This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 210 | ← | Archive 215 | Archive 216 | Archive 217 | Archive 218 | Archive 219 | Archive 220 |
Should the RfA report continue to appear on the main WP:RFA page, not just the talk page? It was just added to the main RfA page a couple of days ago. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
There have been 4 RfAs and RfBs created incorrectly by nominators in the past 48 hours. They had to be reverted Was a warning of some sort taken down or should it be put up? Perhaps a reminder to read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate#To nominate someone else before transcluding? Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I've seen some of the RfA problems, community concerns, and administrative conduct that conjoin to be a big part of the whole "reform problem". And a way to alleviate it. We know how things are done. Consider this alternative:
Rather than each admin being a sovereign at large, the corp should establish specific areas of proficiency, and maintain a roster of admins who participate in that area; like a task force for each. There would be certain aspects, like the uncontroversial stuff, that all admins could do. And any admin could be on several TF rosters. But if they were not on the TF roster, they would give deference to the ones who were; when in that area.
The RfA candidate would be nominated to the specific TF's they express proficiency in, vetted, and if successful; signed only to the rosters the RfA vetted them for. Once in the admin field, each TF should have their own process for bringing an admin in. This would preclude the RfA panel from being overly concerned that the candidate must be proficient in all areas from day one. It could even provide a mechanism where the community could more easily have an administrator removed from a specific TF, where there may be cause; without necessitating a full desysop.
Such an organized structure would go far I believe, to address many of the problems. This is not the end of the idea, but the beginning, and I hope with other ideas attached, we could finally resolve some of the deepest sentiments, across the board. StringdaBrokeda ( talk) 02:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
It is interesting though, that it already sort of functions like this, but proficiency in some areas are de facto required. For example, an editor would not be broadly opposed for adminship because he was lousy with regex, but he'd be expected to avoid the AbuseFilter. Something similar goes for potential admins who can't comprehend hist-merging. But knowing whom to block and what to delete are seen as general requirements for being an admin, and "I don't intend to be active there" doesn't seem to fly in this process. For some people, it's the difference between technical knowledge and clue, or maybe some just don't trust the candidate to be conservative in areas he doesn't understand. Regardless, I don't think adding extra bureaucracy is going to help anything. You're just going to get animosity between people within and without any particular clique. Someguy1221 ( talk) 04:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that due to the WMF clarifying that the ability to see deleted content is important, that that pretty much means the arguement that "adminship is not a big deal" is pretty much dead now.
Though of course, I welcome others' opinions on this. - jc37 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, So I've done a lot of reading of late, catching up on the past concerns and proposals, and various discussions, not to mention the current batch of ideas.
Based upon all that reading, I have some thoughts.
I obviously sincerely look forward to everyone else's thoughts as well (and may ask clarifying questions about them). My intent is hoping for one or more ideas which could be turned into some actual workable solutions. - jc37 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Everyone says they don't like the tone of RfA. But as long as it's a wide-open process allowing everyone to determine based upon trust (and thus also on fear), RfA will be like this.
Oh, and let's not forget that some admins tend to be rather protective of any change to adminship or to RfA. There's (semi-unexpressed) "fear" there too.
There are various ways to deal with individuals' trust concerns and fears. For example, we can reduce the number of things which some individuals may be concerned about. We can add rules and limits to which particular and/or specific criterons are "allowed" to be used to support/oppose (though should that happen, people will just lie and support/oppose as they would have anyway - again, human nature: I want what I want.) This can also come out in what the commenters ask in questions, and say in their comments.
The only way we're going to "fix" this "trust/fear" problem at RfA at this stage is if we alleviate/address at least some fears. I s
Ideas on this welcome. - jc37 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Another problem at RfA is this hybrid we've built between consensus and voting.
There's been "some" effort to quell the "just signing here" concept at RfA, but it still exists.
I did like the idea to remove the "support/oppose sections" concept and replace it with "Noted concerns/discussion sections". Then have the closing bureaucrat assess the concerns listed to determine if the request was successful or not. Obviously this would rely more on bureaucrat discernment. Something that (unfortunately) not everyone seems eager to do. The permissions process and WP:CHUS (for example) do this, though with a slightly different structure.
Another solution that I really liked was to change RfA from a standard "7+" days to "2 and 5+". The polling would not start until the third day, to allow for only discussion on the first two days.
This presumably would help solve so many of the trainwreck RfAs. And help avoid the "surprise problem discovered part-way through" scenario.
Other than to try to enforce comments and condemning just signatures (or merely adding "per nom" or "cute" sayings), anyone have any other ideas on how to solve this? - jc37 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I personally am against unbundling user-rights to be admin-approved the way some are now. Why? Rollback is one of several examples. In my experience, people are commonly and consistently misusing rollback. But admins aren't supervising usage the way that everyone thought that admins would. The simple matter is, removing rollback or any of the admin-given rights tends to be more drama than anyone cares to do, especially since they can turn a blind eye since it affects someone else, and not them. (human nature being what it is). (Is this true of all admins, of course not.) So just handing out delete or block just sounds like a bad idea to me.
I'm also against any changing of RfA to some star chamber or smoke-filled room, such as giving a limited group of individuals the ability to decide who can and cannot granted the tools or to determine who should have the tools removed (we already have Arbcom, I don't think we need more sub-councils). This should be an open process to the community.
I accept that others disagree with both of those. and that's perfectly fine.
But the point of this thread is: What else might we all agree on? - jc37 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Once upon a time we had a community removal process. We held a community-wide discussion, and then User:Jimbo Wales implemented the results (removed the tools if seen as necessary).
Like many of his other responsibilities, he has apparently mostly turned this task over to Arbcom.
The problem is that Arbcom has built up it's own bureaucracy (did RfC happen, did a mediation happen, etc.), that it takes forever, and by the time things get there, much drama has happened, and often a bunch of disruptions, reversion, wheel warring, and so on, and most everyone is sick of the whole thing by then, and meanwhile the admin may be continuing the concerning behaviour and/or doing things through "fait accompli" (the prolific uses of automated tools often makes this even worse, and more difficult to undo) I say this from LONG experience reading various WP:DR pages, (To which I include the various subpages of WP:AN, AN/I in particular). Again, you're welcome to disagree.
But then of course, the reverse is also true, we don't want lynch mobs calling for someone's head simply because they were doing what they were supposed to be doing, following common practice/policy/guidelines/process/etc.
So commenters at RfA, presumably well aware of these types of situations, may grill a candidate at RfA. Especially if they may have done something that certain commenters may have disagree with in the past.
(This is why it is often said that it is much more difficult to be regranted adminship after having it removed.)
So this obviously has ties to the " #Tone" thread above.
Can we come up with a fair way to remove adminship, without having admins concerned that the pitchforks could come for them any day? We want them to make choices based upon the appropriateness of the action, not out of fear of reprisal.
(I've noticed that those who participate in voluntary admin recall have often had intricate rules, to presumably help protect them from such lynch mobbing.)
So is it possible to come up with a process for adminship to be removed through a community process of some kind?
For example, if Arbcom is standing in for JW, then what are the downsides of restoring that previous system for removal, but just substitute a consensus of Arbcom members' discernment, for JW's discernment?
Are there other alternatives which are actually viable? - jc37 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The only reason I participate in voluntary recall is because there's no other community desysop process to take away my bit if I completely frak up. I've long been a proponent of a community desysop process (with restrictions, obviously - only one request every 6 months, etc) but until that's implemented, recall is the best option I can see for keeping me honest. Keilana| Parlez ici 17:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I do think the community can be trusted not to mob an admin like that. Yeah, people who felt that they had been wronged by an admin would support their desysopping, and if they felt that that was a legitimate misuse of the tools, that's fine. That would kind of be why the process is there. But because of the prominence of the page, I feel that the multitude of neutral observers would balance out the vociferous people with grudges. Perhaps having an independent editor vet the desysop proposal could work, but I feel that that could (a) be easily gamed and (b) subject to accusations of cabalism. Sorry for rambling. Keilana| Parlez ici 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I personally do not believe that the rights removal is really an issue in the minds of most of the voters when they vote on RfA. It's not on my mind because I base my votes on thorough research - and of course a bit of gut feeling. Generally, if a candidate meets my criteria, I will support, and if they don't, I won't. Desysoping is still a relatively rare event, and if any unworthy admins are still around (unfortunately there possibly are, but probably as few as only 2 or 3) , the community is at fault for not calling them to order. Let's also not forget that an occasional slip in the use of of the tools (I've made some) is not necessarily a deliberate bad faith act. General admin behaviour is usually more of an issue, but again does not necessarily involve a misuse of the tools. I most certainly feel that AOR could be a vote catcher and is imperfect because the admins make up their own rules - but no voter should support or oppose a candidate candidate for agreeing or not agreeing to OAR, and any that do should probably reconsider whether or not they are ready to be voting at RfA at all.
As for AN/I, one of the reasons why I am not active there, is because although it is supposed to be an admin noticeboard, again like voting at RfA, AfD and doing NPP which require no demonstration of competency, it has been overrun by inexperienced users wanting to be be involved in 'managerial' processes. In my opinion, AN/I should be 'Don't comment here or express an opinion, unless you are an admin or an involved party, or can provide clear evidence in the form of diffs.' (such as for example at SPI where any user can file for admin/CU action). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it not unreasonable that Any arb, subject to caveats such as NOTINVOLVED, should be able to desysop on their own judgement. I think this was within the power of Jimbo. Jimbo didn't have to consult his several alter egos, when they found time to consider. The desysopped editor should then have to make a case why he should not be desysopped. He should negotiate with the acting arb, or make a case to Arb Com, or go to RFA. If the Arb doesn't have a stick in his back pocket, he can't negotiate, he can only counsel. A weaker version of this idea would be "Two arbs", or "Three arbs", but the current "All Arbs, given weeks to consider and comment" is too limiting. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
What is atrocious behaviour worthy of a swift desysop to me might well be viewed as barely deserving of a wrist slap by another arb; both of us having a considered and reasonable basis for our judgements just disagreeing on where priorities lie and what is severe or not. The committee is diverse for a good reason: it is the stand-in for the community as a whole, and needs to be representative of its diversity. This is why arbcom processes make certain that the committee, not individual arbs, make any decision of substance when there isn't a pressing emergency. — Coren (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Where were all the content opposes at my RfA? I've seen a couple recent RfAs tank partially or wholly because people cite "not enough content work" and I know I had less than some of those candidates (and as a side note, I think I turned out reasonably well), and I certainly wasn't that much more qualified than any of them (if at all); how did my RfA go so smoothly while theirs didn't? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that this comes up due to two reasons.
The concern that someone who hasn't created content won't know the trevails that a content creator feels they go through, and so they would not want to trust such a person with the ability to delete.
And also, the feeling of "voting" for someone they can identify with, or even respect: wow you're involved in the FA process/have listed FAC links on your userpage, "just like me". And so on.
It's human nature, and whether we agree or not, is part of the "assess trust" process. - jc37 17:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
There has never been a community process for removing adminship. Characterizing the removal of adminship in the early days as community-based is revisionist. This is important in several ways:
Every time some sort of system -- whatever its mechanics -- for de-adminning people based on votes is proposed, it is rejected. There have been dozens of such proposals, many of them cataloged here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Straight to the point, a simple solution to a complex problem:
Every time anyone passes an RfA, he or she is given the non-expiring one-time right to suspend (no questions asked) the admin rights of any one admin whose last successful RfA has been closed less recently than the last successful RfA of the suspending admin. A suspended admin is prohibited from using the tools until he or she passes another RfA. Admins using the tools while suspended or not having filed an RfA within 30 days of being suspended may be desysoped.
The Pirate Solution! Thoughts? Criticism? Trouts? Don't hold back. I can take it. Good raise 01:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Open-minded thinking on this page is a good thing, but I am afraid I see nothing to recommend this proposal, and I suggest we don't spend much time on it. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
There are several admins who I don't like. I can apply through RfA, and if I pass, I'll be able to take revenge on one of the admins. Then I'll annoy one or two RfA candidates, perhaps even during their RfAs. One of them is bound to de-sysop me. At which point I'll be able to apply to RfA again, pass, and be able to de-sysop another admin on my hate list. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds scary, I'll admit, but is the outcome really undesirable? Voters at my second RfA would undoubtedly take my "abuse" of this mechanic into account. I'd argue that if my behavior is condoned by RfA voters it should not be considered abuse. And regarding the admins on my hate list, I'd argue that if they can't pass a reconfirmation RfA, they should not be admins in the first place. Isn't that what it boils down to? Should anyone who has the tools be able to pass a reconfirmation RfA? My answer to this question is a clear yes. What is yours?
@The Utahraptor: "if a new administrator gets angry at an older administrator for some reason, even if it's just a misunderstanding, they can suspend that admin's rights even if that admin did nothing wrong." – Granted, that would not be desirable. However, would you prefer a loose cannon like that to run around capable of deleting the main page? Do you really want editors like that to have the block button? I don't. And how long do you think the community of RfA voters would indulge two admins perpetually suspending each other? It's the same thing all over: At least one of them shouldn't be an admin.
@Kusma: Do you think that is what would happen? Personally, I don't think the current admin corps is composed of power hungry wannabe dictators. If this were true though, for the sake of the argument, the cabal would have to expose itself. Then we'd be just one step away from solving this hypothetical problem: exclude admins from voting at RfA.
@GiantSnowman: Technically, yes, "one-in, one-out" is a conceivable outcome. However, I don't think this would happen. The proposal is based on the believe that we are all reasonable people acting in good faith and that the few exceptions from this should not have the bit. Good raise 15:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
" I'd argue that if my behavior is condoned by RfA voters it should not be considered abuse. "
— Goodraise
In my opinion, even the potential for such abuse is enough for me to oppose this proposal. (From the handful of commentators above, I suspect that the Wikipedia community as a whole would also find this proposal unacceptable.) Also, I don't see why new admins should have more authority than long-standing admins. The issue of reconfirmation is a separate matter, which I believe has been discussed many times before. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
"However, would you prefer a loose cannon like that to run around capable of deleting the main page?" No, I would not, but I don't think your proposal would weed out these people. Granted, it could help, but I'm with Axl; even though we may or may not see abuse of this ability if it is put into action, the potential for such abuse is just too great. And like many others commenting on this proposal, I'm not terribly fond of the concept of giving newer admins extra power over older, more experienced admins. The Utahraptor Talk/ Contribs 18:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
@Axl: What abuse? The difference between abuse and acceptable behavior is determined by consensus, is it not?
Why shouldn't new admins be given this option (I wouldn't use the word authority here) over long-standing admins? They are the ones who have demonstrated through the RfA question and answer game that they are well versed in the current state of relevant guidelines and policies, which may not even have existed at the time a long-standing admin passed his or her last RfA.
@The Utahraptor: Any power can be misused. But wouldn't you agree that the way this mechanic is set up any misuse of it would automatically put a stop to itself? When I, fresh out of RfA, suspend an admin who should be an admin, then he or she will pass an RfA, suspend me in turn and I will soon find myself without the tools. The result is: one admin who should be an admin stays an admin and one admin who shouldn't have been made an admin is an admin no longer. Looks like a desirable outcome to me. On the other hand, if I run five consecutive RfAs, all pass and each time I suspend an admin who fails at his or her reconfirmation RfA, then the result is: one admin who should be an admin stays an admin and five admins who shouldn't be admins are admins no longer. I fail to see a problem with any of this. Good raise 19:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
How would you like this proposal? It would add even more motivation for "old admins" to increase their seniority by going through reconfirmation RfAs and brand new admins wouldn't be able to suspend every other admin anymore. Good raise 02:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Every time anyone passes an RfA, he or she is given the non-expiring one-time right to suspend (no questions asked) the admin rights of any one admin who since his or her last unsuccessful RfA has passed fewer consecutive RfAs than the suspending admin and whose last successful RfA has been closed less recently than the last successful RfA of the suspending admin. A suspended admin is prohibited from using the tools until he or she passes another RfA. Admins using the tools while suspended or not having filed an RfA within 30 days of being suspended may be desysoped.
So, an admin who has passed his first RfA, failed his second, and passed his third RfA could be suspended by an admin who passed her first and second RfAs, has not failed at an RfA since, and whose most recent RfA was closed more recently than the first admin's second RfA. Simple enough, isn't it? As for incivility at RfA, I'm not lurking this and related pages only since yesterday. I've seen what's going on and I think the incivility is largely a byproduct of said voter reluctance. "Can't find anything wrong with a candidate? Be uncivil!" Good raise 04:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Every time anyone passes an RfA, he or she is given the non-expiring one-time right to suspend (no questions asked) the admin rights of any one admin who since his or her last unsuccessful RfA if any has passed fewer consecutive RfAs than the suspending admin and whose last successful RfA has been closed less recently than the last successful RfA of the suspending admin. A suspended admin is prohibited from using the tools until he or she passes another RfA. Admins using the tools while suspended or not having filed an RfA within 30 days of being suspended may be desysoped.
To put it differently, my horse has died a while ago. I'm just waiting for people to stop poking the carcass with a stick (however long that is going to take) before I walk away. Anyway, you have my thanks for taking the time to look beyond the surface of the proposal. It's been a pleasure discussing this with you. Good raise 15:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Activity on RFA has been declining recently. Is anyone planning on using this process in the next week or two? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 06:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Is Kim thinking of borrowing it? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I consider myself an admin from the "middle era" generation of editors who passed through RfA. The process was borderline ridiculous back then, and within a year it had really tilted to being a massive timesuck on anyone who just wanted a few extra buttons based on a reliable contribution history. I'm less active these days, but I still care about the project. I think if the RfA were less of a "prove you're a fanboy of Wikipedia" and more of a "I want the bit and meet these basic requirements" rubber stamp, then we'd see some of that administrative enthusiasm return from days of yore. At the same time, we also have to respect that this is less a project in decline, than simply a mature project on which the low hanging fruit has been accomplished. Hiberniantears ( talk) 18:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Based upon the discussion above, what do you all think of:
It addresses the suggestions and limitations noted above, while allowing for the community, the bureaucrats, and arbcom all to be involved. And there are enough steps and safety valves that it's (hopefully) unlikely that "pitchforks noms" will be successful.
With the time limit restrictions, remember that "it doesn't have to be you" to nominate or certify, just like our standard that "it doesn't have to be you" to close an XfD. And they are that lengthy because the process potentially takes a month and a half to fully resolve. (Though the process could be as short as 7 days, if arbcom is quick to come to consensus.)
What do you think? - jc37 15:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's chance, even if there is no systematic planning to do so. The community's favor will naturally tend to "balance out" the committee at every election; a lenient committee will tend to see more severe arbs elected, and vice-versa.
Also, different "philosophical" groups of elector will tend to favour candidates whose stances more closely align to theirs; so that the successful candidates tend to cover most of the editor spectrum. But regardless of the mechanism, the end result it the same: there are few decisions where arbs are unanimous, and contentious decisions (like a desysopping is likely to be) will often have initial reactions ranging from "off with their heads" to "give 'em a medal". That's why it's important that, whenever possible, ArbCom decisions be the result of a deliberative process. — Coren (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
All this talk of making it easier to desysop people got me thinking: how would this change the way admins behave? If it were easier to lose the bit, I believe you would see admins begin to shy away from making decisions in controversial situations. Contentious XfD's would linger and not get closed anywhere near on time (if at all), contentious DRV's would hang around long past their expiration, admins would pass up factious threads on ANI unless there was a crystal clear consensus for admin action.
To some degree, admins would become more like politicians: less transparent and unwilling to speak their mind on controversial topics. Difficult decisions would be made in fear; with the knowledge that this decision could be the one that causes someone to use their "one-shot no-questions-asked desysop gun" on them, or to initiate what amounts to a second RfA on them to see if they should keep the bit.
If we want admins to continue making difficult and unpopular decisions, then we need to supply them with the freedom to make those decisions without fear of retribution. Before considering making it easier to desysop, we should also consider the chilling effect it might have on admin behavior. -Scottywong | babble _ 14:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a balance. Whilst admins (and crats for that matter) who make controversial decisions can expect a substantial number of people to criticise those decisions, there are limits. If, say, more than 50% of a representative sample of Wikipedians think an admin is getting it so wrong that they should step down, that admin is not not making merely "controversial" decisions, they are making "wrong" ones. WJBscribe (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I was here a few months ago predicting WP:CHU would be backlogged once I was unavailable. Now see User_talk:MBisanz#Changing_username:Simple. It's a problem and it's not going to get fixed until the community agrees to appoint more crats. I'm trying, but I just don't have the hours in the day to handle it. MBisanz talk 02:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I see what Newyorkbrad's is saying, but what about this. As well as give change username (CHU) rights to checkusers & oversighters, what about a simple process whereby admins (who have experience, such as clerking at WP:CHU) can ask for the right at BN? To make sure it isn't a major/complicated process, they are listed for 1 week, and only crats (and maybe admins) can comment (and only oppose with reason), if there are no opposes (opposes without reason don't count) after 1 week a crat grants the right. To make sure server load isn't a problem the number of CHUs is capped (excluding checkusers & oversighters) reasonably low and if people with the right don't use it after x months it can be removed. Callanecc ( talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm thinking (and I'm happy to admit that it's only a guess) that if it were very clear to both crats (and possibly admins - but that's a whole other issue) that if they don't use their tools they lose them. From a very quick look at the last 500 user rename log entries (which I know isn't all crats do - but is really a big part of it) the number of different crats was about 15 - less than half the actual number with crat user rights. Now, fair enough some may be on holidays - but 20 of them?.
I think the "use it or lose it approach", will very much encourage current crats to do the jobs their unique tools require them to do. And if they don't, they have their tools removed and have to justify to the community why they didn't do the jobs we entrusted them to do. It will also mean that the list of crats becomes a list of current crats and the community has a much better idea of how many there actually are.
Happy for any feedback, I have no idea about how the crat world operates so feel free to comment.
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs)
talkback (etc) template appreciated. 03:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
It would certainly be nice to have another bureaucrat or two active at WP:CHU. While I do my best to help out MBIsanz, who tends to do most of the work, I am constrained by availability. I'm just back from a week-long absence, and I will be absent again for a week in August. I don't like doing renames blindly, so it takes me some time to review requests. Also, I go through busy stretches, or I'd rather edit articles, so the backlog can grow fairly big quite quickly. The task of doing renames does get quite tedious, so it is always good to appoint new 'crats regularly. Maxim (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
More bureaucrats are probably a good idea but I would like to point out: (i) I have only just become aware that there was a backlog at WP:CHU/S on 13 July; (ii) I don't check WP:CHU every day, but when I do I tend to find most requests are already actioned (by MBisanz usually, for which he is to be commended); (iii) if someone had let me know (by email, talkpage or even by a notice at WP:BN) that there was a backlog, I could have found an hour or two over the weekend to work through some requests. I don't know how bad the backlog was or how long it took to clear, but it now appears to be gone and renames are not an urgent process. I'm not sure it's necessarily a good idea to distract admins from more important areas that need admin attention with rename duties and oversighters/checkuser must surely have better things to do? There's not much other crat work, so it kinda makes sense for crats to handle it but I would suggest: (i) more nudging of the less active bureaucrats so we know when we're needed to step in; and (ii) more bureaucrat appointments. WJBscribe (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
To start off, I knew what the expectation was when I posted my RfB, so no sour grapes here.
But I was wondering why the thresh-hold is still so much higher for RfB?
Why do I say "still"?
Well, once upon a time, when requesting RfB you also had the option of requesting checkuser.
And that was before the current requirements for check user.
So back then, having the higher thresh-hold made sense. (It was 90% back then, I believe.)
But now, CU is an entirely separate process.
So as things are now, is the high thresh-hold still necessary?
Right now, it is easier to become a steward on meta ( meta:Steward_elections#Process), than a bureaucrat here.
Would the world end if we changed the circa 85% to circa 80%, with at least 30 supports?
(Note, I believe my RfB would still have been unsuccessful under this : )
So what does everyone think? - jc37 17:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Are we allowed to ask questions such as. What are your views on administrators being open to recall? I know that could be perceived as a loaded question, but where there may be some minor concerns about a user's ability to be an admin, their being open to recall in my view would make me more likely to support because if they broke the trust placed in them then there may be chance for the community to review that trust. It wouldn't be something i would ask everyone but if there was some doubt. Edinburgh Wanderer ( talk) 23:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to be an administrator because i helped wikipedia by patrolling pages, by telling administrator what to delete,by telling them what users to block and by making warning messages on users talk-pages if they created wrong pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Receptie123 ( talk • contribs) 05:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Why on earth have we started to make this a requirement for admin candidates? I personally think it's a waste of time for an admin wannabe to practice putting close templates on an AFD or whatever; I much prefer to see well-reasoned policy-based comments. Also, why is it even more in vogue for non-admin observations to pop up at UAA/AIV/PERM/wherever? Usually, it's not much help, because I'm going to go through contribs carefully anyways. Again, I much prefer to see solid reports at UAA and AIV. I don't care about PERM. Does this make sense to other RfA types, or do I need my morning coffee? Keilana| Parlez ici 15:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Why on earth have we started to make this a requirement for admin candidates? 'We' haven't. There might have been a few rare isolated cases where some occasional voters want it, but as far as I know, none of the clued up regular RfA voters have it listed as one of their mandatory criteria. A bit less scaremongering please.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk) 04:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The way I have come to see it is that there is a growing number of editors that frequent RfA who have their own particular sacred cow, and will not support anyone who hasn't recognized and payed homage to whatever little dark corner of Wikipedia they feel is so important. This seems to become a problem when in any given RfA you have an entire herd of these sacred cows, every single one of which need to be tended to or else someone is going to to oppose because the candidate has somehow overlooked the dire necessity of... I don't know... creating a featured portal. Unfortunately, every RfA is going to have 100+ editors judging it, all with their own criteria for what makes a suitable admin, and not all of them are going to be rational. Trusilver 08:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
To Kusma and Trusilver: there are no formal rules regarding the suitability of "oppose" !votes. The closest that we have is WP:AAAD, and that is no more than an essay. Even WP:AAAD doesn't discourage this particular reason for opposing.
This is a minority viewpoint that you happen to disagree with. However that doesn't justify the labels "stupid" or a "sacred cow". Would you apply the same labels if the viewpoint was a majority one, and you were in the minority? The Wikipedia community entrusts bureaucrats to judge the validity of these !votes, and they don't discuss their reasoning, to avoid unnecessary controversy. Let the bureaucrats do their job. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Non-administrator closures of XfDs, threads, etc. are sufficiently controversial in all but the most obvious cases, such that it is a very bad idea to hold the lack of them against an RfA candidate. It's great when qualified non-admins make such closures in appropriate cases, especially when the result is to save community time, but we don't want candidates feeling they need to go out and find clear-cut XfDs etc. suitable for such closures before they are ready for RfA. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the reason this has become an issue at RfA is very simple: we aren't actually sure what role non-admins should play in some of the admin areas. Non-admin closures shouldn't be required, sure, and crats ought to give such votes pretty low standing. But look at other admin things that non-admins do, like non-admin observations on WP:RFPERM requests. There's some issues here. In general, they can be really useful, but some people do them just to bulk out their edits and 'prepare' themselves for RfA. Routine non-admin observations to add useless information that the admin would check anyway (like looking at the user's created pages when deciding on an autopatrolled request) aren't actually that valuable and hint at perhaps a hat collecting mentality. That said, if someone consistently provides useful and non-obvious information that actually assist admins in their day-to-day business, that's helpful. And non-admin closures are a useful contribution: they clear the easy cases out of the AfD backlog leaving the harder stuff for admins to do. But expecting NACs? Meh. They are a nice bonus, but not having them ought not lose a candidate any brownie points. — Tom Morris ( talk) 22:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Non admin closures" are important, it shouldn't even be a separate category: can we just call it "closures"? If you disagree with these people, you'll have to enter a discussion with people who require closures be done. Bureaucrats (or Other (Non Bureaucrat) Closers :-P) should not attach higher or lower "values" to any person's opinions, without at least a discussion attached that shows some progress towards a consensus (or lack thereof), obviously. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 15:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC) If you disagree with me, perhaps you should practice doing more closures? O:-)
Congratulations, we made the news. A rarity indeed. I agree with Jim's comments that there's no need for concern, especially since they did not use an annual figure of comparison, but rather one month last year compared to last month -- we all know some months are more busy than others. What I did find interesting was the mention of how arduous the admin process has become in comparison to years such as 2008. I have often felt that as veteran editors, our demands and expectations have significantly increased, and we expect large volumes of work to be done prior to their promotion. New and incoming editors who wish to be admins are having difficulty keeping up and must either have years of experience or have spent an almost unreasonable amount of time editing with in their first twelve months to do so. This was not the case earlier on, and many of those green admins took the necessary steps to a point and learned the rest once they were at adminship. While not ideal, its the same case of only hiring salted veterans in a company rather than the fresh crop out of university. Ultimately what you lose is the impact of innovation from a younger group of people. Not in age, but that have fresh eyes to the process. Mkdw talk 16:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The Atlantic has rather more detail: [5] . I agree there's no cause for concern for Wikipedia. Wikipedia will be just fine without RFA someday, just like it does just fine without WP:Esperanza or WP:AMA these days. O:-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 15:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The summary chart at WP:BN looks like old times: a bunch of RfAs active, plenty of green and some WP:100 candidates. Joy and happiness. -- Dweller ( talk) 08:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
"Joy and happiness"I was thinking the same thing. I was wondering if it was related to people meeting each other at Wikimania or something. Either way, it does seem like old times. Kind regards. BTW, good song, Dave. 64.40.57.60 ( talk) 10:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Whilst it may not be what we most want to discuss in this fine weather with a string of good admin nominations, I've started a proof of concept RfC on community de-adminship. Please do join in. Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept WormTT( talk) 18:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
After seeing the RfA table in this page showing live update of votes, I just got an idea. Why not create a table that shows live update of the backlog in various admin noticeboards and if possible, the number of logged in admins. Pardon me if I am ignorant about any such template already available. -- Anbu121 ( talk me) 21:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments welcome. - jc37 03:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I know some who watchlist here have been watching the arguments for years over how to promote to or demote from any (theoretical) position that's "under" adminship ... what the community thinks, what the dangers might be. Anyone's input on a similar issue involving Pending Changes at the above link is welcome. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed this discussion and wanted to mention something. When we get close calls like this, IMO, we should err on the side of the individual. There are a lot of chores that admins do and there are currentky not enough of them to do the job. Particularly in cases like this where there are less than solid Opposes.
I especially think opposes that infer we need editors more than admins and the like should not be counted which, as I can figure would have allowed this to pass. I also don't really think that an Editors opinion that paid editing should be allowed should be held against them either. There have been admins that said this. Just my opinion. Kumioko ( talk) 12:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it just me or has this process vastly improved in the last month or so. The bitterness seems to have been removed for now and there are strong, deserving candidates coming through. Maybe I'm being naieve, but...gosh. Has a power struggle between generations ended or something? Ceoil ( talk) 11:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Just want to note that with all these unanimous RFAs passing in a row (5), has not occurred since February 2008, a month after I passed. The month I passed, January 2008, had 6 in a row unanimous. I among others are happy to see some unanimous RFAs and basically clean ones. Mitch32( There is a destiny that makes us... family.) 19:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I really fail to see why we have these conversations every other week. Can we please move on? There hasn't be an original statement in one of these threads for several years... Sven Manguard Wha? 22:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Just wondering something and please don't think I am being sarcastic or snide but is there a record of the lowest scoring RFA? I think I am going for a record. Just a note, please don't close it on WP:SNOW, I want to let it ride out. Kumioko ( talk) 02:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wiki Greek Basketball went 1/38/4 (the lone support was essentially trolling), but I definitely consider it the worst RFA ever. -- MuZemike 21:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 210 | ← | Archive 215 | Archive 216 | Archive 217 | Archive 218 | Archive 219 | Archive 220 |
Should the RfA report continue to appear on the main WP:RFA page, not just the talk page? It was just added to the main RfA page a couple of days ago. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
There have been 4 RfAs and RfBs created incorrectly by nominators in the past 48 hours. They had to be reverted Was a warning of some sort taken down or should it be put up? Perhaps a reminder to read Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate#To nominate someone else before transcluding? Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I've seen some of the RfA problems, community concerns, and administrative conduct that conjoin to be a big part of the whole "reform problem". And a way to alleviate it. We know how things are done. Consider this alternative:
Rather than each admin being a sovereign at large, the corp should establish specific areas of proficiency, and maintain a roster of admins who participate in that area; like a task force for each. There would be certain aspects, like the uncontroversial stuff, that all admins could do. And any admin could be on several TF rosters. But if they were not on the TF roster, they would give deference to the ones who were; when in that area.
The RfA candidate would be nominated to the specific TF's they express proficiency in, vetted, and if successful; signed only to the rosters the RfA vetted them for. Once in the admin field, each TF should have their own process for bringing an admin in. This would preclude the RfA panel from being overly concerned that the candidate must be proficient in all areas from day one. It could even provide a mechanism where the community could more easily have an administrator removed from a specific TF, where there may be cause; without necessitating a full desysop.
Such an organized structure would go far I believe, to address many of the problems. This is not the end of the idea, but the beginning, and I hope with other ideas attached, we could finally resolve some of the deepest sentiments, across the board. StringdaBrokeda ( talk) 02:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
It is interesting though, that it already sort of functions like this, but proficiency in some areas are de facto required. For example, an editor would not be broadly opposed for adminship because he was lousy with regex, but he'd be expected to avoid the AbuseFilter. Something similar goes for potential admins who can't comprehend hist-merging. But knowing whom to block and what to delete are seen as general requirements for being an admin, and "I don't intend to be active there" doesn't seem to fly in this process. For some people, it's the difference between technical knowledge and clue, or maybe some just don't trust the candidate to be conservative in areas he doesn't understand. Regardless, I don't think adding extra bureaucracy is going to help anything. You're just going to get animosity between people within and without any particular clique. Someguy1221 ( talk) 04:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I just wanted to note that due to the WMF clarifying that the ability to see deleted content is important, that that pretty much means the arguement that "adminship is not a big deal" is pretty much dead now.
Though of course, I welcome others' opinions on this. - jc37 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, So I've done a lot of reading of late, catching up on the past concerns and proposals, and various discussions, not to mention the current batch of ideas.
Based upon all that reading, I have some thoughts.
I obviously sincerely look forward to everyone else's thoughts as well (and may ask clarifying questions about them). My intent is hoping for one or more ideas which could be turned into some actual workable solutions. - jc37 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Everyone says they don't like the tone of RfA. But as long as it's a wide-open process allowing everyone to determine based upon trust (and thus also on fear), RfA will be like this.
Oh, and let's not forget that some admins tend to be rather protective of any change to adminship or to RfA. There's (semi-unexpressed) "fear" there too.
There are various ways to deal with individuals' trust concerns and fears. For example, we can reduce the number of things which some individuals may be concerned about. We can add rules and limits to which particular and/or specific criterons are "allowed" to be used to support/oppose (though should that happen, people will just lie and support/oppose as they would have anyway - again, human nature: I want what I want.) This can also come out in what the commenters ask in questions, and say in their comments.
The only way we're going to "fix" this "trust/fear" problem at RfA at this stage is if we alleviate/address at least some fears. I s
Ideas on this welcome. - jc37 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Another problem at RfA is this hybrid we've built between consensus and voting.
There's been "some" effort to quell the "just signing here" concept at RfA, but it still exists.
I did like the idea to remove the "support/oppose sections" concept and replace it with "Noted concerns/discussion sections". Then have the closing bureaucrat assess the concerns listed to determine if the request was successful or not. Obviously this would rely more on bureaucrat discernment. Something that (unfortunately) not everyone seems eager to do. The permissions process and WP:CHUS (for example) do this, though with a slightly different structure.
Another solution that I really liked was to change RfA from a standard "7+" days to "2 and 5+". The polling would not start until the third day, to allow for only discussion on the first two days.
This presumably would help solve so many of the trainwreck RfAs. And help avoid the "surprise problem discovered part-way through" scenario.
Other than to try to enforce comments and condemning just signatures (or merely adding "per nom" or "cute" sayings), anyone have any other ideas on how to solve this? - jc37 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I personally am against unbundling user-rights to be admin-approved the way some are now. Why? Rollback is one of several examples. In my experience, people are commonly and consistently misusing rollback. But admins aren't supervising usage the way that everyone thought that admins would. The simple matter is, removing rollback or any of the admin-given rights tends to be more drama than anyone cares to do, especially since they can turn a blind eye since it affects someone else, and not them. (human nature being what it is). (Is this true of all admins, of course not.) So just handing out delete or block just sounds like a bad idea to me.
I'm also against any changing of RfA to some star chamber or smoke-filled room, such as giving a limited group of individuals the ability to decide who can and cannot granted the tools or to determine who should have the tools removed (we already have Arbcom, I don't think we need more sub-councils). This should be an open process to the community.
I accept that others disagree with both of those. and that's perfectly fine.
But the point of this thread is: What else might we all agree on? - jc37 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Once upon a time we had a community removal process. We held a community-wide discussion, and then User:Jimbo Wales implemented the results (removed the tools if seen as necessary).
Like many of his other responsibilities, he has apparently mostly turned this task over to Arbcom.
The problem is that Arbcom has built up it's own bureaucracy (did RfC happen, did a mediation happen, etc.), that it takes forever, and by the time things get there, much drama has happened, and often a bunch of disruptions, reversion, wheel warring, and so on, and most everyone is sick of the whole thing by then, and meanwhile the admin may be continuing the concerning behaviour and/or doing things through "fait accompli" (the prolific uses of automated tools often makes this even worse, and more difficult to undo) I say this from LONG experience reading various WP:DR pages, (To which I include the various subpages of WP:AN, AN/I in particular). Again, you're welcome to disagree.
But then of course, the reverse is also true, we don't want lynch mobs calling for someone's head simply because they were doing what they were supposed to be doing, following common practice/policy/guidelines/process/etc.
So commenters at RfA, presumably well aware of these types of situations, may grill a candidate at RfA. Especially if they may have done something that certain commenters may have disagree with in the past.
(This is why it is often said that it is much more difficult to be regranted adminship after having it removed.)
So this obviously has ties to the " #Tone" thread above.
Can we come up with a fair way to remove adminship, without having admins concerned that the pitchforks could come for them any day? We want them to make choices based upon the appropriateness of the action, not out of fear of reprisal.
(I've noticed that those who participate in voluntary admin recall have often had intricate rules, to presumably help protect them from such lynch mobbing.)
So is it possible to come up with a process for adminship to be removed through a community process of some kind?
For example, if Arbcom is standing in for JW, then what are the downsides of restoring that previous system for removal, but just substitute a consensus of Arbcom members' discernment, for JW's discernment?
Are there other alternatives which are actually viable? - jc37 17:26, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
The only reason I participate in voluntary recall is because there's no other community desysop process to take away my bit if I completely frak up. I've long been a proponent of a community desysop process (with restrictions, obviously - only one request every 6 months, etc) but until that's implemented, recall is the best option I can see for keeping me honest. Keilana| Parlez ici 17:41, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I do think the community can be trusted not to mob an admin like that. Yeah, people who felt that they had been wronged by an admin would support their desysopping, and if they felt that that was a legitimate misuse of the tools, that's fine. That would kind of be why the process is there. But because of the prominence of the page, I feel that the multitude of neutral observers would balance out the vociferous people with grudges. Perhaps having an independent editor vet the desysop proposal could work, but I feel that that could (a) be easily gamed and (b) subject to accusations of cabalism. Sorry for rambling. Keilana| Parlez ici 21:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I personally do not believe that the rights removal is really an issue in the minds of most of the voters when they vote on RfA. It's not on my mind because I base my votes on thorough research - and of course a bit of gut feeling. Generally, if a candidate meets my criteria, I will support, and if they don't, I won't. Desysoping is still a relatively rare event, and if any unworthy admins are still around (unfortunately there possibly are, but probably as few as only 2 or 3) , the community is at fault for not calling them to order. Let's also not forget that an occasional slip in the use of of the tools (I've made some) is not necessarily a deliberate bad faith act. General admin behaviour is usually more of an issue, but again does not necessarily involve a misuse of the tools. I most certainly feel that AOR could be a vote catcher and is imperfect because the admins make up their own rules - but no voter should support or oppose a candidate candidate for agreeing or not agreeing to OAR, and any that do should probably reconsider whether or not they are ready to be voting at RfA at all.
As for AN/I, one of the reasons why I am not active there, is because although it is supposed to be an admin noticeboard, again like voting at RfA, AfD and doing NPP which require no demonstration of competency, it has been overrun by inexperienced users wanting to be be involved in 'managerial' processes. In my opinion, AN/I should be 'Don't comment here or express an opinion, unless you are an admin or an involved party, or can provide clear evidence in the form of diffs.' (such as for example at SPI where any user can file for admin/CU action). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 00:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I think it not unreasonable that Any arb, subject to caveats such as NOTINVOLVED, should be able to desysop on their own judgement. I think this was within the power of Jimbo. Jimbo didn't have to consult his several alter egos, when they found time to consider. The desysopped editor should then have to make a case why he should not be desysopped. He should negotiate with the acting arb, or make a case to Arb Com, or go to RFA. If the Arb doesn't have a stick in his back pocket, he can't negotiate, he can only counsel. A weaker version of this idea would be "Two arbs", or "Three arbs", but the current "All Arbs, given weeks to consider and comment" is too limiting. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
What is atrocious behaviour worthy of a swift desysop to me might well be viewed as barely deserving of a wrist slap by another arb; both of us having a considered and reasonable basis for our judgements just disagreeing on where priorities lie and what is severe or not. The committee is diverse for a good reason: it is the stand-in for the community as a whole, and needs to be representative of its diversity. This is why arbcom processes make certain that the committee, not individual arbs, make any decision of substance when there isn't a pressing emergency. — Coren (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Where were all the content opposes at my RfA? I've seen a couple recent RfAs tank partially or wholly because people cite "not enough content work" and I know I had less than some of those candidates (and as a side note, I think I turned out reasonably well), and I certainly wasn't that much more qualified than any of them (if at all); how did my RfA go so smoothly while theirs didn't? The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 15:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
I think that this comes up due to two reasons.
The concern that someone who hasn't created content won't know the trevails that a content creator feels they go through, and so they would not want to trust such a person with the ability to delete.
And also, the feeling of "voting" for someone they can identify with, or even respect: wow you're involved in the FA process/have listed FAC links on your userpage, "just like me". And so on.
It's human nature, and whether we agree or not, is part of the "assess trust" process. - jc37 17:33, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
There has never been a community process for removing adminship. Characterizing the removal of adminship in the early days as community-based is revisionist. This is important in several ways:
Every time some sort of system -- whatever its mechanics -- for de-adminning people based on votes is proposed, it is rejected. There have been dozens of such proposals, many of them cataloged here. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:43, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Straight to the point, a simple solution to a complex problem:
Every time anyone passes an RfA, he or she is given the non-expiring one-time right to suspend (no questions asked) the admin rights of any one admin whose last successful RfA has been closed less recently than the last successful RfA of the suspending admin. A suspended admin is prohibited from using the tools until he or she passes another RfA. Admins using the tools while suspended or not having filed an RfA within 30 days of being suspended may be desysoped.
The Pirate Solution! Thoughts? Criticism? Trouts? Don't hold back. I can take it. Good raise 01:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Open-minded thinking on this page is a good thing, but I am afraid I see nothing to recommend this proposal, and I suggest we don't spend much time on it. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 02:05, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
There are several admins who I don't like. I can apply through RfA, and if I pass, I'll be able to take revenge on one of the admins. Then I'll annoy one or two RfA candidates, perhaps even during their RfAs. One of them is bound to de-sysop me. At which point I'll be able to apply to RfA again, pass, and be able to de-sysop another admin on my hate list. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds scary, I'll admit, but is the outcome really undesirable? Voters at my second RfA would undoubtedly take my "abuse" of this mechanic into account. I'd argue that if my behavior is condoned by RfA voters it should not be considered abuse. And regarding the admins on my hate list, I'd argue that if they can't pass a reconfirmation RfA, they should not be admins in the first place. Isn't that what it boils down to? Should anyone who has the tools be able to pass a reconfirmation RfA? My answer to this question is a clear yes. What is yours?
@The Utahraptor: "if a new administrator gets angry at an older administrator for some reason, even if it's just a misunderstanding, they can suspend that admin's rights even if that admin did nothing wrong." – Granted, that would not be desirable. However, would you prefer a loose cannon like that to run around capable of deleting the main page? Do you really want editors like that to have the block button? I don't. And how long do you think the community of RfA voters would indulge two admins perpetually suspending each other? It's the same thing all over: At least one of them shouldn't be an admin.
@Kusma: Do you think that is what would happen? Personally, I don't think the current admin corps is composed of power hungry wannabe dictators. If this were true though, for the sake of the argument, the cabal would have to expose itself. Then we'd be just one step away from solving this hypothetical problem: exclude admins from voting at RfA.
@GiantSnowman: Technically, yes, "one-in, one-out" is a conceivable outcome. However, I don't think this would happen. The proposal is based on the believe that we are all reasonable people acting in good faith and that the few exceptions from this should not have the bit. Good raise 15:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
" I'd argue that if my behavior is condoned by RfA voters it should not be considered abuse. "
— Goodraise
In my opinion, even the potential for such abuse is enough for me to oppose this proposal. (From the handful of commentators above, I suspect that the Wikipedia community as a whole would also find this proposal unacceptable.) Also, I don't see why new admins should have more authority than long-standing admins. The issue of reconfirmation is a separate matter, which I believe has been discussed many times before. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:59, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
"However, would you prefer a loose cannon like that to run around capable of deleting the main page?" No, I would not, but I don't think your proposal would weed out these people. Granted, it could help, but I'm with Axl; even though we may or may not see abuse of this ability if it is put into action, the potential for such abuse is just too great. And like many others commenting on this proposal, I'm not terribly fond of the concept of giving newer admins extra power over older, more experienced admins. The Utahraptor Talk/ Contribs 18:42, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
@Axl: What abuse? The difference between abuse and acceptable behavior is determined by consensus, is it not?
Why shouldn't new admins be given this option (I wouldn't use the word authority here) over long-standing admins? They are the ones who have demonstrated through the RfA question and answer game that they are well versed in the current state of relevant guidelines and policies, which may not even have existed at the time a long-standing admin passed his or her last RfA.
@The Utahraptor: Any power can be misused. But wouldn't you agree that the way this mechanic is set up any misuse of it would automatically put a stop to itself? When I, fresh out of RfA, suspend an admin who should be an admin, then he or she will pass an RfA, suspend me in turn and I will soon find myself without the tools. The result is: one admin who should be an admin stays an admin and one admin who shouldn't have been made an admin is an admin no longer. Looks like a desirable outcome to me. On the other hand, if I run five consecutive RfAs, all pass and each time I suspend an admin who fails at his or her reconfirmation RfA, then the result is: one admin who should be an admin stays an admin and five admins who shouldn't be admins are admins no longer. I fail to see a problem with any of this. Good raise 19:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
How would you like this proposal? It would add even more motivation for "old admins" to increase their seniority by going through reconfirmation RfAs and brand new admins wouldn't be able to suspend every other admin anymore. Good raise 02:57, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Every time anyone passes an RfA, he or she is given the non-expiring one-time right to suspend (no questions asked) the admin rights of any one admin who since his or her last unsuccessful RfA has passed fewer consecutive RfAs than the suspending admin and whose last successful RfA has been closed less recently than the last successful RfA of the suspending admin. A suspended admin is prohibited from using the tools until he or she passes another RfA. Admins using the tools while suspended or not having filed an RfA within 30 days of being suspended may be desysoped.
So, an admin who has passed his first RfA, failed his second, and passed his third RfA could be suspended by an admin who passed her first and second RfAs, has not failed at an RfA since, and whose most recent RfA was closed more recently than the first admin's second RfA. Simple enough, isn't it? As for incivility at RfA, I'm not lurking this and related pages only since yesterday. I've seen what's going on and I think the incivility is largely a byproduct of said voter reluctance. "Can't find anything wrong with a candidate? Be uncivil!" Good raise 04:01, 14 July 2012 (UTC)Every time anyone passes an RfA, he or she is given the non-expiring one-time right to suspend (no questions asked) the admin rights of any one admin who since his or her last unsuccessful RfA if any has passed fewer consecutive RfAs than the suspending admin and whose last successful RfA has been closed less recently than the last successful RfA of the suspending admin. A suspended admin is prohibited from using the tools until he or she passes another RfA. Admins using the tools while suspended or not having filed an RfA within 30 days of being suspended may be desysoped.
To put it differently, my horse has died a while ago. I'm just waiting for people to stop poking the carcass with a stick (however long that is going to take) before I walk away. Anyway, you have my thanks for taking the time to look beyond the surface of the proposal. It's been a pleasure discussing this with you. Good raise 15:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Activity on RFA has been declining recently. Is anyone planning on using this process in the next week or two? -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 06:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Is Kim thinking of borrowing it? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I consider myself an admin from the "middle era" generation of editors who passed through RfA. The process was borderline ridiculous back then, and within a year it had really tilted to being a massive timesuck on anyone who just wanted a few extra buttons based on a reliable contribution history. I'm less active these days, but I still care about the project. I think if the RfA were less of a "prove you're a fanboy of Wikipedia" and more of a "I want the bit and meet these basic requirements" rubber stamp, then we'd see some of that administrative enthusiasm return from days of yore. At the same time, we also have to respect that this is less a project in decline, than simply a mature project on which the low hanging fruit has been accomplished. Hiberniantears ( talk) 18:41, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Based upon the discussion above, what do you all think of:
It addresses the suggestions and limitations noted above, while allowing for the community, the bureaucrats, and arbcom all to be involved. And there are enough steps and safety valves that it's (hopefully) unlikely that "pitchforks noms" will be successful.
With the time limit restrictions, remember that "it doesn't have to be you" to nominate or certify, just like our standard that "it doesn't have to be you" to close an XfD. And they are that lengthy because the process potentially takes a month and a half to fully resolve. (Though the process could be as short as 7 days, if arbcom is quick to come to consensus.)
What do you think? - jc37 15:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's chance, even if there is no systematic planning to do so. The community's favor will naturally tend to "balance out" the committee at every election; a lenient committee will tend to see more severe arbs elected, and vice-versa.
Also, different "philosophical" groups of elector will tend to favour candidates whose stances more closely align to theirs; so that the successful candidates tend to cover most of the editor spectrum. But regardless of the mechanism, the end result it the same: there are few decisions where arbs are unanimous, and contentious decisions (like a desysopping is likely to be) will often have initial reactions ranging from "off with their heads" to "give 'em a medal". That's why it's important that, whenever possible, ArbCom decisions be the result of a deliberative process. — Coren (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
All this talk of making it easier to desysop people got me thinking: how would this change the way admins behave? If it were easier to lose the bit, I believe you would see admins begin to shy away from making decisions in controversial situations. Contentious XfD's would linger and not get closed anywhere near on time (if at all), contentious DRV's would hang around long past their expiration, admins would pass up factious threads on ANI unless there was a crystal clear consensus for admin action.
To some degree, admins would become more like politicians: less transparent and unwilling to speak their mind on controversial topics. Difficult decisions would be made in fear; with the knowledge that this decision could be the one that causes someone to use their "one-shot no-questions-asked desysop gun" on them, or to initiate what amounts to a second RfA on them to see if they should keep the bit.
If we want admins to continue making difficult and unpopular decisions, then we need to supply them with the freedom to make those decisions without fear of retribution. Before considering making it easier to desysop, we should also consider the chilling effect it might have on admin behavior. -Scottywong | babble _ 14:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
There's a balance. Whilst admins (and crats for that matter) who make controversial decisions can expect a substantial number of people to criticise those decisions, there are limits. If, say, more than 50% of a representative sample of Wikipedians think an admin is getting it so wrong that they should step down, that admin is not not making merely "controversial" decisions, they are making "wrong" ones. WJBscribe (talk) 14:33, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I was here a few months ago predicting WP:CHU would be backlogged once I was unavailable. Now see User_talk:MBisanz#Changing_username:Simple. It's a problem and it's not going to get fixed until the community agrees to appoint more crats. I'm trying, but I just don't have the hours in the day to handle it. MBisanz talk 02:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I see what Newyorkbrad's is saying, but what about this. As well as give change username (CHU) rights to checkusers & oversighters, what about a simple process whereby admins (who have experience, such as clerking at WP:CHU) can ask for the right at BN? To make sure it isn't a major/complicated process, they are listed for 1 week, and only crats (and maybe admins) can comment (and only oppose with reason), if there are no opposes (opposes without reason don't count) after 1 week a crat grants the right. To make sure server load isn't a problem the number of CHUs is capped (excluding checkusers & oversighters) reasonably low and if people with the right don't use it after x months it can be removed. Callanecc ( talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 06:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm thinking (and I'm happy to admit that it's only a guess) that if it were very clear to both crats (and possibly admins - but that's a whole other issue) that if they don't use their tools they lose them. From a very quick look at the last 500 user rename log entries (which I know isn't all crats do - but is really a big part of it) the number of different crats was about 15 - less than half the actual number with crat user rights. Now, fair enough some may be on holidays - but 20 of them?.
I think the "use it or lose it approach", will very much encourage current crats to do the jobs their unique tools require them to do. And if they don't, they have their tools removed and have to justify to the community why they didn't do the jobs we entrusted them to do. It will also mean that the list of crats becomes a list of current crats and the community has a much better idea of how many there actually are.
Happy for any feedback, I have no idea about how the crat world operates so feel free to comment.
Callanecc (
talk •
contribs)
talkback (etc) template appreciated. 03:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
It would certainly be nice to have another bureaucrat or two active at WP:CHU. While I do my best to help out MBIsanz, who tends to do most of the work, I am constrained by availability. I'm just back from a week-long absence, and I will be absent again for a week in August. I don't like doing renames blindly, so it takes me some time to review requests. Also, I go through busy stretches, or I'd rather edit articles, so the backlog can grow fairly big quite quickly. The task of doing renames does get quite tedious, so it is always good to appoint new 'crats regularly. Maxim (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
More bureaucrats are probably a good idea but I would like to point out: (i) I have only just become aware that there was a backlog at WP:CHU/S on 13 July; (ii) I don't check WP:CHU every day, but when I do I tend to find most requests are already actioned (by MBisanz usually, for which he is to be commended); (iii) if someone had let me know (by email, talkpage or even by a notice at WP:BN) that there was a backlog, I could have found an hour or two over the weekend to work through some requests. I don't know how bad the backlog was or how long it took to clear, but it now appears to be gone and renames are not an urgent process. I'm not sure it's necessarily a good idea to distract admins from more important areas that need admin attention with rename duties and oversighters/checkuser must surely have better things to do? There's not much other crat work, so it kinda makes sense for crats to handle it but I would suggest: (i) more nudging of the less active bureaucrats so we know when we're needed to step in; and (ii) more bureaucrat appointments. WJBscribe (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
To start off, I knew what the expectation was when I posted my RfB, so no sour grapes here.
But I was wondering why the thresh-hold is still so much higher for RfB?
Why do I say "still"?
Well, once upon a time, when requesting RfB you also had the option of requesting checkuser.
And that was before the current requirements for check user.
So back then, having the higher thresh-hold made sense. (It was 90% back then, I believe.)
But now, CU is an entirely separate process.
So as things are now, is the high thresh-hold still necessary?
Right now, it is easier to become a steward on meta ( meta:Steward_elections#Process), than a bureaucrat here.
Would the world end if we changed the circa 85% to circa 80%, with at least 30 supports?
(Note, I believe my RfB would still have been unsuccessful under this : )
So what does everyone think? - jc37 17:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Are we allowed to ask questions such as. What are your views on administrators being open to recall? I know that could be perceived as a loaded question, but where there may be some minor concerns about a user's ability to be an admin, their being open to recall in my view would make me more likely to support because if they broke the trust placed in them then there may be chance for the community to review that trust. It wouldn't be something i would ask everyone but if there was some doubt. Edinburgh Wanderer ( talk) 23:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I would like to be an administrator because i helped wikipedia by patrolling pages, by telling administrator what to delete,by telling them what users to block and by making warning messages on users talk-pages if they created wrong pages — Preceding unsigned comment added by Receptie123 ( talk • contribs) 05:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Why on earth have we started to make this a requirement for admin candidates? I personally think it's a waste of time for an admin wannabe to practice putting close templates on an AFD or whatever; I much prefer to see well-reasoned policy-based comments. Also, why is it even more in vogue for non-admin observations to pop up at UAA/AIV/PERM/wherever? Usually, it's not much help, because I'm going to go through contribs carefully anyways. Again, I much prefer to see solid reports at UAA and AIV. I don't care about PERM. Does this make sense to other RfA types, or do I need my morning coffee? Keilana| Parlez ici 15:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Why on earth have we started to make this a requirement for admin candidates? 'We' haven't. There might have been a few rare isolated cases where some occasional voters want it, but as far as I know, none of the clued up regular RfA voters have it listed as one of their mandatory criteria. A bit less scaremongering please.
Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (
talk) 04:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The way I have come to see it is that there is a growing number of editors that frequent RfA who have their own particular sacred cow, and will not support anyone who hasn't recognized and payed homage to whatever little dark corner of Wikipedia they feel is so important. This seems to become a problem when in any given RfA you have an entire herd of these sacred cows, every single one of which need to be tended to or else someone is going to to oppose because the candidate has somehow overlooked the dire necessity of... I don't know... creating a featured portal. Unfortunately, every RfA is going to have 100+ editors judging it, all with their own criteria for what makes a suitable admin, and not all of them are going to be rational. Trusilver 08:47, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
To Kusma and Trusilver: there are no formal rules regarding the suitability of "oppose" !votes. The closest that we have is WP:AAAD, and that is no more than an essay. Even WP:AAAD doesn't discourage this particular reason for opposing.
This is a minority viewpoint that you happen to disagree with. However that doesn't justify the labels "stupid" or a "sacred cow". Would you apply the same labels if the viewpoint was a majority one, and you were in the minority? The Wikipedia community entrusts bureaucrats to judge the validity of these !votes, and they don't discuss their reasoning, to avoid unnecessary controversy. Let the bureaucrats do their job. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Non-administrator closures of XfDs, threads, etc. are sufficiently controversial in all but the most obvious cases, such that it is a very bad idea to hold the lack of them against an RfA candidate. It's great when qualified non-admins make such closures in appropriate cases, especially when the result is to save community time, but we don't want candidates feeling they need to go out and find clear-cut XfDs etc. suitable for such closures before they are ready for RfA. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 17:10, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
I think the reason this has become an issue at RfA is very simple: we aren't actually sure what role non-admins should play in some of the admin areas. Non-admin closures shouldn't be required, sure, and crats ought to give such votes pretty low standing. But look at other admin things that non-admins do, like non-admin observations on WP:RFPERM requests. There's some issues here. In general, they can be really useful, but some people do them just to bulk out their edits and 'prepare' themselves for RfA. Routine non-admin observations to add useless information that the admin would check anyway (like looking at the user's created pages when deciding on an autopatrolled request) aren't actually that valuable and hint at perhaps a hat collecting mentality. That said, if someone consistently provides useful and non-obvious information that actually assist admins in their day-to-day business, that's helpful. And non-admin closures are a useful contribution: they clear the easy cases out of the AfD backlog leaving the harder stuff for admins to do. But expecting NACs? Meh. They are a nice bonus, but not having them ought not lose a candidate any brownie points. — Tom Morris ( talk) 22:48, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
"Non admin closures" are important, it shouldn't even be a separate category: can we just call it "closures"? If you disagree with these people, you'll have to enter a discussion with people who require closures be done. Bureaucrats (or Other (Non Bureaucrat) Closers :-P) should not attach higher or lower "values" to any person's opinions, without at least a discussion attached that shows some progress towards a consensus (or lack thereof), obviously. -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 15:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC) If you disagree with me, perhaps you should practice doing more closures? O:-)
Congratulations, we made the news. A rarity indeed. I agree with Jim's comments that there's no need for concern, especially since they did not use an annual figure of comparison, but rather one month last year compared to last month -- we all know some months are more busy than others. What I did find interesting was the mention of how arduous the admin process has become in comparison to years such as 2008. I have often felt that as veteran editors, our demands and expectations have significantly increased, and we expect large volumes of work to be done prior to their promotion. New and incoming editors who wish to be admins are having difficulty keeping up and must either have years of experience or have spent an almost unreasonable amount of time editing with in their first twelve months to do so. This was not the case earlier on, and many of those green admins took the necessary steps to a point and learned the rest once they were at adminship. While not ideal, its the same case of only hiring salted veterans in a company rather than the fresh crop out of university. Ultimately what you lose is the impact of innovation from a younger group of people. Not in age, but that have fresh eyes to the process. Mkdw talk 16:08, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The Atlantic has rather more detail: [5] . I agree there's no cause for concern for Wikipedia. Wikipedia will be just fine without RFA someday, just like it does just fine without WP:Esperanza or WP:AMA these days. O:-) -- Kim Bruning ( talk) 15:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The summary chart at WP:BN looks like old times: a bunch of RfAs active, plenty of green and some WP:100 candidates. Joy and happiness. -- Dweller ( talk) 08:56, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
"Joy and happiness"I was thinking the same thing. I was wondering if it was related to people meeting each other at Wikimania or something. Either way, it does seem like old times. Kind regards. BTW, good song, Dave. 64.40.57.60 ( talk) 10:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Whilst it may not be what we most want to discuss in this fine weather with a string of good admin nominations, I've started a proof of concept RfC on community de-adminship. Please do join in. Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept WormTT( talk) 18:07, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
After seeing the RfA table in this page showing live update of votes, I just got an idea. Why not create a table that shows live update of the backlog in various admin noticeboards and if possible, the number of logged in admins. Pardon me if I am ignorant about any such template already available. -- Anbu121 ( talk me) 21:31, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Comments welcome. - jc37 03:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
I know some who watchlist here have been watching the arguments for years over how to promote to or demote from any (theoretical) position that's "under" adminship ... what the community thinks, what the dangers might be. Anyone's input on a similar issue involving Pending Changes at the above link is welcome. - Dank ( push to talk) 20:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I just noticed this discussion and wanted to mention something. When we get close calls like this, IMO, we should err on the side of the individual. There are a lot of chores that admins do and there are currentky not enough of them to do the job. Particularly in cases like this where there are less than solid Opposes.
I especially think opposes that infer we need editors more than admins and the like should not be counted which, as I can figure would have allowed this to pass. I also don't really think that an Editors opinion that paid editing should be allowed should be held against them either. There have been admins that said this. Just my opinion. Kumioko ( talk) 12:47, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Is it just me or has this process vastly improved in the last month or so. The bitterness seems to have been removed for now and there are strong, deserving candidates coming through. Maybe I'm being naieve, but...gosh. Has a power struggle between generations ended or something? Ceoil ( talk) 11:46, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Just want to note that with all these unanimous RFAs passing in a row (5), has not occurred since February 2008, a month after I passed. The month I passed, January 2008, had 6 in a row unanimous. I among others are happy to see some unanimous RFAs and basically clean ones. Mitch32( There is a destiny that makes us... family.) 19:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I really fail to see why we have these conversations every other week. Can we please move on? There hasn't be an original statement in one of these threads for several years... Sven Manguard Wha? 22:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Just wondering something and please don't think I am being sarcastic or snide but is there a record of the lowest scoring RFA? I think I am going for a record. Just a note, please don't close it on WP:SNOW, I want to let it ride out. Kumioko ( talk) 02:50, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Wiki Greek Basketball went 1/38/4 (the lone support was essentially trolling), but I definitely consider it the worst RFA ever. -- MuZemike 21:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)