Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 246

Some good news
I have some fairly good news after reviewing some statistics. For the first time since 2007 into 2008, the number of active administrators has grown substantially over the last four months. Between November 2016 and February 2017, we've went from an all-time low (for WP:LA's standards) of 516 active administrators in October to almost 570+ during this four-month span. A consecutive four-month span in the number of administrators growing hasn't occurred in nearly ten years. Wikipedia topped out on the number of participating administrators in February 2008 at 1,016 (the last time we saw four+ months of gain), collapsed, and went as low as 516 by 2016. I have some working theories as to why we've seen so much activity recently during these months, but nonetheless, we should at least enjoy this brief spurt of positivity. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  19:03, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As the saying goes, there's lies, there's damned lies, and then there's statistics. Sure, there's reason to be hopeful, but take it with a large grain of salt. For whatever reason the period November 1 to March 1 of most cycles shows an increase in active admins, and if there is a decline, it's usually very modest. Whereas, the rest of the sustaining pattern from 2007 forward shows a long, long pattern of decline. Minor ups/downs are going to happen within the pattern. This is a very, very limited data set but the increase we are seeing so far is inside of one st. dev. Thus, this is pretty much an expected result. A bit of a high roll, but within the expected range. If we'd increased by more than a hundred, then we'd be juuust beginning to get into three sigma land. We saw a flurry of passing RfAs to start off the year, but minor blips like that are going to happen. What is more important is the overall decline. We saw peak admins in February of 2008. Since then, we've lost 44% of our active admin corps. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Classic RFA response. Take good news with a big helping of cynicism and see if the good news is still good in comparison. "Something that hasn't happened in ten years isn't significant since we began our decline ten years ago." No wonder everyone gave up on reform. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  06:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Moe, my comment wasn't to criticize. In any long pattern minor blips are going to happen. Based on the data, this is a minor blip that falls into the first standard deviation...i.e. where the majority of the blips are going to lay. This isn't unusual. It's at the high end of the first st. dev., but it's not unusual. Here's another blip; the number of active admins declined on March 1st by 8. This is THE largest single day drop in at least two years. Is this cause for panic? Should we presume this decline sets the new pattern and we will run out of admins by mid-May? Of course not. The same applies to this upward blip. It's just a blip. Nothing more. Yet. As I noted, there is reason to be hopeful. Please don't criticize someone for raising statistical reality. It just is. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:53, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The question I would ask is what is meant by "active". Alive? Doing 4 or 5 actions a year? Or continually working on Admin. stuff? If this is a simple headcount of all qualified admins, including those quasi-dormant or catatonic, it does not inform in a very useful way. Leaky  Caldron  09:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * As I specified in my original comment, it's by what WP:LA considers active. If you need the specific wording, it's mentioned under each heading. Whether that is an accurate measure of "active" for you or any other person isn't really of concern because it has consistently collected this data for over a decade under the same parameters. Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  09:22, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:LA says "Activity is defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months." That's a weak measure of useful work done.  It might help to have some overall stats on admin-specific activity like blocks, deletions and protects.  Is that up or down?  Too high or too low?  Anyway, FWIW, I just noticed some vandalism at the article gossip – a fake source that I noticed while adding a real one.  I fixed that without any admin activity being generated.  I could have logged it and maybe an admin would have clicked up some edits investigating, but I doubt that this would have been productive as the vandal used an IP address.  What we should be measuring is the extent to which the encyclopedia is being built.  Andrew D. (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * What does "being built" mean, though? That's just a common "content creator vs. administrative work" argument. My OTRS responsibilities aren't "building" anything, but they are engaging with the community, potentially helping others build the encyclopedia, covering our asses so we don't get sued on copyright violations, etc. All very useful work. My work at SPI isn't "building" anything, but it's preventing it from being torn down by sockmasters. Both content creation and administration are necessary for the encyclopedia to exist. You'd have to explain your metric of "built" in great detail to convince me it's better than edits or actions (though I agree 30 edits is far too low a bar. It should at least raise to 30 edits and 1 admin action). ~ Rob 13 Talk 12:56, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My point, valid I think, is that it proves nothing quantifiable about Admin. activity. An Admin. "actively" editing articles is no more active than an Admin. making a once a year action to keep their mop wet, or for that matter, a prolific content creator who is not a Admin. or for that matter me, who does sod all. Active admins should be measured (if we really must) by the quantity of their Admin. work. Otherwise it is a measure of, well, nothing useful really. Leaky  Caldron  21:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you, dear Moe. That is good news indeed and very encouraging, and I am happy to hear it! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * It's exactly as describes it: a, endorsed by  comment of  The occurrence of new 'promotions' is so low that stats are as meaningless as the sightings of whales in the River Severn at Worcester. And as  implies, the metric we've been using for years to characterise an 'active' admin are ridiculously low. The truth is that interest in all maintenance areas of Wikipedia is demonstrably on the wane - 340 New Page Reviewers created in the last 4 months and the backlog is still rising? I see an old fashioned hat rack bending under the strain... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I thank Anna for being the only one here for looking at a bright side. Maybe I made this post, most importantly, to point out that while we are looking at a clear four-month pattern of interest and activity on Wikipedia, that maybe it will generate some more candidates at RFA if you look hard enough. Where there are editors, there are potential administrators to promote. This page is not about statistics, measures of activity or whales in the River Severn at Worcester. It's about looking for potentially good administrators, is it not? Regards, — Moe   Epsilon  20:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Statistics is not my strong suit. But I do understand "don't look a gift horse in the mouth." Whatever the reason or background we are experiencing a modest uptick in admin activity. Let us step back for just a moment from our customary perma-gloom and be happy. And maybe while we are at it, we can throw out a thank you to a handful of admins who have been actively recruiting new RfA candidates. Just a thought. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, good point. Thank you to those who actively get out their and recruit (you know who you are). That seems to be the single greatest source of admins. Maybe we ought to start a formal recruiting program, like in the army. We could promise some sort of engineering degree that would lead to a part-time job afterward. :) Seriously, maybe we need a recruiting team. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... its a thought. How about some recruiting slogans. Here are a few we could try...
 * "Be all you can be, as an Admin!"
 * "The few, the proud, the Admins!"
 * "Become an Admin and see the world!"
 * "Wikipedia wants YOU to be an Admin!"
 * And for our British editors... "For Queen and Wiki!"
 * I'm not sure how original those are but anyhow... -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * You missed the obvious "Become an admin and get a SVG of a crappy T-shirt" --Neil N  talk to me 18:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * We should only have one admin and it should rotate to editors in alphabetical order by username for one-week blocks. LavaBaron (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * My sockpuppets at usernames AAA1-AAA1000 will enjoy a lengthy reign! Look upon me and despair! --RL0919 (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Ad Orientem, those are all great! Do we have some sort of recruiting poster? We could make one. I've been posting this all over the place for a year. Could that have a poster? And seriously, has Wikipedia ever had an admin recruiting program with a poster and a bunch of editors like us who got out there and, well, drew attention to the need? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2017 (UTC)


 * The (I'm hoping) intentional typo is hilarious. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup - though that might have been better for copy edit recruiting :D — xaosflux  Talk 00:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Not a bad poster. However, it does sort of say "Come take this lousy, boring job becasue nobody else wants to do it."


 * Couldn't we have an Unclesamesque poster that makes it sound like adminship is all about glory, prestigue, obscene power, and the freedom to walk all over others? Would potential candidates be gullible enough to buy that? If so, perfect! They run, they pass, we shove a stenchy mop at them, the ether wears off, then it's too late. They have to get to work, suffering years and years of tedium until they get all snarky and burn out. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
 * All we have to do is point out that you'll inevitably burn out as an admin, and that going that way is by far the best option. We all know it's better to burn out than to fade away. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 16:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup. Or become a 'crat ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:35, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * @Blade, we have pretty good retention of admins. Maybe not as good as for editors who have crossed the 200,000 edit barrier, but far from an inevitable burn out as an admin. The real question should be does RFA predict that people will probably be around long term, or does it cause people to be around long term. If the latter is true it becomes another reason to appoint more admins; If it isn't that could be even more interesting.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:34, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I think misunderstands my analogy to the marine animals that may or may not dwell in the rivers that run near my home town, and that's why I wouldn't use them to base any arguments as to the quality of the other fish that are in them. What has escaped Moe - and there is no reason why he should know - is that in the background I'm possibly one of the handful of users most actively recruiting for RfA candidates of the right calibre. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:44, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Should the bureaucrats maintain the existing private mailing list for matters not suitable for on-wiki discussion?
Interested parties are invited to comment here. –xenotalk 13:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - seeing this, my initial reaction is: duh; on me of course, for I would have thought such a private means for communication already did exist. Being wrong, I unequivocally say that we most certainly should. Accolades to for bringing attention to this question.--John Cline (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yo, - the 'here' xeno mentioned is a wikilink for Bureaucrats'_noticeboard; not actually here, I think :) &mdash;  O Fortuna!   Imperatrix mundi.  14:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input . Please comment at Bureaucrats' noticeboard - to clarify we already do have a list, but there are some bureaucrats who feel that it is no longer serving a useful purpose. –xenotalk 14:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I admit first believing comments in support of the proposal belonged here. Upon realizing the discussion's actual link, I decided the comment should remain for the kudos it was intended to carry; I believe they are due and their threaded existence on this page is therefore not misplaced after all. I did append support in the linked discussion as well, leaving all mention of gratitude here, where, it turns out, a better fit with less collateral distraction exists overall. Thanks for looking out all the same.--John Cline (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

TBH I don't think this discussion is relevant to anyone who isn't a bureaucrat. Thanks for being open about this purported mailing list's meaningless existence though. Deryck C. 23:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:rfplinks
It has just occured to me that we use the rfplinks template for all the lower permisssions such as rollback and autopatrolled, but not here. For those unfamiliar with it it works like this:

I can't think of any reason we wouldn't want to use it here when it is used in request for permissions with far less potential for damage. Thoughts? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * No loud objections from me, but the template overlaps with RfA toolbox and usercheck-short, which we already use on RfA pages:
 * Links for Beeblebrox:


 * Mz7 (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could integrate the functionality of the two for use here? Obviously we don't need the "assign permission" link, but the links to edit analysis tools could be very helpful in informing RFA particpants. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me too. If there are any helpful tools in rfplinks that aren't in the toolbox, I would be happy with combining them. Mz7 (talk) 19:47, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Graveyard RfAs
We have a lot of unclosed RfAs sitting around doing not a lot, that are unlikely to go live any time soon, if indeed, ever. These are:


 * Requests for adminship/OrenBochman
 * Requests for adminship/Mjs1991
 * Requests for adminship/Evoogd20
 * Requests for adminship/Hillsburry7
 * Requests for adminship/OnBeyondZebrax
 * Requests for adminship/Procrastinator16
 * Requests for adminship/ChrisAmaddeo
 * Requests for adminship/Eleventhblock
 * Requests for adminship/Muhammad Ibrahim Ahmad
 * Requests for adminship/segodno
 * Requests for adminship/Bob25062001
 * Requests for adminship/NitrogenTSRH 2
 * Requests for adminship/Mahusha
 * Requests for adminship/Albion-dauti
 * Requests for adminship/JaThFi
 * Requests for adminship/HNALURU
 * Requests for adminship/chrismash
 * Requests for adminship/jamal.kakbra 2
 * Requests for adminship/Frenzie23
 * Requests for adminship/akedia1
 * Requests for adminship/Hooperag
 * Requests for adminship/Jatinag22
 * Requests for adminship/mhall7265
 * Requests for adminship/diesel9448
 * Requests for adminship/Crocoss77
 * Requests for adminship/ujjawalsunny
 * Requests for adminship/Soham
 * Requests for adminship/NSCHARAN007
 * Requests for adminship/RichardJose66
 * Requests for adminship/Prathamprakash29 2
 * Requests for adminship/vinodtiwari2608
 * Requests for adminship/Blubbernut
 * Requests for adminship/Cpatti16
 * Requests for adminship/lampher
 * Requests for adminship/Bipratip007
 * Requests for adminship/Tarodiaa
 * Requests for adminship/Jark101
 * Requests for adminship/MixItUp1009
 * Requests for adminship/Scottishwildcat12
 * Requests for adminship/Fredebal
 * Requests for adminship/Clubjustin4
 * Requests for adminship/Roshan014
 * Requests for adminship/13jospin
 * Requests for adminship/Harshhussey
 * Requests for adminship/Domforever
 * Requests for adminship/Noroton
 * Requests for adminship/LionsRule125
 * Requests for adminship/theflash18
 * Requests for adminship/vattansandhu
 * Requests for adminship/CentreLeftRight
 * Requests for adminship/Oxfordga
 * Requests for adminship/Jooja
 * Requests for adminship/Scumella2
 * Requests for adminship/Alex41506
 * Requests for adminship/W5nio
 * Requests for adminship/jalock1 5
 * Requests for adminship/bx21nm
 * Requests for adminship/SilverXDestiny
 * Requests for adminship/ChetanVengurlekar
 * Requests for adminship/jalock1
 * Requests for adminship/PK2
 * Requests for adminship/hiiamahuskey
 * Requests for adminship/riyastir
 * Requests for adminship/Joaquinito8243

The only one I would pause on is OnBeyondZebrax, who I've seen working on articles I'm interested in. I don't think he's got any serious interest in being an admin, but it might not be a SNOW / NOTNOW. As for the rest - not a hope in hell.

Any objections to deleting them per WP:CSD? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  15:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No objection to deletion I had no idea we had so many bad-faith, never finished RfAs. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all - All of them are just crap from newbies. Class 455  ( talk |stand clear of the doors!)  15:41, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I'd suggest keeping any that transcluded properly (are there? -I checked a few at random, and mostly not, I believe)- but dumping the rest, as if it hasn't ttranscluded then strictly it's not even an actual 'RfA.' &mdash;  O Fortuna   velut luna...  16:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * None of them have ever transcluded. What you might be thinking of is the timer template (which stamps itself as now + 168 hours the minute you uncomment it, hence you need to do it after transclusion to ensure the full week is run properly) - even if it that was done, nobody would notice. Anything that gets transcluded onto WP:RFA will get picked up immediately. Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:34, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No objection to deletion - I suggest notifying any non-blocked users who have been active in, say, the last 180 days, in case they've just forgotten about them and want them WP:REFUNDed. I speedied one which was for a vanished user under their former name, and I would defer to 's preference regarding his own, otherwise nuke the lot. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all - although I agree with Ivan notify those who have been active but other than that get rid of the lot, no point them sitting around if nothing's going to ever happen with them. – Davey 2010 Talk 18:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd quite like to keep the one (can't remember which) who replied to question 3 about the time he had edit conflicts in the Mediawiki software and tag it with humour myself. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:15, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh :) someone the other day was edit-warring with a bot, and 'moaned' at the bot's rudeness and incivility in not going to talk where they had indeed started the discussion! All good fun in an innocent kind of way.  &mdash;  O Fortuna   velut luna...  19:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/Scumella2 appears to have been written by Donald Trump <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  19:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And quote-!  :D  &mdash;  O Fortuna   velut luna...  19:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * - I had only clicked on 3 random ones and they seemed bare, ofcourse if there are any humourous ones then I have no objections to them being kept :), Thanks. – Davey 2010 Talk 19:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * No objection to deletion providing the user hasn't been active recently (180 days, as suggested above, is fine). Sam Walton (talk) 19:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks like consensus. I've started going through and deleting the obvious ones that haven't been active in years. If any other admins want to join in the "fun", please do. Requests for adminship/13jospin, incidentally, has just been banned from at least two other websites that I know of. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  20:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't this the sort of thing that should be discussed at Miscellany for deletion? I don't see a need to keep these around either, but there are established processes for deleting pages, which I would expect folks that hang around at WT:RFA would be familiar with. --RL0919 (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm working based on the instructions on WP:RFA that say "RfAs with not even the slightest chance to pass per WP:NOTNOW can be tagged and deleted under WP:CSD#G6" <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  22:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Most of these do seem to be uncontroversial deletions, being incomplete and untranscluded, although possibly not all (for example, I spotted at least one that has opposes in it). --RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete all Each and every candidate has the opportunity to re-apply, in earnest, if they would ever like to request the tools. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 22:16, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * CSD G6 I have slapped CSD tags on most of them. There were a few exceptions. One has already been sent to MfD and a couple looked like they had (partially?) transcluded and or there was at least one legitimate !vote. But most are just sitting around collecting cyberdust and are obvious candidates foe speedy deletion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Batch deleted whatever you tagged. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 23:25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

New project to find admins
Please consider joining and participating.


 * Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Poll candidate search

Thank you!

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Godsy
I want our bureaucrats to explain why Godsy's ended in no consensus, Requests for adminship/Godsy/Bureaucrat chat. Requests for adminship/Godsy. I am not looking for answers like WP:DROPTHESTICK. This had 1% more support than GoldenRing and many opposes were due to self-nomination. Bureaucrats considered self-nomination as a good oppose, while lack of experience as weak oppose. -- <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  05:02, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * +1. I'd love an explanation of that one that doesn't involve bureaucrats applying their personal beliefs on what is weak or strong, especially given that almost all supports on Godsy explicitly said the self-nom opposes were awful (more emphatically than the supports discounted the opposes in the GoldenRing RfA). ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 05:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The bureaucrats are not a monolithic group, we are a collection of individuals, so we each have our own explanation of how we determine RFAs to have consensus or not. So I can only provide my own reasoning.  But it's going to be pretty much the same thing I said here.  I found enough opposes to be strong enough to wrest consensus from the supports.  Hence my assessment that Godsy's RFA had no consensus.  I know  specifically asked for an explanation that doesn't involve weighing supports/opposes, but sorry, Rob, I can't help you there.  To, regarding your statement of "Bureaucrats considered self-nomination as a good oppose, while lack of experience as weak oppose," I cannot speak for any of the other bureaucrats, but I can tell you that that is not true of me.  Useight&#39;s Public Sock (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I did not ask for that. I asked for an explanation that does not involve imposing personal opinions over the opposes. There's a huge difference between weighing supports/opposes according to community norms and weighing supports/opposes based on which a closer personally agree with. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 06:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * See, I don't think you'll receive such an explanation. Most Wikipedia processes do involve a bit of "weighing" and since RfA is more free form than say AfD where there are a dozen policies to consider, weighing of opinions happens. In fact I've always assumed that the high thresholds of RfB exist exactly because of this wide latitude. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The bureaucrats do their best to interpret the community's opinions. It's not really surprising that an RFA with a lot of both supports and opposes was closed as "no consensus"; it's more surprising when occasionally that doesn't happen. I don't believe that self-nomination is a good reason to oppose, but since some others do, can always decide try again after a while, and ask one of the editors at Request an RfA nomination for a nomination.&mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 06:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * At which point this previous "failed" RfA will be held against them. Which is why a coherent explanation now would be welcome. Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  14:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

BU Rob13, the problem here is that we are not talking from a common premise. I could give an explanation, which to my mind would be "weighing supports/opposes according to community norms", but that you would say was "weighing supports/opposes based on which [I] personally agree with". I don't see a way around that. I think it is a "community norm" that general experience concerns (whilst valid, no one has suggested discounting them altogether) are less weighty than opposition based on actual errors in the application of policy (shown through patterns of past edit / answer to questions) or misconduct/temperament issues. You disagree - you think it's just my personal opinion. Having done this for a number of years, I can say that it's a curious feature that those who agree with a bureaucrat determination tend to think we did our jobs properly, while those who disagree tend to think that we ran away with our own ideas/opinions of the candidate. If it helps, I can say that I would have virtually no regard whatsoever for an oppose on the basis of the nomination being a self-nom, which I think is clear from the Godsy bureaucrat discussion. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 12:40, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you and voted no consensus for Godsy Requests for adminship/Godsy/Bureaucrat chat, while voted "consensus to promote" GoldenRing. If I am correct GoldenRing made self-nomination like Godsy. I never voted in any Bureaucrat election. Bureaucrats are chosen, as they are trusted. Some people saw self-nomination in Godsy's RFA,  but they couldn't see self-nomination in GoldenRing's RFA. I don't have much problem with GoldenRing's successful RFA, but I hope in future, hard-working and experienced editors with clean block log are not too much scrutinized in their RFAs. <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b>  Spider-Man  13:52, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * With regards to your last sentence, bureaucrats have zero control over how the community chooses to scrutinize a particular candidate. Acalamari 15:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * RfBs are held far less frequently than RfAs. The last one was Xaosflux's (a self-nom ) in early July 2016. Your account was created the month before, so you may not have even known about it. But they aren't "chosen", and as for trust, admins are elected because they are trusted too. The standards for electing the two are different and, often, editors look for slightly different things in evaluating them. As for the 'crat consensus here, I disagree with it, and whether you believe me or not, not simply because I opposed GR. That said, I don't see how 'crats can evaluate any RfA without weighing the votes. This was a tough task, and I respect the efforts the crats put into it to try to do as fair a job as they could. Just because I disagree doesn't mean I think any less of them, collectively or individually.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't see any bureaucrats considering "self-nomination as a good oppose" in the Godsy bureaucrat chat, quite the oppose. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * In order to pass at RfB Bureacrats are held to the highest standards currently practiced on Wikipedia. Perhaps we should regard them a bit like an Upper House in a bicameral democracy (although that is probably a poor analogy). Just because some individuals may disagree with results of their 'Crat Chats, I think its poor form to criticize their decisions either as a group or any one member of the Bureaucrat group. We should respect the role we've elected them to and move on. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So what you're saying is that Bureaucrats are above criticism? Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  17:55, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not say that,, but taking things out of context leaves one open to criticism - don't you think? That is a rhetorical question - WP:DTS. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Asking for explanation to an apparent disconnect between two similar instances is nowhere near the same as criticism. It is what we should expect from our "elected" officials. Telling someone to drop the stick is tantamount to an attempt to suppress discussion and openness amongst Wikipedians and administrative personnel. --Majora (talk) 18:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You said, "I think its poor form to criticize their decisions either as a group or any one member of the Bureaucrat group". How else shall that be interpreted, other than that you think bureaucrats shouldn't be criticised? If that's not what you meant, what did you mean? Under what circumstances do you feel bureaucrats' decisions are open to scrutiny? Not this one, clearly. But which ones then? Reyk  <sub style="color:blue;">YO!  19:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't have anything to add to my comments at Requests for adminship/Godsy/Bureaucrat chat. ··· 日本穣 ·  投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WP Japan ! 17:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Likewise, — xaosflux  Talk 21:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * We're trying to figure out how GoldenRing succeeded while Godsy failed. I've already advised two potential RfA candidates to stop editing in difficult (or anything-that-requires-a-brain, really) areas, skip over anything that isn't 100% unambiguous to avoid the trivial mistakes that led to Godsy's opposes, and dedicate their time instead to studying the answers of previous successful RfAs. If that is not the message we should be taking away from these two crat chats, bureaucrats should speak up quickly, because it certainly looks like the only sensible message to take away. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 21:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't the message. And I hope those potential RFA candidates are smart enough to read over the two discussions and come to their own conclusion. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 21:51, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Certainly seems like the message. Go nowhere near any contention whatsoever. Interact with no one. Never edit enough to get into any disputes at all. Mistakes tank RfAs so do everything in your power to avoid any situations that might even lead to one. If you can answer the questions in a semi-coherent manner you are golden. --Majora (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * RfA candidates don't want to find themselves in the position of Godsy or GoldenRing. They're not looking for a knife-edge result that leads to all the bureaucrats congregating scratching their heads to work out whether a consensus is there. Trying to emulate either of those editors would be mistake. I've seen plenty of RfAs sail through from people who have made mistakes, owned up to them and addressed them. So I think the conclusion is flawed anyway. But advising people to replicate GoldenRing's editing patterns to pass RfA is bad advice. His RfA showed that such editing patterns might just be enough. But there are better ways to pass RfA, if that's your goal... <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Why don't you take it up with all of the support !voters? Because the 'crats didn't decide that 'message'.  The voters did.  Quit blaming them.  Their only job was to weigh the consensus.  They couldn't throw it away outright because of the 'message it would send.'--v/r - TP 23:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually the 'crats decided which messages they were going to weight more and which ones they were going to discard. Seeing as they are the ones that flip the switches around here they would be the ones I would want to talk to. And, lets get this absolutely clear here. I am not blaming them. I am asking for clarification so I can participate in future RfAs with the knowledge of what is useful and what is pointless. Your assumption that I am blaming them is incorrect. --Majora (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * No, and that's about the most disingenuous comment I've ever seen. Let's try this again.  "The 'crats decided that they couldn't ignore a supermajority and that a supermajority firmly rejected a minority viewpoint."  That one sounds more honest.  If you were only interested because of future participation, then your comment wouldn't be full of accusations about the message they're (not) sending.  Either go back and start over, or explain your aggression.  Because they don't deserve it.  If you want to be pissed off at anyone, face the community.  Blaming the 'crats is a cowardly way of avoiding the people who really did send a message.--v/r - TP 00:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Bravo. Not only putting words in my mouth but reading my mind! Why even have a conversation at all if you can do that? Now see, that was snarky. That was aggressive. That was disingenuous. My actual point is what I said it was and I'd appreciate it if you didn't attempt to discern my ideas and my thoughts as, as far as I know, reading minds if impossible. If you are reading pissed off in my request for clarification that is your problem. Not mine. --Majora (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you agree that anger and snarkiness aren't needed and that it is disruptive, I invite you to retract this comment and try to engage with the 'crats a bit more collaboratively.--v/r - TP 00:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As I !voted in the GR RfA, I recused from the closing/chat - and have not put in the hour(s) of time it would take to analyze that discussion (and don't really intend too). From a general RfA trend: editors that both contribute encyclopedic content and participate in some back-of-the-house areas generally have the most community support for adminship.  Personally, I feel that avoiding recent bold edits to contentious topics would be helpful for those wishing to become admins as they will likely get less opposition (which can reduced not by avoiding the topic completely - but by being slightly less bold and starting proposing updates on discussion pages first). —  xaosflux  Talk 21:59, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "I want our bureaucrats to explain" - What a self-righteous and arrogant start to a demand. The only real answer here is "go fuck yourself".  But the generous answer is that each RfA is judged on a case-by-case basis and in isolation to the rest.  It's impossible to compare two RfAs.  If it were easy, we wouldn't need a discretionary range - or crats for that matter.--v/r - TP 23:44, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please be civil. Jonathunder (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please civil and polite in your replies. When I said I am not looking for answers like dropthestick, I didn't mean this type of replies. There are many similarities between the two RFAs. <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  01:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Civility is more than just avoiding 4-letter words. Just because you haven't dropped an f-bomb doesn't mean you haven't been incredibly uncivil and rude.  So don't expect me to retract my comments.  Between the two of us, I'm polite.--v/r - TP 01:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please remember that you are an administrator. By the way I am not going to get provoked. <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  01:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think administrators are better people who are above snark? There is no need to provoke you.  The RfA already provoked you.  Then you ran off over here to blame the crats with a snarky comment and were emboldened by BU Rob13.  Your opening remark would've been 10x more effective with 1/2 the rudeness and demands.--v/r - TP 02:24, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Time to get a grip, there was nothing uncivil in TParis' response. And I should know because I've been told "fuck off, asshole" directly and "fuck off" indirectly, both by the same admin, and it's been made plain to me that the former is definitely a personal attack, while the latter is just a couple of words.  Snarky comments can be much worse than "bad words".  And some users here know that all too well.  The Rambling Man (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I think WJBscribe made a good point in response to judging between "community norms" versus personal beliefs. The English Wikipedia has no official requirements to become a Wikipedia administrator (WP:ADMIN). There are no documented "community norms" for becoming an administrator beyond what individual users personally believe to be community norms. As a result, when an RfA within the discretionary zone heads to bureaucrat discussion, the job of assessing a consensus becomes difficult. We don't want administrators to be selected based on a numerical vote; we want RfAs to be decided based on "the strength of rationales presented" (WP:RFA). Yet unlike closing something like an RfC or an AfD, bureaucrats have no official standards that would inform their decision. Instead, they are left to make a judgment based on their own experience, having observed and judged RfAs in the past. I'm afraid it may be more of a "feeling" thing than a "knowing" thing. The way we've designed the system (i.e. with no official documentation in policy of what community standards for adminship are), I think WJBscribe's observation that those who voted the same way the bureaucrats decided tend to think we did our jobs properly, while those who voted the opposite way tend to think that we ran away with our own ideas/opinions of the candidate makes sense. The editors who are making the arguments that the bureaucrats are saying "weigh less" or are "weaker" will obviously disagree with them about it. Perhaps there is an underlying structural issue here, rather than an individual issue with the bureaucrats. Speaking as a user who voted the wrong way at both Godsy and GoldenRing's RfAs, I think they did the best they could under the circumstances. Mz7 (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I didn't participate in either Godsy's nor GoldenRing's RfA but it's clear to me from reading through them that they were very different RfAs and I can't see how the 'crats could have closed Godsy's any other way (as disheartening as I know that outcome is; I've been there, both as a candidate and a nominator and it's not a nice feeling). Godsy's had strong and consistent opposition based on temperament, lack of experience, and past mistakes. I count three opposes based on the self-nomination and two more on insufficient tenure, which still leaves 60 opposes based on other factors. In GoldenRing's RfA, nobody presented any evidence of GR having an unsuitable temperament or having shown poor judgement; the opposes were overwhelmingly based on lack of practical experience, and many were explicitly based on low edit count, which has traditionally been considered a weak rationale. When you consider that many of the supporters felt that GR's answers to the questions demonstrated strong policy knowledge and good sense, the outcome appears a lot more defensible even if I personally have mixed feelings about it. HJ Mitchell  &#124; <span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  11:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

RfA post GoldenRing
I'm starting a separate section as I'd like to hear from bureaucrats and others about RfA in the post-GoldenRing wiki-world. This is not to disregard the questions about the outcomes for Godsy and GoldenRing, but to explore in another direction. I start this conversation as someone who did not !vote in the GR RfA but who has concerns about content-writing experience for admins and who was uncomfortable with some of what I read in the GR 'crat chat and on its associated talk page. A few relevant points, as I see them:
 * Lowering the discretionary range was a response to the trend towards unreasonable expectations from some RfA !voters, and the risk was that it would make some !voters more likely to oppose – and I wonder whether the GR RfA will have this effect.
 * Most RfAs are clear-cut and 'crat chats occur only in cases where there can be reasonable disagreement about consensus, and in the remaining cases our highly respected 'crat team typically comes to a decision which most will accept, even if they disagree.
 * The level of harsh criticism in the GR case is unusual and the tone of some of it unfortunate. Our 'crats are human and can make mistakes and certainly are open to criticism and critique, but only reasoned discussion is likely to be productive going forward and I ask that this discussion be kept civil and collegial.
 * commented on the relative weight of opposes based on specific concerns / incidents v. those of general inexperience. My view (with which he may disagree, I may be misinterpreting him) of what he meant:
 * Editor A: 10,000 edits, 2,000 in article space - evidence presented in opposes of minor edits introducing errors into sourced factual details (like provably incorrect changes to dates of birth, for example)
 * Editor B: 5,000 edits, 500 in article space - evidence presented in opposes of minor edits introducing errors into sourced factual details (like provably incorrect changes to dates of birth, for example)
 * Editor C: 5,000 edits, 500 in article space - opposes based on general inexperience but no specific incidents / mistakes raised
 * I think WJBscribe was saying that the specific issues raised against A and B would sink their RfAs (and thus be seen as having more weight in influencing !voters) than general concerns about inexperience, especially in the case of A where the inexperience claim appears weaker. By contrast, while C might not pass with the concerns of inexperience, the RfA would be less likely to collapse in the way B's would.  This does not mean that inexperience is not a valid concern about C and a reasonable basis for opposition, but that the greater effect on consensus of concerns in the A and B cases means those sorts of concerns attract greater weight in a 'crat chat as they are typically more influential on consensus in a clear-cut RfA.

Is anyone else concerned that the fallout from the GR RfA might be a hardening of opposition, frustrating the reasons for the lowering of the discretionary range? How should general inexperience concerns best be expressed, if they can be seen as less persuasive reasons for opposition when the !voter sees them as sufficient to be disqualifying on their own? Would it be helpful for the 'crats to add some details on what is / is not seen as persuasive / relevant / trivial etc. in evaluating RfA consensus at a 'crat chat? Are there other concerns which anyone would like to share / express about future RfAs as a consequence of recent events? EdChem (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I am concerned, however, that the message from the GR 'crat chat might be that !voters with general inexperience concerns which they see as disqualifying for adminship will now seek additional, more specific grounds for opposition in order to have greater influence if a 'crat chat becomes necessary.
 * I am also concerned that !voters wavering about their decision may be more inclined to oppose out of a fear of borderline candidates being promoted after a 'crat chat because the decision might be based more on the opinions of participating 'crats rather than on their reading of the RfA consensus.
 * I think where I don't agree with your characterisation of my views is the use of the word "minor". If there was agreement that the errors were minor, then that would not be a particularly strong basis of opposition. Especially, if the problem was agreed to be historic. I would not want to judge what is or isn't minor - I would look to how the error was characterised by both supporters and opposers, and any other evidence of how the community views errors of a similar nature. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 10:33, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for responding. To clarify, when I wrote "minor edits" in the above cases, I meant that A and B had marked the edits which were actually deliberately introducing errors as minor, not that the !voters at RfA had judged them minor errors.  I wanted to cast A and B as having deliberately created errors which would be seen as disqualifying as an example of a specific concern which would be more strongly weighted than the general inexperience concerns, in line with what I thought you meant.  My goal here was to better understand your view as I thought the characterisation of it was overly harsh because it had a been taken in a way different from what I saw as your intent.  I do not want to misrepresent you, and am glad that you have taken the opportunity to emphasise looking to how !voters saw the seriousness of an issue rather than deciding independently on seriousness – of course, your comment is in line with how I would anticipate all 'crats would evaluate the seriousness of issues.  I am disappointed that the discussion below went off-track quickly, as I think that an open discussion can only help everyone to better understand the situation.  EdChem (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm concerned. It's simply kinder to say your lack of edits don't give me basis to support you, than dumpster diving, and trawling, and making them look bad. (You missed another that the Crat advice was to ask them questions about their lacking - maybe you might trip them up, one supposes - it all is required to become intensely adversarial). It's hard enough on the candidate that the message is the trust is not there, but to have to go on and on about it, is a whole other level. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


 * If the community did not want candidates promoted who achieved a two-thirds super-majority, then why was the discretionary range lowered? Unless a bureaucrat has a reason to significant weight the support section lower (said adjustments bringing it below the discretionary range), seeing a candidate promoted that had over 66.6% support should not be seen as some unexpected power-play event. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 23:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If I recall correctly it was the Crats who made up the idea of a discretionary zone and generally set it at 70-75 (although once they may have dipped to 69 and another time a bit lower) - when in fact, the Crats actually have unlimited discretion no matter the total. WP:CONSENSUS actually prizes as close to 100% agreement as possible, and admins who are as close to universally trusted as possible have advantages - the Rfc did lower from 70 to 65, but 30% to 35% is still a significant disagreement/distrust.  (Also, I don't think EdChem said anything about power play). -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd like to note that I have tried not to characterise the exercise of discretion seen in the GR RfA CratChat, and am asking about how is might impact on future RfAs. I recognise that the 'crat community has been heavily criticised, both collectively and with comments directed at individuals, which is one reason I sought to separate this discussion from the one immediately above it.  There is no doubt that the bureaucrats have the discretion to make decisions on cases like this, and the holding of CratChats on-wiki with others able to comment on the talk page is an excellent example of open decision making.  There are legitimate grounds to question discretionary decisions (even though the civility has been disappointing in this case) but that is not the purpose of this thread, so I ask that you recognise that I made no claim of a power play having occurred.  I welcome your comments on evaluating consensus, though (if I understand your comment correctly) I am surprised to learn that a 2/3 majority based on !vote count leads directly to promotion unless there is a reason to underweight the support section.  Would you comment on circumstances where the oppose section might be overweighted and thus detract from the 2/3 majority, or where a lack of consensus is found around the 2/3 support mark?  Thanks.  EdChem (talk) 02:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I agree that the "crat community has been heavily criticised". There have been a few vocal people unhappy with the result of the discussion, but no more so than usual - particularly where the result of the cratchat is promote. I for one rather expect this sort of follow up whichever way the discussion goes. As to your wider point, have you read through past bureaucrat discussions? They can be found at WP:CRATCHAT. Each RfA has had its own unique circumstances, but I think they give a good flavour of the kind of factors bureaucrats take into account when trying to weigh the strength of opposition to an RfA. To give an example though, if significant opposition had developed around SoWhy's comments on GoldenRing's CSD tagging, I doubt I would have found a consensus to promote. As it was, people appeared largely unpersuaded by that issue - reflecting I think that there is a difference of opinion in the community as to how strictly CSD criteria need to be met. But it isn't for me to decide whether or not the CSD tagging issue was serious, I was guided by how the issue was viewed in the discussion and formed the conclusion that the participants had not found it to be a serious problem. <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Again, thank you for replying. I saw this response as unusually harsh compared with other cases (and I have certainly read other CratChats), but accept that your view on the receiving end may see it as more typical.  Certainly it is sad when questions and concerns, and even criticism and critique, can devolve into abuse.  I see what you mean about a greater weighting on CSD concerns if more had !voters had picked it up and commented on it as important in their assessment.  If I may follow up, do your comments imply that a !voter's view of a candidate having insufficient experience would be more strongly weighed in a CratChat if specific deficiencies were highlighted?  If so, do you see a risk of !voters not "pulling their punches" in the way that  and  suggest elsewhere in this thread, leading to harsher comments?  If not, would you please explain why not as it seems to me a natural inference to draw from your comments?  Also, what are your thoughts on xeno's comment that a candidate with 2/3 support will likely be promoted "[u]nless a bureaucrat has a reason to significant weight the support section lower"? I would also welcome comments from  on my related questions above.  EdChem (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect pressure to give more detailed (potentially harsher) comments is an inevitable result of the expectation that RfA is not a vote and that comments will be scrutinised in the event that consensus is initially unclear. I'm not convinced it particularly arises from the manner in which we've approached the job. Also, there is no reason why more detailed feedback pointing out specific errors necessarily needs to be harsh. Those who have experience of reviewing others IRL will know that the real skill is not to shy away from giving detailed constructive feedback, but to do it in the right way. Indeed, some candidates may find (civil) opposition based on specific instances where errors were made easier to understand than a general comment about their experience. It's a trite point, but ultimately every candidate (and every RfA participant) is a unique individual. It's hard to predict how they will react to particular comments/responses to their comments. Also, people who wish to oppose candidates due to general experience concerns should continue to do so. Particularly if there simply isn't any basis for "stronger" opposition, but they remain unpersuaded by the suitability of the candidate. They should do so in the knowledge that such arguments may not carry the day in a very borderline situation. But if enough people share their concerns, it won't be a borderline situation! <strong style="font-variant:small-caps">WJBscribe (talk) 09:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Edchem, the guidance previous to the community selecting a lower percentage in considering requests for adminship was that "Consensus at RfA is not determined by surpassing a numerical threshold, but by the strength of rationales presented. Historically, most of those above 75 percent approval pass and most of those below 70 percent fail. " In lowering the bar this means that most RfAs below 65% should fail. So, some RfAs over 65% should pass. And really this is more art than science, if it were more the latter a bot could do the work of closing RfAs. I'm finding it hard to engage with your hypotheticals above, each RfA is a unique event and they can't be taken as precedent or even compared or broken down into calculations. In order for us to fail an RfC that's in the discretionary range, the weight of the opposes must overcome the weight of the supports. Here we found a two-thirds supermajority. Many of the bureaucrats examined the support and didn't find anything of the character I described in a previous crat-chat as a 'bare' support (here an example where I felt the relative weight of the opposes overcame the support in an RfA in this range) - that is, the supports registered took time to explain their position and most did mention the main opposition point regarding lower contributions. They explicitly advanced the nomination. I looked at the support section - close to 200 in support - and found users from most segments of the community. As I said in the chat, the oppose section did not have to be down-weighted to deliver a successful result here. Those who stood in opposition shouldn't feel as if they were somehow disregarded, the candidate simply achieved the level of genuine support in the range at which the community asked us to begin promoting more candidates. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 14:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC) (Note: I struck the word 'power-play'.)


 * As a note on the second to last bullet point, I can confirm that I will be doing just that. Normally, when someone new and relatively inexperienced comes to RfA, I try to oppose with "kiddie gloves" on. I don't look for detailed opposition reasons because I think the lack of record is enough unto itself. A more detailed opposition would just discourage an editor who could make a fine admin in the future, and no-one wants that, including myself. When I was operating under the assumption that 'crats would honor concerns about experience, there was no benefit to tearing apart an unsuitable candidate, and so I've never done that. Sadly, this is no longer the case. Since the 'crats do not appear to weight concerns about experience very highly, I will have to be more detailed, digging into contribution histories extensively and laying out every poor edit the candidate has made. I'll have to ask more difficult questions that I'd normally leave unasked because I think the record speaks for itself that the candidate would not know the answer. There's really no alternative when that's the only type of opposition that the bureaucrats will consider "strong". ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * "when someone new and relatively inexperienced comes to RfA, I try to oppose" - See, that's your problem. You should give each candidate the benefit of the doubt before you decide to oppose.--v/r - TP 00:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad we're at the level of discourse that includes pulling quotes out of context. Requiring a record that allows me to evaluate performance is not an unreasonable criterion for adminship. I've edited 40 RfA pages, according to my RfA stats. I've opposed only 6. I'm hardly the face of the "typical" opposition. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 00:54, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to be treated like you're a good-intentioned Wikipedian with the benefit of the project in mind, why not first offer that to the 'crats? Because this comment doesn't give them a whole lot of credit.  You can offer criticism without all of the doomsday predictions and the RfA manipulation rhetoric.  Wikipedians made those calls, not the 'crats.  They did their job well.--v/r - TP 01:08, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not a doomsday prediction. It's an accurate description of the optimal strategy to pass an RfA given apparent community standards and how the crats are weighing votes. If you think the result is doomsday, then you should be as concerned as others are. I'm just trying to understand what happened, because I most certainly do not as-is. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the result is doomsday. I think you're overreacting and you're directing your fears and anger at the 'crats because you didn't get your way.  I really doubt I'm the only one questioning previous esteemed respect for you.  Not because you're questioning how the 'crats came to the conclusion they did.  But because you're blaming them for your fear that this will be the collapse of RfA standards.--v/r - TP 01:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not accurate. If anything, I think standards just went up and RfA just became a nastier place. Due to uncertainty over how bureaucrats will consider different opposing arguments, those who oppose are now going to be pushed to oppose as thoroughly as possible with as many reasons as they can possibly dig up instead of pulling punches to avoid biting premature admin candidates. That's a major concern of mine. Separately, I simply don't believe the bureaucrats assessed consensus properly, especially in light of the Godsy result. I was largely silent after the Godsy result, which I also didn't agree with, because I trusted that the bureaucrats applied the same standards they usually do and the discussion didn't have quite enough to get in the goal. Here, the goal moved. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you wanted to wait 3 months, find people quoting "the GoldenRing RfA" as a reason they're opposing so strongly and then come back and tell us you think this decision sent a bad message then we wouldn't have an issue. Instead, you're imagining all sorts of terrible futures before they even have happened.  'Crats don't have a precedent to follow.  It is impossible to compare one RfA to another.  And even if it could be done, the community itself isn't required to treat two RfA candidates fairly or evenly.  It is out of the 'crats hands.  They cannot change the result of an RfA just because the community acted differently a different time.  In this case, a super-majority developed that directly opposed the primary concerns of the oppose !voters.  Each RfA is it's own case.  And, frankly, your manipulation strategies have only hinted that I should review your future noms with skepticism.  Even if you had those ideas, you're really doing a disservice to your nominations by sharing them.--v/r - TP 01:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * What incredible hypocrisy by someone that said You should give each candidate the benefit of the doubt before you decide to oppose. just an hour ago. Saying that any Wikipedian should not share their thoughts on a matter is, again, tantamount to stifling discussion. Something that should be shunned by any editor. --Majora (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, please, don't let me stifle discussion. When the finger pointing stops and the discussion starts, please invite me.  I'd love to participate in a real discussion about shifting community norms.  But this farce about how the 'crats are ruining RfA is a joke.--v/r - TP 01:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * "Manipulation strategies"? It's not manipulation to note that the community in the Godsy RfA more wholeheartedly rejected the oppose reasons (to the extent that many voted purely citing the horrible opposes). It's not manipulation to note that the support percentage was higher for the Godsy RfA, indicating a smaller percentage of editors agreed with the opposes. It's not manipulation to note that your claim that the community acted differently is correct only insofar as that they supported Godsy to a greater extent by any metric. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:43, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is called manipulation: "I've already advised two potential RfA candidates to stop editing in difficult areas, skip over anything that isn't 100% unambiguous to avoid the trivial mistakes that led to Godsy's opposes, and dedicate their time instead to studying the answers of previous successful RfAs." That is manipulation through and through.--v/r - TP 01:57, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be doing a disservice to those candidates if I did not factor in new information on how RfA results are determined when offering advice. Do you suggest I pretend this RfA didn't happen? I will not. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * I supported GR for his intelligent and in some cases unique answering style, his lack of behavioural issues, his evident lack of trophy hunting, and the fact that he has held tenure since 2004. GR was a lurker pas excellence, quietly learning the way the community runs, and mildly asking 13 years after regestering, if he can be of service. This was a unique RfA. I do not see this as some kind of year zero. If anything, it makes the RfA experience more sophisticated and more nuanced, both for candidate and !voter. The crats made an excellent and enlightened decision in my opinion. The community as a whole conducted this RfA with maturity and dignity. I think it is the future. Good. Irondome (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I know that you and I have been discussing this elsewhere, and we respect each other's differing views, but I really don't think it's a good idea to advocate for the wikt:throw enough mud at the wall, some of it will stick approach. You may not be advertising your intent to employ that method, but the WP:BEANS factor alone is probably detrimental. To me, this whole premise implies that some voters will now, as a direct result of GoldenRing's RfA, be hatching a slew of tenuous "oppose" reasons to bolster their organic rationales. I'm not a fan of that "prediction". You contend that the bureaucrats have overstepped their discretion, and in order to stop unsuitable candidates being promoted by way of supervotes, we must bombard the crats with so many different points of opposition that they can't possibly nullify all of them. That just seems like immensely disproportionate pushback against something that isn't unprecedented and hasn't yet had any negative repercussions. If you have many concerns about a candidate that all reflect poorly on their eligibility, you should always share them, regardless of the user's tenure on the site. If you have one main objection, I think fluffing it up with paragraphs of niggling criticism on a diff-by-diff basis actually weakens the main argument. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:49, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd love to present the one-liner rationale of "not enough record to evaluate", but if I cannot, I must dig through the record and find specific weaknesses. That means bringing up things that I normally would leave unsaid because I don't think saying them adds anything to the oppose. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm sure everything that's worth saying has already been said, so I don't see a need to rehash the debate on what constitutes a valid oppose reason. I would just caution against taking out our dissatisfaction on the next poor sap who requests the admin tools in good faith. RfA should never be an us vs. them endeavor (whoever "they" are); we're all just trying to achieve what's best for the project. The next candidates will have had no control over the fate of GoldenRing's RfA, and shouldn't be dealt unduly aggressive criticism. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, if it puts concerns to rest, my criteria have not changed. The chances of me opposing the "next" RfA are quite low, because I don't oppose that many RfAs. But when I do oppose, it will change how I oppose, because it must change how I oppose if I want my oppose to be counted. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 02:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think what you should be more concerned with would be attempting to convince other participants of your position, not whether the particular reason or how you framed it was "counted" (RfA is a discussion, not an exercise in counting). That is, one shouldn't simply look for the first reason to oppose the candidate and end their analysis - this reason may not carry with other evaluators, and the reviewer may find a stronger reason to oppose that would hold more sway over other participants. This doesn't have to be unduly aggressive or harsh to the candidate, who is expecting a rigorous examination of their history. –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:55, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * In support of building up the case for and against granting administrative privileges, I had suggested changing the RfA process to determine the candidate's pros and cons, and the relative weights that should be given to each, just like is done in the real world when groups make consensus decisions. Thus no single editor needs to feel compelled to take on the burden of a full analysis to ensure her/his expressed opinion counts, as the group jointly works out a profile of the candidate. However most participants in RfA seem happier with the current straw poll process, where they can just add their main comment to the list, and drop in replies scattered throughout. It's less effort for an individual commenter who just wants to add their thoughts, but more effort for everyone who is trying to track multiple threads of discussion on the same topic to engage more actively, and it is not conducive to guiding the conversation towards a consensus decision. isaacl (talk) 16:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

RfA post GoldenRing (break)
All this, and we wonder why so few people want to run at RFA. Can someone do the stats and find out how many 'crat-chat sanctioned admins have subsequently gone rogue and destroyed Wikipedia please? The Rambling Man (talk) 02:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm aware, none. In fact, 'crat chats generally produce sysops that act with more caution.  And that includes a particular candidate that I strongly opposed.--v/r - TP 02:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikipedia is somehow still here. I don't know how, with all these rouge admins and bureaucrats. RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">Yell at me  &#124; <sub style="color:#D7000B;">Edits  02:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and some of those users above creating such walls of text would also be best advised to go hunting after those dodgy admins who were elected in 2003 and 2004 with fewer than two-dozen supports. You've got to watch the quiet ones.... The Rambling Man (talk) 02:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * On a similar note, we have a list of "desysopped admins" (I should know), did any of those individuals destroy Wikipedia? Or did they just create time-sinks for endless debate over whether they were fit for purpose?  Do we have %support vs desysop stats available?  I know of at least one admin who had 100% support and was subsequently left tool-less....  The Rambling Man (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Former administrators contains lists of, well, former admins, sorted by various things including by reason. ansh 666 03:00, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, but I want analysis of desysopped admins vs their % support vs crat chat. If nothing bad has ever come from a crat chat enabled sysop, this conversation is dead.  The Rambling Man (talk) 03:04, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Agree. Like this Norwegian Blue [] Irondome (talk) 03:13, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It is. But like all dramaboards on Wikipedia, someone wants blood.  So perhaps I'll offer my double-desysop-resignation to make sure this kind of thing never happens again.  After all, something absurd is usually required to pipe such discussions down.  Until someone can identify a genuine problem here, with evidence, I suggest we close this endless torture and do something better for our readers, because that's who we're here to serve.  Wikipedia should not be used as an alternative to Facebook or Twitter or other social media outlets which seems to be one of the sad parts of this thread.  A lot of banter/bravado, and not a lot of "improving Wikipedia".  The Rambling Man (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The fire-to-smoke ratio does seem to be even lower than normal with this particular debacle. Some useful observations are still trickling in (see Mz7's comment in the above thread), but most of what's being said strikes me as little more than misplaced fretting about the sanctity of RfA being lost, or something like that. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I take the point so far, but there's no sanctity in RFA as I can prove. Individuals who are borderline, scoring around the 70% mark or lower do a great job, individuals like me scoring 100% fail to keep it up and worse, get the community disappointed in them.  So as far as this miniature storm goes, it's nothing, meaningless, and yet another waste of the community's time to precisely zero benefit to the READERS FOR THE LOVE OF WHOEVER YOU PRAY TO.  The Rambling Man (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I went through the list of Former admins desysopped for cause. I was able to find RFAs for 59 of those former administrators. They had an average support of 91.7% (18 of the 59 were unanimous support). I did not see a bureaucrat chat linked on any of those 59 RFAs. Useight&#39;s Public Sock (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks, I think that says enough for us to now close this discussion without prejudice until such a time an admin elected as a result of a 'crat chat goes rogue. That nearly a third of those admins who are no longer with us went with 100% support in the first instance is fascinating.  Maybe being a sysop can destroy people.  Who knew?  The Rambling Man (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did a similar study ~2 years back and found there was no correlation between success at RfA and subsequent behavior that lead to desysop. RfA is not a predictor of administrator success. It's in the archives here somewhere. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * wbm1058 (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Poll candidate search needs your participation
Regarding the Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Poll candidate search:

There are encouraging results. The poll is having a good month. Six entries in April were editors who received the post.

Stats so far:
 * 178 people into raw list
 * 38 people vetted and received post
 * 6 took poll
 * 2 (wild guess) may become admins.

Further to the stats: Vetting a user completely takes around 3 minutes. (Please don't say it needs 20. This is only for the poll, not RfA.) Some vetting takes 30 seconds for obvious reasons. Average? Who knows. Maybe 2 min. So, 178 names x 2 minutes to vet = 356 minutes. That is around six hours of teamwork to get two admins. That seems worth it. The downside is that the raw list will get weaker. Its sources are wells that will run dry.

I am posting with the above update, but also to ask for help. The mini-project needs you to join and participate:


 * The raw list needs raw list names added for vetting from anywhere you can think of.
 * Scripts need to be made to generate raw list names for vetting. Already, a number of editors are working on that. Please join them.
 * I (and maybe others) need guidance on how to improve vetting criteria. I am out of touch with that draws supports and opposes at an RfA. (Read if you wish. The bottom line is that I'm not that good at it.)
 * Participants are needed to help vet raw list names and post at user talks.

So, please join. Please participate. Results so far suggest that this could bring a number of much-needed new admins each year. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Names needed
Okay, it looks like everything is sorted out. The holding pen keeps good records. The guidelines on vetting are sorted too. Now, all we need is a ton of raw names. I've asked a few people but am not sure anyone is working on it.

Around 40 people have so far received the post. One in five then took the poll resulting in a surge. There are good chances that the effort so far will result in a bunch of new admins.

I am puzzled why so few people have joined this mini-project, and why no new raw names have been added. I'm sitting here saying that I'll do lots of work vetting if people provide names, but alas, none has arrived.

If you all think this is a waste of time or a bad idea, please say. Otherwise, why not help out?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, Anna! I do a certain amount of admin recruiting privately, and I will continue to do that. And when they are about ready to take the plunge, I do advise them to take the poll first. You folks are working hard and you have definitely recruited some good people. I have just one suggestion: I think part of your vetting should be whether they have ever run for admin before. I recently saw the "Have you ever thought of becoming an administrator?" notice put on the talk page of someone who had had an unsuccessful RfA just a few months earlier. Maybe you could come up with some different wording for such people, or maybe exclude them from your recruiting efforts since obviously they HAVE thought about it. Thanks. --MelanieN (talk) 19:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello Melanie dear. Your private recruiting is very much appreciated, as I've mentioned. You're off the hook in terms of joining this mini-project. You certainly do your bit. There are a few people out there who have complained that we need more admins, and I don't see them joining this effort. (You know who you are. )


 * Good point about previous RfAs. I think some of the people who said they'd make a script to populate the raw list section would pre-vet for that. Also, some of the posts I've made to usertalks have had modified text that mentions their previous RfAs. Maybe a catch-all sentence would be good for the standardized post, so long as it doesn't cause too much instruction creep.


 * Best wishes and thanks for the fine suggestion. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should change your standard post. I think it is really well written and is just fine for your target audience (many of whom probably have never considered the idea). Just maybe modify it for people who have been-there-done-that, or handle them on an individual basis. --MelanieN (talk) 20:29, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Good plan! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:45, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

What color is the RFA mood ring?
I had an RFA 9ish years ago. The feeling of the group was that my content building was weak. I have been on break for a long time and looking at some recent discussions it seems the mood has swung a bit more towards "helpful contributors" make good admins. I am not trying to dance around 'hey should I do an RFA gain' I am more curious that if I do, will my style of contributing to the project be worthy, or will I repeat myself without changing?  Gtstricky Talk or C 15:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ....you might want to have a look here; they give good advice, but the RFA-mood is changing with the wind, as far as I can see. Lectonar (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that reading tea leaves or whatever good or bad vibrations to discern an outcome is decidedly misguided. For example, I was foresquare in opposing corners in the last two occasions of RfA. There are too many unknown factors. It depends on the candidate, the questions, the comments (and then the mimicry of those comments by others), the co--nominees (and how everyone feels about them, as well), the four sections: (yes, no, neutral and comments) and who shows up to fill them, the talk page backlash, et all. <b style="color:#595454">Fylbecatulous</b> <b style="color:#DB7093">talk</b> 16:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Clusters of RfAs
They sometimes cluster. Is there a pattern? When one starts an RfA and others start theirs, are they doing it to be in a pack, so that the attention is distrubuted, making it less daunting? If so, could there maybe be some way to take advantage of that fact? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I imagine it's more an artefact of (1) the chatter about an ongoing RFA reminding prospective candidates that RFA exists, (2) the timing of school holidays in the US and Britain, and most significantly (3) the natural aversion in human nature to being the only person doing something (if you blank any talkpage, even ANI, there will usually be a significant delay before anyone posts on it again). I'm not sure how you'd legislate around (3); the usual method Wikipedia uses to prevent this happening is a "minthreadsleft=" parameter—e.g. when a page gets moribund, the most recent items aren't closed and archived until someone posts something new—but that wouldn't be practical here. (I suppose one could leave the last couple of RFAs closed but still visible on the live page to act as models and to make the place look busier, but that would be a little harsh on the candidates.) &#8209; Iridescent 08:51, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting indeed, Iridescent. Rather than preventing this happening, why not go in the other direction. Maybe an announced time to encourage a cluster. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * You mean, have "RFA week" once a month? I don't see that working—we (correctly) advise candidates to time their RFAs for when they know they'll be available to answer questions for seven days. IMO the "decline" at RFA is largely an artefact of Wikipedia's decline in recruitment; most of the people with the experience and knowledge to make good admins have either already run, or aren't interested. If that is the case, then any "candidate recruitment" exercise will just be scraping the last remnants from an already exhausted mine, not tapping a previously uncharted seam. The way to increase participation in these circumstances is to change the nature of adminship, so all the people who've thought "not for me" take a fresh look, but good luck with that. &#8209; Iridescent 15:39, 30 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Iridescent. No, not an RfA week once a month, just some some sort of bulletin board or calendar. Something for those considering RfA to know, in advance, when others might run. I don't have any solid idea of how that could happen. I'm just throwing the idea out there.


 * As for "...IMO the "decline"...not tapping a previously uncharted seam", holy moly, I think you may be bang on, (and you usually are) but I hope you're wrong. The candidate poll search mini-project might have found a tiny seam, though. Fourteen sudden poll entries is encouraging. Anyhow, I'm a big believer in advertising. Suggest, suggest, suggest, and people do. That's why Coke and Nike spend 10% on product and 40% on marketing (guess). A good, ongoing campaign could be worth a dozen extra admins a year. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Off-topic, but just so you know (and I was curious enough to look it up), Coca Cola spent 16.4 billion on production costs, and 16.7 billion on sales, general, and administrative costs in their year ending 12/31/2016. Nike spent 17.4 billion in production costs, and 10.4 billion in sales, general, and administrative costs in their year ending 5/31/16.  Neil916 (Talk) 21:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm a big supporter of the "clustering"/"shotgun" strategy. Yes, it is intentional. When a couple RfAs are already up, many people who were planning to go in the next month or two tend to go early with the hope that those who desperately search for tiny reasons to oppose won't find the time to find that one mistake 4 years ago among over 10,000 edits. I imagine the strategy would disappear if people nit-picked less, but I don't see that happening any time soon. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 21:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So what about some subpage with a calendar on it titled "Tentative upcoming RfAs" or something, and then we post at those who took the poll or those who admins have been contacting privately, and let them know. Maybe they can discuss at the talk page and coordinate a time where they all take the plunge at the same time. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * WP:GAME, WP:SCRUTINY, then, arguably. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  08:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Huh? I've moved your post from above mine to below mine. You can handle things how you like from here on. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:56, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I posted there because I was replying to Rob's specific point, that's all. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  11:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * True. I guess I was responding to Rob but not quite replying to Rob. Maybe I just should have outdented. Sorry to have moved stuff around like that. Cheers. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to admit that during the last surge of RfAs I joked that I should set mine up while the getting was good and people would be too distracted by the others to pay attention to my own. The sad thing is...I wasn't entirely joking. DonIago (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Removing a struck-out !vote from the count.
What needs to be done so that a struck-out !vote is not counted in the tally of an RFA? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Remove the # in front of the comment. Afaik the bot only counts comments that are automatically numbered using the # wikicode. Regards  So Why  11:31, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, the above works only if the vote being removed from the tally is the first vote. To remove a vote from the tally for any other vote, one needs to indent the vote, as to do otherwise will break the numbering for voters after the stricken vote. --Izno (talk) 13:08, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Correct of course. Further !votes need  to be changed to  . Regards  So  Why  13:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Mini-quiz UAA questions...
Is it time to call a moratorium (again) on questions that require more than one answer? Specifically, what I have in mind are questions that follow the format of "here's 10 random user names, please tell me how you'd deal with each one individually." My understanding is that, as these questions require more than one answer, they fall foul of the two-questions-per-editor rule. Am I completely wrong here? Exemplo347 (talk) 22:53, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a problem with them in principle, provided only one person asks such a question and they don't give more than something like 8 usernames. The answers required from the nominee are generally short and don't often require much nuance, so I suspect they don't take much more time to answer than your typical open-ended RfA question, but I'd be interested to hear from someone who's gone through an RfA recently and answered such a question. I do think they're largely pointless if the candidate hasn't expressed the slightest interest in working at UAA though. Sam Walton (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Question 9 demonstrated a good answer to this :D —  xaosflux  Talk 23:23, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the answer to question 1 on that RFA is also relevant... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's the best answer to Q1 I've ever seen, maybe I'll plagarize it someday (just kidding don't banninate me) ansh 666 09:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It is generally ok, as long as they don't surpass 10 usernames, otherwise, they are considered to be two questions. RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">会話 <sub style="color:#D7000B;">投稿記録  23:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The thing about the UAA question is the individual responses are short, but in order to actually test the candidate's knowledge you have to cover a few situations, so you need to list a handful of usernames. I was given 12 in my own RfA, which was really fine since I wasn't asked that many questions overall, I was only slightly annoyed that several of the names were really testing the same thing. Maybe it would be different if it was one of those RfAs with 20+ other questions, I can't say. I asked the question myself a while later in Cyberpower678's second RfA and tried to make sure that each of the 7 names I listed was testing a different aspect of the policy, including a couple that weren't really covered by the policy at all but were just current issue questions, to mix it up. I don't think it should count as multiple questions, and besides everyone who runs these days ought to know it's coming. However I do think it should only be asked once in an RfA. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 00:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * These are fine when someone specifically claims interest in UAA, but the more important question is why it's relevant to "test the candidate's knowledge" of something they don't intend to be involved in. People usually give some gauzy hand-waving response along the lines of "once you're an admin you can use the tools however you want!" but somehow that never prompts quiz questions about template syntax. IMO there's been enough feedback on these UAA questions that a) the askers should be taking the hint, and b) candidates should be able to predict that they are unlikely to damage their candidacies by declining to answer, at least if they're not planning on doing any UAA work. (Personally, I'd be more inclined to support someone who responded to these questions with "I'm not interested in this aspect of adminship and this question is tedious busywork", but I more or less think that about every pop-quiz type question.)
 * I have to admit I feel pretty similarly about the "what would you do if you found a speedy tag on this hypothetical barely-coherent unsourced substub about a topic that turns out to be notable" question genre, but in that case I know the questions are motivated by the askers' long-standing interest in broader related issues. I suspect that part of my irritation with the UAA stuff is that many of the people asking seem to have little investment in UAA as a process, or history of participation in conversations about newbie treatment, or engagement with RfA issues. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ↑ What she said. I'd be far more inclined to support a candidate who told the people who play these nasty WP:NEWT hypothetical games, on what's already a stressful and unpleasant process, exactly where they could shove them. &#8209; Iridescent 10:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ↑ What she said. I'd be far more inclined to support a candidate who told the people who play these nasty WP:NEWT hypothetical games, on what's already a stressful and unpleasant process, exactly where they could shove them. &#8209; Iridescent 10:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you talking about me? I normally try and put forward an opinion based on existing contributions, but if I'm on the fence and can't tell, an open-ended question is a way of seeing how they work things out and how to break the logjam in my mind. I realise RfA is unpleasant, but having to read off-wiki comments about how people hate Wikipedia because they got stung by an unnecessary drive-by deletion (random example) is even more so, in my opinion. I agree that the username questions are pretty bone-headed. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's Andrea James again. Hardly a "random example". --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 20:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're the only one who's done this, but it was your essays on newbie-biting I had in mind. That suggests a question being asked with a broader purpose in mind, as opposed to the UAA stuff that mostly looks like it's done to show off.
 * That being said, I don't find those hypothetical substubs very useful in "breaking logjams"; I don't think it's likely to be a good use of admin time to go digging on google to see if this barely-coherent misspelled single sentence might actually be a real subject, nor a good use of candidate time to do it for a completely made-up example where the only clue that the reaction you're fishing for is "oh, this is real after all" rather than "delete, that's nonsense" is familiarity with your previous RfA questions. In fact, I'm not convinced it's a net positive to rehabilitate this kind of borderline useless article even if a willing editor sees it; it communicates to new editors that they can just write crap and expect someone else to do all the real work. (But IIRC, I did that once and then got accused of biting newbies by fixing it myself instead of teaching them how...) And while there's no doubt some over-enthusiastic deletion going on, I find that boingboing article, um, unpersuasive. The whole thing needs a liberal sprinkling of cn tags. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * While obviously it's all personal opinions, they do match real-life experiences I've witnessed, and one of the guys commenting is a real-life friend of mine (assuming nobody else would use the same handle and avatar). So I wouldn't put tags on everything there. While some Wikipedia criticism is just butthurt people who didn't get what they want and can't cope with it, other criticism is very much fair comment and perhaps representative of the silent majority. And I want all admin candidates to have sufficient clue to recognise that and manage it accordingly. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A significant number of questions are posed by newbies who simply think it's cool to participate in such an important meta area. Some of them have been around for all of 140 edits and already have one of those silly I wanna be an admin uboxen on their u-page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

When the candidate specifically expresses interest in, for example, blocking usernames, then it would be reasonable to expect a question on it with, perhaps, two usernames. Anymore than two is unreasonable and the latest loophole seems to be packing as many into one question as possible under the guise of their being all related. Aiken D 19:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Would the community really support someone who expressed an interest in blocking usernames but had to rely on a "test" because they had no practical experience reporting UAA violations? We expect editors who are interested in vandalism work to have experience at ANI and AIV. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 19:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Too many questions?
(subsection this part to address the more abstract question of too many questions or not) --Hammersoft (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Too many questions asked at RfA are BS anyway. More and more, I think, they're for the self-aggrandisement of the questioner rather than to allow the candidate to mull answers over for the community to assess. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  08:08, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As a rough heuristic, by the time the candidate has been asked 7 questions, I've usually got enough to go on to make an informed decision, irrespective of whether I've asked any myself (and I do try not to if I can possibly avoid it). Going up to 20+ is ridiculous. Right now I reckon clpo13 could ignore all of the remaining unanswered questions on his RfA and still pass with flying colours. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  11:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Twenty-three questions is not just ridiculous, it's ******* ridiculous. We ought to consider enforcing a limit, as well as restraining the length of individual questions. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  12:25, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Without denying that twenty-three questions is absurd (because it obviously is), I can't imagine how such a limit would work. Is it first-come-first-served system?  That seems like it will just incentivise people asking questions quickly, just to have the opportunity to ask a question (already in this RFA Q10 was asked less than 4 hours after transclusion – less than 3% of the way through the RfA).  And neither candidates or voters are well-served by having only formulaic or ill-thought through questions, rather than questions about the candidates actual record – i.e. the kinds of questions which take more time to formulate.

PAGE''' ]]) 14:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * A different potential approach would be to limit who is permitted to ask questions, but I see only one question on this RfA by a user who isn't extended-confirmed, and none by IPs, so I don't see that that would necessarily work either. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, questions are optional, are they not? The trouble is we'll need somebody prepared to be a guinea-pig and not bother answering the stock UAA question and ignoring other ones. Either the RfA will succeed and (hopefully) set a precedent, or the first person to write "oppose - didn't answer a question" will get piled on. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  13:44, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * What about allowing the candidate or nominator(s) to stop allowing more questions when they deem it reasonable? Haven't though this through, just an idea. Sam Walton (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's 38 questions now by my count, if you include the two multi-part questions. --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

I was curious about the impact of questions on an RfA. There's a lot of different ways to look at this. I decided to see how many questions there were in an RfA at the end compared to at 24 hours into the RfA, compared to the support percentage at the same break points. I did this for 30 successful candidacies dating to December 2015, and 15 unsuccessful (non-snow, non-not now, only withdrawn or full term) candidacies dating to July 2015. The unsuccessful candidacies data is a bit problematic due to RfAs being withdrawn early in many cases, and 12 of them in the same time period being withdrawn before 24 hours. Nevertheless, I saw some interesting trends: Certainly more data is needed to tighten things up. For my part, the trends here indicate that placing artificial limits on the number of questions, or the time in which questions are allowed to be asked, would seem to be counterproductive. Just some food for thought. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:39, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * 1) Among successful RfAs; the number of questions increased 56% from 24 hours to the end, and the number of votes increased by 160%. Yet, the support % decreased only 3.7%. This would seem to indicate that additional questions after 24 hours in successful RfAs have no impact on the outcome.
 * 2) Conversely, unsuccessful RfAs on the same metric; 40% increase in questions, 152% increase in votes, but a 13.4% decrease in support. Perhaps there's a correlation between unsuccessful RfAs and questions asked after 24 hours? This is possible. More extensive data would need to be done to support this, but it's tantalizing.
 * 3) The number of questions asked of successful RfAs averages 15.5, and unsuccessful 19.2.
 * What statistics above don't provide is information on the relevancy of the questions and the experience of those who pose them. The issue of questions has been demonstrated up in much greater detail  here. An in-depth evaluation of the questions themselves is reported here.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
 * RFA is a hazing ritual.   HalfGig   talk  02:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Questioners should be required to write a 100-word essay on why they feel the question is relevant to the candidate. And they should be required to answer all the other questions and have random people criticise their answers. Then they might have some sympathy for the person whose time they're wasting during an already stressful week. HJ Mitchell  &#124; <span style="color:Navy; font-family:Times New Roman;" title="(Talk page)">Penny for your thoughts?  00:11, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not a bad idea. I do feel that for an editor who says that they intend to work on backlogs, a pop quiz question can be quite appropriate. It lets you see how the editor handles an unfamiliar admin area, and whether they can look up the policies and procedures in question and then apply them correctly. (It may just be me, but I have to field a lot of "Where's to one about... ? questions lately) It's only that we are all getting bored with the ones on UAA. One on DYK might have been more appropriate. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:14, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

(another) Thread about UAA

 * Is anyone getting utterly sick and tired of these stupid username questions that tell you nothing about whether the candidate can use the tools in a responsible and trustworthy manner? <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:34, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Same with me, I'm getting tired of this being not put under multiple questions. &mdash; JJ  Be  rs  16:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thirded? It's not "fun" to make up random names and see if you can "trip up" the candidate. Politely asking to retract their question. Primefac (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I offer a kitten to the first candidate who replies to a UAA question by saying it's not among their areas of expertise therefore venturing hastily-formed answers would be irresponsible. (I have no idea if that's ONU, maybe she's an UAA pro, but I hope candidates and voters alike view optional questions as truly optional--there's no more reason every RfA candidate must take a UAA quiz than there is to require every admin candidate be, I don't know, a templates expert. What is important to me is candidates knowing where they can contribute effectively and where they're out of their depth.) Innisfree987 (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * These UAA comments appear on virtually every RfA. I fail to see what the issue is. The "getting in on the fun" was a bit facetious, I'll admit, and if people take objection to that specifically, I'll strike and rephrase, but these questions have a legitimate purpose. Smartyllama (talk) 17:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And to add on to that, as mentioned, this may or may not be an area ONUnicorn wants to work in. If not, that's a reasonable answer. If it is, I would expect them to show some knowledge of the process and how to handle things. Smartyllama (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the fact that they appear on virtually every RfA is part of the problem; it's being asked just because it's fashionable to do so. The only way to get it to stop is for candidates to decline to answer.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear I was saying maybe ONU has a lot of knowledge about usernames, I simply don't know (ETA: ah turns out she does! regardless I still feel the same way about these questions generally) ; but as for where she wants to work, she's told us, and it didn't include usernames. If you want to confirm that, perhaps just ask directly if that's something she plans to work on before going on to a name quiz. I share Primefac's sense that it's a bit of a trap to go straight to a question to which the correct answer may be, "I shouldn't answer that question." There's a lot of pressure on candidates to answer everything lest omissions be held against them--recently a voter went to the oppose side simply because a question wasn't answered in four hours! Taking care to avoid putting candidates in such impossible positions is important to getting good admin candidates to be willing to go through RfA. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * fourthed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fifthted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If people really want to change this, perhaps they should open a dedicated RfC rather than discussing it on every single RfA, as appears to have been done for some time. Smartyllama (talk) 18:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (And you still haven't taken any notice, Smartyllama?) Getting people to stop asking these username questions by direct means is unlikely to happen; they're entrenched, and it would be rules creep. We have to appeal to the candidates. The first candidate who uses Floquenbeams answer or similar will get 50 Appropriate Boldness Support Points from me. Better than a kitten! If they also self-nominate and thereby get my standard 50 Support Points for Independence, there's 100 points, and a whole support, for them right there. You too, Floquenbeam? Let's offset some of the outraged opposes that would follow "your" reply. It could become a movement. Bishonen &#124; talk 18:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC).
 * Ah, and here's the problem with conflicting RfA standards. A candidate (who isn't an obvious pass) would get at least 10 opposes between self-nominating and refusing to answer a question about policy, likely more. Since we more-or-less require 75% support to guarantee a pass, you'd need to find 30+ editors who would support (and who would not support otherwise) to make it "worthwhile" for candidates to buck the trends. RfA is an exercise in being a politician for a week. All successful politicians know their constituencies. If a candidate knows their RfA constituency, they'll see the numbers on doing those things just don't add up. If we want to improve RfA, we can't try to force candidates to tell people with bad questions to screw off - that just makes things worse. An RfC on limiting multi-part questions to, say, three parts would not be instruction creep. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, put me down as another person who's increasingly leaning to automatically supporting anyone who refuses to answer the UAA questions if they haven't said in Q1 that they intend to work in UAA. If we think that refusing to answer the question is likely to cripple borderline candidates, though, and we reject forbidding them due to instruction creep, it seems though the only remaining option is to wait for the question to go out of fashion and another stupid question come in... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC) edit conflict on the above thread, was added to the RFA here. Primefac (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Can we make this an actual RfC? I know I would support it. I think these questions could all be answered simply with "go read UPOL." They are utterly non-informative and seem to be excuses for editors to try to make up outrageous names.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I was sorely tempted to just leave it at "You said they all have no edits, so per the instructions at Usernames for administrator attention/Instructions, I would probably not take any action unless and until they edit." In my mind, that's all that question really calls for. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 19:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sixthed. I think it's become enough of an issue that we should seriously consider topic-banning people who ask the "gotcha" questions on UAA and CSD, except in cases where the candidate has indicated a desire to work in those areas, from the RFA process. The standard "but the admin bit will give them access to the complete toolset so we need to know how competent they are in those areas in case they change their mind!" argument is hogwash; if people genuinely felt this was an issue, they'd be asking questions about editing the MediaWiki namespace (an area where an incompetent admin can do orders of magnitude more damage than they can at UAA or CSD). &#8209; Iridescent 19:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Were I to run, I would 100% answer in the form of "A) I have no current desire to work here, and B) am mindful-enough to read PAGs before jumping into X or Y corner of the wiki, should I C) wish to participate in this area in the future." --Izno (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd wielded the bit for years w/o going near UAA. It's pretty simple, now that I'm there. The egregious Spamu and multi user one's are easy enough. The others I don't worry bout unless they are, well egregious. When in doubt, question the wisdom of carrying out an action.Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * ANd what Iridescent said.Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry if this seems a little too self-congratulatory, but I'm happy to say I refused to answer one of the standard questions (#9 in the diff), and no one opposed me for it. Although I did chicken out and answer the other 45 questions (well that's what it felt like). --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh. That's why you came within 113 votes of failing.  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  10:43, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Seventhed. Lepricavark (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to call out anyone or any RFA in particular, but I really roll my eyes when the questioner treats these as a sort of "gotcha!" moment. I totally understand questioning someone's judgement if they thought FUCKYOURMOTHER was an appropriate username, but I've seen the candidate gets chastised for not recognizing the name of some random living person. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said in the last go-around on this subject, n+1 for thinking these are stupid and endorsing candidates who don't waste their time on this stuff. The "look how clever I am with these made-up usernames!" crowd is apparently right on that awkward threshold of being experienced enough as editors to participate substantively in RfA but too inexperienced/socially unaware to recognize the growing tide of disapproval for their game-playing. That being said, people using RfAs for grandstanding, attention-seeking, and publicly revealing their own poor judgment is hardly a new phenomenon, and this particular genre of timewaster question is neither the most toxic current contribution to the RfA climate, nor the worst of the historical examples of "de facto Q4" questions. Going back far enough, they used to be more blatantly political, like "Would you put yourself up for recall?" or "Are you a teenager?" By comparison, these are just nuisances, not attempts to filibuster the RfA process or force candidates into choosing a side in an ongoing wikipolitical dispute. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * True. I seem to remember it wasn't that long ago that 'Republican or Democrat?' was deemed an appropriate question (for a while, anyway). &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  10:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It always amuses me, that threads like these often have a tendency to discuss issues as if they've never been raised before. In fact the topic of RfA questions was researched in very great depth a few years ago here and some almost identical suggestions for reform were made. More recently, whether on the surface it looks reasonable enough or not, Q4 here is another clear case of a cluebie trying to be clever. 90/500 would not be an unreasonable requirement to participate at RfA.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Eighth. Those questions are more likely to play "gotchas" to the candidate rather than a genuine question. <b style="color:#0000FF;">OhanaUnited</b><b style="color:green;">Talk page</b> 04:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Max 2 names per question
PAGE ]]) 21:52, 23 May 2017 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 18:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Can we at least make a rule that there are a maximum of 2 names per question? To pile on as many as have been is needless and inappropriate. Aiken D 19:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * (ec) I agree that the user name questions I've seen have a "gotcha" quality and serve no useful purpose whatever. Coretheapple (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't support instruction creep specific to UAA because this is a more broad problem about multi-part questions. I would support an additional requirement that multi-part questions have, at most, three or four parts. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 21:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is not the number of names, the problem is that the question is being asked of everyone as if there was consensus for it to be q4. If someone says they are going to be active at UAA, or they carefully don't but in the past they've done some bad UAA reports, then a UAA question is relevant. But usually it is a distraction from the RFA. A better solution would be to require questions to be dif supported or relevant to the nomination statement or answers to earlier questions.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  21:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Trying to fix the problem by limiting the number of UAA examples kind of misses the point (Well, it misses the point *I'm* trying to make; others are probably making different points). You are not going to be able to "fix" RFA by adding new rules, because that isn't the fundamental problem. The fundamental problem with RFA is that many of the voters, and many of the people asking the generic CSD/UAA/block vs ban gotcha questions are . And not to sound too pessimistic, that problem is unsolvable. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it's so much the number of usernames, either. At UAA, unless the username is a blatant violation, the explanation from the reporting user gives some context. The RfA question is just a bunch of usernames with no explanation, and no context for the candidate to go by. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly simple; just make RfA 30/500 or whatever we call it now. That'd clear out all the noobs (and that includes the latest example, which might not be new, but is experientially a noob, it seems). There's no reason anyway for editors who want to edit the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit to also want to vote in its elections; they're not the same thing. &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  21:46, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I know it's a controversial stance, but I would fully support WP:BLUELOCKing RFA pages. I certainly didn't understand the nuances of the administrator role, and what it does and doesn't entail, before I would've met the 30/500 criteria. However, I'm not sure that that's the root of this problem. --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
 * I don't think it would work. Of the UAA questioners at all of the RfAs currently linked from the RfA page, one had their question struck when they were indeffed as a sock; the rest are all currently extended confirmed (and had easily met the 30 days limit when they commented on the RfA; I haven't checked whether they met the 500-edit limit at the time).  I'm sure I wouldn't have had anything useful to say at an RfA before I was extended confirmed, but I suspect that enough of the unhelpful comments at RfA are made by EC users that this wouldn't make much difference either way... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. I don't think protecting RFA would help this problem, but would improve the level of discourse in general. --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
 * This. A lot of the questions are like "what do you do if you see username like uuzzuu". The report would usually clearly state that it's possibly an attempted impersonation of [username]. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]]) 21:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Lets make it more general than that. Why not just clarify that for multi-part questions or questions that asks candidates to reply to multiple examples, each part or example counts as a question for the purposes of the two-questions-per-editor limit. No need to single out UAA quizzes. --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
 * I think this would solve a lot of the problem. Of course, there have been fashions in stupid RfA questions before, and many of those would not have been eliminated by this rule.  But they differ from the UAA question in an important respect: they take much less time to answer.  So while they do get irritating after a while, they're mainly irritating to voters who have to waste braincells on reading an irrelevant question with a prepared response.  Whereas the exact usernames someone makes up for the UAA question can't be prepared for, so candidates have to spend time doing things like googling arbitrary addresses to see why the questioner thinks they are significant, searching to see if any of the names given could be reasonably construed as imitating existing prolific users and/or admins (I don't believe I have ever run into Gogo Dodo, and so I would probably have got that one "wrong" unless I was lucky in my searching...), and so on.  When they could instead be either a) improving wikipedia, or b) giving thoughtful answers to actually relevant questions on the rfa. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 07:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If a question requires 10 seperate answers, it's not 1 question. It's 10 questions. Calling these 10 questions 'examples' is a clever way to get around the 'max 2 questions" rule, sure, but IMO this should stop. That goes for any question with a list of 'examples', not just the UAA lists. The RfA page clearly states "Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed." If there are multi-part answers, there are multi-part questions. Quite simple really. If it looks like a duck...  Y intan  08:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't fix every problem with making a new rule, then a new subrule, then a new subsubrule. RfA will end up like golf, except the rules will be enforced by cheetos-eating 20-somethings rather than polo-wearing middle-age pricks. The best course is for candidates to feel confident enough to ignore the questions if they lie outside their area of activity. Doing so is likely to attract few if any opposes. --Mkativerata (talk) 08:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Back in January 2016, this was added to the header: "Also forbidden are multi-part questions which are disguised as one question, but in effect are really more than one question and violate the two-question limit." This seems fairly clear to me, but I've now changed it to refer to multiple answers. Feel free to revert, but even more, feel free to apply it. -- zzuuzz (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that'll sort it; a shame it can't be applied retroactively though :)  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  09:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * It always amuses me that threads like these often have a tendency to discuss issues as if they've never been raised before. In fact the topic of RfA questions was researched in very great depth a few years ago here and some almost identical suggestions for reform were made. More recently, whether on the surface it looks reasonable enough or not, Q4 here is another clear case of a cluebie trying to be clever. 90/500 would not be an unreasonable requirement to participate at RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, to a point. RFA always had a problem with people asking pointless or show-off questions, but the specific trend here—of people raising intentional "gotcha" questions using situations that could never arise in reality (since actual UAA reports and deletion nominations always specify the tagger's concern), in a deliberate attempt to get the candidate to give a wrong answer to the hypothetical situation, seems to be a new and unwelcome development. &#8209; Iridescent 19:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That was researched in depth too,, six years ago. There is a catalogue of over 156 questions that were examined and categorised, ranging from the inappropriate to the silly and ridiculous.
 * The sample 156 questions were taken from a total of roughly 772 questions on all passes, and all full-term fails in  2010. They  are not  exhaustive and for many  questions only one example might have been be provided. Some of them,  particularly  multiple questions bundled under the guise of one, may  not  be strictly  in  the appropriate section,  because they  fall into  several  categories.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That survey was over six years ago. I'm not sure from your comments here how you think it affects the current discussion, other than to say: "People have been asking inappropriate RfA questions for a long time." Since that would not be a stunning revelation (to say the least) I'm sure that you mean something else that I'm just missing. I look forward to hearing what you do mean. Thanks.  Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The irony is,, that the 6-year-old research is as stunningly accurate and relevant today, if not even more so, than it was then. It's a shame people don't take the hint and read it, it's extremely detailed (embarrassingly so) - then perhaps they would not keep re-starting these perennial discussions as if the issues were a brand new phenomenon each time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:51, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect,, I think people keep re-starting these discussions because, as your list shows, the problem has been around for a long time and just doesn't get solved.  Y intan  22:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, -  all talk and no solutions. What was your impression of the 6-year-old research? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:55, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That there is some progress. At least we don't get the plain silly questions anymore. Not usually, anyway.  Y intan  22:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Poor AfD stats
Can someone explain to me why "poor AfD stats" is seen by some people as an argument to oppose a candidate at RfA? Does that mean they want people to not voice minority opinions in AfDs? Do they want people to add a sixth "delete, not notable" vote to unanimous AfDs in order to boost their stats? If a candidate has AfDs where they did not end up on the winning side, this tells us how they behave in disputes that they do not win. This is useful information, as admins typically disagree with each other a lot and then have to accept and uphold decisions they do not agree with. I think whether the candidate agrees with the majority should not be important as long as they have a useful and meaningful contribution to the debate. My personal AfD stats these days are poor, as I do not contribute to unanimous debates at all (other than as nominator) and only comment on AfDs that I find interesting, sometimes as the lone dissenting voice. How does this make me a bad admin? —Kusma (t·c) 12:31, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Interesting point. Speaking as someone who perhaps isn't as familiar with the admin role as he should be, I would additionally ask: given that the role of an admin with regards to AfD discussions is to close them, not vote (which they're certainly entitled to do, but then they wouldn't be the closer), how is how they vote on AfDs pertinent? Is the suggestion that an admin who tends to cast minority opinions on AfDs would be ill-suited to close them competently? If so, that doesn't seem to me like it logically follows. If nothing else, a good admin simply wouldn't close AfDs in cases where they disagreed with the outcome. It seems like there may be somewhat of a failure to assume good faith here. I look forward to gaining additional insight into this subject. DonIago (talk) 13:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I also think there's a difference between assessing an article or topic for compliance with rules (voting in an AFD) and assessing and carrying out consensus (closing an AFD). Moreover, I don't trust that tool that gives the AFD stats - for example Articles for deletion/Redwall doesn't show up in my AFD stats for some reason, and it's not the only one.  Also, Articles for deletion/Political party control of United States state legislatures and governors shows up as me casting a redirect !vote instead of a delete as nom, simply because in a later comment I said I'd be fine with it being redirected and bolded the word redirected, which confused the tool (although the tool still thinks I got it "right").  Like Kusma I see little value in adding a sixth "delete, not notable" vote to a unanimous AFD, or a sixth "keep" vote to a unanimous AFD unless I have something new or different than what others have said to add to the conversation.  That doesn't mean I couldn't close the unanimous delete and carry out the consensus. The only thing I can think of for why people are hung up on AFD stats is that they may be looking at it as a measure of your ability to persuade others to your point of view.  If there are a bunch of delete !votes and you can persuade others to change their minds and successfully get the article kept, or vice versa, that's a measure of your ability to know the rules, apply them effectively, and get others on board with you. But that would be better judged by looking at the content of both the "correct" and "incorrect" AFD comments, not merely the results. ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 14:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

PAGE''' ]]) 14:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * While I can sort of understand this, I logically cannot support it in any way. As long as they are backing up their votes with logic, then it should have no bearing on an RfA, much less a negative one—logically backing up one's arguments may actually be a good thing, at least compared to a really high AfD percentage just going "by nom" all the time. RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">会話 <sub style="color:#D7000B;">投稿記録  14:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I addressed this in the RfA, but I'll repost it here. It all boils down to the fact that for many people, having a number to cite is much easier than actually digging into the substance of an editor's contributions, whether you're talking about AfD "success", edit count, percent edits to various namespaces, featured articles/DYKs, or the various other numbers that people have used as a proxy for suitability for adminship. With AfD stats in particular, as you mentioned, the roll of an editor in an AfD discussion (judging notability) is completely different from the role of an administrator closing a discussion (judging consensus). This leads to a bit of a paradox: if you are planning to run for RfA you would always want to !vote with consensus to improve your stats, so your AfD stats might be an indication of your ability to judge consensus. However, someone who is !voting against the merits probably isn't the sort of person we want as an administrator. On the other hand, if you're truly !voting at AfD to improve the project, and are therefore the kind of person we want as an admin, you would be !voting based on the merits and not on consensus, and the your AfD stats wouldn't have much correlation with your ability to judge consensus. --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
 * There might be a reasonable argument made that someone who sits with consensus in an AFD understands the correct weighting of the arguments made in an AFD--an understanding which he will need as an administrator to close AFDs correctly&mdash;as in, without too many false positives, as evidenced by the number of times he ends up at DRV or AN(I) or whatnot&mdash;since consensus is not a headcount. I'm not entirely sure I subscribe to this argument (I think some question is begged regarding whether the user in question might have gamed the system by !voting as discussed above [please AGF], or might not have !voted with some significant rationale actually indicating his agreement with what ends as the consensus position), but I think that's the one I might make. --Izno (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are talking about my take on this, I didn't mean to imply an editor running for adminship gaming the system, I just meant that an editor will generally vote on not too controversial noms, which is what a lot of editors (at least I do it) do. RileyBugz <sup style="color:#D7000B;">会話 <sub style="color:#D7000B;">投稿記録  14:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not intend to respond to your comment. --Izno (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Fads come and go - and so do they at RfA. This year's fashion is an obsessive concern with candidates' AfD stats as if that were all that matters for becoming an admin. . Exactly, and it also often precipitates a raft of unqualified pile-ons. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * For the record, I've repeatedly argued that the entire idea of using AfD stats as a criterion for RfA is outrageously wrong, and that indeed any such votes should be discounted by the crats as a matter of principle . Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are incorrect for the reason Primefac mentions below (and which I mentioned at ONUnicorn's RfA). AfD percentages are a valid criterion but not the way people currently use them. A very high percentage of "mistakes" indicates a user is !voting in a pattern, without considering the article's merits at all (such as !voting delete or keep on every AfD). Conversely, a high percentage of "correct" !votes indicates a user who might prefer to "play it safe" and just !vote in AfDs where the consensus is already clear to increase their "winning" percentage. So we don't need crats to discount such !votes in general, just those who don't use the stats to check whether the candidate is able to make policy- and guideline-based arguments. Regards  So Why  17:52, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing inherently wrong about someone having a minority viewpoint and having something like a 60-70% accuracy rate at AFD. There are really two types of "bad" percentages: the first is simply voting delete on everything and being wrong sometimes. The other is what's mentioned above - looking at the situation, making an assessment, and occasionally being wrong. I think "bad AFD stats" isn't a good reason to oppose, whereas "bad AFD stats because 99% of the time they vote delete with no rationale" is a valid reason to oppose. Primefac (talk) 17:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The underlying problem is human nature; we are quite willing to look at objective measures and believe they give us wisdom. However. wisdom usually comes from the subjective. We have plenty of ways in which to objectively measure candidates. People refer to those rather than do an indepth review of a candidate's edits. So, if someone has <insert arbitrary % level> corrected votes at AfD, people conclude  the candidate must know what they are doing. It's a false metric, but people latch onto it anyway, and there's really nothing we can do about it. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that stats are unhelpful. There is a big difference between voting delete the day before a footballer has their first team debut, or voting delete on an article that is rescued with paywalled sources and voting delete on an article that could have been saved with a simple websearch. Raw statistics don't show you whether this is a person who makes sensible contributions in edge cases or one who usually votes per nom and occasionally does some deletion nominations that are hard to tell from vandalism.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  20:20, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Another issue I don't think I've seen mentioned here is that AfD stats are particularly poor grounds to judge this candidate since a lot of the AfD's they !voted "Keep" were closed as "No consensus". That means that the end result of the discussion was to keep the article as  suggested but the statistics do not count that as "vote matched result".  So, as lazy as the argument is in general, it is even less applicable here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * re the afd stat tool getting it wrong, as someone who adds afds to the various discussion lists, the tool sometimes (around 2% to 5%?) assumes i have 'voted' in line with the following editor's 'keep' or 'delete' vote, annoying/surprising but you get used to it:) Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * , speaking as one of the maintainers of the tool, feel free to drop notes on my talk page about errors of this type, since we should definitely fix that :) Enterprisey (talk!) 02:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * hi, no probs, it just looks like some funny aberration, oh wait, its just that it could ruin my almost(?) perfect record, oh no, from some of the comments above a very high 'success' rate means i won't ever become an admin, phew!Coolabahapple (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * My opinion - I hate to see raw statistics such as these used to make an arbitrary judgement on a candidate's suitability. Whenever I see a !vote based purely on AfD stats, length of tenure, number of articles created, number of posts at one or another Admin board, simple edit count etc. with no evidence that the voter has actually examined the candidate's contribution, I just scroll past that lazy vote, completely discounting it. Exemplo347 (talk) 07:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * AFD stats can be useful if used correctly. If an editor is out of sync 30% of the time, it could indicate that they are not up to date with policies. But there are a number of other factors to consider before reaching that conclusion. If the majority of that 30% consists of well-reasoned arguments citing policies it's not a problem. Similarly if they were out of touch with consensus years ago but have sharpened up their game in recent years it may not be an issue. In all cases, people need to look beyond raw stats. Valenciano (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I was curious about this as well. If someone steps in with reasoned rationale in a contentious AfD that doesn't go their way, that shouldn't be harmful. If anything, this trend would probably discourage candidates from voicing their opinion on anything other than slam dunk AFDs. South Nashua (talk) 17:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately while everyone here is moaning that AfD stats and percentages aren't/shouldn't/won't/can't be used, a sister project (at the less-than succinctly-titled Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Poll candidate search/Poll candidates) is merrily advising would-be candidates- and more importantly, those searching for new candidates- to ensure that would- be admins have '[in AfD] .' Oops! 😀 &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  09:57, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not a contradiction. It is perfectly reasonable to recognize that AfD stats are a part of the decision-making process for many RfA voters while also disliking that fact.  The OCRP candidate search folks are not trying to find editors who they like, they are trying to find editors that they think will pass RfA's.  It would be silly for them to ignore de facto RfA standards, however much they disagree or agree with those standards. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Just so. And who mentioned contradictions...?  &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  21:59, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Reply- "Overall" AFD stats show how much the candidate knows about article notability guidelines, but in this case about ONUnicorn the decision was wrong as most of her red boxes were 10 years old. <b style="color:Red">Marvellous</b> Spider-Man  13:16, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Whether here or on an online dating site, if someone's only concern is "stats" it's pretty shallow. Jonathunder (talk) 15:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedians seeking wikipedians. 24-year old male, questionable sense of humour, even more questionable sense of personal hygiene, seeks loving relationship with something, anything really, has available access to sheep dip.... <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  15:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Poll candidate search
ONUnicorn was on the raw list at the Poll candidate search project. She was vetted then received the post suggesting she take the poll. The poll results were encouraging. She is now at RfA and doing well.

The Poll candidate search caused a spike in entries for April. More poll entries = more RfAs, right?

I am posting here and anyone else who can make scripts and that sort of thing that produce names for the raw list.

For years people at this page have spent hours and thousands of keystrokes going on about not enough admins and possible solutions. Well, this might be working. I keep posting again and again with appeals for raw list names. I am mystified as to why there is so little help here.

Please feed the machine with names.

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Stay mystified . It's the same at WT:NPR, a lot of talk about problems but when the issues have been clearly identified no one want to take the initiative to implement the solutions, and so the keystrokes continue, but they are all banter, not programming language. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Kudpung กุดผึ้ง. All I can say is: rats, dang, grrrrrrr, hmmpf, jeez, awwwww, and sigh. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Maybe, instead of waiting for people to volunteer their abilities, I will have to knock on doors one-by-one. So... Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:17, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Who here knows of people who know how to populate the raw list? Name names! Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the big barrier is that "go forth and make a list" isn't something you can tell a script to do. We need parameters on what we want to be on the list. Once those parameters exist, then we can call on a coder to take up the task. Computers are stupid, so we have to be very exact about what we want anything automated to do. How about the following as a basis for a list?
 * Pull a list of everyone who has edited AIV, RFPP, AN, or ANI in the past month. (Feel free to suggest other centralized project-related pages or other means of generating some initial list that we can then reduce. Everyone who's edited in a time period is too broad. We could pull lists from user groups as an alternative to something based on individual pages.)
 * Remove from the last anyone with the sysop or bot flag.
 * Remove from the last anyone without the extendedconfirmed flag. (Note: Checking edit count is likely an expensive operation. That's best done by vetters.)
 * Remove from the list anyone who has been blocked in the past month.
 * Remove from the list anyone who's account was created less than two years ago. (Mostly as the "cheapest" substitute for checking edit count - a check on a single log entry is easier.)
 * This would pull a broad list of people. There would need to be substantial cuts in vetting. Is this what you're looking for? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As an aside, a smart move that doesn't require a script would be to add everyone who failed an RfA in 2015 or earlier to the list and vet for current activity/improvements upon their initial candidacy. I imagine some could be convinced to go again, but they may not decide to do that without prompting because failing an RfA can be brutal. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Checking edit count is actually fairly cheap, so long as it doesn't have to be exact; there's a column for it in the user table, and it's also available through the API if you really prefer that route.My concern here is that any given thread on WT:RFA is at least 50% likely to be how horrible an idea it is to use statistics to evaluate candidates, and you're essentially asking us to do exactly that even before they're candidates. —Cryptic 01:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We're really trying to find candidates with these statistics, not evaluate them. Of course, we might miss people because of these statistics, but the other option is manual searching, which we're already doing. So we're just creating a new pipeline for candidates, if I'm understanding everything correctly. Enterprisey (talk!) 04:35, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Cryptic. Exactly what Enterprisey said. Well put, Enterprisey. Thank you. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * "Remove from the list anyone who has been blocked in the past month." - this doesn't account for accidental or self-requested blocks...which is just one small example of why any one set of parameters won't be useful for this, and why human vetting is still the best way to go about it despite the massive inefficiency. And yes, what Cryptic said, better than I could and (luckily) before I could. ansh 666 02:01, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As an extremely broad first pass, query/18456 has all non-sysop, non-bot users with at least ten thousand edits who registered at least two years ago and aren't currently blocked. There's 4571 of them.  The cutoffs I picked were completely arbitrary; if you want that narrowed down at all, you'll have to be more specific. —Cryptic 06:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Cryptic, you are fast becoming our extra special superhero! We'll get back to you as soon as we sort this out! Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you...... Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi Cryptic. Here is a list of other various things. Can the query do some or all?


 * AfD participation
 * Edit count at pages other than mainspace, article talk, and user talk
 * Name not present at Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Poll candidate search/Poll candidates holding pen
 * Edited within last week
 * Nice hair (optional, but a plus)


 * Hopefully others will read this and add or subtract some. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Some of that is impossible, some of it slow, some of it just inconvenient. The toollabs databases don't have any page text, so this can't directly cull by whether someone's already listed, nor by keywords in talk archives.  The databases are set up to make the sort of things that are done very, very often on Wikipedia fast, not to make arbitrary data mining easy.  For example, it takes about thirty seconds to show most of my edits to the WP: namespace, and there isn't any faster way to get that count than to retrieve all that data.  (It's only a total edit count that was made to be efficient, and I'm surprised that even that much was.)  Multiply that by 5000-some users, some of whom have lots more than me, and things blow up.Time of last edit should be doable, depending on whether I can stumble on a query for it that mysql doesn't arbitrarily decide to make stupidly slow.  That'll take trial, error, and patience, since the quarry interface I'm using doesn't have permissions for the either the normal first line of defense (the EXPLAIN statement, which tells you just what the query is doing wrong) or second line of defense (make a temporary table from the output of one query, then populate it row by row with slower-to-retrieve data).  That's something that someone with an actual tool labs account would have an easier time with than me.  (I suppose I should look into that; the last time I did was probably close to a decade ago, and the requirements at the time were fairly onerous.)Is there a better talk page we can move this to?  WT:RFA's high volume and doesn't really need the gratuitous technobabble. —Cryptic 08:04, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Labs accounts are very easy to get these days, much easier than Toolserver accounts apparently were. I got a labs account with this request, so you (or anyone else here who is interested) should have no trouble getting one. Graham 87 09:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a thought: Is there a way to vet akin to what the NSA does with phone calls? Like, some sort of query that looks for quantity of key phrases at their own talk archives like "final warning", "excellent", "thank you", "great job", "barnstar", etc? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:45, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I took Cryptic's query and made it into a tool, at apersonbot/candidate-search. Going to try to add as many options as possible! Enterprisey (talk!) 06:50, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Another extra special superhero!!! Thank you so much, Enterprisey!!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 07:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Results!  J <i style="color:#137412;">947</i>(c) (m) 07:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Odd results, - was one of the search strings for accounts to only be over thirteen years old?! Unless there's more pages that I'm missing? &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  09:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The results returned are only the oldest 50 by account age, from what I can see, which is suboptimal. Aside: Fx 53.0.3 has the last box (last edit) grayed out for no observable reason. --Izno (talk) 18:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @O Fortuna, the "user" list in MediaWiki is sorted by registration time by default - I'm going to add some more sorting options.@Izno, I disabled that because I was having a lot of trouble getting the query working. As soon as Quarry gets back to me I'll know if the latest code is correct. I hope to get it working Real Soon™. Enterprisey (talk!) 18:48, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * query/18456 now has a last-edited column. You should either be able to select on that, or if doing so fools mysql into throwing away the indices again, at least be able to filter it out manually before displaying. —Cryptic 21:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Awesome! Updated the tool., the "last edit" field works now. Enterprisey (talk!) 21:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I suggest we end this thread here now that we have a basic, raw list.

I've started Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll/Poll candidate search. We can continue things there in the right place. I will link to this thread. Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not sure if number of edits should be a criteria in the script. If you can add the following in a script:
 * edits in multiple namespace
 * number of bytes of an edit
 * at least x number of edits in past 30 days (500?)
 * number of reverted edits
 * And few other similar criteria, then we might find more users like.
 * But i still think that running a program wouldnt be feasible here. How about me n try alchemy for that? — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)   00:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Please read above more closely. —Cryptic 00:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I have a role to play here. But thanks v much for the ping :)   &mdash;  O Fortuna   semper crescis, aut decrescis  09:17, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * hmm
 * hmmm — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  09:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Instant removal of RFA when the nominee is too inexperienced
Just wondering: has there been a past practice of immediately removing the RFA when the nominee seems unqualified? See the self nom of Bobby Jacobs, a relatively new editor, whose nom was removed after 6 minutes by User:Bbb23. I've seen lots of noms of noobs with too few edits, which got a few opposes and no supports and were then withdrawn, but I don't remember others that were removed like this. This is not to say I thought it had a chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edison (talk • contribs) 21:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The candidate was also blocked as a checkuser block, so I think that is the explanation. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * You really need to sign your edits (you didn't sign the one on my Talk page, either - screws up archiving). The issue is moot now because I've blocked Bobby Jacobs as a sock puppet, but, really, 100 edits who says he wants to become an admin because it would be "fun"? And you want to go through all the procedural stuff anyway? Truly astonishing.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It has happened before, yes. It is also stated on the Rfa page that ones with no chance of passing can be deleted via G6. Although it's not relevant in this case, deleting it also means that the editor who might make a good admin in the future doesn't have an embarrassing failed Rfa blotting their copybook if they run again later on down the line.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Putting a minimum number of edits to be an admin is a perennial topic that never gains traction. Since the number of relatively new people trying to become an admin is rather small, it is unlikely to get traction now.  Half the time they are socks and CUs catch them within minutes of the RFA starting.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Adding noping: . This user is being an ideal example for many instances lol. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  22:19, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * dang. I actually pinged GR in haste! — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  22:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I suppose it could just be a case of my only noticing those RFA which were NOT removed in 6 minutes. Edison (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Technically, someone who has 100 edits has the same "right" (if there is such a thing) to request adminship as you do, if they do so in good faith. They usually get snow closed, there are a lot of people who seem to police it and quickly vote.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 22:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think any editor has any "rights" around here, but I deleted this RfA before I determined they were a sock, and I'd do it again. Editors may argue - incessantly I might add - about how many edits someone has to have to be an administrator, but unless we're talking about 2002 where anyone who was stupid enough to want to become an administrator could, I think all reasonable editors would agree that 100 is not enough. Besides, as Pawnkingthree correctly states, I have the "right" (heh) to G6 an RfA.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * On the RFA page, you just said "no" which is not an adequate explanation. On the nominee's talk page you just said "You are way too inexperienced to become an administrator." A better comment or explanation might have headed off my creation of this thread. How many months of editing and how many edits are sufficient in your view to avoid a preemptory end to an RFA? I don't see a way to search for such similar 6 minute RFAs, but I wonder what the best qualified candidates were in the past who got the bum's rush, as opposed to" S:0, O:10 Withdrawn, too soon" RFAs of which there have been many.Edison (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Those questions are impossible to answer, along with others such as why is this painting beautiful? Are you proposing that a standard template be used to notify candidates that their nomination has been removed due to WP:NOTNOW? Is someone volunteering to liaise with such candidates? One benefit of quickly removing a NOTNOW nomination is that it spares the candidate humiliation as their contributions are analyzed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The only thing we need are literate candidates, who will actually take time to read the many essays and warnings before posting an RfA. Quickly removing RfA's posted by editors whose chances of passing are obviously sub-zero is an act of kindness to them even as it saves everyone else from wasting their time. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * We see about a dozen of these per year. Sometimes they're malformed attempts, but there have been ones where the RFA was created but deleted under G6. There was one in April, two in February, and a few in January. <span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw  <span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk 04:15, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Clearly we need a uw-premature-rfa. --Izno (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

PAGE ]]) 14:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 17:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC) PAGE''' ]]) 17:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I know requiring a certain number of edits is a perennial failed proposal, so I won't suggest that again. But could an alternative be placing the main RFA page under extended-confirmed protection? That way such RFAs can't be transcluded while not really setting a bar for editors like GoldenRing. Regards  So Why  13:03, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That sounds entirely reasonable, and isn't technically an edit could requirement since, in theory, a new editor could request that an RFA be opened with Edit extended-protected. I fully support this. --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
 * That would set a standard of 500 edits to offer yourself as admin. I can't argue the logic, but you would have to have an RFC on it since the community has already shot down all attempts to set a minimum standard for admin many times in the past.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 14:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * As Ahecht points out, it would not, since any editor can request transclusion here using edit extended-protected. Regards  So Why  15:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/lustiger seth is the standard counterexample for edit-count related restrictions. Even with sub-50 edit candidates, a moment of thought is necessary before removing their RfAs. —Kusma (t·c) 15:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's a good counterexample. In fact that reinforces the proposal for edit count related restrictions having gone through their contributions. Commitment is required. -&#61;Troop&#61;- (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That editor was made an admin for the expressed purpose of making these edits. It was the enwiki equivalent of the limited administrator status that meta-wiki does. --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
 * And that's exactly the sort of case in which Edit extended-protected could be used if the main RFA page was under extended-confirmed protection. --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
 * I absolutely hate it when I can't do things on other Wikipedias because I don't satisfy some silly edit count restriction they have. Also, as others have said, this is a solution in search of a problem. —Kusma (t·c) 13:18, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * In principle I don't object to the idea of permanent EC protection. I just think it's a solution in search of a problem that doesn't really exist. We get a handful of these silly self nominations by nakedly unqualified candidates every year. Big deal. Their invariable fate is either speedy deletion in the same vein as we have just seen or a NOTNOW speedy close. Why spray bug killer all over the house to zap one or two flies? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There is a certain amount of wisdom in that, both metaphorically and literally. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Total number of Administrators on Wikipedia today same as they were exactly 10 years ago!
Here is an interesting fact, the total number of Administrators on English Wikipedia are the same as they were exactly 10 years ago! As we all can see from this link, https://web.archive.org/web/20070629101457/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Statistics (dated 29 June 2007), it clearly shows that there were 1261 administrators on that very day and today also there are exactly 1261 administrators on Wikipedia. The articles on English Wikipedia have increased from 1.85 million in June 2007 to over 5.43 million today and the increased workload and backlogs means that we definitely need to have more admins today. Hence, I would like to thank all the people for making new initiatives like Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll and finding new candidates for helping towards achieving that goal. TheGeneralUser (talk) 00:00, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that you're not comparing like-with-like. When you subtract all the people who'd been granted adminship back in the days when Jimmy used to hand it out to his friends and who hadn't actually edited Wikipedia for five years (no "inactivity provisions" back then, remember), the official number of "active admins" back then was about 850, and when one discounts all the RickK socks, Poetlister accounts etc the actual number of admins was probably closer to about 500–600, with perhaps half of those actually active in admin areas. As per every time someone starts a "the sky is falling!" thread, I've yet to see any evidence that this supposed "admin shortage" either exists or is having any measurable impact. &#8209; Iridescent 00:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Wait, what? RickK socks?  Have all of my old heroes gone bad? :( —Cryptic 04:47, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That RickK was operating a sockfarm is no longer in dispute; User:Zoe was the most high-profile one to be caught. (They were only caught out when someone did a password sweep and found that all his accounts had the same password, but in hindsight they're fairly easy to spot—drop them into Paragram and you can literally see him switching back and forth between the accounts.) &#8209; Iridescent 11:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, is right. As he pointed out that there were around 400 "actual" admins, I think current ~1200 admins are in good proportion. But I dont think that was 's point. I think he pointed that out like "trivia". There is one more thing to note: as enwiki grew, so did the vandals, but so did the good faith editors. Wikipedia grew in every regard: specialised users (copy-editors, gnomes/janitors, code editors, anti-vandal), WikiProjects, new page patrollers/reviewers and whatnot. Then there are some user-rights which decrease the admin workload, like pagemover, filemover, template editors. I dont think enwiki is running low on admins. But if you think it does, then I am okay with taking the mop along with  or . Note: kidding about adminship. And also, yes, it is an interesting fact about the same number. :) — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)   01:14, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * DumbBot :) v clever  :) &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  06:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, I completely agree with your message. However, the purpose of my message was not about having any "admin shortage", but as said, I just wanted to show it like a trivia. TheGeneralUser (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, I completely agree with your message. However, the purpose of my message was not about having any "admin shortage", but as said, I just wanted to show it like a trivia. TheGeneralUser (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * As has been noted, you have a lot more non-admin doing admin like work now. That wasn't as common back then.  The average admin has a lot more experience under their belt now than 10 years ago, as does the average templateeditor and other non-admin editor who helps out.  It is a bit less "us and them" and accountability is higher.  Bots are also doing more work that reduces the load, like reverting more vandalism, etc.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 01:20, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole "I don't see any evidence of a problem" bit is getting old. If you don't see it, you aren't looking at WP:AN with any regularity. A couple days ago, WP:RFPP had a >24 hour backlog. That's a very basic area that needs constant coverage to protect against vandalism. Counter-vandalism is the most basic administrative function on the site. How can one look at that backlog (which is not unusual these days, by the way) and say we don't have a problem? That type of lapse didn't happen a year ago when we had more active admins in the counter-vandalism area. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's getting more and more common for WP:AIV to be severely backlogged as well. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  01:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, no it isn't. I hate to include data into a discussion rather than opinion because that tends to really irritate people ;) Seriously; have a look at User:EsquivalienceBot/Backlog, and it's talk page. The bot shut down on the 15th of this month unfortunately, but we do have some data to work with. Comparing the first 15 days of June this year with the last 15 days of July last year, 4 out of the 5 tracked potential backlogs have gone down on average; AIV has dropped 16.9%, UAA has dropped 87.7%, AN3 has dropped 36.9%, and CSD has dropped 56.3%. Only RPP has gone up, by 41.7%. That four of five tracked areas has gone down while only one has gone up tends to undermine the idea we are short admins compared to last year, in fact rather the opposite. What is happening at RPP might be interesting to look at, but the other areas seem fine. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * While the sarcastic remark about data is certainly appreciated, there is a couple weeks of data there at most. Eventually, that report will be very helpful, but right now there really isn't enough data to show any meaningful long-term patterns. I'll see if I can put something together shortly to track it more long-term. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  03:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Check the history of the page. There's quite a bit more than three weeks worth. --Izno (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Izno is correct. Please look at the talk page. It has the archives dating back to July of last year. That is what I was referring to. I believe the figures I derived from that data are correct. It's not a direct same date/year to same date/year comparison, unfortunately, as the bot shut down. But, it's close. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I hypothesise that there is a Dunbar's number-related effect at play. As the amount of stranger-admin activity becomes significant, old admins decreasingly feel the fettering needing to remain active.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * The number of truly active admins is not as easy to calculate as it first seems. Obviously the practiced threshold for 'active' admin is ridiculously low, and it would be far more objective to provide some stats based on Template:Adminstats. 's table at RFA_by_month shows some interesting data that is not staring us in the face: a closer look will probably demonstrate that our most active (and experienced) admins today are mainly those who were 'promoted' in 2010/2011, the last years before the number of RfA began to drop precipitously.
 * With the introduction of more bots and filters over the years, and some minor unbundling of tools, admins are generally able to cope with backlogs. The areas that are traditionally backloged such as MfD, AfD, and requests for unblock, are backlogged only with issues that no one wants to close - and that includes me. Other areas such as RFPP, AIV, UAA, PROD, CSD, etc, are regularly cleared out.
 * We seem to be coping with attrition - for the moment - but there certainly will come a time when we do have negative admin equity, but not for a year or two. The real knee jerk will happen when we have a year with 10 or fewer new admins; we're getting close to it but I don't think it will ever get quite that bad. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, bots and filters could could even be disguising a deeper, sharper disparity betwen X/Active admins and Y/Work to be done. &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  06:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Well we are down to 1255 now, the sky is falling! — xaosflux  Talk 21:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Who left? It will soon be 1256, by the looks of current RfA. — <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">usernamekiran (talk)  23:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * See Bureaucrats'_noticeboard — xaosflux  Talk 00:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Nitpicking process question
Do RfBs have a two question limit like RfAs do? Should they? ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering we have less than one per year on average I'm pretty sure nobody bothered to put this question to discussion after the RFA2015 "reform" -- FWIW, I'm personally fine with any number of questions in my own RfB, and I'm not sure how "worth it" it is to try and set stricter rule for a process that happens so rarely. :p  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  01:18, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No - they do not. As with any RfA - candidates are free to answer or ignore any questions.  As Salvidrim! noted - this is an infrequent, and for the most part RfB's have not suffered from question overload - I had less questions at my RfB then most recent RfA's. That being said, disruption of RfB's by question bombing can still be seen as disruption and dealt with accordingly.  —  xaosflux  Talk 01:28, 18 July 2017 (UTC)