Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 262

Courtesy blanking of failed RFAs
Requests for adminship/力 2 has been blanked by the applicant, reverted and then blanked again. Personally I don't have any particular problem with this, but should it remain in Category:Unsuccessful requests for adminship. My view is that it should (i.e. just blank the rest of the page), but I don't want to edit war without discussing first. Is the a precident for this? — Voice of Clam 20:59, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

I've been reverted too, for blanking my own old RfA. My RfA is ancient history. I think the presumption should be in favor of failed candidates. (It's in the damn name, "courtesy blank." Schierbecker (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Is there an official policy on this? I'm surprised it's allowed, but it seems to be accepted practice. Looking through the archives, I see more than one argument about whether it's allowed or not. It seems like we should decide one way or the other and document it to avoid future confusion and conflict. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm also surprised. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 01:04, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I've self-reverted, un-blanking the page. I hadn't fully considered the implications of RFAs being noindexed and removed from the category. Doing that poses, at least potentially, an audit and accountability problem, and the community should weigh in on that rather than it being decided by a single editor (no matter how brilliant and handsome he is). Thanks, Clam, for bringing this up. Levivich 03:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * RfAs are largely discussion pages, the rules for which are at WP:TPG. If you have created an RfA page (whether to nominate somebody else or as a self-nom), you may blank it provided that nobody else has posted to it. As soon as there is a post by somebody else, WP:TPO applies (The basic rule, with exceptions outlined below, is to not edit or delete others' posts without their permission.) and so not only is blanking unacceptable, repeated blanking may be actionable as well. Whilst an RfA is in progress, it may sometimes be permissible to remove certain posts, as described in the bulleted list at TPO. It may be argued that any oppose vote is a "harmful" post, but RfA has a somewhat broad attitude to what you can say about the candidate.
 * In short: don't blank out an RfA even if it's old and was unsuccessful. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 07:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thats not a great argument IMO. If it were as simple as "don't blank because of TPO", we'd never blank any discussion page. But WP:CBLANK is all about blanking discussion pages, including user talk pages and AFDs (also covered by TPO). TPO doesn't make blanking unacceptable because TPO doesn't say "never refactor" (and we refactor for various reasons, including collapsing threads, redacting, moving to talk page, etc). "Always" and "never" aren't the answers here, because CBLANK is about exceptions. I think better questions are "when" and "how" rather than "whether". Does everyone remember when a candidate had a heart attack in the middle of their RFA? No one questioned the CBLANKing then. (And don't say "IAR" because, again, the question is when and how to do IAR not whether.) Levivich 13:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * My default inclination is to preserve the record of discussion as it stands, and I fear once we start routinely blanking discussions because editors are uncomfortable with them, there'll be many to consider (other requests for permissions; contentious disputes, a lot of the incidents noticeboard). Specifically regarding requests for administrative privileges, though, I'm not that concerned about the category, since the lists of requests continue to exist and the categorization could easily be preserved, and the  keyword can be removed. isaacl (talk) 15:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's a reason why a courtesy blanking is called a courtesy blanking. One banned user's RFA got courtesy blanked, because that banned user went on to harass one of the participants off-site, so it was blanked so as to not point to the user they harassed. As to the general question as to whether or not user's should be allowed to blank their own RFA's, I could probably turn around and courtesy blank my three RFA's, because they're old, but I'd rather the community have them to see if I ever decide to run again, even though a lot of the opposes would likely be "Mythdon did X back in 2009, he should never be an admin". And even though a category just for failed RFA's (in some ways) feels a bit like gravedancing, I'd say in general RFA's should be kept un-blanked for historical reference, for one, so the community has them to look at in case that user decides to run again and so potential candidates can read through them and use them as part of a how-to with regards to running (without having to back in the page history). Even WP:CBLANK itself says that courtesy blanking "generally is not done except under rare circumstances, such as where public view of the discussion may cause harm to some person or organisation", which seems to mean that RFA discussions (or any discussion for that matter) should not be blanked just because "I want to blank it".— Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 16:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Bad idea Community discussions need to remain accessible to everyone. Records exist for a reason. The current RfA has hit a speed bump in large part because an editor stumbled on a comment by the candidate on another RfA. If your not comfortable with your RfA becoming a permanent record, you probably should reconsider asking for the tools. FWIW my own RfA was absolutely brutal. It needs to be available for anyone who wants to peruse it. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed! GiantSnowman 16:14, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the blanking, as a courtesy (hence the name) to an editor who made this request upon leaving the project. Given that the editor has retired, and that the existence and contents of the RfA remain accessible if any need to access them were to arise, the blanking is harmless. Obviously the RfA of an active editor who was seeking permissions would be a very different situation. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:18, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's a good idea to uncategorize RfA pages, even if courtesy blanking might be sometimes justified. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 17:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * NYB, I think I can count on one hand the number of times you've been wrong, but I think this is one of them:
 * 1) Retirements aren't enforced. We have a number of users, including admins, who retire and un-retire on a seemingly regular basis.
 * 2) I'm a firm believer in accountability for everyone who runs for admin. That means keeping track of who ran when, and what the outcome was.
 * Having said that, I have no objection to deleting/RevDel'ing particularly problematic things. I know it's more work than to just "blank it" and move on, but that seems to me to be a far better balance between privacy and accountability. Jclemens (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Meh if it is old, and obviously marked as courtesy blanked such that anyone can see the discussion in the history, I don't really care. They probably should still stay in relevant categories (e.g. Category:Unsuccessful requests for adminship) though. —  xaosflux  Talk 18:02, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There seems to be consensus the category should be there. So I've added it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Confirming that I have no objection to that. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 18:46, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone experienced enough with Wikipedia to have run all but the briefest of RFAs knows how to view history, so I'm having a really hard time seeing what the blanking is accomplishing besides stirring up entirely-predictable drama. —Cryptic 19:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Blanking destroys Whatlinkshere data and makes it more difficult to perform gnoming maintenance tasks (Linter fixes or other updates; I wouldn't like to have my RfA look like this and not have a readable version). Neither seem particularly useful. On the whole I think blanking should only be done in exceptional circumstances. —Kusma (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed - the RFA should be restored. GiantSnowman 20:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I was going to write this,, because it's my two cents on the matter, too. Even if an RfA gets courtesy blanked (as happened at my RfA's talk)... that stops no one who already knows their away around the site. Courtesy blanking also does not magically prevents diffs from before the blanking being used again, so anyone who remembers and has the desire to go hunting will find that diff, and the courtesy blank will be at least 50% defeated. Blanking RfA and, I'd argue, their talks is dishonest and ineffective. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  21:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the harm in the blanking. The record still exists in the page history and can be accessed by sufficiently interested editors. If this editor ever seeks RfA or other similar permissions in the future, this is an easily reversible action, and we definitely aren't going to overlook a previous RfA. Mz7 (talk) 19:15, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * shouldn't be blanked I had asked this question to myself years ago, when I saw a farce RfA courtesy blanked from the early days of Wikipedia. With courtesy blanking even a logged out editor can see the entire RfA in two to four clicks. Most of the editors know how to view previous versions. So what are we achieveing other than edit reverts, and discussions like these? It is the candidate who directly asks (self-nom) for scrutiny or consents to (acceptance of nom). If the RfA is not SNOW-worthy then candidate should very well know what happens at RfA. If they can't accept the RfA going sideways, then maybe they shouldn't run. Regarding "courtesy blanking", the RfA is not user's talkpage or subpage. Generally the candidate doesn't even contribute more than 5% to the RfA. I agree, the RfA is a discussion solely about the candidate, but it's either they asked for it, or consented to. If there is something harmful (outing, or some stupid vandalism, or severe profanity), it can be either reverted, rev-del'ed, or even suppressed. Also per Kusma, Red Rose, Ad Orientem, Cryptic, and Vami the fourth. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with this view on the matter. Also, hope y'all had a restful and enjoyable weekend :) — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 22:52, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the idea of a "courtesy blanking" is not restricted to a user's talkpage or subpage. See Deletion policy, which expressly states On occasion, pages in the project namespace, such as requests for adminship and requests for arbitration, will be blanked as a courtesy, for reasons similar to those outlined above. An analysis of the policy's revision history shows that this text has been in the policy without controversy for more than 13 years. Mz7 (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * all these policies/guidelines were created by humans/editors just like us :-) If the time comes, we can, and should update it accordingly. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * How do people feel about CBLANK saying that unsuccessful RFAs can be courtesy blanked on request of the candidate, but must nevertheless stay in the category? (But still noindex'd, meaning it won't come up in searches, but it'll be listed on the lists.) Levivich 03:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Sort of defeats the purpose of the blanking *shakes head* — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 03:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This is reasonable if, say, you edit under your real name, or reuse your pseudonym elsewhere. In this particular case, googling "力" won't find the page whether it's noindexed or not - it's only barely more searchable than "B". —Cryptic 07:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I wouldn't say we should courtesy blank any unsuccessful RfA on request. Generally, I think it should be reserved for cases where an RfA was particularly grueling and led to some kind of harassment or other kinds of undue stress on the candidate. Mz7 (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we've long ago conceded the principle that RFAs can be courtesy blanked. We don't get many requests to do so, but when they do come in I don't see how we differentiate between ones that are grueling, or where the continued non blanking of the RFA is stressful to the person requesting blanking without summoning up the Streisand effect. So IMHO we should courtesy blank RFAs on request from the applicant. That said, I can't see myself requesting courtesy blanking of my RFB or either of my RFAs, not do I expect many others to need this done.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:36, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah yeah, that's fair – if an RfA candidate claims that a particular RfA has caused them considerable distress and that a courtesy blanking would alleviate some of that distress, I suppose I don't really see the harm in honoring their request. Mz7 (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's how it is done in practice. Looking at the list of blanked RFXs, most of them are noindexed and have categories preserved. ಮಲ್ನಾಡಾಚ್ ಕೊಂಕ್ಣೊ (talk) 12:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blanking except in cases of actual harm - which is a very rare event. If a failed candidate is so embarrassed that they wish to have their RFA blanked it merely confirms that they were not a suitable candidate in the first place - if you can't take the heat... My first RFA was a dumpster fire and it's still cringey as hell, but I'd never dream of trying to hide it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blanking unless exceptional harm can be demonstrated (in which case, it should probably be deleted, not blanked). While any minimally experienced editor knows how to view the page if it's blanked, automated processes do not. There are a lot of automated processes that analyze RfAs. RfA has always been a heavily analyzed place, since there is a perennial concern that there is an impending admin shortage, and/or that the process of RfA is broken. Think of all those pretty graphs you've seen (on this talk page) of the rate of how many RfAs there are per month or year, what percentage were successful/unsuccessful, how many supports/opposes there were, etc. Back when I made tools, I had a tool that would attempt to find an editor's RfA votes and list them in a table. None of these automated processes are likely to work on RfAs that have been blanked. Typically, these types of processes work by getting the latest revision of the page, and analyzing it. If the latest revision has been blanked, the RfA will likely be skipped by that automated process. (Yes, while it might be technically possible to code it in such a way that blanked pages are recognized, and attempts are made to go back through the revision history to find the unblanked version, this is more complicated and error-prone than it seems and is unlikely to ever be done in a practical sense.) All RfAs should remain unblanked so that our analyses of this important area continue to be as accurate as possible.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 05:02, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Support Blanking - What is in the past should remain in the past. Forcefully keeping closed discussions visible on such pages (RfA/RfB) against the respective editor's wishes shouldn't be allowed as there are several and various reasons in which the said editor might not like to have the discussion easily available. It's not only about the exceptional cases where there is harm, because there can also be cases where some very mean and rude comments have been said by someone where the editor does not wish to keep the discussion always visible as it may lead to continuous mental/emotional pain to that respective editor. The discussion and all the rest of the data is anyways visible in the page history and can be seen by anyone. Most editors don't even care about their unsuccessful RfA's, but for those people where something affects them and they do not wish to keep it visible, their wishes should be completely respected and every editor should have the complete and full right whether such discussions about them are kept visible or not. TheGeneralUser (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose blanking it's easy to forget, I think, that failed RfAs are as—quite possibly more, even—useful than successful ones: there's far more to learn from, and to guard against, from a Vami or Ifnord RfA than a Cullen or Ealdgyth RfA. And one of the most common responses at WP:ORCP is re-read some old RfA pages and see what to expect; I see no benefit whatsoever to potential candidates in making them work any harder than they already have to do to pass, and indeed, it seems rather against the spirit of collegiality we try and maintain that it's on the table. Particularly when we're trying to attract new candidates rather than deter them.  SN54129  13:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * * Apologies for naming individual RfAs here; if it's felt to be rude, feel free (ironically!) to blank.  SN54129  13:26, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am not offended. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  21:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure whether we're discussing the specific blanking that was the impetus for the current discussion, or a general policy on blanking RFA's. My opinion is that I oppose having any policy one way or the other on courtesy blanking, and leave it up to the individual situation over whether or not such blankings are justified.  Every situation is different, and sometimes we may want to blank a failed RFA, and sometimes we might not want to.  I'd rather be silent than create a policy which is too inflexible for our needs.  Regarding the specific blanking that led to this discussion, I'm officially neutral on that one.  -- Jayron 32 13:45, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to say, I'm disappointed in some people in this discussion. Wikipedia keeps a record of everything, and we work well in that model, but that doesn't mean that everything in the past needs to be fully searchable - especially when it might be hurtful to an individual concerned. Courtesy blanking is something we should do freely and empathetically - nothing is lost in doing so, but an individual would find it more pleasant to be be on the encyclopedia and would therefore likely stick around. It can be "unblanked" easily if a subsequent RfA were to occur, too, which is the only time it's really relevant. I'm not suggesting we do it as a matter of course, but I am suggesting than anyone who wishes it should be extended the courtesy - and I feel this is doubly true for any cases where an individual's real name is tied to their account or they're looking to retire, or any other number of real life consequences. WormTT(talk) 13:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I concur with WTT's statements above regarding empathy. It largely aligns with my feelings on these matters.  -- Jayron 32 13:59, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Apologies if someone else has already suggested these, but what about these two options for a compromise: (1) keeping all of the wikitext on the page, but hiding it using CSS, or (2) blanking but copying to an obscure subpage which we don't link to from anywhere. In either case, it's still searchable, but not easily visible. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 14:20, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That subpage exists. It's called the "page history".  -- Jayron 32 15:18, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Misses the point, which is the ability to search it/find it/research it. Quick, do a query to find out how often, say, WP:TOOSOON is cited at RfA? Find the users that wind up being the most influential? Figure out how language use has changed throughout the history of RfA. Yes, it's possible to do all of this by manually going into the history of each out and extracting the last unblanked version, or perhaps by writing a script that looks for the last version >Xkb, but it's an impediment to actually understanding RfA, which is something a lot of people are interested in. I'm all for supporting those who want to blank the page, but not at the expense of searchability, hence what I proposed. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:57, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you mean WP:NOTQUITEYET? WP:TOOSOON is about notability. 2601:647:5800:1A1F:A101:2C6F:57B3:C73D (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As long as the default is to keep material easily available—for the community rather than the individual–we have IAR for those occasions where blanking may feel appropriate.  SN54129  14:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * What have we decided? Blanking or no blanking? —usernamekiran (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose for transparency reasons. – Novem Linguae (talk) 07:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * bump. Avoiding being archived. Even though this is not exactly an important/pressing issue, we should have a consensus about it. Nothing personal about 力, or their RfA. —usernamekiran (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

All discussion in general discussion
Thoughts on having it be that all discussion of !votes has to occur in the general discussion (or talk page) of an RfA/RfB? I have always thought it a bit unfortunate that substantive discussion about the candidate gets shuffled to the talk page when someone decides it's gone on too long or become too "badgery". By having the discussion occur not in reply but in a seperate part could help with both of those elements. I think, for instance, it would have been a shame if the Pppery general discussion at Lee's RfB had gone to the talk page because I think it has brought up some interesting points for people to consider and that obviously inspired me to post my own comment at Wug's RfB there, which has also generated discussion and !votes of those who both agree and disagree with my point. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think we ought to do it that way. The discussion topics that arise from !votes are often of importance, and the appearance of a long threaded conversation in response to an oppose !vote (as is often the case) usually results in inordinate and unnecessary calls to shut down the discussion "because you're badgering a !voter and we wouldn't similarly badger a support !vote". Something like this certainly would also have been of benefit in the Tamzin RFA when the discussion had become incredibly unwieldy due to multiple threaded responses to oppose !votes with similar rationales. Moving to general discussion provides an avenue to consolidate the discussions into something more cohesive and less of a free-for-all. WaltCip- (talk)  14:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, as I was mooting this last night I thought about Tamzin's RfA and how it would have been a plus there as well but forgot to mention it when I wrote this out this morning. Thanks for bringing that up Walt and also for noting the benefit of consolidating discussion about similar concerns rather than spreading them out over multiple opposes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Anything that splits votes from discussion gets a support from me. (I would even prefer people posting their rationales in the discussion section, and just pure votes in the voting section). —Kusma (talk) 14:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * RfA's don't have "votes"... — xaosflux  Talk 18:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, we technically have !votes. Obviously you know this (especially since you're a bureaucrat), but in practice some people see the RfA process as a vote. I can kind of get that, it's one of the few things that actually require a certain percentage from the people that participate for the end result, even if they can be discounted in discretionary ranges. Clover moss  (talk) 03:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sometimes they do, for example when I don't want to campaign for my point of view at the ballot box. —Kusma (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have long advocated for separating discussion from the support/oppose statements, to enable consolidation of discussion on each specific characteristic being evaluated. This would reduce repetition and thus make better use of participants' time. I do not think, though, that all discussion should thus be deemed on-topic and retained, no matter what. Off-topic discussion and discussion of general issues on the overall process, versus evaluating the individual candidate, are still better held elsewhere. isaacl (talk) 15:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I could agree if the general discussion is placed above the section of voting. Browsing through the comments (and especially the oppose comments) helps me understand the reasoning and context of the community's feelings about the nomination. If I have a concern about a nominee, I should feel that my concerns are accessible to the vast majority of community members - and not buried in a general discussion thread below a list of votes. - Enos733 (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry to be clear - people could still leave whatever comments they wanted when supporting or opposing. My proposal is just that the replies to those would belong in General discussion and not threaded underneath. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is what I understood. I mostly support that (although in some cases factual corrections directly after the unambiguously erroneous vote rationale are appropriate), and apologise for derailing the thread slightly by supporting a more radical idea at the same time. —Kusma (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I second what others have said and think this would be a positive change (based on my few experiences at RfA). — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 21:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

RfC launched
I have started a formal RfC about this idea here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I’m perplexed why there is so much concern about clerking at RfA. Can’t some administrators simply just monitor the discussion while staying uninvolved by not participating in the discussion process? Or is there something that I’m overlooking? CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 18:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

State of RFA probationary term proposal?
Hi! I've been slowly working back towards editing after some health issues and took a look at WP:RFA to see if I had missed any candidacies. Much to my disappointment, there have been none for over a month now. Thus I was wondering if there had been any progress regarding one of the proposals from the 2021 review which was identified as having the potential to gain consensus. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 09:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Many years ago I did a fairly simplistic analysis of former admins desysopped for cause or resigned under a cloud, and I concluded that three years was the most risky time. This lead me to my current position, that any probationary period that the community was likely to accept would be too short to be useful. I'll concede now that my "study" wasn't well documented, may not have been rigorous and is way out of date. I suggest that anyone wanting to revive the probationary concept have a look at the data, with a view to identifying how the proportion of desysops for cause or under a cloud varies by length of admin tenure. If the result is that there is a realistic probation period in which a significant proportion of admins need to go and could be removed/reeducated more easily by a probationary system, then consensus for such a system would become easier. If we emerge with more robust data showing that this is still a distraction from real problems, then maybe we can put more effort into admin training, retraining over time, or maybe even a probationary system for certain tools, so that admins who have never used that tool, or not for a decade can go through a probationary period with that tool when they use it. We might even want to amend the definition of wheel warring so that it isn't a wheel war if you reverse the action of an admin who hadn't used that tool in a decade before the action you are reversing. TLDR If the community is already tolerant of admin's making mistakes, but worried that long term admins get over confident or just drift away from community norms, then a probationary period is a distraction not a solution.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  10:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I did not know WereSpielChequers did their own analysis, and am quite intrigued to see/know more about those results.
 * I started to flesh out a proposal for this about a month ago that I never quite got around to being satisfied with. From my perspective a large (perceived) barrier to some folks putting forward an RFA is the idea that they have one or two "hot button" issues they expect the community will find major issue. Take for example Tamzin's views on Trump supporters or Vami's well-in-the-past comments about fascism - if either of them knew going in that these were going to be concerns expressed by the RFA participants, would they have been more willing to say "I'm running for a two year term to prove that these are not issues"? We already have candidates who say "I have almost no experience in XYZ field so I will likely avoid it", but more abstract concerns like behaviour, conduct, or general "ability" to be an admin are not really areas that someone can say "I will avoid these"; it's just something that you either can prove beforehand or you don't get approval from the community.
 * Now, I do recognise that the bureaucrat chat exists for those candidates who have the 1-2 issues that the community cannot decide on (and it is therefore the job of the 'crats to determine whether it's "enough" to prevent promotion), but I feel like even those few cases could have potentially be headed off by someone saying "I think I'm ready for this, I know I have XYZ issues in my past, but I want 2 years to show that I will not have those issues as an admin". Will people be more likely to overlook the XYZ issue(s) if they know that (at worst) the user will only be an admin for a short while?
 * I definitely think this is a topic worth discussing more, especially as I am curious to hear from non-admins if such a use case would increase their willingness to put their name forward. Primefac (talk) 11:04, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My thoughts on this: I opposed it when it was made, and I now support it. My !vote on it was, and I quote:
 * "We need more admins, not fewer!"
 * Which, as JayBeeEll said, was a very poor vote that was wrongly made, with zero reflection of the actual proposal, and was actually just a copy-and-paste from a comment of Hammersoft's six months before that had no relevance to this particular discussion. However, JayBeeEll also bludgeoned the oppose section with the same repeated comment about how the theory that this was all but guaranteed to become a de facto requirement was wrong because in the past year no RfA has passed with less than 90% support, which was an argument destroyed by Tamzin's RfA in May.
 * But the Tamzin RfA was very important in this proposal. Yes, it passed, but many users were concerned about possible political issues that might arise if she was promoted. If it had been a TRfA, though, editors would not be concerned, since if Tamzin got all political once she became an admin (which, unsurprisingly, did not happen), a de-sysop could just occur after a year, when the term ended. And if she kept politics out of it, a re-RfA after a year would be easily successful, since the concerns raised did not arise. The same argument could be used for many other RfAs.
 * So I support 6E. To answer Primefac's question above (especially as I am curious to hear from non-admins if such a use case would increase their willingness to put their name forward), I obviously wouldn't be able to pass until 2029 or something, considering my current topic ban that restricts me from even editing in the mere namespace that RfA is in, whether in a temporary RfA of otherwise. Maybe an awot might be able to give a meaningful answer.
 * 🇺🇦 Chicdat Bawk to me!  12:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My assumption with a probationary proposal is that it would address people's concerns that we don't have on the job training for new admins, and after a probationary year you could look at an admins deletions and blocks and decide whether you wanted them to keep the tools long term or whether they had failed to learn the relevant skills. But I don't see that as really people's concerns at RFA. I see the concern as much more about judgement than skill. If this person gets the block and delete buttons will they show good judgement in their use, or will they be biased on this or that criteria. A probationary period of six months or a year doesn't address such concerns because of course a sensible candidate will avoid showing their prejudices during that probationary period. Perhaps we should survey the RFA !voters and ask whether it would ever have changed their vote if we'd had a probationary period and then an otherwise contentious RFA candidate could pass provided they were going to bide their time for the 6 month probationary period. Given how far back Opposers will go when they Oppose on judgement issues, I don't see a probationary period as a reform that could get a meaningful improvement.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  14:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

State of admin election proposal?
I opposed 8B when it was proposed, but now support it, and have been wondering for a while whether or not it will be re-proposed. It had very high participation when compared to the others, and I've been waiting a while for the day when it is proposed again. If it is, I'd be first in line in the "Support" section (if I wasn't currently topic-banned from project space). 🇺🇦 Chicdat Bawk to me!  12:30, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Legacy admins 2006-2008
Can anyone tell me how many of us have gone off the rails? What the percentage is ? -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)


 * @Deepfriedokra do you mean editors that became admins before 2009, that were removed for cause? — xaosflux  Talk 09:25, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Former administrators/reason/for cause may be helpful. – Novem Linguae (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * thanks. (those sysopped 2006-2008) -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 10:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So 24 resignations where there is an attached conversation (rough and ready "under a cloud" methodology) and, I think, 56 on the desysop list. The desysop list seems to exclude those blocked, which is another 23. 103 in total.
 * Unfortunately, I don't have any idea of a viable method of reducing that to those sysopped in 2006-08. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Text at bottom of questions is incorrect
I am pretty sure that the text generated that instructs on the use of templates is incorrect or at the very least misleading. Specifically, the explanation of the two-question template includes "2=" and "4=" as parts of parameters but I needed to remove them in order to ask my questions. Could this be fixed? — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 17:09, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You should not need to remove the 2= or 4= in order to answer your question. Could you please provide an example here of what you're seeing when you use the template as described in the Q&A commented-out bit? Primefac (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That confused me too, but I thought it was just me. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It happens if i use 12, for example. It makes 12 the question number and 13 the question text, ignoring the other two parameters. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 10:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * When you use a mixture of unnamed (positional) parameters (in this case 12 and 13) and explicitly-numbered parameters, the explicitly-numbered params are assigned to whichever numbers they state, and then the positional params are assigned to 1, 2, 3 etc. in the order in which they occur, even if one of those param numbers has already been given a value. So, in general terms, if you are explicitly numbering any parameters, it's best to number all of the otherwise-unnamed params. This is the case for any template which accepts positional parameters.
 * So with your example, param 1 has the value "12"; param 2 had the value "your question" which is overwritten by the value "13"; param 3 has no value; and param 4 has the value "your question". The template is written in such a way that if you don't provide a number (param 3) for your second question, then param 4 (for the text of the second question) is ignored. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation,, helpful as always ^u^ Is there some way to improve the explanation of how to use the template? The current text says If you have two questions, use question number , which would it seem lead to the problem described above. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 21:55, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * . – Novem Linguae  (talk) 04:39, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Novem Linguae, the issue with changing it to that wording is that if there is any sort of complex markup in the code it will cause the question(s) to be improperly truncated. If anything, 1 and 3 should be added to the example to make it more explicit. Primefac (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I was just copying what was in the template's documentation. If numbers are added back, I would suggest adding all 4 numbers, but I don't feel strongly about it. – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. We can leave it be until things start breaking. Primefac (talk) 08:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

"No need for the tools" - August 2022
It's unfortunate that "no need for the tools" has returned with a vengeance. No one "needs" the tools; if someone decides they want them, what's important is that we as a community determine whether or not they can be trusted with them. If inactivity is something people are worried about when determining "need", remember that an inactive admin is easy for we bureaucrats to remove (compared to removing an abusive one) and the encyclopedia still gains if we have a low-key admin who makes sound admin decisions for a few months before disappearing. Acalamari 02:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's true Acalamari and I completely agree with what you have said. TheGeneralUser (talk) 07:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * my exact thoughts when I saw Shushugah's RfA after 12 hours, the road is bumpy, but we still have 6 more days. I hope the RfA makes it. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I've updated Advice for RfA voters to say that WP:NONEED goes directly against advice agreed upon by community consensus at last year's RfC. Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Of more importance is that Wikipedia needs someone to use the tools. Will the candidate use them if they are available? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * As an admin, I have a wide range of tools, because they came in the bundle. Those that I do use are outnumbered by those that I don't use, never have used, and have no intention of using. I don't need to create short URLs, I don't want to delete tags from the database (in case I break something), I might incur the wrath of the WMF if I disable global blocks locally, I don't care about managing the list of mentors (further examples will be provided upon request). Will you call for me to be desysopped becaue I don't need the tools that I have? -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:05, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There's nothing that tells you when you using the tools, so many admins use them without realising that they are doing so. This applies especially to things like page move and template edits. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  03:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * @Graeme Bartlett, FWIW, when I ran RfA in 2019, I had zero idea that I'd be using the tools in the places I actually am using them. Valereee (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This just in from 2007, "...It is to the project's benefit to grant adminship to the capable. Unless someone can show me a clear cut example of lack of understanding through faulty judgment or temperamental incompatibility through incivility or rashness, I cannot help but vote Support ...." And I think if they only perform the minimum, that's still a positive. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In my question to Shushugah, I tried to walk the line by saying "what will you do as an administrator" rather than "how will you use the tools" because I agree on the whole with Acalamari and others. It was not clear to me when I asked my question whether the editor was trying to make a POINT or was genuinely interested in becoming an admin. In retrospect I could have found a way to focus on that rather than make a narrow distinction. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Welp, if they don't use them, there is little risk of them misusing them. Things like deleting WP:AFD to make a point or blocking someone 'cause everyone knows they need it. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * (General comment, not about any of the current RfAs) One can do damage with the tools without it being visible. Being an admin allows you to see deleted and rev-deleted stuff, e.g. looking at deleted user pages (which may cause outing or harassment concerns, even without us realising it as it perhaps happens offline). Giving out that permission to people who don't have any intention to really use it for the benefit of the encyclopedia is a bad idea and goes against one of the reasons we have RfA (a process to restrict the permission to see deleted things to a limited, scrutinized group of people). On that basis, "no need for the tools" is a perfect reason to oppose someone who would run on a basis of "I'm a good editor and it would be nice to have the tools as well" without any indication of what they intend to do with it. While those concerns can also happen with someone who does use the tools for the good of enwiki, it is quite different to say "we gave it to X to help with CSD, and they misused our trust" than to say "we gave it to X because they wanted it for no reason, and they misused the trust". Fram (talk) 15:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree that people can do damage with the tools without it being visible. That's precisely why for me, it's not about how they would use the tools, it's about whether I can trust them. Specifically whether I can trust them to know when they should use the tools and equally to know when they shouldn't use the tools even though they have the technical ability to press the button. Because people's interests change over time someone saying "I want to help at CSD" isn't prevented from later saying "I want to help with UPE" or some other area. So I need to equally trust them in a wide range of scenarios. Part of my feelings on this topic are no doubt influenced by the small number of people who said I had no need for the tools at my RfA and who I think I've shown were wrong at the time. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There aren't that many opposes at Shushugah's RfA which cite a lack of need for the tools. Rather the concerns are based on a lack of experience of admin-type work, which is a very different reason to oppose, and can suggest that the candidate won't make sound admin decisions if they pass. While adminship isn't that complicated, there are things you need to know and you can cause problems if you screw up. The vast majority of non-entry-level jobs or roles, including in the real world, will assess the amount of experience you have which is relevant to the role, and if you haven't got much then it will count against you.  Hut 8.5  18:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * However, if someone can't demonstrate a need for the tools, they are more likely (though by no means certain) to not be able to demonstrate "a clue" (admin toolkit-wise, vs generally). I like a candidate to show a certain capacity on the backend of the project (almost all of which will associate to some use of the tools) as part of that, which I do not believe is unreasonable. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If someone has a need for the tools, we should be extremely suspicious (unless they are researching Wikipedia history). Almost all policy compliant admin actions can be requested from existing admins; need arises only for admin actions that others would not perform for you. —Kusma (talk) 07:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, but having to post a request and wait greatly increases the turnaround time for some pretty simple actions. Much more convenient to be able to do it yourself. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, but convenience is not the same as need. On the other hand, the Wikipedia community (and the admin community) needs to give the tools to many people so they can do things themselves and immediately instead of clogging our processes. The vast majority of us are volunteers, and we should try to make it so that we can all volunteer as effectively as possible, and that means giving admin tools to all who would use them cluefully and responsibly. —Kusma (talk) 07:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * When I was made an admin, there were four rights (editusercss, edituserjs, editsitecss, editsitejs) that were part of the admin bundle at the time, but have since been removed and transferred to a new interface administrators group, which is granted separately. I had used all four of these rights before they were taken away, and I have never re-applied for them even though there are times when I could have used them cluefully and responsibly. For example, at VPT we often get people complaining about the visual appearance of some MediaWiki feature. It's often easy enough for me to work out some CSS rules that will change the appearance in a manner that would satisfy that user, and I can test it in my own persomal CSS - but then I cannot do the same for that user. Instead I need to explain to them how to set it up themselves, which they are then unwilling to do for whatever reason, see for example Village pump (technical)/Archive 199 - no fewer than four of us (two being admins) tried to explain, but User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz/common.css is still a redlink. If I still had the editusercss right, I could add the rule myself, and the user would probably be happy. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What Hawkeye7 said. I dithered while mopless over requesting pp on a slightly complex COI issue that I would have just semi’d for a couple of days myself. I knew the request would require several diffs and a bit of explaining and that getting a response could take long enough that it might be moot by the time someone dealt with it. Valereee (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm with on this.  has clarified a point and made a long overdue edit to the WP:RFAV which I wrote, but 's comment is nearer the reality which 'no need for the tools' probably more accurately means 'Will they use them when they get them?'. A close look at the logged admin actions of some successful candidates will demonstrate that many if them don't use them very much at all, although they could possibly be exercising responsibilities that are not logged as as admin tasks, such as just for example, looking at deleted content, a right which greatly assists in Wiki forensics. This is perhaps the only admin tool that could be unbundled, in so far it could be allocated to a new user group like : 'COI investigator' or something similar, but definitely of course not for simply copying the contents of an article to recreate it or using it elsewhere. To apply for such a right would require adequate proof or work in COI, UPE, SPI, etc, and a high entry threshold. If I were more active these days, I might propose it in a RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The WMF has mandated that any right granting access to deleted content go through an RfA-like process. That doesn't mean it's impossible—we could always have "Requests for researchership" be a third kind of RfX, and maybe structure it a bit differently to make it not as much a spectacle as RfA and RfB; we could also potentially empower ArbCom to appoint researchers directly, e.g. for SPI clerks, since IIRC ArbCom appointment counts as "RfA-like"—but it does mean it's a bit more complicated than any other kind of unbundling. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 04:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think "RfA-like" is a good description for the requirements. Unless you are saying that arb and steward elections are "RfA-like". —Kusma (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes. WMF has ruled that this is the case. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  07:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My point is that we could replace RfA by a pure voting system (totally unlike our current RfA that uses consensus to determine a binary outcome) and still satisfy the requirements. —Kusma (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Some random thoughts: the participants at RfA are very self-contradictory. On one hand they say candidate must be a content creator, making numerous RfA fail including that of Cobi. There is often an analogy used about pilots to point out the importance of content creation. While discussing RfAs, almost everybody says its not a big deal, candidates are not coming forward, and there is insinuation that they will be supporting in RfAs easygoingly. But in Shushugah's RfA, the majority of the opposes are citing lack of need, and low edit-rate (not edit count). I cant understand why people say one thing at other venue, and behave quite opposite during an RfA, and second thing I cant understand is, if the candidate is sensible but "doesnt need tools", then how can it be a problem if they get the tools? RedRose has explained that issue. Also, we dont have technical or policy limit on max number of admins. So why oppose someone if there are no visible chances of misuse? Just to be clear — candidate's trustworthiness, and "need for the tools" are two different things. —usernamekiran (talk) 06:56, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Some more random thoughts...after the need or the lack of the need for the tools was brought up in supports/opposes (and here), the opposes have changed tack to concentrate on other things. Moral of the story: if your mind seems set, and you look hard enough, it is easy to find fault even with the best of candidates (not that I am saying Shushugah is the best, mind). A bit of a shame really, we could use people with clue. Lectonar (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is the unfortunate reality with saying certain reasons to oppose are invalid or bad reasons. You can stop people from saying they are opposing for a specific reason, but you can't stop them from finding a different reason to claim motivated their opposition.  07:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is a way around the "bad rationales" problem other than turning RfA into a proper vote. —Kusma (talk) 08:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Even that would just hide the issue because people would still vote based off "bad rationales", they just might not say why they voted the way they did.  08:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My (gut-)feeling is that at least some folks follow their gut feeling from the get-go (which isn't necessarily wrong all the time), and rationalise their already-made choice afterwards. The problem being that normally you can only form your opinion of a user from what you see here...which definitely is not the whole picture. Lectonar (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case I think "no need for tools" is just a quick substitute that's easy to use in place of a nuanced (and more useful) explanation. Each editor's risk-reward calculation when voting will always be to an extent a black box and we can't really force it to be otherwise. An editor might not even know why their gut feeling supports or opposes a candidate so expecting them to rationalize a subjective and partially subconcscious view is counter-productive when taken too far. To my knowledge there's never been a time where voters at RFAs were exclusively diligent with their vote rationales either (especially when inclined to support, which necessitates literally no reasoning in the eyes of the community). — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 23:05, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's generally accepted, though not endorsed by everyone, that a support vote with little or no comment is an affirmation of the nomination statements(s). That's the reasoning. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well that and, there are lots of different reasons you might oppose and really only one reason you would support. So when you do it's implied--you've checked them out and can't find any reason it'd likely be a problem. delldot   &nabla;.  12:04, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Wugapodes RfB
At the Requests for bureaucratship/Wugapodes, I wish to fix a broken date and time for the vote by to ensure it displays properly on the apersonbot report. (UTC) should be appended to the date. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 07:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The same also applies to 's comment at DanCherek's RfA. Both have now been fixed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 13:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Duplicate votes in RfA?
What does "Dups? - Has duplicate votes?" column in RFX report mean? If someone finds out that duplicate !votes have been cast, wouldn't it be immediately struck down as sock vote, like I have seen in all recent RFXs? And, when that happens, "Dups?" always result in a "no". &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 05:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe it's a hint to bureaucrats in case the duplication is subtle. The documentation and code for this is located at Module:Rfx dupesExist – Novem Linguae (talk) 06:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's actually simpler than that - sometimes people completely forget they've already !voted. Sometimes also, they improperly format their indents and inadvertently "vote" twice. Primefac (talk) 14:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I resemble this. Valereee (talk) 20:20, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * sometimes it's good for me to search for mys ignature on a page. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * And sometimes someone changes their !vote, but forgets to indent their "old" !vote. — xaosflux  Talk 21:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Recognizing that a new vote is a duplicate so you can immediately strike it is easy if there's only a dozen or so of them. When there's two or three or four hundred, not so much. —Cryptic 23:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * If there are two or three or four hundred it does not matter, unless it very close but that is rare. --Bduke (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No. No one !votes twice. The dup's detector allows crats to look for and deal with the times a user !votes more than once. Back when we had ten a week, it was easy to lose track of which RfA's one had already opined in. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 12:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Some people can accidentally revote as they don't remember they have voted before or they may change opinion. Maybe an edit filter should be possible, and say: "If you are reaffirming votes or changing votes, you should find your previous vote and struck it or change it" Thingofme (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think our current arrangements work well enough, and I suspect that each new edit filter has a new overhead on the site.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  06:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I suspect that each new edit filter has a new overhead on the site. They do, even if the current solution didn't work well this likely doesn't happen nearly often enough to justify an edit filter. An edit notice could be used instead if there was an issue and it's possible that Thingofme meant an edit notice, not edit filter.  06:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, because edit filter checks every edits but they are not an issue, they may be if it is persistent. Thingofme (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

RFX protection
Why are RfXs not protected by default? I'm just curious after the recent disruption at SFR's RfA. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 10:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Sometimes retired editors (possibly those who have retired because of trolling / harassment) come back as an IP and make thoughtful comments. As long as they're not disruptive, it's okay. <b style="color:#7F007F">Ritchie333</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  10:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * In a few different RfXs, I have seen meaningful comments, and/or questions by anons. The policy does not forbid IPs from contributing to RfXs, except for voting. If there is disruption, blocking a particular IP or range is preferable than protecting the RfX. —usernamekiran (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Tenure at RfA
I was doing something and needed to know how much tenure each successful RfA candidate since 2017 had, so I ran some numbers. You all may find it interesting. I certainly thought the floor would be a lot higher! Data at User:Enterprisey/Tenures at RfA. The code's there, so it would be pretty easy to do for unsuccessful RfAs as well. (The "something" is this - soon!) Enterprisey (talk!) 06:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Legoktm has very correctly pointed out that this data needs to be taken with a massive grain of salt, as it should've been "date when active editing began". Something to keep in mind. Enterprisey (talk!) 06:26, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think the around two years class is reasonably common as that includes users who start the site and are positive and active users for that time. After 18 months or so, you could rack up 15-20,000 edits and that's really the earliest I think the majority of users would get behind.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So the X-axis is date of successful RFA, and the Y-axis is years since the account was created? Looks like quite a variety of tenures. I guess the pattern here is that RFA tenure 1) has a lower limit of about 18 months, and 2) after that is somewhat random? – Novem Linguae (talk) 08:23, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @Enterprisey: I would be interested you could look at time since first month of "active editing" to RfA for overall tenure, and then consecutive months of "active editing" until RfA. And maybe define active as 250 edits in a month? (Definitely not a number I came up with by looking at my monthly edit count stats leading up to my RfA...) Legoktm (talk) 23:30, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I would like to collect those numbers as well. I want a fast edit counter to do it with, though - I don't want to wait for XTools... and so I'll begin the mother of all yak shaves and start writing my own. If you don't hear from me for a few years, that's why :) Enterprisey (talk!) 01:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

# of people moving support/oppose
made an interesting observation in the current cratchat I decided to explore this observation and it indeed proved correct. Looking at RfAs that went to cratchat since 2017, this has the lowest number of people who struck a support or oppose (not counting sockblocks) - 2. As a percentage of overall supports+opposes it is also substantially lower than any of the other RfCs - 0.61%. The other percentages are: So this truly is an unusual circumstance. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Tamzin 5.53%
 * Moneytrees 1.83%
 * Floq 2 2.27%
 * RexxS 4.27%
 * Jbhunley 3.87%
 * Golden Ring 1.88%


 * My memory is correct! How unusual! <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 19:01, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

rfa voting history tool
I remember there being a tool similar to AfD participation, where you could see an editors participation in various RfAs. But I cant find it now, would someone kindly point me towards the right direction? —usernamekiran (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)


 * See above – I believe the old tool has stopped functioning and a replacement has not been made. DanCherek (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Vote error
At Whpq RfA the number of supports is 40 but only 33 are recorded in the table (Reports show 40 supports) Thingofme (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like the extra line break has been fixed so things are working again. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

nominators
Why is it that the nominators are almost always admins? Where does this prejudice/bias come from? —usernamekiran (talk) 21:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The venn diagram of people trusted by the community to know what makes a good admin and admins is close to a circle. Can't really think of a situation where I'd trust a nominator's judgement on who to nominate but wouldn't trust them to help maintain the wiki through adminship. That's my hypothesis at least, though I'm curious to see if there are other reasons for why your observation holds true. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 21:35, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd love to get some non-admin nominators. I think the last one we had for a successful candidate was with Ajpolino in 2020? Anyhow if people are interested several experienced nominators, including myself, have contributed to this Nominator's guide. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , I would if I didn't consider my nomination hurtful to candidate's chances. In a year or two's time that's less likely to be the case. As of now I merely let editors know that I think they'd make good candidates and hope they contact more experienced nominators with a keener eye for candidate research and better community standing (e.g. SFR last month and Kavyansh Singh in March, latter of which did an ORFA poll last month mentioning my suggestion). I would also like for more people to do this type of encouragement as well. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Non nobis solum. 22:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Your larger point that a nominator having some degree of social capital is, to my eyes, right. But there are definitely some non-admins who have plenty of that. And truthfully for a large segment of our RfA voting block they're unlikely to know any nominator whether admin or non-admin. So in that situation the nominator has some narrative value, and some value behind the scenes, but it ultimately comes down to the candidate - as it should. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, someone like yourself who has a track record of successful nominations carries much more weight with nominations than, say, a nomination from Trainsandotherthings, who has never nominated anyone for adminship (and won't anytime soon). Go to any recent RfA with a Barkeep49 nomination, and look at how often supporters will invoke "per nom" or otherwise say they trust the nominator, sometimes even explicitly saying they are supporting because of the nominator. That said, none of these things are inherently restricted to administrators. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that's true but I also think any frequent nom could get that effect, admin or non-admin. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. There was never a hint that any of my nominations were held in lower regard because I was not an admin; my nominations were judged on my track record, with frequent comments to that effect. In the earlier days, there were editors who actually specialized in grooming people for RFA and in bringing candidates to RFA, whereas I only and always brought people I had worked closely with, observed in conflict, and whose character, integrity, honesty, industriousness, and editing history I knew inside and out. Surprisingly, others were content to bring candidates after they had "trained them up", and so they often encountered surprises-- my nominations did not-- and people came to understand that if I nommed someone, they would be clean.  I was judged on my track record-- not my status or not as an admin,  and I believe that is still true today at RFA-- it's just that for a variety of reasons (probably off-topic for this discussion), and for better or for worse, we no longer have many top content contributors aiming for RFA, so I have less opportunity to nominate. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  09:05, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Responding to both Barkeep49 and usernamekiran, I was once a regular RFA nominator, as my FA work put me in contact with many of Wikipedia's finest editors and allowed me to see how they responded under pressure. What has changed is that it was once pretty much assumed that admin candidates would have contributed at the FA level.  As many candidates are no longer contributing at that level, there's less call/reason for me to nominate the fine editors I know. So I suspect there are several levels of problem lurking re "where does this prejudice/bias come from", and one of them is reflected in the decline of expectations re content creation. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not that this has anything to do with the current state of the RfA process, but when I was first asked to stand for RfA, I declined, partly because my account was less than a year old, and partly because I had never worked on an FA, and there were plenty of voters wanting a candidate to have taken at least one article to FA. When I was asked again 6 months later (almost 16 years ago) to stand for RfA, nobody said anything about FAs, which was good, as I have never contributed to an FA. - Donald Albury 00:35, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * An FA is an extremely high expectation and is not everyone's focus of activity. Among the 1000s of voters, there is, AFAIK, only one user who insists on an FA as a pass criterion. His oppose votes are generally met with a wry smile. There's not even much point in badgering him to change his style, doing so only creates more heat than light. IMO a candidate only needs to clearly demonstrate that they are capable of creating clean, policy compliant content that would not attract any maintenance tags, but that obviously means more than just a string of stubs. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * While there was a fairly long period that an FA was an almost prerequisite to RFA, I agree with you that demonstrating that one is "capable of creating clean, policy compliant content" is what is relevant today, although I think there are large differences in where many draw that "demonstrating capability" line. My sons had to write ten 10-page fully footnoted term papers in the eighth grade, on par with 800 to 1,500 word good articles and I don't think we should have admins aspiring to what eighth grade schoolboys can produce. I would also extend your "demonstrating capability" to demonstrating an extended interest in and capability.  A sporadic 1,000-word GA on the path to RFA in my view is one days' high school work and doesn't demonstrate anything. (But then I've also seen FAs that didn't demonstrate anything either ... but that's another topic). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  09:17, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyone who ostensibly joins Wikipedia with the goal of becoming an admin someday has joined for the wrong reasons. IMO if they hang around more in maintenace areas than in mainspace they are 'governance obsessives' (and no, I didn't coin the expression). Every new editor's focus should be on content whether it be creating new articles, adding sources, or simply correcting typos.  'An aspiring admin should have preferably created at least 4 articles of at least 500 words (about 3,500 bytes) not including sources, perfectly sourced and formatted - no outstanding maintenance tags on any creations where the candidate is still the major contributor. FA, GA, or DYK are not prerequisites, but a very minimum of article creation and/or an equivalent amount of new content should demonstrate that we are here first and foremost to build an encyclopedia.'   See also Why admins should create content. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Kudpung, I'm wondering if no outstanding maintenance tags on any creations where the candidate is still the major contributor is overly strict? I always end up as a major contributor on articles where I'm not actually responsible for a good part of the content because of how I edit (ten edits per the usual editor's one).  I can't put a finger on one at the moment, but I'm pretty sure I have probably created any number of articles that I may have walked away from rather than battle POV pushers.  It's embarrassing to have maintenance tags on an article one created, but sometimes walking away and leaving the article tagged is the healthiest approach to persistent but polite POV pushers. I'm pretty sure I've walked away more than once on article where I appear as the major contributor by editcountitis, and then come back many years later and addressed the bad edits-- usually in the medical realm or fringey medical areas because better sources make it easier to put the POV editor content aside. In spite of the bogus interpretations on a current RFA, I don't believe we can evaluate content creation by the numbers, and that's part of why I so object when I see a couple of minimal "Good" articles put forward as examples of content creation-- more so if they look like something I could research and write in one setting.  I am fairly certain there are numerous creators of multiple FAs I'd oppose at RFA based on their poor content creations as well ... we really have to look at the actual content case-by-case.  The content area also matters, eg, what it takes to create and maintain medical content compared to a bio on a long-deceased person, where you can basically summarize an NYT obit.  Long and short, minimal GAs as examples of content creation send up red flags for me.  BUt so would a couple of FAs from some editors ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:54, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sandy, with all respect, I cannot agree with this. Not everyone is a strong writer, but there are many, many ways to contribute to the encyclopedia, and some people find different parts easier or more enjoyable than others. We don't require prospective admins to have voted in a certain number of deletion discussions either, or to have spent time at copypatrol, or have requested page protection, even to have fixed a single cn tag, and yet those are all important parts of Wikipedia. There are some admins who are prolific writers – and that's great! – but I do not think it's reasonable to expect every admin to have an FA, nor do I think there is a one-size-fits-all minimum for content creation. RfA is fundamentally about trust: do I expect this candidate to act in the best interest of the community? to keep a level head? to set a good example? to recognize the times they should not use the tools?
 * I myself went to RfA with one GA, and since then the major article milestones I've achieved are just one more GA and a non-GA DYK. By the standards you have laid out, I should not be an admin...but would you say I've done a poor job with the mop? I think I've done okay so far. And I've found some topics that I enjoy writing about, too! It's just about me figuring out where my time would be most productively spent. I sincerely believe that by spending my time dealing with sockpuppets or deleting spam or working in any of my other usual behind-the-scenes areas, I am making the encyclopedia a better place for those people who do want to write content. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For a more direct example, according to this hacked-together quarry, I have granted IP block exemption 400 times (all but two of those grants performed since I became a checkuser). Almost all of these grants were to people who cannot edit (or at least cannot edit safely) without the use of an anonymizing proxy. I submit that the value to the encyclopedia of me handling those requests is far greater than the value that would have come from me spending the same amount of time trying to get an article to GA. Not every admin action has such a tangible impact, of course, but my point is that small backend tasks can have just as much value as article-writing. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just like a doctor, I prefer that specialists learn and understand all aspects of being a generalist before going on to a specialisation. WWGB (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * @GeneralNotability There's a big difference between expecting someone to be a strong writer and expecting someone to have participated in the content creation process. The vast majority of our disputes come out of content, and being part of that process is essential. What's more, to be part of the process, you need to have had some sort of peer review - that ensures you experience how much effort is needed to meet Wikipedia's standards. Seeing why people feel OWNERSHIP and why it's difficult to overcome. Building that empathy. It's not about "admins need to be content creators because that's the only thing you can do", it's "admins need to understand what this major part of the community deals with". <b style="color:#000;">Worm</b>TT(<b style="color:#060;">talk</b>) 11:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Worm, what a wonderful way to summarize the issue that fuels that divide! That's again part of my problem with the GA process. If you happened to get, for example, an Ealdgyth review, you got a real peer review.  But all too often, a GA pass is meaningless; they are only as good as one editor's opinion, so it depends on who that one editor is. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , I understand that (WP:Content awareness, not content creation was pointed out to me during my RfA, and says it better than I ever could). I suppose the base of my objection is that someone could have significant experience in all of those things without writing a GA/FA, and yet there is definitely an expectation out there that an admin candidate have achieved some number of those milestones. Could be explained as a mental shortcut ("if an editor has gone through GA/FA, then they must have gone through [all those things you listed above]"), I suppose. GeneralNotability (talk) 23:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * you said you disagree with me, but then you said the same thing I said: but I do not think it's reasonable to expect every admin to have an FA, nor do I think there is a one-size-fits-all minimum for content creation ?? MY issue is RFAs that claim a high-school level GA as they tick off the boxes at RFA--it's meaningless. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  12:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * then I'm not sure I understand - I thought you were saying that you thought admins should have an FA in their pocket. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't say that. I did say it used to be that way ... perhaps re-read?  My issue is that claiming a high-school-level GA demonstrates content creation ability is off, and one really has to evaluate on a case-by-case basis.  When I see an RFA postulate claiming content experience based on a couple of GAs, I take a closer look ... if I see a simplistic GA passed with very little actual peer review, I don't consider that a measure of content experience, but then, I could name more than a dozen editors with multiple recent-ish FAs that neither do I consider good content contributors ... really has to be evaluated individually. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:07, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Understood, I read it as more of a "too bad things aren't still this way" instead of a simple statement of fact. My mistake. GeneralNotability (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem ... it's usually my lack of clarity.  Now that you've experienced my prose, it puts some context to Worm's statement above, There's a big difference between expecting someone to be a strong writer and expecting someone to have participated in the content creation process!  My FAs are collaborative ... I recognize my own prose limits and bring in more than one copyeditor before approaching FAC :). You don't have to be a strong writer to understand or be part of the content creation process; even weak writers can point out issues in other writers' efforts via content review processes. And my lack of clarity probably determined the outcome of SFR's RFA, because many of the supports were rallying around the false attribution of socking-- a claim made by no one.  I guess the lack of clarity there is on me ... so much for a week of working a labor-intensive fundraiser while posting to an RFA :(. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:38, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Going back to the start of this. Admins can view deleted edits, and I don't see how you can fully evaluate an editor's history in deletion without looking at the content they have considered merits deletion. That doesn't mean only admins can successfully nominate as you could have an RFA candidate who has not been involved in deletion - though that would be rare. I suspect you could have a successful non admin nominator who took part in many of the same AFDs as the candidate and checked the candidate's AFD arguments against the articles before any were deleted. Deleted edits also crop up in many other areas, so if anyone is thinking of doing their first non admin nomination I would suggest starting off as a co-nominator where you've got a tame admin to view the candidate's deleted edits and the deleted pages where they took part in the deletion process.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

What is your opinion
I curiously wonder if we seed a fair amount of RfA contention by asking participants to "voice [their] opinion on the candidate" when it's actually an "informed conclusion" (based in fact and observable diff) that we expect? To me, it's awkward (at best) to solicit opinion while simultaneously chastising its author and reducing its weight on remit. It seems obvious, to me, that we should either change our instructions from encouraging opinion or force the cessation of badgering when an unpopular one comes about. And since the latter is practically an impossible mend, the former is what we ought to attend. Yet, at the end of the day, this is nothing more than my opinion. What, if anything, do others say to these regards? --John Cline (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Informed conclusion" is a little clunky, but I think you're onto something with changing the instructions to make it clearer we expect !votes to be informed with a rationale. &#123;{u&#124; Sdkb  }&#125;  talk 15:38, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that it's "clunky", and don't mean to suggest its use but rather the essence of what we expect opposed to what we're asking for. Thank you for commenting.--John Cline (talk) 17:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Why is it awkward to solicit opinion while simultaneously chastising its author and reducing its weight on remit? You seem to be suggesting that if we solicit opinion, we should not criticize the opinion that is then offered? Why not? Levivich (talk) 15:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It was not my intent to suggest an opinion oughtn't be criticized. I do, however, believe that the bounds of a critique precludes it from ever resembling a chastisement. It's the reprimands for not providing hyperlinked diffs and the punishment of reducing due weight which I find awkward (at best). Especially when an opinion needn't be derived by fact or even strong conviction. Thank you for commenting, and for prompting me to clarify the statement I'd made. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think it will matter regarding contention. I don't think either those commenting nor those providing feedback on the viewpoints of others are parsing the instructions that closely. The key factor that encourages arguing with individuals is that the straw poll nature of RfA means that swaying individual votes is perceived as a productive strategy. isaacl (talk) 16:14, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's really essentially about trust, which is not necessarily a rational conclusion. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for commenting . I consistently find that your comments bring value and added dimension into a discussion and you have done it again here. And thank you as well. With fewer words you've communicated a great deal; worthy of consideration. I'm glad that you both have commented in this section. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 21:59, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I was going to put it slightly differently: trust is typically evaluated through multiple factors, some of which are judged subjectively, and so there isn't always a clear line between substantiated and unsubstantiated opinion. For this reason I'm cautious about changing the wording to something that implies a more objective standard, although I do like encouraging deliberation. I didn't end up mentioning this, though, because it didn't matter with respect to my main point. isaacl (talk) 22:22, 26 September 2022 (UTC)