Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 08:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 13:44:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

consensus can change

(omg there are 200 archives for this talk page!?! I wont be surprised if this has already been proposed and shot down.)

There are quite a few sysops who had an RFA with only 30 voters, and most of those supporters have since left the project. The project changes, but some sysops don't. Consensus changes, however we don't apply that principle to sysops.

I've often promoted the concept of sysop reconfirmations, and usually I have recommended regular reconfirmations. (Annual reconfirmations work well on English Wikisource, but of course that would be silly at enwp because there is a very big scale difference).

How about five year re-confirmations? Or the other idea that just came to me was that we could schedule reconfirmations when 50% of voters at the successful RFA have not edited for two years, or something to that effect. i.e. if the slice of the community which supported the sysop have since left the project (as best we can tell), then surely the sysop should be reconfirmed by the current community. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't overly concern yourself about this being shot down in the past - remember that consensus can change on consensus being able to change... or something like that. As for the concept overall, I like it. Perhaps not the specific time limit reconfirmations, 5 years currently seems too long to me and the difficulty in getting people to agree to specific term will be insurmountable (in my opinion). However, I do like the concept that consensus can change, and a reconfirmation should be triggered when we no longer have consensus. I'd be interested to see if any other ideas came forward on how best to judge that, but I do think there's something in the concept. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

From a practical perspective the fact that the number of RfAs has declined drastically in recent years means most administrators were promoted some time ago. In the period 2008-present 439 people passed RfA. Suppose optimistically that these people are all still administrators, and that we want to reconfirm anyone appointed before 2008. That means 1,089 reconfirmations, which at a rate of one a day (considerably more than the number of RfAs we get at the moment) would take nearly three years. If we wanted to reconfirm people promoted in 2008 as well, which means a period of three years, then all but 238 of our administrators would have to be reconfirmed - over 85%.

There is also the point that RfA is almost universally agreed to be a severely flawed process, and until this changes it's difficult to imagine using it in this way. Certainly if we judged our existing administrators by the same standards we expect of new candidates now I suspect a large proportion of reconfirmations would fail. This could easily result in much larger admin backlogs in some areas, especially the ones only a handful of people are working on. Hut 8.5 16:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of voluntary "If XX number of editors in good standing (some with 'accounts at least XX months old/ XXX non automated edits') believe I have erred, I will go through reconfirmation." style recall options. If one of those came forward that was (a) able to be triggered legitimately (i.e. not an absurd number of hoops to jump through), and (b) was at least somewhat gaming proof (i.e. protected against a lone nut and his army of socks, or from editors who support any and all such motions, regardless of merit), I could see supporting that as a method of selecting admins for reconfirmation. Sven Manguard Wha? 16:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I dont know much on the RfA process, but what flaws are in the current RfA process? Wouldnt the longer a person was an administrator the more theyd learn about Wikipedia policies, or are the regulations stricter now? mysterytrey (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We have 725 "active" editors who are also admins, and of those not all are active admins. This is nearly 300 less than we had at peak, but still a huge number to process through any reconfirmation procedure, even if we could persuade them all to volunteer for it. So reconfirmation is a lot of work and the end result would be to exacerbate our shortage of admins. I'm really not seeing much benefit to the pedia in return for that. A good analogy would be with driving tests, we don't retest drivers because their driving examiner has subsequently retired, and where I come from, while we check that older drivers still have their faculties, we don't systematically retest everyone, Even if the rules have changed and the current test is much harder than it was thirty years ago. ϢereSpielChequers 17:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

For anyone who has an interest in looking back at previous discussions, there's WP:CDARFC and the pages it links back to. In my opinion, the basic concept of reconfirmation is a good one in principle, but as others have already pointed out, the numerical constraints make it essentially unworkable. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Finding a numerically sane way of reconfirming appears to be the first challenge. It might be good to start with a six or seven year reconfirmation window. I wonder how many sysops from 2005 and earlier are still sysops. In a few years time, we will have admins who passed RfA's 10 years ago, with 10 supports. (e.g. w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tim Ivorson) Do we have a way of finding sysops by year of RfA (or year of obtaining the bit)? If not, we could categorised Category:Successful requests for adminship by year. The logs start at 2004[1]. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 22:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Successful requests for adminship has the chronology of successful RFAs (though some of those people may have left or lost the bit). There are about 750 successful RFAs from 2005 or earlier. Dragons flight (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It is very weird looking at RFAs from 2003, and +sysops from earlier with no records. Its great to see so many from that era are still active. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 05:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Recent events show that existing desysopping methods are still effective. Is there any reason why desysopping and/or reconfirmation has to be the subject of perennial discussion? Who are the people who want it, and why? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The link I gave just above contains a ton of discussion about who wanted it as of about a year and a half ago, and why. Here is recent discussion of whether things have changed following those recent events. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• I think the consensus on whether consensus can change has changed and consensus can no longer change. --How much wood could a woodchuck chuck... (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the overly beauracratic and at times stressful event that an RFA turns into I wouldn't support a forced renomination if the admin is active. I do agree that if they are not active then they shouldn't have admin rights though. --Kumioko (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

• I don't see why this bureaucratic step is required. Can someone please show me a trend of old admins not being able to perform well on the modern-day Wikipedia? There was that one incident a while back, but one incident shouldn't dictate policy here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• I would kinda support this for the really old RFAs, maybe, but since it opens the door to a blatant threat to my own "rank" and "status", which yeah, whatever, the poisoned chalice of extra privileges and duty to respond and explain and be perfect, I need to cling to it. Speaking just for myself, I don't act as an admin all that often, but I'm confident that every one of my admin actions is eminently supportable. If I were to be called up on the rota for reconfirmation, that page would likely not be on my watchlist. If the only problem was that I'd done nothing wrong for too long, doesn't really catch my interest. Franamax (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
• I do not think that forcing every admin who has been around for a while to resubmit an RfA is helpful. It seems to me that, unless they are acting uncivilly or abusing their tools, they are not a problem for the community. I do believe that some kind of recall should be in place so that the community can remove request an admin submit another RfA if they feel the need. However, to force every admin to go through the process seems arbitrary. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

We have a recall process in place, its called Arbcom. And funny thing is, despite many threads here about getting some extra type of desysopping system that would get rid of lots more admins than Arbcom does; When it comes round to election time we don't see the community booting out the incumbents and replacing them with ones who promise to desysop far more admins than the incumbents did. ϢereSpielChequers 22:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

What WSC said, the worst abusers are removed by ArbCom already. Most admins from "the old days" who know they have lost touch with current practice don't use their admin tools for anything controversial anymore, so the problem is minimal to begin with and does not require a solution that involves reconfirming everybody. I suppose I could support a term limit... of ten years. After ten years you can either hand in the bit or run again. Inactive admins are already being desysopped and few admins make it past the five year mark and still want to do it so the numbers would be manageable, and we would still have a few years to figure out the details. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've only started looking at the old sysops, and it is pleasing to see that many of the old sysops are still active and using their tools appropriately, but I'm finding a few which would either not be reconfirmed, or would have difficulties. I don't like naming specific old sysops, especially ones who put in a lot of effort in the early days, but here are two worth considering.

1. Oliver Pereira wheel warring over David Cook (line of succession) accusing other admins of "gibberish" and "straightforward lie", and
2. Tannin in a slow moving move war over Bluebonnet (bird).

In my opinion, Oliver would be desysoped at a reconfirmation, and Tannin would keep the tools if they indicated they accept consensus on the relevant naming conventions and agree to use WP:RM for renames that have already been reverted once. The reconfirmation process should allow old sysops to voluntarily be desysop'd rather than face what would be a strong vote against reconfirmation. Many of them are good editors, and didn't use the tools, and probably arn't interested in keeping up with policy that sysops should be aware of. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed some syosps who wouldn't stand a chance of promotion at today's standards, rarely use the tools, but regularly contravene other policies, and bully users who complain, with impunity by being sure to stay just below the radar. In spite of User:Protonk's insistence that not posting a list here is childish, I do not consider that it would be a particularly mature move, and WT:RfA, in my opinion, is not the place to begin an investigation into the behaviour of individual admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kudpung. I agree that this isn't the right place to target individual sysops. However I do want this discussion to take the problem seriously, and some people are being dismissive. I don't think these cases need an arbitration case, and I would like a better method. One way is to ask each of them whether they will submit to a recall. That is a bit more humane than an arbitration case. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I'm afraid that probably the only thing WP:CDARFC proves, is that this is a cyclic, perennial issue. I'm sure that it's not even in the minds of most of the candidates and !voters at RfA - except for those whose regular 'oppose' !votes are a demonstration of their aversion to adminship as a system of regulating the Wikipedia, rather than aimed at the candidates themselves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you posed the comment to me, I'll point out that I provided the link because you asked why members of the community have argued in favor of such a process. Whether an individual argument was a thoughtful one, or a perennial one, or both, is of course a subjective matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't argue with that John. Recent events have demonstrated again that admins can be desysoped for general misbehaviour, but it's nevertheless difficult to make a case stick. It looks to me that the more prominent they are, the more likely they are to fall, while the sneaky ones who stay under the radar actually get away with far worse. Ask each of them whether they will submit to a recall is problematic because those that have a guilty conscience will immediately decline the suggestion. Only those who have nothing to fear will agree to AOR and even then, most of them (including me) only entertain AOR on the basis of misuse of the tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Been there, tried that, didn't work. I think it may be due to a general fatigue with the RfA process. It would be even harder to get this moving especially since desysops due to inactivity have addressed part of this problem to some extent. - Mailer Diablo 20:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I originally wrote this as a criticism of the underlying proposal, but its meandered into a more general comment. There are two ways we can understand RfA. A common, but incorrect one, is to see RfA, and the agreement of those at any particular instance as a source of authority, legitimizing the technical access. The other, and in my opinion correct one, is that RfA is a measuring device, standing in, at anytime, for the collective wisdom of the entire Wikipedia community. We hope beyond hope that fundamental characteristics in each admin (intelligence, flexibility, diligence, grip on reality) are of the same relevance over long periods of time, and furthermore that Wikipedia is not, and should not be a permission culture. You begin at can until you are told you may not. Limited access in the first place is a concession to pragmatic concerns.

On the other hand, there is a serious threat of dead-hand decision making. The needs of today are not the needs of yesterday. The wisdom of our forefather's is often pretty questionable. The entire wiki is built on the abandoned production of users long past, and I loathe the status quo bias that has infected our culture since we went mainstream. If we're going to attack the status quo bias, I'd like to start with article space, but maybe admins aren't a bad place to start either.

But again, I have some pragmatic concerns. The first of which is the oft forgotten uncontroversial administrator. The one you've never heard of who quietly blocks vandals, axes bad redirects, solves petty disputes on little known indie rock band pages and don't pay much attention to wiki-en politics. I haven't been hooked into the news, but I presume these people are still around and will never even read these words. They are doing important, unsexy jobs and they don't deserve to have their flag yanked because they didn't get the memo.

Second, like my concerns with mainstreaming in real life, sending back administrators to RfA would be a better idea if RfA was fundamentally sound. I again admit I haven't been paying much attention recently, but last time I checked, RfA was widely considered a cesspool of myopia and petty hatred just short of the despair of Arbitration and Arbitration enforcement.

Generally, what is the problem that is trying to be solved? Bad admins? Mediocre admins? Admins who leave for a while, come back, and stumble over a new Wikipedia culture embarrassing themselves? Or is this more about an abstract principle? --Tznkai (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

You'll get some answers at WP:RFA2011. If you haven't been there before, you'll need to spend some time catching up on what has been discussed and what is being planned. It's more organised, focused, and structured than the discussions here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are some observations I've made lately on this kind of subject:

• Administrators who have become inactive (and would be the ones who are the most out-of-touch with the way Wikipedia currently works) are having the bits removed automatically, so they are something of a non-issue.
• Administrators who have had their bits removed due to inactivity, but then return and request that the bits be restored, don't always have the bit returned. I've seen a couple of times at WP:BN where the crats haven't felt comfortable returning the bit. So that makes inactive admins even less of a problem.
• Administrators who have been around for a long time and have been active, for the most part, just have a lot of experience and to me they seem to be very valuable to have around.
• Long-time admins who seem to be causing problems due to disagreements with our current policies, or ignorance of them, or having similar conflicts are often identified as such, and it doesn't seem to be difficult for the community to come to a consensus to have the bit removed. In most cases these admins do so willingly.

Overall, I don't see that grandfathered "old-timer" admins who are causing disruption are able to enjoy any kind of immunity due to their status. There's something of a stigma against such admins, which I think is what led in part to the successful implementation of the policy of removing inactive admin bits, and I think that stigma is simply something that has grown over time. So essentially, I think that the community is already dealing well with these issues and a reconfirmation process isn't necessary at this point. -- Atama頭 20:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Archiving and linkrot

Could the archiving for this page be changed from MiszaBot to ClueBot III? ClueBot III archival is preferable, as many links here grow linkrot, which CBIII cures by intelligently changing the link-to-be-rotted to the archives of material (here for instance), whereas MiszaBot just cuts and pastes while the link rots, grows mold, gets absorbed into the ground, and reincarnated as an apple tree. →Στc. 06:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain that again, without the jargon? I don't really understand what you are proposing. Linkrot? --Surturz (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone were to link to this section for example, then it would read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#Archiving and linkrot. However, when this section is archived, the link will be broken. ClueBot fixes this by changing the link to read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive n#Archiving and linkrot. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Given the rate at which this page gets archived, it would make sense to prefer a method that sustains extant links. --Surturz (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Who opposes the opposers?

OK, I'm a bit new at voting in RfA's but it seems completely silly the lengths to which editors will go in order to refute oppose votes. Particularly irritating to me is the practice of attempting to censure voters for "bad voting" or "opposing for the wrong reasons".
There are no objective criteria for adminship, nor is it feasible that there ever would be. Everyone has different opinions as to what makes a good admin, and the core criterion - trust - cannot be meaningfully measured in an objective way. It seems to me that the very reason for voting in the first place is to accommodate and amalgamate all the different opinions of editors as to what sort of admins wikipedia needs. If editors always vote in favour of female candidates to alleviate some perceived gender bias, or always oppose candidates with a number in their username ... so what? Either their criteria is so off the planet that no-one else votes the same way, or a significant number of editors DO vote the same way, in which case the numbers voting that way self-justify the criteria.
What I do think is damaging to the credibility of the RfA process is how admins and even at least one arbitrator is quite willing to threaten other voters with sanctions for "bad voting". If RfA is to mean anything, it is to give some measure of community approval to successful candidates. If editors are bullied into changing their votes, it compromises the legitimacy and authority of the process.
I'd also like to appeal to common sense. In Anomie's current RfA the vote tally is running at 153-to-1. One or two Oppose votes are not going to make any difference to the outcome. If those one or two oppose votes are "wrong", then the only damage they can possibly cause is wasting people's time talking about them - in other words, it is not the oppose vote doing the damage - it is the opposition to the oppose vote doing the damage. The only reasons I can think of for spending energy opposing oppose votes is if 1) there are major errors of fact that need to be challenged, or 2) grievous misuse of wikipedia e.g. sock puppet voting, or vandalism of the RfA page. --Surturz (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

As a general rule, the amount of badgering directed at opposers is inversely proportional to the number of opposes. If there are, say, 20 or more opposes, you can get away with just saying "oppose" with no reason and often no one will bother you. If there are 1 or 2 opposes, they'd better have a darn good justification, because the eyes of all the supporters will be focused like a laser on them. 28bytes (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Suturz!

There is discussion on User:Keepscases's talk page, where I expressed my surprise that anybody would not participate in RfA because of 1-2 opposes, particularly Keepscase's.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Can I just suggest that you look at the argument from the opposite point of view? RfA, like everything else on wikipedia is meant to be a discussion - leading to consensus. If a editor A is opposing for a reason that the other editor B disagrees with - then there should rightly be a discussion. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a big difference between "bad voting" or "opposing for the wrong reasons", and downright trolling. RfA is supposed to be a serious discussion for selecting janitors which a web site like Wikipedia unfortuanetly needs. Potential candiates are staying away from the process as a direct result of the constant flippancy with which RfA is treated. If the problems can't be prevented by appealing to the drama mongers, we might end up with the imposition of an admin selection system that perhaps the community would not necessarily have wanted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Worm's response follows from an endorsement of participatory democracy. As organizational practices, participatory democracy and consensus decision-making favor those with the greatest willingness to continue participation at the sacrifice of other interests. It is reasonable to expect some participation in a limited discussion, we all agree.

Kudpung's response raises related issues. Organizations that practice consensus decision making, such as the meetings of the Society of Friends (Quakers), usually prohibit displays of anger, particularly at those voicing minority concerns. Rather, such consensus-organizations encourage expressions of minority viewpoints, and have mechanisms to prevent such viewpoints being drowned by weight of the majority, rather than reasoned arguments. Do we really need 10 or more persons questioning Surturz?

Wikipedia has a ban on bad faith aspersions, which Kudpung is breaking, probably because of his concern for RfA nominees, particularly of the future. Hostile phrases like "drama mongers" and exaggerations like "constant flippancy" harm the atmosphere, and imho, harm the atmosphere more than Keepcases's eccentric questions. Kudpung, would you explain your foreboding hints about an alternative system being imposed, please? (Has Jimbo suggested taking unilateral action, despite the concerns of users like SandyGeorgia about some of your RfA-reform proposals?)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think that the answer to your question can be seen here. That proposal is based on a statement by Jimbo (you'll see a link to his original statement at the beginning of the proposal). There are some even more radical proposals seen here if you care to look. -- Atama頭 16:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course editors may generally post their opinions and cast their !votes on RfA as they see fit, and do so for a variety of reasons. Nonetheless, during the history of Wikipedia, there are a handful of editors whose participation on RfA has been widely seen as disruptive, including Boothy443, Masssiveego, and Kmweber, all of whom were eventually expressly or implicitly disinvited from RfA participation because their conduct was perceived as unhelpful and disruptive to the process. Keepscases, with his questions posing such useful quandaries as how one RfA candidate might react if she faced the chance of her computer exploding if she edited, or which fingers another candidate would be willing to have cut off rather than leave the project, etc., is increasingly falling into this category, and his declaration yesterday that he does not regard answering his questions as optional does not in the least improve matters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, you're right, look at the fun I've been missing :) If Keeps is ever banned from RFAs, and I don't have a position on that, I would hope that the voters will be clear about (what I believe are) two differences from for instance Kmweber: Keeps's heart seems to me to be in the right place, and the relevant question strikes some people as subtle, it's not like the thinly veiled anger of previous disruptors. If you show up for a job interview staring at a room full of people, and the first interviewer asks you a bunch of silly questions and stares at you expectantly for an answer, that actually raises the hostility level of the interview ... because humans do judge each other in a whole lot of unmeasurable and unpredictable ways. It's so much saner when an applicant is tested on what they need to know to get the job done. Keeps genuinely believes (I think) that he's injecting levity into a process that sorely needs it ... and I don't think he's an idiot, or intentionally disruptive, he's just wrong, and wrong in a way that makes a difficult process more difficult. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

The RfA with the missing fingers question is, I think, an interesting case study. By all accounts the candidate seemed to handle it brilliantly. That particular RfA was the equivalent of a crowd of people punching the candidate in the face, a couple punching him below the belt, and one (Keepscases) throwing him a rubber chicken, which he adroitly threw back. What you see in the oppose section is what scares serious candidates away from the RfA gauntlet, not the goofy question. I think most people with any feelings at all would rather take an off-the-wall question than be told they're an aggressively hostile deletionist with a strong personal bias who would be a disastrous administrator, to sample just a few of the oppose comments. 28bytes (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I think you're obviously quite right, and I don't understand Newyorkbrad's position at all. But why not cut to the chase and block or ban everyone who posts an unpopular oppose to an RfA? It's going to happen anyway the way things are going. Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

@28bytes, I believe SW, by the very choice of his name, has admirable self-awareness and even humor about issues that were addressed by the opposes. (Everybody agrees that he is exceptionally valuable to the project in many ways, and so it is natural that he received so much support in his RfA.) I think that you should show the opposes the same respect that SW did during his RfA, rather than pigeon-hole them as "punching".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, to be fair, many of the opposers were both thoughtful and respectful in their analysis. It wasn't exclusively a punching festival. 28bytes (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It isn't the silly questions that cause trouble, Believe me, it wasn't Q16 on my fourth RFA that made it unpleasant. It was the incessant grinding attacks by A Nobody and Okip and a fully inflamed Article Rescue Squadron that made my third RFA a hellish experience. My advice to Snotty is to emulate me: I waited until A Nobody's and Okip's misbehaviour resulted in a point in time where both of them were blocked, and did RFA 4 then. It's all in the timing.—Kww(talk) 22:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Very true. But turn that on its head a little, if the enemies you've made are administrators then you've got very little chance of ever finding that window to sneak in. Administrators are of course perfect though, so I suppose that's as it should be really. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)