Knowledge

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.

Archive 195

Archive 196

Archive 197

Archive 198

Archive 199

Archive 200

→

Archive 205

Page isn't opening up for me. Thanks.ResignBen16 (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be offended by this, you simply don't have the experience to be an admin right now, potential candidates need to have several thousand edits in many various aspects of wikipedia, which you simply don't have right now. My advice is to simply carrying on editing as you are for the time being--Jac16888 09:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

This is another discussion just like this one here, you're just too early to become an admin. --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

You would have to first create a nomination page as described at Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Nominate. But the request wouldn't have a chance now so I recommend to not create the page. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:48, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

'Applicant' since blocked. RashersTierney (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

This is doomed to fail... in addition, it looks like a sockpuppet/SPA is "supporting" him. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 20:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It can only fail if it gets transcluded. –xeno 20:44, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like meatpuppetry. The supports are from a sockpuppet of Ismartyparty. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 20:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not that it matters, but your statements are contradictory - meatpuppets aren't the same as sockpuppets. Tan | 39 20:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• Deleted. Pedro :  Chat  20:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all thanks to everyone for the support. Now to business. I don't think striking of !votes in an RfA because of their rationales is really acceptable. Surely it is up to the closing crat to decide what is ignored. I know in my RfA Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Polargeo 2 it was just a neutral but it may have been a genuine attempt to register as neutral albeit with a jokey rationale. It should not be up to users other than the closing crat to judge this, no matter who they are, or it could set a very bad precedent. I am all for the joker to be heckled for their stupidity :) but unless they withdraw their !vote it should stand for judgement of the closing crat. Polargeo (talk) 11:19, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed.  f o x  11:41, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

My official opinion as a bureaucrat is that I agree with you; it was a bad idea for the vote to be struck, but it also isn't really a big deal since I suspect Newyorkbrad is definitely sensible enough to not start striking support/oppose votes. --Deskana (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Deskana is wise beyond his years. —Dark 11:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Have to support New York Brad on principle here, even though clearly the actual comment was harmless. In the general case neutral comments can be grouped with oppose in that they both tend to be critical and can swing the votes of others. Humour and criticism dont mix well except maybe in small groups when everyone knows each other well. Direct criticism, even if forcefully put, at least allows the chance of an effective response. But as the saying goes, no man can refute a sneer. So Id be glad if folk continue striking all mocking or frivolous neutral and oppose votes. To be effective this should be done consistently with no exceptions for comments that will obviously have no influence. The ritual heart of the encyclopaedia is not the place for mocking and scoffing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I see neither mocking nor scoffing. It is a parody, and quite an effective one at that. I agree it's not completely appropriate but it's obvious it's a joke and I know from experience that no bureaucrat would treat it seriously so I don't really see the need to strike it. This has been our long standing practise. --Deskana (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

We all agree the individual comment was harmless & good humoured. More generally, our long standing practices seem to be delivering adverse quantitative and qualitative results, such as our declining active admin corps and the increased personal hostility evident in many RfAs. Respect to NYB for taking a small step in addressing this! FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't see how Newyorkbrad striking a "harmless and good humoured" comment will combat the "increased personal hostility evident in many RfAs". That doesn't follow logically to me. --Deskana (talk) 13:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Although I respect Newyorkbrad's position. The harsh treatment of voters is almost as bad as the harsh treatment of candidates and adds to the perception of an elitist forum for anyone considering running. If we wish RfA to be a more friendly and welcoming place then we should all strive to make it so and this includes reducing any unnecessary hounding of voters. In the context of my own RfA this neutral vote was something that made me smile. Polargeo (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

If people want to strike my neutral votes they're free to do so, but it's interesting to note that if I had supported with the exact same rationale (or no rationale at all) my vote would stand (and carry more weight than a neutral). Gurch (talk) 12:55, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I am a user of Nepali Knowledge ] and I have a lot of contributions to the Nepali Wikipedi but my native language is Bhojpuri en:Bhojpuri language so I want to contribute on Bhojpuri Knowledge ] but the process of the Bhojpuri Knowledge is very slow. I didn't find any administrator and any regular user there and the main page of Bhojpuri Knowledge is still not translated in Bhojpuri Language so I want to expand and devlop Bhojpuri Knowledge means I want to be an administrator on Bhojpuri Knowledge. Thank you -- (Nepaboy (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 19:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC).

You might try posting a message on the local wiki asking to become an admin. Wait a week, and if there are no objections, request admin rights at Meta. Here is not really the place to ask though. Aiken ♫ 19:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've page protected the wrong version of this (seriously, it's the wrong version) due to edit warring after closure. Feel free to revert, unprotect or whatever is deemed necessary, but I never saw anything like this before. 19:05, 15 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlohcierekim (talk • contribs)

Yes it is the wrong version. Someone needs to actually read the posts and then put the vote back where the voter intended it. Can people please buy a clue here?--Cube lurker (talk) 19:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Saw your note on the user talk. I actually protected after a revert. I will put it to the right version. Hopefully, this will take care of it. Dlohcierekim 19:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Now all you need to do is unprotect it :-) Aiken ♫ 19:19, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• As I commented at User talk:Cimon Avaro#Moving of joke support vote, it was pretty silly for the closing bureaucrat to move the obvious-joke-oppose support into the oppose column proper. Polargeo wasn't too bothered by it, but I can understand why Atmoz may have an issue with his support being moved into the oppose column: it makes it look like he frivolously opposes candidates. The !vote was originally a support, he confirmed it as such, and should stay in the support section, and the tally amended. –xeno 19:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I actually commented on the "joke oppose" at the time. Dlohcierekim 19:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It is clear that the bureaucrat was in the wrong here. However my own issue was Atmoz undoing the bureaucrat without so much as an edit summary. Bureaucrats are similar to arbitrators when it comes to RFA pages - their edits are final. I'm sure a polite word on the talk page would not have hurt, but instead we have threats of being "add to list of stupid people on Knowledge". Aiken ♫ 19:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)I made a revert in this but I have no interest in anything other than the preservation of the discussion as it was when it was archived (especially since it doesn't affect the result). Surely disputes or questions over the actions of the closing 'crat belong on his talk page and/or WP:BN but people shouldn't take it upon themselves to revert the 'crat. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

<sigh> then lets all waltz off the clif following the blind.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the lamest edit wars ever. The final tally is unimportant. This could all have been avoided had everyone realized that RFA is not the best place at Knowledge to impress others with your quick wit, sarcasm, and sense of the absurd. And yes, that's a setup line for whoever wants to make the snappy reply. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, Knowledge is the place for burrocrats with no experience at closing RfAs to suddenly come out of the woodwork and start changing peoples votes. -Atmoz (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Cimon is active at RFA only occasionally but nonetheless closed his first RfA in 2004. For some time he followed RFA closely and !voted on nearly every candidate. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps. Besides this one, when was the last time Cimon closed an RfA? -Atmoz (talk) 22:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Purely anecdotal here, but I had no clue who the hell Cimon was and, after a quick glance at the usernames in the history, was confused about when the RfA was closed; I didn't see anyone's names that I recognized. I looked at Cimon's logs (and then confirmed with the list at WP:CRAT) to discover who the closing 'crat had been.
"active only occasionally" is being ridiculously generous; his last promotion was October 2005. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:01, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

• A proposal has been made for unprotection. If any admin or crat wishes to do so, please feel free. To me, the issue as to which version should stand has not been served. Good arguments have been made for both versions. Until some sort of consensus arises as to which version should stand, I think it best to leave it alone. As the page should not be edited anyway, I'm not in a hurry to unprotect it. Dlohcierekim 22:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
• If we could return to the matter at hand, which version stands? Dlohcierekim 22:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• Nonsense! It's completely clear the bureaucrat made the mistake of moving the vote. I was wrong to restore his edit too. And besides, you already edited through the protection (technically, a violation of policy) to restore a particular version. Claiming "it should not be edited" is highly hypocritical when you just edited it yourself! Please just unprotect the page and let's get on with our lives... Aiken ♫ 22:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

• I've unprotected it, it doesn't appear anyone's proposing to carry on edit warring. Atmoz clearly meant his comment to be where it was, and I hope Cimon Avarro understands - it was, admittedly, somewhat ambiguous. In any case, hugs for all! ~ mazca 22:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

As Cimon made the edit moving the !vote three days after closing, I feel better with this version. Dlohcierekim 23:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've amended the final tally to match that on the day of closure . –xeno 15:46, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm updating my standards page. When I first started, G10 and BLP weren't as important as they are now. I'm updating my On RfA page and would like some input as to how the community sees these matters at RFA and as to what sort of advice to offer on my On RFA page. Thanks Dlohcierekim 19:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't your page based on your own thoughts? That being said, I don't know how important G10 is - as long as you're not creating them there's not much to go on (incorrect taggings aside). BLPs are a pretty big deal, although really only if it seems relevant (i.e. I wouldn't expect to see intense BLP questions unless the candidate has activity there, in AfDs, etc.). Edits appearing to violate the policy would necessarily be considered in a very serious manner for any user, especially if that editor were to get the block and protect buttons. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

When I offer advice on what to work on, I prefer to have some basis in what the community thinks. I'm more inclined to honor a WP:CSD#G10 than some, less so than others. It's all in how you interpret the policy. And I don't feel it's fair to oppose based on my views when other reasonable editors might disagree with my interpretation. With most WP:CSD, "err on the side of caution is the rule." With BLP's and G10's, it seems more important to delete first and ask questions later. I've seen editor apply the G10 when it was not clearly a page that "served only to disparage", etc. I've seen opposes at RFA based on this, and what to clarify my understanding on the community's view. Dlohcierekim 20:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there are a few misconceptions of G10. They are:

• It only applies to living persons. It applies to any attack on the subject of an article, be it a living person, a dead person, a company, a product or a frog. Obviously we care most of all about BLP attacks, but attacks on anything are concerning.
• It only applies to unsourced material. It is quite possible to have a sourced attack page. A G10 here might be questionable in the circumstances, but it is possible.
• It does not apply to merely factual statements. So-called factual statements can constitute an attack. All depends on the context.

As for the "serve only to disparage" test, that has to be applied with common sense. If the attack element of an article can't sensibly be extricated from the article as a whole, G10 should apply. However this can be difficult in practice and I wouldn't oppose an RfA candidate over a legitimate difference of opinion on what constitutes "serves only to disparage". Overall, G10 and G12 are probably the most important criteria. These criteria evidence a need to axe the article as soon as possible for the project's benefit and the protection of third parties. I'm reluctant to support (although that's not a blanket position) candidates who can't see a G10 issue when it arises. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't really need the sarcastic commentary every time.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We have four RFAs up! All at the same time! Each with reasonable chances of successful outcomes! The wiki may not be in flames and coming to an end! ZOMG! Wowser!!! *@!#$!!! ~thud~.--Chaser (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Hurray! Dlohcierekim 19:34, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Be quiet yous, RFA is broken. –xeno 19:36, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Obviously we aren't being hard enough on potential candidates... time to go oppose some people for frivilous reasons!---Balloonman 21:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Sorry to rain on the parade but do we really need a thread every time there are a lot of/no RfAs up? It's getting tedious...  f o x  21:11, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Tedious, maybe; however I can't recall the bit in the hidden manual that forces you to read the thread Fox, or indeed even have this page on your watchlist. If you don't like it just ignore it.....or just remove the whole section per WP:BOLD if it bothers you that much. Pedro :  Chat  21:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Sigh.  f o x  21:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC) <breaks out umbrella> ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:22, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Some us need to express our feelings about RFA from time to time. Dlohcierekim 21:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Well, I tried to archive this three times and got edit conflicted so stuff it. Since it clearly bothers Fox so much perhaps he can get on with it, rather than bitching and making sad little "sigh" comments. The irony of Fox moaning about pointless threads, and then adding pointless little comments does not go unmissed. Pedro :  Chat  21:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC) No, Fox does not have the right to remove other people's comments. I have undone his edit. Just settle down guys. Wisdom89 (T / ) 21:43, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Fox is an administrator, ergo he thinks he has the right to do whatever he pleases. Malleus Fatuorum 21:46, 15 April 2010 (UTC) Well that was pre-emptory and uncalled for. Dlohcierekim 21:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Now there's five. Dlohcierekim 14:21, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

If more than three of them succeed this won't be the equal second worst month in RFA history. If eleven more good candidates emerge in the next six days we could still make April 2010 the best month of the current drought. But five in the green means rather less than one successful RFA per day, so by historic standards we still have a paucity of candidates. ϢereSpielChequers 14:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

It looks like there will be at least 8 successful RfA's this month (3 have already closed, 5 that are up now are looking likely to close as successful). —Soap— 13:25, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

True, but we've also been shedding admins this month. Five resigned (Skomorokh, SB Johnny, Viridae, Royalguard11, Fox) and one was desysopped and banned (Altenmann). Assuming eight candidates are promoted this month, and taking into consideration Spartaz's re-adminship, that's still only a net gain of three. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Dare I say it, but shouldn't you be writing up your own RFA? Spartaz 15:50, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Touché, sir. Check your e-mail. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Whilst we may have lost some admins this month as well, it should be encouraging that we have had so many candidates this month, especially as many seem likely to pass. --Taelus (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, definitely. It's refreshing. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's activity that matters rather than numbers alone. Aiken ♫ 15:57, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

You're right, of course; new admins are likely to be much more active than resigning admins, who are often experiencing burnout. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Six. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there are a good deal of potential candidates still to be found. ASAW and 7 come to mind. ceranthor 22:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Very true. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

per recent check-user confirm sock-puppet account block, I attempts to indent a vote at Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Blanchardb 2, but unfortunately have really did a number on the count. Would someone be able to show me where I've gone a rye? Thanks in advance. Calmer Waters 14:30, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A rye? Tan | 39 14:32, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

ummm...Maybe I made that up, I'm sure I read it somewhere. Where I went wrong. Calmer Waters 14:33, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"Awry", I should think - Kingpin (talk) 14:34, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Calmer Waters, could you please re-write your comment, I'm afraid it makes little sense :/. Cheers, - Kingpin (talk) 14:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's it. The last line of the poem that became Of Mice and Men Calmer Waters 14:36, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

When indenting a vote on an RfA, remember to prefix the indent with #. That'll keep the numbering in sequence. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Dlohcierekim 14:38, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

But in regards to a sockpuppet checkuser confirmed vote User:Warrah? Does it stand? I thought not, so I attempted to indent the vote. I'll leave to those with more or prior experience with these issues Calmer Waters 14:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

A comment from a banned user would not stand and should indeed be indented or struck. Useight (talk) 15:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you answered as I (e.c.) with you. Thanks Dlohcierekim Calmer Waters 14:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The poem you were thinking of is To a Mouse and was written in Scots; the actual line is, "The best laid schemes o' mice an' men gang aft agley." The latter part is translated variably as "often go awry", "often go askew" or "often go astray". (Our Knowledge article favors the "askew" translation.) -- Atama頭 17:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The word itself would appear to predate Rabbie though; offline dictionaries tell me that it is Middle English c. 1325–75, using the preposition 'A' meaing 'on' as a predicate adjective (as in "aside", "afoot", "ashore" etc) and "wry" meaning 'to twist', from ME wryen, from Dutch wrijgen. I believe that 'awry' can also be used to indicate a sideways glance, like 'askew'. None of which butters any parsnips, of course; just sayin'.  Chzz  ►  09:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I have accepted Kingpin13's nomination for membership in the Bot Approvals Group, and per the instructions invite interested parties to participate in the discussion and voting. Thank you, –xeno 19:24, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

At Ceranthor 3, Jclemens in Q#6 and O#2 raises the issue of whether the candidate has attained age of majority in the jurisdiction where they reside. At my own RFA I had resolved that if asked such an "optional" question I would simply ignore it at my own peril. If prodded on it, I would respond on the lines of "none of your fucking business" and "can't you tell by looking at my edits?". In my case, there are many clues in my edit history as to my rough age (I remember stuff that happened in the mid-1960's) but more to the point I don't think there is any history of typical markers of immaturity.

Don't get me wrong, I'm as ageist as the next doddering old fart, but why does the specific question of "age of majority" arise? I recall Roux asking the same sort of question several months ago. Is there anything about adminship that requires majority status? Ability to view deleted material for instance? If so, this should be quantified. If not, I find such questions intrusive and infringing on the privilege of pseudonymity. I'm fine with providing evidence of immaturity on the part of any editor, but I object to drawing the particular line at the day you can go get legally drunk. How should specific RFA "how old are you" questions be handled? Franamax (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I too am well past the age of majority, and I too feel it is not relevant in an RFA or RFB. This factor weighed heavily in JulianColton's first RFB as well.  7  06:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This is ironic coming from me, because when I use some of the standard welcoming templates the resulting output says "Hi, I am 7 and I have been editing a long time. . ."  7  07:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

A similar note caused Bsaeball Bugs a lot of problems at his RfA... apparently a classic line from Bugs Bunny in baseball uniform (from whince his name is derived) Bugs says something to the effect that he's thirteen. So Baseball Bugs had that quote on his page once... and everybody assumed he was talking literally.---Balloonman 07:37, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

The question arises because some people believe that a person's real age may indicate their maturity on this project. In regards to how they are handled, you can either state you're above or below the age of majority, or ignore it. If you answer "incorrectly" or refuse to answer, certain people will see fit to oppose. Just like any other question in the RfA. If you find the question intrusive, you could simply refuse to answer. There's been countless threads about ageism in the past, none accomplished anything (like the majority of RfA threads). —Dark 07:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Then it's a "gotcha" question and should be disallowed/removed IMO. What about those Jews and fat people who keep wanting to be admins? Again, chronological age is not the same as intellectual or emotional maturity. The question in this case has regard to age of majority - but it's farcical to suggest that anything changes on that magic birthday, between one day and the next. You still can't vote 'til there's an election and you already were able to join the army. All you can do is get drunk in a bar. How does that indicate fitness for the role? Maybe if the question was "did you not get drunk on the day you attained majority?" we would have a criterion. (You can inherit property too, but we don't grant adminship based on wealth yet) Franamax (talk) 09:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

People can oppose for whatever frivolous reason that they wish. Disallowing a question is more drama than it's worth, especially since some people believe that it is valid and acceptable to judge an editor based on age. Unless you wish to disallow beliefs by a portion of the community that age is a valid criteria for judging an editor, the pursuit to ban these questions will find no fruit. Although I agree with you that chronological age has little bearing on emotional and intellectual maturity and should not be used as the sole evidence of unsuitability (contributions tend to reflect maturity or lack thereof); it is a belief by many individuals (which I agree, to an extent) that an older editor has more experience in handling adversity (both in real life and online) than a younger one, as a generalisation. Many editors may argue that the onus is on the younger contributors to provide evidence of maturity, rather than for the community to provide examples of immaturity, a view that I respect, but disagree with. A bureaucrat will judge the merits of the argument; little weight will be placed in comments that demonstrates no proof of immaturity. No, I do not feel that these questions should be removed. A candidate has no obligation to answer any such questions. Perhaps the solution might be to provide candidates with advice to refrain from answering such questions if they are uncomfortable doing so, rather than disallowing and removing the question. —Dark 10:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the issue at Julian's RfB wasn't "Is Julian a minor" but rather the vigorour with which Julian has argued that minors are no different than adults. While he has moderated his view some, he had a history of being one of the most vocal and single minded opponents of people who opposed based upon age related issues. The furvor over which he has argued this point made people question his ability to weigh age related opposes.---Balloonman 07:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Ageism---Balloonman 07:32, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Are we to have IQ tests and personality tests too? Their edits say exactly what we need to know about candidates. If you can't tell whether someone is too young from their contributions, they are not too young. Stephen B Streater (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Unlike those who were adults in the 60s I do have memories from that decade, which I suspect makes me a little older than many editors and quite a older than some. I'm conscious that a lot of our wannabee admins are of the age of my eldest nieces and nephews and some of my friends' children, several of whom in some contexts merit treatment as adults, whilst others can still be petulant teenagers. Age is a poor predictor of maturity, but it does have the advantage of being a practical way to treat people en masse, and by 18 everyone should in theory be ready for adult responsibilities, even the ones who clearly arent. At RFA we have the opportunity to assess people individually, and adolescents who have recently behaved immaturely are unlikely to pass whilst those who behave as adults are usually treated as such; IMHO that makes for a better way to decide whether a teenager is ready for a bit of responsibility. Also we don't have the information to reliably default to age based !voting as not all of our candidates have disclosed their age, and there is no verification for those who have. So I would suggest that !voters ignore alleged and announced ages and focus on perceived maturity as exhibited by a candidate's editing. There is a separate argument as to whether we have the right balance between roles one can only take on if you have verified your age as adult (oversight, trusteeship, chapter board membership etc), and roles we allow to anyone regardless of age. I would suggest that editors who are concerned about admins and crats who are legally minors should consider which aspects of adminship they would want to make adult only, that way "Do you agree not to do any of the wp:Admin functions that should only be done by admins who are legally adults unless and until you are legally an adult in the country where you live" might one day become a sensible Q4 for RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 09:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Couldn't have said it better. SS✞ 09:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

So in other words you basically agree with WP:ageism?---Balloonman 19:35, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If there really was something to adminship that required admins to be legally adults (spoiler: there isn't), we would need people to actually prove their age instead of just asking a yes/no question that nobody can verify anyway. I'm not really fond of RfA questions that ask for the candidate to disclose personal information they're not even required to disclose for the role they're applying for. Jafeluv (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I am also not in favor of asking for age verification at RfAs, however the argument can be made that because an administrator is in a position of authority, no matter how mature and intelligent that user's editing is, that doesn't mean that a 15 year old still living with mom and dad is capable of taking on such a position of authority and emotionally being able to handle it. -- œ 12:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• The only things I care about in an RfA is whether the candidate understands Knowledge well enough to help maintain it, and whether they treat other editors with fairness and decency. The candidate's age doesn't come into my considerations at all, and nobody has yet made even a half-way convincing case as to why it should. Reyk _YO! 12:48, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This is where I would normally ask which of our many underage admins has demonstrated not being able to emotionally handle the position. (At least the ones that first come to mind have handled it just fine, although it's of course none of my business who they live with.) However, I guess it would be an unfair question since pointing out a specific user could be interpreted as a personal attack against that user. So I'll just say that I disagree. Jafeluv (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually not even aware of any admins that are 15 years old or living with their parents, so I wasn't referring to anyone in particular if that's what you thought, I was just trying to make the point that a young admin.. again, noone in particular just young people in general.. if faced with a situation where they would have to assert their authority, being a teenager that is still subordinate to their parents, might not have the emotional ability to assert that authority the same way an adult would. Of course I could be completely wrong here but.. I think I'm gonna stop talking before I dig myself into a hole. -- œ 13:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Admins are not supposed to assert their authority. They are supposed to maintain the encyclopedia. I would probably oppose any candidate who thought being an admin involved ordering others around. Aiken ♫ 13:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

And of course adminship is still no big deal.. but that's a whole separate debate. -- œ 13:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not again... if people want to post bigoted ideas about who they believe is or is not fit for adminship, let them. Be it about the person's age, sexuality, religion, political view, the only person it causes a problem for is the opposer - it makes them look like the unreasonable, immature, close-minded one. I think it shows poor judgement, especially for an administrator, to vote based upon something that the candidate cannot change. There are no age limits for adminship, so technically the oppose is completely invalid, so it needs to be left alone. Aiken ♫ 12:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

We have underage admins. For the most part, they do a good job. The community has spoken on this one. Deal with it.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

To quote from User:Jclemens/RFAStandards: "Candidate must be of an age of legal responsibility in his or her own jurisdiction. Administrators may be called upon to deal with child pornography, obscenity, libel, legal threats and other material inappropriate for children to deal with. I will never support the exposure of any child to such a position of responsibility."

I do not, and will not, ask any person whom I know or reasonably believe to be a child to deal with (or even assume a remote possibility of needing to "deal with") "child pornography, obscenity, libel, legal threats and other material inappropriate for children to deal with" If that makes me some sort of a bigot, then I could easily reciprocate by calling all of those of you who ignore the point wanton child endangerers. I'm old enough to remember how expectations change within my lifetime, and I always conduct myself with the thought that my actions may be reviewed in 50 years in quite a different environment, thus I take a principled and ethical stance against the community asking children to do adults' work. Jclemens (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Lol. Tan | 39 14:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

We are all volunteers. If someone isn't happy getting involved in something they can choose not to do so. Yes we can all be invited to get involved in things, but rarely are we called upon to do things, and even if someone does request an action on your talkpage, in my experience you can easily refer them on if you are not in a position to act. Having said that, just as there are occasions when you swerve a matter to legal, there may be occasions when it is best for younger admins to step aside and let someone older act. If Jclemens or others want to start suggesting when those occasions might arise maybe wp:Admin functions that should only be done by admins who are legally adults should go blue. ϢereSpielChequers 15:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Tsk. We'd then be asking children to exercise adult judgment about what they can or cannot handle. That's a complete non-solution to the objection I raised. Jclemens (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That reasoning is pretty damn solid and I see nothing wrong with Jclemens asking the question. I don't agree with Jclemens, and don't care about someone's age (for all the many reasons already stated above), but there is a fair amount of stuff here that is inappropriate, underage or not. There's not a teen in the world (least of all the 86% male that enWiki is) that would say "No, thanks, I don't want to look at that porn, not until I'm $ageOfMajority." Some of the vandalism is enough to get an R/18+/etc. rating in a movie, and while the analogy isn't wildly strong, the comparison is worth considering. It just comes down to whether you care or not. Jclemens does. EOS. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I may completely disagree, but it is certainly a valid concern. --Deskana (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

No one is asking you to do anything, Jclemens. It is not up to you to decide what is best, or is not best for an underage editor. You are not his parent. You even pointed out yourself - contributions look good. It is thoughtful of you to consider the fact he may be underage, but frankly, it's none of your business to say what's best for him. Aiken ♫ 15:28, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I oppose child admins when I can souse them because I've soused them - they have demonstrated immaturity that has led me to want to determine how old they are. Hipocrite (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

That's fine. We don't want immature admins (or editors). What bothers me is the fact Jclemens even asked the question. It is none of his business, and if he cannot even tell, then the candidate is probably mature enough to handle the "bad" stuff admins could potentially deal with. Age is just a number - he won't magically mature once he reaches 18 or whatever. This is a reason why age-related opposes are bad. Hipocrite opposes based on behavior - fine. But pure numbers? Sorry, that's unfair, and it's unfair to ask. Aiken ♫ 15:33, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I can think of well over a dozen things that you have to be 18 or 21 to do in my jurisdiction. Not all of them are obvious, nor are all codified in law. Many of them derive from other laws, and are enforced by non-governmental organizations. There's no law that says you have to be 21 to rent a car, but when I was traveling on U.S. Government business at age 20, I had a rental car agent intentionally mis-enter my DOB in order for the computer to allow me to rent a car. There's no law that you have to be 21 to supervise a BB gun range for the Boy Scouts, but they enforce that age limit as well. Is it arbitrary? Yup. Is it a good idea? Debatable. Does it reduce legal risk for the organization enforcing such rules? Absolutely. Jclemens (talk) 15:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Until the WMF make it policy admins have to be of legal age where they live, asking the question is inappropriate. Not just because adminship is not like driving a car, getting married, owning a gun or whatever, but because exposure of that person's age (or the fact they are a minor) is a sure fast way of attracting online predators. If you really cared about the underage candidate, you would be much more discreet about letting everyone know they were still a kid. Aiken ♫ 15:55, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

You know, nothing stops Ceranthor or anyone else from lying about their age. Note also that I don't ask every candidate--just those that have disclosed the fact that at one point they were under the age of majority. It's really more of an applied "don't ask, don't tell"--if I have no reason to suspect an admin candidate may not be a legal adult in his or her jurisdiction, I don't raise the issue. Jclemens (talk) 16:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I am being somewhat (but politely) badgered for having to a stricter legal standard for adminship than the WMF and the rest of the community hold. Again, I completely oppose immature admins of whatever age, but that's not my point--it's been covered extensively in the above section, and I have nothing to add there. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the rationale, I think Jclemens is being reasonable. Off wiki, there are a number of matters that are designated for particular age groups. Maurreen (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't off-wiki, though. Jclemens is making legal assumptions that essentially fail WP:V. Did Godwin advise us to limit the bit to legally of-age persons? Unless he did, there's no reason whatsoever for Jclemens to become Knowledge's legal counsel. Tan | 39 15:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking to be WMF's legal counsel. I retain the right to oppose based on my own ethics--I did not ask anyone else to agree with me, and to date, it doesn't appear that anyone has. Would you take the right of conscience away from me? Jclemens (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

If your opposition isn't legally based, why have the candidate's local government be involved, then? You let local governments make your ethical decisions for you? "Age of majority where he lives is 18; I support. Oh, wait, age of majority is 19 where he lives? I oppose." If you're going to hide behind ethics, have the balls to make them your own ethics. This is just silly. Tan | 39 16:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I've struck the "but politely" above, and I think that's all the response this gets. Jclemens (talk) 16:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably could have done that after I laughed out loud at you "quoting" your own RfA standards, like it was some official document. Tan | 39 16:11, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Can we archive this and add another section to Knowledge:PEREN#Adminship? NW (Talk) 15:58, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• No, there's still a discussion going on. Please note I'm not opposed at all to having strict standards on RFAs, and quite agree immature editors should not be anywhere near the tools. I'm opposed to using age as a cut off, in particular using a question to "determine" the candidate's age (either it's obvious they're a kid, or it doesn't need asking imo, and they could lie anyway). It's a poor way of determining suitability, and a slipperly slope that could lead to all sorts of problems should it be allowed to continue. Aiken ♫ 16:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• I get what you are saying, and I agree with you, but this discussion has already been had a number of times. Just take a look at . NW (Talk) 16:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Although I understand and respect JClemens' reasoning, I feel that the criteria should be maturity rather than chronological age. I do not actually know of many admins who are counted as minors in their jurisdictions, albeit I am aware that there will be some - but the issue isn't their age. The couple of minors who I know who are admins steer clear of any pornography, etc, issues. If the foundation do not consider it a requirement (as they do for CU etc), then why should we? Here are some other questions we could ask, if we should include the question "Are you of legal majority in the jurisdiction in which you lived?":

1. "Do you suffer from any mental illness which might cause you to be unable to make a clear determination of issues with which you will be faced?"
2. "Do you misuse alcohol, or any medication?"
3. "Do you take mind-altering drugs?"
4. "Are you a sufferer of Alzeimers?"
5. "Are you such an old fogey that you can't remember things? (In other words, you have a memory like a, ... erm, thing with little holes in, you use it to drain the water from lettuce and stuff)?"

Where are you going to draw the line? Should prisoners be allowed to be admins (if not, we need the question "Are you currently incarcerated for a crime in your jurisdiction?").

The way I look at it (as I've mentioned) is that if this was a legal requirement for the actions with which an admin could be faced, the Foundation would have mandated this. If a contributor who has an RfA acts in a mature way and knows the policies, they can be an admin. If the contributor is immature, then whether they are 12 years old or 112 years old, they should not be an admin. Just my 0.02 -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 16:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

We've had a number of administrators under 18 who have done just fine, I believe we've even had an arbitrator under that age. Personally, I think that it's not a crazy idea to have a minimum age requirement for RfA, but since it hasn't been a problem in the past it seem unnecessary. Young people can be surprisingly mature (and older people can be surprisingly immature). -- Atama頭 17:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Not true about Arbcom; Arbcom members have access to Checkuser and Oversight, and those two both do come with a legal requirement to be over 18 with a verified identity. – iridescent (talk) 17:45, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I think there was a time when identification wasn't enforced as a legal requirement, and that is (presumably) how there was once someone under the age of majority (which in the present is no longer possible). -- Mentifisto 18:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality and Dmcdevit were likely both child arbitrators, as they both made reference at one time or another to their being current high school students. There may have been others. The Hero of This Nation (talk) 15:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the other problem that we have to take any answer to such questions, including those concerning age, on trust anyway? Short of asking for a photocopy of a passport/birth certificate, or whatever, we can only base our acceptance of any given answer on an editor's editing patterns. Asking for documentary proof would open a whole other can of worms... Rje (talk) 17:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, some jurisdictions have low (from other juridictions' PoV) ages of majority - a female in Iran reaches it at 9 years old, three jurisdictions have 14 as the age of majority: if a female editor from Iran puts up an RfA and she is 10 years old, she will answer "yes"! Most jurisdictions have 18-21 as their age of majority (the Age of majority article has none older than 21). Even in the United States of America there are exceptions to the "AoM = 18 years": American Samoa=14 years; Alabama and Nebraska=19; Missippi and Puerto Rico=21. In the UK, AoM=18 except Isle of Man (14 for males) and Scotland (16). This is a reason why I think the AoM "in your jurisdiction" shouldn't be used.

I wonder why the age of majority is different for males and females in Iran. If anyone happens to know, I'd enjoy being enlightened. Useight (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I suspect it has to do with Islamic beliefs that because girls mature faster than boys, they can be considered adults at a younger age. Oddly the Coming of age#Islam article has virtually nothing, but Im sure information can be found in English somewhere on the Internet. —Soap— 19:06, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Another thing: does that mean that if (for example), the editor was in the UK and was 17, but the UK parliament lowered the AoM to 16: would that mean that the user has miraculously attained extra maturity overnight? (OK, I'm being a bit facetious there, but AoMs can change...) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Maturity is not relevant to my oppose. Legal considerations (e.g., the right to buy obscene material, the right to enter into binding contracts, and so forth) are. Jclemens (talk) 20:07, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• Until or unless we have a policy that says admins must be 18 or of legal majority where they live, I believe it is inappropriate to be asking admin candidates such questions and even more so to be opposing based on assumption that they don't meet some arbitrary age limit. The WMF is perfectly capable of imposing such a limit as they do for access to CheckUser and Oversight. That they haven;t speaks volumes to me. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a reason RFA doesn't require 100% support to promote. If he feels it's important, but can't find 20-25% of the voters to agree with his thinking problem solved. If 25+% agree it's an issue, problem confirmed.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Right. I don't mind being in the minority when I !vote according to my principles. Aligning with my principles is far more important than "winning". Jclemens (talk) 19:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

• • There are absolutely 0 policies dealing with requirements for becoming an administrator; every percieved requirement is merely "community consensus" at the time. There are no policies requiring administrators have any minimum number of edits, time on the job, experience with vandalism, understanding of CSD criteria, involvement with the GA/FA process, or anything of the like, yet questions of that nature are commonplace - as are supports or opposes based upon them. Jclemens believes a user's age is pertinent to their nomination and he should not be barred from taking it in to consideration. Shereth 19:41, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Agree 100% with Shereth. JCLEMENS has the right to ask the question (the candidate has the right to refuse to answer.) JCLEMEN has the right to oppose based upon the answer (or lack thereof) and that does not mean that his !vote is at all invalid. The community also has the right to discount (but not discard) his view. Age is a valid reason to oppose---it's just very unlikely to garner any traction unless accompanied by supporting details.---Balloonman 20:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
      • If Jclemens opposes based on the lack of an answer, then the question is not optional. If he were to remain neutral, then that would make sense. Aditya Ex Machina 12:28, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
        • "then the question is not optional". How so? Why does one oppose force a person to answer the question? —Dark 12:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
        • It is still optional, the candidate chooses not to answer a specific question knowing that the person who asked it is likely to oppose based upon that decision---it is true for ANY and EVERY question asked. The candidate also has the option of responding to the question without answering it. "E.g. I won't answer this question because of ...". The only way that an option question ceases to be options is if the failure to answer results in an automatic failure---but even then, the person has a choice to run or not to run.---Balloonman 14:21, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Then breathing is optional, if you have a choice not to live or not. Gimme a break. The "optional" part refers to the person who asked the question; for Jclemens, this question was not optional. Tan | 39 14:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet for the candidate it was. The current RFA is a textbook example of why. The candidate not only didn't answer but gave a mildly smartass reply. The result, yes there was one oppose, but the RFA shows no sign of collapsing. We don't demand unanimous results to promote it's a non-problem if someone opposes for their own reasons.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:34, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course. When we say questions are optional/non-optional, people can take their pick of what that means. I didn't answer several questions in my own RfA, which garnered a few opposes but obviously I passed. The most salient person in the equation is the inquirer; who wields the power of opposing simply because a "non-optional" question wasn't answered. Tan | 39 14:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Than maybe I'm not sure what you're getting at. The concept of questions being optional only make sense if we're talking about optional for the candidate. There's no way to, or reason to declare anything to be optional in regards to any member of the communitys decision making process.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What I took exception to was Balloonman's idea that nothing at all is ever mandatory, i.e., the candidate could simply not submit themselves to RfA. In the context of this conversation, that - to me - was silly. Tan | 39 14:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

When you choose to run, you know that you are going to be asked a lot of questions. Before you run you should consider how much grief you want to experience. Do you want to jumpt through the hoops or do you believe that your candidacy is strong enough that you can just do it? You can choose to answer those questions. Or you can choose not to answer those questions. If you choose not to answer the questions, you do so knowing that you will gerner some opposes. It is a personal decision.---Balloonman 15:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so you are preempting this entire conversation by saying that the entire process is optional. Of course it is, but that is merely sidestepping the issue, not addressing it. My participation here on Knowledge is optional; however, if I choose to participate, there are restrictions I need to abide by. Once someone makes the decision to run, are all questions then not optional? I understand we're delving into semantics here, but you can't merely take a stratospheric viewpoint and call it good. Tan | 39 15:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Bottom line all it means is the candidate has the opportunity to demonstrate judgement. There are questions that can be ignored and the only one who will care is the person who asked it. There are questions that if ignored will send up red flags to most of the community. Welcome to the world of decision making.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:37, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with User:Hipocrite who stated I oppose child admins when I can souse them because I've soused them - they have demonstrated immaturity that has led me to want to determine how old they are. I wonder if it's just a coincidence that the nastiest admins I come across are the ones that slipped through the net before they were of age? As far as a candidate's actual mental maturity is concerned, very often just a quick a peek at their page tells all.--Kudpung (talk) 16:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It is just a coincidence. Personally I can't think of any nasty admins, let alone ones which are children. Aiken ♫ 17:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, they are still optional. The candidate can choose to answer the questions or not. If they choose not to, then they are choosing to accept the consequences on not answering. It is all a choice. Will it result in some opposes? Possibly, but not guaranteed. The candidate has to decide if they want the fall out from not answering or begging the question. Failure to answer questions does not mean that the candidacy will fail. You yourself acknowledge that you didn't answer all of the questions on your RfA. Many people will support/oppose regardless of how specific answers come back. Answering this question "wrong" will have less of a detrimental impact on a candidate than answering a question on BLP/CSD/etc "wrong." Fewer people have deep seated feelings on this question. Most people will support/oppose regardless of how it is answered---so failing to answer it will only incur the wrath of those people who are likely to oppose based on age in the first place. So yes, it is still a choice.---Balloonman 16:59, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

"Wrath" is a pretty strong word. If you'll look at my provisional oppose, I'm very clear that my oppose is nothing personal. If you look at my oppose of Ceranthor in context of my other AfD opposes, you will see that I am quite capable of being far more scathing towards ill-suited candidates. Indeed, I've unquestionably been subjected to far more "wrath" for my position than Ceranthor has from me, the sincere support of my right to hold unpopular criteria by people like yourself notwithstanding, Balloonman. Jclemens (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't happen very often, but I'm going to agree with Jclemens. I work with teenagers who range from what some would call "delinquent" to those with A-star scores across the board. How many of those 16-17 year olds would I consider have the right temperament to consistently cope with some of the crap that being an admin throws at you? Possibly 20% at the most. Now clearly, one can look at the contributions of a minor and perhaps make the judgement call that here is an editor that can do that, despite their age. But on the other hand, I don't see a problem with holding the position that we shouldn't have minors as admins, regardless of their perceived maturity or quality of editing. No-one is "right" here, and I find it ludicrous that certain people in this conversation can make such sweeping statements that they are. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Then he should just oppose per age. I would have no problem at all with that, but that's not what he's doing. The candidate's age itself is irrelevant here; he's opposing based on whether or not the candidate has reached the "age of majority" in whatever legal jurisdiction the candidate happens to live in, which can vary from 14 to 21. Tan | 39 17:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

How about you think how you want and let him think how he wants?--Cube lurker (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

My point precisely. There are differing opinions here; no-one should be attacked for holding what they perceive as a logical judgement. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

And I, and others, disagree that we have to stand idly by while opposes are being made that we feel are illogical. Are you saying that I don't have the right to voice my dissent to his oppose? Tan | 39 17:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course not. It's the badgering of such opposes that is the problem. People who hold such a view aren't going to modify their views because of it, and I would hope that a crat would understand that (indeed, if a crat was inclined to give such a view lesser weight, I'd be unhappy with their position as a crat). Black Kite (t) (c) 17:46, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

You consider this thread badgering?! Tan | 39 17:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily this thread itself; I'm referring to the many previous examples of "per age" opposes on RfA experiencing such responses. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

But that's not what - you know, I give up. If obfuscation was your primary strategy, bravo. Tan | 39 17:53, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, if this is less confusing - I oppose children being admins. I don't necessarily agree with Jclemens' view on age of majority - the way that's been treated is obfuscation - but nowadays I can't see myself supporting an RfA of anyone under 18. I hope that's clear. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand the principle underlying this sort of opposition, but it's a sticky wicket since it means asking people who are underage to publicly identify as such. I would be more comfortable with it if the WMF decided to require proof of identity for admin candidates, since the information would then be somewhat controlled. The fact that there is no community consensus or WMF action is sufficient reason for me never to be concerned with age as a discrete factor; as noted above, I can tell the mature editors from the immature ones, and there is not a clear correlation between maturity and age. In my mind, Jclemens' specific concern is a legal one, and should be resolved by WMF, not the community. Only the Board should be making decisions on how much tolerance Knowledge should have for the sort of liability described. In the meantime, I'm just personally not comfortable asking someone a question like that.--~TPW 13:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure there's community consensus on this. Out of 116 voters, one person has expressed worry over age of majority, 115 have not. 19 support votes came after Ceranthor answered question six with what is essentially a middle finger. Şłџğģő 14:34, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that's evidence that there is consensus that this candidate is acceptable regardless of age. I don't see consensus on the overall question of whether a person's chronological age is a factor that is relevant to the discussion.--~TPW 14:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

If this candidate is enjoying such a huge amount of support by dozens of people who are aware that he may very well be below the AOM, isn't that consensus that we should be relying on maturity rather than age? Şłџğģő 15:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

When and if people decide to agree with me and oppose admin candidates who are not legally adults, consensus will have changed. Until then, my oppose reason is in the minority. Doesn't mean it's right or wrong, and I think trying to codify it as a "good" or "bad" oppose is silly--as others have pointed out above, there are no "good" oppose reasons listed in policy. In my mind, most of this thread has been a waste of time--I really haven't been trying to convince people to dump Ceranthor or anyone else in particular, nor convince everyone that my position is superior. I just !voted my conscience, and some thought it needed more discussion. Jclemens (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I'll take that as a "yes." When people, myself included, see what they believe is a "bad" oppose, we tend to react pretty strongly. Why? Either a bunch of votes will show up as "per Jclemens," which I would have viewed as a catastrophe, or, even if that didn't happen, it's still a rather unsightly addition to what (again, my opinion) should have been an RfA with unanimous support. Sure, this thread was a waste of time, but that's because people from both sides tried to change opinions though you and others (like me) aren't terribly open to opinion changes on this particular issue. If someone has asked you, "What, besides Ceranthor claiming he is above the AOM, could get you to change your mind," and you'd replied "nada," we'd have saved a lot of time. Şłџğģő 23:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"... it's still a rather unsightly addition to what (again, my opinion) should have been an RfA with unanimous support." Bizarre. Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing the point? No biggie. I admit I was a tiny bit elliptical. Ignoring it on purpose? That's a little much. I could explain what I meant, but why bother? You know exactly what I meant and just decided to inject a little drama for the fun of it. Şłџğģő 05:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't pretend to know what I think. Your brain isn't big enough. Malleus Fatuorum 05:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:NPA, or did I start it by claiming someone's anteing the drama for no reason? Şłџğģő 06:06, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I propose splitting the Sysop User Group into two ranks Junior Sysop and Senior Sysop similar to what Bulbapedia are planning to do. Junior Sysops would have the following permissions: Bypass IP blocks, auto-blocks and range blocks (ipblock-exempt) Bypass automatic blocks of proxies (proxyunbannable) Change protection levels and edit protected pages (protect) Create new user accounts (createaccount) Edit semi-protected pages (autoconfirmed) Have one's own edits automatically marked as patrolled (autopatrol) Import pages from other wikis (import) Mark others' edits as patrolled (patrol) Mark rolled-back edits as bot edits (markbotedits) Move pages (move) Move pages with their subpages (move-subpages) Move root user pages (move-rootuserpages) Not create redirects from source pages when moving pages (suppressredirect) Perform captcha triggering actions without having to go through the captcha (skipcaptcha) Quickly rollback the edits of the last user who edited a particular page (rollback) Revert all changes by a given abuse filter (abusefilter-revert) Search deleted pages (browsearchive) Show the extended software version information (versiondetail) Submit a trackback (trackback) View a list of unwatched pages (unwatchedpages) View abuse filters marked as private (abusefilter-view-private) View deleted history entries, without their associated text (deletedhistory) View deleted text and changes between deleted revisions (deletedtext) View detailed abuse log entries (abusefilter-log-detail) Senior Sysops would have the permissions of a Junior Sysop plus the following Extra permissions: Block a user from sending e-mail (blockemail) Block other users from editing (block) Delete pages (delete) Disable global blocks locally (globalblock-whitelist) Edit other users' CSS files (editusercss) Edit other users' JS files (edituserjs) Edit the user interface (editinterface) Manage central notices (centralnotice-admin) Mass delete pages (nuke) Move files (movefile) Not be affected by rate limits (noratelimit) Override files on the shared media repository locally (reupload-shared) Override the spoofing checks (override-antispoof) Override the title blacklist (tboverride) Overwrite existing files (reupload) Perform captcha triggering actions without having to go through the captcha (skipcaptcha) Translate central notices (centralnotice-translate) Undelete a page (undelete) Upload files (upload) Upload files from a URL (upload_by_url) Use higher limits in API queries (apihighlimits) Add groups: Rollbackers, Account creators, Abuse filter editors, Autoreviewers, Confirmed users and IP block exemptions Remove groups: Rollbackers, IP block exemptions, Account creators, Abuse filter editors, Autoreviewers and Confirmed users The two vulnerable tools Blocking and Deleting wold be restricted to Senior Members of Admin and unavailable to Juniors Junior Sysop would be thought as a path to getting full Adminship, you would first become a Junior Sysop with a limited amount of extra tools (Detailed above) then as you progress you are promoted to Senior Level with access to all Admin tools including the ability to Delete articles and Block Users/IP's. All thoughts and suggestions welcome. Feel free to comment. Regards Paul2387 14:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Why?--Jac16888 14:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) do you have a rationale for this? Leaky Caldron 15:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC) I can see at least one problem with this: Mike Godwin, the general counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation has said no to non-admins having access to deleted revisions. And at the moment, it's not like we have a shortage of admins. Aiken ♫ 15:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Before you put any more work into this, read these many previous threads on the topic. I personally agree with you (as should be obvious from reading the threads), but unless you can address the objections previously raised this won't go anywhere. – iridescent 15:03, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Regarding User:Aiken drums comment, I was only suggesting creating a Rank system for Sysops similar to how a Police Force works. Level 1 would be Anon User's Level 2 would be Registered User's Level 3 would be Junior Sysop's Level 4 Would be Senior Sysop's Level 5 would be possibly Bureaucrats. In conclusion Levels 1/2 would have no access to Deleted History or Deleted Pages, only Levels 3 up. I am not re-proposing for Lite Admins, but for a Sysop Ranking System. Thanks Paul2387 15:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Again, Why? What would this achieve? Also this would further the assumption that the higher ranks have authority over lower ranks--Jac16888 15:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC) I would totally oppose a "ranking system"; as Jac says, it would imply greater authority. I do support a "training wheels" admin-lite progression, in which the full range of tools aren't granted immediately following RFA, but that's a different kettle of fish. A formal rank structure would perpetuate the whole "admins are super-users" myth still further. – iridescent 15:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC) Indeed, the levels make it sound like a game. Requesting different permissions split up in different areas would be much better. They're all as equal as each other. Aiken ♫ 15:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC) I support Aiken Drum's proposal 100% compared to mine and totally agree with Iride and Jac16888. Paul2387 15:37, 24 April 2010 (UTC) But it's been suggested a million times before. The objections range from "it's not broken, so don't fix it" to " it's too bureaucratic" to "I don't like the idea of change". Aiken ♫ 15:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC) I object to this proposal because it will make things more complicated for little perceived or actual benefit. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC) I object too - WP:MMORPG, and more seriously, WP:CREEP. Unbundling of certain rights is frequently discussed, but I've seen no consensus for it. I'd prefer a) RfA to become less traumatic, b) for new admins to be closely monitored, c) for De-SysOp to be simplified greatly - after all, it's supposed to be no big deal.  Chzz  ►  08:10, 25 April 2010 (UTC) How about (and this has probably been brought up before as well), like Wikiversity, a "probationary" mentoring period? No new "level" or "rank", just a period of time where if the "mentor" admin (and/or community) finds the new admin's use of tools unsatisfatory, that it is easier to desysop than it is now? SS✞ 09:13, 25 April 2010 (UTC) My experience is that the admins who screw up are not new to the mop.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:53, 25 April 2010 (UTC) You're probably right: as a new admin becomes accustomed to the job, some become over-confident and begin to make serious mistakes. Aiken ♫ 12:56, 25 April 2010 (UTC) How often are the tools in your junior list actually used? The only one there that is actually worth the effort of handing out is protection. Do we have a backlog of protection requests (or editprotected requests) that warrants giving it to more people? --Tango (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC) I move pages pretty regularly. Useight (talk) 15:15, 25 April 2010 (UTC) I agree with Tango, I mean... the only really useful tool on there is protection (considering the foundation would probably give a big fat thumbs down on the 'deletedtext' and 'deletedhistory' permissions). I kinda like the concept, but, what exactly would this achieve?--Unionhawk 23:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC) Except in the case of move-protected pages (which are generally high-visibility pages that probably shouldn't be moved), non-admin editors can already move pages. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:33, 25 April 2010 (UTC) To be honest, I can't see how Knowledge would benefit from this, and it would actually make things more complicated from what I can see. (Furthermore, I can't see why Bulbapedia are considering it either, as they only have a total of 20 Admins+'Crats!) If this were to be a formal proposal, I would be strongly opposing it. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC) I'm against it too. Admins are supposed to be responsible people. They should be able to use the tools they need. If they aren't responsible, they shouldn't be admins. And, of course, there are enough responsible people available too. Stephen B Streater (talk) 19:54, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Oppose. Same reason as Steve, you don't trust them, don't elect them.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Noooooooooo. Adminship is about trust. Either you have the trust of the community and you get the position, or you don't. Adds another layer of bureaucracy that is not needed or desirable. This is just a twist on an idea that has been shot down again and again, with good reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:15, 26 April 2010 (UTC) See Knowledge:Junior Admin Squad for another approach. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC) That sounds to me like a club for people below the age of majority.... "Hey, kids, want to help fight vandalism? Join the Junior Admin Squad!" (Hmm... I wonder what JClemens would think of that!) -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC) No, no, you're thinking of Knowledge:Abuse response. ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Aww, I was hoping my kids could get a special T-shirt and the club's Secret decoder ring -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC) This is a silly suggestion. A load of extra work, headaches and faffing around for no reason. If a person is suitable or not to become an admin, this will become apparant through their edits, work and relationship with others. If a Wikipedian has gained the trust of a community, I have no problem with how young they are. Orphan Wiki 22:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC) What on earth are you talking about? Have you even bothered to read the comments you're replying to? – iridescent 23:16, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Yes. Or maybe I'm just bonkers. That's usually the answer. Orphan Wiki 23:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Maybe you responded to the wrong section? There's an age-related section up a little ways. Useight (talk) 23:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Diagnosed. Orphan Wiki 23:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Either you're trusted and competent or you ain't. Baaaad idea. There's already a billion flags, no reason to split the sysop flag in two at all. If it ain't broken, don't fix it (RfA's broken, the sysop flag isn't). Snowolf 23:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC) Eh, RFA's not broken. The community's broken. No point in trying to fix a process without fixing the community that uses it first. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2010 (UTC) Conclusion It has come to an conclusion that splitting the Sysop right into two wouldn't go ahead due to problems that would arise involving WMF. So the result of this discussion is to keep the Sysop system as it is now and to not change things that aern't broken. Paul2387 11:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I came across Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Paul2387 4, which is not transcluded onto the main WP:RfA page. Paul2387 has been notified two or three times (to no response), and the request is very unlikely to succeed. Should it be placed on WP:RfA anyway or just deleted as G6? Thanks, Mm40 (talk) 18:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It can just be ignored. Perhaps he's been working on it and hasn't gotten around to finishing it yet. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:35, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

He has done just that; it was on the WP:RFA page for a few minutes before he reverted himself.  f o x  18:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find any on-wiki indication that WikiDan61 is aware of this nomination, so I left a note on the nominator's talk page to check. Is the fact that it was transcluded prior to acceptance sufficient to close this pending WikiDan61 expressing interest?--~TPW 16:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I already reversed it and left a note on WikiDan's page. Tan | 39 16:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I see - I didn't notice the nom invite there as I only scanned for sections. Thanks!--~TPW 16:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

He has just posted on my talk page that he is not interested and he wishes for the RfA to be closed. ToxicWasteGrounds 16:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

In the future, TWG, please make sure your candidate is aware and interested before you launch a live RfA. Tan | 39 16:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Got it. Is it possible for the RfA to be closed (if not already). ToxicWasteGrounds 16:13, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I made this chart showing the number of Successful & Unsuccessful RfA's versus time (chart axes descriptions corrected --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC))

The figures I used are shown below:

At first it looks as though there were more Successful RfA's compared to Unsuccessful one's but later on more there were more failures than passes. Also around August 2005 to Jul 2006 there were alot of successful admins compared to now. Paul2387 11:02, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps everyone who is interested in Knowledge has already edited it. Those interested being an admin have offered themselves up already. We have previously had the luxury of people of all ages coming to WP and offering their services as admins, but now, we are mostly reliant each year on the youngest people joining. The fun of staking out new articles is being replaced by the hard grind of maintenance and reference finding. Have we reached peak Knowledge? Stephen B Streater (talk) 11:21, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with you, Stephen (also, haven't seen you in a couple years. Hope you are well.)

I actually find that, like facebook _shudder "older" folks are becoming more active editors. Our userbase is probably very much slanted to the under-25 demographic, but as software improves as well as knowledge of our projects, we are making inroads into the userbase of folks that know what USENET is. Just my opinion. Keegan (talk) 20:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for asking: my second child is not as Knowledge-friendly as my first! Perhaps my USENET experience has dragged me back in - I have been around on-and-off, and obviously carried on as a user, but it's more fun being involved :-) Stephen B Streater (talk) 18:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

More importantly, what's with all the white space at the bottom? Jafeluv (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Few of our successful candidates are particularly new, the few who are getting through RFA nowadays include some who've been here for years. we only have ten admins who created their accounts in the last 12 months and 6 of them are bots. There are another 24 admins who aren't bots and who started editing 12-24 months ago, but a couple of them are returning veterans. The problem with charting unsuccessful RFAs is that it doesn't show the number of candidates who chose not to run because they suspect they wouldn't meet current standards of editcountitis and tenure. So we are largely reliant on persuading people to run who either never got round to it or are longstanding editors who might a year ago have been considered young but are a year older now. So the chart is interesting, but would be much more meaningful if the unsuccessful RFAs were split into separate lines - unsuccessful candidates with less than 2,000 edits, unsuccessful candidates with 2,001 - 4,000 edits and unsuccessful candidates with > 4,000 edits. ϢereSpielChequers 12:54, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

What would be the easiest way of doing a chart with three separate lines for Unsuccessful RfA's, to include < 2,000 edits, 2,001 - 4,000 edits and > 4,000 edits. Paul2387 13:43, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Well since you did the chart above I'm assuming if you had the data you could run it, and the fiddly bit would be getting the data. Perhaps one of our bot writers could help there? ϢereSpielChequers 14:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Great chart. But perhaps you should draw up one for the number of competant veteran Wiki editors too afraid to stand as an admin candidate - as they know they will be torn to pieces, chewed up and spat out during the process. Myosotis Scorpioides 16:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Well hopefully we'd get some idea of that if we subdivided the unsuccessful ones as I mentioned above. However RFA is not the most consistent process on the pedia, and I'd suggest to anyone who has considered running that the RFA crowd currently seem to be in one of our gentler moods. I suspect that any "competent wiki veteran" has a pretty good chance of passing RFA at the moment, provided they have:

1. Over 4,000 contributions,
2. More than 12 months tenure,
3. Any previous RFA being over three months ago and hopefully some lessons learned from it,
4. A cleanish block log (clean for 12 months),
5. No recent warnings that they can't give a good explanation for,
6. Nicely varied contributions that show a mix of helping build the wiki and defending it.

You might even get through if you don't quite make one or two of those, and in any event if you don't quite make it this time you are likely to learn what you need to address to get through in three or four months. ϢereSpielChequers 17:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I would have to say that it might be better to specify a recent clean block log as some admins here have been blocked before they applied. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Good spot, now fixed. ϢereSpielChequers 21:51, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that to pass an RfA nowadays, one would have to double the above requirements. From the fly-on-the-wall perspective of which I have been observing the RfA's, people seem very petty with their oppose !votes. --It's me...Sallicio! 05:41, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

WereSpeilChequers: I think I can make a hcart with your suggestions, adding in NotNows, cratchats and so forth. Of course, I wouldn't be able to post it here, and my activity would pluumet, but it's possible. just give me a lot of time in Excel. Buggie111 (talk) 02:42, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure thats worthwhile unless you can post it on wiki. Is it possible for you to generate charts that you can post or are you offering to gather the data for Paul2387 or someone else to generate the charts? ϢereSpielChequers 12:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just dropped in to WP:RFA to see who is nominated and how they are doing—and no one is nominated. –thedemonhog talk • edits 14:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

@ WSCHQ, I'd be able to put it on wiki, but all that searching through archives and Excel work would put a dent in my contribs. CAn't multi task. Buggie111 (talk) 17:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

i keep looking on every page to Requests for adminship but all it gives me is lots of writing can someone please HELP me become an Admin. --Sheep 2009 (talk) 14:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:AAAA! There's nobody nominated! Someone should make a lament to why we have so few sysops! Stifle (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Old news, old joke. Aiken ♫ 15:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll nominate ya, Stifle ;-) Doc Quintana (talk) 16:14, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Because it's not worth the hassle for a few buttons. The standards have risen to astronomical (i.e., ridiculously unreasonable) levels.--It's me...Sallicio! 18:47, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

As an astronomer, I take offence at that. I may be unreasonable but never ridiculously so. Olaf Davis (talk) 12:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

lol...touche!--It's me...Sallicio! 05:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No section on the fact that there are no active nominations

---

..... :) Pedro :  Chat  15:11, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

...lol. Sorry for being an arse about this a while ago. ;P  f o x  16:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

You know what we need? A bot that posts these threads every time RfA goes blank. –Juliancolton |  17:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

RfAPanicBot? . . . no . . . how about NoNomBot?--~TPW 17:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What, and miss out on all the easy extra edits? No thanks ;P - Kingpin (talk) 17:28, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How about a bot that automatically closes these threads when they appear? (I jest, I jest... ;) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

How about a bot that automatically reacts to the conditions noted at Raul's laws - Laws by others #288: Phantomsteve's Laws of RfA -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I actually almost started a thread the other day about how quiet this talk page gets when there are a couple of ongoing RFAs. Seems like we all found better uses for our time for a week or so there... Beeblebrox (talk) 18:43, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Kinpin, the solution to your concern is easy... we simply write the bot so that it prepopulates the discussion and credits random users with having made random (albeit repetitious) comments... I mean, we can randomly assign you one week to be the person complaining about the thred and another week you could be the one who started the thread, another week the one saying that we have too many admins... and another that we are losing admins faster than we are making them... and yet another week be the one who posts the graph...---Balloonman 13:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

How about a bot that blocks users who create these threads. Oh snap. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 19:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

What if the bot nominated the person who started the thread? Useight (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, in order for the bot to block everybody, somebody would need to nominate it for adminship. Which of course means that's one less week it can block people... –Juliancolton |  00:51, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

It's one fewer week, not one less. Stifle (talk) 13:00, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Trots out graph and continues flaying horse carcass. MBisanz 04:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd give it another shot, but I wouldn't consider myself ready yet. Maybe in the summer. Any good candidates out there still that could use the buttons? Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol, plenty of people who'd make great admins, not so many who would pass the absurdly high RfA standards. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Now, now, don't let your ego get too big. :) Hi878 (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

At the end of the day, I don't think RfA standards are as high as many people—and I'm guilty of this as well—often perceive them as. Sure, we're tough on the candidates, but even formerly banned users have been known to pass. An extreme example, of course, but chances are if a user is right for the tools, they'll pass without issue. –Juliancolton |  01:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I think things are getting better- I can pick a few candidates out of 2010's unsuccessful noms whom I feel should have passed but only a few. I think good candidates are given a tougher time than they deserve, though I'm quite happy with the 3 promotions so far this month (well, I would be, i was one of them!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:35, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The RfA standards aren't astronomically high, but they still are very high, nowadays. We haven't had a serious self-nom in a bit, if I can remember correctly, I mean, not many people would want to put themselves through what is, literally, hell week. --Connormah (talk | contribs) 01:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not that standards have risen. In fact the standard of participation in RfA voting has become desparingly low. Many of the votes are made by inexperienced and/or immature editors who don't understand the principles involved, but think it is cool to vote, and to invent ludicrous extra optional questions. (Check these voters out sometimes). This is what is putting people off wanting to be nominated. It's also difficult to vote objectively for candidates who don't have any info about themselves on their user pages, or conversely, have user pages that are full of adolescent self-promotion. Perhaps only admins or users with a minimum length of service and number of edits should be allowed to vote on RfAs. Maybe this has all been previously discussed, but I'm saying it again.--Kudpung (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually not sure that's a huge issue, and I've never seen anything to suggest that votes from inexperienced users are putting off prospective candidates. Just my $0.02. –Juliancolton |  01:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You know, Kudpung, I think that it is pretty easy to ignore votes by people "think it is cool to vote". Unless you are saying that nobody reads the comments? Hi878 (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well,Julian & Hi878, it was just my 2 cents really. I know that the final decision is made by the 'crats, but a lot of song and dance seems to be made of the Support/Oppose/Neutral vote barometer and theoretical pass marks, and recently some (what I thought) reasonable contenders were bullied into withdrawing following totally unreasonable character assasination, and silly optional questions. I'm not saying nobody reads the comments, but it's true that many of the votes seem to be either arbitrary and unresearched.--Kudpung (talk) 04:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that it might be kind of easy to look at the percentage of votes, and decide on that. And I suppose that people might just bully other people. So I'm just going to say we're both right. :) Hi878 (talk) 04:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Kudpung: What would in your opinion be an inexperienced/immature editor? I'm pretty sure you're not talking about edit count, but perception of what RfAs are, which is harder to monitor. But would I be one of the arbitrary !voters? {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 05:29, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can't tell, then it's you ;-) Actually, I suspect it's not a comment directed at anyone in particular, but more of a general feeling. Stephen B Streater (talk) 11:19, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right Stephen. It's a matter of 'if the cap fits, wear it'. There's also a matter that some participants may possibly use multiple (but declared) IDs or different signatures, so it's hard to keep track witout looking them all up, if they are regular, serious contributors to RfA.--Kudpung (talk) 00:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

No active nominations!

And we're all feeling as if there is nothing to do. Does this mean #1 is no long an issue? User:Akirn (talk) previously User:Icewedge 06:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, there is one soon to come, and a good candidate at that. ceranthor 10:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd self nom if I had a week to spare - which I don't right now. RfAs can be quite time consuming for the candidate. Stephen B Streater (talk) 11:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well Knowledge:Requests for adminship/USERNAME made a short appearance! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh, well I'd love to be able to clear some CSD backlogs. But even if I were interested in running again, it would take a miracle for me to pass with 1 1/2 years of almost nothing but vandal-fighting, CSD, and UAA work under my belt, and only 3 mainspace pages. (Which is exactly why I would never pass) I wonder when the mop turned into the pen and paper, requiring content work to do something as menial as blocking vandals and deleting attack pages... The Thing // Talk // Contribs 14:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Are there two block buttons then? One for blocking vandals and another for blocking established and productive editors? Malleus Fatuorum 14:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

There are 3 block buttons actually, but we're not allowed to talk about the third around the plebs;)--Jac16888 14:42, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

No, there's a lot more than that ;). Bad usernames, vandals, socks, personal attacks, Malleus, edit warring, wheel warring, the list goes on and on. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 14:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm flattered to learn that there's a specific block button, just for me. Malleus Fatuorum 14:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about anybody else, but I thought it was funny.  ;)--~TPW 23:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

In response to The Thing That Should Not Be, it's been that way for a very long time. It was that way when I joined Knowledge back in 2004, and I suspect it was like that since the founding of Knowledge. A great number of people feel that an administrator should be well-versed in content creation and revision if he is to have powers that could affect those are engaged in doing so — and since we are an encyclopedia, that's the core of what we do. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:39, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

And yet, every now and then one of us gnomes slips through. ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:11, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

No one addressed my actual question XD. Oh well, never mind. Akirn (talk) previously User:Icewedge 20:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Akim, the WP:PEREN page exists specifically as a list to remind us that some relatively important issues and suggestions have either been discussed to death already without a consensus being being reached, or that the proposals attracted no comments whatsoever such as in User:SamuelTheGhost/Re-electing admins. It's almost always extremely difficult to bring about change in major policy, because, I think, too many people are either afraid to get involved, or they don't think that the very time consuming and sometimes lengthy discussions are worth taking time out for. A recent typical example, if you remember, was the hundreds of pages of discussions to get something done about unsourced BLPs. Fortunately, that one got resolved in the end, but not without a lot of coaxing and badgering of people to stay with it, and stay on track. It began with the participation of over 400 editors, and ended with about eight people left having to reach the consensus and get it closed.--Kudpung (talk) 23:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

His username actually ends with "r n" rather than "m". Just for the record. Useight (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I have an edit conflict while trying to correct the typo - do note however that according to policy, minor. typos are forgivable on talk pages :) --Kudpung (talk) 23:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course. I've seen my username typed incorrectly many a time. Useight (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the longest I've seen no nominations, so, I decided to be bold and self nom.--Unionhawk 03:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I genuinely wish you good luck Unionhawk. Be a role model if you pass, especially because of your age, but don't get despondent if you don't, just try again - you're being very brave :) --Kudpung (talk) 06:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose the list of 1,454 hopefuls has been scoured for potential admin material? Maybe the sheer number makes it impossible to go through them all. I've taken a random poke, but what I saw was practically SNOW or NOTNOW. --Kudpung (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm personally a bit apprehensive about the admin hopefuls category. A lot of them that I've encountered are unclueful users who want to collect hats. I think it would be more productive to think about users we're already familiar with, and which of them would make good admins. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 07:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd stay away from there if you want to look for admin candidates. Look for people who say, help people on the help desk, or create lots of featured articles. There's got to be a few solid candidates there. Oh yeah, and there are no nominations again =/...--Unionhawk 00:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey! I was in the admin hopefuls group once....Useight (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

So is vandalism-only account User:AHLU, what's your point?--Unionhawk 02:37, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Alas, compromised account...--Unionhawk 02:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The point is, that there are a lot of unclueful editors on there. Many of them would probably die if subjected to the grueling process that is RfA. I see some with as little as 3 edits. Some good contributors, sure, but selected at random, only 1/10 of them have the required X edits over Y months.--Unionhawk 02:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

It's dry humor, meant to be light-hearted. Things like "what's your point?" really aren't ever helpful and are unnecessary. Useight (talk) 03:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Dry humor works better with my math teacher when I can hear his tone of voice than over the internet...--Unionhawk 12:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I think dry online humor is a paradox - it makes sense to use it since we don't have facial expression but it's hard to tell sometimes. The human mind naturally fills in tone of voice and facial expression where none exist, like the internet, of that I'm sure even though I can't provide a reference. It's something that we forget while we're writing because we know whether we're trying to be funny or serious. When I'm reading I try to consciously choose a voice - my favorite is Dorothy Gal because it makes it harder to infer unpleasant motives. Haven't found a voice that helps me detect dry humor before coffee, though.--~TPW 12:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

(←) ...ok, wow. I just now realized how ironic my last comment was... *facepalm*--Unionhawk 19:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Hey guys! Just came on here after about a year of inactivity? Looking at the graph there seems to be a dire situation, but when I was last here I don't think there was any pressing need for the tools; after all most (except for actual blocking/deleting) actions can be done by a non-admin. I'm in the administrator "hopefuls" category, although I'd really class it as a "admin tools would mildly help" category; I am in no way ready to be an admin just yet and nor would I think it appropriate. Just to ask, are there any major tasks that need doing that only admins can do, or is there anywhere where a large shortfall of work where a non-admin can contribute as well as an admin? -- Casmith_789 (talk) 10:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

There is now one active nomination that currently looks good. It's Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Tide rolls. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 04:09, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Now two. :) {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 07:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Found this one from 2007 and there were a few more. (there were a few more from that time where candidates skated through with not that many supports and no opposes). I can't imagine that ever happening now of days. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone knowledgeable with Google searching techniques could probably find all the pages with the prefix "Knowledge:Requests for adminship" that don't include the phrase "optional questions from". –Juliancolton |  02:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't find a single successful RFA from 2008-2010 without the phrase "optional question", but there were 46 in 2007. Some had more than 3 questions, mind you: they just didn't say "optional question". –xeno 03:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It was pretty common, as I recall, not to get any optional questions back in 2007, and few first-time applicants ever got more than a couple. I certainly wouldn't care to stand these days. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

That's because the phrase "optional question" is included in the {{RfA}} template, I think? –Juliancolton |  04:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Lol, you're right- I forgot about that little bit of phrasing. Will have to go back to the drawing board. –xeno 16:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

As best as I can tell, these are the only successful RFAs in between 2008 and now without optional questions (all from 2008): Gatoclass 2; Karanacs; Scarian; Zeibura. In Jauerback, the only optional question was half-joking. It appears the 3-question RFA became extinct in mid-2008. –xeno 16:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The interesting question is why this happened. Was there something about the conduct of the tranche of administrators elected in late 2007 & early 2008 that inspired the need for optional questions? Espresso Addict (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Good question. –xeno 20:20, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, in May 2007 we had a number if admin accounts with easily guessable passwords hacked, we had some real "rogue admins", (Archtransit, Poetlister etc.) we had the BADSITES dramafest, we had some users on one of the so called "BADSITES" bragging about having control of some admin accounts. It's not unreasonable to expect some justified paranoia and some certainty that our admin candidates are actually here to write an encyclopedia and are knowledgeable about our policies and guidelines. I mean, how hard can it be to rack up a shitload of huggle/twinkle edits and then apply for the bit? --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

As I recall it was still pretty straightforward to pass RfA in the latter half of 2007, and the rise of the optional questions didn't happen until some time in 2008. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "optional question" is silly, anyway. Many users will give oppose !votes for not having answered these "optional" questions. I think there should be some kind of limit...or at the very least, some kind of oversight on who can add to this plethora of questions.--It's me...Sallicio! 05:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree, the use of "Optional" is a bit funny. Users should either be instructed to ignore it if the user doesn't answer, change the wording, or, as you said, put some sort of limit on it. Hi878 (talk) 05:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion the asker shouldnt oppose if their optional question isnt answered. And in addition should only vote neutral (at the extreme) if their posted query is not answered. Unless of course they strictly state that their query isnt optional. Though i dont think Im fully in favour of a limit to questions. They can still be important if they are within reason.Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that it would be reasonable to change the 3 standard questins from "optional" to "mandatory" - anyone who doesn't want to answer those probably shouldn't be an admin anyway! (After all, an admin needs to explain themselves). As to further questions, if I asked a question which was not answered, I wouldn't view non-answering as a reason to oppose (a neutral, perhaps) - obviously, an answer may cause me to support or oppose, but not answering wouldn't cause an oppose. I don't think there should be a limit to the questions on an RfA - I had 16 questions on mine (although the 15th was mis-numbered!), and my RfA was a relatively (!) stress-free one - I didn't feel the number of questions was too much (although obviosuly I would have been quite happy to have only had the 3 standard questions!) - and I know that the answer to one person's questions caused my only oppose - and I knew from the outset (having followed RfA beforehand) that a lot of questions was more the norm than the exception. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Ragesoss. Keegan (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

~50 supports was about average back then. I believe my RFA (which was just over four years ago, has it been that long?) had about 50 and that wasn't an exceptionally large amount but it definitely wasn't a small amount either. --Deskana (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing how times have changed. Mine, from back in 2005, had twenty-eight support votes and I was quite pleased with that. Back then we just had "a few generic questions" with no mention of being either optional or mandatory. That might be a good way to word it. On the other hand, people weren't adding their own questions then, either, so there was no need to make the "standard" questions stand out. — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

The more I follow this talk page, the more I become convinced that the silly additional questions, the character assasinations, and some very petty reasons for oppose, are the major reasons for a lack of interest in becoming a sysop - to reiterate User:Myosotis Scorpioides comment ...competant veteran Wiki editors too afraid to stand as an admin candidate - as they know they will be torn to pieces, chewed up and spat out during the process. --Kudpung (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Transcluded from /New questions - please edit that page to add to this discussion

NOTE: The initial discussion, as of this timestamp, was copied from Knowledge talk:Requests for adminship. Maurreen (talk) 06:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Perhaps it would be worthwhile to just identify them as 'Questions'. Looking back at 2005 (back when my own RfA took place as well, IIRC) there have been changes to the layout. Very good, I think, is the fact that the questions and comments now precede the voting — though that change of format does tend to imply rather strongly that the 'optional' questions are actually compulsory. (But who are we kidding? They really are.)

I wonder if it might not be worthwhile to revisit and revamp the questions section. Pretending that there is a distinction between the 'standard' 'optional' questions and other questions may not be realistic these days, nor does it really get to the heart of what the questions seek to accomplish. The first questions are meant to elicit a wikibiographical sketch, a thumbnail view of the candidates strengths, weaknesses, abilities, and interests. I'm going to paraphrase them, and tweak their sense just a bit.

1. Why do you want the bit, and why should we give it to you? Tell us about the tasks you'd like to perform. Show us how you've been involved in the related processes already, and demonstrate that you have a Clue about relevant policies and practices.
2. What's some good work you've done on the project? Show us some stuff that you're proud of. Demonstrate that you 'get' what Knowledge is trying to accomplish. You don't have to have written reams of text, but you do have to show that you've made our articles better.
3. How do you deal with conflict? If you actually ever use your bit to accomplish anything, you're going to step on someone's toes at some point. Even if you don't use your bit, you're still going to step on someone's toes at some point. Has this happened in the past, and how have you dealt with it? (We're going to find out during the RfA, so you might as well come clean now about any skeletons.) In conflicts where you're not a central party, does your input and participation tend to make things better or worse?

I fear that we may be missing a very important question in our 'standard' panel, however. We're missing one of the most important traits in any potential (or extant) administrator. We want people who are conscious of the limits of their knowledge and experience, and who will look before they leap. While we don't want admins who are too fearful to ever take any action, I'd recommend a question like

• What do you do when you don't know what to do? How do you locate relevant policy pages for your own reference? Can you tell us about any times when you've screwed up, and what you did to remedy the situation? (Will there be anyone who gives us a less flattering portrait of your behaviour?) Have you contributed to (asked or answered questions at) the Village Pump, the Help Desk, the Administrators' Noticeboard, the talk pages of policies and guidelines, or the talk pages of other editors?

I'd also be tempted to add another question to at least make the editcountitis sufferers at least pause to think for a moment. When I passed my RfA, I had perhaps two thousand edits under my belt. It amazes me now to see editors with six months' experience and twenty thouand edits. This is not to say that these editors are not doing good, useful, constructive work with their Huggle or Twinkle. But from the perspective of evaluating RfA candidates, there's far more information available to voters in a few hundred thoughtful comments and careful page edits than in ten thousand vandalism rollbacks. I think that we should strive to recognize the difference when we examine the poor sods who expose themselves to RfA. The Huggle-wielding mole-whacking vandal-blocking admins are absolutely essential to the project, but they shouldn't be treated as more valuable or indispensable than the admins who have a lower edit rate but deal with more nuanced issues of content and conduct (from management of complex, Arbcom-mandated probations and paroles to image-use and copyright problem solving). Perhaps

• What automated tools – e.g. Twinkle and Huggle – do you use regularly in your editing? What fraction of your edits are made using these tools, and what tasks do you usually perform with them?

Just a few thoughts. Please, tell me what you think. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:49, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

The first four questions seem adequate, but I don't agree with the last one. Most users actively engaged in vandalfight will get a very high percentage of automated edits. I can imagine a prolific vandalfighter acknowledging 90% of their edits as automated, and many users opposing his or her RfA without even bothering to investigate whether the remaining 10% are a remarkable participation in other areas of Knowledge. Húsönd 01:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

While the "automated tools" question I feel is a bit too specific, I like your first question. If a candidate gets an image copyright policy question completely wrong but at least shows they have the ability to learn, they won't get hammered for it, for example. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

As Knowledge Seeker points out above, in his March 2005 RfA he didn't have to answer any special questions and gained the admin bit with 28 supports and no opposes/neutrals. At that point s/he had made 1021 contributions of which 399 were article edits. Having achieved admin status, Knowledge Seeker's log shows only six admin actions from April 2007-March 2008 and none in the last two years. - Pointillist (talk) 01:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, your suggestions echo my feelings entirely, and I'm sure they have already been addressed at some time or another. Nevertheless, it's good to see them reiterated, and I particularly appreciate your attention to editcountitis.
IMHO, the new or reworded questions you propose have a rather too informal and aggressive tone for some age groups, and some parts of the English speaking world, and might not encourage the more conservative editors (whom we surely must not ignore) from wanting to run for adminship. I assume that your current wording is intended to give us a well-(k)needed knee jerk, and that in reality, the prose would be somewhat tightened up if your questions were to be adopted.
Another of my thoughts is that the entire RfA process has come to presuppose - or even occasionally appear to insist - that candidates who are not already mainly vandal chasers, CSD, and AfD performers, should be prepared to give up much of their article editing/creation/improvement, or all-round work in favour of almost pure maintenance and admin tasks. Another thought is that some of the inquisitors don't appear to realise that many industrious gnomes have full-tme jobs (or school), or even families, and can only dedicate a few hours a week to any aspects of encyclopedia creation and maintenance, but that their occasional, careful use of the tools, would be worth more than just mere, apparent drops in the ocean.--Kudpung (talk) 02:00, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades is on a very good track here. Maybe we should make a subpage to work out details. Maurreen (talk) 10:36, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a subpage would be a good idea. I like the idea of rewording the questions, and I like the fourth question also. Not a fan of the automated edits question, it kind of alludes to the idea that we're semi-required to integrate the tool usage in our assessment of the candidate. Useight (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with the idea of a subpage to sort this out. Also, I would reword Question 1 to: Please explain why you believe the WP community can trust you with the Admin tools. This gets to the heart of the matter very quickly. Additionally, the 1st part of question 1 above--Why do you want the bit? is essentially irrelevant and the nominee's motivation to accept the nomination has absolutely no bearing on whether or not the community can trust the nominee with the tools. It is the nominee's past contributions and behavior, plus the ability to deal with the RfA that will confirm trust or not.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That seems a little in-your-face to me. Some of the opposition might say that, but that's not the same thing as making it the first question on their questionnaire. But I wouldn't be opposed to making a list of things the RFA community has seemed to have a positive response to in the past, and asking the candidate if they want to claim any of those things on their resume (CV). - Dank (push to talk) 23:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether it is in your face or not, the question goes to the heart of why we do RfAs--The community grants administrator status to trusted users, so nominees should have been on Knowledge long enough for people to determine whether they are trustworthy. Why do we need to ask a lot of questions that merely skirt the issue on the table? This isn't a game, this isn't a Leisure Suit Larry where if you answer the secret question correctly, you move to the next level. In my opinion, if the nominee can't answer the question and defend the answers with tangible evidence of knowledge of the tools, contributions, civility and collaboration in the project, then they can't be trusted--which is the very reason we are conducting the RfA.--Mike Cline (talk) 00:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a question that will probably lead to some very specific follow-up questions, just like the existing boilerplate ones often do. The problem with your suggested softening, Dank, is that "a list of things the RFA community has seemed to have a positive response to in the past" is going to give the false impression that the same things are valued now. You can look at any two months' worth and probably spot different trends in the opposition reasons. Asking it directly allows the candidate to express the attributes he or she believes are valuable; the community can then decide if it agrees. I think this question is going to make people sweat, but it's not excessive to me.--~TPW 00:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I like the question. It also gives a good place for the candidate to self-declare anything that might cause the community to oppose. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 01:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I think Mike's question is great. I love someone with a good in-your-face attitude, and as a question it works well on the straightforward front. It's blunt and cuts to the heart of the point of this damn process. Just like in an interview for a job or school, the question "Why are you applying" is standard enough but "Why should we accept you" is much trickier to BS. Noms are one thing, but how the nominee sees his/herself is more important. There's more of a chance to screw up the nom, but there's more of a chance to make the point that you won't fuck up royally and impress the plebs. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 01:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

←Well, we need to be able to trust brain surgeons and police officers, too, but I guess I would be surprised if the first question they're asked in a job interview would be "tell us why we should trust you"; it sounds like it presupposes that they're up to something shady. - Dank (push to talk) 02:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. –Juliancolton |  04:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Many editors do seem to be Shady. I'll get me coat... TFOWR 10:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone summarize what's wrong with the current three standard questions? They seem quite sensible to me. SlimVirgin 07:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm with SlimVirgin here - I feel that the current 3 questions are adequate (although I would make them mandatory rather than 'optional'). As for the "What do you do when you don't know what to do?" question - I feel that the additional questions which people ask should bring this up - and if not, it could always be explicitly asked. I do not feel that it should be a standard question. I am also dead-set against the "automated edits" question. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree, no changes to questions are needed. Let's not try to fix what is not broken. The automated edits question is a particularly bad idea. Aiken ♫ 08:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The current questions are:

1. "What administrative work do you intend to take part in?"
2. "What are your best contributions to Knowledge, and why?" and
3. "Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?"

They seem to cover all the bases, and there's no hint of aggression in asking them. I wouldn't want to see them extended or made more complicated. SlimVirgin 09:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin -- What did you intend to accomplish by moving the discussion back here from the subpage? Maurreen (talk) 08:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty with moving posts to subpages is that the discussion gets lost and not archived in the regular way. A few people have asked you before to bear that in mind, Maurreen. I have no problems with creating a new subpage, but if you could leave this discussion here too that would be appreciated. SlimVirgin 09:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This from SV is poppycock: "A few people have asked you before to bear that in mind, Maurreen." Maurreen (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Further, a cooperative thing to do would have been to collapse (or somesuch) the discussion on this page while still noting that the discussion had moved. That would have been a compromise and allowed us to both get what we want. Maurreen (talk) 09:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have transcluded the sub page (and updated that page to make sure all the conversation is there) - I think collapsing it on this page would defeat the purpose of having the discussion! I hope that everyone will be happy with this solution, as this way we are using a subpage *and* having the discussion visible on this page. If the consensus is to have it in a collapsed box, then I can do that too. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That works for me, Steve, many thanks. SlimVirgin 11:18, 13 May 2010

(UTC)

For those who want the subpage

It is at /New questions. Maurreen (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

---

Three people voiced support for a subpage: me, Useight and Mike Cline. I didn't see any objection to a subpage.

I made the subpage and moved this discussion there. SlimVirgin moved the discussion back here. So ... (forgot sig earlier Maurreen (talk) 09:18, 13 May 2010 (UTC))

Should we have a subpage to discuss formulating new questions?

• Yes. Doing so would give more room to work without distracting from other discussion on this page. Maurreen (talk) 08:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• No If this page had several different discussions on it, and was running to 200 KB, then it'd be different, but it only has two discussions, including this one, and is currently 98.541kb -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 08:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Does it really matter?!?!? Let's have a discussion about whether to have this discussion on a discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:32, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Another option would be not to let one person decide her opinion is more important than three people. Maurreen (talk) 08:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• I like Mitchell's idea. Hi878 (talk) 18:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Should we have a discussion on whether to have a discussion about the discussion being discussed above or should we all just take this just a little bit less seriously? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08

39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• This brightened up my morning. Along with the pretty new layout which has hidden all of my buttons! --Taelus (Talk) 09:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Well, I must say, I'm discussted. – B.hotep •talk• 09:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Wow... Hi878 (talk) 18:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's just have a !vote on this:

If the consensus is overwhelmingly to change the wording, then we can discuss the precise wording at a later date

• Oppose I feel that the three standard questions wording is adequate. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree that the three current questions are fine. SlimVirgin 09:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose They are fine. Hi878 (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The first one ends with a preposition. As a WikiGnome, it does seem a little uneducated, personally. Useight (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

  Note: A change to rework the preposition is the only change I support. Useight (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

  Ending with a preposition is often okay. "This is the sort of rule up with which I will not put" etc. :) The question is "What administrative work do you intend to take part in," and it's fine there. SlimVirgin 00:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

  Yeah, I know. And I really don't care too much about the preposition, I just thought that while we're talking about the wording, it'd be a good time to mention it. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose They are fine as is. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 02:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - can we please not get so technical on the exact wording of stuff?--Unionhawk 03:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per most of the above comments. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The questions aren't ambiguous in the slightest. Any change would be trying to fix something that isn't broken. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 18:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. -FASTILY 05:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral.--Kudpung (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The community seems quite satisfied with the questions so far. In the event that further clarification or that exploration of additional topics is needed, one can always pose a supplementary question to the candidate. AGK 18:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Aaroncrick 21:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• Support It's the de facto arrangement as it stands, let's just make it the de jure arrangement too. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. They're de facto mandatory, and I see no need to strengthen that. Anyone declining to answer will look bad either way. SlimVirgin 09:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Doesn't matter At this point, I don't think that it matters what they are on paper, they are mandatory in everyone's mind. Hi878 (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per SlimVergin. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 02:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per SV and others. Anyone declining to answer had better have a darn good reason or he's walking dead.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - they pretty much are mandatory already. Why are we wasting time discussing whether or not they are mandatory?--Unionhawk 03:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support- because since they pretty much are, we may as well make them actually mandatory. The ambiguity is just a loophole. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 07:26, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - they are de facto, no need to make them de jure (Yeah I know, someone already said that).--SPhilbrickT 13:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - not clear what this means, or what difference it would make. Does it mean mandatory to ask the questions, or to answer them? Surely refusing to answer is an answer? Groomtech (talk) 16:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per SlimVirgin. I don't see any reason to make them any more required than they already are. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The questions are de facto mandatory, but if a candidate comes up with an alternate method of providing background information that is satisfactory to the reviewers, or presents convincing reasons why they chose not to answer one or more questions, the RFA shouldn't be failed just because the proper forms haven't been filed. Abecedare (talk) 20:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. -FASTILY 05:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose.--Kudpung (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments above. AGK 18:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

If the consensus is overwhelmingly to add to the standard questions, then we can discuss the questions to be added at a later date

• Oppose I feel that the three standard questions cover the bare essentials. Anything else can be asked by individual editors as additional questions. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:14, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Instruction creep should be resisted. SlimVirgin 09:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support That first suggestion for a new one by TenOfAllTrades is a good one, in my opinion. Hi878 (talk) 18:10, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Teapot We should consider individual proposals on a case-by-case basis. Discussing in principle whether or not there should be any additions is unlikely to be productive - unless, I suppose, you consider an outright prohibition to be constructive. SHEFFIELDSTEEL 21:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per Phantomsteve. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ message • changes) 02:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Support this one: "What do you do when you don't know what to do?" (why are we !voting on stuff, when we don't know what we're !voting on?)--Unionhawk 03:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Neutral- I think at this point, if someone wants extra questions, they can ask them, no? I have no objections either way. {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 07:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose as the questions people want answered will get asked. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 18:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose No need for additional boilerplate stock questions. They cover the basics just fine: What you intend to do, what contributions make you qualified and whether you have had negative interactions. Wisdom89 _{(T / )} 18:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Comment What is the point of reaching consensus on adding a new question, without having a particular question to consider ? Isn't that doing-something-for-doing-sake ? Abecedare (talk) 20:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. -FASTILY 05:57, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose We don't really need an extention of questions when you consider the fact that more questions are added by users later on in an RFA. Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 15:29, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose.--Kudpung (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments above. AGK 19:14, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Aaroncrick 21:19, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to discuss. Maurreen (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC) But this page is not now a great environment for a discussion. Maurreen (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• You've got my vote, Maurreen. Jonathunder (talk) 17:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin had moved the poll, placing it in incorrect chronological order. That can be misleading, and I put it back. Maurreen (talk) 15:11, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't help but think this effort is trying to decide what color the wheel should be. There's considerably greater problems facing adminship in general, and the questions go largely unread anyways. I don't mean to demean the efforts here, but I think it's energy better spent on other more serious adminship issues. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Have to agree. The questions have never really presented a problem in the past. –Juliancolton |  13:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for ad hoc discussions, but this has come up time and time again over the last three years that I have been around, certainly. And nothing has ever changed. It's like the Lib Dems getting into a coalition with the Conservatives in a hung parliament on the basis of voting reforms, and we all know that will never happen... erm, oh... ;) – B.hotep •talk• 13:25, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously, the colour should be Maroon. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• I just dislike voting and unnecessary section headers. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:33, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
• This is now a serious case of WP:TLDR and it is unclear what problem is attempting to be solved. Collective energy better spent on doing Admin. or article work. Leaky Caldron 08:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

We must adhere to the 288 law here. Hi878 (talk) 23:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Finally after several days of no nominations. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 23:47, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

There are twotoo many nominations. Ha! RfA is broken and that's quite enough talk of it not being! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I move to desysop HJ Mitchell. He used two instead of too. Cant have that. Unless he meant it that way, in which case he must be desysopped for rudeness. Hi878 (talk) 23:58, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

He's also offering to pay us for our thoughts, trying to lure us into paid editing. Immediate desysop and flogging with a wet dollar bill.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree we cannot have this sort of sloppiness. Polargeo (talk) 12:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, nah, we can keep him. But only one more mistake, k? ceranthor 20:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Well thank you :)! I move that any and all RfAs by Hi878 be deleted on sight for failing to apostrophise "can't"! :P HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone would catch that! I remove my earlier request on the grounds that you seem to be the only intelligent one here, other than me, of course. Hi878 (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation is Grandma's friend- *puts on patronising teacher voice* consider the difference in meaning between "Let's eat, Grandma" and "Let's eat Grandma". ;) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:11, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

That's almost as weird as this one day with my uncle Jack... ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this thread is now broken. Yeesh.  ;)--~TPW 13:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

(←) There are now less than three open RfAs: RfA must be broken =P--Unionhawk 16:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Silly as this thread is, it does point out how every time there are a few noms that look like they are going to succeed, the fidgeting and hand wringing on this page goes down to much lower levels. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I just think that we are all crazy. Hi878 (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath waiting for someone to contradict that statement... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:03, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

*Passes out from lack of oxygen* Hi878 (talk) 03:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

First it was broken, then it wasn't, and now it is again. If this pattern continues, then RfA should be unbroken soon. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 04:36, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

No way. :P {{Sonia|talk|simple}} 05:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

If you stop looking at it, it will exist in some bizarre superposition of broken and unbroken states. Reyk _YO! 06:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If we put it in a box (á la Schrödinger's cat) then it would be neither broken nor unbroken. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 07:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe it would be both broken and unbroken. Useight (talk) 14:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This is one discussion I so much do not want to become entangled in. TFOWR 14:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Too late. Hi878 (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Third section of the 288 law here. After all, if these are laws, I have to follow each and every one of them, right? Hi878 (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Appearantly, the first section of the 288th law has more revalance now (since a new RFA is up). --Andromedabluesphere440 (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Sadly, there is no header given that must be created, so we only get to talk about it. But, since it must be announced: RfA is broken! Hi878 (talk) 19:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

So, I've gone through the first 77 archives of this talk page, sorting the conversations by topic. My work can be found at User:Useight/RFA Subjects. I'm not going to be finishing this project any time soon, so if anyone wants to pick up where I left off, I'm throwing it out there. Feel free to move it to the Knowledge namespace, re-sort through my work, break categories smaller (or combine them), or ignore the whole thing completely. If anyone does move my pages someplace else, please leave a redirect for me. Thanks. Useight (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My commiserations to your self and your loved ones for this heartrending period of anguish. I wish you a swift recovery, and will devote myself in prayer to this end. Yours tearfully, 86.41.64.98 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I will also be praying, and flagellating for the sorrow and pity of it all. Useight's plight is very moving. Ceoil (talk) 18:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

God bless you in your quest. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And of course half the threads are directly related to "RFA is broken..." — Rlevse • Talk • 23:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And what is the problem with that? :) Hi878 (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

OMG, RfA topical guide is broken...-- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\ 06:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Growing out of discussion elsewhere, I thought that I would bring up what I think is a very promising idea for reforming the administrator situation. This will be a lengthy post, but the essence of it is that we should more clearly delineate between controversial administrator tasks and routine ones. Unlike other proposals that call for unbundling some administrator tools from others, this proposal calls for keeping all the tools together, but making some changes in the functions of adminship. As I said, it gets long, and you may not want to read all of the sections, so feel free to skip down to the concrete proposals

RfA is broken, or at least a very substantial number of people think so. The number of active administrators is in decline, and the ratio of unsuccessful to successful RfAs has gradually grown over the last several years. RfA has also been substantially more contentious and confrontontational.

I suggest that this problem is the result of steadily rising standards at RfA. A few years ago, 2,000 edits spread across 4 or 5 months was considered quite acceptable for a candidate. A few years before that, 1,000 edits spread across 3 months was enough, and some RfAs passed with edit counts in the hundreds. Also, until recently, things like AfD votes and speedy deletion taggings were not given nearly the same degree of scrutiny they are today.

So, fixing RfA becomes in effect a matter of lowering the constantly-rising standards. If we could bring standards back to where they used to be, we would have more than enough administrators, and RfA would not be so brutal. This brings up the question, why have standards risen so much so fast?

Part of the answer, certainly is the growing number of cases of administrator abuse, and a perception by the community that administrators are unaccountable, which is to say that if you promote a bad admin at RfA, you'll have a devil of a time getting rid of him/her. It is also clear that the number of policies and the knowledge required to navigate all of them has increased, but I think that this is a much less substantial concern. The real concern is promoting administrators who will turn "rogue" and abuse their power. This is the problem we must solve.

In solving the problem of abusive administrators, I think it is very important to draw a distinction that is not commonly acknowledged, between controversial administrator actions (which one might also call political administrator actions) and non-controversial administrator actions.

Non-controversial, routine actions are the essence of the "janitor" metaphor. You give the janitor the keys to your office so that he can go in and empty your rubbish bin. You must exercise some care in choosing such a janitor; once in your office he could decide to steal something or ransack the place, but the only relevant issue is whether the janitor is reasonably trustworthy. He's not deciding what to throw away, just carrying out the action, so his judgement and knowledge are, at most, marginal considerations. The vast majority of administrator actions fall into this category. Most speedy deletions, blocking vandals, protecting pages that are being relentlessly vandalized, closing AfDs where there is a clear-cut consensus, these are all routine, entirely non-controversial tasks. They require only a small amount of judgement on the part of the person who performs them and are truly janitorial.

On the other hand, there are some administrator actions that become higly-charged, controversial, and political. Closing highly contentious AfDs, deciding to block an established member of the community for a significant period of time, undertaking arbitration enforcement actions - these are all controversial. By definition, the consensus in these areas is always less clear, and it's in these cases that administrators get in trouble. When making these decisions, because the consensus is never clear, the administrator must use a great deal of his/her own judgement. Exercising this judgement opens the process up to abuse.

So, to be short and snappy. It is very difficult to be abusive while undertaking the non-controversial functions of adminship. To be sure, an administrator could run wild and start deleting pages willy-nilly or vandalize the main page, but these actions can be easily detected and quickly reverted, followed by a straightforward desysopping. They are just an advanced form of vandalism, and it is difficult to imagine anyone amassing enough of an edit history to pass RfA, even by 2003 standards, for just a few minutes of wild fun with the tools. The danger of abuse in this area, then, comes from compromised accounts or disaffected administrators, and there is no way for RfA to conceivably catch those problems.

With controversial actions, however, there is much wider scope for abuse. If someone speedy deletes an A7 as an A1, that is a simple problem that can be easily rectified (or simply ignored, even, if it is not a habit). If, however, an administrator blocks an established user for questionable conduct, there is likely to be much more drama, and much more trouble. In the controversial areas where consensus is marginal, the impact of the administrator is great, and the possibility of abuse is high. It is these borderline cases that inevitably clog up ArbCom and the dispute resolution process. Because even abusive actions are generally at least marginally justifiable in these areas, it is hard to ever build a clear consensus that an administrator was abusive. Because ArbCom cases tend to focus on specific incidents, rather than a long-term historic pattern of behavior, it is also possible for an administrator to habitually do them that are somewhat abusive, but never do anything abusive enough to receive a desysop.

At present, a set of highly informal norms govern participation in highly-controversial areas. By custom, newer and more inexperienced administrators avoid entanglement in the most controversial areas until they have more competence, but there is no rule, written or unwritten, to say who may take action as the result of a heated ANI thread or close a terrifically contested XfD. While new administrators customarily stay out of these areas, that is not the real problem. The real problem is that some administrators are widely trusted and acknowledged to have exceptionally good judgement. Other administrators are not as trusted, or are regarded by many in the community as borderline abusive. Only the most informal distinctions are drawn between the two, so that there is no limitation on the right of an administrator who has lost the trust of a substantial portion of the community to be the person who makes a decision in a highly-controversial situation.

Thus, the problem with rising standards at RfA is, in my opinion, one of who will be making the tough calls in those difficult situations. Most of us are willing to extend the benefit of the doubt when it comes to routine, non-controversial actions (this is where adminship truly is no big deal). So long as you are reasonably trustworthy, there's no reason not to let you tackle the backlog. The problem, though, is that there is no process, formal or informal, to separate the backlog tacklers from the administrators who will make the tough calls in controversial areas. The only way to keep the "wrong people" from making those decisions is to stop them from becoming administrators in the first place. Thus, the standards at RfA are constantly rising, not because it has become any harder to block vandals, but because the community is increasingly concerned about what administrators will do, months or years down the road, if they decide to get involved in a controversial dispute.

Put simply, the solution to this problem is to separate those administrators who are most-trusted to undertake controversial actions from the rest of administrators who perform the bulk of routine, non-controversial tasks. There is an enormous difference between who we are, or should be, willing to trust to block vandals and who we trust to block problematic users who have been around for years. Yet, at present there is no way to separate the two.

To separate the functions, the first task is to decide which actions are controversial and which are relatively non-controversial. I suggest that the following are relatively controversial:

1. Arbitration enforcement actions
2. Blocking established users, except in clear cases such as vandalism, "outing", or the possibility of compromise. In essence, if the action is currently something that would be discussed beforehand on ANI, then the action is controversial.
3. Closing XfDs which are particularly contentious (this probably needs a bit more clarification)
4. Intervening in 3RR cases that are not clear-cut (a simple case where two people have reverted 6 times each is "clear cut". A simmering edit war where no one has actually reverted more than twice in a day is not)
5. Closing RfCs that require administrator action
6. Any other action which is likely to be the source of considerable controversy

In my opinion, nearly all "abusive" administrator actions occur in one of the categories above. Stripping them away from all but the "most trusted" group limits the abuse potential and means that the crowd at RfA does not have to worry about whether or not a candidate, who probably has little experience in controversies, is qualified for these tasks.

My proposal suggests that we vest these controversial functions in a group of administrators who are widely held to have exceptionally good judgement, great skill in determining consensus, and the ability to wade into difficult areas. A small group of such administrators has already been identified: bureaucrats, and a process exists to promote more: RfB. Thus, what I propose is that the controversial administrator tasks only be performed by bureaucrats. This would necessitate expanding, somewhat, the number of bureaucrats, but I do not think that more than 40 or 50 active 'crats would be necessary, given that controversial administrator actions form so small a percentage of the administrative workload.

Bureaucrats as a group have also developed some helpful procedures. The close of a particularly controversial RfA often involves a "crat chat" where the bureaucrats work as group to examine whether consensus has been established. The same procedure of chats involving more than one crat could be used to decide what to do in closing a particularly contentious ANI discussion or XfD.

A perennial proposal for adminship involves term-limiting admins. Given the large number of administrators, this is generally dismissed as impractical. However, if my projection of the need for 40-50 bureaucrats is about right, then term limits for crats would be quite possible. Imposing a one year term limit would probably work out to 1 or 2 RfBs per week, which is entirely manageable.

Implementing this proposal would be very simple. It requires nothing from the developers and no new processes or procedures. We would need to come up with a policy detailing just which administrative actions should be considered "highly controversial". Once this is done, we quite simply write into policy that these actions should only be performed by 'crats rather than ordinary admins. As the proposal approached implementation, we would always probably need to seek out a number of new RfB candidates to handle the workload, but again the process is already in place to do so.

1. This is a solution without a problem.

   I hardly think so, there is a wide acknowledgement that RfA is broken. There is also wide agreement that some administrators have abused their power in the past.

2. Won't the new battleground become the distinction between controversial and non-controversial actions?

   No. It's much simpler to acknowledge that something is controversial than to decide what the right outcome is. If an AfD is 27 to 33, it's clear that it was controversial, though it's probably unclear what the result should be. If an administrator closes one way or the other, claiming that the AfD was uncontroversial, it should not be difficult to build a consensus that the AfD was in fact controversial and should have been closed by a bureaucrat. At the moment, when administrators do something controversial, in the ensuing drama the question is always "did s/he do the right thing?". This is inevitably itself controversial and makes it hard to correct abuses. Under this proposal, however, the question simply becomes "Did s/he act in a controversial manner?" which is much easier to answer.

3. What about emergencies? Don't we need to preserve administrator discretion in emergencies?

   Obviously, we do in bona fide emergencies. Emergency actions should be clearly uncontroversial. If an established user starts acting like a vandal bot, then a block is in order. After the user is blocked, discussion can begin. Of course, some people are likely to see "emergencies" where others do not. Accusations of abuse are often leveled at administrators who currently undertake "emergency" blocks where the damage to the encyclopedia is not clear and immediate. They should not be doing that. As a general rule, like I said above, an action is controversial if it's something that currently would be discussed at ANI. The discretion of administrators to act in true emergency situation will be maintained, but it will be more clear when it is abused.

4. Does this proposal replace consensus with decisions made by bureaucrats?

   Not at all. The proposal recognizes consensus as the ultimate source of decisions. It just changes who is qualified to evaluate that consensus is particular controversial areas.

5. If we change the role of the 'crats, what happens to current 'crats?

   The essential role of bureaucrats remains unchanged. They are people who the community trusts, to an exceptional extent, with judging and acting on consensus. The areas in which the crats will be asked to judge consensus will be expanded, but the essential role is not.

1. By reserving controversial actions to highly-trusted bureaucrats, we reduce the scope for abuse
2. By reducing the scope for abuse, we can lower the standards at RfA to be a more reasonable level and reduce its contentiousness
3. By lowering the standards at RfA to a reasonable level and reducing contentiousness, we can increase the number of administrators
4. By increasing the number of administrators we can reduce the backlogs
5. By reducing the backlogs we can improve the encyclopedia
6. ....
7. Profit!

I know the proposal is lengthy, but I look forward to your thoughs. I have posted using a sockpuppet because I have brought up substantially the same idea elsewhere under my real name and do not wish to "out" myself. Nonabusive sock (talk) 10:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'm not really in support of this idea. You're basically not technically stopping administrators from doing anything, so an administrator who was purposely abusive, wouldn't be stopped by this. So we're looking at accidental abuse, or rather, good faith controversial actions. Now I don't think these are a big problem at the moment, we actually have a very low number of "bad" admins, if you like, and personally I think most of them were granted sysop right years ago, so may have lost interest, and it was much easier to pass then (look at Cremepuff for example). So your reason is to try and increase the admins, which you say is needed because we do not have enough, while at the same time you are decreasing what the admins can do, which just increases the problem, imo. The problem isn't that there is a backlog of these uncontroversial actions (e.g. blocking vandalism only accounts), these are the kinds of things which are currently dealt with surprisingly quickly (if we compare Knowledge to other sites, such as youtube, or yahoo, I think we have an extremely quick response time). The things which take longer are the controversial actions, which I think a lot of admins shy away from, to avoid the inevitable backlash from doing anything which another user disagrees with. So to summarise, I think your proposal isn't fixing the right problem, it'll create more admins to do the tasks which are currently getting done anyway, while decreasing the number of admins doing the tasks which aren't getting done. - Kingpin (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

First of all. There is a tremendously large backlog of non-controversial actions. 8,314 images with a duplicate on Commons. 3,000 histmerges needed. There are backlogs lasting months or years in these categories. I could go on. We need more admins doing that. Second, yes, this would stop admins from being purposefully abusive. The issue right now is that a "bad" admin can with slight provocation block a "good" user then hide behind a short, divided ANI discussion as his grounds. The problem is not just admins acting in good-faith in controversial situations, but rather admins who take advantage of controversial situations to impose their own views and biases. This proposal is designed to eliminate that. Also, in terms with dealing with controversial situations (and I strongly disagree that we need more admins doing that. What we need is better consensus and better judgement), this proposal gives more legitimacy to the bureaucrats who I propose would be intervening there, allowing for better outcomes. Nonabusive sock (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to think that those backlogs owe more to a lack of interest in the task than to a lack of admin capacity. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

TLDR. The gist of what I've gotten is that you're suggesting splitting up the admin rights, which will be a massive headache in every conceivable fashion.
Speaking chiefly as a bureaucrat here: the idea of having to go thru an RfB once a year, especially once "controversial administrator tasks" are assigned to us and only us? That's a fantastic way to make the RfB process even more grueling than it already is. I would retire my 'crat flag in a heartbeat if I had to face that crap once a year, and I feel confident that most bureaucrats would agree. EVula // talk // ☯ // 11:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'll acknowledge the TLDR. Concision is not my primary virtue. I want to say, though, that I am not proposing a division of rights (such proposals are flawed) but rather a division of authority. Yes, this proposal might turn RfB more contentious, and that might have an impact on the composition of the body of bureaucrats. Some current 'crats might well retire, but others would rise up to take their place. It's much easier to fill 40 or 50 bureaucrat slots than 1500 administrator slots. Nonabusive sock (talk) 11:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Going through Rfb is even more of a hassle than going through Rfa. What you're proposing is to even further increase the standards we expect of bureaucrats, while at the same time making them go through Rfb every year. Also, all our administrators would become less effective as a result of this proposal, because their "scope of abuse" has to be reduced. This is an unworkable proposal and creates a lot more problems than it solves.--Atlan (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm amused that you think we can fill 40 to 50 bureaucrat slots on a yearly basis, considering RfB is such a difficult process to go thru now, and what you're talking about makes it considerably more difficult (and far more frequent). The chief reason that people are opposed to a de-adminship process is that it would give people a venue to grind their axes against admins that have stepped on toes just doing their jobs, yet you talk about making bureaucrats responsible for, effectively, doing 100% of the stuff that pisses people off, and then expecting them to stand for reconfirmation on a yearly basis? That would gut our userbase severely and ramp up burnout significantly. Seriously, there's nothing about your proposal that I find appealing. Sorry. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can't please everyone. To be clear, though, I wasn't suggesting term limits as an integral part of the plan, simply suggesting that if people are interested in term limits, then they can be incorporated into it. Personally, though, I think the very best way to go would be a one year term with no possibility of reconfirmation to a second consecutive term (after a year off, the crat could stand again). This is done on a number of other projects and works quite well. Yes, you are asking for a substantial commitment out of the people who serve as crats, but with the understanding that it's temporary and they will then "rotate out" which limits the possibility of burnout. It also means that people don't have an opportunity to grinde axes. The problem with de-adminship proposals is not that they give people a venue for axe-grinding, it's that they give a venue for immediate axe-grinding. You block me, then I turn around and start a Request for De-Adminship or whatever. If you instead have term limits and a rotation off, then it's a year or two before I have any opportunity to "grinde my axes". By that time, tempers have cooled and the discussion can be rational. Nonabusive sock (talk) 14:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, rotating out does address some of my concerns (and you're correct about it not being an immediate axe-grinding type of setup), especially as far as burnout goes. However, I still don't think this adds much value to the system we already have in place, and think that RfA could be "fixed" in other ways. Sorry. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I remember what your basic position from the endless RfA is broken threads is. Might I inquire what the brief version of it is? I recognize that you don't like anything about my proposal, but are you in agreement with me on the problem as being, at least partially, the result of steadily rising standards? Nonabusive sock (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think we can all agree that the inflation of RfA standards is a problem. I can see how your proposal can be interpreted as a means to lower the standards we hold administrators to and thereby making it easier to pass RfA. In practice, I don't think it'll work this way though.--Atlan (talk) 14:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that the inflation of RfA standards is the problem, just one of them. However, I think the true problem is the permanence of adminship; a lifetime appointment means that people are going to be a lot less likely to give someone a chance. My general position is documented over at User:EVula/opining/RfA overhaul. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

For a very long time, I was in the deadminship crowd myself, but efforts for reform along those lines have so consistently stalled that my own proposal in an attempt to strike out in a new direction. In part, I'm asking the question: Why do we feel we need to de-admin people? How can we avoid that situation? Evidently, though, others don't agree. Oh well, that is life. Nonabusive sock (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm honestly not envisioning a significantly high number of deadminships, but instead think that it would serve to relax some people who would otherwise be unwilling to "take a chance" on a candidate simply because it's a lifetime appointment; if there's a chance that they could be removed if adminship doesn't work out so well, why not give a mostly-there candidate a shot? EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Not sure this will solve anything, for the following reason: The rules and processes one needs to know when making non-controversial decisions are exactly the same as the ones for the controversial decisions. Admin candidates will still be required to know them, and that is where the unsuccessful candidates currently fail - I haven't seen many "only X edits in the Y-namespace" opposes recently, and where they occurred they were met with significant opposition. --Pgallert (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, may thanks for the effort put into this - I think it has at least uncovered some of the problems in principle. But a big practical problem I see is the distinction between controversial and non-controversial admin actions. While there are many that are clearly non-controversial, and many that are clearly controversial, there is a whole continuum in between. A 90/10 AfD might be uncontroversial, and a 60/40 one controversial, but where is the boundary? 80/20? 70/30? Can it be decided just on the number of !votes? (I don't think it can). And blocking an "established" editor? There are many clearly well-established ones, and many relative newbies. But again, where is the boundary? How many months? How many edits? How many new articles? Can it be quantified? (Again, I don't think it can). The decision between controversial/uncontroversial is itself a subjective judgment, but to be able to categorize them in a workable way, I think there would need to be objectively distinct categories. -- Boing! said Zebedee 15:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd be against this idea. I appreciate the thought that has gone into it - but as Boing! says, where are the boundaries? I've been an admin for just under 4 months, and most of the AfDs which I have closed have been pretty much uncontroversial - although I have started to work on closer calls recently. The blocks I have made have been uncontroversial (I think!) - any controversial ones I leave for more experienced admins. As a new admin, I am not rushing into the area of contoversy: I want to learn my role more thoroughly - and I'd guess that most new admins are the same. I also think that you are mistaken in your belief that we could fill the 'crat corps, which would almost certainly be reduced in number if this were to go ahead. RfB is hard enough to pass now - under this scheme, it would be harder still. RfA may be harder to pass than it was a couple of years ago, but I don't think that your proposal would prevent that: the technical ability to do controversial closes, blocks, etc, would still be available to any admin, so the standards will still be high -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 15:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

First comment: I really dislike term limits for admins/crats, and I think that part of the proposal is a complete non-starter. The rest is interesting, though. If adopted, this might increase the number of admins created, as it should in theory lower people's standards; certainly, I think you have highlighted a real issue about how many of us are willing to trust a user to use the tools for uncontroversial purposes, but not for controversial ones. The problem, of course, is how to distinguish between them. I fear that if we adopted this proposal, an admin only licensed to perform uncontroversial tasks might take a controversial action, and be fiercely criticised or forced to resign over it, even if they made the right decision. Instead of focusing on 'was this action right?', the dispute would focus on 'was this user entitled to make this decision?', which I think is taking us down the wrong road - we should always remember WP:IAR, and not let the rules restrict us from doing the right thing when necessary. A second problem is that this proposal might decrease the number of admins/crats willing to work in controversial areas, which is low enough as it is.

Having said all that, I still think there could be something worth using here. What about, instead of restricting admins, introducing a new level of rights below admin who have (most of) the tools, but only for janitorial, non-controversial purposes? Or does that idea have all the same problems as this does? Robofish (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The only way I think something like that could work in practice is if such junior admins (perhaps indeed "Janitors") were technically limited in what they could do - eg only block IPs and not registered users, only block for a maximum time limit, only semi-protect (and not fully protect) pages, only protect for a maximum time limit, etc. But I think most "layered" admin rights access possibilities have probably been covered in the many previous discussions on the subject, and nobody has really come up with anything approaching consensus so far -- Boing! said Zebedee 10:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Robofish here. I have proposed earlier somewhere that we have a "trusted editor" category where people can view deleted entries, override move conflicts, edit fully protected pages, and other minor stuff which really can't cause massive havoc if something wrong is done. I was told that we could just make them administrators but there are many competent people out there who don't want to be admins and who would work best with this category. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The trouble with unbundling tools, rather than functions is that the same tools can be very uncontroversial in some cases while being very controversial in others. The general argument, that the tools work best in a bundle, is also entirely true. Say you give someone the delete button, but not the block button. They find a nonsense page and delete it. The user recreates it persistently, they delete it every time, but what's really needed now is the block button. Unfortunately, the partially-tooled admin has to find someone else to do that. It's confusing, bureaucratic, and counterproductive because the real issue isn't that we trust some people to delete but not block, it's that we trust some people to undertake routine, non-controversial actions but not controversial ones. Nonabusive sock (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Unbundling has been discussed, and generally it has been opposed. Additionally putting more strain on bureaucrats is something we can't afford to do at this point, with RfB being such a grueling process. I'm fairly unequivocally opposed to the above proposal. Although I'm not in strong support of a 'trusted user' category, it certainly is a better way, or at least first step, towards reform. This seems like a good way to spread WP:CREEP NativeForeigner /_Contribs 22:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Many forums have various levels of authority, so I don't see why we shouldn't as well. Juliancolton (talk) 02:32, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Granted, separate levels authority are fine. However, creating a highly trusted crat class puts you in a situation where you have to determine, what IS a highly trusted crat. The idea is fine, but implementation is a problem. NativeForeigner /_Contribs 03:22, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think term limits are a good idea, but I do think an idea of allowing a "continuing RFA" is a good idea to rate good admins versus bad admins and let action be taken from there. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)