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 23:21, 13 January 2018 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 05:05:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
Purge this page

Recently closed RfXs (update)
Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
S O N %
Uebelhoer RfA WP:SNOW 13 Jan 2018 0 8 0 0
Cameron11598 RfA Withdrawn 2 Jan 2018 20 23 4 47
Muboshgu RfA Successful 29 Dec 2017 193 4 1 98
Power~enwiki RfA Withdrawn 16 Dec 2017 3 21 4 13
Joe Roe RfA Successful 30 Nov 2017 169 2 7 99
TonyBallioni RfA Successful 19 Oct 2017 224 3 2 99
Rickyc123 RfA WP:NOTNOW 18 Oct 2017 3 13 4 19

Didn't help much, did it?

A few months ago I suggested that the RfA page be put under extended-confirmed protection, in the hopes that it might help to prevent unqualified candidates from posting bungled or hopeless RfA requests. The suggestion was accepted and the EC protection was installed. So far, in the first two weeks of this month there have been three requests by grossly unqualified candidates. (Two of them don't show up on the list because they didn't figure out how to transclude.) Of course, there may have been other people who WOULD have posted a request but were prevented by the protection. But overall it looks as if that addition of protection didn't accomplish much. Thoughts? --MelanieN (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The only reason this one showed up on the list was because someone else transcluded it for them. Probably not the best idea seeing as the result was obvious from the start. In any case, I never thought ECP would help anything. It just gives people the impression that extended confirmed is the level we are looking for. We weren't drowning in inappropriate RfAs before anyways. We aren't going to be drowning now either. ECP or not. --Majora (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Which was exactly what I said would happen before. You restrict the overeager from applying, they'll apply the first opportunity they get. Esquivalience (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
To be fair, these weren't editors who are just barely over 30/500; all three have been here for 3+ years and two had thousands of edits. We simply can't know how many non-EC have tried since the protection, so it's impossible to know if it actually helped or not. ansh666 05:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that a couple of months is enough of a time scale to judge how effective applying ECP was, especially when we can't measure blocked actions. But some of the points made above - especially regarding the rarity of RfAs before and after - may well be true. -- Ajraddatz (talk) 05:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I thought it was a good idea, but at the end of the day, RfA have become so rare, it's not really a problem to nip these things in the bud on a per case basis. There are plenty of people watching and it doesn't need an admin. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

  • As usual, Kudpung has a valid point regarding RfA's. I also have watchlisted the RfA page, so whenever someone tried to transclude, I see it in watchlist. I reverted Uebelhoer's improper transclusion, but it was later fixed and transcluded. There was no point in letting that RfA run even if it was transcluded properly in first go. I tried to close it as soon as I saw it transcluded again, but as I had no experience with closing RfA, and I was on a laptop with 256MB RAM, everything went slow, and there were 7 more votes. I think the same: a lot of people watch the page, so if there is an inappropriate RfA, it can be removed quickly, even by a non-sysop. But again, I think there is no harm with ECP either. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:33, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Nobody ever claimed that extended confirmed protection would dissuade people who were already extended confirmed. But it self evidently has stopped anyone who isn't from applying and getting burned. If we now get a steady flow of people applying when they've reached their 500th edit then we'd have created a new problem because as I think we all know the de facto criteria for adminship are much higher than ECP. But clearly that isn't the case yet, though I'll keep my fingers crossed for a while in case we do actually get a rush of people who barely qualify for Extended Confirmed. The first month after ECP we had just one unsuccessful RFA, things have got a little busier since then, but we are still in the expected range for unsuccessful RFAs - we had 20 in each of the last two years and it is simply too early to say whether this year will be lower or higher. ϢereSpielChequers 22:15, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
I don't think there's much to worry about. The only thing is of course that since it was agreed to heavily publicise RfA, a lot more people are watching who are not the ideal kind of voters and they are always poised with their mouses to get in quick with a vote. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:45, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Call me an optimist, but I'm delighted to see dozens of extra !voters at RFA, my hope is that after a while more of them will decide it is time to run. I don't have a problem with the tendency for new RFA !voters to pile on for uncontentious candidates, we all have learning curves, and last years new RFA !voters could be the admins of tomorrow or at least of my dotage. After a few !votes my hope is that the more clueful of them will start checking the candidates' edits and pointing out things that make for a good admin, or reasons why this candidate isn't ready or suitable. ϢereSpielChequers 16:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Oh the horror! Somebody who was obviously unqualified slipped through and got an RfA up. And it actually survived for not quite a half hour. Well that cuts it. We need a select committee composed of ARBCOM and at least half of the Crats to figure out what is to be done so that this never, ever, happens again. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Well... you say "composed of ARBCOM and at least half of the Crats", but I think prior to anything like that there'd need to be a series of widely publicised RfCs to gain consensus on this approach, or at the very least determine which half of the Crats. It's no good just rushing into these things, you know. Do you think we should suspend the RfA process entirely until this important issue is clarified? -- Begoon 03:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Absolutely. And we need an RfC to come up with a suitably impressive name for the committee. It's important that people know we are serious about this problem. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
We never actually did update the message that non-EC users see. While I think @Force Radical:'s proposal has promise, there are some issues with it (calling a failed RfA a "mishap", using constructive buttons for links to read a page, which isn't a constructive action, etc). Since there were no specific objections to the latest version of my proposal, which is designed to have the least amount of change from what non-EC users currently see, I am going to put it in place for now, but I have abslutely no objection to a more radical (no pun intended) redesign once there is consensus around it. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE
) 15:47, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship&oldid=820785588"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship
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