This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I don't know if we should do this here or maybe at the village pump or yet another RFA reform RFC but it seems clear we have a problem in this area. It's clearly not going to sink the current RFA, but there are some questions that need to be resolved:

• How are we to evaluate accusations based on off-wiki evidence that apparently cannot even be named, yet alone directly linked to, on-wiki? Only users already in the know of these specifc discussions even know what is being discussed.
• Is there a difference between off-wiki criticism forums as opposed to the en.wp dischord?
• Is emailing links of the relvant off-wiki evidence to the arbitration committee even relevant, as ArbCom is in no way in charge of RFA?

Seems like we need to clarify this stuff. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 19:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240604193600","author":"Just Step Sideways","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604193600-Discussion_of_off-wiki_commentary","replies":["c-Hey_man_im_josh-20240604194200-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604193600","c-Serial_Number_54129-20240604195700-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604193600","c-David_Fuchs-20240604200300-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604193600","c-Tryptofish-20240604214400-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604193600","c-Joe_Roe-20240605075000-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604193600","c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240605095600-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604193600","c-Sawyer777-20240605203200-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604193600"]}}-->

Speaking only to the second point, I think there's a pretty clear difference between participating at off-wiki criticism forums vs participation on one of the unofficial Wikipedia discords. I think it's at least relevant that the en-wiki Discord server is moderated mostly by Stewards and en-wiki admins. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240604194200","author":"Hey man im josh","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Hey_man_im_josh-20240604194200-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604193600","replies":["c-Hako9-20240605215200-Hey_man_im_josh-20240604194200"]}}-->

Speaking of criticism forums, I really like the quote on your user page Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfils the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things. — hako9 (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240605215200","author":"Hako9","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Hako9-20240605215200-Hey_man_im_josh-20240604194200","replies":[]}}-->

At the end of the day, they're both 'off-wiki' forums for on-wiki activity. It is impossible to separate the two. The stewards and admins of Wikipedia perform very different functions on Discord; naturally so, as they are not subject to community oversight. ——Serial Number 54129 19:57, 4 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240604195700","author":"Serial Number 54129","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Serial_Number_54129-20240604195700-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604193600","replies":["c-Lightburst-20240607052400-Serial_Number_54129-20240604195700","c-Hey_man_im_josh-20240604200700-Serial_Number_54129-20240604195700"]}}-->

That makes sense SN. Lightburst (talk) 05:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240607052400","author":"Lightburst","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Lightburst-20240607052400-Serial_Number_54129-20240604195700","replies":[]}}-->

It is impossible to separate the two. – I disagree, unless you were just referring to the idea of treating all off-wiki communication platforms the same. One is specifically tailored towards criticism and, ahem, other things. The community Discord however is meant to facilitate the work that goes on on-wiki in a positive way. Whether we always succeed in doing so is debatable (there is a genuine effort there from what I see), but the intent and purpose of the two are very different. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240604200700","author":"Hey man im josh","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Hey_man_im_josh-20240604200700-Serial_Number_54129-20240604195700","replies":[]}}-->

I think there is a big difference in any random place off-wiki and the Discord, which is managed and moderated by Wikipedians and where you have to actually authenticate yourself to participate (or to see anything there). We've been down the road of treating "off-wiki" by semiofficial wateringholes as verboten to talk about, and that did not work out well. Treating Discord as a place where you cannot be held to account on-wiki but which everyone can see is not a winning combination. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 20:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240604200300","author":"David Fuchs","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-David_Fuchs-20240604200300-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604193600","replies":["c-Ferret-20240604200900-David_Fuchs-20240604200300"],"displayName":"Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs"}}-->

I'm just reading along from my watchlist and not planning to deep dive into this discussion (yet), but to clarify: The Discord server does not require authentication, though almost all long time users do so. Everything (but the noted admin area, similar to the IRC admin channels) is visible without doing so. Note this is specific to the main Discord. Some language projects (i.e., not enwiki) DO require authentication. -- ferret (talk) 20:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240604200900","author":"Ferret","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ferret-20240604200900-David_Fuchs-20240604200300","replies":[]}}-->

I want to comment about the third bullet point in JSS's opening post, about whether it is appropriate to email ArbCom. In a general sense (separate from RfA specifically), community practice is to email private evidence of wrongdoing to ArbCom (or in some cases, Functionaries), with the exception of evidence about COI, where we now have a dedicated email queue. I doubt that we need ArbCom to establish another email system for RfA (although if recent events become a trend, eventually we might). Given that, and given that ArbCom does have a specified role for admin wrongdoing, I see nothing wrong with expecting that such evidence must be submitted privately to ArbCom when brought up in RfA discussions (although perhaps we need an RfC to make that a requirement). The problem I see with that is that there is generally a need for a prompt response during an RfA, and ArbCom tends not to be prompt. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240604214400","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20240604214400-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604193600","replies":["c-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604220500-Tryptofish-20240604214400"]}}-->

This, to me, is the crtux of the issue we are seeing before our eyes right now. A few users are opposing based on a few completely inncuous comments at an off-wiki site, basically because "admins can't do that, at all, ever, no matter what it is they say, and if they do they are complicit in literally everything else that goes on in the entire forum". I feel like this is an attempt at creating a chilling effect where users are meant to be afraid to be critical on these forums, or to comment in them at all. How are RFA particpants to judge this opposition when, currently, we apparently can't even say where it is? Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240604220500","author":"Just Step Sideways","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604220500-Tryptofish-20240604214400","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20240604221200-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604220500"]}}-->

I doubt that this is something that is causing worthy RfAs to go down in failure. We've always had opposes at RfA that happen, cause angst, but don't sink the candidate. Editors familiar with what happened elsewhere can say whether or not they think there was a real problem, and other editors can decide for themselves who to believe or not believe. That's what I did in my support: [1]. (Where I also used a three-letter acronym, uh-oh!) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240604221200","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20240604221200-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604220500","replies":["c-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604224700-Tryptofish-20240604221200"]}}-->

As a seperate issue, I have just filed an WP:ARCA request for the committee to clarify some policy points related to how or even if we are allowed to discuss these things on-wiki. Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240604224700","author":"Just Step Sideways","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604224700-Tryptofish-20240604221200","replies":["c-Graeme_Bartlett-20240605002100-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604224700"]}}-->

Of course we can discuss things in general. A specific outing of someone is not appropriate. But if they have outed themselves, then they gave away the right to that privacy. But the committee can make their own pronouncements. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240605002100","author":"Graeme Bartlett","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Graeme_Bartlett-20240605002100-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604224700","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20240619215300-Graeme_Bartlett-20240605002100"]}}-->

I wanna link to the snotty thing JSS just said about me at that other site. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240619215300","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20240619215300-Graeme_Bartlett-20240605002100","replies":[]}}-->

The obvious solution is to drop the charade. If Wikipedia editors are talking about Wikipedia, on a public forum, devoted to commentary of Wikipedia, using an account that is clearly linked to their Wikipedia account, then we should be able to discuss it openly here on Wikipedia. It's not outing, not "logging", not a copyright violation, or any of the other ridiculous, self-serving excuses that people have come up with for this taboo over the years. ArbCom has no role to play: their remit isn't "off-wiki evidence", it's matters unsuitable for public discussion, and what we're talking about here is already under "public discussion", by definition. – Joe (talk) 07:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240605075000","author":"Joe Roe","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Joe_Roe-20240605075000-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604193600","replies":["c-Hey_man_im_josh-20240605132200-Joe_Roe-20240605075000","c-57.140.16.48-20240606211700-Joe_Roe-20240605075000"],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

@Joe Roe: Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't believe there's any authentication between that other forum and on-wiki unless it's admitted on-wiki, since we can't exactly trust that someone is the same person on that site just based on the user name alone. The community Discord however does have a bot that authenticates you as an on-wiki user. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240605132200","author":"Hey man im josh","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Hey_man_im_josh-20240605132200-Joe_Roe-20240605075000","replies":["c-Joe_Roe-20240605132700-Hey_man_im_josh-20240605132200"]}}-->

To my knowledge there's never been an example of someone impersonating an editor on Wikipediocracy to get them into trouble on Wikipedia. If that ever did happen, I imagine the matter would be very quickly resolved by the target saying "that's not me". Otherwise, I think it's safe to assume that people are who they say they are, authentication process or not. – Joe (talk) 13:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240605132700","author":"Joe Roe","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Joe_Roe-20240605132700-Hey_man_im_josh-20240605132200","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20240605154700-Joe_Roe-20240605132700","c-Johnbod-20240605161500-Joe_Roe-20240605132700"],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

I was impersonated on Wikipediocracy on January 2, 2024. A thread was started by someone with the same name as me impersonating me. It may be more common than you think. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240605154700","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240605154700-Joe_Roe-20240605132700","replies":[]}}-->

That assumes that the target keeps up with all the many sub-"forum" pages on WPO, which surely at most only a handful of people do, and they wouldn't be the ones to be impersonated. Johnbod (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240605161500","author":"Johnbod","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Johnbod-20240605161500-Joe_Roe-20240605132700","replies":[]}}-->

Just to note one other thing - some active participants on Discord (including myself) don't have a Wikipedia account to link, so there's no way to tell for sure that the person behind this IP at the moment is the same person named Tarlonniel over on Discord, beyond taking my word for it. 57.140.16.48 (talk) 21:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240606211700","author":"57.140.16.48","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-57.140.16.48-20240606211700-Joe_Roe-20240605075000","replies":[]}}-->

1. So long as the current consensus on Discord chat logs remains in force, mention of them must be avoided entirely instead of using an actual live RfA's !oppose section to re-litigate it by bringing up veiled accusations that stick to the letter of the Discord Logs RfC but not its spirit, no matter if one thinks it's just a charade, or ridiculous, or self-serving, or any such adjective one can think up. Any change to that consensus should be sought in a new RfC.

Personally I will disclose any of my Wikimedia Discord messages to whoever asks, and I won't be opposed to being able to link to messages on the server so long as the users are authenticated. But that is me. Community consensus is that people would rather keep their Discord comments private. Change that first.

2. Yes lol, the English Wikimedia Discord server enforces enwiki's own civility rules far more actively than enwiki itself. Blocked users aren't allowed to harp on their blocks and How Much They Hate Wikipedia day in and day out, unlike WPO where that is the express purpose.

3. If community consensus is something worth respecting, then given the current consensus, emailing ArbCom is the only way to bring up problematic Discord messages. Of course, if consensus shifts to allow Discord logs to be posted publicly, this will be moot.

Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 09:56, 5 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240605095600","author":"Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240605095600-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604193600","replies":["c-Joe_Roe-20240605100800-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240605095600","c-Ferret-20240605143900-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240605095600"]}}-->

Let's say I send you an email, out of the blue, saying Hi Wilhelm Tell, I think you're stupid, but please don't tell anyone else. Best wishes, Joe. And then some years later, you're asked to be on a committee to decide whether I should be given the Friendliest Wikipedian Award. Are you not going to mention the email, because I would "prefer to keep it private"? Oh and remember you can't just vote against me without saying why, because if you try the other members will accuse you of malfeasance and argue for you to be ejected from the committee. – Joe (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240605100800","author":"Joe Roe","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Joe_Roe-20240605100800-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240605095600","replies":["c-GreenLipstickLesbian-20240605101500-Joe_Roe-20240605100800"],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

Isn't this what Arbcom is for? You can just email your evidence of off-wiki harassment, then disclose the fact that you emailed them when explaining you vote? Because, in this specific situation, to prove that the person said what they said (and that you didn't just lie) you'd have to give out some pretty private information that would have to go through Arbcom anyway. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240605101500","author":"GreenLipstickLesbian","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-GreenLipstickLesbian-20240605101500-Joe_Roe-20240605100800","replies":["c-Joe_Roe-20240605103000-GreenLipstickLesbian-20240605101500"]}}-->

But what is ArbCom supposed to do with it? Wilhelm Tell is upset with my vote here. I could have appended "which I've notified ArbCom of" to the first clause (because, as a matter of fact, I have, several times), but what difference would it have made? – Joe (talk) 10:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240605103000","author":"Joe Roe","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Joe_Roe-20240605103000-GreenLipstickLesbian-20240605101500","replies":["c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240605104700-Joe_Roe-20240605103000","c-GreenLipstickLesbian-20240605104700-Joe_Roe-20240605103000"],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

ArbCom will evaluate the nature of the comments then? And they can decide whether or not to block the editor based on the evidence of offwiki abuse, thus preventing their election...? Also, I'm not upset, I only think community consensus should be respected in both letter and spirit, even if you think it's stupid. I reiterate that I will be fine with the Wikimedia Discord being linkable, I don't think we're disagreeing there. Also, if you did send me such a mail, I would be quite amused. You can try it out now ~ Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 10:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240605104700","author":"Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240605104700-Joe_Roe-20240605103000","replies":["c-Mach61-20240606131000-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240605104700"]}}-->

@Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI In the context of a time-limited RFA, it seems pertinent to note that ArbCom moves at a very slow pace. Mach61 13:10, 6 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240606131000","author":"Mach61","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Mach61-20240606131000-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240605104700","replies":["c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240606133400-Mach61-20240606131000"]}}-->

This makes me wonder - what was the timeline of Icewhiz/Eostrix being blocked during his RfA? Was Arbcom informed or someone else? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 13:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240606133400","author":"Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240606133400-Mach61-20240606131000","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20240606201600-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240606133400"]}}-->

Someone should correct me if I'm wrong, but my recollection is that ArbCom enacted the block during the RfA, but ArbCom had been in the process of investigating the Eostrix account for some time prior to the beginning of the RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240606201600","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20240606201600-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240606133400","replies":["c-Primefac-20240606203300-Tryptofish-20240606201600"]}}-->

You're mostly right; we had flagged the account earlier in the year as a potential sock, but the RFA was really the impetus for finally making the connection. Primefac (talk) 20:33, 6 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240606203300","author":"Primefac","type":"comment","level":10,"id":"c-Primefac-20240606203300-Tryptofish-20240606201600","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20240606204100-Primefac-20240606203300"]}}-->

If, hypothetically, the account had not been flagged earlier, but was flagged right around the beginning of the RfA, would ArbCom have been able to work it out within the time-frame of the RfA? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240606204100","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":11,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20240606204100-Primefac-20240606203300","replies":["c-Primefac-20240606204900-Tryptofish-20240606204100"]}}-->

Probably, especially if we asked for assistance from the CU team. Primefac (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240606204900","author":"Primefac","type":"comment","level":12,"id":"c-Primefac-20240606204900-Tryptofish-20240606204100","replies":[]}}-->

Decide whether or not the candidate violated the specific policies you named in your vote? It's not perfect, but it's the best system we got. I always did prefer the story about the giant bug to the one about the court, anyway. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 10:47, 5 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240605104700","author":"GreenLipstickLesbian","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-GreenLipstickLesbian-20240605104700-Joe_Roe-20240605103000","replies":["c-Joe_Roe-20240605114400-GreenLipstickLesbian-20240605104700"]}}-->

@Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI and GreenLipstickLesbian: there is a rather large gulf between 'something that stops me supporting an RfA' and 'off-wiki harassment meriting an ArbCom block'. Unlike user conduct forums—which is where the 'send it to ArbCom' rule comes from—you don't have to point to a specific policy violation or disruptive behaviour in an RfA. Editors are perfectly entitled oppose a candidate because they just don't think they'll be a good admin, don't like them, and/or get bad vibes – whether that's based on interactions on- or off-wiki. – Joe (talk) 11:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240605114400","author":"Joe Roe","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Joe_Roe-20240605114400-GreenLipstickLesbian-20240605104700","replies":["c-GreenLipstickLesbian-20240605115500-Joe_Roe-20240605114400","c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240605123200-Joe_Roe-20240605114400"],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

I have no interest in your vote, and nor have I expressed one. You asked a question about a hypothetical scenario. I answered. I am beginning to suspect that the question was rhetorical. Was it? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:55, 5 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240605115500","author":"GreenLipstickLesbian","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-GreenLipstickLesbian-20240605115500-Joe_Roe-20240605114400","replies":["c-Joe_Roe-20240605120900-GreenLipstickLesbian-20240605115500"]}}-->

I'm not talking about my vote specifically, I'm talking about RfA in general. My hypothetical question was supposed to be an analogy for RfA, because this is a discussion about RfA on WT:RFA, but sorry if the use of a counterfactual scenario confused things. (It was also, incidentally, directed specifically at Wilhelm). – Joe (talk) 12:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240605120900","author":"Joe Roe","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Joe_Roe-20240605120900-GreenLipstickLesbian-20240605115500","replies":[],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

I'll freely admit I don't know of an effective way to oppose the Discord logs consensus in the oppose section of an RfA. But I do know you shouldn't be opposing the Discord logs consensus by breaking it. It appears to me the better course of action would be a fresh RfC. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 12:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC) P.S. A wise person once said if something seems systemically broken on Wikipedia, that may be on purpose, to prevent you from doing what you wanted to do in the first place.__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240605123200","author":"Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240605123200-Joe_Roe-20240605114400","replies":[]}}-->

Caveat: I speak only in terms of WP:Discord, and not in general of usage of Discord outside of that specific server. Community consensus is that people would rather keep their Discord comments private. I don't think this is the consensus at all. It's certainly not why I !voted the way I did in the RFC, and anyone who believes that their Discord messages are private is very very sorely mistaken. Joe can call it ridiculous, self-serving excuses if he likes, but I based my position on my reading of the policies and community expectations as I understood them at the time. However, the Discord server has long stated up front (prior to the RFC), both on it's project page and its Server Guide / Info channel, that the messages posted are public and can be read by anyone that joins. The RFC is a silly result that comes from how our policies/guidelines are written. I've noted this in the ARCA as well, but some people take OUTING so far as to suggest mentioning personal details on the userpages of an editor on another Wikimedia project is forbidden. That's obviously silly as well, in the post-SUL world at least. My personal hope is some guidance at ARCA results in some clarification that can then be channeled to a new RFC, that at least takes the Discord question out of this equation. I have no comment on WPO. -- ferret (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240605143900","author":"Ferret","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ferret-20240605143900-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240605095600","replies":["c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240605161500-Ferret-20240605143900"]}}-->

I should clarify by "private" I meant that community consensus seemed to be that people didn't want Discord chat logs linked here. Obviously anyone can click on the invite and see every message since 2016. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 16:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240605161500","author":"Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240605161500-Ferret-20240605143900","replies":[]}}-->

speaking to question 2: i'm very active on the discord, and i've found some of the comments at Elli's RfA about the discord to be really far out of whack with what it's actually like on there. the moderators are, to their credit, very proactive in shutting down even a hint of misbehavior, to the point where it can even be a bit over-bearing occasionally. the abundance of caution on the part of the moderation team, especially where eg canvassing is concerned, is in part a reaction to what the server used to be like, as well as the history of off-wiki shenanigans that have landed at ArbCom's doorstep over the past 2 decades.
for those not on the discord or not aware of the rules there, one is generally not allowed to even neutrally link an ongoing RfC/XfD/etc or even discuss an active RfA at all. doing such is usually shut down by whoever's active in the chat at the time, whether moderators are there or not - in other words, the discord community does a good job of self-moderating against canvassing (or even the appearance of canvassing) without the moderators needing to enforce it themselves. the prohibition of discussing ongoing RfAs is particularly well-enforced in the wake of Vami_IV's passing, and some of the very difficult RfAs that members of the server have gone through previously. basically, the discord community wants to avoid adding more stress to an already stressful process.
now, i'm not active on WPO and never have been, but this to me seems like basically the exact opposite. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240605203200","author":"Sawyer777","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Sawyer777-20240605203200-Just_Step_Sideways-20240604193600","replies":[],"displayName":"sawyer"}}-->

Apologies if this has been brought up before, but as Svampesky suggested here (and as I had been thinking myself), why don't we have a separate page for votes à la the comments sections on The Signpost? The vote page can be extended-confirmed protected and transcluded to the main, unprotected RfA page. This way non-30/500 folks can still comment and ask questions but their votes, by nature of not being able to be cast, won't have to be publicly struck off - what we're doing now is a bit bitey imo. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 05:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620053700","author":"Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620053700-Extended-confirmed_protection","replies":["c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620054100-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620053700","c-Joe_Roe-20240620131100-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620053700","c-Floquenbeam-20240620144100-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620053700","c-Svampesky-20240620153700-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620053700","c-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620202700-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620053700"]}}-->

Or perhaps an edit filter that specifically detects edits to the Votes section and disallows non-ECP editors from submitting a vote? Is such a section-specific filter possible? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 05:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620054100","author":"Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620054100-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620053700","replies":["c-1AmNobody24-20240620060800-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620054100","c-Aszx5000-20240620091900-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620054100","c-Novem_Linguae-20240620114900-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620054100"]}}-->

Detecting sections probably not, but detecting votes by non-ECP editors should be easy. Nobody (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620060800","author":"1AmNobody24","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-1AmNobody24-20240620060800-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620054100","replies":[],"displayName":"Nobody"}}-->

The recent 2024 RfA review voted to prevent non-ECP editors from !voting and it was strongly supported. The closer of that review took the view that the vote was not to make the page ECP protected, but that was their view and I don't think it was properly debated.

It makes no sense that an almost new editor can make comments on an RfA candidate, and ironically, when many of the typical objections are that the candidate does not have experience. At the 2024 RfA review, it seemed clear that there have been instances where the non-ECP/IP editor was an experienced editor trying to disrupt the process and derail the RfA. Aszx5000 (talk) 09:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620091900","author":"Aszx5000","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Aszx5000-20240620091900-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620054100","replies":["c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620103900-Aszx5000-20240620091900"]}}-->

The idea of an RfA is for any editor to bring up concerns that can refute the nominator(s)' assertion that the candidate is suitable for the mop. This is why Opposers are badgered if they don't give a rationale, even if they're otherwise respectable editors - let alone a throwaway doing the same thing and disappearing without explanation (which is why I think Kusma used the narrow language that they did while writing up the proposal, of explicitly saying comments were welcomed from all). In my opinion IPs and newbies should be allowed to bring up actual concerns, but if indeed the constructive-to-nonconstructive ratio here is extremely low as Extraordinary Writ said in Support #6, we could probably exclude them from that as well. Would need fresh consensus though ~ Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 10:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620103900","author":"Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620103900-Aszx5000-20240620091900","replies":[]}}-->

Edit filters are run on every single edit page on the wiki, so they have a performance cost, and they are not usually a great choice for restricting very specific pages and sub pages. –Novem Linguae (talk) 11:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620114900","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240620114900-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620054100","replies":["c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620141500-Novem_Linguae-20240620114900"]}}-->

I'm so stupid, I read about this technical cost just a couple days ago. Yea edit filters are off the table –Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 14:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620141500","author":"Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620141500-Novem_Linguae-20240620114900","replies":[]}}-->

Not a bad idea, but there'd be a cost in terms of making it more awkward to edit and watchlist the voting page, especially for the first few RfAs as people get used to it. I think the simpler option of just applying ECP to the whole page would be fine. Participation by non-EC editors was already very low before they were prohibited from voting, and if the handful that do find their way to an RfA really want to comment without voting, they could do so on the talk page and ask for it to be copied over. I agree that what we do now, making it look like anyone with an account can freely edit and therefore vote in an RfA, then striking the comment—because oops didn't you read down to the sixth subsection of WP:RFA??—is a pretty unfriendly approach. – Joe (talk) 13:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620131100","author":"Joe Roe","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Joe_Roe-20240620131100-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620053700","replies":["c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620142300-Joe_Roe-20240620131100","c-DanCherek-20240620142900-Joe_Roe-20240620131100","c-Isaacl-20240620183900-Joe_Roe-20240620131100"],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

Right, I've thought up one more approach, so this can be framed as three proposals as below, for further input/consensus-building. In decreasing order of complexity:

• Option 1: Votes shall be cast on a separate, EC-protected subpage that will be transcluded onto the main, unprotected RfA page.
• Option 2: RfAs shall be EC-protected after the two discussion-only days. After this, IPs and newbies can bring up further concerns on the talk page.
• Option 3: RfAs shall be EC-protected altogether. IPs and newbies can bring up concerns on the talk page alone.

Is there a place for this to be proposed? RFA2024? Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 14:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620142300","author":"Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620142300-Joe_Roe-20240620131100","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20240620143100-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620142300"]}}-->

Should consider adding an "Option 4 - No change / status quo / strike non-EC votes" if you end up RFCing this. –Novem Linguae (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620143100","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240620143100-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620142300","replies":[]}}-->

If these options are being considered, we could also consider making the watchlist notice visible only to extended-confirmed accounts. DanCherek (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620142900","author":"DanCherek","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-DanCherek-20240620142900-Joe_Roe-20240620131100","replies":[]}}-->

I don't think using subpages will be an issue for adding comments. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests is set up with subpages and editing each section happens transparently. If desired, a link could be added to the top of the section to watchlist the subpage. An extra step would be required to create the subpage. isaacl (talk) 18:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620183900","author":"Isaacl","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Isaacl-20240620183900-Joe_Roe-20240620131100","replies":[]}}-->

• Why are we trying to solve a very minor problem with a long RFC discussion and new technical processes? I'd prefer Option 0: Just leave it as is, and any votes by non-EC people can quickly and easily be struck by, you know, humans. Who can leave a short message on the user's talk page. I understand the use of templates and bots and protection and edit filters for stuff that's overwhelming the humans, but this isn't. If anyone else agrees with me, perhaps they can better articulate this vague feeling I have that this increasingly common approach is the Wrong Direction^(TM). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620144100","author":"Floquenbeam","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Floquenbeam-20240620144100-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620053700","replies":["c-Firefangledfeathers-20240620145500-Floquenbeam-20240620144100","c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620145700-Floquenbeam-20240620144100"]}}-->

  I think there's a common belief that restrictions on new/unregistered users that rely on undoing/striking are more WP:BITEy than ones that technically prevent users from editing restricted spaces. I generally agree, but I don't think the trade-off is worthwhile if it inconveniences experienced editors and if the vast majority of participants are experienced. That's the case here; I'd prefer not to have a whole RfC about this, and if it does happen, I'm likely to vote Option 0, or what Novem is calling Option 4. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620145500","author":"Firefangledfeathers","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Firefangledfeathers-20240620145500-Floquenbeam-20240620144100","replies":[]}}-->

  Well it needn't be long if we can simply find consensus right here, and these technical processes are hardly new. Most RfA regulars must be familiar with the Signpost approach and they'll be fine with whatever's up next. EC-protection is not complicated at all. The reason I am opposed to the current approach is purely because of how striking out the votes of newbies and IPs is BITE-ey. Consider their POV - they walk in, they find a community process they may be interested in, participate in it (because it seems to be allowed)... then bam, their vote has a black line through it and there's a senior editor on their page telling them they're not allowed to do that. In contrast, if they just see a blue lock right from the beginning, there won't be any hard feelings. This is pushing me towards Option 3. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 14:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620145700","author":"Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620145700-Floquenbeam-20240620144100","replies":["c-Floquenbeam-20240620150500-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620145700"]}}-->

  Thanks for explaining the motivation. I guess I just really disagree; having a human come and explain why they can't vote yet seems much less bitey to me. I doubt anyone who isn't allowed to vote knows what a blue lock means, so they're going to try. I think all the system message says is something to the effect of "you can't edit this page", without explaining why. Floquenbeam (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620150500","author":"Floquenbeam","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Floquenbeam-20240620150500-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620145700","replies":["c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620151000-Floquenbeam-20240620150500","c-Isaacl-20240620184500-Floquenbeam-20240620150500","c-Tryptofish-20240620194800-Floquenbeam-20240620150500"]}}-->

  On desktop, the system doesn't say a thing, they simply don't get the option to edit (only to view the source). On mobile, they get "this page has been protected" or similar. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 15:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620151000","author":"Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620151000-Floquenbeam-20240620150500","replies":[]}}-->

  Well, they can state a support/oppose opinion from a technical perspective; they're just not permitted to do so from a process perspective. If a human would pop up at the moment they tried to edit the page, sure, that would be ideal, but failing that, stopping them from being able to edit the page is, in my view, less confusing. isaacl (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620184500","author":"Isaacl","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Isaacl-20240620184500-Floquenbeam-20240620150500","replies":[]}}-->

  Although I think that having a human explain it certainly is non-bitey, having their !vote stay on the RfA page with it struck-through isn't. For that reason, I like Options 2 and 3, because that prevents any embarrassment. There should be (yet another) note to that effect near the top of the RfA page, explaining the protection and pointing to the talk page, in the hopes that some will read it. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620194800","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20240620194800-Floquenbeam-20240620150500","replies":[]}}-->

• Comment I was pinged in this. Leave it as is, the striking is okay and I didn't feel bitten. I'd've felt bitten if people got on my case about it, but no one did. I cast a new !vote and didn't reinstate the original one because it's nothing to be embarrassed about. You cast an invalid !vote, it’s not a big deal; good-faith mistakes aren't something that should be swept under the carpet. Svampesky (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620153700","author":"Svampesky","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Svampesky-20240620153700-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620053700","replies":["c-Svampesky-20240620154900-Svampesky-20240620153700"]}}-->

  How about this? Option 5:

  - Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Username - Not protected (for comments)

  - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Username/!Votes - ECP protected

  - Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Username - Not protected, but transcludes both above like The Signpost

  - Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Username/Off-topic - Not protected (for the badgering) Svampesky (talk) 15:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620154900","author":"Svampesky","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Svampesky-20240620154900-Svampesky-20240620153700","replies":[]}}-->

• If protection would be too controversial, an alternative would be to have a large bold-faced red message that YOU ARE NOT ELIGIBLE TO !VOTE IN THIS RFA and then use Template:If extended confirmed and its relatives to hide it from anyone who's extended confirmed. A passing mention in the editnotice isn't conspicious enough to be noticed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620202700","author":"Extraordinary Writ","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620202700-Wilhelm_Tell_DCCXLVI-20240620053700","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20240620203000-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620202700","c-Perfect4th-20240620204300-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620202700","c-ULPS-20240620211300-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620202700"]}}-->

  This seems like the best idea so far, since it is easy and effective and would not need an RFC. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620203000","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240620203000-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620202700","replies":[]}}-->

  Out of curiosity, is it possible to nest if admin and if extended confirmed given that the latter doesn't hide text from admins? Perfect4th (talk) 20:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620204300","author":"Perfect4th","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Perfect4th-20240620204300-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620202700","replies":["c-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620204900-Perfect4th-20240620204300"]}}-->

  It is: see User:Extraordinary Writ/sandbox7. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620204900","author":"Extraordinary Writ","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620204900-Perfect4th-20240620204300","replies":["c-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620214000-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620204900","c-Soni-20240620223400-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620204900"]}}-->

  This is actually harder than it looks as long as this and this remain unresolved. I guess the workaround in the current revision of User:Extraordinary Writ/sandbox7 does the trick, but maybe someone more technically minded can think of something better. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620214000","author":"Extraordinary Writ","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620214000-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620204900","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20240620215800-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620214000"]}}-->

  Maybe try <div class="extendedconfirmed-show sysop-show">Your message here.</div>. That might work and be a bit neater. –Novem Linguae (talk) 21:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620215800","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240620215800-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620214000","replies":["c-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620221000-Novem_Linguae-20240620215800"]}}-->

  Is there an easy way to do the opposite of that (to show it only to non-EC non-admins)? Typically <div class="nonextendedconfirmed-show nonsysop-show">Your message here.</div> would work, but interface admins haven't wanted to add nonsysop-show. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620221000","author":"Extraordinary Writ","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620221000-Novem_Linguae-20240620215800","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20240620222200-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620221000"]}}-->

  Ah, I forgot about the "else" case. Sadly, I can't think of anything better than what you have in the sandbox. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620222200","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240620222200-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620221000","replies":[]}}-->

  The last thing is that sometimes editors with 500 edits/30 day account get EC removed. Usually it's an accident/side-effect when other roles are edited, like an admin resigning their bit. Is that enough people to add a fix for them? I don't think any template solution has a way to check edit count anyway. Soni (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620223400","author":"Soni","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Soni-20240620223400-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620204900","replies":[]}}-->

  Enacting this seems like the right move, would prevent an unnecessary RFC. As Floq said, this is a pretty minor issue that we shouldn't waste too much time with. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240620211300","author":"ULPS","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-ULPS-20240620211300-Extraordinary_Writ-20240620202700","replies":[]}}-->

The Researcher access right allows users to view deleted content, but not to actually delete (or block, or protect pages, or do anything else admin-y that isn't viewing deleted content).

I am one of the more active admins on Commons (and just picked back up admin on Wikidata to better deal with cross-project spam), and it would be useful for me to be able to see user's deleted English Wikipedia contributions in order to better assess whether images nominated for deletion on Commons as spam are, in fact, spam.

However, there really isn't a precedent for applying for this right, as far as I'm aware, so before I went down the path of actually trying, I wanted to do a temperature check to see if such a thing was something this community would even approve of.

Cheers, The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240621013600","author":"The Squirrel Conspiracy","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20240621013600-Temperature_check:_Applying_for_the_Researcher_right","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240621031900-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20240621013600","c-Firefangledfeathers-20240621035300-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20240621013600","c-Xaosflux-20240621122000-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20240621013600","c-Sohom_Datta-20240623142300-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20240621013600","c-Novem_Linguae-20240624035800-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20240621013600","c-Graeme_Bartlett-20240624105800-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20240621013600","c-Floquenbeam-20240624122100-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20240621013600"]}}-->

@The Squirrel Conspiracy: It looks like we have 3 editors with this permission [2]. My gut instinct is to tell you that getting approved for this would be difficult. I wonder what people who are sysops on both projects think of these sorts of situations? There might be viable alternatives. Courtesy ping to Red-tailed hawk who happens to be the only person that I know to be an enwiki and commons sysop (at least off the top of my head). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240621031900","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240621031900-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20240621013600","replies":["c-Red-tailed_hawk-20240622023800-Clovermoss-20240621031900"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

I don't know of any local process to grant it. My understanding is that the WMF holds that viewing deleted data is something that requires vetting (and requires some RFA-like process or elections for a local wiki to give out a role with that right), so we can't quite give it out ad-hoc.

That being said, I believe that it is theoretically possible to create a local process to grant the right. We just don't have one on EnWiki, and the process would probably need some WMF eyes to actually get approval.

Pinging @Vermont and RAdimer-WMF: Can you confirm my understanding on this is correct? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240622023800","author":"Red-tailed hawk","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Red-tailed_hawk-20240622023800-Clovermoss-20240621031900","replies":["c-RAdimer-WMF-20240622025500-Red-tailed_hawk-20240622023800","c-Clovermoss-20240622034400-Red-tailed_hawk-20240622023800"],"displayName":"Red-tailed\u00a0hawk"}}-->

Red-tailed hawk, thanks for the ping. I've brought this up internally and will get back to you when I can :) RAdimer-WMF (talk) 02:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240622025500","author":"RAdimer-WMF","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-RAdimer-WMF-20240622025500-Red-tailed_hawk-20240622023800","replies":[]}}-->

@Red-tailed hawk: Any ideas on possible alternatives if this perm doesn't get granted for whatever reason? I'm not sure how common the above scenario described for the use case is. If it's a small scale issue, collaboration with individual enwiki admins might make it unnessecary. It likely wouldn't be all that different from the admins who provide copies of deleted articles to users with reasonable requests. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:44, 22 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240622034400","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240622034400-Red-tailed_hawk-20240622023800","replies":["c-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20240622060600-Clovermoss-20240622034400","c-Red-tailed_hawk-20240624055300-Clovermoss-20240622034400"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

@Clovermoss: Individual requests might be overkill. When an image on Commons gets tagged for deletion on Commons as spam and is in use in the draft space, I can check out the article and gain a lot of valuable content with just a quick glance - is this an SEO optimizer, someone writing an autobiography, a fan of the subject, etcetera. Being able to see deleted articles would extend this ability to gain said insight into situations where instead of a live draft space article, it's a deleted main space article. Most of the time, the file is going to get deleted as spam, but every once in a while, I catch that it's a fan or other genuinely good-meaning contributor that just doesn't know how to write in an encyclopedia style, and then I convert the speedy tag into a standard-length deletion discussion or outright save the image. That being said, the ratio of non-spam to spam among files tagged for speedy deletion as spam is pretty low, and the volume of such files is decently high, so I'd be doing, say, a lot of pinging admins on Discord to save very few files. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240622060600","author":"The Squirrel Conspiracy","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20240622060600-Clovermoss-20240622034400","replies":[]}}-->

There is a lot less friction if one does not have to involve someone else. We needn't use time from two persons to achieve one task when time from one would do quite well. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240624055300","author":"Red-tailed hawk","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Red-tailed_hawk-20240624055300-Clovermoss-20240622034400","replies":[],"displayName":"Red-tailed\u00a0hawk"}}-->

First, I'm not sure who exactly can assign the researcher right, but I can tell you English Wikipedia admins can't. It looks like it may be a WMF-only thing. Secondly, maybe a friendly neighborhood WMF person (or bureaucrat, if they're capable) can remove researcher from the three people that currently have it? It doesn't seem like it was ever meant to be a permanent right. Finally, TSC, if you have any interest in being an en.wiki admin, I'd welcome an RfA. In addition to the cross-wiki spam you mention, you'd be an asset at WP:ERRORS. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:53, 21 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240621035300","author":"Firefangledfeathers","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Firefangledfeathers-20240621035300-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20240621013600","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240621035900-Firefangledfeathers-20240621035300","c-Pppery-20240621042000-Firefangledfeathers-20240621035300","c-Soni-20240621060800-Firefangledfeathers-20240621035300"]}}-->

This log does give the impression that these permissions were meant to be a temporary thing [3]. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 03:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240621035900","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240621035900-Firefangledfeathers-20240621035300","replies":[],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

Only Stewards (and I guess sysadmins and WMF trust and safety but they probably won't get involved here) have the technical ability to assign the right. That fact doesn't really matter much here as I'm sure if whatever the community decides is the process for this is followed sufficiently one of them will be happy to oblige. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240621042000","author":"Pppery","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Pppery-20240621042000-Firefangledfeathers-20240621035300","replies":[],"displayName":"* Pppery *"}}-->

This situation also reminded me of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger seth. It's rare, but there's definitely precedent for us to RFA someone who's already trusted elsewhere and use adminship in highly technical situations. Not sure how much this applies here though. Soni (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240621060800","author":"Soni","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Soni-20240621060800-Firefangledfeathers-20240621035300","replies":["c-MarcGarver-20240621105900-Soni-20240621060800"]}}-->

All three +researcher were performed by the WMF, and the first team at least were intended to be temporary, but never removed. MarcGarver (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240621105900","author":"MarcGarver","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-MarcGarver-20240621105900-Soni-20240621060800","replies":["c-MarcGarver-20240621111000-MarcGarver-20240621105900"]}}-->

In fact, based on the page at Meta, created by the WMF team, EpochFail and Jtmorgan can have the rights removed without further discussion as they were clearly only granted until 1 September 2011. MarcGarver (talk) 11:10, 21 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240621111000","author":"MarcGarver","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-MarcGarver-20240621111000-MarcGarver-20240621105900","replies":["c-JSutherland_(WMF)-20240626193300-MarcGarver-20240621111000"]}}-->

Well, I tried to do so and am somehow unable. Filed phab:T368577. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240626193300","author":"JSutherland (WMF)","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-JSutherland_(WMF)-20240626193300-MarcGarver-20240621111000","replies":["c-Soni-20240628230600-JSutherland_(WMF)-20240626193300"],"displayName":"Joe Sutherland (WMF)"}}-->

As an update to anyone not following phab/meta, all three users had their researcher rights removed. So it's currently an empty user-right. Soni (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240628230600","author":"Soni","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Soni-20240628230600-JSutherland_(WMF)-20240626193300","replies":[]}}-->

• Short answer: You'd apply via WMF. This community didn't ask for this permission to be built here, it was forced by the site owners, who control it. — xaosflux ^Talk 12:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240621122000","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20240621122000-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20240621013600","replies":["c-TonyBallioni-20240622075400-Xaosflux-20240621122000"]}}-->
  • Xaosflux, does it actually give the ability to see deleted content? I'm trying to remember discussions that I had about this a while back, and my recollection was that it gave the ability to see the dates, timestamps, and editors (i.e. basically the deleted page history) but not the actual content that was deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240622075400","author":"TonyBallioni","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-TonyBallioni-20240622075400-Xaosflux-20240621122000","replies":["c-Xaosflux-20240622095400-TonyBallioni-20240622075400","c-Suffusion_of_Yellow-20240624000700-TonyBallioni-20240622075400"]}}-->

    @TonyBallioni yes, WMF added deletedtext to it a ways back. — xaosflux ^Talk 09:54, 22 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240622095400","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20240622095400-TonyBallioni-20240622075400","replies":[]}}-->

    Anyone can see the dates, timestamps, and editors, unless the page was oversighted; try this API query while logged out. See also User:SD0001/deleted-metadata-link. I don't know why this is buried in the API instead of part of the web interface. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240624000700","author":"Suffusion of Yellow","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Suffusion_of_Yellow-20240624000700-TonyBallioni-20240622075400","replies":["c-Xaosflux-20240624004400-Suffusion_of_Yellow-20240624000700"]}}-->

    From what I recall, this used to be restricted, and I don't recall any global RFC to change it - but some developers changed it in phab:T232389. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240624004400","author":"Xaosflux","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Xaosflux-20240624004400-Suffusion_of_Yellow-20240624000700","replies":[]}}-->

• I think the correct way to do this would be to gain consensus that these set of rights can be unbundled, create a new userright with permissions analogous to the current researcher userright and then have it be assigned by bcrats or admins based on a community procedure/vote, all of which are a lot of work for the specific situation you are describing. Regarding the researcher right, I'm pretty sure that (AFAIK) it is only given to peeps who are working on a research project that requires access to deleted edits (say something like Empowering newbies: Investigating Harassment and Safety in Wikipedia), and I would assume that it would have to be assigned after WMF review.Sohom (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240623142300","author":"Sohom Datta","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Sohom_Datta-20240623142300-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20240621013600","replies":[],"displayName":"Sohom"}}-->
• I don't think there's community consensus to grant this perm to additional folks. It sounds like the 3 folks that were granted this 9+ years ago were granted it by WMF staff accounts. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240624035800","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240624035800-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20240621013600","replies":["c-JSutherland_(WMF)-20240626193500-Novem_Linguae-20240624035800"]}}-->

  Exactly right - unfortunately we were a lot less organised that long ago, so there were no logs maintained for the issuance of these rights. I think it's totally fine to remove them, once it's possible to do so. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240626193500","author":"JSutherland (WMF)","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-JSutherland_(WMF)-20240626193500-Novem_Linguae-20240624035800","replies":[],"displayName":"Joe Sutherland (WMF)"}}-->

• The Squirrel Conspiracy: to get specific answers to questions about deleted content, you can ask at WP:REFUND you could get an opinion, a snippet of content, perhaps a restore as a draft, or an email with the content. So for occasional investigations, this would be far easier than creating a new user group and the procedures to cope with it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240624105800","author":"Graeme Bartlett","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Graeme_Bartlett-20240624105800-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20240621013600","replies":["c-Robertsky-20240624110400-Graeme_Bartlett-20240624105800"]}}-->

  or a RfA. 😁 – robertsky (talk) 11:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240624110400","author":"Robertsky","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Robertsky-20240624110400-Graeme_Bartlett-20240624105800","replies":[],"displayName":"\u2013 robertsky"}}-->

• I agree with Soni, I think Lustiger seth's RFA is the best equivalent to this. That passed at 77%, but it was in 2008. IMHO, a "view deleted edits only" RFA should pass for the same reason LS's did, but I have no idea what would happen today; community opinion is (for me) harder to predict these days. If you started an RFA with the attitude "if this fails, it will be because of people's opinion on how RFA should work, not their opinion of me specifically, and I will not let it hurt me", I think you might have a decent shot. Especially since I don't think there are currently other workable options. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240624122100","author":"Floquenbeam","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Floquenbeam-20240624122100-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20240621013600","replies":[]}}-->

Hey howdy, I was invited to comment by Legal via RAdimer-WMF since it's generally T&S who give out rights to staff. Looks like, as people have noted, this one was provided a long long time ago, before we maintained internal logs and before we had a robust requesting system. (The long-story-short is that we only provide rights to staff when necessary for job actions and only with approvals from their managers and/or our T&S Global Head.) Generally you all can do as you want with the Researcher right, but historical precedent would suggest splitting up the admin tools like this on a larger scale would likely require consensus. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240628205000","author":"JSutherland (WMF)","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JSutherland_(WMF)-20240628205000-WMF_reply_about_userrights","replies":["c-Suffusion_of_Yellow-20240628213300-JSutherland_(WMF)-20240628205000"],"displayName":"Joe Sutherland (WMF)"}}-->

@JSutherland (WMF): you all can do as you want: Are you ... sure? I was under the impression that WMF-legal required that anyone wanting deletedtext rights had to go through an "RFA or an RFA-like process". Has this changed? If a wiki holds an RFC tomorrow, and the outcome is "admins can unilaterally hand out researcher rights to anyone who asks nicely" WMF-legal would not object? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240628213300","author":"Suffusion of Yellow","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Suffusion_of_Yellow-20240628213300-JSutherland_(WMF)-20240628205000","replies":["c-JSutherland_(WMF)-20240628214000-Suffusion_of_Yellow-20240628213300"]}}-->

Oh yeah, my bad, that's still technically the stance since I don't think it was ever re-evaluated (meta:Limits to configuration changes, Wikipedia:Viewing deleted content). Both of those stances are at this point thirteen years old in fairness, but yeah, you're right in that they're still current. Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240628214000","author":"JSutherland (WMF)","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-JSutherland_(WMF)-20240628214000-Suffusion_of_Yellow-20240628213300","replies":["c-Soni-20240628225200-JSutherland_(WMF)-20240628214000"],"displayName":"Joe Sutherland (WMF)"}}-->

@JSutherland (WMF) Could WMF/WMF-Legal clarify if those stances have changed in the last 13 years? Or the more general "What rights can be unbundled from admin without requiring an RFA-like process"?

This question has come up in RFA adjacent discussion for a few years with the WMF's final say being a deciding factor in "We cannot do this". Knowing which are currently considered un-bundleable will help enWiki evauate if any of them will be better off as separated. Soni (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240628225200","author":"Soni","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Soni-20240628225200-JSutherland_(WMF)-20240628214000","replies":["c-The_Wordsmith-20240628230000-Soni-20240628225200","c-JSutherland_(WMF)-20240701213900-Soni-20240628225200"]}}-->

Seconding this request. I'm generally not in favor of unbundling (and I don't think the community is either), but it would at least be good to know if the options have changed. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 23:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240628230000","author":"The Wordsmith","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-The_Wordsmith-20240628230000-Soni-20240628225200","replies":["c-EggRoll97-20240701074100-The_Wordsmith-20240628230000"]}}-->

WMF appears to have actually gotten more lax in the viewdeleted requirements as the years go on, as the most recent stance appears to be that CU/OS can even be handed out without adminship or a community election process, so long as ArbCom allows community feedback. See here. I would be interested to see if the community would be in favor of unbundling these types of rights, though I think the chances probably sit somewhere just above "dead in the water" and below "it's possible?" in regards to actually getting an RFC. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 07:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240701074100","author":"EggRoll97","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-EggRoll97-20240701074100-The_Wordsmith-20240628230000","replies":["c-Vermont-20240703175800-EggRoll97-20240701074100"]}}-->

Fwiw, a bunch of projects have non-admin CheckUsers, and the method of appointment is constrained to elections or ArbCom appointments. Personally, I strongly recommend against projects appointing non-admin CUs; it makes it a lot harder to make blocks based on nonpublic information when the people who have to make those blocks (non-CU admins) can't have that information. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 17:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240703175800","author":"Vermont","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Vermont-20240703175800-EggRoll97-20240701074100","replies":["c-Soni-20240703181400-Vermont-20240703175800"]}}-->

meta:Limits to configuration changes should be updated to meet current standards wrt handing out CU/OS. And personally, I agree. But I also would like clarity on what specifically can/cannot be unbundled (even if it's arbcom instead of elections). It'll let the community decide if anything else is better off as "Arbcom appoints" or even "Crat/admin appointed", even if I cannot currently think of any, offhand.

(I have emailed this question to [email protected] per Joe's suggestion) Soni (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240703181400","author":"Soni","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Soni-20240703181400-Vermont-20240703175800","replies":["c-Vermont-20240703182000-Soni-20240703181400"]}}-->

It seems up-to-date to me: stewards handle the technical granting and removal of CU/OS pursuant to the global CU and OS policies. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 18:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240703182000","author":"Vermont","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Vermont-20240703182000-Soni-20240703181400","replies":["c-Soni-20240703183400-Vermont-20240703182000"]}}-->

Ah I was missing that distinction, thank you. Is there a general "Arbcom can request stewards to assign these rights" list somewhere? Or is it just a special exception for CU/OS. Soni (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240703183400","author":"Soni","type":"comment","level":10,"id":"c-Soni-20240703183400-Vermont-20240703182000","replies":["c-Vermont-20240703204200-Soni-20240703183400"]}}-->

All grants for CU/OS are handled on Steward requests/Permissions. When ArbCom seeks to appoint a new CU or OS, they leave a request on Meta and a steward will verify and action it. If a project without an ArbCom elects a new CU or OS, they'll leave a request at the same place with a link to the discussion, and we'll verify it was done in line with policy. Vermont (🐿️—🏳️‍🌈) 20:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240703204200","author":"Vermont","type":"comment","level":11,"id":"c-Vermont-20240703204200-Soni-20240703183400","replies":[]}}-->

I think this question would need to be emailed to the team for discussion internally (and to track it for metrics etc) - [email protected] Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:39, 1 July 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240701213900","author":"JSutherland (WMF)","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-JSutherland_(WMF)-20240701213900-Soni-20240628225200","replies":[],"displayName":"Joe Sutherland (WMF)"}}-->

We were contacted about this through email - thanks! Here's what we replied:

I spoke with the Legal team yesterday about this. They did mention that a complete answer to this would require a fair bit of research which they don't have the bandwidth for at the moment.

I think the general consensus is that the issue is trust. An RfA process with community votes implicitly proves that the user has this trust from the community. While the risk of deleted content containing extremely private information is low, it is not zero, and as such we'd not be comfortable allowing users access to this without first proving they have the trust of the community.

There could be other methods to "prove" this trust that serve the same purpose, but previous suggestions haven't been sufficient; a while back there was a proposal to give prospective admins a limited tool set but since these users were basically just picked by admins the trust element wasn't as strong.

Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240722185600","author":"JSutherland (WMF)","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JSutherland_(WMF)-20240722185600-WMF_reply_about_userrights","replies":[],"displayName":"Joe Sutherland (WMF)"}}-->

So, we've now received the reply above from the WMF. If the researcher right was dealt with in a similar fashion to adminship, going through WP:RFA, but presumably having a new section for "Requests for researcher" or similar, this would more than likely meet the requirements. The more important question, though, is whether there is actually any support for making this a thing. Presumably there's a lot of other questions to be asked regarding implementation as well, especially "what kind of use case would be acceptable for this?", though I can think of at least a few use cases. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 06:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240820061800","author":"EggRoll97","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-EggRoll97-20240820061800-Following_reply","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20240820095400-EggRoll97-20240820061800","c-The_Wordsmith-20240820173800-EggRoll97-20240820061800"]}}-->

I don't see a lot of interest in creating a researcher permission on enwiki. We seem to have done fine without it for the last 20+ years. Especially if that process would be more like RFA than WP:PERM. –Novem Linguae (talk) 09:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240820095400","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240820095400-EggRoll97-20240820061800","replies":[]}}-->

I agree that there doesn't seem to be much appetite for actually using it right now, at least on enwiki. I could see it being useful on Commons and a few others for enwiki admins/CU to be able to see deleted contributions for SPI cases, but that would be a question for the other wikis. Right now, this seems like a good thing to keep in our back pockets if a use case ever arises but I don't think it needs to go further now. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 17:38, 20 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240820173800","author":"The Wordsmith","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-The_Wordsmith-20240820173800-EggRoll97-20240820061800","replies":["c-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20240821024600-The_Wordsmith-20240820173800"]}}-->

As the original proposer, I'm no longer interested in pursuing this. Even if it's half the mess that RFA is, it's just not worth it for me at this time. While it would be a useful tool in cross-wiki spam and abuse-fighting, it's by no means a necessary tool. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240821024600","author":"The Squirrel Conspiracy","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-The_Squirrel_Conspiracy-20240821024600-The_Wordsmith-20240820173800","replies":[]}}-->

I'm not trying to be an alarmist and am aware that some have been raising concerns for years, but FWIW as of this comment we are down to 428 active admins on the English Wikipedia. There is going to reach a point in the not-too-distant future where the attrition is going to start impacting the project. I'm already noting occasional backlogs in areas where such used to be pretty rare. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826011700","author":"Ad Orientem","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ad_Orientem-20240826011700-We're_getting_kinda_low","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240826013400-Ad_Orientem-20240826011700","c-Dekimasu-20240826023600-Ad_Orientem-20240826011700"]}}-->

Where are you noticing the backlogs? I've found myself mostly doing the same few admin tasks. I'm open to trying new things if there's specific areas that desperately need admins (except for AE, not interested in getting myself into that). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826013400","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826013400-Ad_Orientem-20240826011700","replies":["c-Ad_Orientem-20240826013600-Clovermoss-20240826013400"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

RFPP and surprisingly, I've seen a few backlogs at AIV, though usually late at night. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826013600","author":"Ad Orientem","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ad_Orientem-20240826013600-Clovermoss-20240826013400","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240826014300-Ad_Orientem-20240826013600"]}}-->

Could you be more specific than late at night? I'm EST but I keep weird hours sometimes as a former night shift worker. I could try to take a look at RfPP and ANV more often. So far I've mostly processed csds, blocked a few obvious vandals/spammers, and assigned a handful of userrights. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826014300","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826014300-Ad_Orientem-20240826013600","replies":["c-Ad_Orientem-20240826021900-Clovermoss-20240826014300"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

I'm also EST. I suspect a very large block of admins will be in the western hemisphere for the understandable reason that this is where much of the English speaking world lives. I don't think things have reached a point where it's gotten urgent. But when I passed my RfA (class of '16) we had around 600 active admins (close to twice as many occasionally active). The attrition rate was pretty steep in the immediately preceding years and has slowed since. However, it has not stopped. I figure we have seen a roughly 20% decline in active admins. Because of the automatic desysopping of inactive admins the raw numbers can look worse. Anyways, just some food for thought. We all do what we can. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826021900","author":"Ad Orientem","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Ad_Orientem-20240826021900-Clovermoss-20240826014300","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240826023100-Ad_Orientem-20240826021900"]}}-->

To be quite frank I've been trying to give NPP more of a helping hand when I'm in the mood to do maintenance related tasks because that backlog is just absolutely insane. At least things aren't that level of backlogged on the admin side. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826023100","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826023100-Ad_Orientem-20240826021900","replies":[],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

Of course the trend is downward on a larger scale, but I don't think we are at any sort of breaking point. We were at 434 in September 2021 and at 434 a few days ago. Most admin work is done by a much smaller number of admins regardless of how many are actually active, so losing those sorts of admins causes more issues. As Clovermoss indicates, looking at actual backlogs is probably more productive than looking at numbers of admins, and trying to distribute efforts in a more efficient way would be helpful. Are you finding that people are ignoring backlogs even when attention is called to them at places like WP:AN and WP:RFCL? Dekimasuよ! 02:36, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826023600","author":"Dekimasu","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Dekimasu-20240826023600-Ad_Orientem-20240826011700","replies":["c-Dekimasu-20240826043900-Dekimasu-20240826023600","c-Locke_Cole-20240828154100-Dekimasu-20240826023600"]}}-->

For reference: in the last two months, 418 non-bot accounts have taken at least 1 logged admin action, 229 non-bot accounts have taken at least 10 admin actions, 109 non-bot accounts have taken at least 100 admin actions, 40 non-bot accounts have taken at least 500 admin actions, 16 non-bot accounts have taken at least 1000 admin actions, and 5 non-bot accounts have taken at least 2500 admin actions. Of 119,659 human logged admin actions, 101,491 (84.8%) were performed by 50 editors. More than half were done by 5 people. Dekimasuよ! 04:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826043900","author":"Dekimasu","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Dekimasu-20240826043900-Dekimasu-20240826023600","replies":["c-Robertsky-20240826071400-Dekimasu-20240826043900","c-Levivich-20240826073100-Dekimasu-20240826043900"]}}-->

More than half were done by 5 people. Are you deriving from this, or you are doing a rolling 60 days? Nonetheless, these are done mostly in areas where deletion is required, i.e. AfD, CSD, RfD, or expiring drafts at AfC, and most of the time, these areas are well tended to. That being said, if there is backlog there or one of these 5 admins are getting burned out, we should step up. – robertsky (talk) 07:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826071400","author":"Robertsky","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Robertsky-20240826071400-Dekimasu-20240826043900","replies":["c-Dekimasu-20240826072200-Robertsky-20240826071400"],"displayName":"\u2013 robertsky"}}-->

I used that tool's output for the period starting June 27. Certainly there is lots of administrative work that doesn't show up clearly in these logs (RfC closes, AfD keeps, declining unblocks, page moves, etc.), and some of this overlaps with "admin" work that is being handled by non-admins. Dekimasuよ! 07:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826072200","author":"Dekimasu","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Dekimasu-20240826072200-Robertsky-20240826071400","replies":[]}}-->

I think those totals are skewed. Take out Explicit and Liz's 50k deletions (and DQbot's 6k revdels) and the rest of the curve looks more distributed. That 50k must be batch processing of some kind. Levivich (talk) 07:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826073100","author":"Levivich","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Levivich-20240826073100-Dekimasu-20240826043900","replies":["c-Dekimasu-20240826080400-Levivich-20240826073100"]}}-->

The bots were already removed from the numbers above. Dekimasuよ! 08:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826080400","author":"Dekimasu","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Dekimasu-20240826080400-Levivich-20240826073100","replies":["c-Levivich-20240826133500-Dekimasu-20240826080400"]}}-->

If you remove Explicit and Liz (who are not bots?), then it doesn't appear accurate that >50% of logged actions were done by 5 people, at least not according to the admin stats link provided above, unless I'm missing something. Levivich (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826133500","author":"Levivich","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Levivich-20240826133500-Dekimasu-20240826080400","replies":["c-HJ_Mitchell-20240826135000-Levivich-20240826133500"]}}-->

Explicit does a lot of batch deletions of images and Liz closes a lot of AfDs. Both are areas that lend themselves to large numbers of admin actions in a short period of time because most of the decision making has already been done (which is not to disparage the valuable work these admins do in any way), whereas evaluating a messy noticeboard thread, for example, might take an hour or more and produce only a single admin action or none at all. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826135000","author":"HJ Mitchell","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-HJ_Mitchell-20240826135000-Levivich-20240826133500","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240826135200-HJ_Mitchell-20240826135000","c-Levivich-20240826142600-HJ_Mitchell-20240826135000"],"displayName":"HJ\u00a0Mitchell"}}-->

Speaking of closing discussions, if someone wanted to consider doing something like that, what would your advice be? I've never closed a discussion and I'd honestly want to participate in more of them before I close them. But I am willing to branch out into more niche admin areas if I wasn't worried about barging in and messing things up. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826135200","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826135200-HJ_Mitchell-20240826135000","replies":["c-HJ_Mitchell-20240826140200-Clovermoss-20240826135200","c-Novem_Linguae-20240826182600-Clovermoss-20240826135200"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

@Clovermoss as with anything, start small and build up. :) You just need to read the discussion, if it's messy or controversial it's worth writing a summary of the arguments and their applicability to policies, and then record what the consensus is (assuming there is one) and implement it if appropriate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:02, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826140200","author":"HJ Mitchell","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-HJ_Mitchell-20240826140200-Clovermoss-20240826135200","replies":["c-Joyous!-20240826181400-HJ_Mitchell-20240826140200"],"displayName":"HJ\u00a0Mitchell"}}-->

@Clovermoss, you might try checking out discussions that have already been closed. Don't look at the result at first. Read over all the discussion and decide on what you think the outcome should be, then check see if you are more-or-less in tune with the actual closing decision. Joyous! Noise! 18:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826181400","author":"Joyous!","type":"comment","level":10,"id":"c-Joyous!-20240826181400-HJ_Mitchell-20240826140200","replies":[]}}-->

You can visit a board like WP:CR and look for easy ones to close. Sometimes there's a clear consensus or near-unanimous consensus and it just needs a non-involved stamp of approval. My best tip for closing is pretend you're writing a Wikipedia article and using the discussion as your source. Summarize, don't supervote. Also when you're new at closing, if someone objects on your talk page, self-revert and let someone else close it, until you're confident you know the culture of closing in that corner of Wikipedia. Each area of Wikipedia has its own culture of closing, so be sensitive to calibrating yourself to this. For example, at AFD you're supposed to upweigh GNG/SNG based arguments and downweigh the rest, at RFD you're sometimes expected to WP:BARTENDER instead of no consensus, etc. –Novem Linguae (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826182600","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240826182600-Clovermoss-20240826135200","replies":[]}}-->

Liz closes a lot of AFDs but she didn't close 19,414 AFDs in the past two months; those are obviously batch deletions as well, probably CSDs.

Last 2 mos admin stats shows 120k total actions. The top 5 #'s are 28k, 19k, 6k, 3.5k, 3.5k. Those top two (Explicit and Liz) are outliers that skew the overall totals. They're performing automated actions using non-bot accounts -- nothing wrong with that, except when we're looking to analyze non-automated actions, we need to remove those two from consideration along with the bots.

Taking the top 2 (and bots) out of consideration leaves 72,757 logged admin actions in the last two months performed by 416 different admins. Of those 72,757 logged admin actions, 55,244 (75%) were performed by 50 admins (12%). Pareto principle's 80/20 applies here: 83 admins (20%) performed 64,134 admin actions (88%). But the top 5 (excluding Explicit and Liz) preformed 17,544 actions, or about 24% of all actions--not half.

The distribution of logged admin actions shows the pareto principle at work but nothing more unusual than that. In other words, our logged admin action work load is distributed the same as any other work load among any other group of people in the world. We're normal in our distribution of work load. Levivich (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826142600","author":"Levivich","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Levivich-20240826142600-HJ_Mitchell-20240826135000","replies":["c-HJ_Mitchell-20240826143500-Levivich-20240826142600"]}}-->

Not necessarily disputing your point, but one AfD could result in multiple deletions if there are talk pages and redirects; possibly not 20k though. And all those admin actions, although semi-automated, would still need to be done if Liz and Explicit weren't doing them—a human would still have to review that each file didn't have a suitable copyright status or that each AfD had a consensus for deletion. The automation aids in implementing the decision, but it still needs to be made by a human. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826143500","author":"HJ Mitchell","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-HJ_Mitchell-20240826143500-Levivich-20240826142600","replies":["c-Vanamonde93-20240826165200-HJ_Mitchell-20240826143500"],"displayName":"HJ\u00a0Mitchell"}}-->

I worry I sound like a broken record at this point, but admin actions are not a good measure of admin effort. I appreciate the work that the admins active in deletion do, but it may take me an hour to research a single AE report which probably will not involve a logged action, in which time I could rack up 100 actions elsewhere. The measure of whether we need more admins is in the backlogs, and in whether those whose activity is keeping the backlogs low are feeling burned out. The backlogs at COIN, SPI, and CCI are enormous; at DYK and AE they are usually under control, but just barely, and burnout is an issue; at AIV, ANEW, and RFPP, they are under control but even occasional backlogs can mean very annoying rapid disruption. CAT:RFU is always backlogged, and would be in truly dreadful shape if not for one or two admins. Arguably AfD is the only venue not persistently backlogged, and if Liz is closing 80% of discussions, that has a risky bus factor too. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826165200","author":"Vanamonde93","type":"comment","level":10,"id":"c-Vanamonde93-20240826165200-HJ_Mitchell-20240826143500","replies":["c-Rosguill-20240826165800-Vanamonde93-20240826165200","c-Valereee-20240826172200-Vanamonde93-20240826165200"]}}-->

To be fair, I think the bus factor assessment at AfD is a bit misleading--I think there's a fair amount of admins that check the AfD backlog, myself included, only to find that Liz has already taken care of everything; if Liz took a step back we'd be filling in without missing a beat. I'd be more concerned about the backlogs for more obscure processes. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 16:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826165800","author":"Rosguill","type":"comment","level":11,"id":"c-Rosguill-20240826165800-Vanamonde93-20240826165200","replies":[]}}-->

Ditto ANI. An admin can spend hours and hours over multiple days working there, sometimes resulting in zero logged actions. Valereee (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826172200","author":"Valereee","type":"comment","level":11,"id":"c-Valereee-20240826172200-Vanamonde93-20240826165200","replies":["c-Ymblanter-20240828054000-Valereee-20240826172200"]}}-->

And in a lot of shit thrown on the admin. Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240828054000","author":"Ymblanter","type":"comment","level":12,"id":"c-Ymblanter-20240828054000-Valereee-20240826172200","replies":[]}}-->

I think a more interesting metric would be ratio of admins to active users (anonymous and logged-in). I doubt that activity is declining overall, but if it were during these periods, it might make the reduction or seeming stagnation in admin numbers make more sense. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240828154100","author":"Locke Cole","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Locke_Cole-20240828154100-Dekimasu-20240826023600","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240828161300-Locke_Cole-20240828154100"]}}-->

It depends on how you want to define "active editor". You might find this page interesting depending on the ratio you're looking for. There's Wikipedia:Time Between Edits which shows that at least on an edit basis, people are consistently editing. Then there's Wikipedia:Requests for adminship by year which shows that the amount of admins we've promoted over the years has reduced dramatically. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:13, 28 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240828161300","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240828161300-Locke_Cole-20240828154100","replies":[],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

We do have the WP:admin elections coming up, which means we may be able to get some competent people running who would find a regular WP:RfA too big a hurdle. So let's do a push together contacting potential future admins :). —Femke 🐦 (talk) 07:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826071700","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Femke-20240826071700-We're_getting_kinda_low","replies":["c-Theleekycauldron-20240826074000-Femke-20240826071700","c-Barkeep49-20240826162900-Femke-20240826071700"],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

I was just thinking the same thing! I've got whole rolls somewhere of people I need to encourage/vet to run, and admin elections is the perfect opportunity. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826074000","author":"Theleekycauldron","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Theleekycauldron-20240826074000-Femke-20240826071700","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20240826105000-Theleekycauldron-20240826074000"]}}-->

I'm a bit worried that admin elections is going to be less toxic but harder to pass. For example in arbcom elections (WP:ACE), the best candidates typically get around 80%. Contrast this to RFA where the best candidates get 95-100%. Yet in both processes, the pass threshold is 70%. This -20% supports is not yet compensated for in admin elections. –Novem Linguae (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826105000","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240826105000-Theleekycauldron-20240826074000","replies":["c-Theleekycauldron-20240826105200-Novem_Linguae-20240826105000"]}}-->

yeah, i had a significantly lower threshold when I was drafting out a proposal for this – hopefully it works out okay, or we can always try and get it amended. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826105200","author":"Theleekycauldron","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Theleekycauldron-20240826105200-Novem_Linguae-20240826105000","replies":["c-Cryptic-20240826110100-Theleekycauldron-20240826105200"]}}-->

If we do get lower percentages, there isn't going to be any way to know whether it's because people are opposing who wouldn't have opposed in an open RFA, or because the people who were willing to run in the election but not open RFAs were worse candidates. —Cryptic 11:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826110100","author":"Cryptic","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Cryptic-20240826110100-Theleekycauldron-20240826105200","replies":["c-Theleekycauldron-20240826110700-Cryptic-20240826110100","c-Dekimasu-20240826133900-Cryptic-20240826110100"]}}-->

unless someone who's already run in a public RfA serves as a kind of control... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826110700","author":"Theleekycauldron","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Theleekycauldron-20240826110700-Cryptic-20240826110100","replies":["c-Cryptic-20240826111100-Theleekycauldron-20240826110700"]}}-->

I'd expect that to skew the election numbers toward the RFA result. The electorate will already know what the "correct" choice is. (Plus, they'll have the benefit of full scrutiny, instead of the abbreviated three days - divided among who knows how many candidates we're going to have to simultaneously evaluate - that the elections allow.) —Cryptic 11:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826111100","author":"Cryptic","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Cryptic-20240826111100-Theleekycauldron-20240826110700","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240826130600-Cryptic-20240826111100"]}}-->

I think ArbCom's pass rate might not necessarily reflect what would happen in an admin election situation. For one thing, Arbcom is arbcom. For another, there are limited seats and therefore people might oppose candidates they'd otherwise support because they prefer someone in particular gets that seat. We don't have a cap on how many of these candidates are allowed to pass. I do think it's possible support percentages may be different based on how people might find it easier to oppose if they don't have to do so in public but I think it's difficult to speculate on how much this might matter without trying this out. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826130600","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826130600-Cryptic-20240826111100","replies":[],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

In my case I will probably !vote (well, in this case, basically just vote) more often. When I see an RfA I can get an idea of the necessity of my participation based on the overall community response. With a secret ballot I won't have any way of knowing whether I can rely on the preexisting input of the community. I'm guessing that will result in stricter outcomes overall. Dekimasuよ! 13:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826133900","author":"Dekimasu","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Dekimasu-20240826133900-Cryptic-20240826110100","replies":[]}}-->

We have at least two data points where public elections went private and support percentages dropped dramatically - ArbCom and Checkuser/Oversight. Now it's been a long time since either of those so it's possible this would no longer be true but the reasons why it dropped (and which have been mentioned by others above) would still hold true in this circumstance. Personally I'm more interested in how some of the other RFA reforms do to see whether or not this is a serious conduct issue the community is able to handle. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826162900","author":"Barkeep49","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Barkeep49-20240826162900-Femke-20240826071700","replies":[]}}-->

I'm wondering if we might want to consider some kind of recruiting drive. Maybe post some kind of poster/meme image at the top of everybody's watchlist page for a week. Perhaps a wiki-version of the famous recruiting poster from WWII. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826172600","author":"Ad Orientem","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Ad_Orientem-20240826172600-We're_getting_kinda_low","replies":["c-Femke-20240826173200-Ad_Orientem-20240826172600","c-The_Night_Watch-20240826175500-Ad_Orientem-20240826172600","c-Floquenbeam-20240826180000-Ad_Orientem-20240826172600"]}}-->

I think that's a great idea. We would likely get some very new editors participating in the admin elections in response, but the current system of a few people encouraging others to run is also quite sensitive to the bus factor. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826173200","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Femke-20240826173200-Ad_Orientem-20240826172600","replies":[],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

At this point, any watch list notice might help by even slightly influencing some experienced editors who are already on the edge. It might not cause any significant effect, but it's worth a quick try potentially. The Night Watch (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826175500","author":"The Night Watch","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-The_Night_Watch-20240826175500-Ad_Orientem-20240826172600","replies":[]}}-->

• Could we make a subpage that I could then un-watchlist? Like Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Boring "Not enough admins" discussions. The project is no more complicated than it was 10 years ago, but I know several editors who would likely have passed in 2014, but who would definitely get "not enough edits, come back in a year" opposes now. If I were in charge, I'd hand out adminship like candy, and just politely remove it the first time it was misused. Ugh. See, now I've made myself part of the problem. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826180000","author":"Floquenbeam","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Floquenbeam-20240826180000-Ad_Orientem-20240826172600","replies":["c-Valereee-20240826181100-Floquenbeam-20240826180000","c-Levivich-20240826183100-Floquenbeam-20240826180000"]}}-->

  hahahahaha Valereee (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826181100","author":"Valereee","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Valereee-20240826181100-Floquenbeam-20240826180000","replies":[]}}-->

  That is the extremely obvious and easy solution to reducing backlogs that most people don't even want to consider. In the meantime, we try a zillion complicated solutions (RFA2024) while ignoring the easy and obvious one. Levivich (talk) 18:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826183100","author":"Levivich","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Levivich-20240826183100-Floquenbeam-20240826180000","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240826184600-Levivich-20240826183100"]}}-->

  I mean, I've considered it. See the whole editcountitis section I wrote in my RfA essay. Depending on your editing style, it may be take an active editor 16 years to meet "minimum" requirements. I can't change the entire culture of RfA by myself, though. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:46, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826184600","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826184600-Levivich-20240826183100","replies":["c-Levivich-20240826191000-Clovermoss-20240826184600"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

  One person saying 20k is a minimum does not make it true. I think 10k is a more likely consensus minimum. If we set the bar at 10k/1yr to be an admin, then the ~500 editors who make 1k/mo edits will reach that bar in 1 year. 500 admins is plenty. It's true, the ~5,000 who make 100 edits/mo will take over 8 years to get to 10k edits. That's OK, we don't need 5,000 admins. And anyway, we'd almost all agree that an editor who has been here a year and made 1,200 edits does not have enough experience yet to be an admin. Even if we did set the bar higher, at like 20k/2yrs, then the ~500 editors who make 1k/mo would get there in 2 years, still workable.

  And just to clarify, I'm not talking about RFA standards, and I don't think Floq is either (though I don't want to speak for him). I'm talking about automatically giving every active editor in good standing the admin bit when they hit 1 year / 10k edits, and then take it away from those who abuse it. Auto-admin is the solution few people want to consider, even though it's the easy and obvious solution to "not enough admins." Levivich (talk) 19:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826191000","author":"Levivich","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Levivich-20240826191000-Clovermoss-20240826184600","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240826192600-Levivich-20240826191000"]}}-->

  I realize that one person saying it does not make it true but I have seen standards edge higher over time. The comment came from a long-established editor I respected so it felt like a good premise for taking that to its logical conclusion. 8 years/10,000 edits is still a long time and plenty of people see that as a bare minimum where they want to see specific things as well.

  Maybe we don't need 5,000 admins but if we truly do want more admins we need to consider out-of-the-box ideas like that and this would be closer to the "like candy" idea that Floq proposed. I'm not saying to be reckless, obviously, just not to evaluate people solely on numbers. An extra 500 people doing admin tasks every so often would presumably lead to less admin burnout. My point is that our admin numbers already include almost everyone making 1000+ edits a month and we should be more open to considering active editors spending just as much time on the site but with a different editing style. Does that make sense? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826192600","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826192600-Levivich-20240826191000","replies":["c-The_Night_Watch-20240826203100-Clovermoss-20240826192600","c-Levivich-20240826205000-Clovermoss-20240826192600","c-Levivich-20240827013900-Clovermoss-20240826192600"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

  I'm not sure I think "out of the box" ideas would really help at this stage. Making creative ideas is nice but, I've always felt that the processes of promoting admins is bit conservative I guess? It took a really long time to actually get admin elections through the system, so I'm not sure giving time to considering more outlandish concepts will have any meaningful effect. There will probably always be people in opposition to new ideas. RFA2024 had some neat and interesting proposals, but remember only a fraction of them passed right? Forgive me if I'm a little rusty, I've not been keeping up as much with projectspace as I would wish. The Night Watch (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826203100","author":"The Night Watch","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-The_Night_Watch-20240826203100-Clovermoss-20240826192600","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240826204900-The_Night_Watch-20240826203100"]}}-->

  Well I'm not really proposing anything radically different to the process itself. I'm just asking people to reconsider if editors with lower edit counts are viable candidates because sometimes it's hard to understand people who have different experiences than our own. I'm not suggesting the perennially failed proposal of "automatic admins" or anything like that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826204900","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826204900-The_Night_Watch-20240826203100","replies":[],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

  our admin numbers already include almost everyone making 1000+ edits a month Really? I would guess that most admins made <1k edits/mo, and most editors making >1k edits/mo are not admins. There must be stats somewhere for this? Levivich (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826205000","author":"Levivich","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Levivich-20240826205000-Clovermoss-20240826192600","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240826205400-Levivich-20240826205000"]}}-->

  Well the site I linked only gives a count without telling you who is in the category (obviously we'll have some people in that category without adminship and some with lower counts in it). But the number matches up oddly well with Wikipedia:Active admins (427). I'm making an assumption that there's a lot of overlap there given high RFA standards. It's possible I'm wrong. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826205400","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826205400-Levivich-20240826205000","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240826210900-Clovermoss-20240826205400"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

  @Hey man im josh: I know you've done some interesting quarry stuff with admins in the past. Is there any way to use it to see if my hunch that there's a lot of overlap between the active admins and the 1,000+ edits/month cohort has any basis in reality? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826210900","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826210900-Clovermoss-20240826205400","replies":["c-Hey_man_im_josh-20240826214800-Clovermoss-20240826210900"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

  Hey @Clovermoss. I do a lot of quarry stuff, but it's all forked from other people's queries or slight modifications that's I'm comfortable making. I am definitely not the best person to ask if you're looking for a custom query of any kind since I typically rely on the kindness of others for those. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826214800","author":"Hey man im josh","type":"comment","level":10,"id":"c-Hey_man_im_josh-20240826214800-Clovermoss-20240826210900","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240826215600-Hey_man_im_josh-20240826214800"]}}-->

  @Hey man im josh: Any idea who I should ask? I suppose I could try doing this manually but that seems like a lot of work that could be better spent elsewhere if this is something that can actually be automated. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 21:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826215600","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":11,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826215600-Hey_man_im_josh-20240826214800","replies":["c-Hey_man_im_josh-20240826220100-Clovermoss-20240826215600"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

  I know AntiComposite has been super helpful, as have Sohom Datta, MPGuy2824, Novem Lingue, and im sure a few others I'd feel ashamed of leaving out. Cryptic has also chimed in a few times on wiki after I've shared some queries here and offered helpful tweaks or fixes, or an explanation as to why the query was flawed. Perhaps ask at the request a query page (cannot recall the link) or the general tech discussion channel on the Discord server? Hey man im josh (talk) 22:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826220100","author":"Hey man im josh","type":"comment","level":12,"id":"c-Hey_man_im_josh-20240826220100-Clovermoss-20240826215600","replies":["c-Cryptic-20240826222400-Hey_man_im_josh-20240826220100"]}}-->

  The request a query page is at WP:request a query. —Cryptic 22:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826222400","author":"Cryptic","type":"comment","level":13,"id":"c-Cryptic-20240826222400-Hey_man_im_josh-20240826220100","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240826225500-Cryptic-20240826222400"]}}-->

  I've requested one there. I'll get back to everyone here if someone deigns to make my day and we learn anything useful. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC) __DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826225500","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":14,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826225500-Cryptic-20240826222400","replies":[],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

  While admins are a diverse group, there are some things that all admins have in common. Namely: (1) they all wanted to be admins, (2) they were all willing to run RFA, and (3) they all passed RFA.

  The community has spent a lot of time looking at that third factor, trying to make RFA easier to pass, so that people who meet criteria #1 and #2 could more easily hit #3. But even if all unsuccessful RFAs were successful, it wouldn't really make a dent in admin backlogs.

  The community has also spent a lot of time looking at the second factor, trying to make RFA more attractive, so that people who meet criteria #1 will be more likely to meet criteria #2. We don't know how many people who meet the first criteria do not meet the second; how many people want to be an admin but are put off by RFA. Except pretty much all anecdotal evidence reported by the folks who ask folks if they want to run says that the number is somewhere between "most" and "almost all." We more or less know that RFA is a bottleneck that is preventing a number of people who want to be admins from becoming admins.

  If it were up to me, we'd completely eliminate #2. I'd make almost everyone who wanted to be an admin, an admin (subject to some minimum objective criteria of experience and good standing), and then take it away from those who abuse it, as Floq suggests. The reason is that I don't think that removing #2 will make a significant dent in admin backlogs. How many people are there who would do the work, and are qualified, but don't want to run an RFA? 100? Do we think there are 400 out there right now? Because even if we doubled the number of admins and cut all backlogs in half, some of the backlogs would still be not great. To really make a dent in backlogs, we'd need to like triple the amount of active admins. And in order to do that, you need to make more people interested in doing the admin work (or find a way to stop having to do the work that no one wants to volunteer to do).

  Many are opposed to the idea of auto-adminship because they think it'll be widely abused. I don't, because the rest of Wikipedia works. Most everyone can edit most anything, and while we have vandalism and hoaxes and such, it's manageable, and has been for decades. It turns out that letting anyone edit doesn't prevent productive building of an encyclopedia; rather, it spurs it. I find no reason to believe it would work differently with block, protect, delete, etc. Sure, under any auto-admin scheme, at first we'd have a rash of tool abuse and desysopings, and even on an ongoing basis, we'd have more abuse and desysopings than we do now, they'd become a regular thing, much like blocking vandals is a daily routine. But I believe, just as with regular editing, the productive use of the tools will far outweigh the abusive use of the tools. We'd be able to handle it.

  And that's without considering various ways to "throttle" auto-adminship; e.g. you can auto-give p-blocking, but not allow full blocks until a certain proficiency or level of experience is demonstrated (e.g., at something like PERM, or heck even something like RFA or elections). You could do the same with protection levels, template editor. There are a number of different ways to unbundle-and-auto-give-some-tools. Levivich (talk) 01:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827013900","author":"Levivich","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Levivich-20240827013900-Clovermoss-20240826192600","replies":[]}}-->

I started a thread ... eight years ago ... titled "Planning for a post-admin era". Eight years later, our situation is worse than it was then, and continues to decline. No one's really come up with any way to fix it, and I think nobody will. This is part of the organizational life cycle. It's a very slow process, but Wikipedia is dying. You can't really stop it, and the Foundation sure as hell isn't doing much of anything to lessen the impact. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826201300","author":"Hammersoft","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hammersoft-20240826201300-We're_getting_kinda_low","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240826202400-Hammersoft-20240826201300","c-Vanamonde93-20240826224900-Hammersoft-20240826201300"]}}-->

What would you expect the foundation to do to make an impact? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826202400","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826202400-Hammersoft-20240826201300","replies":["c-Hammersoft-20240827003100-Clovermoss-20240826202400","c-WereSpielChequers-20240827111800-Clovermoss-20240826202400"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

Show some organizational leadership. This isn't rocket science. Thousands of organizations have faced exactly this curve before. Some have done so well, and turned them into mature, long living companies. Others through their efforts have managed to tank the companies and send them into bankruptcy. So far, the Foundation's plan has been to ...do nothing. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827003100","author":"Hammersoft","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Hammersoft-20240827003100-Clovermoss-20240826202400","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240827012600-Hammersoft-20240827003100"]}}-->

What exactly would you expect "showing leadership" to look like in this context? If the foundation started assigning sysop rights to people, I have a feeling a lot of people would be incredibly outraged. They're willing to talk to people from the community about things sometimes and that's a bit more than nothing. But I'm not sure what more they could really do beyond that. Do you have any specific ideas? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827012600","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240827012600-Hammersoft-20240827003100","replies":["c-Hammersoft-20240827022800-Clovermoss-20240827012600"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

My general thoughts are that specific solutions to specific problems isn't going to fix the sinking ship. We need more broad leadership, strategy, sense of direction. There isn't any, and the staff at the Foundation know it. There was a somewhat recent survey of employees there and the results showed an extremely high level of distrust of senior management. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827022800","author":"Hammersoft","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Hammersoft-20240827022800-Clovermoss-20240827012600","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240827023400-Hammersoft-20240827022800"]}}-->

Oh, so you're thinking more broadly. If you do find that survey, I'd be interested to read it. I've met numerous foundation employees that have not confided such things in me but that doesn't necessarily mean they don't feel that way. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827023400","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240827023400-Hammersoft-20240827022800","replies":[],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

Yes the movement has leadership and direction problems. But I'm not seeing their effect at the level of blocking vandals or deleting spam and copyvio. Framgate is a while ago, and apart from that scandalous mistake by the WMF, I suspect over 99% of admin actions are uncontentious. More broadly, we should expect the organisation to be going through various growing pains "organizational life cycle" as you put it. What doesn't make sense to me about the RFA crisis is that editing levels remain high or at least above the late 2014 nadir, and only about a third less than the 2007 peak. Whilst new admins are down 98% on the 2007 peak. More to the point, if our problems were those of a maturing community, you would expect that almost everyone was now an admin and we were most worried about getting new blood into the community. Instead we have this odd situation where we have plenty of people who are qualified to run at RFA but who aren't willing to go there. Its almost like the greying of the pedia has meant we now have lots of retired and semiretired editors most of whom are unwilling to go through a public "right of passage" ceremony that was so attractive to the teenage vandalfighters of 2003-2008. As someone who was OK running twice at RFA as a middle aged candidate, maybe I'm one of the exceptions to the rule. But I have heard that the few teenagers we still get don't baulk at running for RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 11:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827111800","author":"WereSpielChequers","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-WereSpielChequers-20240827111800-Clovermoss-20240826202400","replies":["c-Vanamonde93-20240827160600-WereSpielChequers-20240827111800"],"displayName":"\u03e2ere"}}-->

It has been my experience that it is easier to persuade younger candidates to run. There's some guesswork involved with that assessment of course. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827160600","author":"Vanamonde93","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Vanamonde93-20240827160600-WereSpielChequers-20240827111800","replies":["c-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240827161900-Vanamonde93-20240827160600"]}}-->

That's because us older people need to get the lawn mowed, and if we wanted to risk spending a week having people point out our flaws we'd visit our inlaws. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827161900","author":"ScottishFinnishRadish","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240827161900-Vanamonde93-20240827160600","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240827162200-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240827161900"]}}-->

I'm 21 and it took a lot of people trying to convince me before I ran in December. I plan to be around for the long-term, though. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 16:22, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827162200","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240827162200-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240827161900","replies":[],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

• I'm hopeful that by discussing this periodically we're able to stimulate interest in becoming and/or recruiting more admins, rather than just making everyone unhappy. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826224900","author":"Vanamonde93","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Vanamonde93-20240826224900-Hammersoft-20240826201300","replies":["c-Hammersoft-20240827003100-Vanamonde93-20240826224900"]}}-->

Oh, it won't. Sorry to be pessimistic, but this sort of thread has happened many times before. There's been no appreciable increase in the number of admins, though occasionally the cat has bounced. This is all just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827003100","author":"Hammersoft","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Hammersoft-20240827003100-Vanamonde93-20240826224900","replies":["c-Vanamonde93-20240827014500-Hammersoft-20240827003100"]}}-->

That's a bit harsh, Hammersoft. I know a handful of current admins who spend time recruiting adminship candidates because at some point a conversation like this one brough the need home. I wouldn't have spent a substantial portion of my Wikipedia time vetting candidates if I hadn't seen some of the stats WereSpielChequers put together 6-7 years ago. I've had a hand in 10 successful nominations. I'm a far cry from fixing the problem; but without the efforts of such recruiters - and I'm not the most prolific - we'd be in considerably worse shape. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827014500","author":"Vanamonde93","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Vanamonde93-20240827014500-Hammersoft-20240827003100","replies":["c-Hammersoft-20240827022800-Vanamonde93-20240827014500"]}}-->

Yes we would be. I don't mean to take away anything from the people who are trying to avert crisis. The reality though is that we'd need probably 20x the effort to really avoid what's coming. And let's be clear; it is coming. It's already happening at Commons. The backlogs there are measured in months. That's why I say the Foundation doesn't care. It's already happened there and the Foundation won't do anything about it. --Hammersoft (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827022800","author":"Hammersoft","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Hammersoft-20240827022800-Vanamonde93-20240827014500","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20240827134200-Hammersoft-20240827022800"]}}-->

Enwiki and many wikis have made it clear to the WMF that they do not like WMF involvement in their internal processes. Framgate comes to mind. I think expecting WMF to fix enwiki's RFA issues may be ignoring that enwiki would probably not want nor let WMF fix it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:42, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827134200","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240827134200-Hammersoft-20240827022800","replies":["c-Hammersoft-20240827135700-Novem_Linguae-20240827134200"]}}-->

I'm not expecting the WMF to step into RfA and try to fix it. I think that would be an unreasonable request, and one the community would fight to the death. Doing so would be expecting senior management at a major car company to come to the engineer's workshop and tell them how to design a starter for the next model car. The problem is much bigger than RfA. The problem is organizational life cycle. RfA is but a minor symptom. Without strong leadership to focus on a long term strategy, the project is aimlessly wandering. Such ambiguity results in all sorts of symptoms which we are currently seeing play out on Commons. Framgate was a symptom as well. For proof of this, I invite you to review the (two weeks now out of date, at least) website of the Wikimedia Foundation. Take a few minutes and see if you can find their organizational strategy. Go ahead. Try. Maybe you can find it. I can't. It should be front and center, much like the bridge of a ship. If there is a strategy, it's buried somewhere down in the bilge of the ship. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827135700","author":"Hammersoft","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Hammersoft-20240827135700-Novem_Linguae-20240827134200","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20240827173500-Hammersoft-20240827135700"]}}-->

meta:Movement Strategy/Recommendations is probably it. Although I admit that as an insider I knew where to look. It might be a bit harder to find for someone just google searching or poking around https://wikimediafoundation.org. It seems like WMF had some process to create these 10 strategy points back in 2017, and now tries to design their annual plan around it and have their product managers pick things to work on that align with it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827173500","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240827173500-Hammersoft-20240827135700","replies":["c-Robertsky-20240828000800-Novem_Linguae-20240827173500"]}}-->

Putting it crudely, I would think that the Foundation has other concerns than enwiki with respect to local governance. The strategies that the Foundation is focused on are more for knowledge equity. When comes to the knowledge of governance of wikis, they would be more inclined to transfer the knowledge of administrating enwiki or other bigger or established wikis to the other smaller/newer wikis, rather than developing (or interfering as some might put it. Can't blame them for that.) the established ones. – robertsky (talk) 00:08, 28 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240828000800","author":"Robertsky","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Robertsky-20240828000800-Novem_Linguae-20240827173500","replies":[],"displayName":"\u2013 robertsky"}}-->

So it turns out that Levivich was right that there are more non-admins in the 1000+ edits/month category than admins. 56/471 are admins. I still think looking to the pool of 4,776 editors that make more than 100 edits a month to be a more viable option to improving # of active admins, even if there's not as much overlap as I thought there was. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826231300","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826231300-We're_getting_kinda_low","replies":["c-Cryptic-20240826232400-Clovermoss-20240826231300","c-Moxy-20240826233900-Clovermoss-20240826231300"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

There were 907 non-admin, non-bot accounts that would have matched the criteria I used for that query. I don't know precisely where your 471 figure is coming from, though it's likely it's looking at an average over a couple months. —Cryptic 23:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826232400","author":"Cryptic","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Cryptic-20240826232400-Clovermoss-20240826231300","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240826232700-Cryptic-20240826232400"]}}-->

Check the link. There's 471 people who make more than 1,000 edits a month. I've been looking at it every month for a bit more than a year now and it usually hovers between 450-550 people. It's a fairly consistent statistic. Same goes for the people making 100 edits a month. They're usually more in the 4600-5800 range iirc. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826232700","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826232700-Cryptic-20240826232400","replies":["c-Cryptic-20240826233400-Clovermoss-20240826232700"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

Yeah, I misspoke. I knew where you were getting it; I don't know where wikiscan is. (My other suspicion besides averaging over a longer period is that it's omitting some automated edits. No human's really making 510k edits per month; that's more than one every 5 seconds, every minute of every hour of every day.) —Cryptic 23:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826233400","author":"Cryptic","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Cryptic-20240826233400-Clovermoss-20240826232700","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240826233700-Cryptic-20240826233400","c-Cryptic-20240826234400-Cryptic-20240826233400"]}}-->

Well you might find this interesting. That's the all-time stats and you can specify whether you want to see bots or not. Then there's this page for edits made by people in the last 24 hours.Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826233700","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240826233700-Cryptic-20240826233400","replies":[],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

Aha, no user's making 510k edits per month even with automation, and that should've tipped me off; my counts were borked. 438 non-admin/bot users. The error wouldn't have affected the admin count. —Cryptic 23:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826234400","author":"Cryptic","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Cryptic-20240826234400-Cryptic-20240826233400","replies":[]}}-->

• Break up the tools make junior administrators..... Giving them minor tools...... maintenance type tools.Moxy🍁 23:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240826233900","author":"Moxy","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Moxy-20240826233900-Clovermoss-20240826231300","replies":["c-Donald_Albury-20240827002900-Moxy-20240826233900","c-Robertsky-20240828000000-Moxy-20240826233900"]}}-->

  Do you mean like permissions? What else do you suggest separating from admin? Donald Albury 00:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827002900","author":"Donald Albury","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Donald_Albury-20240827002900-Moxy-20240826233900","replies":["c-Moxy-20240827013300-Donald_Albury-20240827002900"]}}-->

  Correct..... first one that comes to mind is revision-deletion of copyrighted material from public view. Moxy🍁 01:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827013300","author":"Moxy","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Moxy-20240827013300-Donald_Albury-20240827002900","replies":["c-Vanamonde93-20240827014700-Moxy-20240827013300"]}}-->

  From a skill perspective that's a good unbundle, but the WMF is unwilling to let people have the right to see deleted revisions without an RFA-like process. The roadblock is higher than en.wiki (see conversations re: researcher rights in the history of this page). Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827014700","author":"Vanamonde93","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Vanamonde93-20240827014700-Moxy-20240827013300","replies":["c-WereSpielChequers-20240827102900-Vanamonde93-20240827014700"]}}-->

  One downside to unbundling is that we seem to get fewer candidates at subsequent RFAs and they are judged to a higher standard. This was most dramatic in 2008 after the unbundling of rollback. So I would be cautious about a future unbundling unless it had a significant impact on the admin workload. The obvious one for that in my view is "block newbie" - you'd call it something else to try and get it past the WMF. But the vast majority of blocks for individual IPs and new accounts are for spam or vandalism. An indef block of a blatant vandal is almost always uncontentious and routine, a civility, edit warring or "running bots on a personal account" block of a regular is often a dramafest. So a block/unblock button that didn't work on extended confirmed accounts would likely be a successful unbundling that gave us an alternative to admins for many of the most urgent admin actions. But the WMF will veto it as long as they continue in their misconception that our main problem is that we bite the newbies. ϢereSpielChequers 10:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827102900","author":"WereSpielChequers","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-WereSpielChequers-20240827102900-Vanamonde93-20240827014700","replies":["c-Kusma-20240827131000-WereSpielChequers-20240827102900","c-Clovermoss-20240827144600-WereSpielChequers-20240827102900","c-1234qwer1234qwer4-20240828015900-WereSpielChequers-20240827102900"],"displayName":"\u03e2ere"}}-->

  It is indeed a major problem that we bite the newbies, but I am not sure blocks are an important part of that problem. Reverts and warnings without outsider readable explanation and a kafkaesque seeming process to get a draft approved would rate higher on my list of WP:BITE issues than who ends up blocked. To return to the original point: I am very wary of unbundling. Sure, it is easy to become a rollbacker or template editor than it ever was to become an admin, but the step up from rollbacker or template editor to admin seems bigger than the step it was before unbundling. (Insert warning about anecdotal evidence by old timers here). —Kusma (talk) 13:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827131000","author":"Kusma","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Kusma-20240827131000-WereSpielChequers-20240827102900","replies":[]}}-->

  I'm not sure creating a tier system for who you can block is the best idea. We're all supposed to be subject to the same standards. I've only blocked an extended confirmed editor once but it was warranted. The other aspect to this is that if someone makes a bad block of a long term editor, that's more visible and people are likely to review their blocks as a whole. It might take a bit longer to notice that if someone is just blocking a bunch of newbies. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827144600","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240827144600-WereSpielChequers-20240827102900","replies":["c-JavaHurricane-20240827163300-Clovermoss-20240827144600"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

  Might as well just link WP:UNBUNDLE (which is listed at WP:PERENNIAL also) here. The gist, of course, being that the community has been opposed perennially to any proposals for the separation of block, protect and delete; and that seems set to not be changing anytime soon. Not that I see unbundling any of the three fixing the most problematic backlogs, like CCI. And re WSC: WP:RESPONDER-RFC, somewhat similar to a "block newbie" perm, has long fallen by the wayside, but may be of interest if anyone wants to revive it. Though Proposal 10 at the RfA review, based on similar grounds, was rejected by a wide margin... so yeah. JavaHurricane 16:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827163300","author":"JavaHurricane","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-JavaHurricane-20240827163300-Clovermoss-20240827144600","replies":["c-WereSpielChequers-20240828145700-JavaHurricane-20240827163300"],"displayName":"Java"}}-->

  Yes I know this has been considered several times over the last decade or so, and I know there are people who don't like the idea. But it does have the advantage that it would work, it would solve the admin shortage for several years, and it could be done. I'm not aware of any other proposal that has those advantages, and that's why eventually I believe it will get consensus. OK at some point we will have AI admins, but I doubt the tech is quite ready yet. ϢereSpielChequers 14:57, 28 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240828145700","author":"WereSpielChequers","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-WereSpielChequers-20240828145700-JavaHurricane-20240827163300","replies":[],"displayName":"\u03e2ere"}}-->

  FTR, ruwiki has done this kind of unbundling recently by using an adminbot (and the first few people were assigned this right by the bot owner). 1234qwer1234qwer4 01:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240828015900","author":"1234qwer1234qwer4","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-1234qwer1234qwer4-20240828015900-WereSpielChequers-20240827102900","replies":[],"displayName":"1234qwer"}}-->

  I think the current set of advanced permissions that an editor can apply and demonstrate that they are competent in performing various administrative tasks is sufficient. I would say I am a product of that, having accumulated many of the user rights before applying for RfA. – robertsky (talk) 00:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240828000000","author":"Robertsky","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Robertsky-20240828000000-Moxy-20240826233900","replies":["c-Hawkeye7-20240828033100-Robertsky-20240828000000"],"displayName":"\u2013 robertsky"}}-->

  Me too, but the unbundled permissions are still insufficient for the admin work I would like to be able to do - page protection, requested moves and Did You Know queues. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:31, 28 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240828033100","author":"Hawkeye7","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Hawkeye7-20240828033100-Robertsky-20240828000000","replies":["c-Dekimasu-20240828051400-Hawkeye7-20240828033100","c-Robertsky-20240828051700-Hawkeye7-20240828033100"]}}-->

  You have Wikipedia:Page mover—isn't that sufficient for most requested moves? Dekimasuよ! 05:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240828051400","author":"Dekimasu","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Dekimasu-20240828051400-Hawkeye7-20240828033100","replies":["c-Robertsky-20240828051500-Dekimasu-20240828051400"]}}-->

  Admin-protected pages related to DYK area I suppose. That's not covered under the page mover right. – robertsky (talk) 05:15, 28 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240828051500","author":"Robertsky","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Robertsky-20240828051500-Dekimasu-20240828051400","replies":[],"displayName":"\u2013 robertsky"}}-->

  Have you considered another RfA? It has been 5 years since your previous one? Maybe the community's impression has changed since then... – robertsky (talk) 05:17, 28 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240828051700","author":"Robertsky","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Robertsky-20240828051700-Hawkeye7-20240828033100","replies":[],"displayName":"\u2013 robertsky"}}-->

Just to give an idea of what not having enough administrators will look like: At Commons, there are currently more than 2800 overdue deletion requests. Almost three thousand. Let that sink in. Commons is effectively a failed project at this point. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827133800","author":"Hammersoft","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Hammersoft-20240827133800-We're_getting_kinda_low","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240827144800-Hammersoft-20240827133800","c-1234qwer1234qwer4-20240828021200-Hammersoft-20240827133800"]}}-->

What happened to Commons, exactly? Do they just not have enough admins? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827144800","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240827144800-Hammersoft-20240827133800","replies":["c-Hammersoft-20240827150100-Clovermoss-20240827144800"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

Yep. So far this year, they've had three successful RfAs. The last one was six months ago. Over the prior five years, they've averaged just shy of eight new administrators per year. We've averaged 14.4. Their 8 per year has not been enough to keep up. It's highly unlikely our 14 is enough to keep up. From 2018 to 2022, we had a net loss of 46 admins per year (WP:DBM). The loss curve will go asymptotic, so it's not linear. But, if it were linear, we'd have zero admins 10 years from now. 10 years isn't that long of a time. That's less than half of the current age of the project. So, imagine having (essentially) no administrators 10 years from now. That's basically how much time this project has left. I'm not being melodramatic. This is reality. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827150100","author":"Hammersoft","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Hammersoft-20240827150100-Clovermoss-20240827144800","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240827151200-Hammersoft-20240827150100"]}}-->

Are their standards really high at RfA or do they not have many active editors? I've participated at Commons a bit but definitely more casually than anything I've done here. I haven't really done much outside of uploading files. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827151200","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240827151200-Hammersoft-20240827150100","replies":["c-Hammersoft-20240827154000-Clovermoss-20240827151200","c-Robertsky-20240827235400-Clovermoss-20240827151200"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

They have a 75% support rate for passing RfA, so higher than here. I don't have the numbers in front of me right now, but I am quite certain their active editors to active administrators ratio is far higher than it is here. I think part of the issue (not a fault; just a difference) is that many editors there are like you (and me; I do the same); we upload files from time to time. There's no buy in with editors there, less a sense of community. There's quite a bit of (non-article editing) work that goes on here on en.wiki that isn't done by administrators. Commons, not so much. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:40, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827154000","author":"Hammersoft","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Hammersoft-20240827154000-Clovermoss-20240827151200","replies":["c-Shushugah-20240827165600-Hammersoft-20240827154000"]}}-->

Certain tasks take longer on Commons for example, renaming an article because of the impact it might have on Wikipedia projects. It’s effectively English only with its convoluted category despite being a multi-lingual project. Ton of technical debt and half-assed tooling. Uploading albums to Flickr and mass-importing to Commons is far easier than uploading to commons. But this is also because English Wikipedia editors advocate mostly for their interests instead of broader Wikipedia infrastructure. Commons culture certainly has its own issues as well. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 16:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827165600","author":"Shushugah","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Shushugah-20240827165600-Hammersoft-20240827154000","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240827170100-Shushugah-20240827165600"]}}-->

If I wanted to get more involved at Commons, what would I even do? It sounds like they need more people who care and I wouldn't mind pitching in a little bit if I knew what I could do to help. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 17:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827170100","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240827170100-Shushugah-20240827165600","replies":["c-Ymblanter-20240828064400-Clovermoss-20240827170100","c-1234qwer1234qwer4-20240828123300-Clovermoss-20240827170100"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

Participate at their village pumps (there are quite a few) and see what is happening there. I would say a few months would be a reasonable time to get in, one day is not enough. Ymblanter (talk) 06:44, 28 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240828064400","author":"Ymblanter","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Ymblanter-20240828064400-Clovermoss-20240827170100","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240828104900-Ymblanter-20240828064400"]}}-->

I never said I was only interested in helping out for a day 😅. I will try to observe and learn though. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240828104900","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240828104900-Ymblanter-20240828064400","replies":["c-Ymblanter-20240828114000-Clovermoss-20240828104900"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

I never said you were. My point is that there is sometimes drama coming on there Commons village pumps, or it becomes obvious that some things go wrong or are backlogged, but a typical period for such things to happen is about a month or a few months. Most of the time there are routine discussions of very specialized issues, which probably do not say anything about which areas could benefit from more attention. Ymblanter (talk) 11:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240828114000","author":"Ymblanter","type":"comment","level":10,"id":"c-Ymblanter-20240828114000-Clovermoss-20240828104900","replies":[]}}-->

Read and, once you are familiar enough, participate in deletion requests, patrol c:Special:Uploads for copyright or c:COM:Project scope violations or look through categories with broad occupations like c:Category:Actors that often contain lots of vanity spam, ... You can always help with more specific categorisation as well (for images that are in scope) since the majority of files are undercategorised, though that by itself is not and administrative backlog. 1234qwer1234qwer4 12:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240828123300","author":"1234qwer1234qwer4","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-1234qwer1234qwer4-20240828123300-Clovermoss-20240827170100","replies":[],"displayName":"1234qwer"}}-->

I would say that they have a higher bar than enwiki. A lot of file deletions there are related to copyright status of where the file was created. Invariably I have seen editors there testing the potential admin about this at rfa there. You will end up having to know some legal concepts surrounding that. – robertsky (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240827235400","author":"Robertsky","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Robertsky-20240827235400-Clovermoss-20240827151200","replies":["c-1234qwer1234qwer4-20240828020600-Robertsky-20240827235400"],"displayName":"\u2013 robertsky"}}-->

No way. Speaking as a Commons admin (who unfortunately barely has any time to dedicate to cleaning any backlogs there, however) and having skimmed a few RfAs on enwiki in the past, I can say that the amount of scrutiny users are subjected to on there is almost negligible compared to the English Wikipedia – and I did fail my first RfA on Commons! That combined with the fact that you don't actually need to contribute any of your own content to Commons to be qualified makes the bar a lot lower IMO (though this might just be a personal perception since my work on here has never really been related to content creation either). 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240828020600","author":"1234qwer1234qwer4","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-1234qwer1234qwer4-20240828020600-Robertsky-20240827235400","replies":["c-Robertsky-20240828050300-1234qwer1234qwer4-20240828020600"],"displayName":"1234qwer"}}-->

I must have looked at the RfAs there at the wrong times then. 😂 – robertsky (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240828050300","author":"Robertsky","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Robertsky-20240828050300-1234qwer1234qwer4-20240828020600","replies":[],"displayName":"\u2013 robertsky"}}-->

I don't think having overdue deletion requests is an active problem. The Russian Wikipedia has over 9000 (literally) 10000 articles currently nominated at AfD. IMO it's a lot better to have deletion requested for things worthy of deletion rather than to keep the trash lying around for ages without marking it as such. It would probably be a very conservative estimate to say that the number of files on Commons that meet deletion criteria there (and are not nominated for deletion, though that hardly makes any difference) is a high five-figure number. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240828021200","author":"1234qwer1234qwer4","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-1234qwer1234qwer4-20240828021200-Hammersoft-20240827133800","replies":[],"displayName":"1234qwer"}}-->

In terms of actions we can now take, are there more people here who would join contacting potential candidates? If we can have about 10 people each contacting around 10 potential candidates in the next month, who knows, we may be able to find 20 or so willing people for RfA/elections. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240828185300","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Femke-20240828185300-Volunteers_to_contact_potential_candidates?","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240828191100-Femke-20240828185300","c-Joe_Roe-20240829103200-Femke-20240828185300","c-Novem_Linguae-20240829233000-Femke-20240828185300"],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

I have at least two people in mind but 10 seems a bit difficult. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240828191100","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240828191100-Femke-20240828185300","replies":[],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

I don't know if this is where the problem lies. Every time I've contacted someone to encourage them to run, they've replied something along the lines of "yeah you're the tenth person to ask". – Joe (talk) 10:32, 29 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240829103200","author":"Joe Roe","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Joe_Roe-20240829103200-Femke-20240828185300","replies":["c-Femke-20240829183800-Joe_Roe-20240829103200"],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

I was surprised I was able to quickly get a list of 12 people I would like to "vet" (for lack of a better word). Not sure yet how many I want to contact. Perhaps 5 per person may be more realistic to strive for.

My experience (N=9ish) is that in one third of cases I seem to be the first. Most people decline because life is too busy for an RfA, which perhaps indicates RfAs are too time-consuming, but that's a problem to solve another day. If these people had been contacted say a few months earlier, maybe their schedule would have allowed for an RfA. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240829183800","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Femke-20240829183800-Joe_Roe-20240829103200","replies":["c-Hey_man_im_josh-20240829185600-Femke-20240829183800","c-Fathoms_Below-20240829191400-Femke-20240829183800"],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

I've reached out to some potential candidates and they've essentially had the same feedback. The number of questions, and the time it takes to respond to all of them, ends up being quite time consuming considering how much thought and effort you want to put into them. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240829185600","author":"Hey man im josh","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Hey_man_im_josh-20240829185600-Femke-20240829183800","replies":[]}}-->

Most people who I've talked to have declined because of two reasons: they're too busy in real life, and they can point to a small handful of controversial RfAs and are like "Why would I want to be subject to that?" One person that I talked to was like "Hey, I saw how your RfA turned out and while I want to run, you made me have second thoughts" There's only so much to do that we can reassure people. I've had about ten people tell me "Hey, I'd like to see you as an admin again someday", and while there's still a part of me that hopes for that, I'm still pausing even now just like the people I reached out to. I mean, who wouldn't? Fathoms Below (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240829191400","author":"Fathoms Below","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Fathoms_Below-20240829191400-Femke-20240829183800","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240829191600-Fathoms_Below-20240829191400"]}}-->

Yeah, I have some thoughts about that. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240829191600","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240829191600-Fathoms_Below-20240829191400","replies":["c-Fathoms_Below-20240829212600-Clovermoss-20240829191600"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

And we've talked about those thoughts I think. You aren't taking an unusual position. I was just saying that we can only do so much to reassure people, and your essay even says that you might have woken up the next day and thought running was a "very bad idea". I just think that even if we contacted more people and even if they found time to run, there's only so much we can do to solve the root of the problem, which is that tons of people don't want to have nightmares or be thoroughly rejected. Because no one wants to feel unwelcome here y'know? Fathoms Below (talk) 21:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240829212600","author":"Fathoms Below","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Fathoms_Below-20240829212600-Clovermoss-20240829191600","replies":[]}}-->

I have some folks that have privately asked me about running, and I have some folks I reached out to to encourage them to run. But then I did a check on them and found like one or two things that need fixing before they can pass smoothly in the current RFA climate. The de facto criteria are a bit high. And I dare not advise them to roll the dice and run anyway. It's possible they'd be able to pass, but bumpy RFAs are a really terrible experience for the candidate. I don't think I could in good conscience advise a candidate in the gray zone to "run and see what happens". Nobody wants to deal with dozens of opposes or a crat chat, even if they end up passing anyway. It's just too stressful. –Novem Linguae (talk) 23:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240829233000","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240829233000-Femke-20240828185300","replies":["c-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240830000300-Novem_Linguae-20240829233000"]}}-->

That's come up with the people who've reached out to me as well. I'm a bit gun-shy about telling people to go for it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240830000300","author":"ScottishFinnishRadish","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240830000300-Novem_Linguae-20240829233000","replies":["c-Femke-20240830065400-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240830000300"]}}-->

Agree that the de-facto criteria are too high. I'm less hesitant than normal to ask people to roll the dice at the moment, at least for running in the admin elections. My expectation is the the chance of failure will not change, but the chance it becomes a shitshow will. With multiple people running at the same time, there is less hyperfocus on single editors, and the fact voting is anonymous means the on-wiki process becomes less adversorial, more of a discussion. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 06:54, 30 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240830065400","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Femke-20240830065400-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240830000300","replies":[],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

I just learnt that, unless I'm mistaken, there is no community process to request de-adminship?.. As I had recently been following this thread, I'm just wondering whether this has been proposed before as a solution? À la, voters having the mentality "handing out the mop is as easy as taking it away" ${\displaystyle {\overset {?}{\implies }}}$ voters being more inclined to support ${\displaystyle {\overset {?}{\implies }}}$ people more willing to run (NOBIGDEAL etc.)? 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:44, 2 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240902024400","author":"1234qwer1234qwer4","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-1234qwer1234qwer4-20240902024400-No_RFDA_process?","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240902024700-1234qwer1234qwer4-20240902024400"],"displayName":"1234qwer"}}-->

I believe this was part of the RFA2024 reforms (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Administrator recall). We're closer to a community desysop process than we've ever been before. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:47, 2 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240902024700","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240902024700-1234qwer1234qwer4-20240902024400","replies":["c-1234qwer1234qwer4-20240902024800-Clovermoss-20240902024700"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

Thanks for the info! All my knowledge around this is pretty much limited by this thread. 1234qwer1234qwer4 02:48, 2 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240902024800","author":"1234qwer1234qwer4","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-1234qwer1234qwer4-20240902024800-Clovermoss-20240902024700","replies":["c-Ad_Orientem-20240902025100-1234qwer1234qwer4-20240902024800"],"displayName":"1234qwer"}}-->

Desysopping is generally handled in one of a number of ways. The most common is by request of the admin themself at WP:BN. It also occurs automatically if the admin becomes inactive for more than a year. Admins can be involuntarily desysopped by Arbcom. And although admittedly rare; I have seen cases where admins were actually blocked by other admins for seriously disruptive behavior or in one case, sockpuppetry. And lastly some admins have outlined procedure for recall (see my user page). The subject of admin recall is a fairly perennial one which gets a lot of attention now and then. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240902025100","author":"Ad Orientem","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Ad_Orientem-20240902025100-1234qwer1234qwer4-20240902024800","replies":["c-Clovermoss-20240902025800-Ad_Orientem-20240902025100"]}}-->

Is it really perennial when the last attempt gained consensus to implement it in some way? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240902025800","author":"Clovermoss","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Clovermoss-20240902025800-Ad_Orientem-20240902025100","replies":["c-Ad_Orientem-20240902032000-Clovermoss-20240902025800"],"displayName":"Clovermoss\ud83c\udf40"}}-->

The subject has been popping up with great regularity for as long as I can remember. That it might be going somewhere this time doesn't really alter that. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240902032000","author":"Ad Orientem","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Ad_Orientem-20240902032000-Clovermoss-20240902025800","replies":[]}}-->

This is the 5th RFA eligible for the new 2 day discussion period, after that, discussions should be reinstated. Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 00:02, 31 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240831000200","author":"JrandWP","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JrandWP-20240831000200-Finally_a_RFA","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20240831005200-JrandWP-20240831000200","c-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240831010300-JrandWP-20240831000200"],"displayName":"Just a random Wikipedian"}}-->

I look forward to being able to support good candidates on day 1 again. –Novem Linguae (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240831005200","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240831005200-JrandWP-20240831000200","replies":[]}}-->

Is it a RFA or an RFA? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:03, 31 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240831010300","author":"ScottishFinnishRadish","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240831010300-JrandWP-20240831000200","replies":["c-Usernamekiran-20240903213300-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240831010300","c-Ltbdl-20240831063600-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240831010300","c-Elli-20240901152200-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240831010300"]}}-->

@ScottishFinnishRadish: an MGM film once featured an RfA, in a metro Goldwyn production, in it a user rode a horse for an hour. The production was delayed for an year. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240903213300","author":"Usernamekiran","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Usernamekiran-20240903213300-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240831010300","replies":[]}}-->

the rfa. ltbdl☃ (talk) 06:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240831063600","author":"Ltbdl","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Ltbdl-20240831063600-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240831010300","replies":["c-Cullen328-20240831064300-Ltbdl-20240831063600"],"displayName":"ltbdl\u2603"}}-->

I encourage all editors to approach this RfA with caution and respect. Premature iVotes framed as comments may possibly disrupt the new process. Please refrain from that. Cullen328 (talk) 06:43, 31 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240831064300","author":"Cullen328","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Cullen328-20240831064300-Ltbdl-20240831063600","replies":["c-GiantSnowman-20240831161900-Cullen328-20240831064300"]}}-->

When will we stop the 'new' process and go back to the old? GiantSnowman 16:19, 31 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240831161900","author":"GiantSnowman","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-GiantSnowman-20240831161900-Cullen328-20240831064300","replies":["c-0xDeadbeef-20240831163700-GiantSnowman-20240831161900","c-Serial_Number_54129-20240901155100-GiantSnowman-20240831161900"],"displayName":"Giant"}}-->

@GiantSnowman: Since this is the 5th RfA for the trial, if this does not close with SNOW, this will be the last RfA that will go through the discussion only trial. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 16:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240831163700","author":"0xDeadbeef","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-0xDeadbeef-20240831163700-GiantSnowman-20240831161900","replies":[],"displayName":"Deadbeef"}}-->

But why, GiantSnowman, would you want to go back to the auld ways? We've got admins being promoted, a nicer, more comfortable atmosphere, the opportunity for real consensus building rather than 'per nom and-pretend-that's-a-discussion-not-a-vote', and less—if any—barracking or bludgeoning of !votes. The (new) system works. SerialNumber54129 15:51, 1 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240901155100","author":"Serial Number 54129","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Serial_Number_54129-20240901155100-GiantSnowman-20240831161900","replies":["c-Hey_man_im_josh-20240901151700-Serial_Number_54129-20240901155100"]}}-->

Is it really enough to say it "works" though? I'm not sure I love it but I think if we do keep this style of system I'd prefer it to be lowered to 24 hours instead of 48. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:17, 1 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240901151700","author":"Hey man im josh","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-Hey_man_im_josh-20240901151700-Serial_Number_54129-20240901155100","replies":["c-Primefac-20240901171000-Hey_man_im_josh-20240901151700"]}}-->

Just noting that these suggestions should be noted and kept for the discussion of the trial period which will determine whether to maintain or reverse the new system, but discussion here (as far as I am aware) will not be considered as consensus for that determination. Primefac (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240901171000","author":"Primefac","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Primefac-20240901171000-Hey_man_im_josh-20240901151700","replies":["c-Hey_man_im_josh-20240901172500-Primefac-20240901171000"]}}-->

Good note, thank you! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240901172500","author":"Hey man im josh","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Hey_man_im_josh-20240901172500-Primefac-20240901171000","replies":["c-Tryptofish-20240901215800-Hey_man_im_josh-20240901172500"]}}-->

I hope that we will let a bit of time pass, before starting that discussion of the trial. I say that in the context of the many comments that have been made, expressing concern about how few RfAs we have been having. One possible hypothesis is that the new system being trialed discouraged some good candidates from running, resulting in a drought of RfAs. There's no actual evidence that this is the case. But if, hypothetically, we get an uptick in successful RfAs just after this trial ends, that might support such a possibility. It would be helpful to know that, before discussing whether the trial worked. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240901215800","author":"Tryptofish","type":"comment","level":10,"id":"c-Tryptofish-20240901215800-Hey_man_im_josh-20240901172500","replies":[]}}-->

an. I was going to suggest the same correction. Elli (talk | contribs) 15:22, 1 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240901152200","author":"Elli","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Elli-20240901152200-ScottishFinnishRadish-20240831010300","replies":[]}}-->

Is it just me, or does an edit like this, striking the harmless input of a non-extended-confirmed editor, feel wrong and un-Wikipedia-like to anyone else? (I'm not criticizing the specific editor there, but the general practice as a whole.) I regret having missed the RfC that raised the minimum requirement to vote at RfA to extended-confirmed (was super busy IRL earlier this year, and still am). But this new policy feels very WP:BITEy, and I feel like it doesn't directly address any of the problems at RfA aside from turning away potential new contributors. Many of the opponents at the RfC correctly predicted the problems with the proposal, and many of the supporters only supported a vague "minimum threshold" as opposed to extended confirmed being that specific threshold. Is there any appetite towards repealing the change? We could meet halfway and ask that voters be autoconfirmed instead (the only requirement before was account registration). The change very much feels like a step backwards in making RfA a better place. Mz7 (talk) 20:10, 2 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240902201000","author":"Mz7","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Mz7-20240902201000-Extended_confirmed_suffrage_requirement","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20240902205200-Mz7-20240902201000","c-GreenLipstickLesbian-20240902205600-Mz7-20240902201000","c-Aoidh-20240903001600-Mz7-20240902201000","c-Jo-Jo_Eumerus-20240904073500-Mz7-20240902201000"]}}-->

Disclaimer: I'm the one mentioned in the above diff.

I agree in principle with limiting voting to EC folks. This is an easy way to keep trolls and socks from causing drama and influencing an RFA. Although in order to be fair, we also have to apply it to folks like the editor in the diff above who was almost surely acting in good faith.

One idea might be to EC protect the voting page, nudging these folks to comment on the talk page. That would probably be less bitey than striking or deleting their vote after they make it.

Another mitigation that could be considered is to show the watchlist notice only to EC. This would probably be the easiest fix in terms of effort. Just change one piece of code one time, rather than protecting every RFA.

If you want another data point, I struck a support and an oppose in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HouseBlaster. In @HouseBlaster's RFA debrief, he wrote [...] Novem Linguae did a fabulous de facto job making the whole RfA easier, which I think was referring to me striking these votes, so it sounds like it did improve the candidate's experience? Anyway, happy to hear other thoughts. Hope this helps. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240902205200","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240902205200-Mz7-20240902201000","replies":["c-Shushugah-20240902210000-Novem_Linguae-20240902205200","c-HouseBlaster-20240902230900-Novem_Linguae-20240902205200","c-Mz7-20240903050800-Novem_Linguae-20240902205200"]}}-->

IP editors and new users should be able to comment/ask questions. Implementing either an edit notice warning before they publish or making the talk page editable (and transferring comments) are both far preferable to "striking" votes when it is our weird rules, not them. I would not have struck their vote, but wanted crats to simply deduct their vote when tallying as an alternative here. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:00, 2 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240902210000","author":"Shushugah","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Shushugah-20240902210000-Novem_Linguae-20240902205200","replies":[]}}-->

That is pretty much what I was referring to in the debrief. I don't think it was necessarily striking the support and the oppose in and of itself which made the process easier – it was more the feeling that someone was watching over the RfA to make sure people kept it within reason. I think a comment like this one (publicly declaring that someone was a monitor) would have had the same effect. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240902230900","author":"HouseBlaster","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-HouseBlaster-20240902230900-Novem_Linguae-20240902205200","replies":[],"displayName":"House"}}-->

I would be curious to go back through historical RfAs and count the ratio of trolls and socks among the non-extended-confirmed accounts that contributed to RfA. My suspicion is that we are throwing the baby out with the bathwater here by restricting non-extended-confirmed accounts: I suspect that if we hypothetically apply the policy retroactively, we would be suppressing way more legitimate voices than illegitimate ones. Mz7 (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240903050800","author":"Mz7","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Mz7-20240903050800-Novem_Linguae-20240902205200","replies":[]}}-->

I wasn't active during the RfC either, and while I do like most of the changes, I have to concur that I don't like this one.

And, on a personal note, I voted in the odd RfA before I hit EC- because while I may not have been intimately familiar with WP:CESSPIT, WP:NPP, or the vast majority of noticeboards, I knew enough to always cite my sources, and to tell who I trusted with the block tools. I mostly wrote small articles, however- so until I started getting involved in backlogs and stuff, I wasn't on track to get 500 edits for a while. In fact, like many editors who don't frequent the backrooms, I didn't hit EC until years after registering my account. Five years, to be precise.

I get that we want to protect against socks and incivility (although anybody who has ever watch an RfA knows that some of the meanest comments can come from very respected longstanding editors & even advanced rights holders), but don't think this trial has shown that disenfranchising the vast majority of our editors has helped that. If anything, I think it showed just how out of touch many of us can be with newer or more sporadic editors. And our voices were never going to be represented in that RfC- because how many editors who write the occasional start-class biography on an actor they saw, fixes typos on the lunch break, or removes promotional fluff from articles they're reading were ever going to see that discussion, know what it meant, or feel welcome enough to participate in it? And, as anybody knows, this will do squat all for preventing an actually good sock master from causing disruption- the obvious ones will easily be caught by the 'crats or several dozen admins monitoring every RfA, and the clever ones will just make sleepers, fix vandalism and typos, then vote away. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 20:56, 2 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240902205600","author":"GreenLipstickLesbian","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-GreenLipstickLesbian-20240902205600-Mz7-20240902201000","replies":[]}}-->

I would say it absolutely feels wrong to strike an RfA comment just because the editor isn't extended confirmed. Editors who are not extended confirmed are not second-class probationary editors nor are they likely to be trolls or sockpuppets, especially without evidence. The moment someone makes a single edit, they are a Wikipedia editor and are part of the Wikipedia community and should be welcomed instead of increasingly closed off from participation. This would make me want to cease editing. RfA is a community process, and they made a comment ending with Thank you for stepping forward to make our community a better place. Our community. Not the administrator's community, not the community of extended confirmed editors, but our community. This isn't the encyclopedia that anyone can edit if we continue to throw up walls keeping editors out. - Aoidh (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240903001600","author":"Aoidh","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Aoidh-20240903001600-Mz7-20240902201000","replies":[]}}-->

I am not convinced that the suffrage requirements are addressing any of the various perceived or actual problems that RfA has. Crankish or half-baked opinions can be posted and are often posted by anyone. I don't like the way people are spreading this extended-confirmed restriction around the project as if we needed such a hierarchy everywhere. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240904073500","author":"Jo-Jo Eumerus","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Jo-Jo_Eumerus-20240904073500-Mz7-20240902201000","replies":[]}}-->

Having the MediaWiki:Watchlist-messages direct non-extended-confirmed editors to RfA only to have their comments struck is unfortunate (I don't think Novem intended for the striking to come across as mean spirited at all). I personally don't like the suffrage requirement, but I think there are a few things we can do right now short of getting rid of the requirement that would help:

• First, I've added a set of instructions at the top of the comments section that makes clear that you need to be extended confirmed to participate [4]. This will prevent newer editors from mistakenly participating in the wrong way.
• Second, I propose we add guidance to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship#Expressing opinions that suggests that if an editor who is not extended confirmed places a comment in the wrong section that their comment should be moved to the general comments section. This might be a good alternative to a seemingly harsh strikeout and would set a standard operating procedure. I was tempted to also boldly make this change, but I'd like to make sure there is consensus first.

Happy to hear other opinions. Malinaccier (talk) 00:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240903005000","author":"Malinaccier","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Malinaccier-20240903005000-Extended_confirmed_suffrage_requirement","replies":["c-Shushugah-20240903015700-Malinaccier-20240903005000","c-Novem_Linguae-20240903021200-Malinaccier-20240903005000","c-GreenLipstickLesbian-20240903021300-Malinaccier-20240903005000","c-Robertsky-20240903022000-Malinaccier-20240903005000","c-Mz7-20240903055600-Malinaccier-20240903005000","c-Theleekycauldron-20240903060900-Malinaccier-20240903005000","c-Kusma-20240903121500-Malinaccier-20240903005000","c-Extraordinary_Writ-20240903222300-Malinaccier-20240903005000"]}}-->

@Malinaccier +1; there isn't even a consensus whether RfA is a vote or a weighed consensus, but either way, moving non ECA to comment section fits the spirit of no WP:BITE while preventing vote-stacking. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 01:57, 3 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240903015700","author":"Shushugah","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Shushugah-20240903015700-Malinaccier-20240903005000","replies":[]}}-->

I like the idea of moving non EC supports/opposes/neutrals to the discussion section instead of striking. I can start doing this instead if there's no objections. –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240903021200","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240903021200-Malinaccier-20240903005000","replies":[]}}-->

I would support the second proposal, no matter which voter suffrage guidelines we eventually end up with. It's much friendlier. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240903021300","author":"GreenLipstickLesbian","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-GreenLipstickLesbian-20240903021300-Malinaccier-20240903005000","replies":[]}}-->

I support the second proposal, if the changes for the RfC on only having ec editors voting remains. – robertsky (talk) 02:20, 3 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240903022000","author":"Robertsky","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Robertsky-20240903022000-Malinaccier-20240903005000","replies":[],"displayName":"\u2013 robertsky"}}-->

I'm not against the second proposal, but I don't think it solves the problem, as it still has the effect of separating out less-experienced editors and letting them know that their opinion matters less. As with any discussion on Wikipedia, the weight of their opinion should depend on the strength of their argument, rather than their edit count and tenure. Mz7 (talk) 05:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240903055600","author":"Mz7","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Mz7-20240903055600-Malinaccier-20240903005000","replies":[]}}-->

I would personally like to see the suffrage requirement repealed. Both the vote I re-struck and the vote I struck were constructive and not disruptive, and I don't think a rule that doesn't successfully address RfA's toxicity should be on the books. Regardless, if the suffrage requirement stays, I would support moving it to general. In fact, there's nothing preventing me from doing that now, so I'm going to move both of the struck !votes there. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240903060900","author":"Theleekycauldron","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Theleekycauldron-20240903060900-Malinaccier-20240903005000","replies":["c-Theleekycauldron-20240903060900-Theleekycauldron-20240903060900"]}}-->

also, I'm unstriking the text of the votes, as the RfC never prevented non-EC people from substantively commenting (it is an explicit carveout, in fact). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:09, 3 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240903060900","author":"Theleekycauldron","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Theleekycauldron-20240903060900-Theleekycauldron-20240903060900","replies":["c-Shushugah-20240903114900-Theleekycauldron-20240903060900"]}}-->

Glad this was resolved amicably in the middle of an RfA (Narfhead's trailing signature still looks strange to me if theleekycauldron can have a second look).

I would support removing the suffragist requirement in general or loosening it (an account registered in same day with a sole edit at RfA is clearly SPA) as well as matter of IP users, but I do think we should ECA requirement in place for the more anonymous WP:Admin elections where it is an explicit vote. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 11:49, 3 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240903114900","author":"Shushugah","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Shushugah-20240903114900-Theleekycauldron-20240903060900","replies":[]}}-->

• In the RfC, I suggested to either use a lower bar (like Arbcom elections) or to just EC protect and copy all comments (but not votes) from the talk page to the main discussion section as appropriate. We could also have a section for non-EC editor comments that is automatically transcluded from the talk page. Overall, I think that biting new voters is preferable to harming candidates by allowing or extensively discussing sock votes. —Kusma (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240903121500","author":"Kusma","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Kusma-20240903121500-Malinaccier-20240903005000","replies":["c-Theleekycauldron-20240903220700-Kusma-20240903121500"]}}-->

  I've been in a tough RfA. I've also read lots of tough RfAs, and talked to lots of people who've run tough RfAs. No candidate I've spoken to has expressed more than a bit of frustration about a !voter who has less than 3,000 or so edits. Socks and tendentious editors with no history get blocked pretty easily, it's not a big problem at RfA for candidates. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:07, 3 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240903220700","author":"Theleekycauldron","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Theleekycauldron-20240903220700-Kusma-20240903121500","replies":["c-Kusma-20240904105200-Theleekycauldron-20240903220700"]}}-->

  Editors with no previous edits were explicitly allowed to vote under the old wording of the requirements, yet their votes were always questioned or discounted, so we certainly needed an update to the written rules. If we ever get to admin elections, we need suffrage requirements more stringent than "has an account".

  Anyway, I am happy for friendly ways of enforcing the requirement; indenting with a note, moving to the comments section, or technically preventing editors not allowed to vote from voting in the first place can all be done without being nasty to the editor without the right to vote. —Kusma (talk) 10:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240904105200","author":"Kusma","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Kusma-20240904105200-Theleekycauldron-20240903220700","replies":[]}}-->

I !voted for this (and presumably others did too) on the assumption that it would be enforced with ECP, which would at least cut back on the amount of disruption and stress trolls, vandals, LTAs, etc. can create. But what we're doing instead just causes confusion and BITEing for good-faith users while leaving bad-faith ones unimpeded. I think this is a situation where half-measures create the worst of both worlds: either we should go full bore with protection or just return to the status quo ante. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240903222300","author":"Extraordinary Writ","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Extraordinary_Writ-20240903222300-Malinaccier-20240903005000","replies":[]}}-->

Administrator Elections | Updates & Schedule
Administrator elections are in the WMF Trust & Safety SecurePoll calendar and are all set to proceed. We plan to use the following schedule: Oct 8 – Oct 14: Candidate sign-up Oct 22 – Oct 24: Discussion phase Oct 25 – Oct 31: SecurePoll voting phase If you have any questions, concerns, or thoughts before we get started, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections. If you are interested in helping out, please post at Wikipedia talk:Administrator elections § Ways to help. There are many redlinked subpages that can be created.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

–Novem Linguae (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240911210200","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240911210200-Administrator_Elections:_Updates_&_Schedule","replies":[]}}-->

Should we create a page about the new administrator recall process? Just a random Wikipedian^(talk) 08:39, 16 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240916083900","author":"JrandWP","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-JrandWP-20240916083900-Wikipedia:Administrator_recall","replies":["c-Joe_Roe-20240916090800-JrandWP-20240916083900"],"displayName":"Just a random Wikipedian"}}-->

You mean Wikipedia:Administrator reconfirmation? – Joe (talk) 09:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240916090800","author":"Joe Roe","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Joe_Roe-20240916090800-JrandWP-20240916083900","replies":[],"displayName":"Joe"}}-->

Relevant discussion here, could have done with more eyes. It was an interesting proposal, although rather begs the question of when to use <  :) SerialNumber54129 13:51, 19 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240919135100","author":"Serial Number 54129","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Serial_Number_54129-20240919135100->","replies":["c-Floquenbeam-20240919140200-Serial_Number_54129-20240919135100"]}}-->

I want to suggest a new site-wide rule: for the next 3 months, no new threads anywhere in project space on topics that are not one of the, say, 500 most important issues we face. --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240919140200","author":"Floquenbeam","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Floquenbeam-20240919140200-Serial_Number_54129-20240919135100","replies":["c-Serial_Number_54129-20240919141400-Floquenbeam-20240919140200"]}}-->

No one's stopping you; although this is not, as you know, the place for such a proposal. SerialNumber54129 14:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240919141400","author":"Serial Number 54129","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Serial_Number_54129-20240919141400-Floquenbeam-20240919140200","replies":["c-Primefac-20240919152700-Serial_Number_54129-20240919141400","c-Serial_Number_54129-20240919181000-Serial_Number_54129-20240919141400"]}}-->

Just noting this is already under discussion at #percentage in tally above. Primefac (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240919152700","author":"Primefac","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Primefac-20240919152700-Serial_Number_54129-20240919141400","replies":[]}}-->

Thanks for that, Primefac, I hadn't noticed. SerialNumber54129 18:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240919181000","author":"Serial Number 54129","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Serial_Number_54129-20240919181000-Serial_Number_54129-20240919141400","replies":[]}}-->

Why is Asilvering's tally showing ">99" instead of the precedent 99? —usernamekiran (talk) 17:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240907174000","author":"Usernamekiran","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Usernamekiran-20240907174000-percentage_in_tally","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20240907194000-Usernamekiran-20240907174000"]}}-->

Looks like that's how Template:Recent RfX is coded. {{#ifexpr:{{#expr:100*{{{5|0}}}/({{{5|0}}}+{{{6|0}}}) round 0}} = 100 and {{{6}}} > 0 | >99 | {{#expr:100*{{{5|0}}}/({{{5|0}}}+{{{6|0}}}) round 0}} In layman's terms, I think that means "If support percentage rounds up to 100 but there is an oppose, display >99". I think this makes logical sense... it's not really a 100% RFA if there are opposes. So I think I'd be in favor of keeping it. –Novem Linguae (talk) 19:40, 7 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240907194000","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240907194000-Usernamekiran-20240907174000","replies":["c-Primefac-20240911123200-Novem_Linguae-20240907194000"]}}-->

I find myself surprisingly opposed to this recent change (and by "recent" I mean "two months ago"); if we want decimal places we should code in decimal places, not put in an exception for a specific case where we want someone to feel better about receiving one or two protest opposes. Primefac (talk) 12:32, 11 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240911123200","author":"Primefac","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Primefac-20240911123200-Novem_Linguae-20240907194000","replies":["c-Usernamekiran-20240911200600-Primefac-20240911123200"]}}-->

I agree with Primefac. Let it be what it is. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240911200600","author":"Usernamekiran","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Usernamekiran-20240911200600-Primefac-20240911123200","replies":["c-Primefac-20240912120900-Usernamekiran-20240911200600"]}}-->

Just as a note, I read (after posting here) the relevant posts where this issue was first proposed; the intention was not to provide feel-good feelings as I cynically posted earlier (so I have struck that) but rather because the module used to round >99.5% to 100% which is not necessarily correct. I think simply adding a single decimal point will more than suffice. Primefac (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240912120900","author":"Primefac","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-Primefac-20240912120900-Usernamekiran-20240911200600","replies":["c-Theleekycauldron-20240913011200-Primefac-20240912120900"]}}-->

i kinda like it better as is – i don't i really want people parsing down to the decimals on tough RfAs. It's a minor thing, but I think it only accentuates the importance of the percentage. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240913011200","author":"Theleekycauldron","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Theleekycauldron-20240913011200-Primefac-20240912120900","replies":["c-SarekOfVulcan-20240919160300-Theleekycauldron-20240913011200"]}}-->

I agree with leeky. >99 is good for "rounds to 100, but not quite there", and for the most part, we really don't want to deal with decimals in a !vote. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240919160300","author":"SarekOfVulcan","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-SarekOfVulcan-20240919160300-Theleekycauldron-20240913011200","replies":["c-Firefangledfeathers-20240919160900-SarekOfVulcan-20240919160300"]}}-->

My thoughts here align with TLC and SOV. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:09, 19 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240919160900","author":"Firefangledfeathers","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Firefangledfeathers-20240919160900-SarekOfVulcan-20240919160300","replies":["c-Serial_Number_54129-20240919181700-Firefangledfeathers-20240919160900"]}}-->

I don't think the [[>]] is particularly helpful, to be honest; it's too vague to be accurate. The status quo ante was sufficient and easy enough for anyone to understand: that if someone passes unopposed, that's 100%. Anything else will always be above and below something else. SerialNumber54129 18:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240919181700","author":"Serial Number 54129","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Serial_Number_54129-20240919181700-Firefangledfeathers-20240919160900","replies":["c-SarekOfVulcan-20240919191000-Serial_Number_54129-20240919181700"]}}-->

Well, say we have an RFA with 249 supports and one oppose. 249/250 = .996, which rounds up to 100% - which is incorrect. ">99" is a good way to indicate the lack of unanimity without mis-rounding the result or using fractions of a percent which, as I said before, are not terribly useful in a discussion that's not supposed to be a vote. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240919191000","author":"SarekOfVulcan","type":"comment","level":10,"id":"c-SarekOfVulcan-20240919191000-Serial_Number_54129-20240919181700","replies":["c-Serial_Number_54129-20240919191600-SarekOfVulcan-20240919191000"]}}-->

Precisely. So, anything other than unanimity = 99%. No mis-rounding, no fractions, no problem. SerialNumber54129 19:16, 19 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240919191600","author":"Serial Number 54129","type":"comment","level":11,"id":"c-Serial_Number_54129-20240919191600-SarekOfVulcan-20240919191000","replies":["c-SarekOfVulcan-20240919194200-Serial_Number_54129-20240919191600","c-Levivich-20241001051100-Serial_Number_54129-20240919191600"]}}-->

Well, no, rounding 99.6 down to 99 while rounding 98.9 up to 99 is mis-rounding. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240919194200","author":"SarekOfVulcan","type":"comment","level":12,"id":"c-SarekOfVulcan-20240919194200-Serial_Number_54129-20240919191600","replies":["c-Primefac-20240919195500-SarekOfVulcan-20240919194200"]}}-->

That sounds more like we should be flooring (i.e. rounding down). Primefac (talk) 19:55, 19 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240919195500","author":"Primefac","type":"comment","level":13,"id":"c-Primefac-20240919195500-SarekOfVulcan-20240919194200","replies":[]}}-->

There's a joke here about intrinsic whole number bias but I can't think of it. Levivich (talk) 05:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241001051100","author":"Levivich","type":"comment","level":12,"id":"c-Levivich-20241001051100-Serial_Number_54129-20240919191600","replies":[]}}-->

These are, of course, super important matters for the community's attention:

• Bikeshed Proposal #9487209: All RFA pages says Multi-part questions disguised as one question, with the intention of evading the limit, are disallowed. I always laughed at that, imagining somebody putting two questions into a single trenchcoat in order to disguise it as one question with the intention of evading the limit. Does anybody besides me think this is a weirdly-hostile way of saying "multi-part questions are not allowed"? Or do the multi-part questions truly have to be disguised in order to be not allowed? Are blatantly-obvious multi-part questions allowed?
• Bikeshed Proposal #9487210: The edit notice for this page says This is NOT the place to ask for advice on your chances at adminship; for that there really is a plethora of advice pages. If there really is a plethora, maybe we should link to some? Seems kind of like a jerk thing to say "this is NOT the right page! there are really lots of other pages! we're not going to specifically mention any though." This is particularly funny given the last bullet point in the edit notice is "Please remain calm and civil..." yeah, unlike this edit notice.

Anyway, as is typical, we will have a three-stage RFC process to answer these questions, followed by a confirmatory SecurePoll vote, at which point it'll be submitted to the Board of Trustees for approval. Levivich (talk) 01:56, 15 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240915015600","author":"Levivich","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-Levivich-20240915015600-Bikeshed_proposals_#9487209_and_#9487210","replies":["c-HouseBlaster-20240915030800-Levivich-20240915015600","c-Femke-20240915081200-Levivich-20240915015600"]}}-->

I've cut the Gordian Knot and added a link to WP:RFAADVICE, which links to other advice and WP:ORCP. I think the original point is that if you don't know what ORCP is, you are almost certainly not ready to go there. As for 9487209, I tried. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240915030800","author":"HouseBlaster","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-HouseBlaster-20240915030800-Levivich-20240915015600","replies":[],"displayName":"House"}}-->

Good idea about making the two-part question text less aggresive & more concise. I've changed the text at Template:RfA/readyToSubmit to Multi-part questions are disallowed, but you are allowed to ask follow-up questions related to previous questions. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240915081200","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":2,"id":"c-Femke-20240915081200-Levivich-20240915015600","replies":["c-Levivich-20240915141700-Femke-20240915081200"],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

Thank you both! Levivich (talk) 14:17, 15 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240915141700","author":"Levivich","type":"comment","level":3,"id":"c-Levivich-20240915141700-Femke-20240915081200","replies":["c-Femke-20240915201100-Levivich-20240915141700"]}}-->

I've cleaned up WP:RFAADVICE, as it was surprisingly full of WP:ABF and offputting commentary. Might benefit from another read. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 20:11, 15 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240915201100","author":"Femke","type":"comment","level":4,"id":"c-Femke-20240915201100-Levivich-20240915141700","replies":["c-HouseBlaster-20240915204100-Femke-20240915201100"],"displayName":"\u2014Femke \ud83d\udc26"}}-->

I've taken it to User:Houseblaster/Advice for RfA candidates, in the hopes it can be cleaned up. If others wish to help out, please do so. We did a similar thing to revamp Help:Your first article, and it was (in my very biased opinion) very successful. In a few moments of looking closely, it definitely seems like it was written piece by piece, with small parts being updated as the years go on. There is a lot of WP:BITE which can be transformed into gentle "this is probably not for you" wording. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240915204100","author":"HouseBlaster","type":"comment","level":5,"id":"c-HouseBlaster-20240915204100-Femke-20240915201100","replies":["c-Isaacl-20240915213000-HouseBlaster-20240915204100","c-Novem_Linguae-20240915220800-HouseBlaster-20240915204100"],"displayName":"House"}}-->

It was largely written by one editor, and so changes have hewed closely to that original viewpoint and writing style. But as that editor has stepped back from editing, there is more opportunity to incorporate other perspectives and alter the writing style. isaacl (talk) 21:30, 15 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240915213000","author":"Isaacl","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Isaacl-20240915213000-HouseBlaster-20240915204100","replies":[]}}-->

You might want to just modify WP:RFAADVICE directly instead of forking. Advantages include preventing merge conflicts, not having to copy paste / WP:HISTMERGE later, and letting more people get involved in the process. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20240915220800","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":6,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20240915220800-HouseBlaster-20240915204100","replies":["c-WaltCip-20241007125100-Novem_Linguae-20240915220800"]}}-->

The problem with that is when you do have lots of editors involved in editing an advice page, they may come in with different viewpoints and different messages that may conflict with one another. Pages like this really need to be userspace essays to begin with, I think. _{Duly signed,} ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 12:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241007125100","author":"WaltCip","type":"comment","level":7,"id":"c-WaltCip-20241007125100-Novem_Linguae-20240915220800","replies":["c-Novem_Linguae-20241007160400-WaltCip-20241007125100"],"displayName":"\u26f5 WaltClipper"}}-->

Lots of people editing a page can be good though too. That's kind of how our normal iterative editing process works. Lots of editors can result in a page ending up at a good equilibrium that reflects consensus. –Novem Linguae (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241007160400","author":"Novem Linguae","type":"comment","level":8,"id":"c-Novem_Linguae-20241007160400-WaltCip-20241007125100","replies":["c-Isaacl-20241007161600-Novem_Linguae-20241007160400"]}}-->

It doesn't work as well on advice pages, because often for clarity it's more effective not to switch between multiple points of view on one page, and so the supporters of each side will prefer separate pages. That being said, for this specific case, I don't think Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates needs to be a userspace essay, as I think there is consensus for a sufficient amount of common advice. isaacl (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241007161600","author":"Isaacl","type":"comment","level":9,"id":"c-Isaacl-20241007161600-Novem_Linguae-20241007160400","replies":[]}}-->

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
• The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241008023500","author":"MediaWiki message delivery","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-20241008023500-Administrator_Elections_|_Call_for_Candidates","replies":[]}}-->

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 22–24 - Discussion phase
• October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)__DTREPLYBUTTONSCONTENT__-->__DTELLIPSISBUTTON__{"threadItem":{"timestamp":"20241022002300","author":"MediaWiki message delivery","type":"comment","level":1,"id":"c-MediaWiki_message_delivery-20241022002300-Administrator_Elections:_Discussion_phase","replies":[]}}-->