to yourself. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  16:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how that's "snarky". It's entirely correct. I think the thing that is harmful is stringing along people who clearly aren't going to pass an RfA. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 22:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Unless you're SMc and editing while logged out, then so what? And I don't see how this person is being "strung along", nor how you can determine that they "clearly" can't pass an RfA. They were looking info and they got it. When the time comes that they feel they're ready, they'll post an RfA and if the community agrees they're ready, they'll get it. I don't see anything carved in stone here. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  01:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was endorsing SMcCandlish's message, and indicating that I disagreed with your assessment of it. This is a thing that people do in discussions. Any candidate that doesn't know the details of technical stuff like transclusion is unlikely to pass an RfA in the current environment. This is a recurring pattern on this page, where clearly unready candidates ask how to post an RfA, and people give them a technical walkthrough without telling them what to expect in the RfA itself. They get their RfA up (or someone else does it for them), get a barrage of oppose votes they weren't expecting, and generally have a traumatic experience. More than one editor has left after an RfA went badly when they weren't expecting it. If the enwp community was more oriented towards promoting a healthy and inviting environment, some kind of mandatory "prescreening" would ensure candidates were prepared for what they're about to go through. (RfA and a lot of other processes would also be overhauled, but that's a whole other can of worms.) In the "real world", people who are going to go through grueling processes, like, say, defending a PhD dissertation, are generally prepared and taught what to expect beforehand. Perpetuating an "anyone can be an admin, step right up!" fiction is dishonest, in my view, when that's not actually the case. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC) (Also, kudos to MelanieN below for giving some good guidance. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 01:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC))
 * You learned all this from your extensive Wikipedia experience? (25 edits! No... make that 26!) As you say, people disagree in discussions, and I disagree with your "assessment". The rest is just a waste of time. Wikipedia will never be a "healthy and inviting environment". Sorry to break it to you. Have a nice day. - the <em style="font-family:Matisse itc;color:red">WOLF  child  03:31, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The anon is absolutely spot-on. BTW, longer-term editors (and just experienced Internet users in general) understand that IP-addresss editors' IPs often change, even daily, and that any given IP may be used only briefly, or conversely may be used by multiple people (even in the same day) and rack up an edit count after a while that looks impressive, but is really 200+ different people. "You have not learned enough yet" (applied to you, or to the OP, ), is not an insult, it's an analysis of the clearly visible evidence, and it describes a self-correcting state that improves with experience.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I concur. RfAs can be a grueling process. Editors need to prepare themselves for what they are about to face. Some issues will arise during the Optional RfA candidate poll Melanie mentions which is good because you have time to address them. RfAs are unpredictable in that you never know who will show up to participate or what qualities of your editing, your editing experience or your character they will focus on. But it is better to go into an RfA with your eyes wide open than naively giving it a shot. I know this sounds discouraging but realistically, you can expect to be scrutinized and criticized. If you pass, you get a mop and a t-shirt so there is that. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 02:38, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Admins get special T-shirts now? Duuude, I am SO applying.  Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:47, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As the anon said, it was no snark, and is correct. Don't confuse honesty and brevity (the latter of which I'm rarely accused of!) with rudeness. No one is obligated to use flowery, euphemistic language with someone to soften reality into a comfy pillow, and doing so will not prepare them for the actual trial-by-fire of RFA, or rigors of being an admin.  Taking this much umbrage at the mere suggestion that basic competency with WP's built-in search and willingness to do some "homework" reading are required of admins means someone else here isn't destined for adminship any time soon, either. You may lack the maturity yet (also not an insult, but an evidence-based interpretation of a situation that improves over time), or your may just be (like me) constitutionally unsuited for the role. Regardless, it's silly and hypocritical to accuse someone of being "snarky" for speaking the truth, and then be really rude to someone else who disagrees with you, especially when they present a very well-reasoned argument, and your response basically consists of a childish "nuh-uh!" with no actual rationale.

There is a page where people can get an informal opinion about whether they are likely to succeed in applying for adminship. It is here: Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll. It is much less threatening than an actual Request for Adminship, and it does not leave a permanent record as an unsuccessful RfA does. When you are uncertain about whether or when to apply, that kind of feedback can be invaluable. As SMcCandlish says, it sounds like you don't know much about the process, suggesting that you are not ready. And do be sure to read the essays that Kudpung linked to. --MelanieN (talk) 14:44, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Again...Delegate tools so those of us here for the past decade .....do we really need admins to fix Category:All Wikipedia files with the same name on Wikimedia Commons--Moxy (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

30/500 protection
Now that we have this new protection level, I suggest that it be applied to WP:RFA. This will stop more brand new users and trolls from listing their RFAs. The protection level can be applied upon authorisation by the community (or Arbcom), but in this case, it should clearly be uncontroversial. 103.6.159.73 (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean per WP:30/500 they wouldn't be able to list or !vote? That policy says "...prevents edits..." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Presumably, protecting the main RfA page so that they won't be able to list a self-nom (or break the formatting trying to). Though, considering the current limits on the use of extended protection, it would have to be by ARBCOM motion. ansh 666 06:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ohhhhhh, right. The Requests for adminship page. That makes sense. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A day in, and already proposed policy creep with the new permissions group :-). That said, this is one instance of creep that I would support - a 500/30 requirement to file an RfA sounds reasonable, and would cut down on some of the SNOW candidacies. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have a solution to cut down vandalism project-wide to almost nothing. Apply 30/500 to the entire project. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Now why didn't I think of that? XD—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:Comic Sans MS"><span style="color:\#FF8C00">Chat:Limited Access 16:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * EMPHATIC NO; once again a solution in search of a problem. Wanna take a guess at how many RfA attempts there have been in the first quarter of this year by candidates who would fall into this 30/500 block? You can count them on two hands. Oooooo that's a huge problem we have to protect this page from!!!!! HURRY!!! . We have previously shot down minimum requirements for voters recently, and many times in the past. We have shot down minimum requirements for candidates many times. This is an end run around all effort the community has put into stopping this sort of nonsense. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No way - this is not a problem that needs solving like this. — xaosflux  Talk 13:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Well intentioned no-hopers aren't enough of a problem that it's necessary to find a technical solution to the issue, and I can certainly conceive of plausible situations in which candidates who aren't doomed to fail would be caught up by this, particularly as long as tools remain unbundled. (A Commons admin who needs the ability to view deleted images on en-wiki to assist with some kind of investigation; a long-term editor who's recently had their account renamed, which for technical reasons requires the creation of a new account as accounts with above around 100,000 edits can't be moved; someone who does all their work in an off-wiki text editor meaning that they only have 400 edits, but each of those edits is the creation of a 5000-word FA-level article from scratch; a new WMF employee who for purposes of transparency would like community approval for being granted the tools rather than just having Jimbo flip the bit as an office action; someone with two legitimate accounts who has the bulk of their contributions on account A but for whatever reason wants the admin account to be account B… All these examples may still fail RFA, but none would be WP:NOTNOW candidates.) &#8209; Iridescent 14:10, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In each case, the user can create the RfA page himself and ask at WT:RFA (this page) that it be transcluded. isn't that clean enough? 103.6.159.82 (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. As I see it, enacting this proposal would create a rules conflict with the "no minimum requirements for creating an RFA" rule. Therefore that rule would need to be changed first (which would require a separate proposal) before this could become a reality. ZettaComposer (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Objective Comment: This proposal isn't as ludicrous as it sounds. While it would give the appearance of creating minimum requirements for RfA, that still is false.  They could be nominated by someone, and have that RfA transcluded for them.  Though who is insane enough to do that, is beyond me.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:Comic Sans MS"><span style="color:\#FF8C00">Chat:Limited Access 16:18, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's still a solution in search of a problem. What minor problems happen due to this are readily fixed. Orders of magnitude more vandalism happens to a featured article on the main page than happen in several months here. We don't protect those articles, and shouldn't be placing restrictions here. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I thought articles that get featured on the main page do get protected. I think Legoktm has a bot that automatically does that.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:Comic Sans MS"><span style="color:\#FF8C00">Chat:Limited Access 18:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope. Any IP editor can edit the day's featured article, unless for some unrelated reason it was protected before it went to today's featured article. 5 IP edits have occurred to today's FA . --Hammersoft (talk) 19:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, no. They should, but they don't. I think it's one of the WP:PERENNIAL... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Perennial_proposals. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, but it'd have to be cleared by ArbCom first, and my guess is that they'll never go for it. But I support "min. levels" for running in RfA (and even voting in one)... [shrug] --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ArbCom wouldn't approve it unless it were part of sanctions regarding a dispute where major disruption is happening. But, since disruption isn't happening here, they wouldn't have reason to do so. The community can apply it, but it would be a serious mistake to do so. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: This will mislead the hat collectors into thinking that they'll succeed at 500 edits and 30 days. <span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience  t 19:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment This is one of the more highly watched project pages on the English Wikipedia. Especially now that notices are put at WP:CENT. While we do get the occasional disruption from considerably premature applications and vandalism, it's cleaned up within minutes. If there were a bigger problem I could see a fix being needed, but I don't think it's ultimately a problem to warrant an ArbCom sanction on the page. Mkdw talk 20:14, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as not particularly useful (sub-30/500 editors nominating themselves for RfA is not a big problem), and as going against the consensus on what 30/500 should be used for. I'm not even sure semi-protection is necessary, although it seems to have met the "significant amount of disruption" criterion back in 2008. The new protection level was purely introduced for ArbCom stuff, as a technically superior method to edit filters, rather than to introduce an alternative to semi or full protection for normal pages. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) —Preceding undated comment added 20:23, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I don't see what problem this would solve. <b style="color:Black">HighInBC</b> 20:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose There isn't a backlog of nominations that are below this threshold waiting to be SNOW closed. I prefer letting newer users be bold and nominate themselves even if they're aren't going to succeed. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 22:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with others: this is basically a solution in search of a problem. There are few candidates who apply who don't meet those requirements, and when they do it's not a massive problem. Also, there are some legitimate reasons for requesting before meeting the requirement. — Omni Flames  ( talk   contribs ) 22:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Despite this discussion as clear WP:SNOW (my watchlist couldn't get enough of this discussion) but I think of all the new Wikipedians who could think in terms of hat collecting and "500 edits and i can be admin!!" rather than focusing on quality contributions which is what would deem someone suitable to succeed in RfA in the first place. What if an artificial requirement like this creates more failed RfAs than the current system?  Nott Nott   talk &#124;contrib 23:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . And as per ' example of WP:BEANS. This is a solution looking for a problem, and in any case, anyone who has rigorously followed all the RfAs, discussions, and developments as for example  and I have, will know that this is nothing like the problem it used to be. Since the watershed year of 2007, the drop in junk and/or unsuccessful RfAs has followed the almost exact same proportions as successful RfA and all RfAs. So that's three almost parallel lines on a graph (IIRR, supplied by  several months ago)). It's an issue than can, and is addressed by anyone who has RfA on their watchlist. That said, and completely off topic, it (or preferably 90/500) should be applied to the voters as it is (or similar) on other Foundation projects. It won't keep the regular detractors from voting, but it would certainly keep socks, trolls, and vandals away. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose good faith proposal. I am not seeing any anything that justifies this. As another editor noted above, it seems like a solution in search of a problem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose and recommend closing per WP:SNOW so that more people don't waste their time here. Besides the fact that the use of this protection level is an ARBCOM-only thing, there is no evidence that the problem the proposal is meant to solve is actually an issue. ansh 666 03:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment When I said "That makes sense" above, I meant it made sense that this was intended to apply to the page where the RfA is transcluded and not the RfAs themselves. It was not a support. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is not a solution in search of a problem. At best, it would prevent RfA self-noms like the following from taking place. This year itself, we've had the following selfnoms by users not meeting the 30/500 requirement.  Requests_for_adminship/NeatCoronet458 Requests_for_adminship/Josef9 Requests for adminship/Tremmee Requests for adminship/Pablothepenguin isn't it worth stopping these requests? The cons of the protection are too trivial. I believe there is a consensus that the community want to see less of SNOW and NOTNOW RfAs. Per C678, I don't think this is equivalent to creating minimum requirements for RfA. 103.6.159.82 (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As you can see from this discussion, there is a general agreement that these types of RfAs are not common and/or harmful enough to be a big concern, and you can see yourself that they're often closed very quickly. The consensus that you claim to exist isn't really there. ansh 666 06:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Pull the other one It's amusing that this proposal has been made by an account which would not itself pass the 30/500 test. I think we're having our leg pulled. Andrew D. (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

42
Maybe we need a WP:42 sort of thing for admin hopefuls. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

How about:


 * Be nice
 * Create content
 * Work many areas, especially AfD
 * Don't be too new

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I like that idea a lot! There must be a better way to mention the civility requirement, because somehow I feel like the statement to "be nice" implies editors have to be gregarious or something. Maybe something like "Be polite" or "Be respectful" would work. APerson (talk!) 15:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In terms of a "secret sauce" recipe for success, being gregarious, or to put it another way, being helpful and collaborative with others, is one of the key factors in non-contentious requests for adminship privileges. So I believe there should be an item on this: perhaps explicitly, "Be helpful to others and collaborate productively with as many people as possible." isaacl (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Be excellent to each other." ? — xaosflux  Talk 15:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Rather than "work many areas, especially AfD" I would suggest "work more than one area, including one where it would help if you had the tools". AFD is not necessary if you don't plan to work in deletion, OK not being involved in AFD or deletion will get you a few opposes, but nothing to worry about. However you will fail if you don't show a need for the tools, and in an area where you have been active, deletion, vandal whacking or elsewhere.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  16:28, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In my experience the most important qualities an admin needs are good judgment and, even more important, the ability to cordially communicate with editors with a variety of levels of experience about a) why their recent conduct is causing problems and b) what solution there is to remedy the problem and help this individual become a better editor. It only takes a second or two to hit the block button and the admins I admire are ones that take the time to explain what is going on to often bewildered and confused new editors. And to do this again and again and not grow cynical. Patience is underrated, I think. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Liz, While I'd agree that those are important qualities in an admin, I'm struggling to think of many RFAs where those qualities were deemed relevant by many of the !voters. That's partly a criticism of RFA, far too many !voters judge things on stats and the Q&A section rather than looking at the candidate's edits. Judging a candidate on the available stats is pretty much guaranteed to distract 1voters from important issues like the candidate's judgment and communication ability.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * You forgot: "Don't participate in any disputes, because anything you say can and will be used against you in your RFA, and people you argued with will show up to oppose. Once you get adminship, then you can throw your weight around." --71.110.8.102 (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I feel quite the opposite. I felt more free to participate in controversial issues and weigh in on disputes as an editor because I was just offering my perspective. As an admin, you are accountable. Even if you think you are being uncontroversial, people continually are asking you to justify the decisions you make (which is their right) while when you are an editor, you can ignore people you disagree with, delete their messages from your talk page, tell them to go away and other less polite terms. There is a freedom to that status that you lose when you take on admin responsibilities. But that's okay, it's part of the package. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 23:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, more than one admin has told others to "fuck off" or similar, and they're still admins. I don't think anyone has ever been deadminned simply for invective. It has been cited as a factor in some deadminnings, but these have always gone along with concerns over use of admin tools. --71.110.8.102 (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Plenty of non-admin have told others to "fuck off" with no consequences. I think people recognize that there are absolute "civil" jack-asses all around here more that deserve it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Just so we're not dealing in hypotheticals I have no regrets about directing the exact words at this jerkoff, and there's no way I'd ever block someone for doing the same. There's a time and a place. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 06:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I see things are getting sidetracked. I've started User:Anna Frodesiak/43 and intend on working on it there. I could use some help. See you at User talk:Anna Frodesiak/43, bunnies! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * "Work many areas, especially AfD" is self-contradictory. Try, maybe, "Work many areas, especially those with backlogs."  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi SMcCandlish. Is it self-contradictory? Isn't it like "Eat lots of fruit, especially apples"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is contradictory. The constructions are not parallel, and the two halves of the first construction are in direct conflict, while those of the second are mutually compatible. "Many areas" is plural, indicating variety, breadth, distinction (analogy: "I have many pigs" means more than one pig, not one giant pig as big as three pigs). "Especially AfD" is an instruction to instead focus on a single thing. (Compare: "I have many pigs, especially one named Buster." Does not parse.) "Lots of fruit" is a quantity description of a mass noun, and implies nothing about variety; 4 ton[ne]s of pineapple is "lots of fruit" just as much as is a truck full of samples of every edible fruit on earth (Cf. "I have lots of pork.") "Especially apples" does not conflict, but perfectly complies, with "eat lots of fruit" (to go back to the barnyard analogy – and apologies to the vegetarians – "I have lots of pork, especially from that huge pig that was named Buster.") Even aside from that matter, one should not mix conflicting instructions in the same sentence or it sends mixed signals.  Better to use separate sentences, about breadth, and about areas of especial admin focus. Anyway, AfD actually needs only minimal admin attention; it's "sexy" and attracts lots of activity, while we have huge backlogs in lots of "boring", or genuinely difficult/stressful, areas.  If I'm misreading the intent, and the concern is caution/judgement, AfD is still not really something to highlight. Anyone competent can figure out what consensus is at an XfD; CSD requires a great deal more judgement, as do a lot of disciplinary matters, and page protection. These are the things we're afraid to give people admin power over if they're not competent.  AfD stats are used in RFA discussions primarily to assess judgement about policy and how attuned the candidate is to WP norms.  It's not that much of a trust matter.  There's a reason, though, that so many people ask candidates questions using CSD test data, and potential block/ban scenarios, and protection cases, since they involve often unilateral, discretionary admin judgement, not "can I read a consensus discussion and make sense of it in light of policy?", which is mostly just basic reasoning and pioritization skills. :-)   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I disagree. "Especially" is not an instruction to focus on a single thing while excluding other things. "Especially" means "...used to indicate something that deserves special mention..." as in "...food seems cheaper, especially meats..."


 * I think AfD is something to highlight, or at least a history of good judgement when it comes to page deletion. Your statement that "...AfD stats are used...WP norms..." would be more accurate if it mentioned what norms, i.e. norms about deletion judgement.


 * Anyhow, our opinions don't matter. We simply need to look at past support and oppose rationales to find out. There we find evidence because !voters say.


 * There ought to be broad consensus that !voters (not us personally) want to see: trusted, experienced, and some content creation. Could we agree on that? The yellow lines could have those three lines and sections could have more detailed info, like section "Experience": "...in areas admins commonly work, particularly regarding deletion".


 * My very best, :)Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My central point – regardless of the linguistic disagreement or different views of AfD's importance (and why it's important) – was: one should not mix "potentially conflicting-seeming" instructions in the same sentence or it sends mixed signals. As for the three highlighted things: I suppose those are correct, but the first two seem kind of obvious, while the third is something that some people dispute as a criterion (though I certainly don't). Anyway, I think we ultimately have different essays in mind, It looks like you're trying to explain to new editors why they can't be admins just because they've been here a month and think it would be cool, while I want to explain to nine-month editors who only do one thing, like vandal-fighting or gnoming or arguing on dramaboards, why they may not be ready. Both of use are thinking about what the historical rationale trends are. I'll continue to draft the points I've been working on (as I mentioned vaguely, below), and post something when it's cohesive.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you about avoiding any sort of conflicting-seeming instructions.


 * The content creation thing is not completely agreed upon, however, the section about it makes it fairly true. Whether or not it deserves to be the third yellow line is uncertain. Anyhow, this whole page, in order to satisfy the community, may have to be so broad as to be useless.


 * For its usefulness and application, please see the bottom of User talk:Anna Frodesiak/43. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:39, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

This should maybe be abandoned. Please give your views at User:Anna Frodesiak/43. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Working on it, but I've run out of steam for the night, so will post it tomorrow. I think the idea generally has a lot of merit, despite my quibbling.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No worries, my friend. Our quibbling is quality quibbling. Quibbling. Sounds like some sort of knitting stitch. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I use a double under-tuck quibble when I make cat sweaters. LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi SMcCandlish. The "double under-tuck quibble" is essential in cat sweaters. Otherwise they won't have proper freedom of movement around their little kitty armpits. You know your stuff. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Our knowledge of pet clothing construction proves what better admins we would make. Who needs collaboration skills or policy awareness?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Now at Really simple guide to requests for adminship per this. Please feel free to enter or start a discussion about improvements, etc. Please feel free to add it to navboxes, see alsos, or put it into use at the Teahouse, SNOW usertalks, etc. Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:56, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Link to "Really simple guide"?
Please see this discussion about how to use the new "Really simple guide" page. The top of "Requests for adminship" already has quite a complex layout. Would readers prefer to: leave the page alone; add another box linking to "Really simple guide"; or substitute such a box for some of the existing material? <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  09:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

RFC for new "Page mover" permission

 * Now an RFC! Wikipedia talk:Page mover.

Hear ye, all those with interest in permissions! Kindly see Page mover for a draft treatment of a proposed new user group and comment at Wikipedia talk:Page mover or improve draft directly. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 00:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

With thanks to everyone who provided input and insight, I would like to put forth a proposal to create the Page mover permission. My suggestion is that page movers would receive


 * (The ability to move pages without leaving behind a redirect)
 * (The ability to move subpages when moving their parent pages)
 * (The ability to override the title blacklist)
 * modified $wgRateLimits, allowing them to move pages more frequently than most users

This userright would be especially useful to editors who assist at Requested moves. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 00:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a general comment about this. I'm not sure this is the right approach to solving the problem of the dwindling number of successful RfAs. It might actually further exacerbate the problem. Take away one of the last remaining routine-bureaucratic functions of administrators, and you're left with too much focus on blocking and protecting. I think a better approach than looking for more functions to move "downstairs" might be to move the most powerful function "upstairs". How about restricting the blocking of extended-confirmed editors for periods longer than 48 hours so that only bureaucrats can do that, after a consensus for it has been obtained through discussion, or by Arbitration Committee directive. wbm1058 (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Bureaucrats weren't appointed to police user conduct and there's far too few of us to put that all on our plate. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 11:07, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Y'all need something new to supervise, since user renames were globalized, right? An added function might motivate more to apply; it's been what, over two years since the last RfB? The point is that the community, or ArbCom, should police established-user conduct, rather than a single, potentially "cowboy" admin. You would just assess consensus, the same way you do with RfA. My expectation is that long-term blocks of extended-confirmed editors would be relatively rare, so it wouldn't be that much extra work. wbm1058 (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps moving up user rights assignments may be something worth considering, seeing as it's the main function of bureaucrats anyway. Like edit filter, which does require a discussion unlike other trivial user rights such as rollback.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:28, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think it;s entirely appropriate to brand all admins as 'potential cowboys'. Not only do such comments infringe on our AGF policy, but they play right into the hands of the anti-admn brigade and further discourage editors from running for office. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As knows, I've been advocating for a long time for ways to draw the user right of Bureaucrat into a more active sphere of operations but I don't think taking the power of the block button from admins and moving it 'upstairs' should be one of them. Sure, admin abuse exists (and I usually see it from the same admins), and while good, experienced admins can sometimes make the very rare genuine error of judgement, those badmins are also rare individuals and should not be allowed to cast a shadow on the work of the rest of the admins who have to put up with the filth that is thrown at them for just doing the job they went through 7 days of hell for. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Please come forward
I would like to ask a question of any and all experienced non-admins watching this page: Why haven't you run for adminship? With the application numbers still rapidly declining, it is critical that we discover the root of the problem, and obviously we can only find out for certain by actually asking those who refuse to run. So, if you're an at least somewhat experienced non-admin who does not desire to be an RfA candidate, please tell us why. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Biblio (talk) 04:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, it's the absurdly large range of oppose reasons that gives me pause. I think "Hey, I've written a few decent articles and have a good record of vandal fighting and AFD votes, I can do it" and then I see opposes based on an editor's age or because their name is vague or because they have too many user talk edits, etc. As hard as you try to prepare, someone inevitably throws a curveball oppose and, if you're really unlucky, gets a bunch of pile-on votes that sink the nomination. Unfortunately, there's little, if anything, that can be done about that without telling voters what they can and can't say when supporting or opposing, and I don't think that's a solution at all. clpo13(talk) 05:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There's a little flaw with the system, evident even in the way you phrased your question: how do you define "experienced"? ansh 666 06:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think most people don't want to be subject to the intense scrutiny and subsequent browbeating that takes place at a RfA. Once upon a time, I thought about putting my name forward but decided I hadn't been around long enough. Next I considered what I actually do here, and whether I had a genuine need for extra buttons, i.e., enough of a need to brave the sort of lambasting that regularly takes place in a RfA. I decided I didn't. Lastly, I stopped being so much of a regular contributor, and so would not be suited to the role. That's my experience. Plus, I've seen a lot of good people come forth and be shot down: people who really may not need to be admins, but have long served the project, are worthy of respect, and can be expected not to abuse the tools. If they can't make it, how could anyone? Kafka Liz (talk) 06:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I haven't run because I've never been nominated. I have the impression that the nomination process is a significant obstacle because it has a reputation for being a big deal – technically complex and easy to get wrong.  As potential nominators don't want to look stupid or spoil the chances of the candidate, there is pressure to make the nomination near-perfect and so the process is quite intimidating.


 * Now I wouldn't be a shoo-in because, with 10 years service, I have a lot of baggage and opposition. But I see lots of guys at Wikimeets that would make good admins because they are mature, professional, pleasant and their activities at Wikimeets and editathons indicate that they are dedicated to the building of the encyclopedia.  I might nominate them but find the process to be a hurdle because I have never done it and there's this great pressure to get it right.  Even having the wrong person as a nominator might be enough to spoil an RfA attempt and so I might not be doing someone a favour by nominating them.


 * Compare this with AFD. If you try nominating an article for deletion manually, you'll find that it is quite a clunky process.  The reason that we still get plenty of articles nominated is that tools like Twinkle make it easy; perhaps too easy.  So, if you want lots of nominations then make RfA equally easy.  Of course, you should be careful what you wish for ...


 * I just got an edit conflict posting this. That's a general problem with Wikipedia – it's a complicated system with many actors and this makes even posting a message fraught with complexity and difficulty.  The WMF is spending millions to try to improve this with tools like the VE but that's not going smoothly either.


 * Andrew D. (talk) 07:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The question is rhetorical because we all know the reason already. They won't. It's no good appealing. You've got to offer something that appeals to them first. Those of us who have been actively canvassing for candidates for years are almost always met with the same answer.It's been flogged to death time and time again by the experts and even invoked an extremely strong comment by our Founder, but for some odd reason, everyone else seems to side-step it - just the way they tiptoe carefully around a pile of dog's mess on the side walk in case it jumps up at them. The other reason is that any candidates that might have the required experience have seen how truly active admins get spit and shit upon by the trolls (and not so trolls). But untill he starts using the tools he asked for in November, won't have an inclinkling of that side of the medal. Incidentally, I supported supported (rather weakly) his RfA in an unusually long speech, which may have some resonance on the very topic we are discussing today, and some of the oppose votes were completely accurate, if not expressed in a particularly friendly manner. The RfA passed, as it should have done, but it's worth reading. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:26, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

So I've just recently come back to enwiki (~2 months), with the intention of doing some more content work beyond just adding statements to Wikidata. At this point, I want to focus on that content work, and not really get drawn into dramaboards (but they're so interesting!) or maintenance areas, so I don't plan on requesting local adminship at the moment. But if I did, I don't think I would pass, so it wouldn't be worth my time either way. I would be criticised... At some point along the road, evaluation of candidates for adminship has gone from accounting for useful metrics (can they be trusted to not blow up the project?) to opposing candidates because they have too high a percentage of edits in the user talk space. Something is fundamentally wrong with how we the community evaluates RfA candidates, and I think it's in part because people are taking the technical abilities associated with it too seriously. Since coming back here, I've heard people saying that even innocuous rights such as 'suppressredirect' are "powerful and potentially dangerous". Come on. Any sysop action can easily be reverted, and adminship easily revoked. RfA will be broken so long as this myth of the power that admins hold remains, and so long as the community refuses to recognize the voluntarism associated with this project. Ajraddatz (talk) 07:53, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * for having too many automated edits, despite the fact that counter-vandalism is a necessary part of maintaining this encyclopaedia that anyone can edit.
 * for not being consistently active, despite the fact that I'm a volunteer who should be held to no time commitment, beyond being active enough to use the rights.
 * for not being involved on places like ANI, despite (again) being a volunteer who should be able to control where they are putting their time into.
 * Actually, in your case, I would definitely expect you to pass once you can convince (by means of edits statistics) the voters that you are committing to editing English Wikipedia and spend enough time here.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but even if I were to pass, I would not meet the standard that is expected of most candidates (at least now). That suggests some issue with how candidates are evaluated, IMO. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ajraddatz: Disagree in part or perhaps just in emphasis - we have too many admins (or too many admins who don't 'use the rights'). Sure they volunteered, they volunteered to do a job (but they won't accept even a moderate level of doing it). By their inaction, they demonstrate the job is non-worthwhile or is uninteresting, which is hardly an advertisement for the job - it makes it seem like just hat collecting.  Some seem to argue, because of this, we need more redundant admins, so their slogan should be 'join the redundancy' - also, hardly worth any thinking person's time. The case for more admins is just not made: 'the work is uninteresting and by most not worth doing.' Others, and perhaps we agree on this, seem to argue 'it's a leadership position' as for why people should do it but experienced Wikipedians know, it is just tools to serve the community. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As an admin who does do things around here, I can tell you that we are indeed short on admins. I really don't follow your logic, we need active admins. <b style="color:Black">HighInBC</b> 16:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As my main point was we need admins to be active, then your response makes little sense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We need active admins, but admins don't "need" to be active. I understand your point; my personal philosophy is that rights are for using, not for collecting on a shelf, and I resign any advanced access that I don't use. But what do you define as active enough? Ten actions a month? Ten actions a day? Admins are still volunteers, and we shouldn't be worried about how many there are who meet a certain arbitrary level of activity - if there are backlogs, then we must need more admins. Even if they just delete one page marked for speedy deletion every month, that's still a net positive for the project. Your argument would really only apply if admin was a paid position, at which time of course it should be treated as a job. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Philosophy is demonstrated in action, otherwise it is empty. Sure we can start with twelve per year, at least it's a start. Paid? Volunteer is volunteer, it's accepting the responsibility for doing the work volunteered for. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * When it comes to my advanced permissions, that's exactly what I do. Your last point is a fair one, while also recognizing that people burn out or lose interest after time in any volunteer role. Given that most of the current admins here were elected in 2007 or before, that might explain why we have so many inactives. Making more admins who would actually be active with the rights doesn't seem to be connected to the current dead weight that you bring up. Ajraddatz (talk) 17:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure it does. You just told me admins lose interest, (some of them seem to lose interest when they pass RfA, but regardless, having volunteered to do policy compliant editing for about eight years now, I have not lost interest in that because: it is interesting) -- you seemed to miss part of what I said, the inaction (more than any words possible) is telling us, 'the work is uninteresting and by most not worth doing.'  So now, you argue people lose interest -- that is not going to change anyone's impression that the work is uninteresting and by most not worth doing, rather confirm it.  What some here seem to be arguing for is, 'let's go through these RfA's for practically nothing at all - not to the project (except some hurt feelings or upset people), and not to the person.' -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * As a editors that has been here for over a decade and has tried to apply with no success years ago .....you wont get me to do this again...the same with many many other old timers that I talk to. The process if flawed....need to be in the right click or your left in the dust.  No one actually looks at prospects in the right light.....the main question is what can you do as an admin .....over what have you done and how can the admin tools help our best editors-- Moxy (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I find it humorous that running for ArbCom, which grants far, far greater and more destructive power than anything an administrator can do, is a blind vote. Sure, there's a Q&A session beforehand, but during the vote nobody knows how it's going until the end. Nobody knows why someone is voting a particular way. Here at RfA, we get all twisted up about it. RfA sucks because we let it suck. If we had a blind vote, we'd do much better. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we overstate the difficulty of passing an RfA. But having run for both Arbcom and RFA, I'd say the Arbcom election was easier, fairer and gave better opportunities to explain yourself and respond to others. The blind vote may well have been a factor, and is worth trying in RfA. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting idea. It's also worth considering the process for appointing CU/OS, which is explicitly not a vote after voting failed to elect any new candidates one year. I'd say that RfA has a similar problem. Ajraddatz (talk) 23:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this is a very interesting question and one that gave me a little pause since when I first joined Wikipedia (once I discovered Admins exist and what they did) I thought it would be really cool to be one. So here is a short list of reasons why I am not really interested in RfA in ascending order of the weight I attach to each.
 * I am busy in the real world and would definitely be considered a part timer. Additionally I am just returning from a long wiki-break resulting from burn out and a bad experience with an Admin (a very rare experience). For a while I was not sure I would be returning at all.
 * I doubt that I am qualified. My edit count is likely at the low end of what most on here would consider the minimum. My content creation is... yes I do have some, but it's nothing to write home about. Yes, I have a clue and am familiar with the common guidelines and policy. Yes I know the difference between a block and a ban. But no, I can't cite a lot of the obscure stuff and there are areas of the project where my experience is negligible at best (Arbcom and Tech just to name two.)
 * I am on record expressing some controversial opinions and in my experience that's usually a show stopper at RfA.
 * I don't have a long list of interpersonal conflict on here though I have had a few spirited disagreements. I also have come out on the loosing end of some AfD and other discussions. So infallibility is not my strong suite. If you look at some of my early editing around the time I first discovered NPP you will either laugh or cringe. Neither of which is a good thing at RfA.
 * Lastly, I don't think I really want the job. My interest in it has declined at more or less the same pace as my understanding of what is involved has increased. It is very time consuming and requires inordinate amounts of patience as well as attention to detail. There is a very significant loss of freedom involved, to do what you want and spend your time working on things that interest you etc. And of course there is the abuse you take (damned if you do and damned if you don't).
 * In the end, I suspect that any nomination would end up as a SNOW close. To be honest, I'd be tempted to vote against myself. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I did already; it just didn't go so well. I'm considering taking another shot at it, because six months later, it's apparent that the reasons I didn't succeed were mostly manufactured by myself during the discussion. I noticed that there's something that hasn't been mentioned yet in this discussion: the need for a compelling reason to be an admin. I thought I did pretty well with my talk of gadgets and deletion, until one doesn't need to be an admin [if] one's focus is on "coding and bots" landed in the oppose section. I agree with clpo13's statement about the absurdly large range of possible oppose reasons, even though I didn't encounter many during my RfA. APerson (talk!) 20:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Me too. Didn't go well either. There's nothing that can be done about it, so I am gradually disengaging from Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:58, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And that's a loss for the project. But totally understandable. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you ask, I will be an administrator. I'll suffer through the RfA process. Right now, I'm not quite ready, but I'm very nearly; see here: User:Prhartcom/Adminship Best, Prhartcom (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * My reasons for not running are manifold. But the biggest issues, aside from real-world work obligations (that have seem to have grown over the last few years) is that:
 * I don't want the "whole bit", but am only interested in portions of the toolset (e.g Page Mover, maybe Page Protector, possibly RevDel – I'm ambivalent about having article deletion powers, and definitely don't want the hassel (or the power) of the "block" button).
 * I'm kind of philosophically opposed to the way the current system is run (i.e. with Admins with the bit eternally granted, and very little "unbundling" to subdivide tasks among more editors), and I kind of feel like running gives some moral sanction to that.
 * Then, of course, there's the pretty good chance that I wouldn't get through an RfA vote anyway, so the whole discussion is probably moot... And, also, I don't "feel" like I'm "ready" yet. Anyway, if the "community" unbundles more stuff, so editors like me can take "smaller bites" at the apple, then I'll be interested in pursuing that. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If my the answer to my question is so obvious,, then why can't we seem to find the answer to getting more admins? If the answer were so obvious, we should already be crafting the perfect reform. But we can't. Clerking, the reform that was supposed to be the crowning improvement, hasn't caused a spike in RfAs (although it was still a good change). So evidently, the old assumptions must be discarded. And for what it's worth, I have indeed used the tools I asked for in November. In January, most of my time here was dedicated to the RfCs. At the end of January, following the reform marathon, I had enough and took a much-needed break of about two months; I just somewhat returned from that break, and considering that life is still rather busy, I haven't yet resumed admin work. Of course, that does not mean that I never will—in fact, I almost certainly will. I did quite enjoy working at RFPP and RFPERM. And I am certainly not unfamiliar with "trolls"; a certain vandal once created usernames that were very crude parodies of my own, and of course I had to deal with completely relentless userpage and talk page vandals who posted various fables about me. Some diehard obsessives make a huge deal whenever I protect one of the pages they want to change according to their liking. But in any case, why does everything have to be turned into another opportunity to criticize me in one way or another? This is WT:RFA, not WT:BIBLIO. Let's discuss substance. Petty jabs at some other editor won't help fix Wikipedia's serious problems. Biblio (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not WT:BIBLIO, no, but if it's petty jabs you want, then you'll have to wait for a Nachfolger to the one admin hater that everyone else has tried to emulate but with rather less intelligence and without the immunity to being banned - then you'll understand why one needs a thick skin as an admin, and then you'll understand how and why RfA became a place where it was traditional for every one to be as spiteful as they like with total impunity; these are features of the catastrophe that you appear to have failed to recognise. If you're going to launch huge projects like RFA2015, then you need to expect and take some criticism. Not all the criticism is negative. I supported your project but I did keep trying to suggest that perhaps there might possibly be some improvements to the way you were going about it, but you chose more or less to infer that I should mind my own business as if I didn't have a clue about what's needed to improve RfA, but RFA2011 was a collaborative effort by a large team - no one, and certainly not I, thought they could change the world alone. It might have been 6 years ago, but it was run by many highly experience old-timers.


 * The home page at WP:RFA2015 started off well and very accurately reiterated the the issues already clearly identified and examined by RFA2011 and supported by huge amounts of raw data. The only reason we abandoned the project was the harassment, which has also been confirmed and discussed here in the archives of WT:RfA. Unsurprisingly, he project's detractors were among those who still perform their possible inapropriate comments on RfAs today knowing that they can't be taken to task for it because they are not allowed to discuss RfA on an RfA or even here at WT:RfA.Clerking RfC was a total failure. It was rejected by the community in the first few votes of the very first section. All that RfC did was confirm in writing the ad hoc clerking that been being done for decades already, and telling the 'crats that they are allowed to do what they should have been doing anyway, and still don't. I've just spent an hour reading the whole thing again - three times. And still no one dares to properly address the core issue. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Clerking could never really fix major issues while RfA structure remains as it is. Theoretically it is supposed to be a discussion, but in practice it is all about whether oppose section builds up enough negative weight to sink whole thing, and clerking in whatever form ain't gonna fix that. But obviously chances for major reform actually gaining sufficient consensus are miniscule at best, so rearranging some deckchairs seems to be the best that can be realistically achieved.--Staberinde (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't especially want to do admin tasks, and am probably not best suited to most of them as I'm weak on technical stuff like templates. I think my efforts here are far more usefully directed at content-writing, so that's what I do. These days I spend most of my time improving longstanding but inadequate articles that get high views - I wish more people did this. I would not be especially concerned by the Rfa process - I have certainly, rightly and wrongly, upset many people over the years, but with 157K edits to search, I doubt many will find the smoking guns. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I did some time ago under my previous username and it was deemed that WP:NOTNOW applied. I also unsuccessfully ran for ArbCom last year as well, mainly because I was an unknown entity and many of voters were neutral towards me. When the community feels that I'm ready to serve as an admin, I'll throw my name in (or have someone do so for me). I do feel I'd serve well here as an admin overall, and have been working on a few article and the usual vandal clean up in the mean time (and AfD work as well). RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I consider myself an experienced editor, and I doubt anyone seriously thinks I'd be likely to misuse the admin tools if I had them available to be used. That said, I was nominated for adminship once upon a time, accepted the nomination, got a little giddy about it and mentioned the nomination to, I believe, fewer than five people here who I'd worked with in the past, and subsequently screwed my own pooch as the situation was perceived as WP:CANVASSING (it's not clear to me how my RfA might have panned out if that hadn't become a dominating issue). I grant that some of the "before you run" documentation mentions that what I did should be considered a no-no, but I also think it could be argued that while I made a stupid mistake there, it's not one that necessarily demonstrates I'm incapable of handling the admin toolset responsibly. In case any of this sounds defensive: I acknowledge that I made a stupid mistake. Again, it was a stupid mistake on my part.
 * That said, the experience was a bit bruising (not severely so), and if I were to ever consider running again, which I would, again, only do if someone else thought it was a good idea, I'd (obviously) be a bit more cautious in my approach to the situation. Ironically, I believe it was less than a week after my RfA failed that someone suggested I run again. Go figure.
 * If this all comes across as sour grapes or what-not, I would point out that I'm only bringing it up because the initial post begs the question. DonIago (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I haven't applied because the RfA process is a huge hassle, and I'm not sure I'd use the tools very much. I don't even know what I'd do as an administrator. Is there some sort of mentoring program for new admins (or those considering being admins)? I believe in the project, and I'd like to help, but after 11 years here, I still don't really know what admin tasks are in demand or where I could best help out. --Coemgenus (talk) 14:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I find the idea of going through RFA very unappealing. It would (afaics) mean spending 1-2 weeks of my wikitime doing things like answering questions (e.g. hypothetical questions about areas I have no experience of and no immediate plans to work in) and justifying why my percentage of edits of specific types is outside the range of the "ideal admin" - with no guarantee that I'd pass (the "only actors can hold the keys to the theatre" brigade would oppose). Under Kudpung's criteria each edit I make in Mainspace makes me less suitable as an admin (as it reduces the % of my edits in Talk/Wikipedia namespace) - how does that make sense? DexDor(talk) 21:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A careful examination of my criteria,  will  reveal two things: they  are extremely flexible and the different items can balance each other out as can be quite clearly seen when compared with  the way  I actually  use them in my  votes. Secondly, a rough  comparison will find that my criteria are not very wide of the mark that is generally practiced by the experienced editors who take the RfA process seriously and have published their criteria. These criteria have not  been sharpened since the times when when RfA was more commonplace. The data mining  done at  WP:RFA2011 showed however a very  interesting  trend - the majority  of RfA voters are a transient  tranche of editors and it is those who  vote only  once on  an RfA, or very  rarely, who demand ridiculously high figures of tenure and/or edits, or who  make inappropriate or untenable oppose votes. And this kind of thing  still continues today. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The reviewer userright autoprecludes me regaining adminship. Only when reviewer is dissociated from sysop or PC is removed from en.wp will I try again. — Jeremy  v^_^v  Bori! 00:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think about running (again) occasionally. I am not concerned about the process, the "grilling" candidates get or anything like that. What deters me is the effort / reward ratio. What's it worth to me to be an admin v's how much effort do I need to put in to convince the various WP factions that I should be? I have been here a long time with very few gaps, I believe I have added valuable content over the years but it isn't an FA or bunch of GAs (e.g., Annie Warren Gill) and I certainly know technically how to operate the administrator tools safely. However, I don't want to "scrape through" the process - if I don't have broad support, I don't want to be an admin here - and I don't want to spend months building the impression that I am someone I'm not by trying to create an FA or work in areas that I'm not interested in. I am happy to help but if I'm going to have to fight tooth and nail to convince people that I should be allowed to help, well, life's too short. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I am basically completely retired now (no time for regular WP editing, due to RL responsibilities), so the question raised here is not relevant to me now. At the time I was active, I never seriously wanted to be an admin, it just never appealed to me. I suspect that even if I had the bit I would have almost never used it (with the exception of one area, discussed below). For a while I was active at the AfD, but even then I was much more interested in participating in AfD discussions rather than in closing them. The only admin-related right that I ever had an interest in having was blocking IP vandals. It's quite frustrating having to repeatedly revert an IP vandal, file a report at AIV and then wait until an admin shows up to issue a 24 or 31 hour block. Nowadays I usually simply don't do this and leave it to someone else to handle the situation even when I see obvious vandalism, simply because I usually don't have 10-15 free time necessary to chaperone a particular page until the vandal is blocked or the page is protected. If the tools were unbundled and the ability to issue short term blocks to IP vandals became a part of a separate small package, I might consider applying for that. But I had and still have almost zero interest in any other rights that adminship entails. Nsk92 (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm certainly never going to submit to all that bullshit again.— S Marshall T/C 14:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if your definition of "experienced" includes me. I would like to become an admin sometime (if the tools don't get completely unbundled before then). I don't think I would succeed right now. I have about eleven months of experience, I don't create much content, and I have used Huggle for a bunch of edits. I don't understand why those last two points matter, but they seem to for a lot of RFA !voters. KSF  T C 20:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Awareness
A call for them to come forward speaks only to those who are watching this page. Those people already have RfA in their mind.

How about an advert in that above-the-watchlist spot, or somewhere, encouraging qualified users to add their names at Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll after reading WP:RFA42? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

And we have ads for all kinds of things. Why not Admin awareness? We have:


 * Join Wikiproject XXXXX
 * Help with copyright issues
 * Participate in Article rescue
 * Fight vandalism
 * Project redirect
 * Send money because Harvard's 38 billion endowment makes our measly 75 million look like rubbish.

Okay, I'm not sure we have that last one. I possibly made it up.

So, why not? An influx of new admins is important, right? Just as important as copyvio participation, etc.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Sounds like a good idea. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be That Editor, but oppose. The ads you link to above are banners which individual users can choose to put at the top of their userpages to promote things about which they feel strongly—basically just slightly bigger userboxes. They're not general sitenotices, which should be reserved for a very limited number of issues which have significant impact on the readership (principally related to fundraising), or watchlistnotices which are only displayed to logged-on editors if and when they check their watchlists, but which are largely ignored as clutter and which already display an advert for RFA whenever there's one running. The precedent of allowing a section of the project which is of very marginal importance to most readers to use the watchlist to promote itself is not a good one, since it would lead to completely reasonable complaints from every other process suffering from a lack of new blood and a perception among onlookers that it's dominated by a clique of obsessive weirdos (WP:FAC and WP:AFD spring to mind, but I'm sure everyone reading this can think of half a dozen examples without trying) that if RFA is allowed to colonize watchlists in this fashion to try to recruit participants, so should they, and everyone's watchlist would end up looking like the world's worst lonely hearts column. If you want to get people who are engaged with Wikipedia but not engaged with a particular process, write an article for the Signpost and solicit comments at the end. &#8209; Iridescent 01:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Then how about using the top third of the Main Page? Okay, points taken and good points too. Would there be any place you could suggest to bring awareness? We do have 75 mil. Highway billboards? Seriously, though. Suggestions (other than Signpost)? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Off the top of my head, an automated mailing sent to every editor on the second anniversary of their first edit, provided they have at least 5000 edits in the meantime; that should reach people new enough not to have developed an jaundiced view altogether, but experienced enough to offer opinions on the process, and by only spamming each editor once in their entire wikihistory it wouldn't overwhelm any one editor, and by doing it on the anniversary it would mean the notifications would be a gentle trickle rather than a flood and wouldn't overwhelm watchlists. If you explicitly want the views of editors who've been around the block a few times, you could try working your way through WP:WBFAN spamming everyone who's not already an admin, but be aware that would rouse some of Wikipedia's grumpiest sleeping dragons. If you don't mind sifting the legitimate comments from the crazy, posting at whatever Wikipedia Review/Wikipedocracy is calling itself today would likely get you some intelligent input. Your (plural) basic problem isn't that the majority of editors are hostile, it's that they don't care, and those that do care about adminship are often those least likely to be suitable. (As a thought experiment, if you were a judge how seriously would you take someone who turned up at your courthouse unasked, begging for you to put him on jury duty because he likes listening to endless legal arguments, and thinks he'd be good at sending people to jail?) &#8209; Iridescent 02:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi Iridescent. Automated mailing, eh? I like that! And I'd be happy to spam those at WP:WBFAN. Anyone want to join a mini-project at one of my sandboxes to do that? We could share the dragon fire. Bring gauze.


 * Wikipediocracy? No way. That's one lair I dare not enter.


 * By the way, months a ago I posted at dozens of wikiprojects advertising the opinion poll page. It did well. I will do another round in a few months.


 * About your thought experiment: Point taken. Here's the flipside. If you were a populace, how would you feel about someone who turned up unasked, begging them for a gavel and cuffs? I guess that's why dear Kudpung has such a distaste for the ...hopes to be one someday crowd. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * How did you guess, ? Yes, anyone who joins Wikipedia with the immediate and main intention of wanting to police the project is either a power hungry troll who can't get his own way in RL, or just someone who desperately needs something to brag about in the schoolyard.  'I'm an admin, and I'm alright'  - sung to the tune of The Lumberjack Song... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would fit that tune very well. "Lumberjack" has three syllables and "admin" only has two. :-) Deb (talk) 09:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Mine's an admin acc and I'm alright, block all day and delete all night.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * :) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Conditional support, providing and only providing that this is not shown indiscriminately to users who cannot even be called editors yet. <span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience  t 02:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Favour Iridescent's slow-motion mass mailing, if technically possible. The protocol would have to be drawn up and implemented with great care, in the light of what happened with last year's Arbcom election notice... <b style="color:seagreen">Noyster</b> (talk),  10:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * (ec) Signpost articles are effective at getting an additional handful of admins. I and others have done that a few times over the years and most of the brief rallies at RFA link to that. I don't think there has been one in a while, so that could make a small contribution. I like the ideas above of watchlist notices and wikibirthday posts, but they need to be targeted. You can do watchlist notices targeted by geography, I don't know if you can do them to people with more than x edits etc, but there needs to be some targeting. Pretty much anyone who uses their watchlist would be welcome to !vote at RFA, but very few will be ready to run. There may be as few as a thousand editors currently out there who could pass RFA if they ran this month, so only a miniscule proportion of the editors who look at their watchlists could pass RFA. Targeted WikiBirthday notes are be a brilliant idea, but they do need appropriate messages, for some that might be encouragement to try DYK or GAC, for others the wikilibrary. Only for a small minority would the appropriate message be "have you considered adminship?".  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed; what you need to be very careful with anything selectively targeted, is not to give the "You're reading this because we think you're ready" impression. If you succeed in getting a hundred new people to run at RFA, but all of them are obvious no-hopers, you risk ripping the heart out of Wikipedia altogether as it would not only discourage and demoralise a generation of editors, but would mean anyone looking at RFA for the first time will see a long row of people being shot down in flames, and also that the current participants would get bored nursemaiding a procession of well-intentioned but clueless newcomers and wander off to do something else. &#8209; Iridescent 12:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * One advantage of doing it through targeted, personalised Wikibirthday messages is that if the wording or targeting is off you can tweak it before it does too much damage. Only 2% of editors will normally have a wikibirthday in any one week, and at the start of such a program it would probably make sense only to message a proportion of them. And of course any mention of RFA needs to be a softsell "We are running short of administrators, if you might be willing to become one, now or in the future, here is a guide to what RFA !voters look for and here is a list of nominators looking for candidates to nominate".  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd go further than that, and make it more an "advanced Wikipedia primer" than specifically about RFA. "You've been with us for some time now, here are some other aspects of Wikipedia you may not be aware of": RFA, FAC, ITN, AE, DYK, FAR, AFD and all the rest of the alphabet soup, with a two-line summary of what each part does and why they want new people. That way, people with no interest in the RFA process might still find it of value, and it would be less likely to cause "If RFA is allowed to send out spam, we want to send some as well" complaints. If all the semi-moribund fiefdoms were forced to write justifications of their existence and to prepare for an influx of new blood, it might even prompt the streamlining of processes project-wide which we've been postponing for a decade. &#8209; Iridescent 17:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC) (adding) What we definitely need to be careful of if we go down any kind of mailshot route, is any suggestion of "we think you're ready", since even a mailshot targeted only at people with 100,000+ edits and 10 years experience is going to go to a lot of inappropriate people. (WP:List of Wikipedians by number of edits could be retitled WP:List of creepy lunatics with only minimal changes necessary.) The same goes for most aspects of the project; WP:GA isn't going to thank us if we point a large number of "promote, this topic is cool" types who happen to have racked up the requisite number of edits on Huggle in their direction. &#8209; Iridescent 17:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes agree with much of that. Not convinced that all of us with >100,000 edits are unsuitable for adminship - but having been in the support column for at least two such unsuccessful RFAs I appreciate I'm in the minority there. I think we can reduce the risk of any one area being swamped with new input by promoting lots of different areas of the pedia, and some careful work to only promote things that the person is ready for and isn't already involved in. But most importantly the message needs to be written so that it isn't damaging if it accidentally goes to the wrong person.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  16:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Just to let you know, if this gets off the ground, I am at your service for any work that needs to be done. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think awareness is the problem. Few who have been here long enough to have a reasonable shot at passing are unaware of administrators and the things they do. The Ivy League doesn't need to send out indiscriminate mass mailings to find enough qualified candidates. Gifted athletes get recruited. I'm not sure the optional RfA candidate poll is helping either. Note the first response there to our current candidate: "..personally think you'd be a solid addition to the admin corps but I'm pretty sure you'd currently fail at RfA because of your lack of participation at XfD and more generally lack of experience in admin-related areas." Order of the Arrow candidates don't volunteer; they are tapped in a call-out ceremony, and few who are tapped decline to go through the Ordeal. I suspect willingness to go through our Ordeal might be a function of the nominee's trust in the nominator's judgement. Yes, I passed that boy scout Ordeal, many, many years ago. wbm1058 (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, don't make the mistake that because you know about something, other people must know about it. There's significant evidence, both anecdotal and empirical, that many, possibly most, regular Wikipedia editors have no idea about the existence of aspects of Wikipedia other people take for granted—one only has to look at the spikes WSC alludes to when RFA has been publicised in the past. This page relates to an attempt to publicise Arbcom to existing long-term users, rather than RFA, but it's noteworthy how many long-term and otherwise apparently well-engaged editors were unaware of the existence of what's arguably Wikipedia's most high-profile process—RFA doesn't have Arbcom's luxury of a solid month of unsuppressible banner ads every year, nor near permanent discussion on multiple high-profile pages, nor of invariably being at the end of the "See Also" chain from every policy page, but I doubt more than one editor in 50 could name three current arbs. (All you have to do is watch WP:TFAR, Talk:Main Page or WP:ITN/C for a while to see how many long-term editors are unaware of how equally high-profile functions operate, or even that there are formal processes for such things as quality control, or seemingly basic concepts like "IAR doesn't mean you can go on a vandalism spree without consequences" and "we don't delete articles because you don't consider the topic interesting".) I don't know where you're getting "few who are tapped decline" from; in my experience most people who have RFA suggested to them are horrified at the idea and instantly decline. &#8209; Iridescent 16:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that you (Iridescent) and Wbm1058 are actually somewhat in agreement, not disagreeing. I thought he was saying that it's not that people don't know about administrators, and the fact that people who might make it through RfA or be good Admins don't choose to run is because it isn't seen as a positive step (your last sentence).  Maybe I'm misreading both sides? -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, re-read us; he's saying that people are aware of RFA and choose not to run, and I'm saying that there's a sizeable fraction who are either unaware of the existence of admins and think WP is run like a bulletin board with a flat structure aside from a handful of moderators, or are aware of admins but have no idea where they come from, and if pressed would probably guess that they were old-timers appointed by Jimmy Wales whenever he deems it necessary. (We really don't do ourselves any favors with the "Wikipedia is Jimbo's word incarnate" advertising in which the WMF engages. I understand why they do it—it's good from a fundraising perspective for the donors to think they're supporting kindly Jimmy from Huntsville in his basement, than a multi-million dollar corporation in San Francisco—but it means the readers have a tendency to assume Wikipedia is Jimmy's hobbyist site with the assistance of a few of his friends.) &#8209; Iridescent 18:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Apples & Oranges. Sure, a lot of rank-and-file editors are not aware of RfA. Advertise to them, for the purpose of increasing participation (!voter turnout). But, if you're looking for successful candidates, they are almost universally aware of this project page. General awareness advertising for candidates will just lead to more WP:SNOW-falls. Of those who are aware, and could pass, there are two general types: (1) those who simply do not want the job, and (2) those who lack the confidence in their chances and are hesitant to ask. There is a reason that potentially successful candidates are aware – they are at least occasionally using Nac or RMnac or the speedy deletion templates. In other words, they are asking for administrator assistance, and importantly, their wishes are being granted most of the time because they are valid requests. These are the folks we need to reach out and tap. They need to have confidence in their nominator's judgement; we stub ourselves in the foot by calling out editors who end up in 'crat chats – or worse. – wbm1058 (talk) 18:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd encourage anybody interested in writing an op-ed for The Signpost. Kharkiv07  ( T ) 00:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As someone with much experience in RfA matters (please don't be deceived by raw "experience" statistics), I'd be willing to do so, if I can find the time. I'm not making any promises, though. I did write an op-ed for the Signpost last year. Biblio (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

What went wrong, and why the reforms aren't working
Up until about 6 months ago, the environment at RfA seemed to be improving but now (1) might be right after all. According to ' chart, last month closed with the lowest number of promotions ever for Q1, predicting only 8 new admins for 2016. Not only did those recent reforms (or their proposals) initiated by (who appears to have all but abandoned Wikipedia in the aftermath) not address the core issue of RfA, but  they  appear to have enhanced them and even caused some new, negative trends to develop. The concerns raised here by are very real. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC) Re: "A few tools? I'm interested. Admining, and everything that comes with it?! Pass, with prejudice", and "I can see people not wanting to become admins because it is a 'serious' thing with very little (if any) upside." – Exactly. There are real reasons (aside from little knots of grudge-bearers collected over the years) that many long-term editors like me have no interest in adminship. I'm very happy and very productive as a template-editor, and welcome further unbundling of tools, post haste. The vast majority of the tasks admins do could and should be doable by any experienced, competent, and uninvolved editor. Our fifteen-year experiment in creating an echelon of "first-class editors" has clearly run its course. It's absurd that we have backlogs for things as trivial as moving pages over redirects, and moving categories. Any logged-in editor in good standing should be empowered to delete a page for which an XfD concluded with consensus to delete, as long as they're willing to do the attendant cleanup work. This entire notion that the very tool of deletion is unbelievably dangerous (hint: it's not, and can be undone) that no one can have it unless we also trust them with everything else, including the ability to block people and issue indef topic bans, is absurd. It's no different from observing that it is technically possible to kill someone with a fork, and concluding that, therefore, no one but on-duty police officers and military personnel should be permitted to touch eating utensils. Time to get real. This is not working any longer, and it has not been in a very long time. Most of the qualified people know enough to stay away, and most of the candidates are inexperienced and want to be admins for all the wrong reasons. Adminship (for those who actually do the work, instead of just lording it over the dramaboards 24/7) is a grueling, thankless pile of never-ending busywork because all the wrong things are made admin tasks, burning out admins, and making a worse and worse bottleneck with each passing day. Continuing with the present system is like stubbornly insisting that the only proper way to deliver mail is by some guy on horseback. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I still stand by my sentiment that these changes, while at face value "unthinkable" and the savior of RfA, have done more harm than good. All advertising is going to do is attract more of the guild of trolls and the sock embroidery who attack with much folly the candidates and participants. Even editors with exactly zero edits are being invited to vote on a discussion as serious as a RfA, and all in an attempt to "increase participation"? All the other changes are slightly positive but pretty minor. Yet this has let the filibustering and drama that plagues every RfA pass without a second thought. <span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience  t 03:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Some might call User:Esquivalience's past actions those of an establishment troll. He/she seems to prefer a cabal?Juan Riley (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Assumes facts not in evidence. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Likely unrelated to RfA 2015. Frankly, people should be even more alarmed by the pittance numbers of people resysopping so far in 2016. This keeps up, and I'm pretty sure further unbundling will be the only solution. Because, at this point, nothing is going to make admining or RfA any more appealing to anyone... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To be blunt, the use of the phrase "as serious as a RfA" is part of the problem in my opinion. Wikipedia is supposed to be a fun hobby. Something you do in your spare time because it is enjoyable. When it becomes too serious, when it becomes a chore to come here, it is time to leave. Users don't want that, and I can see people not wanting to become admins because it is a "serious" thing with very little (if any) upside. Why would people want to put themselves though a RfA just to get a few extra buttons when they know that getting the mop puts a target on their backs? Then you have the people that oppose for the smallest reasons that have no bearing on the overall question of RfA. What is the probability that the person will abuse the tools? That is what RfA should answer. If you believe the probability is low, you should support. It should be as simple as that. Requiring that candidates become a jack of all trades is only limiting the number of people that would want to become admins. Why would someone that wants to maintain requested moves need a 70+% success rate at AfD? Then there are the ridiculously high standards that is a hallmark of RfA. If you don't have 15,000+ edits and 2 years, good luck, and so help you if you use semi-automated editing programs. The seriousness that RfA has evolved into will be its downfall. The vast majority of people just don't want to put themselves through that to get a few extra buttons and no amount of reform is going to change that. --Majora (talk) 03:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep. A few tools? I'm interested. Admining, and everything that comes with it?! Pass, with prejudice. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:02, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see the watchlist notice or any of the other reforms having any negative effect at all. RfAs are subject to a huge range of factors (like other jobs people do in real life). Biblio still being around (or not) is also neither here nor there. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Re: "This keeps up, and I'm pretty sure further unbundling will be the only solution" – At which point hundreds of us will say "about damned time, since we've been saying this for 10 years".
 * It's on my mental 'To Do' to look into a technical solution (e.g. a userright) for the "move over redirect" issue to make a "Page mover" bundling a viable option, but I ain't gonna try and tackle that until my work settles down between May and August! But the recent backlogs at WP:RM may even be enough to move consensus in favor of spinning off "Page mover" rights... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think a page mover userrights that allowed move over redirect, movesubpages, move without redirect, noratelimits, would probably find approval. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 18:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For whatever it's worth, I agree with this (unbundling the toolset). I can absolutely guarantee I would not have attempted an RFA if the climate in 2008 was like it is now. All I ever wanted to do as an admin was be able to block the idiots I saw on my vandal patrols instead of having to keep reverting their edits until some other admin got around to it, help with the CSD and RFPP backlogs, and be able to do the technical things mentioned above (btw, hi xeno! It's been a while). And that's all I really ever did after I passed my RFA. And I passed 111-0-0 even though I had only been active for like 10 months then! (I actually almost passed after only 5 months) I would argue there's a fair amount of people who pretty much only desire admin rights for the reasons that I did, and they would never stand a chance at today's RFA. I personally think the reason people don't apply is because the standards are far too high and while I do agree being an admin is not a completely trivial thing, I think that the climate in RFA since around the middle of 2009 has made it out to be far, far more of a big deal than it actually is. Just my $0.02 as apparently my opinion on this is in the minority and I don't have enough free time any more to do much on wiki like I used to. Thingg <sup style="color:#33ff00;">&#8853; <sup style="color:#ff0033;">&#8855;  03:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * @, Oh yes, oh please, ASAP.  The only adjustment for this, really, will be a need to revise RM rules and procedure to clarify against move-warring with this bit, and that's not really new, just a remind to not be a jerk. I don't think it would be a problem for more than an initial very short spat of people misusing it and having that hat removed from their collection, just as template-editor has not been problematic and is quickly removed from people who abuse it or who aren't really competent and were just collecting. We don't see protracted editwars over template parameters (the closest to one I've been in in half a decade was bold / revert with no rationale / unrevert with rationale / revert with rationale / discussion). And movesubpages should be an automatic default function of moving, period; it's completely ridiculous that we have to manually move these things after the fact, and this often causes breakage because people don't do it (especially talk page archives and template documentation/sandbox/testcases). Autofixing of double-redirs would be nice, too, though I gather there's a bot doing this these days.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  11:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Let's workshop it! Please see Page mover and leave your comments at Wikipedia talk:Page mover (or just go ahead and edit your suggestions in). –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 23:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC) hi thingg! blast from the past!


 * The reports of my wikideath are greatly exaggerated. I have not abandoned the place, although I was on a long break. It is not a crime to take breaks; it is in fact encouraged for those who are burned out. I'm quite glad that I'm not an unfortunate addict who is unable to pull away when they want to; I only edit here because sometimes I have free time and I choose to edit in that free time—but if I want to, I can just simply stop and do other things in life. Granted, I have come back with a vastly different perspective and opinion concerning Wikipedia governance; I now understand that overall, in all aspects, it has grave flaws that must be fixed if Wikipedia is to last and be at least a somewhat respectable website (i.e., not one that academics utterly disrespect and mock).
 * On the issue of RfA (which, in the future, I will likely put much less emphasis upon in favor of more important issues), I quite honestly do not appreciate having my hard reform work downplayed and marginalized—that actually happens to be one of the things about this place that I find most discouraging: the complete lack of appreciation and the constant attempts to minimize the true extent of someone's sincere efforts to do what's best (evidently, on that matter, things haven't changed any since I left for my break!). In fact, it's being insinuated that I made things worse. This is what I get for attempting to effect change—heckling for taking a break and then blame for the lack of RfAs? Outrageous. For example, one of the pet ideas of the widely acclaimed RFA2011 was clerking; in RFA2015, we finally succeeded in getting it at least partially implemented by way of 'crat clerking. But when its implementation failed to cause an immediate surge, certain ones who wholeheartedly supported reform suddenly jump ship and blame the proposer and their reforms for all the problems. Does anyone see the irony? Biblio (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Plenty of us appreciate the efforts.  From my perspective, a major failing has been the clerking/moderation. In every RfA I've participated in lately, there has been extensive and largely unchecked blatant lobbying, almost the point of needling, to get people to change their oppose votes. It's very off-putting about the whole process. If opposers lobbied supporters to switch sides like that, they'd probably get immediate blocks. The overall impression is "there's an unspoken but official new rule that all candidates who are not totally new, totally stupid, or totally crazy must pass at all costs, even if there's no evidence they're actually competent to do even 1/10 of what they're asking for tools to do."  But that's not your fault, and not a problem caused by attempts at RfA reform, it's just a symptom of desperation by defenders of a failing system who will not embrace enough change to make it viable again. It's rather like bribing the provost at a private school to accept your kid as student even though they badly failed the entrance exams.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * +1 on the appreciation for Biblio part. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:50, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The numbers this last quarter were indeed very bad - the longterm decline continues and hasn't looked this bad since October 2014. But I'm not convinced that the latest reforms have been counterproductive, and in particular I think the watchlist notice worked well; It clearly brought in extra !voters, and in combination with the question cap, not so many as to make the process unmanageable. Hopefully some of those new RFA !voters will be running RFAs in the next year or so. RFA relies on a number of variables, one is the pool of people who could pass RFA if they ran, another is that subset of that pool who have started to consider RFA. It was several months from when I first !voted at RFA to when I first ran, so I see the extra RFA !voters as a big plus and a group of people who are much more likely to run RFAs when they feel they are ready. On a broader note, the nearest we have to a measure of the pool of potential RFA applicants is the measure of people saving 100 edits a month in mainspace (yup there will be people who aren't in that group who could pass and others in that group who couldn't - but it is an available measure and the nearest we have to RFA ready). The 2015 rally in core editors has now lasted 14 months; Too early to say whether the community is in a new expansionary phase or has merely stabilised at slightly more than the 2013/14 minima, but long enough to say it is no longer declining. Providing we can avoid further unhelpful "standards inflation" I'm hoping that RFA will stabilise and after a lag of a year or two, follow the rally in core editors.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  10:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd like to throw in my two cents here. The advertisements I think are really helpful. I had lurked around RFA for a while but rarely !voted because it seemed like a rather uninviting old boys club. As a new editor (and at one year, still on the younger side), I didn't think my opinion would matter or be welcome. But the watchpage notices especially gave me the impression that input is wanted and that it's not that old boys club (or at least is trying not to be), so I actually feel comfortable participating in discussions. I think these notices are not only bringing in fresh blood but also helping the place to seem less bite-y. I personally have experienced the benefits and have very high hopes for it in the future. Wugapodes (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * ,you can probably put it down to my penchant for putting 2 and 2 together and invarably coming up with 4; let's face it, I'm known for making sweeping statements and jumping to conclsions, bit t let's put it this way: if yesterday in the whole of England all the streets were empty and not a single wheeled vehicle ventured down the roads for the entire 24 hours, we would probably assume it had something to do with the date and something to do with English people. It would leave us all scratching our heads to find the connections but neverteless it would have been an extremely odd concourse of circumstances. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The equivalent though would be looking at the English Wikipedia editing population and the calendar. With your analogy, the RfA changes are more akin to sending out handbills advertising the driver licensing exam, and changes to the examination process. Although these are potential factors, there are many larger issues—the costs and hassles of driving, for example. In a similar manner, in Wikipedia, contentiousness amongst editors makes administrative work unappealing. Any change to the nature of a large group collaboration will take time to take hold, and so seeds sown today are going to take time to develop, and how much they grow is highly dependent on how well they are nurtured by the community. isaacl (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Need to delegate tools to our old editors...I would love to help-out with some admin stuff (like page movies, copyright violations etc..)but have no interest in being called an admin or being involved in all the drama that comes along with being an admin. Need to give tools to our old timers that have more experience then many admins do. -- Moxy (talk) 17:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Stay away from WP:CESSPIT and don't put yourself in any of the "Wikipedia administrators willing to..." categories and you'll be fine. —Cryptic 18:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's all well and good once you are an admin, but there are still a significant number of RFA voters who expect all admin hopefuls to arbitrate disputes and create good or featured articles, activities that don't need the tools. A good chunk of Widr's opposers said just as much (especially SMcCandlish and Wehwalt). It's all a bit discouraging to those of us who only want to block obvious vandals or other non-controversial admin activities. It's only once you become an admin that you can hide from the drama, it seems. clpo13(talk) 18:23, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The "must have a GA or FA" faction have repeatedly failed to get traction. Widr got a very clear pass at RFA without either a GA or FA, and not all of his opposes were for that lack, at least two wanted some level of contributions between his hundreds of referenced stubs and a GA. "Good Vandalfighter" is insufficient to pass RFA, it used to be enough in 2007, but since early 2008 you have had to do something to build the pedia as well as defending it.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  18:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's just what I mean, though. Anyone can build the encyclopedia. The only legitimate reason to seek admin tools is if you need them to help defend the project (by blocking users, protecting/deleting pages, etc.). Anyways, I'm getting off-topic. My reasons for being wary of RFA aren't everyone's reasons. clpo13(talk) 18:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Aren't admins also involved in resolving content disputes? That would be a reason to seek content contribution from an admin candidate, in my understanding. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * True, but admins are mainly involved in maintenance tasks. Although admins should at least know what content editors need of them (e.g. non-firm adherence to policies and guidelines, especially in protection and other content-related matters), a key factor in admin candidates should be trust; if a maintenance editor can be trusted not to handle content disputes, then there is probably little risk in giving them the tools. <span style="color: #33BBFF; font-family:Lato, monospace'">Esquivalience  t 19:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The only legitimate reason for holding the tools is if you are a content creator. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:32, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please explain. How do the tools help write articles? clpo13(talk) 20:46, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since many admins with strong content building experience end up forgoing these activities as they get involved in more admin tasks like CSDs, AFDs RPP and so on, I would think that you wouldn't want to lose solid writers to the mundane, mop-oriented responsibilities. Liz  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman;"><b style="color:#006400;">Read!</b> <b style="color:#006400;">Talk!</b> 21:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , I hope that that was a belated April Fools joke. If not, though, it is fortunate that few RfA participants hold that opinion. There are some (many?) of us who have little business creating content, but who perform other important tasks around the project anyway. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 16:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Because content work is not important? Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Content work" is important, but there's a reason university janitors aren't required to have Ph.D.'s. The assumption that every Admin is going to wade into complex RfC's or GA or FA work is a dangerous one. The fact is, we don't need all Admins to do that, and there are plenty of Admin and Admin-wannabes who have no interest in that, and would rather stick to playing whack-a-mole with sockpuppets and IP trolls – those guys don't need to understand every complexity of "content work" to be useful to the project. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have said "other important tasks". Is my meaning clearer now? ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do have a PhD. The fact is that I would rather do the WP:UAA and WP:RFPP work myself. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:45, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * That's not enough. The fact that you're an admin means that you get dragged to ANI and the like for "enabling" other editors. For everyone else, a block is the most worse-case punishment, for an admin the threats of desysopping or dragging you into Arbcom. Even basic things like closing discussions (or just relisting discussions) have nonsensical fights nowadays. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


 * In that case,, do you believe the RfA process should be entirely discontinued? If you do not, have you any reform ideas that would be any better or more effective? Biblio (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * , you are fully aware of where I stand on these two questions, so I don't understand why you are asking them here. Unless it's intended as a conversation piece. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:15, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I may have an idea, but it would require some people with technical know how's to setup. We could create an external interface, some where on toollabs perhaps, when users OAuth into this interface to !vote.  Here's the condition.  Users cannot see other user's !votes, until they have !voted themselves, or forfeited their !vote.  In other words, once they are allowed to see how others have !voted, then they can no longer change their !vote.  They are given the option to not see other users' to be allowed to change their own !vote.  Other users who can see !votes, may then choose to comment on other users' !votes.  Leaking information before the RfA is over is to be considered forbidden, reverted, and revdel'd.  Bureaucrats have the inherent access to see all !votes, and to close and/or extend the RFA.  Once closed, the interface prints the RfA to an RFA subpage in the standard format. This would eliminate a lot of the blind me too votes cast by inexperienced users, and encourages every !voter, to do their own research on the candidate.  Also because users are now required login via OAuth, it screens out sock puppets, IPs, and new users likely trying to be anonymous.  I can say as a developer, it's definitely a feasible task to do.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-13.5ex;color:\#FF8C00;font-family:Comic Sans MS"><span style="color:\#FF8C00">Chat:Limited Access 03:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We already have the basis of what you are suggesting with WP:SecurePoll. The only difference is that method doesn't show the vote tally, just that you voted. --Majora (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Except that because RfA is still a discussion, users should still be able to discuss a vote. We'd need something new.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-11ex;color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Chat:Offline 04:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Rather than turning RfA into more of a vote and less of a discussion we should instead agree as a community on actual criteria. We want people to sway each others opinion, that is what makes it a discussion. If we let AfD run like RfA we would have people voting "Keep I think garage bands are cool" and "Delete I don't like their music, they should not get an article". Instead we expect people to justify their opinion based on criteria the community arrived at, and if they don't their opinion is given less weight in the close.

Allowing people to oppose or support for any damn reason one reason why people are afraid of RfA. There is no clear target to aim for as a candidate. <b style="color:Black">HighInBC</b> 04:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If that is in response to my suggestion, then let me clarify that I'm not suggesting removing the discussion part of it. I'm suggesting that this will force !voters to do actual research on the candidate to make an informed decision and will easily those who blindly vote without reason to.  Any user can still discuss another user's vote.—cyberpower <sub style="margin-left:-11ex;color:red;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Chat:Offline 04:14, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If someone wants their vote to be seen all they have to do is "discuss" it. Also we can't lock in votes, people need to be able to change their mind if new information or arguments come forward. <b style="color:Black">HighInBC</b> 04:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

RfA reform won't happen so long as the community gives so much social status to admins. The technical abilities gained by admins are significant, but not powerful; all can be reverted easily. To me, the most important ability given to admins is viewing deleting content, since there is no logging or accountability for this. The problem is the social status that admins get, such as closing discussions and threatening blocks with little/no potential consequence.

The solution to dispelling the social status isn't clear, but I can think of two things that might help. 1. Lower the barrier for participation. Make RfAs pass at 60%. It's just sysop tools, really. 2. Have a confirmation system for admins, whereby anyone can start a request for confirmation during a normal, entrenched process, once or twice a year. If an editor has a problem with how an admin is using the bit, they can start a discussion, and if there is consensus to remove then the sysop can be removed. This means that admins are less entrenched, and people don't need to rely on an arbcom decision or inactivity to get rid of them. While we're at it, no more re-sysopping after going inactive - make them go through another RfA.

In general, we need to get more "part-time" editors involved. Wikipedia is not a job, and admins shouldn't be expected to spend their lives here - a surprising number of people don't seem to understand this. But in the real world, changing the structure of a system can change the outcome; we need some of that on here, I think. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with your initial point that some parts of the community give too high a status to admins. I also agree that our expectations in a volunteer community should be of a level of activity that is possible for a hobby. But your final point of requiting all formerly active admins to go through an RFA with no auto resysopping would move things in the opposite direction. We already desysop after 12 months activity and we only autoresysop after gaps of under 36 months.  I can see people arguing to reduce that term if we had a pattern of people returning after more than two years inactive and causing problems, but I'm not aware of that being a problem. Of course the price of getting rid of more admins, either by tightening the inactivity rules or by making it easier for unpopular admins to be bullied off even if there isn't a case against them that would be taken seriously by Arbcom, is that you increase the status of the rest through making them scarcer. Those who want fewer admins need to make the case for why they want fewer admins despite the inevitable increased status from scarcity.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  17:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good points, and removing autoresysopping with no other changes would not be useful. When combined with more people getting through RFA, imo it would have the impact of making adminship more "easy come, easy go", which would go a long way to reducing the social status associated with the role.
 * You slightly touched on a recurring myth that I see regarding admin confirmations, that they remove good admins who take controversial but correct actions. Looking at other wiki confirmation processes, this doesn't happen. See the steward confirmations for an example. In the last five years, confirmations have only removed stewards for inactivity, lack of clue, and unresponsiveness. None were removed for taking unpopular actions. Further, it is possible to design confirmations to prevent removal for that reason. Require consensus to remove, and let bureaucrats evaluate consensus and discount arguments which do not relate to taking unpopular action. Confirmation processes keep admins accountable, and really don't need to be the horror stories that some people say they will be. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is a recurring myth that the current systems in place to remove problematic sysops are somehow not working. I have seen dozens of admins be desysoped, and whenever I ask for an example of failures to remove problematic admins I don't get any names. Who are all these admins that should have been desysoped but the current system has failed? I fail to see how adding another way to do the same thing is going to increase the number of admins we have. <b style="color:Black">HighInBC</b> 18:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The current systems are very good at removing admins who abuse their tools in a grandiose way, but they do not act as a control against admins who behave abusively or have a history of poor use of the tools - I won't bring up examples, because that isn't my goal here. Having a confirmations system wouldn't necessarily remove these admins, but it would put a social cost on poor behaviour. When you know that you'll need (or might need) to undergo confirmations every year, that changes how you behave. In an ideal world where admins are just regular people with access to a few more buttons, this wouldn't be needed. But that isn't reality. Confirmations will also help with "borderline" cases at RfA, where people often oppose because supporting would grant the user indefinite access to the tools. Similarly, on projects with strict inactivity criteria and easy systems of removing admins, people often support while referencing the process to remove the person if they are bad within short order. This might not be the best solution, and there are certainly problems with existing confirmation systems, but in the areas of concern for getting new admins here this is one part of a solution which has helped elsewhere. Ajraddatz (talk) 18:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I hear that a lot but I don't think it is the case. Who are these admins who "behave abusively or have a history of poor use of the tools" but remain an admin? You say you won't bring up examples but guess what? Nobody else will either. No matter how many times this claim is made nobody can ever name even one name. No surprises here.
 * I cannot think of a single admin that the community does not want to be an admin but continues to be. There are plenty of admins with people that have an ax to grind with them, but ones who the community at large don't want? I cannot even consider a new process to desysop people until I know what type of admin such a process aims to desysop. This is not a community that is afraid to complain about people, if there were such admins they would be named. <b style="color:Black">HighInBC</b> 14:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not naming names because I have nobody that I know of who I would want to desysop. I'm bringing it up because I know it works in other situations; as a steward, I need to go through a confirmation every year, so I understand the impact that it has, and why a community would want it. If you don't believe that I could possibly be here without some nefarious purpose, look through my contributions for the two months that I've been active here - you'll find a grand total of 0 instances of me "clashing" with an admin, or any other user for that matter. But, as I said in another reply here, confirmations may well not be a good idea - if the goal is making adminship less of a big deal, creating more bureaucracy around it probably won't help. I thought it might be a good idea because of the impact it has within the steward group - not in removing people that I dislike, but how it structures the entire system. For sysops, that probably isn't a worthwhile idea to propose. Ajraddatz (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was not assigning any motive to you at all. Rather I was challenging your argument. I did not mean for it to seem personal. I don't know of who I would want to desysop either, everyone who I ever though should be has either been desysopped or improved their behaviour in response to community input. I think reconfirmation works for stewards because we don't need very many of them. It could only decrease the number of active admins around, other wikis have shown that. <b style="color:Black">HighInBC</b> 17:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It may not be your goal to bring up admins who Arbcom won't act against but your system would desysop; but it is a common criticism of deadminship proposals. There have been innumerable proposals to remove the safeguards in the current system so that admins can be disposed of who can't be disposed of if you have a system with as much fairness and due process as Arbcom has. Some of us get very cynical when people try to pretend that such a change won't deter lots of good candidates from standing. There's also the issue that our current admin cadre has a "long tail" of hundreds of admins who nowadays only use the tools occasionally, losing a dozen or so of them wouldn't be a big deal in the short term; Losing hundreds would be. As far as I'm aware those wikis that have introduced some sort of periodic requalification have lost lots of admins. If people want a smaller admin cadre where admins are more separate from other editors and spend a larger proportion of their wiki time doing admin stuff then they need to build a case for that. Not try to pretend that doing so is somehow a path to recruiting more admins.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  19:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe it isn't a good idea. It could potentially dissuade people from applying as much as it encourages them to do so. I also think that any admin who meets the activity criteria is a net positive, since they are volunteers and this shouldn't be a job - maybe more strict inactivity criteria would be very bad in that sense. I guess I'm not sure how to reduce the status of it beyond that :/ Ajraddatz (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But it's precisely this that has distorted the position of Admin. If everyone went into Admining the way they went into Arbcom – I'll only do this for a year, maybe two, before going back to "regular" editing – it would have the effect of making Admining much less of a "privilege". I think all of these "safeguards" again "unfair desysopping" are actually some of the very things that have elevated the status of Admin beyond all reason (esp. for a "volunteer"-run project). And, yes – I do want fewer Admins (I think 200 "active" Admins would be plenty, combined with more unbundling), and more "mid-level" editors being granted tools to do page moving, page protection and page deleting. I'd be happy if Admining was primarily focused on granting rights to other editors, doing things like revdel and viewing deleted edits, and probably blocking. I'd be quite happy if a lot of the other current Admin stuff was "kicked downstairs". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But why? I quite like the idea of passing a community discussion in order to gain access to advanced permissions. And I see no problem with admins only making a few actions a year. Admins are volunteers too, there should be no requirement for them to spend their life on Wikipedia. Harsher inactivity standards and confirmations do start treating adminship as a bigger deal than it should be, so maybe that's the wrong approach. In an ideal world, any user who can be trusted to not maliciously or incompetently use the tools should be able to be trusted with them; there should be a lot of admins who don't spend their lives online. But as I said, I'm not sure how best to get to that ideal. Ajraddatz (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's because "naming names" can put you in the crosshairs. I bet we can all think of at least one current Admin that should probably be desysopped, but usually not on the grounds of "abusing the tools" (more on WP:ADMINCOND grounds), that we won't mention in public for fear of being put in some Admin's LOS. In any case, there is a (small) population of Admins who have probably worn out there welcome, and a significantly larger population of essentially inactive Admins who are WP:GAMEing the system in order to keep the bit (why they do this when they never intend to use it, I can't figure out). But it's this latter behavior that tells me that Ajraddatz is correct – that there is some "enhanced cache" to holding the bit which is distorting how this place should optimally operate. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:43, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I take your point about naming names. Perhaps it can sometimes be done in the context of a desysopped admin "why was this incident not addressed x months earlier. A good time to do this would be in the arbcom elections by asking the candidates "If an admin did x would you support a desysop?" whether they agree or not at least you have an indication as to cases you could bring. Alternatively it should be possible to do this in an aggregate way, as you have done with your example of "essentially inactive admins"; The difficulty with the latter group is a matter of perspective. We both know that at any one time hundreds of admins are inactive or nowhere near active enough to pass RFA. I regards them as the "long tail" of our current admin cadre that collectively makes a useful contribution to the project currently, more importantly as the pool of volunteers some of whom we will reactivate and be important parts of the admin cadre in the future. If they were paid staff then I could see your point about making best use of scarce mops. But we have no shortage of mops, our shortage is of mop wielders. You clearly take a very different view. I think my view would change if someone analysed the semiactives and inactives of the last decade and showed that despite my experience and assumptions, once people stop using admin tools they don't restart. What would it take to change your view on this group?  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * To my knowledge,, you have not proposed or even mentioned any reforms that would successfully replace the "failed" ones of RFA2015. For instance, you wholeheartedly supported clerking and seemed to believe that it was the key to fixing RfA. Clerking was one of the accomplished reforms of RFA2015—but now you are saying that all the reforms which I "initiated" (and clerking was one of them) did "not address the core issue of RfA" and actually "enhanced" the problems. What now? You were always promoting clerking and saying that it would address the heart of the RfA problem, but since (according to your assertion) my reforms (and, by necessity, clerking) failed and simply made things worse, where do we turn? Biblio (talk) 04:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , your knowledge of Wikipedia is very, very short. Before criticicing others'work, you may perhaps wish to commence with my very first postings here on 3 April 2o10, and then read through everything that has been posted by everyone else on this page over the past 6 years including my 800 or so posts and the 1,500 by Wikipedia's major adminship dettractor. Then read through everything at WP:RFA2011. There are others who have spent even more time on RFA reform than I have,and you can rest assured that every single possible solution to RfA has been discussed and anything that is mentioned here today  is simple recycling of older suggestions. Your RfCs introduced two new aspects: reducing the discretionary range, and limiting the number of questions. Anything to do with clerking was a simple confirmation of what has occasionally been done on and off for years; Whether those will prove beneficial can only be estimated when sufficient RfA have taken place for us to be able to apply any kind of metrics.  None of the solutions you offered have addressed the core issues, and for once,  appears to be right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have to strongly advise against this reading programme, on mental health grounds. Johnbod (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Johnbod is right, I doubt any human has been through all those archives and the AIs who have done so have not fared well. However I have tried to summarise the RFA reform suggestions at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_reform with 24 of the most common suggestions. It has a talk page if anyone spots one I've missed.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Whether those will prove beneficial can only be estimated when sufficient RfA have taken place for us to be able to apply any kind of metrics": I think this is the crux of the disagreement; you previously seemed to indicate that the reforms can be judged already as being harmful ("appear to have enhanced [the core issues of RfA] and even caused some new, negative trends to develop"). I agree that time is needed to better understand the potential impact of the changes, and that these changes are clearly not the end-all and be-all of solutions. They were not advertised as such, nor were they offered by a single person. For good or bad, they were just the ones that managed to obtain consensus. isaacl (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]]) 23:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Most curiously,, I was expecting a reply very similar to the one you gave. Firstly, attempting to automatically discredit my assertions on the basis of "shorter experience" is not a logically valid tactic. The numbers may show that I haven't been around too long, but in reality I've done many things in my relatively short time here: I was substantially involved in multiple reform campaigns and other meta activities, and I also have a good deal of experience with content. Secondly, as Johnbod noted, the proposed reading program is far beyond the capabilities of the average person. Not all of us are retired, and even those who are probably don't have the time or mental energy to read through millions upon millions of bytes on disorderly WP discussion forums. In any case, we have interacted enough times for me to understand that you thought very highly of clerking and that you believed it was one of (if not the) most important reforms of all.
 * Finally (and this was especially the part I was anticipating), I can see right through your attempt to say that only my new reforms are the problem. That doesn't hold up: you said that all the recent reforms which I initiated (in clear reference to RFA2015) are failures, and that the situation has worsened. One of the proposals implemented as a result of RFA2015 was clerking, so therefore clerking was one of the "recent reforms." To argue otherwise would be hideous—of course clerking was part of the recent reform package. But the situation has allegedly worsened as a result of the recent reforms. Therefore, it logically follows that clerking (which you promoted with all your heart and soul as the reform to address the heart of the issue) is part of the "problem"—how could it not be? There is not the smallest shred of evidence to show that only my "new" proposals are the problem and that all the old favorites are not; such an argument is enitrely illogical. I could just as easily propose the opposite: the newer proposals are fine, but the older pet proposal (clerking) is causing the real problem by getting voters angry and stirring up an even more vicious environment. With the blanket assertion that things are now generally worse, all the recent reforms must stand and fall together. And I still have not received a clear answer: What is the solution for RfA in light of RFA2015's "failure"? Biblio (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * WDR,, I think you could do the courtesy - and yurself a favour - by at least reading his excellent User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_reform and its talk page.  Do bear in mund while doing so that he, like me, has read every single word that has been written on the subject of RfA since 2010 (or even earlier). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I just looked through that page, and I am actually very familiar with about 90% of the information there. (After all, I was extremely active in RfA reform.) I have actively participated in discussions and RfCs about many of those ideas; I have even personally proposed many reforms similar to the ones mentioned on WSC's essay. By the way, I should really mention that I have read much more than you might think—in the course of my reform work, I looked through personal criteria pages and RfA-related essays, WT:RFA threads from many years ago, and several draft pages/discussion threads from RFA2011 and other reform projects. Put simply, I'm hardly an uninformed newbie. Biblio (talk) 04:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder if changing the name from "admin" would help anything. The word "admin" has connotations of power and status in other contexts. KSF  T C 21:34, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think we have a lack of people running for the role of "admin" now, just imagine how many applicants we would get for "janitor". --Ahecht ([[User_talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#00f;display:inline-block;padding:1px 1px 0;vertical-align:-0.3em;line-height:1;font-size:50%;text-align:center;">'''TALK
 * Adminship should be like being a janitor. I think the lack of people trying to become admins is caused by how seriously people take it. I think changing the name would emphasize to everyone that it's supposed to be "not a big deal" and could help people relax and treat it like that. KSF  T C 02:50, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Ridiculously early analysis of results from changes
It is way, way, way too early to come to any conclusions about the impact of changes from the Phase II RfC. Nevertheless, I did it anyway out of pure curiosity. I took a look at all RfAs since the change (basically, all RfAs this year) vs. all RfAs for the same time period last year: There are plenty of factors that could affect these numbers that have nothing to do with the changes that were made from the RfC. I'll be curious to see if these patterns hold up for the year. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * RfAs fell from 15 in the same time period of 2015 to 10 this year so far, a 33% drop.
 * RfA voting increased by 74% from ~64 per RfA to 111 per RfA.
 * The proportion of supporting votes has dropped from 75.2% to 70.5%
 * The success rate of RfAs has dropped from 33% to 20%.
 * Mostly these are relevant things to look at, but I would suggest after a long enough time period to have statistically meaningful numbers. Though I'm not sure the success rate is that relevant. I see the running of candidates who will snow fail as something so very different from the running of potential admins that their mutual ratio doesn't tell us whether we have a shortage of one or an abundance of the other. What I would be interested to see are some stats on our recruitment of new RFA !voters and how many of them go on to become admins within 3 months, 3 quarters and 3 years. As that includes the number of 2016 !voters who become admins in 2018 I'm prepared to be patient. Where I'm expecting faster change is in the really big recent change, RFA's very own AFC Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll. It has attracted more candidates this year than RFA, and possibly with a higher standard. I don't think any of them have yet actually run, I'm hoping that it isn't deterring them from running and the only ones it delays are those where a delay would be useful. If it works out well then most of those dozen will be admins before the year is out along with many more who've yet to try the poll, and this year will convincingly top last year in numbers of new admins. Or we could be looking at it this time next year and saying surely some of them will eventually run?   Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  23:02, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, give it time. Andrevan@


 * It might well indeed be a little early to start drawing any conclusios, just like my prediction of a total of 8 new admins for 2016. But what are important are the stats that didn't report in his analysis above - or presented them the other way round. One thing we must also take into consideration is that AFAICS there have never been any marked seasonal trends for RfAs, so comparing Q1 2016 with Q1 0f 2015 might not be realistic.


 * Three interacting factors do appear to become clear though: The dramatic rise in voter participation is probably due to 1. the watchlist notice, while 2. producing a greaer number of opposers in spite of 3. - the bar having been reduced (all of which demonstrate BTW that now is the perfect opportunity to start sorting out the wheat from the chaff among the voters). So not only do we appear to be back to square one, but we seem to be even worse off than before. I may have sounded harsh with my criticism of 's reforms (some of which I nevertheless strongly suppored), but if his ultimate aim was to make RfA more attractive to potential candidates of the right calibre, then those reforms have failed. Certainly none of them addressed the core issue of the reason for the disturbing trend shown here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * If it can be shown that the situation completely fails to improve over the long term, then I would be willing to admit to it and consider new ideas. Still, I do not believe that all the reforms are actually bad in their own right, to the point where they actually caused the continuing trend of decline. I think it is good that questions are limited and that it is now slightly easier for candidates to pass. Although some of the reforms are certainly beneficial and should be kept, perhaps they just didn't address the real heart of the issue. These events are really forcing us to reconsider what the heart of the problem really is. Perhaps clerking is not the answer. Maybe people just don't want to be admins anymore, regardless of how good the process is. After all, in previous years, the number of promotions still declined, even as the environment was "improving." Maybe we're just quickly running out of editors who are both qualified and are willing to take on the burdens and responsibilities of full adminship. If that is the case, no reforms to RfA itself will ever fix the problem. Maybe we should ask editors why they still don't want to run for adminship. Biblio (talk) 04:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree that limiting the number of questions per user has at least made the RfA process less demanding on the people running. Less time being taken up to answer questions results in more time editing other things or having more of a non-wiki life. Even if the number of successful RfAs do not increase, that was one clear benefit of the most recent RfC. Gizza  <sup style="color:teal;">( t )( c ) 05:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that the reforms had a negative effect. I'm saying quite clearly that they have not reversed the trend. And that's not quite the same thing. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)