Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 224

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

OK, who's in on the experiment? Includes agreeing to support whatever the group comes up with. North8000 (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• North8000 (talk) 20:45, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• KumiokoCleanStart (as said above)

Experiment-goals

Please join the experiment above before editing this section.

Motion #1 (Statement of goal) The rate of people becoming admins needs to be increased, at least a little.

• Support North8000 (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support
  talk
  ) 22:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Motion #2 (Statement of goal) Accomplishing #1 should include getting more good candidates to apply.

• Support North8000 (talk) 20:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
• Support
  talk
  ) 22:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Experiment-Workshop / brainstorming on solution ideas

This is not a "decision" section on these, just a place to propose, discuss, and get a preliminary gauge of support on them. Please join the experiment above before editing this section.

I've been around for the last 5-ish years... Admittedly I've come and gone more than a couple times over the last several years, and I've probably been away for a long while. I've been around for a few days recently - and I haven't seen a single RFA up! This used to be an extremely uncommon occurrence... Just curious what's happened to this place? SQL^{Query me!} 07:51, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing. It's exactly as you left it; we froze the entire project. :-) More seriously, if you'd been around, you'd be grateful for the lack of RfAs. One less drama in the ever-growing list.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Frankly the RFA process has been floundering for a long time. fewer and fewer admins are elected every year and more and more work is done by fewer and fewer of them. These days we generally desysop more admins due to inactivity than we promote. But then when we have an experienced editor run for it they are shot down. Its generally only the candidates that don't get involved in the day to day activities of the project and keep their heads down that get promoted.

talk

) 13:01, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

SQL, why not stand yourself? GiantSnowman 13:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/SQL happened in 2007, about three months after SQL's initial registration. Nyttend (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

D'oh! GiantSnowman 13:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

That would never happen today which perhaps is another sign our system doesn't work. As far as I can tell relatively few editors who were elected with our gentler RFA process back then have been kicked out for abusing the tools. Further proof that the fear of experienced editors abusing the tools is more of a myth than an actual problem. The actual problem lies in the admin for life mentality, the extremely difficult process for removing the tools after abuse and the tendency for the power to go to editor turned admins heads.

talk

) 13:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

If there was a disscussion about why oranges grow on tress and why carrots do not, you would turn it into a discussion about administrator abuse. Why don't you create a subpage in your user space (if you don't already have one) setting forth your views on the subject? Then you could just provide a link to that page in all of your responses. Think of all the keystrokes it would save.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:19, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Silence doesn't help solve the problem. You may not agree and you may be tired of hearing it but it doesn't mean the problem doesn't exist nor does it make the problem just go away. That's what got us here in the first place, too many editors including me keeping their big nose out of admins business and now they are driving people off the site with alarming efficiency. The only reason I'm still here is because I can't take a hint.

talk

) 14:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes SQL, RfA is definitely not what it used to be. Once upon a time there'd be eight or so listed all at once, and a good chunk of them would be passing with flying colours. Today, there might as well be tumbleweed rolling across the screen. Kurtis ^(talk) 00:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It's hardly surprising self respecting editors mostly avoid being associated with that disarray we call our admin system. It is not so much a functioning admin system as a bizairre entertainment system, presenting puzzling and wondrous performers called admins, some behaving as though they have escaped from the pages of Alice in Wonderland. Wikipedia has been deeply injured by the contempt some admins show to content builders. I thought once there might be hope, but it seems the Wikimedia Foundation is reinforcing this view that content builders are disposable. The crazed system cannot change from within, so why would any editor with the real interests of Wikipedia at heart put themselves forward in an RfA? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:11, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree, all the way down to the comments about the WMF reinforcing this backwards and broken system.

talk

) 03:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Should we all quit, then?--Ymblanter (talk) 08:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Good heavens no! As an act it superbly rivals Monty Python. It fails only as an administrative structure. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:12, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Besides that pretty much everyone knows that RFA is broken. The problem is the community is incapable of passing any changes that would fix it so were stuck with it. I for one hope the WMF steps in and does something. We may still not like it but something needs to be done and we have shown we can't do it. I wish we could, but that's not the case.

talk

) 10:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It also means that the majority of current admins could not be admins by today's criteria/process. North8000 (talk) 11:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that is absolutely true as well.

talk

) 12:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have been saying that for years. The community de-adminship Rfc in 2010 (

WP:CDA) clearly showed that these very "legacy admins" who could not face an Rfa today will band together to fight any changes that are perceived as a threat to their lifetime adminship. Until Jimbo and the WMF acknowledge there is a serious problem and take corrective action to fix adminship issues, including de-adminship and Rfa, nothing is likely to change. Jusdafax

19:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I doubt they'll do anything meaningful unfortunately. They'll probably just do what they've always done and blame it on the interface and insist it needs to be more like Facebook, twitter or some other stupid thing. Pretty buttons and Graphical User Interfaces aren't the problem. Its the attitude and the environment. If we can fix that, people will come back and want to edit again. But as long as the ship is steared by Beavis and Butthead they'll go play on Facebook or build up their characters on World of Warcraft instead.

talk

) 19:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with your characterization of WMF and Jimbo. These are people with a lot of work to do and for the most part they are doing a pretty good job, as shown by the continued popularity of the website. But there is considerable inertia at the WMF when it comes to the editing community and the way the pecking order is set up, the fear being that major change could make things worse, not better. They keep doing editor studies, but are afraid of imposing a top-down solution. And I have to agree that the precedent of a top-down solution, once established, could itself lead to a Wiki-dictatorship which would be much much worse than the semi-disfunctional state we are in today. Jusdafax 19:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

RfA is, of course, exactly what it was when it was creating a new admin a day or so. It converts the same fraction of new users into admins that it did then, there's just far fewer new users to convert. WilyD 09:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Your fallacy has the soothing effect of sounding true; but it is no less of a fallacy for being eloquent. --My76Strat (talk) 09:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you'd care to explain why it is not true? Worm^TT(talk) 09:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It would be better letting you explain, I tend to get over verbose.--My76Strat (talk) 09:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I hope you don't actually believe that we are dumb enough to think that the process today is the same as a few years ago!

talk

) 11:16, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Interestingly the yearly pass percentage of RfAs has been between 30 and 40% since 2006, so to rephrase the above comment as "[RfA] converts the same proportion of applicants into admins" seems accurate

^✰

11:52, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

It is true that the number of new editors has fallen somewhat, more relevantly for RFA the number of editors doing their 1000th edit or contributing 100 edits a month has fallen compared to 2006/2008. But the fall in the number of new editors is minor compared to the fall in the number of successful RFAs. You only need to compare the community in 2004 to today to see that the decline in our flow of new editors is insufficient to explain the decline or even to be the major factor in it. Then when you look at 2003 the comparison is stark - a smaller community was appointing many times as many admins. Part of the problem here has been the combination of changing standards and reduced retention. As we've shifted away from actually checking candidate's edits and increasingly to questions and measuring their tenure and edit count so the de facto minimum tenure and edit count has risen to a level that too few editors are reaching. This has several problems, we are losing people before they become admins, we are not appointing enough admins to maintain admin numbers, and we are probably not screening candidates as effectively as we used to. Losing candidates before they become admins is of course only a problem if becoming an admin is something that encourages people to stay, but I think we have fairly strong evidence for that. Not appointing sufficient admins will only become an urgent problem when we start getting big gaps at AIV. But if I'm right in thinking that a !vote based on edit count, tenure and an open book exam is less useful than a !vote cast after an hour of checking a candidate's edits, then there is a risk that we are appointing people after less effective scrutiny than in the past. ϢereSpielChequers 11:30, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I think there are a couple of things that make straight % comparisons irrelevant. 1st, we have a lot more articles now, over 4 million, more than double what we had in 2008, second the amount of Admin work has expanded dramatically (new namespaces, vastly more content protected, increased vandalism, less people attracted to performing the task) as well we the problems you point out. Peple can say they don't trust me and others all they want but the fact is its 99% hyperbole. Few RFA's pass without some opposes and somem RFA's barely passed, yet a lot of those folks are still admins and the vast majority of "problems" or "fears" identified in the RFA's turned out to be nonsense. I also don't really think we aren't screening the candidates as well anymore, my fear is that we are overscreening them. The problem I see occurring is that if the person dared work in any admin areas previously to getting the tools then they have a strong chance of not getting them because they will have made too many editors mad. So what we end up with these days are those editors who generally vote along with the crowd to increase their AFD and other venue percentages, don't get into the middle of discussions like ANI (which need more eyes than the usual cast of characters), etc.

talk

) 13:08, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

outdent RfA graph from a year ago. Updated RfA data is here. Cheers. 64.40.54.58 (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This comparison I made last November may also be of interest. It shows that while the number of active editors has been gradually decreasing for the last five years, the rate of successful adminship candidacies has dropped precipitously. —

talk

09:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

• It boils down to this: fewer people are willing to stand.

  There's a whole discussion about why that is. Is it the dropoff of new, active editors? Is it the increasingly poisonous atmosphere at RFA, with volunteers unwilling to endure the ritual hazing, the close scrutiny of matters that may be relevant or deeply irrelevant to their candidacy, or the marathon of personal remarks made by the socially inept or terminally tactless? Is the dropoff of new, active editors caused by speedy deletion and block-happy sysops on their insane power trips, or is it that the hapless new sysops are bombarded by an endless stream of marketers, POV-pushers and vandals? Are we in the process of electing a ruling class that sees content creation as someone else's job, or are the sysops mostly prolific creators of high-quality encyclopaedic content? Is it that the sysop duties take valuable volunteering time away from content writing? The lack of data prevents meaningful discussion.

  Wikipedia clearly needs a thorough overhaul of its system of government, which should involve replacing RFA with an intelligent process for selecting admins, fusing some of the smaller discussion processes together, de-cliquing the audited content processes, giving users strong incentives to participate in reference-checking and copyright-cleanup processes, and deleting AN/I.

  The perfect way to solve all these problems is, of course, to make me, personally, Dictator of Wikipedia and pay me a fat annual salary to do it. Failing that, we need to break the entrenched deadlocks in RFA reform as an essential first step.—S Marshall T/C 11:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Breaking entrenched deadlocks is exactly what I want to do, by using hard numbers to find out where--if anywhere--there are shortages of admin action. There's a section below designed to identify the areas we should be looking at. — 

The Potato Hose

05:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Wanna join my experiment (below)? North8000 (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just a dumb tuber, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what this experiment is. Can you please lay it out? — 

The Potato Hose

05:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

A discussion about whether a (technical) change be made in the RfA procedure or not is going on at the technical village pump. smtchahal^talk 06:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Identify quantifiable admin tasks

• Deletion/Undeletion
• Protection
• Blocking
• Unblocking
• Move-over-redir
• Histmerge
• Granting user permissions
• _________

Measurements

• Pick snapshots to establish data and trends. I would suggest looking at backlogs from 3, 6, 9, 12, 18, 24, 36 months ago.
• Blocking backlog is probably hard to figure out, but it should be easy to figure out the unblocking backlog by looking at the times between posting an unblock request, and that request being approved or denied. (There will be some fuzziness in the data from people whose unblock requests need a lot of discussion. I think (but have no data to prove) that most unblock requests are pretty cut and dried so it wouldn't be that much noise).

Identify unquantifiable admin tasks

• Closing discussions and RfCs
• Editing protected pages/templates
• __________

Can these be quantified? How?

• Discussion closes will be hard to quantify. For AfDs maybe a good way to find the data would be to look at how far past 168 hours an AfD closed as 'delete' has stayed open (since non-admins can close some keeps).
• We may not be able to tell how often an admin edits through protection, but we can look at the time gaps between the editrequest and its resolution, can't we? — 
  The Potato Hose
  02:28, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Comments

Is all this necessary? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Until you feel like telling me where I can find this data (instead of just telling me to go wade through galaxies of text until I stumble upon it), yes. Again, my view is that we should start by questioning the assumption. I know you are a passionate advocate of RfA reform, but blah blah only tool is a hammer blah blah everything looks like a nail. I am saying that we should look in a very dispassionate way at hard numbers, then define the problem, then look for rational solutions. — 

The Potato Hose

03:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to awkward, I would, at this stage however, have to do as much wading as you, and as my talk page notice states, I'm very stretched for time time right now. My memory of what was done is nevertheless very good. What I am suggesting is that if you do your own homework, I'm sure you will find some enlightenment, and a great deal of background and help in formulating whatever reform project you believe providing more data would be helpful for, and how it would reinforce your arguments. Previous reform projects were in fact dispassionate (if you ignore the trolling that finally made us give up), and led by experienced users both admins and non admins; the problems were very clearly identified as you will discover, and many serious solutions were suggested. However, even the latest round of discussions pioneered relentlessly by User:Dank earlier this year brought very little participation.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Look... you're still missing my point, and given that I've explained it half a dozen different ways, I can't help but wonder if it's on purpose. You're trying to bludgeon a problem to death, and I'm wanting research to find the weak points in its armour first. But if you're not interested in actually discussing what I am saying, instead of shooting it down at every single step, then I'm not really interested in continuing this conversation with you. — 

The Potato Hose

03:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Over the years, I've certainly bludgeoned the issues with RfA to death. I'm perfectly at liberty to suggest where you might look and I've explained why I have no inclination to do it for you, so please AGF - in my more enthusiastic phases on RfA reform and when I had more time, I might have done. I just know only too well where all these discussions lead (or don't). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Except that based on your responses, nobody has ever researched this data. And you have some strange objection to trying something different, which is bizarre to me. In any case, I'm tired of you saying "It won't work because Reasons" and not bothering to respond to any points I have raised. I would have thought someone as deeply involved in the past discussions as you say you have been would know where to find the data I seek--even if it's just a rough idea--or tell me flat out it's never been researched. Seems to me you're more interested in sounding weary about the struggle than really finding real solutions that actually have a snowball's chance of passing successfully. So for all those reasons, I really don't want to continue this 'discussion' with you; there's only so much knee-jerk rejection a man can take. — 

The Potato Hose

04:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to make some sugestions but loosing your cool won't help either, and I'm a bit too long in the tooth to take the bait. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Every 'suggestion' you've made has been "NO UR RONG STOP IT," instead of actually refuting my points. Forgive me if I fail to recognize that as a persuasive argument. There was no bait. — 

The Potato Hose

05:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• This is looking like a rehash of the metadiscussion in the previous section. May I meekly suggest: Potato, if you wanna do it, just do it, and Kudpung, if you don't wanna do it, then just don't do it. You may doubt that any good will come of it, but no harm will come of simply mining for data, will it? --Stfg (talk) 09:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

I am. I just have little patience, online or off, with people who just say NO NO NO without even bothering to explain why. Saying "people have talked about stuff" is not saying why. — 

The Potato Hose

05:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed some unrelated personal commentary. Guys, try to keep this discussion more light than heat, ok?

Personal attacks don't help resolve discussions. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk

) 13:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

• There seems to be some misunderstanding in the thread above. Admin attrition, the decline in candidacy, desyoping, and forcasts when admin numbers will become critical, and the reasons why, have all been well documented over the past 3 years, not only by myself, but by statistical contributions by
  Signpost articles. I have never inferred that new stats would be bad stats - what I have contended is that they may only confirm, once again, what is already abundantly clear. 100s, if not 1,000s of hours have been put into research and discussion on what is wrong with RfA and suggesting of solutions, and even the Foundation and the Founder have voiced their opinions - but not actually done anything about it or carried them through - perhaps understandably so because RfA is a community issue to be resolved by the community. Nevertheless, Wales' comment nearly 3 years ago that RfA is a nasty place, still rings true and something still needs to be done. We can perhaps understand the large faction of those who appear to express antipathy for all things admin in general such as those of Other inspiration (quotes by others), and who possibly view all attempts at reform as simply maintaining a structure of site management they abhor and who hence tar all admins with the same brush, but nothing much will be achieved however if those who are interested in reform express themselves with hostility - RfA itself is a sufficiently hostile environment, and hostility on the part of those who want to change it, or who misrepresent other users' comments or take them out of context, won't help matters much. Nor will blatant lies and PA (blockable offense) in the middle of these discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk
  ) 06:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

What we need to do to change RfA is to, put simply, be nicer. If we're nicer, we won't completely discourage potential candidates from running, and we may see an increase in the RfA success rate. We can still give constructive criticism, as long as it's warranted, but we shouldn't be outright rude. I understand that this thread probably won't help RfA progress at all, and that's completely fine. But if you're an RfA voter, or you work on RfA reform, or if you're just reading this to read through RfA's talk page, I (and many others) encourage you to be civil when you're discussing these things, and while you can give constructive criticism (which is much needed in most cases), keep your blatantly rude comments to yourself. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:55, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if everyone behaved in kind and decent ways it wouldn't matter much who had admin tools, or what those tools were, and most issues would be easily resolved. But many people are not kind people, particularly when they are given asymmetric power over another group of people. And some of the users on Wikipedia who moralise about "civility" use it to bludgeon other users, and are themselves in the top echelon of the worst abusers. I doubt, Utahraptor, that merely exhorting people to be more "civil" will produce changes for the good. What would significantly reduce levels of "incivility" would be to reduce current levels of anger at the injustices of the current shonky admin system by replacing it with one that functions in transparent, considered and decent ways. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this is a significant problem in RfAs. Also, that it's very difficult, and actually probably undesirable, to police civilty. But I've been wondering whether the following is feasible: any bullet in the voting sections, whether suppot, oppose or neutral, may be replied to only by the candidate (and the voter may reply to that, etc). Anyone else who wishes to discuss a vote must go to the voter's talk page, from which, as always, the voter may banish anyone who becomes offensive. I believe this will work, because those who use incivility as a strategy are usually depending on the attention they get from it. Very often, it's all they want. So make the attention harder to get. --Stfg (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I forget where I read this, but I found a lot of truth in it; if a person begins their comments to another with "Dear Utahraptor" for example, and closes with sincerely, it becomes harder to be rude in that communication. I'm certainly not prescribing speech, but like you said, we can only really change ourselves. In my own unscientific research, I found that I enjoy being nice to people, and I suspect they enjoy being treated with kindness as well. I guess that's a win win situation; for me anyway.--My76Strat (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

@Stfg: That actually sounds like it would help. Somebody should give that concept a shot.

@My76Strat: Anger is natural; a few years ago, I snapped at a few people here on RfA talk (some may even remember; it was when I proposed we lower RfA standards, October 2010). But like you said, it's relatively easy to manage in most cases. Ultimately, though, the fate of RfA rests in the hands of the uncivil, and whether or not they're willing to be nicer. There's nothing we can do to completely change them, other than to say "Hey, you should be nicer". The rest is up to them. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 16:17, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that it would help to only have the candidate responding. In my experience the really crass stuff is often the "vote" itself, and sometimes it is best for others to respond rather than the candidate. Some of the most effective responses that I've seen have come from admins who were able to look at the relevant deleted contributions and explain why an action had made sense because of some page that was now deleted. ϢereSpielChequers 16:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You have a point there. And ultimately, no matter what we do (if we even do anything), it won't completely solve the problem. The only cure-all for the volatile RfA environment is the total end of incivility, and while a few might be willing to tone down their voices, a complete cessation is probably out of the question. But who knows? Only time will tell how this eventually pans out. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 16:35, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I have a proposition to change it but excuse me if I don't have any faith whatsoever it will be taken seriously. Here is what I think we need to do. If they person cannot be civil in their comment then their "vote" should be stricken completely. It won't count. So if they want their vote to be considered, they better make the comment civil. My guess is it won't need to happen very many times before people start making civil comments.

But there's the usual problem. What makes an RfA comment "civil"?--Jasper Deng (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The same way we define it at

talk

) 20:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I do wonder what the correlation is between people who say "RfA is an uncivil place" and people who "have had an unpleasant RfA". Given that I don't believe RfA is as bad as some other people, I would have thought it was quite high. Worm^TT(talk) 20:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that its easy enough to conclude that RFA is an uncivil place and we can also fairly easily determine how. Its not me as an individual editor saying it, its been said by many over and over from Jimbo and the WMF all the way down to new users. Was my RFA unpleasant? Certainly. But it doesn't change the core problem that the RFA process is crap and the comments left on RFA's need to be more civil. It has gotten a bit better this year but there are still plenty of hot headed editors making unnecessarily harsh and uncivil comments when a simple "Oppose, editor is too X" will do. We don't need all the dramatics and showmanship.

talk

) 20:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm largely with Kumioko on this one. If incivil !votes were simply reverted rather than ignored at the end then RFA would be much improved, and more effective. I can think of at least one RFA which in hindsight should have tanked and would have tanked if a memorably incivil oppose had been expressed more effectively and been diff supported. An incivil unevidenced rant at RFA can sometimes be little more than a dominance display by the wannabe alpha males of our community, trying and sometimes succeeding in swaying an RFA debate by tubthumping rather than rational discourse. Of course the difficulty is who gets to revert such RFA incivilities - I'd like to see the crats doing it. That said I would regard a straight unvarnished oppose !vote as borderline incivil. To me the difference between an incivil and civil !vote is over tone and evidence. I'd rather see "oppose - these two diffs look like copyvio to me" as it is more diplomatic and hopefully more effective than "Oppose - awful contributions". ϢereSpielChequers 22:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm with Kumioko as well. Constructive diffs and constructive criticism are fine, as long as they are well-founded and stray as far away from incivility as possible. We see a lot of comments that aren't constructive, though, and that are very rude and damaging to not only the candidate but RfA as a process. I've repeated several times that we're never going to completely fix this, and we won't; there will always be that "rude jerk" that just won't stop. But I think Kumioko's idea is a great one and would probably help, and if I had the time I'd try to help the community see it through. But I'm sure there are plenty of other people who are willing to do that. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

We'll need at least one more closer, and two would be nice. This may run until June 17, though the proposer has proposed ending it sooner: see User_talk:Theopolisme#Closing PC/2 RfC. (This may or may not be relevant to RfA.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Administrators ought to be required to identify to the WMF to show they have reached the legal age of majority where they domicile. The fact that this is so vehemently opposed is telling of our problems in many ways. The kids need to concentrate on doing well in school and the adults can administer this site while they focus on studies. We shouldn't be exposing minor children to some utterly adult content that resides in our deleted contributions, but we do; why?--My76Strat (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

A grey area - not controlled by current policy. That said, some children have made it even to 'cratship, and in one instance, if memory serves me right, even to steward. I'm not saying whether I'm in favour of this or not. Whichever way I would opine, I would be shot down in flames. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:29, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It really doesn't matter. No major change will happen unless the WMF enforces it. If that happens, who knows how many people would leave in protest?

AutomaticStrikeout  ? 

02:41, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I have to wonder what you mean by "adult content". A lot of people are exposed to very questionable content even in junior high and high school years, and I fail to see how a person in his/her high school years, which is most likely the age of most if not all of the non-adult sysops, would be greatly affected by seeing this apparently horrifying content. TCN7JM 04:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

It's not about how mature you are. It's about what kind of availability can the WMF facilitate for minor children. I'm not talking about what you can find in this great encyclopedia; that free content is arguably educational. It's about what may be reasonably available as deleted content, and its suitability.--My76Strat (talk) 05:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

What in the world does that have to do with adminship? All the sysop tools that require maturity (yes, they do) and trustworthiness, and you're upset because the right to view deleted content is not needed in a child's education? Why does that matter in becoming a sysop? TCN7JM 05:09, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not upset about a thing; why would you suggest that?--My76Strat (talk) 05:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You would not have started this discussion if you were not concerned about this. Also, my other questions still stand. TCN7JM 05:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

A lot of young people might think something like this is a terrible thing; I don't believe it is, however something like this could be framed in some way where the WMF was almost compelled to make changes and actually follow some other set of rules; like wherever the servers are located. I don't see deleted contributions, but I imagine some age specific content, if not images, would exceed what the spirit of Florida law is striving for regarding young people.--My76Strat (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The only way to introduce such measures would be to insist that all candidates submit a proof of identity to the Foundation, like we are required to do for some functions already, or to expunge completely any highly sensitive material from the servers, or limit access to it, like we already do to some extent, to oversighters (who need to be over 18 and identified themselves to the WMF). This would however be a major turnaround in fundamental policy. It's something that the community could bring about through its own initiative, but I believe it's been tried already and failed on the premise that Wikipedia is not censored. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

As you have said many times, for everything ever tried nothing has happened. Maybe it's time we frame a proposal that must be acted on; then change starts happening because we made it so; hopefully change catches on from there.--My76Strat (talk) 04:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree that young students should focus on their studies, but adults have responsibilities that take up most of their time, too. And what of college students? They're not children, yet they need to focus on their studies. So should college students not be allowed to run? I'm not saying I oppose your proposal; on the contrary I'm neutral about it. But you have to remember that when you make a proposal like this you have to look at all angles, not just the angle that looks pretty. ;) The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 12:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what brought this up, but I have to disagree. Some editors choose to use—or declare—their real names, and that's their choice, but anonymity is a cherished part of the internet and an important factor in many participating here, for many reasons including in some cases very real problems with livelihood and safety. Moreover, we quite rightly pay attention to the edits—the actions—of editors here, not to their names (including, so far as possible, their choice of nickname). I understand we have had quite capable admins who were under the age of majority in their countries of residence, but I wouldn't know the specifics and frankly would rather not know, because it's none of my business. What is my business is their on-wiki reputation. I really don't think it's worth driving good editors—and admin candidates—away, or forcing them to either feel less safe or be intentionally dishonest, in order to save them from reading dirty graffiti in articles. As if the encyclopedia isn't already full of sexually explicit, politically alarming and otherwise disturbing content as all good encyclopedias are. Surely we all know the encyclopedia, along with National Geographic, serves as many children's first introduction to pictures their parents would rather they didn't see. And surely we all recognise this "for the sake of the children" argument as a classic thin end of the wedge—where would the censorship stop, and how would we possibly accommodate all the diverse parental/authoritarian demands for censorship? In addition, although the ability to view deleted material is as I understand it the big legal obstacle to unbundling from the WMF's point of view, it doesn't follow that administrators necessarily spend a great deal of their time viewing deleted content. Anyone level-headed enough to volunteer to be an admin and to be trusted with adminship is surely level-headed enough to limit their exposure to dreck if it's likely to unnerve them. So I'm frankly surprised to see this proposed and supported. --Yngvadottir (talk) 12:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't expect this to gain support. I'm only throwing it out there to consider the angle of framing a proposal that the WMF would be obliged to support. Otherwise I expect we'll see the same amount of change we've seen up to now.--My76Strat (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

By the same reasoning – young people need to spend all their time on schoolwork! – I imagine that My76Strat also actively campaigns against teenagers being allowed to watch television, talk to their friends, participate in sports, play chess, have a part-time job, learn a musical instrument, perform volunteer work, or read any books not officially assigned by a teacher. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:57, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

You have a very active imagination; great things reside in your thoughts.--My76Strat (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Was that necessary?

AutomaticStrikeout  ? 

13:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think yes. My76Strat's logic seems to be that children should not be allowed to become sysops because the rights aren't beneficial to their studies. If you're going to use that logic, you must also agree that sysop rights aren't beneficial to an adult's career. If that was the case, we'd have around 0 sysops. TCN7JM 17:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I rather think that you have misunderstood me. And tomorrow the sun will rise.--My76Strat (talk) 18:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there would be any possibility of framing a proposal that the WMF would be obliged to support, whatever the topic. The Foundation has a history of rejecting changes that were reached after substantial debate and massive community consensus. The WMF employees who have the final say, are not elected personel and an employee can even unilaterally override anything they don't like. On the other hand, they frequently impose and implement their new ideas which the community might not have been given sufficient opportunity to comment on. In the recent past, some such ideas have resulted in the need for a massive clean up by the volunteers when Foundation projects badly misfired. There is some speculation that the WMF may intervene on RfA reform; that remains to be seen, but they are probably just as at loss for plausible solutions as we are now. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• This isn't about ensuring that all admins are 18 or over, having all admins identify to the Foundation is about enabling PR companies to serve writs on deleting admins and stop us deleting their clients' pages as spam or POV puffery. Yes in the past we used to appoint admins who were teenagers or younger, but to my regret one of the consequences of the Greying of the pedia is that those days are over. Most of our admins were appointed in 2004-2007 before the RFA drought began, and an admin appointed in 2004 would have needed to be under 9 when appointed to be under 18 now. We might still have some admins under the age of 18, but they will soon be legally adult (I seriously doubt if we currently have an admin aged under 16). Anonymous editing means that when companies try to serve writs on editors the Foundation can truthfully say that they don't know those editors identities. If spam is going to increase in line with readership then we can't afford to make things easier for the PR industry, especially as a side effect of solving a non problem - we need to recognise the "content builders being harassed by juvenile admins" as a dated if not busted meme that no longer reflects what happens here, and possibly never did. ϢereSpielChequers 13:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

• I must have missed it in a previous discussion, but if I may ask: What actual problem is this intended to solve? Resolute 17:28, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

None, but...the jig is up now! :) Garion96 (talk) 17:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You wouldn't be the only one who missed something. This is merely an avenue for possible change. I'm not an ogre as some seem to believe. I'm glad people are passionate regarding their views. But face it, some of the same people who would fight tooth and nail to stop a proposal for an age criteria for adminship will also fight tooth and nail to block an unbundling proposal. Perhaps these same people would support unbundeling if the alternative was an age requirement. And I think a case can be made that the bundle in its current form is not an all ages bundle.--My76Strat (talk) 17:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Change for the sake of change is not worth the effort and rarely produces desirable results. Given the aspersions you were casting in your OP, I thought there was an actual issue this was meant to resolve. Thank you for clarifying, however. Resolute 18:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I must say that this whole thread stinks of

I never said there was no issue to resolve, and I don't know what anticipating opposition has to do with a discussions worth. I suppose your suggestion that this thread is useless is an admission that you appended nothing of value? Perhaps you should try another approach and instead bring value into the discussion.--My76Strat (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I misunderstood that last comment of yours, you didn't admit that this wasn't supposed to change anything, but anticipating opposition definitely does have to do with a discussion. If you know everybody is going to oppose a proposal, then it would be less of a waste of time to not bring it up. Your bringing this non-issue up without giving a valid wiki-related reason why it should be changed is a waste of time. (Also, please do not tell me to fuck off in your edit summaries. Thank you.) TCN7JM 19:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Please don't tell me to fuck off by your condescension. I'd sooner slap your face with a glove than to take these unsolicited attacks (that is a reference to challenging one to a duel). Most of your comments seem directed at me, and less about the idea. Do you expect to like the consequences of poking a bear?--My76Strat (talk) 19:43, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm not being condescending, or at least not trying to intentionally. Sorry if that's how it's coming off. I never attacked you, but you are definitely trying to attack me, especially with your last comment. I don't want any comment warring or fighting or whatever you would like to call it, I just wonder why you proposed this. I questioned you on the idea yesterday, but you did not answer the questions, instead telling me I misunderstood you and not telling me how I misunderstood you. Just clearing this up, I never tried to attack you, it's just that none of my questions have been answered and that irritates me because you continue to tell me I've misunderstood you. TCN7JM 19:51, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I apologize as well. I fully agree with you that I am glad we are more civilized than those days when disagreements were settled at the point of a gun. I'll bow out now, and leave the important things to those better than me.--My76Strat (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

My impression is that we have far fewer under-18 administrators now than at any time in the past decade. This is a function of fact that the teenage administrators who were selected several years ago are (obviously) older now, and there are far fewer new admins who have taken their place. There is no evidence that the admins who passed RfA while in high school (or in a handful of instances, middle school) have encountered any more problems, in being administrators or in balancing their wiki and real-world obligations, than their adult peers. I think the policy that contributors are evaluated and enjoy opportunities based on their work on the wiki rather than other factors, except to the extent constrained by WMF requirements, is a good one that should be continued. All that being said, we do have a page called

Over the last couple weeks there has, yet again, been long walls of discussion text about changing RFA. Yet again its the same cast of characters derailing any attempts to change the process. Several editors, including Kudpung have said they are advocates of changing the process but whenever changes are brought up every reason they can think of is brought forward to end the discussion. It won't work, it can't work, the WMF won't allow it, we can't trust them, etc. Its all garbage, every bit of it. IF the WMF wants to step up, let them, I wish they would. But if they won't then they should get out of the way and let us make the decision to change the process. Let them be the ones to say we cannot unbundle the tools. Let them say the process needs to stay the same. I am sick and tired of endless failed discussions to change a process that everyone including the WMF knows is garbage, reflects poorly on the project and needs to change. Yet all we can do is bicker and fight about what and how for months on end. Clearly I have no power to change the process, if I did, I would have already done it. Admins and the Arbcom act like they are the leaders of Wikipedia, if that's the case, and I do not believe it is, then they need to step up. They need to act to change the process instead of showing the community that they want to keep the power to themselves and ensure that they are in control. I do not think for a second anyone will care about this but I am tired of watching these useless discussions get derailed by editors who don't care and don't want the process to change. You are the problem as much as the process. If you don't like the suggestions, make some of your own or get out of the way and let those of us that want to make the process better try. Better still step up and be a part of the process and help to make it better. Either way, we need to quite fighting and arguing and make some changes. If they don't work we can make some more until we find the right solution.

I prefer stasis and status quo to the prospect of caroming from poorly thought-out change to poorly implemented fix. Binksternet (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, me too. So let's try something different, and go for well thought-out changes and excellently implemented fixes. What these would be are, for the most part, already quite clear. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

That's complete bullshit. There have been several well thought out and strongly supported submissions in the last 6 months alone. None passed because people are too worried about holding onto their little perceptions of power. You can almost draw a straight line between those opposing and their status as admins. We can't change the process because largely, as shown above, admins will insult and abuse any editor who brings it up. It happens in every RFC, every discussion and these last couple are no exception. It shows that for all their banter and bullshit about how editors cannot be trusted they are just manipulating the process to suit them. You can say I'm just crazy but the result has been repeatedly shown. Admins won't allow the process to change because they will lose their power, such as it is. So we are left with the conclusion that the only way this process will change is if the WMF gets off their ass and takes action. But we all know that's not going to happen. So there's no reason to keep using them to derail attempts to change the process by saying they won't allow the change. Let's put them in the position to force them to either make a decision to change the process or stay the hell out of the way.

talk

) 18:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Attacking people's motives isn't the best way to further productive discussion. It is possible for people to disagree without harbouring evil intentions.

_berate

18:30, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Trying to "force" a decision is misguided. The bulldozer mentality is not going to get you anywhere. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Nothing we do is going to get anywhere that's the problem. Because too many people either don't want the changes or don't have the moral courage to stand up to change a bad process. They are willing to just go along with it because they don't have the time, desire or political will to change it. Don't agree? Prove me wrong, make a change to the process and prove me wrong.

talk

) 19:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You are mostly right. The "mechanics" of the system is the other gorilla in the living room. If we could get 3 more people to join you and me in the experiment above I think you and me and the others could prove you wrong.  :-) North8000 (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please make a change and prove Kumioko wrong (although he is at least 50% right on this). Prove the admins wrong too - ironically they are the ones who have worked hardest to bring about change, and obviously the changes were unsuccessful because they were rejected and trolled upon by the anti-admin brigade (diffs available) who, well, simply didn't like to see admins taking the initiative and doing something positive, because it damaged their mantras that all admins are badmins.

The experiment above is a valiant attempt to search for something new, but it appears to be an attempt to quantify admin tasks. The only aim of such an exercise as far as I can see would be to propose unbundling of the tools. It certainly won't address the core issues of RfA. Major unbundling attempts, and calls for adminship on probation, have been made many times, and always failed to achieve consensus. I know, I know I'll probably get shot down rudely again for pointing it out, but what will those stats achieve that previous failed RfCs on unbundling did not? That said, I think it's quite obvious to those who know me, that I'm all in favour of any changes that can meet broad consensus towads improving the RfA process, and I'm definitely, most definitely not seeking to remove the 'Oppose' section from RfA, never have been, and never will be - to suggest otherwise is harrassement, PA, or at best, sad simplistic trolling.

Some people have pretended not to understand what I mean by 'voting culture' - I'm sure there are many contributors to this talk page who know perfectly well what I mean; and it's not just that some oppose votes are beyond the pale, it's all the deceitful and disingenuous votes, lies, naive votes by people who just don't know what they're talking about, pile-ons, socks, and diverse stupidity. Many of these may get counted in the end tally because they are craftily worded to sound serious, even serious enough for the closing crat (we do not know just how many checks the crats make before a closure - they've never told us that much - one would need to be a crat to know). These votes are the one that need to be addressed by the candidate, other voters, and the community. A solution must be found, because other voters who simply pile on might believe the crap (and often do) - especially when it comes from an admin who is going or has gone off the rails (and if you want any proof of that, just ask). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

With respect Kudpung people didn't have a problem with the admins taking the lead. The problem was that admins were taking the lead in derailing changes that would have lessened their perceived power. The vast majority of the people opposing these changes have been admins and often, yourself. So although you keep saying you are an advocate for change, you seem to oppose almost every suggestion. You are right, I do advocate unbundling most or all of the tools. I also advocate getting back to the adminship is no big deal culture, eliminating the admin for life mentality and making it easier to remove the tools if an admin screws up. It shouldn't need to go before congress. Unfortunately all we can hope to do is some minor changes to the current process to make it more civil. Something that amounts to little more than paving a cowpath. All of these would mean a huge decrease in the power of admins though so each and every one will be voted down. As I said before, if the WMF wants to refuse a suggestion let them. But if they do, they had better be prepared to explain why and in my opinion had better be prepared to come up with some good solutions. People keep arguing the WMF won't allow block and protect to be unbundled but then say the RFA process is a community problem and not a WMF problem. So if the WMF wants this to be our problem, then they can't bitch when we come up with a solution to the problem. Otherwise they need to step up.

talk

) 01:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I endorse each of the changes Kumioko outlines here. Additionally a separate procedure is needed for disciplining content builders, perhaps by a panel of their peers elected by other content builders. The English Wikipedia has appointed for life many hundreds of functionaries, including users appointed even though they were thoroughly underqualified, and users appointed when they were little more than children. Any one of these users is permitted to abuse and block content builders, even to humiliate them and make them crawl on demand. Not one of these functionaries has ever been desopped for abusing non admins. It is impossible to change the system at present, because all of these life-appointees are allowed to vote and veto any attempts to trim their powers. So long as this contemptible situation continues, it casts a shadow over all admins on Wikipedia. Which is a shame, because we have some very good admins, and they have not been given a honourable field where they can play their game. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:00, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

No change is possible while admins are allowed to vote on the terms under which they operate. That is the crux of the matter. Admins will never allow their right to control those terms to be challenged. If anyone doubts that, I invite them to make a proposal which does challenge that right. Like military dictatorships, which also dictate the terms under which they operate, the admin system on Wikipedia will change only under some form of external coercion. The WMF seems utterly unequipped to force such change, since very few members there seem to have relevant experience editing on Wikipedia. That leaves, as the only two workable agents of change I can see, either dictate from Jimmy Wales or open rejection from the Wikipedia editors. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung, I accept some admins, like yourself and Dank and ϢereSpielChequers, work hard and honourably for real change. But other admins and admin wannabes shoot the proposals down no matter where they come from. Always, any proposals in the direction of change for the better is shot down. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:26, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

The list of admins includes not only Dank and WSC, but also Dennis Brown, Worm, The Blade of the Northern Lights, Richwales, Catfish Jim, Silk Tork, Ched, ErrantX, SPhilbrick, CT Cooper, Tyrol5, Balloonman, Beeblebrox, Swarm, 28bytes, Guerillero, Fetchcomms, Eagles247, Spartaz, and perhaps many others, who are/were all active contributors to the reform project(s) who demonstrated a clear will to get things changed for the better. None of them displayed any inclination to be wanting to protect their own status. Neither was thier intention to make it any easier for candidates who may be less suitable, to obtain the bit. The paradox is that there seems to be two groups of naysayers to reform: those wannabe (or wanted-to-be) admins who want it made easier with unbundling and the creation of new hats to collect, and those who complain that it too easy to become an admin and who want desysoping made easier before any changes are made. Take your pick.

The main problem is that participation at the major RfCs for reform (if and when they ever happen) is the poor publicity and low turnout; a watchlist notice may have helped garner more participation, and hence more support. This thread may help shed some light. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I think there are certainly some that just want to collect some hats but I think the majority are just trying to keep the project going and want to help out. Using myself as an example, people don't want me to be an admin, for various reasons, ok fine. But then that means I cannot help out and it makes more work for them. Backlogs are longer and things continue to get worse. I would like to help out with things like CCI, Protected templates and others but I can't. Lots of others are the same way. If our help is not needed or wanted then there should not be a backlog at CCI and we shouldn't have to wait more than a week to get edits made to a protected template. I also agree that some of those admins you list claim to be reformers but then when you look at their voting records they oppose everything. So are they still reformers if the oppose every attempt at reform? I would argue not really. What we need is change, not the theory or discussion of change but real change and these useless incessant discussions about them won't change anything.

talk

) 03:31, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

If I have opposed some (but certainly not all) suggestions, they were those that advanced proposals for lowering the bar - and that in many ways includes some forms of unbundling. Lowering the bar will only open the gate for even less qualified candidtaes of the very kind that many of the anti-admin crowd certainly don't want, and would result in more work to desysop them when they err through lack of knowledge or abuse of power. I certainly agree with you that change is required and not, at this stage, more discussion on the theory of change - and that's what what I have been trying to point out in the threads above, along with the fact that almost every single possible idea for change and why it is needed has been thrashed out and exhausted time and time again, with every new recent suggestion being simply an iteration of of previously covered material and requests for proof of what is already clearly acknowledged. Understandable partly, because newcomers to the topic are not aware of them and the thousands of posts on this very talk page. It makes me weary, because like most of us veterans of change, I've simply run out of ideas. I've posted something on Jimbo's talk page (which I extremely rarely ever do), but his response was that he's going on vacation at the end of the month - neatly sidestepping this very critical issue. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I was struck by that sidestep too. Since Jimbo said he was coming up with some ideas in the New Year, I think we can take it that he has had second thoughts. I suppose that means the only hope now is for the peasants to revolt. Or would it be better for the peasants to just leave, so the admins can have the place to themselves? --Epipelagic (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that's not surprising. Jimbo and the WMF don't seem to want to get involved except to release bullshit GUI changes that piss off those of us that actually work on the project (not on the coding of it). They want to flex their muscle on crap no one cares about and turn it into a firestorm and then the areas like this where we really need their help we hear nothing but crickets. I reiterate my feelings above. I think it will require them to change the RFA process since we as a community have shown we are incapable of doing it but I don't want to hear arguments of the WMF won't allow X. They have had their opportunity to change this process as have we so if we do decide on something, since the WMF feels this is a community problem, then they opt out of shooting it down if they don't like it. Otherwise they need to decide on something that they do agree with and then we can deal with it. One way or the other, some changes need to be done.

talk

) 04:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Would there be any real problems with porting the current English Wikipedia content to a new wiki, and setting up a decent admin structure there? It could fund raise the same way Wikipedia currently fund raises. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Other Foundation Wikis have better, or at least different admin electoral systems. That does not necessarily mean they have better admins. Wherever you look, there will be a rotten apple in the barrel, just like there are many among the voters. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

(de-dent) - I apparently didn't make the list above, but that aside, I wonder whether the discussion page or straw poll for

WP:RRA (for example) is an example of what Kudpung is expressing in the above comments. - jc37

07:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Epipelagic's suggestion is an interesting thought experiment. Ignoring certain technical problems, the assumption appears to be:

• There is a better admin structure than we have here (I don't disagree)
• You can articulate this better structure (I have no idea)
• That alternative structure cannot be implemented here because of the obstinacy of some identifiable subset of admins and editors (Not convinced, but open to hearing the evidence)
• The new site will invite everyone at the current site except that subset (not quite sure how this will be done)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 16:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

We need closers for the big RfC on Pending Changes Level 2. Discussion is welcome at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment 2013#Looking for closers. - Dank (push to talk) 19:25, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

What is the general criteria for nomination in regards to experiance and count? NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 08:16, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The minimum for editors passing RfA in recent years has been around 5000 edits and 6-12 months' experience. The average successful candidate has over 10,000 edits and over 12 months' experience. What you do in those edits is much more important than the edit count itself, though. Probably the best way to get a feel for the standard is to look over the recent successful and unsuccessful nominations. The candidate's edit count at the time of nomination is usually listed on the talk page. Best regards — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:RFAADVICE provides some comprehensive background.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk

) 11:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

That's an excellent page. I actually created my account 4 years ago (as LuckyKid), but didn't start editing seriously until a few months ago. I actually discovered this site in the mid 2000s and read these discussions frequently. Back in the day it was only 2000 edits and 2 months so it shows the more editors the higher goes the threshold. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 12:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have another account, you can use the stats from that page as well. People will look at both accounts. In fact, it is best to fully disclose any other user names that you've used (Unless you have a clean start.)00:53, 12 June 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.22.171 (talk)

I have a different view, as I do not think the increase in the hurdle is directly related to the increase in editor count. I think admins ought to have decent familiarity with all Policies and guidelines (as well as the unwritten rules). I don't have the exact numbers, but the size of the pages covering the written rules is probably triple, or more than what it was in, say, 2005. While in theory one could read triple the material in a couple days without doing a single edit, in practice, it takes more time and more edits to gain an understanding of the more complex set of rules. That's why I think the hurdle is now higher. But whatever the reason, welcome back, and hope you continue to remain active.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:30, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

• What's the maximum account age and edit count? There is also an effect where the longer someone is around, the more "enemies" (deserved or undeserved) they will also accumulate. This is particularly the case if they're active against vandalism or some other hot topic for disputes. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Andy.

talk

) 15:48, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I do not think this is the case. Many recent RfA candidates have been long-term editors who have been keeping a low profile for years with tens of thousands of edits who have never caused major disputes. Obviously, law of averages states that whilst a person with a combative attitude resides in any social situation the probability they will be involved in a dispute approaches one, but I think the probability that people will accumulate friends or "allies" over time balances out the probability that people will accumulate "enemies". Ultimately I think productive, helpful editors acquire friends faster than foes, and the opposite is true for obnoxious and disruptive editors.

_berate

16:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Recent trends also show that if you keep your head down, don't get involved in often volitile areas like WikiProjects, Antivandalism, AN, ANI until after you get the tools and if you wait to vote in venues until the popular vote is determined, you increase your chances of getting it. If you vote too early in discussions or do these other things before getting the tools, then some will find a reason to vote it down.

talk

) 16:40, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Which is what I feel the biggest problem is from the last year or so of admin hopefuls. So many of them look like political candidates... in the way that they are so painfully bland and unremarkable that there is simply nothing you can say bad about them because they have spent their wikicareer intentionally not showing that they have nasty things like 'opinions'. Because showing you think for yourself is the one sure-fire way of shooting down any chance of a successful RfA. Trusilver 03:32, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep and I agree completely.

talk

) 03:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty cynical evaluation of the possibilities. It's entirely possible that candidates who haven't caused any trouble are genuinely collaborative and constructive, despite their opinions. To argue that they're "living a lie" as such is quite contorted.

_berate

10:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The cynicism above aside, I don't think that it's beyond the pale to think (

WP:BEANS

alert) that there are people who have their "regular" account, and their account they are building on the side for trying to pass adminship.

And on the reverse of this, it was suggested to me more than once that I should create a second account after I gained adminship, for "regular editing". Though in my case, it just felt like I would have to be too duplicitous, and I was uncomfortable with that.

So knowing that that sentiment is out there, I do not doubt that it may exist in practice (And this setting aside the unfortunate actual examples we've seen over the years.) - jc37 17:49, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

@Basilisk. I don't necessarily think they are living a lie. What I do think is that many are well aware of how certain things will be held against them in adminship. So if they intend to run, they may hold back on what their true feelings are on votes or choose to only vote on topics once the outcome is decided to keep the average up. Or not participate at all until they get the tools. Neither of which is ideal and one of the reasons why I don't like those metrics being used in the RFA process.

talk

) 18:33, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Let's talk about fruits in the meantime. Or we can have fruitless discussion of other topics too. :p—

I like raspberry's and pineapple!

talk

) 22:35, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't know who's watching this but 21 questions so far in

The candidate is on their way to 200 supports, and I do not see any way they can fail, so that it is not that much important. It would be much worse if the candidate were close to the threshold.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

PIle-on on questions - and although (almost) every one is entitled to their vote and opinions - some oppose votes, are purely disruptive in an RfA that is so obviously going to succeed. There is rarely a virgin pass however, because someone will always think it's clever to be the one to break the spell. It's interesting and not entirely surprising to see who broke the spell in this case. If there has been a trend in RfA since the

• Fluffernutter 152
• SarecOfVulcan (2nd) 166
• HJ Mitchel (3rd) 164
• VernoWhitney 151
• DaBomb 188
• Tide rolls 162
• Tinucheria 174
• MZMcBride (3rd) 203
• Jake Wartenberg 151
• PeterSymonds (2nd) 197
• lustiger seth 151
• Cirt 166
• Epbr123 (2nd) 160
• Werdna (3rd) 186
• Jbmurray 161
• VanTucky (2nd) 194
• Elonka (3rd) 176
• Anonymous Dissident (2nd) 165
• Danny 256/118/9
• Persian Poet Gal 179
• Daniel.Bryant (2nd) 233/3/3
• Newyorkbrad 225

IMHO, I believe a lot of questions, particularly from those who have a history ofrcreating drama, and newbies who don't fully understand admishship or its process of election, do not contribute to the overall building of consensus. particularly late ones in an RfA that is almost certain to pass, and with exceptionally flying colours. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I think in general more than 10 comments is unnecessary, 15 is pushing it and 20+ is just ridiculous.

talk

) 13:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Editors should be free to ask as many questions they want, and candidates should be free to ignore as many questions as they want. GiantSnowman 15:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As much as I agree with you GS - I'd fear that ignoring questions could likely bring about oppose !votes that were not justified. Just a hunch. — Ched :  ?  15:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If an oppose !vote is not justified then the closing crat would simply ignore it. GiantSnowman 15:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it as a problem - though it would be nice if editors voluntarily confined themselves to one question each. Think of an RfA as not just a process of choosing an admin but also one of giving other editors a voice and a place to air what they see as issues and concerns involving admins. If we restrict the number of questions, we also restrict the openness of the process and that would be a very bad thing. --regentspark (comment) 17:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• What I see is posturing. Just as some may have done in the past in the Neutral area, where they don't want to really participate, they just want to make some
  WP:POINT about RfA or admin in general, and they don't care who it hurts. People are on the interwebs aren't real, after all. I'm not sure what you can do to prevent it. I had 13 questions at my RFA in 4/12, which was considered a lot of questions at that time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER
  18:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • And I think 10 is probably reasonable or within a couple questions of that. But 21 questions for an RFA that is passing by a landslide is excessive. I think we should at least limit the number to 2 per submitter. Maybe 3 tops.
    talk
    ) 18:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I had exactly ten questions at my July 2011 RFA (perhaps one of the most boring on record--which I'm rather proud of) and that seemed about right--providing enough insight while not cutting too much into time reserved for other things. The problem with limiting questions however, is that questioners might just split their questions into multiple-part questions to fit within the limit instead of cutting down on them. That's the tricky part, since limiting question parts would be difficult considering limiting questions themselves would be something of a long-shot. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  Limiting questions per questioner is probably better than limiting the number of questions. We don't want to cut people out just because they aren't online 24/7! Though I agree with Dennis that some questions are mere posturing or, at best, indirect

  WP:POINT types, but it is better not to try to control that. Subjective control is not good because it circumscribes (if that's the right word) thought. And, sometimes, it is useful to see how a candidate responds to a "What do you think of this absolutely unfair way of dealing with this really important problem?" type of question. --regentspark (comment

  ) 19:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Limiting to two per person is a good idea. That means if you want a follow up question, you should only ask one question to start with. And the 3rd question should simply be reverted out. Compound questions with more than two questions should be simply reverted out with the instruction of "Limit 2, try again". 2 is pretty reasonable, more than that may stop someone else from asking something worthwhile because they may think that there have already been too many questions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 20:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think editors should be encourage to post only one or at most two generic questions that would apply to all or most candidates, on the theory that if more than a handful of editors post multiple questions, things will quickly get out of hand. I would be less prescriptive about questions addressed to the specifics of a particular candidacy, as these often are helpful in clearly up specific issues that might be of concern to the !voters (although again this, too, shouldn't be overdone). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW - I had 27 questions in 2009 (counting an a. b. c. question as 3). meh - whatever. — Ched :  ?  21:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm at the other extreme, having gotten no optional questions at all in my RfA. (But the community made up for it big-time on the questions page at the ArbCom elections; last year it felt like I spent a wiki-month answering all of those.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • That is an interesting point, but if I really have a question about an activity, say their participation in a previous Arb case, I can always hang in the Neutral area and say "I'm concerned about [link] and can't commit without know why he considered $x to be a violation of policy." The candidate can chose whether or not to address it or not. That would be a proper use of the Neutral section, instead of using the question section trying to create drama and make the candidate look bad: to persuade my posse. I was lucky that all the questions at my RfA were solid policy questions, except #11, which was still valid, although I now disagree with that answer. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 22:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I very rarely ask questions on RfA - and I just as seldom give much weight to the user questions and their answers. Unless a question has exposed something really egregious, I base my votes on my own research. It seems quite obvious to me that a great many voters do little or no research at all; evidence has shown in the past for example, that opposers have piled on to an oppose vote that has subsequently been proved wrong, and in some cases even retracted, but the piler-oners don't even come back to change their own votes as a consequence.

Extensive research data and discussion on RfA questions here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk

) 04:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Most "optional" questions become "mandatory" and most questions have an ulterior motive^[citation needed] in my opinion. Most people who run at RFA are doing so because they believe they could be a net gain i.e. can spot a vandal at five yards and block, i.e. can spot an abused page and protect. Many "optional" questions wander into the obscure and irrelevant, but gain traction because of various cliques^{[citation needed]}. I've deliberately "cn'd" myself because I'm not going to get involved with finding diffs etc to prove the point, but anecdotally we're seeing perfectly reasonable candidates opposed for the most esoteric reasons which would put off the most qualified folks. Back to basics. Can you edit a page? Can you spot a vandal? Do you have a clue? Three ticks = admin. If you blow it, well let's de-mop you. And maybe therein lies the rub, that community desysop doesn't have a clear framework. If it did, we could be awarding flags to everyone knowing that we could protect Wikipedia from rouge or even rogue admins going "broken arrow". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we refer new accounts that come to RfA to make their first edit to SPI? I am fairly sure most of them are sockpuppets.

Also, please note

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JustAnotherWuBanger

Who seems to fall into this catgeory of single purpose RfA sockpuppetry account.

Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 08:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that we often don't know who the master is. In any case, this particular sock has been taken care of.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Surely we could just check their IP and see who else uses that IP? Or is there some rule against doing that ★★RetroLord★★ 08:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

We can do that given enough evidence. It's being handled and I'm sure it will be checked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've actually done so before, as you can see here. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

If you'll notice in the timestamp, Cyberbot I went down, meaning the RfX reporter went down. Sorry. NFS at labs has failed, and because no one is there to fix it now, everything is collapsing into itself. :/—

I have updated the reporter to update instantly when an RfX changes, or at least every hour to show that it is still alive.—

No stifling

You guys want more admins? Then, make more admins and take it out of the hands of the adversarial game-players who frequent this board. Oh, and while you're at it, devise some formal procedures for admins to follow so their actions are more consistent, even, and less arbitrary. Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No shit! Succinct and spot on! PumpkinSky talk 00:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention holding them accountable when they screw up or violate the rules. Its hypocritical to tell an editor they can't be trusted and then repeatedly come up with excuses when admins do something wrong and its brushed under the carpet.

talk

) 00:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

NO SHIT. Admins screw up and nothing is done to them. The victim does all the suffering, just like the real world where the criminals get all the rights, and at tax payer expense. PumpkinSky talk 00:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I can pretty much agree with this. I think the formal procedures exist - but that "open to interpretation" thing gets a little too much work. Also .. since we also have measures for non-admin editors in the form of blocks which can be for a day, a week, or until such time as the person accepts the problem and agrees to change .. then I wouldn't even have a problem with a community solution of desysoping an admin for 3 months .. or 6 months .. or however long it took for them/us to get their heads right. But then again, as are all things wiki .. I'm sure that would be gamed as well. I think we have a good collective group, but it's like the "one bad apple" syndrome. And on some days - it really does have that "sucks to be you" feel to it. And no offense intended, but we really get tired of hearing how awful "all you admins. are". Most of us really try to do a good job here. We even disagree with each other. But I'm getting into venting territory, so I'll leave it at that. — Ched :  ?  00:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No one said all admins are bad, but the situations we're talking about are getting worse and something needs to be done about it. PumpkinSky talk 00:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, its really a minority that are the problem. I would say around a dozen of the 1400 admins. But when they know that they can do whatever they want then that's what happens. Some people can handle power, some can't. But too many excuses are made when abusive admins make mistake after mistake or continuously act like bullies.

talk

) 00:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Several things come to mind 1.) actually DO make it easier to get and remove the tools. 2.) (for admins), actually do the legwork required to make an informed decision. 3.) Don't skip steps, every user is different. There's been times I've seen an editor going the wrong direction - and it's usually pretty obvious what the outcome is going to be. And as much as one may be tempted to feel "been there, done that" indef. It's wrong. Tensions are high right now among some admins. Sometimes there's an influx of kids going through that rebellious teenager stage who simply defy any type of authority at all. I'm not saying "authority" in the sense of admins., but rather our rules. Our policies. I've seen this influx before too .. vacations, holidays, summer breaks etc. And we also have some older editors too. Retired with some time to give something back to the world in articles. But sometimes with age comes a lack of patience. — Ched :  ?  00:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, more than once I have suggested an annual "admin review board" for each admin ... just like a performance review at work. The "board" could recommend re-training, recusal, or removal ... none of which would be binding (at least at first), but that recommendation would certainly hold a lot of weight in an RFC/U. Just like at work, you're never likely to be let go for a bad first review. (

BWilkins←✎

) 00:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

On WikiSource admins are required to stand for reconfirmation periodically. I think it's every year or two years. PumpkinSky talk 00:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with all that you said and personally I think that should fall under the Audit subcommittee, or maybe a whole new one. I don't even think they all need reviewing. Of the 1400 most don't or rarely use their active tools (just some of the passive ones like seeing deleted content or editing through protection). That gets us down to about 200.

talk

) 01:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)::::::The situations requiring admin intervention are also getting worse and more frequent and hence admin mishaps appear to be on the rise. But let's be absolutely fair, a lot of the recent bad weather is being caused by absolutely unmanageable children (plenty of diffs available) who are hell bent on baiting sysops and giving the corps a bad name. That said, if the number of times admins are brought to book is not on the rise it's either the community's fault for not bothering to do something, or there is not enough evidence or gravity to make a complaint stick. Or are we saying that Arbcom is too lenient? I would, but certainly not only for admins. I do believe however, that admins, and possibly also 'crats and arbs have been defrocked in the past. Shows that something works some of the time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

@ Kudpung. I agree with much of that. I think "community" and "Arbcom" are two entirely different things though. My complaint with Arbcom (the collective body, not the individuals) is that they too often try to interpert consensus rather than the rules. That makes for a lack of consistency. Also .. there's too many of them - so there's a lot of diversity. If there were 5 or 7 or whatever, and we knew what to expect, then I'd prefer that. Bad today and ok tomorrow isn't a good thing in management. — Ched :  ?  01:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

@ Kumioko .. and "audit" committee to evaluate Arbcom is a great idea. But as long as it's staffed by and picked by arbcom - it's simply not going to have much value in the check and balances sense. — Ched :  ?  01:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Its no surprise that I am not a fan of the Arbcom process. But I would be fine if there were a subcommittee or something that reviewed admin/beauracrat/checuser behavior and abuse. I think the Arbcom should be handled by the WMF. But unfortunatly all they seem to be able to do is implement unfinished, unwanted and unasked for changes to the software.

talk

) 01:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Funny, that - I only suggested a couple of days ago that perhaps there weren't enough arbs! But that was mainly based on their workload which most of us mere mortals don't even get to see in print. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point - they do get tons to deal with. Maybe some sort of filtering system? A group that says: "here - you have to deal with this". (note: I don't think I've ever participated in an Arb RfC, but I know there have been a few of them) — Ched :  ?  01:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Interpreting consensus vs rules (and/or policy & guidelines) is one of the daily headaches on Wikipedia. We see it all the time at AfD where two near identical articles will have totally different closures depending on who, and how, turns up to !vote, and on many other kinds of discussions which are supposed to be closed according to policy. It's a bit the same at RfA, but fortunately almost every RfA is concluded with an appropriate closure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems with any Wikipedia disciplinary board, whether it's ANI, RFC/U, or Arbcom, is that there are too many totally uninvolved admin wannabe's who come along and comment just because they want to see their signature on the page. Please, nobody interpret that to mean that I advocate the exclusion of non-admins on those boards. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have always suggested that Admin Review Boards themselves be more private in nature, to prevent drive-by's and those with grudges. It would be an honest, frank review of a) the admin's quantity of actions over the year, the b) areas of action, c) the responses to being challenged in those actions, d) the community response to those actions, e) the policy-based nature of those actions. The "results" - ie. re-training, recusal, etc become public knowledge (

BWilkins←✎

) 01:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• WMF? Good grief! I thought most oligarchies went out of fashion in 1989. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This year's arbcom is a joke. Total inconsistent and lenient. PumpkinSky talk 01:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BMW. I do like the review board idea. It would be tough to figure out how to set it up though. The community wants transparency, and yet I think it's hard for anyone who's never been an admin. to evaluate the job. Another question is how do you give it teeth. I'll be honest, I'd never go through another RfA - not that mine was bad, but because I didn't realize how tough the job could be. And there's really no benefits. Yes, it's nice to be able to see deleted stuff. And it's a good feeling to recover some deleted article for a user to work on. And it's a really REALLY great feeling to unblock an editor and see them do well. But worth the aggravation? IDK. I'm going to ping User:Dank here - because I know he's been busting his butt on admin. reform around here. — Ched :  ?  01:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel a ping coming on. - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Creating a new board would just add to the bureaucracy and hierarchy. Perhaps drawing on a committee from the 'crats? Give them something to do with only three tools left in their box. I see also no problems with Admin Review being held in camera, but the ant-admin brigade would - they pretend to trust nobody. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There are about 36 active 'crats. More than enough for such a task. Compared to the close knit Arbcom, they would possibly come up with more balanced verdicts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not that anyone cares about my opinion, but maybe rather than sorting through all the messy bureaucracy, it might be easier to just start nominating more people. I know, nobody wants to run. I also know we are not capable of attaining consensus to support any major policy changes, particularly if those changes deal with something as controversial as RfA. The only way to change anything is to slowly chip away at the problem, one RfA at a time. Of course, you guys might also try coordinating things so that we have a big batch of about 10 requests all active at once. Maybe that would jump-start things. Probably not.
  AutomaticStrikeout  ? 
  02:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Kudpung. I like the idea of giving the crats a role here. They have that job because they know how to determine consensus. — Ched :  ?  02:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• @ ASO. But folks don't want to run. We can't force them to. And why wouldn't we care about your views? I'm not sure why you'd feel that way. I know some of us are ... ummmm ... concise with our posts - at times it's often seen as rude. It's very different on this side of it. The one thing I'll say though is this. All admins have been non-admins., but not all nons have been admins. Have some of us forgotten how tough it is to be a non-admin.? Yea .. probably. But I think most of us can be talked to. — Ched :  ?  03:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• I fear I sent an inaccurate message. With respect to some of the divisions in the community, I actually almost see myself as an admin at heart. I know that would raise some eyebrows, as one of the sad realities of the community is that a non-admin can't even express widespread support for admins without being viewed as an admin wannabe.
  AutomaticStrikeout  ? 
  04:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with both of you. It would be great if we could nominate more people, it would be great if more people ran and it would be great if they wanted the job. The problem is half the people that run, don't get it and many of those that do frankly don't have the skills necessary to do it and don't use it. The problem is, if you are involved in the process enough to actually know enough then there's a good chance you have pissed off too many to get the tools. But if you keep your head down and don't get involved in day to day problems and maintenance, accrue a reasonable amount of edits and vote on the occassional winning for deletion venue, then you can easily slide through.
  talk
  ) 12:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not that my opinion on this matters so much (since I don't really watch any of the admin stuff that really creates drama, I'm more along the lines of "Hey admin, please do this silly 10 second thing real fast" like 'uncontroversial maintenance' speedies or 'obvious copyvio' blanking) but I, at least, have publicly stated that I wouldn't accept a RfA nom if it was offered (in the irrelevent context of a conv about people with the 'i want to be an admin' ubx) Someone who has an interest in admin issues but knows they would never need the tools ought to be able to state that (it's not like they wouldn't get
  WP:AGF
  if someone says they don't want a bit....there are quite a few 'senior editors' who aren't admins and are IMO just as 'competent' to express opinions about 'admin stuff' as people with the bit (my presumption here being that someone who could have probably passed an RfA years ago and didn't try then is probably not 'sucking up' for a future RfA now).

As far as the actual 'topic' here, my suggestion would be something along the lines of "If x number of users sign a RfC (that has to be somewhere like the pump) within a set period of time (like a week) requesting that a review of someone's bit, then they get a new RfA, and not passing it means they lose the bit. RfCs within, say, a year of that admin's last RfA or three months of the last 'failed' RfC are speedy decline (not counting the out-of-order ones as 'failed', ofc) (Please, this isn't a 'formal' suggestion, just an idea.) Revent (talk) 06:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

• @ ASO. Since the number of RfA has dropped, the actual participation on RfAs has increased dramatically. For example, where once having a +100 support was something unusual, it has now become commonplace. having 10 RfAs on the go all at once would rapidly tire the !voters - note that it takes me at least one hour to research and make up my mind how to vote, and IMHO (and only IMHO), anyone who takes much less is not voting objectively. That said, I will point out that there has always been plenty of comments over the recent years that one of the reasons that RfA is perceived as broken is that a concrete system for handling admin abuse does not exist other than the long and weary Arbcom whose members are severly overloaded with work that we don't see or get to hear of. Stay tuned for developments around the theme of desyoping - I'm sure the anti-admin brigade will welcome it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Kudpung, as much as I respect all of your efforts to fix the RfA problems (and you have done much more than your share), I would have to oppose any proposal that received an enthusiastic response from the anti-admin brigade. If the anti-admin brigade crafted an op-ed endorsing the use of water, I'd probably start drinking more juice and soda pop (well, maybe not). To me, the greater 'admin abuse' problem is not one of admins abusing their tools, but rather one of non-admins abusing admins.
  AutomaticStrikeout  ? 
  04:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time I have ever considered addressing the RfA issues from the angle that so many have contended for so long: the question of desysoping. None of us admins relishes the thought of being pinned to the wall by a franzy of righteously indignant children or outraged blocked adults and we already have to take a lot of baiting, provocation, and unjustified shit from both, but the anti-admin brigade does exist and we'll have to live with it. Any changes to policy or procedures need a consensus and we can't disenfranchise them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

@Kudpung, Sawadee krap! "a concrete system for handling admin abuse does not exist" is precisely the problem here. Not even flagrant cases. The system of reconfirmation on Wikisource works rather well but that's only every year or two. If some admin cocks up in the meantime, there's nothing to be done. Any system can be gamed but the bulk of the community will see through that and it would be better than what we have now, which is nothing for the victims. Take the case of a certain editor (not me, someone else) and the amount of abuse (horrendous blocks etc) this editor had to endure before Arbcom woke up and did something was just sickening. And blocks, however unwarranted, can not be erased from the log and wiki never forgets so however unjustified wearing of the Wiki Scarlet Letter is, it's never removed.PumpkinSky talk 10:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hang on .. gimme 5 min. and then check your email PS. — Ched :  ?  13:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• I, personally, would support a "sysop review" every couple of years or so, as long as there were a few rigid things in there. IPs and new users would need to be prohibited from being involved, for reasons I hope are obvious. Anyone making complaints against the sysop will need to provide diffs for each and every thing they've seen the admin do wrong. "This admin is crooked" type votes should be prohibited for an admin who made a single mistake - everyone makes the odd mistake. The discussion would be non-binding, but if there is clear consensus the sysop is abusing the tools, then it should be promptly kicked up to ArbCom, or something like that, to get it dealt with. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Your comment about providing diffs for each and every thing reminds me of my RfDA idea. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely a bad idea, that. Shame I didn't know about it. Still, I have taken something not entirely dissimilar a stage further. Stay tuned. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

While some may disagree with this, I would argue that adminship has become more of a big deal than it needs to be. This perception has helped to create a gap between admins and non-admins, a gap that is not conducive to a peaceful community. Many attempts have been made at fixing the RfA process, but I now believe that what really needs fixing is the RfA perception. Yes, the scrutiny is sometimes too high. Yes, the disagreements over !votes can lead to potentially volatile arguments. However, do well really still believe that policy changes and RfCs are the way to resolve those problems? Actually, that seems more like dealing with the symptoms instead of the disease. I think the main problem is that so many view or have viewed adminship as a big deal or as a goal to be attained (I know I did). Obviously, the more and more important it becomes, the harder and harder it will be to get. If the number of active admins continues to drop, we will eventually have a serious problem on our hands. It doesn't appear that the RfA process is really picking up very much steam. Furthermore, the difficulty that we face in acquiring consensus on major changes makes it doubtful that we can somehow legislate adminship into being less of a big deal. Frankly, I think that the underlying problem with RfA is that people view adminship as a big deal. If they didn't, the scrutiny wouldn't be so high and worthy candidates would be more willing to run. However, I also think that the way to change the perception is for people to start running for adminship, but with the mindset that if they don't succeed, it's no big deal. Those are my thoughts. Not everyone will agree, but at least it might help get the discussion going.

that and the fact virtually no one (ie arbcom) is willing to reign in abusive admins these days. PumpkinSky talk 02:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Just do re-elections. Board has room for it and it is simple, does not require a new structure/bureaucracy. It will clear out the non-participatory deadwood (there are people doing one edit a year and keeping the button now). NYB says there would be too much log jam but he is not considering how people are whining to want more things to vote in...and how much more traffic the board supported before, and that the total number of ACTIVE admins is much, much less than the total of badged ones.

It will get away from the "forever a problem" concern. It will hold back on some arrogance as people serve. And don't worry about people being unable to pass. HJ Mitchell had thrown out blocks and he got re-elected fine when he did it as a trial. I think almost his only opposes were die-hard pro-admin-for-life people, rather than his banned hayterz. Heck, even if one did get booted out after a 2-3 year term, who CARES, given more people would be brought in as replacements and lot of this Arb/Admin lot seems to think they are better than everyone...some sort of permanent nobility. Cf.

Everyone has an idea, but nobody has an idea that will get consensus.

AutomaticStrikeout  ? 

03:15, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah...you guys are going to grind this thing into the dirt like DMOZ. It's dying and incapable of change or experimentation. Too many people with little vested interests and too many people into fiefdoms and the like. Don't be sad though. There's a world outside of Wiki and it is full of newspapers, books, websites, forums, magazines, libraries, etc.TCO (talk) 03:19, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• The poor voting behaviour, which is the main issue surround the environment at RfA, has nothing to do with admin tenure or desysoping. Let's get that quite clear. While I believe that desysoping methods need reviewing, and that's possibly why the RfA criteria are so high, we have to avoid witchhunts and kangaroo justice. Adminship really is no big deal, as any admin would be quick to admit, but someone has to do the blocking when it is necessary, and it's unfair to simply require all admins to go through a regular procedural re-election process after having suffered the indignities of the said scrutiny. RfA can be an extremely hurtful process even for those who pass - an experience that those who demonstrate an anthiphaty toward admins in general have mostly never had to experience, and do not know what is to be in the line of fire for just doing their job. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

A. "Let it be clear" =/= argumentation with statistics and examples and logical inference.

B. Cry me a river. TCO (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung, the "poor voting behaviour", which you say is "the main issue surround the environment at RfA", has next to nothing to do with the terminally incompetent state of this vile admin system. The problem is that we have a huge number of these admins, appointed for life, who are utterly unqualified to be blocking and jerking around the productive content editors. It is a dilapidated system where admins are allowed to insult and block productive content builders pretty much at whim. Just over the last few weeks we have seen the breathtaking hypocrisy of some of Wikipedia's most uncivil attack admins blocking and attacking content builders on civility grounds. The system is wholly under the control of the admins themselves, who collectively seem interested only in their own status and privileges. This system will become the risible epitaph of Wikipedia, and an object of public incredulity and contempt. There are remedies which are simple and clear and could be put into immediate effect. But it cannot happen, because the admins control their own terms of service, and there is no collective will there for anything apart from cosmetic change. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Probably most of them actually “never had to experience”, but I experienced it three times. The main problem IMHO is the double standard: quiet and bleak social beings pass through all elections without being hurt, whereas a participant of various conflicts experiences a strong discrimination, even if his/her activity is tenfold more valuable. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 05:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Community de-adminship will never fly as long as admins are allowed to vote on it. They'll never support it as a group, why would they vote to make it easier for them to lose their bit? PumpkinSky talk 12:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I am under the impression that there are far more non-admins than admins, and that the 'admin vote' - assuming there is a unified admin vote, which there is not - is not sufficient to overwhelm community consensus, or even dent it. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:06, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

True but admins are more active and likely to vote in these matters.PumpkinSky talk 18:57, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@Martijn: That is a naive view. What admins like to call "community consensus" is just admin speak. It is a consensus reached on the admin boards, a consensus controlled by admins, their retinues, and other inhabitants of the admin drama boards. It has next to nothing to do with what the consensus might be if the community of content builders were really aware of what happens here.

@PumpkinSky: It is not that admins are "more active" (they are not). It is that these so called "community consensuses" are controlled by the admins on the admin boards. They are "admin consensuses", not "community consensuses". --Epipelagic (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

@KUDPUNG " an experience that those who demonstrate an anthiphaty toward admins in general have mostly never had to experience, and do not know what is to be in the line of fire for just doing their job." Well, I've certainly been on both sides of the fence. Not many can say that.PumpkinSky talk 13:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

One could equally say that those admins who demonstrate an antipathy toward content builders in general have mostly never had to experience, and do not know what is to be in the line of fire for just doing their job. But the issue is not about admins. Many admins are no doubt fine people. The issue is about the admin system, and anyone who does not have an antipathy toward the admin system is simply not seeing it for what it is. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I can understand users who have been at the receiving end of admin 'power' (rightly or wrongly) having an ax to grind - years ago I suffered some indignities from unpleasant admins who have since fortunately been desysoped. However, you have made an extraodinary contribution to Wikipedia articles and stayed out of admin firing lines; I therefore fail to understand your apparent campaign against adminship in general, and in stating 'The issue is about the admin system, and anyone who does not have an antipathy toward the admin system is simply not seeing it for what it is' reinforces the view that there exists an 'anti-admin brigade' - a term I was recently criticised for using as being an ad hominem against a possibly identifiable - and active - group of users. You appear to have identified yourself as being against the system, and hence against its 'officers' and those who are responsible for it and whatever is assumed to be wrong with it.

I will not hesitate to admit that there are admins of whom I do not approve, but to tar them all with the same brush is unfair and in itself an ad hominem. Arbcom - at least in its traditional role - is arguably a flawed process, the bureaucrats have very little real powers beyond their actual flag, community desysoping will never fly as long as drive-by and pile-on voting is permitted, so while Wikipedia nevertheless needs some system of control over its content and user (and admin) behaviour, if you feel adminship is the wrong form of it, your suggestions for an alternative would be most sincerely welcome. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not anti admin... I am pro good admins, pro good admin systems, and pro competent content builders. I am also anti bad admins and anti bad admin systems. Wikipedia has many bad admins, often legacy admins appointed far in the past. It is also has a seriously defective admin system where hundreds of underqualified admins are permitted to abuse and block content builders pretty much at whim. I want to see a just system that works both for good admins and for competent content builders. That is not an ad hominem position Kudpung, and I ask you to stop saying that it is. It may be an unrealistic position, this last fading glimmer of hope that common sense and decency can win out on Wikipedia. For change to happen now, it must be imposed from outside the admin system, and Jimbo Wales seems to have lost his nerve. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I should add Kudpung, aspects of the current admin system, modelled by better administrators and embodied in certain guidelines and essays, are magnificent. Other aspects let down the better content builders and in the process let down the able administrators. If you support the admin system on Wikipedia, then I cannot understand why you and I are not on the same page. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not so pessimistic ... yet. I've asked at

AN

whether a community consensus can impose limited restrictions on an admin's tool use, and if so, whether we should. It seems from the evidence and arguments put so far that we can. And a number of respectable admins and arbitrators think we should.

When an admin demonstrates clear incompetency in one domain of tool-use, we can tell them not to act as an admin in that domain, but permit them to continue using the other bits.

"Adminship is a big deal" because an admin can prevent a person from contributing content and affect protected content, but when the community perceives a limited problem with an admin's tool use we must choose complete desysop or do nothing. The former is so draconian that it is rarely exercised, and so we opt for the latter on most occasions. It is open to us to apply far more nuanced remedies - such as banning the admin from editing protected templates (if that's where their intractable problem lies).

The question is, "Should we?" Kww proposes that community discussions about limiting an admin's tool use should be closed by a bureaucrat, to prevent a biased closer from self-selecting, and I think that would be prudent. Complicated cases involving possible admin restrictions would go to an RfC (which should also be closed by a bureaucrat) before any restriction is decided at AN, just as complicated cases involving possible editing restrictions do. And the admin involved (or anyone else) would be able to take it to ArbCom at any stage. Bureaucrat closing and recourse to ArbCom at any point adequately protects admins from being steamrolled by a vengeful or biased mob.

Your thoughts on this at

AN (not here - let's not split the discussion) would be very welcome. We can guide and hone the behaviour of admins, and if we choose to do so I think it will take a lot of pressure off RfA, and return us to a place where adminship is no big deal. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email

) 07:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This is fiddling with the outer periphery of the real issues Anthony. Why bother trying to push this through? Even in the unlikely event you succeed, the central dysfunctions will remain untouched. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss this with you at

AN - let's not split the discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email

) 10:09, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

TCO (talk) 04:47, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I would support your proposal. The exclusivity of admins-for-life is ridiculous, it only provokes unnecessary disagreements between editors. Regular re-election could change it. It would be time consuming .. but I think it would be worth a try. --

Vejvančický (talk / contribs

) 13:25, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like an opinion. Do you think I would make it through RfA? I asked on IRC and got a 50/50 split. The main reason is that most of my reasons are relating to coding and not content. What is you guys opinion? --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 02:06, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Here's one blunt-instrument attempt to answer that question: Potential admin score for Nathan2055. A good score/potential administrator is around 500. Possible weaknesses in your application would be never having created an article, and not having participated much in article namespace or in Wikipedia areas. This is not to say that a person who primarily codes can't be an admin, but I have noticed that many commenters want to see content work - and most want to see examples of how you interact with others and how you deal with conflict. On the plus side, your record is clean (no blocks) and you have been here for several years. --MelanieN (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

@

²¹

05:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Little content work will make it harder, but as for Scottywong's tool, it's not worth the time it took to code it.PumpkinSky talk 02:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the key qualifications for being an admin, not accounted for by Scottywong's tool, is having a special signature that looks very important. That might tip the balance between success and failure. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree with PumpkinSky, and I think his/her opinion about the tool is shortsighted (and, incidentally, not worth the time it took to type it out). Several current administrators were nominated directly as a result of coordinated searches that were done using this tool. Is it a magical "will User:xyz pass RfA?" prediction tool with 100% accuracy? No, and it was never intended to be. But it certainly is helpful in pointing out areas of weakness (as it did in this case), as well as for narrowing down a field of thousands of users to the few that have the highest chance of passing RfA. It takes a bit of creativity and intelligence to figure out how this tool can be used in a truly useful way. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 03:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

It fails to consider far too many intangibles and tries to reduce human factors to bean counting.PumpkinSky talk 12:05, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I certainly find it valuable (although as you yourself point out, it's not a substitute for thoughtful evaluation of the individual). For example, I took note of someone who I thought had a lot of clue and I was considering suggesting RfA to them, but a run through the tool showed that they had been blocked ten times, including within the past year, so I dropped the idea. Some of us do find this tool useful, and I'd like to thank you for creating it. --MelanieN (talk) 03:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Once again, it looks like a 50/50 split. I believe I'll try and make/improve one or two articles before going for it. Thanks for the help everyone! --Nathan2055^{talk - contribs} 03:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Oooo...and an unbelievably horrendous

BWilkins←✎

) 11:53, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't forget the signature. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Since this has been brought up, I wonder what my chances would be... Here is my "potential admin score" and I am asking as the idea of my being an admin was mentioned here recently. I know the breaks in contributions would be an obstacle, but are there other areas that are obvious problems to anyone here? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 04:12, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Kudpung, I certainly agree that canvassing would be highly inappropriate, but given that RfA is a process which is regularly criticised and described as broken there is more to consider than self-assessment. I am not planning to run, I was simply surprised by comments from Risker at NYB's talk page and later noticed this thread and wondered how I might be seen by those with much more experience of RfA's. I'll accept if I get no feedback, no one is obligated to have a look unless an RfA is running and s/he wants to offer an informed !vote on an unfamiliar candidate. EdChem (talk) 11:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

• Nathan, I would guard against discussing your possible candidacy on IRC - or anywhere in fact, including here - there is a possible risk of it being construed as canvassing however unintentional. If you haven't approached a
  potential nominator (with whom you are free to discuss your candidacy him/her off line), your best resort is to self-evaluation. One aid towards this is Wikipedia:Editor review, but you will also gain significant insight by reading WP:Advice for RfA candidates and this. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk
  ) 04:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Simply asking the question in the manner you have is sufficient to make my mind up and, I suspect, several others. Maturity and judgement are fundamental requirements and asking "what is you guys opinion" shows a deficit in both. If you were suitable you really would not need to ask. As for that tool, it's largely worthless. Leaky Caldron 13:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Harsh. The question may or may not be politic, but you have mistaken the implication, it was about the process of the matter, not about the worth of the user. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The question was "Do you think I would make it through RFA?" Nothing to do with process, everything to do with "am I good enough". Leaky Caldron 14:08, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Hmm? RfA is a process. Making it through, is going through the process. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
        • When the question is asked, "Do you think I would make it through RfA" they are not asking if they will survive, they are asking if they will pass. You can nitpick all you like. The answer is yes, they would make it through RfA, at the end of which they would either be approved in their desire to be an Admin. or the would remain as they are. Leaky Caldron 16:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
          • Nitpick? Mirror. Would anyone honestly support someone who has not asked the question, as to whether they would succeed? Any applicant who did not ask that question (whether out loud or not) would show such an abysmal lack of judgment, curiosity, maturity, and sanity as to warrant a snow close. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Leaky caldron, I do not believe that RfA selects solely for suitability, maturity, and judgement. I, for one, am quite comfortable with my maturity and judgement and do not doubt my own capabilities. How I evaluate myself has nothing to do with how I may or may not be seen by other editors here. However, with RfA a broken process and the admin community having plenty of examples of people unsuited to responsibly using the tools, I am of the view that RfA responses to candidates are unpredictable. That being the case, informally asking not whether someone will pass but whether there is anything notable that would be problematic strikes me as reasonable, so long as it is not canvassing. In my case, if I were seriously considering running I would have a private discussion with a nominator, but as the idea came as a surprise and I don't plan on running at present, I just saw this thread and wondered what response I might get. If I get no response, fine. EdChem (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Asking an editor in good standing on their talk page for an informal opinion is one thing, requesting an opinion on a public page known for drama appears to me to show a lack of judgement. I don't see how you can expect anything other than a polarised & generalised set of views here. Why should RfA regulars who often put a lot of effort in do potentially hours of research on a candidate who lacks the confidence to apply or be nominated? Leaky Caldron 14:05, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree. Rather than jump straight into the vipers nest, they asked an honest question, got honest feedback, and have stated a desire to take some time and continue to develop their skills as a Wikipedian. I would argue that plays to their favour. As to Scottywong's tool, I think it is interesting (and I'm a little sad it rejects editors who are already admins). It is, of course, not something I would use as my primary method of judging a potential admin - it cannot account for direct experience and understanding of their overall habits, particularly habits of engaging others - but it does create a rather interesting statistical picture of pure editing habits. Resolute 13:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Regarding the tool: It accepted admins, just until some time ago....I am sure because I used it (April 26th this year, to be precise). Perhaps Scottywong could be nudged to open it up again, for some short time, but I am sure the results are somewhat off. Lectonar (talk) 13:55, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
• I for one am very confident that I will not pass. I still make judgementsl mistakes, and haven't demonstrated my knowledge of policies. Sure I maintain the widely used edit counter and Cyberbot I, but that doesn't make up for what I lack, or what the community thinks I lack.—
  ^Chat_Online —Preceding undated
  comment added 16:58, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

• Some non-admin bot expert (maybe you) should try running for cratship. It would be interesting to watch. After all, while the crat position is viewed as a higher tier than adminship, a non-admin crat would not really have that many powers. If this person promised not to close RfX, why couldn't they allowed to approve bots, their area of expertise?
  AutomaticStrikeout  ? 
  21:30, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

  That will never work. But, we can propose a new user right called BAG that allows granting of bot status.—

  ^Chat

  _Online 23:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

  That would become problematic if Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Desysop / reconfirmation RfA proposal were to pass. Resolute 23:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as I know, crats are now doing two things: closing RfX and approving bot requests. While both involve making userright changes (I believe bot is a userright),

It's be silly in a way to do it, just because the RfA tool is used so infrequently. Crats are still changing usernames for the time being, so it's perhaps premature to be looking at this anyway. Wizardman 19:07, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I think today the new login system was supposed to be switched on, and than the account renaming would become redundant.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It was switched on yesterday, actually. :) Theopolisme (talk) 20:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Which means that this discussion isn't premature.

AutomaticStrikeout  ? 

20:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Erm, that's something totally different and doesn't affect renaming. Legoktm (talk) 20:05, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the vast majority of our bureaucrats (myself included) were promoted without knowing anything about bots, so I have trouble believing that that is a particular hurdle at RfB. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:58, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but what about those who could easily handle the bot requests, but would be hindered because RfX closures are part of the package? Is there really any need for two dissimilar tools to be grouped together like this?

AutomaticStrikeout  ? 

21:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

By-and-large, it is

WP:BAG that handles reviewing and approving bots. Bureaucrats generally only rubber-stamp bots (by adding the flag) after a brief review of approved BRFAs. –xeno^talk

21:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't realize that was how it worked.

AutomaticStrikeout  ? 

21:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

We could split off bot approval into a separate user right and give it to all BAG members. That would make more sense if their decisions are rubber-stamped anyway. Hut 8.5 19:18, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Theoretically yes, but how much support would that idea garner?

AutomaticStrikeout  ? 

01:16, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, is it worth a try?

AutomaticStrikeout  ? 

20:36, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

• As I am not getting any further input, I have opened a discussion
  AutomaticStrikeout  ? 
  17:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)