Wikipedia:Adminship survey/A

Requests for Adminship (RfA)

(17/45/18) I am content with how Requests for Adminship (RfA) is working now

Points to think about :

RfA's ability/inability to adapt to changes in community and withstand times of "crisis"?
Is RfA currently the best method for promoting editors for adminship?
Do you consider RfA to be "broken"?
Do you feel that RfA is fair in determining whether to give/not to give the mop to editors?
Is there room for improvement in RfA? Please specify what changes you think may make RfA a better one.

Yes

I am, yes. I have not yet seen any single better suggestion for how to run it, nor can I think of one. There are always going to be complaints about different methods. I do expect this survey to be very strongly (and possibly misleadingly) against RFA in its present form, because the people that feel strongly about how RFA is "broken" are most likely to contribute. Proto ► 16:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because this adminship survey is a voluntary response sample, and only people who have strong vocal opinions on this issue will actually participate in the survey. Nishkid 64 22:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. As opposed to adminship based on: edit count, years here, limited group decision, or a combination of them, I think community decision based adminship is the right approach. Saying the community, or certain members are incapable of making up their mind could be considered mildly arrogant. Discrediting someone’s !vote for clarifying it with a silly reason is irrelevant. Putting your gut feel into words isn’t always easy, it’s their !vote, their reasoning, their opinion, and their tiny part of the community’s input on giving someone some extra buttons. The fact that a !vote is sometimes joined with a reasoning you don’t agree with, can at max prompt to talk a bit. Besides, the fact that a bureaucrat is allowed to interpret a !vote is supposed to solve the "silly reason" problem. The only problem I see is that even with 300 !voters, they are potentially not an average cross section of the community, but people with an special interest. I agree that that is not ideal, but hard to solve. --Van helsing 16:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Best way of all the suggested ones--strikes a good balance between quality and general approval, which are not quite the same. The main problem I find is the unfortunate affect effects of negative criticism on future discussions between the parties. DGG 18:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in considering whether or not I am "content" with the present system and I certainly do not think it is "broken", conceeding that no system is perfect. There is far too much subjective opinion put forth to support the proposition that it is the system that is not working, broken, or at fault. Too much is made of people being opposed for the "wrong" reasons. I agree that some opinions, both in support and in opposition, can be based on irrelevant factors, be frivolous, ill-thought out, or vexatious, but it appears those responses are in the minority and the bureaucrats can put as little weight as they want on those opinions in making their decision. In any event, an important part of the discussion is trust, and I cannot accept that a person can be told their ability to trust or not to trust is wrong. It has been said a number of time in RfA Talk that "good" or "worthy" candidates fail to get promoted. I have to take that with a grain of salt. No candidate is a guaranteed shoo-in, and I assume that all (or the vast majority) commentators posting an opinion are stating their opinion in good faith on criteria that they think are relevant. I have supported candidates who have failed, and opposed candidates who have succeeded, but despite my opinion I can respect the opinion of those who thought to the contrary and did not see the opinions contrary to mine as an indication that the system is broken. Agent 86 19:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am generally supportive of the way RfA is currently run. I think some tinkering about the edges may be appropriate, but the process seems rather hard to replace with one better. Αργυριου (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think there is much hand-wringing about RfA, but I don't see a broken process at all. —Doug Bell ^talk 23:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am content currently, because on 90% of situations (in my opinion) the outcome is the best one for improving the encyclopaedia. It could be tweaked, but the current method is better than most other proposed methods. Daniel.Bryant 04:05, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Content" is a rather strong word for what would be better described as toleration. I am not thrilled with RfA but don't see a better system on the horizon and certainly don't see any way to get consensus to switch to a new system even if it is better. Eluchil404 05:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially agree with Eluchil. While there are always pathological cases, the current system basically works, which is more than I'd predict for any of the alternatives I've seen proposed. General satisfaction with the system, however, does not necessarily amount to satisfaction with the culture of (some of) the participants. In particular, the insistence that the system is essentially 'not a vote' contrasts with the common view that opposition should not be disputed or even replied to; I would rather see acceptance that individual comments - in any section - may generate discussion of the particular point being made. Correspondingly, one should not make a comment that one is not prepared to defend, and 'don't badger the opposers' should not be a flag to wave in lieu of explaining oneself. Opabinia regalis 05:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Until someone presents a viable alternative, and RfC-like methods aren't it, the imperfections of the current system are a necessary evil. There are indeed some bizarre reasons given for opposing candidates, but these come in all shapes and sizes. Some of the "RfA is broken" people aren't backward at coming forward with their own shrubberies. When the system fails to promote apparently suitable people, it usually works eventually. I don't see any way to produce a system which will not be unpleasant for some: we are asked if we trust the candidate with the tools. If it turns out that, actually, no, you aren't trusted, that's unlikely to be an experience you'll enjoy. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:28, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is a problem with the process, rather, some people's standards are too high. I think !votes should be based on whether the user would misuse the tools through either malicious deletions/blocks etc or inexperience. Other than that I think there should be no other criteria. Of course people need evidence that the person understands policy etc but some people's standards are too high. James086 ^Talk 14:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfA is the most scrutinized and over-discussed process on Wikipedia. People's standards could use work, yes, but I don't see that as something that can be changed by a change in the process. Grand master ka 08:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The high standards in RfA are a function of the difficulty in removing the sysop bit to the bad apples. All other processes will have the same issue, defensive editors and rising criteria, until the other side of the equation is addressed. Titoxd^(?!?) 23:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see no problems in RfA that would warrant a redesigning of it. Though the votes tend to disaggree, changing RfA will not change the disaggreement in votes. Captain panda In vino veritas 23:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This process has withstood many trials relatively unscathed and in full bloom. The concerns regarding silly reasons for opposition are irrelevant to the RfA; those are problems regarding the person voting, not the process of voting. We do not blame the initiative process for crappy measures and propositions; you blame those that came up with said crappy measures and propositions. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It works, and I've yet to see a better idea (despite near-constant debate about it). --kingboyk 16:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the process is working fine, but the voters have to change their view. As long as they are experienced, seem like good Wikipedians, and have nothing serious to complain about, they should be promoted. It doesn't matter how many edits one has in the portal space. J-stan ^Talk 02:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No

People are opposed for silly reasons such as not enough image experience, while others are supported for just as silly reasons such as lots of AWB edits. And we're reaching the point where we don't have enough admins (or at least not ones who regularly use their tools). -Amarkov moo! 15:15, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding the above. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too many good candidates don't get promoted or don't even dare to run. Kusma (討論) 15:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too many decent candidates who would make great admins are opposed because they aren't PC enough, or are willing to take contentious decisions (and I'm not thinking about me, I'm thinking Moreschi). Other RfAs snowball on the basis of one diff because many voters can't be bothered to consider all the qualities of the candidate. I would say that it's getting to the point where people simply pile in from what they've read on the RfA, not from their own investigation, which can lead to horrible bias. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That it's probably easier for a long-established editor to do the "right things" with a sockpuppet and gain adminship than someone who's gotten into policy debates and talk page disputes speaks volumes. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing everyone agrees with is we're not happy with RFA - hence this survey I suspect. --Mcginnly | Natter 15:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Candidates these days cannot make one tiny mistake without being hounded by opposers. Some oppose reasons are just bizarre and don't consider the user's ability as an admin. --Majorly _{(o rly?)} 15:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per the above reasons, as well as the silly oppose reason "must have at least one FA" - pardon me, but we need more admins, and writing well is not an admin function - admin functions are primarily housekeeping, mentoring, policy, etc. Perhaps if we promote more admins, those who do write well will have more time for it. As it is, I never saw that blocking vandals, protecting pages, deleting articles, and closing Afds require ability to write to FA standards. If we promote only those who do write to that level, then we're losing valuable writing time for them - they'll be too busy with housekeeping to write, and then why are we here? Its absurd. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good people are opposed because they don't jump through the right namespace balance hoops and far too many people just vote for whatever looks like the popular choice rather than applying any critical thinking. --BigDT 16:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Far too high a reliance on irrelevant metrics that look just at the numbers and not behind them. MLA 16:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFA works at the moment, but only in the clear-cut situations where the same result would result in any reasonably sensible situation. It fails in the more complex or controversial cases, because it can't sensibly take reasons for or against into account. --ais523 17:06, 16 February 2007 (U T C)
No. Opposition is often for invalid reasons that won't matter if the user is promoted. ST47Talk 18:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Though it is doing a good job in weeding out potential problems, far too many good candidates are being rejected. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tyranny of the majority seems to occur during RFAs, with many people just jumping on the bandwagon and saying "Oppose per (name)". Grudges and factional wars (deletionists vs. inclusionists) seem to bog down the whole process and prevent any meaningful discussion of the person being considered for adminship. GhostPirate 18:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
per Ghostpirate G e o. Talk to me 18:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFA is currently problematic: users take their personal dislikes to RFA: what is more: "OMG! He's an inclusionist! All inclusionists are evil trolls out to wreck Wikipedia's credibility" and "OMG! He's a deletionist! All deletionists are evil maniacs out to destroy Wikipedia" are currently especially prevalent. I agree with GhostPirate greatly in that RFA needs to move away from the current format, which reeks of supermajority, to one that will truly give us consensus. Purely from a practical point of view, we need more admins, particularly given that large chunks of our current admins are either inactive or only semi-active. A reluctance has arisen among the community to promote more freely because certain admins go bad, and it takes ArbCom to stop a broken admin. In my opinion, this is perhaps because editors, including admins on occasion, have used Wikipedia as their batttleground, either on a personal or on an ideological level: in particular on a personal level. This has led to overmany blocks of established users and following wheel wars. For that to be fixed, a culture change at Wikipedia needs to take place: WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND needs to be more rigorously enforced and a culture of "work with" needs to be installed in place of "war against". Even without this, however, which is not really an RFA problem, RFA is still broken. While supreme perfection is an unattainable goal for mankind, RFA is so badly broken that it needs to be fixed. We are getting good admins, the right admins - but not enough. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 19:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I echo others' concerns about opposition because of, gasp, imperfection. The need to be counted, considered, or influential causes people to oppose when a comment and a "I'll keep that in mind and will not do it again" would suffice. This oppose !voting causes support !voting in an attempt to cancel the opposes out, and this makes Wikipedia way, way too much of a battleground. Furthermore, I think that comments/votes should be centered around individual issues rather than a pile of votes, in the manner of an RFC, although I'm not sure how this could be implemented. Perhaps if the system were closer to User:Kim Bruning/rfatest? Gracenotes ^T § 20:26, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I feel RfA is broken. Editors and users who would make great admins are opposed "because of lack in mainspace", "not enough XfD participation", "tagged an article with db-band instead of db-bio" (exaggerating on that one). It's also a problem because the good admins are not necessarily the popular ones. Yuser31415 22:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are some good things, but there are a lot more negative things about RfA. I personally prefer a discussion-oriented RfA, instead of a vote-based RfA. It would be more productive, and would remove the need for keeping tallies and such. Nishkid 64 22:20, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary demands for shrubberies. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have a major issue of a non-standard set of criteria for what constitutes A Good Administrator™, which leads to people opposing/approving based off of other people's opinions, not on their own, and the case of a pile-on oppose from one diff from 26 years ago. Also, it's absolutely absurd that we call it a discussion. It's nothing more than a popularity contest based on a VOTE. Just because you put an exclamation point in front of the word vote in a vain attempt to negate it doesn't make it any less of a vote. The fact that we say "70%+ approval is required" further proves that the content of people's comments matter much less than the overall percentages for/against. In my opinion, a single editor bringing up a very valid point for opposition should be able to negate 100 support (!votes, of course). However, I personally cannot think of another way to do it better right now. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 23:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's current method isn't the best it could be. I suggest it be more discussion oriented rather than 70% majority-crap. This would also stop the Oppose per User X comments which are just there to pile on whenever someone made an opposition. They aren't productive and don't give anything back to the nominee who may wish to come back one day. — Moe 23:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfA has become a popularity contest. No matter how Jimbo and other keep saying that "being an admin is no big deal", it obviously is. Reading through the opposers arguments (if they even have any arguments) makes you think one is running for president. Adminship is (or should be) about volunteering. Therefor, all that is needed is enough editors supporting the adminship; let's just do away with the opposers. --Edokter (Talk) 23:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many adminship requests fall victim to personal feuds.Baka man 04:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
People are opposed for the silliest reasons (ex. too little image edits when thr candidate doesn't even plan to help with images). A lot of the criteria are too high. We have too little admins. There's no need to not promote a trusted user.--TeckWiz^Parlate Contribs_@ 19:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have moved away from the ideal that adminship is "no big deal" to some sort of system where only the most over-qualified stand a chance of succeeding. To illustrate: I was promoted with unanimous support two years ago, two years, and 10000 edits later, I doubt I would pass a RfA now for one reason or another, despite having used the tools without controversy, if a little sparingly. Rje 19:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I ran now with the same credentials as I ran with in July (2,200 edits, no XfD, self-nom) I would fail summarily, probably with 35-40% support, and perhaps even have my nom closed early by a bureaucrat, despite the fact that I have been an active admin, with no incidents, for 7 months. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 19:49, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Expectations are way too high. I'd love to have admin privileges to assist with moves and other maintenance but I know that if I RFA, I'll be told that I'm not involved enough in the encyclopedia work. Only 500 of my 4000 edits are in the mainspace (second only to the Wikipedia namespace with 2200). I don't think that this should be a valid criteria for RfA oppositions since there's plenty of admin work to do in the WP namespace too --⁪froth^T 21:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bureaucrat-as-robot mentality, silly oppose reasoning, fruitless assaults on silly oppose reasoning, pointless defense of silly oppose reasoning, WT:RFA lethargy, voting bloques, and voting itself all come to mind as things wrong with the RfA process. It is hard to define when a system is broken, and not just backward, but RfA is one or the other, and not too far from the line between the two. Many good candidates aren't promoted because of arbitrary standards which have nothing to with their trustworthiness, and, occasionally, bad ones are promoted - with flying numbers - because they've somehow become popular. Picaroon 21:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Same reasons as froth; if we promote those with mainspace edits, not only is it inefficient, it is a waste. Ab e g92contribs 16:39, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have 3 points. Point 1 - I am not content with the current system of RfA's. My biggest pet peeve is that they have come rather a popularity contest. Editors who I call social editors (Who normally hang around talk pages & make small gnommish edits to articles occasionally) with little or no article achievements make adminship far too often based on a cabal of wikifriends which admire them. Editors which are less liked & have many more achievements are left out completely or struggle terribly to make it past a RfA. I know of one editor, can't remember his name, who had like 8 FA's & many articles under his belt (Rama's Arrow?) & he only just made adminship & after his second time. However, despite being close friends, Riana Dzasta, Phaedriel & others have little to none in regards to article writing & they made WP:100 & WP:200. Forget the fact that the social, policy editors need the sysop tools more, an editor should be well rounded no matter what. Point 2 - In addition to this point, there are a frenzy of other reasons that I am not happy with RfA's & I'm sure some of you agree too. Too often have I seen a good editor be totally destroyed or broken after a failed RfA - myself included. This usually ends in a leaving or a self destructive wikibreak ending spiral of edits. It is literally like being on trial. You are being told that you are not good enough. Despite this, I can see little other way to appoint admins. - New way of appointing admins? - The only other way I can think of is if a committee set up a tight set of rules. To become an admin you have to fit the criteria that they set up. I'd sayit would be something like:- "Must have edited for more than 1 year. Must have over 3,600 edits. Must have over 1,500 main space edits. Must have X number of Wikipedia edits. Must have 1 FA or FL. Must have uploaded 5 pictures. Must have participated in X number of Xfds." Then you could have 3 or 5 beurocrats or admins sign off on the request. Also, you could have a section where people could cite any uncivil behaviour & provide evidence. If there was none & the editor had all the points above & got the sign off from the admins/beuros, then they would become an admin. With this system there would be no popularity contest nor a long discussion process & adminship would be decided on editing merits not how many people you know. It would save time as all a beurocrat would have to do is check if the user had all the requirements & if any people had cited any uncivil behaviour. It would also excluded the whole "You're not good enough for us thing" as the user would know that prior by checking if he had all the requirements. Point 3 - Oppose votes are very discarded nowadays. Since it's not a vote (Geez I hate that annoying bloody "!" before the vote) whether or not a person makes adminship should be decided on reasons. However this is not the case such as in the following example. A person has 100 support votes & 3 opposing votes with excellent arguments. In theory, those 3 votes should be able to topple all the support votes in the world if they are legitimate & valid. However this is not the case & in the example, the person would make adminship & get rewarded by making WP:100. This is wrong. Blame the beurocrats if you will, but they would get a load of crap if they ended a RfA because of only 3 well put oppose votes. My above process of only citing uncivil or bad behaviour would rule out this common action too. Anyway, I've gone on long enough & should probably leave it there. As you can tell I'm passionate about the subject.... Spawn Man 01:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, but Rama's Arrow passed 159 unanimously the second time.
One or two oppose !votes sometimes lead to pile-on oppose voting. Takes a brave person to open themselves to critical appraisal. Candidates who defend themselves against unfair criticism look bad, even if they're right. However, I don't know if we can devise a better system. --Dweller 09:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned by Amarkov up top, one of the biggest draw backs with the current system, is that good editors are blocked because they do not work in a certain area. The criteria should not be whether they are active in a particular area i.e. Images, or XfD, or stubbing, but whether they understand the policies and structure of wikipedia so as to find the relevant information if they are requested to help out. My other concern is the people voting on RfA's it becomes clear that after around 20 votes or so the pile on phenomenon starts. I'm sure there are a few editors who religeously investigate the candidates background, but I have a sneaking feeling that this is the exception rather than the rule. Some editors I feel start voting on the RFA's as a means of getting themselves noticed. Unfortunately reading through some of the votes, every now and then I see a name I don't recognise, look up and they have a handful of edits to their name. An RfA almost should be a vote by one's peers, this would never be excepted as it could lead to more cabal theories etc, but we must have a clearer set of guidelines and the editors voting must understand in detail of what they are voting for, and what isn't excepted reasoning. ^Khukri 12:07, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I always stay away from RfA, because of the objections also raised by others above me(silly comments like "does not meet my admin standards, to few Image talk posts"). If being an admin is really "not a big deal", then any trustable user, who has shown a reasonable effort to improve Wikipedia (in whatever way) should become an admin when no serious objections are raised. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 12:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe that anyone would think RfA was a good process. People get opposed for low editcount when they have over 1,000 or even 2,000 edits. The threshold for adminship needs to be dramatically lowered - I don't see why any reasonably experienced and trustworthy user can't become an admin. Walton monarchist89 13:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The standards are arbitrary and often meaningless. For example, edit counts have nearly no bearing on whether someone's a good admin (well, excepting people with maybe 20 edits.) .V. _[_Talk|Email] 14:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFA is broken because too many people seem to believe that you have to know how to be an admin before becoming one. If there is a great editor, who has done a lot of article editing and Wikiproject work (i.e. activities that don't need the tools), he or she should be promoted simply on the basis of being a trusted user. Clearly someone who has worked among others on WP for months or even years is unlikely to go berzerk upon receiving the tools. However, such a user will never become an admin, because only people who are already overly involved in admin activities will receive support.--Danaman5 07:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
per Reinoutr. The only criterion should be "not likely to fuck up". Having a checklist seven pages long is antiwiki. Grace Note 09:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, question only has 99% minor edit summaries to WikiProject talk block protected centralised pages. Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No - editcountitis combined with outright polling (even when Voting is evil) is not a good combination; a lack of consistensy, combined with no reliable prior input (ER is backlogged to hell and back again) from the wider community means that an editor pretty much has to toss it all into the bull ring, and wait for an ever-varying, never-recorded checklist to rule. anthonycfc ^[talk] 01:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No. For quite some time now RfA has been dominated by a small handful of users. Many of these frequent voters have very little (if any) participation in the encyclopedia outside of RfA. Go to any RfA from the last year, and you'll find any number of voters whose talk pages are an unbroken string of "thanks for your support on my RfA" messages, and whose contribution histories are one-dimensionally focused on the adminship process. These users tend to exhibit wildly variable RfA standards and convoluted or just plain fallacious logic in their arguments. Admins like myself who were promoted pre-2006 would certainly not have been promoted by the current crop of regular RfA voters. I can assure you that I never would have accepted a nomination for sysop back then if the climate at RfA had been what it is now. RfA *must* become a less venomous place. A wider variety of users needs to find the time to participate in the discussion there, and everyone who votes (and don't quibble - that's exactly what RfA is) needs to bear in mind that admin actions are always reversible and that adminship is neither trophy nor honorific. A Train ^{take the} 15:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that editcountitis is ridiculously rampant on RfAs. Any editor who has worked on Wikipedia and without blocks or signs of problem editing for 500-1000 edits is obviously familiar with the basic policies and the way Wikipedia works. The !votes "per other user" are also somewhat problematic, as are !votes with short, pithy but shallow statements. !votes like that should simply be discounted from the total. I also tend to oppose the one-FA standard, since being an admin and a great writer are not mutually inclusive. Supposedly, it is to show that an editor understands the goals of Wikipedia/article standards, but wouldn't someone who's participated in GA reviews, FA reviews, RfCs and the like have an obvious grasp of such standards without being a top shelf writer? In essence, I think a lot of good users are discouraged from seeking an RfA, or nominating another good editor, because of these perceived hurdles and flaws. I also believe some editors decline to participate for similar reasons, myself among them. If adminship is "no big deal" as repeatedly stated, then why so many hurdles and why such a big deal? Rather than another system replacing RfA, I think the current one just needs a solid overhaul. Vassyana 17:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tony Sidaway 00:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC) I have seen no reason to change my view that the conditions of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship inevitably bring about a quite hideous mob. --Tony Sidaway 00:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a popularity contest and success largely depends on who opposes you rather than for what reason(s). Beyond editcountitis, the current process discriminates specialists which Wikipedia needs and who could very well use the tools, all because they are not well-known throughout the community. In such cases, every light-hearted oppose vote gains unproportional weight and the bean-counting vicious circle enters its next round when an overworked b'crat closes the RfA. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFA is now working, whether we want to admit it or not. Some of the quote-unquote RFA regulars are almost single issue voters. There is too much of you need to have experience in X plus experience in Y plus Z amount of edits in area W. What RFA should be is a question of:do we trust you, and will you do work (csd, aiv, closing x deletions, ect). If the answers are yes and yes, then you opinion should be support. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 20:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other

I'm not exactly content, but I've generally quite sceptical of the proposals for significant change. I guess that makes me tolerant of the current process, as the best available method, even while thinking that some of what happens at RFA is dumb. I'm open to improving RFA, but I will take some conving that a given set of changes will actually be a good idea. Dragons flight 15:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dragons Flight. RfA isn't perfect, but it generally works, meaning that there aren't too many false positives or negatives (IMO, at least). Changes will introduce new problems and I've yet to see a proposal that comprehensively identifies the problems with the current RfA process and details how to solve each while maintaining the good aspects of RfA. ChazBeckett 16:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Haven't seen any better ideas yet. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:58, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The rate of promotion is too slow. I don't think you can blame RFA itself for that, though. The fact is that the community as a whole is still reluctant to significantly increase the number of admins, and whatever system is used will reflect that. Chick Bowen 17:29, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that RFA could be improved greatly, and I think that it will need work for complex cases, but I think that there are no better alternatives currently. Ral315 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Dragons Flight. It's not perfect but it's not all that bad. Without an alternative that is clearly significantly better, I don't see the need to switch. Rossami (talk) 18:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tend towards a view of it being broken, but I can't actually tell you how it's broken. People I see as good candidates don't get promoted, people who I see as poorer do and that's what I guess I'm really complaining about, you don't all agree with me. Since we aren't frequently running to arbcom do desysop people (or stewards for emergency desysoping), I guess it's actually working OK. --pgk 19:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFA is not working well. The problem is not the process of RFA but the state of adminship on en.WP. Since there is very little feedback towards existing admins (and none of it positive) the people in RFA don't know what to look for in a potential admin. They end up using metrics which have nothing to do with adminship. Admins themselves seem to have no system of priorities or evaluation (except for specific complaints). They seem to run about dousing flames (or setting them) in groups that forms by happenstance and seldom vary with no effort to really organize in an efficient way. Adminship is what is not scaling not RFA. Fix adminship and the RFA process will fix itself.--BirgitteSB 20:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that making RfA much more reason-based would be beneficial, as the bureaucrat will be able to look at all the users' research and come to a rational conclusion. However, if there are like 100 votes for and 2 votes against, such as in Blnguyen's case, the bureaucrat can quickly come to a decision. {Slash -|-Talk} 22:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's tough to answer this question because it seems to proceed from a paradigm that doesn't have much relevance to me. Yes, the people who get through RFA usually succeed as administrators. No, the voters' priorities aren't necessarily ones I consider necessary or beneficial - but structural changes to RFA wouldn't change that. Two aspects have me very concerned. First, as I outline in the opening of User talk:Durova/Admin, I consider the low and declining admin to user ratio to be a serious systematic problem at this site. We ought to be recruiting and mentoring more good editors into adminship. Second, there's a specific shortage of administrators to do the work I specialize in (complex investigations) and that shortage is rarely recognized or prioritized at RFA. In my opinion that's why WP:RFI and WP:PAIN both got discontinued. Problems that don't get timely attention can fester and turn into ArbCom cases. Durova^Charge! 00:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't seen anything else better. That said, people who are expecting potential admins to be active in every single part of the project and still be prolific editors are stopping us gettting some fantastic niche who concentrate on small parts of the project and do that well. Viridae ^Talk 07:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfA is the worst form of government, except all others--Doc^g 16:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfA is doing an okay job, but I don't see any other satisfactory method. bibliomaniac 1 5 22:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RfA is very good at preventing bad candidates from getting promoted (which is the most important criterion), but not so good at getting good candidates promoted. Too many people are opposed because of "inexperience" (i.e., the editor voting just happens not to know the candidate). --N Shar 21:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the procedure is good and works for the most part, however I have seen RfAs opposed (and supported for that matter) for really inane reasons. The most recent example was an RfA being opposed to because the applicant used the AWB on a page when the project that associated itself with that article decided they didn't want people using AWB on their articles. If votes like these can be weeded out I would say the system works fine. Koweja 16:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
RFA does a good job weeding out bad admins, but the cost has been weeding out some good users to. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 05:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course RfA isn't perfect. Nothing's perfect. But, as several people have mentioned, I haven't heard of a better system. Any problems it has, I feel, arise less from the system itself than from some - not all, not most - !votes being made for trivial and/or questionable reasons. Crystallina 23:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of good points on both sides. My main issue with it is that it is incredibly easy for one disgruntled editor who doesn't like the candidate for some personal reason, or a single sockpuppet upset that their spam article was AfDd, to derail an RfA; nasty accusations that sound plausible cause a snowball effect of "Oppose" votes, because few if any oppose voters will actually do any legwork to verify claims of badness, meanwhile candidates are often crticized for responding argumentatively to "Oppose" votes, leaving blatant lies often unchalleged. Another problem with it is that oppose votes are usually longwinded and rancorous, citing all kinds of real or imagined slights in great detail, while support votes are usually one-liners, effectively giving a lot more weight to oppose votes. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 22:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]