User talk:WereSpielChequers/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Home

Bling

Content

Userboxen

Editcount

Talk

Guestbook

Email

This is my archive for RFA related threads after early 2011. User talk:WereSpielChequers/Archive 8 precedes it.

RfA reform

We've had a lot of progress on this and I'm wondering what to do next, such as moving the page to project space. I think an RfC would be a waste of time again. I think about 20 is a good number for a task force, but I'm all ears for other suggestions - that's what the task force is for. I've sent the master a mail about it, but I'm not sure he will reply directly to me. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:54, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we are a few days away from being ready to launch an RFC on a couple of specific proposals. But I think we need those days and we need to avoid filing an RFC on or adjacent to an inauspicious day. ϢereSpielChequers 08:13, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that had already crossed my mind ;) However, I'm still thinking that an RfC is not the best way to go. RfA RfC are are already listed as perennial failed discussions, and a task force of 1,000 which it probably would be, would spend six months on deciding on a task force to decide on a task force. The project has already been criticised as being 'a bunch of admins pushing a wheelbarrow of power', and as a task force that needs a task force to keep the task force in check! So I think it needs out of my user space to somewhere more official, not only, but also because I don't want the group to be accused of starting something that does not toe an official line - although there are now several user space pages now working well together on similar lines, but without a 'list'. The list seems to be a coordinating point at the moment, and that's the best part of it. As far as I'm concerned, it could even move to WMF space. I'm not familiar with things like committees and mailing lists. Ideas? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think we should open an RFC at all. Honestly, I think an RFC will simply turn into heated debate about this/that/and the other thing. As we've seen before, no one will agree with anyone, and it will turn into pure chaos. If we can take the group we have formed (20 or so now). We should come up with a suitable idea to present to the community, instead of going to RFC fishing for ideas. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 23:04, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we may be talking at cross purposes. I agree that a general discussion as to how to improve RFA is unlikely to do more than repeat numerous past abortive reform attempts that have meandered through various mutually exclusive options. I think we should formulate an RFA reform proposal and start an RFC on that proposal, At the same time there are several things we can do that would either reduce the size of the problem or give us a better chance to achieve consensus, and I'm increasingly inclined to think that I would be most useful doing that. ϢereSpielChequers 00:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Right -- but what I'm trying to say is we should not go into RFC fishing for ideas. We should go with a solution, and see how the community likes it. I don't see any solution around here? Unless I am missing something. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I mean, I see what is on Kudpung/RfA Reform, but that doesn't seem finalized. It seems, in progress. If you get my drift. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 00:38, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we're really at cross purposes, because we're all agreeing on the same thing: the goal of the task force is to come up with a compact package of changes that the community can either accept or reject without more months of debate. To get there, the task force needs to work unhindered, and the questions were:

• When do we consider the task force to be big enough? (How to close the list off without offending anyone or being accused again of being 'a bunch of admins pushing a wheelbarrow of power').
• Where do we rent quiet office space, while maintaining the need for transparency? (I'm not comfortable with it staying too long in my kitchen.

--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You can't close off the list, you have to accept that anyone could just turn up. Actually you want diverse input, and replacements for people who lose their initial enthusiasm, but I suggest an FAQ with links to the relevant archive threads to avoid peple reopening the same stale threads.

The way to avoid being accused of being an admin clique is to make sure you (collectively) aren't one. Looking at the people currently involved I doubt that will be a problem.

When to move to WP space? I'd suggest you move when you have multiple participants and you are beginning to be uncomfortable with having it in your userspace. Now is probably a good time. ϢereSpielChequers 08:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought the purpose of a "task force" in the first place was so we could have a closed or semi-closed group of people who can work without too much interference to reach a decision. The group would be approved by Jimbo the Foundation. That was the point of this project, right? We acknowledged that RfCs and community discussion were not going to solve the problem and this was an alternative solution. Whatever we decide, we should probably define what kind of project we want this to be as soon as possible. Swarm ^X 03:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo is more a constitutional monarch rather than a GodKing nowadays, and I suspect that if he tried to impose such a solution on the community there would be reaction. I think Arbcom could authorise a group to workup a proposal, but in my view the more cliqueish the group that writes the proposal the less likely it will be to gain acceptance. So I'd suggest staying open to other involvement as we workup a proposal and then put that to the community. I suspect we would need to give people options. ϢereSpielChequers 08:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Also some things require consensus, others just need a bold suggestion. I'm minded to start some of the latter as they are just easier to work on than the former. ϢereSpielChequers 08:55, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think ArbCom has the authority to approve something like that; we'd have to get it approved by the Foundation via Jimbo. However, you're right and I'm more than open to different methods. Swarm ^X 20:23, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

{{talkback}} Play with it - there is some extraordinary info to be gleaned from it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform

Hi WereSpielChequers/Archive 16. I have now moved the RfA reform and its associated pages to project space. The main page has been updated and streamlined. We now also have a new table on voter profiles. Please take a moment to check in and keep the pages on your watchlist. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for you support

Admin votes in my opionion have more weight. I took a calculated risk renominating myself since the opposition might cite my responses to the questions in the first RFA and the result would be the same. Now I'm going to let this run it course and see where it takes me. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem, the thing about the previous RFA is that other editors will look to see whether you've learned from the reasons why it failed. So I wouldn't be surprised if you get some questions, if so remember RFA like adminship is an open book process. We want admins who when in doubt will check the policy or simply leave it for another admin. So please remember to reread the relevant policy before answering each question, especially when you haven't spotted the trick part. Good luck. ϢereSpielChequers 12:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, it didn't pass but I'm happy at least some people lent their support including you. I only withdrew because even some supporters had to admit there was no hope in getting it back on track. I do intend to try again after the Summer but in the mean time I hope we can address the conerns that other had. Comparing both my attempts shows that I'm getting somewhere, and that someday I'll be able to try out the mop. Thanks again. –BuickCenturyDriver 17:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing

I noticed you mentioned on WT:RFA that you are interested in reviewing deleted contributions/tagging. Would you mind taking a look at mine? (Not all, obviously, since there are at least 2000! ;) ) Thanks! Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes of course, it may not be for a couple of days though. ϢereSpielChequers 08:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

If you get a spare minute, would you mind having a quick look over mine as well. Like Reaper I've got quite a few, but I'd really appreciate it if you could take a quick look :) Acather96 (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't think you guys need to feel too guilty about your previous patrolling. If you feel you'd like a review, it means however that you are still unsure of what to do in some cases. IMO, the best thing to do is to read these pages, preferably in this order: WP:NPP, WP:DELETION, WP:CSD, WP:10CSD, and WP:A7M. At the risk of introducing more instruction creep, we've recently updated and improved the page at WP:NPP - You may even wish to make your own suggestions for improvement, and you'll be in a position to help other patrollers. Keep up the good work! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Acather96: Since WSC indicated that he is busy, I would offer to do it instead. Just drop me a note :-) Regards SoWhy 18:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks WereSpielChequers! I do not mind waiting. @Kudpung: I have read those and other essays on CSD. And yes, in some cases I am uncertain as to whether I truly got it right. One commonly confusing thing for me is a page consisting solely of "Jason is pure awesomeness!!!!!!!!!! :D" Thanks anyway! Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

'Awsome' is a very American expression. You'll have to ask a fellow countryperson on that - WSC and I are both Brits ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Email

Hello, WereSpielChequers. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

RfA reform

Hi WSC. It hasn't escaped my notice that you've been doing some hard work on those tables. In doing so, you will have either come up with an opinion, or extrapolated some interesting facts. Do chime in on the project as soon as you can because much of what you have learned from it will help us decide on the plan (if any) for clerking. The question of clerks appears to be our first priority. Cheers, --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Kudpung has asked me to 'nudge' some people .. as I'm an idle get, I'm just going through the entire Task Force list so my apologies if you didn't need a nudge! You can slap me about over on WP:EfD if you like :o)

Straw polling various options: over here - please add views, agree with views, all that usual stuff. Pesky (talk) 12:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

User:WereSpielChequers/RFA reform

The fourth para at Make it easier to remove the mop, is truncated. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Good spot, already fixed, I'm afraid I had to save some drafts or risk losing them. ϢereSpielChequers 12:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Feedback

Hi WSC. If you have a moment, I would appreciate your feedback on this. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011

Task Force news: Recent updates include basic minor changes and condensing at the main page, additional comments on the main page talk page, a new project sub page and talk for Radical Alternatives, and messages at Task force talk. A current priority is to reach suggested criteria/tasks for clerks, and then to establish a local consensus vis-à-vis clerking. Please remember to keep all the project and its talk pages on your watchlist. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Driven to retirement

Hi WSC. Surely we can't allow good editors to be driven into retirement by this kind of thing. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:52, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. not a good situation. I think we should make some tweaks to RFA, also I'll email Tofu. ϢereSpielChequers 13:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011/VOTING

Hi WSC. We now have a whole new bunch of interesting stats at WP:RFA2011/VOTING. I know you're busy at the moment in RL, but any input on the project is welcome. This is the biggest RfA reform project ever, and although it's obviously going to be slow, it may just succeed in making some desperately needed changes. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Our Emails

Hi. I just wanted to say thanks. I really enjoyed that 'project' you suggest for me with the unreferenced BLPs for MILHIST articles. Besides the tedious research to find sources, I actually enjoyed reading about some of those folks. I even had a challenge on a couple and it was gratifying to find hard to find refs. I've also become a lot more involved with MILHIST since then and I am getting to know some of the editors over there. Appreciate the help.--v/r - TP 01:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks TParis, I'm delighted to hear that, and to see how smoothly your RFA is running. I put a lot of time last year into Project tagging unreferenced BLPs, so it is quite possible that you dealt with some of the articles that I project tagged. The MILHIST crowd includes some of the nicest editors I've met on wiki - it isn't exactly an interest of mine but I've reviewed quite a few MILHIST articles at FAC and have to admit I'm warming to the subject. ϢereSpielChequers 12:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

<butting in> And let me say that this Milhister loves the reviews you've offered on his articles. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

new admins

Nearly at the end of the second quarter 2011 and only 34 promotions so far. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:14, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Golly, it's almost a year ago already since you did this. I know you're frighfully busy but is there a chance you can update it? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:15, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aiming for a mid year update. As for there being only 34 so far, well two of those "promotions" were really high profile admin reviews, only 32 actually got us extra admins. But looking at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month it is not all bad news. Results are less stable then they were last year, but the trend had been of precipitous decline with each year having far fewer new admins than the year before (2008 less than 50% of 2007, 2009 about 60% of 2008 and 2010 about 60% of 2009). Last year we had 75, so 50 for the year would continue the trend, and that would mean 16 or 18 in the second half depending on how you count the reconfirmations. I'm not prepared yet to say that it is bottoming out, but if we can get 60 through this year I'll accept that it is showing signs of that, and there is still a chance that we could do better yet. The second best month of 2011 so far has produced more admins than the second highest month of 2010, that breaks a three year pattern of decline (the worst month of 2009 equalled the worst month of 2008, but the other 35 comparisons all showed a year on year decline).

If it does bottom out at 2010/2011 levels then I think we have a chance of stabilising with enough admins to keep on top of the urgent stuff that needs the mop. What I'm not sure about is how to avoid the corrosive effect on the community that is the by-product of adminship becoming scarce. I'm not trying to get back to the era of 1,000 edits and two months tenure, but a larger admin cadre is the only way I can see of diluting individual admin status, keeping the vast majority of admin time available for non-admin work and thereby preventing us admins degenerating into a bunch of prima donnas. ϢereSpielChequers 10:52, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

NOTNOW

Hi WSC. There are now some possible proposals at Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Possible proposals to reduce obvious non-starters. BTW: It's interesting to know that the de.Wiki has a 'One year and significant four-figure edit' threshold. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Task force WP:RFA2011 update

Hi. As of 20 June: More stats have been added on candidates and !voter participation. Details have been added about qualifications required on other Wikis for candidates and RfA !voters. Some items such as clerking, !voters, and candidates are nearing proposal stage. A quick page`link template has been added to each page of the project. Please visit those links to get up to speed with recent developments, and chime in with your comments. Thanks for your participation.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC).

Your input is requested

Greetings!

As a member of the RfA improvement task force, your input is requested at the possible proposals page, which consists of ideas that have not yet been discussed or developed.

Please look though the ideas and leave a comment on the talk page on the proposal(s) you would most like to see go forward. Your feedback will help decide which proposals to put to the community. And, as always, feel free to add new suggestions. Thanks!

Swarm, coordinator, RfA reform 2011

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 07:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC).

RfA reform

Hi WSC. I've now added a fully detailed comparison table and proper comments on how the English, French, German, and Italian, Wikipedias select their admins. This is far more in-depth than the earlier comments I made on it. Although those other Wikis are much smaller, they seem to have a far more pragmatic approach to AfD than we do. I feel that this is possibly due to those project being smaller and hence easier to reach consensus on anything. One thing I noticed is that they all publish RfAs on their VP and noticeboards. I wonder if we were to do/allow this, whether it would draw a broader electorate, or just attract more trolls to the party. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I think a broader electorate - though we'd need to make it clear what the expectations were for voters. When I first saw RFA I could see that there was an unwritten rule as to minimum criteria for voters but becasue it was unwritten I didn't know that I exceeded it by orders of magnitude. RFAs are now so few that we could have a transclusion at the village pump, or just have Village pump requests for advanced userrights as a new subpage of the village pump. ϢereSpielChequers 05:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake - what I meant was that they make the RfAs known on their VP and noticeboards. This of course cuts out much of risk of canvassing - although there was a well meant attempt on my RfA by an IP user who canvassed people I often work with here. I asked those users to recuse from my RfA if they were considering voting - half a dozen fewer possible support votes, but, oh well. BTW, I forgot the link to the new table I made, it's : here. If you see any blatant nonsense in it, don't hesitate to let me know. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:14, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

pass rate en.Wiki

Didn't Gorillawarfare RfA pass first time at an extraordinary low 61% accorded at a very controversial close call by Xeno? --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) GW's RFA passed at 70,7% (because neutrals are not counted when determining percentage) and it was closed by X!, not Xeno. Regards SoWhy 08:27, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, that's OK, I was going by my poor memory. The question wasn't about GW anyway. It was about this table I made. You might like to look at it and provide some feedback there if you have a moment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The only passes below 70% that I'm aware of have been of former admins, but consensus being what it is I can foresee situations where crats would uncontentiously go outside that. I think the most likely scenarios for that happening are if there are fresh revelations towards the end of the 7 days and the RFA is over 80% but dropping precipitously, if some of the !votes and arguments on one side or the other are of types that we can and should ignore at RFA, or if one side generally has less weight than the other - I don't see the point of "strong" votes but when my support or oppose is halfhearted I use "weak" and assume the crats take that into consideration. But generally I'm not that concerned about that side of RFA, there are a string of things that I'd like to change at RFA and see little reason to change one bit that seems to work. ϢereSpielChequers 14:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The table I made was really only to to show what the other Wikis have for minimum qualifications for candidates and voters, but I threw in the rest of the data for good measure. I think our bar is perfectly alright where it is and generally the right people tend to pass. We seriously need to resolve our civility issues and do something about the electorate. Other Wikis have a similar turn out of voters in spite of their much lower numbers of registered users, and demanding minimum qualifications for voters. This may be due to the fact that they notify their VPs and other venues of current RfAs. Voting is generally a straight vote with very little commenting if any, and no set questions. All in all I was left with a sense of embarrassment at what a mess our RfA often are compared with the orderly fashion the others go about it. I've since added data for the Dutch and Swedish Wikipedias. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kudpung, that's useful and reassuring that others don't share all our problems. I'd like to see the discussion be much more focussed on what people see in the cndidate's edits, my concern about about maiking it a straight vote is that we don't then know who has checked what, and whether anyone has found something truly serious. ϢereSpielChequers 22:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, indeed the first question that went through my mind was, 'How do they know which !votes are simply pile-ons?' There are pros and cons in both systems. I don't think we need to change the format of our system - it would be a solution to a problem we don't have. What we must do however, is educate the electorate, and be selective about who can !vote. IMO, in a landslide RfA, anyone who persists as a lone campaigner in the opposition or neutral sections might wish to revisit and possibly change their view; I know I would. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Want to write an editorial?

Hey WSC, EyeSerene listed a few suggestions for a Milhist newsletter editorial here, and the second bullet point caught my eye. I know you and Kudpung (with others!) are working on RfA reform 2011, but would you be interested in writing on the current climate? You've got a few days to a week-ish to get everything together, so don't feel too hurried. Regards, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, provided you don't mind a certain lack of Milhist in the editorial. How long does it need to be, what is the deadline and where do you want the draft? ϢereSpielChequers 22:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

That's okay, thoughts on community processes like RfA or something like copyright (Aug/Sept 2010) apply to all Wikipedians, which in turn can mean every member of Milhist. It can be as long or as short as you want, and the deadline is very flexible (we've published the "monthly" newsletter anywhere between the 3rd and 28th of the month before). I'd prefer it to be done by the 10th, but if it takes a little longer that's fine. The draft can go here, which is also where it will stay when the newsletter is published. Thanks very much! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC) P.S. if you need to glance at the formatting or anything, last month's editorial is here.

Thanks WSC! Just one more thing – could you add examples on how editors can help reverse the drought? Actually participating in the process is an obvious choice, but this will hopefully spur some Milhisters to do something about it. Thanks! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

thanks yes, it may not be for a couple of days, but I'm conscious that I need to make this relevant to the audience. ϢereSpielChequers 14:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Just a quick poke on this, sorry. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Another poke. I don't want to run it incomplete! :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Poked bottom of shoe --The Σ ^talk_contribs 07:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey WSC, I moved your Milhist op-ed to July to give you a chance to finish it, so it's now located here. Thanks very much for writing it! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey WSC, your op-ed is going to go out in a day or two. I thought before that you wanted to add to it, so I delayed it a month, but with you not responding to some of my previous posts, I'm not so sure. :-) Let me know what you want to do. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll get it sent out asap. Hope you enjoyed Wikimania; if you go to next year's, maybe we'll get a chance to say hello. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

That would be great, I'm certainly hoping to attend next year. I may even put in a presentation (if RFA hasn't been fixed by then I may put in a presentation about RFA). ϢereSpellCheckers 16:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Whatever it's about, I'm sure I'll find it interesting. You tend to bring up good points in whatever topic you take on. Speaking of which, if you're bored and want to look at another South American battleship, Brazilian battleship São Paulo is at FAC. She's got an interesting story that I think you'd enjoy. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:RFA2011: RfA on other Wikipedias

A detailed table and notes have now been created and posted. It compares how RfA is carried out on major Wikipedias (English, French, German, Italian, Spanish). If you feel that other important language Wikipedias should be added, please let us know. This may however depend on our/your language skills!

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 22:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC).

Snowed RfAs

FYI: SNOW/NOTNOW seem to be arriving now at the rate of one per day. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

We've had a cluster of three and the last such cluster was in mid-March, if it continues for the next day or two or we get much more than a dozen this month then I'll try and work out was has prompted it. ϢereSpielChequers 15:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it would be possible to find out. I've now put new warning templates on the transclusion pages. If it persists we'll have to get a proposal drafted up for one of the suggestions ay WPRFA2011 to introduce some minima like the other Wikis do. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

My recall

Hello! I've been mulling over criteria for what I feel would be acceptable for recall and I'd like it to where only a select few editors I trust can ask for my recall. I'd like you to be one of those editors. I've outlined the process here. If there is any reason you would not like to be on this list, for example maybe you object to recall or perhaps you don't want to deal with the drama involved, could you please let me know?--v/r - TP 18:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi TParis, Thanks I'm honoured to be put on such a list, and provided you clarify one thing I'd be happy to accept. Sometimes admins are making decisions based on our judgement and the policy of the community, and sometimes we are evaluating consensus in community discussions. In the case of your recall criteria I'm assuming that you would want me to do the former, which is good because I'm not sure I'd want to be in the position of saying "I don't necessarily agree with the community, but the consensus is for a desysop". To be honest I'm not a big fan of admin recall and I think that those who support it often underestimate Arbcom. I suspect that if in a year or so you did something that merited a desysop you'd find Arbcom taking action before five of us could be summoned and had the time to review the evidence. I also like the way that Arbcom can be more nuanced than community recall which tends to be a binary process of whether not one should desysop - life is complex and many of the cases where admins have made mistakes merit something between desysop and reaffirmation. ϢereSpielChequers 10:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

How I picture it going is that the complaint about me must be based in policy. I don't feel I can be judged based on unwritten rules. If an unwritten rule has community consensus, then it wouldn't be unwritten. Once I'm committed to an RfA then I'd like the process to act exactly like the current RfAs. 80% or higher to retain the tools, 70-80% to 'crat discretion, below 70% support is a desysop. I would suspect that any issue requiring the urgency of immediate desysop would garner enough attention to get at least five folks from that list to ask for a recall. Any other issue could take a slower approach and require less editors. The idea behind this is that I don't want to be disruptive. I dont like the drama involved in ArbCom and I feel it brings out and brews a lot of bad emotions. I'd rather, in my last hour, be beneficial to the community by saving it the hassle of dealing with whatever trouble I've caused and voluntarily removing myself.--v/r - TP 16:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!

{{YGM}} Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Your reply is much appreciated; I will certainly heed your advice. Many thanks and regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review my contributions to WP and your words of wisdom and encouragement prior to my RFA, which passed unanimously (65/0/0). Thanks and kind regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Well done, 48 hours and the wiki isn't broken yet! Seriously if you haven't already done so have a peak at my monobook, the script that gives you a dropdown menu for blocking people is one I particularly recommend. ϢereSpielChequers 13:11, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

RfA

Hello! I don't know if you remember me, but a few months ago you commented on my RfA, opposing it because of concerns about CSD policy knowledge and tagging. Since I'm preparing for another RfA soon, I wanted to get your input, since your rationale for opposing last time ended up being the basis of many other opposes and it was one of the ones that stood out the most in that RfA. I would really appreciate it if you could do a quick look over to see if I am ready for another RfA, although I'd understand if you're too busy or would rather not. --Slon02 (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slon02, nice to hear from you again. I'm afraid I'm not around much on wiki this Summer, but you could ask someone else on this list. However I must admit that Wikipedia_talk:Criteria for_speedy deletion#New_criterion_-_WP:NOT leaves me more than a little nervous. Remember one of the key roles of RFA is to prevent the deletion button falling into the hands of those who would replace our community consensus based deletion processes with a process of deletion according to each individual admin's opinion as to what should not be here. ϢereSpielChequers 02:05, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your response- I've asked someone else on that list for a review. Also, I had a feeling when I started that discussion that it would probably be brought up at a future RfA of mine, although my goal when starting it was to create a consensus for speedy deleting pages that often end up being speedy deleted under IAR without being grounded in CSD. --Slon02 (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Admins have no extra power to change policy, so in my view it shouldn't matter at RFA that an admin has taken a particular line on a policy reform discussion, providing they assure us they will wield the mop in accordance with policy. But not everyone agrees with me on this and I've seen one of my nominees rejected because they had a userbox advocating a policy change that I and others disagree with. In the case of "IAR" speedies it is somewhat more grey as we have had several problems with admins invoking IAR not for a new and unforeseen situation but for situations where longstanding consensus is against speedy deletion. ϢereSpielChequers 16:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Reconsider

Since you mentioned the oppose rationale, i thought you'd be interested in reading my oppose in WP:Requests for adminship/Adjwilley. Pass a Method talk 01:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, but I really detest opposes at RFA that are not diff supported. ϢereSpielChequers 08:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

RfA

I was just looking over some stats and realised that according to this:

• 2011 unsuccessful 67. successful 38. Total RfA 105
• 2010 unsuccessful 155. successful 75. Total RfA 230
• 2009 unsuccessful 234. successful 121. Total RfA 355
• 2008 unsuccessful 392. successful 201. Total RfA 592

it doesn't take rocket science to see the decline in spite of the fact that some people belive there isn't one. According to this year's performance to date, the prognosis for 2011 would be a total of 57 new admins. BTW, I'm in the UK and will be here for another 5 weeks or so. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi I think we've moved the debate from whether there is a decline to whether it matters, and crucially how to resolve things. If we don't fix it in the next twelve months I suspect the "It doesn't matter" lobby will subside, but agreeing the solutions may still be difficult. I've emailed you re your plans whilst you are in the UK. ϢereSpielChequers 17:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Requesting your input

Your opinion is valued and would be appreciated here as your time permits. Thanks - My76Strat (talk) 10:06, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Your comments

Some of your comments are linked in this draft proposal. Please consider any additional comments which could be helpful as well as bold modifications of the draft as you wish. A lot is asked of you regarding RfA, but there is a lot getting done. It would be great to create something you could advocate. So please help if you can. My76Strat (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Replied there. ϢereSpielChequers 21:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

RfA Reform update

Hi. It's been a little while since the last message on RfA reform, and there's been a fair amount of slow but steady progress. However, there is currently a flurry of activity due to some conversations on Jimbo's talk page.

I think we're very close to putting an idea or two forward before the community and there are at least two newer ones in the pipeline. So if you have a moment:

• Have a look at the min requirement proposal and familiarise yourself with the statistics, I'd appreciate comment on where we should put the bar.
• Any final comments would be appreciated on the clerks proposal.
• Feedback on the two newer proposals - Pre-RfA & Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request. Both are more radical reforms of RfA and might run along side the current system.

Thanks for reading and for any comments that you've now made.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 21:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC).

RfA

Hello again. I know that I contacted you during the summer (end of July I think) for some input about whether I was ready for another RfA. You were busy during the summer, but it seems as though CSD, as it was the primary reason for opposing last time, is the main thing I need reviewed prior to a fourth RfA. Would you be willing to look over them and seeing if they're up to RfA standards? --Slon02 (talk) 00:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

yes of course, coming right up. ϢereSpielChequers 18:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Slon02, I've gone through this months so far and spotted one A7 which you tagged despite it saying "He is now a known DJ in South Africa and Europe" that strikes me as an assertion of importance or significance. Though its possible that both you and the deleting admin knew enough about the subject area to say that wasn't a plausible assertion. Another after 3 minutes contained the phrase "is the master in special effects for bmxing". Again for all I know someone who knows the subject might say that was implausible. But it would give me grounds to hesitate, as would the speed of your tags on goodfaith new articles. I've also looked at your AFC work, and I was a bit surprised by this, if that had turned up in mainspace it wouldn't exactly be an A7 candidate. Perhaps AFC standards are different, but at the moment unsourced is not a deletion criteria, unsourced is one of those things that can usually be fixed by editing.

I might not oppose, and there've been editors who've got through on circa 80% because despite people like myself being nervous about their tagging, but to be frank I'm a little uncomfortable. Sorry, and yes I do appreciate your work especially the AIV stuff, I'm just nervous that the admin bit includes the delete button. ϢereSpielChequers 15:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Not knowing exactly what those articles were, I'd also be concerned. My guess is that I did a search to see just how credible that claim was and concluded that it wasn't credible enough to pass A7, but I can't say for certain. The AfC article was declined strictly according to AfC criteria. Even those it wouldn't be targeted for speedy deletion on the mainspace, the quick fail criteria for AfC submissions is a complete lack of sources.--Slon02 (talk) 19:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

If you do a search for sources and come up emptyhanded then thats different, but may I suggest making that clear in your edit summaries? Unsourced, and "No sources in Article and Google hasn't heard of it" communicate two very different attitudes to wp:before. Also if you have to search for sources, A7 probably doesn't apply, except I suppose when you can say it is neither a hoax nor a plausible assertion of importance. If you can dig through your contribs and list a few counterexamples where you wee able to source things, then I think you are probably ready for RFA (that's relying on HJ's judgment for the non CSD areas). ϢereSpielChequers 20:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The reason that I search for sources is to make sure that the "importance" that the author asserts in the article really is there, since many times people will write an article about someone they feel is important (usually when there's a COI), but isn't important enough even to survive A7. If Google is silent on the issue I'd CSD, and if it isn't then I'd move on, since authors often continue adding content to their articles. Most of the time I move on past articles like that which were just made to give the author time to improve the article. Also, what do you mean by counterexamples where I was able to source things- do you mean articles where I looked at them to see if they were qualified for A7, did a search, found they weren't, and added sources to the article?--Slon02 (talk) 21:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, some examples of you sourcing unsourced articles would be great - several editors from the UBLP cleanup squad have made admin in the last year and they tend to be uncontentious RFAs. People like to see calls on both sides of the deletion decision, articles you've improved and ones you've deleted. If someone is patrolling new pages and their edits are just a steady string of deletion tags and user notifications then at best you can only judge how they treat articles that merit deletion. But if they categorise, wikify or fix typos on some that they don't think merit deletion then you can get a much better feel for where they understand the boundary to be between articles that belong and those that don't. So I often recommend that patrollers try out HotCat, but sourcing is even better. Oh and if you've made a good faith attempt to source and come up emptyhanded it is really worth making that clear in your edit summary or prod rationale - aside from anything else it means that others are unlikely to waste their time trying to source unless they have access to resources such as Jstor. ϢereSpielChequers 22:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I took a look through my contributions (the last 500 edits to articles), and although I didn't find me sourcing new pages a lot, I did find me sourcing some other articles. I add references to Kara Kennedy (which since then seems to have undergone a barrage of "citation needed" template edits, which I'll look into soon), Natural disaster#Solar flares (yet most of the article remains unsourced), Michael Nutter (added new sources and fixed old ones), Milton Street, and Dargai. I don't think that those will count as me sourcing new articles, since none of them are new. My edits to new pages really ARE a string of deletion tags and user notifications, because when I improve articles, I tend to do so from a backlog, or from article topics that particularly interest me.--Slon02 (talk) 04:15, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

So when you patrol a new article and you Google the subject, what do you do if you find that there are reliable sources out there? ϢereSpielChequers 07:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Usually I just move on, expecting that, since the article was probably just created, the author will add reliable sources to the article and expand it.--Slon02 (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm back, and after two months I've still be thinking over the possibility of an RfA (not consistently, but every now and then the idea pops into my head). I've gone back and reviewed the comments made back in September, including the ones in this discussion. It looks like I'm not really a NPP, and that is something that I won't deny- going through them and searching for speedy-deletable pages is not a major priority of mine, and often I do that while doing something else, like reverting vandalism. If I became an admin, I'd bet that it wouldn't change much- I'd inspect that area to make sure there aren't backlogs forming, but my main focus would still be elsewhere. However, I'd really like your opinion on whether I should aim for another RfA- this time in December. I'd also like to point out that I think I've become more hesitant in applying criteria like A7, especially after comments that you've made.--Slon02 (talk) 05:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Welcome back. People have run successful second RFAs after as little as three months active editing, but my advice would be two months activity plus one month for every previous RFA. That gives time to get experience and demonstrate new skills. For example you told me before that you Google articles but don't tag or improve the ones where reliable sources exist, my suggestion would be that in such circumstances you add a ref - particularly if the author is a newbie. In my experience it is through such collaboration that people learn best. ϢereSpellCheckers 03:05, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, by "I'm back" I actually meant to this discussion- I've been editing since then, although with a wikibreak in the middle of October. I will, however, consider your suggestion and give it a shot when the situation next presents itself.--Slon02 (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship

I just wanted to ask you a question based on your comment on that page — Why do you feel uncomfortable with the idea of unbundling some of the admin tools besides the block button? Speaking only for myself, and in a purely hypothetical light, I would love to have access to the delete button. I want to help close AfDs and do some new page patrolling work (I think I can demonstrate sound knowledge of the deletion process despite my relative lack of experience). Is there a reason you wouldn't trust non-admins with the power to delete pages? Master&Expert (Talk) 04:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Master & Expert. To a man with a hammer every problem is a nail. Many situations that you come across as an admin could be handled by more than one tool, but one particular one is more appropriate than another. Many areas where an admin operates will require the use of multiple tools, so unbundling one leaves other things undone. Neither of those arguments apply at wp:AIV which is one reason why I'm happy to support unbundling there, AIV is somewhere where you are only likely to need the block button. Though I suppose the ability to grant rollback would also be helpful. By contrast at Newpage patrol I do delete pages, but I also appoint Autopatrollers and block badfaith accounts, and to do either of the last two you really need to look at deleted contributions (at AIV most of the warnings will have been given for vandalism that is still available in the talkpage history, but if someone who has had multiple pages deleted you may have only seen one of them). Then there's the issue of civility or even communicativeness, if you are just reverting vandalism and blocking vandals you don't need the civility, patience, breadth of policy knowledge and ability to communicate that is required when you are deleting goodfaith contributions. My experience is that people who start with POV (especially fan pov), copypastitis and especially a lack of understanding of our notability rules are actually all goodfaith editors who in many cases are willing to learn the ways of the wiki. Whilst the vandals and attack page creators that come back are most likely to do so after a cleanstart if at all. So to give someone the delete button I want to see an understanding of when to delete and when not to, some reliably sourced content contributions, the policy knowledge and communication skills to handle random queries from stray newbies and the diplomacy needed to handle explain to someone that their bio of a mafiosi is most welcome, but they need to add a reliable source for us not to delete it on sight. If someone has all those skills then they'd have had to have done something pretty egregious in the last 12 months for me not to support their RFA. But for vandalwhacking I just want to know that someone has learned the difference between vandalism and goodfaith editing (I'd prefer not to unbundle the block button with the ability to block experienced users, just IPs and editors with <100 edits. Longterm disruptive editors, personal attacks, and the other reasons why we occasionally block regulars are best handled by more experienced admins, if anything I'd upbundle that to the crats). ϢereSpielChequers 09:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your very thorough response. I understand your points, but that still doesn't change the fact that I am really only interested in the delete button. I don't like personalizing this, but have you ever gotten the impression that I would be unfit to handle all the things that come with having access to the delete button — or adminship, for that matter? I mean, I'm not really interested in anything other than the deletion process. As it currently stands, I'm just not really sure I'd want the extra hassle the full admin toolset would bring; administrators are commonly asked to intervene in disputes, and are typically looked up to by Wikipedia's newcomers. I don't know if I'd fit the bill for an ideal administrator. Personally, I don't see admins any differently than non-admins; I'm one of the very few who truly considers it no big deal. And even if I did want adminship, I'm terrified of requesting for it. I have a bad feeling that the community does not have as much confidence in my judgment as I'd like to think. I highly doubt I would ever pass at RfA, even if I had a higher edit count. If you want more insight into why I feel this way, check out my ongoing editor review. Master&Expert (Talk) 16:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

i concur entirely (again). You should turn this into an essay! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:42, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Master&Expert, I can't think of anyone who I've opposed at RFA but who at the time I would have trusted with the deletion button. Though there have been editors who I've opposed at RFA but would have happily given the block button to. So I'm not saying I don't trust you with the deletion button, just that if you were to get it you might as well get the rest. As for your concerns about people asking you to do other adminny things, I've bee an admin for nearly three years and I've only had a handful of such requests, some I've read the relevant instructions and actioned, others I've declined and steered them to admins who use that part of the toolset. It really isn't a big deal - almost all the request I get to use the tools are because I've signed up as an admin who does such actions or people know I'm active in that area.

Though I've done a few nominations I try not to think of fellow editors just in terms of whether I would or wouldn't support them at RFA. I haven't done an RFA level review let alone a nominator level one on you and wouldn't be able to I suspect this side of Christmas, as I've got a few spinning plates and also some urgent real life stuff to attend to. But I don't recall anything that would dispose me to oppose you. You've certainly been part of the community for a long while; One DYK would not be enough to impress a few percent of !voters who expect some audited content - though it should mean you easily meet my criteria of having added reliably sourced info. So unless you get a GA or do a lot of adding referenced content you are unlikely to get higher than 90%. But if you are working in deletion I would expect you are often checking to see if there are sources for something, prodding or tagging the ones you can't source for deletion and adding sources to others.

RFA may seem a risky place for those active in deletion, but actually its reputation on that score is far worse than the reality. There are broadly four sorts of deletion taggers who have difficulties at RFA:

1. The overconfident who answer questions without rereading the relevant policy, and then reading the policy again if they haven't spotted the trick part of the question.
2. The overly deletionist whose speed of tagging or attempts to delete easily sourced articles imply they will be too heavy with the deletion button
3. Those whose lack of content creation means it is difficult to judge that they know what should be added to the pedia or to be confident that they can empathise with the article creators whose work they can delete.
4. The overly inclusionist who try to rescue articles on non-notable subjects using weak or unreliable sources.

You'll probably know if you are in one or more of those groups, the fourth is rare and the first hard to predict, but nudge me in the new year and I can check your contributions then. ϢereSpielChequers 08:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your reply! I'm now beginning to give more consideration into RfA than I had before. I may apply in a few months time, provided I'm up to it by then. I've been there many times before, and I know what the !voters expect. I'm not planning to be the "perfect admin candidate", I just want to help out any way I can. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

News and progress from RfA reform 2011

RfA reform: ...and what you can do now.

(You are receiving this message because you are either a task force member, or you have contributed to recent discussions on any of these pages.) The number of nominations continues to nosedive seriously, according to these monthly figures. We know why this is, and if the trend continues our reserve of active admins will soon be underwater. Wikipedia now needs suitable editors to come forward. This can only be achieved either through changes to the current system, a radical alternative, or by fiat from elsewhere. A lot of work is constantly being done behind the scenes by the coordinators and task force members, such as monitoring the talk pages, discussing new ideas, organising the project pages, researching statistics and keeping them up to date. You'll also see for example that we have recently made tables to compare how other Wikipedias choose their sysops, and some tools have been developed to more closely examine !voters' habits. The purpose of WP:RFA2011 is to focus attention on specific issues of our admin selection process and to develop RfC proposals for solutions to improve them. For this, we have organised the project into dedicated sections each with their own discussion pages. It is important to understand that all Wikipedia policy changes take a long time to implement whether or not the discussions appear to be active - getting the proposals right before offering them for discussion by the broader community is crucial to the success of any RfC. Consider keeping the pages and their talk pages on your watchlist; do check out older threads before starting a new one on topics that have been discussed already, and if you start a new thread, please revisit it regularly to follow up on new comments. The object of WP:RFA2011 is not to make it either easier or harder to become an admin - those criteria are set by those who !vote at each RfA. By providing a unique venue for developing ideas for change independent of the general discussion at WT:RFA, the project has two clearly defined goals: Improving the environment that surrounds RfA in order to encourage mature, experienced editors of the right calibre to come forward, pass the interview, and dedicate some of their time to admin tasks. Discouraging, in the nicest way possible of course, those whose RfA will be obvious NOTNOW or SNOW, and to guide them towards the advice pages. The fastest way is through improvement to the current system. Workspace is however also available within the project pages to suggest and discuss ideas that are not strictly within the remit of this project. Users are invited to make use of these pages where they will offer maximum exposure to the broader community, rather than individual projects in user space. We already know what's wrong with RfA - let's not clutter the project with perennial chat. RFA2011 is now ready to propose some of the elements of reform, and all the task force needs to do now is to pre-draft those proposals in the project's workspace, agree on the wording, and then offer them for central discussion where the entire Wikipedia community will be more than welcome to express their opinions in order to build consensus. New tool Check your RfA !voting history! Since the editors' RfA !vote counter at X!-Tools has been down for a long while, we now have a new RfA Vote Counter to replace it. A significant improvement on the former tool, it provides a a complete breakdown of an editor's RfA votes, together with an analysis of the participant's voting pattern. Are you ready to help? Although the main engine of RFA2011 is its task force, constructive comments from any editors are always welcome on the project's various talk pages. The main reasons why WT:RfA was never successful in getting anything done are that threads on different aspects of RfA are all mixed together, and are then archived where nobody remembers them and where they are hard to find - the same is true of ad hoc threads on the founder's talk page.

Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of RfA reform 2011 at 16:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC).

RfA trends

I made this today. Do you know anyone who can plot and superpose a logarithmic line across this, extened to show the prognosis? I'd send them the XL data. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC) I've also transcluded your table to Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Downturns. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Not directly, but I'd try asking people like the author of this. File:PlotDelta.gif ϢereSpielChequers 11:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Someone at the WMF has agreed to have a go at it --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:23, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, WereSpielChequers. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Bump. You had any chances yet? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 02:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for the fantastic nomination statement at RfA. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but it was probably a good thing you also got a Yank to co-nominate you, I've been told my nomination came off as very understated to American ears. ϢereSpielChequers 14:04, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thank you for your support and comment at my recent successful RFA. I do not feel adminship is authority, but is rather a responsibility and trust accompanied by a few extra buttons. Being now the new fellow in the fraternity of administrators, I will do my best to live up to the confidence shown in me by others, will move slowly and carefully when using the mop, will seek input from others before any action of which I might be unsure, and will try not to break anything beyond repair. Best, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, WereSpielChequers. You have new messages at Dipankan001's talk page.
Message added 09:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

That's me! ^{Have doubt?} Track me! 09:25, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

So I just found it.Its here:[1].Read it carefully and you'll find it.That's me! Have doubt? Track me! 08:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, 6-12 is realistic and somewhat less than >12. ϢereSpielChequers 10:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

2011 RfAs

Looks like my prognosis 8 months ago (47) wasn't far off the mark. The year closed with only 52. Have you got any ideas for research that can estimate just when the number of active admins will really fall below a level that can sensibly cope with the tasks and backlogs? AFAICS, the only serious backlogs at the moment are at files for deletion, and some old articles lurking in the oubliette at AfD. (they are generally the ones that are just too long and complex for anyone - including me - to want to spend an hour or two on each one). I don't generally favour unbundling, but there could be a possible call for a 'File Admin' that I might support. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The pattern is a drop of a third each year in the number of successful RFAs. We had 75 the year before, I was predicting 50 last year and we slightly exceeded that, I expect about 3 dozen this coming year. I don't know when the number of active admins will fall to the point where our hands are forced, partly because we don't know how many people are really active as admins as opposed to an hour here and there. One bit of good news is that the number of "active" admins has actually stabilised and currently wanders between 725 and 750, almost certainly a side effect of the desysopping of completely inactive ones with people returning to EN wiki sufficiently often to retain the mop. Not that I wish to denigrate those who give us an hour a month of their time. But we know that the vast majority of admin work is done by a small minority of very active admins, we just don't know how many of them there are, how fast they are slipping away and whether there is another method of recruiting them other than giving the bit to active non-admins. As for where I expect to see the problem hit, it will be at either WP:AIV or cat:speedy. All of the other areas are ones we can live with permanent backlogs or where we can catch up when it is evening in North America, but if we have vandals or attack page creators on a spree and no-one to block them then even a 30 minute gap is a serious problem. Unbundling the block button would avert that crisis, and if we proposed unbundling it for IPs and accounts with less than a hundred edits then I think we could keep things going for years.

On a broader and less optimistic note, I don' know how RFA can be repaired to the point where all clueful, civil, longterm contributors can become admins. So we can't have the sort of self governing community we had in our golden age, and I don't know how else we could structure ourselves in a way that makes sense for a volunteer self governing community. ϢereSpielChequers 11:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, yes you're right - deletion was not part of your suggestion and I now understand and accept that it's not a good idea. Perhaps a solution for adminship would be a secret ballot à la artbcom, with noms bundled on a quarterly basis. Dunno - just fielding an idea. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well yes, there's some truth in the time zone thing. There were times over the holiday period (especially while the USA was asleep) where I felt I was the only admin lurking at NPP. Virtually every new page I clicked on had to be deleted, and some that had already been CSDd had been hanging around for several hours, not to mention the G10s and G3s that had simply been tagged as A7 or G1. I am warming to your idea of a right to delete attack pages and block -100 vandals but how can we be sure if those editrs will use the tools sensibly if they haven gone through hell-week first? There may be some sense in introducing a right for NPP after all, but all research in that area and the survey seems to have been shelved in favour of prioritising development of the AFT. On the other note, maybe the curent arbcom case may be a lesson to some to buck their udeas up about their participation at RfA. There's a bit of slightly more positive/objective talk at WT:RfA today.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I wasn't proposing to unbundle the deletion button, but blocking of vandals and creators of attack pages is actually uncontentious, deleting page and blocking vested contributors are the contentious areas and I wouldn't suggest unbundling either of them. I may check out wt:rfa but I have some real life things to do, the AFT is a problem, both because it takes us in the wrong direction and because it takes resources that could be put to good use. I might file an RFC on it..... ϢereSpielChequers 12:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Prognosis

Hi WSC. This month will close with only 1 new admin. I'm going to hazard a guess that this year will end with only 25 - 35 successful elections. Recent discussions around the site seem to uphold the general view that incivility is a normal and accepted form of interaction so I'll probably retire from my efforts to reform RfA, at least until the number of active admins drops below the waterline and the backlogs build up, and something is done about NPP (we now only have an average of 5 patrollers on duty at any one time, and still with the associated problems of competency). I'll support any proposals for unbundling on the lines you have suggested - but no further extensions to user rights to admin tools. Making NPP a user right may attract more competent people to the system even if they are only looking for trophies. I would support that too, especially if it gave them the rights for some summary deletions (hoax, attack, vandalism) and blocks for persistent vandalism.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, yes the long-term trend is for a drop of one third each year in new admins, so I'm expecting 30-36 new ones this year, any more than that would imply that things were capable of improvement, any less and the inevitable moves a little closer. As for unbundling deletion and NPP problems generally, my fear is that deletion is the area with most mistakes. I recently came across an article deleted G12 rather than be restored to its pre copyvio version. Two patrollers tagged it and an admin deleted it - I'd been ignoring copyvio and assumed that those who dealt with it knew what they were doing but that was troubling. If that was typical and not a freak combination of errors it means that a vandal can get pretty much any page deleted simply by adding copyvio to the current version. So I'm loathe to unbundle deletion, and even if we unbundled the deleting of pages for particular reasons I'd worry that people would stretch those reasons to other articles "that would probably have been deleted anyway when a full admin came by". When we cease to have enough active admins to maintain 24/7 cover at AIV then I believe I can get consensus to unbundle block for IP and editors with <100 edits, I'd prefer a proper reform and a longterm solution but that would keep us going for years..

As for civility, we have an important Arbcom case in its latter stages and I want to see what comes out of that. Most people here are very polite and are here to build a pedia, as someone who usually manages to lose their incivilities at the preview stage I think I'm quite mainstream in this. Yes we have people who we need to read the rules to, and perhaps some of us need to spend more time gently doing so at the early stages. I was really quite surprised in one recent RFC that I was the only person who could certify that they had gone to the editor and tried to resolve things earlier.

On a broader note there is a massive amount of instability in the project. The greying of the pedia, the increased importance of GLAMs, our new found lobbying power, the current face offs between the Foundation and the community over money and censorship, and the possibility that WYSIWYG editing could unleash a new generation of editors. Any one of those could be the catalyst for major change, the combination of them all is pretty much a guarantee of it. Whether that change is for the better or the worst is to some extent up to us. But if by late next year we are talking about a new generation of active editors then I think that RFA reform will be much more saleable. We already have the phenomenon of one wikigeneration dominating adminship and a disconnect between the admin generation who've been editing since 05/06 and the current generation of editors most of whom started editing after 07. The declining rate of recruiting people into the core that has thus far stymied reform, but the arrival of a whole new wave of active editors rejuvenating various parts of the pedia would bring forward the inevitable stage where a new generation wants to take over. ϢereSpielChequers 09:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

User:WereSpielChequers/WikiGenerations

Hi WSC, I noticed your comment on Jimmy's talk page pointing to your by-generation stats for admins and I had a quick thought. If you were looking for more stats to see if there were any interesting correlations that could be drawn, it would be interesting to know how many admins by year are still admins, and the year they started editing might make an interesting addition. Btw, it would be nice to see you at the Coventry meetup a week on Sunday if you can make it up here. :) Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 03:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi HJ, yes, but it really needs programs to collect the data. The way I originally built it is too labour intensive to use that to update or expand it. Not sure about Coventry, I'm going to the London meetup this Sunday but will be doing other things the following weekend. ϢereSpielChequers 10:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message

I'm not too worried about the oppose although I do think they have a valid point when it comes to user pages - not enough of a valid point that I think user pages should be compulsory for admins but enough of a point that I think it's a valid reason to oppose. I'd probably find an oppose based on just that a little odd but they do give other reasons which are also valid, even if in my opinion they've based it on a misreading of my contributions. Then again if there weren't differences of opinion between candidates and !votes there would be no need for RfA (and the world would be a better place - shame it's a pipe dream). My knowledge of other languages (other than computer languages) is limited to me being reasonably confident I wouldn't die in a French speaking country - although I would have a very bland diet - so hardly worth adding. Dpmuk (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I can order a beer in several European languages but that's my limit as well. Good luck ϢereSpielChequers 11:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your support at my RfA. I will do my best to live up to people's confidence in me. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Guide to requests for adminship

You might be interested in this discussion.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It's been a few days since my last post and I didn't want to bother you figuring you probably had just a few other things to do, but if you would respond to my latest proposal, I'd appreciate it.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:33, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I will get back there, Unfortunately someone declared a drought over here and introduced a hosepipe ban. So at the moment I'm dashing in and out to use any gap in the rain and trying to fit this sort of thing into the longer rainshowers. Will respond soon. ϢereSpielChequers 15:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

RFA

Today, I made someone a sysop. However, if it weren't for the fact they hadn't been properly notified, I would be desysopping 13. Sigh. WilliamH (talk) 19:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering why the number of "actives" had fallen so fast this month - it dipped to 702 yesterday. That is 320 below the peak, and quite a drop on the month. Not reminding those who were about to be desysopped would account for this months sharp drop. However the attrition amongst our existing admins is not very high, the bigger worry is the lack of new ones. User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_stats shows a pattern so far this year of alternating between 1 and 3 successful RFAs a month. On that basis we are heading for a couple of dozen admins this year - less than half as many as last year. The pattern of each year yielding little more than half as many admins as the year before would appear to be deteriorating even faster. I was especting thirty to thirty five new admins this year. That in itself would have been bad, but if the rate of decline is accelerating then the tipping point will come sooner. ϢereSpielChequers 22:53, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

50% - 66% of that is probably the reality, based on successes so far. At the last round of desysops, I recall thinking that for each appointed admin, we have desysopped 7 so far this year. WilliamH (talk) 23:56, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

It may be worse - usually the second half of the year is worse than the first half, and we are relying on the pattern giving us two more admins this month. One of my concerns is that the community won't now act until damage is clearly evident - probably in the form of excessive gaps at AIV and vandals going on unchecked sprees. Most of the other backlogs are non-critical, even deletion can mostly be replaced by making redirects. But we do need admins to block people, we need admins available to do that 24/7 and even a ten minute gap can look embarrassing if it results in an unchecked vandalism spree. I fear we may not get any change until circumstances force our hand, I will try occasionally to get reforms through, but my main intent is to have contingency plans ready for when the inevitable happens. ϢereSpielChequers 13:39, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• Worrying indeed. Obviously we should be warning people properly, but the fact they need warning shows they are barely active. Do we have stats that show how many are actually more than minimally active - more than 5/20/100 admin actions in the last month etc? Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
  • No I don't think we do. The definition of "Active admin" is something like 30 edits in the last 60 days. Last time we tried to tweak that the "Its a crap statistic bit we should be consistent over time" argument won out. Of course that means our "Active admins" includes people who do one evening a month and people like me who are active editors but only not particularly active as admins. I suspect that a small group of very active admins do a very high proportion of the admin work, and the size of that group is a key metric that the community should be tracking. ϢereSpielChequers 20:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Write an article?

I saw you wrote this article for The Signpost a couple of years ago; and I wondered if you would like to do another one along the same lines this or next week because I think we are in a bit of an RfA drought again. Just add it in with the other stuff in the 'article status' section in the newsroom. Thanks! Rcsprinter (whisper) 14:26, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually it is the same drought, it just steadily gets worse. It could take me a while to update some of those stats, thought the hot cold matrix is bang up to date. I need to do some real life stuff for the next few days, but by the end of the week I'll tell you when you can have your article. ϢereSpielChequers 21:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I'm not sure if Rc is aware, but we've been pre-planning (via email) an RfA special with views from a few people, including you. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Nope, I wasn't aware of that. Why can't you do these things on-wiki then people can know about it and contribute? Thanks for agreeing WereSpielChequers. Rcsprinter (yak) 15:09, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Your essay at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_reform is a great start to solving this ongoing problem. Bearian (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Your essay does a fine job of advancing the conversation. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you. ϢereSpielChequers 16:18, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for participating in my RFA! I appreciate your support. Zagalejo^^^ 06:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Your RfA chart is in the news

Hi WereSpielChequers . Thanks again for the help with the refunded articles. In other news, I saw your RfA chart in this news article in The Atlantic. But it doesn't look like you were credited. Best regards. 64.40.54.35 (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

RfA for Sarah

BTW, in case you didn't know it was your RfA chart you showed me in Gdansk in 2010 that served as the motivation for the presentation this year at Wikimania 2012, and got Sarah through the RfA. So maybe there is some hope. -- Fuzheado | Talk 18:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Good to hear. We've just had the best month at RFA for over a year, but it will take a bit longer before we know whether it is a brief flurry similar to the 13 we got one month in 2010 after my signpost article or whether it is longer lasting. My gut feel is that this may be slightly different, we've now had several candidates with zero opposes, which implies to me that the opposse has gone, or at least realised that opposing good candidates is unproductive. ϢereSpielChequers 19:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Your comment on Mlpearc's RfA

Hi there. As you might know, I really hate to comment on an RfA when I nominated someone but I feel that I have to tell you that I think your recent reply to NYB is incorrect. The candidate did not actually say that "he would count such goodfaith if unsourced edits as vandalism" in his answer Q10. What he said was that he considers re-adding the same information, without edit summary, without comment or explanation after his previous good-faith revert as vandalism. I do agree that such edits are not vandalism per Wikipedia:VAND#Disruptive editing or stubbornness but may rather be Wikipedia:Disruptive editing but I don't think there is no reason to assume that the candidate will treat all unsourced, good-faith edits as vandalism and at least I could not find any pattern of such edits in his contributions. I respect your right to oppose him over this of course but if you have seen multiple edits like that in the candidate's contributions, would you mind sharing this with the rest of us? Regards SoWhy 13:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Might be worth checking my recent switch to Neutral for that pattern... There's a lot of edits I wouldn't have called vandalism, in just the last 3 months. Worm^TT(talk) 13:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Guys, I've happily made a clarification. I'm well aware that Q9 was about reversion of even uncontentious edits and Q10 was about stretching the definition of vandalism to a point where I'd be worried about him having Rollback let alone appointing Rollbackers. ϢereSpielChequers 13:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. I really appreciate your sentiments. Oh, and just FYI: [2] (been thinking about doing that for a long time, anyways).

BTW, over 13,000 pages on your watchlist? How do you get by? =O

Ah, but to each their own. Thanks again, and take care. Master&Expert (Talk) 23:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kurtis, thanks for the note and commiserations on the result - my first RFA was a 7 day ordeal - I'd have possibly passed if I hadn't been nominated by a Lolcat. My advice would be to go back to what you most enjoy and don't dwell on the RFA. Then read it again in two or three months, see how much you've already done about the opposes, think through the rest and see if there is anything useful, then maybe run a month or so after that. Good Luck, and happy editing. PS The 13k watchlist, I've reset various defaults so I don't add so much to it and I 've started to be ruthless about taking stuff off. But in truth over 10k are of pages that get less than an edit a month, most of them far less, and I've set it to ignore bot edits. ϢereSpielChequers 00:04, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Crap... I had a lengthy reply typed up, only to accidentally close the tab it was written on. Forgive my clumsiness.

Anyways, don't worry. I'm not down over my RfA at all. It's not that big of a deal, just adminship. Maybe I'll get it at a later date. On the upside, I've developed a passion for article writing. My newest addition - Forced evictions in Azerbaijan. It's currently a nominee at DYK and open for peer review. One thing I know for sure that I need to do is cut down on some of the quotations in my referencing, having just read this subsection (specifically the second point). Not that big of a deal, just something I'll get around to very shortly. Master&Expert (Talk) 00:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your support at my RfA and tolerating our "football". I look forward to maintaining your trust in me.—Bagumba (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome and be assured that rounders and rugby will still be allowed after we get round to revoking that impudent declaration of yours. The rule changes are not that great from what you have, and the lack of body Armour in rugby makes it easier for the doctors to get at their patients. ϢereSpielChequers 07:45, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

WT:RFA

Sorry, maybe I'm over-analyzing things a bit (what else is new...), but in your response to my comment at WT:RFA, you specified a number of things that could potentially sink an RfA for someone who otherwise meets the criteria you've listed — in particular, I noticed that you mentioned "a poor grasp of copyright" as well as "not realising that the reason why you call an open book exam open book is that you are judging them on their ability to handle and unfamiliar awkward situations by checking the policy", both of which I think were issues that people perceived in my own unsuccessful RfA candidacy from roughly two months ago (although, as a disclaimer, I did seek out several policies prior to answering the additional questions; I was under the impression that RfA voters were expecting quick responses). Am I reading too far into things (ie. you were just speaking in generalities, not necessarily being specific to any one individual), or was your comment actually intended as a subtle attempt at giving me a few pointers towards improving my chances of passing RfA? Kurtis (talk) 21:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kurtis, it was an unsubtle attempt to steer any potential candidates against making a common mistake in unsuccessful RFAs. As you are less than three months from your own last RFA I certainly wouldn't have been targeting the comment at you as there are other reasons why you shouldn't run yet:) If I was being specific about any RFA it was this one. Which somewhat spookily was started on this day, though not this year. ϢereSpielChequers 22:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

By "other reasons", I'm assuming that you're referring to the common practice of waiting at least 6 months before reapplying, and not that you've seen any poor decisions on my part since that time. I don't think anyone would suggest that I run today, or any time over the next few months until at least March of 2013 (perhaps a bit later). Your first RfA is quite the interesting read, although I might attribute that more to the presence of this fellow than the actual discussion. =) Kurtis (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned the unwritten rule is wait a minimum of three months. I'd suggest four for caution, 6 sounds to me like yet another bit of standards inflation. Personally I think that the time internal is much less important than how close people were and whether they have responded to the reasons why they failed, and since sometimes that takes rather less than three months I'd be saddened if standards inflation were to make that more awkward. I haven't reread yours, but in my experience if you do wait a reasonable time and respond to reasonable points raised by opposers then subsequent runs can be quite smooth, I'm not unusual in passing quite uncontentiously at the second attempt. As for the Lolcat, I still think I'd have scraped through if absolutely nothing else had gone wrong. ϢereSpielChequers 22:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

RfA by month

Hello again old friend, I stole your RfA by month table for this Signpost report comparing the German Wikipedia's RfA to ours. Hope you don't mind! I gave you credit at the bottom of the table. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:08, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, nice article. I do like the idea of restricting RFA voting to those with over 50 mainspace edits in the last 12 months. It is a very low barrier, few would be excluded, and for newish editors it would be a clear invitation as the current system has a very cliquey unwritten rule as to who may !vote. ϢereSpielChequers 09:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I dont know if you saw my edits to the talk page of that page earlier, but if not I wanted to say though that I thought of a possible improvement to the table. Instead of using ten templates, one for each color, you could use a single template with a switch statement that generates the color based on what number is in the cell. I've got it working at User:Soap/RfA, but even if you prefer the "honey" color scheme youre using now, it could be made to work with that as well. ☮Soap☮ 02:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

No objection to a more efficient type of template. I am concerned that the colour scheme needs to be suitable for a gradation of ten related bands rather than ten unrelated bands. I think the colours you are using would be more appropriate to a map showing ten different countries or groups of countries rather than a hot cold matrix. ϢereSpielChequers 08:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Message at RfA

Hi WereSpielChequers, this is just to let you know that I asked you a question at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Monty845. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 12:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

RfA

FYI... You missed the previous contact I had with the user. I added it under your comment at the RfA. I don't know if this meets your criteria or not. Bgwhite (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look at it again. I must admit that I "gave up" on the editor. They have had interactions at other talk pages. Plus, I'm not sure if they were very young or not a native English speaker. But, irregardless, you do have a valid point.

I've been told to stay away from the opposes if I do anything but making a note and I'm really not trying to start an argument or anything... But, I think I'll add it there anyway as I've taken waaaaay too much grief on removing all the invalid BLPPRODS... On the question above. You said, "It is a little more troubling that from the questions the candidate seems to think that a reliable source is need to prevent a BLPprod". Take a look at the edit history of WP:BLPPROD andWikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Any source prevents a Prod... believe me, I do know the policy on BLPProd's. Bgwhite (talk) 09:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I was judging from the question section rather than your edits. Apologies for that. Personally I think there is more of a risk of ignoring opposes than of not doing so. But it can be difficult, and how a candidate does it is a pretty good test as to whether they will make a good admin. ϢereSpielChequers 10:33, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I want to say Thank You for your comments. You brought up a very valid problem. I think if you had taken an even closer look, you would have found more. I know of many of problems, but you brought up one that I hadn't considered. I think Mandarax's response summed up my feelings, but I should have said something. Bgwhite (talk) 07:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Could I have found more problems if I'd looked further? well quite probably. But judging from the others who contributed to that RFA I might also have concluded that the problems were sufficiently rare to shift me into the Support column. Consensus was against me on this one, and perhaps rightly so. When I review RFAs and find problems I have a choice between asking a question and filing an oppose, in hindsight perhaps I should have posted a question in your one.ϢereSpielChequers 09:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

RfA observations

Greetings! I'm currently working on an essay in my userspace that I'm considering submitting to the Signpost. It summarizes my observations of the RfA process over the past couple of years and the effects discussion has seemed to have had on the amount of successful candidacies on a month to month (although not necessarily year to year) basis. In it, I've mentioned your name and August 2010 Signpost piece talking about the RfA drought and its relation to the burst of successful RfA's that month. I'm stopping by partly to ensure you're alright with that and partly to perhaps solicit your input (although you don't, of course, necessarily have to agree with my observations/conclusions). But, anyways, just thought you might be interested because of your interest in RfA and the discussions surrounding it. Regards, Tyrol5 [Talk] 03:16, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, I'm the Signpost editor-in-chief. You may want to include the developments being made at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2013 RfC/2. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Ed! That's a good suggestion. The op-ed focuses more on the effects of discussion on the number of successful RfA candidacies within a short period of time of them and less on summaries of the discussions themselves. That said, I've mentioned the 2013 RfC's and their coinciding with a positive start at RfA in 2013 with the encouraging numbers for Jan. and Feb. But, a mere mention of the 2013 discussions may not do them justice. I'll look and see if I can fit maybe another paragraph to give it a larger part in the piece. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: I've added a bit more on the developments being made over at the current RfC's. It should be ready for submission to the Signpost assuming WSC doesn't mind his name and research being mentioned. Are you comfortable with that, WSC (I can add a disclaimer, if you'd like, clarifying that you don't necessarily endorse any of my conclusions)? Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:39, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

No problem with that, I've made some comments on the talkpage. Re the RFC we are making progress on Bugzilla re the unbundling of user deletions. ϢereSpielChequers 23:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Admin (co)-nomination?

Hi WSC,

it looks like they finally convinced me to run an RfA, see User talk:Ymblanter#Admin?. Would you agree to be a (co)-nominator? I assume you know that I am the same person as User:Yaroslav Blanter. Feel free to reject if you have no time or do not want to do it for some other reason, but I would appreciate very much if you could.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, that's great to hear., I'd love to be your nominator or co-nominator, but realistically it isn't going to be for at least a few days and probably not for a month. ϢereSpielChequers 11:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks. I certainly can wait for a few days, and also I guess other (co)-nominators would need some time to prepare a statement. I am not sure what I should do if it takes more than a month. May be we should see when the other nominations are ready?--Ymblanter (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Things went faster than I expected, and the nomination is ready now. If you can do it within several days, I will wait, but if you are sure now it would take over a month, I would rather let it go live, if you do not mind. Thanks again.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

If you have a nomination from Wizardman then you really don't need a conomination from me as well - there is some maximum above which further conominations become counter productive. I'd suggest you transclude that at the beginning of your next editing session. Just remember it is an open book exam and reread the relevant policy before asking each question, especially if you haven't spotted the trick part of the question. Good luck. ϢereSpielChequers 20:52, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Good, thanks for the advise, it is really useful. I will transclude the nomination in the morning.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Project for RfA nominators

As one of the supporters of a related proposal in the 2013 RfC on RfA reform, you are invited to join the new WikiProject for RfA nominators. Please come and help shape this initiative. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 21:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and have some pierogi!

	Pierogi Award
	Thanks for your support of my RfA. It didn't succeed this time, but that's no reason not to have some nice pierogi. Cheers, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 14:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Schoolboy admins

I think you must be right that this now likely to be a thing of the past. Even Ilyanep, who held the distinction of being the youngest bureaucrat at 13, is now 21. :-) WJBscribe (talk) 14:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes I've been concerned about the greying of the pedia for a couple of years now. Initially I feared that it was the arrival of grey haired oldies like me that had simply made the pedia uncool, but now that I've had the experience of trying to edit wit a tablet and worse a smartphone I think that it is a technology thing. If we can crack mobile editing or the technology moves on to the point where the screenagers can come back and edit then I'm hopeful the next generation of hyper smart kids will join us. In the meantime I assume they are just reading the way I read my parents' books when I was a kid. BTW Are you coming to the Oak this Sunday? ϢereSpielChequers 14:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is getting older, and so are we - especially me ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

RfA

Things may be picking up. According to your updated table, we already have 21 new admins in the first half of 2013 compared to 21 for the whole of 2012. Time will tell, so if we can double that number, we may have cracked it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The pattern of each year being about a third less than the previous year is heading to being broken. 75% of the previous year is better than any year has managed since 2007, but 21 is small enough numbers that one has to be cautious about presuming patterns. Provided the next month or two has some RFAs I hope to soon start saying that it seems to have finally bottomed out. If the second half of the year does anything close to 21 then the drought might finally be easing. But I suspect replacement levels would require closer to 1% a month, and anything less than replacement levels leaves open the question as to how large an admin community we need. ϢereSpielChequers 20:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What else is actually remarkable is a low number of unsuccessful RFAs. This is the first time in many years when the number of successful RFAs is greater than the number of unsuccessful ones.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes my fear on that is twofold, RFA is bad, but its reputation is even worse, and that maybe deterring people until they are so overqualified that it becomes a coronation. Also the people who didn't quite make it, providing we persuade them to stay, are the people who get in on subsequent runs - they may still be dwindling. ϢereSpielChequers 08:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the drop in the number of unsuccessfiul RfAs may be due to the fact that many more candidates are asking for feeback before they run, and that we are getting more successful at nipping NOTNOWs and SNOWS in the bud, usually between the time they create their RfA page and the actual transclusion of it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The greying of the pedia may account for the relative dearth of young editors jumping in without the requisite experience, but I do worry that our intimidating messaging may not just dissuade some underqualified editors but also some of the fully qualified ones. ϢereSpielChequers 17:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Buster7

Thank you. ```Buster Seven Talk 02:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

You are most welcome. Sorry it went the way it did. ϢereSpielChequers 05:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Your comments

Hi, ϢereSpielChequers,
I was interested in your comments in the Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#What we don't know (and seem unable to figure out) thread. What exactly happened in early 2008 that you are referring to? What was the impact?
Thanks, in advance, for any insight you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Liz, Rollback was unbundled in early 2008. For my money this was the biggest single change to RFA since it moved from Email to being on Wiki. At the time you needed Rollback to use Huggle, and Huggle was the main tool for semiautomated vandalfighting. After that point people ceased to be able to make admin simply for being a good vandalfighter, and there was a seachange in RFA's de facto criteria and in the number of RFAs. I suspect that we also pretty much stopped appointing teenage boys as admins at that point. ϢereSpielChequers 12:34, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/BigPimpinBrah

Seriously, No Personal Attacks and all that, but..... The diffs are there to see. As an admin you simply cannot state a "username is troubling" and eight hours later state "I don't know what it means". That's just beyond ridiculous. I'm sorry but your response was an obfuscation at best -a flat out refusal to admit your mistake at worse. Disappointed. Pedro :  Chat  20:59, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Firstly remember I posted in Neutral after 6 people had opposed partly or fully over the username. Secondly what I said in full over the username in my first post was "The username is troubling, we've had several admins with rather worse ones, however consensus is shifting and some of those admins have renamed themselves; So I won't oppose over that without first getting the candidate to explain what it means to them - I'd suggest they do so on their userpage or get a rename before their next run." So if you take the whole sentence without quoting me out of context I was giving the candidate the opportunity to explain the username - for all I know there may be an innocuous Appalachian meaning that could have been posted to the userpage (their userpage did announce that they spoke Appalachian English). I certainly know what "Pimp" and "big pimp" can mean, but BigPimpinBrah? I was quite prepared for the candidate to explain the name, and as I explained later in response to your query it could have been as innocuous as a reference to pimp my ride. "Troubling" did not mean I was ruling out the possibility of an innocuous explanation, though that was I thought obvious from the fact that I was in the neutral section. ϢereSpielChequers 23:34, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your support in the RFA and your recent response to Hegvald. Unsure why someone didn't close the RFA on Thursday afternoon. Unfortunately, it led to some earlier vandalism and additional comments. Any idea what is happening with the close? Cindy(talk) 11:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cindy, you're welcome, the close just has to wait for an uninvolved crat to be around, looks like it has now happened. Guess we don't have as many very active crats as we once had, comments and even !votes are welcome until the formal close though the chance of a big change in one that was as clear as your's was after 7 days is pretty minimal. ϢereSpielChequers 19:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I created a table recently (as WSC knows) that outlined 'crat activity. There is a lot that could be extrapolated from that table but although I kept it simple for fear of upsetting some of them, one crat did respond quite negatively to it with a borderline PA. It seems that 'crats are an endangered species and while some have very high edit counts, those appear to be mainly due to the high number of semi-auto edits created by user name changes. Apart from new 'crats testing their wings there appears to be very few who are online regularly enough to provide prompt closures to uncontentious RfAs. Perhaps the aging corps of 'crats does need some new blood. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:50, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin attrition numbers

Hi Jonathan. I see some numbers for "active admins" in the first chart at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_115#Time to replace RfA. My understanding is that those numbers reflect a pretty low bar for "active"; do you happen to have figures that correspond to any higher bar? - Dank (push to talk) 15:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Dank, I just use the list at Wikipedia:List_of_administrators. I appreciate that 30 edits in the last two months is a very low bar, but it is consistently applied over time, so comparisons are easier. Also I'm getting less and less interested in discussions about how low we can go before we run out of admins. If and when we run out of admins we will just go out and appoint a large number of poorly considered ones, most of whom will turn out just fine. My dream is to turn the site back into one where all sensible longterm editors are or could become admins - a self policing community. Working out how close we are to running out of admins isn't helpful to that, though I would say that a situation where we delete a thousand pages a day and depend on one admin to do 200 of that is one where we are critically dependent on a small number of very active admins, and knowing that 595 have done at least 30 edits in the last two months is not a good measure of our available admin time. ϢereSpielChequers 22:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That's true. Okay, thanks anyway. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio expert as admin

Having assumed good faith so far, I'm now wondering whether the recent discussion reflects a WMF desire to boost admin numbers for their convenience. Have you seen any signs of this? I'm hearing rumours that WMF's internal stats paint a worse picture about enwiki involvement than we see publicly. - Pointillist (talk) 22:13, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I haven't heard anything from the WMF, and consider myself well outside most WMF dialogue; Though I am going to Mexico and might pick up some gossip there, and I did try to engage with the proponents of the new list feature and at one point they let slip they were thinking of outsourcing the moderation of that. Also I know some of the individuals the WMF thinks we are most dependent on and if I had made the WMF mistake of thinking that all admin actions were of equal value I would be much more alarmed than I am. I have been saying for years that when our admin cadre declines to the point where it becomes a problem then the result will be a large batch of poorly considered appointments, most of whom will turn out just fine. I'd guess that the WMF is considering its options, one of which is to intervene and appoint more volunteer admins. But they don't seem to be lead by people who understand our volunteer community, and they have no shortage of money, so if the volunteer model can be argued to have failed then one alternative they could jump for is to hire moderators from outside. It wouldn't surprise me if that dialogue is part of the WMF sounding us out about such an intervention - appointing some para legals as admins to combat copyvio. Different people will have different views as to the relative importance of dealing with vandalism, spam, incivility, copyvio and non-notability, and it wouldn't surprise me if they were considering copyvio as the area where they need to employ admins. I just hope if they do that they first teach them how to civilly communicate and guide those who contribute copyvio. ϢereSpielChequers 08:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to write such a well-considered reply. Rather than failing, I think the historical success of the volunteer model engendered a cavalier attitude towards efficiency: while there were lots of admins and other cannon-fodder there was no need to streamline processes. I was hoping a fall in numbers would produce a new realism about ways of working; even perhaps a reconsideration of how anonymity should work. Sadly, your speculation seems more likely to happen than mine. Anyway, good luck in Mexico. We did meet briefly at Wikimania London last year. - Pointillist (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree there are things that we could do that would use existing admins' time more efficiently, and most would have other benefits. Ages ago we got consensus to enable all editors to do their own U1 deletions provided the software didn't allow them to delete articles they had moved to their userspace, we just couldn't get a developer. I can also think of better solutions to the range blocking, editwarring and speedy deletion issues and we used to have bots that identified likely prospects for rights such as autopatroller. But I haven't heard of a credible alternative for blocking vandals and speedy deletion of attack pages other than having more people with the tool to do it, and those are the two likely pinch points - most other areas of admin activity can function fine in a world where we catch up each day in the 10 hours or so from when evening starts in London to when it ends in LA. Many admin functions including most deletions could if necessary have a weekly backlog that eases at the weekend. ϢereSpielChequers 12:03, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

It's just First aid, not Admin Lite

Back in 2010 I supported the 'Vandal fighter' concept, a new right that allowed blocking of unconfirmed users and iirc either speedy deletion or rollback-with-oversight to hide vandalised content. It wasn't admin lite: in particular it didn't grant access to deleted content. The name wasn't so hot but I still like the idea. I said at the time that "I think of these rights-holders as being like first aiders or paramedics—they get to the scene quickly and stabilize the situation using a narrow range of very short-term remedies (e.g. a one-hour block and/or a semi of three hours). If the problem is severe, then more experienced medics (i.e. admins) take over. The theoretical benefit is that a shorter interval between vandalism and prevention will discourage vandals, and that a reduction in admin workload can be achieved in line with the higher standards that have evolved at RFA."

	First aider can block	Admin can block
Purpose	To prevent vandalism	To prevent vandalism, gross incivility, harassment, spamming, edit warring, sock puppetry, rogue bots, public accounts
Scope	Only unconfirmed users and IP addresses	All users and IP addresses
Duration	A few hours at most	Any period including indefinite

Can anything useful be salvaged from those ideas? - Pointillist (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The difficult thing is unbundling something that is simple, sufficiently commonly needed to be worth unbundling and worth the community unbundling for a group of editors who couldn't pass RFA. I think User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_reform#Unbundling is something we might get consensus for, the main obstacle is that the WMF distrusts the community's treatment of newbies too much to allow this, and we would need them to write the software. There is also an objection that this would occasionally put someone with the tool in the position where they could block one person in a dispute but not another, however I think this could be averted by instructing people with this right not to try to resolve disputes among goodfaith editors. I don't like either the vandalfighter or first aider names, but don't have a name that would work, except perhaps "moderator" - but then that implies dealing with incivility which this would leave with admins, perhaps janitor? As for the first aider concept, we gain very little if you can only block for a few hours. Most IP blocks are going to be 31 hours and most vandalism only accounts are blocked indef - so the first aiders would often if not always have required an admin to repeat their work. ϢereSpielChequers 17:08, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I've very sorry, I had entirely overlooked your RFA reform page. The short block period I think was based on a suggestion that (a) this was enough to discourage some types of vandal; (b) if short blocks had to be repeated frequently that would produce a trail of evidence for an admin toact; and (c) of course short blocks are less controversial. As you say, the name is key. Perhaps "moderator" has too many implications, how about "warden" or "guardian"? - Pointillist (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Oh, I forgot to say: with respect, I don't think this should be expressed as for "a group of editors who couldn't pass RFA". In my mind it's more along the lines of being [almost] automatic to grant this right for a rollbacker in good standing. - Pointillist (talk) 17:55, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

For experienced editors short blocks are the normal first step unless there is something really egregious. But most new registered acconts that get blocked are vandalism only accounts that get an indef block. As for who this is for, I think we are focussing on two very different audiences. I'd agree that this isn't the most attractive description for the people who might go for it, but if we are going to sell the idea to the community then we need to explain that there are editors who could make good use of this tool but who couldn't currently pass RFA. As for qualifications to get the tool, I think we should judge people on their AIV reports. The sort of editor who could make good use of this right would be someone who makes lots of correct AIV reports but lacks the content creation or tenure now needed for adminship. It is entirely possible that a person could be using rollback scrupulously but be overhasty in taking people to AIV. ϢereSpielChequers 11:35, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

I accept all that. You have the insight and reputation to make this happen, assuming we find the right name and take care about timing. I suggest you decide when/how it would be good to take this forward. I will support. We can meet to discuss if you like: I'm mostly in West London and central Oxford. - Pointillist (talk) 22:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI I've created a new sub-section How much content experience should an admin have? on the Adminstrators' noticeboard. - Pointillist (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, commented there. The London meetup is a good place to discuss this sort of thing and I attend most of them. I might pop in for the last bit of the June one, but can't be there at the start. I won't start anything as big as an RFC for at least a month - my editing time is currently limited and I may have to take a week or two away from here at short notice. ϢereSpielChequers 13:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't normally do meetups because they overlap with family time on Sunday, so would you mind letting me know when you are interested in kicking something off and I'll come to the meetup? As WhatamIdoing kindly pointed out, I don't do much around here nowadays. - Pointillist (talk) 13:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks...

...for your vote of support at my recent RfA. I hope I may prove to be worthy of the honor. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:21, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

thou art most welcome and I am sure will do fine. ϢereSpielChequers 06:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Ooh, lovely, thanks. I'll play around with the shiny things and see what they look like. :-) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 23:32, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

You've got mail!

{{you've got mail}} ceradon (talk • contribs) 17:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Another one! --ceradon (talk • contribs) 22:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ceradon is now around the 90% mark, and thus far has been a gentler, calmer RFA than some recent ones. I've been holding back so far, and haven't commented since writing the nomination. Quite often by this stage I would have commented on some of the opposes, but I haven't yet needed to, none of them are being rude or unfair, they just have personal criteria for adminship that aren't shared by the 90% of the RFA !voting community. In short you are doing well, good luck for the rest of the week. ϢereSpielChequers 07:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Email

{{you've got mail}}Bosstopher (talk) 23:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Is a Bureaucrat's bite worse than his BARC?

You're familiar with this but it was already 2 years ago. Something has to be done so I'm going to start the ball rolling very soon. Following several general discussions on the topic, I have completely reworked it and I would very much appreciate your updated comments on the talk page. Thanks.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Community desysoping RfC

Hi. You are invited to comment at RfC for BARC - a community desysoping process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

RfA

Hey WSC, it's been two years since my RfA report and almost four years since your groundbreaking analysis. Could I tempt you into writing an update for the WM community? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:19, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ed, it is overdue, but realistically I won't have time until well after Wikimania. ϢereSpielChequers 08:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey WSC, that's fine! I'll ping you after the conference. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:59, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Ping :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:25, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

One more quick ping -- just making sure you've seen this! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 15:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: -- Fuzheado | Talk 15:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've seen this, but well after Wikimania could be a little while yet. You wouldn't believe how many leads etc came out of Wikimania! ϢereSpielChequers 17:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Start

In September 2014, for only the second time in over a decade, we went for an entire calender month without appointing a single new admin on the English language Wikipedia. Whether you think that admins are a small minority of the community who have agreed to take on certain chores re deletion and blocking, or like me you believe that all longterm experienced and qualified members of the community should be admins if they want; This is not a healthy situation for the community. But it isn't really the September result that troubles me. A third of the months in the two years since the last zero had only one RFA, so it was only a matter of time before we had another zero. Monthly results in the last three years have been in the range 1-4 with occasional outliers, three months had five successful RFAS, and we'd also had a six and a zero. So a zero saddens but does not surprise me. What does worry me is that it follows three consecutive months with only one new admin in each, so this month was preceded by the worst rolling quarter since records began, and now we have a new record, only two new admins in the last three months. Just possibly the pattern is changing again and the long decline at RFA since 2008 has resumed after a two year pause when things seemed to have bottomed out.

I'm hoping that we can tempt more people to run. I believe that there are quite a few people out there who could pass, when sufficiently over qualified candidates do run they don't just scrape through, five of the last eight successful candidates had 0 opposes.

More to add.

ϢereSpielChequers 08:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)==My RfA==

Pavlov's RfA reward Thank for !voting at my recent RfA. You voted Support so you get a whopping three cookies, fresh from the oven! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC).

Thanks Rich,sorry it didn't quite succeed this time. Better luck next year. ϢereSpielChequers 14:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Mail

{{YGM}} --Biblioworm 21:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

replied ϢereSpielChequers 15:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Tenure of admins, drop in RfA, etc

I don't know if you saw this in this week's Signpost but taken together with the perceived drop in articles/edits, it might mean something though I don't know quite what. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Well if we weren't recruiting any new editors the community would be getting a year older each year, so six months means we are still getting new editors. On the face of it this looks very healthy, we are still getting lots and lots of newbies, but with community size broadly flat we are only keeping as many as we lose. My suspicion is that if we combine this with other measures we would find that despite a steady inflow of newbies we are broadly stable, but as we have no way to work out our twenty let alone fifty year retention it is hard to know how healthy this is. Logically a new volunteer endeavour whose founding generation skewed very young will continue to get older and more experienced for decades, at some point if all goes very well indeed, the experience gained annually by the remaining community getting a year older will balance the experience that is dying, retiring or being blocked, and the number of experienced editors lost will match newbies joining. But an organisation barely 14 years old should be decades from such stability, even if we knew editors ages, or which former editors are still alive, or which "newbies" are anything but. ϢereSpielChequers 16:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Excellent points - you should add at the article comments. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

OK done. John are you coming to Sunday's meetup? I hope to attend for the first time in yonks. ϢereSpielChequers 22:20, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

RfX discussions

Thanks for chiming in and helping get the page under way in exactly the style of contribution I hoped for. With a bit of luck, others will follows your example. --Dweller (talk) 08:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

"Off wiki canvassing and publicity is a problem"

Don't want to be picky, but this one is more of a debating point than a call to action and if you don't mind I think it'd be best if we keep the page really focussed on outcomes.

Might be better at another venue, or is there a concrete suggestion that might make this more in keeping with the rest of the material? That said, Wikipedia_talk:Reflections_on_RfX#Having_an_unwritten_rule_about_voting_requirements_does_more_harm_than_good could be a way of addressing it. --Dweller (talk) 08:50, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I would agree it isn't a call to action, but it is something which I believe has become a recurring feature at RFA and which we need to address. Not sure how to address it, and it is complex with the risk of Joe Jobs and situations like the Liz one where people on both sides suspect there was canvassing. ϢereSpielChequers 13:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

New proposal, inspired by your suggestion

I started with a knee-jerk negative reaction to your suggestion that vandal fighters have the block tool even with some limitations but if you look at my edit to your suggestion, you'll see that I tried to come up with a positive way to implement it and came around to something that I could seriously support.

In short, let's create something we call a timeout. It acts very much like a block but it is limited in time (perhaps 24 hours), limited in subjects (only IP's and newbies). These limitations might mean we could give it to vandal fighters in good standing were not quite ready for RFA.

Ultimately, this isn't quite an RFA reform idea although it arises from it, so if you think this is worth pushing we ought to find a better venue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:48, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Now is probably not the time to get the community to seriously consider another RFA related RFC, I'd prefer to wait a couple of months for the current multipage multithread debate to resolve itself. But an RFC in the Autumn might be worth trying Wikipedia:Vandal fighters was five years ago, and I think something that just focussed on blocks could now get consensus. Limiting IP blocks to a short period may be doable, unless it has been blocked recently then it is pretty standard for a first vandalism block for an IP to be 31 hours - that takes out the next two school days assuming it is probably a school IP. There will be some who want vandalfighters to be able to escalate the way admins can, so I think it would be easier to sell if the limited block power allowed for a 31 hour block for IPs whose last block had expired at least thirty days ago. Or alternatively Individual IPs can be blocked for 31 hours, or up to 30 days if a previous block issued by someone else has expired less than 30 days ago.

As for clean blocklogs and blocks being removed, if logged in editors can only be blocked if they have done less than 100 edits then if they do ever become a regular and go to RFA that initial block will be historic. But more widely, vandalfighters are pretty good at spotting vandalism, contentious blocks are pretty much always of longstanding editors. So I would be pretty relaxed about vandalfighters being able to indef block vandalism only accounts that have fewer than 100 edits.

A timeout for newly registered vandalism only accounts would be a waste of time as a full admin would then have to turn it into an indef block. Short blocks supposedly work for edit warring, but I would much rather change the way that works so that the first stage of edit warring wasn't a block but a targetted protection - as you have been edit warring on articles x and y those articles are now protected against editing from your account - please edit a different topic. It seems crazy to me that we have an elaborate four warning system before we block for vandalism but we go straight to a block for edit warring, especially when we rarely turn vandals into good editors but lost of good editors lose their temper and edit war at some point in their wiki career.

Blanking or deleting bad blocks sounds like a good idea, provided the log was still visible on the log of the blocking admin, not the incorrectly blocked person. However I would treat that as a separate proposal to the vandalfighter one, and personally I probably won't get involved - my experience at RFA is that the community is quite capable of treating someone as having a clean block log if their only block was a mistake by someone else. ϢereSpielChequers 15:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

First, thanks for your extensive and thoughtful reactions. Regarding timing, I'm totally on board that it is not time for another RFC. I wish editors spent more time refining ideas before getting broad community input which is exactly why I'm running this by you to get some reactions.

Second, totally agree with a 31 hours. I knew that was a standard and can't believe it didn't occur to me myself. It must've been rattling around in my brain when I said 24 hours but emphasized that was a soft value.

Regarding the blanking of bad blocks, that's something I've been in favor of for some time although one only has to think about it a couple minutes to realize the devil is in the details. Some blocks are clearly valid, some blocks are clearly a mistake, but there's a range of others in which it is more gray. Perhpas the block was truly intended but the blocker might rethink it or more significantly, the blocker still stands by the block but many in the community think it was a bad block. That would inevitably lead to some bureaucracy which would be bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake. However, as you pointed out that's a subject for another time so I'll leave it there for now.

In some of the cases we are not totally on the same page. Rather than respond with an off the top of my head reaction I'll try to give it more thought and come back.--S Philbrick(Talk) 18:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Did you get a notification?

Yesterday, I copied a message of yours onto WP:VPR#Suggestions for removing clutter on RFA. Since then, someone addressed you there, and I'm not sure if you saw that. I'm wondering now if you got a notification from me posting text that contained your username? — Sebastian 21:38, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

There are several different pages with threads on RFA reform, I think the discussion is drifting back to WT:RFA and may unwatch some of the others. ϢereSpielChequers 22:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks; that makes sense. — Sebastian 23:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Admin nomination

Hi! I noticed you were on the list of people willing to be asked for a nomination. I was wondering if you'd consider nominating me for a mop. I'd do a lot of technical work, but also some AfD or uncontroversial-CSD work. I've previously asked Worm That Turned and Pedro. APerson (talk!) 03:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi APerson and thanks for your interest. I've tried to codify what I look for in candidates here, may I suggest you read it and then drop me an email? Regards ϢereSpielChequers 07:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, WereSpielChequers. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/APerson

Did you forget to support your nominee?--Bbb23 (talk) 04:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Not at all, I signed the nomination statement and unless something serious comes up that I hadn't spotted I fully intend to sign in the support column. But it hasn't been up for 14 hours yet, for most of which I've been offwiki. Nowadays I tend to hang back in RFAs where I'm the nominee in case there are issues raised that weren't in my nomination statement and that I can respond to in my support statement. I was the 66th support for my previous nominee and last I looked this one was 14/1/0, if it stays at over 90% I may not vote till the final couple of days. ϢereSpielChequers 06:50, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

RFA

You could nominate Bilorv, Kylietastic, Happysqirrel, Cordless Larry, Aditya Kabir, Kailash29792, And featured article contributors in Science related topics.--112.79.35.187 (talk) 14:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, however I've stopped seeking out candidates to nominate and trying to persuade them to run. RFA is too broken for me to encourage someone to put themselves through it, and if people are going to oppose over edits from more than two years ago then the work required to assess a candidate exceeds what I'm likely to be willing to put into it. If someone has decided to run and wants my help to improve their chances of passing then I'm happy to assess them and advise. If I think they'd make a good admin and have a good chance of passing I'm even willing to nominate; though after recent weeks I'm not sure anyone will want a nomination from me again - once the current RFA finishes for the first time in months I have a completely empty pipeline of potential candidates. ϢereSpielChequers 19:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

You could nominate me in a few months. :D ;-)—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I can understand your reticence, WereSpielChequers, to continue on with the RfA nomination process. But I hope when you see the next promising candidate you will reconsider. There is a need for more administrators and while a lot of factors come into play in an RfA, many of which are unpredictable, I think the best judge of who might be a good admin is a current, active administrator. I appreciate those who are willing to put forth candidates they believe in. Thank you for doing so in the past. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Liz, back in 2010 I was getting on top of this and half my nominees succeeded, in 2011 all four of my nominees succeeded. I knew when I returned to nominating this summer RFA had got worse; but I underestimated how much worse. It used to be that voters didn't go back to really old stuff if only because whatever someone had done more than two years ago, if they'd gone through cleanstart and come back with a new account the old stuff would be unknown. I still think that there are editors out there who could pass, but several I know have no intention of going through RFA. I'm still going to watch it and will vote for those who I think will make good admins, and against those who I don't trust with the tools. But finding people tough enough to endure RFA and who would make good admins, well I'm no longer going to encourage people to try. That doesn't mean I won't nominate a candidate who approaches me for a nomination, but at the moment I wont try and persuade anyone to run. ϢereSpielChequers 13:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at some RfA stats (I'll try to locate the diff, maybe Kudpung recalls) and noticed that all recent successful candidates had clean block logs. That seems rather remarkable to me as it would be understandable for a new editor to stumble and have a brief edit-war block. This unstated standard would rule out a great deal of competent editors who might have erred in their earliest years on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:59, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

(and Liz), I have never opposed an RfA candidate for simply not having a clean block log and in fact as clearly stated in User:Kudpung/RfA criteria, it's not a strict requirement. However, very very few admins have such a blemish in their history and I think it's safe to assume that candidates of the right calibre should be block-free and have the right temperament. The only exceptions I can think of are those who were children when they got blocked and have now developed and demonstrated the behaviour of a reasonable adult. Unfortunately, some people never grow up, and they even have the gall to complain when their RfA fails monumentally. In the most extreme of cases, and hiding behind the defense of being indispensable content providers, they become the role models of incivility and the de facto leaders of the anti-admin brigade. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:35, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, 2015 RFAs is a very small sample, better would be to look at the group that we looked at with ScottyWong when we disproved that "30% of the most active users are former vandals" nonsense. The large majority of the regulars have clean blocklogs, and admins overlap with that group. When it comes to long ago blocks it does depend on their reason, we have a couple of admins in their twenties who have fessed up to teenage vandalism, and I'm pretty sure that we have several admins with long distant blocks for edit warring. Nowadays being blocked whilst an admin usually leads to loss of the tools, but I know of one admin who was blocked, albeit briefly, in both 2010 and 2011. I would hope that a candidate who had edit warred more than a year ago would not have grief at RFA today, I suspect other blocks would at least require explanation. I doubt I would myself support a candidate who had been justly blocked in the last 12 months, but as recent weeks have shown I'm willing to support candidates who a significant minority wouldn't. ϢereSpielChequers 19:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Kudpung, User:Everymorning/RFA study was where I saw the recent RfA data and was surprised by the normative standard of admins with clean block logs (except for a few accidental blocks). And looking at User rights lists for administrators, it was interesting there were only 11 admins who created their main accounts in 2010, 11 from 2011, just 2 from 2012 and only 3 from 2013. So, out of all admins, only 27 have had their account for five years or less. While there might not be set requirements for RfA candidates, it seems highly unlikely for an editor to pass with less than 2 years of experience. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

We've had very few candidates in recent years, so we should be wary of making assumptions based on the current admin cadre, better to look at RFAs and especially how people !vote on candidates who have been here for only a year or so. I remember in 2011 being astonished to see an isolated oppose for someone who had been here for fifteen months on the basis that he "wasn't yet part of the community". Things may be worse now - RFA does seem to generally get worse, but I don't recall an otherwise qualified candidate with only 18 months experience getting significant opposes for lack of tenure. However I don't fancy the chances of anyone who has less than 12 months experience. ϢereSpielChequers 05:39, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope you're right re 18 months being acceptable, but I wonder. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Althought I get criticised for employing 'high' standards with my RfA votes, those insults come mainly from people who wouldn't ever get elected for some reason or another. In reality, User:Kudpung/RfA criteria are far more realistic than some of the ridiculously, almost preventative conditions imposed by others such as 20,000 edits, GA and FA. Again, such voters generally have some kind of axe to grind - perhaps not at the specific candidate but at adminship in general because they know they would never get the bit. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Leaving an early closing summary at the RfA. It is NOT a withdrawal, I'm just going to be real busy IRL tomorrow.

I decided to go with a friendly tone and a little bit of cowboy humor. If it provokes any more !opposes, that will be sad, but perhaps it will move a couple of neutrals into the !support column too.

I can't express enough thanks to all of you for the hand-holding, thoughful insights and peeling me off the ceiling. We all knew this one was not real likely to succeed, but I'm hoping I did well enough to set up for a second round sometime next spring. Montanabw^(talk) 07:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Stats!

Just noticed from your chart that I obtained more support !votes and more participation overall than any of your previous nominees. So pat yourself on the back even though my RfA did not succeed. As I also noted here, I actually had more support !votes than 9 of the 16 successful RfAs this year and the second highest participation rate of any RfA this year. I was heartened that so many people had faith in me. Montanabw^(talk) 21:11, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Great stat

I was going to give you a thanks notification, but the history of WT:RFA was too dense to easily navigate. Anyway, thank you for linking this very interesting statistic. I find it remarkable that I'm something like the 20th 'youngest' admin despite getting the bit almost 3.5 years ago. Surely we've had more than 20 people join the project in the last five years who would be good admins! Jenks24 (talk) 02:11, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

hi Jenks, yes of course there will be loads of editors who joined in the last five years and who eventually will make good admins. With the increased focus on arbitrary standards I wouldn't encourage anyone who started in the last 15 months to run just yet, and there will also be plenty of editors who made their first edit years before they really got active. So I'm expecting that your wiki generation will be supplying new admins for a long time to come. But I'd bet there are plenty of editors who started editing in the 2010-2013 era who could sail through RFA now. ϢereSpielChequers 08:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

YGM

{{YGM}}

Ditto --S Philbrick(Talk) 21:20, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Replied. I'm also quite curious as to what Sphilbrick meant by their one-word comment... --Biblioworm 22:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Simple, and not very intriguing. I just sent WSC an email, glanced at the talk page, saw the template, and indicated that I, too, sent an email. --S Philbrick(Talk) 22:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Replied, again. --Biblioworm 21:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure? Nothing received. ϢereSpielChequers 21:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I tried again. I also took the opportunity to add some things that I forgot to mention in the original. --Biblioworm 22:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Replied. --Biblioworm 19:21, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Just wondering...

I was just wondering if you've started drafting the nomination statement already. If you're busy right now and might take a little while, that's perfectly fine, but I just wanted a general idea of the time frame, whatever it may be. Thanks. --Biblioworm 12:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry something has come up in real life and I wasn't able to finish it today. ϢereSpielChequers 23:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No rush. --Biblioworm 00:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Done. ϢereSpielChequers 06:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Admins

Well, I hate to be a pessimist, but unless a minor miracle happens in the next 20 days or so, it does look as if this year will indeed close with the worst results ever. Why is the community so apathetic about it? One would have thought that Wikipedia's Coronation Street could do more tnan just, well, talk. And they haven't been doing a lot of that now for a while. I imagine it's due to ACE2015 but that's no excuse. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess because the admin work is not visible. Those of us active on a regular basis in admin areas might have some ideas whether the backlogs grow or not, but currently the community does not feel that we have an insufficient number of admins. What is needed is a careful quantitative analysis of all admin-related areas, with conclusions on whether a particular area suffers from a shortage of admins. I think if such statistics is presented and shows convincingly we are understaffed that would create incentive for able users to go for AfD, and also they can be more explicit about the admin areas they are going to help. However, this seems to be a difficult task, and I think we would need one of our statistics gurus to accomplish it.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

WSC and I have been debating this for years. I don't believe stats will tell us anything we don't already know. Problem is, of the admins that were promoted this year I don't actually see them where they are needed. I don't think we have reached the point where the active admins can't cope with the work load, after all, a lot of it really is simply routine button mashing. Other stuff? Well, of the things that need thinking about, I can clear out any backlog at AfD in a couple of hours single handed if I put my mind to it, and the same for most other admin backlogs. On the other hand we need a stronger presence of admins at ANI before it gets completely taken over by the PNG - we're going to lose at least another good ANI admin to Arbcom soon. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a cultural thing here. Some people such as myself still believe that all longterm clueful editors should be able to become admins and as such we should be a self policing community. Others talk in terms of how many admins we need and ignore issues of what sort of community we want. ϢereSpielChequers 14:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a miracle. If December equals November then 2015 equals 2014. We are probably going to be slightly worse than the previous worst year, but three RFAs and would be a draw, four and we exceed 2014. Matching 2012 would be a minor miracle and matching 2013 a real miracle. ϢereSpielChequers 14:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

RfA

Well, we've finally closed the year with the lowest number of promotions ever, but what spectacular scores for most of them ! --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

thanks Kudpung, I take several things from that voting pattern and other recent changes:

22 last year and 21 this is really flatlining rather than decline. Growth would be better and is necessary, but of the last 8 years only one has shown growth and six have shown much steeper declines than this.

Three passes were close but nine were near unanimous with over 95% support. This implies that there are plenty of candidates who are hesitating too long and could pass earlier albeit by smaller margins. RFA would be in a much worse state if those 21 passes had all been narrow scrapes.

The "must have an FA" fad has played out again, I doubt it is as dead as the percentage of automated edits meme, but at least for now it has receded.

Yes the votes are high, especially for women (the three successful RFAs with candidates who had females sounding names had the three highest turnouts of the 21 passes this year), but even for uncontentious and unanimous male candidates there were some very high turnouts. A contentious rerun by one of the site's characters may draw out huge participation from the regulars including many admins, and any RFA that ends near the discretionary zone will attract extra !votes, but when over 150 !vote in a near unanimous run for a low profile candidate then I think we have a good chance of lots of first time voters from people who might consider running for admin in the future. It seems that watchlisting idea is turning out far more useful than I expected. Previously a near unanimous but low profile candidate would struggle to get over 1 hundred !votes. If only a handful of those extra fifty voters go on to run in the next few months we could have an upturn this year.

Additionally we have the 2015 phenomenon that the number of editors making over 100 mainspace edits in a month is on the rise again. This is a better proxy than "active editors" for measuring potential RFA candidates, partly because 5 edits in one month includes vandals and is nowhere near the activity level to pass RFA. Any editor saving over 100 mainspace edits in a month has an editing level that month that would appease the RFA crowd. We need to research this group better, it could mean there is a generation of new editors who might start coming to RFA by the end of next year, it could mean there are a group of longstanding occasional editors who became more active this year and could run now, or it could be a large group of semi active editors who most months are way below the 100 edits threshold but who occasionally exceed it. ϢereSpielChequers 07:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

It will be interesting to see what happens next year, but I'm not holding my breath. This year seems to have been a year of some really silly votes - even from people who I would have thought were more mature members of our community. Biblioworm has made some very noble efforts to bring about reform and it looks as if he has scored some minor hits even though I think he's perhaps going a tad too quickly. If users vote down a reasonable proposal that might have passed if better timed and worded, it takes a long time to let the dust settle and launch the same idea again. I never forgot the advice you gave me many years ago on one of our late night Skypes that small changes are easier to bring about than large complex ones. People seem to be forgetting that the only reason these reforms are required is because the the community itself refuses to behave decently at RfA. I still stick to my mantra: If you fix the voters, RfA will fix itself. All the best for 2016, WSC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

78.26's RFA Appreciation award

	The 78.26 RFA Appreciation award
	Thank you for the participation and support at my RFA. It is truly appreciated. I hope to be of further help around here, and if you see me doing something dumb, you know where to find me. You deserve extra-special thanks, you know what you did for me, I hope. It was incredibly helpful. Again, I thank you. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 24:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20