Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 207

For your information, a request for recall of

He chose to give up the mop. At least he didn't leave Wikipedia altogether. Richwales (talk · contribs) 04:39, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

These stats are very raw and have some error of course and are only based on GiantSnowman's current RFA. Ive done some number crunching (why i spent the time to tally this.....) and found, as of right now, 28/59 supports have ran in an RFA before, 21/32 opposes have ran in an RFA before. Now im not saying this is a trend all the time in every RFA, But ive seen on a few occasions where it seems people have wondered whether running in an RFA influences your voting and discussion behaviour (ie you tend to look for different things). Of course this is only one isolated incidence of statistics. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what those stats show, if anything. Maybe only who is interested in RFA versus who is not. You can usually find a stat to support any notion. A more interesting stat would be how many of opposing editors have been on the receiving end of admin misuse of tools or admin ineffective use of tools or double standards, but then, have fun trying to produce that stat. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

This stat alone took a bit too much time, The amount of time for what you propose...well.... but ya, isolated, this is one RFA event out of 100s of rfas out there is difficult to show much in trends if anything, but its(both actually) still an interesting thought i think to ponder. Ottawa4ever (talk) 13:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

To me, no more interesting than how many people who hang out at FAC have written an FA or people at GAN who have a GA; people congregate in their area of interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The issue at hand is not whether it is mostly admins or former candidates who are involved in the process (that would make sense in the way you describe), but whether admins or former candidates skew toward oppose voting. (Unfortunately, the statistics wouldn't get at why: perhaps admins expect more from admin candidates, but perhaps admins are hazing the newbies and failed candidates are bitter.) --

talk

) 20:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the admn non-admin divide is potentially interesting, if only because we occasionally hear the theory that RFA is broken because the existing admins are keeping their "club" exclusive by making it difficult to join. I looked at one recent RFA and found that the support percentage among admins was slightly higher than among non-admins. I remember that some time ago someone did a more rigorous study and found that admins usually were as supportive as the average !voter, but were slightly more likely to oppose certain high profile controversial candidates. But I'm not surprised at Ottawa4ever's stats as they fit into my experience, which is that most people start participating in RFAs with some uncontentious votes such as per nom supports of "greenzone" candidates and only move on to opposing candidates who have majority support after they have a bit of RFA experience. ϢereSpielChequers 23:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

RfAs are not battlegrounds. The topic of conversation within an RfA should focus on the candidate's statements, responses, and history. Within the RfA, your responses to and conversations with other editors should focus on the RfA candidate, the candidacy, clarifications, and interpretations of policy. If you have specific things to say outside of those topics to another editor, use that editor's talk page to start a dialog there. If you have complaints about things outside of those topics that you'd like to voice to the community at large, find the appropriate policy talk page (including this one), and voice it there. Lastly, whether you are or are not an administrator yourself, your tone, attitude and language in RfAs should reflect the sort of tone, attitude and language you'd like to see in administrators. So, no belittling, no insults, no taunting. Model civility. Kingturtle = (talk) 19:21, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I support that, but the reason I think it won't work is that many see admins not just as janitors, but as constituting a kind of power structure on Wikipedia. IRL, it doesn't seem to work to ask for civility during elections to positions of actual power ... people hear it as "Yes, he's going to destroy civilization as we know it, but you're not allowed to say that", and they don't take it well. I've got a long history of favoring ideas that others thought were crappy, so no one should take this seriously, but ... what if we ask all admins to try to follow these 2 rules? 1. Always choose your words carefully, because others may assume that just being an admin makes your opinion special, and 2. Never use the tools as if you believe that, because it isn't true ... that is, never use the tools in a "political" way on Wikipedia. (There's a current recall request that (just my opinion) is an example what I'm talking about here, where an admin used the tools as a kind of "super-vote", but OTOH, I don't think we should hang any admin for one non-catastrophic offense any more than we hang anybody on Wikipedia for one non-catastrophic offense ... but we can show some tolerance and be firm on the principle at the same time.) I think where people get tripped up on this is, they say that clearly admins are in some sense part of the power structure on Wikipedia, so why should we pretend they aren't? What they're missing is that anyone who has built "reputation" in some sense on Wikipedia becomes one of the influential people ... and that's okay, because reputation is a slippery thing ... you can have a good reputation on one page and not another, with one person and not another, on one day and not another. Tools OTOH are not slippery ... when you block someone, they're blocked. TLDR summary: if we could show that promoting people to adminship does not in general "increase their political power", and get people to believe that, then RFAs might become more civil. - Dank (push to talk) 20:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but if adminship wasn't about "political power" and was, in fact, "no big deal", recalling an admin wouldn't be seen as "hanging" someone. --

Mkativerata (talk

) 20:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

"if we could show that promoting people to adminship does not in general 'increase their political power', and get people to believe that ... " then you'd be a politician, or perhaps a used car salesman, as it's clearly untrue.

Fatuorum

20:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Is it? Succeeding at RFA increases "reputation" in some sense ... but any big vote would do that. Just speaking for myself, I don't care and often don't know who's an admin, I value people's comments based on what they're saying and what I've seen them say before. - Dank (push to talk) 21:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Work with me here, Malleus, because I could easily see us being on the same side on this one. - Dank (push to talk) 21:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't care because you know that you're also armed?

Fatuorum

21:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to my rapier wit, then thanks ... I've never used my admin tools as weapons, and would be quickly trouted if I ever did. - Dank (push to talk) 21:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Once you've been subjected to a 10-second block then you may begin to understand what I'm referring to.

Fatuorum

22:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe we're on the same side on this one; I believe the community should get tough on admins who use the tools to accomplish a purpose that they wouldn't be able to achieve or haven't achieved by dispute resolution. That's using the tools as a "super-vote". - Dank (push to talk) 23:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

There are no signs that I've seen of "the community" getting tough on admins. Quite the reverse in fact, excuses being being made for their all too often poor behaviour.

Fatuorum

01:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the reason people see adminship as such a big deal because of what you have to do to get the sysop flag. At RFA they are inspecting everything you have done, everytime you have hit that save button. If something was "not a big deal" would we go through all that work before letting them do it? I am not saying adminiship is or is not a big deal, I'm just throwing in my 2cents Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 20:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, many editors now see passing RFA as evidence of a high order of political skills. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:33, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I read this as more of a comment on the threaded discussions beneath the votes that stray from being about the candidate to being about the voter (and then about the person who commented on the voter, and back again). However my own opinions may be coloring my reading.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

What Kingturtle said. Not insulting, belittling or taunting people shouldn't be a controversial suggestion. 28bytes (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, have we seen any recent examples of insults, belittling or taunting? I can't recall. We have to be careful not to confuse those three things with genuine, good faith and proper scrutiny. --

Mkativerata (talk

) 21:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've sure seen plenty, aimed both at the candidates and the candidates' critics. No sense hauling out diffs, though; it's probably best just to try to follow Kingturtle's excellent advice for future RfAs. 28bytes (talk) 21:11, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The "excellent advice" is telling everyone how to suck eggs. If there is an actual problem then the offending users should be specifically tapped on the shoulder. --

Mkativerata (talk

) 21:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Some folks who I've thought would be receptive to being tapped on the shoulder, I've tapped. In other cases, shoulder-tapping usually earns one a face-slap, so a general plea towards kindness and respect, as Kingturtle has offered, is probably the best route to go in those cases. 28bytes (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

People who need a tap on the shoulder will always react either with aggression, or with dumbfounded, wide-eyed innocence. The truly amazing thing is that some of the contributors to this very discussion page (some it long since archived, some not) who advocate change, are among the regular, major posers of inappropriate questions and drama mongering on the RfAs. When I put this messy collection of notes together, I spent many hours going through every RfA from 2010, and my aim was to extract a catalogue of inappropriate questions. However, I can honestly say that I came across some of the best examples of incivility, insults, belittling, and taunting, such as one can find on any talk page on any day, and some of it from admins.--Kudpung (talk) 22:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea to assemble questions as you did, summarize them, and ask the community to come up with norms. That's a better approach than asking person X why they asked question Y, which is more likely to provoke a defensive reaction. - Dank (push to talk) 23:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

• Kingturtle - You sum up your little tirade with .."no belittling".. and yet you open it with direct and accusatory statements aimed to the community at large; we are not toddlers (however much some people may act like school children) and I for one do not appreciate your effort to put us, metaphorically, on the naughty spot. If you want to engage in debate about the undeniable lack of courtesy and good faith at RFA kindly do so in a manner that does not show you embracing these very faults at the outset. Pedro :  Chat  23:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I'd actually rather that crats say ... maybe not these exact words, but something like this. In general, I think it makes the community less uptight when we get at least a little insight into which arguments the crats discount and why. I think it's admirable that none of them have gone into any great detail about what they like and what they don't, but I always find the little dribs and drabs of information useful. - Dank (push to talk) 23:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Bureaucrats have no more "authority" than any user of this site to say how people should act - we have policies for that. When one turns up, as Kingturtle has done here, issuing edicts (mostly in the second person personal - "If you have complaints....If you have specific thing to say....") - they (indeed any editor) risks making themselves look foolish (as Kingturtle has done here IMO). We have enough jumped up editors on this site, admins and bureaucrats, whose delusional concept of self-importance is harming Wikipedia far more than vadals, trolls and 4chan. You do not go around telling people what to do in this manner - it's rude, ignorant and disrespectful. Pedro :  Chat  23:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
      • I didn't like the words KT used (and I should have said that). But regardless of how they say it, I do appreciate getting some insight into how RFAs are "scored". - Dank (push to talk) 00:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
        • RfA is a vote, except in rare circumstances, and it would be well for that to be recognised. All the talk about discretionary areas is bollocks. The only decision the bureaucrats make is whether or not the candidate is generally popular.
          Fatuorum
          01:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
          • Of course I see the weight in what you are saying. But, User:Taxman promoted me in 2006 from the discretionary zone at a time when I was, I think, generally unpopular, perhaps rightly so. So, it's either that I was a "rare circumstance" or that things have went downhill since 2006. Or both, perhaps. --John (talk) 04:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Kingturtle 19:21, 20 January 2011. Agree. I think temporary banning of uncivil editors from RFA may help achieve these ideals. Someone should tap the shoulders of the uncivil. Who? Ordinary editors arguing about civility tends to become unproductive. Bureaucrats – no, they are not our keepers. The nominator – no, not unless nominators were not partisan. Perhaps RFA could use elected clerks, clerks who function more as moderators than as apprentice bureaucrats. (Moderator and bureaucrat are incompatible roles – you can’t judge a consensus that you steer).

Dank refers the use of block/unblock as a super-vote. I think he is right, and that this sort of thing is very bad form especially in how it looks to ordinary non-expert wikipedians. However, this can be readily fixed by better codification of use of block/unblock in policy, along the lines of “do not block/unblock without explicit consensus if there is already an active discussion on the matter”.

Adminship is a big deal, for most, in terms of perception and self-perception, and of the psychological hurdle, unlike any other, of putting yourself personally up for examination, and because of the permanence of adminship.

Mkativerata 21:04, 20 January 2011, “insults, belittling or taunting” are not well separated from “genuine, good faith and proper scrutiny” for young, amateur volunteer editors (applies either side). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Joe, I am in no way calling for bans of editors from RfA. I'm suggesting that editors be more civil in RfAs (most already are) and that side conversations take place outside RfAs. But these actions need to come from the efforts of the editors themselves. It's their choice. Also, Mkativerata makes a very important clarification which I should have included. Genuine, good faith and proper scrutiny is essential to the RfA process. Civility does not preclude such scrutiny. Kingturtle = (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC) P.S. Kudpung, you deserve major kudos for that thorough analysis you put together.

Kingturtle, you certainly made no such call, that was entirely me. I guess that I am less optimistic than you that the last of the incivil will cease incivility though being asked nicely. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There have been over 2,500 commentators (still watchers) to this RfA talk page since it started. Theoretically, irrespective of who is talking today, or this week, that should provide a big enough pool of !voters for each RfA. But some introspection is called for. Kudpung (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

(continued - got truncatied) I don't think the idea of a topic ban for incivility and/or irrelevancy should be entirely ruled out as a possibility for cleaning up the process. Admins are at least 'supposed' to lead by example, and civility and intelligence ought to be expected from the rest of the !voters too. The RfA process should be the very Wikipedia model of poise and dignity all round, instead of the battleground it has been allowed to become. Kudpung (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Someone picks a fight on the playground, teacher wades in, asks who started it, and suspends someone from school. Sure, that stops that fight and maybe some future fights. But the teacher saw one event at one time, so really wasn't in a position to decide who was in the wrong, and it takes two to fight anyway. If the student who got suspended felt they were wronged ... and they always do ... then they've got even more reason to fight, they'll just wait til the other kid leaves school to do it. Protonk had a nice analysis of why topic bans are much less helpful than generally believed, I'll go ask him about it. - Dank (push to talk) 13:42, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

It's rarely good for a teacher to knee-jerk suspend someone. It is useful if a much present moderator has some authoritative backup in his pocket in case his moderating advice is spurned. In my school experience, the effectiveness of the teacher negatively correlated with the teacher's application of discipline, but no one doubted the best teachers' ability to apply discipline. Where is Protonk's analysis? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I've asked him to weigh in, I'll let him produce it if he wants to ... he may want to adapt it to this particular question. - Dank (push to talk) 14:09, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Dan has asked me to leave a comment here. I'm not sure I have too much to add beyond the somewhat undirected ramblings I left on my talk page. I should state outright that 6-9 months ago when keepsakecases' (or whatever their username is) actions at RfA brought up the possibility of a topic ban, I supported it. If I were to make the same choice again I probably would not support a topic ban, but you only have my word on that--the record exists otherwise. I am also grudgingly coming to support Malleus' view that RfA ought to be somewhat more adversarial. However I don't think we know how to get there from here. I would love to see RfA become a forum for serious thought about a candidate's ability to wield the mop effectively and fairly, but most of our lunges toward a discussion like that end up being petty and dispiriting. I also--apologies to Malleus--see most of the tough questions at RfA as a means to extract a pound of flesh from some would be admin for debts incurred by admins long since discredited or desysopped. The same seems to be true with this perennial userbox discussion. Should we be able to engage admin candidates about the content of their userpage insofar as it might relate to future conduct? Yes. Have we managed to do so without engaging in internecine warfare and bullshit? Nope. As Dan said on my talk page, I didn't give any clear guidance. There is, as always, the pablum of "trust your judgement", but no real indication that judgement should or shouldn't be influenced by a salient (as it is only the userboxes which stick out that we end up dealing with) userbox. Protonk (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know why you believe that I think RfA should be "more adversarial", as nothing could be further from the truth.

Fatuorum

22:56, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The "extracting a pound of flesh for the debts incurred by admins long since discredited" that you perceive could be dealt with very easily by having a proper desysopping process in place, or perhaps fixed term limits. To the extent that seems vanishingly unlikely then RfA will continue to be what it is.

Fatuorum

22:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not using a negative connotation of "adversarial". I simply mean that you and others want RfA to be a place where opposing views have the same default consideration as supporting views and where a strong discussion can take place between voters as to the merits of the candidates rather than dismissing it as contrary to the somewhat vestigial notion of "no big deal". I hope I don't need to bring out a mess of duffs in support of that claim, but if you insist I will do so. As for the pound of flesh issue, I think you are validating my perception. It is manifestly not the fault of a new admin candidate that we don't have a mandatory recall process, but you want to bring that limitation to bear in a discussion which should at least nominally be about an individual. Whether that is wrong or right is probably an open question, but I don't think it is terribly productive. Protonk (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your legalistic definition of "adversarial", and that is indeed my view, at least until the notion of "no big deal" is either made tangible by some kind of easy-in easy-out process or consigned to the rubbish bin of history. But please stop putting words in my mouth; it is neither my fault nor the candidate's that there is no effective recall process. Therefore anyone putting themself forwards at RfA has to expect that that may well be a factor in their candidacy. The unfairness here isn't to the candidate, it's to that mythical community.

Fatuorum

23:33, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, so for that I'm sorry. But what I am hearing is that a systematic or community problem (no real mandatory recall) creates a system whereby admins are relatively hard to dislodge from their position and so commensurately you argue the process should reflect that incentive. What I'm saying is that the actual work to change RfA in order to meet this expanded threshold might be damaging or unpleasant for individual candidates who have little to no control over the existence of a community norm about recall. Agency matters in this discussion. If someone is treating an individual candidate a certain way because of a perceived incentive issue then that is fine, but the actual treatment should be discussed and not explained away recursively to the community incentive problem. Again I should stress that I am sympathetic to the adversarial stance in theory but implementing it more often than not ends up resulting in people being nasty to one another. Protonk (talk) 00:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggest taking a deep breath, everyone, when commenting here or !voting in an Rfa. I have been urging moderate language here for some time, if intermittently, and so would like to endorse the original post by Kingturtle that starts this thread. Indeed, the post itself is a model example of how to gently admonish with complete civility. Rfa will be a 'hot button' topic for the forseeable future at Wikipedia, so as the saying goes, let's try to chill. Jusdafax 23:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Contributors have a tendency not to read long threads such as this from the very beginning when they chime in, so I'll just repost three of my earlier comments fo their benefit:

• The RfA process should be the very Wikipedia model of poise and dignity all round, instead of the battleground it has been allowed to become.
• The truly amazing thing is that some of the contributors to this very discussion page (some it long since archived, some not) who advocate change, are among the regular, major posers of inappropriate questions and drama mongering on the RfAs.
• (on RfA) I can honestly say that I came across some of the best examples of incivility, insults, belittling, and taunting, such as one can find on any talk page on any day, and some of it from admins

Kudpung (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Section break

I support Kingturtle's comments. Short of the past five months of spending my time on other language wikis and projects, I've read every RfA I've seen since March of 2006 when I supported Tigershark. Levels of vitriol with some candidates can be expected. So can rediculiously worded trick questions and all of the other perennial issues. As often stated, RfA is the worst system we have aside from all other systems.

Now, to my support of Kingturtle's comments. I've had the opportunity to spend a lot of time during the fundraising drive working with "smaller" wikis. I've learned a great deal about the admin selection processes for less sprawling wikis, and fundamentally they have an advantage. However, the English Wikipedia has enormous impact with instruction creep. We often take our habits over to other wikis, such as a trend we're working to quell in the volunteer response team process.

So I suppose my point in support of this bureaucrat's comment is that we need to stop grilling/roasting RfA candidates. Take some time, look through contributions. If you find problematic edits that aren't problematic but concerning, straight up ask them on their talk page. If they are enough for you to oppose, just oppose and don't fish for a bad response. These are simple ways to make RfA a much smoother place. There will be controversy, but after a couple years of expecting 20 "optional" questions to candidates- most of which are irrelevent to block, protect, delete, and AGF- we need to step back and start being a little more welcoming to hands.

Yes, I think we can all agree a request for adminship has become too much of a grilling due to ever rising standards. That has basically been the main topic of discussion here on this page for the past few years. In the mean time, nothing has changed for the better however.--Atlan (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If we all agree on that, why can we not ask editors to back off and enforce our desire for a healthy community and have it heeded with appropriate respect? We've been talking about it for years and I've failed to see an explanation for why we're not doing it. It's up to the community, we have no higher power. Keegan (talk) 05:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Because there's no way to get rid of the bad pennies, simple. Regular editors are routinely blocked for the most trivial of reasons yet administrators have a job for life, no matter how abusive they turn out to be.

Fatuorum

05:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

We haven't talked in a while, so I'll engage :) How abusive have I been? Keegan (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll say it again for the third (or fourth) time: There will be no change as long as some of the contributors to this very discussion page (some it long since archived, some not) who advocate change, are among the regular, major posers of inappropriate questions and drama mongering on the RfAs. Shame I can't list the names. Kudpung (talk) 07:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Instead of listing names, perhaps you could go to their talk pages and share your concerns with them there, person-to-person? I haven't seen any of the RfA questions I've asked appear on your list yet, but if you're considering adding any, I know I'd be much happier discussing your concerns and my rationale for asking them one-on-one than to see them posted on a "wall of shame." 28bytes (talk) 07:28, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

You know I would never commit the indiscretion of posting the names. It's comforting however to know that some introspection is taking place and people are looking to see if they can recognise their questions on my sub page ;) As far taking it up with them on their talk pages, you've gotta be kidding - I already have enemies enough who are going to ask me a bunch of trick and silly questions on my own RfA! Kudpung (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

RfA standards will not change until consensus on the role of admins has been reached. Anecdotally, I would suggest that a healthy majority of people hold the extremely broad view that adminship needs reviewing in some way, but equally that a majority of people believe any review would end in an inconclusive mess, and therefore that it isn't worth doing. So we're stuck with the status quo. As a consequence, this page tends to descend into a discussion over whether supporters' standards are too low because they rightly or wrongly see admin numbers as a problem to be solved, or whether opposers' standards are too high because they rightly or wrongly fear abuse or rubber-stamped incompetence if they let any but the very best through RfA.

As I've been saying for some time, I believe that the answer is to separate who we trust to use the tools within a defined set of parameters (speedy deletions and what have you), and who we deem capable of making difficult judgement calls, such as gauging consensus. But heaven forbid that we do that, or we'll end up with a cries of a hierarchy. As if one doesn't already exist. —WFC— 11:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your first paragraph but I'm not so sure of your second. In my experience RFAs rarely fail over difficult judgement calls, though perhaps they fail over concerns that younger, newer or less active editors would be less likely to have good judgement. But I'm struggling to think of the last RFA that failed because though we'd trust someone to use the delete, block and protect buttons on "routine" matters we as a community don't trust them on the difficult calls. If that was a common oppose reason, and if we could readily identify certain types of difficult calls, then perhaps we could fix RFA by upbundling such calls to the crats. But I'm no longer sure either that such a change is viable or that it would fix RFA's problems. ϢereSpielChequers 12:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Making sensitive judgment calls is the one area where RfA candidates have least previous experience. It's an administrative area in which every sysop has had to learn on the job. Theoretically, the most conscientious newly promoted admins would continue to solicit advice from their peers before making a bad call. My own sketchy analysis of all the 2010 RfA tends to show that many of the oppose !votes are from picky participants who single out one or two misapplied CSD, then yell 'Totally incompetent!' The irony is that every day I come across experienced admins making the same errors, and even worse: breaches of civility. The other main reason to oppose a candidate is for either not answering the trick questions 100% correctly, or providing a neat surprise answer that the questioner did not expect. In both instances, these are again items that even experienced admins get wrong from time to time. Not all RfA candidates intend to get very involved in the controversial areas, and indeed, it's not mandatory - we're all volunteers. Kudpung (talk) 13:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

One of our most recent candidates was someone I would class as being a very good candidate for the janitorial side of adminship, but for want of a better phrase a very poor candidate for AfD, which incidentally he wants to work in. And I think that's quite a common theme. Just because few people explicitly state that they have concerns over judgement doesn't mean to say that it isn't a common concern. —WFC— 15:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Re to Kudping, my experience as an opposer, and one who often focuses on candidate's CSD tags, is that one or two misapplied CSD tags are unlikely to be worth making an issue over, in fact I've been known to support despite finding an isolated error. For an RFA to be derailed due to concerns about CSD tagging there have to be enough recent examples to indicate a problematic pattern. I would hope that in such circumstances people would see my oppose as being focussed on one or more areas where I thought the candidate too heavy handed, as opposed to considering the candidate "'Totally incompetent!'", something I have rarely if ever thought of any Wikimedian, and I hope that even where I've thought it I've managed to hold my tongue.

As for WFC, yes that's a fair point, but I think AFd is one of the areas where it is possible to see how an RFA candidate would make sensitive judgement calls, especially if they participate in AFDs that are close calls. Another is AN/I and I can think of candidates who have come unstuck over involvement there as well. But IMHO CSD, AIV and UAA should rarely involve difficult calls. ϢereSpielChequers 16:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

My point exactly. —WFC— 16:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

If no one runs in the next 7 hours, then we'll have had 3 mops handed out in January, after a total of one in December. If February continues the trend, then I'll hope that most of us will at least be able to agree on a sense of urgency, if nothing else. - Dank (push to talk) 17:16, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Point taken, but "urgency" won't solve things. I think most people accept that something needs to happen, and it would be nice if it were to happen quickly. But history shows that a proposal devised today and made tomorrow will inevitably be sunk the day after. —WFC— 17:51, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone know how fast we're currently losing active admins? - Dank (push to talk) 17:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Ask someone with technical knowledge and toolserver access to cross reference the list of usernames active in the past 30 days with the list of people that have the admin rights. It's apparently easy to generate each list independently, but cross referencing them is harder, and I would think might take time and manual labor. That or your question was rhetorical. Either way, less important than the number of admins running is the question of "is [admin related] shit getting done?" If that answer is no, then we have a problem. If that answer is yes, we have much less of one.

Wha?

18:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Taking a peek at [2], the inactive number seems to be relatively stable over the last month. However, as Sven notes, it doesn't show the whole picture. An admin will be listed as "active" or "semi-active" by making an edit within the past three months, but they might have done nothing administrative. –xeno^talk 18:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that approach overstates the number of truly active admins. I've been active as an editor in the past 30 days, but I long ago ceased to be an "active" admin and have used the tools only very rarely for the past year or more. In fact, I would have given them up long ago if not for the ability to see deleted revisions, which I find very useful. It might be more useful to pull the admin usernames from the block/protection/deletion logs for the last 30 days to get a better idea of how many people are actually doing administrative jobs. MastCell ^Talk 18:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• Generic yawn* —WFC— 18:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sometimes getting worried is the better bet

We had 117 mops handed out in 2009 and 75 in 2010, and every time someone makes a chart, the number of "truly active" admins has been trending downward, so we must be losing faster than we're gaining, so I'll go with a rough estimate of losing 10 active admins per month, compared with 4 new admins in November, 1 in December, and 3 (probably) in January. Up till now, I've supported those who say that there's no actual crisis, and acting like there is a crisis when there isn't one is likely to produce a bad outcome. But it's actually getting a little scary, now. I've heard several reasons "it ain't so", and I don't find them persuasive:

• "At the point where jobs aren't getting done, then I'll worry": that's about one year too late to worry. If we were a for-profit company, we could just hire people when we need them, but we can't tell a volunteer: "Ok, we're short on admins, so we'd like for you to donate a staggering amount of your free time over the next year and learn all the skills while being welcoming and helpful to everyone you meet, and then we'll give you a mop so you can work even harder." This is a volunteer project; all we can do is pull, not push.
• "If we have fewer admins, then non-admins will pick up the slack": I believed this with all my heart, and I've done everything I could to make this happen. I've given out barnstars for admin-related chores and tried to get others to do the same, and I tried to get volunteers interested in sub-admin jobs such as "clerkship". Some volunteers are actually interested; the problem is that the community has some kind of fundamental distrust of, or disinterest in, giving volunteers the kind of recognition and support that would make "sub-admin" jobs attractive.
• "If the jobs aren't getting done, then the Foundation will just have to hire people to do what's needed. They've got plenty of goodwill and money now.": Can't happen. The Foundation has important legal defenses concerning copyright, indecency and defamation violations that depend critically on the fact that their employees are not involved with content (in any serious way).
• "Google, Facebook and others rely on Wikipedia to make them look better, and they've got more money than most countries. They'll never let us go under": Right, that's the problem, they've got all the incentive in the world to change Wikipedia in a way that increases their value and decreases the value of their competitors. If we ever become vulnerable, I have no doubt they'll be there in a heartbeat to "help" us ... help us become more like them and less like Wikipedia. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't enjoy anything vaguely resembling working on "RFA reform", I only get enjoyment out of working on and reviewing articles these days. But at some point ... probably the end of February, unless we get a sharp uptick in new mops ... the risk of losing it all is going to outweigh other factors, at least for me. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't an RfA-specific problem, so I don't think you can fix it by tweaking RfA. The number of active contributors has been declining steadily, so the pool of potential admin candidates is smaller. The supply of people who want to commit their volunteer time to building an online encyclopedia is limited (although we pretend that it's not). We lose good editors all the time, in large part because we treat them as expendable and replaceable.

To get more RfA candidates and more admins, you need to start at the bottom, with this project's dysfunctional culture. We need to treat good editors as valuable resources rather than expendable drones, and make active efforts to support and retain them. We need to make Wikipedia an appealing place for people who are interested and committed to creating an encyclopedia - because right now, it's more appealing to people who enjoy protracted flame wars and political grudge matches. If we do those things, then the pool of editors will grow and improve, and you'll see more and better RfA candidates. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more that what's important is the volunteer's environment in the months before they run for RFA, not what happens at RFA. However: RFA is (sadly) unique; it's extremely difficult for a volunteer to get RFA-level recognition and feedback at any point before RFA, and many experiments to change that have failed. Fixing RFA won't be sufficient to solve the problem, but it will probably be necessary. - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Each year we don't start with zero admins. We start with all the mops from previous years and add to them. Let's see the number of admins each year and see if the total is going up or down. My feeling is that it's going up. A few are de-sysoped, a few leave, but we make more and more. Some real figures like number of active admins are required for each year. Regards,

talk

) 19:10, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. This was a back-of-the-envelope calculation; we need better numbers. - Dank (push to talk) 19:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Working on some charts, may or may not get something complete. However, one thing which is obvious - the active admins has been heading pretty steadily down since around April 2008 - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The scariest numbers I've heard are the ratios between active editors and total articles. If I remember correctly, it's just under 1 editor to 1000 articles. Perhaps, and I know I'm going to get flogged for this, Wikipedia is just too big. In an effort to cover everything, we have tens of thousands of pages of nothing, nobodies, nonsense. We love to pretend that we don't have the problems that other encyclopedias do, specifically that we have infinite space. Well, if Britannica wanted to include more, they could, but they don't because they realize that at a certain point, having more quantity means having less quality. We're always going to have staffing issues and quality issues, but part of the problem is that we just have thousands of pages of what is ultimately junk. A backlog of 300,000 unsourced pages, dozens of other backlogs of major issues, the vast majority on pages of interst to only a tiny number, often one, person. Yes, we have culture issues, but I think what's sapping the most out of Wikipedia is the bloat. It needs to go.

Wha?

20:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't the actual problem there be that the editors who created those articles, and presumably had an interest in them, have left? How many wrote a few articles on specialized subjects and were driven off by the culture? How many have contributed just one article, had it speedied, been templated, and never returned? Maybe keeping more editors around, rewarding them for their contributions, training them as editors and even making them admins if they won't break the whole place would result in a lower articles-to-editors ratio. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 21:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

When I say bloat, I'm not talking about "specialized subjects." I'm talking about crap. We have tons of non-notable albums, no name politicians, "subjects of local interest" (i.e. tiny village block parties), and pages on every episode of many television shows. There is a difference between bloat and good content, but that is blurred by people that see deleting anything as bad.

Wha?

00:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Moving things back towards admins (since that's what this page is meant for), here I have done some graphs, basically just a bunch of charts showing various stats over time which I thought might be of interest, all taken from User:Rick Bot's editing history (check the times on the individual graphs, they are different, this means that graphs combining others (i.e. the Semi-active and active graph and the Admins graph) are only accurate to within a day or so (all of them are only rough, and may by slightly botched in places)... ;). I also still have all the raw data on my computer if anyone wants to see that - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, if the amount of active admins are going down, or contributors overall, etc, why do we make it so hard to become an administrator? If we need more, why are we stopping perfectly good candidates from getting a few extra buttons here and there to do a few extra things because they mess up every now and again, why, why, why, and why again. We all make mistakes, even the most "experienced" admins; but they come out like never before in RFA. If adminiship was really not a big deal, RFA would not be like it is today. Just my opinion. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Because not everyone agreed (I didn't) that we had an actual crisis, and other considerations seemed more important to some ... making sure that admins respect content creators, or respect different points of view, or don't get ban-happy. Those were and are all perfectly reasonable considerations, but I really don't think we have any regular voters who, faced with an actual, palpable threat to Wikipedia, aren't going to be willing to engage in some kind of dialogue and compromise. What they're not going to do is say "Right, we've been the problem the whole time, and none of our concerns were valid." If compromise is going to work, we're all going to have to put some serious time into understanding various opposing positions, and searching for a way to make everyone equally unhappy with the final result. - Dank (push to talk) 21:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Some of the reasons Tofu, as I've mentioned many times before, are that many editors are possibly not much good at anything very much, so they go to RfA, where they don't understand much either, and enjoy throwing their weight about. Then there are a few types of newly created (and older) admins: those who lose all interest in the system that got them the bit, and we never see them !voting on RfA or commenting here, and there are the ones that get or got the bit fairly easily and then start fazing the good faith candidates with silly and/or trick questions (and who sometimes don't even know the right answer themselves), and there are others who go to RfA polls to be able to be uncivil with impunity. The bar is not too high, but it's difficult to get the bit because of the imbalance between the serious and the flippant judgment calls on RfA. Kudpung (talk) 21:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Sven Manguard and Jim Miller weren't so far of topic at all. 300,000 junk or very poor articles is due very much to the imperfections of our

New Page Patrolling system

. If people aren't reporting enough CSD, AfD, Copyvio, and SPI, etc., then it appears as if the incidences are low and all is well. Statistics often have a hidden grey area.

Then we recently even have editors who suggest vociferously that NPP is an unnecessary project! If we had effective NPP and SPI watchers (for example), the truly active admins we have today would be completely swamped. Kudpung (talk) 22:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

• This question comes up periodically, usually prompted by a release of yearly data or a paucity of recent admin candidates. Invariably, as Dan points out, a predominant response is to ask where the emergent crisis is. Rationalizations (some true, some a bit contrived) are trotted out. We have rollback, we have bots, we have the edit filter. Each of these tools empowers regular editors and reduces the demand for admin action (esp. the edit filter). This is an incredibly difficult point to rebut because you have only two possible strategies. You can find an actual crisis and use that as a counter-example or you can argue that a crisis is unnecessary for action. Both responses have troubles; the latter being particularly difficult to support as we can imagine hundreds of WP issues without incipient crises where urgency may be required and questions arise how would we assign resources to one crisis over another. However, this is the route we must pursue.
• I'm going to make an analogy here, so if you feel the need to object to particulars in the analogy or complain about weak linkages between WP and the subject being used as an analogy--don't. The internet is very good at missing the forest for the trees when anyone brings up an analogy. Don't lower the signal to noise ratio by being the analogy police. Our basic concern is that we have an alarming trend in admin promotion and retention, but we don't yet have a symptom or at least a catastrophic symptom. Michael Mace has an article about Research in Motion and the misleading nature of rates of change in market share. Mace sketches out the
  technology adoption lifecycle
  for any technology product and attempts to pin down where RIM was and where RIM thought they were. As RIM exhausts the early adopters and gets on the right-hand side of the adoption curve, revenue change and subscriber growth are still positive. Management looked at the standard numbers for any product (profit, revenue, subscribers) and could feel confident that they had an acceptable product, but in reality new subscribers and device margins were falling. Not drastically enough to arouse attention, but they were falling (this is the 2006-2010 era, so those of us outside RIM know they were getting eaten alive by Android and Apple). By the time top-line numbers became a cause for concern, the platform was nearly dead. Read that again. By the time a crisis emerged for RIM with respect to Blackberry market share and profit, it was almost too late. They learned that their subscriber base was comprised of increasingly large fractions of old users and that some of those old users were also leaving for new platforms at a rate faster than new user adoption. Once those trends manifested themselves in share/profit/subscriber growth, the capacity for expansion was nearly gone. I think we are in a similar situation here with respect to admin (and new user) growth. We have obvious signs of userbase aging. We have signs of fewer admins being promoted (in absolute terms or in terms of percentages of long term users) per year. We have higher admin retirement or effective retirement per year. Everything points to a coming problem except the existence of that problem itself. By the time we reach a point where wikipedia will not be able to function due to a lack of willing admins we won't be in a position to say "Ok now we can get along with the business of incrementally changing RfA to meet this issue". We will be undergoing a post-mortem. As I said at the start of the paragraph, you can quibble about the details of the analogy, but the basic trends bear a strong resemblance.
• Trouble is what to do about it. The theory for RfA regulars seems to be that RfA doesn't attract enough admin candidates because RfA is too hard or standards are too high or some other aspect of getting/using the admin tools is distasteful. That's one possibility. Another possibility is that the growth of admin candidates is a symptom and not cause. The cause may be that growth for long term editors on wikipedia is flat or declining. The push in Dan's push/pull framework is smaller than it was 4 years ago. Again, not so small that it is a disaster. The editor base still grows year over year as does the number of articles and the number of edits. But the rate of change for all of those metrics are nothing like what they were in 2006. So what do we do? If admin growth is a function of editor growth alone, then we probably don't have too many policy levers we can pull here at RfA, short of making anyone an admin. It also doesn't paint a very pretty picture for the extreme long term future for wikipedia (think >5 years out). Because I have the floor I'll give a few reasons why that might be:
  • WP is fundamentally a "Web 1.5" site. We are obviously created completely by user content but the norms and technical functions of the site came to maturity before really aggressive social aggregator sites came into their own. As a result we have a slow moving and non-architectural reputation system, we don't have easy methods for users to collaborate, and we have no real mechanism for reputation to be applied to mainspace activity. We attempted to solve this with flagged revisions (or whatever it is called now), but what we were really after was solving the "respectability problem" not creating a system by which users can rapidly and frictionlessly rate or vet changes.
  • WP has no mobile presence. You used to be able to get an official editing app for iphone/ipod but I don't see it on the app store anymore. Either way, it was awful. You were routed (without any choice on your part) through the mobile servers so you couldn't even edit. If there is one trend which you can bank on over the next few years it is that more and more people will be getting on the web with phones and phone-like devices and wikipedia's approach to mobile has to be aggressive in order to not either be left behind or treated as a static resource.
  • WP is not well equipped to deal with problems like this. We have this bizarrely myopic stance toward problems on wikipedia. I'd call it the keys and the lamp-post problem, but it isn't even that. We focus too much on problems which matter to a narrow set of people on wikipedia (fighting over the margins on notability issues) or matter to Jimbo when he hits the cocktail circuit (some washington post column about how wikipedia said Ted Kennedy was dead when he was merely sick). Not existential threats to the WP model or WP itself. the same thing could be said about the FR debate. Editors worried that wikipedia wasn't a respectable resource because frankly who wants to work on something of low social status? But is our social status (or our perceived social status) as a class of editors all that important?
  • WP is too confident about the battles we have won and is hyperfocused on a narrow set of competitors. I admit it. I get a little giddy when I think of all the jerks who left for Knol or Citizendium or whatever because both of those projects are basically defunct. But while wikipedia now has the overwhelming share of "serious generalist" encyclopedia content covered we are facing death by a thousand pin pricks from narrow specialist encyclopedias (many of which live on Jimbo's for profit venture) who can each claim some local advantage--smarter fair use rules, better admins, whatever. I don't think the solution is to emulate each of the specialist competitors in order to stem the flow of editors and eyeballs, but we have to be serious about who and what are at the forefront of knowledge. 8 years ago if you wanted to learn about something you went to wikipedia. Can you universally say the same thing today?
• Are we going to fix each of these? Are they even an exhaustive list of real problems or simply the rantings of a grumpy periodic user? I don't know. But as much as they are off topic they are vital to consider if we are to talk seriously about admin shortages and pending crises. Maybe I have this all backwards. Maybe RfA was always broken and the dramatic rise in editors from 2004-2007 covered up a lot of the flaws in the system. But we need to own up to the problem. Organizations like wikipedia are like LNG tankers. They require a considerable amount of foreknowledge about obstacles and courses in order to be piloted properly. You can't steam ahead and then hope to execute a daring turn in order to avoid a shoal, it simply won't move like that. Any change we make here will take months to execute and many more months to percolate to the rest of the community as a social norm or expectation. Only then should we expect some changes in participation (both for candidates and voters). So starting at the first sign of danger is far too late. Protonk (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anyone who opposes more than, say, 25% of the time, is unaware of what is happening. Yet the opposes still come, which isn't all that illogical. Appoint an unsuitable person in the good times, and they might be a hinderance to an otherwise smooth process. Appoint an unsuitable person on the edge of the crisis, and they might be a hinderance as we enter a deeper crisis.

I've explained why I think people oppose in the first place, with little reception. What I will add is that it is far easier to make a spurious/unexplained/let's-be-ultra-nice support than a spurious/unexplained/let's-be-ultra-nasty oppose, and therefore I don't understand Kudpung's rationale for why so many fail. —WFC— 00:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I could summarise your well-reasoned statement in a single sentence Protonk; "I believe in the idea of wikipedia but not in its current implementation". From a purely personal perspective the fact that an editor like myself and many others similar would have absolutely no chance at all at RfA says all that needs to be said as far as I'm concerned. The sooner a viable alternative without all of the social engineering pops up the better, and you won't see me for dust when that happens.

Fatuorum

01:00, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

"a viable alternative without all of the social engineering" - what would that look like? Can we get there (or closer to it) from here? Rd232 ^talk 15:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. In many ways I love the idea and the implementation. We just may not be equipped to handle how the internet is changing and it is starting to show. Protonk (talk) 18:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

We probably need to be more radical. A relatively simple step we can do is to actively promote Editing on the Main Page - have a whole box there about how to get started editing, maybe with rotating current tasks, etc. More complex, needing Foundation backing, would be improvements to the Watchlist (eg being able mark edits as Reviewed And OK by Me, so the Watchlist can then hide them) and perhaps even a move to some kind of trust-based system that would make editing a lot more efficient, by allowing editors to filter out recent changes from their Watchlists by editors they trust, depending on the context (eg their trust score, context/history and type of change, etc. All that kind of good stuff which we've been talking about for years, and instead we get farting around with LiquidThreads and the Vector skin, neither of which seem real improvements. Bottom line, the community needs to work harder to get more people in and be more helpful to newbies, and the Foundation needs to work harder on making editing easier for newbies and more efficient for experienced editors. Rd232 ^talk 21:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree with most of this. What is especially disheartening is that a few of these innovations are not vapor. When I installed Huggle on my windows partition 2 years ago (I guess 3 now), I could see a visual display of the revision history, the revision history of the most recent editor and the relative activity of the two. Using just those visual cues you could get a quick sense of which pages or editors had been sources of trouble most recently. It can't be the case that generating such a graph is only possible with .NET. Huggle is high frequency, but filtering watchlists offers a low frequency supporting feature. Part of our issues with BLPs comes from the fact that we have eliminated most of the blatant vandalism and are now faced with the much harder task of assimilating low grade or uncertain edits. With the current apparatus (edit filter tags for BLP vios notwithstanding) our only recourse is social pressure and manual attention, but the problem itself is amenable to technical solutions or support. And most of these technical solutions don't require community input, the all purpose excuse for avoiding large scale changes. If we make it easier for editors to participate and react to changes, more editors will stick around to get to know the community. We are veering off topic, but all of this feeds back to the idea that RfA faces both a push and pull problem--this is the push. Protonk (talk) 22:27, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

@::WFC. My comments throughout this perennial discussion have never bordered on sayiong there should be no oppose !votes. I do my fair share of opposing where 'I' feel it's obviously required, but I refrain from posing silly, trick, and pile-on questions, and incivility - the things that are discouraging the serious editors from coming forward, and leaving us with a high frequency of NOTNOW and SNOW, and in the worst case scenario, serious editors have retired from Wikipedia in disgust. We need to find fair ways of dissuading people who are clearly not suitable candidates from eeven starting an RfA, and we need to convince many of the contributors to this discussion page that they themselves are are partly the problem we are trying to solve. Kudpung (talk) 01:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the community is encouraged to ask questions of the candidate to clarify the candidates position on various aspects or statements in the candidate's statement. As such I have a concern of oblique assertions that a concern I raised as a question was not productive to the project

• "RFA used to be plagued with pointless questions, but I thought that problem had died off a while back."[3]
• "pointless "optional" question" [4]
• "I'm impressed you answered q4 though, I think I would have refused." [5]

I do acknowledge that I made a less than civil remark on my personal talk page after an editor nearly accused me of not understanding the purpose of the RfA process. I would like to open the discussion to the community as a whole to determine if a policy needs to be implemented regarding community submitted questions to the candidate. Hasteur (talk) 14:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I too am confused by any objection to question #4. IMHO that is a model of what an optional question should be. Not some canned open book quiz, but rather a request to give further info on a specific concern about the candidate based on his 'on the record' wikipedia history.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, since I am one of the people quoted above, let me respond. I understand where Hasteur was coming from, especially now that he has followed up, but frankly I would have gone for the direct "can I be sure that enquiries to you about administrative actions will not be left for days on end without any sort of feedback" from the get-go, with no need to drag someone's personal life into it (albeit in the most politely phrased way!). In my view, an admin should not have to answer questions about their off-wiki existence, and having a busy life or demanding job should not be seen as even contributing to a possible reason to oppose. That is why I would have been unhappy with answering this question myself. Furthermore, I really don't believe there are many (if any?) admin actions that genuinely require urgent response from one specific admin, such that an admin taking the occasional break to get some work done would interfere with the role, so I would question whether the question is particularly relevant. That said, let me be clear that I have not said your question is pointless nor do I consider it as such. Also, I apologise for what was rather oblique criticism rather than raising my concerns with you directly. I hope this helps.--Korruski^Talk 14:37, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to start any drama, but I have an objection to Keepscases' question on Smartse's RFA. The question asked was, "Please click "Random Article", improve the article somehow, and tell us what you did." For an editor whose edits are more than half in article space, they still need to prove that they can contribute? I know there's a perpetual discussion of content edits, but I find this question to be a particularly heavy-handed way of proving that. And I wonder if asking that sort of question is walking down a bad path. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:01, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Of course it is. I don't recall ever seeing a relevant, useful question from Keepscases. AD 14:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Questions aren't commands. A candidate who feels the way you do would have a perfect opportunity to demonstrate his diplomacy in responding to the request.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I objected to Q4 as well, but the candidate chose to answer both that and Keepcases, and did so very well, so I don't see the issue. I suppose it becomes a problem if they feel they can't refuse for fear of people opposing them on that basis. Not much can be done about that, though.--Korruski^Talk 14:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Any candidate can refuse to answer an optional question. Protonk (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

In theory, but it's at least one almost guarunteed oppose vote, from the questioner, and could easily be a few more if people happen to get in a huff about it, or want to use it as an excuse.--Korruski^Talk 17:18, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That's why 100% isn't the required threshold.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Mmm, not really the point. One oppose vote requires roughly three support votes to counteract it, so it's not insignificant.--Korruski^Talk 17:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If the question truly is inappropriate, and the refusal is done in a polite reasonable way, there will be a lonely oppose that won't be a blip on the radar. Then again if you refuse by typing "@#$%^ OFF YOU FILTHY ...." and you get more than a single (or couple) oppose, then we've all learned something.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I may have read this one differently than you, but on what planet is making a single improvement to an article a bad thing? I'm guessing it took longer to answer the question than it did to actually make the improvement. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not the only question of that type Keepscases has made -- it seems to be about the only thing s/he does. Look over his contribs...he's been at ANI, RFC, but with no changes. I left him a note on his talk page yesterday, don't think there will be a response, you can see a bunch of diffs there about his/her editing. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

UltraExactZZ, it was more of the idea of being put on the spot like that to improve an article. Just rubbed me the wrong way. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, exactly what do you propose for questions that "rub you the wrong way"? Keepscases (talk) 03:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I don't see any harm in Keepscases' questions. I think they can help to lighten things a bit at the usually dourly-serious RfA inquisition - and nobody is going to fail RfA just because they choose not to answer one. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I would not really have bothered him/her about the questions if they had other contrib's to Wikipedia. But their contributions show little work to improve Wikipedia. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 15:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the current RFA tally (4 RfAs) the most 100% RfAs at once? --

Probably not. Does it matter? I fail to see the significance.--Atlan (talk) 18:38, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

It's early yet. Four RFAs finishing at 100% within a 24 hour period? That's something worth noting. That said, I'm tempted to throw a neutral in there just to add some random numbers. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, there was a neutral in one of them. 28bytes (talk) 20:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Grumble, moan, been here to long etc. but seriously - as per Atlan; So what if it is a record (which I strongly doubt it is, coming as I do from the dinosaur age where 10+ concurrent RFA's was pretty usual, and standards where lower sensible, so a number of requests running at 100% was frequent). Of all bits of meta discussion on this page, these threads are the ones that offer the least (i.e. zero) value. Pedro :  Chat  22:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty common pattern. There's a lull in RFA's presented, that spurs a lot of conversation about the lack of admins/RFA's, then a few pop up as a result (I assume). No way to tell if there's a direct link but it appears there is. Having said that, I've never been one to get too worried about the lack of editors coming here for RFAs. But I think the last 6 months (year, 2 months whatever) have shown a distinct sea change. For whatever reason, it's clear that there's a lack of editors coming through. I remember at time (not even that long ago) that it was common to have 5 or more successful RFAs going at once. The sign of an effective organization is that it can anticipate problems and take corrective action before they even become problems. But this isn't an effective organization, so we'll just have to wait until it's a problem and hope it doesn't do any permanent damage. RxS (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I dunno, it's a pretty alarming trend. Pretty soon we'll have to go back to "Oppose. Too many admins already currently." ;) Franamax (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I did an unscientific sweep and it looks like it's a lot longer than I thought since it was common to have 5 or so successful RFAs going at once. Time flys. I wonder if it just wasn't a case of an overstock of admins in the middle of the last decade (me being one of them). Maybe it's self adjusting? Maybe when there's a shortage of admins people step up? And when there isn't, people don't see a need? I dunno...RxS (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

From mid 2005 to early 2008 we had three years where more than one admin per day was the norm - so much if not most of the time we would have had 7 RFAs in the green. Since then we've had a drought of nearly three years, initially for more than a year with about a dozen new admins a month, then for about a year we had half a dozen a month. But for the last three months we've had even fewer - just 8 in three months, an average of less than three a month - see

User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month. I don't believe this drought is self adjusting, I think we've created an RFA process that certain groups of editors, especially those with less than three years tenure and I fear that those who edit in their own name are unwilling to undergo. What we don't know is how few admins we could get away with, or what effect there will be on the community of this longterm decline in the number of active admins. But my fears are that eventually we will run short and until that happens the fewer active admins we have the greater their de-facto status will be. ϢereSpiel

Chequers 23:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the current boost is coinicidence/a flash-in-the-pan. Not the current ones perhaps (I haven't checked), but many candidates have never seen, read, or contributed to this talk page. Kudpung (talk) 00:06, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

See also: stochastic. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I think people have been reading this talk page and reading how worried we all are about a lack of admins and they've decided to make a run for it. — Fly by Night (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

You mean of course as in making a run for it as far away from Wikipedia as quick as their legs can carry them, leaving the last remaining editors to run for adminship with little or no opposition. Kudpung (talk) 05:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

And Atlan and Pedro demonstrate perfectly how to put someone down in one easy step. It was only a case of being intrigued. Where would we all be if we never asked questions? :( Orphan Wiki 13:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been collecting stats on the drought for quite some time now at

Stats. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Note: Again not 100% accurate, but good enough. Tim Song's rename resulted in a mistake where it looks like the RfA was before registration. Might make some bar charts which would be easier to read at some point, if I'm bored :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:18, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

So the conclusion to draw is ...? (Sorry, I'm not so good with data.) Guoguo12--Talk--  19:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, very roughly, it shows that the general trend in 2010 is that candidates who fail at RfA are accounts that were created around 2006-2010, while those who pass are created around 2005-late 2008, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Commentary not related to stats

This may sound like a cliché, but maybe they're discouraged because RfA has become a bloodbath? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Utahraptor. Who makes it a bloodbath? Perhaps someone is more prepared than I am to break the bounds of decency and start some name calling. I'm sure that if this discussion were taking place in a conference room, there would be some red faces. Kudpung (talk) 01:57, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Honestly this is wearing thin. Knock it off or name names. If you think someone is personally responsible then cowboy up and solve the problem. Insinuating that there is a problem and that unnamed people should be ashamed is lame. Protonk (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't naming names a bit

bitey? The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs

02:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Did you read that page before linking it? If you think the long term contributors to discord and unhappiness in RfA are new users then I guess calling them out would be bitey, but I doubt that is what kudpung means. Protonk (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

It's good to refrain from name calling, as it can eventually turn into conflict. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Protonk, If you are genuinely concerned, go through all the 2010 RfA, and go through all the 2010/2011 comments on this page, do your own homework, and then contribute some solutions. Kudpung (talk) 02:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact I'm not at all concerned. That's the point. I'm suggesting that your comments are wearing thin. Coming to the WT:RFA page and declaring that "some" editors which you won't name are disproportionately causing problems and then being coy when asked to substantiate or retract your accusations is not a contribution. Protonk (talk) 02:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re:WereSpielChequers: What has kept 2008-2009 editors away from RFA, well, the expected "1 Year or more" that is required (by some editors, more than one year) and editcountitis that goes on at RFA -- it is hard to get the expected amount of edits in a year, whatever that number may be, everyone has their own ideas. That's whats kept me away from RFA, and what will for quite some time...Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 02:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Wearing thin or not. What I am is saying, is that some of the commentators on this page who glibly join in and agree that RfA has become a snake pit, are the very ones who contribute to the drama. Fact. The whole point is, Protonk, that no one needs to name the names. Kudpung (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Tofutwitch, if those were the reasons, why are so many mature, reasonable, civil, well versed Wikipdians not coming forward? Don't scratch your head over it - they've told us already.Kudpung (talk) 02:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I won't name specific names, but it's the people that pick one error in an otherwise qualified candidate and oppose over it that discourage potential candidates. More often than not, those ridiculous oppose !votes create a pile-on that ultimately fails the RfA. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:35, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for two sentences that make my point. Keegan (talk) 07:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

The vast majority of people, regardless of voting tendency, do not spend upwards of 10-20 minutes researching a candidate. While I don't have statistics colorfully decorated in a bar or pie chart to back that up, I don't think that can credibly be disputed. Therefore, all most people have are the questions, editing stats, and other people's support/oppose/neutral rationales. And as inconvenient a truth as this is, a far higher proportion of articulate opinions supported by diffs will be found in the oppose or neutral sections, than the support section. Perhaps even the majority, but again, this is a complex-statistical-analysis-free zone. —WFC— 12:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

And that is the exact problem with having the wide open venue for questions - they promote drive-by voting rather than actual examination of the candidate. A simple restriction that all questions must be about something in their editing history would go a long way towards improving the tone of RfAs. We're supposed to be judging candidates on what they have done, not on what they might do in the future. Of course that leads us right back to the point that for many people RfA is exclusively concerned with what they might do in the future because it is a lifetime appointment with limited means of recourse, and the cycle continues again. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 14:21, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re to WFC. I'd hope you were wrong, but fear you could be right about the idea that some !voters spend less than twenty minutes assessing a candidate. It's true that only admins can access the candidates deleted contributions, but everyone can access a candidate's other contributions. However from the way recent RFAs have focussed on the question and oppose sections it is possible that some people are voting on candidates without checking their contributions - and no I don't count looking at a statistical analysis of someones's contributions as researching that candidate. But as for the oppose section containing a higher proportion of articulate, diff supported opinions, I'm afraid that is an inevitable and probably desirable part of the process. I'm fairly frequently in the oppose section, but I hope I've never opposed without giving or endorsing a clear diff supported rationale, whereas if after checking the candidate I basically agree with the nom, why say anything more than "Support per nom"? OK it helps if you say what aspects of their edits you've checked, but otherwise unless you spot something good that the nom missed, "Support" is all that's needed. ϢereSpielChequers 14:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think a fair percentage of !voters go any further than the RfA page, then I think you are a bit niave. We've had nominators fail to notice basic issues that would doom a candidates RfA when the issue are still on the candidates talk page. Based upon what I've seen here, my gut guess is that 15% base their !votes on previous knowledge/impressions of the candidates. 40% of !votes are made solely based upon what they read on the RFA page themselves. 30% of !Votes are made without digging any further than the candidates talk and user pages. 12-13% are made with somebody spending up to an hour researching the candidate, and only 2-3% are made with somebody doing more than an hours research. (Note: That is for the initial !vote, sometimes a person will !vote and then spend more time looking at the candidates.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

You may be right about the percentage of editors who don't go further than the RFA page, but it is a very difficult thing to measure. We have had RFAs turn on things that were pretty easily found but which dozens of !voters hadn't spotted, also I once used a page view counter to see how many people had looked at various pages linked from a candidate's userpage. One page that I thought every serious reviewer of that candidate would look at was viewed 7 times in the week of an RFA which over 100 editors voted in. I suppose the flip side of that is that those of us who do review candidate's edits and where appropriate produce diff supported opposes may have rather a lot of influence in the process. ϢereSpielChequers 17:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

True, but that is the fault of those who support until one or two who have done their homework suggest otherwise, rather than the people doing the digging. But the thing is, whenever a few such diffs are produced, a suggestion is made that these are isolated incidents and that subsequent opposers/switchers are jumping on the bandwagon. Similarly, while Kudpung has a point on questions, I think AfD is a huge deal, because of the wide discretion available to admins and the fact that it's nigh on impossible to overturn one unless it's a blatant abuse of power. I therefore place huge importance on AfD questions, as well as looking at AfD participation. Others may have other areas in which they place similar importance. Yet if half a dozen people oppose over an AfD question, and another half a dozen over AfD "behavior" (a deliberately broad term), they're accused of depriving us an admin who would have been a net positive. —WFC— 18:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec)It's also one of the reasons why I've thought about writing another RFA How To Essay... it would be "How to respond to opposes at RfA." How people respond often has a huge effect on the RfA. Mature/rational/reasonable responses can get opposes to turn around. But the key is to identify what the oppose is really about. Let's take Keeps' oppose rationale. When Keeps opposes based upon a user box with the word "GOD" stricken out and other people start to oppose on the same ground, the defenders need to ask, "Why are they opposing?" Is it because of the single user box? Not really. It is because of a perceived concern that the individual in question won't be able to be impartial on the subject. Let's take a silly example, suppose I have a user box declaring that I'm a fan of "The Simpsons." Now, I go and close an controversial AFD on a Simpsons related subject. Somebody objects, takes it to DRV, and cites the user box. No big deal, if I can show that I can be a fan of the Simpsons and be objective about the subject anyways---then my expertise/subject knowledge might come in handy. Same scenario, but instead of 1 box I have 6 user boxes professing my undying love for the Simpsons. Now I'm taken not only to DrV, but possibly ANI because the perception would be that with 6 such user boxes, that I cannot be objective/impartial. Keeps' oppose garners strength because it is based upon the perception that one such user box indicates a person who can't be objective on such a crucial subject. The way to respond to it is not to denounce Keeps or declare that Keeps oppose rationale is flawed, but rather to demonstrate that the candidate in question might have said user box, but is able to still maintain objectivity/neutrality when the subject comes up. Basically, if somebody opposes you based upon "low hanging fruit", then you need to figure out what their concern is and show them through your history that their initial perception is wrong.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:36, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I think your overall point is spot-on, but a more apt example might be if you had a userbox that said that people who liked The Simpsons were idiots. That's going to be an issue for some people even if you never end up closing an AfD on a non-notable Simpsons episode as "delete". The "X is dumb" userboxes are always going to grate on people who like "X", regardless of what X is. 28bytes (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

No, a more apt one would be that you find the "Simpsons to be dumb" or something. The user box that Keeps opposes does not expliticly call people who believe in God to be idiots, but one can infer that the person who uses it might think so. A user box that makes a negative declarative statement about a population of people generally SHOULD be opposed or at least challenged.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Point taken. I agree, a "This user thinks The Simpsons is dumb" box would be a more fair analogy. 28bytes (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Even though I would prefer that we all lower our entrance requirements for adminship, I'm in favor of asking a handful of candidates to tone down their userpages ... just before they run is fine with me. I'm not worried about what an "activist" userpage says about the candidate; I'm worried that a new user who just got blocked will get the idea that they didn't get a fair shake. - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I've got less of a problem with someone having an "activist" user page than one that has "anti" messages. If you're a new user who just got blocked for something (possibly even something "innocent" like picking a username that sounds like a company), and you go to the admin's userpage and see a message dismissing or denigrating your religion/political viewpoint/favorite TV show/whatever, I can understand how you might feel a little bullied. Ideally people should be able to express who they are without denigrating what they aren't. 28bytes (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I see your point re: blocked users but I disagree with the main thrust. We can believe what we want as long as we can enforce

WP:NPOV on wikipedia. People passionate about subjects are still capable of being neutral; if you think they're not, well that's your own problem..... Pedro :  Chat 

21:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

People living in Western democracies have come to expect a certain neutrality from "the law". Everyone here knows that admins are nothing like "the law", and they're certainly not the court of last resort, but the newbie who just got blocked doesn't know that, and I think we can forgive them for overreacting to what they see as bias ... because these days, everyone overreacts to what they see as bias from their governments. I gave an analogy recently at User_talk:Protonk#Userboxes and RFA. - Dank (push to talk) 21:42, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Re to WFC. Yes when someone produces a diff based oppose one of the issues that will come up is whether that diff was an isolated incident or was illustrative of the candidate's edits. In hindsight I can remember an oppose I made for an isolated incident where I was being too picky. So now when I find an error when checking out a candidate I ask myself whether that error was sufficiently serious to merit an oppose, and if not whether it was an isolated mistake or symptomatic of a problem, and if appropriate I will furnish multiple diffs to support an oppose. ϢereSpielChequers 17:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Therein lies the key and the reason why opposes weigh more than supports. Most supports are, "Support, is a good guy" or "Support, I've seen him around so I trust him." Whereas most opposes are, "Oppose, per this link where it shows X, this link where it shows Y, and this link where it shows Z." Going back to Keeps oppose. Keeps makes an oppose based upon user boxes, it garners support because others wonder if the person can be objective about a highly controversial issue. Rather than addressing the underlying issue that Keeps brings up, people attack Keeps and his oppose, thereby propelling the issue to the forefront. How much more effective would the defense have been if it said, "I use the user box and do have strong feelings in that arena, but that does not stop me from being effective and impartial in areas dealing with the issue as demonstrated by the following discussions link/link/link." Show us cases where the candidate kept their calm and mediated issues---give us the difs.(I keep using Keep's oppose because I think it is a valid oppose rationale that can be easily refuted addressed if done right. Unfortunately, I think Keeps has been getting the persecuted because people attack him rather than address the concern he raises.)---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 18:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A little more radical

There's a good argument that our figures on loss of "active" admins are not that helpful, but until someone provides better figures, let's go with the ones we've got. We added 192 new "active" admins in 2009 and 2010. The total number of active admins dropped steadily during this time, so we must have lost more than 192 active admins (including losing some new admins). So we're talking about losing roughly 10 per month, averaged over two years. I have no idea if the number is going up or down. Some believe that we don't need as many admins now because we've got fewer contributors ... but OTOH, we've got more pages, and admins are critical to the processes that watch pages. Being conservative, let's say we only need to replace 8 lost admins each month to get the basic maintenance jobs done. My question is: is every good idea that's been suggested on this page really going to raise the RfA success rate from the current 1-3 per month to 8 per month? I don't see how.

If we want to have enough admins to handle copyright problems, promotional edits, defamation, vandalism, etc., then I think we're going to have to radically redefine an "admin" from "the very model of a modern Wikipedian" to "someone who's geeky and competent with a few tools", at least when it comes to new candidates. We could even prohibit admins from using the tools in any situation where tool use might come across as a "super-vote" ... this list will vary depending on who you ask, but I'm thinking of the decisions that tend to generate a lot of heat, such as the toughest AFD decisions (require admins to send it to Deletion Review without closing it) and who to block and unblock at ANI (let that be decided by consensus ... and don't both use the tool and be the one to decide what the consensus was). Some are bothered by admins using the tools to usurp content decisions ... okay, let's get a better handle on that, and give admins better guidance on what they should leave alone. If we find that Wikipedians can't stop thinking in terms of a higher standard at RFA, then fine, we can always make up some jobs that require stringent vetting. My point is: we're risking Wikipedia's survival by confusing that apparent need to vet and elect "leaders" with the need to appoint people to get the geeky, grindy maintenance jobs done. Btw, I'm not suggesting that we suddenly devalue all the admins who have worked hard to learn their skills and build reputation ... I'm just suggesting that we ask all admins to participate on an equal footing in discussions and not use the tools as a super-vote. If that happens, and if Arbcom and other forums get serious about defrocking admins who don't "get it" (and, if we give them clear instructions and explain why this is necessary, I'm very optimistic that they'll be happy to comply), then voters won't be so quick to oppose at RFA, and candidates won't spend a year trying to be "Mr. or Ms. Everything" before they run, they'll spend time at the noticeboards learning the specific skill sets we need. - Dank (push to talk) 19:58, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

My concern is that our number of active admins is consistently falling by circa 20% year on year even though editing levels are broadly stable (

User:Katalaveno/TBE shows us that the gap between ten million edits is still at 51/52 days as it was in late 2009 - somewhat below the 2007/8 peak). In an increasingly mature editing community you would expect a growing proportion of the regulars to be admins, but the opposite seems to be happening (I believe the community is increasingly mature in terms of editing experience, but the proportion of active admins amongst our experienced editors seems to be falling). I take comfort in my discussions with editors from other projects such as ES, DE and RU in that it is possible for a project to operate with far fewer admins than EN does, however I'm not sure that I want adminship to become an ever bigger deal simply because admins are becoming scarcer, nor do I want the "gain an admin - lose a good editor" phenomenon that other wikis report. I prefer the EN wiki model where most admins can spend most of their wiki time doing non-admin editing, and think that admins who only do admin actions risk losing touch with the community. I believe that there are plenty of candidates out there who could and should become admins, and might be tempted if we were clearer as to what our expectations were, and if we had a few more Balloonman style nominators presenting good candidates to the community. ϢereSpiel

Chequers 13:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(e/c) Re to Dan - Regarding the content issues, I have thought for some time that we need to end the fallacy that when editing content, admins are "normal editors." Many editors, especially new ones, see every action by an admin as an administrative action, and admins should not be allowed to use that contrived division of powers as an excuse for anything. The admin policy should match that reality - all actions performed by admins are considered admin actions.

WP:ADMINACCT should have the phrase "involving administrator tools" removed for the purpose of accountability. The policy as written calls for a higher standard of behavior, but does nothing to enforce it. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me}

13:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Well at least the "bloodbath" seems to be draining away. There are currently 3 candidates up, with combined votes of 84:0:0. Is this a record? Johnbod (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Mmm... I hate to say it, but I have this nagging feeling that all this discussion could have just scared people off opposing. I suppose that might not be a bad thing, but it does seem a bit odd that we suddenly have three candidates and no oppose votes...--Korruski^Talk 17:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

We always get a little bump when there's a lot of talk about how we need to be more lenient at RFA ... let's see if it lasts. - Dank (push to talk) 17:33, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought that was the whole thrust of recent discussion on this page, to chase away all opposers.

Fatuorum

00:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

So if I'd have waited two weeks, the snakes would have been dead anyway and I wouldn't be knocked on my back with a stress-related flare up? Figures. --

talk

) 13:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

That seems quite likely, yes.

Fatuorum

13:45, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about the flare-up. - Dank (push to talk) 15:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I had some reservations about a RFA so I marked opposed. There was a big arguement about it. As a result, I am reluctant to opposed anymore RFAs. With that, I would like to suggest a new method of administrator selection.

All candidates with 2 years of editing experience would automatically be made administrator. To ensure that they are sensible, they would be subjected to a 3 month trial period. Candidates with less than 2 years could start a RFA and ask for exemption from the 2 year period. Contentious candidates with over 2 years experience could be challenged if the challenger is able to show clear proof that they are argumentative or unsuitable.

That is an enormous, sweeping change and contains elements that have been

talk

) 00:04, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how many regulars there are that have been editing for over 2 years, but I'm sure it's a lot of people. All of them would suddenly become "trial admins" overnight if this proposal would actually be implemented. How could we possibly monitor all those people? Besides that, I think this is just a bad idea altogether.--Atlan (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Eh, apply a sensible and internally consistent rationale for approval or rejection of a candidate, vote your conscience, be articulate, and engage tersely yet politely with those who don't like your rationales. Far easier than changing everything else, no? Jclemens (talk) 00:20, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that a long discussion on this proposal would take up valuable time that could be invested more productively on other discussions, such as for example (at the risk of wearing a bit thin), cleaning up the silly/inappropriate/trick questions that get posted at RfA, and putting the lid on the incivility. A compromise could be perhaps a proposal that all nominations with less than 1 year and 2,000 edits, should be seconded by a 'crat before transclusion. This may stem some of the NOTNOW/SNOW/WITHDRAWALS. --Kudpung (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree (wink) that it is a conversation probably not worth having, the idea of any kind of automatic adminship is deeply flawed and has been shouted down again and again. Some people will never be capable of handling admin tools responsibly, and some people don't want the tools. Provisional adminship has also been repeatedly rejected because the tools are often used on concert. Splitting them up would actually increase the admin workload as it would take two partial admins (or

talk

) 00:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect what's being proposed is that anyone who applies for a mop should get one if they have at least 2 years experience, not that a mop should be thrust into the hands of everyone whether they ask for it or not. But it's still a fatally flawed idea, as there are plenty of 2-year veterans who shouldn't get a 3-minute trial, never mind a 3-month trial. And lots of similar suggestions have been firmly rejected in the past - ref

WT:RfA passim (ie the archives). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk

) 01:36, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Let me be frank. You're taking something that you have just been told has been proposed before and has been deemed a bad idea, making it needlessly complicated, and turning around and proposing it again. Something tells me that the answer will still be "no." Furthermore, many opposes do not get multiple objections to them. Usually, 0 or 1. You only get multiple comments on an oppose if the community, or at least several users, think it's a poor decision. Also, being the first oppose generally tends to attract a few more remarks. Don't say that you won't oppose, there's a reason anyone can do so. Perhaps instead wait for a few days so that you might not be the first oppose, and then raise your objection.

Wha?

02:38, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Another view is that a relative newcomer, not having reviewed all history before commenting, proposed what xhe might have hoped to be an out-of-the-box proposal. Upon hearing that the proposal has been discussed xhe tried to make a change to improve it. I understand it can be frustrating to replow old ground, but it isn't old for newcomers. Perhaps we need a good FAQ with a summary of past proposals. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if one exists in some form, but I don't see it attached to this talk page.--SPhilbrickT 14:32, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'll have a bash at a draft FAQ...

• Q) What has already been proposed?
• A) Everything under the sun, and then some.
• Q) What has been accepted?
• A) Nothing, ever.
• Q) Has anything ever come close?
• A) Nope.

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Where is the like button?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I sympathise with Madrid2020's intentions, and think he deserves an explanation why this is a bad idea. It won't actually improve anything. Presumably the idea is to avoid users who would be uncontroversially promoted from having to go through an RFA, but such uncontroversial users are not a problem at RFA. If a user really is a good all-round candidate, they can sail through with little or no opposition: just look at the current crop of candidates. The problems at RFA are all to do with the 'controversial' candidates (as in, more than 10% of the community oppose them), where it has a tendency to become very bitter and divisive. This proposal would do nothing to solve that problem, since any user who was opposed by anybody would presumably have to go through RFA anyway.

Additionally, on a point of principle, it just seems a good idea to make all admins have to go through RFA first. Even if it doesn't turn up any problems, it shows they have the community's approval; and it guarantees all candidates receive at least a cursory examination before getting the tools. You seem to think it would be an easy task to ascertain which users have shown 'disruption or bad judgement', but that's actually what RFA is all about, when it's working correctly; how do you propose to decide whether a user's judgement is good enough to become an admin, except, well, through RFA? Robofish (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no way to "improve" anything here, the momentum against any kind of change is too great. I stopped looking at RfAs when they became a "let's hunt down and kill those nasty opposers and their trick questions" routine.

Fatuorum

04:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

" I stopped looking at RfAs when they became a "let's hunt down and kill those nasty opposers and their trick questions" routine. Malleus Fatuorum 04:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)". You still look at RfAs as you do, such as

User:Gimme danger. You engaged in what you say you despise. This is not a question, no response is needed. Keegan (talk

) 07:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

While I agree with a lot of what you say here Malleus, I don't think "let's hunt down and kill those nasty opposers and their trick questions" is perfectly accurate; "let's hunt down and kill those nasty trick and silly question posers, the !voters who can't be civil, and the sheep" might be more closer to reality - at least it's what I have been advocating. But of course, every time we hit a nerve, someone neatly changes the subject, everything gets buried in the archives, and new commentators join the talk without an inkling of what's been discussed before. The actual changes that are needed are relatively simple. Kudpung (talk) 04:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps, but very few would be able to agree on what those relatively simple changes are.

Fatuorum

04:48, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreeing is one thing (a lot of people have 'agreed' on the points above) - getting a Wikipedia style 'consensus' is another... --Kudpung (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

... is in reality impossible. This talk page might as well be closed down as historical.

Fatuorum

05:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Gosh no! That would be a bigger catastrophe than closing down the local pub. Kudpung (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I have to say I agree with the general gist of what both Malleus and Kudpung are saying here. I don't think we'll get change, because for each individual suggestion, simple though it may seem, there are too many people who like things the way they are to achieve a consensus for change. I think there is often too much badgering of opposers, but we wont get a consensus to stop it, because too many people want to keep badgering opposers. I agree that there are too many trick questions, but we won't get a consensus for change, because too many people like asking trick questions. And so on. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I fear that we are unlikely to get consensus to change policy at RFA, even a relatively simple change such as requiring candidates with less than 1,500 edits to only run if they have a nominator fails the hurdle that even uncontentious good ideas struggle to get consensus. But I do believe that discussions here result in substantial change at RFA, quite a few people participate here, I suspect many more read these discussions and some of those discussions result in people changing their behaviour; For example I believe that more editors in the support column are giving details as to what they've checked, I think we also see people alter their RFA voting criteria as a result of discussions here, I know I have. ϢereSpielChequers 13:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Mine are substantially lower than they used to be as well, although you probably will still see me more in the oppose column than support---I typically don't get involved in RfA's that are clearly going to pass/fail.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 14:52, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to drop my criteria because in my experience, the bad eggs in the corps of admin come from the era when there were hardly any criteria at all. However, I too have slackened off !voting on RfA that are going to be very clear passes. As for others having quietly changed their habits on RfA after having lurked on this talk page, I'm not so sure. The silly season for questions still seems to be very much in vogue, and the wannabe policy intellectuals still can't resist trying to faze even the most forthright, gnomish and trustworthy candidates who have plenty of the right kind of contribs and lots of clue. WSC has clearly proved that there is a drought of applicants, and those are the reasons why. Kudpung (talk) 10:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Since we're talking a little bit about how the "criteria" for adminship changes, I thought I would just share a few thoughts. After watching RfA for some amount of time, it becomes clear that it goes through phases where there are certain criteria, for example, some will remember back when it was practically essential to work at AfD to pass, or when !voters would vote based on edit summary usage. Recently I haven't seen many people commenting on either of these things. So I dare say there's something of a hive mind mentality at RfA. Now I believe that to properly reach a consensus, we need to encourage individuality (to a certain extent). While everybody needs to eventually come together and agree to reach a real consensus, it's no good if people automatically try to agree with whatever they think is "hot" that week, month, year etc., instead everyone should voice their own opinion, so that we can see what the best course of action to keep everybody happy is. So how do we encourage a little bit of individuality? Well to me, it seems fairly straightforward: (and I know this isn't a new idea by any means) firstly, badgering, and criticising another's opinions needs to be minimised. Even this thread to some extent is basically just pointing fingers and discouraging people from asking good faith questions. If you don't like those questions, then you're free to say so. If nearly nobody likes those questions, then they won't have any noticeable effect on the outcome. However, some people may think that these "trick questions" as you're calling them are useful (as an admin, I personally come across users who ask these outside of RfA, to try and manipulate how a situation appears, so there is an argument in favour of seeing how the candidate responds to those questions). In addition, people to to vote based on what they want in a candidate, not just what they think the community wants (or in other words, not just vote one way or the other to try and fit in), after all, they are they community. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm a mathematician and I love a good graph. I would like all of these people that make graphs to make a graph-of-graphs. Namely: relate the number of RfA policy changes that have come about as a result of sections with graphs posted on this page. The result would be a big, long, straight line along one of the axes; i.e. none! I mention graphs because some people have spent a lot of time compiling the data and creating the graphs, and I acknowledge their efforts. It seems to me that this talk page is the most unproductive, vacuum of time, that I have come across on Wikipedia. I, myself, am guilty of wasting many hours on here. But we all like a good bit of drama, don't we? — Fly by Night (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I thought you had noticed - this is the local pub.--Kudpung (talk) 05:37, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, but the drinks suck. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, watching editors talk about the same thing over and over seems like a soap opera. But I suppose it doesn't hurt to have a little drama. --Monterey Bay (talk) 05:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Statistics can say anything you want as is often noted here; You could always relate the interest in discussion (number of sections by date), to the amount of applicants who run for rfa by date. Pretty sure there would be a interesting correlation. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:23, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Is the essence of this argument 'nothing has changed before, therefore to try to change anything is a waste of time'?--Korruski^Talk 09:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The essence, for me, is that management-by-community fails when the community gets too large - everyone agrees that there are things wrong, but for every suggested improvement there is too large an opposition to achieve consensus. Still, I live in hope. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose that comes from spending half your time in the LOS ;)

The real problem is that there is indeed a dedicated, core interest group here, but every now and then, an outsider breezes in, leaves us all stunned by a pompous or intellectual speech, and immediately we've forgotten what we were all talking about, launch into a mega side track, the original discussion gets archived, and a bit later we start the original discussions all over again. Anyway, as I was saying... Kudpung (talk) 15:41, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hehe :-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I know you're not really serious, but describing people who don't use this page as their favorite timesink as "pompous outsiders" isn't going to win anyone over. ;)--Atlan (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Win anyone over to what? We've got what we want: lots of banter about what we would like to see done, but not wanting to get our fingers dirty doing it ;) Kudpung (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

REQUEST FOR ADMINSHIPMayborn1975 (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mayborn, unfortunately this is not the place to ask (see the instructions on the top of the page). Anyway, with only 7 edits I don't think you are ready to be an admin. If you have followed the discussion on this talk page recently, you'll see that a lot more edits, more experience, and a much longer time on Wikipdia are needed. If you would like any suggestions as to where and how you can start contributing, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page - I'll be happy to show you around. Regards, --Kudpung (talk) 10:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

There have been comments that the current Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/5 albert square is wierd. I share that view, but perhaps not for the same reasons. Maybe the only wierd thing about it is that it appears to be going, at least for the time being, the way most RfA should do: clean, free of viperous comments about the candidate or about each other, very few additional questions (except the obligatory nonsense). Would it be too much to hope that this is a new, most welcome trend? --Kudpung (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that the discussion here has shamed some people into thinking harder about oppose votes, which can only be a good thing. I doubt it will last, however.--Korruski^Talk 09:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I can only hope that the hours and hours of previous discussions here have shamed some people into thinking harder about the quality and number of questions they pose, which can also only be a good thing. I hope it will last. --Kudpung (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Shaming people to change their behavior is *not* a good thing. Shame is *not* a productive way to improve long-term behavior. People who are shamed tend to withdraw and develop anger, and are more prone to develop depressive symptoms. In the latest issue of the Psychological Bulletin, Sangmoon Kim (et al.) says "Shame strikes at the core of a person’s identity, and as a result, forces the individual to contemplate the possibility of a defective, unworthy, or damaged self." That's not IMHO how we want to deal with people on Wikipedia. I don't think it is useful or helpful to people in this community. No where in Wikipedia Policy or in the Behavioral Guideline is there mention of using shame to change user behavior, and rightly so. Etiquette, Civility, Dealing with disruptive editors say nothing about shaming people; quite the contrary. These guidelines and policies discuss the work entailed (and sometimes it is really hard work) in helping and nurturing others. That's how I read it. Kingturtle = (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Um... not sure what to say to that. I think it is clear to everyone else that what I mean is that the discussion here has made users think twice about a type of behaviour which they had previously thought was acceptable, and might now realise was frowned upon. No harm in that, and absolutely no call for a diatribe about the extensive psychological damage caused by shame, based on a strict and clearly irrelevant medical definition.--Korruski^Talk 14:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I'd scaled back the questions I ask well before the discussions on this page, and for reasons completely unrelated to "shaming". I happen to have a few still up my sleeve, although significantly redesigned since the event that led me to rethink (Richwales's RfA). I happened to solicit feedback on my questions at the time -- had more positive than negative but decided to recalibrate anyway. Anyway, if some editors have been using their comments on this board to "shame" others, that is a very disruptive approach. --

Mkativerata (talk

) 01:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it can be summed up as 'good candidates get through fine'. Nothing strange or new.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

A lot of the people who post regularly on this page are the ones who !vote fairly regularly on RfA, and if they have engaged in some introspection like Mkativerata has, there may be less drama. Yes, good candidates get through fine, but the main issue is that an ever decreasing number of them are coming forward, and several of them have told us, on and off Wiki, why. Even I was told that I would be better off gouging my eyes out with a rusty baked bean tin than running for office! Kudpung (talk) 16:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

You'd get my support - for admin, of course, not the baked bean thing ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Kingturtle: you make a very good point. But I don't think anyone was talking about shame in the deep rooted. personal, psychological sense. I think they meant that people had seen how others might disapprove of their attitude and had decided to alter it. I think people used the word shame in its informal, day-to-day meaning, and not its psychological state of distress meaning. But, as I said, you do make a very good point. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Fly by Night:Thanks for putting it that way. It was the essence of the first draft of my message above, but I decided to cut it out, and briefly mention introspection instead. Kudpung (talk) 07:36, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung, thank you for clarifying. best regards, Kingturtle = (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What Cube lurker said. What is far more important is that we get more of the same whenever the next close RfA happens to come around. Good natured debate, ill-informed or completely absent rationales being challenged where necessary, and any side-issues taken, as the name suggests, to one side (for instance, on user talk or the specific RfA's talk page). —WFC— 20:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been watching the last month of heated debate with great interest and also with hope that a compromise could be found. It's obvious that because RfA is !voter driven, the !voters are indirectly to blame for the problem of RfA decline. To quote one editor:

However from the way recent RFAs have focussed on the question and oppose sections it is possible that some people are voting on candidates without checking their contributions - and no I don't count looking at a statistical analysis of someones's contributions as researching that candidate. But as for the oppose section containing a higher proportion of articulate, diff supported opinions, I'm afraid that is an inevitable and probably desirable part of the process.

So I'm suggesting something simpler than candidate pre-requisites, something simpler than trial periods or reconfirmations. Simply what the header says: a "random edit by the candidate" button in the "Links for XXX:" section that would lead to a randomly selected edit by the candidate. I also suggest a limit on how old the edit is; i.e., the link would lead to a randomly selected edit by the candidate from the last X months. I'm confident that such a simple link would aid many !voters in making more informed considerations. Any comments? Technical issues? Criticisms? Personal attacks? Spam? Legal threats? Epithets? ... Guoguo12--Talk--  21:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

It's technically possible (well, it would show you a single contribution line and you would have to click the diff, unless someone can come up with something even more clever), but would it be any more useful than opening up the candidates contributions page and randomly clicking/

hovering over a few diffs? –xeno^talk

21:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, you have a point, but I think it wouldn't be as random and therefore as effective as a truly (theoretically, of course) "random" selection. For example, you may be more likely to check more recent edits, or you might skip edits to certain namespaces that later prove to be core policy violations. Of course, these are just examples, but my point lies within the slightly greater objectivity in random checking. Guoguo12--Talk--  21:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

What Xeno said. I recently enabled popups and that's exactly what I do now (in addition to other "manual" vetting like trawling through article creations). Popups is (are?) perfect for this. Just pull up the contributions page, select 250 or 500 to get a nice big sample, and hover around. 28bytes (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Er no... a judicious sampling is often better because you can single in on the types of edits you are concerned with. Do you want to see how he handles AFD, then you would not be concerned with how he edited "random article X." Are you concerned with his policy knowledge related to BLP? Then you would not be concerned with how he !voted in the recent ArbCOM committee. Are you interested in CSD/talk page behavior/etc? Whatever your area of interest, that is what you would be focusing on when you review. A random item wouldn't help you much in evaluating candidates based upon what issues are important to you. Furthermore, the time frame is up to individuals as well. What is the cutoff 3 months? 6 months? 9 months? A year? More? Well, it depends on the person and the issue in question. Was it mere policy knowledge that he has since learned/acquired? Or was it for a blockable offense? Neither solution is viable nor desirable IMO.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 04:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

A little more, while random edits could be defended via statistical analysis, it doesn't work in the fact that not everybody is equally equipped/familiar with the subjects being reviewed. Reviewer X, an expert on CSD, randomly selects an edit related to an uploaded image whose copy rights status is in question, does that reviewer have the expertise to evaluate the edit? At the same time, Reviewer Y, an expert on photos and copyvios randomly pulls up an edit related to CSD---but lacks familiarity to deal with the nuiances of the CSD policys (or doesn't care about them.) A random selection detracts from getting qualified reviewers to review the appropriate subjects being edited.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 22:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

How would looking at a random edit help? Most edits are little tweaks here and little tweaks there. Probably one edit in 100 is a new article. Most of the time you'd just get sent to a diff of someone adding a comma or reformatting their talk page; something like that. You would almost never the problem edits. Hypothetically, an editor could have made 20,000 edits and then two days before his RfA has a massive edit war and reverted an article 12 times while not being picked up for a 3RR violation. What are the chances of landing on one of those 12 troublesome edits out of the 20,000 edit total? (That's a rhetorical question, I can do the maths.) — Fly by Night (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

A better approach would be a more organized review. A dozen editors divide up the article contributions into six blocks, with two editors looking through each range. Report any findings. Another group does the same with talk page comments. Another group looks at the Wikipedia name space.--SPhilbrickT 15:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, obviously that proposal failed pretty quickly. Thanks for the quick feedback. Unsurprisingly, I understand your POVs now, and it's clear that a random edit button would not be ideal. Guoguo12--Talk--  16:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

GutiLucian02 appaear to be a new user who has decided to run for Adminship and bungled the transclusion in his nomination> I have tried to have it transclude properly on the page but I can't figure out what wrong with it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:16, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

He has only around 100 edits, so I reverted an earlier failed attempt (he'd tried to transclude a non-existent page) and strongly suggested he shouldn't run yet. Oh well, I guess it's crash and burn time again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. 28bytes (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Amazing isn't it? Exactly while we are heavily debating this very kind of problem, we get flood of them. Kudpung (talk) 05:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

• Well, I'm quite sure that adding on another layer of bureaucracy for the newbie to read when s/he hasn't read any of the other bureaucracy will solve the problem! :) --Hammersoft (talk) 14:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
• Why would it be amazing? As of your post, 1 week after the discussion started above, we had 2 NotNow closures. In the 4 weeks leading up to that we had 6. 1-2 NotNow closures per week is pretty standard. It would be amazing if we had a true flooding of them, but 2 in 1 week? That's not a flood. I mean, I could equally say, "Amazing, we've gone 4 days without a NotNow. Exactly while we are heavily debating this very kind of problem we get a dearth of them."---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 23:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Not to toot my own horn, but the fall-off in NOTNOW cases coincides with the time since the edit notice was made changed to make it more obnoxious and thus harder to ignore. I know, i know, I'm inviting comment on my skill at being obnoxious...

talk

) 00:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

corelation <> causation :P---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 01:29, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Too soon to tell to be certain, but it might have something to do with it.

talk

) 01:32, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

And a butterfly flapping its wings in Africa might have caused Katrina :P ---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:45, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

• @Beeblebrox; I'd give you a barnstar for being obnoxious, but I can't seem to find one ;) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Here you go:

It's not obnoxious enough. Make the text blink hot pink or something.

Wha?

04:18, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, Make it flash between Inverted colors, I want it to OBNOXIOUS enough to give some one seizure. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Wha?

00:54, 13 February 2011 (UTC) (Seriously, don't click "this" if you're seizure prone. It actually caused seizures.)

I'm afraid this is pretty much the upper limit of my coding skills.

talk

) 19:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I released some of my limited HTML-fu. In some browsers it might blink. Colors may also vary with different browsers. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I think my medium/color is more obnoxious; hmmmm Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 21:26, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I chipped in something from my personal collection of psychedelic images (which are used to pacify people in my building when they take shrooms. It actually works. They sit there clicking and staring at the images for hours. It's creepy.)

Wha?

21:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Anyone know why SoxBot did this? I guess just an error... →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 23:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

It's possibly because someone created a second "Support" section - it's been fixed now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this edit in particular. –xeno^talk 23:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh okay. Thanks. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 23:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ouch 0%... that could have been depressing if I'd noticed it before the edit.... :) As I spotted it I fixed the !vote, it seems to be the editors second edit :s Does that happen a lot (it's a terrible thing but I am completely out of touch with the RFA process) --Errant ^(chat!) 23:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

If someone's second edit is to an RfA I think it's a safe bet that we'll be seeing their RfA before their 100th edit. 28bytes (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I always wonder how the heck they find this place so quickly. It's no

Wha?

01:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it is partly the RFA box located on my user page and many others. After all, I (or the bot in behalf of me) welcomed that user. →♠Gƒoley↔Four♣← 01:19, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there any chance, do people think, of a consensus to apply some minimum requirement above just being a registered editor in order to stand for RfA? I ask because we have just had someone run who had only 76 edits to their name - and we regularly get applications from people with just a few hundred. They're always good faith and always well-meaning, but they never stand a chance, and it must often be demoralizing for a newcomer to be snowed out of RfA in short order. As it stands, we're basically saying "Yeah, you're registered and you've only been here a few days - no problem, that's enough to run for RfA". And then when they apply they get slapped down and told they don't have a chance in hell of passing. I really think some realistic minimum requirements would at least help to set expectations and avoid such disappointments - we know people with so few edits can't succeed at RfA, so why do we continue with the farcical notion that they can run? I realise I might be wasting my time, after WSC's recent comment about being unable for get a consensus for requiring candidates with less than 1,500 edits to only run if they have a nominator (which I think is an excellent idea). But I live in hope. Any thoughts? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think most people who watch this page support it. I do. - Dank (push to talk) 13:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Wasn't there a case - a few months ago - of somebody who applied for RfA for a very specialised technical need, who already had a lot of relevant experience on other wikis but not so much experience here? I'm all in favour of a broad rule that sets a minimum requirement, as long as there's a bit of wiggle room for truly exceptional cases (and it should be worded so that Sue and Sam NewEditor don't get the impression that their 100 edits over the last month qualify them as an exceptional case). bobrayner (talk) 14:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe you're thinking of User:Lustiger seth. - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

We've had Leyo and MGA73, who seem to fit the "special cases" bill. I think the "Fewer than 1,500 edits and you need a nominator" suggestion would cater for any unusual cases like that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

When we've discussed this in the past there have been four meaningful objections that I remember:

1. We need a safety valve to allow for the very occasional exception - hence the precaution that this is just for self nominations, if someone appears who submits flawless FA candidates prepared offline that only ever need one edit, then another editor could still nominate them after less than 1500 edits. Alternatively we could make an exception for people who are already administrators on another Wikimedia project - that would actually apply to the people who have made admin here on under 1500 edits in recent years.
2. We should only do this if there is a way of doing it automatically or at least semi automatically - so if we have an edit notice that successfully warns such editors off from RFA then this could work. If however we put an edit notice in and we still get two or three such trainwrecks a month then it benefits nobody. I would suggest we test it with an edit notice and see if that works.
3. It risks reinforcing Editcountitis at RFA. Which is a fair point but if we want to combat editcountitis I wouldn't start here.
4. Where do draw the line? I'm of the view that there is a clear group of candidates who fall so far short of current community requirements that it is best for them especially that we introduce some sort of minimum threshold for candidates, others have argued that underqualified candidates who run are a random lot and a minimum threshold would make little difference. I think that Kingpin13'srecent stats shows a clear pattern - if we can deter enthusiastic newbies from running at the very start of their wiki career then they are unlikely to run until they have at least a chance of success. I don't particularly care whether you make that threshold three months editing which would fit Kingpin's graph or 1,500 edits - either would address the issue.

I think that answers all the past objections to this idea, and leaves us the potential benefits that dozens fewer newbies would be bitten every year and a certain amount of reviewer time would be saved. ϢereSpielChequers 14:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That's a good graph. I like graphs. If only more debate on this page were based on statistics rather than gut feeling... :-)

Considering the driver for such a change, I'm not very motivated by the idea of weak candidates making extra work for people who hang around here - nobody has to !vote and it's not a heavy burden to add yet another

WP:NOTNOW on the pile. I'm more motivated by the problem that a new(ish) but motivated editor will arrive here wanting to help the project, and they'll get some very demotivating answers... that's not good for the rest of wikipedia. bobrayner (talk

) 14:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Great stuff, thanks. The recent 76-edit candidate had been around since June 2009, so how about something like "If you have been editing for less than three months or have made fewer than 1,500 edits on all Wikipedia projects, you need someone to nominate you"? I think that would address the concerns above. I think it is stringent enough to dissuade the 100-edit newbies, but a low enough bar to avoid seeing it as promoting editcountitis. I do agree we need some sort of automated notice though - just stating it in the policy pages somewhere is unlikely to work, as if newbies haven't read the current guidelines they're probably no more likely to read any new rules. I've seen a few of the snow closure newbies get seriously upset about their rejections and talk about quitting - if we could minimize the chances of that happening, I think we would be doing something good for the project. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Close but how about. If you have been editing for less than three months or have made fewer than 1,500 edits, then unless you are already an administrator on another Wikimedia project, you need someone to nominate you". ϢereSpielChequers 15:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yep, that hits the spot. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Support It might help avoid the hurt feelings of newbies, some of whom think a couple hundred edits and a few weeks is sufficient. I seriously think being told there is a rule would be accepted better than being told they weren't good enough to be seriously considered. It isn't a problem for the rare example of someone who might othewise qualify as, it should be easy enough to find an admin to nominate.--SPhilbrickT 01:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree with making instruction-creep minimum requirements. The page already states "The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Wikipedia long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy". The candidate should be recommended to look at recent successful RFAs for an idea of what is required, but saying "Must have 3 months" or "1500 edits with a nominator" is just getting needlessly complicated, and there are always exceptions to the rule making the rule pointless. AD 15:18, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Candidates *are* recommended to look at the relevant policies, recent RfAs etc, but that's clearly not working - we are regularly getting newbie no-chancers having a go and getting burned, and sometimes that ends up chasing away potentially good contributors. If we know such people won't succeed (and we do know it), what is the point of letting them run and take the flack? Exceptions to the rule making the rule pointless? The nominator thing takes care of that - all an exceptional case needs is to ask for a nominator. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

They have a go, despite the clear warnings and notices? That's their choice. We have to stop treating newcomers as if they're idiots. RFAs are already close per NOTNOW and SNOW anyway, and this can easily be extended to RFAs that have yet to begin. AD 17:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

So your approach to newbies who don't really understand the ropes is "fuck them, let them sink"? I prefer a more collegial and supportive approach to newcomers - one which welcomes them, tries to help them understand and integrate with the project, and doesn't say "Yeah, go on, try for admin" when we know full well they don't have a chance. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, not at all. I just prefer using NOTNOW, which does those things just as well. At no point does anyone say "Yeah, go on, try for admin", when they're blatantly unqualified. At the same time, we don't need instruction creep saying you can't run until you have x edits and n days experience. I'd be more insulted that I couldn't try, than if I went head-first into a process I clearly didn't understand and rightly got opposed. If you don't like newcomers being bitten at RFA, deal with the biters. AD 17:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I understand what you're saying. And if that approach was working, then I'd agree. But despite what our guidelines say, despite our asking people to check past RfAs and make sure they have the right experience, and despite the way those experienced editors amongst us might deal with it in the same situation, unqualified newbies with just a few hundred edits are running all the time - and they're crashing and burning. It isn't specific bitey replies, so I don't think there are actually any biters to deal with - I've just seen people wholly demoralised by the whole experience of running and getting a pile-on of "not now" opposes. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• How do you impose a minimum requirement, and what stops people running nonetheless? Users are going to have to be vetted some how, and how do you do that? If someone posts an RfA then it gets vetted there and gets removed within the hour. It's not like it causes any extra work for anyone, except a few clicks. It'd be different if they had to stay open for seven days. But at the moment, you're asking to introduce some new policy to solve a tiny problem. We're going to waste more time and effort trying to craft a solution then we do on the "problem" itself! Besides that, it causes other philosophical problems. Would it apply retrospectively? How is it fair that someone got the mop four years ago who wouldn't even be allowed to have an RfA today? I bet there are loads of non- or semi-active admins from those days that still have the bit. While some of today's active editors have more experience and have more clue; but can't get close because of today's standards. — Fly by Night (talk) 15:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

How would we do this? Well an edit notice would probably be sufficient. No this would not be retrospective, admins who passed with less than 1500 edits would remain admins. This proposal is purely to screen out some future not now RFAs. If we were talking about something that bit one or two newbies a year then I could see the argument that this was a relatively small problem, but it is dozens per annum and scores since we started discussing this solution. So this isn't just a few clicks, it is dozens of bitten newbies, some of whom are driven off, and many hours of other editors time as well. ϢereSpielChequers 15:45, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• • "How do you impose a minimum requirement, and what stops people running nonetheless?": Very good question - I think WSC's suggestion of some sort of automatic edit notice is the way to go, if that's technically achievable.
  • "If someone posts an RfA then it gets vetted there and gets removed within the hour": If they do get through, I think an actual policy reason for closure would be a lot easier on the candidate than the current "You're not good enough" snow closes we often see.
  • "Would it apply retrospectively?": No.
  • "How is it fair that someone got the mop four years ago who wouldn't even be allowed to have an RfA today?": Nobody is proposing that. They'd just need to get a nominator, and as long as they're not an obvious trainwreck, I think that should be easy enough. (And anyway, standards in societies change all the time - there's no obligation to stick to something just because that's the way it used to be.)
  • "While some of today's active editors have more experience and have more clue; but can't get close because of today's standards": Not being able to get in because of today's standards is a whole different ball game to trying to minimize the number of NOTNOW/SNOW candidates who go through the fire.

  -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, they're a lot of answers to my rhetorical questions. This all feels like inventing the electrical saw to crack a nut. Looking at the length of this thread, more time and effort has been spent that would be spent on a whole year's worth of

WP:NOTNOW closures. As for some people's reasoning that we should mollycoddle every new user so they don't get bitten. Shall we idiot-proof the rest of the project? If they're dumb enough to run for adminship in their first week then they deserve to get bitten; it's called natural selection. — Fly by Night (talk

) 20:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This isn't supposed to be a Darwinian free-for-all, it's supposed to be a collegial and supportive environment where we help each other for the overall benefit of the project. I think a little bit of effort expended in helping newcomers to avoid making themselves look like a fool (which is how a lot seem to feel when they get bounced out of RfA), and encouraging them to become long-term contributors, is effort well spent. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I would oppose a minimum requirement. The work of removing unqualified candidates is slight.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:39, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not the point. The point is that that "work" disheartens the candidate and often puts them off Wikipedia for good. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. The current system is like welcoming no-chance candidates in with one hand, while hiding the big stick we're going to hit them with behind our back in the other. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 15:51, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

WSC's comment was similar to my suggestion of a minimum of 2,000 edits and 1 year, and anything less (whoever the nominator is) to be examined and seconded by a 'crat before transclusion. But let's be realistic, the secret consensus is that however much we discuss it, no changes are going to be made, because 2,448 users are watching this page and the number of candidates is still falling. Even the recent interlude on JW's tp fizzled out and got archived. On this tp too many different arguments for change and improvement are always being addressed simultaneously while the important issues carefully get side-stepped like dogs' doos on a Parisian sidewalk. This page needs to focus on the problems in perspective, and IMO, encouraging the mature, experienced editors is higher on the priorities at the moment than discouraging the SNOW and NOTNOW. Kudpung (talk) 16:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC).

2000 edits and 1 year? Those requirements are excessively high. What makes bureaucrats so special they can examine a candidate? All they do is judge the consensus of a discussion, not the candidate. AD 17:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I support this proposal. It questionable whether an editnotice would do much to stop unqualified candidates putting themselves forward; WP:Requests for adminship/Nominate already says, 'While there is no minimum requirement, self-nominated candidates with fewer than 2,000 edits and three months of active editing often see their RfAs closed per WP:SNOW or Wikipedia:Not Now shortly after adding them.' But even if it does nothing to stop such users, I agree that it would be preferable to have a policy-based reason to close their RFAs ('sorry, you don't meet the minimum requirements') than the current situation ('your obvious mistake meant you got pile-on opposed by twenty users in the first ten minutes. We hope you can survive this public humiliation and one day feel able to show your face here again.'). The only question would be where to set the minimum requirements. I'd say someone ought to take a look at the record of past RFAs, over the past three years or so, and see what was the minimum edit count and account age that a candidate passed with; then set the limits below that. My gut instinct is that 1,500 edits might be a little high, but if we've never had anyone pass with less than that, then I guess it would be reasonable. Robofish (talk) 16:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right, 1500 edits is high. AD 17:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

This may be a bit late, but lets think honestly, lets say a user has been on Wiki for a year and accumulated 1,600 edits. Would you really vote for them? Or would you oppose questioning experience. When is the last time an editor that was not an admin on another project passed rfa with less than 2,000 edits. A while ago, I know. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 18:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I might. Seriously. People are looking at this in the wrong way - is it right that standards are getting excessively high? No, it's wrong. Especially in terms of edit counting, we're looking at the wrong things. Knowledge is probably the most important for an admin, but that isn't measured in number of edits. We've digressed though - point is, we don't need bureaucratic instruction creep stopping someone from applying. Say the minimum of 2000 edits was imposed - the candidate applies with 2001 edits, and gets opposed for just being over the threshold. That's what people at RFA are like - any excuse to oppose someone, and they will. I said above, if you want to stop newcomers being bitten, deal with the biters. Until then, I'm firmly against adding set criteria to keep the newbies out. AD 18:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying I wouldn't, but I can't speak for the other 100 voters or so. Unfortunately, many people's "RFA Criteria" is around 6,000. For example, If I were to run (which I won't for quite some time...) I would be below many peoples RFA Criterium (at 4,200). There is not enough people that are willing to even look at someone with that amount of edits. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 18:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Where they got 6000 from, I don't know. All it tells us is they're very active. So what? I could make 6000 edits in a week or maybe less just playing on Huggle. AD 18:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly -- any anyone could, but then they would oppose because all the edits are Huggle. I'm not sure where anyone comes up with this criteria; but, I think you'd be a fine Admin, Aiken drum. But then there is those who will fuss over edit count and number or GA's...Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 18:29, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the solution to the problem of newcomers being bitten is to not bite them. Using the

WP:SNOW" in a less terse, dismissive way that might actually guide the newcomers towards something they'd enjoy doing, like vandal-fighting. Demoralizing a new user doesn't have to be part of the RfA experience; just treat the candidate like an adult and explain why you think they're not ready in human terms without throwing a bunch of acronyms at them. And I empathize with the desire not to drive newcomers away, but my observation has been that it's not the newcomers that are driven away so much as the editors who would meet any minimum tenure and edit-count criteria we'd reasonably put in an edit notice. No minimum requirements would have prevented this bloodbath. 28bytes (talk

) 20:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The solution to newcomers being bitten at RFA was why I wrote

WP:NOTNOW in the first place. Alas, it has (unsuprisingly) been hijacked as a WP:YET ANOTHER BLUE LINKED VOTE. Pedro :  Chat 

20:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think "hijacked" is the right word. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that when you wrote it, you didn't expect it to be used to oppose editors who'd (for example) been active for four years, made 40,000 edits and created 2,300 articles. Maybe someone needs to write

WP:I'm not ready to support at this time, but tossing [[WP:NOTNOW]] at you would be pretty disrespectful given your accomplishments here, so I won't do that either and will just oppose normally. 28bytes (talk

) 21:38, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Very right. NOTNOW is a non bitey alternative to SNOW and speciifically related to RFA. It's intention was to remove the

WP:BITE intimated at some RFAs with SNOWball comments which impled "you don't stand a chance in hell". Alas, it's even now turned up as an AFD argument, for goodness sake. Classic bluelinking to shortcuts that sound right without understanding them. Pedro :  Chat 

21:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are also other problems at RFA that this proposal would not fix. But fixing one problem at RFA does not stop you going on to fixing other problems - if anything fixing one problem would break the tradition that nothing changes at RFA and make it easier to fix other problems. ϢereSpielChequers 20:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to an edit notice strongly discouraging people from self-nominating if they have less than N edits, but making it an official requirement will, I think, have the unfortunate side effect of generating a lot of WP:NOTNOWs for editors who have N + 1 edits, who will be even more upset to receive the WP:NOTNOWs since they've "passed the requirement for adminship." Further, a hard limit will not discourage people with 80 edits from transcluding anyway, since the existing edit notice practically begs them to read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship, and they obviously don't, or they wouldn't be transcluding in the first place. With the minimum requirement proposal, they'll still get a "no thanks" message on their talk page, but it will probably be more brusque since they've not only disregarded a community norm, but they've now violated a requirement as well. I'm very sympathetic to the goal of being less bitey to newcomers, I'm just concerned this proposal might backfire and have the opposite effect. 28bytes (talk) 21:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Anyone with 1501 edits would SNOW out anyway. Even finding successful RfA's for candidates with 3000 (double the proposed minimum) is hard. —Soap— 21:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I have an odd idea that might help with the bluelink dilemma. What if we mandate that all votes, supports, opposes, and neutrals, be at least 10 words long, make at least one point (it could be "I agree with the assessments made by

Wha?

22:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Come on folks. This is degenerating into mental masturbation. Can we do this? Should we do that? What about this? We're inventing problems to solve. So come on, let's stop all this chitter-chatter and get back to some editing. We are here to make an encyclopedia, after all. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've tweaked the wording of the existing edit notice slightly to stress some of the points made here. [6] It may help, it may not but it can't hurt to try.
  talk
  ) 23:50, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

  That looks good, thanks. I honestly think it's nuts allowing people to run for RfA who we know have no chance of succeeding, and I don't think that voluntary recommendations work anywhere near as well as actual rules in such things. But changing the notice has got to be worth trying - as you say, it can't hurt. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Straw poll

I'd like to ask for a straw poll regarding the above suggestion, just to quickly see if it's a waste of time. And I mean a genuine straw poll - that is, completely non-binding and with no action to be taken as a result of it, but just to get some idea of the numbers and a feel for whether it's worth pursuing further.

Anyway, the proposal is the we implement something along the lines of "If you have been editing for less than three months or have made fewer than 1,500 edits, then unless you are already an administrator on another Wikimedia project, you need someone to nominate you." -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support well obviously. --Kudpung (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose as pointless instruction creep and a needless increase to the workload of already overburdened admins.--Atlan (talk) 14:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose Sorry, it's not a bad idea, I just don't see the benefit. Self-noms of clearly
  WP:NOTNOW candidates tend to get treated quite gently, maybe with a moral support or two and, if they look like a good editor, a comment like "you're going along the right lines, come back in six months". Where's the harm? The time wasted isn't particularly egregious, and setting a specific edit count just encourages people to think that an edit count indicates anything of any importance.--Korruski^Talk
  16:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose How about we're all just nicer to each other and make honest attempts to cut down on the venom in RfA? How about we just make an effort to calmly explain to the newbies that we expect a high level of committment to the project before they become admins, instead of spamming WP:NOTNOW like lazy assholes? That seems like a better option.
  Wha?
  16:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  Can you suggest a way to make people nicer to each other? (I'm sure the UN would love to hear from you if you can ) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  (

  Wha?

  16:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  I'll choose "leading by example" over incivility blocks any day. Incivility is a bad thing, but it's also quite subjective, and strangely seems to occur most often in those we happen to disagree with. 28bytes (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

  (edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)I don't quite see the rationale for it being an increase in workload - if anything, it would save the time wasted !voting on what in the first 24 hours might not be a blatantly obvious SNOW or NOTNOW. Kudpung (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Similar setups are in use on other WMF wikis and they seem to work well. —Soap— 18:10, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support It'll definitely help in keeping away quite a few of the bad actors, but more importantly (to an extent) keep the genuinely enthusiastic newbie from being barraged with "you didn't use an edit summary here" or "you haven't made any edits to xyz board" etc. —SpacemanSpiff 18:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The thing about de facto rules is that only the people who already know them...know them. There's no reason we shouldn't inform users looking to step onto the block about the fact that this is how things actually work before they get trampled. Fluffernutter, previously known as Chaoticfluffy (talk) 19:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)