Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 217

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Archive 210

←

Archive 215

User:TParis/RfX Report

Should the RfA report continue to appear on the main WP:RFA page, not just the talk page? It was just added to the main RfA page a couple of days ago. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

There's no reason why it need to appear on both the main and talk page. Talk page seems a more appropriate place. KTC (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

- Keep it at the talk page. - Mailer Diablo 06:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I object, it is easier to just go to the RfA page and take a quick look at the report than go to the talkpage. In fact, I don't even know why it is on the talkpage at all; what's the point of it there? Rcsprinter (talkin' to me?) 10:30, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty. We should put it of the Wikipedia home page. My guess is it was on the Talk page because someone put it there, and then someone added it to the main page because they, uh, wanted to. And now some people don't like it being in both places. My assumption is some think it's better on the Talk page so we can talk about the process, sometimes in light of what's currently happening, and that some prefer it on the main page so they can see the current RfAs, if any. Pretty subjective, and I don't see that much harm in having it on both places, but if we think it should be in only one place, my personal view is the main page.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, I have restored it on the main page too. Rcsprinter (state) 18:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Nominators creating RfAs and RfBs

There have been 4 RfAs and RfBs created incorrectly by nominators in the past 48 hours. They had to be reverted Was a warning of some sort taken down or should it be put up? Perhaps a reminder to read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate#To nominate someone else before transcluding? Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There's going to be a spike due to the signpost article. - jc37 15:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, didn't think of that. Do you think it would be useful to add a big warning on nominating someone else? Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:15, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Not sure it'll change much. As an aside, I'm getting ready to nominate someone, and the timing has nothing to do with the Signpost article, so it's always good to be careful before jumping to conclusions. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:04, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What's the problem on nominating someone else? I'm also planning to nominate in my opinion a highly-qualified candidate this weekend. I think a spike on RFAs is good for the long run. Secret ^account 05:27, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Woops, sorry, complete miscommunication on my part. I have inserted text above, I was referring to RfA's that were transcluded by the nominator before the nominee even knew they were nominated, or ones that weren't even created through transclusions. Sorry for the mix up. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:44, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Yeah, I think that's a good idea, as I remember that happened to me once. Makes sense. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 14:06, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and that's another problem - keeping the newbs away from RfA who don't understand whatit's all about. One of our suggestions was to introduce a qualification for voters - other Wkis do it. However, it would need a technical tweak, and my experience is that even if it obtained community consensus, there are powers that be who might well unilaterally refuse to make the small change to the software. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Why would it require a technical tweak? IPs are currently disallowed from voting and that doesn't require anything on the technical/software side. Jenks24 (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I think Kudpung may be referring to something on the lines to how some Meta elections are held, with the system automatically checking the parameters set (ie. last edit, edit count, yada, yada.) and validating whether they are eligible to vote before allowing. I rather like that idea, rather than the now small text "user has little or no edits outside this topic" and "indented - IPs cant vote" all over the place. Calmer Waters 20:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

This is partially done on Meta-Wiki through the use of abuse filters, m:Special:AbuseFilter/27 stops anonymous IPs editing altogether on any of the election pages, this can easily be tweaked and you can also add message to let users know why their edit was disallowed. m:Special:AbuseFilter/28 stops IPs from creating steward election statements, this could be adapted to stop people from creating any RFA/RFB statements, if their account doesn't have x edits or isn't y days old (higher than the normal autoconfirmed limit). The Helpful One 20:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

At dewp a toolserver script is used for that (dunno if a bot indent the votes, at least somebody or something is doing that). mabdul 22:26, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A radical idea

I've seen some of the RfA problems, community concerns, and administrative conduct that conjoin to be a big part of the whole "reform problem". And a way to alleviate it. We know how things are done. Consider this alternative:

Rather than each admin being a sovereign at large, the corp should establish specific areas of proficiency, and maintain a roster of admins who participate in that area; like a task force for each. There would be certain aspects, like the uncontroversial stuff, that all admins could do. And any admin could be on several TF rosters. But if they were not on the TF roster, they would give deference to the ones who were; when in that area.

The RfA candidate would be nominated to the specific TF's they express proficiency in, vetted, and if successful; signed only to the rosters the RfA vetted them for. Once in the admin field, each TF should have their own process for bringing an admin in. This would preclude the RfA panel from being overly concerned that the candidate must be proficient in all areas from day one. It could even provide a mechanism where the community could more easily have an administrator removed from a specific TF, where there may be cause; without necessitating a full desysop.

Such an organized structure would go far I believe, to address many of the problems. This is not the end of the idea, but the beginning, and I hope with other ideas attached, we could finally resolve some of the deepest sentiments, across the board. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 02:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi StringdaBrokeda. I cannot read your mind but I don't really understand from what you've said how this would work. It sounds to me like a highly laborious and unworkable layer of bureaucracy. It also seems to me like an "unbundling the tools" proposal in disguise, which has been proposed numerous times before and rejected every time.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 03:05, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Unbundling is not at all desirable. And I would hope this is not as laborious as your concern imagines. Of course it won't write itself either, but there are ways; I believe. And in many ways, admins do spread out to specialize in various areas. I believe you are aware of this as well. It would really just formalize the structure. It almost makes sense that I should be able to see the roster of admins who are regular in specific areas. In the absence of a roster, it is pretty much the same people anyway. And each TF can maintain their high standard within. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay, then let me ask some questions. How would having a task force make any of the processes easier? How would having these task forces make RFA easier? If we are not unbundling the tools, then how would RFA be different? Is it that an RFA candidate would have to select the areas they know best and take a vow now to use the tools in other areas so that people could look at a candidate and say, "okay so they will only be doing CSD and AfD closes so I don't need to examine them on X"? Wouldn't this have a chilling effect on admin effectiveness because it would stifle branching out into new areas? And of course there are many admin activities that users can have no experience with or only hypothetical experience with because they are things that can't be done without having the tools first. Forgive me but I am struggling to figure out what you intend because it seems very hazy to me.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:02, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

each TF can maintain their high standard within and each TF should have their own process for bringing an admin in sounds like an invitation to form cliches in specific areas of admin activity, that would be terrible. Not withstanding that, the idea that admins will only defer to the task forces in situations likely to be controversial really isn't going to solve anything. Take speedy deletion for an example, most speedy deletion is uncontroversial, so any admin should be able to do it, but the concern at RFA is usually that a candidate doesn't understand the CSD criteria, and if they don't they are likely to make bad deletions. Without adaquate understanding, the admin candidate wont know what is controversial and what isn't, so we still need to judge a candidates understanding of policy, and thus this wont help RFA. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting though, that it already sort of functions like this, but proficiency in some areas are de facto required. For example, an editor would not be broadly opposed for adminship because he was lousy with regex, but he'd be expected to avoid the AbuseFilter. Something similar goes for potential admins who can't comprehend hist-merging. But knowing whom to block and what to delete are seen as general requirements for being an admin, and "I don't intend to be active there" doesn't seem to fly in this process. For some people, it's the difference between technical knowledge and clue, or maybe some just don't trust the candidate to be conservative in areas he doesn't understand. Regardless, I don't think adding extra bureaucracy is going to help anything. You're just going to get animosity between people within and without any particular clique. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm glad you are interested enough to ask. It would be a contract of sorts, that the candidate at RfA would declair in the nomination a desire and proficiency to join specific TF's, perhaps UAA, AIV, and CSD were stated. Once vetted they would be members of that team. There is no desire to stifle anything that is working now and I wouldn't care if the entire active corp was on each roster. Then the rolls would balance by attrition and the new admin placement. And I said once in the field any admin should be able to enter a new area based on an expressed desire to be active there and the TF's manner of bringing them in. The whole notion that as soon as a candidate passes RfA they can roam all over the map doing whatever they want according to how the believe it should be, belies the reality. It could also allow some actions to be reversed without needing to call it a wheel war. For example if a report sits at UAA becoming stale, while the offensive or promotional account continues editing, any admin might take action. Later on however, if the TF regular says the action did not follow the established best practice in that area, they could modify it without being call a war. In another possible manner. It could be that any admin might place a block for cause, but the unblocking be more specialized to that group. There are nuances in each area that make specialization good. And also an admin can be on several, to all rosters, if they are that good. Also an administrator wouldn't discredit the corp if they CSD-A7 a film only to have a regular remind them that a film doesn't qualify, or the can !vote at an AfD with less shame if their rationale isn't spot on. Because maybe their specialty is SPI, COI. 3RR which they know inside and out. Plus it is not limited to my imagination, but that others can help forge the structure. StringdaBrokeda (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually think letting us roam around wherever we want is sort of the idea right now. Admins are expected to have enough clue to know what they don't know, and keep their heads out of areas they can't help in (disregarding the exceptions I mentioned above). I actually don't think this has ever caused a significant problem. When an admin screws up in an area he's not competent in, he gets the trout, and usually learns his lesson. By my recollection, this is a sufficient learning experience for 99% of admins. When you see serious drama arise from amidst the admin corps, it's usually not because one admin being a dick, but because the community can't arrive at a consensus on whether he is being a dick. So I think with your proposal, you'd be preventing problems that were already minor and easily fixed, and doing nothing to stop the real drama. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Your points are valid, for sure. I am glad I threw it out there for consideration, and happy in the manner I saw it considered. Wiki-on - StringdaBrokeda (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with Someguy. The basic criteria for adminship are "has clue, stays calm, knows when they are getting out of their depth". I would have been sunk under your proposal, since my answer to "what areas" was "very little" and my reason for standing at RFA was so that people would stop bugging me to stand for RFA. If I had been required to specify certain areas as a specialty, I really just wouldn't have bothered at all - and though I haven't been all that hyperactive doing great and good works, neither have I been a horribly bad admin either. I'm just another eyeball and I help out when I think it's appropriate and I have something to add. It's very hard to quantify that as a certain set of tasks or area of expertise. And BTW Stringda, wow, right there above in this whole thread you are writing with perfect clarity, making oerfect sense that everyone can understand, and losing no nuance that I can see in your meaning. Dude, why weren't you writing like this 3 days ago? :) Franamax (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

"Dude, why weren't you writing like this 3 days ago?" Maybe the new, carefree, approach is kicking in: [1]? Anyway - like Someguy says - this "contract of sorts" proposal would require extra bureaucracy that I think would be in the first instance very off-putting to potential admins and ultimately unworkable in practice. As for the "Once vetted they would be members of that team...", is this coming from the same RfA candidate who last week was bewailing an "FA clan" [2]? But the main problem with this idea is that it would slow down the efficiency of admin actions enormously and would in effect be seen as institutionalising cliques and cabals. That would go down really well. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's fair to say that admins do not bother working in areas in which they either have no interest or do not have specialised knowledge of the processes involved. At times, I am a hugely busy admin and it keeps me sufficiently occupied without feeling the need to stray into less familiar territory. We choose our admins on the basis that we trust them not to misuse the tools, and that also means the tools they don't want to use. No admin is perfect, but any claims that anyone may make that admin incompetency is rampant, or that there is an admin cabal, are unfounded - most of us just get on with the job, parts of which are intrinsically unpleasant and cause complaint, but which have to be done nevertheless. I firmly believe that a clean up of the voting process at RfA is the solution to the problems, and that unbundling the tools, or a trial adminship, or 'admin lite', are solutions looking for the wrong problem - because the candidates would have to be elected through the same process. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I will again extent thanks for all of the thoughtful comments added to this thread. It is the scarlet letter of a fool to stand against reason and I acknowledge the opposing rationale as prudent. In regard to Plutonium27's comment about the "FA clan" remark I made at RfA, that was wrong of me. I deserve being called out for that remark. Some of the nicest things said about me at RfA3 was from FA regulars. I personally hold the "FA clan" remark to be worse than all of my poor writing examples combined. I will never try to justify that utterly sorry remark. I apologize to the entire community and especially the portion of it that had to endure seeing such callous disregard. I am glad I was reminded here that I hadn't retracted that comment; another big error. I hope my comments here will reduce the festering tension born of my inappropriate regards, Sincerely - 76Strat ^String da _Broke da (talk) 08:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

No big deal

I just wanted to note that due to the WMF clarifying that the ability to see deleted content is important, that that pretty much means the arguement that "adminship is not a big deal" is pretty much dead now.

Though of course, I welcome others' opinions on this. - jc37 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's time to stop quoting an individual's opinion as fact on this issue. Adminship can be a big deal if the wrong people get it. RfA isn't broken either. It isn't perfect, but perhaps if people stopped going on about how broken it is, so many people wouldn't be put off from going through it.--Michig (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

RfA iz brokeded

Ok, So I've done a lot of reading of late, catching up on the past concerns and proposals, and various discussions, not to mention the current batch of ideas.

Based upon all that reading, I have some thoughts.

I obviously sincerely look forward to everyone else's thoughts as well (and may ask clarifying questions about them). My intent is hoping for one or more ideas which could be turned into some actual workable solutions. - jc37 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Tone

Everyone says they don't like the tone of RfA. But as long as it's a wide-open process allowing everyone to determine based upon trust (and thus also on fear), RfA will be like this.

Oh, and let's not forget that some admins tend to be rather protective of any change to adminship or to RfA. There's (semi-unexpressed) "fear" there too.

There are various ways to deal with individuals' trust concerns and fears. For example, we can reduce the number of things which some individuals may be concerned about. We can add rules and limits to which particular and/or specific criterons are "allowed" to be used to support/oppose (though should that happen, people will just lie and support/oppose as they would have anyway - again, human nature: I want what I want.) This can also come out in what the commenters ask in questions, and say in their comments.

The only way we're going to "fix" this "trust/fear" problem at RfA at this stage is if we alleviate/address at least some fears. I s

Ideas on this welcome. - jc37 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

The only fears are those of mature, experienced users, of being pilloried for 7 days. It's the voters who need to be fixed, not the rules and regulations for admins. The suggestion that admins are protective of any change is conjecture (diffs?). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Trust and fear go hand-in-hand when attempting to discern. You can use the word "concern" if you prefer.

(When you say voters need to be fixed, why do I think of Bob Barker? : )

And no, not going to incite drama and provide diffs. I'll merely assert that that has been made clear to me. And you are welcome to disagree with that assertion. - jc37 00:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the wide-open nature is both the great strength and great weakness of the process. One definite problem I've seen in the past is the "RFA is broken" cohort, who will at times descend on some poor unfortunate candidate to loudly object to a !oppose, loudly enough to give other !voters a bad feeling about the whole thing. Kmweber or Dougs tech never cost a valid candidate the bit, but I'll bet the people screaming at them did. And yes, another area is that fear/trust thing, both in wiki-ideology terms and terms of personal attacks. I'm not going to say which of all the one editor I ever co-nommed it was, but fears of their potential rampant inclusionism ignored the fact they were actually quite reasonable people and IMO went over the line into personal commentary and it turned into a fairly bad train-wreck. (He's now an admin and still hasn't broken the wiki!)

My suggestion, which I've made before, is for an "unelectoral commission" of 5 or so people to ride herd on RFA pages with a mandate to 1) move things off to talk fairly quickly if they are getting nasty; and 2) suggest, request, then forcibly refactor off-base !vote statements along our standard line of "edits, not the editor". #2 would be a new role. It would of course be open to review, just not at the RFA page itself, and I think we have a deep enough pool of skilled people here that 5 trustworthy unelectorators could be easily found. Franamax (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Drive by "voting"

Another problem at RfA is this hybrid we've built between consensus and voting.

There's been "some" effort to quell the "just signing here" concept at RfA, but it still exists.

I did like the idea to remove the "support/oppose sections" concept and replace it with "Noted concerns/discussion sections". Then have the closing bureaucrat assess the concerns listed to determine if the request was successful or not. Obviously this would rely more on bureaucrat discernment. Something that (unfortunately) not everyone seems eager to do. The permissions process and WP:CHUS (for example) do this, though with a slightly different structure.

Another solution that I really liked was to change RfA from a standard "7+" days to "2 and 5+". The polling would not start until the third day, to allow for only discussion on the first two days.

This presumably would help solve so many of the trainwreck RfAs. And help avoid the "surprise problem discovered part-way through" scenario.

Other than to try to enforce comments and condemning just signatures (or merely adding "per nom" or "cute" sayings), anyone have any other ideas on how to solve this? - jc37 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I think an optional pre-RfA might help to catch some early failures and alleviate some fear of RfA. - Mailer Diablo 17:57, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Hmm. Besides (presumably) greater visibility, how would this differ from editor review? (I just quickly re-read your proposal, so please feel free to clarify what you feel I may be missing.) - jc37 18:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The main difference between ER and pre-RfA is that the latter will be considered with a view towards obtaining adminship and will be part of the RfA process. I understand there is a very parallel problem going on between peer review and featured article candidates. Not all ER editors intend to run for adminship; nor do all articles going through peer review go through FACs. Also, a few certain changes in the proposal would also incentive the RfA crowd to actively participate in pre-RfAs. - Mailer Diablo 18:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
As another note, I have seen opposes based on the RfA being too soon after an editor review. Ryan Vesey Review me! —Preceding undated comment added 18:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The proposal requires pre-RfAs be viewed as part of the RfA process itself should candidates choose to go through this route, so there will be a higher degree of seriousness for pre-RfAs (as it is done with the intention to move to the actual RfA after 1-2 week) and such an above-mentioned oppose would not be valid in an RfA. - Mailer Diablo 18:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
So by making it more visibly part of the RfA process, the hope would be that we would see more in-depth studies of individual's edits and behaviour during this examination process? - jc37 18:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I have also purposely incorporated the 'additional questions during pre-RfAs only for those who choose to go through pre-RfA' clause into the this proposal. - Mailer Diablo 20:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I just re-read it again. From my reading, this can co-exist with the current process (as an optional step a candidate may choose to do). What's to stop this from just being started, and allow people to volunteer to go through the pre-process at their discretion? Implementation would involve what? A small notice section on the RfA page? - jc37 20:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is designed as such. If the B'crats agree to give it a go, we can start right away. - Mailer Diablo 20:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Just to make sure I'm reading this right. After the "pre-RfA" process is "closed", the individual would still have to go through the typical 7 days RfA process in order to gain adminship, right? - jc37 20:33, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, 7 days RfA. My thought is that the pre-RfA section should be transcluded into the RfA as well, under a separate section. - Mailer Diablo 20:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Or a sub-page (or talk page) if length is an issue.

Sooo. WP:BN is around the corner. I think we could set this up on at least a trial basis. If the bureaucrats say that they don't oppose this, you then merely only need a ~~sucker~~ volunteer to go through the process : ) - jc37 21:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Again, 'drive by' voting is usually the act of newbies who want to get involved in 'managerial' processes too soon, fans, or users with an ax to grind. Research published in a table at WP:RFA2011 will show a staggering number of blocked users out of the 1,000s of editors who have voted at RfA. (WP:CIR again). As far as I am concerned, an uncommented support can be taken as a support of the (self)nomination statement, or as an indication that it meets the voter's criteria. However, The community should take a moment to investigate such votes/voters, before commenting on them. Uncommented, and irrelevant oppose votes are worthless, and the closing bureaucrat will certainly take that into consideration. RFA2011 came up with a suggestion for RfA clerking to ensure that suspicious votes are investigated and to generally draw the bureaucrats attention to strange votes, and inappropriate behaviour or commenting, but it was not proposed at RfC. It is possibly conceivable that the closing bureaucrats do not otherwise investigate the history of every voter before concluding. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The granting process

I personally am against unbundling user-rights to be admin-approved the way some are now. Why? Rollback is one of several examples. In my experience, people are commonly and consistently misusing rollback. But admins aren't supervising usage the way that everyone thought that admins would. The simple matter is, removing rollback or any of the admin-given rights tends to be more drama than anyone cares to do, especially since they can turn a blind eye since it affects someone else, and not them. (human nature being what it is). (Is this true of all admins, of course not.) So just handing out delete or block just sounds like a bad idea to me.

I'm also against any changing of RfA to some star chamber or smoke-filled room, such as giving a limited group of individuals the ability to decide who can and cannot granted the tools or to determine who should have the tools removed (we already have Arbcom, I don't think we need more sub-councils). This should be an open process to the community.

I accept that others disagree with both of those. and that's perfectly fine.

But the point of this thread is: What else might we all agree on? - jc37 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm against rollback being given out randomly too. One grand example is me, which can be found here. My initial idea would to manage to get the community to have lower expectations for RfA candidates. You see RfA nominations like SwisterTwister's and it just makes me think. I would prefer it if it was like 2006, such as yours, where administrators were appointed all the time. It should still be like that. Our community is shrinking, and our community of administrators is shrinking. There are many established editors who I would happily nominate for adminship, who would pass under the 2006 standards by far. Now, probably not; every contribution will be scrutinised in current times, if there is a bad one, there will be an oppose. However, I would want tougher restrictions on rollback, which any user can get for fifty good reverts, but sometimes may end up blocked, or be a sockpuppet of a user. ⇒T A P 18:07, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Note: I actually failed my first request for adminship : ) - jc37 18:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I failed one in 2011, which I later CSD'd then got userfied, hence: it looks a bit odd. ⇒T A P 18:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

To more directly address your points, the Wikipedia community isn't in its infancy anymore. So a few things have happened which have changed how editors perceive things.

For one things, there have been incidents which led to the creation of oversight, and which still causes certain people to be nervous about seeing deleted content and undeletion.

For another, the many and various ways that admins can "gang aft agley" is no longer a "could be", but they have. Repeatedly. And the drama that surrounds WP:DR with "experienced editors" (of which admins are presumably included), has also been exemplified for the community.

With all that in mind, in what ways do you think we can: bring things back to [what you see as] 2006 standards? - jc37 18:25, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
My only thought on the 2006 (low as even 2003) standards is that this should be changed for RfA and RfB. I know some editors who have very low standards, but the majority have extremely high standards, like I once did, where I required the user to have 50 articles (easy, eh? I've got 2900). ⇒T A P 18:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
With that in mind, note this thread. - jc37 20:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
'Shrinking?' let's put this in perspective because I see a strawman article lurking here: Some elements of Wikipedia are slowing down, but as the number of articles continues to grow (albeit mainly now articles on bands, sportspeople, obscure bios of individuals from the Indian sub-continent, and spam, the number of mature, experienced editors has grown too. This is the pool of people from which we should be drawing new admins - not the the children and 200 edit users. Standards, if anything at all, should either be raised or established from an aggregate of the criteria applied by the regular, serious voters. But I personally believe the criteria do not need changing. All that needs changing is the attitude and maturity of the voters. Other Wikis have rules for voters.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal

Once upon a time we had a community removal process. We held a community-wide discussion, and then User:Jimbo Wales implemented the results (removed the tools if seen as necessary).

Like many of his other responsibilities, he has apparently mostly turned this task over to Arbcom.

The problem is that Arbcom has built up it's own bureaucracy (did RfC happen, did a mediation happen, etc.), that it takes forever, and by the time things get there, much drama has happened, and often a bunch of disruptions, reversion, wheel warring, and so on, and most everyone is sick of the whole thing by then, and meanwhile the admin may be continuing the concerning behaviour and/or doing things through "fait accompli" (the prolific uses of automated tools often makes this even worse, and more difficult to undo) I say this from LONG experience reading various WP:DR pages, (To which I include the various subpages of WP:AN, AN/I in particular). Again, you're welcome to disagree.

But then of course, the reverse is also true, we don't want lynch mobs calling for someone's head simply because they were doing what they were supposed to be doing, following common practice/policy/guidelines/process/etc.

So commenters at RfA, presumably well aware of these types of situations, may grill a candidate at RfA. Especially if they may have done something that certain commenters may have disagree with in the past.

(This is why it is often said that it is much more difficult to be regranted adminship after having it removed.)

So this obviously has ties to the "#Tone" thread above.

Can we come up with a fair way to remove adminship, without having admins concerned that the pitchforks could come for them any day? We want them to make choices based upon the appropriateness of the action, not out of fear of reprisal.

(I've noticed that those who participate in voluntary admin recall have often had intricate rules, to presumably help protect them from such lynch mobbing.)

So is it possible to come up with a process for adminship to be removed through a community process of some kind?

For example, if Arbcom is standing in for JW, then what are the downsides of restoring that previous system for removal, but just substitute a consensus of Arbcom members' discernment, for JW's discernment?

Are there other alternatives which are actually viable? - jc37 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Nothing personal, but voluntary recall is a farce. Nothing against those that choose to participate, but any system that lets you back out at the last minute isn't effective. I'm sure most of the people that have a personal voluntary policy mean it in good faith, but in the end, it is more toothless and nothing, as it can give false hope. As such, I would discourage anyone from using it. You and I have discussed giving RFC/U more teeth in other discussions, and if RFC/U had the ability to suspend the admin's tool kit (temporarily remove the bit) until ArbCom could hear the case, then that would be a start. If they refused to hear, the bit is restored. But that requires giving RFC/U some teeth. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 17:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
So temporary de-adminship as a result of community discussion until arbcom decides to hear a case? Would there be a time limit on this? - jc37 18:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps, what is the average time for arbcom to decide to hear a case or not? Shouldn't 30 days be more than enough? (added note: that is probably way too long, 7 days is likely a better time.) The key is that RFC/U is a slower process than AN or ANI, and less likely to be subject to a flashmob. We do NOT want admins afraid to take on tough situations, but there needs to a be predictable process for dealing with the rare problem admin as well. And keep in mind, an RFC/U for an admin doesn't *have* to end with temporary desysoping, it can end with other sanctions or recommendations only, or for that matter, it can end with the consensus that the admin was correct. RFC/Us for admins should be rare and perhaps a criteria for starting them should be more strict than a regular RFC/U and limited to number per year, etc. I don't have all the answers, but that venue, if given the teeth, would be the proper place for dealing with problems. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The only reason I participate in voluntary recall is because there's no other community desysop process to take away my bit if I completely frak up. I've long been a proponent of a community desysop process (with restrictions, obviously - only one request every 6 months, etc) but until that's implemented, recall is the best option I can see for keeping me honest. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

One request every 6 months (presumably to prevent wasting the community's time). What else would you like to see required in such a process? Should "endorsers" be required like an RfC/U? I've also seen suggestions that "at least one admin" should endorse before going forward. Would that be too much (bring cries of cabalism?) Should it require more? (multiple admins, one or more bureaucrats/arbcom members/etc.) - jc37 18:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I would like to see a process like RfA in reverse. One person in good standing (I'm sure the community could figure out what that means, something like 1000 edits and 3 months' tenure) writes up a statement saying why they think Admin X should be desysopped. There's a section for people to ask questions of the admin, a section to support desysopping, and a section to support retention of the tools. If there's a consensus to desysop, a 'crat flips the bit after 7 days. I don't think it should be made any more complicated than an RfA - the tools have become way too big of a deal. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 18:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

When an RfA is started, since the candidate is also the requester, starting the process is obvious. Since in the case of removal, the requester is presumably not the "candidate", how do we determine if even starting this process is "appropriate"? Also in an RfA, the goal is to attain something, so a candidate may have a motivation to participate in the process. How do we prevent a.) wasting the community's time and b.) all the bad of RfA, with a possibly non-participating candidate? - jc37 18:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm assuming that a candidate who didn't really participate - if they had actually done something worth desysopping - would get even more comments supporting desysopping. Therefore, they'd be highly motivated to participate and answer questions. I think limiting requests to editors in good standing, plus saying that only one request could be made against an admin every 3 months/6 months/1 year/etc. would help to limit the number of frivolous proposals. I'm not saying it wouldn't be periodically fraught with drama - what community process isn't? - but that it would ultimately be a productive enterprise for the community and help with editor retention, a related problem. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:20, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

So to hit all the bases: a community discussion, closed by a bureaucrat, can only be started by "an editor in good standing", and limit how often that a request can target a particular admin?

Another hypothetical: What if one needs to be started sooner than the limitation? Let's say the admin starts to do things even more egregious, but it isn't quite enough for emergency de-sysopping? WP:GAME can be an issue when dealing with "misbehaving" (can't think of a better term) experienced editors.

Also, what does "in good standing" mean in regards to this? We've had editors under arbcom restriction who were considered to be "in good standing". I'm not intentionally being obtuse, btw. I don't think this is a bad idea, if we can work out the details. - jc37 20:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

"In good standing" is inherently vague and it's usually chosen because of that. If you want a boundary that nobody will argue over, say "a banned user" or whatever. If you want flexibility to deal with future decisions, at the cost of future arguments, say "in good standing". bobrayner (talk) 20:34, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think I outlined "in good standing" earlier; e.g. not banned and having a requisite amount of experience. And I think that if one really does need to be started sooner than the time limit, a community discussion at AN or ANI or wherever (or even an RFC/U) could determine that a desysop process be started. Community consensus can override arbitrary restrictions like that. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. So time limit, but may be disregarded due to community discussion at AN/I.

Mailer Diablo and I are discussing the "pitchfork problem" below, any ideas how this can be resolved? - jc37 21:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

A limit of one request per 6 months against the same admin, one request filed by an user per 6 months, and one request by the same user against the same admin every 12 months? *shrug* KTC (talk) 23:48, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

For many years community de-adminship proposals have continually been rejected by the community because there was this main concern that if such an process existed no admin would want to get their hands dirty handling controversial situations (many pop-up everyday at WP:ANI). The argument is that any admin who has handled a sufficient number of controversial situations (whether being part to it or resolving it) would gain enough "enemies" with pitchforks to try and get him/her desysopped with political motivations. As such, the community only had ArbCom as the last safety valve, which so far works for the most serious of cases, but this also means that few low-intensity or early problems relating to admin tools are resolved without having to go through RfAr. - Mailer Diablo 20:40, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Which was what I (apparently unsuccessfully) was trying to say above : )

So how do we implement a desysopping process while keeping in mind such situations then, in your opinion? - jc37 20:45, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Close to impossible (I tried and gave up myself). Policy and process design can only go that far. People is the factor that is the most difficult factor to deal with; Abuse knows no limits and is only limited by one's imagination. - Mailer Diablo 20:49, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Nod. That people are involved seems to be at the crux of several of the RfA problems : )

I like the idea of "the community giveth, the community taketh away", but I think the only way that that can work is if we can deal with pitchfork issues, and also if there are limits (of some kind) in place to prevent harrassment of admins in this way and also prevent wasting the community's time.

And nod about GAME and BEANS, though I'm open to suggestions on how we could try to achieve this : ) - jc37 20:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Setting some kind of qualification level that a complainant must pass may be unhelpful, since established long-term editors are no less likely to bear grudges than transient editors. A different gatekeeper would be needed. bobrayner (talk) 21:22, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
And your gatekeeper suggestions are? - jc37 21:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I do think the community can be trusted not to mob an admin like that. Yeah, people who felt that they had been wronged by an admin would support their desysopping, and if they felt that that was a legitimate misuse of the tools, that's fine. That would kind of be why the process is there. But because of the prominence of the page, I feel that the multitude of neutral observers would balance out the vociferous people with grudges. Perhaps having an independent editor vet the desysop proposal could work, but I feel that that could (a) be easily gamed and (b) subject to accusations of cabalism. Sorry for rambling. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

No worries, I've rambled with the best of them : )

And I dunno. I've seen some pretty ugly things at AN/I and at RfC/U - both of which I think this is somewhat comparable to.

That and I've seen enough discussions closed by a "supposedly" neutral party, that I agree with you (and those above) about GAME (and BEANS for that matter : )

It's become in vogue more often recently to get three admins to close the "very" contentious discussions. Might that be a decent safety valve? (Not that a determined someone couldn't find 3 admins friendly to one's cause, but, hopefully WP:PARENT might maybe come more into play.)

And while I agree that accusations of cabalism could come into play, honestly, from what I've seen if someone can't find 3 admins who agree with whatever they're selling... : )- jc37 21:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps getting 3 neutral admins/established editors (it may smack of cabalism otherwise) to vet a request, then have a 'crat close it? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I think Bobrayner's comments about established editors are probably truer than we'd like to admit. While I can immediately think of way more than 3 established editors who I would trust to close (and thus to open) such a discussion, I (unfortunately) can also think of several established editors who i would not. (Then again, I could probably say that of admins too, I think.) That, and there have been a few arbcom cases concerning "experienced editors". So I dunno.

Anyway, that aside, I think it would work, though just to make sure, we'd have to specify that anyone desysopped in this way could of course immediately appeal to arbcom, or, if they chose, could immediately start a followup RfA (Though I can hear the SNOW fall now : ) - jc37 22:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Appeal to arbcom to reinstate adminship after being removed in a community process, yeah that's not going to fly. KTC (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

It's there as a "last chance" option. The same way that people used to "appeal to Jimbo". It's usually "not a chance", but just in case, it exists. - jc37 23:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

How would one select the 3 neutral parties? KTC (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Which is why I thought, just find any 3 willing administrators. On one hand, that should stop the typical nonsense we see at AN/I concerning shouts of "admin abuse! admin abuse!", but on the other hand, admins are as divergent in opinion as anything, so it shouldn't be difficult to find 3 who agree with any particular perspective, presuming there is a valid case. - jc37 23:51, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

I personally do not believe that the rights removal is really an issue in the minds of most of the voters when they vote on RfA. It's not on my mind because I base my votes on thorough research - and of course a bit of gut feeling. Generally, if a candidate meets my criteria, I will support, and if they don't, I won't. Desysoping is still a relatively rare event, and if any unworthy admins are still around (unfortunately there possibly are, but probably as few as only 2 or 3) , the community is at fault for not calling them to order. Let's also not forget that an occasional slip in the use of of the tools (I've made some) is not necessarily a deliberate bad faith act. General admin behaviour is usually more of an issue, but again does not necessarily involve a misuse of the tools. I most certainly feel that AOR could be a vote catcher and is imperfect because the admins make up their own rules - but no voter should support or oppose a candidate candidate for agreeing or not agreeing to OAR, and any that do should probably reconsider whether or not they are ready to be voting at RfA at all.

As for AN/I, one of the reasons why I am not active there, is because although it is supposed to be an admin noticeboard, again like voting at RfA, AfD and doing NPP which require no demonstration of competency, it has been overrun by inexperienced users wanting to be be involved in 'managerial' processes. In my opinion, AN/I should be 'Don't comment here or express an opinion, unless you are an admin or an involved party, or can provide clear evidence in the form of diffs.' (such as for example at SPI where any user can file for admin/CU action). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I may be jaded from all the time I've spent in very ugly places on Wikipedia, but I have no intention of giving people a venue besides ArbCom to take away my admin tools. Someone has to go and do the really nasty work in any number of places, and those people like me who are inclined to deal with it face enough problems as is. It may not be popular with non-admins (although before I was an admin I never had an issue with users who didn't have recall criteria), but it's not really possible to understand it without having some first-hand experience at handling really difficult issues. That being said, I don't have a problem with admins who decide to be open to recall because reasonable people can come to different conclusions, and so can a reasonable person and I. If you become an admin, have some experience, and decide to set up a recall process that's fine because you know what you're signing up for. On the other hand, while I'd never oppose someone's RfA for stating intentions of joining AOR, I don't think that's a good move because you're jumping to conclusions about what you think is the best way to demonstrate accountability; my thoughts on that echo those of Lemony Snicket in one of a series of great books. While it may seem like a good idea, and I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to a community de-adminship process, it has implications that aren't clear until you're an admin and faced with having to make the big decision. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:22, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree. Which is why we're discussing "gatekeeper" options (as User:Bobrayner put it). - jc37 13:59, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Speaking as an arbitrator, I'd be willing to look at some sort of less-weighty method of desysopping that does not require a full case every time. We have done quite a few desysops in the 3.5 years I've been on the committee, and I have seen situations where I've thought "oh for heaven's sake, why isn't anyone bringing this one to us!", but things have to be pretty serious for us to do so without at least some sort of public request. I've personally talked some people into handing in their tools for an indefinite period, or persuaded them that they really needed a wiki-break, but that's without the weight of the committee and without any capacity for enforcement. If there is sufficient community interest in finding a way to do this that doesn't take a month, I'd be quite interested. One caveat, though: there's no correlation between ease of desysop and increased numbers of RFA candidates. The RFA process has been so poisoned for so long that it may take years to find sensible editors willing to endure it. Heck, I had to be talked into it four years ago, and that was a relatively mild experience compared to today. Risker (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

My occassional paying attention to Arb Com gives me an impression of a group who have buried themselves in their own bureaucracy. Risker's comment says much the same thing. An arb with a strong view of a required desysop has no authority on his own? He can't even instigate a motion on his own? Is it the case that Arbs can't do anything without a majority vote? That seems a pretty high obstacle for a part time volunteer team.

I think it not unreasonable that Any arb, subject to caveats such as NOTINVOLVED, should be able to desysop on their own judgement. I think this was within the power of Jimbo. Jimbo didn't have to consult his several alter egos, when they found time to consider. The desysopped editor should then have to make a case why he should not be desysopped. He should negotiate with the acting arb, or make a case to Arb Com, or go to RFA. If the Arb doesn't have a stick in his back pocket, he can't negotiate, he can only counsel. A weaker version of this idea would be "Two arbs", or "Three arbs", but the current "All Arbs, given weeks to consider and comment" is too limiting. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Any arbitrator can put forth such a motion (for instance, on RfAr), but in many cases the filing arbitrator himself/herself becomes an involved party. With the high workload, few arbs have the time to go through AN/I everyday to look out for such issues. A summary desysop can be carried out by ArbCom under certain limited circumstances, set out in Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Removal of permissions Level I and II procedures. - Mailer Diablo 10:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression that arbitrators could not really put forward a motion without a community request. In other words, if no one in the community has complained, their hands are tied. I do see Community Desysop as the next big blocker on adminship reform, and this discussion does interest me. Is it in the right place though? RfA should be the way in, not the way out. I don't like the idea of an Arb being able to desysop by fiat - the committee is there to make decisions as a group, not individually.

Why not have the crat's as gatekeepers? To start one of these community desysop requests, an editor must got to WP:BN and request one, giving his reasons. A crat could then authorise an RfDesysop, if the reasons were acceptable and the editor was not blatently holding a personal grudge. Worm^TT(talk) 14:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The level II procedure specifically is overly conservative, and limits the power of any single (or pair) to do anything substantive quickly and simply. Its as if there is a fear of a power drunk arb dessysopping arbitrarily. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:44, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It's more about where the community's trust is placed. Each arb is an individual, with often strong views on how things "should" be; the community's trust in placed in the committee as a body under the (quite reasonable) presumption that it "averages out" to something quite reasonable.

What is atrocious behaviour worthy of a swift desysop to me might well be viewed as barely deserving of a wrist slap by another arb; both of us having a considered and reasonable basis for our judgements just disagreeing on where priorities lie and what is severe or not. The committee is diverse for a good reason: it is the stand-in for the community as a whole, and needs to be representative of its diversity. This is why arbcom processes make certain that the committee, not individual arbs, make any decision of substance when there isn't a pressing emergency. — Coren ^(talk) 15:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

A short question

Where were all the content opposes at my RfA? I've seen a couple recent RfAs tank partially or wholly because people cite "not enough content work" and I know I had less than some of those candidates (and as a side note, I think I turned out reasonably well), and I certainly wasn't that much more qualified than any of them (if at all); how did my RfA go so smoothly while theirs didn't? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm guessing that there has been a relatively recent change in the wind. When I ran for adminship, I had enough content work that I could empathise with editors who are upset about their content being deleted/edited incorrect, etc. More recently though, people are putting their standards up to want more content contribution. As long as it's for the right reasons (eg to show that the admin understands copyright, verifiability, neutral point of view...) then that makes sense, but I get the impression that candidates are wanted who are perfect all-rounders, a very difficult status to get. Worm^TT(talk) 15:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think that very extensive (or very high quality) content work is the best measure of a good admin candidate because so much of the admin's work, after the enmopment, will be on other stuff. Writing FAs shows that you're good at writing quality content, probably in an environment where other editors are competent and cooperative; which is tangential to your ability to resolve disputes, assess CSDs, apply rangeblocks, or whatever. (I'd rather look for a candidate's experience of dealing with problematic content and awkward editors). However, content contribs are easy to measure - so, as the community tries to raise the bar for admin candidates, it's an obvious thing for people to look for. bobrayner (talk) 15:26, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There have been a number of cases at AN/I recently where admins seemed to have trouble distinguishing between legitimate content disputes and editors defending worthwhile article content against drive-by spammers and single purpose accounts. Perhaps RfA participants are more sensitive now to the damage that can come from not understanding the difference, and are keen to ensure that potential admins have at least enough familiarity writing and defending their own content that they might be sensitive to the frustrations of other editors who try to prevent the deterioration of the articles they help maintain, in the face of throwaway accounts who don't know or care about WP:BRD. Or, alternately, you didn't piss anyone off before or during your RfA and these folks did. Or it could be something else entirely. 28bytes (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I frankly never understood the de facto content creation requirement at RfA. I try as best I can to stay away from RfA myself, but when I have commented, I've never made reference to that aspect. The ability to create content, in and of itself, has almost nothing to do with being an admin, as long as the person has substantial editing experience otherwise. Equazcion ^(talk) 15:43, 6 Jul 2012 (UTC)

You could almost make a case that being a gnome is a better qualification than being an FA writer. Gnomes will typically have seen, read and cleaned up thousands of articles from a wide range of subject areas. This would, I presume, give them a wide experience of different types of content and make it easier for them to spot problematic content and vandalism in comparison to someone who is very focused on a narrow range of articles. Or I might be 100% wrong. QU ^TalkQu 17:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I used to be strict about that, but then I realized later that requiring extensive content work such as FAs would be setting the standards too high. Generally, what editors (including myself) look out for these days is that the candidate needs to have demonstrated that he/she has sufficient hands-off experience to feel what it is really like to be an editor/content producer. In other words, if the admin decides to speedy an article he/she has to understand how the editor who created the article may thinking and be prepared to explain or/and assist the editor to improve on the work, rather than just simply moving on. - Mailer Diablo 21:42, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Just like me

I think that this comes up due to two reasons.

The concern that someone who hasn't created content won't know the trevails that a content creator feels they go through, and so they would not want to trust such a person with the ability to delete.

And also, the feeling of "voting" for someone they can identify with, or even respect: wow you're involved in the FA process/have listed FAC links on your userpage, "just like me". And so on.

It's human nature, and whether we agree or not, is part of the "assess trust" process. - jc37 17:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Just realized that I basically said the same thing above! - Mailer Diablo 21:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There never was such a process

There has never been a community process for removing adminship. Characterizing the removal of adminship in the early days as community-based is revisionist. This is important in several ways:

There was not, prior to routine removal of adminship by Arbcom, anything that could possibly be characterized as a "process" for such removals. Only three such removals ever took place. The first (Isis) was handled entirely by Jimbo with no community involvement in the decision. The second (Uwe Kils) involved a community discussion and investigation of sock puppet abuse, and was considered temporary at the time it was performed; Kils in essence resigned his adminship in response. The third (Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason) was performed as an emergency measure by Tim Starling; since Bjarmason at that time intended to leave the project he did not respond to the concerns raised until much later by which time he was largely deemed to have resigned. The people and the steps involved were different among these three cases.
Voting was not widely used at that point in the project. The idea of consensus was much more elastic and the use of ratios (65%, 70%, etc) was discouraged.
The lack of a community-based system for removal of adminship was a deliberate choice intended to make the actions of admins less political.

Every time some sort of system -- whatever its mechanics -- for de-adminning people based on votes is proposed, it is rejected. There have been dozens of such proposals, many of them cataloged here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, actually, I've been present for such "community discussions". The difference lies in that JW was who took action back then. (Though I also remember times of "Time to call a steward".) Partially because back then bureaucrats did not have the ability to remove adminship, and also because there was no "in place" process. it was all pretty much as hoc/case-by-case kinda thing. - jc37 19:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

This raises the question of how to implement a desysopping mechanism that doesn't directly rely on votes. Perhaps rather than voting to desysop particular people for particular reasons, we could elect commissioners who're tasked at a general level with coaching, mentoring, supervising, and where necessary, disciplining, members of our admin corps.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

A pistol with a single shot

Straight to the point, a simple solution to a complex problem:

Every time anyone passes an RfA, he or she is given the non-expiring one-time right to suspend (no questions asked) the admin rights of any one admin whose last successful RfA has been closed less recently than the last successful RfA of the suspending admin. A suspended admin is prohibited from using the tools until he or she passes another RfA. Admins using the tools while suspended or not having filed an RfA within 30 days of being suspended may be desysoped.

The Pirate Solution! Thoughts? Criticism? Trouts? Don't hold back. I can take it. Good raise 01:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Anarchy here we come! KTC (talk) 01:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Um... I can't see anything right with this solution if I'm honest. I assume I'm missing a joke here. — foxj 01:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

All humor aside, this is a serious proposal. Good raise 01:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Open-minded thinking on this page is a good thing, but I am afraid I see nothing to recommend this proposal, and I suggest we don't spend much time on it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Brad, this would make the place even worse than it is. PumpkinSky talk 02:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What are the negative effects you'd anticipate, specifically, I mean? Should not everyone who has the tools be able to pass a reconfirmation RfA? Good raise 02:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

What is the point of it? What is the problem you are proposing to solve? And how does this help? Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I would have thought that to be obvious. Nobody wants to run for admin because RfA is a pain. RfA is a pain because editors are reluctant to vote others into a position from which they can't be removed in an unbureaucratic way. Good raise 02:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

We do need a solution to this problem...but I don't think this is it. You have to remember that RfA is already a very tough avenue, and very few people are running because of that. Honestly, I think this will just scare more people away from RfA, because nobody wants to go through the often arduous RfA process only to potentially have their rights suspended soon after they acquire the tools. This ability is too easy to abuse, and doesn't solve anything. Just for what it's worth, I'm not trying to offend you by saying any of this; take this as constructive criticism. If you have any other ideas, I'd be glad to hear them. Regards, The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 03:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

When I said, "don't hold back", I meant it. Anyway, I don't think this is easy to abuse. How would you abuse it? For someone to use this mechanic on you, that person would have to go through an RfA him or herself. Even if somebody did that, they'd probably be wasting their single shot. On the other hand, an admin who "soon after" his or her first RfA has already screwed up so badly that editors would vote oppose rather than support per their own reasoning at the first RfA, probably shouldn't be an admin. Would anyone of you please humor me by investing 5 seconds of thought and giving me a specific example of what is wrong with the proposal instead of vague waves along the lines of "it just doesn't work"? Good raise 03:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Axl pretty much sums up how it can be abused below. Wikipedia is a very stressful avenue; if a new administrator gets angry at an older administrator for some reason, even if it's just a misunderstanding, they can suspend that admin's rights even if that admin did nothing wrong. And sure, that admin would probably pass another RfA, but then, as Axl said, that admin can then revoke the rights of the admin who suspended their rights, then it could come full circle and turn into an RfA war. Sure, based on what you said it has the slightest potential for good, but honestly I don't think it's what's right. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 13:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Giving newly appointed admins power over previously appointed admins is ... strange. If all admins start voting in a way that helps preserve their own power base, this will make RfA even harder to pass. But maybe that is your goal; once RfA has become impossible to pass, revolution will perhaps come earlier. —Kusma (t·c) 08:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It is clear that this specific suggestion is not going to achieve consensus. But as an icebreaker to potentially open up lines of thinking beyond the usual proposals, I welcome it. Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 07:47, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Lemme get this right - editor X passes RFA, and has the right to suspend the admin rights of any other admin? One-in, one-out? If that's what you're proposing, then a-trouting we will come. Nonsense. GiantSnowman 08:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Not any other admin, any admin who has been an admin longer than they have. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
  - All admins would have been in situ longer than the most recently appointed Admin. What a load of nonsense. Don't apply any time soon, you'll bomb. Leaky Caldron 09:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
    - I hope that comment was directed at Goodraise and not me...--kelapstick^(bainuu) 09:51, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There are several admins who I don't like. I can apply through RfA, and if I pass, I'll be able to take revenge on one of the admins. Then I'll annoy one or two RfA candidates, perhaps even during their RfAs. One of them is bound to de-sysop me. At which point I'll be able to apply to RfA again, pass, and be able to de-sysop another admin on my hate list. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for new ideas, but I think I'll pass on this one. Lynch 7 09:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

@Axl: Thinking your example to the end: I have an admin hate list. I apply at RfA. I pass. I suspend the first admin on my list. I don't annoy anyone, don't get myself desysoped, and simply apply for a reconfirmation RfA. I pass. I suspend the second admin on my list. I repeat until my list is empty.

Sounds scary, I'll admit, but is the outcome really undesirable? Voters at my second RfA would undoubtedly take my "abuse" of this mechanic into account. I'd argue that if my behavior is condoned by RfA voters it should not be considered abuse. And regarding the admins on my hate list, I'd argue that if they can't pass a reconfirmation RfA, they should not be admins in the first place. Isn't that what it boils down to? Should anyone who has the tools be able to pass a reconfirmation RfA? My answer to this question is a clear yes. What is yours?

@The Utahraptor: "if a new administrator gets angry at an older administrator for some reason, even if it's just a misunderstanding, they can suspend that admin's rights even if that admin did nothing wrong." – Granted, that would not be desirable. However, would you prefer a loose cannon like that to run around capable of deleting the main page? Do you really want editors like that to have the block button? I don't. And how long do you think the community of RfA voters would indulge two admins perpetually suspending each other? It's the same thing all over: At least one of them shouldn't be an admin.

@Kusma: Do you think that is what would happen? Personally, I don't think the current admin corps is composed of power hungry wannabe dictators. If this were true though, for the sake of the argument, the cabal would have to expose itself. Then we'd be just one step away from solving this hypothetical problem: exclude admins from voting at RfA.

@GiantSnowman: Technically, yes, "one-in, one-out" is a conceivable outcome. However, I don't think this would happen. The proposal is based on the believe that we are all reasonable people acting in good faith and that the few exceptions from this should not have the bit. Good raise 15:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Is this a problem that needs solving? Are there a bunch of admins running around causing trouble who badly need to be de-sysoped? This seems to me like a solution in need of a problem. Also, sometimes admins need to be jerks, and it's sad, but that's just the way it is. We sometimes need to protect the wrong version of an article, we need to block both people in an edit war, we need to delete your article when the AfD was very close. To do all these things we need to be free from fear of reprisals. Yes, sometimes mistakes are made and there are many, many, many mechanisms to correct such mistakes. In the rare case that an admin is really abusing his/her powers, there is a procedure to deal with that as well. However, day-to-day, admins should be free to use their judgement without second guessing how every decision is going to look on their next RfA. -- Selket ^Talk 16:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There is no way to get rid of an admin in a situation where the admin is causing minor harm, refusing to change, but not committing serious policy violations to the extent that an arbitration case is never going to happen. The project would be better without them as admins, but there is functionally nothing we can do about it. Monty ₈₄₅ 16:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

" I'd argue that if my behavior is condoned by RfA voters it should not be considered abuse. "
— Goodraise

In my opinion, even the potential for such abuse is enough for me to oppose this proposal. (From the handful of commentators above, I suspect that the Wikipedia community as a whole would also find this proposal unacceptable.) Also, I don't see why new admins should have more authority than long-standing admins. The issue of reconfirmation is a separate matter, which I believe has been discussed many times before. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

"However, would you prefer a loose cannon like that to run around capable of deleting the main page?" No, I would not, but I don't think your proposal would weed out these people. Granted, it could help, but I'm with Axl; even though we may or may not see abuse of this ability if it is put into action, the potential for such abuse is just too great. And like many others commenting on this proposal, I'm not terribly fond of the concept of giving newer admins extra power over older, more experienced admins. The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 18:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

@Selket: You are quite correct. Admins urgently in need of being removed, can be removed and are removed. That isn't the problem. The problem is the poisonous atmosphere at RfA. Because of the poisonous atmosphere, current admins and prospective admins are reluctant to go for (reconfirmation) RfAs and proposals involving reconfirmation RfAs are met with such bitter resistance. Furthermore, because so few RfAs are being conducted, each of them receives even more scrutiny, the bad kind of scrutiny, overzealous and motivated by the fear of voters of creating yet more problematic admins that can't be gotten rid of unless they are stupid or careless enough to screw up big time, whether or not that fear is justified. It's a Gordian Knot in need of an "Alexandrian solution". Of course it's unlikely the two of us will see eye to eye on this, considering our differing views on several more fundamental points: For one, I don't think admins need to be jerks and I wouldn't consider any of the activities you mention to be jerkish. A policeman stopping a rape won't make the rapist very happy, but that doesn't make the policeman a jerk. Secondly, adminship is a privilege, not a right or a badge of honor. As such, adminship should not be protected from removal through consensus decisions and admins who value their own position higher than the good of the encyclopedia (and thus would start "second guessing how every decision is going to look on their next RfA") shouldn't be admins in the first place.

@Axl: What abuse? The difference between abuse and acceptable behavior is determined by consensus, is it not?

Why shouldn't new admins be given this option (I wouldn't use the word authority here) over long-standing admins? They are the ones who have demonstrated through the RfA question and answer game that they are well versed in the current state of relevant guidelines and policies, which may not even have existed at the time a long-standing admin passed his or her last RfA.

@The Utahraptor: Any power can be misused. But wouldn't you agree that the way this mechanic is set up any misuse of it would automatically put a stop to itself? When I, fresh out of RfA, suspend an admin who should be an admin, then he or she will pass an RfA, suspend me in turn and I will soon find myself without the tools. The result is: one admin who should be an admin stays an admin and one admin who shouldn't have been made an admin is an admin no longer. Looks like a desirable outcome to me. On the other hand, if I run five consecutive RfAs, all pass and each time I suspend an admin who fails at his or her reconfirmation RfA, then the result is: one admin who should be an admin stays an admin and five admins who shouldn't be admins are admins no longer. I fail to see a problem with any of this. Good raise 19:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I know that, but what of giving newer admins authority over older admins? If this were to be put in effect (which I still don't think it should), if anything, I'd give that power to any old administrator who thinks new administrators are unfit for the job. Plus the ramifications of the abuse of this ability could be more extreme than abuse of other administrative abilities. Now, I'm not saying that this is the worst idea ever, and I'm not saying that admins can't do bad damage by abusing the current toolset. But I am saying that we are currently a little short on admins, and while it's not as big a problem as some people are saying, the number isn't getting much bigger. As Wikipedia expands, more and more administrators will be needed, and the current rate of passed vs. failed RfAs shows that we may eventually see a more serious admin shortage. By saying this I'm not saying that we need both admins who are fit and those who are unfit; I'm saying that, again, somebody could easily get mad at an admin's actions and have their rights suspended, even if 9 out of 10 people agree with the actions of the admin who is getting their rights suspended. Theoretically, this will make a few of Wiki's existing admins uneasy, and could lead to some of them resigning. And we circle back to the potential admin shortage problem. While this idea does have its perks, I really think there's a better way to solve the desyssop problem. Regards, The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 23:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, let's assume you're right about this and that adopting this proposal would lead a significant number of admins to resign to avoid being suspended. At the same, time the existence of the single shot recall would make passing RfA easier and lead to an increase of admins in the long run. After all, our lack of admins isn't a consequence of nobody wanting the tools or nobody being capable of doing the job, but of the voter reluctance to give power to editors they cannot hold accountable for their actions unless they do major damage. Are there any other possible ramifications you can think of? The question of who should be able to suspend whom is of course a valid one. "Older admins" will usually have more experience than "newer admins", but that doesn't necessarily make them more suited to judge the abilities of others. A very "old" admin may just have learned how to get away with behavior of which the community doesn't actually approve. "Newer admins" were my original choice because they have demonstrated their knowledge of relevant policies and guidelines more recently. Neither is a perfect way of determining an admin's suitability for wielding the proposed suspension button. I think there's room for improvement here:

Every time anyone passes an RfA, he or she is given the non-expiring one-time right to suspend (no questions asked) the admin rights of any one admin who since his or her last unsuccessful RfA has passed fewer consecutive RfAs than the suspending admin and whose last successful RfA has been closed less recently than the last successful RfA of the suspending admin. A suspended admin is prohibited from using the tools until he or she passes another RfA. Admins using the tools while suspended or not having filed an RfA within 30 days of being suspended may be desysoped.

How would you like this proposal? It would add even more motivation for "old admins" to increase their seniority by going through reconfirmation RfAs and brand new admins wouldn't be able to suspend every other admin anymore. Good raise 02:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that'd do much good, either. Some candidates pass their first RfA and have no unsuccessful RfAs. I'm assuming that in this case your first proposal would be enacted, but then it circles back to my concerns about that proposal.

As for the root cause of the decline in RfAs, nobody knows exactly what has caused it. I actually think it's the combination of a number of things. But one of the bigger things that I think is causing this RfA drought is incivility in RfAs. In dozens of RfAs within the last few years, numerous editors have judged and opposed candidates very harshly, and other people, even supporters, have argued with these opposers, sometimes to the point where an ANI thread is created. Now, I haven't been very active in the past few months, so I'm not sure how often this has occurred in RfAs in the past few months, but I was fairly active here before then, and I do remember seeing a lot of these cases occurring; in fact, that prompted me to write a userspace essay on proper RfA voting etiquette. Sure, voter reluctance probably factors in the RfA drought somewhere, but I think incivility is what's pushing a lot of people away, making it so that a lot of good people are afraid of something like this occurring in their RfAs. Numerous proposals to handle this have been brought up, but, as with all other RfA proposals, they've all been rejected.

I can see that you're trying to help with this proposal, and I do respect that. Greatly, in fact. You have to remember, though, that you have to be careful when proposing a major change like this one, especially one as controversial as giving admins a new ability. You can see that the community doesn't particularly like this proposal, so it probably won't be going through any time soon. But don't be disheartened by that; rather, keep coming up with new ideas. Who knows? Maybe you will eventually come up with something that fixes this problem? The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 03:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry. I didn't anticipate a euphoric response to begin with. Back on topic, that's not what I had in mind. I'll try to clarify:

Every time anyone passes an RfA, he or she is given the non-expiring one-time right to suspend (no questions asked) the admin rights of any one admin who since his or her last unsuccessful RfA if any has passed fewer consecutive RfAs than the suspending admin and whose last successful RfA has been closed less recently than the last successful RfA of the suspending admin. A suspended admin is prohibited from using the tools until he or she passes another RfA. Admins using the tools while suspended or not having filed an RfA within 30 days of being suspended may be desysoped.

So, an admin who has passed his first RfA, failed his second, and passed his third RfA could be suspended by an admin who passed her first and second RfAs, has not failed at an RfA since, and whose most recent RfA was closed more recently than the first admin's second RfA. Simple enough, isn't it? As for incivility at RfA, I'm not lurking this and related pages only since yesterday. I've seen what's going on and I think the incivility is largely a byproduct of said voter reluctance. "Can't find anything wrong with a candidate? Be uncivil!" Good raise 04:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

If anything, actually, it's the other way around: voters are reluctant because of all the incivility going on. To my knowledge, even those who are incivil in RfAs don't have a "Lemme pick on this person because there's nothing wrong with them" mentality; rather, they usually have a "If this person isn't 100% perfect, I'm going to oppose them" mentality. Since voters don't want to be a part of this riff raff incivility and these arguments that appear on RfAs, they're reluctant to voice their opinions, as they themselves do not want to get involved in an incivility battle.

I gave your idea a lot of thought last night, and I'm actually starting to see that this could be beneficial. But I'm still uneasy about this idea (again, because of how easy it is to abuse), and I'm seeing that you probably won't be getting much community support. Without that, there's nothing you can do to set your idea in motion. You're definitely welcome to continue the discussion, but if you want my honest opinion, given the opinions of everyone else here, I don't think you'll get much farther by discussing this further with everyone, and your focus should be shifted to improving Wikipedia. I can only suggest what you do, though, so if you would like to continue the discussion you may. Regards, The Utahraptor ^Talk/_Contribs 13:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Exchanges of thought on problems worth solving do serve to improve Wikipedia, even when they are done within the contexts of proposals (like this one) with no realistic chance of being adopted. I believe anyone who invests time and thought to reply to a proposal of mine with a serious argument (as you have done several times) deserves an answer of the same sort from me. It's a matter of courtesy.

To put it differently, my horse has died a while ago. I'm just waiting for people to stop poking the carcass with a stick (however long that is going to take) before I walk away. Anyway, you have my thanks for taking the time to look beyond the surface of the proposal. It's been a pleasure discussing this with you. Good raise 15:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

OP said they could take it: What a fucking stupid idea! Go write a stupid essay: wp:Sic semper tyrannis. Br'er Rabbit (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Sure enough, I can take it. I'm a bit surprised though that someone would be holding the opinion that I'm trying to overthrow anyone after reading this thread. Good raise 04:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I too think this particular proposal could have been better, but I don't think it warrants swearing at Goodraise, Br'er Rabbit. Reserve swearing and harsh words for when and where they are truly appropriate. --2001:980:331A:1:225:22FF:FE7D:8A27 (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This process appears to be inactive

Activity on RFA has been declining recently. Is anyone planning on using this process in the next week or two? --Kim Bruning (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we can close it up for a couple weeks since nobody is using it? Cost-savings measure...After 7/15/12 no new RfAs until ... August. Deal? Rjd0060 (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Is Kim thinking of borrowing it? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Or renting. I'm looking for a good rate. Which project would be cheapest, do you think?--Kim Bruning (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably wants to MfD it as a dead project - perhaps not a bad idea. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Purely as a hypothetical, in the hypothetical case where that were true, my hypothetically evil hypothetical plan has been realistically thwarted, by the posting of a new RFA. Still hypothetically: I would now have to say something in an austrian accent, to the effect of "I'll Be Back" --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Better people than us have tried and failed to fix it. ResMar 19:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

RFA reached its peak with me, everything since then has just been hollow ;) Giant Snowman 19:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Just one of the symptoms of a declining project. The number of active editors continues to decline, the number of successful RfAs continues to decline (peak was five years ago), we're at a record low of active administrators, backlogs are piling up all over the place, a majority of WP:AN these days is concerns about backlogs, etc. The Foundation has got their head stuck in the sand, focusing on editor retention. Wikimania is going on right now, and I would bet the issue of long term survivability of the project won't be discussed. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's pointless to whine about how broken everything is. Changes must be made, yes, but try and find a solution that satisfies everyone. For instance, the easy one: "chill on the requirements." Nowadays listing yourself for an RfA is basically digging your own grave. No one wants to. Maybe if everyone were a little leaner on the requirements given that the project is collapsing around them, then good things will happen. ResMar 18:41, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually it's quite useful to demonstrate where things are broken. The first step in solving a problem is recognizing there IS a problem. The Foundation is doing a heck of a job saying "What problem?" So, it turns out, it's a monumental task to get them to acknowledge there even is a problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The Foundation mismanages its resources. How out of touch are they with the community? All of the people that could give us an accurate answer to that question work for the Foundation, and wouldn't tell us anyway. But back to the issue at hand. Put simply, the easiest solution isn't knocked-down toolsets or any of those shenanigans, but instead for us to stop being such godforsaken hardasses. ResMar 19:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I do not think the Foundation cares (or ever cared) about the number of administrators. It is just not their business. It is business of the community.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd be extremely disappointed if we resort to external intervention to change this process. (I would prefer a bureaucrat-driven revolution like the one Linuxbeak and Ilyanep started six years or so ago: at least we elected the bureaucrats at some point). —Kusma (t·c) 19:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

While many people seem to think that RfA is broken, they don't seem to think we need more administrators, else they could just vote "*Support, we need more administrators" on every RfA of someone with no blocks and more than 500 edits. —Kusma (t·c) 19:23, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

RfA is indeed most likely broken, but as I already mentioned several times here, it is not the point. Broken RfA by itself is not a problem. Problems are backlogs and lack of admin intervention where it is needed. Therefore the info we need to collect is in which areas the backlogs are really bad on a regular basis (and whether these backlogs can be considered as a result of broken RfA), Then we should decide whether some of these (or other) responsibilities can be delegated to non-admins. And only then, if there are still backlogs, we should conclude that there is problem, but by that time it should be obvious to everybody.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I consider myself an admin from the "middle era" generation of editors who passed through RfA. The process was borderline ridiculous back then, and within a year it had really tilted to being a massive timesuck on anyone who just wanted a few extra buttons based on a reliable contribution history. I'm less active these days, but I still care about the project. I think if the RfA were less of a "prove you're a fanboy of Wikipedia" and more of a "I want the bit and meet these basic requirements" rubber stamp, then we'd see some of that administrative enthusiasm return from days of yore. At the same time, we also have to respect that this is less a project in decline, than simply a mature project on which the low hanging fruit has been accomplished. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

(c) Plateaued due to scaling issues at this point in time. --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Plateauing would presume that the content of the project is slowly achieving a static state, whereby previously contributed material has achieved some level of equilibrium and perhaps some completeness. This is demonstrably false. The content is at severe risk. The risk increases by a tiny fraction every day. Nobody really notices it because it's such a slow increase. But, it's there, and its is inexorable. The Foundation is doing nothing to protect the long term viability of the content of its projects. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:06, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I think you're both in general agreement, at least on the point that we have a plateau caused by the bottleneck of this process which became increasingly rigid and unreasonable as the overall project increased in size and complexity. There's simply always been a consensus that RfA is broken, but it's the least broken way of doing things. Any proposal for change is generally met on this page with a flurry of posts along the lines of "your heart is in the right place, but you haven't been here long enough to know we've had this conversation before". Meanwhile, the requirements for getting through an RfA (both spoken and unspoken) ebb and flow so that over time you have an admin corps that is increasingly composed of die hard Wikipedia addicts simply because those are the only folks who could possibly have time to endure the arbitrary nature of an RfA. Compare that against the very real numbers that demonstrably prove decline/plateau across the encyclopedia, and I'd say to Kim, please take this page away from us. It would finally force the issue on fixing at least this corner of the project... Hiberniantears (talk) 17:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody really notices new content because there's already a ton of content to begin with. Take this example: if you have an empty pint glass, fill it with water and observe hot much time it takes for it to be full. Now, dump the contents of your glass in the ocean and observe the change on the sea level. WTF? (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Removal process

Based upon the discussion above, what do you all think of:

Community discussion to specifically request "removal of adminship"
- which requires at least 3 admins to initially certify (to prevent wasting the community's time and "pitchfork noms")
- and to limit harrassment, is limited in the number of times:
  - a particular editor may start one concerning any admin (6 months)
  - any editor may start one concerning a particular admin (12 months/1 year)
  - a particular editor may start one concerning a particular admin (24 months/2 years)
    - With it clear that the limitations above also apply to any certifier; and that WP:IAR may apply to all the various time limitations in cases of clearly egregious admin actions, though in that case requiring additional certification by at least any one bureaucrat (who then obviously would not be a closer of the discussion).
- Which lasts 7+ days (length is at bureaucrat discretion, just like RfA)
- is closed by a bureaucrat (just like RfA)
If the request for removal of adminship is successful, the admin has adminship immediately temporarily removed, pending review by arbcom.
- Arbcom has 7 days in which to endorse or overturn the request.
  - Else, at it's option, to forgo the rest of the process and instead to have a full RfArb case opened (during which, adminship would remain temporarily removed).
- If Arbcom has not come to a decision by the end of the 7 days, the adminship is temporarily restored.
- Arbcom then has an additional 30 days to continue discussion. (To allow for full discussion)
- If Arbcom has not come to a decision by the end of the 30 days, then adminship is considered restored, and the request to remove adminship considered unsuccessful. (pocket veto).
If adminship is removed, the editor is free to re-request adminship (following the standard RfA process) at any time after this request for removal process has concluded, at their discretion (unless under arbcom restriction to the contrary).
Nothing in this process should be considered to prevent or constrain Arbcom from taking immediate action if deemed by them necessary.

It addresses the suggestions and limitations noted above, while allowing for the community, the bureaucrats, and arbcom all to be involved. And there are enough steps and safety valves that it's (hopefully) unlikely that "pitchforks noms" will be successful.

With the time limit restrictions, remember that "it doesn't have to be you" to nominate or certify, just like our standard that "it doesn't have to be you" to close an XfD. And they are that lengthy because the process potentially takes a month and a half to fully resolve. (Though the process could be as short as 7 days, if arbcom is quick to come to consensus.)

What do you think? - jc37 15:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

"Clearly egregious admin actions" can be dealt with by stewards, who already have the ability to desysop without pre-process. There may be some issues I haven't considered, being newish to the bit, but overall I think this points in the right direction. Maybe a longer !voting time, and requirement to have been a registered user for 6 months to vote, since these thing simmer before they boil and it would be easy to sock otherwise. But I would like to hear what other admins and non-admins think. I'm also interested in the possibility that the outcomes NOT be limited to only "desysop" or "innocent", as most cases are not so binary. Not sure if limited "tool blocks" or similar methods would be effective or warranted, but it would seem some gray area should exist for borderline cases where we don't want to lose the admin, but a shot across the bow is needed. I also understand the hesitancy of many admins in having this system, and we have to be extra, extra careful to not create a system that makes admins not want to get involved in heated areas per the risk of being dragged into an unnecessary process. That would be worse than the current system. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I was trying to cover that space between "emergency desysop" and "we need to talk". - jc37 21:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

If three admins are required to certify, this is already harder than an RFC/U. Just use an RFC/U.

If any editor's behaviour constitutes harassment, any admin should be free to warn, and to block with escalating blocktimes by different admins. Harassment of editors is disruptive and damaging to the project. If the issue turns into a dispute, take it to RFC/U.

I think instead, that an immediate temporary removal of adminship should occur simply by an Arb posting a desysop request, with reason given, at WP:BN, actioned by any bureaucrat. This removal should be overturnable by any of:

(1) agreement of the original Arb,

(2) Discretion of the bureaucrats (perhaps the Arb went nuts, or was compromised and the person is still missing. I observe that the bureaucrats are a very conservative bunch and unlikely to exceed reasonable discretion), or

(3) a majority vote of Arb Com, or

(4) an RfA.

Supervision of the backend of the project, and especially of the admins plus a few other dominant personalities, was assigned to Arb Com. Individaully, they are thoroughly vetted and appointed to term-limited positions. This makes them clearly appropriate people to make subjective judgements on behaviour. Their only problem seems to be that they have limited themselves to acting only by considered collective agreement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments.

We already have a process for removal of adminship through the WP:DR process. but as others note above, it's lengthy, and the initial step (RFC/U) is essentially "toothless", and are more about creating a papertrail for future discussions than actually, directly, immediately, resolving anything.

So the goal here is to not get rid of that existing process, if that's wanted. But to have an additional "faster track" process (as noted by Risker and others above). But to have a quicker process means also having more "safety valves" in place.

As for temporary desysop by an arbitrator, see User:Coren's comments above about how it's better if arbcom acts as a committee, rather than as individuals.

That said, AFAIK, nothing in the proposal stops arbcom from doing what you just said if they choose to. They can ask any bureaucrat (or a steward) for "emergency desysop" of an admin at arbcom's discretion. In fact I tried to make it clear that this additional process was to not affect or change any existing one.

And note, that arbcom is at the top of this process as well. - jc37 17:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, much of this you and I have covered previously, including giving RFC/U more teeth, and perhaps have a stages or two between "sysop" and "desysop" as well. The extreme examples seem easier to deal with than the nuanced ones. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 21:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

jc37, I found Coren's respons to me, dated 15:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC), at the end of Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_217#Removal. My response:

I'd consider each Arb to individually hold the community's trust. Each was voted on independantly. They were not elected on a party ticket.

"The committee is diverse for good reason" is a dubious fact. If the committee is diverse (how measured), I submit that it happened by chance.

It needs to be representative of [the community's] diversity? Disagree. The committee is not particularly representative of, for example: vandals, IP-only editors, not-so-clueful editors, temperamental editors.

"arbcom processes make certain that the committee, not individual arbs, make any decision of substance when there isn't a pressing emergency". That is good. I'd hope that if an Arb unilaterally requested a desysop of an admin who failed to heed a request to slow down their fast rate of speedy deleting, that it would not constitute a precedent-setting decision of substance. I'd hope that unilateral desysops would be extremely rare, but the possibly means that an individual arb can speak with some weight when giving a warning. What I find incongruous is that it is easier to block an admin than to suspend their admin status. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

"If the committee is diverse (how measured), I submit that it happened by chance."

I don't think it's chance, even if there is no systematic planning to do so. The community's favor will naturally tend to "balance out" the committee at every election; a lenient committee will tend to see more severe arbs elected, and vice-versa.

Also, different "philosophical" groups of elector will tend to favour candidates whose stances more closely align to theirs; so that the successful candidates tend to cover most of the editor spectrum. But regardless of the mechanism, the end result it the same: there are few decisions where arbs are unanimous, and contentious decisions (like a desysopping is likely to be) will often have initial reactions ranging from "off with their heads" to "give 'em a medal". That's why it's important that, whenever possible, ArbCom decisions be the result of a deliberative process. — Coren ^(talk) 12:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I won't disagree that a deliberative arb com is a good thing.

However, if an easier desysop process is desired, I think it should be achieved though making arb com desysop actions easier, and not through creating a new process not involving arb com. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:03, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Standard

Key Question that has not been addressed: What standard would a crat use in closing the community removal process? Would it be a !vote? Would 60-70% need to support the admin keeping the bit, essentially a forced reconfirmation RFA? Would a simple majority suffice? Would there need to be consensus to remove the bit? The standard adopted would radically alter the ease of admin removal, and I think be critical in deciding whether to support the proposal. Monty ₈₄₅ 14:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

I had not considered it, but (for various reasons), I think I'd lean towards "just like RfA". leaving it in bureaucrat discretion. This is part of why the safety valves (like time limits and needing 3 admins to certify) need to be in place, to prevent needless contention, wasting the community's time, and "pitchforking".

Noting of course that even after the close, the whole thing is turned over to arbcom for final determination. - jc37 17:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

If there was any single event that reduced RfA to it current state, I would say it was this controversial RfA. (I was reminded of this when I just learnt that the adminship in question was revoked by ArbCom motion.) Because editors discovered that they no longer have a real idea on the actual threshold of passing an RfA, as it was changed to be considered on a case-by-case basis, !voting has become much more conservative (oppose/sound off when in doubt) resulting in the RfA process going downhill since. - Mailer Diablo 21:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Jc37, you may be unaware that Bureaucrats currently have the authority to remove adminship on official request from the arbitration committee. The arbitration committee sets its own procedures but currently may issue such a request with the support of as few as one third of the currently active committee members. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Hi, TUC. It's been archived, so you may be unaware that this proposal came out of a lengthy discussion on this page. The point was to set up a process that was different (for various reasons) than the existing processes. It was not to replace any existing process. And as noted, it was not to limit what arbcom can do. - jc37 19:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Disincentivizing controversial admin actions

All this talk of making it easier to desysop people got me thinking: how would this change the way admins behave? If it were easier to lose the bit, I believe you would see admins begin to shy away from making decisions in controversial situations. Contentious XfD's would linger and not get closed anywhere near on time (if at all), contentious DRV's would hang around long past their expiration, admins would pass up factious threads on ANI unless there was a crystal clear consensus for admin action.

To some degree, admins would become more like politicians: less transparent and unwilling to speak their mind on controversial topics. Difficult decisions would be made in fear; with the knowledge that this decision could be the one that causes someone to use their "one-shot no-questions-asked desysop gun" on them, or to initiate what amounts to a second RfA on them to see if they should keep the bit.

If we want admins to continue making difficult and unpopular decisions, then we need to supply them with the freedom to make those decisions without fear of retribution. Before considering making it easier to desysop, we should also consider the chilling effect it might have on admin behavior. -Scottywong | babble _ 14:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

In general, I think we'd have a healthier atmosphere if admins had a bit more healthy fear of making reckless decisions. (This is in no way endorsing that desysop gun method which, to be kind, is a non-starter for many reasons.)--Cube lurker (talk) 14:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There's a balance. Whilst admins (and crats for that matter) who make controversial decisions can expect a substantial number of people to criticise those decisions, there are limits. If, say, more than 50% of a representative sample of Wikipedians think an admin is getting it so wrong that they should step down, that admin is not not making merely "controversial" decisions, they are making "wrong" ones. WJBscribe (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

But the way the system appears to work now (in practice, not in theory), those admins can simply ignore that 50%+ sample and continue on. So long as other admins support them, there seems to be no way to influence that situation. To me, the original statement comes across as "If we attempt to hold admins accountable for their actions, nothing will get done. So we shouldn't create any mechanism to do that." That may not be SW's intent, but it certainly does read that way. I agree with CL that the "gun method" is a non-starter, but there should be some mechanism. Intothat darkness 14:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Exactly as WJBscribe says, there's a difference between making "controversial" decisions and "wrong" ones. If the decision is tough, then perhaps more eyes are needed on it - rather than a single admin willing to make that call and take the flack. Worm^TT(talk) 14:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There are already methods and processes for desysopping admins, so admins are already held accountable for gross misconduct. What we're talking about here is adding new, alternate processes which make it easier to desysop, or which lower the bar on the severity of mistakes which warrant a desysop. For instance, if closing an AfD "wrong" might lead to a desysop, I'd probably just stop closing non-obvious AfD's. -Scottywong | gossip _ 14:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There are indeed methods and processes for desysopping admins, laid out at WP:DESYSOP. It effectively comes down to voluntary, inactivity or arbcom. Given the perceived difficulty with getting to Arbcom, it is very difficult to remove the bit. I would personally like to see an RfC on the single question, "Should we have a community driven process for removal of adminship". Coming up with suggestions on how to do it before we know that it's the right way to go is putting the cart before the horse. Worm^TT(talk) 15:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds very sensible, Worm. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 15:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that would be as effective as holding an RFC to ask the question: Should we reform RFA, you may get a majority of contributors agreeing reform is needed, yet you would never reach consensus on any particular reforms. I agree a community desysop process would be a good idea, but I think most of the proposals that have made provide inadequate protection to an admin against a vocal minority that want to strip their bit. I would certainly support a process that removes an admin's bit if 50% of the uninvolved community as a whole supports removal, but that is far different from 50% of the community who happens to show up at a particular removal process. I would also consider opposing the general question at an RFC, as I would fear that a consensus to institute a process could be used to force through a process that standing alone would have insufficient support to have been implemented. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If an RFC/U on an admin led to significantly more than 50% agreement (among editors who commented at the RFC/U) that the admin should be desysopped, I think it would be rather easy in that case to get arbcom to look at the situation, and in many cases they would be somewhat obligated to carry out the desysop. I could be wrong. In my opinion, the extra layer of scrutiny that arbcom provides is a good thing. -Scottywong | yak _ 17:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think they would be at all obligated to desysop, though it would depend heavily on who participated at the RFC/U. It would probably get the case open, but I would expect Arbcom to review the underlying conduct, and make its own desysop determination. Arbcom is selected by a much more diverse segment of the community then those who regularly comment at RFC/U, and it avoids the problem that many commentors at the RFC can have an axe to grind as a result of past interaction. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Backlog

I was here a few months ago predicting WP:CHU would be backlogged once I was unavailable. Now see User_talk:MBisanz#Changing_username:Simple. It's a problem and it's not going to get fixed until the community agrees to appoint more crats. I'm trying, but I just don't have the hours in the day to handle it. MBisanz ^talk 02:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Has unbundling the renaming role of crats from their roll in admin appointment ever been considered? I for one would support an aggressive campaign to involuntarily assign active admins the ability to rename. Monty ₈₄₅ 02:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

The explanation I've always heard for why CHU is a 'crat responsibility is that the developers want(ed) only a small group of people to have this ability, because renaming places a large load on the servers. I don't know whether this rationale still applies today or whether it's technically possible to separate the username-change right from the other 'crat tasks (though I have to imagine it would be). Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It is technically possible to separate the right. Despite refinements to the software, it still puts a huge load on the servers and can be very disruptive in its ability to break or disable accounts if done stupidly. That said, probably a third of the admin corp has the patience and stability to handle it. MBisanz ^talk 02:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest giving CHU to checkusers and oversighters, since they have already been deemed to be patient and stable, plus sometimes the tasks are related—except the CUs and OSs are pretty busy with backlogs of their own. I'd hate to have to set up a whole separate selection process just for CHUs. So I agree we need a couple of more bureaucrat candidates who are prepared to promise to focus on CHU for awhile, unless anyone has any other ideas.... Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

It's funny; I was just thinking about this issue yesterday. In case it's relevant, I can tell you: even after just recently starting to help with clerking there, I have already received more than one e-mail / talk message from editors wondering when their requests will be handled. Certainly an issue to think about. NTox · talk 03:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I think rename requests are accepted too easily. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I see what Newyorkbrad's is saying, but what about this. As well as give change username (CHU) rights to checkusers & oversighters, what about a simple process whereby admins (who have experience, such as clerking at WP:CHU) can ask for the right at BN? To make sure it isn't a major/complicated process, they are listed for 1 week, and only crats (and maybe admins) can comment (and only oppose with reason), if there are no opposes (opposes without reason don't count) after 1 week a crat grants the right. To make sure server load isn't a problem the number of CHUs is capped (excluding checkusers & oversighters) reasonably low and if people with the right don't use it after x months it can be removed. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a list of active bureaucrats somewhere? We seem to have many bureaucrats (34 compared to 5 on dewiki), but many of them have not bureaucratted for years. —Kusma (t·c) 08:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

For an immediate solution can you get a Steward to help to do the renaming for now .Trying to get a long term admin to run.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Hohoho, we've fallen far if we need stewards to deal with our issues now. ResMar 19:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd offer to try another RfB, to help, but I think it's a bit too recent since I ran. (I seem to recall that we tend to prefer a minimum of at least 4 months in between).

In the meantime, I'll go check out CHUS and see what I can do to help clerk-wise.

If anyone has any suggestions how else I may help, please feel free to drop me a note : ) - jc37 19:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking (and I'm happy to admit that it's only a guess) that if it were very clear to both crats (and possibly admins - but that's a whole other issue) that if they don't use their tools they lose them. From a very quick look at the last 500 user rename log entries (which I know isn't all crats do - but is really a big part of it) the number of different crats was about 15 - less than half the actual number with crat user rights. Now, fair enough some may be on holidays - but 20 of them?.
I think the "use it or lose it approach", will very much encourage current crats to do the jobs their unique tools require them to do. And if they don't, they have their tools removed and have to justify to the community why they didn't do the jobs we entrusted them to do. It will also mean that the list of crats becomes a list of current crats and the community has a much better idea of how many there actually are.
Happy for any feedback, I have no idea about how the crat world operates so feel free to comment. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 03:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Other Wikimedia sites take this approach, having a minimum bureaucrat activity requirement. CU and OS here have an activity requirement as well. --Rs chen 7754 04:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The crat activity requirement sounds reasonable to me, since even admins are now subject to it. Perhaps that would help the situation a bit. I would love to chip in and help, but I couldn't pass my RfB the last time round and have no wish to go through the RfB process again at this time. - Mailer Diablo 05:03, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: Both admins & crats have activity requirements. My proposal would extend it to actually using crat tools (even if they are are editing normally). Also it would mean that crat rights are suspended pending a successful RfB (where they justify to the community their need for the rights - since they haven't used them they don't need them).

As it currently stands you can be a bureaucrat (or admin for that matter) indefinitely by making one minor edit (like adding a space to an article) once every 12 months. My proposal would mean (for crats at least) that if they don't use their crat tools (regardless of other edits) within 12 months they have to go through another RfB. Sorry should have made that clearer. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:46, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you JC, I know you answered my request and the community wasn't willing to agree. I don't think the minimum activity rules will help. If people are confronted with the use them or lose them choice, most people will lose them or make one rename a year. The only possible positive effect is if it leads to fewer active crats and the community agrees to make more crats. I think the real key is appointing more new crats, regardless of existing crat activity level. MBisanz ^talk 16:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Is it really that bad that people who don't use the tools they said they would when the community supported them lose those tools? And isn't it just pointless hat collecting to have the topicon but not use it. If they make only one CHU a year than at least there is one less for the other crats to do. Though I do agree that appointing more crats is the best way, wouldn't it be good to have those with the crat rights actually doing what they said they would do - otherwise (ridiculous and hyperbole I know) we could have hundreds of crats less than half of them doing crat jobs. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 03:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I will check out with admins who in usernames in who are also very active and have over 100K edits and been long term admins.They are regulars in WP:UAA which is tougher than WP:CHU .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we may be thinking of the same person - and I may have beaten you to it [3]. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 03:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've know Daniel in real life for a few years and am more than happy to vouch for his maturity. Also, I was at Wikimania and talked to a few of my fellow stewards and we were in general agreement that stewards will not do renames at en.wiki so long as there are bureaucrats here. MBisanz ^talk 18:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for beating me to it Callanecc .I was definitely going to ask him and also him and there are two others very active users with over 100K edits.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly be nice to have another bureaucrat or two active at WP:CHU. While I do my best to help out MBIsanz, who tends to do most of the work, I am constrained by availability. I'm just back from a week-long absence, and I will be absent again for a week in August. I don't like doing renames blindly, so it takes me some time to review requests. Also, I go through busy stretches, or I'd rather edit articles, so the backlog can grow fairly big quite quickly. The task of doing renames does get quite tedious, so it is always good to appoint new 'crats regularly. Maxim_(talk) 23:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Maxim, I know you're trying as best as you can and your help is appreciated. Also, for those wondering why giving it to all admins might not be the best idea, see User_talk:MBisanz#Rename_caused_database_lag.3F. I sorta locked the database for a minute with a rename. MBisanz ^talk 13:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We could give every admin the right to rename users with <5000 edits (I made that number up), and just leave the big renames to the crats, kinds like in the old time when small renames were done by the crats, big ones were impossible or done by the developers. —Kusma (t·c) 14:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't meet the >100,000 edits ... I guess I should be ignoring the calls on my talkpage to throw my hat into the RFB ring for another 70k edits or so? ;-) (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:41, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

100k edits strikes me as a really, really stupid requirement. Also, it seems to me that the best solution to this would be to remove rev_user_text. To be honest, I really can't see why it's there at this point. This would eliminate the db load caused by renames. -- Selket ^Talk 21:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

100k is excessively high by a magnitude. While that may be some users criteria for nominating, it is by no means the norm for community approval. I think we've had one or two crats ever who had 100k edits at the time of their nomination. MBisanz ^talk 10:51, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Are a hundred thousand edits some kind of proxy for trustworthiness/competence/reliability? If so, I only score about 266 millicrats. Better write a script to do thousands of typo fixes or MOS tweaks &c and start grinding; I could increase my score to 1000 millicrats by the end of 2013. bobrayner (talk) 11:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

100k edits? That seems like an insanely high number. There are currently 174 editors with over 100,000 edits, which includes around 75 admins and no crats (as far as I can see). I've never seen how having a significant number of edits makes an editor more trustworthy - relevant experience should be the key. For example, take me, I've got just over 12k edits under my belt, roughly 12% of the suggested number. Yet, I don't believe anyone could suggest that I'm not "trustworthy/competent/reliable", despite that number. There are a number of reasons I shouldn't be a crat, but my edit count shouldn't be one of them. Worm^TT(talk) 11:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

More bureaucrats are probably a good idea but I would like to point out: (i) I have only just become aware that there was a backlog at WP:CHU/S on 13 July; (ii) I don't check WP:CHU every day, but when I do I tend to find most requests are already actioned (by MBisanz usually, for which he is to be commended); (iii) if someone had let me know (by email, talkpage or even by a notice at WP:BN) that there was a backlog, I could have found an hour or two over the weekend to work through some requests. I don't know how bad the backlog was or how long it took to clear, but it now appears to be gone and renames are not an urgent process. I'm not sure it's necessarily a good idea to distract admins from more important areas that need admin attention with rename duties and oversighters/checkuser must surely have better things to do? There's not much other crat work, so it kinda makes sense for crats to handle it but I would suggest: (i) more nudging of the less active bureaucrats so we know when we're needed to step in; and (ii) more bureaucrat appointments. WJBscribe (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Will hits the nail on the head here, that renames are not urgent. Generally a rename is extended as a courtesy (or at least that was my interpretation) - certainly not a right. Renames of users vanishing are simple, as they require no SUL checks (assuming you're renaming to User:VanishedUser:67676767adadad etc.) Renames due to over-riding WMF issues should (and technically can) be done by staff / stewards if they are pressing. All others - well sorry but you just have to wait. That's not to denigrate Matt's thoughts and all the 'crats hard volunteer work, but it's not IMHO, a "problem". Pedro : Chat
- I agree they aren't urgent and thank you for focusing the issue on that point. I just feel bad when people come to me expecting the same level of service I used to provide and can't obtain it due to my other committments. I would much rather see Keilana and JC spend their time at WP:CCI than WP:CHU, but do appreciate their help. Would anyone mind me putting a note on WP:CHU indicating that renames may take an extended period of time given the lack of urgency involved with them? MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Just to clarify 100K is not a nomination requirement was just pointing out there were editors who are regulars in WP:UAA ,long term admins,active,working in usernames with 100K edits and good in article space User:Daniel Case User:Edgar181 and User:JohnCD who have been contacted .User:Edgar181 is is considering the request .Edit count is not an issue just to add one of them has 500DYK and others are also good in article space.Through we would need an currently active admin who will available to do renames after becoming a crat.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is the thresh-hold for RfB higher than RfA?

To start off, I knew what the expectation was when I posted my RfB, so no sour grapes here.

But I was wondering why the thresh-hold is still so much higher for RfB?

Why do I say "still"?

Well, once upon a time, when requesting RfB you also had the option of requesting checkuser.

And that was before the current requirements for check user.

So back then, having the higher thresh-hold made sense. (It was 90% back then, I believe.)

But now, CU is an entirely separate process.

So as things are now, is the high thresh-hold still necessary?

Right now, it is easier to become a steward on meta (meta:Steward_elections#Process), than a bureaucrat here.

Would the world end if we changed the circa 85% to circa 80%, with at least 30 supports?

(Note, I believe my RfB would still have been unsuccessful under this : )

So what does everyone think? - jc37 17:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

CheckUser privileges have always been granted by the Arbitration Committee and have never had anything to do with bureaucratship. See the links from this discussion. Graham87 01:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I've seen and read that discussion. (Was this really 4 years ago? Anyway, I still agree with this comment.)

(scratches head) - I distinctly remember a "request for something" in which requestees needed to note whether they were requesting the "extra" tools or not. My memory was telling me that was bureaucratship and checkuser. but a quick look through past requests would seem to suggest that my memory played evil tricks on me : )

I wonder what I'm remembering...

Anyway, I still am wondering why the requirements are higher for bureaucrat than steward. I theorised back then that it was due to needing linguistic ability, but really, what does that have to do with community trust? - jc37 02:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Any editor may also fail by getting 78% or similar. But I agree with the idea of change from 85% to 80% though it won't make any big difference. On the other hand it would also make it little easy so I think it is worth a change. — TheSpecialUser ^(TSU) 01:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not that long ago that the RFB threshold was ~90%. Useight (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No time to check, but pretty sure the reduction to c. 85% was after Riana's RFB which was 4 years ago. Seem to remember proposing the 85% thing myself actually. Pedro : Chat 21:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have always found it funny that it is easier to become a steward, with access to all tools on all Wikimedia projects than it is to become a bureaucrat on enwiki. But while it would make a lot of sense to lower the standard, it always is voted down by people who pretend that the bureaucrat flag is a big deal. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think it's based on the false premise that, since we're not supposed to view adminship as a "big deal," bureaucratship somehow must be a big deal ("super-adminship," if you will) when, in fact, it's really not necessary to have a site-wide role that absolutely needs to be a big deal. Some might even view bureaucratship (and, needless to say, this view is absolutely preposterous, but may have a small degree of truth to it based upon community-wide inclinations) as a stepping stone to stewardship and thus a vetting process of some sort, which would explain the inhumanly high bar. Problem is, I really don't know how to fix it, and fear it won't be fixed until there is a visible shortage of bureaucrats (as there already seems to be, to a degree). And if we're worried about an admin shortage if the current trends continue (and I believe they will—that's not cynicism, that's being realistic), a bureaucrat shortage is absolutely imminent. One way or the other, lowering the bar or somehow "fixing" the process is going to become a necessity. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:25, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Questions

Are we allowed to ask questions such as. What are your views on administrators being open to recall? I know that could be perceived as a loaded question, but where there may be some minor concerns about a user's ability to be an admin, their being open to recall in my view would make me more likely to support because if they broke the trust placed in them then there may be chance for the community to review that trust. It wouldn't be something i would ask everyone but if there was some doubt.Edinburgh Wanderer (talk) 23:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It's a very common question on RFA, so yes. It's also a useless question, but still (✉→BWilkins←✎) 23:39, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_216#Admin.27s_open_to_Recall. You are permitted to ask the question, but editors may hold it against you. Monty ₈₄₅ 23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

If you intend to ask such a question, I would strongly urge you to do it off the RFA page given how we have people who would oppose a candidate whatever answer they give. KTC (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Not quite true. There are good answers to it, but a direct "yes" or "no" is likely to garner you oppose votes. Worm^TT(talk) 11:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, yeah, an answer of "yes" or "no" to the question "What are your views on administrators being open to recall?" isn't going to work out very well. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 15:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

This is one of the ways of answering this question (question 7a), without saying a straight 'yes' or 'no'. EngineerFromVega ^★ 06:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It'd help if I read the first comment, wouldn't it? I meant "yes" or "no" to "Would you be open to recall?". I don't see a problem with the question "What are your views on administrators being open to recall?" at all, though I was surprised recently at how many votes are based on ideological reasons. Worm^TT(talk) 15:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd like a more proactive approach by admins on questions. I guess it's not done to remove them, but maybe it should be. Bbb23 got one that was practically speaking impossible to answer, and any answer would have left him open to all kinds of irrelevant criticism. Keepscases' usual jokery is fine, really, but I have noticed a tendency (esp. among newer editors) to ask reeeeeeally long and quite impertinent questions. Drmies (talk) 22:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Funny thing is, I was teasing Bbb and telling him I was going to ask this ridiculously complex and controversial question, then THAT one came along and was even worse. I was glad to see he narrowed it down a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 22:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I've got a really good question waiting in the wings, but I need the right type of candidate to use it on; it wouldn't fit for either of the current RfA candidates. It's not supposed to be a trick question or anything, but it's something I've never seen asked before and, given people sometimes ask questions similar to mine about AfD closes, I think it would be interesting to see what happens (honestly, there's a pretty good chance I won't get an answer, but I wouldn't hold it against the candidate and besides, I'll never know if I don't try). The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to be an admin

I would like to be an administrator because i helped wikipedia by patrolling pages, by telling administrator what to delete,by telling them what users to block and by making warning messages on users talk-pages if they created wrong pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Receptie123 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Not to slight your contributions to the project, but administratorship is usually given to editors after making a few thousand edits, spread out over a longer amount of time than you've been active, along with showing a comprehensive grasp of the project's policies and guidelines. Now is just not the time for you to make an attempt to become an administrator. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Further to the good advice given by EVula, you should read Wikipedia:Guide to requests for adminship to understand the proper process and see what is likely to be expected of any editor before becoming an admin. — sparklism ^hey! 13:39, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-Admin Closures

Why on earth have we started to make this a requirement for admin candidates? I personally think it's a waste of time for an admin wannabe to practice putting close templates on an AFD or whatever; I much prefer to see well-reasoned policy-based comments. Also, why is it even more in vogue for non-admin observations to pop up at UAA/AIV/PERM/wherever? Usually, it's not much help, because I'm going to go through contribs carefully anyways. Again, I much prefer to see solid reports at UAA and AIV. I don't care about PERM. Does this make sense to other RfA types, or do I need my morning coffee? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, there is a natural process. There are already many voters who maintain their special requirements and would only support the candidate if they satisfy all or most of the requirements. These special requirements are absolutely arbitrary. For instance, we have voters who require GA and FA (they call it contribution to content creation); we also have voters who would never support a candidate with FA and GA because these users are best left to do content creation. We have also voters who would not support a candidate with more than 70% (or was it 67%?) contribution to the article space. I have yet to see a voter, but I will not be surprised to see a voter who would never support a candidate with less than 70% contribution to the article space, since such contribution demonstrates low involvement in the contant creation process. And so on. If today there is a voter unhappy to see no non-admin closures, tomorrow there will be a voter unhappy to see any non-admin closures, because this can demonstrates that the candidate takes too much without necessary qualification. And, as a result, sonn we will have no candidates at all being able to pass 50% support.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
And of course there are the editors who won't support someone if they don't like one of the editors who has supported... QU ^TalkQu 18:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
That, at least, is something that a closing bureaucrat should have no trouble just chucking from the consideration entirely. The contradictions would make matters more complicated, however, but I guess that admins/crats have to deal with that sort of thing is probably part of why at least some people are so picky. Irony, eh? -— Isarra ༆ 11:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I've never really understood why people like to see non-admin closures at RFA. If someone is performing NACs properly, they should only be doing them for discussions with a really obvious, unambiguous consensus. All this tells us is that the user understands that, in a discussion where 100% of the participants vote keep, most of whom provide a good rationale, the consensus is probably to keep an article. To be honest, we want a little more from our admins - the ability to judge closer consensus calls cannot be judged by non-admin closures; we can, however, get some kind of understanding of these abilities from their contributions to deletion discussions which will (or will not) demonstrate a clear grasp of deletion policy.

On a broader note, I find the wide range of requirements that Ymblanter cites equally annoying. Personally, I will judge a candidate based on whether I think they are competent and trustworthy enough (perhaps with a little more scrutiny in the area a candidate wishes to work in). Those 'requirements' entail any other expectations we would have of administrators and keep us clear of arbitrary statistics, and the like. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I suppose that some !voters might regard the presence of non-admin closures as an indication of intent to work in admin-related areas. I'm not sure that anyone has explicitly stated that this is a mandatory requirement, i.e. the absence of non-admin closures alone automatically justifies opposition. (Disclosure: I do not consider the presence/absence of non-admin closures to be significant. In my opinion, there are better ways of judging a candidate's ability to close AfDs.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth have we started to make this a requirement for admin candidates? 'We' haven't. There might have been a few rare isolated cases where some occasional voters want it, but as far as I know, none of the clued up regular RfA voters have it listed as one of their mandatory criteria. A bit less scaremongering please. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Not intended as such, just...frustrated at seeing it come up more and more. Sorry for the bad implication on my part. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Like most personal admin criteria, anybody is allowed to make this part of what they look for to support a candidate. Also like most personal admin criteria, it is perfectly stupid to make this a reason to oppose somebody (not performing non-admin closures is not an indication that admin tools will not be correctly used in the future, just like having no experience with images is not an indication that the candidate will do anything wrong in that area in the future). —Kusma (t·c) 05:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The way I have come to see it is that there is a growing number of editors that frequent RfA who have their own particular sacred cow, and will not support anyone who hasn't recognized and payed homage to whatever little dark corner of Wikipedia they feel is so important. This seems to become a problem when in any given RfA you have an entire herd of these sacred cows, every single one of which need to be tended to or else someone is going to to oppose because the candidate has somehow overlooked the dire necessity of... I don't know... creating a featured portal. Unfortunately, every RfA is going to have 100+ editors judging it, all with their own criteria for what makes a suitable admin, and not all of them are going to be rational. Trusilver 08:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

To Kusma and Trusilver: there are no formal rules regarding the suitability of "oppose" !votes. The closest that we have is WP:AAAD, and that is no more than an essay. Even WP:AAAD doesn't discourage this particular reason for opposing.

This is a minority viewpoint that you happen to disagree with. However that doesn't justify the labels "stupid" or a "sacred cow". Would you apply the same labels if the viewpoint was a majority one, and you were in the minority? The Wikipedia community entrusts bureaucrats to judge the validity of these !votes, and they don't discuss their reasoning, to avoid unnecessary controversy. Let the bureaucrats do their job. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I expect to be in the minority (I am one of the few who would prefer RfA to be a straight vote, as I find consensus decision making to be unsuitable for binary decisions), and I do find many given oppose reasons stupid. I am not asking for them to be discounted (I believe everybody may vote as they want to), but want to point out that many oppose votes are not only not helping the encyclopedia but also not answering the question "is this particular user likely to be a good administrator?" Statistics and participation-or-not in any of the dozens of areas that need admins are not going to answer this question, and relying on these things only instead of examining the candidate should be discouraged. E.g. by calling it stupid. —Kusma (t·c) 12:44, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that some opposes and some supports are stupid. Not all; not most; but some. Nonetheless, I think it cancels out nicely. There's lots of room to argue about the statistics, but broadly speaking I think the community tends to succeed in weeding out the bad candidates and in handing mops to good candidates. bobrayner (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Of course some support reasons given are stupid. However, one oppose counts as much as three supports, so naturally more thought is given to opposes.

Your other point: we used to hand out a lot more mops in the past (more than ten times as many per month compared to now). Now as then, some admins turn out to be problematic, so the process has never been 100% efficient in avoiding bad admins. However, it has been more successful in promoting good admins in the past. So I do think it was better in the old days. I may be wrong, of course. —Kusma (t·c) 13:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I generally don't require non-admin closures to support, but if a candidate indicates an interest in closing AfD's as an admin, then I require a healthy level of experience and participation at AfD, and NAC's help immensely to that end. -Scottywong | confess _ 16:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-administrator closures of XfDs, threads, etc. are sufficiently controversial in all but the most obvious cases, such that it is a very bad idea to hold the lack of them against an RfA candidate. It's great when qualified non-admins make such closures in appropriate cases, especially when the result is to save community time, but we don't want candidates feeling they need to go out and find clear-cut XfDs etc. suitable for such closures before they are ready for RfA. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems clear that most editors don't want RFA to be causing editors to go make NACs they wouldn't have otherwise, at least for those not planning to work in the AfD area as an admin. Yet if opposes keep talking about expecting NACs, the message here is unlikely to sink in. So what are we going to do about it? Monty ₈₄₅ 17:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I say we badger the hell out of them. -Scottywong | squeal _ 22:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the reason this has become an issue at RfA is very simple: we aren't actually sure what role non-admins should play in some of the admin areas. Non-admin closures shouldn't be required, sure, and crats ought to give such votes pretty low standing. But look at other admin things that non-admins do, like non-admin observations on WP:RFPERM requests. There's some issues here. In general, they can be really useful, but some people do them just to bulk out their edits and 'prepare' themselves for RfA. Routine non-admin observations to add useless information that the admin would check anyway (like looking at the user's created pages when deciding on an autopatrolled request) aren't actually that valuable and hint at perhaps a hat collecting mentality. That said, if someone consistently provides useful and non-obvious information that actually assist admins in their day-to-day business, that's helpful. And non-admin closures are a useful contribution: they clear the easy cases out of the AfD backlog leaving the harder stuff for admins to do. But expecting NACs? Meh. They are a nice bonus, but not having them ought not lose a candidate any brownie points. —Tom Morris (talk) 22:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I recently did a nao on perm/rollbacker, seen here, and I'm not sure where it falls. It wasn't too valuable and it was something that an admin would definitely check anyway, but, I said it because -- well -- it was a statement that I thought should be said, even though I knew there was a huge discussion about nacs and naos. Mysterytrey talk 00:29, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems alright to me. I'd suggest next time, linking to specific diffs would be helpful or being more explicit as to the issues, but otherwise, yes, that's the spirit. If you know of a problem the admin should know about, you should definitely provide a NAO. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

"Non admin closures" are important, it shouldn't even be a separate category: can we just call it "closures"? If you disagree with these people, you'll have to enter a discussion with people who require closures be done. Bureaucrats (or Other (Non Bureaucrat) Closers :-P) should not attach higher or lower "values" to any person's opinions, without at least a discussion attached that shows some progress towards a consensus (or lack thereof), obviously. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC) If you disagree with me, perhaps you should practice doing more closures? O:-)

I believe there are two kinds of admin (candidates): 1. those who have simply gnomed away in semi-admin areas as part of their other content or project work, have participated intelligently in dozens of AfD, and have accumulated vast experience in many areas, and 2. those who quite deliberately work in adminy areas with the express intention of working towards adminship, and are trying hard to check all the boxes

I'm rather leery of the latter. Joining Wikipedia simply to become a policeman of it (and that includes those who work/comment almost exclusively on AIV, NPP, AN/I, etc.) is probably not the best reason to be here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Process

Congratulations, we made the news. A rarity indeed. I agree with Jim's comments that there's no need for concern, especially since they did not use an annual figure of comparison, but rather one month last year compared to last month -- we all know some months are more busy than others. What I did find interesting was the mention of how arduous the admin process has become in comparison to years such as 2008. I have often felt that as veteran editors, our demands and expectations have significantly increased, and we expect large volumes of work to be done prior to their promotion. New and incoming editors who wish to be admins are having difficulty keeping up and must either have years of experience or have spent an almost unreasonable amount of time editing with in their first twelve months to do so. This was not the case earlier on, and many of those green admins took the necessary steps to a point and learned the rest once they were at adminship. While not ideal, its the same case of only hiring salted veterans in a company rather than the fresh crop out of university. Ultimately what you lose is the impact of innovation from a younger group of people. Not in age, but that have fresh eyes to the process. Mkdw ^talk 16:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Certainly the RfA process has become more stringent and arduous than it used to be, and that is putting some potential candidates off. However, I don't agree that all was well in the far off days when anyone with a few months of editing without major visible problems could become an admin. It is probably true that, in those days, many admins "learned the rest once they were at adminship", but it is certainly true that many of them did not. Most of the time I see admins either acting in ways that I agree with or else making decisions that I don't personally agree with but which I can see are reasonable and defensible. However, just occasionally I see an administrator doing something that makes me stop and think "WHAT?!?" On those occasions I usually have a look at the particular admin's history. Virtually always I find that it is one of the long-standing admins from the days when it was really easy to become an admin. The simple fact is that in those days people were being let in because they looked as if they were basically well meaning, even if they hadn't demonstrated a full appreciation of what was required of an admin, and a significant proportion of them have not subsequently learnt any better. In many ways I don't like the way RfA works now, but it does a much better job of keeping out really unsuitable candidates than it used to at one time. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

WHAAAAT? Yes - I couldn't agree more; fortunately most of them have probably retired by now, although there are exceptions and where there are exceptions it is mostly with their behaviour than a misuse of the tools. New and incoming editors shouldn't be wishing to be admins and if they are, it is right that they should find it a great challenge - Wikipedia should not be a process where people come to obtain power or climb a greasy pole of promotion to impress others. Editors who stand out will be recruited sooner or later; problem is, most of them are not prepared to go through a process that is beleaguered by a bunch of people who simply either have contempt for adminship in general, or who use RfA as the one place where they can be obnoxious with impunity. As I've said so many times, generally those who can be trusted with admin tools and judgement usually get elected, and those who need more experience (and/or maturity) usually don't. Borderline cases are rare and contentious close calls are even more seldom. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

The BBC really have been covering us this week. They did this as well.[4].E W 23:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Atlantic has rather more detail: [5] . I agree there's no cause for concern for Wikipedia. Wikipedia will be just fine without RFA someday, just like it does just fine without WP:Esperanza or WP:AMA these days. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Kim, you always sound so positive when predicting massive, radical change of the 'pedia. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

The BBC are doing a series of articles on Wikipedia - there was one last week on Wikimania, and one today on bots. Pay them no heed. Giant Snowman 14:26, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Eh? The Atlantic is not the BBC. --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Tom: WP:Esperanza, WP:AMA both thought that their processes were essential to the wiki, and removing them would be a massive radical change.

What happened when they got removed? Nothing. The wiki kept running the next day.

None of the processes in the Wikipedia namespace are essential for the running of the wiki. They were tacked on because (at the time) it was thought that adding them would "improve wikipedia".

If the utility of a process in the Wikipedia: namespace is in doubt, removing it will generally not be a disaster.

It might, however, not be an improvement.

In the case of unused processes, marking them historical when they are unused does not netto help or harm the wiki all too much, except that people don't mistakenly waste time trying to use them.

Of course, then we have rouge_admins like Radiant, who found that somewhat more aggressive tagging can help revitalize otherwise dead processes. O:-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I miss radiant.

(Though I would agree that he sometimes took boldness to another stratosphere, he nearly always was happy to discuss.) - jc37 15:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Blast of nostalgia

The summary chart at WP:BN looks like old times: a bunch of RfAs active, plenty of green and some WP:100 candidates. Joy and happiness. --Dweller (talk) 08:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

In the summer time when the weather is high, You can chase right up and touch the sky. When the weather's right, You got admins, you got admins on your mind Worm^TT(talk) 09:06, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"Joy and happiness" I was thinking the same thing. I was wondering if it was related to people meeting each other at Wikimania or something. Either way, it does seem like old times. Kind regards. BTW, good song, Dave. 64.40.57.60 (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

+1. MBisanz ^talk 10:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Beware of August riots. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 12:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

"July RfAs bring August riots" doesn't have the same ring to it as the "April showers" phrase. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Good thing, too, considering the bloodbath over at arbcom. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 17:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Bloodbath? - jc37 19:32, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We've actually been desysop'ing people for wheel warring for a change. Or at least desysop'ing one and scaring a few others. Jclemens (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't realise he was referring to perth et al. - jc37 01:02, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I think those RFA candidates owe me for drawing the fire away from them by daring to file an RFB. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever you did, Beeb, it's still working ... now De728631 is off and running. - Dank (push to talk) 14:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, you could just run every month if it fixes RFA. Monty ₈₄₅ 15:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Nod, think of the thick (leathery) skin you'd eventually have... Though I suppose the eventual sense of disassociation and glazed hollow look from your eyes might be seen as a negative... - jc37 15:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I should run every month then. I'm unelectable because I commit the heinous sin of speaking my mind. I'd certainly distract the voting base. :) --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to admit it was not clear to me that so many people openly want crats to be, and I quote "boring". I know it is a boring job but so is running through A7 speedy deletion noms. I wouldn't even pass RFA the way things are going at the moment but if it keeps the drama focused on me and maybe we should extend it another week? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Funny, the only complaint against my becoming an oversight was that no one knew who I was. I guess that would make me the perfect crat? Someguy1221 (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know enough about your activity and experience to say if it would be a good idea, but if you are seriously considering it go find yourself a nom! Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

570 supports vs. 0 opposes at RfA right now... almost makes me wish I wasn't already an admin! Juliancolton (talk) 19:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Do the next best thing and find the super-special candidate you've been wishing for, all the same stress, worry and constant clicking the refresh button without the..erm...well there may be a plus somewhere. --Jac16888 ^Talk 19:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Tell me about it :( Worm^TT(talk) 19:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Ironically my own RFA was pretty stress-less, especially compared to the times I've nominated other users--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I have to give credit to Beeblebrox. I know if I was in his position, I would certainly feel frustrated. Best regards. 64.40.54.64 (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Credit too, to all the great candidates, their noms and of course the !voters. 64.40.54.64 (talk) 21:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Community De-adminship

Whilst it may not be what we most want to discuss in this fine weather with a string of good admin nominations, I've started a proof of concept RfC on community de-adminship. Please do join in. Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept Worm^TT(talk) 18:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Live Table Suggestion

After seeing the RfA table in this page showing live update of votes, I just got an idea. Why not create a table that shows live update of the backlog in various admin noticeboards and if possible, the number of logged in admins. Pardon me if I am ignorant about any such template already available. --Anbu121 (talk me) 21:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Why, though? It's nice to think that seeing the backlog would make people vote differently, but I find it highly unlikely that that would be the case. Therefore it would be needless clutter. It's a nice idea, I just doubt it would actually make any practical difference. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggested it only for the convenience of admins and for having a central place to view all the backlogs. It has nothing to do with influencing votes. The table need not even be placed in this page, but a page which admins would visit often. --Anbu121 (talk me) 22:19, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

{{admin dashboard}}? Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Dagnabbit. I just found that for Anbu! Worm^TT(talk) 22:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship

Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship

Comments welcome. - jc37 03:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

WT:PC2012#Promoting and demoting reviewers

I know some who watchlist here have been watching the arguments for years over how to promote to or demote from any (theoretical) position that's "under" adminship ... what the community thinks, what the dangers might be. Anyone's input on a similar issue involving Pending Changes at the above link is welcome. - Dank (push to talk) 20:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

We should give the editor credit in close calls

I just noticed this discussion and wanted to mention something. When we get close calls like this, IMO, we should err on the side of the individual. There are a lot of chores that admins do and there are currentky not enough of them to do the job. Particularly in cases like this where there are less than solid Opposes.

I especially think opposes that infer we need editors more than admins and the like should not be counted which, as I can figure would have allowed this to pass. I also don't really think that an Editors opinion that paid editing should be allowed should be held against them either. There have been admins that said this. Just my opinion. Kumioko (talk) 12:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There was a 'crat chat about that RFA. No more needs to be said dangerous panda 12:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I know that's the link I provided :-). I still wanted to voice my opinion that when the decision is on the fence like this they err in benefit of the individual and not include weak opposes. In this case, perhaps not all, the weak opposes for things like we need more editors not more admins, would have allowed this to pass. Kumioko (talk) 13:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

So Kumioko, you are saying that "no consensus to promote" should be "no consensus not to promote"? Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Dispense with weak opposes by all means, so long as weak supports are treated in the same way. Every RFA contains support rationale along the lines of "no problems here", "obviously" and "a good editor". Why should they still weigh in if weak opposes are to be excluded? Leaky Caldron 13:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Umm no, using mine as an example, it will be no consensus to promote, fer shure. But when an RFA get's down to the wire like this one did, I think we should remove the silly opposes (that's were the 'crat discussion comes in), refactor the result and see what the percentage is. I understand the reasoning and I'm not trying to change minds and I'm really not trying to turn this into a big heated debate I just wanted to make a statement about it and I feel I have done that. There is no offense intended at anyone. BTW when I say weak opposes I don't mean vague ones. What I mean by weak opposes is when they say stuff like Oppose per things like Self nomination, too many edits to fast means user has no life, we need editors more than admins, and the like. Some of the opposes are valid but these are meaningless. As has been pointed out in past discussions on the subject as well I might add. Kumioko (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Understand that, but what makes it acceptable to count "obviously" or "a good editor" as a support if you are not counting the equally vacuous opposes? Leaky Caldron 13:44, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

The same thing that would allow us to count Opposes with the same justification or the ever popular, because X said so. If someone says Support because of something silly like I think we need more people in Virginia as admins, I like his eyes or something equally meaningless than I agree those should be struck through as well (I have seen some like that). Again, I'm not trying to cause a big debate or a long complicated subjective vetting process. I'm just saying that when things get within 1 or 2 votes like this one did they should get the tools that's all. Kumioko (talk) 13:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Fundamentally, RfA isn't meant to be a vote. The percentages assist the bureaucrats, and within a certain range the decision is considered discretionary, but as they've mentioned in the past they will discount the more frivolous opposes. In this case, going by the discussion, there was agreement that the opposes were strong enough not to warrant granting the bit - which is the sort of considered evaluation that is why we've elected them to the role. :) It seems that your comments are on the assumption that it is about numbers, and that discounting a vote or two will affect the numeric outcome, and thus the required decision. - Bilby (talk) 13:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think its about the numbers but at the same time I have never seen them decide not to give it to someone that did make the consensus either so its clearly got at least something to do with the numbers. Again I'm ok with the decision and not trying to change minds but I wanted to mention it because I think that in some cases we are doing the pedia a disservice. Kumioko (talk) 14:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You've never seen the bureaucrats "decide not to give it to someone that did make the consensus" because the bureaucrat job is to enable the admin bit if there is consensus to do so. If there is consensus, the candidate will get the bit. Perhaps by "make the consensus" you meant that the candidate was over 75%. If that's the case, there have been RFAs above 75% that were closed as unsuccessful. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 14:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you have thought this through fully. If vacuous opposes AND supports were removed, and if these occur in equal proportion, how would that improve the percentage? Also, if there were more silly supports than silly opposes then the percentage would actually be lower! I think the 'crats can be trusted, as in the latest case. Leaky Caldron 14:24, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you really understand what the point of this discussion was and its getting off on a tangent of more general problems with RFA such as the culture of allowing silly supports and opposes (which we need to st the tone will not be counted) but more in general I think you misunderstand my comment as a direct criticism of the crats decision to not promote this individual which its not. Its just intended to be a statement that, if we do need Admins like so many have said in the past (which is supported by the workload but not in the current system) then we should give the individual the benefit of the doubt when its close. That's it. As a side note, since were on tangents anyway, I personally think we should create more compartmentalized roles like rollback, file mover Etc. That would allow more people to get the tools they need rather than the whole set, their much easier to revoke if abused and the individual doesn't have to go through the RFA gauntlet. But thats a separate discussion entirely. Kumioko (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well. I just don't agree with you. The tangents are entirely of your making. Leaky Caldron 15:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

It was close, however, the 'crat chat showed the belief that the opposes were "substantial and well-grounded", so, that being said, it appears there wasn't that much of a benefit of the doubt. Also, linking you to Wikipedia:Perennial proposals#Hierarchical structures. Mysterytrey 17:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

By the way, you linked to the RFA, not the crat chat dangerous panda 16:03, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

RFA is not broken?

Is it just me or has this process vastly improved in the last month or so. The bitterness seems to have been removed for now and there are strong, deserving candidates coming through. Maybe I'm being naieve, but...gosh. Has a power struggle between generations ended or something? Ceoil (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Strong, deserving candidates have applied. Controversial, poor candidates will continue to be found out by the process. Leaky Caldron 12:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The voter profile has changed. There is currently less trolling and disingenuous voting. Candidates are getting in fast before it returns. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, I suspect the BBC News item about a possible "admin recruitment crisis" may have encouraged some outstanding, easily-approved candidates to step up. --MelanieN (talk) 14:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

So its organic rather than desiged? Ha ha makes since, one BBC article trumps the mgs of well intentioned reams written on this page by vested interests over the last 10 years. I always saw the prob with RFA as the fault of gatekeepers protectively minding the (percieved) keys to the kingdom, watching for friend or foe. Its old, but the Charlotteweb assination is still the too perfect standard, and I think chilled the whole thing for a long time. But glad to see it working so well recently, its encouraging, hopefully not a blip. Ceoil (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Ceoil's initial post, at least for the time being. I don't think the BBC is terribly influential on the wiki. If people are still being approved 98-0-3 come October, then let's talk about how a wonderful new spirit has taken over.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:09, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Tend to agree with Wehwalt. It's just a fluke or because of summer vacation.PumpkinSky talk 16:33, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Just want to note that with all these unanimous RFAs passing in a row (5), has not occurred since February 2008, a month after I passed. The month I passed, January 2008, had 6 in a row unanimous. I among others are happy to see some unanimous RFAs and basically clean ones. Mitch32^{(There is a destiny that makes us... family.)} 19:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

As I posted on the crats noticeboard, despite July's rush of RFAs giving us six new administrators, eight were desyopped in the same month, resulting in a net gain of -2. This year there have been 17 successful RFAs, and 60 desysoppings due to inactivity, resulting in a net loss of 43 administrators to the project. This figure does not include users who have requested the addition or removal of their sysop flag at this noticeboard. Wikipedia Admins plc is still regrettably a loss-making enterprise. WilliamH (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Loosing 60 inactive admins is not a loss of productive Admin. effort. If 60 were inactive, they were inactive. It's therefore +17 productive from the start of the year. The 60 inactive were inactive anyway. Leaky Caldron 22:52, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I really fail to see why we have these conversations every other week. Can we please move on? There hasn't be an original statement in one of these threads for several years... Sven Manguard Wha? 22:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

@Leaky Caldron. The problem is that others are also becoming inactive, and despite our 18 new admins so far this year we have 38 fewer active ones than at the start of the year. The pattern has been clear for several years, and the real choice is whether we do something to fix RFA in a measured and thoughtful way, or we wait until there are too few active admins to provide 24/7 cover at AIV and we hastily appoint a large batch of cursorily scrutinised candidates. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:19, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

In addition to less admins in general there are less doing admin related work. I for example used to do a lot with various things and since my RFA showed a lack of trust in admin tasks by the community I am not going to do the tasks anymore. At least not nearly as much so if I need to do one I just drop a note on the appropriate venue like the template talk page. Which is fine but that means more work for less admins and frankly I did quite a lot of stuff so its not its not just a matter of less admins. Kumioko (talk) 10:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Without looking back over your RFA, if it's true that the community expressed dissatisfaction with your non-admin Admin work, and that belief is justified by evidence, then you are correct to take a break from that work. If, on the other hand, the community suggested that you were not to be trusted with the full tool set, but without specific reservations about your current work, then your choice to reduce working in Admin areas would appear to be a decision based on pique. Only you know the truth of the matter. Obviously you are entitled to feel negative if you believe an incorrect decision was made, but if removing your volunteer time is the result then maybe the community was right but for the wrong reasons, if you know what I mean. Leaky Caldron 11:19, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Just wondering

Just wondering something and please don't think I am being sarcastic or snide but is there a record of the lowest scoring RFA? I think I am going for a record. Just a note, please don't close it on WP:SNOW, I want to let it ride out. Kumioko (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

There are certainly snow closes that went with 0%, so maybe you'd more appreciate most oppose votes? Someguy1221 (talk) 02:53, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Or perhaps for an RfA that received at least 25 votes, what was the lowest percentage? AutomaticStrikeout 02:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting thanks. I was just wondering anyway. I have to admit some of the comments are kinda amusing if you don't let them hurt your feelings. lolKumioko (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You can feel free to look through the two and a half thousand failed RfAs: Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies/All ;) Someguy1221 (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually I already strolled through the valley of hurt feelings..lol. I do have to say that as far as RFA comments go I have seen a lot worse than the ones I am getting, with some exception at least. Some editors can be extremely mean when a simple oppose will do. And they say I'm dramatic. Kumioko (talk) 03:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, unfortunately sometimes people are a little more harsh than necessary. However, I guess that's to be expected when you get involved in the politics of Wikipedia, I'll probably go through at least some of the same when I have my RfA. AutomaticStrikeout 03:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless you really really need the tools I would suggest otherwise but its up to you. I wouldn't have done it myself (I pretty much knew what the outcome would be) but I am tired of waiting 2 weeks for someone to answer requests to edit protected pages, seeing vandals tearing stuff up and can't do anything about it and various other things. It doesn't really bother me if they don't want me to have the tools but that also tells me that they don't need more help. Reading between the lines that tells me that things should happen in a timely manner. But things make sense in my weird little world and this is Wikipedia, things don't have to make sense here, as long as there is a consensus...lol. You think mine is ugly now just wait, there are a lot more folks out there who don't like me that just haven't noticed it yet. Cheers and happy editing. Kumioko (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Returning to the original question, this is the worst one I could find: 0 supports and 34 opposes. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:48, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, happily I didn't get unanimous opposes but that one was back in 2006 so I guess we were about do for a good RFA roast. Might as well be me. :-) Thanks again. Kumioko (talk) 05:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wiki Greek Basketball went 1/38/4 (the lone support was essentially trolling), but I definitely consider it the worst RFA ever. --MuZemike 21:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a bad one I agree. I guess its good I'm not getting the Worst RFA ever award...I think I'm still in the running for 2012 though. :-) Kumioko (talk) 21:32, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Greek Basketball... now there's a name from the past. Given the last time we heard from him was August 2010, I wonder where he's at now. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 02:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)