Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 12:56, 19 October 2017 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 04:52:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
Purge this page

Recently closed RfXs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
TonyBallioni RfA Successful 19 Oct 2017 224 3 2 99
Rickyc123 RfA WP:NOTNOW 18 Oct 2017 3 13 4 19
Megalibrarygirl RfA Successful 16 Oct 2017 282 3 0 99
Headbomb4 RfA Unsuccessful 16 Oct 2017 72 85 10 46
Kostas20142 RfA WP:NOTNOW 11 Oct 2017 9 22 9 29
Crboyer RfA WP:SNOW 9 Oct 2017 11 36 1 23
Paul2520 RfA Withdrawn 6 Oct 2017 1 11 5 8

Extended confirmed?

After the recent cluster of hopeless, clueless "nomination" attempts on the RfA page, I had a thought: what would people think about putting the page under Extended Confirmed Protection? Certainly, nobody has any business posting there if they aren't at least Extended Confirmed. Just a thought. --MelanieN (talk) 04:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Agreed - this is a good proposal. This sets a very low bar for any user with a remote change of passing RfA that is also agnostic to users' work on Wikipedia (i.e. isn't a requisite number of featured articles, AfDs, article creations, etc.) - Upjav (talk) 04:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 247#RfC: Apply extended confirmed .5B30.2F500.5D protection to requests for adminship for the most recent discussion on this matter. If anyone has some additional points to add, please do! Most of the opposes, I believe, were around limiting commenters on requests for administrative privileges, rather than setting a threshold for candidacies. isaacl (talk) 04:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes. I would also support adding a formal 5000 edit and 6 month account age requirement for candidates, to start the process of making formal requirements for adminship and move away from the current free-for-all. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 06:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    I want to be clear that protection here won't prevent disruption. But it will make the process just a little bit more fair to those interested in becoming admins. Imagine you were a new volunteer at a local community centre, and there was a mop closet (with a mop in it!) that had an open door. But when you go to try and take out the mop, dozens of angry other volunteers jump on you for not meeting the "informal mop withdrawal guideline" that you had no idea existed. This is also why I would prefer that we more explicitly set out the requirements for adminship, but this is a very small step in the right direction. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 19:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    WP adminship has been nothing like routine janitorial work since the 2000s; it actually is a big deal. A better analogy would be access to the security guard armory and surveillance system. The fact that admins are charged with applying discretionary sanctions and summarily deleting things based on extremely nitpicky speedy deletion critera, dealing with revdels, and other sensitive matters, many of which result in indef blocks, is far from pushing a mop around. If I show up somewhere new and ask to be made one of the security managers while having worked there for a only a month or two, I would expect to be told "not on your life".  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  20:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    I really don't think it is a big deal. The tools themselves are dead simple to use; the difficult part is navigating the community guidelines and responsibilities surrounding their use. That navigation is hardly more difficult than figuring out all the community guidelines around editing. But beyond that, even if adminship is some super-special managerial position, we should have a request process that reflects that fact. We can't go from calling it "no big deal" in one place, to demanding applicants have two years of experience and 10000 edits in another. Making a realistic assessment of the importance of adminship, and establishing a corresponding written standard for applicants, would help fix this process IMO. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    One commentator's personal standard of 10K edits is immaterial; there is no rule to that effect. I agree strongly what you think would help fix this process, but the community is loath to ever do anything about it.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  23:50, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    Adminship is still mostly routine janitorial work. You just notice the high-profile, wikipolitically divisive actions more than you notice someone deleting a few speedies every so often while waiting for the bus. Most of them aren't nitpicky, most revdels are uncontroversial, it's perfectly possible to get by without knowing anything about how DS works. (Check my talk page, you can be an arb for two years and still have to use a lifeline when someone asks about DS details! ;) Opabinia externa (talk) 06:27, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    Police work is mostly driving around in cars, asking people questions, and doing tremendous amounts of paperwork. But we still have policy academies, and do not randomly deputize everyone with license to use deadly force any time they feel like it. WP's "Wild West" days ended in the mid-2000s. The idea that adminship is no big deal is a nostalgic fantasy. The fact that most of the work is no big deal is immaterial. The part that's not is not, and the community takes it very seriously. This is not an argument or a stance, it's a factual observation. What to about it? Unbundle more admin tools and authority to competent editors. It's worked fantastically so far.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  09:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    I would say that unbundling has been both the best and worst thing we have done with advanced permissions here. On the one hand, it does allow trusted users to gain access to the tools they need to contribute. But on the other, it further pushes adminship onto a pedestal, making it more difficult to justify requesting the full toolset. The big issue here is that those difficult admin functions are left to the "2007 group" - users who joined early in the project's history, and thus were made admins under the lesser requirements. Why are these users so much more capable, just because they joined earlier? What exactly is the difference between an admin who joined in 2005 or a non-admin who joined in 2015, all other factors being equal? You talk about how sensitive the tools are, but the current admin corps was not selected on that basis. That suggests to me that we could be a lot more liberal about how we assign advanced permissions without negative effects. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    I've never in my 12 years here seen anyone argue that the "became an admin when all you had to do was ask and not be clearly insane" people are "so much more capable". Frequently people argue the opposite, and that opposite turns out to be close-to-objectively true in plenty of cases, since some of them do not have what we'd today call the administrative temperament. But adminship is for life as long as you remain active and don't screw up too badly, so we're stuck with many of them. We could be more liberal about granting adminship, but it's not going to happen because the community is what it is. It's just more practical to unbundle tools that aren't terribly dangerous; the community will buy into that much more readily than to letting any random yahoo become an admin these days. Maybe shouldn't be that way, but years of trying to get it to not be that way have failed.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  04:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Sure, why not. One of the recent ones was extended confirmed (4 months/1000+ edits), but the rest in the last ~500 edits to WP:RfA haven't been. And if there's a special case for whatever reason, there's always edit request. ansh666 06:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Clearly not unreasonable and a good solution for the misguided newbies. A Traintalk 09:19, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems like a solution in search of a problem. There are actually cases in which a non-EC user successfully requested adminship (e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth) and any user in good standing should be allowed to request adminship if they so desire, NOTNOW/SNOW notwithstanding, without adding additional barriers. Whether a page should be protected should be decided based on the protection policy and this policy specifically states that we should aim to have as many of its pages as possible open for public editing so that anyone can add material and correct errors (with no limit to the article mainspace). The page is already semi-protected, let's just leave it at that. Also, allowing non-EC users to add their RfAs helps identify users who wish to help out more in administrative roles and thus allows us to guide them more productively. Regards SoWhy 09:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The fact that SoWhy needed to go back to 2008 to find an edge case that this policy would block is telling. The reason that we err on the side of leaving pages unprotected is so that as many people as possible can edit Wikipedia. RfA is a remote backwater that 99.9999% of editors and readers never visit, and for good reason. There's no conflict with Wikipedia's mission and no considerable benefit to leaving RfA open to editing to all and sundry. Well-meaning and ambitious new editors who fail to put themselves up for adminship with the page semi-protected can always go do an Orc Pee. A Traintalk 12:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • SoWhy makes some very good points, and I would tend to agree this is unnecessary. Also, since this was just discussed via RFC a couple of months ago, it seems premature to be bringing it up again... Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • That's not what page protection is for. This page is so well-watched that protection isn't required to guard it from disruption, and the current system allows us to talk to the people who are unwilling to read the instructions. Replacing that human interaction with a "this page is protected" message does not seem such a great step forward. —Kusma (t·c) 10:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Yes, and if they meet a protection barrier then they will go somewhere else, like this very talk page, or some other project-talk page or a help desk, and have to be dealt with there: Noyster (talk), 10:20, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I don't see the benefit, really, and SoWhy points out some valid objections. Just as a not really on topic, and probably unimportant observation which crossed my mind, so I'll share - it's not a rare occurrence for problematic editors to "hand themselves in" by adding a frivolous/disruptive nomination here. -- Begoon 10:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    Oh, very droll. wikt:give him enough rope and he'll hang himself I guess.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:28, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    No, I wasn't saying that it was worth preserving the 'honeypot' element, or sensible/desirable to do so. I was sharing an observation just for the sake of sharing it. I'll try to find a more bullet-proof way than the text I already included to make that even more stupidly clear next time. -- Begoon 10:39, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. I find SoWhy's arguments unconvincing; IMO a good faith editor hoping to get involved in administrative activities is far more likely to be discouraged if they add themselves in good faith and are immediately reverted with some variant of "you're not wanted", than if they see the MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext message when they try to edit it and are diverted to the talkpage where people can talk them through their particular situation step-by-step. Other than in the very early days when Jimmy and Larry were handing out adminship to their drinking buddies, the number of credible RFAs from editors who didn't have 500 edits could be counted on the fingers of one hand (and probably the fingers of one finger); besides, if someone is so unfamiliar with Wikipedia that they don't grasp the concept of "if you're unable to edit a page, put an {{EPER}} on the talkpage" (which is just a case of clicking the enormous blue button they'll see when they try to edit the page), we don't want them touching the admin toolkit. The RFC is irrelevant; that was about preventing new editors from commenting on individual RFAs, not about preventing them from adding their own RFAs. ‑ Iridescent 10:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC) ‑ Iridescent 10:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
You make some well considered, good points here, which help me to see the benefit I wasn't seeing above. I still wonder if there's a more specific and personal way to deal with this, though, even if that means resorting to custom edit filters. -- Begoon 11:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I see your point and you are correct on one count: If they are reverted with a "we don't want you message", of course they feel discouraged. But if they are left a nice message explaining the revert and how to use their talents, as for example, Majora recently did, the impression should be different. That those editors are mostly not ready for adminship does not mean they won't be someday and tutoring them at an early stage might be beneficial to the project. Regards SoWhy 11:27, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. It's weird that it doesn't already have this protection level, and it would go a long way to avoiding pointless – both community-time-wasting and hopeful-but-too-soon-candidate-discouraging – self-noms by noobs.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  11:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support The previous discussion seemed to be protecting all RfAs, which is different to here, where we're just talking about protecting the main RfA page. Given there have been a bunch of edits that have had have been reverted, and it's a high-traffic page, protection seems justifiable. The choice of lustiger seth as the exception that proves the rule from SoWhy is somewhat strange considering this, but even in that case, they can always ask a nominator to do the transclusion for them. Indeed, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
That I didn't believe seth should be granted the tools does not invalidate my argument because his request did succeed despite my objection. But you do make another good point in my favor: The whole discussion here seems based on the assumption that non-EC editors are not experienced enough but there are plenty such editors who are, just on other projects and thus should not be blanket-restricted from editing WP:RFA. I would trust a Commons admin with 10 years service there but only 49 edits here more than an editor who amassed 501 edits using Huggle in 31 days, yet this proposal would bar that admins from editing the page while allowing the newly created Huggler to do so. Regards SoWhy 11:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm struggling to think of actual examples, myself. I am pretty sure an experienced Commons admin, on finding WP:RFA protected, would pop over to the talk page and enquire about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Personally, when I am working on another project and can't do what I want to do because I lack permissions (for example, I don't have reviewer permissions or voting rights on dewiki because of my low edit count there) I tend to be annoyed by the lack of openness, feel unwelcome, and go away. But probably that is just me. —Kusma (t·c) 11:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
It's not just you, I feel the same. I just couldn't put it into words as well as you did. Regards SoWhy 12:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support From January 2017, from those who have edited the main Rfa page to add their or someone else's Rfa or to simply vandalize it, I see 12 currently blocked names. I'm sure an appropriately nice message guiding good-faith editors can be placed in the edit template, if the main page is ec protected. This is common sense in my opinion. Lourdes 11:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm not sure I find the arguments on either side terribly convincing at this point, but the onus is only on one side of that debate, and in the absence of compelling reasons to protect, we don't. The level of disruption at this point (if much of it can even be called that) wouldn't be sufficient to protect anything else on the project with the exception of our most high profile templates, and only because those can affect a few thousand readers in the course of a few seconds. If the level of disruption rises to the level that would regularly get anything else in project space similarly protected, then any passer-by can protect and probably without much if any discussion. The only reason we need an extended discussion is likely because this fairly obviously falls afoul of our normal protection procedures, and I'm not sure this page is particularly special so as to make a preemptive exception. GMGtalk 12:44, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Is the number of early requests sufficient to be called "disruption"? The rule for use of WP:ECP is: In cases where semi-protection has proven to be ineffective, administrators may use extended confirmed protection to combat disruption (such as vandalism, abusive sockpuppetry, edit wars, etc.) on any topic. --Izno (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Looking through the history I see five (5) edits that the proposed protection would have stopped in the last 50 edits dating back to 24 July. I don't think this is enough to justify protection. (clarification, I originally said 3 edits, thjat is because there are two back to back edits on 8 Nov, I counted as one, one edit on 6 Nov and two back to back on 9 Aug I counted as one even though it is two different editors) ~ GB fan 14:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
      The word "disruption" has multiple meanings. On WP we most often mean an individual or WP:TAGTEAM's WP:Disruptive editing, but here it just means "this is a tedious pain in the backside and a waste of time", i.e. a drain on editorial productivity.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  18:01, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
<sarcasm alert>Yes, it is so much a waste of time. In the last 4 months we have had to revert 3 people who this proposal, if implemented, would have stopped. I don't know how we survived the disruption of those 15 minutes over the course of 4 months when something was on WP:RFA that shouldn't have been there.<end sarcasm> We probably have spent more time discussing this today then was spent on the three RFAs that this would have stopped from being added to the page. ~ GB fan 18:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
That's the ones someone bothered to revert. Too many actually proceed as RfAs. Those waste lots and lots of time. But whatever; this looks like a near-snowball support so I won't argue further (per the same productivity rationale!).  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  18:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem is those that weren't reverted, would not get stopped by this proposal. They were extended confirmed and would have been able to edit the page even if it was protected. ~ GB fan 18:56, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. We measure disruption, not disruptive edits. Here, the disruptive transcluded RfAs cause many wasted editor hours when they occur. People start evaluating the candidate as if they were a serious candidate, there's a pile-on oppose, there's discussion about whether it should be SNOW closed, it has to be closed, etc. The disruption initiated by the never-going-to-happen RfA extends far beyond one edit having to be reverted. The actual disruption here is such that ECP is warranted, and the fact this will hit precisely zero false positives makes this an easy decision. ~ Rob13Talk 15:30, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
On that note, I'm pretty confident that had Nickboy000 transcluded his RfA successfully to the point of not being CSDed, somebody would have called him a racist or a Nazi, or something approximating that, and all hell would have broken loose. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:33, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure I follow. Evaluating the candidate "as if they were a serious candidate" sounds exactly like something that would only happen if the candidate is good enough to not appear unqualified at first sight, no? After all, no editor will evaluate a candidacy that "screams" "unqualified", will they? Regards SoWhy 16:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
So since 24 July there have been two RFAs transcluded and one username posted that EC protection would have stopped. In total these three were on the page for 15 minutes. (12, 1 and 2 minutes newest to oldest) All three editors did create RFAs. One was edited by a non sockpuppet/IP, the other two were only edited by the creator. The one edit by an experienced editor was to tag the RFA with a WP:G6 speedy deletion tag. Adding the time from creation to deletion of all three together there is a total of less than 13.5 hours (2:45, 6 minutes, 10:30), All three user talk pages were edited by experienced editors explaining why they request would never pass. These three didn't take up a lot of time from other users. The ones that take up a lot of time from users are the ones that this protection won't stop, the ones that already have extended confirmed. ~ GB fan 16:14, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - To be honest I think it's a great idea, Yes we're an encyclopedia and yes anyone can edit it however in reality who's going to give the mop to someone with less than 500 edits and a 30 days editing ? .... might of worked in 2004 but certainly wont work now .... and as pointed out above no one really needs to edit the main RFA page anyway. –Davey2010Talk 16:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:BITE: that is, a user who hasn't met the EC threshold is quite likely to be bitten upon transcluding their RfA. If we protect the page instead then a crafted-in-advance message can gently advise them in more civil terms that their RfA has a roughly 0% chance of success, rather than being told the same thing by the RfA mob. Regarding SoWhy's findings: post-2011 RfA is a wholly different monster; things that happened before 2011 really shouldn't inform decisions about RfA today. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. Instead of clogging up the watchlist of everyone who watches RfA, direct non-EC users to the talk page. --Ahecht (TALK
    ) 16:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    That also shows up on your watchlist, so in which way is that an improvement? —Kusma (t·c) 19:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
    Depending on watchlist settings, talk page edits get collapsed into the same line as other talk page edits, whereas RfA edits are rarer so typically create a new line. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 08:52, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Weak Support I am not really convinced that this is a major problem and was leaning oppose. But I do think that preventing obviously unqualified candidates from self nominating reduces the likelihood of their getting rude comments and feeling unwanted. And with due regard to SoWhy's point, I think that standards have evolved to the point where the likelihood of someone with less than 500 edits getting the mop is so low that it just doen't bear serious discussion. If there is someone who thinks they are that exception then they can always ask an experienced editor to nominate them. All of which said, as a problem this falls on my priority scale somewhere behind trying to deal with the IP who kept trying to insert how many steel rivets and port holes there were into the article on the RMS Queen Mary. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose at present, but will support if disruption ramps up. In recent months there has only been two non-EC (extendedconfirmed) users who have disrupted the page: Nickboy000 and RPF2 (now blocked). The rest have been EC users, so ECP would have been ineffective. As such I don't feel there has been sufficient disruption to have indefinite ECP, although of course this could change in the future. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support with the caveat that an appropriately friendly editnotice is crafted directing users to areas where they can help out if they want to be an admin eventually. Obvious NOTNOW closes take a lot of time, between people having to do a quick verification of the user's experience, people deciding to !vote or not, people thinking about what encouraging advice they can give, people debating whether to close it early. This is a tremendous time sink that is discouraging for new users. The helpful advice could be given in an editnotice perfectly fine. In edge cases like SoWhy's example, they should have enough experience/connections to either post on this talk page to request the RFA to be transcluded or get someone to post on their behalf. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:02, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support as an official policy. An admin candidate must either be extended confirmed (30/500), or else have a nominator who is extended confirmed. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:47, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • All this will do is make users act so when they finally reach 30 days and 500 edits, they immediately make a RfA. I added a pretty screaming banner on the RfA self-nomination section that tells users in plain English to consider the standards, but it is surprising how many editors fail to read that notice. This will worsen the problem as editors who can't follow simple instructions will be incredibly tempted to apply after getting extended confirmed. Esquivalience (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I Support this proposal, as it does no real harm, and has the possibility to clean up some clutter. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support to apply some very minimal standards. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC).
  • Sure for the same reason we routinely G6 RfAs of people nominated against their consent and sometimes of new users who are NOTNOW'd: if they decide to give a serious go for adminship down the line, this early transclusion will likely hurt them then. Its also a lot less bitey. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support I find SoWhy's arguments unconvincing. A user applying on that rationale as that user did in 2008 would still not pass today. --Rschen7754 01:28, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose this is probably inoffensive in and of itself - it's true that a non-EC viable candidate is unlikely - but I am getting really sick and tired of seeing the spread of EC protection all over the wiki to manage problems that barely even exist when it was originally deployed only as an absolute last-ditch measure to stop a specific type of chronic disruption. The community does not need to protect itself from a handful of dumb edits on the RfA page that consume virtually zero "community" time to take care of (as opposed to repetitive discussions about how various parts of our back-office operations should be EC-protected because reasons). The community does need to stop pulling up the ladders behind its existing members because new joiners are just so difficult. Implementing this means that the people who are making good-faith but inexperienced offers of help won't get feedback and encouragement to focus their efforts on other, more accessible ways to help, and people who are trolling will just troll somewhere else. As for the argument that an early NOTNOW effort will be used against an editor who later develops into a solid candidate, I'm not aware of any actual examples of that speculation coming true, but if you spot one, you can stop that nonsense by not doing that, and by calling out any idiots who show up at the second, serious RfA with their noses out of joint about early newbie mistakes. Be the change you wish to see in the world, and all that. Opabinia externa (talk) 06:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per above. Saves newbies who don't know any better and deters trolls. Net positive. -FASTILY 08:20, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment A solution looking for a problem. More effort expended discussing it that would have been required to selectively notify 50 such RfAs. Leaky Caldron 09:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Why has this turned into a vote with bolded supports and opposes? It was supposed to just be a discussion on the topic. And as already noted, we just had an RfC which included this proposal and was rejected. To overturn that result would require a fresh RfC, advertised in the proper places.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Time to grass up User:Godric on Leave, to answer User:Amakuru: It waz this edit which enboldened the situation :D — fortunavelut luna 11:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Amakuru:--Well, it was just for a quick grasp of the entire comments of a particular discussant and as a viewing aid, in cases where definitive parsing was possible.Revert with pleasure, if you don't like it that way.But, as a curiosity, does normal discussion prohibits bolded keywords or that a disc. with bolded keywords gives you the impression that I (and maybe others) are trying to side-track the RFC? (which at a glance, looks to me to be primarily targeted on a diff. topic).Regards:)Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 11:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Fortuna:--Hmm...Many have, by their own will, cast bolded keywords.Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 12:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes. But for the purposes of grassing you up, we don't count those ones :p — fortunavelut luna 12:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
The recent RFC was about limiting the !voters in RFAs to extended confirmed members of the community, this is about the candidates. A very different debate, plenty of people are happy to see new members start !voting in RFAs long before they are ready to run. Hence almost all the oppose arguments in that debate were opposing because they defended the right of newish members to !vote in RFAs. ϢereSpielChequers 12:35, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment I have added this discussion to Centralized discussion.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support sensible move, we do need to make the place more newbie friendly and this would be an easy uncontentious small step in the right direction, the one exception in the last ten years could easily be resolved if we have a candidate who really needs to run before being extended confirmed they just need to convince a nominator who is extended confirmed. As for the argument that more effort is being expended on this debate than the benefit, firstly we will never know - but it only needs one bitten and driven away newbie to stay and become productive for this to be worthwhile. Mores to the point it is such an obvious good idea that it comes up every year or so and is chewed over in long debate before not quite getting consensus with opposes ranging from why worry about biting newbies to is this a big enough benefit to be worth doing. If we actually do it, we don't just avoid biting a bunch of newbies, we don't have to debate this proposal or a variant of it every year or so. ϢereSpielChequers 12:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, per arguments made by Iridescent, Fastily, and WereSpielChequers. If a non-EC user is requesting adminship in good faith, a carefully worded edit-notice is going to be a much better thing for them to see than a revert transclusion. If the user is trolling, they have no business here. If there is an exceptional candidate who does not have the EC flag, they should have no difficulty finding an EC user to transclude it for them. Vanamonde (talk) 13:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per above support votes. This method does not make it impossible for a non-EC user to request adminship, it just avoids accidental requests. In such extraordinary cases in which this could pose an issue (and, to be honest, will most likely never occur) they really should have an experienced editor to help explain the situation and vouch for them. ZettaComposer (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Much of this debate focuses on concerns over "biting newbies". Supporters say having your attempted transclusion reverted, with accompanying comments, may be discouraging to newer editors. Opponents argue that meeting a protection barrier may be discouraging. In either case, it seems to me, it depends how the would-be RfA candidate is spoken to. At present, comments to the applicant may be polite and helpful or they may be unwelcoming and snappy. Exactly the same would apply if protection was brought in and the new editor went to a talk page or elsewhere in pursuit of their application. So the case for change is not clear-cut. – Technical question: is it even possible to vary the standard "This page is protected" message to show Ivanvector's crafted-in-advance message for this particular page?: Noyster (talk), 14:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    Yes, you need to add something to Template:Editnotices/Protection/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship and it will be transcluded instead of the default protection text. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fully understand the reasons for, but find them unconvincing; i agree with GreenMeansGo that the level of disruption here doesn't rise to the level of needing such preventative measures: The page is well-enough travelled that anything added by someone with no chance of passing is quickly seen and either reverted or SNOWed. That is sufficient. Happy days, LindsayHello 17:29, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Break 1

  • Question: Is this basically EC-protecting the main RfA page just so that users can't transclude their nomination on the page? The actual RfA still exists, so I don't see how this is actually solving anything (it could be the lack of coffee at this point). Can anyone correct me if I am wrong? Thanks. Nihlus 17:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    "Is this basically...?" Yes. Lourdes 17:47, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    And that's fine. There isn't any rule against drafting an RfA and not actually opening it. If you left it there a year, it'd be likely to be MfD'ed though.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  01:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC) 
    I've restored this comment which was reverted after an extreme edit conflict. ansh666 02:20, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Question: Will the creation protection level be changed from semi-protection to EC-protection as well to prevent non-EC users from creating their own nominations? --George Ho (talk) 17:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
No. Lourdes 18:03, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Lourdes You are truly a master of verbosity. GMGtalk 18:14, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
(My apologies. The intention in leaving a short comment was to be precise, not anything else. Warmly, Lourdes 18:17, 9 November 2017 (UTC))
  • Oppose – I see no reason to go to such lengths to prevent something so minor. It really wouldn't even prevent the very thing people are worried about. Nihlus 18:16, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict × 2) Support per arguments above. The furthest I would make it is 6 months/2000 edits. No more. J947( c ) (m) 18:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. There is nothing good faith about an attempted transclusion by anyone with less than 500/30. Over the last few years we've added so many 'in-your-face' warning banners, written some detailed advice pages, and created ORCP, that only someone practically illiterate, a non native speaker, or very immature would still go ahead. We don't get many bids for adminship at all these days, and the SNOW closes are even more rare. Those who argue that it's no trouble to catch them in the bud manually are quite right, but protecting the page would do it for us and spare such users' feelings. The English Wikipedia is the only major project that does no have some threshold, not only for candidates, but also for voters. The projects that were created later obviously learned from our mistakes and/or omissions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support There is no way an editor can show his knowledge/worthiness in less than 500 edits. I cant understand if you oppose in RfA with "too short tenure" or "not many edits in blah-blah-blah area", or something like that, then why oppose a threshold? Is it a double standard, or just opposing everything? —usernamekiran(talk)
  • The sys-op toolset is not a joke. It should be given only to the people who are tustworthy enough. And there is no way any editor can acquire enough trust in less than 30 days, or 500 edits.
  • Just in case if there is a candidate worthy enough, he can ask someone to nominate, or make an edit request.
  • And for the voters, I think any registered voter should be able to vote, and IPs should be welcomed to ask questions. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support it is extremely unlikely that a user who isn't extended confirmed would stand any reasonable chance at RfA, and in the event that one does it should be no trouble to get a nominator (or anybody else who thinks the RfA has a chance) to add the RfA to the page. Non-extended confirmed candidates will be either trolls or people whose nominations will be closed under WP:SNOW whilst having their feelings thoroughly trampled on. Neither is a good idea to list for consideration. I don't think it really matters what the protection policy says on the subject, it makes sense and if we get consensus here then we can do it. Hut 8.5 22:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Not sure, leaning toward oppose I generally don't like seeing knock-out criteria being made official (though, of course, everyone gets to use their own criteria, individually, when !voting) ... there are always exceptions to the rule (which automatized thresholds probably would miss). I supported self-nominated Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth, who wouldn't be allowed to post under the new rule, and he passed, for example. ---Sluzzelin talk 22:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    @Sluzzelin: well, in case the candidate worthy, then he can ask someone to nominate him, or he can make an "edit request". —usernamekiran(talk) 22:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
    I guess I compare it to shutting out unregistered editors via page protection. A powerful tool that must be used diligently and selectively, shutting out constructive editors who wouldn't pass the barrier as rarely as possible. As mentioned above and below, truly non-constructive contributions can be dealt with personally and individually (↓). I don't see the crisis warranting this step. ---Sluzzelin talk 23:37, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose - since I didn't bold my opinion above. I share Opabinia's concern about creep/overuse of ECP, and still think a more personal, individual approach would be preferable here. -- Begoon 23:09, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose No one has shown how there is any amount of disruption that this will prevent. ~ GB fan 00:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with both SoWhy and GB fan. There is no real reason to ECP this page. -- Dolotta (talk) 03:12, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This would be an unnecessary change as even at 30/500, people still won't pass. It'll result in people editing like crazy to reach the mark and then be shot down because they (still) don't have enough experience. The current message on WP:RFA is enough: There are no official prerequisites for adminship other than having an account, but the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia is low. If someone can't read that and realise that only being on the site for a week and having 100 edits isn't enough, then reaching one month and having 500 edits won't change anything. Anarchyte (work | talk) 05:23, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    By the time people have become extended confirmed they have usually learned to be less bold. I'd be very surprised if more than a tiny minority were merely delayed until becoming extended confirmed. ϢereSpielChequers 13:27, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - can't believe people are opposing this. There is literally no reason to let someone who isn't even Extended Confirmed transclude an RfA. They just get reverted immediately! I agree that this isn't the most pressing issue, but so what? Protecting the page will still be a positive. Swarm 05:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    @Swarm: Because it goes against policy. Nihlus 05:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    ....which in turn, goes against policy. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    @Nihlus: - That's literally the opposite of how this project is governed. Implying we're not allowed to make an exception to standard practice via community discussion is asinine. See WP:5P5, WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY, WP:IAR, WP:COMMONSENSE etc. Swarm 04:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    @Ritchie333: That's a terrible argument and one that people often use to justify weak arguments. @Swarm: I implied no such thing. Making an exception that goes against the very purpose of a core policy with terrible arguments is what is asinine. Nihlus 05:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    @Nihlus: You say the supporters have weak arguments, but your argument is "I see no reason to go to such lengths..." The proposal is something that would take less than a single second to implement, and it would do nothing negative, but it would prohibit, to a limited extent, some wastes of time in formally closing and de-transluding nonstarter RfAs. So, you have no downsides, and an obvious, if limited, benefit. And your position is "but policy", an argument that goes against one of the fundamental pillars of this project, in which we're encouraged to bend and ignore the rules as we see fit. But we're the ones with a "terrible" and "weak" position. Yikes. I don't know if you realize this, but this is Wikipedia. Petty policy wonkiness is not a way to build credibility when it is lacking. Swarm 05:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    My point is that it would only prohibit the transclusions from being done. That's it. It would save the time it takes to undo an edit, but it would preemptively protect a page. So to steal your line, you have one big downside, and an obvious, if limited, benefit. You're encouraged to bend and ignore rules when it improves Wikipedia; however, I do not see the net improvement. Euryalus said it best right below: The disruption from extremely premature RfA's is minimal, and has no effect on the primary function of the encyclopaedia. Nihlus 06:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    I don't see what's, as you call it, the "big downside" to this, and I'd think many others would agree. I feel like that's the main point of contention in this entire discussion. Could you explain exactly what this "big downside" is? ansh666 07:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    And that's the great thing about communities: people can disagree on ways to handle things. The big downside is that you have a solution looking for a problem and are preemptively protecting a page to solve a problem that really isn't a problem. I'm not sure there is a point in continuing this arguing as many people are clearly entrenched in their stance, myself included; as such, I won't be making further comments on this. Nihlus 16:08, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
    () @Nihlus: So, in your view, the disruption is minimal. Action is not necessary. It's not a genuine problem to begin with, so what's the point? That's fine, but where's your "downside"? You yourself acknowledge that it would prevent nonstarter transclusions, and it would save time closing and reverting nonstarter RfAs. So far this is nothing but positive, if somewhat unnecessary. However I'm still not seeing any negatives, so by definition a little positive and no negative would be a net positive. Where is the negative? Where? Swarm 07:04, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GreenMeansGo, who keeps popping up as a voice of reason. Also per OR. The disruption from extremely premature RfA's is minimal, and has no effect on the primary function of the encyclopaedia. In the absence of any more compelling reasoning than we have in this debate, let's not layer on more restrictions and conditions like this. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:49, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    • I note that there are in fact no restrictions that currently apply to filing an RFA: "There are no official prerequisites for adminship other than having an account". So we would not be layering on additional restrictions in a situation where there are none to begin with (or at least no official ones). This might be a case where the opposite of WP:CREEP applies: there aren't actually enough rules. — This, that and the other (talk) 08:42, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - I see nothing in our protection policy that hinders the use of ECP as sought in this proposal. I rather see a proposal that shows Wikipedia:Requests for adminship as nearly being a "textbook–example" of a page in need of ECP; a page that most-likely will be immediately improved, upon its use.--John Cline (talk) 08:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    • The improvement seems to be tiny (the "disruption" really isn't worth mentioning on a standard Wikipedia vandalism scale). The disadvantages of the proposal are also not huge, but I am really surprised by the enthusiastic response of some people. Basically we are arguing in whether we want to stop or to discourage clueless people from making a fool of themselves. Neither will stop the influx of clueless people, or the fact that you need to talk to them over an extended period of time to make them obtain some clue. —Kusma (t·c) 10:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support the protection of the main RFA page only. I think a gentler way of discouraging newbies from trying for RFA is a good thing, and less likely to scare them away with their tails between their legs than a rapidly closed RFA with possibly some harsh comments. I'll note (for those who want no minimum requirements for admin) that it would not not actually prohibit them from running, but it would mean they'd have to get someone to transclude for them - and if a truly stellar non-EC applicant turned up, they could be admitted that way. My other note is that I generally share Opabinia's dislike for the creeping invasion of EC protection, but I do think this is one example of a good use of it with no real downside. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
    I'll just add that I oppose the use of any page creation blacklists and also oppose any attempts to protect individual RFA pages. This is just a simple suggestion for a simple (and not overwhelming) problem, and it could help a little - there's no need to go over the top and try to extend it to being an impenetrable defence. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support - Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support like Swarm, I can't believe that people are opposing this. Except that I can, given that anything related to RfA is likely to draw opposition no matter how harmless and reasonable it is. We've even had a 9-year-old RfA dredged up as evidence in opposition. Things have changed just a wee bit in 9 years. Lepricavark (talk) 03:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support, and also use the title blacklist to prevent non-extended-confirmed editors from creating their own nomination page. Jc86035 (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per Kudpung. There are so many warnings that adminship is only for experienced users that anyone not extended confirmed and choosing to ignore them all and transclude is very unlikely to be doing it in good faith and is just wasting everyone's time.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    Or "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support. If there's a good-faith reason for someone with fewer edits to start an RFA, there will surely be someone who can transclude it for them. Otherwise, being able to do this just makes an editor look bad when they come back at a more-qualified time. (+1 to Alan's "kinder" comment below.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support It seems kinder to do this than to not do this, and it will preclude the unneeded or wasteful. The supports make more sense, and the opposition seems largely mistaken (like pointing to what a single admin should and should not do, not what the community in an RfC may do). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:37, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support No reason for anyone without 500/30 to be filing an RfA. With all the warnings around I'm not sure what the heck is going on with someone if they continue to transclude. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 17:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Support: quite reasonable. Jonathunder (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Let's look at how this would actually work

I would like someone to explain, in step-by-step detail, exactly how (a) EC protection can be used to prevent the creation of an RFA page for a candidate who does not meet the qualifications for editing through EC protection (b) how an editor without EC protection permission can nominate another editor who meets the qualifications; (c) how editors without EC protection permission can subsequently edit an RFA (i.e., vote and comment). I get the theory. But since there is no absolute rule at this time that only candidates with 500+ edits will be allowed to run (honestly people, just write the rule, it's been the standard for more than 10 years), and definitely no rule that an editor with fewer than 500 edits is disqualified from nominating other editors for adminship - first, delineate these rules. They should be black and white, since they've been standard for a decade. This is step one before adding protection levels. Risker (talk) 05:14, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Step 1 - the text There are no official prerequisites for adminship other than having an account, but the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia is low. is replaced with The only official prerequisite for adminship is to be an extended confirmed user (or, in exceptional cases, to be nominated by one), but the likelihood of passing without being able to show significant positive contributions to the encyclopedia is low.
Step 2 - do nothing else. The nomination pages won't be under ECP as a result of this, so !votes and comments won't be effected at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Not disagreeing with you about the appropriate course of action, Power~enwiki, but given all the people supporting EC protection above without having yet figured out how it will be done...the obvious path seems to be the one less taken here. Risker (talk) 06:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@Risker: I think the title blacklist could be used to prevent page creation by non-extended-confirmed editors on subpages of WP:RFA. That makes EC a requirement of the nominator, which is probably what we want. Jc86035 (talk) 06:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
That's how I see it too, we want to stop self nominations by newbies, as they are just a waste of time (and bytes). Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Hold want to use the page creation blacklist, whose primary use is to prevent disruption, vandalism and abuse? Wow, what a message to send. Risker (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    @Risker: as Power said, the original proposal said nothing about protecting individual RfA pages (i.e. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Example), only the main Wikipedia:Requests for adminship page. I don't believe there is support for EC protection for individual RfA pages. ansh666 08:02, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • For my part, what I'm supporting is the use of EC protection to prevent new editors from making their RFA active by transcluding it. If someone wants to create a draft RFA and not send it live until they qualify—or in the hypothetical case of the highly qualified editor who somehow doesn't have 500 edits, persuade someone else to transclude it for them—I have no problem with that. What this proposal is intended to prevent is the current situation where a good-faith but overenthusiastic new editor applies for the admin bit after a couple of weeks, gets bombarded with "oppose, clearly not competent" messages, and thinks "fuck this" and leaves Wikipedia altogether. ‑ Iridescent 11:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I think people are misunderstanding; this is the attempt to create that rule, more-or-less. ~ Rob13Talk 12:16, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    Nope, a consensus here for applying EC protection to a page would not establish such a rule. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    In the same sense that indeffed LTA cases aren't always actually banned, perhaps. But if you can't find someone who will agree to transclude your RfA for you with only 15 edits, then de facto, you cannot run for RfA. ~ Rob13Talk 12:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    Sure, being unable to find someone to transclude an RFA would effectively block a run. But I can understand an objection that an actual minimum requirements rule should be set first, as this proposal would prevent someone from running when there's actually no policy that says they can't. Then again, if this passes it might be a useful step towards getting such a policy (which many people, me included, think we should have). Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

This is slightly silly

Look at how much time we've spent debating whether we should allow no-hope RFAs to be transcluded and then immediately marked NOTNOW (after which they're usually swiftly deleted altogether) or whether we should just not allow them to be transcluded at all. This is approaching a point at which it's all a tad silly. Both options achieve the same thing. One takes slightly less effort. We (myself included) perhaps need some perspective on the low importance of this discussion. The only thing we're really achieving here is creating a useful case study on how hopelessly impossible any meaningful RfA reform is, given the fact we can't even achieve meaningless RfA reform. ~ Rob13Talk 13:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

By my count it's about 40–18 support versus oppose, with far more persuasive support rationales than the other way around. So yes, it is silly to keep debating round in circles on this. The solution to the time wasted in this discussion is to stop opposing something that clearly has sufficient support, especially since the objections all raise the same handful of points over and over again but they have already been addressed multiple times – and these refuations have not been convincingly rebutted, when responded to at all. I.e., the "we've wasted more time talking about this than would have been saved by the proposal" borders on fait accompli and filibustering, not a position to take seriously. Otherwise, every single time-and-efficiency proposal ever made on WP could be derailed by simply refusing to stop going on and on against it in an WP:ICANTHEARYOU manner.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  16:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC); updated:  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  19:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
This tiny change is probably going to be implemented. I don't expect it to be a significant improvement, and oppose it out of general principles (keep pages unprotected whenever feasible). There is nothing wrong about having a minority opinion, and no reason to switch to support a proposal that you don't believe in just because that is the "consensus" opinion (unless you are a non-admin wanting to become an admin who needs to watch their AfD stats because some people are silly enough to base their RfA votes on AfD percentages, but that is a different problem). I fully agree with BU Rob13. —Kusma (t·c) 21:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I’m not writing this in opposition of the change (which I have supported). I’m pointing out that those passionately opposing streamlining the process are perhaps acting out of proportion with the suggested change. The fervent opposition, even from some who agree RfA has issues, is depressing. The time put in to argue against a proposal that reduces the time we spend on no-hope RfAs could have been spent elsewhere. ~ Rob13Talk 22:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm surprised you interpret the opposing posts as "fervent" and "depressing". ---Sluzzelin talk 22:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. To dismiss well-reasoned and valid opinions by experienced editors as "fervent" and "depressing" is a bit disrespectful IMHO. And this proposal is not about "streamlining" RfA, but about restricting newbies from something that could help them learn more about the encyclopedia, just to save a few people the bother of explaining WP:NOTNOW to the user and then closing it. I understand where the supporters are coming from, but I think it's valid to say it's a solution looking for a problem.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe that to list as a RfA candidate the editor should be extended confirmed. But, the voters shouldn't require any protection or autoconfirmed protection. The starting editors should have a say in what the community admins should be. Cocohead781 (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
  • That is what is being proposed here. This will not affect individual RfAs. Swarm 19:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a "what if"

What if every editor with more than ten years and 50,000 edits, and an acceptable behaviour record of course, were simply given the mop, no inquisition, no debate. Here, take this mop, it's your punishment for being a good dedicated veteran editor. How many admins would we gain? How much damage would they do? (This is not a real proposal, it's just a "what if" thought experiment.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Yo Dodger67, something of the sort at WP:FREQUENT, specifically this. Thing is, you'd ed up with characters like me  :p on a serious note, would it affect for even-more-advanced permissions like oversioght, checkuser etc., which I think actually require a vigorous vetting procedure (i.e. what we see at RfA); if RfA wasn't vigorous, would that have legal implications? — fortunavelut luna 08:14, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
The problem is right there in your question: what is an "acceptable behaviour record" and how do you determine it without the inquisition? Once you know that, you can check WP:WBE and see how many people you gain. I don't expect they'd do a lot of harm. —Kusma (t·c) 10:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
plus 1 re difficulty of agreeing an acceptable behaviour record. I'd add that someone who does 49,900 edits in their first year and then averages 1 a month may not be an ideal candidate even if their only block is over 8 years old and they have edited in the last two years. More importantly though, adminship isn't suitable for every experienced editor. Some people don't want to risk the delete button falling into the hands of a deletionist, and others don't want the block button going to a member of the civility policy etc etc. Also people who've been here ten years aren't really the most important target group. The wikigenerations who we underrepresent among the admins are particularly those who started editing between January 2009 and the end of 2015. ϢereSpielChequers 14:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I endorse any attempt at reforming RfA voting in one way or another. I would support your idea. I've had a lot of 'what if' ideas like... What if everyone who voted at RfA were required to simply vote: "Support - per my criteria.' or "Oppose - doesn't meet my criteria." With the link actually linking to their set of criteria that they would be mandated to have on one of their user pages in order to vote. If people wanted to make an exception to their criteria then they'd have to give a reason in their !vote as to why they are deviating from their own criteria. I think this would reduce the 'Why not?' support votes and the extreme nitpick oppose rationales that are seen at many RfA's. It would also assist Bureaucrats in assessing consensus because it would be easier to see whose opinions are valid based on the sensibility of the criteria set. The process has been stagnant for quite a few years though so I would expect opposition on any change because people believe the status quo to be the best albeit imperfect solution. -=Troop=- (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    Trooper1005 The problem of moving from a discussion to a straight up vote is that you lose the discussion. You lose the strongest point of RFA, the ability of those who actually assess candidates rather than question them to find the diffs that sometimes derail an RFA from someone who shouldn't pass. You also lose the dialogue that sometimes happens when people oppose on mistaken assumptions. As for the idea that the process has become stagnant and any change is better than the status quo, I agree that the debate is stagnant, you only have to look up one section to see that any change will be opposed - even by people who admit it will make the project better at nil or negligible cost! If you are thinking of RFA reform in general I'd be interested in your views on User:WereSpielChequers/RFA reform where I've tried to list all the main reform ideas and most of the minor ones. ϢereSpielChequers 14:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • It would likely be completely harmless, as long as one thing changed: ANI or AN had a the power to desysop, not just ArbCom. ArbCom moves too slowly to deal with suddenly thousands of new admins, some percentage-small but head-count-high number of whom would be boneheads, jackasses, or PoV-pushers.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  17:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
You'd like desysops handled by ANI? Ok - that could be "fun". -- Begoon 17:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
We'd lose them as soon as we made em. It can be enough of a mincing machine as it is, let alone one that's on a conveyor belt! — fortunavelut luna 17:43, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Well quite.SMcCandlish isn't wrong about the "boneheads, jackasses, or PoV-pushers". -- Begoon 18:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
It's wouldn't work well for today's adminship system, but in an alternate-reality Wikipedia, where virtually everyone became an admin if they stuck around, it would be the only practical way. It's how we handle everything else. E.g., every editor (in our reality too) is entitled to edit, and to edit when they want, and to edit what topics they want, and to talk with whatever other editors they want, and in whatever wording they choose. When this goes badly awry, ANI (or another venue, like AE) can impose blocks, community bans, topic bans (and move bans, etc.), interaction bans, and restrictions like prohibitions against incivility/attacks with escalating sanctions. In this Alt-WP, one's auto-granted admin bit would be just one of numerous editorial privileges one takes for granted and is left alone to use – until one becomes a pain in the community's backside.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  19:19, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I take your point, but Iri's observations about whether WMF could even allow this seem crucial. Plus, it seems it could potentially make people like you and me sysops of alternative-reality wiki, depending on the exact "parameters", and I'm certainly opposed to me. -- Begoon 13:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Yo Begoon... Suport + Opose = Suppose... ;) — fortunavelut luna 13:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
At my age I mostly prefer repose. -- Begoon 13:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Continuing on this hypothetical, would I get the mop if and only if I ran AWB for a week? power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    If you made 40000 AWB edits in a week you'd probably get a block :D — xaosflux Talk 17:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    Maybe two weeks? I've seen talk-page categorization runs of about that size and time. My point is that "edit count" is a metric that is easily-gamed, and "editing tenure" only slightly less so. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
    Separately, I'm not sure I agree with the "Wikipedia needs more admins" line. The chronic backlogs at WP:AfC and WP:GAN are far worse than any of the admin queues; and I haven't seen any severe AIV backlogs recently (while "quick" for most things on Wikipedia is 1-3 days, even an hour wait for obvious cases at AIV is painful). power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I'll be the party pooper who makes the obligatory comment whenever this is proposed; it's not a discussion that it's worth having, since for legal reasons under the California law under which the WMF operates there needs to be an approval process of some kind for the admin bit, otherwise the WMF will lose §230 immunity and there are literally no circumstances in which they would allow that to happen. ("The Wikimedia Foundation will not endorse this suggestion and will not implement it in the unlikely event that it should reach consensus. For legal reasons, we require RFA or an RFA-identical process for access to certain tools (deleted revisions among them)." if you want chapter-and-verse.) You and I have relatively limited assets, and aren't worth the effort of suing; a company with an annual revenue of $80 million plus is far richer pickings, and the WMF would immediately be buried in lawsuits. RFA is with us to stay come what may; the only issue up for discussion is what form the "community review" takes. ‑ Iridescent 18:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Also, @Dodger67 who decides what constitutes an acceptable behaviour record? You? A star-chamber which is either populated by elections with all the hassle and bad feeling that entails, or a self-appointing group which will by definition be filled with the blowhards and fuckwits who like to hang round on drama boards bitching about everyone they ever encountered who didn't agree with them on something at some point in the past? Or the entire community, based on a process in which the prospective admin explains why they think they'd benefit from the admin bit and anyone who cares to offer an opinion then gets to support or oppose over a period of a week, at the end of which one of the 'crats weighs both the numbers and the arguments and decides whether there's a consensus? ‑ Iridescent 18:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  • 50,000 edits don't even guarantee that someone won't be banned, let alone that they'll make a decent admin. Darius Dhlomo, probably Wikipedia's most prolific plagiarist, had more than three times that when he was indeffed for massive copyright violations. Granted, he only had five years' tenure rather than ten, but IMO that doesn't constitute much of a safeguard. The only thing potentially preventing adminship from getting into very unsuitable hands under this is the "acceptable behaviour record" standard, and for that to fulfill this function it'll have to be something which looks very like RfA. Hut 8.5 19:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Which basically brings us back to square one: RfA is already mostly a "acceptable behaviour record" test, so the only thing that would change is that competency would no longer be checked for. I don't know if that's really a good idea though... Regards SoWhy 12:00, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
The big issue is that RfA is more a "completely spotless behavior record" test. It's easy to find one example of an editor making a mistake among a general pattern of thoughtful, useful, and civil contributions. Everyone has at least one diff they aren't proud of, perhaps on a bad day or when they rose to the bait. All it takes is that one diff to oppose an RfA, and then it gets picked up and magnified by others who don't bother even looking at the record to see all the good a candidate has done. ~ Rob13Talk 04:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I think that for RfA reform, we need to enact reform in other places. If we can really change the feeling of the drama boards, then we should be able to change how editors think. But, I do think that there is one reform we could implement. Specifically, it would be nice if comments (not votes) could be removed if the crats agree that it is inappropriate. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 14:20, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Great idea but for me I'd prefer all RFAs to go on the record, Any editor can go rogue and start blocking anyone and everyone ... ofcourse this can happen anyway but the chances are very very slim, I do agree RFA does need reforming but personally I don't think giving the mop freely is the way to achieve this. –Davey2010Talk 23:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
  • Giving the mop to people with a decade of tenure and 50,000 edits is almost what RfA does these days anyway. Real reform would involve a) recognizing that most of our current admins were admitted with under 10,000 edits and less than a year of editing experience, and b) stop clinging to inflated numerical standards that so obviously don't reflect whether an individual would use the sysop tools well. We need to stop systematically excluding newer users, not reinforce that by formalizing the "only people who have been here forever can be admins" rule. However, there is one idea presented here that I really like - RfA as a process solely concerned with evaluating the behavioural suitability of a candidate for adminship. That's a decent proposal for reform right there. Decide ahead of time what we want the numerical standards to be and fix those so they stop increasing. Then, RfA would just be about evaluating the candidate's behaviour. That could be a significant step in the right direction, if appropriate numerical standards were set. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 23:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Ajr, while I have some of the loosest RfA standards out there, I do have a rough numerical number in my head, and that is because I expect to be able to see how you interact with others before getting the bit. To be blunt, the tools are easy to learn (its basically advanced Twinkle), but what I actually care about is that someone isn't a jerk and doesn't go power hungry or rush into drama once they get the bit. If I don't have something to go off of, I'm not comfortable supporting. To me, this is a much larger concern than the desysop rate. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, there definitely needs to be some numerical standard. I would generally peg the absolute minimum here at 2,000 edits and 6 months of experience - I don't think anyone could learn our maze of core policies and guidelines in less time. The issue is that people look at random arbitrary statistics (how many articles created, percent edit summaries, voting record at AfD) without actually looking at how the editor interacts with others or understands our policies and guidelines.
Imagine the following system instead. We agree as a community that any candidate for adminship must have 2,000 manual edits and have been here for 6 months. We then set a series of competencies that we expect to see in admins: interpersonal skills, accountability, and the ability to find and understand our community policies. Instead of the current question free-for-all full of gotcha questions, we could have 1-2 questions for each of these competencies. "Show us an example of how you maintained a cool head during a tough situation." "Here is a scenario of a new user making a certain type of edits, is this vandalism? Please justify your answer based on existing community policies and guidelines." These questions could be tailored to the candidate and the areas they want to work in, or be totally general. Or we could have a set of pre-made questions depending on the field they want to be active in. If vote reasons were then required to be related to the candidate's meeting or not meeting of the competencies, rather than whatever the opposition or supporters feel like, then we might have a functional process. This isn't a new idea at all, but I think moving in this direction is the best way we could fix what is currently broken. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Regarding "the field they want to be active in" - I think these are good types of questions - if you want to be involved in AfD - are you ready to close AfD's and delete things is perfect -- however I also consider a broad will this candidate take the time to learn how to properly (both from a community standards pov and a technical pov) use any other admin function before they start using it in the future - because most candidates don't vow to never use the other tools - so yes you could be the best afd closer, but if you are likely to just slam changes in to the abusefilter without clue then you're not getting my admin support. — xaosflux Talk 01:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
That's definitely a good point. If we had two questions on the "finding and applying policy" competency, the other could be a scenario-based question in an area the candidate is unfamiliar with. Not a gotcha question, like asking about some incredibly obscure procedure like when to use Special:MergeHistory versus delete-move-restore, but something that would require the candidate to do a little research into an unknown field. My experience with advanced permissions is that these competencies are pretty generalizable. If an admin can find and properly apply policy in one area, then there's a good chance they'll be able to do so in others. But this does require them to have some general project knowledge, and there is no harm in testing that rather than assuming. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I have a whole library of these sorts of questions, but there are some current admins who are clueless about our policies and procedure who really, really don't like them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm not really that interested in candidates who can look up the relevant policy during an RFA. I'm more interested in whether they follow policy under normal editing conditions. ϢereSpielChequers 09:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
My concern about the Q&A section is that it probably distracts people from assessing the candidate. I'd prefer a rule against questions that aren't supported by a dif from the candidates editing, that way at least the questioners will have reviewed at least some of the candidates edits. ϢereSpielChequers 08:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Fair point as well. That's why I would want to limit the questions to one or two per competency. Done correctly, questions should assist with a review of a user's contributions, not detract from it. But questions should certainly not be a replacement for actually looking through a candidate's contributions. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
If that were per competency in the area where they have indicated an interest then fine, but it should be possible to support them with diffs. Competency questions in areas where the candidate hasn't been active and doesn't intend to work are a bit of a waste of time. All the candidate has to do to ensure it won't alter the RFA is to start their answer "I haven't been involved in this area and have no intention of getting involved in it let alone using the tools there, but "[puts policy in own words]". Even if you get the policy a bit wrong it isn't likely to sink an RFA if you make a policy mistake in an unfamiliar area. ϢereSpielChequers 19:55, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA