Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Worm That Turned 2 155 1 1 99 09:47, 18 November 2024 6 days, 7 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 02:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 02:39:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
Purge this page

Just a mop and bucket

It's been a long time since I was seriously active, but as an moderately old-school user and admin I have to say that the modern RfA process is completely insane. 12 questions? Follow-ups? Minutae on policies? And many of these questions look like they're just part of the paperwork, with no thought or care whatsoever — there's even boilerplate acceptable answers. Many of the other ones aren't relevant at all to the topic at hand. Seriously, folks, it's just a mop and a bucket. The famous Jimbo quote appears to be completely forgotten.

Of course, maybe I'm missing something from my absence, but please keep this in mind, people. Remember what the point of this whole thing is: to get reasonably qualified and careful people some extra tools. RfA isn't there to grill people and it's totally unreasonable to expect them to know even half of the policies on Wikipedia. And I thought it was getting bad in my time.

Obviously this doesn't affect me at all, but I still do care about this project and maybe a few of you will take a second look at where this is going. Kyle Barbour 01:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of RfA. (I do envy you old wikipedians, I sure would have liked to run for RfA in 2003...) (X! · talk)  · @235  ·  04:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the best post ever made on this project. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

... except the title is wrong. It should be Just a mop and a bucket and a big stick. Wikipedia went wrong when it confused maintenance with control. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

We have a cheatsheet for RfA now? Oh dear... —Dark 06:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed a great post, and gives me perspective on an era of Wikipedia I regret missing. Jusdafax 07:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Malleus: The only problem with this idea is that you're totally wrong. It's not "control". Admins do not have more authority. Blocks are totally reversible, easily challenged, and usually very quickly resolved if incorrect. Protections are exactly the same. Nothing an admin can do is irreversible: the closest thing to a counterexample is fixing cut and paste moves, which is extremely difficult, but not impossible to reverse. But that is not exactly a hot spot for rogue admins or whatever, the admins you're worried about don't care about that kind of stuff.

Don't get me wrong — I'm not getting on your case. There are serious offenders, but serious offenders can and have been desysopped. If you're really concerned about abuse, support community recall proposals and drive them forward. I think they're a good thing. But don't make RfA insane and prevent 99% of the potentially awesome admins from getting the mop and bucket, which, as I've said, completely lacks any flamethrowing capacity, just because you're concerned about one or two power maniacs who would likely be desysopped in a year anyway. Kyle Barbour 13:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you must be inhabiting an alternate universe, one in which being an administrator is "no big deal". --Malleus Fatuorum 13:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what I said? I just tried to talk to you about why being an admin is not a big deal. You haven't explained why you don't agree, however. What I can say is the the director of this project also happens to live in the same universe I do, so it's one that's probably worth paying a little attention to. Kyle Barbour 13:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I did read it, yes. I don't have a big hammer to shut up those who're saying things I don't like though, so reflect on that. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is needlessly antagonistic. Kyle Barbour 02:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think Malleus means that adminship is a big deal in reality while you explained why it shouldn't be. Let's face it, in theory, as you say, adminship is no big deal and everyone with a good track record should get it without problems but in practice it has become a big deal. For example, admins should not have more authority but in reality they do. People see that it's only a small group and how hard it is to join that group and they will automatically assume that this group thus consists of "better" users. Regards SoWhy 14:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right, that's pretty much what I meant. What I'd forgotten though is that nothing said here makes the slightest difference to anything. Waste of time even discussing it. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Many admins are very experienced and have done a lot of work, and yes, they resultingly get more respect and attention and should. And, to prove the point, there are other editors who also have that seniority that aren't or weren't admins because they didn't want to be and they also got that respect and attention (not people who have been around since forever and are difficult to work with, but great editors who just didn't want to do admin work). You've got to discriminate between respect gained from work, demonstrated intelligence and integrity, and so on, from authority just because they're an admin. I don't see much of the latter and never have. Case in point: I'm an admin, what authority do I have? Can I block random people and delete random pages if I wanted to? Of course not. The perception of authority is a perception and nothing more. Just stop making RfA crazy. It's in the hands of the people who participate. Kyle Barbour 02:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Malleus is correct, there is a reason we humorously call it the "mop-and-flamethrower™"; whether the mop should be separated from the flamethrower is a completely separate question. -- Avi (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Per last July:

• Admin WITH clue
• Admin WITHOUT clue

-- Avi (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I only went through RfA this year, and I don't remember mine being anywhere near as interegatory as the current version. This is a very good post I think, thanks to Kyle Barber for highlighting it again. GedUK  08:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason it became like this is that many !voters have directly or indirectly experienced what can happen if someone unsuitable passed an RFA too "easily" and then had to be desysopped using a quite complicated process and as such they now try to be more careful when trying to determine whether a candidate is suitable for this "job". But if you think RFA has become crazy, just take a look at the recent RFBs. Jimbo called cratship a "dull technical position" and we have managed to make it sound like some kind of a demigod-position. Rising standards can be a good thing when they try to prevent unsuitable candidates from getting into a position where they can do serious damage (large scale deletions, blocking people they don't like, protecting pages because of WP:OWN etc.) but there is a fine line between standards that benefit the project and those that harm it by preventing otherwise capable candidates from passing RFA (for, as Kyle says it, adminship-unrelated reasons). Regards SoWhy 11:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If the rising standards is to prevent the wrong folks from getting the tools to minimize the risk of them making large scale deletions, blocking people they don't like, protecting pages because of WP:OWN etc. then the tougher standards are wonderful. However, this can be determined by looking at the nominee's contributions to the encyclopedia and interactions with other editors. My answer to the what's-the difference-between-a-block-and-a-ban question caused an uproar. I had never been blocked, no one ever considered blocking me, I never considered blocking anyone else, and I didn't know there was a distinction, big deal. I'm not here to whine about my failed RfA, but to agree with Kyle Barbour that the recent trend is out of control. J04n(talk page) 11:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, RfB is crazy and was even in my time. However, the problem with what you're saying about rising standards is that none of the things you say cause "serious damage" actually cause serious damage. Look, when I first came on Wikipedia I got really pissed off about someone deleting a whole bunch of pages without due process (if you're reading through that, my username used to be Blackcap). Guess what? They were all restored and everything was fine, even without the RfC. If you just calm down and hash it out like reasonable human beings then it's all going to be O.K.

So mass deletions aren't really a problem, because they're totally resolvable. The things that are actually serious problems are AfD, because it's permanent, newbie-biting, and mean; edit wars and people being dicks, because they make people leave; the lack of established editorial standards, because they lead to deletionist/inclusionist wars and so on; and the insane ever-burgeoning bureaucratic nightmare of rules, rather than people just being kind and understanding and writing articles based on what should be clearly established editorial standards and the policy trifecta. And guess what? None of those things have anything to do with adminship. So again, adminship shouldn't be a big deal, isn't a big deal, and people's attitudes about it being that way have to change. Kyle Barbour 13:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sadly I fear that incorrect deletions are a problem as not every newbie comes back if their initial experience here is negative. However much of the damage is done by incorrect speedy deletion tags before an admin gets involved. I also agree that adminship is becoming a big deal - if only out of scarcity. Barely half our 1700 admins are still active, the days when we had a thousand active admins are now well over a year ago, and those admins we have are mostly very very experienced editors, as few of our admins have accounts created in the last three years. I fear this is creating a widening gulf between admins and other users, as many of our editors see adminship as simply not an option for them. ϢereSpielChequers 14:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning on running soon, but I feel a ton of aprehension about what could go wrong. I'm a positive person, but I feel people who feel less positive about an RFA are likely to leave. The whole thing of RFA though is not as bad as it could be as it only consists of 15 or so questions, and then people just pile on to others. In response to the RFB problem, I feel that people are really elevating them to a god-like status. When you look at it, there is a pyramid of hiearchy here, and the bureaucrats occupy an ever smaller slice of the top. I can see why people are arguing against lowering the standards, but maybe we should conduct a straw poll or something to see what those in the community feel about this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfB bar –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember asking about that a month or so ago and getting that. I also talked about re-running it, and that too was shot down. Oh well, thanks Julian. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

So long as "janitors" have the power to block other editors, your position is not only incredible but also dishonest. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Malleus, at least mostly. This whole "just a janitor", "just a mop and bucket" description is just unrealistic. It's true that quite a bit of administrative work really is just cleanup, probably even the vast majority of admin actions carried out in any given day, stuff like blocking obvious vandals and deleting articles like "FUCK HEIMSTERN!!!". But there's always that other side: the controversial actions like blocks of established contributors (can anyone seriously claim the recent block of Giano, for example, was a custodial action?) and deletions of borderline cases, both in terms of CSD and XFD. Not to mention the ArbCom's discretionary sanctions, which allow administrators to levy sanctions in certain disputed content areas. And there's no way to ensure that an administrator candidate will only carry out non-controversial actions if granted the tools.

Essentially what I'm saying is that it's time to leave behind the concept that adminship is "no big deal" or "just a mop and bucket". Quite honestly, that's tripe. At one time it probably was more valid. It's not anymore. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This misses the point, but whatever. It's your Wikipedia, make it what you want it to be. Kyle Barbour 03:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You're being very hostile, which doesn't make sense since no one's attacking you. Your accusation that I'm lying also makes no sense and simply isn't true. If you're actually interested in having a reasonable conversation about this based on mutual respect, let me know and we can do that. Until then, however, I don't see how we can talk about this. Kyle Barbour 03:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't been active much for the last while, you may have missed noticing that Malleus is habitually hardline and often, dare I say, a little brusque on this page. This is not Malleus being hostile, this is Malleus being polite. ;) MF and others here do have a certain point though, adminship is a big deal. Not because it should be a big deal, but it has become that way. The words and actions of admins gain importance beyond what they should really have in the eyes of the general editorship, you will often see talk page discussions where people say "admin So-and-So agrees with me", even in areas where the admin bit is not relevant. Partly this is because admins as a group have more editing and policy experience on average, but indeed a large component is that admins have the power to block. Less experienced editors use this implied threat against each other in disputes, and defer to admin opinions even in content areas where a more experienced non-admin would say "I don't give a damn if they're an admin". And admins who aren't bad enough to get turfed can still cause a lot of problems, even if their actions are reversible. I fully agree that adminship is no big deal - and yet I would also say that it is a big deal, like it or not.

A long list of RFA questions shouldn't be that big of a problem of itself. An admin candidate really should be able to read a few policy pages and understand them quickly enough to give a decent synopsis on any particular point. Where the problems comes in is where we see !opposes based on "failed to close parenthesis in answer to Q#12, sub-part b)ii", rather than an overall evaluation. But proper vetting and forming an overall impression is a lot harder than jumping on one particular point, so we end up with this incredible detail just to make sure nothing is getting missed. Fixing the RFA problem is harder than spotting the problem though. Franamax (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I perfectly agree. On most 2.0 websites that have different contribution powers (such as blogs, forums, etc), the words of the admins do have more power than the vox populi. Wikipedia is the exception. Admins: How many times have you been asked to have a user blocked because of a tiny content disagreement? I have, and quite a lot. These people assume that Wikipedia admins are like forum admins. They assume that we can make arbitrary blocks as we wish, because we are the all powerful admins. They do not think that we have a binding set of policies that will get us into a load of trouble if blocked. The experienced user will not make this mistake, as they're more used it it. Additionally, go find someone editing Wikipedia anonymously in real life. Go up to them and say, "Hi, I'm an admin". 9 times out of 10, they'll say something to the extent of "you're one of those evil admins? Don't block me...." There seems to be an inherent fear of admins. It's a shame, really, because many people stay away from Wikipedia because they're afraid the "evil admins" will delete their article. (Don't get me wrong, we do quite a lot... ;)) Many of those people have valid contributions that we've just lost. What more, there are valid adminship candidates who refuse to run for RfA because they're afraid that they'll be seen as another "evil admin".

It may not seem like a huge deal to us admins. However, the vast majority of the people who are aware of Wikipedia's existence either look up to us admins, or have a deep hatred for us. (X! · talk)  · @725  ·  16:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the problem with people's articles being deleted by "evil admins", has more to do with the CSD process than anything. Now, adminship might be "not a big deal", but it's not adminship that really matters, it's tenure. I think the title "admin" might at least give some newbies clarity that there is a structure on this site, but in all reality it's whether or not you can use common sense, and whether the community trusts you to act per that common sense. As long as you aren't using the tools, the term "adminship" has nothing to do with your actions, you're just a trusted editor with time on this site. Adminship isn't a big deal, and it should never be looked at like it is, but being a trusted editor is. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys are probably hated because the average person comes in here without a whole lot of policy knowledge, create a page, see it deleted, and hate the administrators who deleted it. I think if they understood, they wouldn't hate you guys, but I think that is the newby experience here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. But we, as individual admins, can help fix that, fortunately, by explaining what's going on to them and trying to get rid of the "everyone new is a vandal" attitude. Kyle Barbour 02:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is brilliant, totally true. I think we'd agree, then that the "admin" problem isn't really an "admin" problem as much as a perception problem. People need to segregate the +sysop flag from editing, and realize that admin's aren't (by and large) interested in harassing people, and I think that once that perception problem is solved RfA will be too. In fact, I don't think RfA can be fixed without that happening. Kyle Barbour 02:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wait! WTF? Some of you got a bucket too? But yes. I agree with the original statement in this thread. Perspective was lost long ago when the kooks fixated on the "power" of adminship and turned this into something more serious than an FBI background check. Due diligence is a good thing (i.e. is a candidate who they claim to be), but putting every candidate through a templated public ringer for no good reason just takes it too far. If anything, the current level of scrutiny is just meant to test whether or not an RfA regular who runs for RfA has any common sense. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but sometimes people take it too far when they started putting joke questions on WikiGreekBasketball's recent RFA. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WGB was asked to withdraw, I actually untranscluded and closed his RFA, and explained on his talk page that it had no chance of passing, and he insisted on re-opening it. Why it was a bad idea was explained to him in a calm, clear, and respectful manner, and he responded with remarkable vitriol. Treating it as the joke it was from that point forward was perfectly ok in my book, as it was an absolute farce. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

True, I too closed it and saw the consquences. Oh well, I guess the past is the past and nothing can be done about it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I find Kyle's comments quite interesting and spot on. We've made RFA more than it should be. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

We certainly have. That said, perhaps people would be more willing to get back to "is this person trustworthy" if we had an easy to follow process for admins who abuse their tools because admins have tenure once they've passed an RfA. HJMitchell You rang? 23:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should go to a hybrid between the old and new ways. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

For me, I've always tried to operate on a "do I trust this person" standard. There are two components to that trust - the first is "do I think this person means well," which is almost always a pass, absent some bizarreness which may pop up - there have been some interesting ones. The second is "do I trust that this person has the skills, the seriousness, and the temperament to do a good job?" On that one, I admit to judging what's thrust in front of me. If there is interest, expressed or implied, to work on CSD/XfD, I look more closely at their deletion work. If they have antivandal experience, I look at their newpage and RC patrolling. If they want to work in DyK/ITN, I leave that to the other editors who know that, and usually default support. I also support to counteract what I consider to be opposing rationales that I don't want to gain currency - one of the most odious being things like "not old enough." In general, I act on the principle that demonstrated seriousness and competence in one admin subarea or so is sufficient for adminship, in the absence of serious negatives. That said, Malleus has a huge point, which drives a gaping hole through my logic: I have not noticed any admin candidates declaring that they want to join the Sword and the Shield of Wikipedia to police and block their fellow editors for uncivil behavior, edit warring, and engage in Battle High and Low across the Plains of ANI, AE, RFAR, and many more acronyms that we without bits have learned to fear in the dark. Yet these admins do exist - Wikipedia would not function as it currently does without them, and they easily form the most controversial aspect of admin activity. I think, so long as effective admin tenure-of-office persists, and future police admins do not declare themselves in candidacy, a high level of skepticism in treating admin candidates is not entirely irrational. I just prefer not to do it -- whether that makes me a credulous fool, or an optimist, is currently a matter of speculation and argument, rather than settled fact. Ray^Talk 23:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason that candidates don't go in saying, "I want to patrol this site with an iron fist and block all those who disturb the project," is because they will likely get opposes along the lines of, "Too eager," or, "We don't need another block-happy administrator." I think that administrators gradually go over to blocking as they gain more experience, since they don't want to mess things up. I'm all for declaring my intentions, as I did in my first few RFAs, but I have learned to just shut up and go along with the flow, as speaking your mind can be dangerous. This is quite unfortunate, as we are getting administrators who are probably getting the tools without the rest of the site hearing their true intentions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. Or on the other hand they could simply be being dishonest. There's a great deal of that here. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's probably part of it, as we have had some pretty dysfunctional administrators here. Either way, I do wish that there would be a greater transparency with potential administrators, and this would hopefully lessen the meatgrinding at the RFAs. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Having just gotten tenure, I can safely admit that there are problems with how adminship is handled. One "big picture" issue is that adminship combines disparate permissions/authorities into one package. In my RFA, I expressed no intention to be involved in blocking users, nor did anyone ask me any questions about it. I didn't even get the canned questions about blocks vs. bans and cooldown blocks, which surprised me. But the nature of the 'sysop' permissions group is that I now have that capability. Deleting pages, page protection, blocking users, etc. -- these are essentially unrelated capabilities. But if you get one, you get them all. For page deletions, you also get permissions across all namespaces, even though very few users have depth of experience in the full range of namespaces. Similarly, the block permission includes users, IPs and IP ranges, even though candidates are rarely asked about their technical knowledge of IP addresses. One possible cure for RFA paranoia (and its evil twin, the Admin Who Should Not Be) would be to divide up these permissions to a greater degree, so that editors who seem trustworthy in one area could be given more tools for that particular area, rather than a full toolbox. (Yes, I know that something like this is on WP:PERENNIAL. So is having a community de-adminship process, which is also a good idea. Some perennial suggestions are good ones.) --RL0919 (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The ironic thing about dividing the tools: People don't want them because it creates more bureaucracy, yet we're already in about as deep a bureaucracy as we can be. (X! · talk)  · @108  ·  01:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with just running under the general RFA, asking for certain tools, and being granted those tools. It would likely work in theory, but that is just fantasy until we try it out. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"we're already in about as deep a bureaucracy as we can be" - ORLY?. Anyway, as to RL0919's point, yes adminship does confer some permissions requiring high-level tech skills few possess and which RFA doesn't tend to discuss. The point is that we trust admins to evaluate their own abilities and experience reasonably, and ask for help if necessary, etc. The main thing to evaluate, I think, is the potential admin's (self)critical thinking. Rd232 ^talk 01:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You may trust administrators, but I certainly don't. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole purpose of having the user right sysop is that it is assigned to people the community trusts. Not every person will trust every sysop, and a few may not trust any. This has no effect on the validity of the principle. Rd232 ^talk 00:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What community? The few that bother to take any interest in RfA? There's no trust. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If being an administrator is just being given a mop and bucket how does one describe bureaucrats? Also what is fundamentally wrong with seeking to put on a lot of hats? Isn't that called ambition? Some places actually encourage it.... Considering there isn't much chance a bureaucrat will become a tyrant that will enslave Wikipedians—Jimbo has already done that—what's the problem? Lambanog (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm coming in late in the game for commenting - for which I apologize - but all this was kicked over a year and a half ago with the well-publicized RfA review. A couple hundred editors responded to the review's questionnaire; nothing ever came of it. In my own responses, I opined that the system was broken and would remain broken as long as it was in the community's hands, with abuses such as the "optional" questions that were nothing of the sort. Voters show neither hesitation or shame in Opposing any candidate unfamiliar with a particular area or admin task, even if a candidate pledges openly along the lines of "I'm not really familiar with fair-use image rules, so that's an admin task I'm not going to do." Admitting the same has been the kiss of death for many RfAs. Then there's the startling fact that RfA is completely a popularity contest: no matter the candidate's qualifications or lack thereof, a Support vote of 75% is the breakpoint past which no candidate fails to gain the mop, and below which no candidate succeeds to get it. I was nominated once, withdrew from the process, and have steadfastly refused to be renominated under the existing process ... no matter how many edits I have, no matter my experience as sysop of a major university forum system, it ain't happening.  RGTraynor  20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Threads like this are pointless because the poeple who lose perspective of what adminship really is, or who vote "Oppose: per not knowing the difference between a block and a ban" don't read this page and will still vote "Oppose: per not knowing the difference between a block and a ban" once this thread is archived.

And nothing will change until some form of Adminship revocation process has passed, or that bureaucrats decide to flat out strike insane/weaksauce votes as they are being made. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

!Voting in RfAs

It seems that a crowd mentality often evolves during these RfAs, and that people's !votes may be biased by the residing momentum built up by previous !votes. In order to prevent this, why don't we !vote in secret? I'm not sure how it would be organised. One idea might be to send !votes, via email, to a bureaucrat or bureaucrats. They could judge the consensus and then act upon it. After the !voting process is over the !votes would be made public. There needs to be some transparency in the process to avoid corruption. Are there places on the Wiki that only bureaucrats and the like can access? I don't know. Any way, it just an idea. What do you think? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:PEREN#Adminship for links which may cover that proposal; in any case it's unlikely to occur, even if it's not exactly covered on that page. If it did occur, there would still be discussions, and all the mud would be slung in the discussion area, with the !voting still happening. If, however, consensus for such a change could be achieved, there is a method to do it: SecurePoll.  Frank  |  talk  23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

RFA is a discussion. !voting in secret would remove the discussion, i.e. make adminship a vote. Regards SoWhy 23:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of the virtue of RfA is that it is a public discussion - and if someone makes a 'oppose' !vote for a petty reason, then often someone will make a 'support' vote to counter that! Yes, it is possible for a 'stampede' effect to happen - but that can happen in favour of the candidate as well as against them. I would strongly object to a secret ballot for RfAs, as it would make it a straight forward vote, as opposed to the discussion we currently have.

I think you need to bear in mind that the closing 'crat will look at the arguments, and try to work out consensus: if a lot of the opposes or supports are "per xyz" with no further details, they should discount the strength of these !votes. It is possible for there to be (numerically) 60% support and 40% oppose, but with a consensus of support - if most of the supporters gave clear (and different) rationales for their support, but the opposers all opposed for one criteria only, then the consensus could well be support rather than the numerical oppose.

Finally, even with the secret polling that has taken place, there has been much discussion about whether this was a correct way to proceed - and many editors would say that these should have been held along similar lines to how Rfxs occur - with oppose/support/neutral !votes and discussion.

Time will tell whether secret polling happens on Rfx in future... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If votes are "biased" by momentum from previous votes, then apparently some of their rationales where convincing to others. That's exactly the point of an RFA discussion.--Atlan (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. If this were an ideal world then you'd be right. But some people don't read every single comment, and are influenced by the sheer volume of numbers. Are you telling me that you would read each and every comment made in an RfA with over 100 !votes? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to ignore most discussion and form an opinion based on the edits of the candidate. More often than not I'll post questions to a candidate and the responses to those questions will weigh into my decision. There are times where I will agree with certain statements made (whether support, oppose, or neutral), but I almost never allow someone else's !vote to influence mine. ArcAngel (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr Dec, are you telling us that you would check each and every edit made by a candidate with over 50,000 edits? Badger Drink (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

ArcAngel: you do and that's good; that's exactly how it should be done. But I can guarantee that there is a significant minority of people that !vote solely on the ground of what has been writen by other users in their !votes. Again, as I said to Atlan, in an ideal world - where everyone goes through the candidate's edit history fastidiously - then there would be no need to even think of anonymous !voting. What is true is that the RfA procedure is not fit for purpose. (You only have to watch an RfA evolve; it's like a bear pit sometimes.) This was just an idea off the top of my head to fix a problem. It's a difficult one though since the ones that are likely to reply are those that take RfA seriously and are those that have done their homework on the candidate. For those people there is no need for this proposal. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 17:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessing a candidate takes time, but even when there are over 100 participants I find it rarely takes long to work out why an RFA support level is rapidly changing. Look for the diff supported arguments and who people are opposing per.... There are many thing wrong with the RFA system. But IMHO moving it from a discussion to a straight vote is one of the few perennially proposed changes that would actually make the system worse rather than better. ϢereSpielChequers 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that !voting based on who votes for who shows a lack of doing ones homework. However !voting based on the facts presented by another !voter is perfectly acceptable. If I come to an RFA of a user with thousands of edits, and someone has already brought out in the oppose section a pattern of recent personal attacks backed by diffs, or a number of recent CSD taggings that show a clear lack of understanding of deletion policy, why should I spend the time clicking through thousands of additional edits. My oppose would be based on the user's edits even though another editor did the legwork--Cube lurker (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I lot of the confusion/weight/pile-on effect I think comes the length of added discussion on the average Oppose opinion versus the Supports. A lot of perfectly legitimate questions about a !vote either way are asked, but it seems most users are immediately defensive about their opinion and seem more eager to blare on about something often semi-relevant to the RfA (at best) versus just state their logic or admit a possible misunderstanding. If a certain opinion is more hotly contested, other users are more likely to look into why, and usually that means digging through every last detail in the "Oppose" section and not reading a word of any of the "Supports". The text space taken up it by itself very intimidating, and that one diff of 10,000 dug up as slander becomes more important and weighted than gushing comments on the other 9,999. Use of WP:WEIGHT seems to never come up at RfA despite a lot of talking points where it may well should (again, applicable to any of Support/Neutral/Oppose that are given without reason or are 100% factually false. cont.

Supports often don't need much further explanation since the entire nomination gives that case already, where any oppose !vote is subject to much more detailed questioning. The following discussion, if reasonable, can give the perceived weight of that one oppose statement overpowers a score of supports. Is looking specifically at diffs posted without more research okay? I'd say yes, specifically on civility or BLP issues, but for more subjective interpretation of actions it's absurd to think that someone will link 50 diffs that contradict the one possible anomaly. Passion means more weight, right?! A lot easier to gush forth passion from a one-off questionable edit than research even a few counter-examples. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at who people are opposing per is often a quick way to find the argument or evidence that has changed the debate. There are some active RFA !voters whose judgement I would trust to give a clean bill of health to an aspect of a candidate's editing, but I don't vote oppose without reviewing the proffered evidence. As for the length of debate after an oppose, aside from the times when people respond to the discussion by amending or clarifying their position, I think that the fact that there is discussion can reduce the weight of a !vote, especially if the refutations are clear and pertinent. ϢereSpielChequers 10:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not possible to look at every edit of a candidate- at least not one with a snowball's chance. Such candidates have several thousand edits- sometimes tens of thousands like Ronhjones- everyone that bothers to look through diffs either a)spot-checks, b)suffers from recentism and checks the most recent, c)checks by namespace, d) remembers some diff that struck them and goes looking for it or e)some variation or combination of those four. One especially bad diff can torpedo an RfA very quickly, and allowing discussion over opposes saves duplication of work in such cases. Discussion also can save a candidacy, is a diff that looks bad on first glance is actually appropriate. One advantage of the "discussion that looks like a vote" over a straight vote with a discussion attached is that people actually have to glance at the discussion- if only to find where to put there 'vote'. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that discussion can cut either way is one of its most important aspects. People change in every direction, occasionally even going back and forth. Seeing weakly argued comments on either side can actually send people to the other side (e.g., too many "why not" comments in support, or a "she doesn't do it my way" idiosyncratic oppose). And the candidate can improve or hurt their own chances during the discussion. A candidate can inflate the opposition by getting snippy and defensive during the discussion, or defuse it by giving clueful and considerate responses. This dynamic can sometimes produce odd results -- occasionally a candidate may get more support from a well-done apology for past mistakes than they would have gotten with a clean record -- but in an environment where candidates may be little-known to some of the RFA !voters going in, discussion is essential to the process. --RL0919 (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Brad about the difference issue. Sometimes when looking back, people don't notice any wrongdoing partly because the candidate has walken on glass the past few thousand edits, and anything potentially imflamatory has been covered up by nice things. This is both good and bad, but it is also a sign of the times. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again there are admin acting improperly here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is already a very long thread at WP:ANI on this matter, users who wish to comment further should do so there. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

This is getting ridiculous how they refuse to even allow people to apply for this. They are NOT following the guidelines and with that being the case the pages needs to be edited a lot. I think it is about time these wiki pages start being edited to properly reflect how the admin actually makes decisions. I will take this on myself personally and will begin to properly edit these pages.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Exactly what do you hope to accomplish with your RfA. You know full well what the outcome will be. It's causing more disruption than it should. Stop walking the razor's edge. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I want to be an admin. Why can I not be one? That's all I want to accomplish is to become an admin. This is all. I am not trying to "disrupt" anything. I am not doing anything wrong and I am not bothering anyone. I am a very good editor and I would like to contribute and help more and I would like the chance to become an admin. So I have applied. I have followed all site rules and done nothing wrong. However, I keep getting insults hurled at me and threatened with punishment. I have looked and nowhere on the site does it say you can be insulted or punished for applying. Also the site pages and guidelines are full of errors, extremely misleading and also do not match with the actual site process. That means this site has a huge problem with how the wiki pages are edited. They need to be properly edited to properly reflect the actual site process. I am fully capable of doing this and I will be starting a new site project on this. The pages will be edited properly to show how the actual process is and if it needs to be included that you can be banned for just applying then it will be. Users need to know they can be banned simply for applying since that actually can happen apparently. It is not fair, it is actually extremely UNFAIR to punish editors for applying without it being properly explained on the project pages that this can happen to them. This site needs to be A LOT more civil and A LOT more fair on these issues than it currently is.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC) People have expectations of administrators. You don't meet the expectations. You therefore cannot be an administrator. It's just like applying for a job. If you don't have what the boss wants, you don't get the job. --Rschen7754 07:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Try operating with some civility yourself, Wiki Greek Basketball. I know, because I lost adminship a year ago out of incivility. I checked over your record of contributions and as recently as a week ago, you were hurling insults at everyone and you got blocked for it. I won't be getting my admin privileges back -- not a year after the incident, not EVER -- so you shouldn't get admin privileges now, or ever. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 07:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (ec x2)If you want things on the site to change, I suggest taking your own advice and being more civil. Starting a new RfA less than two weeks after the first one failed miserably is completely disruptive and a waste of other editors' time. All of your complaining about how unfair the site is, or how unfairly you're being treated is likely to garner nothing except contempt and annoyance from other editors (see all the oppose opinions in both your RfAs for examples of this). The RfA process is working properly regardless of whether you like the outcome of that process. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (ec)Wiki Greek Basketball, I suggest you drop the stick now. Many editors have tried to explain to you in different forums, but you have just attacked and refused to listen. At best, I suggest you initiate an editor review for yourself and act on the constructive feedback you receive. -SpacemanSpiff 07:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Probably best if you drop the stick and walk away, and then go back to article work. You've showed that you cannot help but to be disruptive in Wikipedia's internal areas, so unless you want to end up banned, it's best you stop now. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I think it's worth mentioning that disruption is cause for a ban. Personally, I see your recent history as not altogether unlike trolling. -- Pakaran 07:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC) As I stated, it is a fact that the site pages are not properly edited to reflect the actual process of becoming an admin. Therefore they need to be corrected. A new site project needs to be started to fix this. I will lead this project and go through all the proper channels to do so. The site pages will be corrected to show the true site process. For example, that applying is considered "pointy", "disruptive", etc. and that you can be banned simply for applying. That applying is considered "uncivil" and that you can be banned for this. It MUST be explained thoroughly and properly on the site pages so that editors understand this BEFORE they apply and that they have all the proper warnings ahead of time. And if other members do not like that, this is there personal issue of breaking site rules on etiquette.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Stop acting stupid, no one said applying for RFA was uncivil, it's your comments that were/are uncivil, and that's what got you blocked. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I will start the new project and fix all the problems. You can either help or not. But your personal insults should stop.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC) And stop yours. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I have made no personal insults. Coffee is the one that constantly and consistently does that.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Then keep it that way. This is the first step to actually be constructive on here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC) (od) I have no opinion on this matter one way or the other, but could you guess please use an edit summary for this section when adding comments to it? This is like third time I've come here to investigate a so called problem with improper behavior and found only a disgruntled user. It would make the RC patrolling this morning a little easier. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 08:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I've started an ANI thread on WGB's pattern of behavior [1] for those interested. -- Pakaran 08:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC) So once again you get insulted, there is improper handling of the process as compared to how it is stated in the pages on the site and then if you complain about it or say you will correct it (as it should have been done long ago) you get reported for abuse. This site needs some serious revisions on its policies and practices to say the least.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC) Perhaps, but you seem to be trying to prove that through your actions. Wisdom89 (T / C) 13:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC) I'm tempted to manually archive this entire thread as I fail to see any bearing on the Request for Adminship process. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Looking forward, the role of 'crats

I'd just like to advertise my thoughts regarding my recent request for bureaucratship and its associated 'cratchat. Overall, the process worked as it should. But I get the feeling, once again, that the community is still unsure as to what the role of bureaucrats is and what it should be going forward, and I think this is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to achieve consensus at RfB. I like to think of bureaucratship as a minor technical role that can be described as access to three extra buttons. It's clear, though, that others believe the 'crat team should be leaders of sorts, and should be comprised of only Wikipedia's most experienced and trusted contributors.

Obviously, the role differs from project to project. At Meta-Wiki, for example, bureaucrats are generally appointed with little fanfare after having served six months as an admin. On the other hand, at Commons, they are expected to be "capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues. They also have to be able to deal sensitively with confidential information (occasionally disclosed to the bureaucrats as a group), and to be able to judge what is and is not appropriate to discuss publicly on wiki."

I think that after having a fairly successful year of promotions during 2009, having had appointed four additional 'crats, we now have a sufficient collection of data to go by in terms of plotting and charting how we want RfB to work, and as such I think it might be time to initiate another RfB bar discussion. However, before we do so, I feel we need to decide what we want the role to be: an insignificant technical responsibility or a position of community leadership.

Personally, I'm of the belief the standards for RfB are vastly too high, and to be honest I can't recall ever opposing an RfB. Speaking as a long-term sysop on en.wiki and an admin and bureaucrat on several other Wikimedia projects, I can say that the block and delete functions are far more contentious, controversial, and difficult to use than the RenameUser button. And I know that many folks agree with me in that respect. A problematic admin can do far more damage than a problematic bureaucrat, as bureaucrats don't have any bearing on the editorial community.

This has been my opinion since I was promoted to adminship, so it has nothing to do with my RfB in particular. It simply inspired me to express my thoughts and ask for other opinions. Make of this rant what you will. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree that the waves in the Sea of Adminship are far rougher then the waves in the Sea of Cratship. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've expressed similar thoughts a few times. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. If admins can do damage, the people who appoint those admins can do even more damage. Thus the selection of 'crats should be held to a very high standard indeed. Mr. Language Person (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The people who select the admins are the people who vote for them, not the bureaucrats. Julian is of course quite right; there's hardly a job at all for bureacrats, and they certainly aren't leaders in any recognisable sense. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem with that logic is that in the discretion range, it is ultimately up to the bureaucrat to determine whether or not that user will become an admin. On an unrelated note, Julian, I agree that delete and block is a lot more contentious than Renameuser is. However, it's the Special:Userrights that makes the job a Big Deal^TM. I seem to recall a thread a couple of months ago that was created after Ryulong was desysopped, 2 years after his RfA was closed controversially. That was a lot more drama (both after the RfA and desysopping) than most deletes or blocks ever get. This is why the bureaucrat position is so controversial. This is also why we can't have a bot close RfXs. (X! · talk)  · @810  ·  18:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I can think of about two or three requests for adminship where the end result was particularly controversial. In 99% (76% of statistics are false, mind) of cases no judgment is required whatsoever to determine the outcome of an RfX. Yet every day we have out of process deletions at WP:DRV, bad civility blocks at ANI, and rogue admins at RfAR. Which brings me back to the question of why the RfB standards are so much higher than those for adminship. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Julian in that we're going to need a serious community discussion on whether or not we should officially lower the discretionary range for RfBs. A significant portion of the community seems to be in favor of looser standards for RfBs. Timmeh 18:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that the purpose of any fresh community discussion would be to determine if a lower bar was now considered appropriate (by the community). From the preceding comment it appears that a “significant portion of the community” has already determined that to be the case. If so, where is the evidence? Leaky Caldron 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfB bar. (FYI, not the first time its linked on this page, and it comes up in every discussion on this topic). Worth noting, though, that even with the lowered threshold Julian's RfB is still on the edge, with either up or down remaining a fair call. Nathan ^T 18:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd read it. It's 22 months old. I thought from Timmeh's remark that some new evidence of the community's desire to change the existing process had emerged. Leaky Caldron 19:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That long already? Wow. As far as I know, there hasn't been anything since then. Discussion has been struck up a few times, but nothing has really come of any of them. I was surprised it did even then, Wikinertia being what it is. Nathan ^T 19:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My claim isn't really based on any hard evidence. It's pretty much just based on my observations of multiple editors voicing a dissatisfaction with the high RfB threshold, both in individual posts and in whole threads on this page. The trend also seems to be moving toward greater support for lowering the bar, especially in recent months. It's just what I make of it though; that's why I said "seems to be... " Timmeh 20:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to try to avoid conflating some editors being noisy on a subject with a clear community consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What is there clear consensus on, and amongst whom is there consensus? Regarding the RfB bar poll, I agree that in 22 months, a lot has changed. For example, in today's RfB, I can't imagine the 86% WP:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana failing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but the RfB Bar was written in response to Riana's RFB. You can see that almost the entire discussion was anchored to what was happening at her simultaneous RFB. Pompously, I'll quote myself at the RFB Bar: "If we can have a pool of bureaucrats to whom nobody objects and who can attend to the small number of pages for which they are responsible, why would we benefit by adding bureaucrats to whom more people object? It would allow more people to collect a bcrat trophy, but would do nothing whatsoever to help the project." This is a question I do not believe has been satisfactorily answered. --JayHenry (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What JayHenry said above, and you arguing over the bar because it directly effects you Julian is, frankly, causing me a lot of ill will in respect of you. Honest mate, it's all no big deal and the desperation I see from you in being a "bureaucrat" is,well, unsettling. Pedro :  Chat  23:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, my post above is in no way a plead to get myself appointed. I enjoy writing an encyclopedia, and I know that the readers couldn't care less whether or not the author of the content is a bureaucrat or not. That's why I don't view userrights as much of a big deal on Wikimedia. I simply feel in response to my RfB, which was entirely fair, that we need to discuss the role of bureaucratship. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Do we need to be highly selective in in electing bureaucrats ? IMO, no. However, the RfB workload is small enough, that a relatively few editors suffice for the task and we can be pretty selective. Next, organizational behaviour and group psychology come into play, and set us along a vicious path: We can be selective. → We are selective. → We rationalize and start imagining that the high standards are required for the job → We raise the standards even higher, and voters, candidates start thinking of this dull responsibility as a trophy or feather in the cap. I don't have a solution to break out of this chain, but I think it is useful for us to recognize the phenomenon. For example, I often see proposals on this page to split the administrative functions and elect distinct corps of editors to speedy delete article, protect articles, close AFDs, block users etc. Our experience with RfB's (and, ArbCom) should show that this would be a very bad idea, since, suddenly we will start setting insane standards for editors to be selected to these specialized roles, and start imagining that protecting a page requires 2 years of experience, 3000 edits at RFPP etc. Increased bureaucracy and specialization inevitable starts justifying itself, and arguing for its own indispensability (the position of Arbcom Clerks is a fine example). I hope we don't miss out on this larger picture, while discussing the finer points of how to select bureaucrats. Abecedare (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  Well, this didn't happen with rollback, and I see no reason an easy-come-easy-go page protect feature would be any different. The key insight is that page protector would be a lesser role than our current form of adminship and the easy-come-easy-go complements laxer standards. I would expect devolution of the tools to do the opposite of what you expect. --JayHenry (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry I wasn't clearer: Of course, opening the permission to a larger group of editors is not problematic (for example, if we allow any autoconfirmed user to move pages over existing titles, or allow any admin to grant/revoke such a right). The problem I am alluding to arises when we make certain function even more exclusive. Abecedare (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  The proposals I have seen on this page regarding devolution propose doing the opposite of that. --JayHenry (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  Then, I would support such procedures! Sorry, if my memory was faulty; I wasn't trying to argue against a strawman above. I hope my larger point is clearer though: making certain functions exclusive and building up complicated processes to elect editors to such roles, only serves to fluff up the importance of such functions more than they deserve. I am all for easy-come/easy-go granting of tools (except checkuser, which has privacy implications). Abecedare (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  Indeed. In fast, personally I think it's a bit silly that RenameUser is not available to admins. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  I think I agree, but doesn't this argument break down a bit when aimed at RfA? The sysop workload, unlike that of 'crats, is large enough that we shouldn't have a high bar since we need them, yet the requirements have significantly increased regardless, presumably since the tools are relatively significant. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  My analysis is certainly not a one-solutions-fits-all universal explanation! What I find incongruous is the high standards we apply at RfBs contrasted with the limited role and chance of abuse, for such a position. The RfA situation is admittedly more complicated because (1) we need many more admins than bureaucrats, (2) the admin tools (especially blocks and speedy deletions) are more powerful and more open to being abused than the limited role of bureaucrats, (3) we have had a some history of admin tools being misused, and (4) admin tools are very hard to take back (this is true for bureaucrats too, but I can't think of any situation where this was an issue; Nichalp was de-crated, but for unrelated cause). Abecedare (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• It seems a lot of people agree we need more bureaucrats, or that the bar should be lowered so that RfB is easier to pass. There is merit to this position, but I'd like to offer a counter-argument. The bureaucrat body is most effective when we have enough bureaucrats to keep the renaming and bot flagging backlogs in check, but not so many that the collective is indecisive in its judgment-centred functions. For example, if we had perhaps ten more active bureaucrats, bureaucrat discussions for RfXs would be noisy and uncoordinated, and would take much longer to go somewhere. In my view, we've presently achieved the correct balance between technical efficiency and social efficiency; too many more bureaucrats right now would be undesirable. The need, of course, fluctuates with the activity level of the current cohort. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I support lowering the standard, but this is perhaps one of the strongest arguments I've seen for keeping them where they are at. I would, personally, rather see higher individual criteria, but a lower bar. 85-90% is a high bar to pass, especially if somebody is willing to be controversial and take stands in certain places.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that's certainly important to consider. However, by my reckoning, we have about six or seven truly active 'crats, which is astoundingly low for the size of the English Wikipedia. Take for instance the Simple Wikipedia, which has 10 bureaucrats, most of whom edit regularly, and there have been no issues with overcrowding over there. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For contentiousness, let's wait for a crat to encratify his friend after an RfB at 70. Same goes for sysopping to a lesser extent. This will start to happen if the threshold is lowered too much. Reversing admin actions/decisions is easy. That's not the case for crats. And crat tasks are much more complex and consequential even ignoring ease of reversibility. Importantly too, there's their future role. There a huge power vacuum on wiki. Atm it's being filled by an expansionary ArbCom, but in the future more and more power may go to crats. People will argue that they too are elected and trustworthy ... and indeed that's what's been happening on the various admin removal RfCs. It's really not that hard even now for a non-controversial user with lots of IRC friends to stack the kind of votes needed to win RfB, without really having done anything or being known to anyone, esp. as current crats seem to be demanding more and more of opposes. And as there's no real need to get more crats, there's no need to lower the bar. It has worked so far ... let's not eff it up now. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As I see it most people can't get through RfB at all, let alone through IRC scheming. Perhaps you could point out one such case? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I confess to being a triffle disappointed that your response to your recent unsuccessful RfB appears to be to argue for a change in how the system works to make it easier for RfBs to succeed, rather than working to convince those who opposed you that you would in fact make a good bureaucrat. WJBscribe (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response to Pedro above, thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Deacon, though I kinda agree with your eventual point (that things have worked out reasonably well so far), I have to say that a lot of that seemed like incoherent paranoia. Seriously, there's just so much of what you said ("encratify his friend after an RfB at 70"? really?) that makes me cock my head to the side and go "wha?" EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearing throat

While everyone is busy preening about this page on how the crat workload is so low that we don't need to change it (and everyone else is talking about how the bar is too high and we need to change it,) could some people please remember that RFA is 1/3rd of the crats' job. The other 2/3rds, renames and bots, are far more vital cmtcrats tasks than RFA, given the infrequent nature of RFA. At any given time there is usually 2-3 RFAs, 20-something renames, and over a dozen active bot requests. So RFA is easy for the foreseeable future and renames are rather simple to review and approve.

But, the Bot Approvals Group only has 9 members (compared to 20 some active crats) and is critically strained to process the requests up to the crats for flagging. I've nominated almost all of the recent additions to BAG over the last year and have been trying to process the requests as quickly as I can, but we do need help over at WP:BRFA. We even have banned sockpuppets slipping bots through the process since few people with experience look at bot requests to notice patterns.

When I got out of the ER this week, as soon as I could sit up, I was busy reviewing bots since I know they perform most of the heavy lifting around here and it is important to get them reviewed in order to keep the dozens of wikiprojects, processes, and systems running. So rather than continue to pontificate over how many crats can fit in the head of a pin, could we please try looking around for more people who might like to join BAG or at least commenting at a couple bot requests so I can know if the task is a good idea? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I have almost no RfA closes to my name, but have made hundreds of edits to WP:CHU. --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree as well; my RfX closures are very few and far between, but I've been a lot more active on CHU (though not so much as of late). EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, MBisanz. At the current rate, there is 1-3 RfAs to close every week. Since only a single crat can close an RfX, many crats don't even get a chance to close one. CHU, on the other hand, has dozens of requests that need completing every week, and BAG has plenty of bots that need approval. You do see CHU and BRFA with a few outstanding requests quite often, and that is what we need more crats for, not RfA. (X! · talk)  · @594  ·  13:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Voting

I have two questions about voting.

1. Do all voters have to be logged in? I have seen many RfA debates and I have never seen any voter that is an IP address. Also, most of the voters are sysops, oversight, CheckUsers, rollbackers, crats, and autoreviewers.
2. Why does everyone, not just for RfA, but for AfD, FAC, and many other things write '!vote' instead of just 'vote'?
   

--The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 00:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes. That is detailed on the main project page. Sometimes IPs comment, and their discussions are helpful, but they cannot vote.
2. See the section here. It's a comp sci joke.

~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, almost all the voters are sysops, oversight, CheckUsers, rollbackers, crats, and autoreviewers. Is this just because usually only those who have experience vote, or do you have to be one of those groups? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 01:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to be, these types of users are just more likely to have familiarity and interest in this area of the project than editors who may focus on the article space or are relatively new to the site. Input from members of the community that aren't in those groups is welcome. Camw (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just going a little further-- There are very few places where discussion is truly restricted to admins or other special permissions compared to the thousands of places where discussion is frequent, and any restrictions are labeled. Go ahead and be bold! I'd highly suggest reading through a lot of archived requests, both successful and unsuccessful, to pick up on a lot of matters that might be of large community concern you hadn't realized count be in the past. There are ever-so-many beautiful tourist areas for non-admins that like some good debate and policy research instead of article expansion and research, so do your homework and try either. If keen on discussion here, perhaps you could write down what your theoretical !vote would be with your rationale behind it for, say, 2-4 (or more) RfAs. If you feel your statements are on par or better in quality and substance, go for it. The "!" from !vote, as Armory noted, is a programming joke, but it's also completely appropriate since no support/oppose comment is ever a hard up-or-down vote on Wikipedia. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Question: You say there are "very few places" where discussion is limited to admins only. What would those be? I've never heard of any page that is restricted to admin comments only. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you have a point. I can think of a very short list limited to 'crats, extremely narrow or external discussion of things like bots operators and developers, and the few minor spots limited for CU, SPI and ArbCom clerks, but none for just sysop level vs standard editors... Unless you want to include any fully protected pages or being able to view deleted articles and histories for reference and research. There are also the off cases where discussion from non-admins is essentially ignored or is shunned. Technically correct? I admit, I think you've got me beat. In spirit there are plenty of places it could be limited but common sense could avoid it anyway. Or, if not limited the input by non-admins holds a lot lower weight. I just know I've seen a handful spots saying "for administrator discussion below", but I'll also also admit I think much has been in essays, unofficial projects or requests by other users in the short-term. I'd also argue that any discussion section geared toward "final decisions" or "conclusions" likely could be more limited. At least I stay away from those spots, especially if blocks are discussed since I haven't been 'okay'd' by the community to offer a trusted opinion on something that serious. Related would be things needing a seconding by another admin.

It's a strange line. There are also users who can get upset if a non-admin does more admin-looking acts even if it's entirely non-binding and reversible such as a normal template addition or removal... then the whole matter of weight if in a discussion with more famed users, etc etc. Honestly, I've been meaning to write an essay on these ideas in general since I'm trying to write up some basic do's and don't on "Brooms", being an admin clerk of sorts that can take care of a number of generic actions, give advice to all, collect evidence and such while waiting for admin views expressed at incident boards. The only thing I really do not know about at all is how deleted articles and contributions are viewed as I can only dream of a convenience like that. Credit is due though, since you got my really wracking my brain on this. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The only place I can think of is certain sections on Arbitration pages. Since all the arbitrators are admins, it's de facto admins-only. :) (X! · talk)  · @594  ·  13:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Much in the same way being a Wikipedian is restricted to mammals. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, how fun. I never knew that page existed, much less that I was classed as Meteorological. Jonathunder (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The only time anything RfA-related is restricted to a single user group are the bureaucrat chats for contentious RfAs (or RfBs), where discussion is limited to bureaucrats. Other than that, the process is largely open to anyone and everyone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And in those cases, all users may participate on the discussion's talk page. :-) Regards SoWhy 18:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: term limits for administrators

I think that this pretty much gets shown the door every time it comes up, but I'm putting it out there again: becoming an administrator shouldn't be a lifetime appointment. In most countries that have a voting mechanism in place for choosing their leaders, they periodically reaffirm this trust by re-electing/re-appointing these leaders. And let's face it, admins are considered leaders here by the community; they set the tone and guide the project as both editor and admin.

Because every single admin and 'crat will point out that they are not perfect, we need a process to weed out the admins who either consider adminship a goal/prize/medal or who have simply lost touch with the rest of the community. A periodic renewal of these admins allows the community (of which admins and crats are but a part) to reaffirm the effectiveness, usefulness and general ability and wisdom to use the mop wisely and effectively. It also allows the community to not renew the adminship of those sitting admins who have not performed their duties to the satisfaction of the community.

Recently, one of our oldest-standing admins commented on how contentious and nit-picky the RfA policy has become, and the general response can be encapsulated by a throwing up of the hands and saying 'we agree, but alas, what can be done?' This powerlessness needs to cease. While the Body Admin generally policies itself via off-wiki discussion, by and large the problems of adminship are defined by their lack of limitation. If, once an admin is in place, they can only be unseated via voluntary action or a byzantine (and largely undefined) process, it can easily lead to a distancing between the editor and the administrator. This is not what was intended. By imposing a term limit on administrators, we preserve those admins who act in the best interest of the Project and weed out those who's interests lie elsewhere.

A side effect of putting this proposal into effect is that it will also serve to reform the process of RfA. As it stands, new candidates are scrutinized with a level of detail unheard of in previous years. The common response to this concern would be to point out that the wiki has grown more complex since its inception and early years, and that admins need to know more about the tools than before. I would agree with this assessment, and point out that an admin chosen four years ago might not have the same qualifications/skill set as a new admin now. Sitting admins have no vested interest in reforming RfA; they are already in, and it takes virtually an act of god to get them out. Place those same admins on a term limit, and you could boil an egg in the time it takes for reform to come to RfA, guaranteed.

This isn't to be seen as an attack on sitting admins; most are conscientious, skillful and civil editors who wield the mop both gracefully and effectively. This proposal would help to ensure that this is a standard amongst all admins. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable proposal, but I'm not sure I see the point. I agree that there needs to be some process to discuss and remove problematic admins, but arbitrarily adding "term limits" seems like a bad idea to me. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I see the reasoning behind this, and it even strikes me as a fairly good idea, but maybe it would be better just to make so that if any two "experienced" editors (to be defined) reckon that an admin should have to re-run then they simply have to go through another RfA? Also, would WP:VPR be a more appropriate venue for this discussion? Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not one of our oldest-standing admins. I became an admin before he even joined the project and my first edit was years before his. The same is true for many other admins. This is not to pull rank or downplay his enormous contribution to our encyclopedia. But you correctly point out that proposals like this are shown the door when they arise and that's not about to change regardless of opinions. The reason is that the RFA system has worked very well on the macro-scale since its inception. While many agree that RFA support and oppose comments are increasingly nitpicky, a few bad eggs here and there might have been responsible for this. Essentially the RFA process is self-regulating. Anyway, this discussion is a waste of time at best. I suggest you return to editing the mainspace. Andrevan@ 19:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

proposals like this are shown the door when they arise and that's not about to change regardless of opinions. Point taken.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We have enough trouble getting good admins to stay, why make them leave when they've not abused their position? — Rlevse • Talk • 19:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point too. Andrevan@ 19:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"You correctly point out that proposals like this are shown the door when they arise and that's not about to change regardless of opinions", I must disagree with you when you say the above since Wikipedia is run on consensus, which basically means that everyone's opinion is seriously taken into account and judged based upon its merits. Your apparent opinion that this should be "showed the door" is noted, but it does not overrule anyone else's opinion to the contrary. Kindest Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 19:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Does this have anything to do with another issue you're currently following up? Because if it does, that particular admin had a re-affirmation of the community's trust in them just a few short months ago. –xeno^talk 19:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• The practical difficulty with term limits at this moment is that there has been a drought at RFA for nearly two years now - so a term limit of four years would take out a large proportion of our admins. A limit of two years would take out a large majority of our admins, with no guarantee either that you could persuade enough of them to stand for another term or that the remaining admins would be able to cover the gap. There is also a philosophical difficulty, is adminship an election for a small ruling elite on the pedia, or an interview to establish if someone can be trusted to take on a few chores for the rest of the community? As someone who strongly holds to the latter position I would oppose something that has the potential to make us an even more exclusive club (full disclosure - I'm one of the 100 most recently appointed admins so presumably would be one of the few admins still in post even with a two year term limit). ϢereSpielChequers 20:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Last question first: no, Xeno. While inspired by that incident (involving two admins, not one), this addresses the larger, continuing issue of ensuring that the admins we have on the roster have an effective, up-to-date skill set. It also serves as an initial step to addressing matters such as notification of ArbCom where necessary of relevant information, etc.

Spitfire, it isn't my idea that this proposal should be "shown the door" (quite the opposite, for why would i have submitted the proposal in the first place?) However, the dismissive tone of Andrevan's reply: "this discussion is a waste of time at best/I suggest you return to editing the mainspace" is a far better illustration of the idea that sitting admins are less likely to be interested in this idea because they are already in place. In contrast to Andrevan's opinion, the process of policing should not be left to other admins, but to the community at large, and on a regular basis. This is also the reason we do not allow law enforcement agencies to police their own; there is too often the 'thin blue line' which prevents deep problems from coming to light and therefore addressed properly for the good of all.

I submit that admins cannot be asked to police their own, and should not be tasked with doing so. This is also what hamstrings the suggestion of two admins recommending re-RfA for a sitting admin; while "there is no cabal™" it would not be unheard of for two like-minded admins to help undercut another by nom'ing them for re-RfA. It would be best to remove it utterly from the control of admins completely. It better suits the transparency of the RfA process, and works to eliminate the idea of admins as being beyond the reach of the regular editor.

Addressing Chequers' comments, I would point out that we start the process of Administrative Re-Confirmation slowly: we re-RfA those admins that are the oldest (referring to date of affirmation as admin), and move forward from there. As there is no current yardstick to define "problem" admins, I think the oldest-to-newest procedure would be more effective and neutral. And while I am not married to any particular term, three years sounds like a good limit; those admins appointed recently would face re-confirmation at their third year.

This, I believe, would address the drought that Chequers referred to, and not leave us without admins in place. For those admins who might resign in protest at having to reaffirm their administrator standing, I say good riddance - they clearly feel that they should be above such, and as such violate the spirit and the letter of what Jimbo has already unequivocally stated is not a station above the regular user. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• The second position is certainly correct by my thinking, admins are simply users trusted to take on a few chores for the community, however, if the community loses its trust in that admin to carry out those chores then surely the admin-ship should be removed? I don't think that the best way to establish whether the community has lost trust in the admin is a regular re-run, but rather I think it should be determined by making it easier to have admins re-run at the suggestion of other users (see my top-most comment on this thread). Really this should make the admin group less bureaucratic, at the moment once a user gets admin-ship they become almost untouchable, in my opinion, the proposed measure would make sure that admins would be more aware that they should have community support in everything they do which involves administrative access (since we are run by consensus), (which plenty of admins are already aware of, yourself for instance, but there still needs to be measures to make sure this hits home to others, in my opinion). Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• While it is a bit old now you might want check out Wikipedia:Adminship renewal. The talk page there has a rather extensive discussion on the matter. While i appreciate having admins who are up to current standards for RfA it has long been held on enwp that once an admin always an admin unless removed voluntarily or for cause, whether active or not, until death. I think first off on the confusion that would come from a bureaucrat who fails a RfA renewal but whose (hypothetical) bureaucrat term limit is not yet over. While technically there is no requirement for a bureaucrat to also be an admin i have yet to find a bureaucrat who has not passed an RfA. The proposal has merit but would need significant refinement to address a variety of issues it would create. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on history, I doubt this will get far, but I do not feel the process of removing an admin should be easy. Admins sometimes have to make unpopular decisions, and the process of removal (and a requirement for a new RfA is an effective removal, since anyone can have an RfA) should be arduous absent clear misconduct and an ArbCom ruling.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well I sure as hell don't look to administrators as leaders. Rather the reverse. 'Editor' is by far the best, highest title on this project. EVERY other classification of rights here results in the people having those rights doing work in support of editors and/or the project. They are not leaders. They do not formulate policy, editors do. They do not chart strategy, editors (and/or Foundation) do. Editors rule this project. Everything else is a voluntary demotion into more work in support of editors. And if we are to face something, let's face the reality that administrators get things wrong so many times it makes Washington look like a well oiled, efficient machine. It's not that being an administrator makes you screw up, but that administrators are just as human as the rest of us, and they sure as hell haven't been given the extra bits to 'lead' anything. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)