Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 260

Time between second successful RfAs
At quite a few RfAs, I've seen people say something like "be glad to see you in 3 / 6 months" or "will support an RfA with a little bit more experience". Does this actually reflect reality? I had a look at previous successful second RfAs over the past few years - Requests for adminship/Red Phoenix 2, Requests for adminship/Cwmhiraeth 2, Requests for adminship/Enterprisey 2 and Requests for adminship/Lourdes 2, and the closest gap was the last, of about a year. The rest are all substantial. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  16:56, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it will be hard to extrapolate from anything other than cases where the candidate was advised to do Y for X months, and then filed another request after doing that. I do think commenters should try not to be overly optimistic with such advice. A few things like "more content contributions" could be addressed with the right mix of edits over a period of months, but many other things that relate to degree of trust will likely take longer to establish. isaacl (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a year is just about right for the smallest amount of time possible; WP:Requests for adminship/Anarchyte 2 was also about a year after the first. Jackattack1597 (talk) 18:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've 86ed my statistics collection plan as I have no intent of enabling this hellhole, but I have enough to say that, broadly, quantitative rules of thumb for RfA are meaningless. In this case, it's an example of where we have no idea what the quantitative minimum is because it's so rare. "Run again in X months" is basically a myth regardless, as not many of the RfAs where it comes up are something that would encourage their victims to ever subject themselves to the process again, and in the rare cases they do we lose years of admin work in the interim. Vaticidalprophet 19:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, one old example came back to me today (for obvious reasons). I remember complaining that his RfA was particularly brutal; the odd thing was, it didn't seem so bad on the outside. (Not that that compares with Vami's today—that clearly was as brutal as it seemed.) But it's still interesting, the divergence (or proximity) between appearance to the reception by the candidate. "Hardcore, Lawrence".  ——  Serial  19:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I've read Rob's, it's...interesting :) I can understand regardless of what hypothesis you take, so to speak, why he might not have liked it. The appearance/subjective distinction is interesting to trace sometimes; I think it's who found his RfA (closing percentage: 95%) pretty miserable and had that noted by Kudpung as evidence for [fill in whatever exactly Kudpung's model is here, I don't trust my attempts to simplify it].  a bit above has a similar note. I broadly concur with the "RfA seems worse than it is because negative feedback sticks in people's self-images" idea, although, at this exact moment, am...rather focused on the cases it is exactly as bad as it seems. Vaticidalprophet 19:45, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The simple act of being up for review is stressful, even if the feedback is mostly positive. My RfA passed with a single oppose, which was a formulaic "hasn't gotten an article to GA" oppose that was immediately dogpiled by supporters. I was still a nervous wreck for the better part of that week. signed,Rosguill talk 20:20, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think part of the problem is that RFA is just a free for all. I had a random soapboxing question trying to get me to take a side in a political dispute; I had an oppose (#8) that nobody could figure out what it was referring to, someone brought up my CFD participation when I've basically never participated there, etc.  And it felt like people kept hammering on me being weak at CSD and copyright, which I said I'd not perform admin actions in.  And when I kept getting hammered on about something I admitted I wasn't perfect about and had no intentions of participating in, I just was so tempted to respond with "I've already said I'm not going to do those, so why do you even care?"  I also had to deal with answering questions from a sock, got called racist and alt-right, and Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Hog Farm's history is a mess of revdels because it became a big LTA target.  And I somehow ran into this on wikipediocracy, which is probably related to the LTA issues.  And This discussion outside of the RFA caused me a lot of stress.  The whole CSD/NPP mess led to me coming very close to withdrawing my RFA, which would have probably been for the best, because I don't think I'm a good admin. I'm even scared to CSD tag anymore after that RFA.  I know of a very well-qualified editor who was considering adminship and emailed me after seeing me have to deal with 27 questions, that they didn't think they'd want to deal with that.  I personally would never undergo an RFA - I'm open to recall, but if anyone ever start recall proceedings against me, I'll probably just hand in the mop and never try to deal with anything like that again.  Essentially, RFA is set up to where if you ever do anything on here even remotely controversial, then you'll hate the experience. Hog Farm Talk 00:33, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you're a pretty fantastic admin, myself. I think the tendency to drill candidates on areas they don't care about is absurd, though at least the username question is out of fashion. I wonder how much the piles-of-questions tendency is because RfAs are so rare now that everyone wants to jump in to every individual one; under normal circumstances I'd say we should fix this by having more RfAs, but my current rage/sorrow-driven overcorrection is "RfA is a monstrous hellhole that should be marked historical right this second, we'll figure out the new system after", so I'll get back to you on that. Vaticidalprophet 00:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * RFA kinda reminds me of a weird mixture of a cross examination, Trial by ordeal, and a dog and pony show. Hog Farm Talk 02:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , thanks for sharing your experience. This debrief was insightful, and you may want to look into copying this to a userspace page and adding it to the list of RFA debriefs. Also, I don't know you very well, but I haven't seen anything to indicate that you are not a good admin. Don't be hard on yourself. – Novem Linguae (talk) 03:09, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure where this idea is coming from, but as far as I am concerned you are doing just fine, at the expectation level for a relatively new admin, and I do not see any reason why anyone should initiate a recall (if there are LTA issues, just report them, many of us are LTA targets and know how to handle this).--Ymblanter (talk) 09:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for responding. I thankfully haven't had to deal with any real LTA stuff since the RFA.  For me, it's more that my RFA was a huge confidence killer, because you get 7 days of hearing about everything you ever did wrong which made me a little gunshy to use the tools.  Should be something I get more comfortable with more experience. Hog Farm Talk 01:16, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I've said similar things myself when opposing. It's empty words even if the person writing them doesn't mean them to be, because filing a second RfA will make things double or triple as hard as a first one. As soon as some people have opposed, the opposes start getting more trivial and petty, because the social barrier of being the only oppose or knowing you're going to get challenged for your opinion (rightly or wrongly) has been taken away. And with a second+ RfA within memory of participants, you immediately know "oooh this is someone to be suspicious of" and so that barrier is taken away right from the start. Even if you get the support of the person who said "come back with X", you've now got six opposes from Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells who doesn't like that you !voted in three AfDs after two people already registered their opinion ("it makes you look like you're piling on to improve your stats"), but were going to sit out if they knew they'd have three confrontational pings within the hour. Nonetheless, as an individual if you don't want the candidate to be an admin then you have to oppose, and if you want that oppose to be actionable or constructive criticism then what else are you going to say? — Bilorv ( talk ) 21:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells is now my entertainingly niche GA/FA of the day. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Does a rule of thumb matter, though? Usually a failed RfA occurs due to either inexperience or being unfit. In the latter, the odds of passing any RfA are slim. In the former, it takes time in to gain that experience. I wrote "a few more months" in my most recent oppose, and I meant that. My guess is users might write "3/6 months" as a minimum. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I waited four months after Requests for adminship/WereSpielChequers before Requests for adminship/WereSpielChequers 2. Given the level of support on the second run arguably I could have run quicker (in my case the first was stressful, the second not at all). OK that was all twelve years ago, and it might be that the minimum period has increased since then, but I'm not convinced it has. Remember we have had people run successfully after about a year, so for anyone who isn't a Not Now candidate, a few months probably still suffices, provided you address a significant proportion of the reasons for the first one failing.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Exactly. This is the way it should be looked at. Most of the opposes in the recent RFA were in the not-now-but-resolve-the-issues-and-I'll-support camp. That means you resolve the issues and come back and show everyone what you've learned, whenever that might be. I get the point about it being stressful to be put under the microscope, and I don't enjoy being among those raiding issues, but the situation is not at all the doom and gloom that people here are saying it is. I really genuinely hope that any failed candidates with actionable opposes do as WereSpeil says, because the project wants and needs them to be wielding that mop. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Most of the opposes in the recent RFA were in the not-now-but-resolve-the-issues-and-I'll-support camp And several were "you're a fascist criminal and your reputation should be smeared forever because of your irredeemable evil". A lot of the time, RfA doom and gloom is overreacting, but you can't seriously talk as though you expect a second run after resolved issues here. If the project wants and needs people wielding a mop, maybe it can avoid painting them as embodiments of evil? <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The RfA wasn't outcome determinative on those opposes, though, and you can't control how people will vote. They're genuinely a candidate who I think would pass a second RfA given a few months of copyvio work. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Vati, my friend, I think the time for arguing is now over. I have withdrawn, and there have already been several very hot exchanges on- and off-wiki. I do not want to find, after the time I'm taking to go and ruminate, that people are still arguing because of my RfA. Not about, because of. It is time to accept that I am not admin material. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  23:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a great deal of respect for the gracefulness of this reply. (And although I understand entirely why you feel that way, I'm honor-bound to say I still can't agree with that last sentence.) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 23:43, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Admin material. Now there's a phrase that I feel worthy of some analysis. But also plus 1 to what PMC said. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with PMC on both parts. Anyone would fail an RfA if they get the timing wrong. Personally Id have supported if you'd waited 3 - 6 months after the CW incident. On several years >50% of non first time RfAs succeed. If you wait a year  you should have a strong chance of passing. Totally understanable if you don't, of course.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Honestly, this response makes me feel more confident in you already, @Vami IV. —valereee (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Fascism in the past wasn't the primary reason for most of the votes that did mention it and the votes that did mention it were a small proportion of the votes overall. Additionally, allegations of criminality weren't a part of anyone's stated oppose votes. It was only one person who made such an accusation and the accusation was revision deleted and nobody concurred on that front. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 00:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We are seeking a consensus. Consensus in all areas of the pedia sometimes takes several tries, and sure sometimes it will never form, but we have seen it form on second tries, or third tries.  (It is, of course, entirely up to the candidate whether they want to try again, at some future time, but it's probably good to not decide anything right away -- including how much time one should wait -- things can have a way of looking different as time passes and people change.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:31, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * One key thing about a failed RFA is it perhaps sets a fresh start baseline where conduct/contributions etc. will mainly be judged from the point of the failed RFA to the new RFA. It needs to be long enough to ensure and demonstrate any concern(s) have been addressed.  That's a combination of the concern in question, and contribution rate, area(s) admin wishes work in, any negative incidents, and possibly other factors.  Usually 6 to 9 months minimum would be generally be suggested and probably in the candidates interest if they take a little longer. -- Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:07, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * +1 —valereee (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would support the "depends on reason for unsuccessful run". Where it is a skillset issue, especially content, then 6 months is a good timespan to me. If you focused on it, you could learn anything critical (in RfA terms) to an acceptable standard on Wikipedia in that timespan. If the issue was anything on the trust/behaviour/perception etc etc aspect, then I suspect 9-12 months is more likely as you both have to improve and then show a pattern of behaviour in that vein, rather than just "doing it". Nosebagbear (talk) 22:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have to echo that it is not about time, unless the reason for failure was "too soon". More often than not it is a specific issue in an area or more than one are that needs to be addressed. That being said even if you can somehow instantly improve the areas in question then I would still wait at least 6 months. <b style="color:Black">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 22:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Where did "debrief" come from?
I'm wondering where this "debrief" idea came from. Where did it start? What is the goal? Who should be doing this? ... Note: I'm not complaining - I'm just curious how this came about. I wouldn't even mind typing something up myself if it's requested - but considering that it's been 10+ years for me, I'm not sure what the value would be. Is there a link to a discussion, or is it something that just grew naturally bit by bit? — Ched (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The first olympiad, then one of the customs at port of entry Custom Houses. ~ cygnis insignis 14:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Little do they realize that our hero doesn't wear briefs! SubjectiveNotability <sub style="margin-left:-12ex"> a GN franchise (talk to the boss) 16:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ched, it started with Less Unless's "afterword" post above at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship. It grew from there with creating a category to put such essays into at Category:Wikipedia RfA debriefings. Trialpears said they found it helpful in prepping for their own RfA. —valereee (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ... ahhh .. something new then. TY.  I don't hang out at RfA much these days and just wondered.  Guess I'll get back to my reading then. :-) — Ched (talk) 20:07, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I do like it as a general concept. We've spent many person-years hand-wringing over the problems of RfA on this very page, it's noticeably useful to see the direct feedback from the people most recently afflicted by it. I was having very similar thoughts back to my own RfA (which, if I recall, was extremely close in time to yours, in fact!) and in many ways I'm surprised how little it's actually changed. ~ mazca  talk 23:01, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Having now looked it up, "extremely close" wasn't an exaggeration, I've been an admin for about three hours and fourteen minutes longer than you. I'm sure it shows. ~ mazca  talk 23:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Ched, @Mazca, FWIW, I think a reflection might be of interest to some on how the experience may have changed over ten years. My feeling from fifteen years ago is that many RfAs really were No Big Deal RfAs -- that is, unless there was some actual concern, people were like, meh, yeah, why not? I don't have a good feel for what things were like ten years ago. —valereee (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I passed mine about ten years ago, and though it was not completely unproblematic - for example, a LTA came to ask a question, - it was not stressful for me either. I expected to pass, and I passed with only two opposes. I was pretty clear that I never had GA/FA, never going to have any, and that I was not open for recall, and none of these generated any opposes. I was for a long time an opponent of the idea that admins by their actions just multiply enemies, which at some point can, for example, request a recall or turn their life to hell - however, when I got into trouble five years after my RfA, I was amazed to see how many users just hate me, and how many others are not willing to listen to me but are happy to listen to my opponents. If I would resign and go for a RfA now, I am not so sure that I am going to pass (though I still think I am most likely going to pass). This is despite me never having been admonished for administrative misconduct by any authority such as arbcom (though some users seem to think that my mere existence is misconduct).--Ymblanter (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * my mere existence is misconduct I'd laugh but I'm sure it's not actually very funny. —valereee (talk) 19:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, not really.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * lol - Hey, my old graduation partner - how you doing these days? — Ched (talk) 01:55, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , ok - I'll try to work something up within the next week (feel free to ping me if I forget). — Ched (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I personally would appreciate similar reflections from older candidacies. I see these as valuable qualitative data that our discussions seriously lack, so making sure they represent as many views as possible is important for the validity of conclusions we draw from them. While we often rely on quantitative data or anecdotes, systematic collection of personal narratives can provide us with better data and insights we've been getting from numbers or occasional talk page comments. I have no immediate plans (free idea if anyone wants to beat me to the punch), but I hope to do qualitative study of these essays once we have more of them to see what patterns in experiences we see, how they've changed, and what contexts might predict certain outcomes. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have a rough draft, I'll try to finish and post by tomorrow or Tuesday. — Ched (talk) 01:24, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Trialpears debriefing
As I promised, here comes my debriefing. I found earlier debriefings useful to read before going through my RfA and they answered lots of the questions about how it can be to go through the process. This will probably not be the most exciting debriefing of all time, my RfA wasn't either, but the more data points the better.

It is important to note that this is just my experience and cannot be taken as true of other candidates, which should be abundantly clear given the horribly stressful RfA with lots of poor behavior which started along side mine. Almost all other RfAs also have at least a bit of opposition which I assume would completely change how the process feels.

Since there isn't too much to say about the RfA itself, it has been called as snooze fest for a reason, I will focus a bit more on how I ended up here and give some of my thoughts on RfA questions.

My first somewhat serious thoughts about adminship were already back in November 2019 when said some very kind words and joked about Requests for adminship/Trialpears being a red link. While I obviously wasn't ready back then I think that interaction took RfA from something only the best of the best could pass through to something that may become possible in a year or two.

In July 2020 said that their email was open in case anyone wanted to talk adminship and I took the opportunity. Instead of the "you are on the right track but still ways to go" answer I expected it was more you don't have much content creation and your (non-automated) mainspace edits are quite few, but other than that it looks good. They even offered to nominate me right then and there if I found a second nom. After politely declining saying that I wanted some recognized content and a few more months of tenure first I went on my way and didn't think much about adminship for a few months.

Then contacted me in December saying they've heard my name mentioned as someone who could make a good admin. At this point I was still quite hesitant, especially considering my lower activity in the months prior, but given that I now knew that quite a few editors believed in me and I would have significant use for the tools I thought that it would be for the best to go through with it. I did as Barkeep said and got a few months of higher activity and (slowly) returned to working on List of countries by Human Development Index before contacting Barkeep again in early April saying that I finally wanted to run. I found the next week where my schedule would be quite empty and I could devote mostly to RfA if it got rough which I still thought was somewhat likely.

I contacted asking them if they wanted to be my second nominator and they accepted. During the two months leading up to the RfA I worried about it a decent amount. This mostly manifested itself as me compulsively reading policy in the middle of the night. In retrospect I see a decent amount of benefits to starting it immediately upon hearing that people want to nominate you if your situation allows for it.

Just over a month ago I learned that too was running and sent them a few discord messages about it. They indirectly convinced me to open up a bit about my RfA and I started to allow myself to talk about it if it came up naturally. Around this time I also spoke with about it and  came to my talk page and wondered if I was interested in running. All this made me feel a lot more confident and stopped me from worrying about it. At this point I felt that the likelihood that I would fail was just a few percent with me saying something incredibly stupid being the most likely culprit in that case.

I answered the 3 standard questions, my noms wrote their statements and then it was time to start. I, like I expect every other candidate, started out being incredibly nervous, but after a few hours of seeing tons of support flood in I started to feel a lot better and for the rest of the week I just enjoyed reading all the incredibly kind things that were said.

Given that many people brought up that they thought my answers were really good I guess I'll share a bit of my thoughts around writing them. Just like when closing discussions or performing many admin actions these answers/actions are things you really should be able to stand behind. If there's anything you're uncertain would be appropriate it shouldn't be in the answer or at least be modified to account for that. This principle very naturally leads you to threading carefully when in new waters and very much influenced how I wrote Q7 about the rouge template editor which a lot of people thought was particularly good. Q7 was also the one I was the most uncertain about, it is a situation we don't have procedures for but that needs to be handled quickly. I really couldn't say that I was sure my proposed course of action was appropriate and hence I would have to get more eyes on it which resulted in me suggesting to take it to AN afterwards. Similar things can be said for many of the other answers.

Other things that can't have hurt is that I'm well read on Wikipedia policies, guidelines and essays but that really shouldn't be essential since you will inevitably have picked up the stuff relevant to the areas you work in if you are a suitable admin candidates and have an overreaching understanding of the rest of the project even if you haven't read say WP:ARBPOL or WP:MASTODONS. I also considered how I would have answered some of the questions given in the past few RfAs. Before publishing answers for any of the the more important/difficult questions I took a few minutes to do something else before making sure I thought they were good even after getting a bit of distance from them. This resulted in a few of the answers becoming more clear than they otherwise would be.

If you think you might be interested in adminship (even if it's a year+ away), my email is open, but be warned that I haven't even been an admin for a day at this point and am far from the most competent person on the matter. If you're interested in my non-judgemental thoughts or just a chat I'm happy to provide though. I think I'm far from the only one who underestimate their chances. --Trialpears (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for writing such a thorough debrief—I'm happy for you that it seems like it wasn't too stressful a process. And congrats on such a successful outcome! &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 23:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the thorough and informative debrief. I'm curious by the characterisation of "lots of poor behaviour" at the other RFA. While there were one or two who I would say definitely did descend into the downright rude and personal-attack level towards the candidate, I think the majority in both sides were well reasoned and polite, even though I can understand the stress involved. While I didn't agree with the opposition on the grounds of a past extreme political view, I think people are entitled to Oppose on that if that's how they feel. RfA doesn't really have set criteria after all, so we're kind of reliant on personal instinct. And I'd like to think my own reasons for opposing, and those by others along similar lines, were properly evidenced and not personal in nature or poorly constructed. Anyway, congratulations again on your perfect RFA, Trialpears, and I wish you a happy adminship. 🎊🎉 &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to get into this, but let's just say that there were several comments I feel ideally shouldn't have been made or have been phrased differently. It was a small minority of the people !voting but they made a significant impression. I do not plan on saying anything more on the topic. --Trialpears (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It's certainly ironic, that you escaped the allegations of canvassing—despite, by the sound of it, having done no more or less than what Vami IV did on discord.  ——  Serial  11:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am in perfect agreement with Trialpears here. Moreover this is not a discussion of my RfA. If you would like to talk about my RfA, please email me. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  23:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)


 * This was a very valuable read. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  23:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking the time to share your experience. I think what this shows is that adminship always is a big deal: even in the most uncontroversial RfA, there's still a long period of prep time and a significant amount of paranoia a couple of months before the event. (It may not even be paranoia, as it seems to me like small random events like an answer that gets misinterpreted or making, say, an AFD nom based on an unpopular but valid policy interpretation within a fortnight of the RfA can generate a huge amount of heat on someone that might get literally 0 opposes otherwise.) So to people who think adminship is no big deal then the follow-on question is "how could it work differently to lessen the emotional load on the person running?" and to those who think it is then I would recommend you think about what tasks aren't being done because people don't want to do the intense emotional investment to prep for RfA and how we can work around those issues (e.g. innovating to make the tasks redundant or unbundling in some cleverer way). — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Worth reiterating again (I feel like I do this every week or so), even the least contentious RfA has months of stress and worry behind it. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:12, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I wasn't joking in Nov 2019: I would have supported the candidacy then too. (Hint: If I ever ask why your RFA is a redlink, it means I’ve watchlisted and will support it if I see it, even if I have to go to the interaction viewer to remember why!)  was as ready for adminship in 2019 as I was in 2008. The difference is, I did my hand-wringing after the RFA, instead of before. Whether that's an indictment of 2008 standards or current standards is an exercise left to the reader =) –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk  14:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm flattered. 2008 sure was a different time and not entirely in a bad way. It's worth noting though that my account was only 9 months old at that time which isn't usually even enough for template editor permissions. --Trialpears (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Disregard my 2006 registration date, I only had 5 solid months under my belt when I got the janitor keys (no big deal, after all). –<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b><sup style="color:#000">talk 15:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there is a market for your 'model answers to questions in RfA'. :) Anyhow, good luck and best wishes. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:32, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Ched's de pants briefing
Well, let's see here. It was "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away....", so my memories may be a bit foggy, but here's my recollections of my RfA. Remember it was back at the end of the 2nd/3rd generation of RfAs, (2009 - back when I was a young man still in my 50s) but here ya go ...

I'd done a fair amount of typo fixing for a couple years before registering an account, but after eventually becoming aware of what it takes to make the sausage, I registered. I was a bit nonplussed when some of my early article work was reverted (truth vs verifiability) leading me to my first AN/I question. Then I tried to add an article about an episode of Stargate SG1 which dealt with sexism. (not enough real world coverage, but I still consider SG1 the poor red-headed stepchild of Star Trek). At this point I didn't see Wikipedia as being a long term project for myself -, my wiki lord and savior (no disrespect to my real world one), magically appeared to me, took me under his wing, and encouraged me to work through it. After a few months months he mentioned that I should edit with a future eye on Adminship, and always take the high road (no comment on my success of that). Then showed up and helped me create my first article, then helped walk me through a DYK. Several months later, provided me with some very valuable insight and guidance, and eventually offered to nom me. (Pedro always had an amazing track record at picking good admins). I decided to try, but I was still going to edit even if it didn't succeed.
 * Background

In the beginning I did have some anxity, but figured I could edit just fine without the tools as well, so the "stress" part of it wasn't major. Shortly before my RfA went public, my daugher called crying that her company's web-site had been hi-jacked, and needed help (I was an IT tech at the time). The "real world" stress suddenly made wiki stress-free for the most part. That's not to suggest that it was carefree, it wasn't, and there were some butterflies throughout the week. The questions didn't really bother me because I figured it was my chance to showcase who I was as a person. However, there were 3 major opposes that concerned me, mainly because they all had validity, and weight, behind them.
 * RfA


 * 1)  I said early in my RfA that I would not be any type of civility crusader, and I suspect that was a red flag for one editor that thought I would be another one of "those %&*@ing WP:CIVILity idiots" in his mind.  I was familiar enough with him to know that he was a highly valued FA contributor, but also that they had a very difficult wiki-past, and had often been a whipping post to many.  The civility topic was a highly contentious topic back then, and the community was very much divided on what was acceptable and what wasn't.  Still, I did respect both his views AND his incredible devotion to high quality writing.  I still to this day think that his FA work was second to none.  Did he ABF?  Perhaps, but I fully understood the why, (and if you're watching - I never did become a "civility cop.")
 * 2) another editor opposed on the grounds of "The focus of user pages should not be social networking".  That was fairly accurate.  While I tend to be a bit shy in person, I do struggle with the online "social butterfly" within myself, even to this day.  I also felt a bit "caught in the act" of "knowing the right people" too.  I admit that when the RfA concept came up, and perhaps even before, I did try to assess the "who's who" of wiki-fifedom.  Still, after my RfA, I did try to tone my irrelevant chit-chat down a bit.  I'd also mention that the NOTSOCIALNETWORK isn't enforced today nearly as much as it was back then.
 * 3) And finally, the hardest for me, even to the point of feeling a bit hurt at the time.  I had honestly been trying to make friends with an editor.  At the time, and to a lesser extent even today, I felt that I was being misunderstood.  They opposed over my posts to their talk page.  The interaction taught me several things: 1. Even though I wasn't trying to accuse anyone of anything, my posts indicated that I was.  Be careful not only in what you say, but how you say it as well.  2. Never assume anything you don't know.  My "aww, Comeon man girl" just doesn't really work well in text. I had (and have) so much respect for this third editor and I think maybe I just tried too hard to ingratiate myself, and perhaps instead just ended up making a fool of myself.

I did have supporters, (who really should be an Admin) stands out in my mind as one of the staunchest supporters and defenders. Some rebuttals escalated a bit in response to one editors comments, and even though I disagreed with the oppose #1 assessment, I did eventually defended his right to oppose without being harassed, and asked that my supporters stand down.

At this point I was resigned to the idea that the RfA could very well tank, and I'd need to ask others for help when faced with vandaals who needed blocked, page protections/deletions and such. I'd seen other RfAs that slowly eroded when a couple well know editors posted some well timed opposes. I also got an email from an admin. asking if this was my website. (it was). A bit disconcerting that someone would do that amount of research, but it wasn't anything I was embarassed about either. Then the opposes seemed to slow up in the middle of "the week", and I had some fantastic supports from some of the big guns: ϢereSpielChequers, SoWhy, Dank, Keegan, Juliancolton, Tiptoety, Mazca, Protonk, Useight and others all had some very nice things to say. The last couple days did have a couple opposes trickle in, mostly of the "per userX" varity, so there was a level of uncertainty to it all.

Fast Forward: I survived, but eventually found the extra buttons weren't all they're cracked up to be. It's so easy to get caught in the middle of things/disputes. And I think most good admins often question themselves about whether or not they've done the right thing. The FA writer who opposed on civility issues did help improve some of the articles I worked on, and I'll still exchange an email or two with him once in a while. I now feel perfectly comfortable emailing, visiting and commenting on the third writer's page, and they've said some very complementary things over time. And even though I haven't seen the non-chatty editor around for a while, IIRC I did visit their talk and told them I'd try to be less "chatty." And to be perfectly honest, my RfA was probably a bit sooner than it should have been, but in retrospect, mine wasn't really so bad.

At the end of the day, my beliefs are this: RfA can range from very easy, to incredibly difficult. A lot will depend on your integrity, and the people you cross paths with. Read through our policies and guidelines, they will come up, and even if you don't memorize them word for word, you'll at least know where to look. Read through the Admin's reading list as well, it's stuff you will need if you get the tools. Have a look at the MOS guidelines as well, at least the top level ones. It's important to know how to write. Write in complete sentences. Be yourself, but avoid the "I kin pwn sum vandals" type of responses.
 * Today

I think the best RfAs are when an editor is open, honest, trustworthy, humble, willing to learn, and consistent in what they say and do. It's also very important that you have a history of treating your fellow editors with respect. However, if your self-worth is going to be dependent on your RfA, if you think you'll quit editing if it fails, then IMO, it's not for you. It's fine to take a break, chill out, decompress afterwards - but it should never be a determining factor in your decision to edit. Yes, it is nice to have the extra tools, very nice, but it's not the be-all-end-all of wiki. Being an editor is what actually drives the wiki-train. I've resigned my tools twice to take a break, and that can be very refreshing as well.


 * And that's the way it is [was in 2009] — Ched (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * (RfA link). Oppose #3 was pretty forensic.  ——  Serial  17:45, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Debriefings
Regarding this section:
 * July 2019 Valereee
 * September 2019 Barkeep49
 * May 2021 Less Unless
 * February 2020 Moneytrees

I've BRD removed this new section from the main RFA page. Having a permanent list of selected usernames there is too prominent for something so opt-in. I do think these could be useful, and would suggest that they are put in to a category (maybe Wikipedia RfA debriefings or the like), and perhaps a link to the category can be included in the prose of the About RfA and its process section. ( Courtesy ping to User:Valereee. ) — xaosflux  Talk 21:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If permalinks are the preferred method, a dedicated list format page may do, something like Requests for adminship/Debriefings - with the same note about just including it as a link in the prose. — xaosflux  Talk 21:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Whatever works for others! I just wanted prospective candidates/voters/questioners to be able to find them easily and conveniently, and others to be able to add their own as I imagine there are multiple similar reflections out there somewhere. —valereee (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * But what if wants to become an admin? -_- Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 10:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I don´t, but thanks for asking.Debriefings (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Then use Requests for adminship debriefings or the like - I'm being suggestive not prescriptive :) I don't think Valereee's idea is bad, just that the initial implementation was problematic. —  xaosflux  Talk 11:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (sorry, I was just being silly :p I do think this is a decent idea. RfA info is kinda scattered, every few days I still come across a new essay) Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 11:05, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll try and write one for this too. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 21:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Memoirs of an RfAer is an available title... ——  Serial  20:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Money emoji's Rfa
(Requests for adminship/Money emoji/Requests for adminship/Money emoji/Bureaucrat chat) I had one of the closest successful RFAs and have been sitting on my thoughts for a while. I think doing a reflection on it is a good idea, and I hope talking about my awful experience will fix something or make someone reconsider how they act. I have been wanting to get this all off my chest, so here's my whole story with RFA:

I only really started getting the idea to run near the end of 2019, because I couldn't see deleted stuff at CCI and I was constantly removing copyright violations and would sometimes have to wait weeks for them to be revdeled. I barely knew anything about the community and didn't read much, only once and a while making some dumb comment at AN or asking an admin for help with something. The only people I regularly interacted with were the handful of other users who edited in the copyright area, and the majority of the work I did involved looking through article's histories, removing/rewording copyright violations, analyzing provided diffs (what sources the user I was investigating liked citing, whether or not that source could be found easily, whether it was reliable, if the content was even encyclopedic, could it be kept and re worded if it was, etc.), and sometimes explaining to a user why I reverted their edit/ removed all the content. When I submitted my request to become an arbclerk and filed my ORCP at the very end of 2019 I was not planning on running for admin within the next two months. In fact I thought I still had a year or so to go if I was serious about it. But then I got accepted as a trainee clerk, people at the ORCP told me that I could run now and pass, and then I got an email about adminship from on January 14 2020, where it was suggested that  might also be interested in nominating me. At the time I politely declined, saying I wanted to get some stuff done before I ran, ... My afd needs work, there’s an article I’m working on that I want to fix up first, and I want to get a few thousand more edits..., and backed away.

But then I started reading stuff over and I started thinking that I really could pass with no real issues. After all, I was told in my ORCP that ...there will be things you can improve on, etc. but you'd easily pass... by Tony, I just became an arb clerk, the Dr. Blofeld CCI cleanup ended up going well, and people know we need copyright admins, right? Being a stupid 17 year old also probably played into it too. So I went back to the noms and picked February 11th as the start date, since the next week's Monday and Tuesday were off and that could give me more time to focus on the run. So the page gets created, I answer the first three questions, I'm even confident to transclude my own request. I accept the nomination and then the RFA opens.

Before a neutral the first 37 votes are supports. Of those voters I had truly only interacted with ~5 of them. I get asked a question about whether I had a previous account, I really should've just said I edited as some ips for a bit instead of the rambling explanation I give. In wanting to be honest I way overshared, and I think that ended up reflecting poorly on the run in the bigger picture. I get asked about my bad AFDs nominations and I admit I tried to stop nominating things because I was afraid I would miss something. I chalk one particularly stupid one to me being tired at the time. That was true, but I should've expanded that I also wanted the article deleted as I thought it was a copyright violation. Maybe if I had said that in the AFD statement or just listed the article at copyright problems things would have gone differently but I hadn't.

That is one of the first lessons I learned as a result of the RFA: communicating your thought process in full will usually make things easier.

Then things start getting difficult. Near the end of the first day my phone is destroyed, and it had been the only way I was able to talk to my nominators through email for the majority of the day. I could only talk to them for brief periods of time, and I started making some dumb choices. I responded to not just one, but three opposes, which is a massive no-no... about three different people emailed me after saying not to do that! Another lesson: read about RFA before you go through it.

Now there were a few opposes, and the main issues being raised were about an apparent lack of content creation, low edit count (under 10000), and low tenure (I had started this account in March 2018. I made my first edit from an ip in July 2015). Someone asked me what I thought my weakest area was, and I said ...I also wish I could be a more consistent content creator; I've had fun writing the articles that I have, but my work at copyright often intrudes on it and I'm not able to write as much as I'd like to.

There's the implication that I didn't know anything about article space or about what it's like to work "in the trenches" because I didn't have that much creation, but that wasn't true, because content was massively important to all of my work at CCI. Out of the thousand or so edits I had made to CCI at the time, each one had been made after I spent time looking at the context of the edit and the article's history. From that and all the removal and rewordings I did, I knew how to cite, how to tell if a source was reliable, how pesky the google books algorithm could be, how close something could be phrased to a source, and whether something was too poorly written to be included, whether the text could be simply ignored because some things are too plainly stated to be a violation of copyright- all important things to writing that I knew, but I never brought up in my RFA! And why didn't I? Because I was afraid and I thought that everyone who opposed me over it was right, and that I had no idea about anything content related.

I could have brought up the work I put into Ali: Fear Eats the Soul, and how I put it up for a GA nomination and then I took it down because I was too discouraged with Wikipedia at the time to keep the nom up. I didn't talk about how when I started editing I just wanted to do some anti vandalism and write, and how if you look at my earliest contributions that's very clear. I could have brought up how I was too sad to go to my next door neighbor's funeral and instead spent a few hours trying cleanup at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Halo: Combat Evolved/archive1, but that it didn't matter and was demoted anyways. I did bring up the time that I actually put in some work some into promoting a GA, but then I had to stop editing at the time because my grandfather was going to die from cancer and I had to fly out to see him one last time. About a month later the GA had failed and he had died. And I was 16 when this all happened! I know the pain of failure and feeling like no one cares about what you do as well as anyone could. I know what its like to spend all your time writing something, only for it to not be acknowledged in any way. So why would I want to even edit when no one cares about me and it's not fun?

Which leads to the then 18 month old retirement message I put up, which I had actually completely forgotten about when I had run. Having something that deeply embarrassing pulled up for hundreds to see truly hurts, and it hurts even more when it didn't matter what I said- it was still held against me. Maybe, if I had provided examples of how I had moved past that and saw Wikipedia in such a much more positive light, then the incoming dump of opposes citing the retirement message wouldn't have happened. Maybe that would've prevented some users from switching their supports to opposes, maybe that would've prevented the seemingly endless speculation that I was not "mature" enough for adminship. I don't think a single person in that RFA read my response to Barkeep49 about the opposes here, even though I felt like it would make people understand how I had changed for sure. There were a lot of opposes now, even one of my noms said that they didn't think it would pass.

Then, I'm not going to say any names, because I don't want to get back into issues with people who I hope have changed their mind on me (and I know there are those who have and I am so thankful you have), but people started saying all sorts of things, like maybe I was some sort of sock, or that I was just running as an ego boost and had no actual accomplishments, or that I was a liar. And I kept seeing the Pizzagate GA brought up over and over again, because Ritchie mentioned it in his nomination statement as an example of content creation from me despite me not creating it or having added much text to it. It's kind of funny, because I fucking hate that article now. All I did was copyedit it, wait on it for a few months to be reviewed, addressed the review, and then added that little green circle to the top of my userage. I did that with another article too, John B. Magruder, which had been nominated for GA by another user who was then blocked, and I help keep the nomination going for them. Of course I didn't know anything about community standards on what "Counts" as a GA so when I see it mentioned in the nomination statement... well Ritchie thought it was good enough, so it must be, right?

But that's not fair. I don't want the situation to ever be seen as "Ritchie messes up... again". I should have had the foresight to say "hey I didn't actually write very much on that, could you mention something else?" And of course I can't say this all because at this point in the RFA it's heading to a crat chat, and no one would have believed me. If they didn't believe having three people close to you die would fuck you up a little, then why would they believe that? Again, I'm not going to say any names here, but it got to this point where there was this one person who was saying I lied, and I thought we were on good terms and I didn't want it to look like I was ignoring people saying I lied, so I emailed them right around when the crat chat opened because I was still idealistic and stupid enough to think that I could just talk the whole situation though and that they would understand. Here's the text of the email, minus me addressing who I sent it to:

I just want to clear some things up about the mention of the Pizzagate GA in the nom statement. The result of it being mentioned is less of a malicious intent to puff my record up and more the result of my naiveté.

I remember seeing the article mentioned in Ritchie's nomination statement and thinking "Hmm, I mostly just fixed some minor issues on that and wrote little of the actual content on it, but if he thinks that it's an example of content, whatever." He must have AGF'd and just went off of the topicon on my user page, and thought that I did more work on it then I actually did. Which makes sense, since we had quite a few positive interactions before hand.

I think I'm more at fault for just going along with it. I should have acted on my feelings of "Are you sure you want to say that?" I'm telling you this in email because I feel like saying this publicly would be like throwing Ritchie under the bus. He's a good guy and gets more crap then he deserves. I won't put the blame on others when I deserve it.

I signed that shit with my real name too! Now for any RFA hopefuls, don't do this because it's very stupid, especially if you don't tell your nominators. It didn't even matter in this case anyways, since I found out back in February 2021 that they continued to believe that I had lied in the RFA, even though they gave a response to my email indicating that they "understood" the situation I was in. I don't know if this person will see this, if they do they know who they are, and I don't want to be enemies or whatever with them, the last thing I want to do is start shit with people who I know care about processes, I just wish they hadn't told me one thing and then said another thing not long after.

The RFA was about over now, and it was in Crat Chat territory. At that point I was so exhausted and unhappy with the process that I wanted them to quickly close it as no consensus. I was convinced there was no hope for it now. And at first, with two no consensus votes, it looked like I would get that wish... but then Worm That Turned comes in and says consensus... Just about. When I saw that I knew what was going to happen after and I wanted to withdraw. I could barely take the suspense anymore. I had to painstakingly wait for the crats to slowly vote, with them totally divided and the vote a back and forth. When people switch from support to oppose and the nonchalant opposes start rolling in, it feels like your stomach is in perpetual somersault. But when the crats take half a week to read everything over and vote and people won't stop constantly talking about YOU on the talk then thats when you start sweating when you look at your watchlist.

Eventually, the "promote" side prevailed and I was promoted after a 107 hour long crat chat. It was the longest successful RFA, and of course I was happy to finally make it through. Were the 275 hours worth it? I guess. Even though my close RFA has been used against me as a negative point [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Moneytrees&diff=406953641&oldid=406736412 ...Some advice: Your RFA was close. Don't blow it by doing things you shouldn't be doing]. I don't care. I survived. The fact that I made it through should be enough evidence that I was ready for the tools. You may notice this is called Money emoji's Rfa, not "Moneytrees' Rfa". That is because I have evolved past how I was as Money emoji and am a much better person and more responsible as Moneytrees. The stigma of the Rfa doesn't haunt me.

If you are considering voting, think about some things before you do so. Do you need to clarify your vote was a "weak support"? Do you need to talk about completely unrelated things and project your view of the "maintainers vs. writers dispute" on to the candidate? Do you need to crack unrelated jokes despite opposing the candidate? Do you need to push your criteria so much? Do you need to incessantly nit pick over personal preference?

And will it really matter? Because for all those opposes and all the drama and pushback, I think it is fair to say that I am a good and well respected admin. It was all unfounded, wasn't it? What does that say about the legitimacy of so many RFA opposes?

If you are considering running, do not let my horror story deter you. There is no way yours can fuck up as badly as mine did. Give yourself the benefit of the doubt and defend yourself, but admit when you've made a mistake in the past. Avoid the mistakes I made in the rfa, and communicate to your nominators. That's the thing most important to being an admin, communication. If you're able to concisely explain your actions and look at them objectively, then you will be a good admin. There are a lot of advantages to being an admin and we need more users from varied backgrounds running. Everyday we are getting more and more editors from different backgrounds, who aren't entrenched in the old internet values so many admins believe in, and they are/will becom(ing) great admins. Don't let some bullshit prevent you from running, because if you're a serious candidate you're better than you think.

---

Ritchie and Tony, if you have read this far, I am so sorry. Ritchie, I truly feel like I failed you and you've had to say things that don't align with your beliefs to defend me. It's really no ones fault, and I hope that you don't feel like I lied to you in some way, I would never do that. The same for you Tony, because you stuck up for me for so long and had my back during the RFA, and I feel like we're not friends any more or something after ACE2020 and that makes me want to cry. I can't describe how much I appreciate how you guys stuck up for me when things got so rough and how much I love this place and how much of a better person I've become. Moneytrees🏝️Talk/CCI guide 03:03, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know if commenting on these things is reasonable or not but I think this is one of the bravest things I've ever seen written on Wikipedia, flat-out. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Agreed with PMC. Thank you for writing all this out so honestly, Moneytrees. I think there are a lot of takeaways here that could inform how we reform RfA. To denote two of them:
 * We absolutely ought to come up with a better way to allow RfA participants to respond to opposes, as a Barkeep won't always come along with a freebie question at the right moment. The right of reply is a principle in many legal systems for good reason, and we should have something similar.
 * RfA is a venue in which WP:AGF often breaks down. I'm not really sure how we'd want correct for this, as it's unfortunately necessary to find a balance somewhere between blind naivety and cynical distrust. But there ought to be some shift.
 * <li style="list-style:none;">Cheers, &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 05:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)</li>
 * I mean there are two of us so I don't have to do it all myself... Joke aside the corrective, I think for the breakdown of AGF, is a general bias among crats towards finding consensus to close as successful as here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the opportunity is already present for the candidate to make a statement in the "Discussion" section; there's no need to have an open-ended question asked. It is of course up to the candidate to decide how to word the statement to address any concerns concisely and constructively. Although it may not be a particularly fair situation, it's a preview of how the candidate can handle contentious discussions where their behaviour is being criticized. isaacl (talk) 14:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason for asking an open-ended question is because people will jump on candidates who address their opposes without one. It's not ideal, but it's reality. Any candidate who directly addresses their opposes generates more opposes. —valereee (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand the theory. Note I said that the candidate can respond in a consolidated manner in the Discussion section, and not directly after oppose statements. The key, no matter where the candidate responds (be it in someone else's question or in the Discussion section) is for the candidate to not badger every dissenter (which is resolved by having a consolidated response), listen to the expressed concerns, and respond meaningfully. It may not change anyone's mind, but it can be done in a way that expands and improves the discussion for all participants, nonetheless. isaacl (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Isaacl, so maybe a section under discussion specifically inviting the candidate to respond to any concerns that had been expressed but that they hadn't been asked about? Yes, I almost certainly would have posted my Elephant essay there. I'd been working on it pretty much since the initial immediate opposes, in case anyone gave me a chance to respond to those concerns. I don't know if it would have helped or hurt, but at least I would have been able to clarify to people what my reasoning had been. That would have alleviated a tremendous amount of my stress during those seven days. It was pretty horrifying lol...—valereee (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think a pre-created subsection inviting the candidate is required. The candidate can create a sub-section as needed. I appreciate how hard it is to receive criticism, and the natural tendency to be defensive. I think we need to encourage the community to be more understanding. isaacl (talk) 13:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Fully agree with the above. This is one of the most important posts about RfA I've read. And I'd also like to say that I highly doubt that you've 'failed' anyone. You are indeed a fine admin and I have zero doubt whatsoever that you will continue to be so. firefly  ( t · c ) 06:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for writing this.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Not to take the thunder from a clearly personal story, but it's worth reiterating that opposes hurt. There were a lot of "oppose per" !votes, and whilst some had good merit, not all of them were. I've seen many RfAs (including my own) where the reasoning for opposing is flawed, or plain doesn't make sense. These aren't so bad in a discussion like AfD or RfC, as a closer can simply discount them, but at RfA, the actual amount of !votes matter, so a badly thoughout oppose (or support) could be the difference between a pass, fail or going to cratchat, which as Money explained can be worse than just pulling out.
 * We are also not talking about policy, but are talking about a person. An RfA is a public thing, which it has to be, but it can feel like running is like putting yourself out there for a week (or longer) just because you want to volunteer to do more work!
 * This was well written, and thanks for publicizing about the process from someone in such a unique position. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Pile-on thank you for sharing this! We really should try for a more humane process. —Kusma (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the best reflections I've seen on this site I think. Thanks for writing it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 08:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I've gone back through my notes for this RfA and noticed a couple of observations.
 * About 31 hours in, I remarked at how there seemed to be relatively little support at that point, and what I was waiting for was a good support from a completely uninvolved editor that clearly explained why Moneytrees should be an admin and why the opposition was a bit wide of the mark. I recall getting annoyed at so much attention about the Pizzagate article, which was an offhand comment I threw in as part of a general list of things outside of CCI that Moneytrees works on, and didn't really think it was that important. It's true that I wrote that I didn't think the RfA would pass (purely based on the numbers) but I also thought that Moneytrees is the sort of admin we desperately need, and I stand by that view. Indeed, on a number of other occasions on this very talk page, I have used this RfA as an example to show there is no correlation between how much support an RfA gets against how good as an admin they actually are.
 * As a couple of other data points. Both Requests for adminship/GRuban and Requests for adminship/L293D didn't pass because the candidate said something during the RfA that didn't resonate very well with a lot of people. However, I'm certain in both of those cases, an off-wiki discussion with a good nominator (I didn't see L293D's answers before he posted, and had I done so I'd have advised not to post them) would have avoided disaster and we'd have two pretty good admins now. We don't know if the extreme faux-pas at the RfAs is typical of their behaviour were they to have the tools, because we never got the chance to find out.
 * Anyway, thank you for posting this. As we don't get many RfAs these days, most people don't know what it's like to go through the process, and those that do feel better once it's over and forget about it. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  09:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't know if the extreme faux-pas at the RfAs is typical of their behaviour were they to have the tools, because we never got the chance to find out. By which token, we might as well pass everyone however they performed because we could be missing out on a good admin anyway, and passing em would be the only way to find out 🤔🤪 ——  Serial  09:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for sharing, and many of your points I do agree with. I disagree in your discouraging weak supports - in my view weak supports do offer value, and in a more impactful way than the (still very helpful) supports with pure comment caveats. I do think it points out some of the areas that can be avoided without too much trouble and should be helpful to future candidates Nosebagbear (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a good read, and I think there's a lot to say here -- that's a little bit said and a little not -- about 'outsiders' or 'unconventional candidates' at RfA. There's a lot of obsession with the idea people need to check certain boxes to be admins; I'm starting to collect RfA data for a comparison between clear-cut and borderline RfAs of the last few years, and I don't think the idea has any particular resemblance to reality. I'd love to hear a debriefing from, say, because he had a not-dissimilar situation to you -- someone coming to RfA as a totally different person to the traditional 'admin candidate'. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 22:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for not fully apprising myself of this discussion; I'm on vacation at the moment. As you say, my own RfA was a bit of a nail biter. It goes without saying that I am biased, but my own view is that the purpose of Wikipedia is to write an encyclopedia. (Shocking right?) Therefore, the very best RfA candidates are those that show themselves capable of facilitating the creation of encyclopedic content. The best indicator of this is whether they have, in fact, produced high quality content. Alternatively, someone who has shown great experience in the back-end administration of Wiki can use that experience as a stand-in for extensive content work. It is my impression that the current RfA process is backwards. Content work is considered at best a stand-in for back-end work.  Ergo Sum  01:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely concur. I said in an earlier WT:RFA discussion that "if RfA had its priorities straight, Ergo Sum would've passed 250/0/0", and I stand by that :) I think this is encouraged by ORCP, which tends to a rather quantitative assessment of candidate quality that doesn't match at all with what we actually see in borderline RfAs (ORCP would surely have given GoldenRing 0/10, let's say). I have the strong suspicion our 'requirements' for pretty much any matter on which we have them -- tenure, edit count, projectspace participation et al -- are essentially a backfilled idea of the 'average candidate' that doesn't actually exist, and that there are people who flagrantly fly in the face of them but can pass RfA and vice versa. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing, and I think your situation really shows that it's very important that any RFA reform focuses on the human aspect and attempts to make it less stressful for participants.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Just got a ping. Haven't read the context of the thread above this subthread... but, no need to worry. I don't hold grudges and I certainly wasn't mad at anyone for not wanting me to be an arb... ultimately, I didn't want me to be an arb either TonyBallioni (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for saying this, Moneytrees. I was outraged at the treatment you received in your RfA at the time and so far as I can recall it is the most egregious disparity I have ever seen between what people talked about in the RfA and what actually mattered as to whether you were suited to adminship. I was extremely confident that you would make a good admin—and moreover, that the community couldn't afford not to have you as one—and nothing I have seen since has made me change my mind. I was delighted when the crat chat passed, especially after I saw you had considered withdrawing. Perhaps I should have said this all at the time, but I never know how people feel about unsolicited comments when they've already gone through a huge ordeal and load of drama and private communication to respond to. Thank you for going through all of this, especially some behind-the-scenes nonsense. You shouldn't have had to when it should be clear to anyone that has seen you around that you obviously needed the tools for copyright stuff and would not misuse them. — Bilorv ( talk ) 01:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry the 'crat chat took so long. I'm sure that was emotionally brutal to have to keep checking on the status for days.  Useight (talk) 03:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting your journey, . Your experience is a good exemplar of how people lose sight of the fact that there's a human behind the keyboard who's reading what they write and people say things wrapped in their blanket of anonymity that they wouldn't say if they had to look you in the eye. RfA is one of the many places that manifests how dysfunctional of a volunteer organization Wikipedia is. Imagine a volunteer at a normal non-profit org requesting additional responsibilities and getting all these kinds of stupid questions and stupid opposition... those involved would probably be asked to leave the room if not asked not to return altogether. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-tangential discussion about offwiki communication

 * We could certainly err more on the side of assuming good faith and general competence during RfAs, even if we don't pass everyone. Another point that is visible in both Moneytrees' post and Ritchie333's response: That off-wiki moderation of RfA is apparently widespread isn't a healthy sign at all. Can we get back to a more open process? —Kusma (talk) 10:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure precisely what you're referring to, so my pre-emptive apologies if I've got it wrong here. However, I don't think that a nominee getting some advice from their nominator on the best way to respond to questions is a bad thing, nor that it rises to "off-wiki moderation". RfA is, and should always be, an open-book test. In fact, getting advice from a more experienced colleague is exactly the kind of behaviour we want to see in administrators I'd say. firefly  ( t · c ) 10:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * No, RfA should not be an open-book test. It shouldn't be a "test" at all (what kind of test is marked by open voting, and without any agreed assessment criteria?). It is a good thing to see candidates asking experienced Wikipedians for their advice, but you should not have your answers to community questions looked over by your nominator before you post them, or if you do, you should mention that in your answer ("I was unaware of the wikipolitical background of your infobox-related question. I discussed it with my nominator, and my opinion is..." is ok). If the question section has become an open book test to be done with the assistance of your nominator(s), we should get rid of it. —Kusma (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the latter. I think all questions should be RfC'd on the talk page for 24 hours before they can be posted to the RfA. —valereee (talk) 18:00, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * If RfA is, and should always be, an open-book test, then all the more reason for keeping a nom's involvement with their candidate on-wiki in the spirit of an open process. And as you say, getting advice from a more experienced colleague is an excellent thing—if a visible thing. ——  Serial  10:33, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * There will be people who will use the consultation against the candidate. I think this can be seen right here in the sympathetic response from Kusma who none the less suggests there should be no such consultation. For all that I dislike about our current RfA, I don't 100% dislike that we can see how a candidate acts under some level of pressure/scrutiny since it gives some insight about how they'll act under pressure/scrutiny with the sysop toolset. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My reference to 'open book test' was probably a poor choice of words. I don't believe RfA is a test in the strict sense, but more that we shouldn't expect candidates to be able to answer every question from rote memory, rather we should expect them to know where to find the information (be that policy, history, background, etc.) and interpret and apply it appropriately. I can agree about visibility - and understand that asking nominators privately for advice might appear unseemly or as if the candidate has something to hide. That said, I wonder what the reaction would be to a candidate publicly discussing a a question with their nominator - I genuinely have no idea, as I can't recall an instance where it has occurred. firefly  ( t · c ) 10:45, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think anyone can sympathize with Money about why that RfA would have been stressful and unpleasant. However we also have LU saying how unpleasant even highly supported RfAs can be. I don't think asking people to be transparent in their vulnerability and stress in the moment, and that's what asking for help with an answer is, would be a net positive for our community and I think, as indicated in my reply above would be used against them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree - RfA is a uniquely stressful process (and while, as you say, some element of scrutiny is good, stress is less so), and I personally wouldn't hold it against a candidate in any way if I learned that they'd privately consulted their nominator for assistance with a tough question. Others will have different opinions, and that is of course entirely fine. firefly  ( t · c ) 10:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In the real world, on any number of complex issues in areas from business to politics, one is able to turn to their friends, family, advisors and other confidants for private counsel. There is no reason Wikipedia should take a different approach. There is value in speaking to a person who one trusts privately and asking for their advice. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , with respect, your 2006 RfA received five questions, zero opposes, zero neutrals, zero discussion, and zero questions after the second day? I think perhaps you may not understand how stressful RfA is these days and how much support candidates need from their nominators. I haven't been involved with that many nominations, but I've seen at least three successful candidates ask their nominators if they should withdraw. I've had another who told me they couldn't sleep and were having a hard time stepping away from the computer. Another excellent candidate panicked on a question and never recovered, and it was something that could easily have been a successful answer if they'd just been talked down off the ledge before they answered. IMO it's ridiculous in 2021's RfA climate to expect candidates to white-knuckle it. ETA: and FWIW those one-sentence answers in your RfA would never fly these days. :D —valereee (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Valereee, I think you misunderstand what I am advocating for. Even my RfA, which was nothing by today's standards, was slightly more exciting than I like my editing to be. While we're digging in the past, of my own nominees, three passed easily (and one just failed because of a silly comment at AFD plus a declared lack of interest in images, but successfully self-nominated later), and we managed that with no offwiki contact at all. Nowadays I don't even ask people onwiki whether they are interested in adminship. I totally understand that candidates need offwiki support in the current atmosphere. I am opposed to the current atmosphere that makes it necessary. —Kusma (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. But, well...we have to deal with reality. Reality is that one recent candidate was opposed because they sounded too much like they were quoting policy. :D Being observed asking for advice? I dunno. —valereee (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO one of the most desirable traits in a candidate is a willingness to ask for help when they're not sure about the best way to handle something. I see no problem with continuing discussions with nominators off-wiki. Taken further, I see no problem with a new (or even not-so-new) admin contacting another admin off-wiki to ask for advice. Obviously there are limits regarding canvassing or requests to act on-wiki on someone's behalf, but just asking for advice? Something to be encouraged. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 18:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that going back to the inactivity of Admin coaching, there is a desire for candidates to be genuine in their interactions with the community, and not just echoing what someone has told them to say. Asking for advice, though, is a useful and even desirable action for any editor, including administrators. There's not many scenarios where action has to be taken immediately without access to any other admins with which to discuss matters (vandalism during English Wikipedia's lowest point of activity is all I can think of), and so being an expert in all areas isn't necessary. I do think it is important for the candidate to be well-versed in some areas, so if they become an administrator, they will be able to reduce the overall workload. isaacl (talk) 23:40, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I do support the open-book test viewpoint. I'm pretty neutral on people showing their nominators a considered answer, but only to the degree of "that could be an issue" notice. They shouldn't actually be writing or even heavily influencing them. one issue with that is that 24 hours before a q can be answered could lead to many opposes in that span. I've seen various RfAs where the candidate actually wanted a question asked. I'd oppose any delay lag Nosebagbear (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe we shouldn't allow any voting before the questions have been answered and the community has discussed the candidate. —Kusma (talk) 19:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Such a model has been tried with one or another of the Ironholds noms. It hasn't been seen since. Izno (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * is the last substantial discussion I found in a quick search regarding a two-phase process (there was a little discussion later that year; I may have missed more recent discussions). That discussion links to an earlier discussion that goes into a little bit of additional detail and has more analysis. Two key obstacles are that not many people are convinced it will make a difference, and if we're accommodating editors who edit once a week, the RfA period will have to be extended, and there is opposition to this. isaacl (talk) 23:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We could have multiple RFA processes (the current one, delayed voting, straight voting, etc.), let candidates choose among them, and see which model works best. Levivich 05:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We've had terrible experience with that kind of things in the past. "Oppose, candidate uses an RfA format that I am not intimately familiar with" is the standard answer. Wikipedians are amazingly conservative. —Kusma (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We're having a terrible experience now with just this one system; I'm not sure it could get worse. Stupid opposes are easily fixed, crats can ignore them. "We tried this before" isn't a reason not to try something again. Due to editor turnover, it's a whole new community every few years. Levivich 14:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Stupid opposes are easily fixed, crats can ignore them. I don't think they dare to do that unless the RfA falls into the "discretionary zone". —Kusma (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * They wouldn't need to discount opposes if it was above the discretionary zone (and below the discretionary zone is exceedingly rare). Anyway, we already have plenty of stupid opposes. I don't see "someone might oppose over it" as a reason not to try something. Levivich 14:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Have there been any alternate RfA formats used since 2008, or even in the last ten years? I don't personally think it would be advisable for a candidate to freelance a different format. If the community comes up with a trial alternate format, though, then I don't think we need to worry about reflexive opposes (and as Levivich notes, they only matter if they are the deciding margin, so there is no constraint on bureaucrats discounting them). isaacl (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Candidates freelancing RFA formats would be nuts. I'm suggesting the community approve multiple alternative formats (not just one) and letting candidates choose one (rather than non-candidates speculating about which alternative formats would be attractive to candidates). Levivich 21:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Levivich, @Isaacl, what kind of formats are we thinking? —valereee (talk) 22:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * some possibilities: the current format (duh), steward-style election, arbcom-style election, delayed voting (questions/discussions first), questions/discussion on the talk page, and I'm sure there are other alternatives that have been proposed or that folks might think of. Levivich 22:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&diff=1026552428&oldid=1026549416 linked previously to earlier discussions] of a two-phase process. The particular format I proposed is having a vetting phase where participants are determining the abilities and characteristics, and an analysis phase where participants weigh in on the relative advantages and disadvantages of the candidate. However there are other ways to structure the phases (the Ironholds RfA that is often cited when this approach is discussed was just one way). isaacl (talk) 23:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Right; I believe what I said is already in line with what you re-stated? isaacl (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies; I just realized I over-nested the post that you responded to. I meant to reply to the preceding commenter. isaacl (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Nosebagbear, I was being (slightly) facetious. I actually thought (and discussed in my own debriefing) that it might have been helpful (or not) if someone had asked a particular question at my RfA. I've asked open-ended questions of candidates to offer them a chance to address opposes. —valereee (talk) 19:17, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have nominated quite a few candidates in my time, and discussed nominations with many more. My most used medium for conversations with nominees and potential nominees is via Email, and I like to see their draft response to the first three questions before I decide whether I think they are ready to pass now or in a few months. Once the RFA starts I rarely have much email contact unless it is to talk about potential withdrawls.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  16:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Wherein a snarky but serious question is asked
I don't really follow WT:RFA. At one point I thought RfA was seriously broken, but honestly, I don't anymore. I'm willing to be convinced otherwise, but I've had enough conversations about this with people that I doubt there will be new arguments brought up. People don't like processes that open them up to negative feedback. Even if you get a near perfect RfA or review in the real world, the one negative thing is going to stick out. Professors getting class evaluations say that. Many people I know getting performance evaluations say that, and I believe the fact that we don't have many people running for RfA suggests that is true on the internet as well. Opening oneself up to feedback is hard, and there's certainly no perfect way to go about it. I think RfA could likely be improved upon, but I'm not sure if those improvements are structural or not. Regardless of the structural changes, the difficult part of people opening themselves up is going to remain.All that being said, my snarky but serious question is this: instead of having continual discussions about what is broken with RfA for years, would anyone care to put forth a proposal to fix it?I'm normally a huge advocate of the "build consensus for change over time and then launch an RfC you know will pass" method, but it's been 6 years since the last serious RfA reform RfC, we have continual threads about how something isn't working, and there are no serious proposals to make changes. If there are ways to improve upon the current process, propose them. The statements from various people making proposals method might work best for this (see WP:RESYSOP 2019 for a recentish example), but lets stop complaining without proposing solutions to the community in a way that can actually accomplish change. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It depends on what you mean by a serious proposal. If you mean a proposal that has a reasonable chance of being accepted and significantly changing the process, well, as many have noted, the lack of agreement amongst the group of people who like to discuss these matters means nothing on the horizon appears likely to gain consensus (consensus just doesn't scale up as a decision-making process). I think it would be more fruitful to address the top-line issues you raised. How do we get people to agree to take on administrative chores for which they will be criticized, with the only benefit being a sense of self-accomplishment? How do we get candidates to participate in a public evaluation of their trustworthiness? With everyone's time being limited, is there a way to encourage more distribution of onerous tasks, freeing people up to do other work they enjoy? Are there more tools that can be built by the community or the Wikimedia Foundation that can make administrative tasks more efficient? isaacl (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Tony, I'm puzzled. Talking about it to build consensus is a way to actually accomplish change. I believe you've said that you don't think RfA is broken. Fair enough. There are others, including in this thread, who agree with you. But through talking about it, hopefully some kind of consensus can form around what the issue or issues at RfA are - as I believe you know I've documented 11 (plus no issue) some of which have variants. So the repeated discussions are about seeing and working towards consensus on what the problem is which would then allow for some kind of consensus about what solution to offer. I've thought about doing a 2 part RfA along RESYSOP2019 but have decided it's premature since with resysop then (and seemingly again now judging by a current discussion at WT:ADMIN) there is some community sentiment that RESYSOP should be stricter. 3 options (more, less, same) is a lot easier to find consensus with than 12+ options. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, I suppose the shortest reply (and this is not meant to be read snarkily) is that at some point consensus building becomes collective hand-wringing, and hand-wringing makes people less likely to take valid points seriously. In my view, we’ve long past the point of hand-wringing on RfA. It’s been ~6 years since the last major RfC. Since before either of us were particularly active on this project. People like below have put forward reasonable non-drastic proposals that have a possibility of passing. People have also put forward less plausiblr suggestions. No one has gone to the community, however, and asked our active user base if their proposal has consensus.I guess my point of view is: if there are actually structural issues, given how much discussion there have been and how many different fixes have been proposed, ask the community if the fixes have consensus. Continued public discussion for over half a decade without doing so undermines the argument there is a problem. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it more clearly highlights the weaknesses in consensus decision making. In organizations where consensus isn't expected to drive every step, a group would be tasked with investigating the issue, typically following a problem resolution process like this one, and recommendations would be made. In the English Wikipedia environment, there's a rotating cast of participants, including complete newcomers who are blissfully unware of past proposals and their pros and cons, and editors whose minds have been made up and are reluctant to change them. Unless immediate operational tasks are being blocked, major process changes are stalemated. (It could also be the case that there isn't a significant underlying issue, or an issue that can be addressed given other constraints of the English Wikipedia community, but that's dependent on the highly self-selected population of participants in these discussions.) isaacl (talk) 01:19, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, consensus based decision making has its flaws. I think we should call RfA a pure vote because it already is one until it gets between 65-75%. You’ll have no arguments from me on that.But there’s enough consistency and there have been enough informal proposals where if this is actually an issue of concern for the community, someone should propose a solution. As both you and Barkeep know, I’m a fan of the extended consensus building process over 6-18 months for major policy issues, and then just having RfCs to ratify what people already agree on. I think that if there’s actually consensus for change, we’d have reached it by now though. If there’s a problem, let’s have a solution. Discussing it without ever proposing solutions in a way the community can act on them or having a reasonable timeframe within which to propose them isn’t helpful. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that generally there's no point in raising an issue repeatedly without trying to bring something new to the discussion. Again, the weakness of consensus is that if several people want to discuss something, there isn't much way to stop it, even if it's rehashing matters for the n-th time. Sometimes we're lucky and something new does pop up. And sometimes community opinions can shift over time enough to form a consensus, and we can only realize this with occasional check-ins. isaacl (talk) 02:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't mind people discussing things until consensus is established, but the end goal should be action or documenting that consensus. Like I think I've said on-wiki before, the way to change a major policy is to say your view over and over again for 12-18 months and then propose an RfC when enough people agree with you.But that last part is key: at some point there should be a check of the community's consensus on matters that raise significant discussion over extended periods of time. We haven't had one on RfA since I've been involved actively on this project, but we keep having the discussion that its broken. If it is broken and it has been ~6 years since we've formally discussed how to fix it, let's give people the opportunity to propose solutions. I don't think continued discussion without a formal process for several more years will accomplish more than we've achieved since 2015. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that the conversation has moved forward in appreciable and positive ways following LU's and Money's debriefings. I feel more confident that we're headed towards some consensus than I did a month ago. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

This is my idea, as an ex-admin. If an admin thinks that an editor would make a good admin, they ask a couple of other admins whether they agree. If they agree (and the editor agrees), the proposal is put up on a page for say two weeks for discussion. At the end of two weeks, the three decide whether the objections, if any, are strong enough to deny the appointment, otherwise the person is appointed. Stress discussion not voting. This might work. --Bduke (talk) 23:35, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am going to take an unpopular opinion here. I think the RfA system is fine. It should be hard. If people ask loaded questions or give silly opposes then just trust that our 'crats are not stupid and know how to handle this. My first RfA was extremely negative and while I passed my second I certainly had some opposes. Certain people found those opposes to be frivolous or pointy, but I gained valuable criticism from them.
 * Any admin that actually does their job is going to be harassed, unfairly judged, and held to unobtainable standards. The current RfA system is an excellent microcosm of the job itself. An admin needs to be able to handle these things, and handle them with ease.
 * I am sure people will disagree but that is my point of view. <b style="color:Black">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 23:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @HighInBC, your first RfA wasn't really reasonable. Your second RfA received 3 questions, a single reasonable oppose, no discussion, and no questions after the first two days. Exactly how hard was that for you? :D —valereee (talk) 12:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Did someone say "snark"? :) — Ched (talk) 15:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Guilty as charged. —valereee (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Simple proposal to reduce stress? Move the "questions" to the talk page, along with all discussion. No discussion on the vote page (this also means no rationales).
 * Simple proposal to make RfA better at the job of producing new admins? Reduce the promotion threshold.
 * Alternative proposal to produce more admins: Make it more like the ArbCom elections. Twice per year, hold elections and promote the 20 candidates with the highest support percentage, as long as it is above 50%. —Kusma (talk) 23:52, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. RfA is not supposed to be a vote. Discussion is crucial to the process. I think we should rather encourage people to discuss more. This constant accusation of badgering done whenever an oppose or support is challenged is in my opinion a problem. People should be willing and able to support their !vote, and if they do not then the 'crats should consider that when weighing it.
 * As for having a bunch of RfAs twice a year, I don't see what that would solve. Can you elaborate? <b style="color:Black">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 23:58, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We lose admins every month. If we fill 40 slots per year with the best candidates, that is three times as many as currently. —Kusma (talk) 00:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the best candidates is a good enough standard. They need to have the support of the community. 50% is a very low bar. I also don't think we should judge someone's ability to be an admin by comparing them to who is running at the same time, but rather on individual merits. <b style="color:Black">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 02:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It works for arbcom. How do you suggest to improve numbers? —Kusma (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Arbcom is one thing, but being an admin is serious business. <b style="color:Black">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 08:41, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * ? ... as opposed to being an arbitrator? I don't quite understand the thrust of your input in this thread. ---Sluzzelin talk  13:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, HighinBC, you're saying discussion is essential, but your RfA had none that I can find. Why has discussion become essential since then? No big deal, right? —valereee (talk) 12:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That was what 16 years ago? Things were different back then. I am talking about today. <b style="color:Black">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 12:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Starting to wonder if I'm being trolled here lol...—valereee (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Wug's suggestions
This is a hot take in that I have not thought about it for longer than it took to type up this comment. At the very least, these outlandish ideas might kickstart something sane. These sound insane because they probably are, but I think Tony makes a good point that we're spinning our wheels. The ideas we have either don't work or have been shot down so many times that positions are entrenched. We should think outside the box, and that means suggesting things that seem unthinkable. Don't get me wrong, calling the proposals half-baked is too generous, but hopefully it helps us get out of the intellectual rut we've found ourselves in. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Crats may grant adminship like admins may grant template editor access. The community creates some guideline criteria for granting, and trusts that everyone is sane. The risk of a rogue crat already exists, and this won't really increase that. We can tack on other stuff to build consensus and address concerns. Maybe the proposal comes with a desysop process for community oversight, or if enough editors challenge a crat's decision we have an old-fashioned RfA. Idk, I'm spitballing here.
 * 2) In meatspace, organizations have nominating committees, and we have one too given the recurring names in nominator statements. Instead of a shadow council, we form a NomCom, seat it, and give it teeth. Off the top of my head, a process could look like this: anyone can throw a name at NomCom (secretly?) who looks into it and once a month (quarter?) they put out a short list of candidates. The short list might have some minimum number to incentivize bringing up edge cases. Maybe we vote on them, maybe we use idea 1 to have crats just flip their bit, maybe we ask Jimbo, there are lots of ways to do the next step.
 * 3) Grant sysop rights like StackExchange does and like we grant the move button, AC, and extended confirmed. At some (very high) level of engagement an editor just gets access to the block delete and protect buttons. Just as an example, say that it's 20,000 edits over minimum two years with at least 100 edits across 8 namespaces. I literally made these numbers up, so don't take them too seriously. We could add in a similar oversight method as the first idea where controversial grants fall back to an RfA.
 * Respectively: could work, sure, probably no. In the spirit of spitballing: NomCom posts the candidates and the community gets a week/month/whatever to come up with concerns, after which three random crats (or NomCom) make a decision. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Given how many names in this list are currently indef'd, I think #3 would be an absolute disaster. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 08:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * @Joe Roe: StackExchange has much finer tools to measure quality engagement than our edit count. We'd need to look at more than one number. —Kusma (talk) 09:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * What other numbers do we have? –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We could collect some: speedies, AIV reports that were acted on, block log, you name it. I'm not saying that going by numbers is without problems, but it doesn't seem more insane than what we do right now. —Kusma (talk) 10:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there's a difference between real world scrutiny examples, like professors getting class evaluations, and RfA. I also don't think it's necessarily the case that getting feedback is hard. I don't think most people mind a reasonable tip left on their talk page, for example. If the point of RfA is to either provide feedback on editor improvement, or say "all OK" if there is nothing substantial, then I'm not sure it's the best process for the job. Even with feedback processes in the real world, there are dozens of different methods to do them, and some provide more actionable feedback than others. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think both giving feedback constructively and receiving it positively are hard. The key word in your example is "reasonable": if the recipient disagrees with the reasonableness, or the feedback wasn't given in what the recipient feels to be a reasonable way, then they may react reflexively. As I've raised before, I don't think the current RfA process is efficiently structured, but I appreciate that it's what many people who like to discuss these matters want out of a discussion-based process. The libertarian roots of Wikipedia that dislikes hierarchy makes it tricky to have a gatekeeping group (be it the bureaucrats or a nominating committee), but maybe it can be structured in a way to overcome objections. (Perhaps it can be in addition to a community discussion-based approval method.) isaacl (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think 1 or 2 could totally work. I like the idea of needing some opposition to be made before an RfA is required. —valereee (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hm, I could see 3 working, too, per Kusma. I see all of these as potential alternatives to RfA. For someone who doesn't qualify for an alt sysopping, they could go the traditional route. I think we'd need to require that for anyone sysopped via an alt route, we have either a time limit (maybe a year?) or a desysopping process via the same group. That is, if a crat makes a sysop, a crat should be authorized to desysopp, etc. —valereee (talk) 16:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Just noting that WMF Legal has effectively vetoed any sort of automatic adminship: see, e.g., this. I doubt that even a very high threshold would be sufficient to change their minds. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 16:54, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * We could start from the "automatic" list and perform the minimal amount of scrutiny necessary to satisfy WMF Legal. —Kusma (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on what the WMF has said previously, there has to be a significant winnowing of the candidate list, as when content is removed due to a Digital Millennium Copyright Act takedown notice, it has to be removed from public view. If administrative privileges are given out on a loose enough basis where large numbers of the editing population are able to see deleted article versions, then the site won't be compliant with the DMCA. isaacl (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have added the crat granting against a PERM standard as a variant to the list of reforms I have collected. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said on Discord: quantitative, 0/10. RfA is bad when it gets quantitative. RfA is bad when people look at "you need two years to be an admin" and take them seriously. RfA as PERM? PERM is a checklist. Hell, we should replace PERM with qualitative !votes. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 01:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

These are clearly just quick thoughts (feel free to shoot me down), but felt I ought to put something down by way of a contribution before I head off for a week. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:47, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * My quick take on RfA is that it forms only one part (albeit sometimes a very challenging part) of a much larger and more important journey from experienced editor to experienced administrator, and it's a journey where we probably are not being seen to be offering enough of a helping hand to those interested in undertaking it, or guiding and supporting them onwards on that journey once they've got it. So here are a few ideas:
 * 1) Ensure the WP:ORFA process is maintained in a spirit of helpfulness and encouragement. Arrange follow-up discussion and encouragement of candidates after 6/12 months, as appropriate to show that the community is still interested and grateful for their interest in standing.
 * 2) Create an obvious mentorship process for aspiring administrators (no need to tell me it's been done before; I see no issue about trying something along those lines again)
 * 3) Make RfA !voting open only to extended confirmed editors. They are the ones with enough understanding of our processes to be able to judge 'admin' suitability; having newly auto-confirmed users chiming in on admin suitability doesn't seem that sensible to me. It's like giving under-age voters the vote; wait until they've gained enough life experience to make sensible decisions - hence the XC cut-off)
 * 4) Have some form of RfA committee which can strike through inappropriate/irrelevant posts from questioners (would probably need a structured set of criteria of what is/isn't appropriate. TBANs to very troublesome/irksome !voters could occasionally be deployed if repeated inappropriate undermining of candidates was been seen to take place.
 * 5) If weaknesses or concerns are identified in a candidate's background experience, a post-RfA system should be clearly present to support new admins, and help them move into new areas. (I, for one, feel there are many administrative areas I'm concerned about moving into through lack of experience, and there will come a time when I'm no longer seen as a new admin, so 'ought to know the ropes' when I clearly won't. Now, if I feel that and it doesn't bother me, that's fine. But maybe the fear of making mistakes once one does become an admin could itself put other people off from trying to run. Supporting them before, during and after RfA would seem to be the right way to treat our staff volunteer admins)
 * 6) I had considered suggesting that we allow candidates who have doubts or concerns about their skillset to opt for, say, a 6-month trial adminship, under the watch of one of their nominating admins, with an ability to pullout and defer/re-run later. But I think that could possibly cause more harm and stress than it would do good. So I won't. But maybe a trial period, confirmed by an RfA committee for borderline CratChat decisions could be offered, much like we have when we take on new staff for probationary periods. Or maybe it would be far fairer to apply a 6 month - 1 year probationary period for 'every' successful candidate, confirmed (or discussed with the new admin) during and at the end of that time-period to identify any concerns/offer support and assistance.
 * The optional RfA candidate poll was initially designed as a quick checkpoint for candidates to get a feel for their chances at passing RfA. However that doesn't preclude it from acting as a potential entry point to a revived Admin coaching initiative (or something similar). I think a post-RfA support system could be helpful: somewhere where administrators could provide advice to each other and potentially co-ordinate on workload distribution. Encouraging admins to try new areas would help make Wikipedia more resilient to admins leaving. isaacl (talk) 23:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * So I agree with ideas 1, 2, & 5 by . I partially agree with ideas 3 & 4. Much like with the akin-post to youth voting, such a non-nuanced system inherently hits an appreciable number of people who would "know enough to vote". Idea 4, I could agree with the concept, but I'd want a limited scope of what was not permitted, with everything else being included. In the event it's not clear, it remains a question, with clarification to be done post the RfA. Those striking out questions can't participate in the RfA. I firmly disagree with idea 6 (both variants) - it would just make the process more arduous. If you wanted it to instead be a form of "admin feedback" where they'd look over concerns raised, without the chance of being (de facto) desysopped, then that could be possible. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I just saw this so still chewing on it, but my gut says these are great ideas . I'll pick on what would you think of a combo of my #1 and Nick's #5. Like my #1 crats can grant adminship like TPE, but like Nick's #5 the grant is temporary and requires a community discussion at expiry (if candidate wants to continue). As for the other parts, I think 1, 2, and 4 could work well together. I'd be interested in workshopping how we could move those forward. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * - I'd still be very firmly against it - as these individuals would still be admins without direct Community agreement and vetting, even if they wouldn't ultimately remain that way. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I would also disagree with all three ideas proposed by 'podes. 3 because I don't think you could craft a form that wouldn't exclude some useful souls who could reasonably apply as-is while simultaneously not including an appreciable number who shouldn't be. 1 because I want admins to have a direct Community link in their permissions process. Anything that reduces that is a no-go. 2, with additional criteria comes with likely additional negatives (not enough people apply, so edge cases get in, and the number of abrasive RfAs goes up, driving the pool down) and without things like that, are better off with the current flexibility of being able to arrange or not arrange flights of candidates as desired. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

SportingFlyer's suggestion

 * I don't actually think there's anything wrong with the RfA process, even though it can be a harsh experience - we're vetting users for trust, and that can be a difficult process. I'd prefer the creation of an Optional RfA workshop where a couple volunteers help a candidate answer a few questions, check for any red flags, and make a recommendation for what experience might be needed in order to successfully run a RfA (similar to the admin coaching above, the comment of which I hadn't read before jumping in here.) I'm thinking something along the lines of a checklist than can be worked through. The Optional RfA candidate workshop doesn't give good enough feedback and might not expose any red flags. SportingFlyer  T · C  09:44, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Request from Vami
It has been asked of me that I do a debrief of my RfA. I understand this sentiment, and think I now have some excellent advice to offer to potential candidates. I cannot at this time write a debrief, however, because my RfA has left me with knots in my stomach and quite hurt. The nicest things ever said about me were said in the Support column, but some of the worst things ever said about me were said in the General comments and on the talk page. It has been expressed to me by several people, supporters and opposers, that this RfA was "brutal" and a disaster. It certainly has been in the short-term for my emotional state. I have a lot to say, but at the moment, very little confidence in myself.So, please, do not ask me for a debrief just yet. I need time to recover, reread the RfA, its talk, and the bloodbaths surrounding it, and to parse. If I do produce a debrief, it will likely be an essay. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  07:19, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * In my view, some of the nastiest comments came from those holding advanced permissions, including one who’s been asked to advise on the Universal Code of Conduct, which has a real risk of becoming Wikipedia’s Newspeak. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:29, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * One wonders who that might be. Chess (talk) (please use&#32; on reply) 10:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am so sorry :( No one should have to endure the sort of attacks that you did. <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">!ɘM γɿɘυϘ ⅃ϘƧ  11:58, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Debrief page
In order to make sure we don't lose debriefings which aren't put on their own page (and thus can't be added to the category) I have started Requests for adminship/Debriefs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I added a link to it from Guide to requests for adminship and RFA reform, for future reference. isaacl (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Ritchie333's memoirs (extracted from a serial in the Sunday Times)
Although I discovered Wikipedia around 2003 and started editing with an account in 2005, I didn't discover the "back end" of the site until 2011. I never particularly wanted to be an administrator; indeed in January 2012 I wrote I'd "no desire to be an Administrator and thinks good work here is done for the good of the community, rather than an attempt to brag about barnstars". I think part of that was a reaction to people getting barnstars for reverting vandalism and blocking sockpuppets, rather than doing lots of good writing, and I'd been a moderator on various internet forums since the mid 90s at that point anyway, and had been there, done that, and thought I was too old to go through it again. In the summer of 2012, having had lots of spare time on my hands (maybe I should have watched the Olympics), I got involved in "serious" writing and started working out exactly what was required to get an article to GA status, which led to more and more people noticing what I was doing.

By 2015, established editors were starting to enquire about adminship, and in March, I said, "What's stopping me from being an admin? Well, I have a few skellies (I believe I told an admin to fuck off once), a lot of my experiences aren't logged (it would be interested to capture AFD / CSD "saves" though) and I need extra work and responsibility like a hole in the head." I had a general sense that being an admin was kind of a "consolation prize" for not getting an article through FAC single-handedly (something which I still haven't done). I also had a strong sense of "being right over being popular" which occasionally upsets people, and said things like "I silently cheer from the sidelines when Wikipediocracy fires both barrels at an admin doing silly things." which isn't exactly the greatest thing you can say when looking at a potential adminship.

In the event, the RfA was pretty stress-free, I think partly because I wasn't particularly bothered if I got the tools or not, and I expected about 25-30 opposes like "civility is an important pillar and giving Eric Corbett a free pass is not acceptable" and only got a handful. What was far more stressful was the GA review of West Pier which by complete co-incidence ran for pretty much the same duration as the RfA, and featured some disruption from a long-term abuse case (cf. "There appears to be a sockpuppet persistently changing the lede, but that's not a serious issue, since the article can be semi-protected if the socking persists.", also see Talk:West Pier) which spilled over to the RfA. I wonder if my relatively calm and disinterested handling of that (I didn't answer Q15) is what gave confidence to people who were unsure whether I could do the job or not.

In summary, I wouldn't take anything from my RfA as best practice or advice, it's a bit of a wild card. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:31, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * was curiously prescient :)   ——  Serial  10:44, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's more fun than the Olympics. I reread that RfA a couple days ago, and it's an interesting thought about the sheer unpredictability of RfA. There are RfAs derailed by opposes similar to the ones you and many other people pass with flying colours with. If I were insane, I'd try to calculate if this is a function of the RfA reforms and particularly watchlisting, which lets random people click directly into drama storms about strangers, but I'm not insane enough to try collect the stats for an era where RfAs ran several at a time; I'm also uncertain it's actually true, as you can just-so story exactly as well the other way (diluting the pool of people who hunt those things). (I had a general sense that being an admin was kind of a "consolation prize" for not getting an article through FAC single-handedly is darkly hilarious, and ties in with a lot you can say about the broader tendency of Wikipedia-as-community to sometimes forget it's an appendix to an encyclopedia.) <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 11:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Tweaks to RfX report template
There was a discussion a while ago about tweaking User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report to expand the abbreviations. It seemingly came to the conclusion that one way to resolve the issue would be to switch to using RFX report, and add the expanded abbreviations in there. I've made the relevant tweaks to a sandbox version of the module & template (with apologies to for using their RfA in my testing, I do hope you won't mind!) - RFX_report/sandbox.

Thoughts? firefly ( t · c ) 13:12, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Using the  element is convenient for those who can hover over the headings. For those on devices that don't support hovering, and readers who have difficulty with fine motor control, it's still desirable to have a legend. (On an implementation note, rather than use , I believe it would be more efficient to use the   Lua API.) isaacl (talk) 16:46, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * , you're probably right about the implementation, I can change that easily enough. If we did add a key, where would it go, below the table I assume? firefly  ( t · c ) 16:50, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This being a short table, I think below it is fine. As previously discussed, it could be displayed only when an appropriate parameter is provided to the template, so users who have transcluded the template elsewhere won't see any difference. isaacl (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd support using Abbr. The fact it doesn't work on all devices is absolutely a problem, but we shouldn't run from it by avoiding using it in circumstances like this where it's perfectly suited; the future-facing thing to do is use it anyways, and then go politely-but-firmly tell the WMF developers that it'd be really really nice to resolve . &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 06:29, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, no one has said not to use the &lt;abbr&gt; element. Providing alternate methods of displaying the information for a variety of different scenarios (screen readers being a third scenario) is a best practice for web content. isaacl (talk) 06:57, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI to all, I've swapped the CyberBot table here, on the WP:RFA header and at WP:BN to RFX report, as CyberBot I doesn't seem to be updating. I realise it still needs the key, but it's better than a table that's not being updated(!). If anyone at all disagrees, revert and serve seafood as appropriate. firefly ( t · c ) 18:59, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Alternate accounts
At Special:PermanentLink/1031861313, editors GeneralNotability and User:Sdrqaz came to a conclusion that RfA candidates were "required" to disclose alternate accounts (if any) and whether or not they have edited for pay and that "both disclosures are required by our policies on administrators and on sockpuppetry". I find this to be an odd reading of these policies because clean starts exist and wp:clean start explicitly allows runs for adminship after a clean start. What is then the consensus policy when it comes to an unpopular editor taking up a clean start, passing RfA a few months later, and then publicly rehabilitating their old username, perhaps to the extent of requesting that the admin bit be flipped for the old username instead of the current one? 209.166.108.205 (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)


 * IP editor, I believe the part about the "policy on sockpuppetry" is to ensure that WP:ADMINSOCK is not being violated. I know of admins who were clean starts; generally they said something like "my past accounts have been disclosed to ArbCom and are no longer in use". GeneralNotability (talk) 03:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I had written what I did because of the section just above ADMINSOCK: "Deceptively seeking positions of community trust". I think in the scenario you describe, the administrator would come under significant pressure to resign and bureaucrats would probably refuse, as it is certainly against the spirit of that section and wouldn't even be a legitimate clean start, given that the old account is being revived. The clean start policy is inconsistently applied in my opinion: it requires old accounts to not have any sanctions active against it. A (successful) candidate a couple of years ago had been blocked as a vandal under another account. Assuming the block was indefinite, that administrator is technically a block-evading sockpuppet. In similar situations, accounts have been blocked and people told to appeal their blocks under their old accounts, even if they had forgotten the password. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you GeneralNotability and User:Sdrqaz. I had not previously thought about the point of view where the clean start would be less legitimate, rather than more legitimate, because of the eventual disclosure of the old account. Such a thing could happen, I suppose. 209.166.108.205 (talk) 11:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

2021 RfA review
I have started a 2021 RfA review and accompanying RfC to identify what issues, if any, there are with RfA. Interested editors are invited to participate. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Should post this in other places.....just admins responding.-- Moxy -Maple Leaf (Pantone).svg 00:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
 * @Moxy I missed this when it came in. As Phase 2 will be starting in the not too distant future do you have suggestions of where it should be publicized? I posted it to the central noticeboard, here, WT:Admin, and WP:VPR. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update
Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, and.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:
 * 1) Corrosive RfA atmosphere
 * The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
 * 1) Level of scrutiny
 * Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
 * 1) Standards needed to pass keep rising
 * It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
 * 1) Too few candidates
 * There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
 * 1) "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors: 1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere) Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.

2. Admin permissions and unbundling There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.

3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1. There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

CU as a matter of course for RFAs
It's a wee bit concerning how close a globally banned editor came to passing an RFA with Requests for adminship/Eostrix looking like it was going to pass with flying colors in a couple of days. Are admin candidates checkusered as a matter of due diligence or is that just not on the table here? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 03:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 13:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC) PAGE ]]) 21:40, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * , they aren't, per the prohibition on "fishing" without reasonable suspicion of sockpuppetry. For some old but valid explanations of why, see this discussion, which stemmed from an eerily similar incident. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:54, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The prohibitions against fishing are probably still plausible but I have wonder how much the checkuser tools have changed and/or been refined since 2008. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:06, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * No, RfA candidates are not routinely checked "as a matter of due diligence". As Extraordinary Writ notes, all checks require reasons to suspect abusive use of multiple accounts. This was a special situation where for some time there had been reasonable suspicion based on private evidence that Eostrix was a possible sockpuppet of Icewhiz, but because of the complex manner in which Eostrix attempted to evade detection, the matter was not fully investigated until this RfA gave greater urgency to it. Mz7 (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * When I ran, IIRC I had to prove my identity by providing a scan of my passport to the WMF. Unsure if there were any checks made on the back of that, technical or otherwise... GiantSnowman 08:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * You almost certainly didn't, . I passed my RfA in 2011, the last of the bumper years for the production of industrious admins before the intake halved and adminship went on to become less and less apealling. None of us had to. You are probably confusing the requirement with some functionary jobs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:43, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I have definitely provided my passport to WMF for some purpose... GiantSnowman 20:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I've never had to do anything like that, and in as far as I know the WMF and ArbCom have no idea who I actually am. Usually AFAIK that kind of personal check is only made for elevation to positions with more of a legal responsibility than simple adminship, such as ArbCom membership, CheckUser or Oversighting. Regarding the original question, according to the discussion following the banning of Eostrix, the Checkusers had decided there was insufficient evidence to link them with Icewhiz, so a check of that nature wouldn't actually have helped in this instance. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * At no point did I have to give information about myself for an RfA. There isn't much in the admin toolset that would really warrant you to be checked, and the only thing a CU would look for is socking. If we started to implement checks on users who want advanced roles, there is nothing preventing the limit from going down and down to less advanced roles, and then potentially doing it on a whim. We do really want some evidence of potential socking before reaching for the checkuser. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:05, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, it did indeed used to be the case that you had to send in a photo ID to the WMF in order to access nonpublic user information like CheckUser data, but this is not the case anymore. The only requirement these days is a simple electronic form. Mz7 (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Eostrix was not checked with regards to the RfA, he was on the committee's radar and the RfA brought things to the forefront. Admin candidates are not CUd as a matter of due diligence, nor should they be. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 10:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I dont really understand the nor should they be part of this. Once upon a time adminship was "no big deal", but, as a result of ArbCom decisions, an "uninvolved admin" wields enormous power in some of our most heated topic areas. Imagine Icewhiz having the ability to impose sanctions "at his discretion" in either of his chosen topic areas. I dont think that should be treated as "no big deal" and not worthy of some special care. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 12:28, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * CU is an invasion of privacy (a permanent one, actually, since the results of a check are seemingly stored forever). One generally shouldn't be required to consent to an invasion of privacy when offering to do more maintenance tasks for free (unless necessary for the role, e.g. working with kids). ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thats an interesting way of framing it, offering to do more maintenance tasks for free. I prefer attempting to gain the power to further influence the world's 13th most visited website. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 12:59, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For every sockpuppet running because they want to further their influence, there are hundreds who do it presumably because they believe in the project. Deleting stale cats or blocking vandals hardly furthers ones influence. We shouldn't set policy on the basis of the former group, especially at the expense of the latter. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * For every hijacker boarding a plane to commit an act of terrorism, there are millions who board a plane to get from point a to point b. We shouldnt create laws on the basis of the former group, especially at the expense of the latter. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 13:32, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Running systematic checks on candidates is unlikely yield useful results as it is fairly straightforward to evade a blanket check like is proposed. One would be lucky to catch an alt for public connections in this way.  Maxim (talk)  12:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I follow your logic. If I want to volunteer at a local school to read to kids or mentor their robotics team for free, I have to consent to an invasion of privacy in the form of a background check. Same thing if I want to volunteer to assist with disaster relive or blood drives with the Red Cross for free, or if I want to volunteer with the Park Service to clear trails for free. Asking for an IP address check, which is WAY less invasive than the full background check run for other volunteering opportunities, before being put in a position of power on a website that gets a quarter of a billion pageviews per day seems perfectly reasonable. --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * Yes, as I said: (unless necessary for the role, e.g. working with kids), which is kinda true for all of your examples except blood drives (which, locally for me anyway, do not include background checks). Most volunteering roles do not include background checks. On top of that, Wikipedia is a pseudonymous community, whereas most volunteer roles you do in your real name. People expect a higher level of privacy here, as generally the only information available about you is what you give out yourself. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * As noted below, every voter in the ArbCom election has their CU information shared to at least three people. We already CU people without any suspicion of socking. And those people are just voting for who holds more power, not actually becoming people who hold more power. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 15:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * And there aren't kids on Wikipedia? --Ahecht ([[User talk:Ahecht|<span style="color:#FFF;background:#04A;display:inline-block;padding:1px;vertical-align:-.3em;font:bold 50%/1 sans-serif;text-align:center">TALK
 * Checkuser as a tool should be used only when there is suspicion of misbehaviour, not proactively. As much I disagree with Proc on the "stored forever" point, they are Proc is right that it is an invasion of privacy. The use of checkuser must stay within the Privacy policy, as well as within our ethical and moral frameworks, all of which push for it to be used as little as possible. Proactive "fishing" checks are absolutely the wrong way to go forward. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 12:55, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That may well be true, but the effort to do so may deter some, the information on evasion may also be useful (wouldnt the voters like to know if a potential admin is editing through anonymizing proxies?_. That the best security we have doesnt provide complete security shouldnt deter us from trying to provide some, should it? Or try to come up with a way to provide more? <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> nableezy  - 12:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * wouldnt the voters like to know if a potential admin is editing through anonymizing proxies? Unless the candidate is IP block exempt, they aren't likely to be editing through anonymizing proxies. —Kusma (talk) 13:01, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Kusma Depends on your definition of 'editing through anonymizing proxies'. Did I "edit through an anonymizing proxy" if I used the wifi on a train, where someone else was detected using a P2P proxy? SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query Me!  13:07, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * @Worm That Turned Let's be honest with ourselves here. At least a part of a checkuser request is for sure 'stored forever' as things stand right now via the checkuser log. The UA is not. The IP is generally speaking trivial to tie to the account for which it was run. SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query Me!  13:00, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Point taken, hadn't considered that aspect. <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 13:49, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I said it at ACN, and I will say it here: I completely oppose this proposal as a kneejerk overreaction and I think it is more likely to do harm (false sense of security) than good (actually ferreting out an LTA). This will just be security theater. GeneralNotability (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

I won't say how per WP:BEANS, but this won't work. It is trivial to dodge a CU check if you know when it will occur well in advance. Anyone this crafty will know this. <b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Black">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 13:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I won't say how, per my obligations of confidentiality as an arb, but if this had been policy (and to be clear the we'd have to war with the foundation as this policy would be in violation of the Global policy on CU) it on its own would not have helped us in this situation. As noted by this had been on a radar for  Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If it weren't easy to evade for those devious enough I would support this – I'm sure this would be quite a reasonable exception to NOTFISHING – but as said above this wouldn't work, and this seems to be only a once-in-a-decade-and-a-half occurrence anyway. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'd also note that this idea may not be compatible with the global policy on use of Checkuser. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm very far from an expert on how CU works, but here's my perspective from the CU comments that I have read, via an analogy. It is my understanding that in some crime investigations involving DNA evidence, you might have enough DNA that there's only a 1 in 10,000 chance that someone would share that same DNA information, but no better chance (with more DNA, you can be overwhelmingly sure no-one on the planet shares the same information). A crime database might hold a million people on it, so you can't search it speculatively: there'll be too many false positives (about 100), and in the case of a true positive you still have insufficient evidence to take action. However, you can use this database if you first consult other forms of evidence and have a specific suspect in mind (there's only a 1 in 10,000 chance of a false positive). Here, a speculative CU seems of no use: it'll produce a very random set of suspect users, and even if that set includes the actual sockmaster it's still not enough evidence to block. What you can do is use CU when you have suspicions of a current RFA candidate being controlled by a specific sockmaster. It seems that that is literally what happened here. As one last point: the analogy with DNA evidences is actually overly favourable to the suggestion, as it seems CU is much easier to deliberately evade. — Bilorv ( talk ) 17:10, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a great analogy and a good way to conceptualize the bayesian process by which non-obvious adjudication occurs. KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) 17:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
 * An excellent analogy, which I had intended to use myself, but thought it was more important to focus on the privacy aspect! <b style="text-shadow:0 -1px #DDD,1px 0 #DDD,0 1px #DDD,-1px 0 #DDD; color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 08:02, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Missed this and not familiar with the CU data, but CUing people who have any chance at RfA isn't useful in the overwhelming majority of circumstances unless they have active socks running. The policy arguments here are circular—the community is in charge of the CU policy to some extent and the CU data of every voter in an ArbCom election is revealed to three stewards. It's hard to imagine there'd be an office action banning this if the global community decided it was warranted since the equivalent is revealed for thousands of people each year in an election. We could very likely change the policy to allow this if we wanted (subject to the privacy policy and any number of other asterisks which add to the reasons why it isn't a great idea.)It's a bad idea though. We don't need any more Alex Shih's — gatekeepers who think that they are right to the point where they are willing to abuse the trust the community has placed in them. Involving CU as a matter of course with something as political as RfA invites that. Yes, there are cases when it is okay to CU someone in an RfA. But CUing the candidate as a matter of course invites abuse. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I was initially in support of the idea of a routine CU for anyone standing for RfA but, having read all the above, I've changed my mind. Nevertheless, I assume we could expect to see / coming back to try again in a year or two to hoodwink two different nominators, and maybe next time garnering more than 123 RfA 'support' votes, before finally being uncovered. Personally, I feel the responsibility to protect Wikipedia from bad faith actors wanting to lie and insinuate themselves as administrators for life could, in future, merit some additional check on anyone standing at RfA. Maybe that time isn't here right now, but we should always keep an open mind on how best to protect this encyclopaedia from those wanting to manipulate it to their ends, and for the actions we take to be commensurate with the threats. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:47, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The 1,000s of voters at ACE get systematically CU'd. How is that compatible with the global policy on use of Checkuser? It doesn't discourage them from voting. I see it coming as a certainty, maybe not right now but in the foreseeable future, when RfA candidates will have to submit to CU. If they've got nothing to hide, it won't bother them, will it? It looks to me as if Eostrix was lying through his back teeth with his 'I have not registered any additional accounts on Wikipedia', and at least Arbcom seems to think so. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Deleting WP:NOTNOW RfAs by WP:G6
has removed a clause saying that RfAs without a hope of passing can be speedy deleted per WP:G6. This reverts an edit added by here. Can anyone remember why this clause was added in 2015? I disagree it's "admin abuse", in my view it's more Don't remind others of past misdeeds, but I'd be interested to hear wider thoughts and get a consensus one way or the other. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  08:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I think RfAs that get minimal participation before being withdrawn/closed (as in the case of clearly non-suitable RfAs) should be deletable upon request of the candidate. We certainly shouldn't just delete them without that, nor for RfAs that simply fail. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:45, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * “Admin abuse”? I didn’t write that.  I wrote “G6 abuse”.  I could write: “arbitrary excercise of the privileged admins to slap down an upstart who dares to think he is worthy”.  It’s a power perspective thing.  The slapped down user doesn’t even have access to the records of what happened.
 * If it should be deleted, there are other CSD criteria or mfd. To put it back into the user’s hands, userfy it for them, where they can CSD#U1 it even if they can’t G7 it.
 * If a special CSD criterion needs to apply (note WP:NEWCSD), then the documentation belongs at WP:CSD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:58, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The other option, in the case of Requests for adminship/Harimua Thailand, would be to revert as an out-of-process action and run the RfA as requested by the candidate. I did this at Requests for adminship/Chongkian, which was withdrawn 24 hours later on 2 support, 8 oppose, 4 neutral. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:20, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I see no harm and only benefit from leaving these in place. My first RfA was snow closed as too soon, and it was referenced extensively in my second successful RfA. If it was poorly transcluded or immediately closed and as a result had no participation then fine. But it does nobody any service to remove opinions gave in good faith by users at the time. Perhaps the wording RfAs that are closed before any !votes are cast may be deleted per such and such criteria.


 * Trying for RfA too soon can show an eagerness to serve or a lack of judgement. Either way it may be relevant for future RfAs, and the opinions given in a too soon RfA certainly are relevant. <b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Black">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 10:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the text is referring to RfAs like your own, where there was substantive discussion. The clause above permitted admins to delete RfAs opened by (mainly new) editors that stumbled on RfA and applied. You can look through the history of WP:Requests for adminiship and see a few instances of where this was used (but many more where it wasn't). My opinion is that being able to delete RfAs when the editor doesn't have a shot at even getting one support vote would probably be for the best. If the user decides to run legitimately down the line, the page can always be restored or discussed in a question. Anarchyte  ( talk ) 10:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * If the page is going to be restored if they run for an RfA down the line, what's the point in deleting the page? If they choose not to run again, keeping the page is not that big a deal. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:36, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The benefit is in avoiding the WP:BITE effect of the harsh oppose votes that often come with premature RfAs. We want to invite premature RfA candidates to continue contributing to the encyclopedia, and leaving public the comments of multiple editors vilifying the newcomer for offering to help administratively is much more counterproductive to that end than hiding the content. Mz7 (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm all for closing RfAs that won't succeed early. But deleting NOTNOW RfAs always struck me as more of an IAR thing rather than something truly covered by G6. If this custom is to be formalised into policy, I'd rather it were done so properly in an RfC at WT:CSD. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I believe my comment covered the case where an RfA has no comments and closed immediately. Frankly I don't see what is gained by deleting and restoring the page later either. What is wrong with an accurate record of what happened? I doubt anyone would hold it against an experienced RfA candidate that they applied on their first week without knowing better. <b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Black">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 10:48, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Back to the original topic. I don't think for a second it has anything to do with admin abuse, not sure what that is about other than being a red herring. I do however agree that if it should fall under CSD then it should be defined on the CSD policy page not here. G6 makes no sense to me, that seems like a misuse of the criteria for a purpose it was never intended for. If the applicant wants it deleted and there were no significant contributions from other editors then G7 would apply. <b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Black">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 11:05, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * There was no “admin abuse”, it was “G6 abuse”, anthropomorphising the catchall CSD criterion G6. SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, fine. Then I don't think for a second it has anything to do with admin bullying, not sure what that is about other than being a red herring. Agree it is a misuse of G6. <b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Black">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 11:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Allowing any admin to call NOTNOW and G6 a user’s RfA page, which is what the clause did, hypothetically allows an admin to bully the upstart user. “Misuse” is a better word choice. SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and think that. I disagree and it is not really relevant to the discussion at hand. I maintain that it is a distraction. If you haven't noticed while I disagree with your reasoning I agree with the end result. <b style="text-shadow:black 0.05em 0.05em 0em;color:Black">HighInBC</b> Need help? Just ask. 12:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

What happens if a user is nominated for an RFA and declines? Are those pages deleted under G6 or are they kept, with MfD the only option to get rid of them? A malformatted RFA which is never formally accepted like the recent one that sparked this discussion should probably be dealt with the same way. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 14:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

My recollection matches that of Anarchyte. I recall there being a discussion regarding new editors who volunteer for administrative work without understanding the community expectations for becoming an administrator, and that courtesy deletion to save the editors future embarrassment was desirable. At present I haven't formed a view on whether or not this warrants a speedy deletion, nor if or how this practice should be documented. (Note the edit in question left a sentence fragment, which should be removed as well if there is agreement to reverse the original change.) isaacl (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The triggering discussion for the original change appears to be . I may have been thinking of another discussion regarding courtesy deletion, as this one didn't get into this aspect. isaacl (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)


 * The common practice for years now has been to delete obvious WP:NOTNOW RfAs as a courtesy to the candidate who applied prematurely. I disagree with the view that it creates an opportunity for "admin bullying": have we ever seen this in practice? The only times I've seen premature RfAs deleted is when it is already clear that an RfA has no chance of passing, and there are already multiple oppose votes excoriating the candidate for daring to apply for adminship with only a few months' tenure. Keeping the biting criticism of RfA up for all to see is much more of a "bullying" opportunity than the act of hiding it. Mz7 (talk) 21:53, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Deleting the RfA page due to excoriating comments? That’s side stepping the responsibility to respond to those who made excoriating comments.  Are you really protecting the newcomer enthusiast,  or those who make excoriating comments.
 * Bullying? Have you ever seen bullying at RfA? Do you know what the effects of bullying look like?  The bullied quietly go away.  As do the bystanders.  An admin G6-ing a page displaying excoriating comments made to an enthusiastic newcomer, what is the message to all involved?  They were bullied, and this in charge quietly approved and hid all evidence.  I put the bully enablers next to the bullies.  Hiding evidence of bullying enables the bullying and so is part of the bullying.
 * No, the answer is not to G6 the RfA. The answer is to chastise those who made comments that are an embarrassment to the community, and to give the enthusiastic newcomer the option of having their RfA deleted. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Mm, I think I wrote my original comment above too hastily, without fully considering the nuances of the situation here. For example, I would withdraw the idea that the presence of excoriating comments is only time I've seen premature RfAs deleted—you are absolutely correct that we should chastise those who bite newcomers harshly, but to clarify my view, there doesn't need to be this level of harshness to justify deleting a premature RfA. I think what I was trying to say was the general experience of failing RfA is a relatively mortifying one—harsh oppose votes obviously don't help, but I think the experience is still a bit mortifying to a newcomer even if all of the oppose votes are encouraging and sympathetic in tone. It's like failing a job interview: sure, the interviewer thanks you for your time, and the rejection letter wishes you luck for the future—but it often still hurts a bit. The hypothetical you've described here is a valid possibility, and as an response, I would agree that your suggested approach of offering deletion to the newcomer (as opposed to deleting without consulting with the user) is a reasonable adjustment to our practice and would help the newcomer move past the experience and continue contributing. I think where we might differ is that, if the candidate agrees to the deletion offer, I do not see it as inherently problematic if an administrator performs the deletion on an WP:IAR basis (i.e. outside of the usual CSD, including G6), but I wouldn't be opposed to some kind of RfC to ensure that the policies document our practices. Mz7 (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)


 * Most RfA that get nipped in the bud before the community even notices, are from users who don't have a clue what they are doing. ORCP should be taken into policy and made a mandatory process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:00, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I cannot see any benefits at all to ever deleting an RFA page other than at the request of the candidate. The only time G6 could apply would be if the page was unambiguously created in error - which can only be the case here if the creator says it was (and if G7 doesn't apply it shouldn't be deleted) or deleting redirects created when moving the page to fix a typo or similar. Thryduulf (talk) 10:53, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 Phase 2
Following a discussion with over 100 editors, 8 issues were identified with Requests for Adminship (RfA). Phase 2 has begun and will use the following timeline: All interested editors are invited to participate in Phase 2. Thanks and best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
 * 10/24: Editors may submit proposals for changing/modifying RfA
 * 10/31: The 30 day discussion period has begun  (where we are)
 * 11/7: Deadline for submitting proposals to give the community adequate time to discuss any proposals
 * 11/30: 30 day discussion period ends

Advice for RfA candidates: Responding to questions
There was a recent change to Advice for RfA candidates that replaced four items with one labeled "Avoid responding to !votes." I have started a discussion on this edit. Feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Red alert
I feel like a climate scientist in the 1980s having to point this out, but if you look at the RfA stats, Wikipedia is heading for a disaster if it doesn't start shoveling warm bodies through RfA at warp speed. It's crazy nobody is stepping up, not least since it's so easy now. No pass rate less than 95% this year. Probable seat on ArbCom in under two years. Posting this as an alt, since obviously I don't want to ruin my own chances! Trunk Master (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * @Trunk Master Ah yes.. RfA is famously "so easy now". It's really not that crazy that people are staying well away, given these issues (and the rest). Would seriously suggest you keep well away from a RfA run for the foreseeable if this is a genuine take. ~TheresNoTime (to explain!) 03:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's so easy to pass an RfA, why do you feel compelled to post this under an alt to avoid ruining your chances? DonIago (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Because people oppose sometimes for the dumbest of reasons; "Oppose - recently complained about the lack of admin candidates". <slowly shakes head in dismay>. By the way, the longest drought between successful RfAs was from August 21, 2014 to November 11, 2014, at 76 days. If an RfA started now and was successful, it would conclude at 78 days. The last successful RfA concluded September 11, 2021. We're at 71 days (UTC) and counting. The drought record will be broken now. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See above. The very fact I said RfA is easy to pass these days, would be used agaisnt me, for some bizarre reason. As if it's some kind of heresy. The Administrators who Wikipedia don't need, are those who aren't prepared to think about what they're saying before they say it. It's beyond obvious the community concerns regarding RfA are completely outdated legacy issues. Hammersoft himself used to be terrified of the grilling his past would have brough at RfA. Now, well, he just sailed through, like all the rest of the recent candidates who stepped up. The facts on the ground have clearly changed and are reflected in outcomes at RfA this last year, and it's clearly because voters at least have woken up and realised there is an emergency situation brewing. Ironically it might be the recent Admin conduct decisions of ArbCom that have shown that standards are going to get enforced, and you aren't going to get away with arguing that mostly OK most of the time is OK, might be what has persuaded voters to be more relaxed about taking a chance, because the old assumption that it is a job for life, is no longer true. I swear to God, and I invite anyone to prove me wrong, obvious disqualifiers notwithstanding, the only thing you need to do to pass RfA now, is stand. Yes, you have to fill out some paperwork and answer some questions and devote a fair bit of time to Wikipedia (for a week!), but boo boo, that's the bare minimum for me for someone to show they are deserving of being trusted enough to unilaterally deny other users their right to edit. How tragic is it, if the only reason people aren't stepping up, is because current Admins are giving them a false impression of how hard it might be. Perhaps they're mistaken, but perhaps they're just angry that they had such a hard time at RfA back in the old days, and can see future candidates will have it easier than them? Trunk Master (talk) 11:03, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Those obvious disqualifiers include; a recent block, lack of recent activity, lacking at least a year's contributions (I'd suggest people run after they have been active for 15 months), lack of edits (realistically you need at least three thousand, and if your count is on the low side those edits need to be mostly manual}, oh and you need to show some edits where you have demonstrated thhat you can do inline cites to reliable sources.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  12:05, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Greetings . I'd lay odds and cover the stakes that was never "terrified" of a thing regarding RfA and his own candidacy. I'll leave the couple or three other things you have said, where I disagree, without rebuttal and wish you the best instead.--John Cline (talk) 12:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @Trunk Master; simply put, there are far too few data points over the time since WP:RFA was EC protected to draw any significant conclusions about any changes in culture at RfA. We could just as well conclude that we're doing a better job of communicating to would-be candidates that their candidacy is very ill-fated. I dare say there is not a single admin out there who thinks we have to maintain some sort of hazing ritual at RfA because it was hard for them back in the day and it damn well better be hard for candidates now, nor is there any evidence I have ever seen to support such a conclusion. As for myself, I was never terrified. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)


 * And lo and behold! Trunk Master is nothing but a sad little member of a confirmed sock farm., don't let these trolls take you for a ride ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Hatted. Primefac (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

A new precedent
I'm going to launch an RFA at 0000GMT tomorrow. The (non-sockpuppet) person who creates the page for me gets to be the nominator. If nobody does it by then, I'll nominate myself. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 04:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * What is the intent of this exercise? Is there a concrete improvement to the RFA process that you think this strange “new precedent” would accomplish? Mz7 (talk) 04:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If you know the results of an exercise before you start, you have no new results at all. We shall find out what the precedent is together. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 04:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * More seriously: the recent "RFA reform" RFC did nothing other than scare candidates away from RFA for 3 months. (Although, hopefully WP:XRV will be nice.)  This approach literally can not possibly do worse. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 04:32, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Aha. No matter how this goes (and I don't expect it to succeed if it very unconventional) it should be an interesting gauge of the community. Courtesy link. — &thinsp;J947 ‡ message ⁓ edits 05:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/力 2 now exists (though it possibly should be Requests for adminship/力停 or Requests for adminship/力 (2)). I would recommend future applicants adjust the "or I will nominate myself in X hours" clause if they try this -- specifically, it should be an "I will accept any nominations for X hours" clause. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 05:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I think I am missing something here. How a random editor support to nominate a random candidate on such short notices? Is the nominator supposed to praise the candidate with garden-variety compliments (civil, polite, level headed, knows policy, and so on). Or is the candidate supposed to have a nomination handy to be sent by email to the nominator? In any case, why not simply go with self-nom? I'm not sure what's supposed to be achieved here. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 11:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support: I find the opposes unconvincing. ——  Serial  15:38, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Bureaucrat note: I have moved the page per the guidance for RFA (second run, add "2" etc) and changed the link in 力's 05:20 comment accordingly. Primefac (talk) 20:46, 24 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Request Speedy Close The RFA is closed and talk about its nominations is moot. I have made a statement at User_talk:力 about the experience.  Discussion regarding whether "asking for an immediate nomination at WT:RFA" is permitted or forbidden has been superseded by other forums.  User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 19:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Account
I have been considering two options for an RFA.
 * 1) RFA for this account User:力, formerly known as User:Power~enwiki, formerly known as User:Power.
 * 2) RFA for the account User:力停, a limited-use alternate account that only patrols edits by non-ECP editors.  That would mean watching AIV, UAA, RFPP (for everything but Discretionary Sanctions protections) and nothing else.

If you have opinions, vote now. As a technicality, I must point out these votes are purely advisory (as site policy forbids me from forswearing my right to transfer community-elected adminship between any single account I control), but I will take them into account. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 04:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

RfA naming policy
Now I'm back at a keyboard (Christmas RfAs, man...), it seems worth noting 's page move to Requests for adminship/力 2 and redirect of the original title to Requests for adminship/Power~enwiki inadvertently(?) changed (created?) the precedent for post-rename RfAs. There are multiple cases in both recent and distant RfA history of people running under multiple names, and most of them prior have reset the numbering (e.g. Requests for adminship/Cabayi, Requests for adminship/The Rambling Man); the only exception I know of is Requests for adminship/Enterprisey, which was redirected to Requests for adminship/APerson. The tricky thing is that this also holds for a lot of higher-order RfAs, which have similarly been treated as resetting at the rename; most notably, Requests for adminship/Ironholds 5 was that subject's seventh RfA. For consistency, there should be one pattern or another, although it's not very clear what pattern that should be. <b style="color:black">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 06:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If I have bucked tradition, then I have no issue with restoring the "status quo" of a hard reset on the counter. However, the question was brought up by the nominee, and is also specified in the RFA instructions (step 2 for self-noms, step 7 for nominating others) that subsequent runs should include the number as qualifier. In other words, I was following our written protocols in response to an indirect question about naming, and if these are no longer our protocols then they should be updated. Primefac (talk) 13:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't want to decide anything here, and was very happy that bureaucrats saw this thread and determined what they felt the correct application of policy is. Beyond that, I feel this topic is too trivial for me to have an opinion, but you should feel free to talk about me as an example your discussion. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 19:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the page definitely should not have been moved. Especially when it was just to create a redirect. The numbers are there because you can't have two pages at the same title, not to add a 2 just for show. Naleksuh (talk) 19:43, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Part 2 of RfA naming policy
This had nothing to do with my oppose of the most recent nomination, but a valid point was otherwise brought up about this. That being, that if the alphabet or symbols of an English Wikipedia admin's name is not on the English keyboard, then in most cases, the admin cannot be pinged except via copy and paste, at best. And if a user has any issue with an admin whose name is not composed of the English keyboard letters, numbers or symbols, then a user cannot adequately open a talk thread about that admin - not at Arbcom, any of the notice boards, or general talk pages. And what that means, is that it would be difficult to hold an admin accountable for anything, if the average user cannot input their name. Perhaps it would be best to address this issue now, and have it in writing somewhere. — Maile (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't see how any of this would be a problem about what the name of the RfA itself is. If you want to propose that a new requirement for administrators is that they have only latin characters in their username, that would be a change to the admin policy, and the name of the RfA itself would naturally follow.  WT:ADMIN would be the venue to discuss that. —  xaosflux  Talk 01:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. I'll take it there.  — Maile  (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)