Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2021 review/Brainstorming

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for adminship | 2021 review

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by John Cline (talk | contribs) at 01:12, 13 October 2021 (→Discussion (Admin-ability to block an admin from using their tools): comment x2). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Purpose and format

The purpose of this page is to brainstorm solutions based on the issues identified during Phase 1 of this RfA review. It is intended to last 1 to 2 weeks depending on how the discussion develops.

On this page editors should feel free to create a new section to discuss an idea they have or even to just discuss an issue from Phase 1 more generally.

During Phase 2 the following format will be used when presenting ideas:

==A few word summary description of the solution being proposed==
A 1-3 sentence description of the solution being proposed. For larger changes where new policy language may be required editors are encouraged to link to a subpage with wording and further details

Issue(s) addressed: The number(s) of the issue(s) this solution is addressing
Example

This example is based on a proposal from the 2015 RfA.

==Advertise RfAs with a watchlist notice==
Another option is to post a notice announcing current RfAs on MediaWiki:Watchlist-details, which will display the notice on all watchlists.

Issue(s) addressed: #1

The goal is that no further RfCs/phases will be needed to implement any idea which gains consensus during phase 2. That is why this brainstorming period exists - to allow editors a chance to get feedback on their ideas and/or have time to fully develop their ideas before the 30 day discussion begins. Some details may, of course, be worked out during the 30 day discussion (i.e. during the 2015 review the multiple proposals for the exact percentage the discretionary range would start at were discussed/considered).

Issues identified

Following Phase 1 the following issues had a clear consensus of support from editors:

  1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere: The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.
  2. Level of scrutiny: Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.
  3. Standards needed to pass keep rising: It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.
  4. Too few candidates: There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.
  5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

  1. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere): Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
  2. Admin permissions and unbundling: There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
  3. RfA should not be the only road to adminship: Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Editors should also consider the following issues which had consensus against them when brainstorming solutions:

  • There is no issue
  • Not enough like a discussion
  • Too much discussion
  • Administrator is undesirable position
  • RfA reflects a declining editor base
  • Who participates
  • Splitting the admin role
  • Too few trusted and experienced nominators

Idea: Administrator appointment board

Rather than using direct voting, the community would vote for members of an appointment board. This board would then cast the ultimate vote after a period for discussion.

Issue(s) addressed: 1, 2, 8

Discussion (Administrator appointment board)

Putting this here not because I support it but rather to kickstart discussion/serve as an example because it's something from my collection of RfA reform ideas that I'd seen proposed/discussed at times. Before this could be proposed some big details would have to be worked out including:

  • Would there be different terms for elected/RfA vs appointed administrators?
  • Would some percentage of seats (50%?) need to go to non-administrators?
    • How do we define non-administrators? People who've never had sysop? People not eligible for at will reinstatement at BN?
  • What percentage would be necessary to pass (simple majority? 2/3? 3/4?)

I anticipate this is one where a subpage would be necessary for it to be proposed during phase 2. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • An important read is the discussion rejecting the proposed Administrative Standards Commission, which was (I think) the most recent incarnation of this concept. The main points raised in opposition were that the proposal 1) was overly bureaucratic, 2) created a cabal, and 3) lacked true accountability. As such, a proposal would need to be very simple (e.g. no separate elections; make it a subcommittee of ArbCom) and very accountable (e.g. if thirty users email the committee objecting to a given sysop candidate, the process is void and the user must run at RfA) if it were to have any chance at success. The problem, of course, is that the more accountable it becomes, the more it begins to resemble RfA. But in my view, there's no way that the community is going to outsource its control over admins wholesale: it's going to insist on retaining at least a veto power and possibly a lot more. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As part of brainstorming, (i) delegate this to ArbCom (no separate committee needed or make it an ArbCom subcommittee); (ii) let them first appoint admins for a year and them reappoint forever. It might be some community discussion before the life reappointment, but it obviously only makes sense if it does not become a new RfA.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:49, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think an RfA for those having served a year is in order, the year having served as a probationary period. This also sidesteps the issue of whether we would/should have multiple hierarchical "tranches" of the admin corps because in the long run all admins would still have gone through the process.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 10:43, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      People would take this route exactly to avoid RfA. I do not think if we add RfA as a requirement anybody would be interested.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:48, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      People would take the route to avoid the problems of RfA; having experience under their belts would shut most opposition up and reduce the corrosiveness of the atmosphere.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:07, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I doubt this. If I resign now and go for another RfA (which, for the record, I have done once on the Russian Wikipedia more than 10 years ago) I will most probably pass, but I am sure it is not going to be a pleasant walk, certainly way more unpleasant than my original RfA back in 2013.
  • We already have an "administrator appointment board" – it's known as the WP:Bureaucrats. I think you're getting at giving them more discretionary powers, which is something I'd probably support. Of course, some will oppose this idea, claiming "supervote". – wbm1058 (talk) 00:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd suggest one of the options we put forward is to ask again about the Admin Standards Commission. It's a prepackaged, fully developed idea. The objections to it in 2014 would be much less substantial now; we know that RfA is broken, and we know it's unfixable, and none of the other solutions to the RFA problem that people proposed during that 2014 discussion have gone anywhere at all. We should also develop other alternatives so the community has choices.
    Arbcom is not the right body to make people admins. The Arbs have quite enough to do already and they weren't elected for that.—S Marshall T/C 01:21, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With so few candidates for ACE in recent times, it's not particularly difficult to reach a pass threshold where there are just enough candidates to fill the seats. Hence this does not make arbitrators any more trustworthy than other users or admins. Such a process by an Arbcom sub-cabal would not be transparent and there is no guarantee that the committee members would do their due diligence (they have stated often enough that their tasks are not of an investigative nature). Thus any outcome from that small committee (or any other) would be based on personal likes and dislikes of the individual committee members.
The proposal for an Administrative Standards Commission was declined by 79/43 (around 2:1 against), and the participation was not really suggestive of a quorum for a discussion of such relative importance. Even WP:BARC, a proposed community desysoping process, but not entirely dissimilar to the kind of process proposed here, found much more participation.
Despite its unfortunate and totally unacceptable high level of toxicity RfA actually does its job quite well nowadays. In-depth scrutiny io candidates is necessary. Most passes since the 2015 reforms are achieved by an overwhelming consensus. Failed RfA have become a rarity and AFAICS, this is probably due to projects such as WP:ORCP, some comprehensive guidance, and blatant warning templates on the transclusion pages. Those that that do fail probably should have done. In earlier times there were more close run RfA. One knife-edge RfA that comes to mind was decided on a supervote closure by a single brand-new Bureaucrat, but that was a decade or so ago. An alternative system such as an Administrator Appointment Board is not the best solution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth a try. This is likely what we'll end up with sooner or later if the community can't fix RfA, which looks a lot less likely than when this was last proposed in 2014. If nothing else when the number of active admins declines to the point that it becomes a serious problem then an alternative route to adminship would likely be established. ArbCom is a similar community elected body which has a similar function of ruling on issues which the community can't resolve, and it's not generally considered to be a cabal. I don't think quotas would be a good idea, the board should have the most qualified people on it and it wouldn't look good if a candidate with less support ended up on it just because they don't have a sysop flag. There ought to be some kind of role for community consultation in the process, maybe something similar to the community consultation for checkuser and oversight appointments. Hut 8.5 13:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I the only person looking at this suggestion in horror? When I try to explain the role "Bureaucrat" to someone, the most important part of the explanation is that they don't have sovereign power and strictly implement the community consensus. When I try to explain the concept of Wikipedia administration to someone, the most important part of the explanation is that administrators are elected by the community (and currently sadly unable to be de-elected by the community), don't have sovereign power and enforce policies that the community has decided upon in a consensus-based discussion. Granting the ability to appoint administrators against community consensus, who can then only be de-sysopped by ArbCom in case of severe or persistent misconduct, to a small group of super-administrators seems like a bad idea. I'm especially afraid that those required to take this route due to a lack of community trust will make up a majority of the appointed administrators. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that's a mischaracterisation of the proposal. There's no suggestion that this board would appoint administrators against community consensus -- this is a request for the community to authorise a board to appoint sysops, so any appointment would by definition be in accordance with community consensus. The proposed board (at least in the ASC format) would have the power to desysop. It would coach, train, mentor, and where necessary sanction, sysops with a view to making their behaviour and decisions more consistent, in happy contrast to the current cavalcade of capricious and random sysop decisions. You're right to say that owing to the toxicity of RfA, and the community's inability to reform RfA, it is likely that most candidates would prefer to apply via this route. Surely what's horrific is the current RfA process.—S Marshall T/C 16:35, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea, but I would like some thought going into the following questions.
  • How big should the board be? What should be the quora for a decision?
  • What community input would be allowed on a selection? How would transparency be managed?
    For example, would the board make clear who it was considering - if so, would community comments be accepted - and then, how does this solve problems?
  • Would the board be elected? How often would it change?
I'm tempted to say I'd like near unanimity of a quora for subsection of the community to make such a decision. I also don't like the idea of this being related to Arbcom, I'd like that committee to do less, not more. WormTT(talk) 08:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should offer the community several choices on these things. Design #1 would be the ASC as described by RGloucester et. al. For design #2 I might suggest:
  • Annually, the community should elect seven people to a RfA Panel. The quorum for the Panel would be five.
  • Everyone on the Panel would need the view deleted revisions permission to do their job, so unless any other proposals gain consensus here, they'd all have to be sysops.
  • The Panel would propose a person to the community. There would be a review period of seven days, during which the community would be invited to make comments to the Panel in strict confidence (i.e. via some private method).
  • At the end of the period, the Panel would vote. Two or more votes against would mean the person had failed.
  • The Panel would then make a public announcement, saying either: (1) After review, the Panel has agreed to grant sysop permissions to %editor; or (2) After review, the Panel has decided that %editor is not yet ready for the tools.
  • In case of failure the Panel would offer detailed feedback to the failing editor, by way of email.
The purpose of this design would be to maintain the community's role in decision-making about sysop permissions while removing the Hell Week: public dissection of the candidate's character and conduct would no longer be part of the process.—S Marshall T/C 10:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • DoNotLike - this intermediate step would create admins-like-existing-admins rather than spread the net wider. If someone runs wild with 'admin powers' they can be blocked and edits reverted. We should be making adminship easier, not more difficult. --AlisonW (talk) 15:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic discussion: RfA should not be the only road to adminship

Noting that I reached out to Legal during the time that Phase 1 was being closed to see if they would be willing to provide a statement. I was told yesterday that they had an internal discussion about it and they're not ruling out alternative paths to RfA. I am hoping now that there is a rough consensus behind the idea someone from the legal team will make a more public statement. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barkeep49, it's time for the flagship communities to assert more independence from the WMF. At the moment, the process of choosing admins may (or may not) be anchored in some Foundation policy, but I fail to see what 'legal' relevance this has. Notwithstanding, WMF policies can be changed by local consensus, and have been. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kudpung personally I share some concerns about the community's decreasing ability to self-governance and a personal opinion that has been caused in part by foundation moves to increase control. This feeling impacted how I voted during the recent board elections as the board can be an ally in this regard. That said, Legal got introduced to this process because of this 2014 statement. Hope that explains what relevance they have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I rember the discussion well and I'll never understand what motivated Robert to propose it. I knew Philippe personally and we collaborated on some cross-wiki issues. He was one of the very few friends I had in the WMF in the old days, and with Maggie who also took a paid job and joined his team. But they were not lawyers or legal counsel. What he 'did' say was that the selection of admins must be done through community consultation like RfA , which if taken today would mean that any of the other suggestions in this current suite of discussions would also be ruled out. What he did not say was what those 'legal reasons' were. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They did say what those 'legal reasons' were, although they were hardly legal. I remember finding the diff in another similar discussion at WT:RFA, IIRC it was some ~2009 comment from WMF Legal claiming that Congress would step in and create new legislation, if too many more people were given access to deleted content. It's a highly dubious claim, given that they can't even combat the issues posed by Facebook etc despite extensive discussions, and there's no wind blowing in that direction either, but that was Legal's position. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: FYI, our exact RfA process isn't the only route that is already acceptable "upstream", locally our ArbCom election process is blessed; externally most any RfA system from any other project is OK, as is the stewards election system. There is a lot of room for adjustments that still allow for an afirmative showing of community support. And nothing stops us having multiple, for example we could have RfA and also have VotesForAdminship. Theoretically we could probably get away with an elected panel of admin appointers, as the WMF challenge is really about accessing deleted stuff and we already have this in place with being able to elect arbcom who can then appoint oversighters. — xaosflux Talk 10:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Xaosflux I have no horse in this race. My goal, to keep with this metaphor, is just to ensure the race is run fairly and to completion. I note this because there was a concern during Phase 1 that the 2014 statement would rule out larger changes. You are correct that strict elections would be allowed by the foundation. There was concern about whether an admin appointment board (itself elected) or delegation to crats or arbs would be allowed; during Phase 1 there was some mooting around the specifics of how delegating to the crats would work. Whether this would be seen as OK by Legal is what I was hoping to clarify. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49: So as far as to crats or arbs would be allowed I'd say "no, but". It would be no as-is, because the community that appointed these people didn't do it with that capability as part of the review of those positions. The "but" is that we should be able to have a community vote to expand this capability if we wanted to. We're going to be hard pressed to get legal to engage on this - but if we really wanted to go this route I think we could get it through, but out internal process would require some new hurdles to be built - but they could be different kinds of hurdles -- my guess is that bootstrapping that won't get consensus - but if it does I'd be happy to help with the minutiae. — xaosflux Talk 17:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're actually not going to be hard pressed to get legal to engage on this at least to the extent of a statement and I'm guessing if a proposal went too far afield a statement about that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ProcrastinatingReader: I think you're referring to this diff? (For whatever reason I seem to have become one of the keepers of the knowledge of where that one diff is located.) FWIW, my understanding—and I've had discussions with WMF people that make me pretty sure I'm right, although, for good reason, they'll never explicitly confirm this—is that the deletedhistory and deletedtext issue centers around scenarios like the following: John Doe requests we remove a libelous statement on his article; we revdel it; and then John Doe takes a look at our deletion policy, sees that thousands of people can still see the content and that all they need do for access is ask nicely / be around long enough / etc., and decides to sue the WMF because they're still publishing the content. Same situation with copyvio. With Congressional action being the most extreme possible outcome if a scandal were to erupt around that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 16:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I guess the Congressional action part was the memorable one for me, perhaps because it comes across as rather conceited.
DMCA requires that access to the content be "disabled" (whatever that means - there's probably case law clarifying this). There's nothing in DMCA that requires directly elected admins (indeed, most organisations don't democratically elect the staff members who can view DMCA'd content). It's also worth noting that just getting the desysop/sysop rate to net 0 would require a more ambitious RfA reform than is likely here, so there isn't going to be a ballooning in # of editors who can see copyrighted text. So I'd personally find it surprising if the WMF rejected a modest proposal for a new path to adminship, and if they did reject it I think they should back their view by citing some relevant case law. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So if we use oversight more aggressively, we can hand out mops freely? —Kusma (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: Formal moderation of RfA

RfA discussion would be significantly less corrosive if we installed moderators with formalized duties, rights, and responsibilities.

Issue(s) addressed: 2

Discussion (Formal moderation of RfA)

This was moved to the talk page during Phase 1 as a solution rather than an issue. Pinging its proposer John Cline for further comment/development. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think in practice that this is already somewhat in place to a certain extent, but I don’t see a huge problem with this. I’d be interested to see John’s comment/development. —TheSandDoctor (mobile) (talk) 02:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible solutions for Formal Moderation were offered way back in 2011 and then discussed in depth. The idea was generally rejected at the time, but the study project itself was finally abandoned due to trolling. If the current format of RfA were to be retained, moderation/clerking will be a necessity. For some reason, RfA has always been Wikipedia's single playground for abuse with impunity (and not only by trolls - in fact they are the least problematic of voters) and it's time to put a stop itKudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The claim - more from the community than from the Bureaucrats themselves - is that it's not the job description the 'Crats signed up for. See WP:BARC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support this in proper form, although I wouldn't suggest using the 2011 structure too closely, as it had some aspects that were rightly viewed as negatives. As part of it, I would want it to be fairly clear what they should and should not act on - with the former in particular highlighting what they might be doing now that is not currently done. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a good time and place to discuss the kinds of things we would want a moderator to do, and the things we would not want them to do.--John Cline (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia has generally been pretty terrible at enforcing conduct standards in discussions between experienced editors. Unless these moderators had a lot of community backing I suspect it would be hard to find people willing to do the job. Hut 8.5 13:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like the so called "badgering of oppose !voters" left entirely to the moderator's discretion. It always bothers me to see supporters piling on to ridicule an opposing rational which they disagree with, especially when the !vote itself has practically no effect on the overall outcome.--John Cline (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • With talk of imposing a word limit on every participate, which is a change I support, if it goes in effect, it intuitively seems that enforcing compliance should fall on the moderator as well.--John Cline (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this should be handled with extreme care. Quite simply, I believe this one proposal has the ability to torpedo every other one, as it will effectively be status quo that people can support as a change. Or, in other words, if we allow this to be voted on, people can point to a "change being made", even though nothing will be different - there is already informal moderation on RfA pages, and without a very strong criteria on what is appropriate and what is not (something that I haven't seen yet), yet the general opinion remains that the atmosphere is unpleasant.
    So please, if we are moving forward with formal moderation, be specific about what would be moderated and why it would be different. WormTT(talk) 13:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with all of your concerns. If there's a general consensus that formal moderation is desirable, the harder part, and the most important, will be developing the specific criteria associated with that role. While ideas here, and perhaps throughout phase 2 (should this idea advance) will be very helpful, I believe it is unlikely that this discussion (and perhaps phase two's) will result in that specific criteria. If the general consensus is strong enough, it will give the prudent reason for embarking on the harder part of establishing specifics. In the absence of such a strong general consensus (that this should be done) it is my opinion that it's a fool's errand to endeavor for specific criteria and a detailed charter at this time. --John Cline (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a reminder that for Phase 2 specific proposals will be necessary so to the extent that it might need feedback/iterations now is the time to do it. A proposal about formal moderation is likely going to be hard to iterate/offer too many options for during Phase 2. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 2011 Clerks research clearly identified what could/should be addressed and suggested some tasks for clerks The issue of clerking (which has now come to be called 'moderation') is a project that revolves around two specific themes: 1. what should be moderated, and 2. who should do the moderating. The discussions which ensued failed due mainly to side tracking and editors going off and stating their own simultaneous RfC.
IMO, due to the importance of addressing the toxicity of RfA as highlighted in Phase 1, clerking/moderation is going to be one of the major points in any programme for reform. Any RfC proposal statements(s) should bear this in mind and it might be an idea to collaborate with some users, such as just for example Worm That Turned who was a major contributor to the 2011 research, and who are skilled at carefully drafting neutrally worded RfC proposals which are nevertheless aimed at achieving the goal of the RfC, and Nosebagbear could be invited to expand on his comment above and help craft the statement. It's not going to be easy because the pool of RfA punters will not like the idea of its favourite playground being properly policed. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: If non admins do well in the Arbcom elections, make them admins

At the end of the Arbcom election, any non admin candidates who have >=65% support for adminship become admins. RFA itself remains as the other of two routes for adminship.

Issue(s) addressed: 3, 4, 8

Discussion (If non admins do well in the Arbcom elections, make them admins)

This was moved to the talk page during Phase 1 as a solution rather than an issue. Pinging its proposer WereSpielChequers for further comment/development. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • ACE are often as toxic as RfA and subject to as much nonsense and trolling even if the voting itself is a secret poll. RandomCanadian you can get your answers by reviewing a few previous ACE. There are occasionally one or two non-admin candidates for Arbcom who would make excellent committee members and I would support them (and have done). They sometimes get high scores but fall short of obtaining a seat simply because most voters consider adminship to be a prerequisite for Arbcomship. I don't think this '[would] incentive people to run for ArbCom hoping to get adminship instead', because what with all the candidate guides, unlimited questions, and discussions about the candidates, the process can be just as humiliating and discouraging for candidates who wouldn't want to submit themselves to RfA for the same reasons. To summarise therefore, any non-admin who gains a seat would probably qualify for automatic adminship. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has any non-admin ever received more than 65%? If the answer is no (as I believe it is), this proposal would be of little practical value. (I also share some of the concerns expressed above, and I note that the community quite decisively rejected giving even successful candidates the mop.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Extraordinary Writ: I agree that this proposal would probably have very little practical value), but I don't know how to make sense of that RfC, since ArbCom members are ex-officio (and remain thereafter) Checkusers (arguably a position which requires even more community trust than simple admins); so it seems... inconsistent? or maybe it was a purely theoretical question and shouldn't be taken too seriously, since no non-admin has been appointed to ArbCom. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Going back to 2009 no one (admin or not) has gotten 65% and not been elected. The highest non-admin percentage in that timeframe was 59.93%. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49, there were two unsuccessful 65%+ candidates (DGG and Drmies) in WP:ACE2018, no? But putting that aside, it's clear that there would be vanishingly few cases (if any) where this provision would be invoked. I also note that the highest performing non-admin candidate has failed RfA twice, so it seems that the community may have its reasons for not affording moderately successful ArbCom candidates the mop. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The relevant candidate guide has both as admins as of the time it was last updated... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:50, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I realize that. I was responding to Barkeep's comment that "no one (admin or not) has gotten 65% and not been elected". Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're correct about 65%+ EW. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't likely to make a significant difference. If a non-admin does well in an ArbCom election then they aren't likely to have problems which would cause their RfA to fail (because their ArbCom election would fail for the same reasons) and they probably don't mind putting themselves through the process (because ArbCom is a lot worse). Meaning that a non-admin who does well in an ArbCom election probably just isn't interested in adminship. There are in any case very few such cases and the few examples are often ex-admins who resigned. Hut 8.5 09:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've mentioned before that I don't like this, due to conflating two different processes. People who are voting in ACE should be considering whether the candidate would be appropriate on the Arbitration Committee. Candidates who want to stand should not have to risk being elected (and I'm serious about that - I can imagine non-admins running with an intent to become admin and accidentally doing better than other candidates). I fully support using a similar system, just not conflating the two. WormTT(talk) 13:38, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Topic discussion: Non-core admin-only tools remaining

Since unbundling was brought up, are there any tools other than blocking, deleting, and protecting that are still only for admins? I'm wondering whether anything substantial can be unbundled without touching those three.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:40, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Long ago we got consensus for some limited ability to delete your own work in your own userspace. something like U1 when the system could check that only your account had edited a page. But to be worthwhile it would need to be a system change, a delete button that disappeared from pages that others had edited. So good luck convincing the devs on that one. It would however reduce U1/G7 deletions, and much more importantly, empower all editors. There are some potential uses of view deleted, such as a combination of that and setting/unsetting the autopatroller, reviewer and rollback flags. But given the WMF reticence at handing out view deleted, I doubt that one would fly. Probably our best option is to have revision suppression as a tool availabe for active vandalfighters and copyvio detectors. Actually deleting pages is always going to be contentious, but revision suppression is rarely contentious. ϢereSpielChequers 16:01, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All of that still counts as "deletion" in my book. Even revdel without view deleted would lead to problems per the law of the instrument and bloat the deleted revision log IMO.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine that there would start being a lot more contentious revdels if the right was handed out more liberally (specifically under WP:CFRD#2, WP:CFRD#3, and WP:CFRD#6). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, non-admin closing of discussions which require deletion (and/or possibly undeletion) as a result--Ymblanter (talk) 16:15, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
True, and such closes are strongly discouraged, but they do still technically occur and don't require any special tools that can be reasonably unbundled.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:47, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
On the Russian Wikipedia, there is a closer flag. A closer is not an admin, but they may perform nacs and delete articles if the result is delete. They may not delete articles under any other circumstances, I believe.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The right to edit fully protected pages is still restricted to admins, but I believe proposals to unbundle that have failed. ( Would be useful for users working on main page content)Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is, in regards to the specific aspect of fighting vandals, this draft proposal (never formally proposed). Although that comes back to the question: if we trust X to do (Y-admin-task), why not trust them for Z too? Or less cynically and more pragmatically: is there any tool that, beyond technical/policy limitations that could be imposed (such as preventing those with a hypothetical "vandalfighter" role from blocking anything but non-ACs), would really be effective without the others (i.e. if you need to block vandals, you might occasionally find it is more effective to protect the page; and of course sometimes some vandalism requires page deletion or revdel: somebody who only has access to part of these tools can only do half the job ...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute resolution in general is tilted towards admins. Even setting aside WP:NAC being discouraged, disputes in general get resolved by admins using tools more often than not. I've had a few situations where I've seen long-running content disputes that I just went ahead and intervened in by starting an RfC as an uninvolved editor. This has resolved the dispute more often than the standard admin tactic of "protecting to facilitate discussion" which can result in waiting 1/3/6 months before edit warring again. I believe the community in general would benefit if we mentally unbundled the ability to resolve conflicts from one's status as an admin and we made a greater effort to encourage the use of non-administrative methods to resolve conflicts in general. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 00:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that there's lots of situations where admin tools are not really effective (or, conversely, required) if they are used without recourse to other methods (for example, I asked for move-protection of this after seeing a discussion on the talk page of somebody in my watchlist - the expected discussion/requested move/or even basic discussion has failed to materialise). Also agree that NACs shouldn't have any stigma against them, if done in an appropriate manner by somebody who knows what they are doing - although of course there's the problem that deletion discussions obviously require deletion tools to be closed effectively... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is basically another perennial 'unbundling' exercise. I am firmly convinced that here are no compelling arguments for further unbundling, even if not all admins use all the features in the tool box. In fact, contrary to unbundling I can think of plenty of areas where some tasks should be handed back to admin discretion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Kudpung You're probably self-consciously in the minority if you think there are "plenty of areas where some tasks should be handed back to admins"; but would you at least mind clarifying what kind of areas you're thinking of? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RandomCanadian I did not hint as to whether I were in the minority in the majority - anyone here is permitted personal thoughts without harsh criticism. I will not clarify here (yet) but if you have been around long enough you might wish to delve into some 'adminy' areas that have a high rate of failure or discord when attempted by non-admins and draw your own conclusions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, you could unbundle a "view deleted revisions" permission. Would be able to see but not restore content that's been deleted -- appropriate for people active at DRV, for example. Needs coding and so would take WMF time away from their current power-grabbing exercise.—S Marshall T/C 08:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there are any significant user rights remaining to be unbundled apart from block/protect/delete, stuff closely related to one of those (e.g. revdel, viewdelete), and the ability to hand out some user rights. The rest either have been unbundled or are sufficiently minor that they won't make much difference. There might be some scope to allow experienced non-admins to close more discussions which are usually closed by admins, e.g. at AfD. Hut 8.5 09:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do think unbundling via social restrictions (rather than technical) should be considered. When you vote at RfA, your only option is to vote someone in to be a full admin and use the tools in entirety, which can cause problems. The option to give +sysop and only allow the usage of tools for specific purposes (whichever are requested) offers far more options for editors who may be unsuitable for full adminship but still have a valid use for some of the tools, and there are no concerns with them exercising that part. I think a significant blocker at RfA tends to be dealing with conduct issues, particularly those involving blocking for non-vandalism reasons, so being able to abstract that away (for those who don't want to do that) might help. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm mostly in support of making an unbundled group - but only if it will serve a purpose and would be sufficiently populated. Problem is, I'm not hearing screams for "if only we could do x!". Edit protect gets brought up from time to time, but there is generally not much backlog at Category:Wikipedia_fully-protected_edit_requests - where someone who just wants to help with edit requests is needed (as opposed to the perpetually backlogged Category:Wikipedia requested edits which almost any editor could already be helping at). — xaosflux Talk 10:46, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not claim to have a project-wide overview, but for example inability to edit this fully protected page is the reason why at WP:CFD only administrators can close the vast majority of the discussions. Accidentally, WP:CFD is perennially backlogged, but I do not know whether it would become less backlogged once nac's are allowed, or just nobody cares about categories.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem that makes RfA's difficult is not one of technical bundling but one of cultural bundling. There are many, many admins that you rarely see but go about doing the grunt work of adminship: processing CSD's, granting permissions, modifying MediaWiki and other technical stuff, etc. There are admins that are prominent in the controversial and highly visible areas of adminship: ANI, AE, RFPP, EW, etc. (Of course, there are also those that do both.) Anyone wanting to be an admin of the former type needs access to the same technical group permissions as those in the latter. This includes deleting articles and viewing deleted material, which I understand are the abilities the WMF insists on only allowing access to through a community process. Every RfA, however, is overshadowed by the idea that every admin wants to be one of the highly-visible ones. Even RfA's that provide a Question 1 response that make their desire to not do that type of highly-visible work are difficult. Cyberpower678 (and I apologize for the use of you as an example) is one such admin. At the time of his first RfA he had a great record of technical contributions and it was clear that the admin bit would help but his nomination failed because he didn't have "enough" article contributions. In other words, despite a clear record that the bundled tools would be a benefit to the project, the cultural bundling of gnomish adminship and big stompy adminship kept him from helping in those areas for a year and a half. So while there are probably some some permissions listed here that could be peeled off (does anyone really care about creating or modifying short URL's?) that would not change the fundamental issue. The cultural issue that every RfA is for big stompy adminship is not going to be addressed by permission changes. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eggishorn: they don't care about "delete" - the only things they really care about are: viewing deleted (and by extension undeletion), the ability to make admins or 'higher', and the already-split interface editing. — xaosflux Talk 18:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Noted and updated the statement. I don't think it changes the substance but thank you for the correction. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That might be true for the WMF, but I think that those that would object to unbundling would not do so out of the same reasons as the WMF... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I get the reason why people want to see a cultural unbundling of the admin tools, I don't think people realize that if there was two tracks for potential admins to go down (one for handling controversial areas like AN/I and one for everyone else), then we would practically never get new admins for the former. The only way it works right now is that we have candidates do a song and dance about how they are really interested in doing [insert X non-controversial admin activity here] only to later get involved with helping out in the controversial areas (for the obvious reason that those areas frequently need help).
    Let me pick on Rosguill for a moment here to maybe better explain myself. They had an obvious need for the tools because RFD was frequently backlogged, and it was obvious Rosguill knows a lot about redirects (and had the backing of the other RFD admins). That was the primary purpose of their RFA besides helping with WP:NPP. Of course, almost two years later, Rosguill can now be found helping out at WP:AN/I or commenting at AE cases in addition to their regular work at RFD and NPP. If the same process that granted Rosguill the ability to help out in their primary areas of interest didn't also allow for them to comment at AE as an admin or issue partial blocks from AN/I reports, then I doubt we would ever see Rosguill in those areas.
    The same goes for practically every admin that hasn't answered Q1 with anything other than the dramaboards. That's just my opinion though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This might also be why some people are reluctant to run (at least, although not interested in RfA at the moment, it's my case: more details not needed here), especially if they have previously been involved in controversial areas (where involvement is likely to get you on unfriendly terms with at least some amount of persons): most use of admin tools is not particularly controversial (blocking and protecting are certainly uncontroversial the vast majority of the time; and even deletion, save for the occasional close run AfD/whatever-fD, isn't either), and I guess there are many people who could be trusted to do this correctly who currently aren't admins. And of course, this is also caused by a cultural aspect of some people viewing admins as having some form of superior status (as evidenced by the stigma around WP:NACs - which, unless it involves something which needs to be deleted or some other currently admin-only action, can probably be done competently by any uninvolved experienced editor, even when it is controversial); which goes back to the necessity for having people deal with the actually controversial aspect, ... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that non-admins can delete-by-proxy (by moving something to draft-space with no real rationale, even after a PROD has been rejected) the list of things non-admins can't do is getting smaller and smaller. I don't think the answer is to make that list even smaller again by handing some non-admins half a mop based on their area of personal interest. I'm interested in AFD. I participate there fairly regularly (when I'm active). I non-admin-close things all the time, but only ever non-controversial technical things. But handing me a mop would be a terrible idea. I know the ins-and-outs of AFD. I've seen most of the arguments before, and made most of them myself. An experienced and articulate editor can probably game the system effectively to produce whatever outcome they want at least 75% of the time. We don't need more AFD closers. What we need are uninvolved admins willing to do the hard work of AFD which (believe it or not) isn't the closing; it's the log fixes, the comment refactoring, the topic-bans, the blocks, the closure of disruptive and pointy nominations, prevention of zero-WP:BEFORE nominations, and obvious examples of said system-gaming. It makes me super-leery when I see the same admins simultaneously nominating things for deletion, contributing to AFDs, and closing AFDs. They are consistently the ones most likely to super!vote something closed when they should have simply contributed (as they have shown they are willing to do). I'm also super-leery about appointing AFD regulars to adminship generally; 1. because of the propensity to see it as "promotion" to a position of power in an arena they frequent, and 2. because the nature of AFD itself is so antithetical to the purpose of this project. There are so many ways to exclude content from this "encyclopedia that anyone can edit"; those who revel in the argumentative nature of AFD to achieve that aim are usually amongst the most aggressive of deletionists because all other efforts to stymie contributions have been exhausted. St★lwart111 01:24, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There have been a lot of very insightful comments posted in this section, and I, for one, really appreciate the thoughtful considerations that are collectively evident throughout. In general, I am a proponent of unbundling tools where a non-admin can be empowered to do more in building Wikipedia, and protecting what's already been built. For the most part, this discussion has well articulated that the remaining tools in the admin set are not easily unbundled and that their effective use generally requires having access to the collective set opposed to an individual piece here, and another piece there. What hasn't been said as thoroughly well, is: are there areas where help is needed (specifically help that requires tool use) to the extent that it would be worthwhile to find a workable solution? If so, what areas are in the most need? If not, then there's really nothing to solve. Thank you for considering this comment.--John Cline (talk) 10:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only unbundling I would be in support of would be allowing template editors to grant the template editor role and new page reviewers being able to grant the new page reviewer role (though I'm less enthused by this one), and perhaps the introduction of a role capable of granting rollback and PCR that would require a similar process as edit filter role requests. All other admin permissions listed at Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrators'_abilities require similar levels of trust, and I would feel uncomfortable granting only some. Anarchyte (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Anarchyte: I don't think there is ever much backlog at WP:PERM/TE, however as far as patrollers go - not sure about using them to create more patrollers - however letting patrollers assign (and maybe revoke) autopatrol could be useful, WP:PERM/A does get backlogged. If you want to go further with these, it can just be split to a discussion at WT:PERM that is well advertised and doesn't need to wait for this process. — xaosflux Talk 13:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would people feel about splitting the role in two? Effectively content management admins / user management admins. Current admins can have both user-rights, future admins can ask for one or both. User management would be focused on the block button, Content on the delete button. I can't say it's my favourite idea - but if we're looking at unbundling, it's a way we could go. WormTT(talk) 13:50, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Worm That Turned:, I can see that falling apart very quickly. This incident, for example requires both blocking and revision deletion. I believe that there are many such incidents which would require a content management admin to co-ordinate with user-management admins. Even routine vandal fighting and POV-pushing would require a constant stream of "can you do this" requests from one group to the other and vice-versa. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, so can I. As I say, not my favourite solution, but it is a workable starting point for a solution. Given the brainstorming nature of the discussion, I thought it was worth putting out there.
    That said, it could be argued that co-ordination works well in those circumstances. Say, vandal-fighting, 99% can be done with the user-management hat on, moreso if we include page protection in both roles. Similarly for POV pushing. Effectively, I'm thinking that the User management admins would look after areas such as WP:AN / ANI / ANEW, while content management admins would look after places like XfD etc.
    With separate roles, we'd have different types of concerns for each, questions could be more tailored etc. What's more, you'd be able to demonstrate skills with one before applying for the other. ... It COULD work. WormTT(talk) 16:09, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, if we proceed from that basis, maybe there is something here. From the point of view of breaking the cultural bundling I discuss above, maybe the need for constant communication is a feature and not a bug. It would require that the primary communication channel for such coordination would be something more effective than the noticeboards. IRC and Discord already have been established as channels so it could work. I'm honestly not sure if that's just something that developed or if there has been formal community approval of off-wiki adminness. Given that ArbCom conducts a large proportion of its business off-wiki, even that wouldn't necessarily be a hurdle. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, Arbcom facilitates its discussions through a mailing list and I'm not sure that would be any better than a noticeboard. Communication would be a key aspect of any split though, and should be considered were any proposal to come out of it. WormTT(talk) 14:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The more you unbundle abilities/functions the fewer people-who-would-be-worthy will see becoming an actual 'admin' will put themselves forward, or let themselves be put forward. If the desire is to increase the number of admins then re-bundling might even be appropriate. --AlisonW (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I noted at the previous discussion, some of us proposed unbundling the ability to edit the main page. There's many non-admins involved in curating content that we feature there, and it seems like the lowest-hanging fruit as far as unbundling is concerned. The proposal was rejected by a pretty large margin: some of the objections were technical, and some were IMHO utterly unreasonable, but most argued that we can't trust editors with main page content without an RFA. I personally disagree, but I don't think it's an unreasonable position to take, and if that's the community's attitude I don't see us getting much mileage out of this particular idea. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:50, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: Tranches of candidates

The level of scrutiny is high in part because RfA's are exceptional events. When RfA's were commonplace, the level of scrutiny was much lower. Presenting tranches of 5-10 candidates would provide candidates mutual support and reduce over-examination of individual candidates. This would address Point #4 by allowing candidates who do not wish to run the current gauntlet to do so in an environment where they are part of a supportive group and also one which there will not be a laser focus on their entire history. Spreading scrutiny in this way would address Point #2 and also lessen the corrosive nature and impossible standards of Points #1 and #3. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion (Tranches of candidates)

The chief problem I see with this idea is finding the people willing to be part of that first tranche. Once it gets established as a method, it may be successful but who will want to be the guinea pigs? Ensuring the proper level of mutual support would also take some work. Maybe a candidate/mentor Zoom or Discord or Slack? That might fall afoul of off-wiki canvassing issues, though. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 00:57, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn we ran a tranche (or what I labeled a flight) of editors in September 2020 and another 5 or 6 (I forget the exact number now) explored running but did not, with one of those running and passing later. I found the editors through regular postings to WT:RFA as well as talking it up in other places when RfA would come up. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Barkeep49:, it looks like 3 out of five of that "flight" passed, and passed easily. The number of questions asked of the candidates was lower than normal, as well. The three full-length (i.e., successful) RfA's averaged 11 questions whereas an overlapping trio of nominations from May of last year averaged 14 questions and even more recently Trialpears, who had not one "Oppose", faced 17. Limited sample sizes and everything as caveats, but it suggests that there is some merit. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that there were less questions at those RfAs so on that level it was a success. But the reason I haven't organized a second flight is because of the other 2 who didn't pass. Neither has continued editing despite being good editors and 1 of them I am pretty sure wouldn't have run without the flight. I suspect the other would have run anyway and I ended up opposing them for admin but still very much wish we had them as an editor. If tranches encourage people to run who wouldn't otherwise it's only a good thing if those are people who would pass but are otherwise reluctant to run. If it draws out people who are reluctant to run and those editors are right to be reluctant it's not actually a net positive especially if they are otherwise valuable members of the community. One tranche is too small of a sample size to draw any firm conclusions but the risk of net harm is why I didn't organize more of them. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting idea. It would be good to get some statistics on what happens when multiple candidates run at once: I know that in the most recent incident, one passed unanimously while the other went up in flames. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If fixed RfA dates are introduced, then perhaps there would be willingness to extend the length a bit, given that the spotlight may be reduced on each individual candidate and the decrease in periods of ongoing RfAs, thus accommodating the proposals to break up the process into separate phases. (On a side note, I don't think tranche is an apt name, since this typically is used to refer to a division of the whole.) isaacl (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I think this has a lot of merit. It does raise some questions that we'd need to address around how tranches are formed. For example the rule might be that the minimum tranche size has to be (say) five, so any nominee would have to wait until there were four other nominations before theirs could proceed; or we could make RfA something that's only open during (say) one month per year, so all the nominations would have to take place during that time, thus encouraging multiple RfAs to be open at the same time - but again nominees would be waiting for the right time for their nomination to proceed. Neither of these are awful scenarios and I'm sure there'll be other ideas, but it's worth considering the drawbacks of each idea as well as the merits. WaggersTALK 15:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have collected data on RfAs since 2016 which was chosen as reflecting RfAs since the last major changes. I labeled RfAs as either being simultaneous (defined as running for at least 4 out 7 days with another RfA or the rough equivalent for withdrawn candidates) or not simultaneous. I ignored any clear NOTNOW/SNOW candidates and I also am ignoring the 1 reconfirmation RfA. That data set had 128 RfAs, with 68 simultaneous and 60 not. 76.6% of those who ran simultaneously with someone else passed, while 69.1% of those who ran solo passed. Looking at just successful RfAs (to control for the length of the RfA) simultaneous candidates had on average 16 questions and 195.6 participants while non-simultaneous candidates had on average 19.1 questions and 212.9 participants. ​Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: Trifurcate discussion, Q&A, (!)voting

A few editors brought this up previously and I though it was a good point and that is to separate Q&A, discussion and !voting. I suppose there are multiple ways this could occur, but I imagine a 3-3-3 approach: editors have three days to submit questions, at the end of which no more questions are accepted; the candidate has three days to respond to the submitted questions; 72 hours later, (!)voting commences and lasts for a quick three days. Make this true voting in which editors are limited to registering support, oppose or neutral without comment. Throughout the entire process, discussion occurs on the Talk page, versus the (!)voting space.
By time-limiting Q&A and effectively prohibiting follow-ups we limit the back-and-forth that seems to be the onus of the "deeply unpleasant" atmosphere. By moving discussion out of view of (!)voting, we preserve the opportunity for discourse but, perhaps, limit the number of drive-by comments by requiring an extra step to access it.
I'm not set on this specific formula but I think any approach that modifies processes rather than creates new systems (e.g. limits on subject of discussion, creating panels of moderators, etc.) will be more likely to see implementation and better preserve the spirit of our current approach. Chetsford (talk) 01:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issue addressed: 1
Are you suggesting that the 2 question limit is retained? ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:44, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of issues arise to me: one is that "3 days" is not an anomalous amount of time for people to be off-site. This means I can see lots of cases where people would know about an RfA and want to (!)vote in it, but simply not be around at the critical time. To a lesser degree, this issue also applies to the first stage. Late-game questions can end up be critical where something arises later on, and so the usual problems arise there. As a more general note, I do think you're correct that modification rather than replacement is more likely to pass. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree 100% that this is problematic on several levels but, especially, time limiting Q&A or !voting to just a few days. Chetsford (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As in Idea: Tranches of candidates, it could be predetermined when discussion will start. ― Qwerfjkltalk 15:47, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'd keep the two question limit, however, by requiring all questions be submitted during X period and then all questions answered during Y period, you eliminate the possibility of chain gang follow-up in which a single action by the candidate is endlessly probed. Chetsford (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Chetsford: - in that vein, the issue with that would be that sometimes follow-up questions are necessary. Either because the original question doesn't sufficiently answer the issue, or because it raises completely new issues Nosebagbear (talk) 15:06, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there's definitely a trade-off that will occur. Chetsford (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm suggesting something similar below, but with a different split. My problem with a 3/3/3 split is that it seems to push for the worst of all worlds. Some people do not find questions particularly useful, others pay less attention to the discussion. I think you will find one of these two phases will end up being redundant or individuals trying to push to act in the other way. Finally, the 3 days of voting, as Nosebagbear points out, is insufficient to ensure we don't disenfrancise users. Start on say, a Saturday and you will get the voting on a weekend, where people may be paying less (or more) attention, or have less availability.
I do however, agree with the idea of splitting discussion and voting into different pages. WormTT(talk) 15:04, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: Administrator probationary period

Make the first 180 days of administrator tenure a probationary period. During this period, the administrator will be subject to a compulsory recall process using a to-be-determined formula. If the administrator is not recalled within 180 days, the probation is lifted and the current status quo with respect to recall processes (it's voluntary) resumes.
As I read it, the recurring issue that's been identified by mandatory recall opponents is the potential for gaming of the system in which admins operating in contentious areas build-up a laundry list of enemies and then get railroaded into a bad faith desysop. While this largely seems to be a hypothetical issue, in cases where it does manifest I'm sure it would rarely or never be faced by very new admins; those within the first six months of their appointment. Chetsford (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issue addressed: 6
Makes sense to me and would lower stakes mentioned somewhat. —TheSandDoctor (mobile) (talk) 02:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem, of course, is that it's easy to game: just do uncontroversial things for 180 days (deleting obvious spam, blocking obvious vandals, etc.) and then move on to controversial things (arbitration enforcement, ANI, difficult deletions, etc.) once the sword of Damocles has been lifted. It's an interesting idea, but that question would need an answer. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 02:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent point. I would respond by clarifying that the issue this is addressing is one of perception (depressurize "a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere") versus one of practice (stop bad actors from becoming admins). The idea is merely intended to decrease the pressure of the atmosphere by creating an emergency exit to soothe the nerves of !voters fixated on the infinite unknown. It is not intended to actually ferret-out determined bad actors, and has very little utility in doing so for the reason you correctly identify. It's like the Queen's reserve powers; they never actually get used but it makes some people feel good that they're there. Chetsford (talk) 04:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC); edited 04:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent answer. My next question would be: how do you keep the recall system itself from being gamed? For instance, the widely used sample process allows six editors to force a reconfirmation RfA. We've had recent successful RfAs with 88, 92, and 116 opposes: what would stop a handful of disgruntled editors from finding some pretext to initiate a recall? I can think of a few answers (including the interesting prospect of only allowing the candidate's supporters to initiate a recall), but I'd be eager to hear your thoughts. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good question. I would say that, if the terms of the probationary recall were equal to the terms of the initial RfA, it would be difficult to game. In other words, if RfA passes at 70% support, recall would also require 70% support (oppose !votes permitted). That's a high threshold to game and the recall, in other words, simply becomes a chance for the community to have a "do over" if an admin doesn't seem to be working out in the first X period of time. I think the recall could be initiated by a petition signed by 10 extended confirmed editors. Chetsford (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probationary periods have been discussed before. However, what metrics, if any, does one apply? For example to a new admin who simply does not use the tools for the first 3 months. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this could work but possibly not in terms of probationary time but in terms of probationary admin actions: say 1000 (obvious gaming such as deleting and undeleting pages in own userspace without a good reason not counted).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    May be adding to this. I work in the university environment, and we have lifetime appointments (well, until the mandatory retirement), but the first part is a tenure track - when the appointment is formally not permanent, but a tenure review in 5 years make it - or does not make it - permanent. There are two important features of the system which we can reflect on and possibly incorporate in the proposal: (1) the person(s) taking the decision during the tenure review is not necessarily the same person taking the hiring decision. In our case, for example, it might be some review after the end of the "tenure track" but not in a form of full-scale RfA which would make it less stressful; (ii) one could also consider mentorship, or even mandatory mentorship - of course if an evil party wants to become admin to block Jimbo Wales this is not going to help, but for many candidates just below the RfA passing threshold is it usually one aspect which sinks the RfA, and the mentorship can help them to realize how to get around this aspect.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment about tenure got me thinking. Instead of a recall initiated by editor action, maybe there's just an automatic, mandatory, one-time "retention election" after X number of admin actions to conclude the probationary period. That would be similar to Mailer_diablo's WP:AMR proposal but be a one-time thing that was triggered semi-automatically after X# of actions. Chetsford (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea, I prefer this option (X# of admin actions) versus a time-based metric. Chetsford (talk) 15:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'm a little nervous about use of purely perception-based mechanisms, for the purpose of this discussion, I'd suggest a mix of time/admin actions, in a similar vein to protection levels. 180 days/500 admin actions I believe is reasonable (1000 is actually quite a lot, and depending on your area, could take a very long time to get to). As to "how to stop recall-gaming" question. That's a tough question. The "no opposes allowed" issue is tough, and "supports only" would rule out the vast majority and necessitate canvassing, which is not good. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this idea. While I do think that "bad-faith desysopings" are more a moral panic than a genuine issue (if it's truly bad-faith ANI can sort it out, and admins are simply community volunteers, not combat veterans), this does avoid this issue while also lowering the stakes. However, would inactivity with the tools be grounds for "failing" the period?  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this would be sensible. The details can be hashed out, but the aim is that someone can be given adminship on a probationary basis and then upgrade to full. This means that people are less likely to oppose candidates on the grounds that it's too high a risk/too difficult to recall them, and the probationary admin can demonstrate their abilities. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probationary periods attempt to solve the problem of a lack of a community recall procedure, but they merely delay the problem. We already have a probationary period called "non-adminship", and those doing well in it are elected to become administrators. We can add another probationary period called "probationary adminship", and those under probation will be extremely careful not to upset people until they have finished the probation period. This makes the probation meaningless. What we need is exactly the opposite: A period of non-recallability, say a year, after every successful RfA, followed by an infinite period of recallability. This allows new administrators to gain experience and learn by doing, making occasional beginner mistakes, before being subject to a re-election. That's how the German Wikipedia community does it, and it works. That's also what I'm voluntarily providing at User:ToBeFree/recall because it's a good process. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:17, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We can add another probationary period called "probationary adminship", and those under probation will be extremely careful not to upset people until they have finished the probation period." I agree, there's no argument against this possibility. That said, the issue this is trying to solve isn't bad actors sneaking in, it's the perception bad actors could sneak in; the perception is what contributes to issue #6 "a high stakes atmosphere". The probation is intended to act as a salve to the catastrophic thinking that leads some !voters to apply insurmountable standards. So this is only a measure to depressurize a "high stakes atmosphere", it is probably not very useful as a solution to the separate issue of bad actors sneaking in. Chetsford (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • To my mind, every admin is _always_ on a form of probation, given that we are all subject to review of our actions by others for every edit and admin action we carry out, whether having served 20 days or 20 years. For all the above reasons I don't see this as being specifically beneficial to the aims. --AlisonW (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: Temporary adminship

Create a secondary method, users can now candidate to have 2-years lifetime sysop flag. This new process does not accepted poorly reasoning oppose voters, such as "no need for tools", or high-standard requirement, such as 20.000+ edits, 2 FA, 2 GA, etc. After 2-years with flag user can, either, run again temporary adminship or get permanent flag at WP:RfA. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 03:54, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issues addressed: #6 and #8
Issues it may address: #3 and #5

Discussion (Temporary adminship)

  • Temporary adminship would probably not appeal to most editors. As far as I could make out, once obtained adminship is a jealously kept privilege/medal of distinction as proven by those totally inactive admins who just return to do their one edit to avoid being desysopped for lack of activity. An award of temporary adminship should not be a reason to lower the bar. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who would prevent these oppose voters?. Would there be moderators, as in Idea: Formal moderation of RfA? ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have strong opinion on this, initially I was thinking about bureaucrats-only, but we can advance the discussion later if we should get some sort of moderation or clerking. This phase we should get enough consensus to have temporary adminship or not, later discuss details about time, poor oppose voters and who moderate. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 09:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm generally in support of doing something like Meta:Administrators#Limited_administrator_status - it is time limited (1mo to 1year as requested) but is only for a stated set of specific reasons. Think it is a good enough catch-all for any one who wants to just help with some specific thing for a while. This isn't really appropriate if the thing is the social powers of admins such as dealing with arbcom remedy enforcement. — xaosflux Talk 10:49, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2 years is a significant length of time, and it would be odd to disallow a (!)vote that would otherwise be permitted normally for what is very similar to the same. I'd object to this method - it would be better to try and prohibit certain types of non-reason from all RfAs Nosebagbear (talk) 11:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We can leave to candidate to select between 180 days, 1, 2 or 3 years mandate, the 2-years was only a example, what do you think? This way also works as a sort of intership or trainee program, which user gets more experience and confidence, maybe later can run to get permanent tools at WP:RfA. I don't think we will able to get consensus for removing high-standards requirements in current RfA process, some people think that working in main articles and getting 2 FA and 2 GA is quite important to understand how Wikipedia works and be an administrator, therefore we need a new process that is disallowed such high requirements. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 18:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Carlosguitar:, I'm not sure why you'd leave it to the candidate - my objection is that early time is both the most active and subject to more mistakes. As such, the assessment of whether someone is both trustable and competent inherently needs to be front-loaded. The issue isn't what they do in years 2-4 of being an admin, it's what they'd do in months 0-6/12/24 Nosebagbear (talk) 11:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nosebagbear, It is more flexible way to the candidate experience the tools at same time create less pressure in the manner that temp admin will work, so a user can request 6 months first time, on second time can request again 6 months, and maybe a third mandate with 6 months or 1 year. Many good users doesn't feel confident enough to request permanent tools because RfA turned into a hard place (issue #1), therefore the more flexible and friend we make a new Request for Temporary Adminship process, less bad atmosphere we will have. About less time with tools, it is because some people may argue that a admin is gaming system by requesting only 3 months flag and making no substantial, no controversial and obvious work, so 2-years is not few nor too much time IMO. But I am not against 3-months up to 3-years of temporary flag. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 18:57, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there evidence of a significant number of candidates who would be qualified for RfA, but choose not to run but would do so if they could apply for a shorter time-frame? Nosebagbear (talk) 19:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the idea behind is to create a new friend process (issue #8), where candidate feel more comfortable to request the tools, since we didn't get consensus to reform RfA. I not sure about evidences, because temporary adminship was not a thing discussed much, so most of time that a user think about getting tools it may think solely about the hard process that RfA is. Carlosguitar (Yes Executor?) 19:58, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we attempt to enforce a "support" consensus by forbidding some types of votes we subjectively consider to be "badly reasoned", a) people will be less interested in providing a (alternative-less/forced) "support" vote, and b) those opposing a candidate for whichever reason will find a way to voice it in a policy-compliant way. If we forbid people from writing "I oppose the candidate because they have never written a Featured Article", then people will write "I oppose the candidate due to a lack of content experience". The reasoning is the same, but we're suddenly forcing people to keep their actual criteria secret, perhaps even to lie, just to make their vote count. This is not desirable. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd like to see some stats, but I wouldn't be surprised if the quantity of admin actions decreases after two years of tenure. It would need to be lower because if my instincts are correct, this would be like granting adminship for the high-intensity duration and then taking it away when they naturally move on. Wouldn't change much, and if I trust someone for two years I trust them indefinitely. Anarchyte (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: Hand out adminship to stewards

Stewards, having been through a rigorous community vetting process, should be able to bypass RFA and request permanent adminship at WP:BN. MER-C 08:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issues addressed: 8.

Discussion (Adminship for stewards)

  • At the very least, I would require that they speak English with some degree of fluency.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And some degree of involvement with the project, which is difficult to quantify, but may be a number of non-automated edits.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:02, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • These kinds of proposals (along with others like "If non admins do well in the Arbcom elections, make them admins") do not deal with the crux of the issue, only apply to minority candidates, and would not really solve the issue identified in proposition A in the issues RfC. Even if they passed, their effects would be marginal, and even having them up for voting distracts from more substantial proposals (which may well be harder to achieve consensus on, but more discussion on those parts may well lead to something workable). I don't think any of these should make it to voting for this reason. I'd say there are also other issues here (consider that even meta doesn't give automatic adminship to stewards), but that's mostly an aside. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per the above, I would reject this idea, since it is not a realistic way to solve the issues here. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stewards already shouldn't do much in their home wiki, so combined with their rather small number I don't think this would help.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While it might not solve the issues at RfA, it does solve the issue that we are running out of admins. These candidates have already been vetted by the community in order to become stewarts, so a speedy process to promote them will save the community time that it can focus on writing an encyclopedia. I agree that there should be additional criteria for stewarts to meet, including a certain number of edits and demonstrate that they have read the required policies and guidelines. Z1720 (talk) 15:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stewards are not implicitly qualified for local adminship in large, self-governed wikis. They intentionally do not mess with our local matters, and I'd say we don't want them to. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither sensible nor useful. Stifle (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how it will solve our acute shortage in new admins. Stewards already have enough to do on their home wikis, as well as at Meta; and they have enough troubles with LTAs, spammers, xwiki vandals and spambots, not to mention other things. We need not burden them with a right they are not very likely to use. Briefly, not very useful. JavaHurricane 14:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actively harmful. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:15, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stewards are designed to be a catch all for wikis that do not have their own processes. They've got more than enough to do without worrying about our project. What's more, our project has a lot of nuances which I would expect an admin to understand, and I would not expect a steward to automatically understand. Finally, I don't want to be encouraging users to become stewards with a view to become admins on en.wp - that seems like a poor route. WormTT(talk) 10:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Former steward here, and I agree... when I was a steward I stepped away from adminish things on en:wp. Becoming steward was an onerous process, even then. So I don't think this helps much even if it was something stewards would want. ++Lar: t/c 14:23, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: Admin-ability to block an admin from using their tools

If admins had the technical ability to block another admin from using their tools, much concern about "life time tenure" and difficulties with removing the tools could be allayed. Also, by forcing a leave of absence from tool use, ostensibly during periods of admin burnout and lapses of reason, many Arbcom desysops may not happen at all. Past efforts have shown it nearly impossible to achieve a community process to remove the admin bit, but this is something that I think we can do.--John Cline (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issue(s) addressed: 6.

Discussion (Admin-ability to block an admin from using their tools)

  • I think this would be a good opportunity for admins to police their own corps while alleviating much apprehension regarding the many admin things that are entirely too hard to correct. --John Cline (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think this would ever be used, or (more importantly in this context) fix any problems at RfA. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's any truth in the notion that if it was easier to desysop a "rogue" admin !voters at RfA would be less apprehensive about supporting new admins, I would think this could have a similar calming affect. If it's a non-starter, nothing's been lost for the thought. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 13:00, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    My thinking on this proposal is that technical ability to do something doesn't (and shouldn't) mean something will actually be done, similar to the reason why admins are basically never unilaterally blocked (except if completely uncontroversial, like a compromised account). In practice, any kind of "admin tool-use block" would always be preceded by discussions at AN, at which point this concept is not distinct to normal site blocks/bans, emergency steward action, or ArbCom cases (as appropriate). I also doubt it would ever be an appropriate action, because bad judgement usually doesn't happen in succession to the point where a preventative tool-use block would be appropriate. That kind of rogueness doesn't happen on enwiki anyway, and I don't think it's what RfA voters are concerned about. I think they're more concerned about persistent bad judgement that never quite rises to the level of ArbCom, or only appears at ArbCom after causing a lot of long-term frustration. This proposal wouldn't fix that. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That being said, there is the related idea that the community should be able to implement bans on admin use of tools. It's an interesting concept, and I don't see why it shouldn't already be possible (the community can already ban editors from any kind of definable activity at AN), but I'm also not sure that would really reduce the high-stakes atmosphere at RfA. Perhaps if there was evidence of such a system working well, but since it's often difficult to get consensus for bans of non-admin established editors at ANI, I'm sceptical. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:13, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you ProcrastinatingReader. As normally is the case, your comments are rather astute. You have a keen ability to bring out areas of consideration that may have, otherwise, not been considered. I'm glad that you've shared your insight here. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except any evidentiary levels to warrant such a use would need to approach that of an ARBCOM desysop anyway, and not something you'd want lone admins doing. I don't know if it would help the RfA aspect anyway, but even if it did, this would seem a "cure worse than the disease" issue Nosebagbear (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also don't think this is going to help, in situations where using this right is appropriate the admin should be desysopped instead. If you want to make it easier to desysop people then propose another community desysop process, if there isn't consensus for that then there definitely isn't consensus to leave the decision up to one person. Hut 8.5 14:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the prerequisites for applying such a restriction of tool use followed the same limitations we now observe, " preventive, not punitive", I don't think it would automatically imply that using the technical restriction meant they should have been desysoped instead. You are probably correct in saying this is not a feature to be left to the discretion of a single admin. In fact, reflecting on things stated so far, I agree. Z1720 has counterproposed a few things below that I believe are worthy of consideration. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would feel uncomfortable for Admins to do this, but I'm supportive of Bureaucrats using this tool more often, with the understanding that if a Bureaucrat does this the blocked admin can appeal to ARBCOM, and a case is automatically opened to examine the conduct (so arbs cannot decline an admin blocking case). I would couple this idea with encouraging the community to recruit and promote more Bureaucrats. Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your comments, thank you for sharing them. My hope was that ideas, like yours, would emerge. You've made some good points and I would definitely support whatever came of them. I suppose if I had to summarize the idea in this section, I would just say that our past inabilities to establish a procedure for removing an admins tool-set might be surmountable if instead our procedure only results in a technical suspension of their functionality. Thank you again.--John Cline (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This exists; it's called a "block". It also encompasses editing; perhaps a partial block would technically work. It's just practically never used because the resulting controversy ("oh my god, an administrator has blocked an administrator") is extremely undesirable for all parties, and because we expect administrators to be able to change their behavior without being technically forced to do so. All concerns about wheel warring, asking the protecting administrator before undoing their protection, asking the blocking administrator before unblocking, and all the desire for careful collaboration between administrators is contrary to this proposal. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, and I suspect it would be seldom used. It's a matter of having a manner of community recourse, or not. Not having community recourse is largely responsible for why things have devolved unto the current state. And why it could be a continuing trend.--John Cline (talk) 20:36, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure this would achieve anything, but I'm open to being convinced. Stifle (talk) 20:12, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I appreciate your objectivity Stifle. Whether the end sees you in support or opposition, the fact that you didn't oppose out of hand means quite a lot to me, and speaks considerably well of you (in my opinion). Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 01:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The underlying concept - blocking admins from their toolkit - has already discussed and rejected. See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Proposed decision#RHaworth prohibited from performing deletions as well the section that follows. If an admin has to be blocked from using their mop, even if for a cooldown, in all practicality and probability they are not fit to be admin: the community expects admins to not use their tools when they are incapable of responsibly using them, say for emotional reasons, till they regain their proper sense. An admin who abuses the toolkit so grossly will probably be taken to ArbCom soon enough for long-term issues, and the Fred Bauder ArbCom case was a good example of that. JavaHurricane 15:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure this fits under this project, but I will say that I don't think it's a good idea as written. "Blocking from using tools" would be carry stigma and I cannot see a case where desysop would not be the right decision - which makes me think, if we do go down this route, perhaps it would be better to create a "temporary desysop" mechanism, in periods of 24 hours to 1 week, which would be automatically restored at the end, and could link in with an Arbcom case. There may be some use cases for that, but as I say, not necessarily for this project. WormTT(talk) 10:22, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: Remove !voting at RfA, replace with a discussion and crats determining consensus

Facilitator's note: This idea was ruled out during phase 1 because there was a consensus against the concept. However the discussion below has included some ideas - such as a word count - which could be proposed/discussed further. Barkeep49 (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of editors !voting on a candidate, a discussion will take place. Editors can express their opinions with a bolded "Support" or "Concerns", then give their thoughts about the candidate. After a pre-determined time, bureaucrats will determine the consensus of the discussion. The running tally of !votes and percentage of support will be removed.

Issues(s) addressed: 1, 5.

Discussion: Remove !voting at RfA, replace with a discussion and bureaucrats determining consensus

  • I believe one aspect of the corrosive environment is the voting at RfA and the interest in the support/oppose tally of a candidate. "Oppose" declarations have been used less often in other processes, such as WP:FAC, because of the negative association with this declaration. In this idea, "Oppose" is replaced with "Concerns". Editors joining the discussion are encouraged to explain why they support or have concerns about the candidate. Declarations will not be split into support and oppose sections, as the goal is to facilitate a discussion instead of a vote. When the RfA closes, bureaucrats will determine the consensus of the RFA discussion and can discount concerns such as, "No need for the tools." Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I'd personally like this idea, I note that issue B ('make it more like a discussion') did not gain consensus; there was consensus for the status quo in terms of discussion vs vote, with a slight preference for 'make it more like a vote'. So I think this idea is out of scope. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I was going to make a separate section; but Z beat me to it): (I'll note that this is similar to #Idea: Formal moderation of RfA; and to Nosebagbear's comment in #Idea: Temporary adminship)):
Since this has been brought up by multiple, and is also a problem that can actually be noticed at RfAs (from the now-frequent sillyness about being "open to recall"; to absolutely ridiculous stuff like Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Blablubbs where some people [ultimately, without consequence] opposed someone for endorsing WP:NONAZIS...); there probably should be something done about this. WP:NOTAVOTE is already a fact of life for every other discussion on Wikipedia (and RfAs, unlike ACE, are not pure votes, so unless we go that way, this will remain a discussion and not a mere vote), and it probably should be enforced, at least in some way, at RfA: at the very least, bureaucrats should be free to strike-through any comment which lacks supporting reasoning or which is blatantly out-of-line. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with Z's broader suggestion, although it is much harder to judge consensus when there is a significant amount of participation (and it isn't snowing to one side), such as one could expect at RfA. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative would be giving everyone a word limit (except the candidate, and the questions section, which has its own limits); and a relatively short one (not more than a few hundred words). That way the discussion side can remain, but people don't get to make much ado about nothing; and obviously with less words one needs to concentrate on important issues and not focus on tiny details. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:37, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notwithstanding the facilitator note at the top, I hope editors will still consider some other ideas in this proposal, such as replacing "Oppose" with "Concerns", the word count, and removing the running tally of support/oppose percentages. Z1720 (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes all those ideas could certainly be proposed. For Phase 2 specific proposals will be necessary so the details around a word count (how many words, would it only apply to the voting section or elsewhere, etc etc) would need to be worked out which is why I specifically mentioned it and not the idea of re-titling the Oppose section or removing the running tally. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Formalising: I'll add two specific proposals here, with the idea being that wording can be improved, and if any proposal is deemed to be extremely unlikely to pass, so that we can figure this out sooner rather than later:

Proposal: Word limits at RfA/RfA participants behaviour

This seems to have attracted some tentative support, so I'll make a suggested wording (details, as per Barkeep49 above) [to replace the final point on the edit notice]:

  • Participants in an RfA are expected to remain polite and courteous when discussing a candidate. Participants are also expected to allow for reasonable discussion and not to impose themselves on the discussion. As such:
    1. Individual participants may not ask more than two questions of an RfA candidate. They may, however, ask appropriately relevant follow-up questions for reasons of good faith; for example: to improve understanding or mitigate the effects of a misunderstanding. [note: unchanged]
    2. Individual participants (whether in expressing their support or concerns) are limited to 200 words for their initial statement; and are limited to 500 words overall (whether as follow-up to their statement or to comments by others). This limit does not include any questions under point 1 (although these are reasonably expected to remain short); and does not apply to the candidate. Bureaucrats are allowed to enforce this restriction as they seem fit. [this last sentence not strictly necessary, but for clarity's sake]

500 words is the same limit as at WP:AE and at ArbCom case requests, so seems a logical statement. Keeping the initial !vote shorter is an innovation, and might not be strictly necessary if people are aware of the 500 word limit (as they will then naturally tend to keep their comments shorter), but having this formally will more explicitly encourage the brevity and "concentrating on important issues and not tiny details" which I mention in my previous comment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration enforcement requests have a word limit, but there is no limit on subsequent discussion. Arbitration case requests aren't nominally intended to be discussions—participants are supposed to be offering evidence to help decide if the case should be accepted or not. A word limit can only be managed if each commenter has their own section, and if the format is changed from a conversation to essentially individual statements. Instead of responding directly to someone else's arguments, you would rework your statement to accommodate your counterarguments. This could be helpful in making the process more efficient, but it would be a significant change in the mode of operation and require participants to rewrite their statements as needed, which generally they find more onerous than conversational replies, as well as re-read other people's statements, which takes more time. isaacl (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Re-titling the Oppose section

  • The "Oppose" section shall be retitled "Concerns"

Per above: this to encourage a more collegial attitude (you are expressing your concerns with someone's suitability for the admin role, not opposing them personally) and also to encourage people to actually spell out valid 'concerns'. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:51, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would like to see all three sections eliminated entirely, in favor of a straight discussion. Most discussions receive commenters in their order of arrival, like we are discussing things now. While it would make things harder on crats when evaluating consensus, I think it would improve the discussion overall.--John Cline (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A very reasonable idea and the absolute minimum of change that should happen as a result of the 2021 RfA reform. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there are participants who remain unaware of the need to describe their concerns (as there are many people willing to remind them). I also think that those who are prone to expressing themselves in ways that give the impression that they are opposing someone personally aren't going to be swayed by the section title.

From a semantic point of view, if RfA continues to have a straw poll format, then "Oppose" is more appropriate. If it moves to a "determine consensus of pros vs cons" format (for example, as I proposed in 2015), then "Concerns" may be apt. I don't believe there is sufficient community support for this change, though. isaacl (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: Wikiproject:Ask Them to Run

A Wikiproject will be established for editors to suggest potential RFA candidates, and to invite candidates to run.

Issues(s) addressed: 4

Discussion: Wikiproject:Ask Them to Run

  • A Wikiproject will be established for editors to suggest potential RfA candidates. Editors cannot suggest themselves, as that is what WP:ORCP is for. When a potential candidate is posted, editors will be encouraged to assess their candidacy and indicate "Support" or "Archive". "Archive" means that the editor would not support their candidacy at that time; when one archive is recorded, the suggestion is archived immediately. No discussion or explanations for an editor's recommendation will be allowed, in order to avoid the corrosive atmosphere present at RfA and to avoid discussing issues without the involved parties present. If there is significant support for a candidate without an "Archive" comment, the project will send an invitation to the potential candidate with a link to the suggestion, so the candidate can see the support they already have for a run. I imagine that this project would run similar to WP:EotW, where the potential candidate is not notified: this allows the potential candidate to be "surprised" for how much support they already have while hopefully not discouraging editors from running if their potential candidacy is archived. This project should not be seen as a prerequisite to running for RfA, rather as a recruitment tool. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Informally, this exists as a small group of editors who actually invite users to start an RfA when they notice good candidates. Organizing this activity in a WikiProject, and hopefully gaining more participants, would indeed be nice. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This project should not replace the informal search that other editors conduct. Instead, I hope this project will show reluctant candidates that there is already support for their run. Z1720 (talk) 02:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be excellent. I tried to get several nominations in my year before becoming a sysop, but they all fell through. I really like this idea.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Wikipedia:WikiProject Admin Nominators was created in 2013, and foundered as it didn't figure out a good mode of operation. If there are editors interested in reviving it, that would be great—please go ahead and best of luck! isaacl (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This project might last a short time, but if it gets some great quality candidates to run then I think it would be worth it. Z1720 (talk) 01:58, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that finding more candidates is worthwhile. There's nothing holding anyone back—I strongly encourage anyone interested in starting some initiatives to go for it now!
  • Long long ago, there was a mentorship process. I participated as a mentor, and I think we got a few good admins out of that process. (which now I cannot find) This seems similar, perhaps better. It doesn't address the causticness of the RfA process itself, but it's not a bad idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:34, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: Two-phase evaluation/criteria process

Separate the two questions of "What kind of candidate is this person?" and "Should that kind of candidate be made an admin?" into distinct phases.

In the first phase, voters would evaluate the candidate, and attempt to establish an outline of the candidate's characteristics, qualities and qualifications, experience and expertise. The RfA page would be divided into sections, each dealing with a general aspect to evaluate. The page would start with a handful of "conventional" starting sections, and voters would be permitted to add new ones. Within each section, voters would ask questions, discuss the candidate, and try to work toward conclusions, "findings of fact", about the general qualities of the candidate. (Any questions to candidates must be placed into a specific section.) Participants would express their support for or opposition to proposed conclusions. Similar to current RfAs, the decision-making on this part would more closely resemble a vote than normal consensus processes (with some leeway for the closing bureaucrat's judgement). At the end of the first phase, a bureaucrat compiles/collates/synthesizes the conclusions into a profile, several paragraphs in length. At this point, active participation by the candidate in the process ends.

The second phase is for determining whether or not a person with this profile should be made an administrator, determined by !vote with normal bureaucrat closing ranges. Any discussions would be about criteria, not re-arguing the attributes of the candidate. No one who participated in the first phase would be permitted to participate in the second phase.

Potential benefits:

  • No questions or comments without clear aims. Each must be within an aspect-evaluating section.
  • Judgement of a characteristic is less harsh than of the entire editor. If you hear that the community thinks you're good at A, B, and C, excellent and D, but pretty bad at very_important_thing E, that might take the sting out of things a bit. Also, if a single user puts that forward, it'll seem much less like an attack. And the "important" second phase will seem like it's not really about you at all.
  • Separate phases with non-overlapping participants may help lower the temperature, may draw in different kinds of participants.
  • Harder for a single point to become the focus of the RfA. At worst, it's part of a single section within the first phase, and a mark on the summary. Discussion is less focused on potential disqualifications.

Cons:

  • Way more pseudo-bureaucracy. Two phases, votes on every point, arguments and rules and so on would drain a lot of the voters' and candidates' time, and considerably increase bureaucrat workload.
  • Less fine-grained info for those actually making the decision; voters work from a summary prepared by others. Those more-informed from the first phase, meanwhile, are removed. Reductionist to the extreme: things have all sorts of exceptions, and trying to reduce things about a person to a summary is lossy.
  • Even more putting-under-a-microscope. Need to evaluate every major thing about a candidate, not just clearly relevant ones.

Issue(s) addressed: 1, 3, 5, potentially aggravates 2 (increased overall scrutiny, but possibly in a less unpleasant manner). Related issues include rejected issues B and C.

(I'm trying for "outside the box", here. Possibly at the expense of practicality, but I'll leave that judgement to others. Hopefully it inspires insightful discussion regardless.) --Yair rand (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having déjà vu with my somewhat similar proposal in 2015. As I stated then, I think focusing on candidate characteristics will help consolidate discussion and de-personalize it, thus reducing acrimony and redundancy. I disagree that every major thing about a candidate needs to be examined; it's still up to the participants to decide on what relevant aspects to examine. I think once a good standard has been established, a lot of the phase 2 discussion is reusable, thus reducing its overhead cost. For better or worse, though, I don't think there is enough community support to make this shift. isaacl (talk) 23:05, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: Sortition as a means to get candidates

Randomly select a bunch of candidates who meet certain criteria randomly (except for those who opt-out). Assign each of them an advocate based on some select pool of users who volunteer for it. RFA then goes on like normal without or without the candidate present with the advocate playing the role of nominator.

Issue(s) addressed: #4.
Issues(s) it may address: #1, #2, #5, #8.

Discussion (Sortition)

  • Just throwing it out there. If you want to get more candidates to run, maybe change it from an opt-in system to an opt-out one. Commenters will have to proceed explicitly knowing the candidate did not ask to be nominated for adminship which could make them less hostile. Though, I can't help find the idea rather silly, I'm also weirdly fond of it? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:18, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This method could solve the level of scrutiny problem as multiple candidates could be selected at once, and candidates could just ignore the process if they felt like it. Though it technically is still an RFA, it provides an alternative to the current traditional route (which I imagine will still be there). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:32, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I absolutely love this. It should be easy to develop some kind-of algorithmic test pulling in certain criteria (i.e. X# of edits, less than X# blocks, % match on XFD !votes, etc.) to generate lists of candidates. Chetsford (talk) 21:24, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. "Forced exposition to hostility for a week", I'll say as an Advocatus Diaboli. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm also up for this; this will give a push to people who really do want to be admins but are prone to cold feet; unless this gets the biggest consensus ever against it, it should be voted on at Phase 2.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 21:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is the underlying idea that Anna Frodesiak had for the Optional RfA candidate poll. She asked people to generate lists of potential candidates through any means they thought reasonable, and then issued invitations to all of them to hold a poll. I'm not sure an request for administrative privileges where an advocate is the primary driving force behind the request is a good idea. If we're going to solicit editors to do something with zero preparation, I think asking if they would start a poll is a better idea. isaacl (talk) 23:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm of the opinion that that forum is an excellent but underused resource. The idea that a potential candidate could use feedback from many experienced editors is sound; more scrutiny, from people who have no reason to be hostile, should help candidates address concerns before they have to face the entire community. That ORCP isn't doing much suggests, to me, that candidates are just using less public alternatives. Vanamonde (Talk) 19:15, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's a bad idea to discuss the faults of a candidate without their consent. However, I would be in favour of a process of naming candidates, then offering the bit to candidates whom did not receive an objection. In my hypothetical process, any discussion of the candidate's faults would not occur and opposers would not explain their opposition. Z1720 (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720: Ideally, opposes would be less descriptive with their !votes out of respect for the candidate. The onus should really be on the supporters to say why they would like to see this user become an admin. Centering the discussion on a potential admins positive qualities would certainly help a lot to remove the toxicity of RFA.
    Regardless, it is an opt-out system. If an editor really does not want to be discussed at all (either positively or negatively), then they can already remove their name from consideration. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:14, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have tried, a number of times, to assign numerical values to individuals, to generate a potential "adminship index", which could be used to find potential candidates. One of the better ones (though flawed) was Scottywong's adminship score (I'm not sure if that is still available) - I do wonder if we could automate something, a bot that looks for candidates, drops a note on their page, they can respond with "Interested, not yet, not ever" options. Interested would go into this pool, not yet and the bot could leave you alone for a year, not ever is an opt out.
    Of course, it all comes down to the fact that adminship isn't numerical - there are multiple routes in (different skillsets looked at), and the values that knock people out (such as communication skills) are non-numerical. WormTT(talk) 07:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Worm That Turned: Any attempt to assign a numerical value to someone's potential for adminship will inevitably be flawed, because something like "adminship potential" is inherently a very subjective and complex concept. The adminship score tool that I created a long time ago only attempted to assign a score to a user based on the objective, easily measurable aspects of their contributions. Like, how long have they been an editor, what's their edit count, how many AfDs have they participated in, how many RfAs have they voted in, how many times have they been blocked, etc. I don't remember the exact algorithm, and I have no idea if the tool is still available (multiple people took over my tools when toolserver went away, and they are in various states of disrepair and availability). But, in any case, any bot that you program will obviously only be able to assess these kinds of measurable things, and will never be able to understand things like "is this user an asshole" or "has this user pissed a lot of people off, even though they never got blocked for it" or "is this user a serial wikilawyer who tries to use WP policies in misguided ways". It can certainly help you to quickly narrow down a large field of users to a smaller set of people that have a higher likelihood of succeeding at RfA, but it will never be a perfect indicator (or anywhere even close to perfect).
If you're hoping to convince someone to create a bot or a tool that performs this function, my advice would be to find some agreement on exactly what numerical/measurable aspects of a user's contributions are important to determine their adminship potential, and assign weights to each aspect. (By the way, you'll never find agreement on this, as everyone has different opinions on it.) In other words, design a full scoring system based on the measurable aspects of someone's contributions. That's the hard part. If you can put that together, then convincing someone to implement a bot or a tool based on those rules should be relatively easy. But, just telling someone to "make me a bot that finds good admin candidates" is a much harder sell. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 16:26, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Any 'scoring' algorithm that counts numbers of edits is, imho, doomed to fail as easily gamed. Which is the 'better' editor: one who makes 20 edits to an article's grammar, each of 10 characters (whether marked 'minor edit' or not), or one who makes a single edit of 250 characters which improves the content? --AlisonW (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who is more likely to succeed at RfA? An editor with 50 edits, or an editor with 50,000 edits? Edit count plays a role. If you're evaluating a candidate at RfA who you're unfamiliar with, one of the things you'd probably check is how long they've been here and how much they've done. Edit count is one way to check that. You obviously can't make a decision to support a candidate based solely on edit count, but it's a relevant data point. An automated tool would save you the trouble of looking that up yourself. Any statistic can be gamed. No one is saying that if an automated tool finds a user with a high score, then they automatically become admins. There would still be a need for human intervention to inspect the nature of the candidate's edits to ensure that they haven't gamed the system, among other things. The automated tool or bot would simply narrow down the field of millions of editors to a smaller number of editors that are more likely to succeed at RfA. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 20:00, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: PROD-style adminship

Any user may nominate another user for adminship by starting a page styled Wikipedia:Proposed adminship/Username and transcluding it to WP:RFA. The nominator(s) may make a statement, and the candidate may answer the three standard questions. Aside from that, there are to be no comments, no questions, and no support votes. If X number of users (10? 20? 30?) object within seven days by writing "Object. ~~~~" (and nothing else!) on the transcluded page, the process is nullified. (The candidate may run a standard RfA if desired.) Otherwise, the candidate shall be made an admin, with all the rights and privileges of other admins. Candidates who have previously used this process unsuccessfully may not try again, and those who have previously run RfA are ineligible. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issues addressed: #1, #8.
Issues it may address: #2, #4.

Discussion (PROD-style adminship)

  • We've long used the system known as WP:PROD for certain uncontroversial deletions, the idea being that we can dispense with some of our formal processes in cases where no objections are anticipated. This idea adapts that system to the adminship context. Even the least controversial RfAs can be incredibly nerve-racking: I was recently struck by this comment, in which a candidate who recently passed RfA with 98% support noted that she nonetheless considered withdrawing because of how "emotionally draining" the process was for her. My proposal above provides an alternate system for uncontroversial candidates like her (and the majority of recent RfA candidates), allowing them to be approved without the vitriol, corrosiveness, and stress that characterize RfA. If the candidacy turns out to be controversial, that will become apparent in a much less painful way than normal, and the candidate will have some idea of what to expect if they later decide to run a standard RfA. (Note: this was vaguely inspired by this discussion and related proposals, although I replaced several parts of it, including the rather boneheaded idea of allowing a single user to object.) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would need to marinate on this a bit but I think, given a low-enough objection number (i.e. 10 editors), and assuming we maintained a good method of notification (e.g. watchlist notice), this would be something I'd support. I might like to see some low-threshold objective criteria applied to who may nominate and who may be nominated, though, to limit the potential of floods of dead-on-arrival candidates (perhaps limiting this to extended confirmed editors). Chetsford (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be okay with this, except that objectors need to be allowed to elaborate on their objections, so that others may be aware of possible problems the objector has found; indeed, it is often the case that an RfA starts out as uncontroversial and doesn't fail until a single oppose brings up previously-unknown issues that others learn about and thereby change their minds. As for the number, assuming a modern-day minimum participation of ~150 !votes for all but the quickly-SNOWED RfAs and assuming 90% is the "controversial" cutoff, I'd say 15 objects would be sufficient to trigger the normal process.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:42, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the above (re comments). Chetsford (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The point about elaboration is a fair one. The problem, of course, is that objections trigger responses, and responses trigger replies, and replies trigger questions for the candidate, and soon we're back to the corrosiveness of RfA. Perhaps an option would be to allow threaded discussion only on the talk page (like es-wiki does for their RfAs) or some other designated forum. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:55, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point I didn't think of; allowing comments risks this turning into RfA Lite. I like your idea for limiting discussion to a secondary space like Talk (or maybe just reverting to the original idea of no discussion). Chetsford (talk) 00:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe just edit summaries?  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:51, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about a word limit for every objection, and diffs must be supplied (50 words max to keep them short?) Or a restriction that responses can only be given by the candidate and crats, and any further follow-up must happen on the talk page? Z1720 (talk) 01:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of good ideas here. I read that the Spanish Wikipedia limits comments to only 15 words, with any additional questions, discussion, or elaboration banished to the talk page. I think my original idea of "no questions, no comments, no support votes" is unlikely to gain traction, judging from the comments below, so allowing some form of talk-page discussion will probably be necessary. I'd probably oppose mandating that "diffs must be supplied": just like at PROD, users should be allowed to object for any reason or no reason. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like this idea of a PROD-style RfA, and I like the criteria that is emerging in discussion here. Just to be clear, am I correct in understanding that no form of self nomination would be allowed? If so, I'd like to suggest that any verifiable form of canvasing others for the purpose of requesting that they nominate or otherwise publish the PROD-style RfA on their behalf should be an automatic disqualifying factor. --John Cline (talk) 09:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that self-noms should probably not be permitted. It would probably be difficult to outlaw canvassing formally (since it could quite easily be done through email or some other off-wiki means), but an overly ambitious candidate could quite easily be opposed on that basis alone. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 17:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm leaning oppose. There would need to be a highly visible list, otherwise you'll end up with people being granted adminship without anyone noticing. Would need talk page notices and a similar "currently open RFA/RFB" table. Anarchyte (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not substantially different from the current process IMO; you have to give the opposers the ability to explain themselves; you have to give !voters the opportunity to ask questions; and these two things will make the process devolve back into the current RfA system due to things like controversial opposes and questions, and long, toxic discussions over it. I do not see how a PROD-style adminship solves the toxicity problem at RfA. JavaHurricane 15:40, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this could work, with the strict priviso that it isn't for self-nominations - so each admin must have at least some explicit support from someone in the community! WaggersTALK 16:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm uncomfortable with this idea, and it's simply because we cannot gauge the level of support (i.e. the numerical value, not the percentage) - I'm concerned this is unlikely to pass community muster as a proposal, and even if it did that we would have individuals who would object to every Prod Adminship on principle, making the process useless. Even if we can get the process off the ground, one controversial decision from one individual who has passed through this method will lead to the same (users who object on principle) - I don't oppose the idea, it's out of the box and not bad, but I'm struggling to see how it will move forward. WormTT(talk) 07:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just looked back at the process involved when I became an admin (in 2004!) A user subpage (username/rfa) was created by someone (whom I didn't know) with a brief two-line statement of why they'd nominated me. I accepted the nomination and others then added themselves with a sig under support, oppose, or comment. At 25-0 about a week later someone made the relevant status changes. imho such a procedure worked well. --AlisonW (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: Less time between RfA reviews

RfA reviews should take place more often. Bureaucrats are encouraged to organise this type of review every few years.

Issues addressed: #1

Discussion: Less time between RfA reviews

  • This process began because of the dwindling number of nominations at RfA, and the last review took place in 2015. During Phase 1, there was clear opposition to the statement that "There is no issue" at RfA. Instead of waiting until there is a problem, the RfA process should go through a regular review every few years. Bureaucrats are encouraged to organise this type of review, with the assistance of interested and experienced editors if they so wish. I think two years is a good time period, but perhaps others have a different suggestion. This process will not prevent editors from proposing changes to the RfA process between reviews. Z1720 (talk) 02:19, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think this directly addresses issue #1. In any case, anyone can organize an RfC discussion such as this one when they feel the time is right (and in the past they were indeed set up by non-admins, non-arbitrators, and non-bureaucrats). It takes social capital to gain agreement on change and thus I don't think it is feasible to set a schedule. isaacl (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Concurring with Isaacl, this is more of a meta discussion than a suggestion on what is attempting to be achieved with this brainstorming. But you're right Z1720 - a review 2 years or so after the December 2015 reforms were rolled out would not have gone amiss to examine what had worked and what hadn't. There have however been plenty of serious RfA reviews over the years even before the first of the big ones exactly ten years ago. You only started regularly editing a year ago so you might not be aware of what has been done over the years. This will quickly bring you up to speed, especially if you read the listed articles in The Signpost from 2005 through 2019 which summarise the history quite well. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Isaacl and Kudpung: I struggled with which issue to place this under; I felt like this was the best one because I hope that this review will solve some of the corrosive environment problems at RfA, and regular reviews will continue to assess and propose solutions to ensure it doesn't happen again. Last year, I read through some of the Talk:RfA archives, previous RfA reform essays, and the 2015 conclusions last year, and I'm interested in looking at these other documents in WP:RFA reform. My limited impression is that there has been lots of discussion, but the last time any serious change happened at Rfa that required community consensus was after the 2015 review. I don't want to wait until there is a serious problem before people discuss solutions. I also think that this review and previous reviews were successful is because it was organised by well-respected members of Wikipedia: if I set up this review it would probably go nowhere fast due to my lack of experience. This proposal empowers 'crats to organise a review every few years with the help of interested editors. Z1720 (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Any editor is empowered to organize a request for comments on the topic, and I disagree that bureaucrats should be mandated to do so on a fixed schedule. There hasn't been a shortage of discussion on the matter in the interim. The right combination of someone willing and able to shepherd discussion plus a receptiveness of the community to engage productively has to arise for an RfC to be helpful. I can agree, though, that once this review process is completed it may be useful to tentatively schedule a followup to evaluate the effect of any changes that were made (or, if none were made, to investigate other ideas). isaacl (talk) 15:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We do this for ACE, and actually, if we're looking at setting up some alternative system, especially one that might be regular, it would not harm us to put in a retrospection and improvement step to the cycle. There are quite a few ways we could do this, but an annual RfC on RfA may work, split into incremental and wholesale improvements. Just to highlight ongoing issues. ... Of course, it might also just be a waste of pixels. I'm less keen on 'crats organising these, unless they have a known structure and it's just management and closing of the RfC. WormTT(talk) 07:25, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think once every half-decade or so is fine. If it ain't broke (which RfA wasn't prior to the dwindling), don't fix it.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:46, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Idea: An underused ready-resource

I'd like to discuss an underused resource that is available, and has been effectively used in the past. I hope to discuss ways to improve it, and gain some collaborative assistance to that end. --John Cline (talk) 04:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Issue(s) addressed: 4.

Discussion (An underused ready-resource)

Idea: Two Part RfA - Discussion / Anonymous Vote

Could we split an RfA in two? Have the first X (perhaps 3-5) days as a simple discussion (moderated, to ensure it doesn't get nasty) with no voting allowed. Concerns could be raised and discussed. Questions could be asked. At the end of the period, the candidate is given the option to carry on to the next phase, the discussion phase would be hatted (perhaps even protected) and an anonymous vote phase begins, which would last Y (perhaps 7) days.

Issues addressed: 1, 2, 8

Discussion (Idea: Two Part RfA - Discussion / Anonymous Vote)

As I see it, this could have the following benefits

  • Candidates don't have to watch their RfA beyond the discussion, and are allowed to actively participate in that phase. Reduces the stress of slowly watching your RfA tank, or worrying that it might.
  • Concerns of badgering are gone as you would expect the candidate to discuss in the discussion phase.
  • Keeps the level of scrutiny for those who want it, but does not subject the candidate to the scrutiny in the same manner.

I don't know if there is a simple vote system on meta, it may be that one would need to be created to meet our needs, as securepoll is probably a little excessive. WormTT(talk) 08:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would love to see this, or something like it (have campaigned for this for years). A slightly worse, but technically simpler option would be a discussion followed by open section-based voting with strictly enforced no-comment policy (i.e. "Happy to support" is not acceptable, and neither is "See my comments in the discussion"). —Kusma (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then you can see how others are voting, which defeats point 1 of what Worm wrote. I do like Worm's idea as written, assuming the WMF were willing to code up an extension for it. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd love to see two-phase elections, like what is done at Steward elections; but for some reason I also recollect reading opposition to 2-phase RfAs as being overly long. Can't remember where anymore. I'd wholeheartedly support your plan, that said. JavaHurricane 14:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a balance - overly long vs overly short. I seem to recall that some individuals were unhappy with less than seven days, due to editing patterns and whether or not people could edit at a weekend - so I thought the voting should be at least seven days. In addition, with anonymous voting, the length is less important, as part of the problem with "too long" is that you are consistently looking at the RfA to see what has been said on each vote, and re-counting and calculating, and seeing what effect comments have etc. Anon voting takes all that away. It's an axnious wait (certainly, I can tell you that from ACE), but it's not "in your face" stressful. WormTT(talk) 14:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Multiple phases have been objected to previously due to increasing length being required to accommodate those who only participate once a week. I think though that this change can complement the proposal to have scheduled RfA dates (for example, quarterly). If a greater number of parallel requests indeed results in less intense scrutiny for each candidate, then I feel extending the overall period for the request should be manageable. isaacl (talk) 15:03, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Worm That Turned: a version of SecurePoll would likely still be needed, perhaps without the encryption system overhead. The challenge of secret ballot is that a scrutineering process is likely needed to enforce voter eligibility requirements (such as each 'person' may only vote once, regardless of how many accounts they have access to). — xaosflux Talk 14:38, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But perhaps it could be part of a tranched, scheduled, votes-for-adminship parallel process? (Which who knows could become the primary process) - anyone that wants to be an admin signs up on-wiki by some deadline, gets questions by some deadline, confirms if they want to move to the vote by a deadline, then we run a BULK vote ACE style with (Support / Oppose / SKIP THIS PERSON "Neutral") options - and we can spit out an entire list of those who win by a strict percentage. Maybe quarterly (?). The benefit of bulk is that the same scrutineering can be done for everyone at once. If we did go to something like that, maybe we only keep RfA for a new "temporary adminship" process for someone that needs access quicker or for a specific purpose, and limit those to like 4 month terms unless approved in the "new vote" system. Just brainstorming here!! — xaosflux Talk 15:36, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm definitely getting the idea a combination of brainstormed ideas might be the final solution! WormTT(talk) 15:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      We could also combine this with my suggestion to always +sysop the top 5/10/20/? candidates each round if they receive more than the minimum percentage required for ArbCom election, to ensure a minimum promotion rate. —Kusma (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Instead of a fixed number of top candidates in the tranche, can I suggest that it would be some percentage of the number of candidates included, as long as they reach some minimum percentage of approval? We wouldn't want to set it a 10 candidates, have 14 apply, and then grant the bit to some-one that got 45% approval because they were tenth. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      @Kusma: I wouldn't see these people as competing with eachother (as it is fine for everyone to "win" the election), everyone passing the minimum threshold (whatever it should be) would pass - don't think I'd like the idea of continuing to lower the threshold just because some specific tranche had some candidates with lower support %'s. — xaosflux Talk 16:01, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, we need admins. Just like we need arbs. For arbcom, the threat of a tranche of terrible candidates being appointed helps to make people stand for election. I think we may need something that forces the community to approve more admins. —Kusma (talk) 16:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think there would be the same sense of urgency. There are readily available processes to review poor decisions made by administrators, where arbitrators are (in practice) the last resort to interpret community views. isaacl (talk) 20:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Good thought on having a one-phase, ad hoc request process for fixed terms, and a (say) quarterly two-phase process for unlimited terms. This would enable editors to sign up to fill a temporary need without committing for the long-term, thus perhaps tapping into the pool of editors who are now drifting away after a couple of years. On a side note, How about using the term "cohort" instead of "tranche"? These aren't really divisions of the whole admin pool. but new waves of admins being added regularly. isaacl (talk) 20:17, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I like cohort in this aspect better. — xaosflux Talk 20:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't want to seem overly critical, but I can't help but wonder whether this will have the intended effect. The opposition to any RFA, whether justified or otherwise, tends to be far more vocal than the support. Allowing the opposition to analyze a candidate's record, without also giving them a mounting tally of support !votes to draw confidence from, seems a little counter-productive to me. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:51, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Addendum: I do think there's some benefit to separating the questions and general discussion section from the !votes. I also think more direct moderation of these venues is a good thing (and in the last couple of years we have seen the effects of that). I'm not convinced they need to be separated in time from the !voting, but perhaps even separate pages (like with the ARBCOM election) would help? Vanamonde (Talk) 19:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this idea. I'm not certain I'm 100% keen on a moderated discussion per se, as I think our normal WP:CIVIL expectations are all the moderation required, but I very much like the idea of separating !voting (or even making it true voting) from discussion. Chetsford (talk) 00:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still feel uneasy about drawing the RfA out longer than it already is, even if objectively it's only by a little bit. I prefer RfAs to be "one-and-done" each, without the agony of two different phases.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:50, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/2021_review/Brainstorming&oldid=1049649972"