I think the top priority needs to be coding a bot to write ArbCom decisions. (Fill in your own punchline here.) Newyorkbrad ( talk) 00:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought that's already how it worked! EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Gack! Humor detected! Burn at the stake at once! bibliomaniac 1 5 02:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

...who says I'm kidding? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Somewhere buried deep in the archives, I saw someone suggest that admins could be allowed to sacrifice their own bit to desysop another admin in an emergency, essentially a kamikaze attack. After the dust settled, a crat would simply re-sysop whichever admin was determined to be in the right. That way, rogue admins would last tens of seconds, not 17 minutes, while at the same time, it would be extremely unlikely for the system to be used maliciously, since you only get one shot. I think it was determined that this is unnecessary, given how few rogue admins and/or compromised accounts we have had, but I still think it is an intriguing idea. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

User:SQL, I believe, has already written the code for that. It is just sitting at MediaWiki, waiting for community consensus to add it. - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me} _{My work} 04:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

mw:Extension:EmergencyDeSysop. X clamation point 23:29, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

"Caveats In this extension's default configuration Bureaucrats are effectively untouchable, as they can simply restore their own membership to the sysop group. Additionally, they can basically (ab)use the extension, to desysop another sysop, then, immediately restore their own group membership, as many times as they'd like.". (bolding mine) Hmmm.... That's really tempting given our current selection of bureacrats and their legendary ability not to abuse process, consensus, oversight and checkuser rights and to generaly restrain from using WP to promote their own ends and agendas. </dry commentary> Pedro :  Chat  23:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

An excellent point, given the long and bloody history of rogue bureaucrats. Oh, wait...
In all seriousness, can it not be modified so that bureaucrats give up both their bits when performing an emergency desysop? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The page clearly describes a way for the developers to modify it so bureaucrats lose both their bits. It's just not the default setting, that's all.-- Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 07:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow... this is weird... there are zero editors right now running for admin. Never saw that before...   Marlith (Talk)  04:18, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No surprise. The onset of the holiday season generally leaves little time for masochism. Un sch ool 04:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I nominate this guy. You think he'll pass? davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Too controversial, has banned people without policy to back himself up. Oppose :D Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 05:35, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • On second thought, neutral - participates adequately across all namespaces but an analysis of his new articles shows only 3 substantive creations, 1 of which was speedy-deleted and two of which were unreferenced until other editors took over. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 23:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I think I have seen such an occurrence before, but checking the history of Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report ( [3]) I am unable to find "0 RfAs parsed;" in the last year. I did however find this version, which to the modern RFA participant must seem truly bizarre. Icewedge ( talk) 04:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Eh, it happens. Not the first, not likely the last... all that is has happened before, and will happen again. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I did nominate Useight around this time last year after a silence in the action. This time of year invariably sees a gap of some sort. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

And, somehow, I'm the only guy on the board again. Useight ( talk) 05:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh no, others are lurking...! Foxy Loxy ^Pounce! 05:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

woah at that link. It isn't the numbers which weird me out as much as the sight of somebody with only 30 people !voting on their RfA in 7 days. Ironholds ( talk) 06:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Jeepers, all that green! Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 08:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC).

Ahh, I remember that time. :D Just after I became an admin too. Lots of people nominating themselves to help against the potential of re-activation of anon page creation. Glass Cobra 22:55, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Mebbe we should throw a party? Ironholds ( talk) 09:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, look at late october-november on that grph... X clamation point 12:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Bizarre? Yeah, VanTucky did pass (although not on that try).  Frank  |   talk  00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Would be useful for that graph to show previous years for comparison. Monster Under Your Bed ^{( talk)} 12:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the bot only started in March. X clamation point 17:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else want to join me in going down the various lists of highly active Wikipedians and look for good admin candidates? The queue is about to empty.

• Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits#List - top 4000 or so Wikipedians of all time, by edit count, recently updated
• Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of recent edits - top 5000 or so for the last 30 days, last updated May 23, 2008

davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 21:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Those two lists are not the place to start looking for anyone, unless it's looking for potential members of the Huggle Fan Club. What happened to "I am familiar with this editor and I trust their judgement"? –  iridescent 21:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

No the places to look are: 1) People looking for admin coaches 2) In any of the areas where policy based discussions occur---look for the people who you think are admins, if you find somebody you think is an admin in the area where you are looking, take a look at them and see if they really are. You'll be surprised at how many are not.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflicted) I second that note of caution; edit counts are a crude metric. One place I would recommend looking is GA reviewers (see history of WP:GAN). They tend to be long in the tooth, policy-savvy, drama-averse and used to dealing with inexperienced editors. Somewhere with a lower signal to noise ratio would be new page patrollers; look out for non-admins that decline CSD noms and fix up articles (not trigger-happy, know how to handle problematic content). Requested articles may also have a reservoir of untapped editors who don't show up on the dramaboards but have experience with inclusion criteria and dealing with IP's/new users. Hope this helps, Skomorokh 21:21, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And contra Balloonman, having seen the type of candidates that result, seeking an admin coach tends to be prima facie etc. etc. The implications of honest comments like this is telling. Skomorokh 21:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Last month, I went through the top 20 or so by # of edits. I found one who was a decent candidate, I'm awaiting his approval. The rest were either already admins, said they didn't want admins, or would not get a strong support from me if they were up for RFA. However, by going through that list, I'm making sure our most prolific gnomes are at least looked at. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 21:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well other places to look include

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured list nominations

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured portal nominations

Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured topic nominations

Also as B-man points out, Wikipedia:Admin_coaching/Requests_for_Coaching#Current_requests and Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls are good places to scout out. MBisanz ^talk 21:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I doubt a substantial percentage of current admins are, or have ever been on either of those lists... at least nowhere near the top. It strikes me that people are looking for candidates who can discuss policy, and remain active at a relatively consistent clip. I echo Balloonman's suggestions. You probably already know and work with the best candidates. Hiberniantears ( talk) 21:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The category administrator hopefuls is useless as it has people who haven't edited in over 2 years still on it. The Admin coaching page at least gives you some people who are interested in it fairly recently.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Although anyone who has been admin-coached can expect automatic opposes (not saying that is right or wrong, just commenting)! GTD 22:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the auto-opposes have seemed to have died down. That was a movement started by Kurt on Wisdom89's RfA. Since Kurt hasn't been pushing it anymore, others have moved away from it and started to evaluate candidates for their own merits once again.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 23:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the accuracy of any part of that statement, Balloonman. -- JayHenry ( t) 05:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I actually was looking into it a few months ago, I have a lost user page where I was tracking each of the coaches success/failures. While doing the research, I learned that Kurt was the first person to oppose explicitly because somebody went through coaching. Kurt then lead a campaign where he opposed due to a person going through coaching---it didn't matter what the coaching consisted of, anybody who went through coaching was opposed by him and a few others joined in. Since he has left, people are willing to at least look at the coaching process and evaluate the candidate and the specifics of the coaching that the candidate encountered. You'll notice that I'm one of the more critical voices of the "coach for RfA process." I recently had another coach come to me because I had opposed 3 of his candidates for that reason. So, I stand by my statement. If you want to look for it, it was probably around the time that I compiled this page or this...--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any page is truly reliable except for WP:SAC. Go by your judgement of people you come across in a positive manner, review their edits and make a careful decision. I don't see the need to check a list. — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 22:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

And check it twice... gotta find out whose naughty and nice...--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 22:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Cyclonenim - highly active people aren't necessarily the best qualified, nor necessarily people with lots of featured content. – How do you turn this on ( talk) 22:18, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooh. I'm 842^nd on the list of recent edits. That beats several admins, maybe I should apply after all. — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 22:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

That list is more than six months old, BTW. –  iridescent 22:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Spoil it for me, why don't you? This is my moment of glory! How many people can say they're number 842 but number of 'recent' edits?! ;) — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I was #7 on that list, ahead of those slowcoaches like Miszabot. –  iridescent 23:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for ClueBot to become a sysop-bot. Oh, the uproar that would bring. — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 23:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Something like the ability (the code) to semi-protect pages for a small period (1-3 days) based on the number of vandalizations any given article is having... *shrug* This would of course require the bot to remember what articles its reverted, which I don't know that it does. -- Izno ( talk) 00:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, ClueBot does remember what articles it reverts. But why would it need to remember? X clamation point 01:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

So that there's a threshold for semi-protecting. It would be silly to semi something for one vandalization, whereas a third or forth vandalization within 8 hours or whatever the numbers, that might be useful. -- Izno ( talk) 02:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Looking for people who might be admin possibilities, is there any way of tracking people who have worked on the backlog of articles needing cleanup? I've occasionally (okay: rarely) taken care of an article or two over there, but when I go back and visit and see that several months have disappeared, apparently cleaned up, I wonder who's doing all that work. Those people might not build FAs and GAs, but I think it's almost as important to fix up RAs (Rubbish Articles). Un sch ool 04:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would suggest looking at the people you already know and choosing the best suited for adminship from that list.   Marlith (Talk)  04:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

But that's my whole point. Is there a list of editors and/or their accomplishments over there? As far as I know, there is no way of tracking who are the labourers over there. But I am Wikinaive, and perhaps someone else does know how these people can be detected. Un sch ool 04:30, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that there is no quantitative way to pick out good candidates for adminship. Its mostly qualitative data we are talking about. (Well, the Signpost published an article about people who write for the signpost, maybe you might want to hit them up.)   Marlith (Talk)  04:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Anyone thought to look at Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls? EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Lot's of people are on that list, and it just lists people who want adminship, but not people who have necessarily made efforts towards becoming editors trustworthy of the tools   Marlith (Talk)  04:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so you want a magical list of people that deserve the sysop bit? Sorry, but if it was that easy, we wouldn't have an RfA process; the 'crats would just check against The Magic List and make their promotions accordingly.
If we can't bother to actually look at the contributions of some of those people, what makes you think anyone else is? We're too lazy to actually try, which is why this question ("where can we find more good candidates?") is asked over and over; I know I've mentioned that category on this talk page at least three times now. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Precisely my point.   Marlith (Talk)  05:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Er... yes. I'm glad we can all agree that I'm right. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I have looked at that list... the category is so out of date that is is virtually useless. Way too many of the people on the list haven't edited in over 6 months! Many are simply not qualified. I found it would be easier to look around than to use that outdated list.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we look back at people who got rejected because they had "only" 2000 edits or something? Or the ones who clearly had to fail because they once took a wikibreak? I think it's finally becoming clear that there are many more good Wikipedians out there than the ones who sustain 10-20 edits per day. We've exhausted that category now. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be an idea. Look at previous RfA's that failed for "nice guy, good edits but not enough mainspace contribs" and similar and look at where they're at now (ignoring SNOW and NOTNOW cases, though, unless they're about a year old). Ironholds ( talk) 09:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with rspeer, but unfortunately there are enough voters here who think you need a whole bunch of featured content to your name, have never used the word "Delete" on an XfD discussion, and want you to break the CDB policy, to scuttle those sorts of candidates. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC).

I call bullshit. Where are these supposed voters? Skomorokh 12:20, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I think anyone who has been following RFA over the past months knows exactly who I am talking about, so I am not going to be so rude as to drop names. It was a semi-facetious remark, by the way. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC).

It was an irresponsible remark, though in good company; it seems de rigeur on this talkpage to blithely profess the existence of any number of supposed RfA phenomena without offering any justification whatsoever. All this effects is the spreading of further memes of RfA is broken. This is every bit as bad as opposing candidates for reasons such as those you hyperbolicly reference above. Both let RfA commenters substitute cute slogans and simplistic perceptions for considered, empirically-supported analysis. Along with "No thanks, this has already been discussed in Archive 437", this sort of casual defeatism effectively functions as a brake on the type of organic change and improvement one sees in other areas of the project (compare GAN and AfD now to a year ago. RfA? Little progress). I don't mean to pick on you personally, and I share your frustration with single issues that quickly turn into pile-ons, but I find your comment symptomatic of much that is wrong here. "If you haven't got something constructive to contribute..." Skomorokh 13:01, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Opposing based on lack of featured content is a relatively common one. Both the person who opposes based on votes at AFD and the one who votes based on their comments on cool down blocks currently don't vote at RFA, but they definitely exist. Tombomp ( talk/ contribs) 13:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

"Opposing based on lack of featured content is a relatively common one". I can't say I agree, given that the vast majority of successful candidates have no significant contributions to featured content. The editor's claim was stronger than yours; they suggested not just that such voters existed, but that they are numerous enough to tank the sorts of candidates Ironholds recommend looking at. This is highly doubtful; I can't think of a single failed AfD that had as a decisive reason for failing the notion that the candidate lacked an FA, voted delete too often or was willing to issue cool down blocks. Those are caricatures, which are dangerous and unhelpful for the reasons I mentioned above. Skomorokh 13:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

←I haven't seen much opposing based upon lack of featured content recently; the only thing I've seen is people opposing based on lack of general content experience (whether that just be extensive typo fixing, taking something to B class, GA, FA etc). I think that's a perfectly valid oppose, in fact I often use it. I just feel that administrators benefit from knowing what goes into an article before deleting it. But hey, this is an old topic, isn't it? — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 14:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I am going to pull Tombomp up on this, since I don't think I've seen a single "never written an FA" oppose since 2006. (FWIW, I have never worked on an FA and have been fairly vocal about the fact I never will, and got precisely 1 oppose.) You came to my talkpage a few weeks ago making a similar bunch of wild accusations against me with no evidence whatsoever to back them up and despite the fact that the most cursory checks would have shown they were untrue. There seems to be an "RFA is broken" meme that's floating around, but the most enthusiastic promoters of the idea tend to go curiously vague when pressed on how it's broken and how to change it. (My tl;dr proposal is near the bottom of this thread, should anyone care). –  iridescent 02:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I just flipped off all of WP:VG so I'm out of the raffle for another 3 months. (Obviousley didn't read any of this thread)-- Koji † 02:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Another way to recruit is to review Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies. Look for failed noms over 6 months old. Review the RfA and review the editor's progress since then. Maybe you'll find some people in a position to and ready to try again. Kingturtle ( talk) 16:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I figure I might decide to bring this topic up for discussion, though I suspect it's been discussed quite a bit before, but it relates to the civility of editors participating at RfA.

I could write a really lengthy section regarding my viewpoint of opposers and RfA, but I figure I should keep it as succint as possible; I'm concerned not by the arguments presented at RfA, but more by how they are presented - specifically, the tone of the opposition. Everyone is entitled to their opinions - in fact if it's a constructive opinion it is appreciated, but that doesn't give them the right to hammer a good-faith contributor over not being ready for adminship. That does nothing to help the project, and only discourages people who came hoping for the community's trust. I also recommend viewing my views on RfA (though still very much so an incomplete page - just read the intro, specifically the second paragraph).

I was wondering if maybe it might be a good idea to be more stringent regarding civility at RfA, as I see RfA incivility being altogether a net negative to our project. Master&Expert ( Talk) 07:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As I know this probably stems from Eastlaw's RfA, I have to say it was a shame... ultimately, I think he probably got a bum deal. The challenge is where/how to draw the line. Eastlaw hurt his own RfA by his allegations of Trolling and digging into Keepscapes' past. This lead to a downward spiral that quickly got out of hand. It's not the first time we've seen a candidate kill his RfA via a vigorous defense. I'm thinking of one in particular, that makes this one an interesting case study. For those who don't remember Ecoleetage encountered the exact same thing at his RfA---allegations that he felt were unjustified that he felt compelled to defend against---but his defense ended up dooming his RfA. Fast forward a few months, and Eco is now on the other side of the guantlet---and Eastlaw's defense ended up dooming his RfA. But therein lies the challenge, I doubt if in either case Eco intended on getting into a contentious debate... but when dealing with opinions and allegations, it often gets personal. Last night I opposed another candidate and gave solid reasons why I thought he wasn't ready for an RfA. Others agreed, but some of their wording was pretty harsh. I ultimately went to WP:BN asking somebody to close it because it was getting ugly. Not just the tally, but some of the comments that were being made.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It definitely does stem quite a bit from Eastlaw's RfA, and I agree he got hit pretty hard by the opposes, but it brought something into perspective for me. Eastlaw isn't ready to be an administrator, and may not be for awhile. However, he felt as though people were ganging up on his RfA and shooting it down over something he thought would be relative - he clearly felt quite offended by his RfA falling like that. But if you look into the archives of RfA's closed early, even though the reasons for opposition are usually quite valid, the way they are presented are often very spiteful and ignorant of any positive intentions and good contributions the candidate came with. Eastlaw may have taken it harder than most, but that doesn't mean that most don't take it hard - whether it shows a lot or not. RfA should ideally be a constructive environment for editors who go up there, and give them some pointers on where to improve; it shouldn't be a poll of editors who think the contributor would be a bad admin with comments that devalue their edits up to that point. Master&Expert ( Talk) 08:14, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

• I have another idea; why don't we have RfA's pre-approved to run by a 'crat before they are transcluded onto RfA? That way, if a candidate is obviously not ready and will definitely be brought down at RfA, then the 'crat will close it before it even starts. Say, if the editor in question has less than 1 500 edits and 3 months of experience, it can be closed before somebody makes a single oppose - before it even appears at RfA. That way, the editor won't feel too bitten. Obviously it won't prevent things like Eastlaw's RfA from happening once in awhile, but I think we can start to gradually move toward a more civil RfA atmosphere. Master&Expert ( Talk) 08:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Er, no. First, crats don't have the time. Second, 'crat approved would significantly change the nature of RfA's. Third, this won't pass for the same reason that we allow self-noms. Fourth, in theory that is what the nominator's role is. You can't even say, we should have admin's preview RfA's first. With Eastmanlaw, there were two admins who nominated him. They both thought he would do fine and are probably shocked and disappointed at how it turned out. What killed Eastmanlaw, wasn't his edit history, but his interactions during the RfA. A casual review by a 'crat probably would not have prevented this train wreck.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Eastman? Pedro :  Chat  08:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it's 2:30, I have to wake up in 4 hours... and if history is true to form, my son will wake up in 2... so, I'm going to bed...--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 08:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)EDIT: Son woke up an hour later... not two... so I got 3 hours of uninterupted sleep.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Esactly, which is what I mean by "it won't prevent things like Eastlaw's RfA from happening." I actually mean this to be a somewhat separate point from that particular RfA. I don't mean we get 'crats to give the tools to somebody without the community consensus - what I'm saying is that we should have somebody (crat or otherwise) close an RfA that is clearly doomed to fail - not via a thorough review of their contributions but via a quick check to see if they have a bare minimum number of edits - edit counts play a very large role in the outcome of an RfA and a self-nom (obviously not something that had other nominators) with anything less than 1 500 edits will be closed early, but I'd prefer there to be nobody commenting prior to closure for such an RfA. I understand I'm getting off-topic, but my focus now is on in-general civility of RfA participants, not just RfA's like Eastlaws. Master&Expert ( Talk) 08:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

This is off topic, but to reply - Clearly doomed RFA's are normally closed quickly per WP:NOTNOW or WP:SNOW as it stands. I don't think we need someone to "pre-vet" before transclusion and there have been prior discussion on setting up some kind of "RFA Cabal" which was generally seen as a bad idea. Pedro :  Chat  08:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I suppose you're right. I still think we should try to improve the atmosphere of RfA somehow or another. Perhaps we should find some way of making a reminder to people going up for RfA what their behaviour on the page should be (i.e. respecting oppose !votes, civility, etc.)? Master&Expert ( Talk) 08:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Every RFA carries the word Please keep discussion constructive and civil at the top. The fact that people may choose to ignore this is another problem altogether. Pedro :  Chat  08:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Or the fact that it's often not enforced because doing so would lead to more drama and whining about how the civility policy is a plot by homeopathic editors and partisan POV pushers. I know there have been occasions where I have wanted to say or do something when I see a particularly rude editor in a discussion, but have refrained from doing so to avoid derailing the discussion.

Back on topic, I think that we're getting a bit muddled up between RFAs that were doomed from the start (due to a gross lack of experience, recent drama, etc), and borderline ones that have a chance of success but fail, for one reason or the other. Requiring an admin or bureaucrat to review an RFA before it becomes live will solve the former, but the Eastlaw one was of the latter type. If he'd simply deleted the userbox as soon as it became an issue and apologised, I think it still could have passed (and there were no other real reasons I could find to oppose the user). I don't see how we're going to stop those sort of RFAs from reaching the voting stage while keeping the whole process open and accessible to the "editor on the street". Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 09:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC).

Master, I think you would be surprised at how many RfA's are closed on a daily basis. I personally close one or two RfA's a week, and I know other admins that frequently close them as well. There are often RfA's that are live for less time than it takes the SQLbot or TangoBOT to refresh. So unless you are watching WP:RFA directly, you may never know about them. A few months ago, I looked at the number of number of SNOW/NOTNOW RfA's and discovered that we were averaging 10 a week for the preceeding month. That may have gone up or down.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)EDIT: With pedro's link below, I realized that 10 a week was high, so I looked up my edit. I originally said 3-7 a week so I stand corrected.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I was out blinked and missed Eastlaw's RFA, but I was already concerned at civility at RFA before then, and not merely because of the RFAs that happen, how many RFAS don't happen because editors take a look at RFA and decide not to put themselves through that process? To me there's a simple solution, strike uncivil !votes ASAP, don't just ignore them at the end. If wp:civil was enforced at RFA the atmosphere at RFA would rapidly change. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 10:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The problem with that is that civility can be a slightly grey area; things some people might find acceptable or "a bit sharp" can sound uncivil to others, and debates over what should/shouldn't be struck would take the request on a tangent which has nothing to do with the candidacy. Ironholds ( talk) 10:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, blatant clear incivil breaches should be struck, borderline cases you could query with the editor on their own talk page. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 11:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

..Which completely scuppers the idea. Leaving them there while you debate the incivility of the comment elsewhere still allows for it to become a massive issue and/or involve unfair pileon. Ironholds ( talk) 11:24, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ironholds, No it wouldn't completely scupper the idea or entirely prevent pileons, but I think it would be a step in the right direction without going from one extreme to another. Some !votes were struck out a few weeks ago and I suspect the relatively harmonious period in late November and the very beginning of December may have partly been because of that. It is important that !voters at RFA feel free to oppose and give the reasons for their oppose frankly and honestly, I gave an example elsewhere on this page where a recent oppose used words such as dump and crap, and I believe RFA would be a less broken process if such opposes were struck. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 13:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, bit if clarification there; I don't believe that your idea scuppers itself, just the bit about leaving ambiguous !votes around while they're debated elsewhere. I do like the idea of votes involving words such as "dumb" and "crap" being struck, but then they should be anyway. Ironholds ( talk) 13:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know what it is like to screw up your own RfA by not keeping your cool. And, yes, I didn’t intend on getting into a contentious debate – my reaction when I saw the RfA posting was “Who’s Eastlaw?” But go back to the RfA page and read Eastlaw’s withdrawal statement – it is obvious this is not a case of RfA malfunctioning again. I think Majoreditor said it best when he told Eastlaw: “I'm starting to worry more about your attitude than your aptitude.” Eastlaw voluntarily took the initiative to insult Keepscases. He voluntarily authored the sarcastic edit summaries. He voluntarily kept badgering every opposition !vote by accusing people of baiting and prodding and playing games -- even when he was told (more than once) that he was killing his own RfA. And let’s not kid ourselves, the opposition’s concern about the lack of admin-related work was relatively benign – no one bore false witness against him or took his work out of context with the intent of creating malice. Ecoleetage ( talk) 14:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I missed all of this. It's amazing what happens when I don't check RfA for a couple hours... – Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 14:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

that's why I don't sleep... or perhaps it is because I an insufferable workaholicwikiholic.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 14:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I always sleep between 8 and 9 hours and I just missed a huge conversation. Useight ( talk) 18:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

In refernce to your above comment BM, we now have 8 failed RFAs and the current one that looks like it will pass so far this month User:NoSeptember/List of failed RfAs (Chronological). I just added Eastlaws BTW. Pedro :  Chat  14:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Master&Expert, you bring up a very important issue. The online, faceless environment can be cold and harsh. RfA discussions should be critical, yes, but should also be respectful. The RfA process should not be a hellish experience. It should be a learning experience. Unsuccessful nominees should walk away with their pride intact and with a good idea of areas of improvement. The idea is to help editors become admins. The help comes through quality feedback and sound recommendations. Kingturtle ( talk) 14:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Eloquently put, Kingturtle, couldn't agree more. — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 15:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec'd all to hell)I couldn't agree more with Kingturtle; RfA shouldn't be "hellish", and the stress level induced just by running for RfA plus the wrong atmosphere can make it feel like that. On the other hand, nothing happened during Eastlaw's RfA that can't be fixed. Just like in real life, even the ideal candidate won't get the job if they blow the interview, and just like in real life, when you're highly stressed, and you start feeling attacked, and people are watching your behavior carefully, it's best not to say anything. Eastlaw is studying in New York City to be a lawyer; who knows, this may turn out to be a career-saving learning experience for him. I propose we show him some kindness over the next 3 months to let him know that his contributions are valued, and encourage him to run again in 3 months; I'm sure he'll do fine. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 15:09, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Ecoleetage, occasionally RFAs will implode, I haven't properly looked at Eastlaw's RFA and I suggest that we leave that out of this thread to avoid it overskewing this discussion due to its recency. Do you agree that one of the problems with RFA is civility and if so do you agree with the suggestion of striking incivil !votes? Ϣere Spiel Chequers 15:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

No, because that draws straws at what is/isn't an incivil !vote. I've made critical opposes, but I'd like to think (or at least delude myself) into believing that my opposes have been civil---sometimes harsh---but still civil. Now do I hold allusions that those who have received opposes from me see my opposes as civil? No. I'm certain that there are people out there who do think I've crossed the line---and who is to say they aren't right? Opposes, by their very nature, can be received very personally---especially if the party criticized doesn't believe the oppose is valid. I see the striking of opposes as creating even more drama at rfa's. What we probably need, is for regulars (myself included) to start posting comments on the user pages of people who make harsh/bity opposes. I think this would work better than striking !votes.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 15:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Well said, Kingturtle. Unfortunately, it'll be a cold day in hell before RfA becomes respectful across the board. When otherwise-excellent candidates like TheHelpfulOne can be opposed due to a single edit made eight months previously, the entire process is so horrendously broken as to be unworkable. Even more unfortunately, there is an entrenched resistance to any change in the system; a large bloc of editors feel that because they're not specifically forbidden from opposing for any reason under the sun they can therefore oppose for manifestly stupid and unfair reasons. They make the mistake of thinking that because they can say something, therefore they should. Sure, yeah, crats weigh votes when closing an RfA, but there is no transparency, and no indication during an RfA--for the most part--that certain opposes will be ignored. Frankly we need a rigid and ungameable set of criteria that are allowed for opposes, and anything not meeting those criteria will be summarily removed by any admin or crat who looks at the nom. This will never happen, because many of the stupid opposes come from either admins who are jealous of their power, or from editors who have about as much chance of ever passing an RfA as I do, and both groups will--and have--worked assiduously to prevent any kind of reform of the system. // roux    15:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I think one of the problems with the world is the lack of civility. Personally, I’d like to build the world a home and furnish it with love – grow apple trees and honeybees and snow white turtle doves. (Yes, I am on the Coca-Cola payroll.) In all seriousness...when I withdrew my RfA, I sent apologies to everyone who participated (both supporters and opposers) because I felt I disappointed them. I don’t hold any animosity against people who opposed me – in fact, I recently offered (off-Wiki) to nominate someone for RfA who turned up on my Talk Page stating that I deserved to fail in my RfA. Because RfA, like life, is what you make of it. Ecoleetage ( talk) 15:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that we see incredibly stupid supports, too. It may be simplest to just figure they cancel out. I think it'd be an improvement for crats to specifically say which reasons they did or did not find compelling, tho. By doing this, over time we will uncover a reasonable set of criteria. A specific set of "allowable" oppose reasons could easily turn out badly- I've seen several people say things like "Your oppose is invalid- you've given no reason why this candidate will abuse the tools." Well, gosh guys, if we had a magical way of knowing who would abuse the tools, we wouldn't need RFA, would we? I've seen people say equally wrong-headed things like "It's unfair to assume children will tend to act like children." So, coming with up "good" oppose reasons is going to be very difficult, as long as we have so many people bending over backward to make all reasons for opposition sound bad. A casual glance around the place will reveal many people who dislike opposing RFAs on the grounds that it's "mean"- and, well, this is clearly a recipe for a completely dysfunctional RFA process. Friday (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

need a rigid and ungameable set of criteria that are allowed for opposes er... no. That is one of the more niave shortsighted positions I've read. There is no such thing, and any set of criteria will have unforseen exceptions. This would be a massive example of WP:creep and would be totally unoperable.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Kindly do not refer to a well-thought-out position as 'shortsighted'. I know it'll never happen, I'm allowed to have my opinion, and deriding it as shortsighted is incredibly rude when you have no idea how much I've thought about it. // roux    16:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh.. It looks like you expect people to be able to discuss differences of opinion without ever saying "I think you're wrong and here's why"? Sorry, this is a non-starter. Friday (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I have a better idea for you: don't put words in my mouth. It's really easy to do; reply to what I have actually said, not to what you decided you think I said. // roux    17:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It doesn't matter how much you thought about it, it is a shortsighted idea because it would create many more problems than we already have. The idea of an ungameable system is a utopian ideal that will never exist and trying to pidgeon hole valid opposes is the epitome of wp:creep. In order to even come close to an "ungameable system" that properly covers every scenario, would require tombs of policies and procedures that would cover every imagineable (regardless of how unlikely) a scenario we can come up with---and even then, we wouldn't get them all. It is setting a goal that not only won't garner consensus, but even if the ideal could gain consensus, the implementation is unattainable/impractical and would create more problems than it solves. This is, IMO, a classic example of a shortsightedness.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 16:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Not really, no. We have an enormous body of knowledge in terms of what has already been discounted: the crats. All they need to do is write down what they have discounted in the past and why. We give them licence to disregard votes as-is, so let's have them lay down what will be discounted. Shortsighted is not requiring that to be made public. // roux    17:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And who is to say that the crats don't already have ideas on what they will/won't consider valid reasons? (I suspect some do, but those reasons may differ between crats.) But any concept that is ungameable, can by definition be gamed! Perhaps its because of my profession, but when I see the call for systems that can't be beaten or controls intended to prevent all mischief---I get very cynical. I forget the show, but there was a movie or documentary a few years ago that talked about how they could make cars 10X safer than they are today and get 2 or 3X the gas mileage (hybrids?) but that those cars weren't being made because the cost to create these cars would exceed the amount the consumer was willing to pay. "ungameable" systems cost too much, and simply won't work.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 17:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I never said the crats don't. I said it should be made public. And ungameable is a Platonic ideal; I'd settle for 'as gameable as little as possible.' A very clear list from the crats of "these reasons will not be counted, nor will anything reasonably similar" is an excellent start. The second step would be for crats to remove--not strike, not indent, remove--anything which will not be counted. The pileons for stupid and ultimately uncounteable reasons should never happen, and are a large part of why RfA is such an unnecessarily painful process. // roux    17:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room! :) Ecoleetage ( talk) 16:34, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I've got to watch Dr Strangelove again, there are so many quotes weirdly relevant to Wikipedia. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 16:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And, as a sidenote, I like what Roux is saying and I appreciate his input. Ecoleetage ( talk) 17:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

On the value of stubborn opposers

For many candidates, the RfA is the first, last, and best opportunity for the community to see how a candidate performs under intense scrutiny before being promoted. An administrator who makes regular use of his tools will from time to time end up at AN/I — sometimes at his own behest, sometimes brought by a disgruntled editor or even a grumpy admin. More often than not, the admin will face criticism – at least initially – for his actions: too harsh, too lax, not well-enough explained, poorly-judged. The party bringing a case to AN/I will be seeking a rapid review before a wide audience. Usually the case will not be presented in a way that is sympathetic (or even fair) to the admin's position.

Ultimately, some of that criticism will be well-founded. A fair bit will be completely erroneous or plainly irrational. The largest block probably falls somewhere in the middle: things that were done acceptably, but could have been done better. (This speaks well of our RfA process; in general our admins do a good, solid, competent-if-not-perfect job.)

In all cases, an admin must be prepared to respond appropriately to the criticisms raised, whether or not those criticisms are reasonable or even rational. AN/I is very much like RfA, except that the feedback comes faster and the participants can be even more obnoxious. Rare is the discussion that lasts more than a day. Your peers will weigh and measure your abilities and worth based not on your entire body of contributions but on whatever (putative) mistakes you've made in the preceding twenty-four hours.

An admin who is easily goaded into rapid-fire back-and-forth escalation; one who too easily takes things personally or makes them personal; one who is prone to losing his temper; an admin who doesn't know when to cut his losses, not feed the troll, or give his opponent the last word — is an admin who is in trouble. By appearing as intemperate and volatile, he will lose the respect of the participants of AN/I. He may become a target of trolls who know how to push his buttons. He's apt to burn out and resign or leave Wikipedia in a few months. In short, he's not a good candidate for adminship.

While stubborn, obnoxious, or irrational voters may make RfA a less pleasant place, and while I would in general prefer that they just go away, it is nevertheless possible to take advantage of them. They provide us with a real-world stress test, a way to see firsthand how the candidate performs under pressure in a time-limited, widely-visible, highly-interactive situation. We get to see how the candidate responds to criticism and how (or if) he learns from the experience. Many candidates are sunk by intemperate conduct during their RfAs, while a few have drawn extra support by their calm and mature handling of over-the-top critics. In neither case do I see a failure of RfA. Rather, I see a system which is working exactly correctly, wherein the participants are correctly assessing new information about the candidate's approach to dispute resolution. While I do not support the extension of absolute privilege to all participants in RfA discussions, I do believe that allowing for somewhat more...frank...discussions than we would permit or encourage in other venues. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Frank, yes. Rude, stupid, obnoxious? No. // roux    15:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

An adminship candidate should be able to cope effectively with the level of rudeness, stupidity, and obnoxiousness that is seen and/or tolerated on AN/I. If we can fix our other processes (especially AN, and AN/I, but perhaps also RfC and RFArb) such that they eliminate rude, stupid, and obnoxious conduct, then I would agree that there would be no need for adminship candidates to demonstrate that they could cope with it. Until then.... TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Ten has it just right. And, hey, if we find a way to eliminate rude, stupid, or obnoxious conduct in those places.. well, RFA won't matter much anymore, as we'll have very little need for admins who can deal effectively with such conduct. Friday (talk) 15:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that they need to be able to cope with it--that's where experience in editing conflicts and/or DR comes into play. Nobody who is trying to get a little bit more access in order to help the project should be subjected to the covered-in-honey-and-staked-to-an-anthill process that is RfA as it stands now. But you're both proving the point I made in the preceding section, anyway. // roux    15:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

You can't say, categorically, that all candidates need to be treated with all forms of hostility just because they could (or most likely will) encounter it as an admin. This isn't how the system is supposed to work, since theoretically it's possible to have a candidate who has no interest in dealing with the high-hostility areas such as AIV and whom will have no negative interactions during their future time here. Sure, it's very, very likely they will, but not a certainty.

Instead, I'd propose that people review a candidate on their technical ability (since administrators are janitors, not arbitrators) and their ability to be nice to people outside of the stressful, RfA climate. If this person becomes an administrator and gets faced with hostility and doesn't enjoy it, they can and probably will resign. There is no reason to treat candidates to utter disrespect. At least that's what I believe. — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 15:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

OK I'm prepared to buy the argument at least in part. If someone is going for RFA, intends to use the tools in contentious areas and hasn't been tested by trolls and civility attacks then yes perhaps it is a good test to be less civil at RFA than would normally be acceptable. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 16:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

The key is whether the unpleasant opposes in the RfA look like a "setup", or arguably might look that way to a candidate. If Oppose #1 says "you're a poopy-head", the candidate responds, and Oppose #2 says "AGF! AGF!", then I think the RfA could recover, even if the candidate gets a little ad-hominem. Eastlaw obviously felt that this was the kind of thing going on in his RfA, but it didn't look that way to me, and I hope that in time, it won't look that way to Eastlaw, either. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 16:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

WSC: I know that's a tempting path, but I strongly disagree. I recommend Steven Pinker and some of the other authors who popularize what anthropologists and psychologists generally agree on these days about "cave-man" behavior: how it kept our ancestors safe, and why it doesn't work so well in the modern world. We have an instinct that tells us that hazing is fine and even necessary; that we need to cause stress in order to see how the candidate responds. Don't do it. Instead, oppose on the grounds that the candidate hasn't voluntarily involved themselves in difficult areas of the wiki, so we don't have a track record to know how they'll deal with stress. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 16:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I fear that that's a misreading of what I'm saying. I'm not suggesting that we assign a "Designated Dickhead" to each RfA to be particularly obnoxious to each candidate. Nor have I said that we ought to encourage incivility at RfA. All I'm saying is that in cases where a candidate does face incivil, obnoxious, or irrational behaviour here, it's perfectly proper for us to judge them on their response to it. We're getting a first-hand taste of their ability to handle disputes, in a situation that the responses above have acknowledged is "very, very likely" to occur.

Moreover, I suspect – but cannot prove – that candidates who draw irrational or obnoxious opposition during their RfA are likely to to draw attention from the same sort of people afterwards. Even really ridiculous oppose votes tend to hang their hat on something (good, bad, or indifferent) that the candidate has done. There's no reason to suspect that the same nutters wouldn't find those same reasons attractive again in the future. It's harmless to Wikipedia if the candidate can handle them, but potentially disruptive if not.

Finally, I think that the number of candidates who can't tolerate irrational or undeserved abuse and who will calmly and quietly resign their admin bit to return happily to regular editing is low. More common by far is a series of escalating namecalling matches on AN/I, an angry rant on AN or their user page, a slew of personal attacks on editors who they saw as adversaries, followed by a request to delete their talk pages and a huffy departure. Taking good editors and turning them into bitter, angry ex-admins isn't good for them or for the project. Giving people who can't control their temper the bit is a net loss for all involved. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 16:30, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Nicely argued. - Dan Dank55 ( send/receive) 16:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I do see your point. — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but you're missing mine. That we should judge candidate reactions to BS is unarguable. That the candidate should not be subjected to BS is equally unarguable; nobody on this site should be subjected to incivility and related behaviours. // roux    17:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

(un-dent) I don't think RfA should be a trial by ordeal, and I'm opposed to the idea of making deliberate attempts to provoke or stress candidates, but at the same time I do not think that any special civility policy should apply. It can be very difficult to write a sentence of the form "I do not trust this candidate because..." without one's contribution being interpreted as some kind of attack. But being able to write just such a sentence is an integral part of RfA. SHEFFIELDSTEEL ^TALK 16:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting we should apply a specific civility policy because as you said most opposes are seen as some form of insult, whether we like it or not, it's a show of distrust. However, there is a clear line between "SoAndSo has no clue what he is on about, what an idiot. Blah blah blah" and "I don't think you're suitable for adminship as you have not yet shown sufficient knowledge of policy". — Cyclonenim ( talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Argh, How to you respond to a comment, where the next comment was unindented... I don't know, so this is to the comment, nobody on this site should be subjected to incivility and related behaviours. True, but that can also be said about disease, famine, and war. Just because one shouldn't be subject to them doesn't mean that we can eradicate any of them. Part of the problem is that incivility is in the eye of the beholder. Just talk to Malleus. Malleus has a different interpretation of civility than most---yes, he is an ass, but my calling him that isn't going to have him running to the corner crying for his mama. It's going to take a lot more to goad him. Similarly, he is likely to say something that will have 90% of this board up in arms about, but Malleus won't see it as uncivil. In fact, it might require our calling each other names before we get to the point where true collaboration can be achieved! In other words, say the same thing to five different people, and you will get five different reactions. Heck, READ/HEAR the exact same thing from five different sources, and you will have five different reactions. My point isn't that we shouldn't tolerate incivility, but rather it is not always something intended/distinguishable AND we aren't going to get rid of it. Again, I think what we need are people who will go to others (on their talk pages) and let them know we saw their comments as crossing the line.--- Balloonman ^PoppaBalloon 21:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need any special civility rules for RFA, either. Sure, some comments may be over the line, and in that case, bring it up at that user's talk page like Balloonman said. And if it is extraordinarily out-of-line and that editor is like that on a consistent basis, then we have WP:WQA. But when a candidate puts himself/herself up for public scrutiny, basically saying, "Hey everyone look at me and tell me whether I'm good or bad", you're going to get some who side with the negative side. Perhaps their wording might end up being a little strong, but I think the candidate should be able to handle it and let it roll with the punches. A thick skin is necessary. Perhaps I'm biased, since I feel that I'm that way (having been called "hard as nails" often), but I think the candidate should be able to take it in most cases without getting all up in arms. Useight ( talk) 21:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)