Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

This is not the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. To do so, please follow these instructions.

Archives

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Most recent 261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

Even though (by some measures) we have fewer active editors than we did 18 years ago, 80 was considered a good turnout on my RfA then. Maybe it really wasn't seen as a "big deal" then. FWIW. Donald Albury 14:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of 20 RfAs with 200 editors each, we used to have 800+ RfAs per year with around 50-100 people voting in each (not always the same people). 100 supporters were considered a lot, that is why WP:RFX100 was created. My own RfA passed 81/0/0, which was only good enough for a slight mention at the stats page User:NoSeptember/RfA voting records that has all of the early RfA records. —Kusma (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That’s what I discovered earlier, in 2005-2007, there were about almost 1,000 candidates and large amounts of voters. Now as of 2021, there are only about 11-45 candidates nominated, which is lesser than before, since there is a huge decrease in RFAs nominated since the 2010s. I don’t really understand the shift and change in RFA processing. - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 01:10, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback was unbundled in early 2008, and that changed RFA significantly. Before Rollback was unbundled some of the candidates who passed were simply presented as "good vandalfighters", after early 2008 that ceased to be enough to pass RFA and you needed to have written referenced content. Also around then the minimum expectation grew from a few months activity to a year or more and several thousand edits. The drop in early 2008 is clear in Wikipedia:RFA by month and is a large part of the change, but there was also a long decline from 2008 to 2014. Since 2014 it has sort of bumped along the bottom with a slight net decline. The worst years for new admins were 2021 which was probably COVID related and 2018. I should probably add a note to that chart re COVID, overall it gave us an increase in editing, but some of the regulars were less available and RFA is not something for newish editors. So I suspect 2021 had a lot of newish editors or editors who had become much more active, and they weren't likely to run that year. We also had an apparent decline in editing from the 2007 peak to the late 2014 nadir, It has since rallied a bit but apart from one bot driven spike it remains clearly below 2007 levels. Of course much of the apparent decline in editing was from the automation of much vandalfighting with the edit filters, the move of the intrawiki links to Wikidata and the rise of the thanks button. But we are clearly no longer in the exponential growth era we were in before fact changes or additions on articles had to be cited and you couldn't thank people without an edit. However the decline in editing is trivial compared to the decline in new admins. Even if we combine admins with filemovers, template editors and rollbackers there has been a broader trend of decline that goes beyond the unbundling.

I also have a couple of theories about the broader trend. With the rise of the Smartphone as the most common internet access device over the last fifteen years or so, we have failed to recruit anywhere near as many teenage editors as we used to. Yes I know some people do edit on smartphones, but in the main we are a community who use our PCs to write an encyclopaedia for an increasingly smartphone based audience. We have partly offset that with the greying of the pedia. The first time I attended a London meetup I was obviously the second oldest person present. I'm over 16 years older now, but I'm unlikely these days be one of the two oldest present at a London meetup. I think the greying of the pedia has changed RFA, people of my age are less willing to sit an exam or go through a rite of passage than the young are. Perhaps we will find that the addition of elections will have a continuing effect on RFA as opposed to the one off spike we have so far. But we can also just get used to the idea that there are a lot of editors these days who just want to edit and are not keen on becoming admins, and this is quite a common attitude among the silver surfers in our community. ϢereSpielChequers 11:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as someone whose hair has been grey for far longer than there has been a Wikipedia, I am growing uncomfortable with how much of my time in Wikipedia is spent trying to keep up with admin-related matters, which cramps my plain old editing time. Not, mind you, that I do that much admining, but I do try to stay current. Even when I became an admin more than 18 years ago, I never saw it as more important than creating and editing content. Donald Albury 16:44, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anymore questions about the amount of RFAs? - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 23:52, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WereSpielChequers For this part, I agree with you on 2021. It wasn’t really a good year for RFA due to the fact that this nominations were the lowest with only 11. Thankfully, 2024 has 58 candidates due to being a special event. - ParticularEvent318 home (speak!). 06:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Three times in the past month, a candidate who is unqualified by policy has created an RFA self-nomination that they are obviously unable to file, probably by clicking the button on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate. These are: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ApplePumpkin2345, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Banana ezWIN, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Spencer2343.

Although this is technically allowed (nominees can create a subpage before they are extended-confirmed and file the nomination afterwards), these unqualified candidates presumably want to file immediately. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate should not encourage this.

I suggest removing the "Nominate yourself" button on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate so that non-EC users only see something like "Sorry, nominees must be extended-confirmed", and hiding the other buttons "Stand for reconfirmation" and "Nominate another user" for non-EC users (presumably we don't want non-EC users to nominate anyone).

If the above is implemented, non-EC users could still create an unfiled nomination by following the written instructions, but it isn't as easy as clicking a button.

Also, Template:Editnotices/Protection/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship currently implies that non-EC users can request that someone add their self-nomination, which is false. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could add class="extendedconfirmed-show" to the button, which would hide it from non-extended confirmed users. Thoughts on that? –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. What do you think of displaying a message to non-extended-confirmed users in place of the first button/text entry, using Template:If extended confirmed? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Although we should get more buy-in from this talk page's watchers (more than just you and me) before making changes. –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:32, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do admins count as extendedconfirmed for that class? Given how often admins are the ones to nominate someone, it makes sense they see the button too. Nobody (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

After testing it looks like they do not. However adding sysop-show in addition to extendedconfirmed-show appears to solve the problem. Diff –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My only question then is if someone can quickly check all 500/30 editors are also XC. I remember there being a Quarry query that showed many editors, mostly former admins, who do not have XC. Similarly, a page should be editable by admins as well, and no current admins will have XC. Soni (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bureaucrats sometimes forget to add extendedconfirmed to former admins when removing sysop. But I imagine that is easy to fix with a ping or WP:PERM/EC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When I resigned my adminship in 2019, I was automatically given extendedconfirmed after my next edit. So it more or less fixes itself. —Kusma (talk) 08:43, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will only autopromote to extended confirmed if you did not previously promote to it, as the mechanism that does that is autopromoteonce. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:24, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Learn something new every day! Thank you for correcting me. —Kusma (talk) 11:23, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: this bitflipping of extended-confirmed on desysops and resysops is silly and causes problems like MediaWiki talk:Common.css#nonsysop-show. We should just stop declaring extendedconfirmed redundant to admin, and let admins keep their extendedconfirmed right automatically regardless of how many times they've gained or lost adminship. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:08, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Also, Template:Editnotices/Protection/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship currently implies that non-EC users can request that someone add their self-nomination, which is false. Thanks for pointing that out. I have just made this change to that edit notice to reflect that extended confirmed is now required as of April 2024 (before that, the extended confirmed protection was merely a technical obstacle and not a hard requirement). Mz7 (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm looking at the current RfA - with so many comments being about a under-completed RfA form - and wondering: Would we be seeing the same result if they were in the admin elections instead?

And if so, should we be penalizing someone due a form, that the community seems to be leaving by the wayside in the other process?

As an aside, yes, I'm aware that they haven't edited, and so many of these "voters" should probably wait until the candidate has returned to answer their questions. a day is not long to wait. I can remember when RfAs hardly had any comments in the first day or two.

But, theoretically, if they were here, should this be appropriate? Or are we once again falling afoul of WP:BURO? - jc37 00:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we say "this is the form to fill out if you want to be an admin" and they do not fill it out... yes, we should expect the form to be filled out. Elections are an alternate method, not an identical method. Primefac (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. Though it's been pretty longstanding that candidates are not required to answer questions. But anyway my point was that perhaps we should take a look at the form and the current process to see if perhaps its time has passed by. - jc37 02:32, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your question. The candidate page for the admin elections has the same set of questions as with the open viewpoint RfA process. And I'm unclear why you're questioning whether or not the process should use a set of standard questions only if the same result would have occurred with admin elections. isaacl (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase - I see similarities, but they aren't the same. And I don't see that question zero anywhere - and some did not include the statement in their nom. I'm not saying that we should or shouldn't, I'm merely suggesting that perhaps we should take a look at these.

If the goal is to get the candidate to say and show something positive about their contributions on Wikipedia, maybe we should phrase that better. - jc37 20:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Each candidate's nomination page uses a template that was copied from the one used for the open viewpoint request for adminship process, by design. So the same standard set of questions are asked. Question 0 is not one of the standard questions. By consensus agreement at the time when the disclosure requirement was added, the community chose not to add to the standard set of questions. (I'm a bit confused as to why you wrote "Would we be seeing the same result if they were in the admin elections instead? And if so, should we be penalizing someone due a form", but I assume you are actually interested in looking at this even if the community would have treated this situation differently between an election and the open viewpoint RfA process.)

I think the standard set of questions is just a hook to allow candidates to provide some basic information to the community, and give them a platform to tout the benefits they bring to the role. It's up to them to decide how to best take advantage, and up to the community to weigh the responses. isaacl (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AELECT asks the same questions, so I imagine the same kind of sentiment among voters about incomplete answers would probably arise. I suppose the main difference is that in AELECT the candidate would probably get a question and a comment or two about it, instead of having dozens of opposers mention it over and over again. –Novem Linguae (talk) 07:26, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Novem Linguae is correct. The repetitious (pass/fail) RfA always puts significant stress on a candidate, even a great candidate who wins with no opposition. The classic process helps !voters understand in real time how the candidate prepares for stress, manages stress, and resolves stressful moments. Some candidates truly shine in such circumstances. TLC's second process is one such example; she was ready. I believe the RfA experience proves largely illustrative of the candidate's resilience in similar sysop-related situations. AELECT is perhaps less stressful, IMHO, because voters are also comparing choices and (not to be disrespectful in any way) shopping for the best performers among candidates. This is not a bad thing. The new process is no mere binary choice; candidates are measured against !voter expectations AND against each other. I'm sad for LaundryPizza03, obviously. My first RFA was quite unpleasant (as was TLC's), but I learned an enormous amount as a wikipedian. It's possible LaundryPizza03 might have been less stressed during AELECT; it's possible they'd have even passed. My concern is always which outcome gives us fully trusted sysops, while providing a priori feedback which helps the candidate be a better overall wikipedian in the long run. If LaundryPizza03 had been given permissions at AELECT and then we found out about this behavioral issue later, the effectiveness of AELECT itself may be called into question. BusterD (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly tangential, but I am fascinated by how many people apparently think Q2 is supposed to be easy! Back when I occasionally considered applying for a mop, Q2 was one of the reasons I didn't, because to me it would be impossible to answer. It's partly a cultural thing, partly individual, but there it is. I'm not questioning the validity of Q2, or saying it should be changed or removed, just registering some astonishment that people think it ought to be easy to answer it. --bonadea contributions talk 10:08, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at my failed and passed RfAs, I see #2 was the easiest of the three questions for me to compose. I talked about my promoted reader-facing content, which IMHO is still on the lighter side for sysop candidates. By my own measure, the big change in those two process answers is that in the second, I felt far more trusted by the community to speak my mind freely, as opposed to worrying over carefully crafting a GA-class answer. BusterD (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FTR, in my second RfA, my nominators and I went over my first3 question answers, but they were pretty satisfied with what I had already written. To be completely honest, during my 2nd rfa I had a very small number of supporters (including noms) who gave me personal feedback via email during the process. For that reason I am not shy about giving tips to any candidates during their process. I want a healthy and diverse admin corps as much as anybody, even if I might diverge slightly from others on precisely how we best acquire and retain them. BusterD (talk) 10:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it would be easier to answer if it asked about proudest contributions, rather than best? Giraffer (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, I was originally going to say something on the lines of "'best contributions' is almost as impossible to answer as 'contributions you are proud of'"! --bonadea contributions talk 20:42, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Floquenbeam did a good thing removing the RfA from WP:RfA. Whatever may have been going on, the candidate was seemingly away for some time, and the RfA seemed incomplete to many commenters, and so removing it gives the candidate time to address that should they wish to. And by pausing things in this way, reduces potential waste of volunteer time, and reduces the effects that a confused electorate can potentially have upon said RfA.

I wish this was standard practice from the bureaucrats to do, but I guess it's a case-by-case basis kind of thing.

In the future, should someone just need to ask at WP:BN? As a general rule, waiting after 12 (or 24?) hours of no response from a candidate for a process which asks the candidate to be present and available for discussion, seems a fair time for bureaucrats to wait, then they should (kindly) step in and pause things.

I welcome others' thoughts on this.- jc37 20:20, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was fine with Floquenbeam handling this as a case of WP:IAR, but if the community wants this to be encoded in policy, it does seem like there needs to be an option in addition to WP:NOTNOW and WP:SNOW in cases where the candidate isn't actively engaging or the RFA is incomplete, but it's not hopeless or completely inappropriate. We often don't know what's going on behind the scenes (only the visible effects) and reengaging in situations like this can be quite daunting. I also wouldn't want to require a bureaucrat to be the one who always pulls the trigger on such an option before the discussion spirals. The more I think about it, encoding this in policy might be the way to go. I'm guessing there was some additional and unnecessary delay because IAR isn't something administrators would typically take lightly. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This "pausing" seems like bad precedent to me. At RfA, the candidate has the power to stop the process themselves and then simply start the process again from fresh at any time. If truly some emergency or unexpected thing happened in real life that prevents them from being responsive at RfA, then if the candidate is able to edit, they should communicate that to us and withdraw their RfA until there is a time that works better. If the candidate is completely unable to respond due to the emergency, then perhaps we could discuss suspending RfAs as a courtesy on a case-by-case basis (in this case, though, the candidate was actively editing during their RfA). Otherwise, if it becomes clear that an RfA is not going to be successful, then we should just go to WP:BN and ask a bureaucrat to close the RfA early per WP:SNOW. Mz7 (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a rule that an RfA monitor (which any uninvolved admin or 'crat can self-appoint as) may pause and untransclude an RfA if it is below 60% support, the candidate has not made an edit related to the RfA in over 24 hours, and it seems plausible that further participation by the candidate could change the outcome of the RfA. The candidate could revert the pause and retransclude at any time in the next 48 hours if they wish, for any reason or no reason, after which point the RfA cannot be paused again; if they do not, the RfA closes as unsuccessful. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 21:13, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a 60% threshold, but I'd prefer to leave the has not made an edit related to the RfA in over 24 hours part more loosely defined to allow administrator and bureaucrat discretion. 24 hours is definitely too high for today's RFA landscape. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't like the idea that candidates are expected to be active throughout the request period, continually monitoring the support level to see if they're able to have a respite. If the community only wants candidates with a certain floor level of support, I think this is better implemented by requiring a set number of support statements before a request is made. isaacl (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My own thought is that it probably doesn't need codifying, because it's an extremely rare edge case. Hard cases make bad law. Floquenbeam (talk) 21:41, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comfortable with the idea that the community can decide to pause requests in an ad hoc manner. I think this introduces a degree of gatekeeping to adminship requests. If the community wants this, it should be more direct and enact something more formal: specific criteria, a nominating committee, a certain threshold number of support statements, or something else. isaacl (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RFA has a long history of snow closes done by non-bureaucrats. In fact, the header of WP:RFA has instructions for it. When Floq paused the RfA, it was a 48.5% and falling. Just to get back into crat chat territory, it would have needed 47 more support votes without another oppose. Show me any RfA that recovered from such a hole, and I might even try to eat my keyboard. We don't need to expand the ever expanding bureaucracy to deal with this case. The case is blatantly obvious. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a history of closing requests early, and thus precedence around the circumstances when the community deems it to be appropriate. There isn't precedence for pausing a request, and I'd rather not have a lot of bureaucracy around when pausing is appropriate. isaacl (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a good use of WP:IAR to temporarily pause the RFA, especially given the regrettable {{Administrator without tools}} template left on their talk page which seemed to come with plenty of support but little in the way of advice or help. WP:IAR exists for unusual cases and even WP:SNOW is ultimately an application of IAR most of the time. In contrast to what happened here, bureaucracy powers through process without concerning itself about potential harm to individuals or the community. Anyhow, I don't think we need to overthink this. While I would support an official "third option", this kind of situation is rare enough that we don't really need to update the policy. IAR exists as a policy to help us handle rare cases. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 00:25, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The pause was appropriately bold act where bold action was needed. There is not much point in continuing this RfA as it stands. I frankly would have thought LaundryPizza03 was a slam dunk for confirmation, and I can imagine how disheartening it must be for them to be treated this way. However, I am also fine with Barkeep49's reversion of the pause, as an administrative exercise of WP:BRD. BD2412 T 00:24, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be a tragedy of misunderstood expectations. I can't fault anyone here for trying to mitigate things and marching off the map in doing so. Jclemens (talk) 01:20, 13 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]