Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 226

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

Archive 220

←

Archive 224

Archive 225

Archive 226

Archive 227

Archive 228

→

Archive 230

An RFC is under way to determine whether or not to create a new user right that would allow trusted template coders to edit fully protected templates: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right. equazcion ^(talk) 21:15, 11 Sep 2013 (UTC)

Two more users with admin tool sets have retired in the last couple of days. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:01, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Who? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention there are 14 more scheduled for October. Kumioko (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Inactive administrators—I think this is what they mean, Cas. Chris857 (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Aaah ok. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:31, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Could also mean User:Ched and User:WilliamH who have seemingly retired. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 23:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone surprised? With the complete dysfunctional anarchy we have, I'm shocked wiki limps along at all. Arbcom is so inept it needs abolished and I no longer recognize the validity of anything they do. RFA reform has been argued about for over 7 years with ZERO changes, abusive admins run amok and no one will do anything about them. We all know I could go on and on but I'll stop for now. PumpkinSky talk 15:54, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

I was idly looking back yesterday and found that two editors who became admins in the same month as did I ceased to be active within six weeks of their gaining of the tools. To be sure, they did no harm to the project, and were not abusive. Would it work, and do we have the manpower to implement, if all admins were assessed by a responsible panel -'crats, Jimbo or whoever - and their continuing admin status decided on the basis of their initial record? I know it's controversial, but if we are arguing from the starting point of RfA being broken clearly something needs to be done; better suggestions, anyone?--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 21:05, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Admins vary hugely in their level of activity after RFA and in their use of the tools. In a volunteer community we are of course all free to go at any time, and admin retirements would only be a problem if either we had a pattern of losing too many admins or were running short of admins. I'm pretty sure the former is not a problem, if anything people who become admins generally stay a long time, longer I suspect than other editors. Running short of admins definitely would be a problem, and our number of admins is falling as RFA is unable to recruit enough to replace those we lose. But I don't know how low numbers have to fall to before we are actually short of admins, or at least so short that we have problems in an important area. Which is a long winded way of saying that I'm not greatly worried about people who don't use the mop, I'm more worried about those who misuse the mop. Misuse is not in my experience a problem of new admins, new admins may make mistakes, you only have to look at the amazing number who managed to accidentally block themselves to appreciate that. But I think we handle new admin mistakes quite well. The peak year for desysopping was the fourth year of adminship last time I looked, long enough to get over confident and maybe a little arrogant, certainly long enough to drift away from current community standards. So I would make a counter suggestion. For those who don't use the tools after a few months I would suggest a friendly email or three asking if they can help out with particular admin backlogs. As for the responsible panel who can review admins, formally we have Arbcom. But maybe we could ask the crats to set up a panel or two and systematically start reviewing the activities of the longest serving active admins? ϢereSpielChequers 18:48, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Do I stand a chance in passing the RFA? I have been around since mid 2008, and has been an admin at Commons since late 2010. I have been a very active content writer until about a year ago when I changed my job (and had to cut down on wikitime). Since then, I was only able work at deletions, and attend any email/talkpage inquiries that came up my watchlist, as this was the quickest to work on. During the past few months, my local edits was largely low, but I was quite active globally right throughout since my joining in '08.

I have written, created, or improved a lot of articles and templates and I'm very familiar with policies across en.wiki and wikicommons (I was also behind the creation of a handful of policy pages at Commons including COM:CSD, etc). My global contribs exceed 19k (including a fair chunk of deleted edits due working with deletions).

I was identified by the WMF in early 2011, and known personally by handful of editors and admins. In addition to other tasks, I believe I can make significant contributions at the en.wiki pending deletions with the time I have, along with added value as there seems to be fewer admins in my timezone. I thought of looking back at the RFA after I recently came across a fairly large bunch of local files needing admin action (which I believe I could easily help in).

At present, a large proportion of admin actions I do at wikicommons include deletions (page and files), protections, history merging, and history splitting. I used to tag a lot of files here at en.wiki for deletion (over CSD F8) after transferring, but that largely seems to be a waste of time, considering that I could have easily deleted them myself if I had the necessary rights.

Please take your time to review my activity, and see if I am trustworthy enough to lend a hand here. My past RFAs (which are all many years old), might be a good place to begin with. With regards, Rehman 02:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

• From the kind of things I check: (good) has a user page, had some extra bits that show previous trust has been granted, has email enabled, used move, and looked a bit at article feedback, no blocks, articles created, content written. (bad) secret subpage barnstar - though I admit I had something like this too, has not used the page curation tool, has not done new page patrol. I do see some talk that was not handled well, eg in your response to a complaint about renaming House centipede, — administrators should rename calm and assume good faith. Note have you addressed the concerns raised in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Rehman? I can see no trouble from two of your other accounts User:Rehman Abubakr and User:G4BR0HMV68. But I think you would have a good chance of success. I would support. Editor review is the real way to go. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:32, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Basically, you're asking for us to evaluate you without a formal RFA ... really doing the RFA process without the paperwork. Now, in my modified RFA process, that's awesome ... but typically many in the community don't like this being done in this manner - and it most certainly is not the intent of this talkpage. Just asking this could actually torpedo your future chances ES&L 11:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, Graeme and ES&L. I've posted this to get a simple opinion (from a handful of admins watching this talkpage) on what my chances are. No big thought went into this. Thing is I really do want to pitch in here, but the way things turned out years ago really put me in an anti-RFA phobia. I would really like to hear any constructive criticism before I take any step towards another RFA. (WP:ER is a good idea!)

@Graeme: That house centipede discussions (now at Scutigera coleoptrata) was really really old, like almost 5 years old! Gave me a weird smile looking at that again :] All I can say is that no one's the same after 5 years. The other accounts were as a result of WP:CHU, and were never used. Rehman 14:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi all. I have opened up a new Editor Review. If you have the time, please take a few moments to share your thoughts. It is greatly appreciated! Regards, Rehman 15:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Honestly I wouldn't bother with it unless you are just looking to be insulted and told how you can't be trusted for some reason. The process is far too political and tragic to even waste your time on. When the community gets to a point when they need active admins more than hat collectors (which in my opinion is long past) then they will fix the process. If I were you I would just keep submitting the stuff for them and let them deal with it since they don't want any new mambers of the club. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 18:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Bah, it is not that bad. Exaggerating stuff won't help us any better. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Really? Not that bad? Well let's look at the facts. Its referred to often as a "gauntlet", it has a low success rate and worse a low attempt rate from experienced editors, some editors that do try and don't get it leave and stop editing, a lot of admins are more abusive than the ones that don't get the tools and yet no one takes the tools away, a new user right is being created for template editor partially because its so hard to get the tools and too few that do have enough technical ability to use the tools that only they have... Need I go on? Its not an exaggeration to say the process is garbage and it does more to hurt the project than to help it. The problem is too many admins are too full of themselves to allow the process to change because it would mean they lose their perception of power. Not all of course, but quite a few. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Rehman, if you really want to contribute to the project in an administrative capacity, and if you feel you're competent enough, just go for the RfA. Requesting for the tools is typically social service, and it's an investment of your time that you are volunteering to the community. That itself is highly appreciated. Allow the community to assess whether you would be able to productively utilise the tools, and respect their feedback. If the community does grant you access to the tools, it's with gratitude that you are volunteering to contribute further; and if the community does not grant you access to the tools, try again after improving on the feedback points. In essence, now that you've put this up on the talk page, just go for the RfA. There's no need for you to wait till the 'editor review' process is complete, as that assesses you on parameters beyond administration too. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 03:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Request an RfA nomination may be another thing to try. --Rschen7754 04:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There has been no open RfA for about ten days now. Folks, RfA is simply one of many means to an end (building an encyclopedia). If it is not working, it needs to be either adjusted or shut down. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

It really needs to be shut down. The individual tools need to be split out into individual tools and then the term and role of administrator needs to be abolished. There is no need for this artificial hierarchy in an encyclopedia. We need people with the tools, but we don't need a parent child relationship. The current system also fosters an us and them mentality between editor and admin and fosters an environment of frustration from users who are trying to help but can't. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 16:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Unbundling would make the most sense from an operational standpoint, but there's so much OWN now I honestly don't think it will happen. Intothatdarkness 17:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

@138.162.8.59: The administrator pack is a need. SOmebody needs to be technically able to do some stuff, and not every can be able to do that. It is a technical hierarchy that has sadly become a political one on this wiki. Other Wikipedias treat adminship differently, and that makes me think that the problem is not with the toolset but with the community. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely that someone needs to have access to the tools, but having an admin role isn't a requirement. Just editors with access to the tools to do the job. Most admins don't use all their tools either for that matter so why give them a toolbox full of stuff they don't want, need or use. Especially when more often than not the editor is selected for adminship based on their ability to hide silently in the shadows and not take a stand over anything rather than those who would actively try and change things for the better. I also agree its a political problem and a problem with the community and that's unlikley to change...unless the system itself is changed or the WMF gets off their ass and quits watching from the sidelines. Unfortuntely they (the WMF) keep choosing lame duck causes like Visual Editor instead of focusing on areas where the community has repeatedly shown they don't have the ability or desire to change. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• De-bundling won't help. Don't think for a second that the idiocracy displayed by this broken process won't descend (in time) upon the rfa-like processes that will go along with the de-bundling. Witness the insipidly bad bureaucracy about to be created for template editor right (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Template editor user right). The underlying problem will not be addressed by de-bundling. There once was a time when editors were trusted. No more. Editors are the vile scum of the project and can not be trusted. The hoops required to become 'trusted' are insane. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Hammersoft: The hoops required to become 'trusted' are insane becoming an admin, at first, shows that you are trusted. But it doesn't mean that you become trusted after passing an RfA. There are a lot of trusted users who have never requested adminship, and that doesn't reduce their trustiness. Being a trusted user and being ready to hold the mop are two different things. And that's why we have admins that are not trusted at all. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 18:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Arguably there are only 3 rights that might need some sort of RFA like process. Delete/Undelete, Protect/Unprotect and most importantly the ability to see deleted content. The later is the only one IMO that should due to its sensitive nature and IMO that could be removed from teh Admin toolset altogether and upmerged to the Bureaicrat role. Aside from that I largely agree with the rest of your statements. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 18:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
    • But if you can't see deleted content, how can you make a decision to undelete it? Or, you undelete it, so you can see deleted content. Your first and third items seem impossible to untangle. Chris857 (talk) 18:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
      • You might be right, it may be impossible to separate the first and third suggestion. I truly don't know. But I still think every other role and responsibility currently limited to admins can and should be accessible to other experienced editors. I see no reason why any editor who's been editing for more than 6 months consistently and has shown they have the chops for it can't do most of the rest of the things currnetly limited to admins. Most of admins admit they can't edit templates or use the API but yet they are the only ones who can access it. Most admins don't use AWB, but they are the only ones who can pull in more than 25, 000 entries, admins are the only ones who can see a lot of the maintenance reports or a variety of other things. Yet most of them don't. All of that represents lost productivity and a net loss to the project. So if the project and the community are interested in the continued success of the project (and at this point I doubt most even care) they need to drop the sticks, return to a collaborative environment of assuming good faith and allow people to help. Otherwise the project will fail as more and more people (admins included) give up in frustration. There have quite a few admins and experienced editors leaving lately and for varied reasons. We simply aren't recruiting enough new people to fill that void. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• • • As I understand it, the WMF has serious problems with delete/undelete being unbundled. But IMO block/unblock is at least as much of a big deal. So somebody should mention that. However, let me say from experience that it's extremely hard to predict what tools one will use. I daresay many of us wind up editing in areas we didn't predict, and the admin buttons aren't so different. In the old days, candidates used to be required to look at the admin backlogs and then state which areas they intended to help with; now it's apparently taken for granted that no one runs without thinking of a good reason, but looking at those backlogs might be a good thing to encourage again if only to make real what a breadth of things admins do. But then again, a good admin often defuses situations without blocking, deleting, or otherwise making a big splash. It may not be an argument against unbundling, but I don't see the wisdom in expecting all admins to use all tools (you really don't want me messing with the technical stuff, for example) or even in trying to get them to define in advance the areas in which they will work: even those who know at the time of their RfA may well grow into other tasks, which is on the whole good, not bad. Also ... I'd like to contribute to dispelling the fear and the impression that the only way to get a mop is to plan a campaign to qualify for it. Not every RfA is a walk in the park, but neither is it always like fighting the Battle of Waterloo. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
      • Good point on the block/unblock, I had forgotten that one. But again, most of those could be granted as individual roles. One does not need to have every tool if they work with the Anti vandal group and need the ability to block. Also, I dislike the assumption that every admin needs to be a moderator. Just as not all admins need to be technical, the same is also true of the opposite. Many technical people are better with the technical stuff than they are with people. So the mentality that you have to be a saint to get the mop ensures that a large chunk of the technical population is disqualified simply because they tell it how it is and don't have or don't use tact. With all that said, Wikipedia is broken, RFA is just one process among dozens that are broken in that broken Wikipedia community. I don't expect or believe this will change unless the community and or the WMF take an interest in fixing it and my fear is when they do it will be too late. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 19:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Now that Block/Unblock is added to the list, between that, deletion (and related), and protection (and subset tasks), we have included 95-99% of admin tool use. Whats left? Edit interface (basically a subpart of protection), view the list of unwatched pages, create accounts with similar names, assign certain user rights, and various already unbundled rights that admins get automatically. The vast majority of admin actions are in those sensation areas that cause all the drama at RFA... RFA !Voters worry about potential admins not respecting the work that goes into article creation, and deleting them too hastily, and not respecting content contributors, and blocking them too hastily... even if you break deletion and block apart, the core concern is still there. Monty₈₄₅ 19:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

There is also the ability to see deleted edits. I think that we can certainly unbundle the ability for an editor to see what an admin sees (deleted edits and unwatched pages), and unbundling page protection (or, perhaps at least the power of semi-protection) would be nice also. bd2412 T 20:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, and there are quite a few others at Wikipedia:Administrators/Tools that could be separated out. Several areas of the project are sorely hurting for experienced editors like Antivandalism and Copyright not to mention the maintenance areas like template editing which seems to finally be getting some attention. All of which frequently see long backlogs (often into months rather than days). These areas aren't going to fix themselves and there simply aren't enough active admins to support them. So we can either continue to insist that only the most elite of the editos be given the access or we let the project die due to our inability to assume good faith and have some trust in our fellow experienced editors. Please note I am not saying that every editor should have access, but if someone has been here for 1, 3, 5, 10 years or whatever and has shown they have the knowledge and want to help, we should encourage that, not tell them we're better off without them. With all that said, this is discussed frequently, with many editors voicing their opinions for and against. I don't have faith its going to change so there's no reason continuing to burn harddrive space on the matter. In the end I don't really care either way, its not my project and I have no interest in editing actively, I just pass through from time to time. Your the ones with the interest and the ones that will benefit from it...if you can bring yourselves to let go of the power for the sake of the success of the project. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 20:30, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

But what does doing anti-vandalism work look like? Mostly blocking vandals, some semi-protecting, the occasional deletion, and some dealing with problems that aren't vandalism. What does copyright work look like? Mostly deletion/revdel, occasional blocks, rare protection. Now we could have social rules and say, I'm assigning you the block right, but only use it in cases of clear vandalism, or here is the delete right, but only use if for deletion of copyright infringement, you have the ability to block anyone, or delete anything, just don't use it. But that style of approach meets a lot of resistance too. There is trust that they will act in good faith, then there is technical competence, and finally there is trust that they understand how the community wants policies applied, too often we focus on the first two, but its the last that makes RFA the hardest. Monty₈₄₅ 21:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Talks if fine, but once again, nothing will come of this. PumpkinSky talk 20:58, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree, sadly. Intothatdarkness 21:08, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, nothing will come of this. The admin corp as a group now control the unbridled powers they have given themselves on Wikipedia and there is no way they will release their death grip. The darkness is here to stay. Jimbo Wales said he would intervene at the beginning of this year, but he backed off. The remedies are simple and obvious but we are past the point of return. A benign and rational system aimed at facilitating content building is no longer an option and it is hardly surprising that few self respecting content editors want anything to do with becoming admins. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Nothing will come of this, because there's no this. I'm late to the table, but this discussion started with the usual rant, then transitioned to an actual, if soft proposal, unbundle, but as soon as that discussion started, it turned out to be harder than it sounds. You can't have undelete with out view deleted. You probably shouldn't separate undelete from delete (in case you accidentally delete the wrong thing and need to undo it). Some blocks don't require a fully experienced editor, and could be performed by experienced vandal fighters, not yet ready for adminship, but you cannot separate blocks (of obvious vandals) from blocks (in general). The best suggestion identified is unbundling template editor from admin, and that RfC is going very well. So one decent idea floated, and it is being acted upon. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:56, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

@PumpkinSky, Intothatdarkness, and Epipelagic: Can you be more specific. I see all three of you in agreement that nothing will come of this. I see several specific proposals that turned out to have flaws. I see one specific proposal that is being enacted. I see one proposal (split out semi-protection) that largely sounds like a solution without a problem (the semi-protection backlog is not a problem), but it is being actively discussed in the next section. Did I miss something? I think there is still a general problem (our vetting process sucks) but I see no concrete problems statements or proposed solutions.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Did you "miss" something? You missed acknowledging the core issues. How could you be unaware of the countless clear "concrete problems statements" and straightforward "proposed solutions" made down through the years by content editors, including myself? These were endlessly stone walled by admins and admin wannabes, who systematically pretended that the problem areas don't exist, and therefore that solutions aren't needed. There may currently be minuscule cosmetic concessions allowed by admins in areas that do nothing to affect their stranglehold on Wikipedia, a concession to guilt perhaps, or perhaps the confident assertion of occasional magnanimity now admins have achieved decisive control and are secure in their immunity from challenge. Anyway, the battle for decent working conditions for content builders is over and admins have got their way. Content builders who are not admins are now disposable people who do not have the "trust of the community". They have an option to leave if they want to retain some dignity, or to bow their heads in quiet acknowledgement of their betters. Threads like this are wasted time, just places where content builders can impotently blow off steam. --Epipelagic (talk) 03:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking "this" means something right here. Maybe I'm too literal, but when there is a discussion and three people say nothing will come of "this" I naively thought it referred to this discussion. I now see that "this" refers to other discussions. Carry on.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 12:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

As you well know, you are certainly not being naive. "Nothing will come of this" means nothing of value can occur on this page for content builders. That is the "something right here", the pretence that there is some point in content builders participating in discussions like this on Wikipedia. The further pretence, that there are no serious issues with the admin system, and your patronising instruction to "carry on" in the face of such admin stonewalling, are classic admin manoeuvres to sidetrack and stall discussion which might otherwise lead to constructive outcomes for the Wikipedia community. What discussion there is elsewhere in this thread and its subthread is mainly between, and for the benefit of admins and admin wannabes. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I seem to have struck a nerve, which was not my intent. My "carry on" was not patronizing. I honestly thought someone felt they had made a proposal in this section, that was being stonewalled. I summarized why I thought that was erroneous. You explained that my assumption was wrong, which means my analysis of the local discussion was inapt. Therefore, "carry on" meant ignore my statement and return to the discussion.

The further pretence, that there are no serious issues with the admin system^{[citation needed]} Seriously, who thinks that?

...nothing of value can occur on this page for content builders That's a defeatist attitude. That said, this may well not be the page for a substantive discussion of issues. I see an attempt was made in 2011, and 2012 to do something mroe substantive. However, I just tried perusing those pages, and my head is spinning. I am unclear where the problems statement is, what proposals identified, and what the resolution of each were. If we ever do this again, we need some work on organization of process.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal - FAQ page One of the challenges with rehashing issues again and again in this type of structure is that unworkable items get brought up again, and have to be discounted over and over. We have a process for handling this with contentious article—we generate a FAQ page, and refer the new reader who thinks they are the first to request removal of a Mohammed image that this has been discussed in detail. I propose this with some hesitance, as old FAQ can be used as an excuse not to re-open an issue that deserves re-opening, but they can have value if used properly. Shouldn't we have a FAQ? If for no other reason than to explain why the "view deleted material" tool cannot be handed out broadly, and why some tools go together?

BD2412 makes a good point re semi-protection. I don't know whether or not it would be technically feasible, but if so, it could be made available as a user right to editors in good standing, upon application - in a similar way that rollback is available. The ability to fully protect articles should remain in the hands of admins and above. Mjroots (talk) 20:21, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I can see some merit in this idea. Semi-protection is almost exclusively used to deal with vandalism and it would probably be helpful if a wider group of editors had access to it. The only potential downside I see (and I'm not sure how often this would actually happen) is that there may be situations where semi-protection is a decent response, but an alternative action (a block, for example) may be better. Would an editor who only has access to semi-protection be more likely to semi-protect an article instead of fully weighing up the options and requesting a more appropriate action from an administrator? (Although, on reflection, I'm struggling to come up with examples where this might happen). Also, would we grant PC1 protection to people with this right (if not, my previous point becomes much more of an issue)? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

What about an IP editor who is just vandalizing one page? Semi-protection would work just as well as a block, but would not be the preferred policy response to the first round of vandalism. Even if they follow policy, they may be more inclined to judge the article history as justifying protection. Monty₈₄₅ 21:52, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

ItsZippy, one possibility is that an IP editor might vandalize several related articles, all of which are on the watchlist of the editor who has only the semi-prot tool. That editor might protect four or more articles before figuring out that the IP itself must be blocked. The downside is that a group of articles would briefly be put under semi-protection. It's not a high price to pay. Binksternet (talk) 22:07, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Yep, those are both decent examples. If an overzealous semi-protector semi-protected in those cases, it would stop the vandalism quicker, but at the price of unnecessary semi-protection (which really ought to be avoided). I don't know if this is likely (it may be that most users would have enough judgement to only semi-protect where necessary, and request a block if that is more appropriate) - whether or not it is would probably affect my opinion of this idea, and I'm not sure at the moment. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hmmm, I have used the protection tool a couple of times and it looks like its all or nothing. Could semi-protection be unbundled, technically speaking? As far as I can see from my experience using that tool, it can't, but I may be wrong. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:23, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

In cases where a block may be justified, there nothing stopping an editor making a report at AN or AN/I. It should also be understod that if an admin overturns good-faith protection, then that is not to be reversed. Misuse of semi-protection would be likely to result in the loss of the ability to semi-ptotect, as well as other sanctions. Mjroots (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

True, and there are a lot of editors I would trust with the semi-protect button that I wouldn't trust with the block button. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:16, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is necessary. First, of course, there really isn't a big semi-protection backlog problem so this isn't going to solve anything. Second, handing out the ability to semi-protect articles is going to make life harder for anonymous editors when anyone and their aunt can go around semi-protecting articles when they don't like what an IP is doing. We have hundreds of articles that are semi-owned by one or two editors and these editors have to go to an admin before they can kick an IP out which brings a second set of eyes into the picture. Give them the ability to semi-protect, and you'll never know what they've been up to. --regentspark (comment) 20:19, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

RP, you seem to be forgetting that IP editors have recourse to WP:RFPP and/or WP:AN/I. Mjroots (talk) 20:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

IP editors may not know about RFPP and ANI. Also, sadly in my opinion, IP editors tend to get the short end of the stick when they come up against established editors. It is easier to blow them off. My larger point is that we're going to have many more pages semi-protected because there will be more people with the ability to semi-protect. And, in more cases, semi-protection will likely be for content reasons. In many cases, an IP will just get frustrated and go away. When an IP does complain, odds are that the semi-protection will stay ("you can always get an account and edit" is already a mantra often heard out here), if for no other reason than "protected" is the status quo (ask yourself, how easy is to unblock a blocked editor). All this for something that is not going to solve any problems since semi-protections are not backlogged in the first place. Doesn't seem worth it. --regentspark (comment) 22:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

A few of us try hard to keep the RFPP backlogs down, but we can always use more help. Of course, unbundling isn't the only way to solve that problem. If any admins are reading this, feel free to pitch in over there from time to time. Mark Arsten (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests is frequently severely backlogged, sometimes with dozens of requests stretching back weeks. It's a poor welcome to the project when a new contributor's request is ignored for so long. We're shooting ourselves in the foot if we promote more semi-protection. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:59, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Yeah that and about a dozen other venues. CCI is backlogged for about 2 years. That goes back to the problem of the admins not wanting any more into the club and the attitude that there are plenty of admins and its better to have too few admins and too much work than to have more admins. That makes for a stressful environment for editors and admins. There are 1400ish admins, more than half are inactive and its basically the same 20 or 30 that do most of the admin stuff. So that 30 admins are the only ones keeping the flood gates closed. If you look at the logs its primarily the same 10. Not nearly enough and its not like we don't have enough people willing to help. Lots of experienced editors with the projects best intentions have tried and failed with no end in sight. The bottom line is neither the community nor the admin corps are serious about fixing the problem. When they get serious about it and want to fix it they will. Till then it will stay broken. Personally I would like to see about a 4 month block where no one applied for RFA. If that happened the system would have to change. As long as there are a few editors who are willing to fight a losing battle, then there will be those who opin that the system works. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

That goes back to the problem of the admins not wanting any more into the club^{[citation needed]} There are far, far more editors than there are admins. If every admin opposed some candidate, there are enough editors to produce an 80% support. I doubt that an 'crat ever has rejected a candidate with 80% support. The process needs fixing, but the notion that admins don't want any more help needs a reference, if it is to be taken seriously.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

CCI is badly backlogged. While I agree it is useful (though not required) to be an admin if you want to work at WP:CP, I think it is very different at WP:CCI. 98% of thew entries are problem free, and can be reviewed by a non-admin who knows something about copyright. If someone wants to review a few hundred, and identifies a handful that need deletion, I'll be thrilled to take that last step in the rare cases. It is an area where someone could show they have at least one important skill set to become an admin. Review a 1000 articles, let me know which one's you've reviewed, I'll spot-check some to make sure I agree, delete the small handful that need deletion, and support you at RfA, at least in this aspect. (If someone wants to take this seriously, let me know, because this is a casual response, and I'd like to refine the process a bit.)--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:12, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the key problem with that statement is that admins are primarily the ones who watch the RFA's. Sure there are quite a few experienced editors who aren't admins watching too, but the vaste majority are admins. That is partially because the people who care about RFA's or about this part of the project in general are those that have an interest in administrative functions. There simply isn't enough of the general editing population that watches this to counter balance the admins. So your right, there re far more editors than admins, but on RFA's you generally see a high percentage of admin votes. I also seriously question the notion that CCI work can be done by nonadmins. I do wholehertedly not agree with that statement. I also call BS on the notion that someone can show they know CCI and get an admin vote. CCI is one small niche of the project. Just like the for deletion boards. Admins need to be well rounded, which incudes knowledge in some template work. If they can't use all the tools, at least to a minimal degree, then they shouldn't have access to the all until they can show they can use them safely. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

You said:

There simply isn't enough of the general editing population that watches this to counter balance the admins. So your right, there re far more editors than admins, but on RFA's you generally see a high percentage of admin votes.

Sorry, but this isn't supported by the numbers, if we make the plausible assumption that a 12 month survey is representative. Between April 2010 and March 2011, there were:

• 7793 !votes cast by non-admins
• 5254 !votes cast by admins

In addition, the admins were more likely to support, with 76% of all !votes cast in support, versus 70% of non-admins. Obviously, a greater proportion of all admins were inclined to contribute, but it is simply not the case that admins dominate the RfA selection process. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Those numbers still look to me like it would be pretty hard for someone to pass if the admins didn't want them too. Say one of the folks who isn't already an admin but has been vocal against admin abuses or advocates changing the system. But its fine, no one expects the system to change so there's no point in arguing about it. If you want to promote 1 or 2 ultra conservative editors a month (as you lose 5-10 in the same period) and you are ok with long backlogs at the various venues, then feel free to keep the system the way it is. When your interested in reducing backlogs and getting willing editors engaged in the process of building an encyclopedia rather than keeping them down, then fix the process. Its really that simple. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 02:02, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

'Those numbers still look to me like it would be pretty hard for someone to pass if the admins didn't want them too' - reality check?. If anyone is interested, there is a current discussion at the top of this page. It really should be taking place here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

But its fine, no one expects the system to change so there's no point in arguing about it. You, of course, are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to assume your views are a consensus view. Yes, some are discouraged about the slowness of reform, to the point they have disengaged. Many are still interested in reform, but think there is a need to rethink the process. Proposing incremental modifications on these pages hasn't worked. Proposing more radical changes on Jimbo's page is the wrong venue. Kudos to the editors who tried a comprehensive approach in 2011, and apologies to all those who worked on it, but I decided to review that effort as part of putting together a FAQ, and my head is spinning. I don't see a clear summary of what proposals were made, and how they turned out. We can do better.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 15:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Several late edits were made to this RfA after I closed it. I'm inclined to let it go but I still want it to be reflected that these edits were made after the fact. What is the best way? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

2 = several? Anyway, just let it go. The page is a permanent record, and both the edits after your close are worth having in the record. Why does it matter? --Stfg (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I would also say just let it go. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:03, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The coloring in the recent RfX box needs to be corrected. I tried to fix it myself, but it apparently needs someone more proficient with templates. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 21:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. It's tables rather than templates. The successful ones have

|- style="background-color: #f5fff5"

for the row header. The unsuccessful ones have no style (if you see what I mean :) --Stfg (talk) 22:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I've seen unsuccessful RfA that had plenty of style :) AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 22:31, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I can barely distinguish the colors in the past RfA table. I can't attest to the color accuracy of my screen but I also can't adjust it (Chromebook). Can anyone concur? Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I have adjusted it so that the "successful" rows can be distinguished from the background. - MrX 20:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Much better. Thanks. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

I thought the bolding of [[WP:SNOW]] was a bit shouty and have debolded it. If anyone wants to revert that, I won't mind. --Stfg (talk) 20:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

The process for becoming an admin has changed over time, but surprising little in the last decade. In the very beginning, admins were approved by Jimbo. There was a mailing list, the process was originally ad hoc, but my mid-June of 2003 WP:RFA existed. In March of 2003, it was still fairly informal, with the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tim Starling copied below, in full:

You're a sysop now, Tim.

Ed Poor

By December of 2003, the process was starting to resemble the current one. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Michael Hardy

Bureaucrats were put in place starting in 2004. While there are some obvious differences between then and now, the process largely was:

1. Candidate identified
2. Editors weigh in
3. Bureaucrats promote, if successful

The key point I want to make is that the process, where all who weigh in are responsible for vetting all aspects of each candidate, was put in place at a time when there were under 300 editors who made over 100 edits a month. That number would grow rapidly, but the initial process was designed when almost all active editors knew a substantial portion of all active editors.

The process made sense at the time. The place was growing rapidly, but it wasn't big. In January of 2004, there were just under 200,000 articles, which probably seemed enormous at the time, but many were stubs, and if you were editing actively, you were probably tripping over most other active editors at the time. When someone asked your opinion of an editor, you probably didn't need to pull up an edit history, you had first-hand knowledge of the editor. You might decide to look at their history, but probably to remind yourself of their history, not to see it for the first time ever. You knew whether they knew policies, you knew whether they were "bitey", from first-hand knowledge.

An additional relevant difference is the volume of material you needed to know to be an admin. I started a project, which I haven't finished, to measure the volume of material on policies and guidelines over time. I don't think it is unlikely that the volume and complexity is ten times the size it was then.

The active editor count is up by a factor of ten, the size of en.wiki is 20 times as large, and the volume of policies guidelines and process is probably ten times what it was in early 2004, yet we adopt the same general process, ask anyone and everyone to review all edits of a candidate and opine on their knowledge of the rules and their trustworthiness. It is hardly surprising that the old process is showing some signs of age.

The process should be revisited. The existing process makes no sense in the current environment. Rather than ask every editor to review all aspects of a candidates fitness, we should do it in an organized way. We should look at the way Featured Articles are written today; we don't expect that a single editor will write all aspects of an article. While this still happens in some cases, look at recent featured article Benjamin Disraeli. Twenty-four editors had double-digit edits to the article. It was a collaborative effort. It is not collaboration when you ask 100 editors all to do the same thing. It is collaboration if we divide up the tasks, asking some editor to look at content productions, others to look at dispute resolution contributions, still others to look at talk page interactions etc. I envision a process where a few editors sign up to look at various aspects of a candidate, then issue a report, followed by a community !vote, but one that is informed by an organized review of the candidate. There are lots of details to work out, but I think it would be a much better process, for many reasons.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I would support a new process involving bureaucrats writing a report on each candidate, then a community discussion. But could it cause a backlog? Ross Hill23:34, 3 Oct 2013 (UTC)

I'm leery of turning it into an old boys club if 'crats do the vetting. In fact, I'd be unhappy if admins did the bulk of it. While I don't want an editor with 100 edits opining on the candidates knowledge of blocking policy, there are thousands of editors with the ability to review many aspects of a candidate. In fact, it might be good practice for someone considering adminship down the road, to read up on, say Copyright policy, and review a candidates ability to propose G12s, or close some CCI entries. Another one might read up on protection policies, and see whether the candidates has requested protection sensibly, etc.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 00:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the nominator (or the candidate if it is a self-nomination) should provide this information in the nomination statement. All too often, the nomination statement says little more than "I know him, he is a good guy, vote for him". Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be good to have a bit of coordination as to what aspects of a candidate's edits are being checked, especially if it is true that very few !voters do any checking at all beyond reading the RFA itself. But unless we agree what they are being checked against then we aren't making progress. If I were to say that someone meets my criteria for content contributions then some will accept that, and others will say that their criteria are stricter in that aspect. We rarely disagree as to what counts as vandalism or merits a block for that. But we do disagree as to how cautious we want admins to be with deletion and civility blocks, so unless we can agree where we set the line on such things it will be difficult for one person to review for everyone.

Crats appointing admins based on whether they meet a certain criteria would be better than the current RFA process. But such a process requires a criteria, and in my view that criteria should be set by the community rather than the crats. Obviously the criteria for adminship is going to be more complex than the criteria for Account creator, Rollback, Filemover, reviewer , Autopatrolled etc. But we should try to set that criteria, if we can then we can replace the broken RFA process with a process more akin to the unbroken ones that we use at FAC or for most other user rights. ϢereSpielChequers 12:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

We have Wikiproject for many aspect of Wikipedia, such as WikiProject Admin Nominators and WikiProject Copyright Cleanup

I envision such a project would have goals:

1. Long-term—a permanent project to be the focal point for discussion of changes to the Admin process, whenever such discussions are likely to be more substantive than can be handed in a threaded discussion on this page
2. Medium-term—develop a proposal or series of proposals aimed at addressing the many concerns expressed about the existing process
3. Short-term—create a structured location to act as a repository for relevant facts, and well as a guide to prior discussions on the subject.

Some of the items that might be developed as part of the short-term goals:

• A history of the RfA process
• Summary of processes in other languages (note that this is done, and may just need updating, see this table)
• Relevant stats on the historical process, many of which already exist, but are scattered here and there, and should be linked from a central place
• Links to all prior major reform initiatives (such as RfA reform 2011)
• Links to all serious proposals discussed in the archives of this page. (With 226 archives, this alone would be a major task)
• Links to proposals initiated in other places (such as Jimbo's talk page) and standalone proposals such as RFA as RFC
• Development of a FAQ, so when yet one more editor wants to propose unbundling the view deleted tool, they can review the explanations of the reasons it isn't done, to see if they are adding something new to the discussion, or repeating an already discredited idea.
• A complete list of all tools in the admin toolbox, with commentary on linkages (as useful material in its own right, as well as helpful to any unbundling initiatives)

Some of the items to be considered as part of the medium term goals:

• Developing a scope of the Wikiproject. For example, the 2011 initiative expressly excluded a desysoping process. While talking on too much is a recipe for disaster, some feel that the process for adding the bit is inextricably linked to the (presently deficient) process for removal of the bit.
• Development of a formal problem statement. A general reason for stagnation of reform proposals is that many participants all have an idea as to several aspects of the problem, but they may not all agree. Specification of a problem statement helps shed light on the goal.
• Determination of how reform should proceed - development of simultaneous alternatives, then presented as an RfC, identification of low-hanging fruit, if any, to resolve some of the issue, or some other approach.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 17:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Sounds pretty much like a relisting of all or most of the objectives of WP:RFA2011, but §here's no harm in trying again. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

In many ways, I agree. I am partially motivated by the comment above of Epipelagic who said "How could you be unaware of the countless clear "concrete problems statements" and straightforward "proposed solutions" made down through the years by content editors, including myself?". I am not unaware that such things exists, I have probably read most of them and contributed to some, but if I wanted to refer to those items to see if some deserve a fresh look, I wouldn't know how to find them easily. Lest someone point out I could ask the author, I am speaking generally, there have been hundreds of proposals, we ought to have an organized list. Plus, I feel guilty that I signed up for the 2011 discussion, and some life events interfered, and I did not contribute.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:28, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

• Just noting that Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept/Navbox has links to all the major discussions revolving around de-adminship in case anybody wanted to review that stuff. 64.40.54.137 (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. Many of those pages I had not seen.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 01:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

• If anyone is seriously interested in making any fresh proposals or starting some previous ones, I do strongly recommend reading WP:RFA2011 - all of it. It may take 2 hours but it's nothing compared to the time that went into it by all concerned and it would be a minimum investment for a serious proposal that may have a chance of succeeding. They will also notice the detractors and unprovoked snide comments from the sidelines. Anything else that has taken place since WP:RFA2011 was pretty much a rehash or very similar. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

If there is anything to be noticed, it would be the apparent increase in interest in participating in RfA. Also, the vast majority of passes now are 100+ Supports or very close. If someone has a moment they might like to make some graphs to demonstrate these. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's been like that for awhile now, either candidates barely edge by or it's overwhelming support.--SKATER ^{T a l k} 07:34, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There are a couple of other trends as well that need to be considered but I have been saying this for a couple years and no one cares. But I am going to say them again one more time.

1. The editors that generally pass with high numbers are those who are ultra conservative and usually aren't active in contreversial areas. Many rarely if ever even use the tools once they get them.
2. The tendency to not give the tools to those who do participate in contreversial areas prior to applying, those that do generally do not pass.
3. The general tendency to not promote technical people. RFA, the role of admins and the toolset has come to be viewed as bureaucratic and more in line with a mediator eventhough most of the tools are technical in nature. This means that many of the technical tasks are only done by a few people and is a leading cause of the need to create the new template editor right. If the community trusted its contributors, it wouldn't even be needed. As it is though, there is little trust amongst even the admin corps.
4. Most admin tasks are done by the same 20-30 admins. Most of the rest of the admins rarely if ever use their tools. Some venues rely heavily or exclusively on one or 2 devoted admins. So if they leave, that venue or process suffers. Some examples of this are CCI, AFD and the FA process.
5. There has, in recent history, been a major spike in the need for admin tools. More content being Protected, more initiatives like Lua modules only admins have access too, etc.
6. Lastly, there is also a trend of losing more admins a month than we are promoting. This isn't a problem now because we still have about 1400 with some degree of activity. At some point in the future though, this is going to be a problem that needs to be dealt with.

So in the end, the modest gains in the RFA process still aren't offset by the negatives to the longterm health of the project. Yes, there are exceptions to each point I mention above, but as a whole picture they are pretty accurate. Most editors don't see it because they focus heavily in one or two areas and don't wantder outside their swimlane. It doesn't make them less true. Anyone with 10 minutes of project management experience should be able to see that. We are stuck in the current and we need to be planning for the future. The overly optimistic indication given by the comment above, should not be interpretted as the process is all better. Its not. Before someone starts bitching or crying about socking, yes this is Kumioko. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 13:40, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

You bring up some very valid and interesting points, most of which I agree with. I fear I'm an example of your first point in that although my RFA passed without an oppose/neutral, I've sort of shied away from the more controversial areas of the project (although this is based almost solely on personal preference; I've never had any burning desire to get involved in those areas). Unfortunately, I haven't been as active of late as I'd like to be, but I do make a conscious effort to set aside a bit of time every once in a while to chip in administratively. But you're absolutely right. The problem is persistent and it won't be remedied (or, at the very least, reduced) until some changes are made at RFA. Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:10, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with not getting into the heated areas. My point is just that the way the system works now, those are generally the only ones who get the tools. Anyone who dares to get involved in the contreversial areas, like admin abuse, will not get the tools unless they get the tools first. That is not how the system should work. I also agree completely with your last sentence. Unfortunately the community seems disinterested or incapable of changing it. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Answering Kumioko's points:

1. Yes.
2. Partly.
3. Certainly. There are sufficient arguments for some unbundling, but the counter argument is based on a) the possible stampede from the hat collectors, and b) the aded bureaucracy of administering them. The recent new template editor Right was a very special case and hardly one that newbies and children will go for even as a hat to collect.
4. Absolutely. You can add to that WP:PERM just as an example and see what happens when I've been away from the Internet for a week. Other serious backlogs operated by dedicated few include XfD, C:UNB, SPI, and other closures. Why do the closures have such backlogs? because the complex and contentious discussions are always going to end with some backlash for the closer, and that's why no one wants to touch them with a barge pole - not even me!
5. Perhaps not a spike, but a shift. As fewer traditional encyclopedic articles get created, most of them possibly being covered, more and more new articles are about sports people, obscure bios, spam, copyvio, and paid advocacy. These need new skills to detect. What the community needs are RfA candidates who have a proven record of detection, reporting, sufficient content creation to know what a proper article should look like, and responsible dialogue with those who are in conflict with our article policies.
6. I've addressed this below. It doesn't only take Arbcom to defrock admins (and they could be more consistent about that too), but too many of our best sysops have simply thrown their toys out of their prams since around November last year. And those are the hardest to replace: mature, hardworking, civil sysops with good sense of judgment and negotiating skills, and all round solid experience.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:05, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

• We don't have 1,400 active sysops. Even the so called 600 'active' admins is based on a fallatious metric. What we have, very broadly, are three types of admin: Those who do very little at all but do enough to retain their bit; those who gnome away at routine tasks such as deleting CSDs which is little more than button mashing, but their work is important; those who are bold enough to take on the odious tasks of addressing user behaviour. Those are the 20 or 30 most well known names, and they are generally quite active in other admin areas too. They are the ones who through only doing their job, attract all the flak on behalf of the entire admin corps. It's very easy for admonished peple to feel that society is against them, and on Wikipedia they often do their best to tar all admins with the same brush and with such comments as "teenage admins with an axe to grind" Their complaints are rarely justified and generally sound like a record with the needle stuck. If they thought they had a leg to stand on they would make some genuine attempts to get the system changed instead of heckling from the sidelines at the efforts of those who do. Hardly surprising that the past 12 months has seen the voluntary exodus from that 20 or 30 of several of our fairest and busiest sysops. They just got pissed off. The anti-admin brigade jumps with glee: "One more down, only 599 to go". All that said, among the 1,400 there may well be three or four whom I am ashamed to have to count as colleagues, but statistically, it falls well below being a majority. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Amen. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 20:29, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Your completely right here Kudpung. The 1400 number is just the list of those who have admin rights but it also includes bot accounts, bureaucrats, stewards and a lot of people who only have only edited a few times over the year. Not enough to get the tools removed, but they shouldn't really be counted under the "active" category either. Its also true that the 20-30 aren't necessarily the same ones. There are probably still less than 100 active ones though. Probably more like 50. I also think its generally the minority of admins that give the rest a bad name. But as long as the admin corps (yourself included Kudpung) are willing to continue sheltering these abusers and miscreants, then that reflects poorly on the group as a whole. If they want to stopp being labelled with the same brush, then they need to stop ignoring the problem. Otherwise I really don't have much sympathy for how the admins feel abused. If they let their peers abuse the system, they deserve to take some of the heat for their complacency. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 16:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

To respond to a couple of Kumioko's points.

Yes we are heavily reliant on twenty or thirty admins at any one time, however they aren't necessarily the same twenty or thirty from one month to the next. The lesson that I draw from the admin stats is that we have a very long tail, most admins do use the tools to a useful extent in their wiki career. This is somewhat skewed by the admin stats only having available stats since late 2004, so there will be some former admins who gave stirling service before Dec 04 but whose work evades our stats.

Lua modules and templates aside, my understanding is that very few articles are fully protected and I'm not convinced that there has been a noticeable increase there.

Looking at recent RFAs I'm not seeing many people fail because what they did was controversial. People who fail seem to fall into three camps, those who lack the content contributions that we now expect, those whose deletion tagging is sloppy, and those who don't meet the communities de facto criteria - twelve months block free etc etc. There was a time when we saw serious flak at RFA because of people's involvement in some controversial projects here, I'm really not seeing that in recent months.

There is an asymmetry between those who are cautious about the block button and those who are cautious about the deletion button. The former worry about those whose lack of "maturity" and/or content building means they might be overly harsh in blocking the regulars, even if their vandalfighting is spot on.The latter tend to oppose people who make mistakes in deletion tagging. To my mind this does leave a big gap for a useful unbundling - if we were to unbundle a limited block that didn't work on accounts with even a few hundred edits, then we could easily find enough vandalfighters to do all the vandal blocking that this site still needs. I don't see a comparable group who would be trusted to delete but not to block.

I'm not sure what you mean by conservative in the context of adminship. I think it is a good thing that newish admins start out wielding the mop in familiar areas, when it comes to closing complex and contentious RFCs, blocking vested contributors and so forth then it makes sense for new admins to try their teeth on lower profile work whilst watching the old hands at work. Most admins remain with us for many years and there is no reason to hurry new ones into anything they are uncomfortable with.

I would like to see enough admins promoted that it ceased to be the big deal that it has become, and I take heart from the fact that after five consecutive years of RFA declining by a third or more, 2013 already has more new admins than 2012. But I agree that if the aim is for a growing admin community than we are a long way from being out of the woods. ϢereSpielChequers 21:52, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Your right, it is different admins but as I mentioned above, its still probably only about 50-75 active admins doing 98% of the work. If it wasn't for the editors who can't be trusted to have to tools doing a bunch of the prep work (CCI, non admin closures, templates, Lua and mediawiki coding, etc. Those admins wouldn't be enough.

Actually there are quite a lot of articles that are protected, there are entire namespaces and a lot of templates and Lua modules.

What I mean by conservative is that if you are very very active you are going to piss some people off. Its just statistics, the more you do, the better your chances of doing something someone else doesn't like. Then you add to that getting involved in controversial areas like Arbcom discussions, AN, ANI and other venues or if you are hypercritical of admin abuses like I am. In the end, if an editor wants to get access to the tools these days, they have to plan it. They have to be careful of what they do and what the get involved in. They can't be too critical or be too involved. They also can't completely avoid those areas. A good example is Stuff for deletion. If an editor votes their conscience then they could mess with their chances of getting the tools because their percentages are off for some. So the best thing to do is watch and wait for things to flesh out, to vote late and vote on the popular direction. If it looks like its going to support keeping, vote keep, if its going to be dleeted, vote that way. Too many honest votes could scew the percentages and someone will bring that up. Same thing with New article reviewing. Review some contreversial or close ones wrong, and it could torpedo your chances, so just skip over all the questionable ones and only review the obvious ones. That is not how this system should work. That is not a benefit to the project. But that is the culture that is being encouraged. Whether people are doing it consciously or subconsciously I can promise you that any editor these days that is thinking about running for RFA will hesitate before they vote Keep on an article that's got a clear consensus for delete. That is what I mean by conservetive. Its ok to have some people that are like that but we also need some people with integrity who are going to vote their conscience without worrying about their stats. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 16:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure where does your reasoning come from, but I think I disagree with almost any of your statements. In particular, even before running RfA, if I saw an AfDed article which should be kept, I voted keep and gave a good reason even if there were several delete votes piled up. I never had problems with that, and I did not expect problems at my RfA coming from that side (and I did not get any). I do not think what you are saying is correct.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

First I want to clarify none of this is directed at you and certainly not every candidate does that and you could well be an exception to the rule. But these days, the editors who are getting the tools are those that keep their heads down and don't get involved in contreversial things and mind how they vote. Their not too critical of the system and they don't buck the system. All I am saying is that if someone thinks they might have need of the tools they need to be mindful of how they vote and contribute to controversial areas until after they get the tools. Another huge problem I have with that I see admins frequently doing and acting exactly the same as the editors who are getting denied the tools and for the same reasons. If an admin isn't having the tools removed for using them to their advantage in discussions (it happens all too often), uses indefinate blocks for minor infractions, etc. then they shouldn't be using that excuse to deny the tools. Until the admins start policing their own and enforcing the rules evenly, then the system isn't going to improve. We shouldn't be telling one user they can't have the tools because they aren't trusted and then ignore admins using the tools abusively. I would like to name examples but that would open up a can of worms, people would say I'm outing, etc. Bottom line though they are out there and people know who they are. Its time to grow some balls and start dealing with them. No one thing is going to fix this mess. It will take multiple things. I also don't expect or care if people believe me or agree with me. I basically gave up on this project and the community. They have shown they don't want me here and that's fine. But that is how I feel based on my interactions with a lot of admins and experienced editors over the years and its not going to change until the problem is taken seriously. Talking about it every week isn't going to fix it. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Since the 20-30 admins on whom the whole project relies seems to be a recurrent issue, could someone provide the names of these 20-30 admins, or show some statistics which makes obvious who these people are?--Ymblanter (talk) 23:36, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this is the place for naming, shaming, or praising anyone. It's hard enough working in some of those areas without a Kevlar vest. I've even taken flak here in the past for using broad expressions to define possible 'groups' of editors who then feel themselves identified within those groups. The case being that if they found the cap fit, they had to wear it, so they accused me of ad hominem. If you haunt the avenues of AN, ANI, etc, and if you are using popups and move your mouse over the signatures, you'll soon see the recurring names of admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:19, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, fine. I am a newly (this year) promoted admin, who was elected with over 100 support votes. I am active every day here (except on rare occasions when I am away from the computer), performing about 100 admin actions every month. Since this is not the first time I hear that newly promoted admins are not interested in helping the project etc, I would like to understand whether I should classify myself as somebody who is underperforming or as somebody who is doing just fine in terms of the cleanup. I guess I am probably not along the 30 most active admins in terms of the actions (or at least I would be very much surprised if I am), does it mean that my activity (almost a year everyday work, not always trivial) is not essential for the project? There is probably no single admin activity venue which would get jammed if I leave.--Ymblanter (talk) 00:27, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I am not considering this thread as a replacement for WP:ER, nor am I seeking any compliments etc (my homepage is barnstar-free, for this purpose). I just want to understand whether I should take seriously complaints about insufficient activity of a certain category of admins (those elected easily and with the high support), or should I disregard them because they are not about me.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you have anything to be worried about - it's not as if we admins are interested in personal league tables (we leave that kind of thing for the kids). I certainly see you around a lot, but again, nobody is criticising the admins who are not among the 20 - 20 busiest - we are all volunteers and do what we can when we can. No systems would collapse if we take a break, someone else would always jump into the breach. I suppose I count myself among the 20 - 30, but I'm at AN and ANI a lot less than some admins, and a lot less than some of those pesky wannabe admins who hang out there. I suppose my favourite areas are SPI, AfD, CSD, PERM, PP, and sometimes AIV, blocking vandals and severe cases of disruption by IPs and SPA, , and blatant spammers (I don't think I've ever blocked anyone for anything else), but nevertheless that amounts to around 400 blocks. Researching stuff and diffs can take up a lot of time - one SPI can take up a whole day to result in one edit, so can closing a long and convoluted RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I think it becomes more clear to me.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:41, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that the fact that a defacto criteria is of of having avoided efforts in tough/controversial areas is keeping out some of the highest quality persons with respect to /needed for those tougher areas. And I think there is already a shortage of top quality people in that area. And BTW, the needed unbundling is separating those tough areas (tough closes, complex disciplinary decisions) not separation of software-defined tools. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

As an interjection (and this isn't directed at you in particular, North), I'm not sure that having avoided controversial areas is a de facto requirement to pass RFA. Just that it's such a delicate and--for some, unfortunately--emotionally charged area of work. Things happen and people get ticked off. It's that bad blood that sometimes carries over into an RFA. I haven't seen it recently, but it's happened before and it's sure to happen again. That's not to say that participation in potentially controversial areas shouldn't be scrutinized but, instead, the opposite. We should be assessing the quality and constructiveness of the involvement, not whether it exists or the amount of it. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:20, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense Tyrol5, but the community still needs sufficient activity to evaluate. The sum of that activity, wherever/whatever it is, makes up the whole, and just being a nice guy doesn't cut it. Generally, RfA does the job it's supposed to do. Close calls are very rare, and most candidates are satisfied with the outcome whichever way the cookie crumbles. Some of our best admins failed first time, while some sysops took 7 or 8 attempts before they got the bit. It depends what one perceives as the worst outcome: saying "No, but try again in X months", or allowing someone through who is going to do a wobbler with the tools or their behaviour, and when admins do get desysoped, it's usually for very serious breaches of conduct. Unfortunately, slight slip ups that do not demonstrate a pattern still get the mob coming into town wielding pitchforks and chanting their characteristic anti-admin mantras.

I do observe that there appears to be a lot less trolling at RfA recently, and this is perhaps why the system appears to be perking up or at least bottomed out. It will take at least another year's worth of stats though to confirm any trends. 03:01, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

That would be ideal, but does it happen? More specifically, if many know them from such efforts, and at least 20% were told something that they didn't want to hear, the RFA fails. (admittedly an inaccurate oversimplification but which conveys the point) North8000 (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes North8000, and that is the problem with the pile-on voters who don't do their own research. It's been proven in the past that multiple pile-ons have followed a completely wrong assumption, or even a disingenuous vote by one opposer. Obviously a certain number of support votes are fan votes made without any research. I don't know how much attention the closing 'crat pays to each individual vote, but very often some of them that look legal on the surface are simply vengeance, bad faith, subtle trolling, or socks. We, the voters don't generally investigate the 100s of votes to bring these issues to light in time. We trust the regular names we see, but a vast number of participant are one-off voters. The are usually to be found in the support section. I think it's fair to say however, that the majority of those who oppose make sincere judgement even if the RfA doesn't fall their way. Even i get it wrong sometimes,but there is always the question of being simply outnumber by the support section. I don' think I've been on the support side of many RfAs that failed, although there was one, and I was one of the co-noms, but that was an exceptional case and based on something that we, the nominators, could never have known. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Good points. The reality is that on a complex matter (such as evaluating an individual for RFA, or on a broader/vaguer wp:an/wp:ani) it takes a lot of time to research / learn enough to properly evaluate, and only a small fraction of respondents have actually done that. The rest follow other considerations including the ones that you describe. North8000 (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

• But as long as the admin corps (yourself included Kudpung) are willing to continue sheltering these abusers and miscreants, then that reflects poorly on the group as a whole. I don't actually see where I have done any sheltering. I have already stated that there are some admins whom I am ashamed to have to include as colleagues and among them are some whom I would gladly see desysoped and blocked molto presto. Problem is, even if their behaviour demonstrates a pattern, they are careful to stay just below the line where anyone can do anything about it. There are comments on a recent Arbcom issue that bystanders are not welcome to file cases. Any reasonable admin can make an occasional mistake, the more work you do, it's inevitable, but that always brings out the pitchfork mob each time which includes the ones who don't even have an axe to grind, but who, like people who go to a peaceful demo just for an opportunity to throw rocks, smash shop windows, and burn cars, think it's cool to jump on the bandwaggon. 23:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

But no one is really doing anything about them either. I agree that some of them are careful but a lot of us now who they are. The 4 or 5 most problematic admins cause 90% of the bad will towards admins. Take those out of the equation and all of a sudden the attitude towards admins changes. Most admins aren't active enough to even bother with. But those 4 or 5 know they are above reproach Unless they resign, it takes a full blown Arbcom hearing and months of work to be rid of one. It should not be that hard. Anyway, I have voiced my opinion such as it is and I am going to return to my retirement. I am planning on not even looking at WP for at least the next several days. Have a good weekend. Kumioko (talk) 01:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

If someone would like to convert these stats into percentages and/or logarithmic graphs, please do, although I believe the trend(s) to be fairly obvious.

Year	Total RfA	100+ support	Passed	Failed	Withdrawn	No consensus	Snow
2010	230	40	75	155	64	18	74
2011	140	22	52	88	28	12	48
2012	96	15	28	68	28	13	27
2013	60	20	30	30	16	5	9

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Um you might want to check your maths... GiantSnowman 11:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I never pretended to be good at artithmetic - or making tables either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:59, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Where was your info sourced from? I can take a look myself. GiantSnowman 12:02, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

2010 seems to have an error indeed, but 2011, 2012, and 2013 look fine.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Should be OK now. Taken from the lists on the pages at the nav template at the top of this page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:10, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I think its encouraging that the numbers this year look better but I wouldn't assume that is a product of the system getting better. This year RFA was talked about almost continuously all year long and we still only did slightly better than last year. last year we had 28 (out of 96) pass 15 of which had over 100+ support votes. This year we have 30 (out of 60) with over 20 getting 100+ support votes. Now maybe I am the only one but I don't see that as particularly encouraging. That tells me that people are waiting a very long time before they even try. It tells me that far less are even attempting it at all and looking even closer at the numbers of the last couple years, we can see that there is a lot more repetition to the editors requesting the tools. So instead of a lot of users trying once, we are seeing a few users trying multiple times. This is also partly due to the unbundling of rights (rollback, filemover, template editor,). Again, these are not encouraging signs. This is a sign of a process in trouble. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Converted to percentages:

Year	Passed	Passed (100+)	Failed
2010	32.61%	17.39%	67.39%
2011	37.14%	15.71%	62.86%
2012	29.17%	15.63%	70.83%
2013	50.00%	33.33%	50.00%
Overall	35.17%	18.44%	64.83%

NB the 'Passed (100+)' column relates to how many of the total RFA passed with 100+ supports, not what % of 'passed RFA' passed with 100+ supports.Hope that makes sense... GiantSnowman 15:26, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

It is very good that after five consecutive years of a one third annual drop in RFAs this year has actually exceeded last year. I wouldn't pay too much concern to the pass rate though as that is more a function of the number of grossly under-qualified candidates who run. The thing that I would really like to measure is the proportion of qualified candidates who are willing to run. A couple of years ago I got some stats on the most active hugglers over several recent years and not surprisingly there was a pattern that we were getting an increasing proportion of non-admins amongst our most active vandalfighters. I am pretty sure that means we are making work for ourselves, anyone who gets to be doing a lot of vandalfighting is likely to be accurate enough at vandalism reversion that we would be better off if they could block vandals themselves. Similarly I suspect that there are a large number of active editors who would uncontentiously pass RFA if they ran. RFA is broken because of the many who are unwilling to face it, not the few where it comes to the wrong decision. ϢereSpielChequers 21:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

In many ways, the troubles RfA face have been self-perpetuating (or something like that). As things get worse, prospective candidates shy away in greater numbers, making things get even worse, making prospective candidates shy away in even greater numbers, makings things get even more worse... AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 21:22, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree with the assessment that the candidates that don't get it are grossly under-qualified..but I was curious so I looked. Not including myself, (and I of course consider myself highly qualified albeit unpopular) I see a lot of candidates that I woudl consider qualified. Of course there are always going to be some that try that are unqualified but I also see Wikid, AutomaticStrikeout, Carrite and quite a few others I would consider qualified. I also see several who did get the tools in the last couple years that I do not consider to be qualified, some of which barely squeaked by. Yet they haven't deleted the main page and no one is requesting the tools be removed. I also note again that there are several admins who should have the tools removed and if I had the tools I would be ashamed to count them as peers. But no one is screaming for the tools from them either. I would also note that the reason I rarely participated in Vandal fighting or things like CCI is because a non admin is useless and I got tired of waiting a week for a vandal to be blocked. So I stopped asking and just reverted their edits and moved on. Kumioko (talk) 22:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I did end my comment by mentioning that there were a few cases where in my view RFA comes to the wrong decision. I won't be specific online as to which ones they were, if someone isn't currently at RFA it isn't very fair to publicly speculate as to their appropriateness for adminship. However if anyone wants a frank opinion as to why I think their RFA failed and what I think they need to do to turn things round then read my views as to what it takes to pass RFA, then reread your unsuccessful RFA, and if that doesn't give you an idea as to where your RFA went wrong then feel free to email me. ϢereSpielChequers 21:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

None of us is perfect, and even the most mature and experienced voters and/or nominators don't always match the end results. However, if one were to discount the obvious unresearched, fan, vengeance, or inexperienced votes, the results might have been different. As perWereSpielChequers: read my views as to what it takes to pass RFA, then reread your unsuccessful RFA, and if that doesn't give you an idea as to where your RFA went wrong then feel free to email me. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:56, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

To respond to one of Kumioko's points, CCI most certainly is not admin-only. There's a hell of a lot non-admins can do to help out there. Wizardman 04:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Not really, I tried to go there several times to help out in the past but when I started looking I found the articles I checked needed to have stuff deleted, stuff was deleted I couldn't see, I found other issues with vandals or other things I couldn't do anything about that should have been blocked, etc. The only way to do it as a non admin is to spend 3 times more time and 5 times more work than I could with the tools. So although you are partially right that one could help a little without the tools, if I can't get access to the tools to do the job right instead of half-ass, then I don't need to be doing it. I shouldn't need to keep asking for this or that when the result is obvious. Kumioko (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

This is interesting. Wikipedia:RfA reform (continued)/Voter profiles#comparison RfA other Wikipedias. Note the differing qualifications required for candidates and voters, and controls on comments. Irondome (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see;

• Admin candidates being initially vetted in terms of WP history by admins, before an RFA goes live.
• Echoing some thoughts from User:Kudpung. sharpening up action on inactive admins, and stipulating !Voter requirements based on edits, say a minimum 500 mainspace edits. An experienced ed is a good judge, if having a NPOV.
• No ed being allowed to !Vote if they have a previous record of issues with the candidate. The admin initial sift could identify potential past or even ancient issues. Its water under the bridge, and cuts out WP:Drama. This stuff should be in a new brief admin-prepared synopsis of the candidate section, which would open the RFA, with nominations.
• All admin candidates having content work as an essential requirement for consideration, maybe 2 articles created, GA or similar. Even a good gnome. No mainspace content contribution, no RFA. Say at least 40% mainspace edits in contributions.
• A 12 month probationary period, where newbies are shadowed by an experienced admin. Short report created by mentor at end, with power to dysop. A critical process, which calls for quality administrators. Kevlar vests and nerves of steel would be important attributes. This would replace my periodic re-election proposal.
• Get rid of Open To Recall. It appears to be more a fashion item than a reliable or often used routeway to flag up behavioural or procedural concerns.
• A method created to root out bad admins. But that should be an admin-led task. No one can see a bad admin better than a good admin, should be the credo there. User:Sphilbrick has son good ideas on this from my reading. Irondome (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe more controversially, no non-admin input in dysop decision making after election. Lets see the admins step up to the plate as the Americans say. Admins must police themselves. Paradoxically, this may increase ed confidence in the admin corps, if they are only seen to act as a group and be seen as being proactive in addressing admin misdeameaners.This may also help editor retention, and lessen attitudal burn out from great content contributors, which is losing us so much at the mo it seems.Irondome (talk) 00:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I still keep thinking of the bureaucratic workload of a de/re-sysoping system, especially where we could use a better turnout of voters at RfA, and better quality of voting.

Taken from the tables, which may be inaccurate due to dups across the tables or entries in the wrong table:

• 153 voluntary resignations, of which
• 10 failed a readminship
• 12 resigned in recognition of the community's dissatisfaction with their activities.
  • 20 admins have been desysoped for cause
  • 55 resignations (no cloud) since 2008: 2013 (15), 2012 (13), 2011 (9), 2010 (4), 2009 (10), 2008 (4)

A better factor for determining whether or not we really need a procedural re-sysoping system would probably be to investigate just what percentage of our 'active' admins appear to be actually demonstrating patterns of poor judgement or inappropriate behaviour. That's not so easy to evaluate however without naming and shaming or going on a witch hunt, it may however either lend credence to those who tar all admins with the same brush, or discredit their claims. The idea of a noticeboard at which suspected admin abuse could be reported has a certain appeal but I doubt whether the community would accept it. It would likely be a ANI-style board, and like ANI, open to abuse by time wasters, users with an axe to grind, and comments by admin wannabes.

I agree with GiantSnowman's and The Rambling Man's sentiments, non-admins vastly outnumber admins and their vengeance votes could easily produce the wrong consensus, after all, there is no guarantee that any re-sysoping system would perform any better than RfA does today. As Wikipedia:RfA reform 2011/Voter profiles shows, the vast majority of voters are highly transient, indicating that RfA is very much an (un)popularity contest. There is a small core of regular voters (which also changes over time) who make reasonably researched votes, but they are very much in the minority.

I don't believe that the majority of newly elected admins make the most mistakes with their tools, judgement, or civility; from what I have seen, such behaviour appears to come mainly from sysops with much longer tenure who have gotten bold and think they can get away with stuff. Many of them are from pre 2007 days. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:53, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Ditto the last paragraph!... A side note: Thanks for speaking out!... It is my opinion that Wikipedia will benefit enormously from speaking out against flagrant imbalances and blatant injustices and calling on all admins to employ non-bias, civility, respect, composure and fully (not selectively) adhering to WP core principles 100% of the time.Worldedixor (talk) 07:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe that excluding editors with previous issues from voting is a good thing -- they're most likely to have useful, detailed input on the candidates. (And believe me, there are some folks I'd love to see excluded if anyone is ever dense enough to nominate me again...) In fact, in my first RFA, I called it to the attention of someone I knew would disapprove.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Back in August, I drew up a fairly broad rough-draft RfC regarding to a handful of the basic RfA-related controversies. You can see the RfC here. Might this be a good time to consider opening it up to the community for input? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 19:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks sound to me, with various options presented. It would generate a huge conversation though, if it was just presented en masse. Would suggest it be presented a premise or section at a time. This present thread I feel is attempting to define the issue(s) which are still rather formless. I think we need to establish consensus on whether length of adminship is an issue which in any way impacts on other admin areas in interaction with the wider community Irondome (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

@Irondome:. Earlier this year an extensive, 3 month RfC, covering all aspects of the perceived problems with RfA was completed. If you are unaware of it please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2013_RfC and the 3 associated section links. It might save you and the community some considerable time in reviewing that recent material (for example Admin. probation was proposed and rejected) rather than you re-presenting the same or similar proposals for yet more consideration and debate less than 7 months on. Leaky Caldron 14:36, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Probably has been suggested before by someone somewhere, but anyway I got an idea that most accurate way to determine what changes adminship needs to increase RFA productivity, would be surveying people who were neutral or opposed in more borderline RFAs. These would be RFAs that ended in 60-80% support, meaning failure despite considerable support or only barely passing. If significant amount of editors who were neutral/opposed in those RFAs say that they would have been willing to vote more favorably for the candidate if system was some way different (like some rights unbundled, or regular re-elections, or probation period etc.), then it could actually show some real direction how you can make adminship less of a "big deal". Otherwise all those RFA reform discussions are inevitably just people making wild personal assumptions with no data whatsoever to back it up. Just an idea though, I haven't given much thought how such surveys should exactly work in practice.--Staberinde (talk) 17:10, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

A large amount of data was extracted and extrapolated t WP:RFA2011. I suggest looking through that project first. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion part of problem with RFA reform attempts is the fact that there have been lots of different people and lots of different questions, resulting huge amounts of data that is problematic to manage, and relatively hopeless to draw much useful conclusions from. So I thought that more focused approach of asking right question from right people would be better way to establish what needs to be changed. That said, its just an idea, if people think that they already have all the needed data and they can draw appropriate conclusions from it, then obviously my suggestion would be just additional waste of time.--Staberinde (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting for a moment that it would be a waste of time. What I am reiterating again is that much of the information you seek is probably at Wikipedia:RfA reform (continued)/Voter profiles which shows exactly how around 1,500 editors voted at RfA. As I mentioned somewhere above, it would be worthwhile expanding that information to take into account the additional 2.5 years. From there, if you wished to make a targeted survey, you would know whom to address. WP:RFA2011 is a very large project, but as I know it almost inside out, I'm quite happy to point anyone directly to relevant pages and discussions. The whole concept of RFA2011 was to a create space where focus on systematic research could take place without being confused with general discussion such as here at WT:RfA, and identify from the research what the problems with RfA are. In that, I think the project succeeded. Many suggestions for reform were also made, but for reasons stated above, they were never taken to RfC. I think a lot could be done with that material without reinventing the wheel. 19:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

In that case I suggest that this thread be closed and archieved. As the OP'er I do feel somewhat guilty in wasting everybodys' time and energy. I sincerely apologise to all community members who were so generous with their time and thoughts, for inadvertently creating a conceptual blind alley. Cheers all and thanks. Irondome (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

(ec) I hope you'll excuse me using the alley you built, for a moment longer. It seems to me that one way to address some perceived problems in RfAs, would be to take that proportion of borderline RfAs that passed, and then ask the more thoughtful-seeming Opposers if they felt, on consideration of the successful RfA-ee's behaviour as an admin over an extended period of time, that their concerns were either proved correct or might have been misplaced.

Any such process would, of course, benefit greatly from the information extracted by WP:RFA2011 as pointed out by Kudpung. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a useful plan to take forward. Irondome (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's been a waste of time at all. Several new ideas have been posited and if nothing else, it has served to remind us of where similar discussions and research have taken place that need not necessarily be duplicated (and where perhaps they could still continue). i like Calmer Waters's suggestion below for a footer template. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a good idea. I would support any implementation of such an inclusion. Irondome (talk) 20:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

What is the admin communities' view on this?. Open to recall opted-in admins would be exempt. Would it be a deterrent for promising potential admins in the wider community, or would it ultimately aid the admin mission? I see a more informal RFA model. I feel it would boost the confidence of the entire community in each other. Irondome (talk) 03:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Some Wikipedias (which are smaller than ours) have such systems. Here, there would be concerns that such a system would create an even greater bureaucratic overload - one of the problems of RfA is the relatively low turnout to vote, and the actual quality of the voting. I think it's fair to say (See recent conversations above) that a very few RfA failed when they should probably have passed, and that equally few passed that should have failed - the number of desysops 'for cause' partly demonstrates this. Another fear is that knowing they would come under review again would discourage many possible candidates of the right calibre from running for office; RfA is still very much a trial by fire even for many of those who pass with flying colours, and to have to go through it again at regular intervals, especially for the 20 or 30 most active admins who work in the front line who attract flak for simply doing their job correctly, would probably be a deterrent.

There are skepticisms about the actual validity of the 'Open to recall' system. Ironically, subscribing to it has been, AFAICR, a cause both for support and oppose at RfA. I can't actually remember if it's ever been invoked. It's not something that has been brought up in recent discussions.

While we could probably argue for a sharpening of the 'inactivity' ctiteria, or introduce qualifications for voters, setting minimum criteria for candidates is probably not required - the community already sets the criteria themselves with their own voting patterns, and ironically again, one of the frequently mentioned criticisms is that those standards are too high. So the perennial dilemma is: Are the standards too exacting and reducing the number of passes, or are they too low and and according the admin status to some who may later do a wobbler? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Two year stints would be problematic and open up a recurring circus of drama much busier than what we have now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but is the topic about imposing term limits on current admins, making re-election of admins mandatory, meaning no admin is an admin for life? Thanks. Worldedixor (talk) 05:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I think it means that all admins would be re-elected after 2 years with the exception of Open to recall opted-in admins; which effectively would be a 2-year duration limit per term with possibility to rerun. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your helpful reply. Then I am 100% opposed to the concept of admin for life. Also, with the exception of one completely unbiased admin I know, I believe that anyone that has shown one ounce of favoritism or bias should have to re-rerun for admin every two years. I also question the whole nomination process. I can make phone calls to 100 WP editors to come and support my nomination for RfA based on nepotism alone. In my case, that would be a good thing, but in other cases, that means having admins who are unable to have their personal opinions and remain at an EQUAL distance from everyone. Worldedixor (talk) 04:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link Sarek; 26 petitions, the vast majority of which were unsuccessful. I'm not sure if that all demonstrates anything much, but it's interesting reading. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

No the open to recall thing is basically a joke. It really doesn't do anything. Its like saying if you can find evidence of a Unicorn and a dragon I'll give up the tools. Kumioko (talk) 12:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• No, I don't this would work. GiantSnowman 13:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see an end to admin for life. Two year may be a logistical problem but what about 5 years? That's about 300 per year. Is that too many? Then how about rethinking the approach, rather than picking a term, figure out how many we can review in a month. Just to illustrate the point, I'll pick 30. Identify the 30 earliest admins, and have them submit a re qualification RfA. At the end of a couple months, decide whether 30 is too many or too few, and modify accordingly. I think we'll find we can do do a few more, but let's stick with 30 to see what happens. It would take 47 months to get through the list of current admins. Which would mean we'd have a de facto term limit of about four years. Every year or so, review progress and determine whether to speed up or slow down, although a steady state of about a four year term would be fine with me.--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest maybe 3 years, 2 is a little too short and 5 is a little too long. It should be a process that is less stringent than RFA; like when the tools are removed from the inactive folks. Provide a list for the month, send them a notification (probably via bot), if they want to keep it fine, if not then that's ok too. Then we also give some time for folks to comment on it and then the bureaucrats can decide if the comments are worth listening too. Because some deal with contreversial areas some comments might be based on their actions in that contreversial venue and may need to be ignored. I think the vast majority will keep the tools and this will provide a venue for people to comment on those that maybe shouldn't have the tools. The site needs an avenue for review of the admins though. With that said its unlikely to happen so I wouldn't waste much time on it. The key thing to rememeber is the majority of admins aren't using the tools anyway, so if they lose them, its not that big of a deal. With the Template editor and other rights now most of them may not even need it anyway. Kumioko (talk) 15:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm just trying to think through the obvious logistics. If we settled on 2 years, or 3 or 5, we would still have a large slug of admins in the initial group for review. We wouldn't want to have them all reviewed simultaneously, so we would have to work out a way to stagger those reviews. If we are going to need to do that, why not just start with the oldest, and work our way forward, and over time, we can decide whether to settle at 5 or 3 or 2 or something else.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: I understand and agree with that. I frankly have somewhat mixed feelings about it. I think term limits would be good if the process is made to be easy and painless. It would be good for people to occassionally have to walk in the peasants shoes for a while. Otherwise you lose sight of what its like in the trenches. If the RFA process remains a gauntlet though, then no we shouldn't do it. I generally agree with Yngvadottir that we need more people with access to the tools not less. The truth is, if an editor has been here for more than a year and are active then they probably are a net benefit and should be given the benefit of the doubt. With that said, we must also make it easier to remove the tools for abuse. So although I think an editor should be given the tools easier, I also think they should be taken away if abused, which is currently not the case. I don't think the RFA process is needed unless someone has the tools removed and wants them back. Then they should have to go before the jury. But that's just me. I still don't think any of this will matter though. Just like all the other discussions in the past there is no desire or will in the community to fix the process. Many of those that have the tools want the controlled access so they can be the kings and queens. Others just don't care. Still others are afraid to even get involved because it could torpedo their chances of getting the tools later. Kumioko (talk) 18:36, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm thinking that a reconfirmation RfR (Request for Reconfirmation) will differ from an RfA in two important respects, one negative one positive. Starting with the negative, admins are expected to deal with contentious situations, and therefore, are almost certain to piss some editors off. That could mean there are a whole pile of editors drooling at the chance to stick it to the admin who dun them wrong. On the positive side, one of the challenges of the RfA is you are trying to judge the suitability of a candidate to do things they haven't yet done. Editors have to make inferences from evidence that is not exactly on point. You have to judge whether someone will make good blocks, without seeing any real blocks. Obviously, with an RfR, the admin has a track record. I honestly, possibly naively, think this will make the RfR smoother in most cases (with some exceptions). No one needs to dream up hypotheticals, and guess whether they'd really do that with the bit, they can see the actions. I think most admins will attract some opposes simply out of spite. I trust out 'crats to be able to figure that out. I'm sure there are some who would be nervous about facing an RfR. This is a feature, not a bug. Under my proposal, it will probably take over a year from now to get to the 2005 group, so most active admins would have quite some time if they need to clean up an act. Plus, under my plan, we get to review Jimbo in the first group. What's not to like?--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:44, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've hesitated to respond here, particularly since I am one of the admins that don't pull their weight. But as I understand it, the Dutch Wikipedia requires repeat RfAs every two years and there was recently massive drama over it. I take this as confirmation of my feeling that adding more bureaucracy would be counter-productive; moreover, it would be highly unlikely I would run again, so Wikipedia would lose what little I do do with my added buttons. If we want to encourage well qualified people to run out of motives other than ambition, making it subject to a repeat election every few years would work against that goal, since it's the election that most agree is the stumbling block in getting such candidates to run. I supported the creation of a noticeboard at which suspected admin abuse could be reported - that was not a successful proposal, but I believe it would be more to the point and less likely to backfire than requiring re-elections. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

What was the outcome? Did they retain it, or modify it?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I hunted up the original conversation on Drmies' user talk, and it turns out I misremembered - they have annual re-evaluations of their admins, followed by a confidence vote in cases of more than 4 objections. Pinging The Banner, who reported on the mess that occurred this year. Me, I have no idea, but that would put me right off fixing errors on the Main Page and so forth. Totally not worth the agita. Yngvadottir (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Get to work, you lay-about.  :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It was my understanding (as of RFA2011 discussions) that Swedish Wikipedia runs the same system, or did, presumably with some success or at least acceptance—but we really need people to weigh in from these Wikis for any insight. To the OP I totally agree with this idea and have for a long time, it encourages a paradigm shift from this big, dramatic step-up in the community to something more like "I'm burnt out on content work, maybe I'll man AN/I for a year". With the huge dilution of RfAs, I assume people will care less both in promoting new admins and continuing to grant the bit to those wanting a longer spell. Afterall, what janitor truly desires to be a janitor forever? There are a tonne of other positives to this suggestion, IMO, but unfortunately discussion of any reform is provenly futile Jebus989^✰ 17:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The Dutch Wikipedia has a system of a yearly confirmation procedure. Each administrator must prove that she/he has still the confidence of the community. It is split in two rounds: in the first round people can object against an administrator. This is a great place to study a) the trolls and other not-so-pleasant editors and b) the adminsitrators who have f***k*d up big time (the difference is found on who is objecting, usually editor with a significant higher standing than group a). Administrators who collect 4 objections (usually about 25%) go to round 2. Round two is a confidence vote in which the administrator need to get 75% support-votes. This is more and more becoming a joke, due to block-voting of present and former administrators. Almost every time an administrator comes under serious threat, this group shows up and saves the administrator. No matter what were the reasons for the objections.

This year it became a complete mess when one of the administrators started canvassing for two long-overdue administrators on a closed mailing-list. A rather new administrator did not accept this and when the canvasser did not retract his comments, he brought it out in the open. Effect: the whistleblower got an impeachment and was voted out by his administrator-compagnions. The canvasser also got an impeachment and was also voted out, but this time by the community. The administrators tried to save him, but failed. And the two administrators under thread: they got enough votes from administrators to keep their status.

The whole circus is by now useless as round 1 is dominated by mud throwing and round two is dominated by block-voting. Not a good idea to introduce that here. In my opinion, it would be a good idea to end the administrator-for-life for new cases. A fixed term of 5 years seems the best option to me (with re-candidating possible again after a few months). The Banner talk 20:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC) I am not a administrator on the Dutch or English WP, nor have the intention to become that.

• English Wikipedia is different to Dutch/Swedish - we have far more traffic and far more work. Name me a single admin who has not pissed off a bunch of other editors, and who will therefore probably not get re-elected even if they are doing brilliant work. GiantSnowman 18:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Your right its higher traffic with more work. Its also got a reputation for being very combative at RFA. Much more so than many of the others. The argument you use has been used for years and its no more true now than it was when it started. Its just one of the many excuses to keep a broken system to limit editors that want to help out from doing so. Yes, sure, some will get denied, but its probably the same ones that abuse the tools anyway. If the reason would prevent someone from getting the tools, then it should also be used to take the tools away. Using the excuse that I did it after I became an admin so it doesn't count is both hypocritical and foolish. BTW, just as I could name several that should have the tools removed from their grip, I could name several that would breeze through if they reapplied. Kumioko (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Then reform RFA and make it less combative, rather than running the risk of a bunch of good admins not getting re-elected because they blocked someone 18 months ago who bears a grudge and has the mates to back him up. GiantSnowman 18:52, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
      • Honestly RFA is a lost cause and even if it wasn't no one is going to listen to me. Besides that though, 1 or 2 editors aren't enough to torpedo an RFA rerun unless you are say an overly aggressive admin who blocks first, asks questions later and favors indefinate blocks over limited duration ones because "if they violated the rules once they'll just do it again, its happened time and time again". That is a direct quote from an admin BTW. I'm not going to say which one but I have mentioned the name multiple times in the past in discussions. That is an example of an admin who should have the tools removed and would probably not get them back in the scenario you give. Admins like you, Bishonen, Sarah Stierch, Bearean hunter, Kudpung and a pile of others would and should be fine. But regardless of how we do it, the community needs to start policing the admins and getting rid of the abusive ones. I'm sure even you can think of a few you are ashamed to call a peer. We don't need those, they do more harm than good. Do it by review, by secret ballot or set up a panel, etc. There are many ways to do the job of policing the admins, but someone needs to do it. They should not be allowed to run amok just because 5 years ago they managed to sit below the radar and got through an RFA in one piece. Kumioko (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
        • I don't think there are (m)any safe admins, myself included. GiantSnowman 19:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
          • The discussion should probably not be led by admins worried they might no longer be admins. Most editors get into heated discussions from time to time, sure, but not with 30+ of the 100 odd that vote at an RfA. If >30% of a random sample of reasonable editors that think anyone isn't a net positive as an admin, they probably shouldn't be. Jebus989^✰ 19:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• I've no strong opinion on the feasibility of term limits, but I don't buy this "all the good admins have pissed off too many people to pass RFA today" meme. It's another way of saying that admins know what is best for the community, but the community is too dumb to realize it, and so must not be asked. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• No, it's not. It's saying that admin work by its very nature manages to annoy a lot of people. GiantSnowman 19:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Also The Banner makes a great point above about the Dutch system - just as it is open to abuse for those wanting to get rid of administrators, it is also open to abuse by those wanting naughty admins to stay. GiantSnowman 20:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• I suspect this would result in 95% of admins being de-sysoped after two years; there are plenty of editors out there with grudges against admins for protecting pages, or blocking certain editors for one reason or another. Having said that, I'm more than happy to be subjected to bi-annual review, being an admin isn't that big a deal. If I couldn't revert vandalism, block vandals, protect pages, update the main page when required, so be it. If Wikipedians are so dead keen on removing the mop from some editors, c'est la vie. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Surely compulsory RfA re-runs after n years would require a bunch more crats to determine the consensus... unless we assume that the majority of cases would be so clear-cut that any editor (in good standing) could close close them - however, that leaves the technical problem of enabling/removing the user right, requiring requests to be placed elsewhere and potentially inviting re-evaluation of the closes. -- Trevj (talk) 20:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Depends on how you style it. The Dutch Wikipedia just relies on a confidence vote. Threshold is 75% support votes. (and support of the block-voting present administrators, otherwise you never make the 75% support) The Banner talk 22:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Crats don't have much to do these days, that wouldn't be a problem. But the biggest issue is the inevitable flood of disgruntled editors popping back to "demote" admins. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Do those people vastly outnumber those you haven't disgruntled? Have some faith in the community that trusted you with the tools in the first place Jebus989^✰ 20:47, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you get it. Being an admin for six years far outlives most people's entire time at Wikipedia. The community is very different. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Well yeah I mean, the point wasn't that an identical set of people would vote as in your original RfA. Just implicitly you're saying the community made the right decision in granting you adminship, yet they cannot be trusted with that decision at any future period, because you know best. Jebus989^✰ 21:18, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Bollocks, sadly it appears to me that you know nothing about this place. Most admins I know just block, delete, protect etc because they have to. Nothing more. (And they don't get paid). I'm saying that several admins have been around for several years. That means that several hundred/thousand editors have been aggrieved by them. Re-election would be a kangaroo court. Mind you, I suspect most admins would be fine with being de-sysopped, and this place could just dissolve in its own acrid self-destruction. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Sorry TRM but I also disagree that the community cannot possibly be trusted with the responsibility of revoting an admin in or out. Will some admins not get re-elected, sure, but most should be fine. As I said above I don't think it needs to be a full blown RFA, just a review. The problem is there are abusive admins, We all know that but nothing is done about it. Something needs to be done. We can either start policing those bad apples or we make it so they all go through a review every few years. We could also keep the status quo and let things continue to degrade. If the admins don't like the idea of a review then they should start doing something about the abusive ones IMO, then the need to do a periodic review may not be necessary. Kumioko (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

"We all know that..." there are a small number of people who like to loudly and repeatedly insist that there are abusive admins. I dare say that we also all know that those same people virtually never bother to put together any sort of evidence to back up their claims, demonstrate that reasonable and good-faith efforts to resolve the problem have failed, and that the admin has continued with misconduct, and then file a well-argued request before ArbCom.

I also like how you talk about how "we" can start policing the "bad apples" in lieu of making this change, but then quickly morph your position to insist that "admins" need to start doing something, or else you'll put all editors – admin and non-admin alike – through an enormous amount of extra, unnecessary bureaucracy.

For those who will immediately insist that putting together a suitable evidence-supported, properly-justified request for ArbCom is too much work and just too hard, I have to admit I fail to see why you think that there should be less effort or quality of evidence required at whatever Vote-For-Desysopping process you put in its place—or why it would be beneficial or desirable for us to have to expend that level of effort to analyze and recertify every admin on a recurring basis instead of just the few putative 'problem' cases. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I myslef have admitted in multiple venues that abusive admins make up the minority, but there are quite a few. I am hesitent to mention any names here though for obvious reasons. I also wouldn't put much stock on Arbcom. Arbcom cases are a notorious nightmare so most people will just leave or ignore the problem. And those are the ones who even know what Arbcom is. Its also a well established trend that when admins are brought up on charges of misconduct little or nothing is done about it. Other admins justify their actions or they discredit the submitter. It should also be noted I can't do anything and at this point don't even care that much. I have all but stopped editing because of a variety of things including the admin bullshit. I have also admitted I don't necessarily think we need to review every one. I do believe that admin shouldn't be for life; I think it should be easier to get; I think it should be easier to take away; and I think admins should be held accountable for thier actions. How those things happen are up for debate. But if your happy with losing more admins than we promote, protecting abusive admins, maintingin a culture where good editors don't even try for the tools and where experienced editors who want to help aren't allowed too, then that's up to you. Frankly, I'm tired of fighting about it. I would rather play Xbox, read a book or walk my dog than edit here anymore, which I find a shame. I used to be a strong believer in the value of this project but I have grown to see its not a project or an encyclopedia anymore...its just another website. So go ahead and do whatever you want. Because its obvious to me that there is no desire to do what's right for the success of the project here. Just a desire to hold onto what scraps people have managed to gather. Kumioko (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah so over the years all those who supported you or value what you do have left, while those you've aggrieved have steadily accrued, biding their time for one day when term limits are imposed and they can leave that soul-destroying oppose !vote. Thank you for the education, at least now I know one thing about this place Jebus989^✰ 21:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• Two questions: (A) Why is it optional to be subject to recall? (B) Why does the admin get to specify their own recall criteria? My thinking is that periodic re-election is impractical (and for well-behaving admins unnecessary), but admins could be liable to recall subject to community-specified criteria. Those criteria don't need to be lax: we don't have to allow a couple of trolls to force it to happen without support; we don't have to admit "because he blocked me / deleted my article" as grounds. Only when raised by a quorum of editors in good standing -- "quorum" and "good standing" to be defined by the community. --Stfg (talk) 20:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

  Recall is optional because the community has never settled on a practical process for mandatory recall. The most common failing of such proposals is potential for abuse, which is reflected by Rambling Man and other's comments - the admins who work the dirty areas of the project will naturally generate enough heat that these recall processes become problematic. Not only for them, but for Wikipedia as a whole. And I can tell you that I am one of Kumioko's "unnamed abusive admins". Why? Because I call him out on his bullshit. Resolute 14:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Kumioko that admins need to be more readily accountable, but The Banner's description of the Dutch system scares me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose set point reelection process. How many bad admins are there anyway?--MONGO 21:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Too many. The Banner talk 22:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: As it is we have a system for removing the sysop flag from those that abuse it. The vast majority of the time, a re-election would be a waste of time for the admin, a patrolling bureaucrat and the people that regularly vote, because they are (for the most part) doing the job they were elected to do. If someone specific is abusing the tools, then and only then do I believe a discussion about their admin status needs to be opened. ~Frosty (Talk page) 22:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
• Thoughts on a probationary twelve month period for newly elected admins then? New Admins could be mentored, and any issues would most likely begin to be apparant within that timeframe. Would suggest an admin-only discussion, although open to general view, as to problematic new admins and their suitability, measures to take, etc. I agree that an open session would be a grudge and vendetta filled kangaroo court. I would have no probs it being an admin only panel. I am aware of course this does not address the problem of long standing admins who may have issues. Irondome (talk) 22:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

C'mon... why waste all this energy pretending something is happening in this thread. Admins and admin wannabes as a group never agree to anything that might diminish the powers and privileges of incumbent admins or facilitate content builders on Wikipedia. Nothing to see here folks. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

It shows up the fault-lines and general opposing attitudes quite well I think. Quite a bit to see really. Bottom line, do we stick with what we have or is there enough consensus or potential traction for change? Irondome (talk) 23:41, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

In regard to the OP, I think regular "re-elections" would cause more Admins to turn in their tools meaning even fewer active Admins. The most active Admins, those that block users, delete articles, act against socks, etc., that is, those who actually do anything against another user's wishes, will encounter opposition that will surface in a re-election. This vocal discontent doesn't mean they aren't good Admins. I'd rather have a simpler process to address the few abusive Admins that exist than put all Admins through a regular re-election.

Personally, the main problem I see with the RfAs is that those who vote for the candidate, usually simply say Support or Support per User XYZ. But those who vote against a candidate? They do not simply say Oppose, no, they list all of the reasons why this particular candidate fails to meet their standards. These explanations can be quite lengthy.

So, those who think the candidate would be a great Admin simply say "Yes" while those who don't seem to feel compelled to enumerate every failing and fault they see. While these are proposals which would never pass, either forcing both supporters and detractors to list a reason why or allowing voters to only say "Support", "Oppose" or "Neutral" without any elaboration would result in a less harsh environment for the candidate. They would either see supporters listing their good points or no comment at all, just a simple vote. If voters wanted to elaborate, they could do so on their own Talk Page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you're positioning yourself for your own RfA, Liz. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

LOL! That would be "No", Epipelagic for a lot of reasons (I'm too new, no substantial content contributions, alienated some vocal Editors, etc.). No, it's not an RfA I'm looking at, I was trained in sociology and I'm interested in the process. I studied leadership and different systems of governance. It's the process I'm analyzing, not pitching for my own promotion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, the first and foremost qualities I look for in anyone nominated for RfA or for Recall are:

1. Being competent and not misquoting WP policy to serve a hidden agenda or instigate editors.

2. Being 100% unbiased, respectful and non-patronizing, and at an equal distance from EVERYONE all the time... not "buddy buddy to pals" and "bark orders" and bad mouth other editors whose intention they misjudge, especially editors who they have never had any direct interaction with.

3. Never ganging up with "pals" against an editor they do not understand.

4. Clearly assert that ALL (non-vandal) editors have something to contribute to WP, and that this is the reason why WP does not have "punitive" blocks, and strongly encourages second chances.

5. Adhering 100% to and DEFENDING WP core principles... ALL of them... and never "selectively" applying them.

Worldedixor (talk) 02:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Responding to Liz, above, the problem with your proposal is that RFA is not a vote, even though it looks like one sometimes. It's a discussion, a consensus generation mechanism, and oppose comments (!votes comes from not-votes) need to have a rationale to be properly considered. If an RFA got 100 supports and 100 opposes, but all of the opposes opposed because the candidate didn't like their favorite TV show, the bureaucrats would still promote because the oppose rationale was invalid. I think if we ever had a borderline RFA with lots of opposes around, say, candidate has never authored a featured article, that might actually come into play. The reason why supports often don't have reasoning is because adminship is "no big deal" and any clueful user should be granted the tools by default. That being said I often see supports which praise the candidate substantively. Andrevan@ 05:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Andrevan, you bring up some points I hadn't considered. I still think it's a problem that the Opposes are so much more wordy than the Supports. It makes RFAs seem tilted toward the negative (just in pure volume of words), rather than being neutral (unless it's a landslide win). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:33, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You say "adminship is "no big deal" and any clueful user should be granted the tools by default." That might have chareacterised the situation many years ago, but clueful users would not think that was true now. You must have had very little involvement with Wikipedia in recent years. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:04, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You are free to review my contributions to see that my involvement is consistent over the years. Whether or not the current RFA process reflects this truth, a janitor's mop is still "no big deal" and shoudl be treated as such. Someone seems to have removed the original Jimbo Wales quote from the adminship policy pages many years ago, which is a shame. Possibly because adminship had become a "big deal" in the eyes of many despite its intended role. Perhaps if we wish to reform RFA we should start here. Andrevan@ 13:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought the problem with RFA was that it was too hard, too grueling, that nobody wanted to go through it. And now you want to say that going through RFA has to happen not once, but every 2 years even if you pass? We'll have no admins left! I don't know that it has to be a lifetime appointment, but we are removing it from inactive admins. Andrevan@ 05:49, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

There have been suggestions in the past that the reason why 'support' votes do not require a mandatory rationale is possibly because they are voting 'as per' or concurring with the nomination statement.

I feel quite sure that the introduction of a manadatory resysoping system would further reduce the number of candidacies from users of the right calibre. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:18, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Requiring admins to periodically "run for re-election" will just keep admins from being willing to step into contentious areas. There will always be cases or discussions where, no matter what decision is made, it's going to upset a significant number of people. Getting an admin to step in and handle those cases and make the tough call is already hard enough. Imagine if all of those people on the "losing" side are now all potential "opposes" at the next confirmation RfA. Who would be willing to do it under those circumstances? If an admin is being genuinely abusive, ArbCom can and will handle that, and over recent years they've shown themselves to be quite willing to ensure admins who abuse the tools no longer have them. If not, but they are willing to make the difficult and close calls, we should be encouraging, not discouraging, that. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:42, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've heard this one before but I still don't really get it, who are these people that value their admin hat above all else? It sounds like the opposite of who we'd want in that role. If you (/one) make a tough call and a majority of editors disagreed with it to the extent that they don't want you to make those decisions anymore, it's probably ok to take a year or two out and go back to content work or just wiki-life without the hat Jebus989^✰ 15:55, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• You say Seraphimblade, that if an admin "is being genuinely abusive, ArbCom can and will handle that, and over recent years they've shown themselves to be quite willing to ensure admins who abuse the tools no longer have them." That is one of a set of myths admin use to prop up their system. If there were any truth in it then the system would be in less need of urgent reform. ArbCom desops admins only when they behave in a manner that upsets other admins. Never, in the history of Wikipedia, has an admin been desopped for abusing content builders. Admins know they have a free pass. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I say that, and they've done that. But "content builders" don't have a free pass either. They need abide every pillar of the cite, including civility and patience in all cases. With every accusation of "abuse" I've seen regarding "content builders", it's a "content builder" who has failed to abide that particular requirement (and yes, it's a requirement, not a nicety), and action has been correspondingly taken. Do you have a counterexample where that is not the case? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:06, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

So you are saying there are no examples where content builders have been abused by admins? I don't know where to begin with that one, but you could start with this example. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: In that case, it does indeed appear Scott's behavior was inappropriate. It was handled, and a stop was put to it, indeed by other administrators. I agree with the way WormThatTurned handled the situation, but based upon that isolated situation, I don't see that any other action would be necessary. For Eric's part, while I didn't see any trouble with his behavior at that juncture, he does not exactly have the proverbial "clean hands" as civility goes. That's of course not a green light to behave abusively toward him in turn, and Scott shouldn't have done that. He did anyway, and was told to either stop or be made to stop. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:52, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• @Epipelagic: - "Never, in the history of Wikipedia, has an admin been desopped for abusing content builders" - factually incorrect. Hawkweye7 was de-mopped by ArbCom for a personal attack against a non-admin. I have no doubt there are others. GiantSnowman 20:20, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No, he was desysopped for wheel warring. What other examples have you got? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

...and "conduct unbecoming of an administrator" i.e. the personal attacks mentioned earlier. GiantSnowman 20:46, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

He was primarily desysopped for wheel warring. He would never have been desysopped merely for attacking a content builder. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

You know that how...? GiantSnowman 12:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Historically, admins have never been desysopped merely for attacking content builders. It could happen in the future. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Another cute myth implicitly used by admins to prop up their system is the elitist idea that admins have clue, while non admins are a vindictive and undisciplined rabble without clue. It would be wrong to allow this unworthy rabble to assess whether admins should be reelected. Consequently an admin, once an admin, should remain an admin for life. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• Regular elections for all admins would be just pointless bureaucracy. But there should be actual uniform recall system that applies to all admins. Its not really that hard to devise one that prevents people with obvious axe to grind from dominating the process. Generally, harder it is to reverse/fix some failure in process, "bigger deal" that process is. As for adminship, removing it requires basically full blown ArbCom case, which is "very big deal". Current RFA simply reflects that reality.--Staberinde (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
• It isn't just the admins whose opinion matters here, non admins are of course welcome; However this is one of the areas where admins tend to a slightly difference stance than non-admins, amongst non-admins opinion has been fairly evenly divided about periodic reconfirmation, amongst admins there is a usually a consensus against it. In order to build consensus it helps to be clear as to what your objections are and what the supporters of such a scheme would need to fix. For me the major dealbreakers about reelecting admins every two years include:

1. I don't like the idea of adminship becoming a bigger deal than it already is, and of course the fewer the admins we have the bigger the deal adminship becomes. Supporters of this sort of proposal really need to make the case for why they want adminship to become a bigger deal than it is.
2. With RFA broken the one thing that has enabled us to continue to efficiently block vandals and delete attack pages is the cadre of admins who were appointed in 2003-2007 before RFA was broken. Losing those admins or at least a large proportion of them is making it easier for vandals, spammers and creators of attack pages for no discernable benefit.
3. While no-one seriously disputes that Arbcom is a community elected body that desysops bad admins, there are continual grumblings that it should be more ruthless with unspecified "bad admins" who for whatever reason no-one has yet taken through the complain, RFC and Arbcom process. Having a fixed two year renewal would weaken the Arbco process further because people would be reluctant to bring cases against admins who had just been reappointed or who were up for reappointment in a few months time. The community is very short termist in its judgment at RFA and two year terms would make it harder to get rid of any admin who kept their nose clean in the last few months before a run.
4. We have a problem with editor retention and taking rights away from moderately active people or active admins who aren't prepared to put themselves through another RFA would not help this.
5. Either this will fail because too few admins are willing to go through reconfirmation, or because too many are running and RFA is flooded, or probably both. If only half our existing admins went for reconfirmation we would have lost the other half as admins, and we would have an average of three reconfirmations at any one time, but with possibly dozens swamping RFA in the week when the process started. That many reconfirmation RFAs would require excessive community time for the potential benefit.
6. RFA already is degrading in effectivenesss as people focus on the Q&A section rather than actually checking the candidates' actions, hundreds of extra RFAs would further exacerbate this problem as we don't have enough RFA !voters who actually check contributions to support that many extra RFAs ϢereSpielChequers 18:14, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Supporters of this sort of proposal really need to make the case for why they want adminship to become a bigger deal than it is is a non sequitur and exemplar straw man argument. The unevidenced assumption you make is that admin terms will make adminship a bigger deal then "admin for life". Intuitively that's a strange hypothesis; for example, if you were hiring a janitor for a one-year rolling basis you're saying you would apply more scrutiny to the candidate than if you were offering an eternal, unbreakable contract? A plausible argument can be made that it would have the opposite effect, not only for the first reason I've given but also because the volume of RfAs would have to increase substantially, likely becoming less of a spectacle and more mundane—most are just admins getting readmitted after a fairly uneventful year or two. Jebus989^✰ 19:54, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The last point above makes good sense. A periodic re-evaluation would become mundane, routine with a lot less drama, and would probably not appeal to the burning torch and pitchfork brigade as much as some past RFAs. Irondome (talk) 20:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you seriously underestimate Wikipedia's capacity for creating drama. Resolute 20:32, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Sadly, you may be correct. Dunno if it says more about me or the community. Irondome (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) Why not ask a few admins who have been around for four or five years to go through this process, as a trial, without any enforced outcome. We'd soon see how many pitchforks are sharpened. And, just as we have next-to-no RFAs today, we'd see how few people would want to volunteer for that role and the subsequent online assassinations that would be inevitable. As for the "hiring a janitor" example, that's straw man in extremis. Admins suffer personal abuse and grudges. Janitors do not, nor is the role of janitor judged on how a janitor closed an AFD or blocked an editor, it's completely different. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

The analogy is making use of the hirer, the hirees position is irrelevant to the point being made, and it isn't subject to the logical fallacy you mention. Actually I agree with your suggestion, randomly select 5 of the most active admins (obviously, ideally it'd be a bigger sample size) and coerce them into an RfA; we'll see if plagues of aggrieved editors tear each one apart or, as I would predict, >=4 will retain their adminship by consensus. Jebus989^✰ 20:56, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, there is something to that. I think both the admin and general edding community are seeing greatly magnified shadows to some extent. Insane, grudge filled editors roaming in hordes and a vast, corrupt, cunning group of illuminati style admins. I think the jerks in both camps are actually numerically quite small. They just create large ripples. Irondome (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Janitors get paid, admins don't. And yes, go for it, ask a cross-section of admins to re-run. I'd be happy to volunteer on a purely demonstrative basis. Having said that, if the community no longer trust me, I'd be happy to de-sysop, and then sit and watch vandalism continues unabated until the "good" admins finally turn up to deal with it. Go for it, let me know when it starts, I'm a little busy in real life, but that shouldn't stop User:Jebus989 initiating the demonstration of the principle. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If you are willing to try it, please do. It could be quite instructive. Granted, a larger sample size would be nicer, but that doesn't seem too realistic. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 21:41, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to see this too, it might restore some of your faith in the community—else I suppose it'll prove you right! But please don't feel pressured into doing so from me Jebus989^✰ 22:03, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

We had a couple of voluntary unprompted reconfirmations two or three years back, they a little resistance from people saying that admin review was thataway. I don't see they prove anything other than that everyone is correct in assuming that some admins would run and could get reconfirmed. An admin survey would be more useful in that it would give an idea as to how many current admins would run again if reconfirmation came in. But all this is a distraction from RFA reform, the problem remains that our number of admins is dwindling, and we need to increase their numbers not reduce them. ϢereSpielChequers 23:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

@Jebus999 Of course if you greatly reduce the number of admins you will make adminship a bigger deal. Even if reconfirmation did really well and only halved the number of admins you increase the big deal element in multiple ways. Firstly the scarcer the admins are within the community the bigger the deal it is to be an admin. Just as those of us who would like to make adminship less of a big deal want to increase the number of admins, so those who want to reduce the number of admins need to make the case for adminship becoming a bigger deal than it already is. Secondly reducing the number of admins whilst not reducing the admin workload means that the remaining admins are likely to spend more of their wiki time doing admin stuff and less doing other editing. That can only increase the existing admin/nonadmin divide. Thirdly the admins who you will lose will disproportionately come from those who don't consider their adminship to be that big a deal, certainly not worth going through another RFA for, and the more of those sort of admins you lose the more your admin corps will be dominated by those who do think of adminship as at least sufficiently a big deal to be worth going through RFA again. ϢereSpielChequers 23:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I remember HJ's, who were the others (out of interest)? Personally I think term-limits would aid the long-term goal of _increasing_ (active) admin numbers through the grander paradigm shift back to NBD, but maybe that's where our disagreement comes from. I can imagine one or two year adminships eventually leading to a utopian future where RfAs generally pass without incident (they happen all the time and are mostly just a formality), this talkpage becomes all but dead, editors in general are taking less interest in who takes up a transient position blocking users at AIV for a year or clearing tagged CSDs, instead of being something only the most experienced editors can enter in to, we'll give any competent person a go and teach them on the job, there'll be no "I'm honoured to nominate" statements or 100K long RfAs… Jebus989^✰ 00:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

That is how I see it too, User:Jebus989. ultimately a situation where the admin task, and burden, is shared by the whole community. A scenario where the distinction between admin and ed is eventually blurred to the point of irrelevance. Irondome (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• There is no point tinkering with finite term admins unless the whole admin mal-structure is also addressed. Merely introducing finite terms would just aggravate the mess. Since admins as a group are not willing to address the real issues, revolt from the content builders is maybe the only way forward. Since content builders as a group are probably not willing to revolt, nor willing to look and see just how bad the system has become (that takes a lot of time), Wikipedia has a grim future. And that's about where it rests. Threads like this are ephemeral fluff and of no consequence. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:24, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I am quite chuffed by the terrific response to my OP, which has generated some unique new thoughts from some of the most productive and clued eds of all camps on Eng WP. I only expected about 2 responses, if that. It indicates great interest in the subject in all camps, irrespective of the POV. Its not fluff. I hear you, but please try to define this elephant in the room. We may go forward more openly then, as a community. Irondome (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Basically the thread is just a slew of distractions offered by admins. If you look back down through the years, you will see that nothing new is happening here. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. And, of course, you so easily demonstrate the use of ad hominem attacks by "the other side" that likewise is old hat. Resolute 01:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

What's that about? --Epipelagic (talk) 02:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the idea thrown out by The Rambling Man is worth considering. If a group of about four to five veteran admins are willing to run what would amount to reconfirmation requests for adminship, the results would be very informative. Of course, this is a lot to ask and things could potentially become very unpleasant, but it could also be invaluable to have some concrete evidence of how this would work. So, any takers? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 22:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was a serious proposal by TRM. If it was, it seems to me to be an uncharacteristically poor suggestion. Drama for the sake of it. Leaky Caldron 22:44, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Would you prefer to never know if it is a good solution? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 22:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

And what metric would you use to determine if it had "succeeded"? Black Kite (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

If it helped us determine whether term limits are a good idea or not, it could be considered successful. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It is a solution to nothing. It would be an shapeless, uncontrolled experiment in drama generation for the sake of it and with nothing tangible to show at the end of it. Leaky Caldron 23:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This is not drama generation for the sake of it. This is trying to find out what works and what doesn't. Are term limits a good idea or would good admins be shot down by vendetta-bearing troublemakers? We'll never find out just by guessing. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

See above for context. Essentially TRM believes admins who have been around long enough have built up too much ill-feeling through doing admin work that any proposed term limits would lead to all these (good, active) admins being desysopped to the detriment of the project. I and other countered that that's probably not the case, and most admins would sail through an RfA regardless of a few disgruntled editors. Hypothetically if a small (ideally random) sample of long-term admins did rerun, a low pass rate indicates TRM is correct and term limits would do serious harm to the long-term prospects of the wiki, while if most or all pass it's evidence that he and others are seeing "magnified shadows", as was nicely put above. While it would be interesting to observe, I agree that the output can't lead to any meaningful change either way. If there's one thing we do have evidence for, it's that RfA on the whole is immutable Jebus989^✰ 23:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

• If it helps, I'd be happy to. Worm^TT(talk) 08:59, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

  So we have Worm That Turned and The Rambling Man volunteering to test out the process. Taking HJ Mitchell 3 as an example, this idea may remain reasonably contentious, particularly if run as a test situation without the tools being relinquished in advance of RfAs. Now of course, I'm not suggesting that these volunteers relinquish their tools for the purposes of this experiment, because that'd mean a loss of useful work to the project. Additionally, I think it unlikely that many admins who anticipate overwhelming opposition in a re-run would take part in the experiment, which would then skew the results.

  Perhaps a radical shift to something like that operated at the Italian or Spanish Wikipedias is something which might work... but can any of us really foresee consensus evolving for such a change (within the near future)! -- Trevj (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm probably being dumb - but I can't see what this "experiment" is supposed to "test". Setting aside (which we really shouldn't) its artificiality, and the skew that will have, I don't understand what it would measure. You take 2 or 3 random admins, put them up for reconfirmation, and then what? If they don't get reconfirmed does that prove it worked because they've lost the community's trust and this is now revealed - or does it prove it doesn't work because people have opposed due to grudges over actions during their tenure? I truly don't see how you establish that from a sample like this. Sure, if reconfirmations became the norm, a decision would need to be made about where to set the bar, and likely significantly lower than initial RFAs because of the "grudge factor" - but there's going to be no useful data from this "test" to help with that. Some will say "see, it doesn't work, told you so...", some will say "this means x", but it will just be another debating point with no real, meaningful, measurable addition to the data or knowledge pool. Who makes the value judgment as to what the result "should" have been (and is that even a question)? I'm all for well thought out experiments to test theories, but in the absence of any metrics to measure this, I truly can't see what it's for. Happy to have my ignorance dispelled, though. Begoon ^talk 11:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, you've just saved me from a bunch of typing. Experiments are supposed to address a specific problem, be carefully devised to avoid misleading outcomes, methodical in conduct and with results that can be extrapolated on the basis of sound evidence. So how does a sitting Arbcom member putting themselves up for a fictitious RfA with immunity represent the reality of the alleged "Admin. problem" - whatever that might be? Leaky Caldron 12:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I think this would be an interesting experiment but I can already tell you what the general outcome is going to be. It will be basically the same as the RFA process! If we start requiring Re-rfa's I expect a sizeable chunk of admins would get reelected; quite a few would not for the same reasons given at a typical RFA, this would include many that have been admins for a long time, particularly if they are careless or overly harsh with the tools and I can think of several in both those camps; I also think it will keep some from running or rerunning. If this is going to be done the RFA process needs to be made easier first or few will want to go through it. Most of the admins that have the tools today got it when the tools were no big deal, since most of them are still admins, we can conclude a couple things at the beginning; that the good old days of trusting our users wasn't so bad and that no matter how badly you screw up, once your an admin, your chances of losing it are pretty small. IMO even if this experiment does work and the community decides to use it, there is no need to remove the tools from a user unless they don't pass the re-admin process. They should be able to keep it until after the result of the re-RFA.

@Trevj:, if the admin thinks they will have a hard time passing then this will give them the opportunity for growth and development to reevaluate the way they do things. I also think this would encourage people to fix the broken RFA process and even possibly return to a time when editors were trusted again and being an admin was no big deal and people were encouraged to help out.

@Begoon:. I think this test is just to see how a reRFA would function. It would, IMO, show several things including whether the community would treat it as they do an RFA, would an admin pass if they were to run in an RFA, the communities perceptions of adins and the process and it would test the theory that if admin isn't for life, we'll run out of admins. Personally I think its just hogwash. Most admins don't use the tools anyway, any would breeze though (although I admit some would not pass and rightfully so) so if we drop from 1400 admins to 250 the end result will still be the same. I also think that if an admin might have to rerun, they'll think twice about being a jerk to editors who aren't admins and treating them like throwaways. 71.126.152.253 (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - I get 2 main things from that: [a] It will basically be the same as an RFA - well, yes, but with added artificial drama which probably makes its result less useful, in that the "motives" of !voters will be utterly inscrutable, and the comparison value thus tending to zero, and [b] just hogwash - probably, in the absence of any clearer idea what the experiment is meant to be testing, and some metrics for such. Begoon ^talk 12:25, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Did you read my paragraph above? I don't think this experiment actually needs to occur but it could be quite well-defined in terms of outcomes, especially relative to the "trials" imposed for PC, visual editor etc. Obviously ideal conditions can't be met (randomly selected and stratified, 50+ admins) but the variance in a smaller sample doesn't make the results invalid. The experiment is testing the notion that, should term-limits and "reconfirmation" RfAs (why aren't these just called confirmation btw?) come about, would working admins be penalised just by the nature of the admin work they do, making it an untenable RfA reform, or would most pass without incident, showing it to be a plausible avenue of discussion. Should (say) >75% pass, this is evidence in favour of the latter, if perhaps <50% pass this validates the concerns of TRM and others.

I should reiterate that I don't think this is necessary as it seems obvious to me that most would pass without incident Jebus989^✰ 12:37, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I did read it, sorry, I should have said. I just don't see where you get significance from this. You have to set an "expected result" to compare with the "actual result" and I don't get where that comes from. If less than 50% pass it may be evidence for what you say. It may equally be evidence that the community doesn't like to reconfirm longstanding admins because deep down they feel admins should only serve 2 years. Or they don't like (or do like) the candidates in your very small sample (perhaps admiring them, or devaluing them for "having the balls" or "gall" to "take part", even). Or they are tactically voting because they know it's an artificial test. Or they are an artificial audience that likes voting on tests. Or it's Thursday, and they never could get the hang of Thursdays. . Sorry, it just doesn't seem to offer much in the way of understandable data. Could be just me - I'm a natural cynic. Begoon ^talk 12:50, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Skepticism is good, but we are constrained by reality and it sounds like what you're asking for is the best-designed study ever conducted on Wikipedia (admittedly not a place known for it's rigorous application of the scientific method). There are inevitably latent variables, but in terms of a proof-of-concept, the individual voter motivations aren't all that interesting and will mostly be smoothed over per our consensus-forming process. Ultimately we'd have to analyse the results with these caveats in mind, and it would be incorrect to try and produce a precise a priori set of alternative hypotheses or a back-of-the-envelope power calculation at this stage of the discussion. Jebus989^✰ 13:04, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. I don't think a perfectly designed experiment is ever possible. Let's look at your subjects, as typical admins - you have one Arbcom member, and one ex-beuraucrat (never cud spel that). And you're still not really laying out what the results will "prove". Hey, if y'all want to "stick a finger in the air" to see if anything useful can be learnt, there's nothing wrong with that, sometimes - if it's very windy you'll get an idea which way it's blowing, and even if it's very fast - but it's not an "experiment" then, and you have to ask yourself if the perhaps very weak conclusions are worth the drama, and the sandcastles that will inevitably be built on them. Begoon ^talk 13:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I can lay out what I think the results would prove in any other useful way, we seem to have reached an impasse. I just wanted to clarify that they're not my subjects and I haven't suggested using self-selected volunteers, though I recognise the difficulties in doing this any other way. Regardless I think we both agree this experiment need not occur Jebus989^✰ 13:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry - that's cool. I know they aren't your subjects, and I apologise for that. Look, we'd all love to know the answers, and you make some good points. If this was an easy question all these geniuses (genii?) wouldn't have been tossing it around here for 5+ years with no answers. I just, honestly, don't see where we'd know any more the day after this experiment than we did the day before. Perhaps I'm wrong and it does no harm - but I'm just so leery of false conclusions, and we are a bit prone to those, as a group, imo. And yes, I recognise we agreed all along about its non-necessity - them's the vagaries of debate... Begoon ^talk 13:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

• Those admins who are pushing for a re-run every 2 years should be invited to nominate themselves for this experiment. GiantSnowman 13:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps that's not the silliest thing you ever said. I doubt the validity of the experiment, as I ramble on about above, but you certainly suggest a better sample. Begoon ^talk 13:53, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Selecting admins who approve of finite admin terms would be selecting a loaded sample. Generally, the community would have little concern about admins like that, who would tend to be admins of calibre. Of more concern would be admins who oppose finite terms. These are the ones who need to stand for re-election. --Epipelagic (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, or, as I said earlier, and as you prove here, the whole thing will be so prone to preconceived, opinionated, conceptions that it's worthless. No offence meant, truly, but that's the reality. Begoon ^talk 15:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You know it occurs to me that the same arguments for not mandating a re-RFA process also apply to the RFA process itself. You say non admins can't be trusted to reelect admins, but they can be trusted to elect them initially? That doesn't make any sense. Either the community can be trusted or they can't. Arguments to the contrary are mostly just admins who are afraid to lose the tools. Some of which probably should lose them based on their history. The problem we have is there are too many abusive admins who know that for them to lose the tools it takes an Arbcom discussion and few are willing to go through the effort of submitting one. Even then most of them don't pass and they just get adminishment which is basically telling the submitter that we know there is a problem but we after over a month of discussion we really don't want to do anything about it. Its just a slap in the face. So why even bother with it. The very few exceptions are generally collateral punishments in a case where they participated, not though individual submissions. So really, there is no effective process for getting rid of bad admins. Certainly no one is policing them in the way the admin police (and frequently bully) regular editors. If there was such a group, then that would make a lot of this moot, but then again, it would probably be some of those admin bully's that ended up on that group too. Regardless of what is done, something needs to be done. 138.162.8.59 (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the question of what would be the goals of having some experimental reconfirmations, the issue is what are the objectives of an admin reconfirmation? I can think of a couple of key ones:

• Provide an opportunity for regular feedback so the admin can learn and respond.
• Allow the community to reassert or withdraw its trust placed in an admin.

To these ends, I believe any experiments should seek to address the obstacles in meeting these objectives, such as:

• The limited participation in requests for adminship (which presumably would be similar for a reconfirmation) limits the degree of community approval that results from the discussion.
• The respondents most likely to participate are those with negative feedback, which leads to a skewed view of the general community's opinions.

I suggest that some different formats, procedures, and other ideas be discussed that will improve the legitimacy of a reconfirmation process. Once there are some concrete proposals, the value of proceeding with some dry runs can be evaluated. isaacl (talk) 19:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be putting the cart before the horse. There is no mandate for reconfirmation. Nor is there a mandate for holding malformed experiments. Leaky Caldron 19:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree; that's why I believe the purpose for having experiments and their format needs to be discussed first. Only once this is understood can a discussion be held on whether or not any experiments should proceed. isaacl (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

At this point, RfA-related discussion is pretty much a dead end. It doesn't appear that any experiments will be carried out. Sometimes it seems to me that there is a subset of editors (not including Isaacl, just wanted to make that clear) who would rather criticize problems than look for solutions (these same people like to criticize solutions as well). AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 20:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been a regular contributor to this talk for several years, and believe it or not, over these last few days there has been some of the most positive and objective commenting I think I've ever seen here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you :) --Epipelagic (talk) 21:19, 7 November 2013 (UTC)