Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Issues: Difference between revisions

H. Oppose (disagree)

1. This suggests that the number of active editors (broadly construed) has actually remained surprisingly constant over the past decade, and is still far higher than it was in, say, 2004–2006, when RfA was approving hordes of sysops. While it's certainly not a perfect metric, it's enough to convince me that RfA's issues lie elsewhere. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:23, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Extraordinary Writ and the fact that's clear that there's an abundance of qualified candidates; the issue is just that those candidates aren't running. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:33, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. The stats don't bear this out, see Wikipedia:Time Between Edits. Hut 8.5 13:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. If the stats were showing that RFA had dropped from the 2007 peak of 408 new admins back to something like the 2004 crop of 240 new admins then this theory could account for a significant part of the drop. But we had just 17 new admins in 2020, a year when the community was much larger than in 2004. Relative community size can't be a significant factor in the decline. ϢereSpielChequers 08:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. We do need to increase our overall number of editors and/or retain the ones we have now better. But there is additionally a problem with RfA. — Bilorv (talk) 17:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. These are two separate issues. One might even suggest that the difficulty of becoming an admin discourages participation in the site as a whole.
   -- Calidum 18:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. I assume this means "Declining number of RfA candidates reflects a declining editor base". I agree with the replies immediately above. It may be one factor but it is not the whole story. Nurg (talk) 02:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. That's just not what the data shows. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. As pointed out by Extraordinary Writ, active editor numbers have been stable. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. This does not seem to be borne out by the data. I know of more than a few people who would make fine admins, but have indicated they are not interested in filing an RfA. If we could make that process more collaborative and less unpleasant, that might change. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. I moved my comment down here. I agree with exactly what Levivich said, but that's not a problem with the structure of RfA, it's just a systemic problem for Wikipedia in general. If we recruit more new editors, that won't inherently "fix" RfA. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. I'm not sure this is borne out by the data. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. There doesn't seem to be a drop in the number of editors. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
14. Don't think this is the case based on the above stats presented above which disagree with a decline in editors. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 09:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

H. Comments

• The problem is not so much fewer editors, the problem is an increasing number of spammers and POV pushers (including UPE) who have figured out that obscure areas of a top-10 web resource can be edited and the edits would stay under the radar for years.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed that's a real part of the problem, adminship involves scrutiny that bad actors don't want. But how significant could it be? Maybe I'm naïve, but I don't think that spammers and POV warriors are anything close to the large majority of the community that could explain the RFA problem. ϢereSpielChequers 08:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not mean spamers run RfA or intend to run RfA, I mean the admin work has significantly increased because of spammers.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a complex issue and this is a factor too, but how significant? That requires in-depth studies. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't understand point H. Does it mean "Declining number of RfA candidates reflects a declining editor base" or something else? Nurg (talk) 10:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.

I. Support (agree)

1. The standards don't expect candidates to be perfect, but they are far too high and I think that's a large part of the problem. Ideally an experienced non-admin who has done plenty of admin-type work should have an easy time at RfA, at least in a typical case. In practice a lot of such people struggle, I think in particular because of the extremely high content creation standards. Looking at the nominations and answers to the first three questions for the six candidates promoted so far this year four have written multiple GAs, one has written an FL and the remaining candidate has created over 200 articles. Candidates who haven't got that kind of content creation record (e.g. Money emoji) struggle because of it. This kind of standard isn't needed for prospective admins at all. Hut 8.5 13:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Hut 8.5 is correct. The skillset/knowledge required to become an admin does not include the ability to create entire articles or even bring them to GA. It does require enough general editing experience to have a good understanding of sources, NPOV, etc. This includes rewriting articles to remove original research, adding sources and in particular discovering unreliable sources and either replacing them or if there are no reliable sources removing the text. In other words, admin candidates should be able to demonstrate their understanding of our basic policies through their general editing, which doesn't have to involved GAs or creating articles. We aren't appointing admins to demonstrate their writing skills. I can see no reason why the best article writers would automatically be good Admins. Doug Weller talk 13:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Standards have risen. Many very reasonable voters want to see at least some content creation, which I understand -- some of these editors have had interactions with admins who have no experience creating content and felt those admins didn't understand what content creators sometimes have to deal with. And many voters want to see an extremely high level of civility; I'm one of those voters. Those things weren't necessary in 2007. So that part of the statement I agree with. But I'm not sure that means only perfect candidates can pass. —valereee (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Admins shouldn't be expected to be perfect... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 20:19, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Many prospective candidates decline RfA nomination offers until they have a certain length of tenure (~18 months seems to be the arbitrary minimum these days), a certain amount of edits (or worse, a certain ratio of namespace totals), a certain amount of GAs, a certain amount of AfD participation, a certain amount of project-space participation, a certain period of time without any content disputes, a fleshed-out CSD log, and the ultimate cliche is needing to demonstrate a "need for the tools". Only when a prospective candidate has all of these things do they consider maybe throwing their hat into the ring. I think the reality is that we tend to overemphasize trivial issues at RfA. What's more important are things like temperament and overall good judgment (e.g. can we trust the user not to jump into doing controversial actions right away in areas they don't have as much experience?)—in other words, "not a jerk, has a clue" (from User:TonyBallioni/RfA criteria). Mz7 (talk) 23:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Even if the standards haven't risen overall, there's a perception among potential candidates that they have (and that's as good as the same thing). There's significant doubt among most of the people I've talked to, and it's my opinion as well, that candidates who successfully ran based only on anti-vandalism, copyright, or technical experience 3-5 years ago would not pass if they ran the same RfA today. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. They do, which is not a bad thing. The problem is that mud sticks. As time goes by, every active editor makes some mistakes and enemies. So actually after a few years, almost every editor will be less likely to meet our standards, as there'll be some 'dirt' on their record. Rising standards are ok, but it's crucial to treat all editors fairly, and right now, experienced, highly active editors are at a disadvantage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Without getting into whether this is a good thing, or what the standards should be, I think it's indisputable that standards have risen since the early days, though they have arguably stayed the same for a half-dozen years. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:42, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Standards did rise sharply in the early days. In particular after the unbundling of Rollback in early 2008 candidates were no longer able to pass simply on the credentials of being a "good vandalfighter". I'm not convinced that as many !voters today actually spend serious time trawling through a candidates edits, so the real standard today is lower, though there has probably been a small increase in the arbitrary standards such as edit count and tenure. But I'm pretty sure those standards have not risen to the point where an RFA like my sucessful one in 2009 would now fail. What's more of a problem is that people don't want to run until they clearly exceed the tenure requirements and by then in many cases they have moved on to other hobbies instead of getting more involved in this site the way that new admins used to. ϢereSpielChequers 08:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. It is indisputable that standards have risen. However, I don't think that is changeable through reform (standards are not codified, and exist in the minds of the voters), and I don't think that is a bad thing (they have likely risen for good reason as Tpdwkouaa argues). — Goszei (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. I was elected to arbcom with (just) under 10k edits. Here is an example of an RfA with people talking about an admin candidate with 10k edits as insufficient. What? Rising standards aren't in and of themselves a problem, but I do think there is (and has been for a long time) a problem with insufficient social disincentive for exaggerated expectations that push the Overton window even if not widely adopted as stated. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. Yes, there is no set standard, but the community expects near perfection out of potential candidates.
    -- Calidum 18:57, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
14. Yes, and I think this is connected to the lifetime tenure issue. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
15. Per Opabinia - 10k edits is a nonsense. Worm^TT(talk) 15:33, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
16. Admins are expected to be competent in a wide range of situations, even when explicitly stating a specific need. This is counterproductive – even with the rights bundled together the way they currently are. /Julle (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
17. If I was a perfect editor right now (which I'm not) and ran for RFA right now (which I wouldn't) I'd likely get shut down on the basis of "only one GA" and "only 13K edits" and "only been here for a year." But in 2000s RfAs, we regularly elected candidates with <5,000 edits, and no content creation. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
18. I'm not sure anyone could disagree that 2000s RfAs had wildly different standards for applicants. There is some merit to increased standards (back in the early years nobody had significant contribution history for the most part) but it has gone entirely too far today. Different community members have different standards for RfA applicants, some bordering on absurd - why is GA or even FA creation so important? You do not need to be an admin to do GA review, or to create GAs. Admins are not involved in the process. As a community, we should really think about what kind of user contributions we look at to determine if someone can be trusted with the mop. GAs and FAs are just one of very many different and important ways one can contribute to the encyclopedia. Yet, a few GAs are more important than making dozens of new articles, major efforts in copyediting or CCI, or other kinds of contributions, in the eyes of some. There's also an arbitrary focus on high edit count, which is an imperfect measure. Just look at my edit history for a perfect example: I have over 2,000 edits, but a large number are from doing assessments and aren't in article space. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
19. The standards seem unrealistically high so we have fewer editors going through an RfA who are relatively new (less than 3 years of editing). It also can't go without notice that not all experience holds the same value for RfA participants...it is not impossible for an editor who is technically oriented (bots, scripts, templates and such) to pass an RfA but they have much more difficulty than a content creator. Actually, everyone who isn't a big content creator generally has a very rough time. A lack of substantial content creation is a factor that will cause some editors to Oppose, regardless of whether the candidate is otherwise promising. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
20. Yes, it keeps raising and something must be done now, before things gets completely broken. People are on wrong path about "minimum requirements" to be a sysop. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 00:04, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
21. Trivially true. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
22. The required standard is unnecessarily high. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I. Oppose (disagree)

1. Given the contemporary prominence of Wikipedia, and the substantially larger userbase and task backlog, I don't see why higher standards should be viewed negatively. I'm also not convinced that they're objectively high, rather than just comparatively to the early days of the website. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:13, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. RfA doesn't have standards; individual voters have standards. And the fact that pretty much every RfA usually rapidly accrues 50-70 unqualified support votes in the first couple of days shows that most people's standards are low. What really determines whether an RfA will succeed is whether those who subsequently raise concerns (if there are any) are persuasive enough to overcome that mass of near-automatic support. The standards of those people vary too much to comment on; certainly they allow for a lot of 'not perfect' candidates to pass. As long as RfA remains an unstructured vote, it is meaningless to talk about its standards and futile to try and change them. – Joe (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per Joe Roe and others in the "agree" section; I doubt this is that much an issue. I'm far from perfect and got through RfA unopposed, so I doubt any increase in standards post-2010 are, if existent, a bad thing.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Agree with Wolfson, above. Chetsford (talk) 23:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. I disagree with "the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise". Surely the standards have risen from those of the 2003-2006 timeframe. But they stopped rising years ago. I've actually decreased my tenure recommendation from 24 months of being a "very active editor" to 18 months based on recent RFA results. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Quite often potential opposition in an RfA can be predicted and planned for. I've seen candidates keen to try without planning to deal with oppostion they were warned would take place based on their editing habits. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:17, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. My thoughts echo Beeblebrox below. Standards are definitely higher than in the
   no big deal era (that paraphrased message was written in 2003, which is before some active editors today were born), but I thought going through the RfAs that standards did peak years ago and the pendulum's swung back the other way, with (relatively) uncontentious RfAs, with one notable exception. I think some of the candidates this year and last year would have attracted more opposition in different years. Maybe that's because it's become more in vogue to badger opposers and neutrals, or maybe it's because standards have actually fallen slightly. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]

1. There are two types of standards here, and we should be clear what we're talking about. One is the mentality of !voters, i.e. where the threshold between support and oppose lies when a !voter decides how to !vote. This is a cultural issue and is difficult to change. The other is the !vote threshold, which can be adjusted if beneficial. I think we should do a study of the fate of all successful RfA candidates, with support percentage and tenure as input variables and current status as the output variable. The current status could be: still an admin, desysopped not for cause (e.g. inactivity or voluntary resignation), desysopped for cause (e.g. by Arbcom or resigned under a cloud). If there is no significant negative correlation between support percentage and rate of being desysopped for cause, then we can consider lowering the crat chat range to something like 60-70%. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:16, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   King of Hearts, I consider this an excellent proposal. One could also do a variant on the negative, asking: "Is there a correlation between higher unsuccessful vote % and likelihood of successful re-RfA?" If the answer is yes, in my opinion it would further justify lowering the threshold to make candidates who are going to get the mop eventually jump through fewer hoops.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   I threw together a data set of all RfAs from the last RfA reform (2016) until 2020 and also all people who've been desysopped by ArbCom since 2016. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Barkeep49, In this set, is the second sheet (ArbCom) the list of admins who have been de-sysop'd for cause since 2016? and in that case, what does "crat?" in that sheet mean? They were de-crat'd by ArbCom? Does the "2nd or more" column indicate those who were de-sysop'd for cause, and had run 2+ RfAs? Thanks — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Shibbolethink, I think "ArbCom" is indeed all admins desysopped by ArbCom for cause since 2016; "crat" refers to RfAs that went to a crat chat; "2nd or later" means that the RfA in question was not that editor's first. Cheers. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:37, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Extraordinary Writ, thank you! I think you're right. And hence why it makes sense that crat chats are universally at the lower end of the RfA % in both sheets. Helpful.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   EW's explanations are correct. "Advanced" shows if they got CU and/or OS (funct) or were elected to Arbcom (Arb). If boht happened I only noted Arb. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Unfortunately I don't think we have nearly a big enough sample size to do that kind of analysis. Or at least to get one, we'd have to go back years and years to when the project was a different place. But the recent case of an admin who passed RfA at 64% (below the current discretionary range), after a controversial crat chat, and was desysopped in an acrimonious arbitration case just two years later, makes me think that dropping the range any lower than it is now would be more trouble than it's worth. You're going to have a rough time as an admin if over a third of your peers don't think you can be trusted with the mop. – Joe (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. The "you have to have written an FA to pass RfA" thing is a myth, isn't it? RfA votes generally look for a longer editing record than they did a decade ago, sure, but when was the last time one actually failed for lack of high-level content editing? Hut 8.5 cites Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Money emoji, but with all respect to Moneytrees (I didn't vote but think they've done an excellent job), the concern there was that he had created one article and made less than 10k edits, not that he hadn't written multiple GAs and FAs and hundreds of articles, and to be honest that's a fair concern. And in the end he did pass. – Joe (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   "You must have an FA to pass RfA" isn't correct, but "You must have a GA" isn't far off the mark. As I've noted of the 6 successful candidates so far this year 5 had written at least one GA/FA/FL and the other one had created over 200 articles. Of the 17 successful candidates last year 13 (76%) claimed credit for at least one GA/FA/FL and 10 (59%) claimed credit for more than one. Of the four who didn't claim an FA/GA/FL one was Jackmcbarn (an former admin), one was Hammersoft (who was ludicrously overqualified at 70k edits since 2007), one was QEDK (who got several opposes for lack of content creation experience despite having written several articles) and the last one was Money emoji (who did pass, yes, but by an extremely narrow margin after the longest bureaucrat chat in RfA history). It certainly looks like people expect a typical candidate to have improved at least one article to that level and preferably several. There isn't any good reason for these very stringent content creation requirements, there is no admin job which involves writing content and very few which involve judging content at that level. Hut 8.5 08:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   I think Joe is right in that it's a bit of a myth. I did a skim through post-2018 RfAs and, since 2018, the only ones to fail for content creation were WP:Requests for adminship/1997kB and WP:Requests for adminship/Jbhunley. Of the successful candidates, many did not have a single GA/FA but still passed. Sure, they gathered some opposes for it, but between 10-20 opposes is a natural fluctuation at RfA for one reason or another, and on avg doesn't cause the support percent to drop below 90%. I don't think minority opinions at RfA indicate any systemic problem. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   I don't agree with that at all. The vast majority of people who pass have either written at least one GA/FA or can point to some other big example of content creation instead. People who haven't got that either don't run, fail, or pass with difficulty. Of the unsuccessful RfAs in 2020/1 L293D and Vami IV could point to multiple GA/FAs, and Guy Macon's nomination describes him as a "tireless content creator". 1997kB and Steel1943 failed with content being one of the main reasons. That just leaves CASSIOPEIA and Chongkian failing for any other reason, and content creation probably would have come up a lot more if the candidates hadn't made more glaring mistakes. Hut 8.5 13:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   The former two editors did not fail due to content contributions, so I don't see why that's relevant. Steel's outcome wasn't solely due to content creation, per se. Guy might have had content creation, but the opposes were for other reasons.

   "Creating content" (DYKs, expanding stubs, creating start-class articles, etc) is not the same as the "needs GA/FA". All I'm saying is that the evidence doesn't support the idea that lacking a GA/FA causes an RfA to fail. Only two RfAs in the past three years failed for 'content creation' reasons, and those (AFAICS) had minimal content creation, not just lack of GA/FA. Several have passed without GA/FA: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Izno, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/EvergreenFir, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Johnuniq, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enterprisey 2, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/JJMC89, etc. They got a few opposes for "fails my criteria"/"no GA/FA" but nothing substantial (Izno passed with 98%).

   Common wisdom being that GA/FA is required probably explains why most successful candidates happen to have some peer-reviewed content. Trialpears started Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of countries by Human Development Index/archive3 after he said he was going for RfA soon, and shortly before his actual RfA, so the nomination was likely part of 'RfA prep'. That doesn't mean his RfA would've failed had he not started the process to get it to FL. Precedent suggests it would've passed anyway, but perhaps with less support than it did. Ultimately, "some people will oppose over X" does not mean "RfA is unpleasant due to X" or "your RfA will fail due to X". As such, I don't think this is really a problem. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   The first two RfAs are relevant because they show that RfA candidates often have FA/GAs, which in turn suggests that FAs/GAs are seen as a prerequisite for adminship, at least by prospective RfA candidates. People don't file RfAs unless they think they are going to pass. I assume there aren't many examples of failed RfAs where the candidate has recent blocks. That doesn't mean that blocks aren't seen as a problem in an RfA candidate, because people who have been recently blocked know they won't pass and don't apply. Similarly the fact that there aren't that many RfAs which failed for reasons relating to content creation doesn't mean that content creation isn't a problem (although content creation was clearly one of the main problems in the Steel1943 RfA). And yes I absolutely agree that "creating content" doesn't mean GA, FA etc, but there are a fair number of people who want RfA candidates to have that or something similar to qualify as a "content creator". Hut 8.5 14:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   @Hut 8.5, the objection isn't that admin jobs require the ability to write/create content. It's that without having created content, admins may not understand what content creators are faced with. Some content creators feel their interactions with admins who've never had to face the problems content creators face have been affected by that lack of experience. —valereee (talk) 13:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Since we don't have a "neutral/mixed" category if people think a "yes compared to 2015, but roughly stable in last 3 years" is a position with caveat that belongs more in "support" or "oppose"? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:28, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems to me like they fluctuate with time. Before 2007 they were laughably low, and that's what got us a lot of "legacy admins" who have caused a number of problems and been at the center of several arbitration cases. Then standards went up, and up, and up for several years, and seem to me to have relaxed a bit from the peak around 2012-2015. Moving the required percentage to pass also helped.
  talk) 21:54, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• We've been billboarding our high standards for years, what else is new? If the goal was to discourage applicants, well, it's worked. Probably for the best as any qualified applicant running with less than 2,000 edits would be slammed with accusations of sock puppetry since they didn't take long enough to get a clue. wbm1058 (talk) 13:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.

J. Support (agree)

1. I agree that there are too few candidates but this is a result of other issues at RfA rather than being a problem by itself. Candidates aren't running because they don't think they would pass, don't want to go through the process or don't want to be admins. We need to look at those problems instead. Hut 8.5 14:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree with both. I'd like to know why good candidates turn down an offer to nominate. When I approach someone who just says, "Not interested", it feels intrusive to follow up with a question about the reason. I figure if they'd wanted to share that, they would have. But it would be good to have actual data rather than making assumptions. Maybe we could ask such candidates if they'd be willing to fill out an anonymous survey? —valereee (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Part of the problem with RfA right now is that there aren't enough candidates, and a diversity of candidates, to get a good grasp on what the community's standards actually are. Almost all of the recent candidates were successful or unsuccessful by a wide margin. Only 7 RfAs in 2020 and 2021 so far have ended even close to the discretionary range, and that's counting 4 that withdrew early. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Clearly a symptom, rather than the root of the problem, but as an observation I don't think this is in dispute: furthermore, I'd say there are too few willing candidates, rather than a shortage of qualified candidates. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. This is primarily a symptom, but not only such. The issue raised in the question is correct, but I think there's another "fewer candidates ups the review of each". Nosebagbear (talk) 11:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. RfA is one of the funnest parts of Wikipedia, IMO. It's such a shame that they have been reduced to a trickle.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Agree. Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Agree, and I wonder if this isn't a cause and not just a symptom. More thoughts in J. Comments, below. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Yes, and more. Fewer people running for RfA leads to increased drama at each RfA, because so many !voters, peanut gallery members and crypto-Wikipedians are looking for a fight. Fewer RfAs mean that each candidate has to be more confident in order to think they are worth the inherently big deal that an RfA is. This is not the root cause, but it's half of the vicious circle. — Bilorv (talk) 17:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Concur with Valereee. It's very hard to draw conclusions on such a tiny data set. Six successful RfAs this year out of eight total. A single data point in those eight RfAs can get construed as "Well, in almost 13% of RfAs this issue arose.." Ok nobody's going to say that, but the lack of data undermines analysis. An idea for a survey as Valereee suggests; use Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits as a basis for who receives the request, ensuring that the recipients never ran at RfA, and ask questions about why they aren't running, what obstacles they see, etc. That would be quite useful. There's a potential for well north of a hundred respondents, and possibly hundreds. There's a lot of hand-wringing in sections above about this or that being the problem. Nobody really knows. We need data to know. We don't have it. Without, conjecture such as this section above is just conjecture. You might just as well conclude that the lack of administrators candidates is because we're in a solar minimum. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Agree, but I can't think of a solution. Worm^TT(talk) 15:34, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. This is technically correct. I'm not sure it's needed in a consensus statement more than "only admins can view deleted content" would be, but it is correct. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. Yes, but unless we're talking about "not enough new editors" in general (which is a very valid thing to be worried about, but bigger than this thread), there are only too few candidates because the candidates we do have either don't want to go through the process or wouldn't succeed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
14. Yes, RfAs are a bit like walking on hot coal by choice to prove your commitment, but I believe we are now at the juncture where the sample size is just too small to say that the RfA atmosphere is the only reason that candidates don't pass, at this point, what we need is for more candidates to run - this won't change the inherent nature of RfAs but my conjecture (feel free to name it after me) at this point is that even half-decent candidates can make it through with half-decent noms. The only requirement, from my perspective is people who haven't done some stupid stuff in recent history,
    WP:BEANS, really. --qedk (t 愛 c) 20:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
15. Don't know off the top of my head how many candidates there have been this year but I can say that the number is too low. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 19:16, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
16. An objective truth, as even the disagree votes mention. With a small sample size, it's hard to conclude much of anything beyond that the sample size is too small. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:51, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
17. Corrosive RfA atmosphere is one of main reasons why there is few candidates. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 00:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
18. Yes, but this is a symptom, not a problem. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
19. It's fairly obvious that there aren't enough candidates. However I think that we still have enough applicants to draw conclusions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
20. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

J. Oppose (disagree)

1. I'm not disagreeing that there are too few candidates, or the self-evident consequences that it limits the number of new admins and makes for a small sample of candidates. But this is a symptom, not a cause. Even if there were more candidates, you could only learn so much by looking at candidatures (successful and unsuccessful). It's more useful putting the horse before the cart and looking at the reasons why there is a low number of candidates, rather than looking at the consequences of there being a low number. (BTW, I don't know why others who think this is not a cause (only a symptom) are putting their comments in the 'agree' section!) Nurg (talk) 00:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. I don't disagree there are too few candidates. I disagree, however, that "This...makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size." What is the point of going through this exercise if that were true?
   -- Calidum 19:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]

• 1. This is largely a byproduct of other issues, and not really an issue in its own right. Hog Farm _Talk 02:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     This could be read in different ways. One is "there's not enough qualified editors who would make good admins to form a candidate pool"; that really doesn't seem plausible to me. Another is "the fact that candidacies are so rare means there's more of a spotlight on them and less information to go off of when deciding how to reform. @Barkeep49, it might be worth clarifying. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:26, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

     I have intentionally tried to write these broadly so we didn't end up with many permutations. For this statement I think it encompasses the ideas of "We don't know what to fix at rfa because of low numbers ","We need better recruitment methods", "We need better training/mentoring". Perhaps others as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have had over a dozen (two dozen?) qualified candidates decline nominations over the last 2-3 years. This is in comparison to the five I have nominated or conominated, who were (eventually) persuaded to accept, sometimes by someone else. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Does "candidate" here mean a person who runs for RfA, or a person who could run, if only they were willing? Nurg (talk) 10:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It means people who run for RFA. We have lots of editors who would probably pass if they ran. ϢereSpielChequers 12:08, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is true that, as suggested in another section, that today's editing population tends to drift away from Wikipedia before they are both interested in being an administrator and feel confident in making a successful request, then from a supply point of view, we should consider how to get editors to sign up for administrative work while they're still engaged on the site. Giving editors the option to request administrative privileges for a limited period of time (after which they would solicit feedback from the community and mutually decide on continuing with another fixed term, or an open-ended granting of privileges) might be helpful. The community might be more willing to let an editor take on administrative chores knowing that they will be able to review the results, and the editor in question might be more willing to try it out for a brief period, before they decide if they want to continue participating on Wikipedia. isaacl (talk) 15:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• At least, in the form of "too few nominations", this could be a part of the problem. Here, I am fully in the realm of speculation, and would be happy to be shut down by those with more experience/evidence. Vanamonde's comment above suggests that they've made something like one nomination per month over the past few years. If only 20% of nominees accept, perhaps we should expect nominators to roughly quintuple their nomination rates? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is a part of the problem, surely it is testable. If each of the 5 admins supporting this above nominated 3 candidates, then a fifteen-candidate tranche would certainly put the question to rest. There are a lot of proposed explanations here but this seems the closest to an actual hypothesis. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:06, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If it were that easy to recruit fifteen candidates, we wouldn't have a problem at all. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If you doubt this and want to test it look for nominators among those who disagree that we have a shortage of candidates. It is a tad perverse to ask those who are aware of a problem to somehow disprove their own position. ϢereSpielChequers 14:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @WereSpielChequers:, Who said I doubted this? Who said "testing" automatically means "testing to dismiss"? Far from being perverse, formulating a hypothesis and testing it is the standard scientific method. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:52, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Testing the proposition that "There are too few candidates" could be done in a couple of ways. People could double check the work that I and others have done to compile Wikipedia:RFA_by_month, which lists both successful RFAs per month, and total candidates per year. Or they could try making the case that we ultimately don't need as many admins. Emailing a bunch of potential candidates and asking them if they'd like to run wouldn't test the too few candidates theory, it would test the hypothesis that one of the reasons why we have too few candidates is that lots of qualified people don't want to run. Running fifteen candidates ignores the discussion as to whether there are too few candidates and why there are too few candidates, including the testimony from various nominators that we have little difficulty finding qualified Wikipedians who would make great candidates, its just that those people mostly don't want to run. It instead tests various theories such as whether the number of questions per RFA is a result of the small number of RFAs per month. ϢereSpielChequers 18:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This isn't a problem with RfA, this is a result of the problems with RfA. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 18:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The number of questions that candidates receive creates substantial extra work for the candidate without benefiting the community as a whole in most cases.

K. Support (agree)

1. It's not the number of questions so much as the number of unhelpful/ridiculous questions. Levivich 07:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. What Levivich said. —valereee (talk) 12:46, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree. I think part of the issue is how many editors end up asking redundant/unhelpful questions, just to ask. Sometimes I think community vetting of questions might be helpful, but that just adds more bureaucracy... Maybe a shorter question period?— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Two dozen questions per RFA is a sympton of the lack of RFAs. Asking questions at RFA is a phase that many potential admins go through and there being few RFAs for such questions. If we were back in the era of a couple of dozen RFAs per month then the number of questions per RFA would fall, even if the average number of RFA questions per month was many times higher. The bigger problem is that few are spending the time to seriously scrutinise the candidodate and ask the sort of diff supported question that makes RFA work. It would be good sometimes to ask questioners why they are asking that specific question of that specific candidate. But again, if there were multiple candidates per week it would become obvious when people ask questions without first spending half an hour looking at the candiate's contributions. ϢereSpielChequers 12:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Agree with Lev. Too many contrived hypotheticals, idiosyncratic quizzes, personal bugbears, and roundabout expressions of disapproval. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. The candidate's body of work is much more meaningful than questions; per User:Valereee/RfA questions as well. Spencer^T•C 22:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Joining the chorus agreeing with Levivich. Many questions can be trivial, off-topic, or absurd. There should be better standards for what questions are considered appropriate. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Absolutely agree. Rhododendrites said it very well. It is off-putting even to many voters. I usually stop reading after five questions.--Darwinek (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Yes, but really only a minor point. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Yes, there are too many questions. Indeed I think that some questioners asks questions only to make themselves look clever. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K. Oppose (disagree)

1. If you want the responsibility of the tools, you should be willing to put in a bit of work to answer some questions. It's not a huge burden. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 02:12, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   I was asked a question at my RfA for which I probably spent 2+ hours researching and composing an answer. Not one of them did I spit out an answer off the top of my head and hit publish. I was lucky in that I got only 13 questions; some recently have gotten 27. I don't think it's accurate to dismiss this as not burdensome. —valereee (talk) 21:06, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. Most recent RfA's that I've seen have at least one or two questions that go unanswered, usually those later in the process. I've never seen anyone take issue with this, so it seems that nominees have sufficient leeway regarding this "extra work". Besides, the answers are typically the most immediate indicator as to the legitimacy of the nominee's case for the mop. /Tpdwkouaa (talk) 04:09, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   @Tpdwkouaa, just six months ago three people commented negatively because the candidate hadn't answered quickly enough a question from an account that turned out to be a sockpuppet. —valereee (talk) 12:58, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3. I think the questions are what you make of them and aren't the problem in and of themselves. I quite enjoyed answering questions in my RFA, felt they offered an opportunity to explain myself and show what I thought. I'd argue bad questions can be answered quickly and aren't that big of a deal. Perhaps a shift in RFA culture where it's acceptable to not answer all questions would be helpful, but it's not the question's themselves that's the issue there, it's the atmosphere. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:18, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. I think back to when it was common to see UAA or copyright quizzes at RfA. Or questions about a candidate's opinion on a particular hot topic policy/guideline question. Those questions were truly over the top. As far as bad questions go, candidates are always free to not answer questions they don't wish to dignify with an answer. However, admins often get plenty of "dumb questions" and how they respond to them can be quite telling. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. I've chatted to various others of the 2018-onwards RfA crowd, and question numbers seem pretty low down the list of issues. For a start, given that we have a de-facto requirement on the candidate not to speak during an RfA, the questions are the only way for them to voice. As such, more questions is good. And with the loss of UAA quizzes and so on, the idiotic questions usually aren't too time-consuming. Beyond that, as a !voter, I have actually picked out helpful knowledge on how they handle them. I oppose both the idea there are too many questions, and that significant limitations on their topics compared to 2020-onwards should be done. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. It's not the number of questions, although that's very high, so much as the nature of the questions. There are people who come to RfA to act like the interviewer in a job interview. Asking a trap question at RfA should be grounds for a topic ban.—S Marshall T/C 16:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. I don't see any problem with a high number of questions. On the contrary, the way that a candidate chooses to respond (or not respond) to "dumb", redundant, or unhelpful questions speaks greatly on their disposition and even-headedness. There should be no banned questions, outside of our regular protections on harassment/trolling/etc. — Goszei (talk) 23:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. I think we've seen actions to address this, including the two question limit and the work Valereee regularly does in challenging questions that shouldn't have been asked. I don't think the question section is where the most critical problem is. A bad question is something you can at least dispute the premise of in your answer (and people can do this without getting opposed for it), whereas a bad oppose is something you absolutely cannot reply to or you'll get hit with 10 immediate opposes for breaking a social convention. — Bilorv (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. I have never seen the number of questions as a problem. They are a place the candidate can actually address issues, without "badgering". An RfA is something that requires some actual attention, just as, say an article review would be. Being able to show where you're competent (or not) by answering questions is just what we need. Worm^TT(talk) 15:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Neither the number nor nature of the questions is a problem. Actual admins will have to respond to loaded questions and the like, not to mention some pretty silly and ill-founded requests. Someone who lacks the temperament to do that even for a brief period lacks the temperament to be an admin, and often a candidate's skillful handling of such a situation can actually reflect very well on them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 00:03, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. I think this situation was improved a lot when the 2 question limit was imposed. Looking at past RfAs, things in the past could get very excessive but the limit has helped. I'll note though that "questions" vary quite a lot from easy questions that encourage a candidate to explain their position on policies to ones that seem designed as "gotcha" questions that focus on a candidate's weaknesses. I don't see a solution to this but RfA participants vary in how much importance they attach to questions and answers. For some participants, a candidate's answers can affect their vote (almost always negatively) but it's clear that other participants don't pay them much attention at all. As an aside, I don't think I've ever seen a candidate who ignored questions pass an RfA so it is important for a candidate to stay on top of them, at least for the first few days of the RfA. Liz ^{Read! Talk!}
12. No, this isn't a problem. Nobody goes to a job interview and is given the job without any interaction with the interviewer, nor with rehearsed answers to softball questions they've gotten in advance. We've gotten a lot better at clerking away truly ridiculous questions, but otherwise, if you don't want to answer questions, you're not suited to be an administrator. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K. Comments

• How do these questions help anyone decide whether a candidate should get the mop? Most are silly: What possible answer to "Why do you think people enjoy editing Wikipedia?" would tip the balance for someone undecided about whether to support or oppose? Some are just pointy/rhetorical: what candidate is going to answer "Would you ever block an admin, when necessary, and would your process for doing so be the same process as blocking a non-admin? If not, what would you do differently?" with, "Oh, no, I'd never block an admin, and if I did, I'd definitely use a different process than with non-admins. I'd try talking to them first. Becuz, you know, I'm one of them." Two recent RfAs had 27 questions. 27! —valereee (talk) 20:50, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Valereee, This to me is a lot like how supreme court justices are confirmed. We ask all these questions that no one would ever sincerely answer anyway, and all it ends up doing is testing the candidate's ability to correctly mirror what we want them to say.— Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with Shibbolethink that such questions are shibboleths (heh); some are intended to be a crude "select-out" with a right answer to test a candidate on "objective" measures. At the very least they're not quite at the level of the infamous recall question.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  rimshot^ⓘ — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 15:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• talk) 01:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  It's like we have this myth of a George Washington-type candidate who is only running because they've been asked to (and to serve) despite not really wanting to. If the candidate actively (and publicly) goes out of their way to advance the process on their own accord (ie participating in the actual discussion), it's a deviation from that illusion.

  To continue the earlier comparison, in American politics is was historically seen as improper for a presidential candidate to actually personally campaign for the office (a tradition started by Washington). People didn't like it when someone actually acted like they wanted the job; the logic was they were supposed to be above petty things like campaigning. It wasn't until

  FDR that a candidate even publicly accepted a nomination for president. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  To be fair, that tradition extends across the Anglosphere; the Speaker of the House of Commons has to be nominally dragged to the chair. I think it might even have Roman roots with Consuls et al.. The idea is that, like adminship, political offices are supposed to be chores/mops, and any positive effects/prestige are the result of grift and/or attract the wrong type of people.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that's the case, and, if it is, that it's a bad thing. I think the tradition is that candidates are discouraged only from directly rebutting opposes, the thinking being that any truly-bad oppose can be dismissed by other !voters and that good/acceptable opposes shouldn't be badgered. Of course, directly thanking supports comes across as needy and slightly pathetic, so I think that means that candidates can still participate in general discussion. If it is the case that candidates shouldn't go out of the question area, I think that's actually a bit of cool purdah that creates a sense of solemnity, so I don't think it needs any reevaluation.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:33, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @XOR'easter: absolutely, in the sense that it was never formally agreed, and just "is the way things are". However, on occasions where candidates have started speaking more, it's almost always gone badly - partly because the Community doesn't like it, but also because it makes already acrimonious areas become outright fireballs. When we get to phase 2, perhaps propose we should have a standardised 4th question that is left blank to start but can be answered at any time - "what question would you like to have been asked? Answer it" Nosebagbear (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @
      talk) 18:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • @XOR'easter: well in a big sense, RfA is not like any other discussion. It's not akin to, say, the proposer of an RfC doing lots of talking. It would be more akin to the proposal doing lots of talking. While ACE is split across lots of individuals, an RfA is functionally unique in being a "let's discuss this editor, generally" - it's not even like the specific example(s) of behaviour within an ANI or ARBCOM thread in that sense. I still make no note as to whether it should be like this, or not, but that it being different to everywhere else is not, fundamentally, an indication of flawed status quo. I do note that whatever the outcomes of Phase 1 and Phase 2, this process can't just change the mindset of the Community by a close. Hence working within it to mitigate the issues in execution, as I mention above. I absolutely do agree that it does add one more component to the difficulty in getting candidates to run in the first place. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • As Nosebagbear states, it's a peculiar custom because RfA and RfB are themselves peculiar. They're the only discussions where we judge people, not articles or proposals (ArbCom elections are more straight votes, and not discussions in the same way). Think of it like American Idol; it's unseemly for the contestant to talk back to Simon Cowell/Louie/Paula Abdul/etc., and it is likewise unseemly for the candidate to "talk back" to !voters outside of questionspace. I do find that the "what question would you like to be/have been asked" question might alleviate some stress, so long as it's strictly optional. RfA is indeed supposed to be a bit stressful/solemn as a WikiRiteOfPassage, even if as the discussions show it's too much.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • This might point to a fundamental issue. I've seen too many bad processes justified on "rite of passage" grounds to trust the idea. It's hard for me, personally, to find the wisdom of thinking about a process as a "rite of passage" when the point is to decide whether or not someone is suitable for a volunteer position. It's basically like saying, "We need a hazing ritual before we will contemplate trusting you." And if that's the mindset "the Community" is generally locked into, then RfA will never change, and the applicant pool will stay small, as people who could do the work smell the hazing ritual and stay the hell away.
          talk) 20:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• I disagree with the premise that candidates are expected to only respond to questions. Generally speaking, I believe the community wants to see that the candidate is receptive to feedback, and willing to explain their actions and reasoning without becoming overly defensive. It's commonplace for admins to need to respond to upset editors in a way that affirms their commitment to collaboration and to correcting missteps as needed. Candidates need to be able to do the same during a request for administrative privileges, and figure out the best way to respond to feedback positively. isaacl (talk) 02:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The kind of editors who participate in RfA are ill-suited for the task.

L. Support (agree)

1. The kind of people who participate in Wikipedia are ill-suited for the task. I would know, I'm one of them. :-) I would say this: it's important that we honestly assess our own limitations when it comes to vetting editors for adminship, and try to create a system that compensates for those limitations. Levivich 07:27, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. As a non-admin, I do not have the full picture of what admins do, and therefore do not have a full idea of who should be an admin. The selection of admins should not be an open community process. Instead, it should be given to a trusted group of editors who have experience as admins and have to go through community scrutiny, such as
   WP:ARBCOM members. Z1720 (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. RfA is a thunderdome, and none of the arguing helps anyone. Least of all the candidate that has to watch all of the arguing around and about them in silence. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

L. Oppose (disagree)

1. This is a somewhat odd topic to me. I mean, writing an encyclopedia is a task to which the vast majority of us, bluntly, would be considered ill-suited. Thus too, admin review. Admins receiving Community review is fundamental, so the question should be less "RfA (!)voters are good/bad" and more "Are they a good cross-section of the community". I mean, I'd be fine with some level of protection, but I also don't think that more than a few % in any given RfA are genuinely problematic reviewers. That does mean, that in some of the problematic cases, editors I'd (and I believe, we'd) consider reasonable participators are being dragged into the morass. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per Nosebagbear. You go to RfA with the !voters you have, not the ones you want.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. I think a pretty broad section of the community participates in RfA !voting. Occasionally there can be issues with bad opposes from editors who have had some disagreement with the candidate, but that's a somewhat separate issue. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Strong oppose. I can't imagine who would be better suited to conducting this process than a broad spectrum of active editors, including both admins and non-admins. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. No, I don't think that's the problem. Worm^TT(talk) 10:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. While I think that more voters should participate in the process, I don't think there's an inherent problem with the people who participate now. I also agree with the comments of Nosebagbear. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:55, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Many RfAs receive over a hundred participants. That's a pretty reasonable cross section of the community, and many are experienced at reviewing candidates. Regardless, we must have the community's approval for those who will be admins in it; no admin would be legitimate absent that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:59, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. The sort of editor who participates at RfA is the sort of editor who is interested in community governance, frankly a boring and pretty niche backroom topic that has no visible impact whatsoever on the vast majority of Wikipedia users. What would be better, a mix of editors somehow forced to participate who don't know the policies and also don't care? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:09, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Everyone who wants to !vote should be allowed to. (Otherwise what's next? Request for Votership?) Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:20, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

L. Comments

• I think this problem is at least partially caused by advertising on watchlists. It's not that I don't find it a handy notification myself, but over the course of a week I'd see an announcement at Centralized Discussions. The downsides seem greater than the upsides. —valereee (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've seen this be raised as a potential problem elsewhere, but I don't agree personally. At the end of the day, RfA (as it currently exists) is an election about 'community' trust. This means it cannot be dominated or gatekeeped by a clique of RfA regulars, even if that would lead to better results (however that could be measured). Still, IIRC I read that watchlist advertising only began a few years ago, but RfA's output has been more or less the same since 2012, and people have been complaining about RfA since 2006 and maybe even earlier. So I don't think wider advertisement is a cause of problems, since they already existed before. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, we tried not advertising RfA widely, and it didn't work. Wikipedia:2015_administrator_election_reform/Phase_I/RfC#D:_More_participants AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this question about the people who comment in RfAs, or run in them, or both? — Bilorv (talk) 17:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I find this an odd question to answer because I don't think you can generalize about who participates in an RfA. There are the regulars who you see at every RfA but the majority of people voting in an RfA are editors I've never encountered in my 8 years of regularly editing the project. I'm not sure that there is a "type". I do think it's important that there is a minimum level of experience that is needed to vote...I can't recall what it is but I think it is a pretty low bar. It's not unheard of for outside forums to publicize RfAs so I think it's important that brand new accounts & IP accounts are not eligible to participate. I don't think I'm paranoid as there have been attempts to sabotage RfAs in the past and that should be discouraged. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that mud sticks. It is much harder for a veteran contributor to become an admin, compared to a fresh editor with one or two years of history, since usually the latter has a much more pristine record than the former.

M. Support (agree)

1. It's not biased in the RfA you see on the page, but in the declined RfAs that never come into existence. Longer-term editors are more likely to decline RfA when approached because they have several times the number of embarrassing moments that could get dragged up in RfA. (At least, I can only extrapolate this from people who are open about not wanting to run and why, as I'm of course not privvy to private conversations that don't involve me.) This relates to what I said under F about scrutiny being random and disproportionate. It's not really so simple as bias against longer-term editors and towards shorter-term ones, but bias against some types of longer-term editors that don't exist towards newer ones. — Bilorv (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Largely per above.
   -- Calidum 18:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. I think Bilorv is correct - it could be argued either way in terms of those who progress to being candidates in the last 4/5 years, but it's definitely holding back multiple good candidates on this basis. In some of those cases I think that concern is not warranted, in others, it may be - and that's just the ones I'm aware of! Nosebagbear (talk) 21:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Such is survivorship bias, unfortunately.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:53, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. The community as a whole, and specifically the people who routinely vote in RfA, should be more willing to forgive users for mistakes they made long ago. There's a reason statutes of limitations exist in the off-wiki world, perhaps we need something similar on-wiki as well? Forgive the imperfect metaphor, but when a university looks at an applicant's high school transcript, they tend to put more weight on their more recent years (junior and what they have for senior) as opposed to sophomore and especially freshman - but in RfA, it feels like a mistake you made in grade school will be viewed as little different than one you made two weeks before you applied for college. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:01, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. I agree that RfA is biased against a large contingent of well qualified long-term editors whose greatest trespass was editing with courage, conviction, and clue.--
   John Cline (talk) 02:38, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]

1. Long term editors only have a problem at RFA if they have a longterm problem that hasn't been addressed. There is a myth that people go back and dredge up ancient grievances, but in the rare occasion where people do it does not get traction in the oppose section unless they can demonstrate that it is still a current concern. That might be true of character issues, it won't be of skill issues. ϢereSpielChequers 12:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Per WSC, I think opposes based on issues from multiple years ago won't sink an RFA unless the issue is, as they say, "still a current concern" Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Disagree, it is much harder for a new editor to pass an RfA. True, a longtime editor can have more baggage but they also have the benefit of observing and participating in lots of RfAs and have more realistic expectations of the process than a less experienced editor. Do we really have a big problem with editors who've been active for 10 or 15 years being afraid of putting themselves through an RfA? I would think they were interested, they would have tried it during their first 5 years of editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. I haven't noticed this as a problem. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:51, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. No. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

M. Comments

• Potentially, but I would like to see the data. Specifically, months of active editing per admin before successfully passing an RfA. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a terrible estimator, a detailed analysis of months of active editing as PR says would be much more useful, but FWIW unless I'm making some silly error: 2020-2021 successful candidates on average made their first edit in 2013. Unsuccessful candidates (removing 3 SNOWish candidates) on average made their first edit in 2012. —valereee (talk) 12:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I don’t think the issue is sinking a RFA, but having to go through the process of having those edits brought up. It doesn’t help that there is no real way to defend yourself in a RFA, without sinking it for badgering (maybe there needs to be an accepted way for candidates to respond to !votes like a dedicated section). Aircorn (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• This is one truth that won't bear out by analysis of past RfAs. The reason is that these long-term editors, who know of this "bias", would never put themselves through RfA for the hell that they know it would be.--
  John Cline (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

1. Over the years I have come to realise this is the cause of two of RFAs biggest problems. Much of the rancour within RFAs is over what the criteria should be rather than whether the candidate meets the criteria, and much of the difficulty in recruiting people to run is that they aren't sure if they meet the unwritten criteria (hence the few who run usually run a year or more after they could have passed). Some of the criteria could be agreed by consensus, and that would detoxify RFA and focus it on the bits where we do want to maintain judgement. ϢereSpielChequers 12:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. The unwritten evolution of criteria is one of the difficulties of RfA. Do candidates need FAs/edit summaries/copyright experience? If different criteria go in and out fashion, it should be possible to agree on these by consensus. Some of the most important criteria (good judgment) may prove harder to evaluate than others (editcount, experience in admin related areas). —Kusma (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree lack of consensus on what qualifies someone to be an admin is a problem. We have
   WP:ITNCRIT and many others but no WP:RFACRIT. (Also, lifetime appointments make some editors criteria very strict, but that's another question.) We would benefit if we were all judging candidates against some standard criteria rather than everyone coming up with their own. Levivich 13:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Yes, but like some others, I don't think it's an area where there's much to be done. We could create clearer criteria, but because so many people approach RfA with their own ideas of "what an admin must be," there wouldn't be consensus for anything beyond broad guidelines that admit personal judgment in some form anyway. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Actually, I think there might be something in this. We don't have "set criteria" and I think that the whole process could work a lot better if there was. In my head, the top question is "Is this person suitable for adminship?". I'd be really interested in an RfC on "community criteria" for what qualifies people to positively answer that question. We have a lot of "personal criteria" essays all over the place, which could be the basis for the RfC. It would give people a starting point in discussions, and could help bureaucrats discount votes that go way outside community norms. Equally, it need not take away from the general issues people may have. Worm^TT(talk) 10:45, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. I agree with the issue as stated. With that said, I do not think it is reasonable or possible to force editors to follow an objective criteria, because if we do so, why even have a process at all as opposed to just granting sysop to anyone who asks and meets the criteria? I would like to see some guidelines, with the caveat that while they represent a community consensus, they are not binding. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:04, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Absolutely yes. The only official criteria is "can pass RfA", but each person's RfA ends up having different criteria depending on who shows up. That's a problem for RfA but it's a bigger problem for desysopping, because if we haven't agreed on standard criteria for adminship then we have no reference point for when an admin has fallen short of those standards, and this also has follow-on effects for the RfA scrutiny question on this page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:27, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Yes this. Stifle (talk) 12:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N. Oppose (disagree)

1. I don't think this is so much a problem as others are making out.
   RFPERM or even much beyond the current "formal" criteria; this is especially true if RfA remains a discussion and doesn't become more a formal vote as was proposed and defeated back in 2019. It's best to just get a feel for the place and a good nom.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:04, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]
2. I don't believe having a set criteria would alleviate the issues with the RfA process. The tools and responsibilities a sysop has are many and varied, so the set of criterias would be either too broad to cover all the aspects, or not broad enough. Even for other more straigthfoward permissions (or processes, such as GAN), the criterias are sometimes the absolute minimum an editor or article should meet, and they still need to be vetoed by an acting administrator or editor in good standing, who has to comb through their contributions or history to see if there are any pending issues to be solved. Isabelle ^🔔 16:52, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. While i think some people have truly insane personal criteria, codifying standard criteria is a terrible idea. I wouldn't mind seeing "spam every RFA with the exact same question in an effort to make it de facto standard question" banned, (i.e. the recall questions that have caused much drama for no real return) but that'd probably be a tough thing to get consensus for.
   talk) 21:59, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. Each editor is free, and should be free, to make up their own requirements for adminship. Whether voters are working off a detailed and specific checklist (even if that checklist is insane), or just feel good about a particular candidate, is not relevant in a democratic system. Furthermore, we should have a secret ballot to avoid dog-pilling on editors who oppose for reasons that other editors disagree with, which contributes to the toxic atmosphere at RfA and discourages opposes. — Goszei (talk) 23:15, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. If the purpose of RfA is to determine whether the community trusts a candidate, it's necessary to give the community a pretty wide berth in expressing its views. Unless editors are using completely unreasonable criteria (in which case the crats will quite appropriately give their !votes little weight), they should be allowed to explain frankly why they don't trust a given candidate, even if their reasoning seems unpersuasive to the majority. Taking away that right would likely result in contrived reasons to oppose, and regardless wouldn't improve the RfA atmosphere: the most controversial RfAs don't involve disputes about the criteria themselves, but instead disputes about whether the editor meets various uncontroversial criteria (e.g. civility). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. I'm mixed on this, there is no agreed upon criteria but I'm not sure if that is a big problem. Candidates vary, greatly, in their editing background. I think that is a benefit as we have admins with different talents. I know when I have a technical problem, there are admins I can go to for help. I wouldn't expect them to be writing Featured Articles. If there were accepted criteria, they would have to be so general and unspecific as to not be particularly useful. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. It's okay for !voters to have different criteria. (Bureaucrats should filter out the truly irrational !votes anyway.) Moreover, it would be impossible for the RfA crowd to hammer out a set of criteria that would have consensus approval. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

N. Comments

• In the 2015 review of the requests for administrative privileges process, I made a proposal to focus the discussion on the candidate's pros and cons, and to establish the relative importance between them. In a comment I wrote: Regarding implementation concerns: from the participants' perspective, basically the same discussion would take place as today, but with less repetition, since the threads would be organized by topic, and not in response to votes. The bureaucrats would have to organize their closure process a little differently, but one advantage is that the community's consensus view on the relative weights for a candidate's characteristics is largely reusable from one RfA to another. Thus once a few RfAs were completed, there would be a good baseline, and discussion would be expedited. In essence this would establish a common view on what characteristics the community wishes to see its administrators. I think many people think of numeric cutoffs when the idea of criteria is raised, but they can be more qualitative as well, guiding those with the desired behaviours towards signing up to do chores for the community. isaacl (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I shortened the title of this section from "N. Unlike other userrights RFA does not have an agreed criteria and the lack of this is a major part of the problem" — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

O. Support (agree)

1. Once an active editor has those extra buttons they are likely to use them, and that's especially true for active content creators who can then be asked to do things such as assess newish editors for rights such as autopatrolled ϢereSpielChequers 12:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Agree. I know the argument about security, but we've got hundreds of inactive admins out there with the rights; they certainly have no need for the tools, so that argument feels like an excuse to me. If we're worried about security, let's fix the security issue. Require 2FA for any candidate who can't "demonstrate a need for the tools" or whatever lessens that issue. I never thought I'd be doing half the admin stuff I do, but I started to see places I could help. Adminship for every trusted, experienced, clueful, and unfailingly civil user! —valereee (talk) 13:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. People who need the tools (you only truly need the tools if you want to do things that you can't convince other people to do) should not be admins. Wikipedia needs people willing to use the tools to help. —Kusma (talk) 13:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. No one needs the tools. It's the other way around: the community needs editors with the tools (admins). AGFing, when people talk about "needs the tools," they're using the wrong words, and what they mean is something else, like "likely to actually use the tools" or "competent with the tools." If we had a standard rfa criteria, "need" should not be part of it. Levivich 13:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. I think this might be one of the main bottlenecks of the others are correct. I could see changing Q1 in some way to make it less onerous on someone.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Nobody "needs" the tools, some people use them for this and that, some more than others. So what? This should never be an objection. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:28, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Most certainly. It might be true that a "need for the tools" is not a common reason for RFAs to fail, but I know from experience it's a common reason for otherwise suitable candidates to be overlooked and/or decline nominations. There are many aspects of admin work that do not require technical expertise, but where content experience is exceptionally helpful: dispute resolution in particular, but also main-page work, etc. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. I've always thought the main consideration for adminship should be whether the editor can be trusted not to misuse the tools, and that most other criteria, questions etc should be aimed at elucidating whether the nominee can be trusted. If "need for the tools" is a significant de facto consideration, it should be mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators, but it's not. Nurg (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. I don't think it's a good reason to oppose. But, if we take a stand against such rationales, it will just be a game of Whac-A-Mole. Over time, there's always been in-vogue reasons to oppose RfA. This is one of them. The core issue from my perspective for an RfA candidate is one of trust. Do we trust the candidate will use the tools appropriately when they use them? If they're not certain about how to use a tool in a given situation, will they seek assistance? If the answer to those questions is 'yes', the need for the tools is superfluous. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Supporting that it's not a good reason for opposing, but I figure "no need for the tools" just omits the implied "and I have reservations about granting them to this person" so don't think there's much to be done beyond acknowledging it's a bad reason for opposing. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:04, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. per above comments on "set criteria" - this would be the sort of thing I'd like to see the community agree / disagree is a valid concern. Worm^TT(talk) 10:46, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. Per Valereee. I believe there is a large group of trusted content creators who would use admin rights only occasionally, but who may discover they enjoy admin work or be willing to help out with more urgent backlogs once in a while. The expectation to use admin tools often may form a barrier for potential candidates to put themselves forward; it is for me.
    talk) 16:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
13. "No need for the tools" is a terrible argument in my book. Admins do not necessarily use their tools constantly or even daily. Admin tools are varied, and some admins may never use some of them. Being an admin also means that the community has placed a level of trust in you, which can be an asset in and of itself. And there will always be tasks needing admin attention, I find it incredibly hard to believe that too many admins will mean some of them get bored or never use their tools. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:23, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
14. We don't have a limit to the number of admins we can have, so people who can be trusted with the tools should have them. Even if they only use them occasionally, that's one less thing someone else has to deal with. The question is "Can this editor be trusted with the tools?", not "Will they use them constantly?". Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:53, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
15. There are admins like me who rarely actually use the tools unless a situation arises where using the tools helps solve it. If a user has our trust, give them the tools that let them use their judgement when to use them. As long as they remember to read guidelines constantly and try to follow them when making admin actions, they'll be fine and do good for the project. Jason Quinn (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
16. "Need" is imho not a relevant criterion. One action an experienced editor is able to do themselves instead of having to ask for help is already a net positive for the project. I rather have a thousand admins only doing one admin action a month than one admin having to do a thousand actions. "No need" might not have yet lead to an RFA failing but it probably stopped a number of qualified candidates from running. We should instead encourage them even if they don't see much need for the tools. Regards SoWhy 19:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
17. This is one part of a catch-22 pendulum: users who haven't "built up enough experience in admin areas" have "no need for the tools", but too much experience and you're hat-collecting; either way there will be at least one voter who thinks this makes a candidate unsuitable. These are silly criteria anyway - nobody has experience with the tools before they pass RfA. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Lots of people have experience with the tools before they pass RfA, but the experience usually comes from other wikis (where the tools are the same but the rules and social expectations are quite different). —Kusma (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

18. Yes. One reason for new admins, amongst many, is to ensure existing admins can be relieved. Stifle (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
19. No individual person "needs" the tools. The statement seems to be shorthand for "The applicant is unlikely to use the tools". Yet given that Question 1 explicitly asks "What administrative work do you intend to take part in?", it is odd that a !voter might think that an applicant won't use the tools. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:03, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
20. Now, more than ever, we need more administrators. After being stable for three years, our number of active administrators is quickly dropping. Having a "need for the tools" is simply this: to help the other administrators with the work. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:34, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

O. Oppose (disagree)

1. I don't think the data actually supports the idea that "need for the tools" is a reason why RfAs fail. Many RfAs that pass are from editors with a scant or dubious "need for tools", or where their subsequent use of tools did not correspond with their Q1 answer (or their pre-RfA behaviour, for that matter). Happy to elaborate with more systematic evidence if anyone wants (I was trying not to clog up the discussion too much, if it's not of interest to anyone). More generally, I think a lot of "RfA conventional wisdom" is poorly supported by the data. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think the underlying concept here is sound, however, "we can find work" for admins presupposes they can be assigned duties like the day shift at Best Buy. Chetsford (talk) 23:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   No, obviously not assigned duties, but involved in areas with backlogs would be able to request help. I'm sure I'm not the only admin whose admin actions are often in areas I had not thought I would get involved in in my RFA in 2009. ϢereSpielChequers 13:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3. I don't see the problem with requiring people who plan to become admins to make requests for admin actions (in some form or another) before gaining to ability to do it themselves, and that's all need for the tools really means. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. It's over-used as a canard, but it is a reasonable response to certain answers to RFA Q1 (What administrative work do you intend to take part in?). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. While "no need for the tools" isn't a particularly strong rational for opposing a candidate at RfA, it's not exactly frivolous and I don't think we could (or even should attempt to) disallow its use. In my opinion, a well articulated answer to Q1 is a much better preemptive measure.--
   John Cline (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]

* Agree that it's a stupid reason to fail an RfA, disagree that it's an actual problem in practice per ProcrastinatingReader.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC) (Striking; see "Agree" column)  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:08, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a reason RfAs aren't run. I've looked at candidates who are civil, experienced, clueful content creators but the work they do seldom requires requests for admin help, and decided not to approach them. If anyone who thinks that's them wants to be the test case, email me. —valereee (talk) 16:13, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I have shortened the title of this section from "O. Though "No need for the tools" is a reason why RFA are likely to fail, it is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins to do" — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• "Doesn't show a need for the tools" is an argument that I was sure would come up against me the last time it was suggested I put myself through RfA.
  talk) 20:19, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• On one hand, it's a terrible reason to Oppose a candidate because people change what they focus on. Right now, I'm dealing with expiring drafts and restoring requested ones, an activity that I never did before the pandemic. I need the tools now in a way that I didn't when I first became an admin. However, when I look at Admin Stats I can't help but notice that we have quite a few admins who, over many years, seem to have few logged in admin actions. I know not every administrator action is logged but I have to wonder if some of these folks really have any need for the tools. So, while I think it's a valid question to ask, I also think it's impossible to know today what activity an RfA candidate will be doing in the future and be able to predict who will and who won't "need the tools". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question, out of curiosity, for admins elected during the time that ~"what will you do with the tools?" has been obligatory: how closely has your admin activity tracked with your response to that question? This gets at both the role of "need" and the relative value of the standard questions. That question in particular strikes me as primarily an invitation to identify the area where the candidate wants an extraordinary amount of scrutiny. We do not unbundle, nor hold people to that statement, not frown on admins taking on additional work, so why can't we assume "a little of this; a little of that" by default without falling into "no need?" — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:44, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

P. Support (agree)

1. . As proposer. Z1720 (talk) 14:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. I know it's a perennial but mark me down for supporting the unbundling of delete/viewdeleted (which requires an RFA per WMF legal, I believe), and block/protect (which would not, I believe). I see the logic in bundling block and protect together, but I don't see the logic in bundling delete/viewdeleted with block and protect. Levivich 18:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Right. Some are not controversial, some are. There are people I'd trust with deletion help, but not with blocking (due to temper or whatever, for example). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:29, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. A curveball: I don't think technical unbundling can go any further (you need to see revdelled edits sometimes to make accurate blocks/unblocks), but we could have social unbundlings where you can only use the tools for certain circumstances. It's insane that someone who wants the tools just for copyright, just for CSD/AFD or just for blocking obvious
   involved block of usually productive editors who are edit warring. If you had a rule along the lines of "someone with the tools for X reason is prevented from ever blocking someone who has made at least 100 edits" then they could do 99% of what they want to with the tools, an improvement on 0%, and enforcement of violations would be completely obvious and straightforward (if the crats were willing to desysop). — Bilorv (talk) 17:48, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. Bilorv's words exactly. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Bilorv. I don't see such a strong nexus between between deletion and blocking that they necessarily have to be tied together. This may be a perennial proposal, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider it moving forward.
   -- Calidum 19:59, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]
7. I think Bilorv has a great idea here. I am an admin and don't really get involved in any high-drama areas because I'm not interested in it. I bet there are others like me who could do a great job and don't need mega-scrutiny. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. I specifically would like the "viewdeleted" privilege unbundled from the admin toolkit. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:56, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. There are plenty of people who see the various rights as too interrelated to justify giving someone one tool when they couldn't be trusted with another... but that means those people would be opposing a regular RfA anyway, and there are enough people who are willing to consider granting unbundled rights that this may make a nontrivial difference. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:02, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Indeed, I am actually pretty disappointed by the perception (which is always cited during the ArbCom desysop case, but is also relevant for RfA) that an admin should not have limitation on tools. This is counterproductive.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Agreed that we should consider some more unbundling, though I am somewhat conservative on what permissions might be unbundled. The more we unbundle, the more bureaucracy and red tape and processes we create. There is something to be said for having many tools under the single admin process. With that said, there are certainly some admin tasks that would require much more trust than others, and those that are on the lower end of trust needed should be considered for unbundling. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. The block tool and the delete/undelete/view deleted revisions tool are different and should be evaluated separately. Whether to empower a user to block/unblock is a decision about their temperament and judgment in social issues and matters of user conduct. Whether to empower them to delete/undelete/view deleted revisions is a decision about their editorial judgment in matters of content. The only overlaps are the basic trust threshold and ability to gauge community consensus. I can't follow the objection to unbundling those two, and I can see clear benefits to doing so. What this means is that I feel that bundled adminship should still exist and be the norm but users ought to be able to apply for unbundled VDR (view deleted revisions), unbundled full access to the delete/undelete tool, and unbundled full access to the block tool, separately. Non-admin blockers would not be allowed to unblock where a sysop has indicated that they've blocked because of now-deleted edits, except in the case of a positive community consensus to unblock.
    Addendum: both of these would be RFA-like processes with a community discussion and vote, not ask-a-sysop permissions. DRV regulars are examples of the people who would need VDR only.—S Marshall T/C 08:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. I am a big fan of unbundling tools. The tools that have been unbundled so far have proven the worthwhile workability of this approach. In my opinion, the only ability that should be reserved for admins alone is the ability to add or remove the unbundled tools to users when good cause exists I could be convinced otherwise but I'd definitely support seeing this advanced to phase 2 for further discussion.--
    John Cline (talk) 17:40, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
14. Unbundle. I actually don't fully agree with Bilorv: if block/unblock is unbundled, sure, a user who is a blocker but can't view revdelled edits may not always be able to place a block. On the other hand: this is also true for admins as they can't always place a block without looking at checkuser data. Obvious vandals and NOTHERE can be blocked without any need to check out revdelled edits. But the other side is more interesting: if a user applies for admin-without-block, they won't be scrutinized over whether they wouldn't incorrectly block someone. (and yes, on another project I know both admins who are likely fine with block/unblock but shouldn't have delete and admins who are generally fine with delete but should definitely have block taken away from them) Both blockers and non-block admins arguably need the right to protect pages, but since protect can be undone without much drama or difficulty (unlike a block or deletion) I wouldn't expect that to be much of a problem. The opposition always brings the same argument: "if I can't trust them with one I can't trust them with the other". By that logic every admin should be a superadmin: bureaucrat, checkuser, interface admin, Arbcom member, steward and member of Jimmy's secret book group. If you are right (you're not, but if), unbundling would have zero effect on the outcome of an RfA. No harm, so the only reason not to try is because you think it won't help. And if we never try, it can never be proven to work. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:05, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    The expectation is that unbundling will make it harder to become a full admin, as you need to obtain several of the unbundled permissions one by one, so there is clear harm in trying. —Kusma (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't understand why you say that a potential admin candidate would have to acquire the unbundled tools one by one before becoming an admin? I would certainly oppose any such requirement should it come up in phase 2 (if this unbundling provision achieves consensus to advance). I don't see what would prevent a candidate from RfA whether they had any of the unbundled tools or not. What have I misunderstood regarding your comment above? Best regards.--

    John Cline (talk) 13:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    More and more de fact requirements have been added to RfA over the years, so I expect this one will also be added (people mentioning that they might do some deletions will be asked why they haven't applied for the unbundled version already). Additionally, unbundling reduces pressure on the community to pass enough admins. I think the templateeditor right has made us lose dozens of admin candidates already. —Kusma (talk) 20:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you

    John Cline (talk) 07:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

    ]

15. I doubt it'll work, but I'm not dismissing it out of hand. Stifle (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P. Oppose (disagree)

1. This is a
   perennial proposal throughout the years, but the consensus seems to be that the things that could be unbundled at this point already have.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   I still have to oppose this. While "social" unbundling might work (and I understand has on other wikis), I feel that it requires too much of an honor system from enwiki. Also, "view-deleted" has to be restricted to admins per WMF Legal, if I'm not mistaken my apologies, I misunderstood that comment, but I still feel that

   suppression works fine enough for deleted material unsuited for even admin viewing.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:11, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

2. I disagree for the same reasons I expressed in the #Q. Splitting the admin role section below. Mz7 (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. I have been involved in several, detailed, considerations for carving off narrow further userrights from the admin toolkit, and none have worked. I don't think there's appreciable changes that could be made. Additionally, I believe evidence suggests the opposite - the scale of unbundling has made it harder and harder. Back when you needed the admin toolkit for most tasks it was easy/easier to get it, but now that it's dominated by variants of the "big 3" (deletion, protection, blocking), it's actually harder. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Nosebagbear, correlation does not imply causation. Yes, adminship was easier to obtain in the early days, but not because rights were bundled differently. (I'm not sure what, if any, additional rights a regular admin might have had in the early days anyway?) It was easier because the community was smaller. When everyone knows each other, it's easier to appoint admins. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 20:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Before rollback was unbundled, it was relatively easy for vandal fighters to become admins because giving them single-click access to rollback was seen as beneficial. Now it is much easier to get rollback, but much harder to become an admin. The community of highly active editors wasn't significantly smaller back in 2006, but it was far more open and welcoming. —Kusma (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Kusma, fine, so temporarily re-bundle rollback and see if we get more admins. If it were retroactive (wouldn't recommend that though), I'd lose rollback and still wouldn't apply for admin. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. As I say every single time this comes up, the tools are a kit. They work together to help admins quickly deal with situations. Protection, deletion, and blocking in particular go hand-in hand. Also, if all you can do is block, that's all you will do when protection might be a better option, and vice versa.
   talk) 22:02, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   @

   WP:IADMIN pre-requisite)? Why do you need block/protect/delete to move protected pages following an RM? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   What if, when reviewing any of those discussions, you see an obvious trolling sock account, but all you can do is delete? You can't delete a troll. Any active admin can tell you that random encounters with disrupotive users are at least as common with noticeboard reports and deletion discussions.

   talk) 22:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   @

   Beeblebrox

   : Fair enough, but you could still close the discussion then request an AIV to deal with the troll, or ignore that particular discussion and go onto a different one. It's an extra step but I feel like the same can be said about many currently unbundled perms. What if you're an EFM but some revs of the LTA filter were deleted (due to abuse etc) and now you don't have all the information to tune the filter accurately? Or if you've got a filter at disallow, but can't edit the disallow message because that requires editing the sysop-protected MediaWiki namespace? A template editor who wants to push a change to a TE-protected template which also requires an update to a sysop-protected template, so they gotta make an edit request? NAC-closing a TfD as delete but then having to tag it as G6 for a sysop to do the actual deleting? Or even a non-admin rollbacker who sees a troll and can only keep pressing "revert" until an admin comes along to block.

   The list of such examples is probably quite long, but my point is that it seems this issue is already present (in at least some cases) in any unbundled perm short of sysop. No such editor can deal with all aspects of a problem they may come across, but nevertheless the unbundling is seen as a net productivity improvement in most cases. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:46, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5. This has been repeatedly rejected, and for good reason:
   Maslow's hammer comes to mind, as does the fact that "if you can't trust them to block, you can't trust them to delete" etc. It could also increase the number of "no need for the tools" opposes, since one's need for each right would have to be justified separately. It's possible that there are a few rights (e.g. editing fully-protected pages) that could be unbundled, but that would be unlikely to resolve the problems with RfA, which is why we're here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. Per EW, if I trust someone to block or delete or protect, I also trust them to know when they shouldn’t. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 10:58, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. There are two major tools in the admin toolkit that (in my opinion) cannot be unbundled. 1) Deletion (including undeletion, view deletion etc) - This tool cannot be unbundled without WMF approval, and last I saw they required an RfA-like process to have access to this tool (i.e. significant scrutiny). 2) Blocking (including unblocking, partial blocking etc) - This tool is the reason for the community divide between admins and non-admins - admins can block the non-admins, therefore have a "power" over them. I cannot see a situation where the community will allow this to be unbundled without an RfA-like process.
   Any other tool in the kit (including page protection) I do believe may gain traction in unbundling, but without those two, unbundling becomes a perennial proposal. Worm^TT(talk) 10:52, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   @Worm That Turned: deletion, (without undelete or viewdeleted access - these are what require the rfa-like process) may be unbundled if supported by the community - though most workflows here where one may delete generally presume you can reverse yourself. Examples of this setup include the the "closer" group on ruwiki and the "curator" group on enwikiversity. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:02, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Deletion without undelete or viewdelete? Yes, I suppose that could work. Worm^TT(talk) 15:34, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

8. Nope. You should not have delete without undelete, you should not have block without unblock, you should not have protect without unprotect (it is fundamentally unwiki to not be able to fix your own stupidity). Whoever has block should have protect and vice versa, to avoid use of the wrong tool. Whoever has unblock must have viewdeleted. Perhaps you can give people delete/undelete only, making them ask others for SALTs and blocks of attack page creators, but I just don't see a large number of people who can be trusted with delete/undelete but not with the rest of the tools. "Delete" NACs of CFDs/TFDs that use
   WP:CSD#G6 could be avoided by this, but the complete lack of a CAT:CSD backlog doesn't point towards a need to avoid them. —Kusma (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]
9. When all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail. There certainly might be stuff like rollback and account creation that can successfully be "unbundled", but sometimes protection can be, for example, a better solution than blocking. But someone who only has access to the block tool might be tempted to use that anyway, because that's all that's in their hand. I cannot think of any conceivable circumstance where I would trust an editor with, say, the block tool but not the delete tool. They're trustworthy or they're not, period. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:40, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. What Seraphimblade said. Everything that could be reasonably unbundled has been but the last "big three" (blocking, deleting and protecting) should not and there is no conceivable circumstance in which a candidate could be trusted with either of those but not the others. Regards SoWhy 19:08, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Greetings

    John Cline (talk) 12:14, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    @

    John Cline: That does however not address my comment. The question was, in what realistic scenario is there a candidate which e.g. can be trusted to block but not to delete or protect? Additionally, as has been pointed out, these tools go hand in hand when performing many tasks, e.g. SALTing a page title after deleting the page or blocking an editor and deleting their contributions. The technical ability to add or remove flags can easily be regulated by requiring processes to assign them, just as crats are not allowed to hand out the sysop-bit to just whomever they like. Regards SoWhy 14:58, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    I think I can easily imagine a user (not to provide real examples here) whom I would trust blocking obvious vandals but not blocking experienced users who are on the edge of being incivil or edit-warring. Whereas this can not be technically enforced by unbundling, but can be done by imposing limitations. I also can imagine an administrator who would be doing protections fine, but would make systemic mistakes concerning civility - and, consequently, civility blocks - and this can be a case for giving the protection tool but not the block tool. Though I think limitations would work better - and would actually help RfA, if they are instituted in a formal way. Right now, a candidate can pledge not deleting articles, pass an RfA and start deleting, and therefore users would oppose the candidate if they have any suspicion that deletions might cause trouble.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:21, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ymblanter: Those are not unbundling ideas though but ideas akin to the "adminship lite" proposal that was floated previously. I would also oppose those for different reasons but it has nothing to do strictly speaking with unbundling the tools. Even the hypothetical candidate with a history of making mistakes regarding civility would require the block tool to handle obvious vandals. Regards SoWhy 16:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P. Comments

• I can see both sides in this proposal. I'm mostly active at
  WP:RFP/ACC or in making admin closures, and I can count on one hand the number of accounts I've blocked (four). On the other hand, unbundling increases the overall complexity of Wikipedia as a system which is a larger problem and one we should avoid. Chetsford (talk) 22:55, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I am still trying to work out details for a "no-private-information-admin" role. Right now, "deleterevision" grants both revdel and unrevdel permissions. If we're not going to have a consensus of "if it's not oversightable, it doesn't matter if it's in the revision history" it would be problematic to have a corps of admins without the ability to do their own revdels. Deleting pages, on the other hand, is separable from undeleting; we could create an AFD-closer role with access to delete. Since "closing AFDs" is consistently the least-backlogged admin task, that's not too exciting from my point of view. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 21:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most admins work in one or a few areas. RFA candidates are evaluated for the area of the project where they plan to use the tools (DYK, AfD, copyright, etc.) but are then are given lots of permissions that have little or nothing to do with their area of expertise. The admin toolset should be divided up so that candidates apply for the toolset useful in specific areas, and only for use in that area. This will lower the candidate scrutiny as editors will be evaluating the candidate's experience in a specific area, instead of the whole project.

Q. Support (agree)

1. As proposer. Z1720 (talk) 14:38, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Oppose (disagree)

1. Per my comments on proposal P.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. I disagree. In my view, the abilities to delete, protect, and block are closely interconnected, and they form
   the core of the administrator toolset. If you have one, you often need to have the other two in order to respond effectively to an administrative task. We can and have unbundled other permissions within the admin toolset, but I believe it is very unlikely that these three will ever be separated from one another, and I would caution against excessive energy being spent on ideas along this line. Mz7 (talk) 18:39, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]
3. This is just unbundling again, so see my above oppose.
   talk) 22:03, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]
4. See my response to part P. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. This is unbundling done badly. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. No way. If an editor is not suitable for one area of adminship, they are not suitable for adminship, period. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:21, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. This is a nice idea in theory, but I fear the effect would be to create multiple RfAs. Reforming one is hard enough, imagine reforming 5 or even 10! Admins may also change the areas they work in over time, and making them go through more applications is a pointless burden. As power~enwiki said, this is unbundling done badly. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Absolutely not. This is a wiki, you don't need permission to edit, and similarly you shouldn't need to ask for a bunch of extra permissions every time you wish to admin in a new area. If you're competent enough you'll figure out new things. —Kusma (talk) 11:00, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. One of the things most critical about an admin candidate is trust in their judgment. That would include trusting them to know when they are not sufficiently well-informed about something to use the tools. If we can't trust their judgment they shouldn't have any admin access, and if we can this is a nonissue. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:36, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. No, no, no. When I was a new editor, I spent a lot of time on noticeboards and during my RfA, that activity, which I had viewed positively, came back to bite me, hard. I got the message. Unless one has some technical skills, it's very likely that admins will rotate among a variety of activities. They could become a checkuser. They could work in resolving disputes. They could focus on blocking vandals and obvious sockpuppets. They could volunteer for ArbCom or spend time on arbitration enforcement. But, after a while, it gets old and you move on to other activities. The activities I spend time doing today are different than those I did a year ago, two years ago, and longer ago. An RfA is not a pledge to spend ones time doing any one activity for the rest of ones time on the project and forcing that would just result in more admins leaving admin work. This is a volunteer activity, not a work contract. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:22, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Per oppose on P. and basically all of the above. Regards SoWhy 08:00, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. RfA should remain an all or nothing affair (with regard to the admin toolkit). Anything less needs to come by some other means.--
    John Cline (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
13. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Q. Comments

• This, but not this? I do think this is part of the problem with our overall RfA process, but that it is that the role of sysops has shifted as the editing base has expanded. The ability to make technically breaking changes has always been part of sysop, but the parts dealing with conduct management of other editors have greatly grown as the editing base has become more complex and sizable. While it is still possible for someone to pass RfA if they only satisfy one of these major silos (technical capabilities, volunteer management) candidates have to have a very strong argument for one without the other. This seems to result in candidates needing to be evaluated on both fronts, even if they never intend to work in one of them. — xaosflux ^Talk 14:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree this is one of the problems, but I suspect many admins help at least occasionally in areas they didn't at the time of their RfA think they'd end up working in. —valereee (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• How is this different from P? ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • P is asking if we should have an RFC on creating new permissions that are currently in the admin toolset, similar to how Rollback was created a few years ago. Q is to split up the admin role into specific responsibilities using the RfA application structure, but the discussion would only focus on the candidate's abilities in the place they are applying to. Z1720 (talk) 19:05, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't this the same as P? And more difficult to do in practice. I'd hat this as a duplicate proposal. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:30, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Am I understanding that this is roughly "You get the full toolkit in X area" of the site? I understand how that might work as a "DYK Admin", you can promote, delete, and block in the DYK area - but how could it work as a "Copyright Admin" - that's instantly the full encyclopedia, as long as there's a copyright issue? I'm not really seeing how this could work. Worm^TT(talk) 10:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Potential candidates are deterred by the perceived time commitment to prepare for RfA, justify their request, answer questions and shepherd their request through.

R. Support (agree)

1. I can see this; I was a serious adminabile from, on and off, ~October/November 2019 until I actually passed in October 2020. I think much of the backlog is trying to request a nom who never gets back to them. That said, I don't think the week-long RfA itself can be meaningfully truncated, and this seems more a combination of the various factors above.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes, due to a combination of factors, some of which are individually listed above (e.g. too many questions, justifying "need for the tools", high level of scrutiny). It's not that editors don't have the time, but that there is an opportunity cost for those who like spending most of their WP time editing articles. I have no idea for how many people it is an issue, but it is for some. Nurg (talk) 04:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Agree that it's an issue. My impression is that someone doing an RfA really needs to clear their schedule for an average of at least a couple hours every day during that week. Unfortunately, most Wikipedians have lives outside of Wikipedia that they can't necessarily commit to being available for a whole week like that (jobs, school, family, health issues, other volunteering, etc.). That said, the reason it takes so long is entirely covered by the other discussion items here, so I don't think there's a real exigency for this one. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. I've definitely seen RfAs gather immense opposition because a candidate wasn't available every day during the week when it had nothing to do with their suitability. Like Rhododendrites says, that's just a normal feature of many people's lives. You don't know what's going on in someone's life or career so you can't tell them that "being free for a week isn't that big of a deal". There are people who have to respond to emergencies without warning, or where they're free in chunks but never for seven consecutive days. That someone isn't free for several hours in every day of a week that they can plan in advance is not even remotely close to someone not being active enough (over a much longer period of time) to be useful as an admin.
   Unfortunately, this issue is widely prevalent across Wikipedia, where there is an assumption that people will be active within 24 hours or less at any given moment. With
   gaming edit wars that admins refuse to enforce blocks for, discussions where a day's silence will be taken as opposition and so on, we systemically disadvantage people with more hectic real life commitments from making contributions in many areas, and drive many of them away. I can't name a single editor who just spends a few hours each Sunday improving the encyclopedia, but I can imagine a large number of people would be able (and willing) to sustain such an editing habit but no more. — Bilorv (talk) 19:18, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. Being able to clear my schedule for 2-3 productive hours every day for 7 days in a row just isn't something I could ever guarantee, and I'm probably luckier than average in terms of how much I can shuffle my commitments around.
   talk) 23:32, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. RfA is a major time commitment. Many Wikipedians have jobs, school, or other major time commitments. I don't think anyone's boss would give them a week off because "I want to go through the admin application process on Wikipedia." There should be some way to either reduce the time commitment, or spread it out over a longer period. People with busy off-wiki lives should not be penalized for it when it comes to RfA. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:32, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Per Bilorv. I'm not sure that time commitment for the RfA week is that big a deal in itself - several hours a day is overkill, though it's likely you won't get much other on-wiki business done that week. But there is definitely a lot of systemic bias around availability. For a project whose main task can easily be done in an on-and-off pattern, many aspects of our internal dynamics are dominated by people who not only have a ton of spare time, but have it continuously for months to years, often throughout the day, and implicitly expect similar levels of availability from others. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:13, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Candidates shouldn't be expected to be available around the clock for the entire duration the RFA is open.
   -- Calidum 17:40, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]

1. I just don't think this is likely to be a decisive factor for editors considering whether to run the gauntlet. Even it it were, I doubt we could do anything about it (aside from shortening the seven-day period, which is a non-starter). I agree with JMW above that this likely stems from issues being discussed elsewhere (e.g. too many questions, high level of scrutiny) and from factors that are beyond our control (e.g. delays in finding a nomination). Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:22, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Unless any data to back this up exists, I doubt it. If someone doesn't have the time to be active in their RfA, they are not likely to have time to do any serious work around here anyway. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. I note its in the question header this time, and I think so correctly - while there certainly is some preparation time, and it varies, it wasn't too long for me. But the perceived time may indeed be significant. And what we can do to fix that (both in truth and perception, we should). However, I am in oppose because I'm not sure how many actual candidates we lose for what I might call "avoidable time take-up". Reading the last 30 RfAs before mine was somewhat time-consuming, but also made me more confident. My nom was extremely busy, but I knew that when I asked, so wasn't a surprise. I wouldn't have thought of the normal noms there was normally a huge time issue these days. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. This RfA reform cannot fix every single possible issue with RfA. We should focus energy on the most high-impact and likely-to-gain-consensus issues. While time commitments of RfA may well be an issue, I'm not convinced they're a major one. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. This is not something I see as an urgent issue that needs a new rule to solve it. If we're not proposing a solution this is just noise.
   talk) 16:03, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. I don't see preparing for an RfA to be a burden. After 15+ years, it's a pretty predictable process and the typical problem is candidates who do no preparation at all. The "cost" is not time & energy but the psychological cost of being a focus of scrutiny for seven very long days. For me, it was an eternity. It's a long time to be on the hot seat for an entire community to discuss. If I could make any recommendation, it would be to shorten the RfA period to 3-5 days. Right now, it is a marathon and people quit along the way because it can be exhausting, mentally and emotionally. Nothing much changes in Day 6 and Day 7 so just shorten the period of torture and you'd have fewer people drop out because of how unpleasant things are. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. The time commitment is very reasonable, it's not like we're asking people to put their lives on hold to park in front of their keyboards continuously for a 168-hour marathon. Prospective candidates who are deterred by having to answer questions on their own schedule for one whole week are the ones who should be deterred. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:39, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. I don't think this is a particular problem. Stifle (talk) 12:23, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:23, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

R. Comments

There is a lack of qualified RFA nominators. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S. Support (agree)

1. As originator. According to my research of the RFA process in the last two years, you only have a small handful of really trusted and really experienced RFA nominators. In my opinion, more active RFA nominators means more RFA candidates, and that means more admins. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. In my opinion on J, above, I stated my belief that the low numbers of both nominees and candidates should be seen as a cause, not just a symptom, of the problem. I believe MJL's evidence presented below is powerful proof. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per my comments on R, above.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. I take "qualified nominator" to mean "someone with the experience to know who to ask to run and how to ask them". There don't appear to be many who are able and willing. Where this fact sits in the feedback loops of cause and effect that might be at play here, I don't know.
   talk) 18:05, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]
5. I agree there are too few nominators. I think the data (below) backs that up. I'd like to see more admins nominate candidates. Levivich 16:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S. Oppose (disagree)

1. Ritchie, Tony, Barkeep49, and other regular nominators do the community a tremendous service by seeking out qualified candidates and coaching them from an RfA. However, if they were to stop, I think prospective candidates would not find it difficult to find other competent nominators amongst our ~470 active administrators and hundreds of other well-respected regular editors. – Joe (talk) 09:38, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. No, this is not the case. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. I think Joe Roe is correct - there are others who seek out potential RfA candidates, but those I ask (for example) have almost already been asked by one of the names of the regular group. The limitation is willing candidates, not nominators. Should we get more candidates, or lose some of our nominators, others could easily step into the breach. It's not the limiting factor. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:00, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. The appearance of a lack of nominators is only because of the minimal need due to a lack of RfAs. This is a symptom, not a cause. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:46, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per my comments below ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per my comments below. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:49, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Qualified nominator should not be a thing. We allow self noms for a reason. Worm^TT(talk) 10:58, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. We have some very valuable community members, such as those Joe mentioned, who have done an outstanding job with seeking out and mentoring RfA candidates. There are many things broken with RfA, this is one of the few things that works well currently. Candidates may also self-nominate, which completely avoids this issue. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. I don't think I've ever checked who the nominator is, at RfA. I generally don't bother to read the nomination statement. My method with candidates I don't know is to check a random sample of their contributions and then read the opposes to see if there's anything substantial there.—S Marshall T/C 09:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. Plenty of admins have nominated themselves.
    talk) 16:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    The last successful self-nom was Floquenbeam, two years ago. The last successful self-nom of someone who was not a former admin was JJMC89, Christmas 2018, more than 40 RfAs ago. Recently, it is not "plenty". —Kusma (talk) 21:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

11. In my experience, the folks who nominate editors for an RfA are the people who are there, encouraging them to do it. I'm not sure what other "qualifications" are necessary besides community respect and support for the candidate. I haven't volunteered to nominate anyone because, frankly, I probably discourage more people from going through an RfA than I encourage. It was an unpleasant experience for me, and for my wonderful nominators, and so I do not encourage any editor to undergo an RfA unless they are mentally prepared for it. I found that after considering it, editors I've talked to usually decide against having an RfA.
    I will say that having supportive nominators is what got me through my RfA. They can be an invaluable resource for a candidate, especially one who is not a sure bet. I always look at who is nominating a candidate and it does affect my opinion of the candidate when I see who is there, encouraging them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:38, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. I've seen offers to nominate from many people other than those listed. I think the most frequent nominators just put more time into finding people, while the others would still happily nominate if asked. I mean, are there any admins here who would not nominate a good candidate? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:26, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. I don't see how this is a problem with RfA. Are there a deluge of voters basing their opinions in the number of nominators, or which signature is in the nomination section? Not in my experience. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
14. There are ample numbers of experienced editors who have clue in this area to assess and assist potential candidates Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

S. Comments

• See statistics and interesting facts below (data does not include self-noms):
  • There are six users who have made at least four RFA nominations since 2019: Ritchie333 (18), Barkeep49 (8), Amory (6), TonyBallioni (6), Vanamonde (5), and L235 (4). These represent the Top 6 RFA nominators.
  • 29 of the 40 successful RFAs within the last two years involved a (co-)nomination from one of the Top 6.
  • The success rate for a nomination involving a Top 6 nom was 91% versus 67% if none were involved.
  • Ritchie has twice the amount of successful nominations as Barkeep49 does.
  • There has never been an instance where a candidate with the support of at least 2 of the Top 6 nominators has failed to gain enough support.
• Cheers, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Compelling evidence. I urge you to uncollapse it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:37, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This may be true, but I don't think the reliance on nominators is a good thing. I would love to see some successful self-noms again. —Kusma (talk) 06:12, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speaking as someone on this list, I don't think these data show a dearth of nominators being a serious problem. I began systematically searching for candidates a little while after Ritchie did, to the point where I'd frequently find he'd preempted my offer of a nomination to someone by several months. But if a candidate gets multiple offers, I suspect they're a standout candidate to begin with, often one who has to be frogmarched to RFA. Therefore the correlation between multiple "top 6" conominations and a high passing percentage has more to do with candidate quality than any added value to a nomination.
  Don't get me wrong; I think any extra effort to find candidates by trusted community members is a good thing. But Of the ~25 candidates I've offered to nominate, all but five have declined, and I don't think there's a huge difference in qualifications between those who accepted and those who didn't. I'd rather focus on the reasons why candidates declined; which are, a disinterest in maintenance work, a horror of RFA, and/or a feeling of not being qualified/not needing the tools. I'm obviously not going to ping those folks here, but I will ping @Ritchie333, Barkeep49, TonyBallioni, L235, and Amorymeltzer:; perhaps they'll have more to add. Vanamonde (Talk) 11:41, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've been largely out of commission thanks to COVID parenting, but I'm fairly in agreement with this. A nomination from an experienced and trusted editor vouch for you is obviously valuable, but I think at least half of that is just that someone(s) put in the effort to seek out, find, and otherwise cajole candidates. There are dozens of candidates out there that don't know it or don't care or don't see the value, so if I'd had success as a nominator, it's because I really tried. There is not a dearth of qualified nominators, there is simply a dearth across the board.

  Doing so, I might add, only makes the process harder. We should be running more candidates, such that having a specific nominator is meaningless. A high success rate at RfA means we're not running enough people. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It used to be that people who were willing to nominate would get a trickle of emails from potential RFA nominees many of whom were excellent candidates. As the section above shows, our active nominators now are people who put a lot of effort into finding potential candidates. We may have a shortage of people in that group, and there is a risk that they all look in the same bits of the pedia and miss qualified Wikipedians elsewhere. But I'm pretty sure we have a lot of nominators around who are in my position, willing to nominate good candidates if approached but rarely being asked for a nomination.
  ϢereSpielChequers 12:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The only known thing about RFAs is that they are rather unpredictable. It isn't clear for a given candidate what is on and off the table regarding their edit history. The things that have the potential to sink an RFA can almost never be guessed beforehand. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T. Support (agree)

1. As originator. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes, I raised this issue twice above before reading this. A huge problem. — Bilorv (talk) 17:49, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. I think this is probably right, based upon my perception of the RFA process as discussed in my comment at Issue B above. The unpredictability of RFA is something that itself probably does not have a solution, though I am hopeful its effects can be mitigated by finding a way to improve the perception of the RFA process itself among potential candidates. Tyrol5 ▸ [talk] 21:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. I agree this is an issue, but I'm not sure we can do very much about it, other than telling candidates to expect the unexpected and know if they have any skeletons in their closet. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. True for me. I thought I was going to be quizzed about the difference between a block and a ban, copyright law and username violations and instead I was bombarded with sarcastic talk page comments I made as a new editor. The fact that anyone would take these remarks so seriously as to search out these diffs and present them two years later was something I was completely unprepared for. I know that I had forgotten about them and matured as an editor. And if I had to go through a second RfA today, after 8 years of editing, I have no idea what someone would base their Oppose vote on now. I know some candidates just sail through their RfA but for others of us, it's a wild card. You just don't know what edits from your past someone will base their objection on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T. Oppose (disagree)

1. Expect the unexpected seems like it applies to every area of controversy on Wikipedia. I just don't see how this identifies a clear problem or a path to a possible solution, unless the intention of this issue is to throw our hands up and say "nothing we can do," which I disagree with. (I'm assuming it's not to say that we need clearer rules for what's considered a valid reason to oppose, since that's already covered above.) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:20, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. No. Often issues come up that a nominee should have planned for and come up with a solution. Lack of content? Write some audited content. Participate in some admin-related debate. Come up with a plausible way you'll use the tools. Plan to make up with people you've had disagreements with. This is why having an experienced nominator is important. I've only nominated editors I was confident of that no foreseeable issue would crop up like this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

T. Comments

• I agree that it's a factor, I disagree that we can do anything about it.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:44, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We could decide to evaluate candidates only against a previously agreed set of criteria, not come up with new ones during a running RfA. —Kusma (talk) 15:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We could, but I think that would be stupid per my comments on part N, which this seems otherwise a bit similar to.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:53, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @John M Wolfson: If there were a set of things that were very obviously off-the-table when reviewing candidates, then I think that'd be helpful at least. Like, if people didn't mention things that happen off-wiki while evaluating candidates, as a general rule, that'd improve the tone of RFA at least. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:39, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Such is life. Unless we convert adminship to an automatically granted permission with fixed, open criteria (which we shouldn't due to the abuse/gaming potential), this won't change; as long as humans are involved, there will be mistakes and all kinds of other surprises. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:55, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

U. Support (agree)

1. There are several other possibilities for mechanisms to get new admins (using the verb "get" to keep it vague for now). There's also the possibility of setting up recall/desysop procedures which would only apply to people who received their rights through that alternative mechanism. Perhaps more than all of the rest, this seems like it's worth an experiment at least. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. It's time for alternatives, because the status quo is clearly inadequate. GAB^gab 20:10, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Another idea: Bureaucrats are authorized to appoint a given number of admins, who are then subject to an RFA (details tbd) following a certain probationary period. GAB^gab 14:36, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3. I do agree with pushing for an alternative, as the public opinion of RfA is so low, and has been for so long. A completely new process - which meets the WMF scrutiny requirements and which has community buy in - is like to gain potential good candidates who are refusing to run RfA simply because it is RfA. Worm^TT(talk) 11:03, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. I wasn't sure about agreeing with this point simply because I couldn't see an alternative path to the RfA that would be sufficient for the community, but Rhododendrites' suggestion below is quite interesting, and I'm sure other editors will come up with more, so I feel this is worth pursuing. Isabelle ^🔔 16:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Absent an explicit statement from WMF Legal that the current, highly idiosyncratic RfA system is the only acceptable path, this is an idea we should explore. It's a vague question, and I'm not in love with any of the suggestions offered so far. Our fundamental task here is to build an encyclopedia, and our responsibility is to create the best possible social support system for doing that, not to worship an established practice simply for being established.
   talk) 18:39, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]
6. I agree we should consider this idea. 2001 Wikipedia was a very different place than 2021 Wikipedia is, and if making a bold change might help, I'm all for trying it. I would want any potential RfA replacement to be tested repeatedly before being implemented. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. I agree. --
   John Cline (talk) 01:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]
8. Worth exploring alternatives. Nurg (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Worth thinking about. If we can't reform RfA, add an optional extra process. —Kusma (talk) 11:02, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Strong support now. Adminship isn't a big deal, but RfA is, so adminship shouldn't be connected to RfA. —Kusma (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10. Put everything on the table. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 11:34, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. I've seen multiple workable proposals. —valereee (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. Agree. Other options should be explored. I hope editors are willing to give up the power they have at RFA to decide new admins in order to benefit the project. Z1720 (talk) 20:57, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. Agree. Just because current admins had to endure an RfA doesn't mean that every future administrator should have to run the gauntlet. There must have been proposals, based on merit or achievement and less on the RfA beauty contest, that been put forward. They should be revisited. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
14. Agree. Another thing we can consider is automatically handing out the bit to stewards. MER-C 12:57, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
15. Current RfA is all or nothing. Of course, few resilient candidates will try 2nd or 3rd time, but would be good if we had a alternative method to sysop. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 14:12, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
16. Worth exploring alternatives. Levivich 16:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
17. Not without community scrutiny and consensus, but RfA is not the only way to get there. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:54, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
18. At least in principle...Vanamonde (Talk) 12:42, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
19. Yeah, worth exploring the alternatives. I've sometimes wondered if we could just have an annual election for commissioners who would recruit and appoint, then supervise, support and develop, and if needful dismiss, sysops.—S Marshall T/C 19:09, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    So basically similar to how CU and OS are currently appointed by ArbCom? Regards SoWhy 19:37, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That's approximately what was in my mind, but I'm not sure whether Arbcom actively supervise and develop CU and OS. The details should probably wait for phase 2.—S Marshall T/C 19:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know what you mean by "develop" but ArbCom is responsible for supervising CU and OS as per Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/CheckUser and Oversight. Regards SoWhy 08:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I mean coach, mentor, and encourage reflective practice.—S Marshall T/C 15:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

U. Oppose (disagree)

1. WMF Legal requires that adminiship be granted only after community review, which would essentially "devolve" back into RfA IMO.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   I am neutral on this proposal (as on others because I am trying to facilitate this process) so this is not an endorsement, but I think there is a large gap between an acceptable Community Review for the foundation and the "autogrant RfA based on hardcoded criteria" which is what that thread proposed. So if this idea gets consensus I think there could be ideas which would pass muster with Legal that aren't RfA exactly as we know it today. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:16, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   (edit conflict) what barkeep said. The last time I saw this perspective articulated it was that a "community process" would be required. There are lots of ways we could document mechanisms to produce new admins that would constitute "community process". Just for example, having the elected bureaucrat team be able to appoint X admins which would then be subject to recall if they lose community trust (again, just an example). My sense is they really just want to make sure some judgment/oversight is involved rather than be something that's more automatic or superficially considered. Perhaps @AKeton (WMF): or someone else from WMF Legal could clarify what exactly would be required? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. Even assuming some form of non-full community, but non-criteria, methododology (perhaps as Rhod suggests), I'd oppose this. In many failed and close RfAs, issues are found by individual editors (rather than being directly obvious to a large fraction of the 200+ participants). They can then be considered by the fuller group. Shifting to a far smaller group ups the chances of missed issues. More importantly, I feel that having direct, rather than indirect, community assessment of admins is beneficial and would be very reticent to do away with it. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   You're not wrong, but can we consider something? How many of those deep-dive-diffs that nontrivially shift the balance or momentum of a nomination are really evidence that the person would not have been a good admin. It seems at least worth considering that those cases when nobody sees any problem until one person finds a suspect diff, leading to a bunch of other people jumping ship, may fall into one or more of the "issues" covered by other sections on this page. I say that as someone who has both been swayed by such diffs and who has dug up concerning issues which shifted some opinion in RfAs myself. In the moment, it's hard to justify supporting after seeing some of those, but in hindsight, there are at least some cases when I'm not really so sure I/we did ourselves a service by trying to make the candidacy about those diffs which are sufficiently not part of that person's day-to-day presence to be missed by others. Not sure. I guess what I'm saying is sometimes we may get wrapped up in those unburied diffs, and maybe if people we entrust people to do a careful evaluation of a candidate and they don't find the buried problem, then it's probably not going to result in a terrible admin? Alternatively, scrap the rest of what I'm saying and we can just say "after the bureaucrats announce their appointments, there's a one-week period during which the community can highlight issues the crats might've missed, and it's up to the crats whether any of them are deal-breakers." — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:35, 1 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3. This might fly; however, as someone who has failed at RfA, I've come to respect the process for its usually well-attended and significant community vetting. Even though I thought I would make a really good admin, I can't help but think that the community's drive to disagree with me and to exclude me was the correct decision. For my part, it seems to be far better to have a system that might exclude potentially good admins than to have one that might let too many potentially bad candidates through. With all its present challenges, our system of community vetting at RfA is anything but lenient! I suppose my main concern here would be to have a system where admins are first appointed pending community review, only to have that system evolve into making it extremely difficult for the community to say "no" due to pressure "from above".
   ed. ^put'r there 21:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply
   ]

   The easiest way to prevent bad admins from being appointed is to not appoint any new admins at all, which is pretty close to what we have right now. —Kusma (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   lol, have to admit that ever since my RfA I've had this recurring thought of Jimbo finding me and saying he wanted me to be an admin, so just shut up, take the job and be quiet about it. So I would continue my gnomish ways and not make any sysop waves for a good while. It's a weird thought for me when you consider that my desire to be an admin has always been just a bit outweighed by my desire not to be one. ;>)

   ed. ^put'r there 21:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

   Be kinda like Einstein writing me asking for help with an equation or Harrison Ford calling me up asking if I want to be in one of his films. How wild izzat!

   ed. ^put'r there 14:53, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply

   ]

4. This is a non-starter. The Foundation requires RfA or a process more or less identical to it for granting certain permissions included in the admin toolset. We could discuss unbundling some permissions or rebundling the sensitive permissions in a way that wouldn't require RfA, but we will not get admins in the sense of what an admin is today without RfA. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:50, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Our new process would just need to involve the same level of scrutiny as RfA. Which only says "must involve talking about the candidate" if you look at RfAs from 2004. —Kusma (talk) 07:03, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5. I can't see this as the right solution. Stifle (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. This won't get off the ground Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. So one dangerous, winding, accident-prone mountain road isn't enough, and you want to build another one? No thanks. At least we have lots of experience driving on the road we have. If we build a safer road everyone will abandon the more dangerous road, and there may be a traffic pileup on the new road. We've developed more roads to desysopping (bureaucrats built a new road); I'm not convinced that's a good thing. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Your analogy is not apt. You would rather see people driving on a dangerous road where some end up driving off the cliff, because establishing a safer road might cause everyone to flock to that and cause a traffic buildup? Your analogy implies that a traffic clog is a bigger problem than people flying off a cliff. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Well, consensus seems to be that traffic clogs at requests for admins to perform tasks are a bigger problem than the large volume of editors driving off cliffs (filter out all the proxies and there's still a lot). Look at the top tier of the most active editors and you'll see several who have driven over cliffs. Some have survived albeit with disabilities. – wbm1058 (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]