Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 22:32, 21 September 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Recently closed RfAs and RfBs ()

Candidate	Type	Result	Date of close	Tally
				S	O	N	%
Significa liberdade	RfA	Successful	21 Sep 2024	163	32	10	84
Asilvering	RfA	Successful	6 Sep 2024	245	1	0	>99
HouseBlaster	RfA	Successful	23 Jun 2024	153	27	8	85

Current time: 03:17:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

How about a learning program for Admins?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Andrevan, Thank you for taking the time to comment, and thank you for your contribution to the project. I am, however, forced to disagree with you on several points. While it would genuinely be fantastic if the "community-at-large" did participate in the process, we all know it doesn't happen. I wonder aloud how many unique names I'd find if I studied the last 100 RfAs (maybe a good research project when I have a week with nothing else to do). And your statement that the current system relies on consensus rather than an individual's or group's opinions. Unfortunately, that's what consensus is... agreement based on the group's opinions, and ultimately, it's really one person's decision based on how he/she "reads" the opinions and the input from the group. I know that's how we make decisions here, but it's still group opinion that's driving it. But in any case, please don't read my suggestion as being borne in AlanM1's nomination alone. That's just the most recent example. While I do think this RfA was handled poorly, I have participated in many RfAs and have expressed this concern for quite some time. Your assessment that the rejection was based on defensiveness is really core to my point. The current systems asks that everyone be nice and polite in order to get adminship, but if snarkiness and defensiveness disqualifies someone from getting the mop, then I have a list of people available who should probably have their adminship revoked. In posts well above mine, people keep referring to how it "used to be" compared to "how it is now". I've been on the project for 8 years now and I don't see any difference, so I'm not sure how long ago "used to be" is. I am well aware of the concept of !votes, so please forgive my lapse in putting in the exclamation point, but you are mistaken in your statement that there is no campaigning. I have received many messages asking for my support for nominees seeking adminship. Perhaps you never have, but I have experienced it personally. BTW, I have never participated in any RfAs where such participation has been sought, because I do agree that it should be competency based - we just disagree on the way competency is evaluated. Lastly, I know you're a software engineer, so I'm surprised to hear you think an objective measurement of output would not be a better approach. Competency models and rubrics are quite appropriate for any skills based learning and just the opposite of your assumption, seek to remove subjectivity. Again I sincerely thank you for taking the time to comment because I do appreciate the insight your response provides. If you and other bureaucrat colleagues truly believe that the process is can't be improved and there's no need for a new approval process, then it seems like even having a conversation about it won't bear much fruit. Best wishes! Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 09:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It's tough to "remove subjectivity" - the "very good" and "excellent" categories on my rubrics when I was a kid (I think the last rubrics I had were in elementary school state tests) were always a hair different, and if the teacher liked me I'd get the nudge. Learning a high-level, complex skill is not about checking off a box in a list of arbitrary reductions or attempted distillations of that skill. Anyway, everything and everyone has a POV. The way to balance POVs is to represent them all and give appropriate weight, oh yeah, and post appropriate references. Sound familiar? The zen philosophy of wiki is that it works because of the wisdom of crowds. RFA works the same way, no better or worse than other processes here (such as AFD, which Alan might know if he had spent more time being a deletionist - to understand when that POV comes about). Adminship is about subtlety, judgment, and a little good luck and humor. Each user posts a POV and supporting references. When the support starts becoming a kerfluffle on the candidate's RFA page itself that's probably a bad sign for passing. Similarly, I think long-winded calls for RFA reform (including occasionally from users well-known with many accolades) are generally met with the difficulty of finding a better system that scales, is objective, and maintains the fundamental community commons that has built our project. Andrevan@ 05:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I'd like a training programme for existing admins. I find it very hard to keep up with the changes to guidelines and policies and this leads me to make errors and to stay away from areas I am not familiar with.Deb (talk) 08:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

For areas your not familiar with, I bet you could find an admin with experience there who could give you some pointers. But your comment did get me thinking, it would be really nice if there was essentially a policy changelog for admits to reference. Basically a centralized place where policy changes, arbcom precedents, foundation edicts, and even just changes in common practices that admins will want to know about are recorded. To some extent you can get that from browsing AN and ARB/N archives, but one centralized location, not cluttered with other notices/announcements/discussion would be awesome. Monty₈₄₅ 13:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that there isn't one already is ridiculous, but then again there may be some who prefer it that way. Policy is easier to wield as a club when it's obscure and hard to locate, after all. Intothatdarkness 13:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

While we COULD make use of the course: setup to create a Wikipedia School; it would need dedicated staff to actually manage it. Also important is that "being trained" doesn't equal "being trusted" which is also an important part of the community approving admins. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Exactly so. And for that reason, although a training programme is certainly an interesting idea, I wouldn't like it to supplant RfA. RfA is certainly rough, but that is because of the culture, and many editors understand this and try to influence the culture for the better. It remains the case that we need a voice as to who is entrusted with the tools to block and unblock editors, delete articles, see deleted material that the rest of us can't see, and prevent us from editing articles (while they can do so, leaving us to make requests on which they rule). --Stfg (talk) 14:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I was also thinking why we don't have a school were experienced admins will give lessions to potential editors, so that they can become successful in there future RfA. Just like we get a degree when we complete a university course which helps us to get a job in future. So, I was thinking if admins can teach potential editors, how to become successful admins. I mean train potential editors for adminship?? Jim Carter (from public cyber) 15:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Jim Carter - Public: You mean like this?—LucasThoms 15:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As you know, everything needed for a willing candidate has become a history, Editors review, Admin coaching etc. Now, I'm feeling that proposing new idea is just a time waste. Every good project end up like that. Jim Carter (from public cyber) 16:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I applaud the positivity underlying this idea, but it's a non-starter. No matter what the classwork entails, it would be too easy for objectionable candidates to jump through the requisite hoops. Technical competence isn't enough; you can't teach a reputation of trustworthiness and fair play. Townlake (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. Administratorship isn't supposed to be a big deal but it is. That's simply the state of the community. I know this is a tired gripe in a lot of corners but I believe we need to unspool admin tools. Just like rollback or reviewer permissions, we should have "delete" and "protect" permissions. There is no reason why trusted, established editors can't tackle these areas without more substantial, and nearly irrevocable, admin tool sets. RfA should largely be limited to people with special viewer rights, the ability to block, and the ability to view restricted material. GraniteSand (talk) 08:51, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

We did used to have WP:ADMINCOACH, which was a sort of policy training program, but it came to be viewed (rightly, in my opinion) as a "teaching to the test" approach and went inactive. There is also new admin school but it is more of a get-to-know-the-tools thing as opposed to a policy seminar. This isn't really done in pracrtice but any changes to administrative policies and priocedures should be prominently noted at WP:AN. Another idea could be a quarterly newsletter for admins detailing all policy changes that effect admins. Out of touch admins who got in way back before RFA was actually hard are, in my opinion, a problem that needs solving. Many of them do not keep up to date and maintain the cowboy attitiude that belongs in WPs past. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Everyone here is missing one very important point. There is no reason to educate the admins to prevent mistakes if there are no repercussions of abuse. If even flagrant abuses and violations of policy are ignored in the name of adminship, then what incentive is there for an admin to do this? There is none. Additionally, this idea infers that the admins are fallible and make mistakes when the culture of Wikipedia has been firmly established that the admin is always right. Unless you intend to fix those serious problems, then admin school or coaching is like making chicken salad out of chicken shit. I haven't edited since 2008 but lately all I see is a bunch of arrogant admins talking about how bad editors are. I hope you all know you really come off as a bunch of self centered jerks. It amazes me that you are all paid employees of Wikipedia. 71.163.243.25 (talk) 00:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest a 50% pay cut to all admins as a punishment for their arrogance! Monty₈₄₅ 00:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh man, again?? Do we have to eat tree bark too? It made me sick the last time. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Admins get PAID? When did that happen? (And how'd I miss that queue?) Oh wait... half of zero is zero. This is just a sneaky way for the admincabal to avoid accountability isn't it, since you can't count to zero.

As for the treebark, I almost misread your name to be TreeRangeFrog and thought you were merely talking about the food of your youth as a tadpole : ) - [1]

But if you're concerned, try roasting it next time : ) - [2] - of course, if you prefer, there's always french fried frog legs fricasseed. as an alternative. (In otherwords, you'd just be telling them: "Eat me!" : )

(and by the way - you won my laugh out loud moment of the day award : ) - jc37 19:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there are specific cases of the changing policy, out of touch admin problem, but if there is a problem with distributing notice of significant changes, AN is definitely not the place. I was there and I can tell you that AN was not supposed to be the mess it is today when it was created. Andrevan@ 03:58, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

AN (or more specifically, ANI) is the mess it is because in spite of being an Aminstrators' Noticeboard, any newbie and clueless Tom, Dick, or Harry, especially teenage admin wannabees, can have their say. And that's why many admins, including those who are otherwise known for good social and judgemental skills won't go near the place.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As to the comment of "until someone decided that it was just better to let people learn it on their own and "self-certify" comes from the fact that there is no one actually coordinating CVUA [3] and that anyone can add themselves to the CVUA trainer list as noted when you expand the List of Trainers here [4]. While your claim of CVUA's existence is undeniable, it's utility or effectiveness does not share such certainty. I've no doubt you monitor it, but I found that the tool formerly used to review Instructor Activity is no longer functioning. While I do respect your opinion that there was a "MMORPG and cackle aspect" to CVUA historically (though I don't really know to what that refers), I am bewildered by your statement that it's "better this way". Why? I find no evidence that it's better to have a system no one uses than one that had a lot of activity and engaged editors into becoming vandalism fighters, "MMORPG and cackle" notwithstanding. And who decides what a part of this project is or is not "supposed to be". Isn't it "supposed to be" whatever achieves our overall goal of having an accurate encyclopedia?

And lastly, while you may not remember, I contributed to the revisions of the CVUA. In fact, you called my rubric, the "best thing to ever happen to the project" [5]. I'd hate to think that such tools are only valuable when they're used elsewhere than "behind the big curtain" (sorry, obscure Wizard of Oz reference).

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

AfD standards for RfA candidates

I've been following a lot of RfAs and saw that AfD participation is cited frequently in RfAs. Is there a standard people typically look for is % accuracy (result versus vote) or quantity? Upjav (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that the exact expectations vary from one editor to another. But it is my personal and slightly jaundiced observation that some editors tend to feel very strongly when they see a candidate whose apparent record with respect to inclusionist/deletionist appears to be at odds with what that editor prefers. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

While it is obvious that too low a value is a red flag, I would also consider a close to 100% value a red flag. It would be easy to game the system, and someone whose votes always matched the result would be a hint that some games playing may be occurring.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

My personal rule of thumb is that 80%+ of votes matching outcome tick my RfA box, 70-80% pause for thought, below 70% serious questions 50-60% no. There is also a rider on these criteria that persistent misunderstandings of policy/guidlines, rudeness and the like will immediately override the above. The minimum participation I would expect is at least 250 discussions. Per Sphilbrick's observation above, gaming the system by only voting for dead certs to go a particular way in the !vote will give me serious cause for concern as will a lack of reasonable policy/guideline based discussion in complex cases. I should add that AfD is only one element in the complex business of analysing a candidate's suitability for the mop. Philg88 ^♦talk 19:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

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

Counting % of AfD outcomes which match with how the candidate voted is among the worst type of bean counting that goes on on Wikipedia. If the candidate wants to work at AfD then AfD participation should be necessary, that's my bottom line. Then, I actually check what they write at AfDs rather than just looking at numbers. If they place short rationales at AfD without explaining themselves which go against better explained policy-grounded rationales, fine, that's a red flag, but simply counting numbers is lazy, and people doing this are the reason the "gaming of the system" mentioned by Sphilbrick even happens. AfDs are not all simple clear cut cases of keep or delete, sometimes the views on either side are justified depending on your opinion. – filelakeshoe (t / c)  20:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, some editors largely reserve their AfD participation for discussions that are finely balanced rather than wasting their time piling on to snow jobs. This is a good thing to do, but it is not going to result in an 80% hit rate. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

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

We'd be better off, if anything, insisting on a strong record at DRV. Mkativerata (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

My freshly closed RfA is a "good" example of the obsession with AfD performance here. "Advice for wannabe Admins: Do AfDs, nevermind the rest of the zillion and one other things that need to be done on WP, just do AFDs, because at RfA that's all anyone actually bothers to look at." IMHO it's grossly unbalanced and ultimately bad for the project because it will end up producing one-trick-pony admins who don't have a broad view over the full range of the issues affecting WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I notice that the Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates doesn't mention Afd or Mfd at all, although there is a bullet point about it at Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, one among among many others. Should the advice page have an addition? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it is pretty much covered by: "Review as many old successful and unsuccessful RfAs as possible, and be absolutely sure to generally meet the criteria required by regular !voters". Though I would change old to recent. A lot of RFAs revolve around aspects of deletion, especially where the candidate has been active in an aspect of deletion and says they intend to use the tools there. But you could have a candidate who simply wasn't active in deletion - I reckon a candidate with a GA or two who was active in dealing with vandalism could get through RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 23:32, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, AfD is one place where a lot of comments are made about deletion; another is in the edit summaries that accompany CSD nominations. However, editors who are looking for evidence of competence in deletion areas can't see the second item; maybe that's why they tend to focus on the first. I was lucky on my RfA that admins commented on my CSD record, which was extensive; I likely wouldn't have got through on this AfD record. Should the advice page recommend that future RfA candidates turn on the Twinkle CSD log, so that the editors can more data to consider? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed if my CSD record has been available for scrutiny I think it might have had a significant influence on the outcome of my RfA. I've initiated hundreds (if not thousands) of CSDs in the course of working at AfC - as opposed to the paltry few dozen AFD's I've been involved in which consequently were analyzed and grilled to the Nth degree. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

That actually sounds like a good idea. And, taking it one step further, I manually annotate my own (CSD, PROD) so that I (and presumably others, if they cared enough) can see in the future if one was self-reverted, declined, sent to AfD, or whatever, especially if the links are still blue. Ansh666 05:27, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dodger: Are you serious? You think the AFD comments at your RFA reflected voters' all-encompassing "obsession" with deletion policy? Come on, voters don't expect perfection, but they do expect knowledge of the basics. You think that's unreasonable? Administrators who screw up on deletion issues discourage the people who create this site's content and thus directly harm the project. AFD matters, and it matters a lot, and rightly so. Townlake (talk) 01:26, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Townlake - There's obviously hyperbole and caricature in my comment above but I believe the core of my statement does hold water - AFD performance has become the overwhelming single criterion for judging RfA candidates - to such an extent that I do believe there is a risk of creating one-dimensional admins who are masters of deletion but have almost no other relevant skills. We should be careful not to make a fetish of AFD "scores". Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, even if a candidate had an exemplary AfD record I would still oppose based on failures in civility. Chillum 16:54, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• AfD is only one of many criteria for review when considering an RfA candiate. It's #11 on my list of 30 boxes to tick, but those are not in any order or priority and I do trade weak items for stronger ones. AfD is not by any means the most predominant point in most RfAs. It just happens that sometimes the first opposer singles one aspect of adminship out where s/he finds the candidate is lacking and that causes a pile on from people who don't do their own research. RfA can sometimes be a bit of a hit and miss affair, for example in the recent RfA if more voters had turned out to vote, the result may well have been very different. Turn out is just as important as the actual way people vote. There aren't many true 'regular' voters on RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Roger (Dodger67), I agree with Kudpung that AfD is not always the predominant topic of discussion. If a CSD log were available, editors may have found things with which to take issue in that, too; who knows? I've seen some which focus on uncivil behaviour, some which are about inability to admit errors, edit warring, conflict of interest, lack of experience, no content creation, etc. If an RfA focuses on one weakness (especially one that can be remedied) that is a credit to the candidate, since it likely means everything else was okay. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your last sentence Anne. Genuine good faith candidates who failed must understand that, and be encouraged to try again when they have addressed any poignant issues. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I concede that my RfA is probably too fresh for me to have a properly neutral informed opinion of the process as a whole. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 13:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Before you try again in a few months time, be sure to read WP:RFAADVICE if you had not done so already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

BTDT, but not a bad idea to make a note-to-self to study it again before going another round through the Inquisition, after all one should really try to avoid being burnt at the stake. -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that RfA. I didn't realise it had been filmed. :)  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:33, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Many of us look at experience with deletion policy closely, and if there are no CSD/PROD logs, then AFD is the only view we have. What is said at AFD is more important than the metrics, but the metrics are not worthless. I had 1400 AFDs behind me with a solid 80/20 ratio, and over one hundred CSDs, with 90% (found to be higher later) success rate, yet I still found many opposing me, 31 to be exact, mainly due to being right 90%+ of the time on CSD being insufficient. I passed after agreeing to mentoring, in the low 80s. You shouldn't feel like you are being singled out, deletion policy concerns is a common topic at RFA and a legitimate one, as once you get the tools, it is easy to quietly undo a lot of hard work. It isn't personal, although I understand it still stings. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

You can play easily with the AfD % (select clear cases, wait until more editors comment and then place your !vote etc.). It is an imperfect statistics also because when you express a different opinion than is the actual outcome, it doesn't necessarily mean that you are wrong. All important points of view should be examined at an AfD, and valuable opinions don't have to be only on the "winning side". That's what matters, not someone's "percentage". So I wouldn't take the metric so seriously. What bothers me more is sloppiness in researching of a topic before an AfD or CSD nom, lack of imagination and constructivity or unwillingness to communicate and collaborate on improvement of the project. When I see more examples of sloppy CSD/PROD/AfD noms in an RfA candidate's contributions, and little willingness to help constructively, it's a worrying sign to me. Especially when they want to work in deletion areas as administrators. On a side note .. some editors see their failed AfD noms as lost personal battles which is completely wrong, but sometimes results in rancour rather than better understanding of a joint collaboration on a project where counter opinions actually contribute to better outcome for the project. But I digress. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)--Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Only now I noticed that I to some extent repeat what editor Fut.Perf. wrote above. My apologies, no plagiarism intended :) --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I totally agree with you both, anyhow! :-) Deb (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and it needs to be said often. Second guessing what the consensus will be is boring and often easy. What an admin has to know how to do is ascertain what consensus has been established. --Stfg (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not overly concerned about percentages. What I oppose over is sufficient recent examples of egregious errors to be troubling (I no longer oppose over one bad CSD tag). Being slightly the "wrong" side of a borderline decision shouldn't bother us. Equally someone with a poor overall percentage but who has now learned and recently improved may be more ready than someone who still gets a certain CSD criteria wrong. ϢereSpielChequers 12:23, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think AfD activity is a very, very important metric. I my view the ability to delete articles is potentially a more damaging tool for abuse than the block or protect powers. It's not something that can be reduced to raw numbers. Defenses of articles from deletion are apt to be less frequently successful than opinions in favor of deletion. I like to look at a "win-loss" record for each of these two distinct activities. Failing to attempt to defend anything from deletion is a red flag to me. Trying and failing is no mortal sin; it is often an uphill fight and a success rate of over 50% would be pretty good. Very high "success" rates can be generated by piling on to obvious deletions, so the win-loss record there is not illuminating. Carrite (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• A while ago someone mentioned a tool that weighted !votes by order in order to discount pile-ons. Anyone have a pointer to it? Thanks. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Lesser Cartographies: You mean this one?  Philg88 ^♦talk 13:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• @Philg88:: No, it was for AfD. The mention was over a year ago at least, so I may be misremembering what I thought I read. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with Fut.Perf. For candidates who are interesting in undertaking any form of deletion, I look for evidence of strong understanding of the deletion & notability criteria. Usually, that evidence is most easily found at AfD. I am not interested in percentage agreement with the close. (Low agreement is sometimes a sign of poor understanding, but some editors might choose to !vote only if they see a discussion is heading in the "wrong" direction.) Pile-on "Me too" !votes at AfD are irrelevant. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:00, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• I have only one thought here. When people are musing about the difficulties of finding suitable candidates for adminship or wondering why so few candidacies succeed, they need to look no further than this section. If someone is up to doing more studies, they should look at whether unsuccessful candidates continue to contribute at the same rate as prior to their RFA. Risker (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • I looked at that a few years ago, it may not have changed since, though for a while a few of us were reaching out to rejected candidates and that may have helped. Short answer, some stay, but quite a few go, never to return. ϢereSpielChequers 10:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: Did you see a difference in the proportion who left of established editors compared to TOOSOON newbie applicants? Or was it about the same proportion of each leaving? BethNaught (talk) 10:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be s a complicated thing to measure, not least because the definitions of NotNow candidates have varied over time - I have seen that template used on people with thousands of edits rather than the hundreds of edits it is intended for; But also the normal retention rate varies over time and also dramatically between people with a few hundred edits and those with tens or even hundreds of thousands, and of course what matters is the increase in the attrition rate. At the time I was trawling through unsuccessful RFAs of several months earlier with a view to finding candidates to nominate, and what I found was that for a troubling proportion this was the rejection moment which prompted an immediate departure or probably accounted for them rapidly leaving afterwards. By contrast if we appoint someone as an admin it seems to greatly extend their wiki career, very few admins leave each year, hence our current situation of an admin cadre where 30% of all the admins ever appointed are currently still counted as active admins. ϢereSpielChequers 14:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That's interesting to think about. BethNaught (talk) 14:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Two links down again on Template:RfA toolbox

NAC of AfD's (2nd row, 4th link) and Log Actions (4th row, 3rd link). Ansh666 21:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Is two weeks of inactivity here normal?

There has been no new RfA since mine closed - is this cause for concern or is it normal to have such longish breaks of activity here? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (Much as I'm tempted to tell you that you're the last candidate we'll ever consider... ;) ) During or shortly after the Northern hemisphere's summer break period, it's normal. We've been having similar discussions in other places. Samsara (FA • FP) 07:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed it is a bit quiet. Perhaps people are nervous given the 6:1 failure rate over the last month. Chillum 07:45, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I've broken out my sixth form (high school) statistics, so forgive me if I make a mistake. So far we've had 36 weeks this year with 50 RfAs. That makes 2.78 RfAs per 2 week period on average. Modelling as a Poisson distribution (and so assuming RfAs are random and independent) the probability of any given two week period with no RfAs is approximately 6.5%. So unusual, but by no means out of the ordinary. (Numbers now fixed I think).

Please correct me if I've messed this up. BethNaught (talk) 07:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course, that's, as you say, assuming that RfAs are random and independent, which they may or may not be. Most university students in the States have had anywhere from one day (lucky bastards! at least they get out later than the rest of us) to three weeks of school, parents with school-age children presumably will have less time for the same reasons, and so on. It'd be interesting to go back through the years and see if there is a drop-off of activity (not just in RfAs) from late August through maybe October; a rough eyeballing of User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month doesn't suggest a pattern in successful RfAs, though. (Also, slightly off-topic, is there a list of all RfAs ever in chronological order, not split up by year/success/whatever?) Ansh666 08:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

6:1 failure rate is not indicative of anything at all other than some (not all) of the failed candidates should have been clueful enough to read all the advice pages first and then realised that they didn't stand the remotest chance. Nothing for any genuine candidates to get nervous about.

Why always assume that the rate of RfA (or any other editing for that matter) depends on the academic cycle? Especially where the number of annual RfAs is now so low that it's impossible to draw any conclusions. Not all editors are schoolies - plenty of us are right at the other end of our careers, even some adminship candidates. KudpungMobile (talk) 09:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Are American students in fact overrepresented among RfA candidates, or the total editor population? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

That would be difficult to analyse given the relative anonymity of editors in general. However, the academic cycle is relevant even if students are not overrepresented because school vacations coincide with the periods that are the most popular times for vacations in general. For example, in the UK pretty much every adult, with or without children, will take one or two weeks of vacation between late June and early September. QuiteUnusual (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kudpung: - not just students; parents who may need to tend to children going to school, teachers, etc. The school cycle affects more than just children. Ansh666 19:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I remembered a similar conversation a while back. It was 2 years ago. An RFA was withdrawn on 21 Aug 12, the next RFA closed as successful on 1 Sep 12, then the next one closed as no consensus on 9 Oct 12. It was 31 days between the close on 1 Sep and the open on 2 Oct 12. What is happening now is not usual, but it is not unheard of. GB fan 11:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, after reading some of the recent ones, prospective candidates have asked themselves why they would want to go through such a broken (not just IMO) process. Note that this is the only comment I've made since. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

From your keyboard to God's inbox. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose a college class on Wikipedia where students are graded by the level of responsibility they achieve on the site. Those who become an Administrator will get an "A" for "Administrator". Those who becomes Bureaucrats, of course, will get a "B", Checkusers will get a "C", and you know what happens to those who become Developers, or go to work for the Foundation. bd2412 T 15:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

 Support. Ansh666 19:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As a student, I can say that I certainly would not run for RfA at any point during the year, due to the time commitment. Especially now that I'm in college, there's simply no time for me to even edit much, let alone go through an RfA. Since much of WP's editor base is high school and college students, it would be a perfectly plausible explanation for the decrease in RfA candidates. I suspect that once students settle in and get into routines, we'll start seeing more in October. Also, I get an "A", yay! StringTheory11 (t • c) 20:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I wonder what I get...U for user? and what about people who only edit from IPs?! Ansh666 20:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Those who only edit from an IP get put down as an "incomplete" until they earn some other grade. bd2412 T 20:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Why a college class? I still think that there are so many who are ready and would run for RfA if only they could know what their chances are were in advance. I tried this, but was out of town during the discussion. I didn't get a chance to speak further on it as I was out of town. Bottom line: Totally optional, so not another hoop to jump through. Simple feedback, short and sweet. Caveat emptor. Maybe it could just have been in this format:

• Easy pass - Your AfD work and clean record will do the trick. ~~~~
• Likely - Sure. ~~~~
• Almost certain - ~~~~
• Outcome probably 100 S / 3 O - I can't see others objecting. ~~~~
• Certain - ~~~~
• Easy pass - ~~~~
• Probably 80/0 - Do it! ~~~~

I wish this proposal could be revised in a way that everyone likes. I now regret the Village pump post. I wish I had boldly created the page in Wikipedia space just to see. What's the harm in this page existing? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Anna, doesn't seem like you got the joke. Read BD's suggestion again, carefully!

Also, yeah, that non-proposal...shot down because an inexperienced user doesn't know what "idea lab" means and took to mass-messaging admins about it, right? Maybe if the proposal was refined and formalized it would be more useful to consider. Or, just making it would work too, though I wonder what people would do... Ansh666 00:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

An inexperienced user, yes. Considering the opposes, would you think that simply "just making it" would be in terribly bad form? It could go to MfD if it didn't work out. More potential benefits than hazards? What do we have to lose? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think that some of the people who were opposing had the wrong idea about it. And, I suspect that even with a reasonably supported proposal it'd go to MfD anyways. That said, "just making it" does not seem like a particularly good idea. A more complete, formal proposal would be better, IMO. Ansh666 07:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I won't pursue this any further. I still think this sort of informal straw poll idea would result in new admins that otherwise wouldn't be and that the downside would be tiny. If others want to make a proposal out of this, fine. Thanks for the feedback. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I still think it is valid Anna. I would support anytime. Irondome (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, don't give up. I think it's a great idea, just needs to be formalized so that people actually see what it really is compared to their preconceived notions. Ansh666 00:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, you guys. :) How could it be a bad idea? A little shallow water before a big plunge. Any guidance on how to get a formal proposal to look good? A model formal proposal somewhere? I guess I could ask some of the Idea Lab supports to help with the draft. Maybe I could start something in a sandbox and others might help knock it into shape. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Say, is there any way to actually find out if there are qualified prospectives who are too unsure to go through RfA? Some sort of poll? I mean, why propose something if there is no demand. Should I post at village pump? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:28, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• If you are concerned about a lack of Admins, or editors willing to take the job, then I have a suggestion. Instead of conducting a poll, why don't you nominate someone? -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be interesting to see a poll, maybe at the pump, along the lines of "Are there any eds who are considering RfA in the next 2 years?" Just yes or no. At least it gives us an idea from a poll if interest is there, and if it is low, that may be an indicator of a long term systemic problem of a maybe complex interaction between RfA and the community. I think the existing admin "issue" is a straw man. It goes deeper than that. If there is an issue with RfA it least getting community feedback is a promising new road to fix issues down the line. I would support. Irondome (talk) 21:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Ad Orientem: Because my nominating someone could result in one new admin while conducting a poll could help to figure out what the problem is and do much, much more.

Irondome: Indeed the very open "yes" or "no" would have great value. But I would still love to know the reasons behind the "no"s. Maybe that reasons is "because as an admin I would feel XXXXX" or it could be "because I'm scared of the RfA process". Maybe "If no, why not?" in the question? Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like you already have a good model in mind :). My thoughts would be along those lines. The right questions. A poll approach may be a useful tool if they are asked.Irondome (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you are right about the totally open question. See User:Anna Frodesiak/Yellow sandbox and feel free to tweak it. Do the brackets help diminish the "why not" part? Maybe totally open is best. Should it have a lead sentence like "I am trying to understand why there are so few new RfAs these days"? Maybe that would stop others from asking why I'm asking and then pointing me to some project page. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I posted here: Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Editors considering RfA. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there a great need for more admin

Just asking the question from the above. While it is probably a matter of the time of year that RFA's have slown down....is there really a great need for new Admin?--Mark Miller (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The lack of admin volunteers looking at RFPP and AIV during certain parts of the day sometimes gets bothersome when you've got a new editor/IP/socks cutting through articles. And WP:SPI is perpetually backlogged. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia needs far fewer, not more admins, particularly the way we define an admin these days. The admin system needs liberating by shedding the legacy admins, that huge historical bulge appointed for life far back in the days when you had to do little more than ask in order to become an admin. Problems like those NeilN just referred to would be easily resolved by debundling what is now an enormous set of admin tools and privileges, and reassigning them to appropriate users on a needs basis. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Often times the apparent backlogs at AIV, and to a lesser extent, RFPP, are the result of borderline requests. So when there is a backlog at AIV, blatant vandalism usually gets processed quite quickly, and the backlog ends up being a bunch of people like music genre warrior #501, whose individual edits aren't obviously vandalism, but whose editing pattern is probably disruptive, and probably deserves a block. Or at RFPP where an established editor is having a dispute with an IP editor and requesting semi, but the IP editor's edits are disruptive enough that its not a clear no, (shouldn't use semi to let auto confirmed editors win edit wars, but also looks like a good faith dispute. Or a semi request for a page that is getting vandalized, just not really that frequently. Monty₈₄₅ 23:55, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It isn't the time of year, in past years August has often had more RFAs than the average month for that year. June, July and August this year have seen a total of three new admins, that's the fewest in any period of three consecutive calender months since 2002. See User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_by_month. As for need, yes of course there is some minimal level of admin resource that the site needs to function. But rather than fixate on how many hours per month of active admin time we need before it will be necessary to appoint a large batch of poorly vetted admins (most of whom will probably turn out OK), and in the meantime accept a system that relies on a small group of "active admins" who have little wiki time for anything but admin stuff; I prefer to be more ambitious. What do we need to do to turn the site back into one where all clueful sensible established editors could be admins if they offered to take on part of the burden, and the admin tasks were more spread out with no need or much place for admins who aren't primarily editors? ϢereSpielChequers 22:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• The views of Epipelagic above are pretty close to my own. At Wikipediocracy there are some Hasten The Day-types who trumpet the decline in administrators as a metric tracking the coming doom of The Project. I see it instead as an inevitable demographically-related weeding out of those who got the tools too easily during the 2004-2007 days and who have by now gotten older and "got a life" and moved along. There is no obvious reason for there to be 7,000 rather than 700 rather than 70 administrators, so long as the key functions are being achieved expeditiously (and they more or less are). Unbundling of the tools is long overdue and if there are personnel shortages in this facet or that of WP that would seem the logical way forward. To me the far greater problem is the attrition of serious content writers. Carrite (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You confuse me Carrite. I thought it was the established view of the non-content writing networkers who now control Wikipedia that serious content writers tend to be dishonourable and toxic, and need banning from Wikipedia. Apparently this can be done with much kindness. We've got them on the run... you hardly hear a peep out of serious content writers today, certainly not on boards like this. But it is premature to rest on our laurels. Success in cleansing this group has not been fully achieved – some remain still working on articles in remote reaches of Wikipedia. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal from Cla68 regarding women candidates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Support:

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

Oppose:

1. This opens up a whole can o'worms about truthfulness in self-identification, and penalizes those who for whatever reason prefer to remain anonymous (and on-line anonymity is an important protective measure for women). RfA voters are free to apply whatever metrics they wish, including wanting more female administrators, but no such preferences should be institutionalized. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
2. Giving one gender a lower standards than another is discrimination and is insulting to the gender favored. Frankly I am having a hard time believing this is even being suggested.

   We have less female admins because we have less female editors, we have less female editors because guys are more likely to be nerds(if you don't believe me go to a DEFCON conference). Chillum 06:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

3. I don't believe that women are treated less fairly at RfA, and have seen no evidence that it is a problem. Lack of women admins is a function of general lack of women on WP. Not only is this preposterous on grounds of equality, it would allow sysops of dubious merit to be elected simply by claiming to be female (which cannot be verified, and if verification were required, that would be a great breach of privacy). BethNaught (talk) 06:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
4. I agree with Chillum. Also 50% is very low, that is, half or close to half of the !voters good have perfectly good reasons to oppose but the candidate could still pass (50 S/40 O/10 N) which is far from consensus. NickGibson3900 ^Talk 06:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
5. An RfA gauges a candidate's suitability for an admin role—their gender is not germane to that assessment so there should be no difference in where the "bar" is set.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
6. Seriously? Say what you want about the men's rights movement (which, for the record, I don't support), but this is blatant sexism. If you fight a monster long enough, you come to resemble it, eh? Ansh666 07:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
7. While there is undoubtedly a problem with women's representation on Wikipedia, this is not the way to fix it, in my view. Strongly oppose. Jusdafax 07:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
8. RfA is not an election where the votes are counted, but where the arguments are weighed. Administrators must be people who are trusted by the community to use tools carefully and in accordance with policy. If something is done to find and accept more women as administrators, it should not be changing this arbitrary number, but something else; perhaps contacting and encouraging female editors to prepare for adminship. Also, making the process of actually applying or nominating someone for adminship more straightforward would help. If I'd known how convoluted it was before I started to try to create a nomination, I likely wouldn't have ever done it. —Anne Delong (talk) 07:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
9. The qualifications needed to be an admin are not different depending on the sex of the individual. All this would do is to lower the quality of admins. It is also discriminatory. Focus your efforts on increasing the number of female contributors and the balance of male / female admins will follow. QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
10. Oppose as [removed] deeply misleading. I have changed the headline, because this is not a proposal from the actual Gender Gap force task and only serves to discredit the project. Iselilja (talk) 07:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

    That's a personal attack and untrue and I ask that you withdraw it. I am serious about this proposal as I have personal experience with how unfair and corrupted the RfA process is, so I know that this is the only real way to give all female candidates a fair shot at adminship. Cla68 (talk) 07:52, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

    Well you're not a participant, so it is deceptive to claim to act on their behalf. BethNaught (talk) 07:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

    Was the initial headline "Proposal from the Gender gap task force" correct? Who have given you the right to speak on behalf of the project? Have you consulted and gained any support from your proposal from other members of the project? Iselilja (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

    I think Cla68 is taking offense to calling their proposal "trolling", not the heading change. I personally think that's taking a bit too far (remember WP:AGF?). Ansh666 08:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

    I have changed the oppose wording to "deeply misleading" (which it was when I "voted"). Iselilja (talk) 08:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

    I don't think the original wording was "taking it too far". On the contrary, I rather suspect that this proposal is a case of someone with a long and vocal history of opposition to (what they perceive to be) gender-related "activism" on Wikipedia disrupting the project to make a point. —Psychonaut (talk) 08:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

11. No objection to more women admins, just not this way. If any women reading this are thinking of running and looking for a nominator feel free to email me. I've nominated candidates in the past and in my experience the only gender related discrimination at RFA is that boys and young men are at a disadvantage at RFA, at least until they are 18. I would be interested in seeing stats about the allegation that women are more likely to be blocked than men. My experience is that men are more likely to vandalise and to edit war and I understand those to be the main reasons for blocks. ϢereSpielChequers 08:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
12. Dumb enough to be worth piling on, or pointy enough to simply ignore? Better be safe. GraniteSand (talk) 09:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
13. Oppose because on-line anonymity is an important protective measure for women, yes. And I just ask, how can ANYONE from the Gender gap task force say how many woman editors we have? How can ANYONE AT ALL say how may they are? Some editors might be actually women, without the statistics knowing about it - so how could anybody tell how many they are? No such preferences should be institutionalized, as per Yngvadottir. You never know who is a woman or a man, nor you should know. That is ain't nobody's business. Aren't men and women alike? All these speculations has to end. Hafspajen (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
14. Three fundamental problems with this all already noted above no doubt (I haven't checked): (1) discriminatory to preference one gender over another (2) how will female candidates prove their gender? (3) will create a two tier admin cadre: "real" ones and 2nd class admins. DeCausa (talk) 09:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
15. Absolutely oppose For all the reasons already mentioned above and also because such a rule cannot be enforced without WP:Outing the candidate. We need more female contributors, then the female proportion of admins will inevitably increase too. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
16. Oppose For pretty much all the reasons given above. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion:

If women were held to a lower standard then more women admins would be less qualified and it would reflect badly on them. In addition the suggestion that they need some sort of lower standard also reflects badly on them. All of that aside it is sexist. I have difficulty believing that this is a serious suggestion. It fails the laugh test. Chillum 06:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you know that female editors are banned or blocked at a higher rate than male editors? Cla68 (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

{{citation needed}} BethNaught (talk) 06:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I fail to see the relevance. Ansh666 08:11, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum: The reason DEFCON lacks women is first and foremost because the computer security community is a notorious cesspit of sexism and general assholery, and DEFCON in particular is notorious for general assholery regardless of gender. The only people I know who enjoy DEFCON attend solely to participate full time in various competitions occurring there. Kobnach (talk) 06:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Many female editors have longer block logs because they often try to correct deficiencies in gender-based articles or BLPs, run afoul of the activists or misogynists owning those articles, and get themselves blocked because they haven't learned how to game the system like WP's established, entrenched activist editors. That's one reason why this measure is necessary. Cla68 (talk) 06:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The measure you are proposing will not address the problem you claim to have identified here. Having more female admins (or rather, to be accurate, more people who claim on WP to be female) will not prevent claimed female editors from being blocked by male or female admins if they engage in an edit war or violate other policies or behavioural standards. If any part of your statement is likely to be true it is that there is a problem with ownership of certain articles and this can and should be addressed wherever it occurs. It does not require an admin to be of a particular sex to deal with this. QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• What a great idea. How about those that pass below the standard threshold level have to wear a A badge next to their name.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What names? WP uses anonymous account titles, so there is no stigma attached to anything we do in WP. "Scarlet As" mean nothing on WP. Cla68 (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consequent discussion

Okay, I know this is closed but you guys have been a bit quick to condemn the proposal and some of your responses are reminiscent of those heard (in the UK, don't know about the US) whenever levelling a playing-field is suggested. Now, while I don't support the proposal (and I agree it's unworkable simply because of the anonymity issue), I do understand the reasoning behind it. There is a gender bias here, not in the selection process itself, but there is a serious question to be addressed. Deb (talk) 10:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The solution, I think, is to bring in more electable female candidates, and the rest should take care of itself. Are you proposing all-female shortlists? Those do as much harm in my view as more conventional sexism.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Since candidates don't run against each other, I don't know what you mean by all female shortlists in this context. I agree that there need to be more nominations of competent female editors. If Wikipedia:WikiProject Admin Nominators were still around it could be something they could help with, perhaps. BethNaught (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a widespread misunderstanding of what "level the playing field" and "gender equality" means. Both of these terms imply that one wants to treat men and women equally, and give them equal opportunities. Saying that you want to level the playing field at RfA implies that women are currently treated differently and have less opportunities, as if there is currently a de facto standard that women need to have 90% support to pass an RfA. The playing field (at RfA) is already level, because men and women are already treated equally there. The fact that there are less female admins is only a natural consequence of the fact that there are less female editors. Gender equality measures should strive to ensure that women are treated equally to men, not that they are given preferential treatment over men. Giving women artificial advantages over men is not gender equality. ‑Scottywong| spill the beans _ 14:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It may not be equality, but it can be levelling the playing field, which is something quite different. To take the metaphor a little further, suppose a team of four-foot midgets had to play basketball against a team of Dinka men. They might be equally good players, but they wouldn't have much hope of winning. The question is, would you think it was fair to handicap the other team? I think that depends which side you are playing on. Deb (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sports are a bad analogy: sports are about winners and losers. RfA is an interview for a theoretically unlimited number of jobs. In any case, the point of a game of basketball is to decide which team are better players. I know there are sports such as golf where handicaps are used, but both your analogy and the proposal above tend to reinforce my impression that that's wrongheaded. ... All that aside, we have an anonymity policy here, tattered though it is; anyone who wants to reveal their identity in whole or in part has a right to do so, but they have an absolute right not to, and that is the single most important levelling of the playing field on the internet as a whole, of which we are part. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

As a woman I am deeply offended by this whole concept. It implies that women need some kind of thumb-on-the-scales, some kind of special consideration - that we can't make it on our own. I am even more offended to be compared to a "four foot midget" playing basketball - as if acknowledging that women simply can't do as good a job here as men. If I ever decide to run for admin, I will expect to be judged on my merits, and I totally reject the idea that I shouldn't have to meet the same standards as male candidates - or as non-gender-identified candidates (which applies to most editors here, despite the common fallacy of saying "he" about anyone who hasn't self-identified as female). --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Can I have an "AMEN!" please? -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Melanie has hit the nail on the head. And who said women can't swing a hammer? ‑Scottywong| converse _ 23:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I have some real-world experience with how affirmative action has helped women family and friends of mine get a needed leg up. To deny that affirmative action can be beneficial is really myopic. Cla68 (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Affirmative action is also illegal where I live (California), and bans on it have been upheld in the US Supreme Court as unconstitutional. And, as myself a member of a (racial) minority, I support this ban. Ansh666 00:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The US government has more checks and balances, transparency, and public watchdogs than Wikipedia's administration. Until WP gets its house in order, measures like affirmative action are necessary to help get things right. Cla68 (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point on the first part. Still don't see how having more specifically female administrators would actually help, though. I mean, it obviously wouldn't harm anything, but it won't lead to less female editors blocked or whatever you started this about. Ansh666 00:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Affirmative action requires that there is some real, measurable discriminatory practice or factor that is unfairly holding back the affirmed group. I don't see such practices at Wikipedia. There is no question in my mind that affirmative action was needed to make sure that African Americans, particularly underprivileged African Americans, could overcome decades of societal practice that stacked the deck against them. There are certainly areas where affirmative action for women was justified by ingrained discriminatory habits - for example in hiring and promotion, or in current government setasides for women-owned businesses. But I have yet to see any evidence that Wikipedia has any such discriminatory practices or factors. Add in the fact that gender is purely self-identified here, or not identified at all, and there is no justification IMO for giving some kind of advantage to users who self-identify as female. --MelanieN (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I seriously doubt any women truly seeking equality wants a special advantage that others don't have because that is not what the word equality means. Chillum 16:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• I was going to let this go, as I don't want to sound like the PC police, but please be judicious when using the word "midget" when describing someone with dwarfism.Two Kinds of Pork^Makin'_Bacon 16:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, okay, what is the correct word then? Deb (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Dwarfism, or even "little people"Two Kinds of Pork^Makin'_Bacon 19:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not surprised by the outcry when someone dares to try to suggest positive action to improve the gender balance on this project, but I am disappointed. It simply shows a lack of awareness of the issues. For a start, I never said that women are not being treated equally at RfA, nor did I say that making the standards for women lower would be a way of levelling the playing field in this case; in fact, I said that it wasn't workable, even if there was evidence of discrimination against women - which I don't think there is. However, I'm appalled by some of the comments that have been made about a proposal that tries, albeit unsuccessfully, to address the issue of gender imbalance. We all know that there are far fewer female contributors than male, regardless of the fact that many contributors remain completely anonymous and give no clues as to their gender. Of course women don't want a special advantage, but most of us don't want the problem to be ignored either. I suspect that few of the contributors to this discussion have ever considered the question seriously and it's apparent that many would prefer to ignore it. I can only say that I have a lot of experience in the field of equal opportunities, and I'm used to hearing similar discussions; clearly many of you aren't aware of or don't fully understand the UK's long-standing legislation. But those who pour cold water on an idea that was suggested for the best motives and imply stupidity or facetiousness on the part of the proposer, through comments like "Dumb enough to be worth piling on", simply reveal their own ignorance. Deb (talk) 19:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

when someone dares to try to suggest positive action to improve the gender balance on this project? (emphasis mine) This is definitely not "positive action". If anything, it's negative action. Instead of solving inequality, it adds to it, where there has been no demonstrable difference to boot. Also, it would lower the standards of getting the tools, the use of which can make a powerful impact on how the community views not only the individual, but all communities they may be part of. I'm fairly certain that if this went through, it would do more harm than good to the intended cause. Ansh666 20:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

See definition of "positive action" here: [6] Deb (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't care about some fancy-pants legal definition. The connotation is clearly there. Ansh666 21:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean you prefer to ignore the dictionary definition of a term I used in its dictionary sense. Okay. Deb (talk) 09:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, been a bit fed up with things lately, on top of taking a technical writing class which condemns this exact type of thing. Yes, I could have phrased that better, but I also don't think it's wise to use such a specific and easily misunderstood term without, say, linking to its definition. Ansh666 19:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the percentage of total active editors that regularly contribute to RfA? Are there any figures for that? Is there any gender breakdown on active eds contributing? Irondome (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Deb. You may well be right in some of your reflections. I was one of those who reacted very negatively to the proposal; and in my case it was mostly because Cla misrepresented the proposal as coming from the Gender Gap task force and because I thought it was unserious to put up an RfC without prior discussion. I am a woman from Norway and well familiar with gender quotas in real life. So the idea is not strange to me (but I think you are right that it probably is for some of the other participants, which is yet a reason a concrete proposal about this should not be put up without a broad discussion first). For various reasons I don't think requiring less "approval rating" for women would be a good idea; for one thing I don't see any tendencies that women candidates have a harder time passing the RfA. But I am open to the idea that there may some things that hold women back from seeking adminship, for instance smaller network here. I think this is a thing the gender gap group can discuss, whether that is a problem and if so, what to do with it; the group itself may get the function as a kind of network for some women. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Someone above didn't believe me when I said that women are banned or blocked at a higher rate than men. It's 3.85% vs. 3.32%, as stated here. WP's administrative processes, including RfAs, are so rigged, inconsistent, and unfair, that a quota or preferential system is necessary to narrow the gender gap in admins. Cla68 (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

  Your thoughts on the subject are so ridiculous that it is difficult to AGF and believe that you're not being sarcastic. ‑Scottywong| confabulate _ 23:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

See thread below. I think we are all missing some intangible, but ultimately graspable series of approaches we can develop and discuss. The use of thanks, subject editing preferences for differing gender, the extent of development of relationships by subject..Irondome (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hell week - and women - and some statistics - and a suggestion

Dariusz Jemielniak devotes over 6% of the content of his book Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia to RfA, mostly turning on its dysfunctional nature, and citing for example Kudpung's analysis of 2010 RfA questions (43% "irrelevant or prying into personal opinion"), and Jimbo's comment "good candidates who don't bother standing because it is a nightmare".

One might have thought this would deter women more than men - and maybe it does. Interestingly though the percentage of women admins compared with the percentage of active women editors seems to be slightly higher, most recently illustrated here.

Nonetheless Cla68's suggestion does have merit, as does TwoKindsofProk's revision. Cla78 seems to be wrong about the 65% threshold, as a recent RfA failed with 69.4% in favour.

Jemielniak opines, not without good cause, that part of the reason for "The Gauntlet" is that the post is virtually "admin for life". Of course a significant number of admins are open to recall, and presumably do not pose this sociological issue, and hierarchical risk.

It would therefore make sense to have a standard recall process, and allow those candidates who agree to be bound by it to have a lower threshold in terms of consensus.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC).

My suggestion had merit? Sarcasm perhaps? How about AAA for Afirmtive Action Admin?Two kinds of pork (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What is the percentage of total active editors that regularly contribute to RfA? Are there any figures for that? Is there any gender breakdown on active eds contributing? Irondome (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

If "thanks" response stats were factored into the RfA process in terms of a required competency, I think we would see a great increase in successful female RfA outcomes. That would develop increased female editor participation, both as nominees and contributors. Is "thanks" being measured? Jemielniak reports a reinforcing of the community by use of the thank feature. I bet female eds thank more than males. A hunch. The thanks feature is a potentially useful tool in guaging the intellectual and behavioural "generousity" of a potential admin, which is a critical asset. Are the "Thanks" stats being looked at or is any group discussing them on WP? Irondome (talk) 21:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Measured, I don't know. Logged, yes. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Cheers for the link HJ. Lots of great eds on there, interestingly. Irondome (talk) 22:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but I'd beware of the stereotype. I was glad to have that feature, but I don't often use it. The person who thanks me far and away the most is male. And there's a phenomenon of minor harassment by excess thanks that's been mentioned in some quarters (I know, it's possible to spoil anything.) Yngvadottir (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Good criticism, however I still think "thanks" should be more thoroughly investigated in gender usage, just to be sure there is no statistical diffentials. "Thanks" could still be a useful measuring tool in a behavioural sense, to apply to all RfA's if we could brainstorm its measurable positive attributes to the project. Irondome (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Off topic, but when you sign up for an account, is there an option to query gender?Two Kinds of Pork^Makin'_Bacon 22:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It's in the preferences, the option called "How do you prefer to be described?"; I don't think the account creation process goes into the preferences (I made an alt account a couple months ago, but maybe I just didn't notice). Ansh666 22:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been intrigued (and rather skeptical) about the suggestion or implication here that women have a harder time than men passing RFA. So I did an analysis of the 16 most recent successful RfAs and the 16 most recent unsuccessful RfAs. I counted a person as "female" or "male" if they so identify themselves at their userpage, either explicitly or by their first name.

• SUCCESSFUL
  • Female: 2 (12%)
  • Male: 7 (44%)
  • Unspecified: 7 (44%)
• UNSUCCESSFUL
  • Female: 2 (12%)
  • Male: 4 (25%)
  • Unspecified: 10 (63%)
    

Obviously this is a small sample and not statistically significant, but it suggests that self-identified femaleness does not influence success or failure. Also that the ratio of females in both successful and unsuccessful candidacies is similar to the ratio of female editors Wiki-wide. This also tends to confirm my impression that many editors, perhaps a majority, do not identify their gender one way or another. --MelanieN (talk) 23:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The sample size is unfortunately too small to really say anything useful but if we look at the conditional probability. Probability of passing given the candidate is female = 50%; probability of passing given the candidate is male = 63%, (7/(7+4)); probability of passing given the candidate is unspecified = 41%. Compare this to the probability of passing irrespective of gender = 50%, we see slightly more men that average pass, but this does not count as a statistically significant result. --Salix alba (talk): 06:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

More useful statistically would probably be to look at the last x male/female/unspecified RfA candidates, and see how many pass. Not that the data would likely yield any shocking conclusions anyways. Ansh666 07:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think there is systemic bias against apparently female candidates at RFA, certainly no stats that I've seen indicating such. Anyone thinking that "thumb on the scales" vote-counting where none is apparently warranted would be anything but inflammatory is not paying attention. Of course, generating bigger flames to better harness popular passions is what it's all about for some people. Those agenda-driven sorts at WP are disruptionists of the worst kind, in my estimation. Carrite (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I find the proposal really offensive. The mere suggestion that women need special treatment and that it would come in the form of lower standards is appalling and archaic. Perhaps women are discriminated against. Lowering the community consensus requirement is not even remotely the right way to go about resolving the issue. If, and I mean IF, women are being discriminated against at RFA, the problem is not with the women candidates or the requirements for RFA. The problem lies with the editors who are discriminating against them -- and therein the solution must be found and directed. Victim blaming needs to stop and it starts by not telling them to be different, to take a different and less difficult route, or that they need to be subject to different rules. Mkdw^talk 21:58, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It's not lowering standards when there aren't any standards. The RfA process is, and has been for a long time, nothing more than a shark tank, highly susceptible to bias, canvassing, cherry-picking, and other unfair practices. Cla68 (talk) 00:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Bias, canvassing, cherry-picking, and other unfair practices I'll grant you. But are any of those gender-related, and do you have evidence of it? If they aren't, then introducing gender-related procedures to RFA will cause more harm than good. --Carnildo (talk) 01:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Cla68 You have never participated in an RFA and it's showing. Had it not been for the anonymity of the Internet, I doubt very much that you would still be clinging to your proposal. Meanwhile, you continue to argue against those who have said it is a bad idea (nearly everyone), or whom you've managed to offend, only to worsen your position. Participating in the process, following an RFA from start to finish, or undergoing one yourself as a candidate will likely be a very illuminating experience for you. It's easy to judge from afar and at a leisurely commitment. You also have yet to really substantiate any of your personal opinions about RFA. Ignoring the sheer fact that a candidate must receive a certain percentile of community support to "pass" is by academic definition a standard, you also should know (but seemingly don't) that editors who routinely participate, have various metrics for candidates often set as standards. These standards are discussed at WP:RFAADVICE and Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship among many other pages. Editors also routinely publish their RFA standard. I list mine at User:Mkdw/RfA Standards. Lastly, you're missing the entire point. I really wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but I'm frankly beginning to think that this proposal is not one being with honest intentions. It's so far from the thinking of most advocates of feminism, women's rights, gender balance and equality. In fact it seemingly falls in line with victim blaming and resentment of the process and of the ability of women. Mkdw^talk 04:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Interesting. That explains why he/she* was mistaken about the percentage of votes generally needed to pass RFA. (*I say "he/she" because Cla68 does not identify any gender at his/her user page.) Cla68, you cannot possibly have any idea what it is like to edit Wikipedia as a female, since you do not publicly identify your gender. It was presumptuous (to say the least) for you to attempt to speak for those of us who do identify as female, and I believe that no further attention should be given to anything you say on the subject. --MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Just a little note: It's every editor's own business whether they self-identify; it's perfectly possible to experience editing as a female without stating the fact on one's user page or elsewhere on-wiki. We have no way to know what experiences Cla68 has had in this regard, so let's not assume we do. Anonymity is still theoretically available here, and that is important. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Actually we CAN know what experiences they have had in this regard, because it turns out that Cla68 did run for adminship, back in 2007; see ‪Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cla68‬. And the nominator and discussants in that request referred to Clal68 as "he"! So when Cla68 says, as they did at the Gender Gap Task Force talk page, I have been through the RfA process, and I thus have personal experience with how corrupted and rigged it is.[7] and As I know by personal experience, WP's administrative processes are riddled with behind-the-scenes corruption, canvassing, and inconsistency. [8] - they are talking about their own experience, during which they were referred to as male! So they literally have NO idea what it is like to run for adminship as a female (or any idea at all what RfA is like nowadays, seven years after their unsuccessful run). --MelanieN (talk) 05:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
            • So does RfA still suck? Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 17:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

To correct an assumption made, Cla68 did go through the RfA process himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Cla68 Bill Huffman (talk) 18:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Unclosed

I am unclosing Rich because that is a very different idea and possibly a viable one. A lower threshold for a standard recall seems a fair trade. Andrevan@ 07:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You are talking about this suggestion above, right? --MelanieN (talk) 16:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Jemielniak opines, not without good cause, that part of the reason for "The Gauntlet" is that the post is virtually "admin for life". Of course a significant number of admins are open to recall, and presumably do not pose this sociological issue, and hierarchical risk.

It would therefore make sense to have a standard recall process, and allow those candidates who agree to be bound by it to have a lower threshold in terms of consensus.

I am puzzled that Jemielniak is being brought up in the context of women and RfA. Someone recently cited Jemielniak as support for the notion that Wikipedia has a glass ceiling. He says no such thing. While he does talk about RfA issues, he spends very little time on gender issues in general and has almost nothing to say about women in the context of RfA.

The proposal by Cla68 is appallingly bad. It is difficult to come up with the right words to describe how condescending patronizing it is. The proposal is not rooted in anything said by Jemielniak, which is worth reading.

The are problems with RfA. Making recall easier is one important step. This is an appropriate place to discuss RfA reform, but let's not conflate the RfA problem, with the Wikipedia gender gap issues, at least not without some evidence. --S Philbrick(Talk) 18:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

This is no longer about the proposal by Cla68, it's about the proposal by Rich, which is different. Ansh666 19:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that? Or how should I know that? Rich has five sentences and a close. One about Jemielniak generally. The next about women, and women admins. The next about CLA68. The next about admin for life. The next about a recall provision with a lower acceptance threshold. Why is is obvious that the discussion of the first four sentences is closed, and only the last is still open?--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Because this is the entirety of the proposal: It would therefore make sense to have a standard recall process, and allow those candidates who agree to be bound by it to have a lower threshold in terms of consensus. Nothing about women. In fact, the two paragraphs about Jemielniak also have nothing to do with women. The second paragraph refutes Cla68's point; the third states that the proposal's idea - not reasoning or implementation - is sound. As such, Rich is in fact refuting Cla68's point, and repurposing his proposal for a different cause - that of recall and general RfA reform. Ansh666 00:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

When someone says "therefore" it is usually a sign that what they are saying follows from the preceding. It does not make sense to assume that Rich threw out four random unrelated points and then made an unrelated proposal. Furthermore, note that the section heading refers to women. Your conclusion that this has nothing to do with women makes no sense. The proposal itself is flawed but if someone wishes to discuss it, I suggest that someone starts a new section including this proposal alone not the irrelevant material.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm Go back and read everything I wrote, please. (Oh, and, I contend that "therefore" only refers back to the previous paragraph; the top three are separate and unrelated to the bottom two. More clear?) Ansh666 01:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ansh although I see why SPhilbrick did not understand. I think if we made RFA less of an angry and critical place maybe women would apply for it. Thus the lower threshold, standard recall being relevant if somewhat orthogonal to the issue. Andrevan@ 04:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I and several others fought tooth and nail a couple of years ago to find ways of getting RfA cleaned up - either that, or replaced with some other kind of system altogether. The problem with an issue like this is that whatever it might be / have been replaced with will still leave a certain faction of the community dissatisfied. That said, anyone who has been as closely monitoring the (rare) RfAs since that time as I have will not have let it escape their attention that although still not perfect, the process is considerably less vitriolic and visited by trolls and other disruptive elements than it used to be. I don't see gender as part of the equation - or orthogonal at best; AFAICS the ladies who run for adminship seem to pass with exceptionally flying colours. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Andrevan Sorry. what didn't I understand? I agree that reform of Rfa is needed. Many things need to be done; making it less angry is one of many needs. I don't know that such a reform would make it more appealing to women. Wikipedia as a whole has a gender gap which deserves serious action. I think that reform ought to address all issues, not just gender specific ones.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Responding to several recent comments, in particular to those by Rich Farmbrough, Irondome Sphilbrick, and others, I haven't read the book (yet) but if Jemielniak devotes over 6% of the content of his book Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia to RfA, I'm hardly surprised. Until someone can come up with an entirely new concept for managing Wikipedia, the admin structure is the feature that keeps not only the crap out of the encyclopedia but also keeps those away who are determined to abuse it and/or other editors.

Daniel Iosub et al (which I have read) summarise in their paper that …emotional and linguistic homophily is prevalent: editors tend to interact with other editors having similar emotional styles (e.g., editors expressing more anger connect more with one another). This paper is essential reading for anyone who is interested in its analysis pertaining to admins, although I hesitate to assume that anyone who self-identifies with those who complain fervently about admins and their implied power structure will bother to read it; if they were to, they may well change their attitude towards admins or at least express themselves in more serious and more compelling language when discussing it rather than aggressive/emotional statements such as "What we need to do is to build up an overwhelming body of evidence against the admin corps as a whole, not just waste our time by trying to pick them off one by one – not that I'm against that of course."

I would venture to presume that not only a significant number of admins do not pose a sociological issue, or hierarchical risk, but that the vast majority of them do not pose any threat to the workings of Wikipedia; any suggestions that they do is pure sensationalism from those who either perceive to have been unjustly served, have exceptionally long block logs, or who have never even actually been the object of admin action at all.

Unbundling of the admin tools, according to some, would be a great idea, especially if the block button were to be released for use by a wider section of the community - how about very major, prolific content providers, for example, maybe some of them would even block themselves occasionally (or at least each other) for cases of civility and PA transgressions. Just a thought…

Stats can often be cited to the advantage of the one citing them. There is a lot of re-inventinig the wheel going on here; perhaps a reminder of the enormous research that was carried out at WP:RFA2011 showing 100s of voter profiles and just how transient the pool of so-called 'active' RfA voters is. In that respect nothing has changed much at all. Scottywong did the requested data mining for WP:RFA2011 and I'm sure that if, and only if, there were a serious need to update those stats, he would either do it again at least provide the scripts or regular expressions he used.

Gender related issues IMO should ideally be the subject of a separate discussion even if globally addressed by books or independent research. I will not pronounce on gender topics with the exception that there are probably more male editors and more male admins than females. I would not be surprised if the % of female admins is higher than the % of female editors in general. I would also not be surprised if the pass rate for females is higher than that for males, and also by higher turnout and higher 'support' percentages. However, I do not believe that this is a Wikipedia specific topic, whose answer would be found in other areas of research into human gender roles.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that gender should be addressed separately. The data is clear that there is a Wikipedia wide gender gap. However, addressing gender soley in the context of RfA makes little sense.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It was absolutely my idea to make a gender-neutral proposal. While I am not convinced (partly for the reasons I gave, and also because research shows female editors work on more contentious issues than male editors) that RFA is more traumatic for female editors, I am aware that this position is held by some people. Reducing the trauma of RFA therefore also addresses this hypothetical gender barrier to some extent. I am happy to build this proposal on the wreckage of previous proposals, or even sarcastic comments. I certainly agree that the vast majority of admins do not pose a risk, but the ghost of irremovable "Rouge admins" might well be one reason for RFA problems. Jemielniak does cite the 2011 research, by the way and mentions Kudpung at the very least (I don't have the volume to hand). Ansh666 is correct that the single sentence covers the proposal, the rest is thinking out loud, if you like. I did try to make it clear for the section header that the linkage between the subjects was relatively weak. Sorry for not being clearer! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC).

Rich, I didn't misunderstand you for a moment and I'm with you all the way. The traditional arguments that a predominantly hostile male envoronment at RfA is preventing women from participating in RfA is probably less acurate today than it was in , say, 2011. We have women police officers and even women soldiers and fighter pilots and they all had to go through boot camp - and survived it. Recent female results: 116/0/0, 97/17/2, 217/0/2, 152/0/0, 173/9/4, 120/3/4, 94/1/0, 120/0/4, 87/36/8, and none failed.

What probably puts anyone off wanting to be an admin these days, nearly 4 years down the line from WP:RFA2011, is not so much the election process itself, but the consequences of being a sysop once you get the bit. Comments such as:

"What we need to do is to build up an overwhelming body of evidence against the admin corps as a whole, not just waste our time by trying to pick them off one by one – not that I'm against that of course."

don't exactly make the job sound attractive, whatever gender you are. It's a common fallacy put about by a certain group that all admins are badmins, but like in any army or police force, there are always one or two rotten apples in the barrel, but the group who persistently tar all admins with the same brush at every opportunity with drama mongering out-of-context diatribes, are doing far more damage to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia than an admin who blocks an editor for being grossly uncivil or making PA, and one who unblocks because that editor is a prolific content contributor.

What we need to do is to build up an overwhelming body of evidence against such groups that are determined to undermine the the already fragile fabric of what holds this project together. And if the community were prepared to look at their strategy and the pattern of tactics rather than just seeing and ignoring isolated issues, picking them off one-by-one wouldn't be all that difficult but it would need the support of the likes of admins such as, for example, Gorilla Warfare, Slim Virgin, and Bishonen. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In Kudpung's own words, "criticising the admin system... directly criticises the admins themselves, because they are the system". Kudpung, that most august of Wikipedia's grandee admins, sees all constructive criticism of the admin system as personal attacks on the individual administrators and on himself in particular. He has been campaigning lately for the extermination of these vile pests. He tars all critics, constructive and unconstructive, with the same brush, and quotes from the most unconstructive critics to try and mobilise attacks on the most constructive critics. --Epipelagic (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And that is why OWN of policy is one of the biggest dangers we face. Intothatdarkness 14:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I would like to nominate myself BMReditor (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC) for Administrator

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

See Wikipedia:Adminship is not for new users and Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates. You registered to Wikipedia yesterday. You have only made 7 edits. You have no chance whatsoever of becoming an administrator at this point in time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@BMReditor: Sorry, it would be a case of WP:NOTNOW. You may want to re apply for adminship once you are familiar with Wikipedia guidelines and policies and had enough experience.  ΤheQ Editor  ^Talk? — Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFA is dying

RFA is dying. Only 3 new admins have been promoted in the last 3.5 (three and a half) months.

If this trend continues, the admins will die out and will not be replaced, and the vandals will take over the project.

I propose that the pass rate be lowered immediately to 50%. A simple majority should be enough to demonstrate trust. What's worse - having an admin that 49% of voters dislike or having no admins and the vandals will destroy Wikipedia forever?

All you folks who disagree - what do you propose should be done? Even if WP has enough admins today, it will not have enough in 2 to 3 years unless new admins are promoted to replace those who leave the project.

Folks, this is an emergency. Radical reform is necessary. The 50% pass rate will be a stopgap while other possibilities (e.g. unbundling the tools or allowing bureaucrats or ArbCom to appoint admins without a full RFA) can be considered.

Haha! Can you believe what we just saw (talk) 02:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The answer cannot be to lower the standard. The answer could be to lessen the fear of the unknown with a pre-admin opinion page. If not a page for that purpose, then maybe some mention of the suggestion of creating a userspace subpage for those who wish to probe community views on their chances. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not still April 1st is it? Cannolis (talk) 02:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what that means. My point is that RfA is a plunge. People don't like to plunge into dark waters, even if they are expert swimmers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, thought it must be a joke, what with the insanity of the proposal and the "Haha!" bit at the end. Cannolis (talk) 02:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"Just" 1393 sysops! Some perspective... José Luiz ^talk 02:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Some further analysis of the WMF figures:  Philg88 ^♦talk 13:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Language	No of articles	No of active users	No of admins	Admin to article ratio	Admin to user ratio
English	4,608,505	130,223	1,393	1:3,308	1:93
Swedish	1,943,346	2,769	69	1:28,164	1:40
Dutch	1,790,356	4,039	53	1:33,780	1:76
German	1,759,441	19,542	254	1:6,926	1:76
French	1,546,599	15,102	179	1:8,640	1:84
Cebuano	1,173,959	79	3	1:319,319	1:26

I sense a need for troll-be-gone (judging from contribs, this is a quacker). ansh666 07:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The solution is pretty clear - do new page patrol, encounter potential new users who haven't figured out the ropes, and show them the ropes in a friendly, respectful way. Explain inclusion criteria, find sources to bring articles up to WP:N (or it's bastard stepchildren). Maybe merge, but don't try to destroy any work they've done that can be salvaged. Those who become regulars will continue to filter down to RfA. It's a lot of work, but it's the only way. There's no easy fix. WilyD 08:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing in need of fixing. All that's needed is for people to approach Wikipedia in the same way as they approach real life. Want a promotion at work or to be a school prefect? Then behave well, work hard demonstrating dedication, put effort into understanding what it means to be a prefect and demonstrate you understand it. Build up a track record; apply - result: you'll be supported or receive advice on how to be supported next time. There's no magic about this. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree 100% with QuiteUnusual. There is nothing wrong with the process and anyone can become an admin. All it requires is to learn the ropes of editing and policy, to behave in a sensible manner and to ensure that interactions with other editors are always positive. Quality, not quantity of admins is what we need such that reducing the "bar" is not the answer.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think becoming an admin is like getting a promotion at work. Putting aside the question of whether it's truly a "promotion", it's still far more public. To be the same thing, you'd have to work somewhere where: (a) everyone you work with knows you've applied for a promotion; (b) everyone you work with gets to comment on whether you should be promoted; (c) you (and all your co-workers) get to hear all of the negative comments that were made about you in the process; and (d) the record of your application(s) (and all those negative comments) is publicly available on the web to everyone. I suspect if anywhere adopted such an application process for internal promotions, they'd have real trouble finding anyone willing to go through it! There is unfortunately a downside to having a public process open to all... WJBscribe (talk) 11:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Tangential I know: In which case I conclude that you don't work at the same kind of company I do where all the points you make broadly happen albeit to a [slightly] restricted audience. Fail at a promotion review with my employer and it taints you forever. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree it is not like a promotion at work. It is a bit more like getting tapped to be the emergency officer for your section. No money, some responsibility, and no perks, unless you really need a plastic orange helmet.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no crisis. There are plenty of Admins. Yes, we are experiencing a bit of a dry spell. It happens. Big deal. I for one am somewhat pleased by the slowdown. We have had way too many obviously NOTNOW nominations. Beyond which I think we need to pause and consider that not everyone can or should be an Admin. Lots of solid editors don't want the job, often for very good reasons. In the past I have suggested adding an essay or a section in the RFA page along the lines of "Reasons why you might not want to be an Admin." If there is anything wrong with the system, it is the perennial problem of unnecessarily acerbic commentary. I suspect that there are at least a few people who are turned off by the inquisitorial tone of the process and just concluded that they have better things to do with their time. But to the extent that this is a problem, it is certainly not one that will be corrected by lowering standards. -Ad Orientem (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Some of us, including also WereSpielChequers who maintains the stats, and WJBscribe who closes a large number of the RfAs over the years, have been acutely aware of the problem for years but to lower the bar would not only be ridiculous, but would be to both play into the hands of the socks and trolls who make such suggestions and into the hands of the anti-admin brigade who could then devote themselves full-time to 'picking them off one-by-one'. With only 12 or so new admins likely to be appointed (I hate the word 'promoted') next year, it will still take many years before attrition at a rate of around 10 admins a year has reached the stage when all 614 'active' admins are no longer around. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't think the pass rate is an issue. We have few candidates because you can't get a day on Wikipedia without someone crying out how corrupt and unfair the admins are. Who wants a thankless job? Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 15:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I tend to agree. Admins sacrifice a great deal of their freedom in exchange for which they suffer endless abuse. That, plus the actual process (not the standards) would seem to be among the main reasons why so few solid editors seem interested. I will however concede that there are a few editors that !vote regularly on RfA who seem to have set unrealistically high standards for getting their !vote. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I plan to apply in late November. Having been editing for over two years, and having had this account for seven years, it occurred to me a few months ago that it might be a good idea if I apply. I often come across Wikipedia articles (mostly articles about famous personalities) that get quite a bit of vandalism from IP users who think badly of certain famous personalities. Other times, I come across articles about certain events, such as pay-per-views, that have jokesters who like to come along during the event and post silly things that only serve to interrupt editors who are trying to edit that page with updates during the event, making the editors' task too much and stressful. Having a few more administrators around for those types of things I think would be a good thing.
I don't know if I'll receive it or not, but I'll at least apply when the time comes. In the meanwhile, I hope others apply and make it. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope you fare better than the last John Smith to apply. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You folks have made some pretty good points. I think you are right and things are actually okay. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• RFA is not dying, but it is in a parlous state. Yes we are experiencing a dry spell. It started in early 2008 and has tended to get drier since. But the last four months have been exceptional by any standards, by far the driest period since the dawn of Wikipedia (early 2002 looks drier, but RFAs then were done by email and though we don't know which months they were in, there were rather more than we've had so far this year, or in the whole of 2012). There are various issues associated with having fewer admins around, but as long as we don't require existing admins to rerun their RFAs I'm not as worried over that as I used to be. When we find we have too few admins to maintain cover at AIV we will just appoint a large batch of poorly vetted ones, most of whom will do just fine. I would prefer that we appoint well vetted ones when they are ready to become admins, but I know I have lost that argument. My worry is partly that we don't know how much admin resource we actually have available, in theory we know how many "active admins" we have, but that is a laughable statistic which would equate me, and people who edit even less than me, equal with admins who are active as admins here for several hours a week. We don't know how many hours of admin time we need per week, how many are donated by our 600 or so admins, or how many "inactive" ones would resurface if asked. But my bigger worry is over community health. We have a wikigeneration divide between those who started editing more than six years ago and those who have become active during the drought, at some point that divide will widen to the point where we are no longer a self governing community, I suspect tht some people who started editing in the last six years already think that. Appointing lots of admins is good for community health, not only because of editor retention, but because it would enable us to spread the load so that we no longer needed admins who mostly act as admins rather than editors and because in my view we should have more admins amongst those who started editing in 2009-2012. I'm transcluding one of my charts to illustrate the current drought. ϢereSpielChequers 10:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Successful requests for adminship on the English Wikipedia

Year	Month												Mean	Passes	Fails	RfAs
	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
2024	2	2	0	0	0	3	0	0	2				1	9	4	13
2023	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	2	1	1	2	1	1	12	7	19
2022	0	1	2	1	1	0	0	4	1	2	0	2	1.2	14	6	20
2021	1	1	0	0	2	1	1	0	1	0	0	0	0.6	7	4	11
2020	4	1	2	0	3	0	1	1	3	1	0	1	1.4	17	8	25
2019	2	1	0	1	1	0	3	4	1	4	2	3	1.8	22	9	31
2018	0	1	1	1	0	2	1	0	1	2	0	1	0.8	10	8	18
2017	9	1	0	1	2	0	3	0	1	2	1	1	1.8	21	20	41
2016	0	1	1	1	3	0	2	1	1	1	1	4	1.3	16	20	36
2015	2	2	1	0	3	2	2	3	0	1	3	2	1.8	21	32	53
2014	3	1	4	3	2	1	1	1	0	0	5	1	1.8	22	38	60
2013	4	5	5	1	3	3	3	1	3	2	1	3	2.8	34	39	73
2012	1	3	1	3	1	1	6	4	0	1	5	2	2.3	28	64	92
2011	3	9	9	3	6	4	4	1	4	3	2	4	4.3	52	87	139
2010	6	7	2	8	8	6	7	13	6	7	4	1	6.3	75	155	230
2009	6	9	13	14	12	12	10	11	8	7	13	6	10.1	121	234	355
2008	36	27	22	12	16	18	16	12	6	16	11	9	16.8	201	392	593
2007	23	35	31	30	54	35	31	18	34	27	56	34	34.0	408	512	920
2006	44	28	34	36	30	28	26	26	22	27	33	19	29.5	353	543	896
2005	14	9	16	25	17	28	31	39	32	67	41	68	32.3	387	213	600
2004	13	14	31	20	23	13	17	12	29	16	27	25	20.0	240	63	303
2003	2	2	8	6	10	24	11	9	17	10	9	15	10.3	123	n/a	123
2002							3	4	0	0	3	1	3.7	44	n/a	44
Totals														2238	2456	4694

Key
0 successful RFAs	26–30 successful RFAs
1–5 successful RFAs	31–35 successful RFAs
6–10 successful RFAs	36–40 successful RFAs
11–15 successful RFAs	41–50 successful RFAs
16–20 successful RFAs	51–60 successful RFAs
21–25 successful RFAs	More than 60 successful RFAs

Notes

Originally sourced from User:NoSeptember/Admin stats#Year to year comparison of promotions by months, copied here and colour-coded. Updates from Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)

• Early 2003 from User:NoSeptember/RfA_chronological

Notes

References

See also

• Wikipedia:Desysoppings by month - similar list but for number of desysops per month

Here's a graph of the data above:

—gdfusion (talk|contrib) 23:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If my memory has not failed me, once upon a time there used to be a list of editors who hoped to one day become Admins. Assuming it still exists, that would seem to be a great starting point for anyone concerned about a potential shortage of sysops. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you thinking of Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls? Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (jaw) @ 22:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Bingo! -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not M/M them, asking if they still wish to go for admin in the next year or so? At least we will have numbers then. We will know the extent of our future admin "gene-pool". They are a great poll base too for RfA related issues. Irondome (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If you sample the calibre of the contributions made by users on that list, you will find it is not a fertile ground for recruiting able admins. It might be more productive to randomly M/M (whatever that means) users who are not on that list. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I looked at about 40 members of Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls at random. About three quarters have been inactive for years, a handful more have only made a couple of dozen edits at most in the past 2 years, one had a recent warning for edit warring, one has a talk page full of copyright violation messages, and the remaining few showed no evidence of really engaging in any discussions. None would have a chance of RFA success. It looks like a category used mainly by wannabes but neverwillbes. Neatsfoot (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Wikipedia:List of administrator hopefuls further categorizes by activity level. To be honest, though, 40 is a meaningless sample size considering that there are almost 1500 users in that category. I'm sure some of the active ones (manual count says about 150) would be decent candidates, myself not included. ansh666 17:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• M/M. Mass Messaging. Apologise for any confusion there. Irondome (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

RfA is withering because it's an adversarial popularity contest based on personalities and back-scratching, instead of an examination of competence. The result is inevitable, because anyone you even slightly irritate will vote against you out of spite, and editing disagreements necessarily lead to interpersonal irritations, with the result that the more experienced and (absent mental disorders) thus more competent an editor is, the more people they have who'll vote against them for personal animosity reasons. This is why most successful RFAs over the last few years have been of relatively new editors, not people with 5+ years experience. It's also why the admin pool is dwindling (retiring admins are not being replaced), and less competent and less trustworthy with the tools today, on average, than in 2010. Exacerbating factors are both the easy gameability of the system (make any histrionic accusation that can seem at first to be plausible, and this will cause a cascade of "no" votes from which the candidate probably cannot recover), and the "good ol' boys club" factor, in which old-school admins will vote against you and canvass their buddies via e-mail to do the same, over disagreements from years and years ago. RfA as we know it is doomed. This was obvious about 5 years ago.

The way to save WP administration and WP itself in the long run, is to unbundle all the admin powers, and instead use a series of competence tests. For some abilities, e.g. that to delete or protect/unprotect a page, this should be coupled with behavioral/judgement restrictions (e.g., to just make something up on the fly: no blocks within the last year; no topic bans or interaction bans within the last 6 months, and no vandalism, COI or other serious transgressions within the last 3 years; whatever). We don't want inveterate POV pushers getting the ability to win content disputes by tool abuse. And there should be a higher experience bar to cross for many tools, e.g. 1 year and 10,000 edits, to keep PoV-pushers from getting admin powers for their various sockpuppet accounts. But basically, anyone who is legit and who qualifies should be approved for most abilities that admins have access to, in a process like that for gaining the template editor bit, the account creator bit, and other abilities already unbundled. (Note how strenuously those unbundlings were resisted, for so long, by so many, yet hardly any problems have resulted from them.) Instead of a nearly impossible to pass, all-in-one approval process, have simpler per-bit processes, and make these abilities removable on a probationary basis, and on a permanent one after multiple transgressions.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Now now SMcCandlish, why are you talking constructive sense? This page is for facilitating the protection and enhancement of existing admin privileges, and for the eternal preservation of Wikipedia's own special heritage group, the appointed for life legacy admins. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Heh. Live clean, and outlast them. >;-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Look at the latest, User:Philg88. He is totally opposite to what you say. He is no social butterfly, and scratches nobody's back. His competence was examined and was shown to be high. He has been in plenty of disagreements. He has been here for ages.

So, why was he overwhelmingly supported? Because of his competence. Because he is concise and doesn't do drama. Because, in disagreements, he doesn't dig his heels in and fight tooth and nail. Because he is reasonable and civil. Because he doesn't fight.

You suggest unbundling and giving tools to someone who was blocked 13 months ago, maybe multiple times, has had topic and interaction bans 7 months ago, and sure, vandalized and had other serious transgressions, but more than 3 years ago?I would never vote for that type of person. I just want someone who is "normal". I stand by the "airline pilot" thing. Maybe we should post at Wikiproject Airplanes or whatever, and ask if any pilot editors want to run.

Anyway, you might be right. But I think this place has tens of thousands of editors who could be good admins and some research instead of speculation is what is needed to find out what is going on. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Note the "most" in "most successful RFAs over the last few years have been of relatively new editors"; I used that for a reason. A lone counter-example doesn't disprove the applicability of a general observation about what is typical, in this or in any other context. Epipelagic beat me to responding to the rest of this with any demurrers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Anna, I doubt that SMcCandlish had in mind such extreme examples as the one you made up. As for the rest, you are confusing what individual admins offer with what the system as a whole offers. There are plenty of good individual admins, yourself and Philg88 and many others. But the way the system is structured as a whole is deeply dysfunctional, "toxic" to use the currently fashionable term. If you examine the history of this talk page you will find it has almost wholly been dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of existing admin privileges, and has been almost wholly indifferent or hostile to reforming the system so it operates in a manner that is fair to editors across the boards. You were appointed yourself Anna as an admin who might give a human face to the admin system. But cosmetic adjustments like this ultimately do nothing to address the underlying injustices of this dilapidated system. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Good point about the extreme example. I was just trying to make a point.

So, as for detoxing the current system, I think we need to listen to non-admins and prospectives and take what they say seriously. Shouldn't some sort of organized research be in order, like opinion polls? I just don't know. I'm terrible at all this. Everybody at Wikipedia is so smart and they all make such good points. I have trouble weighing it all out. I'd better bail out of this one. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This is an area where opinion polls don't work. These polls nearly always just endorse the status quo and nothing changes. Admin wannabes have an obvious COI and tend to be focused on preserving and enhancing the current admin privileges which they want for themselves. The same applies to the incumbent admins, most particularly the huge group of legacy admins appointed before 2009. Another group that turns up in force when such opinion polls are held are the drama board devotees. These users are here to socially network rather than to write serious articles. Some of them want to be important but can't write, and they can be resentful of users that can write. They sometimes have what they see as a moral and politically correct agenda, which like fundamentalists they use as a club for battering content builders. Drama board devotees are committed to drama. They don't want change because the current system is brilliant at maximising drama.

I suspect most dedicated content builders (the ones who are not admins) don't know or maybe don't care that these polls are happening. It takes years to really see just how crazed the admin system is. Their focus is on building the encyclopedia, not what is happening on the drama boards. The ones that do turn up are easily swamped. It is usually simple to show these mechanisms unfolding when one of these polls is held. There is a systematic refusal on the part of the admin corps and their retinues to examine the dysfunctions of the system itself. But until these dysfunctions are properly addressed, good admins will needlessly suffer along with the serious content builders. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, opinion polls don't work because you can't fix a popularity contest by running a popularity contest.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

To be completely fair, part of the problem with unbundling has to do with the legal ramifications of accessing deleted content. There's nothing we can do about that as editors. Beyond that, I can't say that I'm part of any larger group of administrators; my only interest is in improving Wikipedia, and I've been solely focused on articles for about 2 years now. By and by, the problems with RfA mimic those in the real world, and I don't pretend to have any great answers. The best I can say is that any idea that has at least some chance to lead to some improvement, regardless of size, should be jumped at. That's how significant social change occurs in the real world, and following the real world would likely be the most effective way to create a better environment (whatever that may be) here. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Anna Frodesiak:: Have ou eve seen this one: User:Scottywong/Admin scoring tool results?--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Ymblanter. I remember that. I took that test. That list is one-and-a-half years old, but may still be valuable. I see a number of outstanding editors. It is definitely not an exact science, though. I also see a few names near the top that would not pass an RfA in a zillion years. Anyhow, it would be good to see that tool running again. But, reflinks would be good too. Let's get that running first. Maybe throw a bit of that 20 million WMF has in the bank at the problem. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I see we now have this. Yay!!! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

RfA isn't the only thing "dying"; Wikipedia is

The table provided by ϢereSpielChequers is excellent. It is an excellent data visualization tool and certainly does highlight a drought. ϢereSpielChequers notes the possibility that Wikipedia is heading towards "no longer a self governing community". I maintain this is inevitable. Wikipedia growth is slowing. It is inexorable. See Wikipedia:Modelling Wikipedia's growth. The Wikimedia Foundation is well aware of the decline in editorship. Despite their focused effort to change this, they have failed. What the Wikimedia Foundation needs, and to date has failed, to understand is the life cycle of this project. The effects of the decline of Wikipedia will be dramatic and will affect the community of editors in every respect. If the Wikimedia Foundation refuses to consider the evolution of their product, the product will eventually be overwhelmed. The numbers at RfA are simply a symptom of this. Everyone knows that RfA is a broken process. It has been so for a very long time. Nevertheless, it doesn't really matter. No matter what process is used, the decline of administrators is inevitable as a symptom of the decline of Wikipedia. Still, this does not have to be a bad thing...if the Foundation had the capability to understand the lifecycle in which their product exists. Sadly, they do not. We can fret and fret about the state of RfA. No matter how much effort is put into 'fixing' it, or increasing the numbers of administrators confirmed through it, the efforts will be fruitless. The small bump we saw in RfA numbers in 2013 was statistically insignificant, just proof that even a dead cat bounces. Worrying about the decline RfA is akin to wondering why so little water in the Colorado River passes by Yuma, without ever considering what's happening in Utah and Colorado. RfA is part of a far, far larger problem that Wikipedia as a whole is facing. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I wonder whether what is going on is that we are getting past the point where starting new pages becomes less important than improving the pages we already have. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, so if this is so, does WMF have control of Wikipedia? If this is up to the enwp community, can't we fix it? Has this all been discussed at Village pump before? If not, why don't we post with "The Recovery of Wikipedia" "Many say it is dying and will not be a self-governing......what should we do...." etc etc. Good plan? I mean, why discuss it here? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't buy it. What's happening is that the "sexy" phase of WP is over. There are almost no more major, important articles to write, only trivial or obscure ones, and most important ones are already developed and watchlisted enough that there's not a churn of activity around them. WP isn't new and exciting, it's work. We're in the second, more stable and long-haul organizational life cycle phase, and it is characterized by commitment and structure, not excitement and vision. The remaining volunteer "staff" are basically librarians, not investigators. This is natural and 100% predictable. We have a long way to go before we get to the actual decline and reinvent-or-die phases of the project as a whole. We're pretty alread at the terminal phase of RfA, however.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  00:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Category for currently open RfAs

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

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

Can anyone thing of any negative side effects of this? Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 16:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

{{RfA tally}} is also used in RfA pages that have been created, but aren't live yet. Are you looking to get a ping when an RfA page is first created, or when it goes live? If it's the former, then I don't see the harm in adding a category to the template. If the latter, I don't think this works. But can your tool just let you know when a page has been edited? Because live RfA's always correspond to an edit to WP:RFA. That's the only reason I even have WT:RfA on my watchlist; if I could watchlist WP:RfA and not WT:RfA, I would. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

p.s. I can definitely see the value in a calm, wise, helpful person getting pinged when an RfA page is first created, before it goes live. Early intervention and guidance is probably better than a cascade of NOTNOW votes on a newbie's live RfA. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Potential negative side effect: an increase in the frequency of well-meaning users transcluding unfinished RfAs on behalf of the candidate without their consent. –xeno^talk 13:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Faulty dates

The page states "No RfXs since 22:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC).—cyberbot I". The table below indicates that the most recent RfX was closed on 20th September. However the RfA was actually closed on 21st September. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Complain to the bot handler, but I think you'll find he's retired leaving this as not the only code he's left unfinished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.10.28.142 (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh no, Cyber's on "indefinite wikibreak"? That's bad. ansh666 17:32, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the bot is actually factoring in a RFA attempt made on September 24 that was quickly reverted as the link was transcluded but the page did not exist. It's likely counting any attempts made, as opposed to ones that were "closed". Mkdw^talk 15:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)