Wikipedia talk:Guide to requests for adminship

Debate?

Currently, there is an open-ended debate regarding whether a nomination that is going poorly should be removed from WP:RFA. There is no standard by which such nominations are removed, nor any consensus on whether they should be removed.

Is there? The RfA page clearly says that any user in good standing can use their own discretion to close an RfA that has no chance of succeeding. Is this a contradiction or am I simply interpreting this wrong? Swarm ^X 11:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocks

Currently, the page says under what people hope to see:

A clean block log as evidence of good editing behavior (if you have any blocks from more than twelve months ago, people will expect an explanation as to how your editing has changed to make this unlikely to happen again).

Under what people hope NOT to see, it says:

Blocks: If you've been blocked, voters will want to know why and what you've learned from this, especially if you've been blocked in recent months.

The first quote seems counterintuitive and appears to contradict the second. The older the block the less important it is, and a longer blockless edit history after an old block tends to mitigate any negative impact of the old block.

Interestingly, both pieces of information were added by the same user ([1]; [2]).

I suggest changing the first sentence to:

A clean block log as evidence of good editing behavior (if you have any blocks in recent months, people will expect an explanation as to how your editing has changed to make this unlikely to happen again).

--Bbb23 (talk) 15:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see that it is counter-intuitive or that the proposed change would be an improvement. But then I wrote that bit of the current wording, so I would say that wouldn't I. My experience of RFA is that people can accept a block log as effectively clean if there are no blocks in the last 12 months, especially if you can show you've learned from the earlier blocks. If you have recent blocks then they will want a very good reason not to oppose over it. So any reference to recent blocks definitely belongs in the "what people hope NOT to see" bit. The two sentences don't contradict each other but they are different. What people want to see is the ideal candidate, what people do not want includes some examples of more borderline candidates, and candidates do not need to be perfect to pass RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 08:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Your response is exactly what I think we want to convey, but it doesn't tally with the first sentence in the guide, which is the only thing I propose changing. And, to be more specific, I just want to change the parenthetical. As it is currently, we are saying in the parenthetical to the first sentence that people want an explanation for blocks that are older than a year. Those aren't recent blocks, so why do we want that?--Bbb23 (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

They aren't recent blocks, so provided the candidate gives some assurance that they've learned from the experience or changed their behaviour then most people will not be fussed - the default would be to accept a plausible response. Though a candidate who says "I only lose my temper like that maybe once every 18 months" will not get through RFA. If a candidate does have recent blocks then they need to give a very good reason as to why one should disregard those blocks. The problem with your proposed wording is that it implies that voters are inclined to support candidates with recent blocks provided there is an explanation. The reality is the opposite, the RFA crowd are unlikely to support a candidate who has been blocked in the last 12 months, and would take serious persuasion and some reassurances to make an exception. That isn't to say that a recent block is an automatic fail, but it is very much not what people like to see when reviewing RFA candidates. ϢereSpielChequers 13:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Now we're back to the contradiction. On the one hand, we're saying we are more concerned about recent blocks, but, on the other hand, we are saying we care about older blocks. If we care about any blocks, recent or not, then we need to say we care about all blocks but more recent blocks are more problematic. Perhaps you think that's what it says, but to me it's jarring. Hopefully, others will comment here so we'll have more interpretations than just yours (the author's) and mine (just one reader's).--Bbb23 (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Its not a contradiction, People like to see a clean blocklog and they certainly expect RFA candidates to have a recently clean blocklog. So really we are folding three conditions into two. Recent blocks are a bad sign at an RFA, a clean blocklog is the ideal thing to have at an RFA and if you've been blocked it is best to wait 12 months before running an RFA, either that or be a really strong candidate with a very good tale to tell as to how we can be sure we are unlikely to need to block you again. Remember the principal purpose of this guide is to give potential RFA candidates an idea as to whether they are ready to run, so we don't want either to give the impression that candidates with recent blocks have much chance of passing RFA, or of making people think that only candidates with clean blocklogs can succeed. ϢereSpielChequers 21:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we're in agreement on the concepts, just not how they should be communicated, so here is another possible wording of the sentence in the section what people hope to see:

A clean block log as evidence of good editing behavior (if you have any blocks, people will expect an explanation as to how your editing has changed to make this unlikely to happen again, especially if you were blocked in the last year).

--Bbb23 (talk) 22:47, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That wording would imply that recent blocks were among the things that RFA !Voters hope to see. But they really aren't. People like to see a clean block log, or at least one that has been clean for a year. ϢereSpielChequers 09:17, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I think we are at an impasse. I still think we agree on the concepts, but there appears to be a fundamental interpretation issue as to what the language in the current guide means and what my proposed language would mean. I'll try to figure out the best way to get more editors to contribute to this discussion as it hasn't attracted any attention.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternatively why not look through some RFAs and see if you can find recent examples where people have passed despite having blocks in the preceding twelve months? My experience is that they are rare as hens' teeth, I'm not counting the one where the blocking admin unblocked within minutes with an unblock reason of "whoops very sorry" - everyone treated that as a clean blocklog. If you can demonstrate that the RFA !voters are OK with candidates who have recent blocks then maybe your wording is correct and my experience of RFA is somehow distorted. ϢereSpielChequers 20:02, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What you suggest would only make sense if we disagreed conceptually on what !voters expect, but we don't. We disagree on how those expectations are being communicated in the guide, or, alternatively, we disagree on the interpretation of the current language. I happily accept your experience that recent blocks are unacceptable except maybe in rare circumstances. BTW, at the suggestion of another admin (whose opinion on where to obtain more comments I solicited), I posted at WP:VPP here. Thus far, zip - it's still just you and me. On the bright side, if I have to be stuck in the same room with someone with whom I disagree, at least I'm fortunate that the other person who has the temerity to disagree with me is unfailingly nice. --Bbb23 (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and likewise. My understanding of our area of disagreement is that you want to change the wording under what people hope to see to include "recent blocks provided there is a good explanation". My view is that RFA !voters don't want to see recent blocks. If they do see recent blocks they want a very good reason to persuade them to support anyway. So in my view recent blocks don't go in the section for things that RFA !voters hope to see, instead they are worth a mention in the section what people hope NOT to see, along with an explanation as to how to allay people's concerns if you do have a recent block. ϢereSpielChequers 20:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Our only source of disagreement is in the section of what people hope to see. I just don't think it's clear enough, particularly in light of the language in the section of what people hope not to see; in other words, because the sentences are two sides of the same coin, they will be looked at together. I'll try yet another wording for you:

A clean block log as evidence of good editing behavior (even if you have blocks from more than twelve months ago, people will expect an explanation as to how your editing has changed to make this unlikely to happen again).

One word added, one word removed from the current wording.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"even if you have" implies that having old blocks is less problematic than a clean blocklog. I can understand saying that in the context of what not people don't look for "voters don't like to see candidates who have recent blocks, even if you have blocks from more than twelve months ago, people will still expect an explanation as to how your editing has changed to make this unlikely to happen again", but this wording doesn't work for me. ϢereSpielChequers 04:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm commenting per the request at VP. My experience with RfA is minimal (I skim it occasionally, vote every now and then, and I've read through our policies on the matter), so feel free to take my opinion with whatever weight it deserves. It seems that the current wording is sufficiently clear to me. The only problem I see personally is that it's sort of clunky, and therefore maybe doesn't get the idea across as clearly as we would like. I can also understand WSC's objection regarding recent blocks in "What RfA contributors look for". Bbb23's most recent proposal, it seems to me, addresses that issue, and I'd be okay with that wording too. All these proposals still seem unduly long, but I can't think of any simpler solution; I'll try mulling it over in case we can't agree on this latest proposal. All the best,   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:35, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The requirements for becoming an admin should be obvious, and plain common sense for any reasonably mature and experienced candidate. A recent spate of notnow/snow, however - and more on the way - seem to demonstrate that some users can't be bothered to read even the simplest of advice and policy pages, let alone this one and WP:Advice for RfA candidates. and regular voters' RfA criteria pages. Hence the wording and/or terminology will remain moot. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung, Just because some candidates don't read this first doesn't mean that none do. My assumption is that most of the serious candidates will actually do a bit of preparation, and for those who have blocks it useful to be clear as to how RFA !voters treat them. ϢereSpielChequers 12:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Coming here from the VPP notice. I'd suggest the following wording for the "hope to see" section:

"A clean block log as evidence of good editing behavior. If you do have any blocks, it is expected you will explain how your editing has changed to make this unlikely to happen again."

That makes it clear that a clean block log is preferable, while those with blocks should make it clear how they've changed in order to be considered. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

That implies that people are OK with even recent blocks provided there is a good explanation. If we are going to keep the current structure then surely blocks belong in the section about what people don't want to see. Of course it might be best to go for a radical rewrite of those sections, and have one section for what people look for and say for each thing what is good, what is a snow fail and what might be acceptable. ϢereSpielChequers 10:33, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Administrator

Can a user apply for Administrator who was previously blocked for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry at the last attempt applying for Administrator.

I believe there should be rules for becoming an Administrator, or not eligible for becoming an Administrator. --Tahir Mahmood (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Under the current rules, anyone with a registered account can apply for adminship. There are no rules. The community is however usually pretty good at deciding who should become an admin. Sockpuppetry is a serious infringement of policy, but how the community would vote depends on the circumstances and how long ago it was. See: WP:Advice for RfA candidates. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Optional RfA candidate poll

I'd like to link to the optional opinion poll somewhere in the text. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:03, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I want to be administrator to correct many inaccuracies Anmol23 (talk) 11:19, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Do admins get paid for the job?

Wikipedia is free and all, but looks like a tedious job and not worth if you don't get paid. All the Barnstars and all are just imaginative computer achievements and mean nothing in real life. Work has no worth if you do not get paid or has no real achievement. But still curious, do admins get paid? if so how? Online transactions like paypal or something? Just curious.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.230.105.15 (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Nope. We're all volunteers. Primefac (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

RfA guidelines and diversity on Wikipedia

One of the big challenges for Wikipedia is how to get to the point where the editor base is better reflective of populations at large. For example, the project I'm involved with have experienced admin decision-making when the admin wasn't knowledgeable about the guidance for notability, and wrongly upheld an RfD decision that was later appealed and overturned. Misapplication of notability guidance when it comes to pages about women, or people who are colours other than white, is fairly frequently reported by our project eds. and in the media.

So, my question is have these guidelines been looked at with an eye to how they contribute to fixing the problem of increasing diversity in the editor base? I can see immediately one thing that would be an issue: quality of pages written. This depends to a large extent on the availability of supporting references, and for plenty of people who are notable, less has been written about them. Simply put, if you're a well-connected, well-off, white man you're more likely to be written about elsewhere, and that gets picked up on Wikipedia.

This is one example but there must be more. Are we looking at this? Claire 75 (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Claire, there are several issues here and some are being looked at by different parts of the project. Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force is the main area, especially in looking at our lack of gender diversity in the editor base. Ethnic diversity is probably even more skewed, but to some extent that is a function of the mobile interface being much less good for editing than the PC interface, that combined with much of the world having a smartphone dominated Internet userbase is a major problem in fixing our ethnicity skew. More at meta:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Medium-term_plan_2019#Growth_and_the_PC/Smartphone_divide. Our design as a tertiary source does mean we are vulnerable to skews in the primary and secondary sources. Hence recent bad publicity about the story of an assistant professor who didn't have a wikipedia page until she had won a Nobel Prize. Though arguably the real scandal there was that she hadn't been made a full professor. There are various groups, especially in the chapters who are doing outreach to women or on Women's subjects. I'm helping at an event in London on the seventh May. With regards specifically to adminship, the view used to be that our problem was at an earlier stage, once women join the community they have if anything a slight advantage at RFA. That view took a bit of a dent a couple of years ago when one a trolling site elsewhere targeted two of our candidates who "just happened" to be female, but we have had female candidates pass RFA and even RFB since then, (earlier this year Amanda passed RFB by 229 to 6). so I'm not convinced there is currently a problem in getting qualified female candidates to pass, though there is in persuading them to run. As for misogyny by an RFA candidate, anyone can check a candidate's edits and !vote in RFAs. I suspect that if someone found examples of racist or sexist behaviour by a candidate and opposed for that reason, with links, others would check those links and also oppose. ϢereSpielChequers 07:33, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

thanks for the reply. The issue, as I experience it as an editor who has substantial involvement in trying to improve the gender gap (and yes, there are a whole heap of skews, dealing with this one right now), is that the lack of women editors is a symptom of the gender gap as well as reason for it.

My concern is to make sure that Wikipedia's 'machinery, such as these guidelines, function to improve the gender gap. So that we don't continually (as our project does) deal with attempts at deletion of women who clearly meet the notability guidance, and admins who either do not know or do not apply these guidelines in their decision making. A clear example of this poor decision making can be seen from the talk page of Henriette Harich-Schwarzbauer. An understanding of the gender (and other) gap and the responsibility that admins have to improve or at least not make matters worse is really important. Claire 75 (talk) 15:33, 9 May 2019 (UTC)