Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Significa liberdade 110 11 1 91 22:18, 21 September 2024 4 days, 6 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 15:59, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 16:06:41, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Removal process

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

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

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

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

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

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

  I was trying to cover that space between "emergency desysop" and "we need to talk". - jc37 21:48, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

(1) agreement of the original Arb,

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

(3) a majority vote of Arb Com, or

(4) an RfA.

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

Thanks for your comments.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standard

• Key Question that has not been addressed: What standard would a crat use in closing the community removal process? Would it be a !vote? Would 60-70% need to support the admin keeping the bit, essentially a forced reconfirmation RFA? Would a simple majority suffice? Would there need to be consensus to remove the bit? The standard adopted would radically alter the ease of admin removal, and I think be critical in deciding whether to support the proposal. Monty₈₄₅ 14:38, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

• Jc37, you may be unaware that Bureaucrats currently have the authority to remove adminship on official request from the arbitration committee. The arbitration committee sets its own procedures but currently may issue such a request with the support of as few as one third of the currently active committee members. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:55, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

  Hi, TUC. It's been archived, so you may be unaware that this proposal came out of a lengthy discussion on this page. The point was to set up a process that was different (for various reasons) than the existing processes. It was not to replace any existing process. And as noted, it was not to limit what arbcom can do. - jc37 19:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Disincentivizing controversial admin actions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that would be as effective as holding an RFC to ask the question: Should we reform RFA, you may get a majority of contributors agreeing reform is needed, yet you would never reach consensus on any particular reforms. I agree a community desysop process would be a good idea, but I think most of the proposals that have made provide inadequate protection to an admin against a vocal minority that want to strip their bit. I would certainly support a process that removes an admin's bit if 50% of the uninvolved community as a whole supports removal, but that is far different from 50% of the community who happens to show up at a particular removal process. I would also consider opposing the general question at an RFC, as I would fear that a consensus to institute a process could be used to force through a process that standing alone would have insufficient support to have been implemented. Monty₈₄₅ 15:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

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

I don't think they would be at all obligated to desysop, though it would depend heavily on who participated at the RFC/U. It would probably get the case open, but I would expect Arbcom to review the underlying conduct, and make its own desysop determination. Arbcom is selected by a much more diverse segment of the community then those who regularly comment at RFC/U, and it avoids the problem that many commentors at the RFC can have an axe to grind as a result of past interaction. Monty₈₄₅ 21:04, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

This process appears to be inactive

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A pistol with a single shot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I'm all for new ideas, but I think I'll pass on this one. Lynch7 09:43, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• There is no way to get rid of an admin in a situation where the admin is causing minor harm, refusing to change, but not committing serious policy violations to the extent that an arbitration case is never going to happen. The project would be better without them as admins, but there is functionally nothing we can do about it. Monty₈₄₅ 16:54, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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

— Goodraise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Backlog

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

Has unbundling the renaming role of crats from their roll in admin appointment ever been considered? I for one would support an aggressive campaign to involuntarily assign active admins the ability to rename. Monty₈₄₅ 02:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other Wikimedia sites take this approach, having a minimum bureaucrat activity requirement. CU and OS here have an activity requirement as well. --Rschen7754 04:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think we may be thinking of the same person - and I may have beaten you to it [1]. Callanecc (talk • contribs) talkback (etc) template appreciated. 03:37, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why do I say "still"?

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

And that was before the current requirements for check user.

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

But now, CU is an entirely separate process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I wonder what I'm remembering...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Non-Admin Closures

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

• Well, there is a natural process. There are already many voters who maintain their special requirements and would only support the candidate if they satisfy all or most of the requirements. These special requirements are absolutely arbitrary. For instance, we have voters who require GA and FA (they call it contribution to content creation); we also have voters who would never support a candidate with FA and GA because these users are best left to do content creation. We have also voters who would not support a candidate with more than 70% (or was it 67%?) contribution to the article space. I have yet to see a voter, but I will not be surprised to see a voter who would never support a candidate with less than 70% contribution to the article space, since such contribution demonstrates low involvement in the contant creation process. And so on. If today there is a voter unhappy to see no non-admin closures, tomorrow there will be a voter unhappy to see any non-admin closures, because this can demonstrates that the candidate takes too much without necessary qualification. And, as a result, sonn we will have no candidates at all being able to pass 50% support.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

  And of course there are the editors who won't support someone if they don't like one of the editors who has supported... QU ^TalkQu 18:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

  That, at least, is something that a closing bureaucrat should have no trouble just chucking from the consideration entirely. The contradictions would make matters more complicated, however, but I guess that admins/crats have to deal with that sort of thing is probably part of why at least some people are so picky. Irony, eh? -— Isarra ༆ 11:34, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• It seems clear that most editors don't want RFA to be causing editors to go make NACs they wouldn't have otherwise, at least for those not planning to work in the AfD area as an admin. Yet if opposes keep talking about expecting NACs, the message here is unlikely to sink in. So what are we going to do about it? Monty₈₄₅ 17:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Questions

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

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

See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_216#Admin.27s_open_to_Recall. You are permitted to ask the question, but editors may hold it against you. Monty₈₄₅ 23:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Process

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

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

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

The BBC really have been covering us this week. They did this as well.[2].E W 23:16, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

The Atlantic has rather more detail: [3] . I agree there's no cause for concern for Wikipedia. Wikipedia will be just fine without RFA someday, just like it does just fine without WP:Esperanza or WP:AMA these days. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:09, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to be an admin

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

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

Blast of nostalgia

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