User talk:Jimbo Wales

(Manual archive list)

Adminship and RfA

Questions

There is a long discussion up above, but rather than extending that long thread (I am hoping it will be archived soon), I want to start a new thread here. User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month is the cornerstone of this particular discussion; please try to stay on topic and very philosophical, rather than getting into specific debates about specific incidents at RfA (though of course examples might be needed).

1. Should we actively seek to recruit more candidates to RfA? In 2007 there were 920, in 2009 there were only 355 - despite site traffic having increased substantially. Presumably, candidates respond more or less rationally to incentives... it being harder to pass RfA meant that only more-qualified candidates applied in the first place.

Empirical questions around which we need understanding would include: what actual reasons do actual people give (i.e. not speculation) for not applying in the first place?

2. Should we actively seek to change the standards for passing RfA, to make it easier again? I think it clear that many active admins today, the cohort created as admins in 2005-2007, would not pass RfA today.

Empirical questions around which we need understanding would include: what actual reasons are there for the increased level of scrutiny, and are we scrutinizing for the right things?

3. In order to make it more comfortable to create more admins, should we make it easier to lose the admin bit in case things don't work out well? Currently, making it to adminship is not unlike making it into the House of Lords in the UK - pretty hard to get kicked out. There are some good reasons for this: we want admins to have the ability to withstand a certain amount of populist pressure, so that we can preserve a culture with diversity of viewpoint and active debate around key issues.

There are multiple ways to go about this: one concern people have raised is that ArbCom, being elected by the admin community for the most part (everyone can vote, but admin votes are easily the swing vote), may not have the political independence to take tough decisions against popular admins who have not been behaving well. I am not sure I share that concern, but it is an empirical question.

Empirical questions around which we need understanding would include: how have voluntary admin recall processes tended to work out in practice? Do ArbCom members, present and past, feel politically empowered to take action against popular admins who need discipline?

4. What is the right number of admins, anyway? Or, more in line with the big picture philosophical questions about which I am seeking to encourage more discussion: what are the right metrics for determining whether we have enough admins?

I have a feeling this is going to be a long-ish discussion. Please do try, therefore, to stay directly on-topic as much as we can. :)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 13:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Responses 1

See also: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 66 § Adminship: still not a big deal?

Yes, YES, YES! to point 3. Any easier and less antagonistic method of desysopping admins will create a less adversarial process in confering the flags; rather than stopping all but the most overly qualified editors, all editors in good standing are then legible - since removing the bit once it is realised the applicant was not up to standard is much easier. Ultimately, we can then return to the basis of approving admin applications on the basis of whether they are deserving to be trusted with the tools (i.e. use them in good faith). Absolutely number 3!! LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

To create candidates, WP needs to automatically assess their stats (number of articles created, vandalism fighting edits, number of contributions, quality of said contributions, etc), then a process of verification should be established by current administrators and if the candidate pass, let them know they're being considered for adminship, even a badge of "Admin nominee" could be created and let the user decide if he wants the mop (some won't because they don't have the time, but will be proud and glad they were considered). Final discussion where anyone can give their opinion should be the last step, where they can be as vicious as some people say vox populi is at the moment. The problem is that usernames without the requirements go to RfA, only to be told they shouldn't even there in the first place, providing an environment where people are allowed to be uncivil and get negativity from their daily lives out of their system. Currently, only usernames with social skills have the ability to pass RfA, since they will be even co-nominated by friends they make and win by popularity vote when others join the bandwagon, not necessarily because of their skills as an administrator (wich include more than social skills and some vandalism fighting). --John KB (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

This is interesting-- thinking aloud. It has good elements, but I suspect it would go the way of Kirill's proposal (whose name I can never remember, but led to his resignation). Would it be criticized as "insiders promoting insiders"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You mean the way it's criticized right now? --John KB (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Found: Wikipedia:Advisory Council on Project Development. My current criticism is not "insiders promoting insiders"; it's inexperienced editors who don't know policy promoting same with little scrutiny. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That's RfA. Administrators are supposed to know policy. Do they? --John KB (talk) 16:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick comment in regard to 4. I've started collecting data along those lines, with a paper in mind - the main question there is whether or not the trend WereSpielChequers identified is reflected in response times. There's a "gut feeling" that times are getting longer, but this is difficult to quantify (I'm trying a longitudinal study, but there's a lot of data to work through). That said, it is going to be difficult to answer even with data, as there's a balance to be met: more admins may result in faster response times, but if either the decision quality drops or if it creates a higher incidence of wheel-warring and other admin-related disputes the value will be curtailed. - Bilby (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

1. No. Recruiting in recent instances has shown poor screening by the recruitee, and I seriously dispute that "only more-qualified candidates applied in the first place". Actual reason for not applying in the first place: the admin corp has fallen into such ill repute, because of the double standard at ANI, that many editors don't want to be part of that club, and experienced knowledgeable editors who have been 'round the block know they will have made enough enemies that they won't pass.

2. Making it easier would be moving in the wrong direction, considering community-wide concern about current admin abuse of tools and the double standard at ANI. Hopefully, scrutinizing of the right things is increasing, as more and more problems have surfaced, and the increased level of scrutiny is directly correlated with ongoing admin abuse, tolerated throughout the Wiki and at ANI.

3. ABSOLUTELY, yes. We need a desysopping procedure, short of ArbCom. This issue is complicated by the fact that many parts of the community feel that ArbCom tolerates admin abuse, is out of touch with content creation issues, and coddles disruptive editors. Editors are constantly exhorted to use WP:DR, start an RFC, but after doing so, are told the RFC is "petty" in spite of clear abuse of admin tools. Dispute resolution is broken when it comes to dealing with admin abuse-- the admin's friends will pile on, the admin's enemies will too, and the affected party's detractors will as well. RFC doesn't work, and we have no procedure that effectively deals with admin abuse.

4. I don't know, but abusive admin action causes more disruption than the vandals they're whacking.

On a more general point, it is incorrect to believe from WSC's stats that declining numbers are only a problem at RFA; it is Wiki-wide, also evidenced in all content review processes. And many editors give up precisely because of admin abuse and double standards, so addressing number 3 might help address the Wiki-wide problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

PS, I make many typos in all of my posts: anyone who sees one anywhere is authorized by me to correct it-- I don't have time, and I often can't even see them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

RfA success rates:

• 2004 — 63/302 = 20.9% of RfA's were unsuccessful
• 2005 — 213/600 = 35.5% of RfA's were unsuccessful
• 2006 — 543/896 = 60.6% of RfA's were unsuccessful
• 2007 — 512/920 = 55.7% of RfA's were unsuccessful
• 2008 — 392/593 = 66.1% of RfA's were unsuccessful
• 2009 — 234/355 = 65.9% of RfA's were unsuccessful
• 2010 (to end of October) — 139/209 = 66.5% of RfA's were unsuccessful

So, basically, the number of RfA's per year has fallen from its 2006/7 peak by over 70%, whilst the situation remains that 2 in every 3 RfA's remains unsuccessful. So, is RfA borken? Yes. Should we recruit more people to stand? Been tried for the last two years, but for that the present situation would be worse. The biggest problem, as I see it, is that desysoping is way too hard. ArbCom won't act except on egregious cases, and making a case to ArbCom is slightly more fun than passing a kidney stone – which means that cases of generally poor admin conduct result in absolutely nothing being done. No de-adminship proposal will pass because the admin corps oppose the accountability that comes with it (if you don't believe me, read the last one); the most common argument against it is that it would be gamed which just argues that the proces needs to be well designed, not that such a process is not needed. The question is, will anything change in a leadership sense to force the change that is needed, or will this just degenerate into another talk-fest? EdChem (talk) 13:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

EdChem, I think there are sufficient avenues for policy change. I do not agree that, in general, the admin corps take the view that you think. There are legitimate concerns about processes that can be gamed, or provide for intense drama. And there are very legitimate reasons to want to be sure that admins can take unpopular actions. And, despite the views of a small minority, there is very little evidence that "admin abuse" is a huge problem, or even a mid-sized problem. (I think no one will disagree that sometimes it happens, and sometimes it goes unpunished, and that this is not a good thing.) I am thinking along the lines of a very lightweight process, mandatory for all (so that admins who are brave enough to wade into the most political difficult situations don't end up calling up for recall all the time), and which provides for significant protection for admins. I am thinking of something like "Upon the 1st anniversary as an admin, subject to a reconfirmation vote, 50%+1 majority required to remain as admin." The idea of doing it only after a year is to provide strong short-term protection, to prevent random recall actions when we are feeling in a "lynch mob" mood. Also, I am thinking at the moment of a one-time thing, i.e. a probationary year as an admin, and then you're an admin just as things are in place today. If political opposition to this seems too high, then it could be grandfathered in as a part of the new-admin RfA process. The point here would be to make it easier, over time, to remove people who don't work out as admins in a low-drama way, in order to make it possible to accept more people, which in turn would make it more attractive for potential candidates to get through.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Again, it is incorrect to draw conclusions based on these stats in isolation; standards have increased across the Project, and articles that passed FAC in past years would not pass today. People are drawing faulty conclusions from stats. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think people are drawing wrong conclusions at all. Of course these stats can't be viewed in isolation; I don't think anyone is doing so.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

As I said, "in isolation". People should realize these trends are Wiki-wide, not just at RFA. Admins passed in past years when standards were lax-- same can be said of articles that passed FAC in past years, same for GA, etc. Just as many old FAs or GAs are out of compliance with current standards, some admins passed in the earlier days of the Project are too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You have a valid point. My point is that I think everyone is taking that into account. It is a well-known fact. I don't think people are drawing wrong conclusions nor looking at any of this in isolation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo, following on from your request at my talk page, some links. The discussion earlier this year was at WP:CDA and WT:CDA and related pages. The data on the !votes are summarised here and it is worth noting that "Among the supports, approximately 19% (31/167) were from admins. Amongst opposes, 55% (106/190) were admins" (quoting from this discussion). Looking at the numbers in a different way, opposition from admins ran at about 106/(106+31) = 77.4%; amongst non-admins, opposition ran at about 84/(136+84) = 38.2%.

I concur with you that there are "legitimate concerns about processes that can be gamed, or provide for intense drama" and that "there are very legitimate reasons to want to be sure that admins can take unpopular actions". Despite the views some hold of me, I am neither ignorant nor foolish. However, I take issues of principle over pragmatism very seriously. As a matter of principle, accountability is crucial for a functioning community and I believe there is insufficient accountability of the admin corps to the community. Consequently, I favour a community de-sysoping mechanism of some sort. I recognise that many have legiitimate concerns over gaming, but I strongly disagree that concerns over gaming is a valid basis for opposing any mechanism being established. To me, there should be a two-stage decision process: (1) should a community-based desysop mechanism be established? (2) having decided to establish one, what should it be? The arguments about gaming are being used to frustrate a "yes" to the first question, in effect elevating pragmatism over principle. I believe that some admins are doing this out of self-interest, and that most are acting in the earnest belief that they are doing what is best for the 'pedia; however, I disagree with them because the argument that something is hard to do is really not a good reason not to try.

You also wrote that "despite the views of a small minority, there is very little evidence that "admin abuse" is a huge problem, or even a mid-sized problem". Here, I'm afraid, we disagree. I think there is regular admin abuse, but that most of it is fairly low-level. It is, however, having a corrosive effect on the credibility of the admin corps as a whole, and damaging governance here in a way that is only getting worse. One need not spend long watching WP:ANI to see admins closing ranks to protect and excuse actions of admins that would draw a strong response if that same action was taken by a "regular" editor. Admin and ArbCom actions at times do strongly communicate that WP:NOBIGDEAL should be marked as historical, whether those messages are intended or not. Thid place does have governance problems. Now, it is also true that admins (and ArbCom) are regularly criticised unfairly, and some of that small minority (as you put it) are pursuing an ideological crusade that generates a lot of unnecessary heat in the process of highlighting some genuine issues. We should not throw the baby out with the bath water, but the water does need changing from time to time. I am one editor, one who only has 3000 or so edits, so my departure certainly would make no difference to this place, but I have certainly considered leaving at times and admin behaviour has been a factor in my thoughts. EdChem (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC) (NB: Post written about 6 h ago, but internet connection lost while writing...  :( EdChem (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC))

Hi Ed, I'm sorry that you've had bad experiences with one or more admins and that it has made you consider leaving. But please remember there are currently 783 active admins, which is easily enough for some people to be aware of admins who they think do a good job, and at the same time for there to be an unknown number of bad admins, but also for the reverse to be true. As for whether there should be a community based method to desysop or otherwise censure admins, we the community elect Arbcom, we as individuals can raise grievances with the editor concerned and if that doesn't work we can then escalate matters. I believe that if people have a legitimate gripe and the admins concerned don't respond appropriately to complaints, then we have a reasonably fair and effective system. If we include those who resigned controversially, or failed a reconfirmation, there are currently 85 former admins at Wikipedia:Former_administrators who would need an RFA to get the bit back. So some of us consider that we already have a community based desysopping system in place. If you've tried to address a situation under that system and found the process unsatisfactory then I'd like to suggest you either suggest how the system could change, or in the forthcoming election vote for Arbs who you think would run it better. But if you are aware of people who you consider to be bad admins, and neither you nor others have tried to address things under the current system, what reassurance can you give people like myself who broadly support the current system that replacing it with a new system would address the problem of people not using the available system? ϢereSpielChequers 21:53, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a wacky idea ("wacky" is often politely phrased as "thinking outside the box" hmmm): how about giving admins limited access to the sysop bit, so that they can appoint new admins unless their appointment is challenged, in which case, we get an RfA. This would at least save bureaucracy in cases where an RfA would snow, and might help make consensus appointments in the sense that no one strongly objects. Such a model was suggested to me by the GA process, in which articles can be listed as GA by an individual editor, but if their judgement is unsound or contested, the article will also likely be delisted! Geometry guy 22:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't want many admins I know to have that ability, and almost everyone who might receive the bit this way would be challenged by someone going in, and have a cloud over their adminship depending on who gave them the bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if it were only very temporarily? Bad appointments might even draw attention to bad admins. An appointment under a cloud would likely be challenged. I agree that it is a wacky idea, but we need to be inventive here to inspire even better ideas. Geometry guy 23:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, so bad appointments draw attention to bad admins, more editors and articles are damaged in the interim, and we're right back here-- how to deal with the bad admins, only more of them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this would work, but it would need to be the crats appointing admins, not admins appointing admins. If such appointed admins were on say a 6 month appointment and at the end they could choose between RFA and giving up the bit then I think this would be workable. ϢereSpielChequers 23:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I will ask the problem I often ask when similar proposals re made: What is the problem that we seek to solve by this? I very cautiously agree with Sandy that this is very likely a bad ida, but I'd like know: why?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This meshes well with the probationary period/apprenticeship idea stemming from Wikiversity, discussed below. If, rather than just handing out bits like candy, an admin were forced to take on an apprentice, it might work. That apprentice would have admin tools, but could use them only in limited fashion - obvious blocks from AIV reports, for example, and clear consensus deletions. Every action would be subject to oversight by the mentor. After 1 month (or whatever), the apprentice may go to RFA with their mentor's nomination, strengthened because the mentor had a close working-on-admin-things relationship with the apprentice, and there is a track record of admin actions on which to base an RFA decision. This might also mitigate the worry over what the candidate will do as an admin - we know, because we can tell from the record. There's some appeal to the idea, honestly - and it would certainly turn admin coaching on its head! UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We could call them "padawan learners", which would be cool. But I still don't see the need.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Responses 2

The mantra "desysopping is way to hard" isn't actually convincing. Firstly, while everyone agrees there are bad admins who should be desysopped, no one would agree who they are - except the ones so obvious that arbcom does desysop. No one has ever pointed to any case where there's a consensus that the system failed - and even if they did, one (or ten) swallow doeth not a summer make. OTOH the cost to creating a system is high. What we'd have is lots of attempts to desysop, many instituted for revenge or political reasons, wasting time and getting no consensus to desysop in the end. (If anything were obvious enough to get a consensus to desysop it would have to be so bad that arbcom would have desysopped anyway. Plus, and this needs considered, an atmosphere of "let's impeach admins for failures" may well serve to deter people from wanting the mop. Second, compulsory recall proposals are perennial and always fail. As long as you need a consensus for a change, there will be none here. If you want a solution, you need to look elsewhere.

The narrower point that the community will not take a chance on a borderline admin candidate, because it can't change its mind later, is well-founded. So, focus on that. Allow crats to promote borderline candidates (60%+) on a "provisional basis." That type of scrutiny means that the process is focused narrowly on the problem itself, rather than being getting caught up in a recall process for 1,000 admins which has major implications (and as much as some like it, isn't going to happen). All you need to say is that "provisional promotions" must be reconfirmed 2-3 months later - and during the "provisional period" a failing candidate may be desysopped on the say-so of any two crats or arbs. The candidate can always appeal to the community by filing a fresh RFA. There's nuances on this type of idea, but it is clearly workable and doesn't get bogged down on the separate and contentions question of recall. --Scott Mac 14:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

• My own opinion, on point 3, is that despite my opposition to the recent proposals, I agree in principle. Anyone who thinks AbrCom is unwilling to desysop hasn't been paying attention; but we can't do it over a he said she said, or over random claims. There needs to be a simpler and easier process that allows the community to address consistently poor admins (the current processes pretty much only allow an ArbCom case in really egregious incidents as Sandy notes above).

  The problem is, any such process must be fair, and resistant to gaming. The best framework, IMO, would be simple: have a process (RfC-like?) the result of which, at its conclusion, is brought to arbcom who can then make a simple three-way ruling: "no issue", "must return to RfA", "looses bit". Have a sane enough quorum to prevent kneejerks and the number of such cases can be easily managed. — Coren ^(talk) 14:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

  • I've no problem with that suggestion for its own sake. However, I'm not that confident that it will move a whole lot of RFA voters to vote differently, plus its a long and humiliating process to sack a admin who is doing his best, but just isn't up to it. In short it is a jump into the dark with no clear gains for RFA. My suggestion above is more focused on the problem and will certainly make a difference to RFA passes.--Scott Mac 14:51, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Well, the perception that it's impossible to get rid of a bad admin at least should be eased by a clear and simple process. I think that people will be less hesitant to support a candidate they would otherwise have been ambivalent about if they feel that an erroneous promotion can be reversed. But I don't think that a failed "provisional" sysop would be any less humiliating. Your own proposal has merit for one class of problem (borderline cases at promotion), but doesn't address the issue of existing admins whose behavior has been consistently poor which — as far as I can tell — is what moves a number of editors to be extraordinarily demanding at RfA. — Coren ^(talk) 14:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I think my proposal might end up with a lot of people voting "support on a provisional basis", knowing they can then wait a couple of months and re-assess based on the evidence of performance. I suspect the desysopping of a provisional admin would seldom happen - it's the fact that there's a reconfirmation later that would enable people to take a chance. Again, I'd simply say that a more general "easy desysop" is perennially debated and never gets consensus - granted it might change voting habits. But the might and the fact it isn't going to happen means you should look for a more focused solution or nothing will actually change.--Scott Mac 15:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Not being familiar with any past proposals, I think a proces not unlike RfA is the best option, with an added threshold to prevent abuse: 1) An editor nominates an admin for desysopping. 2) Three admins must validate the nomination by checking if the nomination has merit. 3) Once validated, actual discussion ensues with all editors participating. 4) A steward evaluates the discussion and removes the bit when appropriate. — Edokter • Talk • 15:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
  • We have that process already. If there are concerns about an admin, an WP:RFC can be started. Upon conclusion a request for desysop can be filed with ArbCom, if that's where the evidence and opinions lead to. Jehochman ^Talk 14:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
    • In theory, yes. But right now, it always is (a) poorly focused RfCs (we need a focused alternative) and (b) leads to full cases rather than a simple "close by motion". Both are simple to implement, but need community support. — Coren ^(talk) 14:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I also have a test case up now, to see if DR works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
• Scott Mac's idea to have provisional appointments for RfA candidates with only moderately good levels of support is excellent.

Such provisional appointments would, for example, help to recruit administrators with experience of working on controversial topics. Such candidates attract oppose votes from points of view they have challenged in the past, which does not necessarily mean they will make bad administrators. Further, if they are overly involved or partisan, this is likely to become apparent relatively quickly.

I see this primarily as a method to increase numbers of RfA candidates and admins (it would have no effect on accountability in the longer term). It would also give bureaucrats more flexibility to exercise their judgment in interpreting support percentages in the 60-75% range. Geometry guy 18:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Responses 3

1. Should we actively recruit more candidates for RFA? Yes, but not in my view until we have fixed RFA. Persuading people to subject themselves to the current hazing ceremony is ethically dubious and while I will support people who I think would make good admins, I for one am not currently recruiting them. I'm not even sure I'd be willing to nominate someone who volunteered for it.
2. Should we change the standards to make RFA easier to pass? Some standards are worth challenging and reviewing, particularly to see if there is any evidence that they differentiate between good and bad admins. But I don't think we should be simply lowering them generally. I fear that RFA is probably easier to game than it was at times in the past. I would like to see RFA more civil and more focussed on what the candidate has done, as I suspect that the over emphasis on the question section is distracting attention from the candidates' recent edits. More importantly we should discuss what the standards should be outside of individual RFAs, real life recruitment panels don't debate whether the job requires proficiency in foo while they are interviewing a candidate, they discuss what they are looking for in advance and put at least the minimum criteria in the job ad.
3. In principle I like the suggestion of probationary adminship for the first year, but when I last looked through past desysoppings the problems seemed to emerge after multiple years, with longterm admins losing touch with the community norms. I think that a better solution to that would be some sort of ongoing training or refreshers for tools that particular admins use rarely. But while I'm not convinced that the probationary system solution would screen out many problematic admins, I'd support it if it might address people's concerns about the deadminning process even though I think those concerns illfounded. Incidentally the House of Lords comparison is interesting, if only because the real as opposed to perceived rate of desyopping of admins has been orders of magnitude greater than the frequency of sacking or suspending members of the House of Lords. I think that Arbcom's record in desysopping is wildly underrated by those who want to replace rather than reform them, and I'd suggest that a discussion on what actual changes Arbom could make would be far more productive than yet another attempt to create a community deadminship system. Not least because I don't see how you can square the circle of creating a system that couldn't be gamed from offsite but didn't result in people continuing as admins against the expressed will of a majority of participating wikipedians, other than by electing or randomly picking a panel to handle such incidents.
4. The mop has many useful features, and I think that we should be aiming to have all longterm, experienced, civil, clueful editors become admins if they are willing to take on the role. With a stable or even a slowly declining editor community the number of admins should I believe be rising as those who remain become generally more experienced. But actually we have a fast dwindling cadre of active admins, with all the penalties that brings, including I fear admins effectively gaining some perceived status simply from their scarcity value; and we risk admins becoming a caste apart as they find more of their wikitime taken up by admin stuff and less by normal editing. If current trends continue then eventually we won't have enough admins to always be sure we have admins at AIV etc, I don't know whether we will hit that next year or in three or four years, but the trend is clear, has been consistent for two and a half years and is deeply problematic. I'd prefer we fix RFA before we discover the hard way what our minimum number of active admins is. ϢereSpielChequers 16:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

These are great questions. Thoughts:

1. A more numerous and varied admin corps would be useful. As for why people won't apply in the first place—as Sandy said, there is a class of editors who have been around long enough to have made enemies in their (quality) content work and won't pass an RfA under the present system, requiring 75 or 80 percent support. It's one of the reasons why I wouldn't apply; having worked on Scientology and cult topics, and taken stands on contentious BLP and "censorship" issues, I would expect a prohibitive number of opposes on that basis.
2. I agree that many of the present admins wouldn't pass if they launched an RfA today, with current support requirements. It's unsatisfactory to have sitting admins who might perhaps garner 60% support, while new candidates with a similar support ratio are disqualified. Making it easier for editors to become admins, by lowering the number/percentage of supports needed to a simple two-thirds majority, would help address this imbalance.
   I'd also like us to factor in candidates' content work. I was so sorry to see this RfA fail (useful comments by closing crat) – a knowledgeable, intelligent and conscientious content editor who I am sure would have been an asset as an admin. If a candidate has written GAs or FAs, or has consistently made solid input to processes like GA, FAC and FAR, we should add 5–10% to the support vote. It would gradually increase the number of admins who do quality content work, and increase editors' motivation to do and mature through such work—both good things.
3. I'm in favour of making it easier to lose the bit, especially if we make it easier to get it. If we truly believe that "adminship isn't a big deal", then it shouldn't be a big deal to lose it. All admins should be subject to a biennial reconfirmation vote (that is, if they are up for doing the job for another two years), based exclusively on the quality of their admin actions over the previous two-year period, and requiring 50%+ support to pass. For new admins, the first reconfirmation could be after 6–12 months, so that misjudgments can be corrected within a reasonable time. If an admin fails reconfirmation, they can re-apply after a year or 6 months. Every successful system of governance has limited terms of office, with built-in accountability and transparency. Society learned these lessons the hard way, and we ignore them at our peril. I believe that accountability to the community will have a positive effect on admin performance, making admins more circumspect and conscientious.
4. I don't know the ideal number of admins, but at any rate, we don't seem to have enough for some tasks. We all know there are backlogs, and it is often always the same regulars that take care of specific tasks. --JN466 18:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

If "[a]ll admins [are] subject to a biennial reconfirmation vote", they will be less likely to make the hard calls, knowing they won't be reconfirmed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that is part of growing a culture that rewards admins who act with integrity and circumspection. It's a system that works perfectly well in wider society – no one would argue that democratically elected politicians are hamstrung by the requirement of submitting to another election at the end of their term – and it works perfectly well with the arbitration committee. I'll grant you that admins would be less likely to stick their necks out towards the end of their terms – just like politicians do the hard stuff at the beginning of their terms, and lower taxes at the end of them – but tenures for life simply do not have a good track record in human history. --JN466 00:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

But this isn't the real world, not even close. (Added: for starters, in the real world, you have to be 18 to vote, for good reason, but that isn't possible to implement on Wiki. ^{SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)}) Again, the FAC example: pride in your work. If someone else's FA is crap, it makes your FA worth less. The kind of pride attached to writing an FA is not evident in the admin corp; they don't police their own, they don't make sure policy is upheld when another admin is involved, there is a double standard at ANI where admins are rarely held accountable. Hence, the calls for stronger desysopping processes or better standards at RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So you feel that limited admin terms, combined with the present arbcom desysopping process, would still be too weak or cumbersome, and that the real problem is that RfA picks the wrong people? Do you think giving more weight to content work at RfA would help?

I agree with you that double standards at ANI are sometimes painfully obvious. I guess that is human. We should not forget that WP:AN/I and WP:AE are really only a small part of what admins do, overall. A lot of admin jobs are tedious gnoming tasks. I am struck by the fact that ANI is popping up in a lot of complaints about admins; there are few complaints about admins' vandal-fighting or copyright work. --JN466 01:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think term limits would be a mistake, for reasons I've given elsewhere on this page. I think we need a separate Arb process to examine admin misuse of tools, hopefully speedier than the full cases we see now, which often involve other issues. I think RFA picks the wrong people, but that overfocus on content creation is not the way to go-- some editors specialize in other areas, and if they are proven trustworthy, it doesn't bother me that they haven't created top content. The problem at RFA is that candidates were evidencing knowledge of the Project, policy and writing via DYKs, which showed only, in many cases, that they could plagiarize non-reliable sources quicker than the average bear. We need the gnomes as well as the top content people, but we need for RFA to scrutinize them adequately to make sure they have evidenced that they can be trusted with *all* the tools, and we need to be able to get rid of the bad apples faster and easier, without so much burden placed on those who do write content, as they are the ones most often affected by the bad apples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Jayen, not true at all... there are plenty of people who would argue that one of the biggest mistakes we've made was to put judge on ballots. See the Iowa results where the judges who voted for Gay Marraige were all ousted.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm delighted that we are discussing these issues.

1. Recruit more? It seems to me that people who are suited to do this will know whether or not they want to do this, but it's reasonable to ask whether the RfA system should be made more attractive.
2. Easier RfA standards? It seems to me that, ultimately, the community needs to be able to determine whether or not a candidate has our trust. If that results in high standards, so be it. I think we should continue to examine ways to have administrators who are empowered only in specific areas, even though no proposal to date has gained traction. My suggestion for an empirical question: How frequently do those who oppose or !vote neutral at RfA say explicitly that they would have supported if a better de-sysop procedure existed?
3. Easier procedure for de-sysoping? Not surprisingly (given my experiences with WP:CDA), I have a lot of opinions about this!
   • Jimbo, a big part of the reason why these questions showed up on your talk is that you are so closely associated with the "no big deal" formulation. It seems to me that administrators have the abilities to (1) block users, and (2) delete pages, and these abilities most definitely are big deals, because of the impact they can have on other members of the community. If we determine that a user can be trusted with these powers, that's a big deal. On the other hand, administrators should not use that fact to swagger around as if they know more than the rest of us with respect to editing in general. Most of them, by far, don't do that, but a few do. That's where the tension is located.
   • You noted above, as have many others, that some administrators who passed in the early years of RfA would have a hard time passing now. We often assume that this means that the standards now have become too difficult, but there is no empirical evidence for that conclusion. It seems logical, unless one considers the community to have become irrational, that experience has shown that the standards used to be too low.
   • For that reason, there are limitations to the usefulness of having a one-year review of new administrators. It won't do anything about administrators from before, where, in fact, the issue may be (in a few instances) more relevant.
   • As a comment to all and sundry, anyone proposing a new procedure needs to read, carefully, Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC, as well as TenOfAllTrades' essay Wikipedia:De-adminship proposal checklist. Ignore that at your own risk!
   • Part of what I took away from CDA is that there is a very serious concern among a lot of very thoughtful Wikipedians, administrators and non-administrators alike, that it would be unacceptable to expose administrators to a procedure that is too easily swayed by popular passions. For that reason, I think some of the talk here has been a bit too hard on ArbCom. My opinion has evolved to the belief that any recall procedure actually needs to be decided by ArbCom, who can determine when a complaint is without merit, and not by a community poll. And I believe that ArbCom is up to the task. The unsolved problem, instead, is how to get proposals for desysoping in front of ArbCom, how to give the Committee a useful take on community sentiment, and how to make it manageable for concerned editors to get the case heard without feeling that they will be pilloried for raising the case. Perhaps we need to figure out a better variation on RfC/U, designed for this purpose.
4. Right number of admins? I don't know, but being able to accomplish all the needed work, with some redundancy, seems like the proper ends.

Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Responses 4

Jimbo....

• 1...The most common reason I have heard why people don't want to be admins is because they don't want to do admin duties. The community seems to want admin candidates to already have a nearly complete understanding of admin chores and to have been actively engaged in admin related tasks for some time...something many admin candidates haven't done because they don't understand these areas yet or simply aren't that interested in them. I found most admin chores to be tedious and boring.
• 2...It should be easier to become an admin...there absolutely needs to be 5 more or less written in stone questions on every Rfa...ALL other questions should be on the Rfa talkpage...these mainpaged questions should ask only questions that pertain directly to admin chores. Rfa's should disallow lengthy battlegrounds on the main Rfa page...that should be relegated to the Rfa talkpage. But with standards rising, expectations increasing and potential candidates seeing the gauntlet of questions, under the belt punches and snide commentary, it's not surprising to me that fewer potentials are showing up for their shallacing...for many of these potentials, the scrutiny isn't worth the reward.
• 3...Arbcom has had a history of allowing greater latitude for seasoned editors and admins than less "powerful" and or newer editors....this is not a surprise and I agree with your sentiments. There have been a few admins who have lost their bit via an arbcom case for less than persuasive reasons...however, in the vast majority of cases, most admins defrocked by arbcom deserved it, myself included.
• 4...Unless we are backlogged on admin chores not being addressed, then we currently have a sufficient number of admins. The only time to do more recruiting is if the current number of admins are overwhelmed by the backlogs.
• Thoughts: I'm not sure were recruiting enough new and qualified editors...we have made the website user-friendly only to those that have been around long enough/are around often enough to keep abreast of the changes. Articles are template loaded (I'm very guilty of this) and the editing text looks like Martian to newbies lost in a myriad of template/infobox/reference embedded links...new editors try to add refs but get yelled at or have their changes reverted because they didn't understand our citation templates...some longer established editors don't want to help newbies and dread "cleaning up" after them, even though most of the newbies are doing the best they can.--MONGO 23:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with Mongo on points 1 and 2. Re, "The most common reason I have heard why people don't want to be admins is because they don't want to do admin duties", I hear exactly the opposite. Even editors who mostly contribute content say they could make use of the tools if they had them, for example, instead of having to go to AIV for routine vandal whacking, but they don't want to be part of the admin corp because of concerns about poor site governance and abuse, and they aren't interested in running the gauntlet at RFA when they feel the overall system is broken and they would rather stay in their comfortable article writing corners. On 2., if there were only five set-in-stone questions, the reward culture adherents would just learn to answer those questions, and if the give-and-take, free-for-all at RFA is reduced, we will screen out less bad candidates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly agree woht point 2. Most of the questions are irrelevant or irreverent. It has gotten out of hand. Sven Manguard _Talk 16:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with Sandy here. Sure many people would find having the tools EASY, but also many people know that the tediousness, required policy knowledge and drama around admin tasks is just not something with which they want to spent time. It has nothing to do with a "corruptness", governance or anything like that, which is holding people back. It's the simple fact that being an admin is NOT fun. For that reason, I'm an admin that focusses on 4 things, MediaWiki namespace, protected templates, javascript/css and some image cleanup. I chose not to be involved in other areas, and explicitly even mentioned/requested it in my RfA, and I got trough without trouble in 2009. I do not WANT to whack a vandal, delete articles, do dispute resolution or what not. It's not my thing and I hate it and I think that actually goes for many. Everyone wants to have a gun and pepperspray, but few people want to actually be a cop, social worker, concierge, shrink, kindergarten teacher and judge at the same time (which really is a better summary than "admin") and be accountable for it as well. It's as simple as that.

Wikipedia from its early days has largely been a Laissez-faire type of community. I see a lot of indications from editors that think this should change, on all levels of the userscale (give whacko's less room to make their points, kick out admins who make an occasional mistake). Such is fine, we can become a more stricter community, but such a thing by definition will be a very slow process, much slower than anyone of those people will ever appreciate. Status quo is usually a strong position for a reason. Being more strict will mean throwing many people out of the community, be it fair or not. It will include mistakes and more room for misunderstandings (people just can't protest them anymore). It might make a nicer community that will be more "friendly" again for newcomers, but it will also cost us a lot of the traditional freedom and openness that we have. It will downgrade WP:IAR to the backseat and people will still be pissed off (this time because we are too strict). I'm not saying I have the answer, but to say that we have a lack of admins simply because (summarized) "admins are perceived as a corrupt bunch by editors" is an oversimplification of the problems. Wikipedia is an Internet website, with all the social problems of any website that is open to all. I have seen the same problems in usenet groups, mailingslists and forum boards. There is no easy solution, except creating your own fortress, ruling it with an iron fist and throwing out everyone you don't like. We are open and openness is inherently flawed and beautiful in that way. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm watching John Lennon in preparation for the possible TFA on the 30th anniversary of his death, and I had to take 13 minutes to file a 3RR report today (maybe I'm dumber and slower than the average bear), so I can see why even if you rarely use the tools, it would be nice for more competent people to have them ... and that's what I hear from lots of people ... even if they weren't regular vandal whackers, they could be more productive if they had the tools, but they just don't want to go there. Of course, my sample has selection bias, as does everyone's :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A modest proposal by Jclemens...

My thoughts on adminiship are influenced by Iridescent: The way to keep your perspective as an administrator is to keep being an editor. She took a year or so off, hung up the bit and all. Of course, there's no way for an administrator in good standing to “hang up the bit” permanently: it's always there for the asking, such that Iridescent was never on equal footing with non-administrators—not only could she not repudiate the right to ask for the bit back without an RfA, she cannot be expected to disavow the friendship and/or respect of those who respect her choice. Yet, somehow she continued along, building the encyclopedia, and as she had resigned the bit absent any “good reason” to, returned from her self-enforced sabbatical and is once again an administrator in good standing.

Administrators who are content creators should remain content-creators, because the administrative tasks are dreadful, and doing administration work to the exclusion of all other encyclopedia-building cannot help but pervert the perspective of administrators—the Mugabe syndrome, as others have opined above.

To this end, I think we should decrease the emphasis on administration-related task history for administrator candidates, and increase the emphasis on content creation, both in the RfA process, as well as any reconfirmation process we may enact. If we don't want a set of mandarins, which I do not, we need to have administrators who keep up their content creation, which many currently do not.

Thus, if we're going to have a de-admin process, I think it should be a periodic, rather than pitchfork-initiated process. Looking at the sum total of an admin's contributions—content creation, administrative tool use, dispute resolution, activity, and the like—should that admin retain the bit? Periodic, universal review could be accreditation-like: based on the outcome of the review, an administrator could be (for example) demoted, retained for review in six months, a year, or two years. Accompanying this administrator review would be comments on the administrator's conduct, strengths, and weaknesses, offered with the ostensible goal of improving the administrator's job performance.

Probably too much work to actually succeed, but I like it better than anything else I've seen here so far. Jclemens (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

So, unless I'm mistaken, if the recall process puts the most emphasis on content creation while being an admin, admins who don't do much or any content creation should be demoted for actually using the tools that they applied for more than they created content? Exactly how many administrators would that affect? 100? 200? Would we be left with a vast shortage of admins, those of which are so caught up in content creation that they aren't all that active in using the tools? The Thing ^T/_C 14:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

If the goal is to have more admins, yes. I want to maintain a set of working content-creator admins, who are elected and retained from within the corps of content creators, not a professional corps of mandarins who serve like sheepdogs, corralling the sheep (content creators) through threats while contributing no content themselves. If you don't see anything wrong with that, then I agree, my proposal won't further that end. Jclemens (talk) 17:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that your proposal would do away with admins who don't contribute any content... like certain specialist admins, anti-vandal admins, etc... but it seems I was mistaken. If I read your last post right, non-content creating admins who don't bother the content creators at all, who just stay in their own area are just fine with having the tools, correct? The sock that should not be (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that's a more positive way of viewing it, yes. This is an encyclopedia we're making here, and the acme of admin success should be "Does this administrator contribute to encyclopedia-building and improvement?" If an admin is fighting vandals (good) but occasionally driving off good-faith new users (bad), then they need counsel to improve--unless they're so egregiously bad that they're a net-negative to the project. Jclemens (talk) 02:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'll make my answers easy:
  • 1 = Yes. I recruited many people to run for adminship back in 07 and 08, many of whom still are active today. I stopped trying over a year ago because RfA continued to get more and more malicious. Some have given that as their reason, while others just did not have a need for the tools. This leads to...
  • 2 = Absolutely, Yes. RfA should be relatively easy and harmless to pass, not the gauntlet of hell it is now. To go back to if we're searching for the right things, here's a common trend I notice. User joins Wikipedia, reverts vandalism for a few months, does a great job of it. User applies for RfA, so they can block instead of having to report all the time. These used to get through fine, now none of them pass because they don't write articles. They now either turn to writing to gain the tools or leave the sight completely, leaving fewer and fewer vandalism reverters; that's why more seems to slip through nowadays.
  • 3 = Absolutely, yes as well Conversely, it should be easy enough to remove the tools when they're being abused; I know I didn't exactly make any friends with some of my desysops. Members of Arbcom cannot be afraid to desysop, especially when they're the only way to do it. I think Arbcom has gotten better in doing this, with the caveat that the admin has to actually get the case opened against them. That process, however, is an entirely different story.
  • 4 = I'm not sure. I don't think it's that we're short or big on admins, but rather the types of admins. Image and other copyright-esque problems tend to have much greater backlogs then say, CSD. This means we have to find image admins that would deal with these issues. Problem is that they don't often write articles, which goes back to my other point. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 00:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• I should think that I would be more of a liability to the project as a content editor than I am as an admin - at best I am a fair copy editor, and while the aim is for more and better sysops I think we already are oversubscribed with not-even-mediocre content providers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Term Limits

You asked for a philosophical approach, so here it is... I'm expecting pitchforks, nonetheless. Q3: It is clear that in any stratified group of human beings where some have rights which others don't have, it always comes to the point where the Mugabe-syndrome kicks in. The man was arguably Africa's most respected and successful leader, but morphed into a despot over time, having lost touch with the ideals that once guided him. As wikipedia is approaching its 10th anniversary, it was foreseeable that such tendencies will surface here as well; whether that is already the case or we're merely seeing isolated incidents is for others to decide. Currently, the only way to counter these tendencies is by punitive de-sysopping, accompanied by humiliation, bandwagons, and dirty laundry. The only fair and unemotional method is term-limits; that way, great administrators can leave "in honor." Furthermore, elections and appointments to the post can be handled as "if s/he's unfit, the worst we'll have to live with is X years" as opposed to "all we can do now is sit and wait until so-and-so drops dead." This question will have to be dealt with sooner or later; there won't be any use in a wikipedia that's dominated by 80-year-olds who dream about good ole 2001, and on the internet, the equivalent of 80 years is probably much shorter. When this project was started, nobody thought about this because nobody even thought we'd see this thing running for 10 years. If the situation remains as it is, a (methaphorical) 20-year-old will have to wait until a 90-year-old congressman dies; by that time, the 20-year-old will himself be 60. Alright. Go get the pitchforks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

No, because if an abusive admin's "term" is about to expire, they might become more abusive and grudgeful as the term-end approaches (yes, we do have abusive and grudge-holding admins, and yes, I do think they would go out with a flame if they knew they were about to lose the bit). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I was expecting all sorts of pitchforks, but not this one... ah well... like I said, I expected to be shouted down, just like anyone else will be picthforked. The bottom line is that nothing will change. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:37, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

That raises the important question, then, of why there hasn't been movement towards bringing those administrators before ArbCom? I mean, I'm not about to claim that all admins are of equal temperance, but "abusive and grudge-holding" is certainly something I'd want to look at. — Coren ^(talk) 22:41, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I'm in a position to answer that :) When I was targetted by an admin, years ago, I knew fersure that if I went to the arbs, I'd lose; he had too many powerful friends, I was a nobody, and his abuse was tolerated by the community. I worked my arse off for more than a year, built whatever "reputation" I have, waited while he abused again and again until enough others saw it, and then had to sit out a four-month case, with evidence that took me three weeks to prepare. WHAT regular editor wants to go through that or has the time? Most-- many-- just leave in disgust and feel powerless. The admin was desysopped, but the process took too long and way too much of my time, which I could have been using for something else. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Reading Coren's question and Sandy's reply gave me an "aha moment". Having come to Wikipedia much more recently than Sandy did, I too found myself targeted by an abusive and grudge-holding admin (in my case, because I advocated some content edits that contradicted that person's POV). I found myself being accused, preposterously, of being a sock, but only via snide and threatening remarks, never through process such as SPI. I felt much as Sandy had felt, that if I went through dispute resolution, I would, as a new editor, have been beaten up. I privately e-mailed ArbCom and two Arbs very kindly put warnings on the admin's talk page, but the admin effectively ignored them and continued to persecute me. Similarly to Sandy, I have concentrated on doing good editing work, and by now, the person in question simply leaves me alone most of the time. Coren asks why such cases, that the Committee would in fact want to look at, do not get in front of the Committee. I suggested above that this is exactly the problem as I see it. CDA was obviously the wrong answer, and I'm still not sure what the right answer is, but perhaps some sort of improvement on RfC/U, designed for this purpose, is what we need. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Another factor is that admins are loathe to judge other admins (hence, the double standard at ANI), and that is something I'm somewhat sympathetic to (except that it goes WAAAY too far). It's not helpful when people second-guess me at FAC, so I can understand somewhat the reluctance to judge another admin without a full airing of the case, which ANI is not equipped to provide (because of the peanut gallery aspect there). Why not set up a separate arb forum or committee specifically to look at misuse of admin tools, that could be handled more expeditiously, outside of the huge cases they are usually attached to? Right now, we only have RFC, and 1) few weigh in except those that are already involved, 2) grudge-holders and axe-grinders weigh in on both sides, and 3) many people weighing in don't even read the evidence-- they just opine based on "friendship". They don't have what FAC has-- the knowledge that the result of your work will go on display on the mainpage for "the whole world" to see, so you'd better get it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Because we have appointed very few admins in the last 30 months the vast majority of our active admins would be caught by term limits even as short as three years, so any term limit proposal has to confront the issue of how you implement it without running low on admins. Even if you allow people to stand for additional terms, you face the problem that many simply won't bother or wouldn't be appointed because they use the tools rarely - yet the sum total tool use of the infrequent users of the tools is very valuable to the pedia. If even a couple of hundred admins apply again how do physically handle that many RFAs in one hit? You also have to address the alternative explanation for the Mugabe syndrome, "power corrupts and absolute power is even more fun" - in that theory the fewer the admins the more likely they are to take on airs, so increasing their numbers would reduce the problem whilst reducing them by introducing term limits would increase it. Then there is the practical issue of institutional memory, our experienced longterm admins include people with all sorts of specialisms and a huge amount of knowledge of various longterm vandals and other problems, discarding that or even a large proportion of that would not be good for the pedia. Lastly there is a philosophical issue, some of us still hold to the idea that admins should be part of the community, a large number of editors most of whom are primarily doing non-admin stuff, with the admin workload widely shared. If you want admins to be a small if temporary caste of users with relatively little time spent doing non-admin stuff, then those of us who have an opposing vision for the pedia will with respect oppose this suggestion. ϢereSpielChequers 23:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Now that's not a pitchfork, you have a point; I didn't necessarily suggest this to be retroactive -- what's done is done. I was trying to address the point for the future. I believe this would make electing admins easier. I know that people right now are loathe to let anyone with the slightest doubt to trustworthiness have the tools, and understandably so; I wouldn't want to elect God, either. However it may be, the problems your graphs point out is indeed there, and I share your concerns; no-one has found any way around this yet, esp. as this whole project grows. So I predict that within the next decade, you will indeed get to the point of a small elite-caste, regardless of term-limits... unless people are willing to simply take the risk and say "what the heck, just give'em the tools, and we'll see." As long as every diff of the past years is examined, you will find (my guess) maybe 2 or three "extra-laundry-bleach-clean" people who will in turn become the caste nobody wants. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I gotta disagree with that two or three extra clean notion: I have a long record of nomming candidates who sail through with high support ratios, are "clean" because they are knowledgeable and diligent editors of integrity and character, and behave well as admins. Good editors are out there, in droves; I could name a couple dozen with litle effort. They just don't want to be part of a corrupt club. If we get rid of the bad apples easier, more good apples will join up. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, We've discussed term limits at least once on WT:RFA so I just assumed that like previous suggestions you meant to include all existing admins, my bad. I'll concede that only introducing term limits for our trickle of new admins would be workable, but I think it would be very unfair, and those who want to use this to dispose of some existing admins won't be to keen on it either. So yes I agree this could work and therefore would be better than no change, but I think there are better potential reforms to RFA. ϢereSpielChequers 00:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe we have under 1,000 active admins at the moment. If every one of these had to be reconfirmed after expiry of a 2-year or 3-year term, this would imply about one admin reconfirmation RfA a day. That is more RfAs than the community has to deal with at present, but perhaps not an unmanageable number. The process could be staggered to begin with, beginning with the "oldest" admins, to avoid overwhelming the system, and reconfirmation RfAs could be left open for a longer time period (say, three weeks rather than the present week). With a three-week duration, you'd always have around 20 active reconfirmation RfAs showing in the RfA analysis table, and there'd be plenty of time to see if a valuable admin is on orange. --JN466 23:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I find this discussion a bit odd. On the one hand, people are saying there are not enough admins, and propose building an highway to replace the strait and narrow gate that admin candidates must pass through. On the other, there is a proposal to force all admins to submit to reconfirmation, which would lose us a fair percentage of admins, what percentage is open to question. Perhaps we should decide what the problem is before tossing out solutions.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it's because there are two different problems: not enough admins for routine admin tasks, and too many bad apples doing harm at the same time. The problem is, if we push through more admins for routine admin work, they can do damage in other ways, because they get (and can apply) all the tools, even if they don't know how to apply all of them. I rather imagine the RFA watchers are unhappy with the increased scrutiny and lower pass rates, and that problem will be solved by finding a way to desysop the bad apples. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Question: to what degree has careerism affected admins? My feeling is that because Wikipedia has become quite prominent, it is easy to picture that admin status could be something people might use to sell themselves; and much more so for ArbCom. The problem is, this would create a situation where Wikipedia disparages editors with a conflict of interest, yet is governed by those who have one. I would suggest that this may account for the continual push to increase the powers of ArbCom at the expense of the community and also the chronic shortage of admins, as both increase the prominence of the existing officeholders. Wnt (talk) 01:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I will admit that when (not often) I mention to people I am an admin on WP, they are impressed well beyond what the status deserves. It isn't very good as a pick up line for girls, though ...--Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

{{ec} I have no problem with "the prominence of the existing officeholders" considering 1) the number of children we have to supervise nowadays on Wiki, and 2) the seriousness of some of the issues the arbs have to deal with, often with the utmost of discretion and real world cnsequences. Both admins and arbs should be highly respected offices; when that respect is lost, arbs resign, but admins keep doing damage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you should overstate this; in the real world, I've been to places for research purposes, saying "I am writing an article for Wikipedia", and been met with blank looks. So I don't think that's much of an argument. Within WP, however, as a power structure goes, from editor to admin is a big jump, and to my mind, in terms of practical visibility, the jump to bureaucrat is in visibility terms somewhat less, simply because crats do not generally get involved in contentious issues. To steward is even less visible, because few editors even know what they do, let alone encounter their work, valuable though it is. And that leaves ArbCom, somewhat erroneously regarded as the "Supreme Court" of Wikipedia, and although it's an analogy, it's not a great one. Suppose that ArbCom decided on its mailing list to desysop and ban an admin, and announced that on WP:AN, without giving reasons beyond "per private evidence received off-Wiki". I doubt that the community would accept that, and AFAIK, the only times (if any) where this has happened has been supported by ex-post facto evidence. I'm tired now. Rodhullandemu 01:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea that will indirectly lead to big improvements in the whole system via community feedback. Suppose we have a system where there is a term limit of one year and then you have to wait 6 months before being allowed to be a candidate at RFA again. Everything else is initially kept the same. Then, some years later, many of the RFA candidates will be old Admins, allowing the community to select those former Admins with a good record.

What is then likely to happen is that the community will be reticent to accept first time RFA candidates, because they can't be judged in the same straightforward way as old Admins. But since we have to appoint new Admins as well, a new system will arise. E.g. you can imagine that first time RFA candidates will be given a shorter term limit of, say, 3 months after which they can immediately be an RFA candidate. That second RFA process will then be perceived to be the real RFA process where the RFA candidate is judged on his/her record as an Admin. Count Iblis (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We will lose admins through vindictiveness of !voters. We will lose others who went through Hell Week once and do not choose to do it again. Many of those will be admins we should not lose.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Apathy as well. I probably wouldn't bother attempting to regain the tools if a time limit were slapped on them. I didn't actively seek them the first time, and wouldn't actively seek them a second. But then in my case, that would lead only to the occasional increase in workload at WP:RFPP and WP:AIV. Resolute 03:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Neither would I, frankly. I didn't seek the tools either, I ran because I was asked to run, and was met with seven days of nastiness, comtempt, and attempts to settle the score. I'm proud of being an admin, but as I barely use the tools (mostly in my article work and a troll now and then), I doubt I'd bother to undergo the sort of comments that just took place at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I was lucky. It was a far less demanding process in 2007. And I'm definitely the same. I think if I was asked to run again, my entire statement would be "I write articles. Blocking trolls and protecting pages is useful. If that is good enough, great. If not, I've got work to do." Resolute 03:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

True. But if we cared about being retained in a new vote, for sure we could not have taken an unpopular position in the block discussion on Giano. For sure a vote loser, I bet.--Wehwalt (talk)

Yeah, made a few enemies with long memories there, didn't we? And that, of course, is the danger of sticking one's nose into the drama pit. I have a lot of respect for the admins who are able to tolerate the level of abuse they receive for dealing with the controversial cases. Resolute 04:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the RFA process as it exists leads to these sorts of problems, precisely because the process is not based on relevant facts (people cannot be judged on their previous record as there exists no such record). If almost all the candidates are former Admins, then this situation will change. Since we have about 1000 Admins, you can't have an RFA process as we have today, anyway. What can work is automatic renewal after 6 months since the term has expired, unless an RFA process is requested by a number of editors exceeding a certain threshold. There is no way all Admins can be subjected to this process, so the community has to be selective which former Admins are going to be discussed. There would thus be a "safety in numbers" for most Admins against frivolous proceedings. Count Iblis (talk) 04:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Since we have about 1000 Admins, you can't have an RFA process as we have today, anyway." It's feasible mathematically. If you start one reconfirmation RfA a day, you'll be through the entire admin list in less than three years. Assuming a 3-year term, that's all that is needed. I can see the logic in what you propose, but on the other hand, if it's a routine thing that every admin has to go through, it may attract a lot less drama than the process you propose. --JN466 05:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That would still be at least seven simultaneous reconfirmation RfA's every day for the rest of time, unless you're assuming that most of the admins will fail the reconfirmation RfA and therefore not run for a re-re-confirmation three years later. —Soap— 13:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The original stated premise was that a wonderful admin could "morph into a despot over time, having lost touch with the ideals that once guided him". One way to avoid that is to avoid granting admins the absolute power that can corrupt absolutely. At present, WP administrators have way more power than WP needs them to have. For example, bans and blocks could be reserved for very specific violations like 3RR or violations of WP:Civil. Gray-area cases that presently occupy a huge amount of time and lead to very controversial decisions could be placed off limits, or limited in number by requiring such situations to meet very clear criteria. With a clearer and more circumscribed authority, admins would find it harder to become despots. Moreover, the attraction for psychopaths prone to the Mugabe-syndrome to become admins would be gone. Brews ohare (talk) 18:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you have cited two rather problematical areas. There are admins who do not believe in blocks for incivility, and who act on that belief on a cowboy admin basis. And I think we saw last night how long Giano's 3RR block lasted--he was unblocked by an admin who then hastened to Giano's talk page and said " Giano, you know that I admire you as an editor and as a supporter of the Wikipedia principle" (diff here).--Wehwalt (talk) 19:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly believe instituting terms for adminship is one of the best things we could do for WP. It would logically make it much more likely that lowering the bar to adminship would be possible, either just through encouraging the community, or possibly through deciding to lower the required support needed to pass. It would also help to change some of the culture, which currently often views admins as an elite. It would tend to reduce the pressure on good admins that sometimes leads to burnout, and limit the damage caused by bad ones.

I think this proposal is at its best when it is kept simple, though. People seem to often want to fiddle with forcing a downtime, but I see no logical reason why this would have any significant benefits. The best part of this proposal is that, unlike jury proposals or many of the other fixes I've seen proposed, it is a very simple proposal that would not complicating the process much more than it already is, and should remain that way.

The community could test this out by encouraging admins to voluntarily set a term when going through RFA, and, at the end of that term, resigning as an admin or requesting a new RFA. Unlike the voluntary recall, it would take away some of the ambiguity when an admin claims the editors requesting the recall are not "in good standing" or whatever the arbitrary requirement might be. Yes, there would be no teeth if an admin failed to step down as claimed, but I think it would be a useful way to get editors to consider it. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Choices have consequences, and the price of term limits is a much smaller admin cadre. The fewer admins you have the more burnout you risk, and the fewer admins the more of an elite some will perceive them to be. If you want to support the term limit proposal you need to make a case for admins becoming a much smaller more elite group with collectively less experience and on average rather less Wiki time to spend on content building and other non-admin activities. Some of us think that's a very high price to pay for an as yet unspecified benefit. ϢereSpielChequers 23:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be assuming that this proposal would reduce the number of admins without actually supporting that conclusion. I don't believe that this proposal would do so, if reasonably implemented. The logic is: if adminship is by definition temporary, not permanent, editors will be more likely to lower the bar to entry, giving us more successful RFAs, not fewer. Good admins could continue to renew their terms, while bad ones could fail, and burnt-out ones could just not re-run, allowing them resign their sysop status with less drama.Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, the arguments both that term limits would "lower the bar" at RFA and would lead to more candidates are both very big assumptions. Certainly no smaller than the assumption that term limits would reduce the number of administrators. Resolute 23:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I did give my logic in this case, rather than just stating an assumption without explaining where it came from. I've already stated that I would like to see this tested out, either in practice through voluntary terms or through polling. Would they be willing to either change their practices or allow bureaucrats to lower the standards if terms were implemented? I don't know, but I believe they just might. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how lowering the bar actually helps though. There are two schools of thought about why RFA needs an overhaul: either we need to compensate for losing admins faster than new ones are promoted, or the admins we have now are a largely corrupt body that exists to serve itself. Lowering the bar might help the first, but wont help the second. Additionally, lowering the bar wont change the culture at RFA where a candidate is now asked to stand against the wall and hope 100 people firing rifles at them all miss. All you do is tell someone with ten bullet wounds instead of five they pass. Its no wonder not many people care to go through that these days. Resolute 00:05, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree on your latter conclusion. I believe corruption, and the perception of corruption, would be greatly reduced by instituting terms, because corrupt admins would have to face the community again, at which time they would most likely fail a later RFA. Severe cases could be addressed by Arbcom still, but the low-level abuse some admins get away with for years could finally be put in check.

"Lowering the bar" doesn't necessarily mean letting people with known issues in, it refers to the rather large number of edits expected from RFA candidates these days. It recognizes that we probably would let in some bad candidates, but that is already happening anyway. Just like letting in admins that turn out to be bad will be unavoidable, the RFA process will probably always be a bit contentious, as it requires looking at an editor's history in order to determing suitability. Personally, I think fewer are running because fewer are willing/able to put in the number of edits over the period of time being looked for. Drop that 3,000-5,000 edit expectation by 1/3 to 1/2, and more editors are likely to give it a shot. However, I think the community will be unwilling to drop those expectations until they know that mistakes made by not looking at such a large number of edits will not be permanent. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• I definitely do not like the idea of reconfirmation RFAs on a predetermined schedule. This would likely have a chilling effect on many admins, resulting in greater backlogs, the opposite of what we want to achieve. I was very disheartened by the failure last year to come up with a more sensible community based de-adminship process. It was going along all right at first,but we wound up with a morass of something like 15 different proposals and it turned into a typical wiki-mess where it was impossible to say that any particular course of action had consensus behind it. I definitely do believe we should be looking at this problem from the other end. Many, many users have indicate that they would find it easier to support candidates if there was some way they could reverse the promotion later without going to ArbCom and letting the matter stew for three or four months first. I know this seems like an invitation for a repeat of that disaster, but maybe we should try again. This time, we would modify one proposal until it was something we could live with, instead of having a dozen separate proposals. The main idea would be that this is only for long term problematic admins, and that other forms of DR such a user RFC must be pursued first, similar to a community ban of those sad users who are good at content work and terrible at working together. We give them every chance in the world to see the error of their ways and acknowledge the input and criticisms of their fellow editors, our admins deserve no less. (no that last remark was not sarcasm) Beeblebrox (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If one were to follow this sort of community ban-like process, how then would you deal with the issue of a "mob with pitchforks" that was raised by the opponents of CDA? In theory, there is no reason why such a "mob" could not show up for an RfC and a ban discussion. On the other hand, if there were some sort of RfC first as you suggest, is it really the case that ArbCom would be incapable of being more prompt than just stewing for three to four months? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

At a user RFC, the underlying concerns must be certified by two users in good standing who have knowledge of the case within 48 hours of it being filed. What I proposed before was something similar but slightly more stringent in a de-adminning process, along with a brief grace period after the filing where the admin has the opportunity to simply give up the tools voluntarily with the understanding that they are doing so "under a cloud" and would have to run at RFA again to get them back. ArbCom is willing to quickly desysop admins who have committed bright-line offenses, but for everything else they take forever. I share your concerns about mobs and voting blocs, and I dread the possibility of going through this again only to fail yet again, but this is a persistent issue that just won't go away. If we can pick one thing and fix it, we will have proved that the system can be fixed. The first step is always the hardest, once we the ball rolling more reforms will probably follow. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Between term limits and a recall procedure it should be obvious which one is more likely to result in more sysop removals: term limits. Term limits are automatic; recall procedures aren't. The mob with pitchforks description is colorful, but a recall process isn't going to end up destroying the admin corp. Lambanog (talk) 03:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Fetchcomms

I have only skimmed the above (tl;dr), but here are my two thoughts:

• The issue is not RfA, it's some, frankly, rude annoying careless unthoughtful disrespectful disruptive dramacausing dramaloving users who go around making themselves look stupid and making RfA the horrible place it's become. It's become just plain fun to pick at people, respond to every snarky comment with an even snarkier one, and stir up arguments. If we made a nice, standard RfA process, that gave less vague requirements to be met, i.e. questions to assess the candidate's knowledge of basic policies, and simply removed all irrelevant comments that appeared, we might have a nicer RfA.

• What I'm talking about here are two sets of people: people who oppose a candidate for things like "userpage is too myspacey", "signature is too annoying", "per above", "English not perfect enough", "I will not be elaborating on my rationale" etc., and people who badger others, yell at others, say things like "user has absolutely no idea what he/she is doing", "user is too immature", etc. Obviously, none of these comments are totally "wrong", but there is a place for them, and RfA is not the place to openly criticize users for petty things or attack them.
• Also, we should not be making our standards lower. If someone doesn't know all the basic policies and does not have a track record of demonstrating this knowledge, they shouldn't be an admin. (There is the question of "specialty admins" or "semi-admin" rights, but the latter has been not reached consensus multiple times this year, and the former does not have any clear standard on how that will work.) I'm concerned about the users who make RfA a bad place, and although I think it's usually true that, if you cannot survive a week of RfA, adminship probably isn't your thing, we cannot let people make ridiculous comments and attack others openly.

• A desysop/temporary adminship/adminship "expiration" procedure are all things to consider. I am neither endorsing or opposing any of these ideas, but we need a clear set of rules for these things and a new RfC or two will not hurt. Desysopping is a concern to many who comment at RfA, and some have opposed candidates due to their temporary admin status. Commons uses a system to desysop inactive admins, and some people want something similar. A community-wide assessment of these options, and others, is not really that bad of a thing.

Final remark: I don't think there will be consensus for a fundamental change to RfA, and I think we should be realistic: what do admins do, and why do people want to become one? It's helpful often to see deleted pages and stuff, yes, but maintenance isn't fun for everyone, and we really need to consider what we expect of admins—I have high expectations. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So RFA is not the place to openly criticize users for petty things or attack them, but Jimbo's talk page is? Townlake (talk) 04:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Since when did I attack a specific user here? /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 16:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

1) You didn't use the term "specific" in the statement I quoted. 2) It's rather obvious that based on the oppose stuff you quoted, I'm a target of your list of insults above. Townlake (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall you making any such comments. I don't usually remember users, just comments. If you did make such comments, maybe you should act differently. My point is that RfA is not the problem, users making irrelevant comments are the problem. I'm not singling any specific user out and I'm sorry if you've said any such comments. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So just to be clear, you're sorry about my comments, but not the insults you posted above? That's odd. Townlake (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't insulting you in particular. But maybe you do need to reevaluate your comments. At any rate, this banter is not helping the RfA problem. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Would reducing the number of admins be a good thing?

Actually if the number of admins were greatly reduced it would be a good thing, and if that is a consequence of term limits, so be it. Fewer admins would mean the remaining admins would have to deal with quick and clear-cut cases, and leave the murky undecidable feuds alone, to continue on talk pages where those involved can negotiate their own rules of engagement and yak until infinity if they can't resolve matters. In the meantime the main article can be locked up until a settlement is agreed between the afflicted parties, who know full well because the admins are busy that a kangaroo court cannot be gerrymandered to provide some lopsided decision, so instead some kind of negotiated settlement is necessary. Brews ohare (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

That's such a bad idea. All that means is that victory goes to those that speak the loudest, in greater numbers for a longer period of time. And not to those with the most rational, reasonable arguments. We'd have a Lord of the Flies Wiki...bad idea. RxS (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

We've had a "Lord of the Flies Wiki" for years. I pointed this out more than a year before James Gleick^{cite did:}

Anyone can edit an article, anonymously, hit and run. From the very beginning that has been Wikipedia's greatest strength and its greatest weakness. The result is often what you'd expect from reading “Lord of the Flies.″

Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Aren't admins "Lords" of the Flies? ? ? Where does the notion arise that Admins make the "most rationale, reasonable decisions"? Not from examination of WP. Brews ohare (talk) 20:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree, and I also agree with the point someone made that arbcom is very reluctant to desysop or even sanction misbehaving admins. I'm not sure about term limits. Requiring sysops to get community endorsement every couple of years may be a better idea. The problem is that admins may lose the trust of the community and there's not a damn thing you can do about it under the current system, as a practical matter. ScottyBerg (talk) 21:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Community re-endorsement and terms are nearly the same proposal ("term limits" has consistently been a misnomer when discussing changes to adminship). I prefer "terms" over "reconfirmation" or "re-endorsement" because the language specifically sets up the expectation that it is not a permanent appointment. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

No, they aren't 99% of admin actions (and for that matter admins themselves) are uncontroversial. What you are proposing is turning every talk page into it's own little island...with any set of bullies that come along calling the tune. There's this meme that's grown that the admins on this site are running wild over regular editors. There may be some admin calls that aren't rational but they are in the tiny minority, but it's certainly a better situation than letting editors with POV's run talk pages. Bad idea, and it's never going to happen. Not really worth talking about really...RxS (talk) 23:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

RsX: As an admin yourself, you may have to recuse yourself, or at least be willing to see that others may have a different view. If you like, diffs can be provided of poor decisions, unending disputes and so forth. The alternative universe in which admins confine themselves to clear-cut cases and let Talk page editors figure things out themselves (with supervision of very clear guidelines like WP:Civil, for instance, and restriction of main article changes to those agreed upon by the Talk page editors) simply hasn't been tried. It is a normal suspicion of those in command that without them everything will go to hell, and maybe sometimes it does. But probably not often, and probably a lot less often once the culture gets reoriented. Just think of an environment where everybody loved admins because they never got into murky decisions where they have neither a clue what's happening nor the time & energy to find out. Brews ohare (talk) 00:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If an admin has to recuse themselves from a discussion about administrators, than a person with your history must also recuse themself. After all, one could easily believe you are acting with a grudge, no? Resolute 00:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is an easily held belief, though incorrect. Brews ohare (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

So it would then be a failure to WP:AGF to insist that anybody recuse themselves from a discussion because of a perceived bias? Resolute 03:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The de facto situation at present is that disputes are settled by a majority claiming the minority is disruptive and finding a weak-kneed hair-triggered admin to side with them and ban or block the opposition. That is "reasoned and rational" eh what? Brews ohare (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed. Resolute 00:34, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No kidding, this is just more of the four legs good, two legs bad meme going on here. The "de facto" situation is that (as I pointed out) the vast majority of admin actions are uncontroversial. The fact that you can provide evidence of bad actions by admins and meaningless disputes is irelevant since no one claims otherwise. The suggestion that admins shouldn't take part in conversations about admins is just plain silly. The alternative universe you describe hasn't been tried because it's a bad idea. There are too many editors and potential editors that will (and have, over and over through the years) try to wiki-lawyer their way around rules like wp:civil, wp:npov etc and bully other editors into walking away from a dispute. Sometimes (not always) someone has to step in, and it doesn't always have to be admins. But many times it is an admin that performs that function and to suggest that they be prevented from doing so is all kinds of fail. RxS (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The vast majority of admin actions are deletions, and though admin actions have an imperfect correlation to admin time, if you want to redesign our processes to need far fewer admins then Pure Wiki deletion is probably the best place to start. I'm not convinced it would work, and even if it did it isn't my preferred response to the situation. But only deleting G10s and other things we legally have to delete should in theory allow us to run Wikipedia with far fewer admins. Replacing our policies on civility and perhaps even personal attacks by a sticks and stones policy would also cut our need for admins, again this isn't my preferred solution to the RFA problem, and I'm not sure if I'd still want to be involved in the Wikipedia that emerged. But there are wikis out there that are run radically differently, so if some people want fewer and fewer admins then by all means lets talk through the implications and the options. ϢereSpielChequers 14:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

How many admins are needed depends upon what they have to do. Routine tasks based upon clear-cut guidelines don't take much time. For example, it is clear when the 3RR rule has been broken. On the other hand, a lot of admin time is taken up deciding whether a violation of muddy sanctions has occurred. So fewer administrators would be OK if less time was spent on ambiguously worded restrictions with unclear consequences, and the rules were very clear. In contrast, many admins actually endorse muddy wording because they like the latitude. That view should be discouraged because it leads to month-long hearings and decisions that cannot be easily defended (and so no defense is attempted, leading to hard feelings). The bad feelings lead to more actions brought. The wasted time means more admins are necessary. Brews ohare (talk) 19:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well if ArbCom enforced their own rulings instead of leaving it to the few admins who can tolerate AE work, that would free up a lot of admin time. However, I don't think reducing the number of admins is the way to go. If anything, we need more cue gasps of horror from the audience. We have less than 800 admins classed as "active" by the criteria that they've made an edit in the last 30 days. The number of those who frequently make logged actions, however, is much lower Disclaimer: I am one of those admins, I logged nearly 200 actions yesterday. This means that decisions are being made by an ever smaller number of people. I feel that diluting admins' "power" would be much healthier for the wiki in the long term and, in the short term, would mean that the more urgent requests (AIV, RfPP and CSD in particular) can be handled quicker. The emerging two-tier system is the fault of RfA, not of incumbent administrators. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

"In contrast, many admins actually endorse muddy wording because they like the latitude." - Do you have evidence of this, or do you simply prefer to cast aspersions, Brews? Resolute 23:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

A lot of users who are subject to ArbCom sanctions or other restrictions don't like the phrase "broadly construed" because it makes it harder for them to end-run the decisions and pretend they didn't know they were doing so. That is of course exactly why it used in topic bans, to get the users to leave the entire topic area alone, but there are a few users who, despite being obviously intelligent and educated, pretend they can't understand what that means. More or less admins isn't going to change that particular problem. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Response 5

(I have no idea what numbering/header system is being used at this point. If you do, refactor the header as you like.) Honestly, I don't see the problem as being "too hard to desysop", or anything of the sort. The issue I see is the conduct of the voters (! intentionally excluded, for all intents and purposes, RfA is a vote at this point) at the RfA discussions. When I stood for RfA the first time, it failed, but the concerns brought up were well founded. I addressed them and went through again, and passed something like 96-2. Now, it doesn't seem it's possible to pass RfA at all. If you spend too much time on content, too little time on content, do the wrong kind of content editing (read "anything but writing FAs"), fight vandals too much, fight vandals too little, participate in deletion processes too much, participate in deletion processes too little, participate in project space too much, participate in project space too little, have too few Portal Talk edits...you get the idea, and aside perhaps from the last one, all of those seem to be reasons to oppose. I know I wouldn't pass now—gnoming and vandal fighting doesn't count anymore. Some people might jump for joy that I wouldn't pass, on the other hand. I imagine that's true of all of us.

I think that ultimately, the times at which RfA was reasonable were the ones at which all participants, support and oppose alike, were willing to actually evaluate the candidate as a whole, not based on the few wrong calls we all inevitably make at some point. I think there are two steps to fixing that: firstly, having a "voters' guide" to RfA, explaining that votes should be made on an overall understanding and evaluation of the candidate's edits, not based upon issues such as a few interactions with them, what (or where) their edit count is, what type of content editing they do, or whether or not they use automated tools (unless they use them inappropriately), and secondly, if need be, allowing closing crats to discount entirely any votes which do not fit these. Ultimately, the only question we really need to ask when looking at a candidate is "If we let this person block people and delete pages, will they use these abilities in an abusive manner not consistent with community expectations?" To answer that question, there's really no substitute for a good random sampling of someone's edits, preferably to several different namespaces. "Voters" who have clearly done this should carry far more weight than others. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:54, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is the voters (I've had some things to say about them at WT:RFA), but in the direction of passing ill-prepared candidates over valid opposes that should be given more weight to offset the Myspace support. RFA *is* a vote, unlike FAC, where one well-placed oppose can stop 20 driveby Myspace supports. But this doom-and-gloom scenario about RFA is also wrong--there are good candidates out there in droves, they aren't picked over when they are nommed, and the problem is that it's hard to get them to submit to those colorful sigs. Samples off the top of my head:

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dabomb87
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Slp1
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Laser brain
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/GrahamColm

And those are just a few from memory. Obviously, I won't put up samples of those that have passed when (IMO) they were ill-qualified and serious oppose rationale was provided, but good candidates pass easily. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:11, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

We already have Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in adminship discussions - is that the sort of voters guide you were thinking of? ϢereSpielChequers 00:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I doubt if a voter's guide would do much good. It would not be read.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Egg-zactly. Again, using the FAC example, we have WP:WIAFA, but it doesn't matter if nominators or reviewers don't read it, because the delegates have discretion and a well-placed oppose can overrule all the drive-by supports you want. Yet the 'crats have no discretion to weigh the validity of opposes or supports at RFA. It's a vote, and every vote is equal, even if there is no reasoning to the Supports. Honestly, I'd like to see a 'crat with balls fail an 75% candidate with the sound reasoning that opposes were serious and supports were driveby. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem there is, you would have a crat substituting his judgment for the community's, because generally under the circumstances you posit, many of the supposes will say "I read oppose #18, and I can't imagine what the editor who posted it was smoking." Or words to that effect. Or perhaps "I find the opposes unconvincing". --Wehwalt (talk) 00:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should consider a radical overhaul of the RFA process. Instead of voting yea or nay, have the voters rank the candidate by key areas that we expect in an admin - i.e.: content contribution, use of policy, civility, etc. Candidates that end up with a certain score pass. Those that don't pass would then have a scorecard showing what the community wishes them to work on. Resolute 03:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think we could get broad consensus on the statement that RfA has shown remarkable resistance to improvement.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. You might as well just pound against the immovable object. And I loathe the options I see to force change. Resolute 03:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Further beaurocracy isn't needed; what is needed (and is happening lately) is for more knowledgeable editors to pay attention to RFA, so we don't have inexperienced, immature users passing same. I think it's working now, since some light has been shown on this particular dark corner. If experienced editors don't scrutinize RFA candidates carefully, inexperienced RFA voters will pass candidates who plagiarize non-reliable sources at DYK, and use those DYKs to evidence their ability to write and their knowledge of the Project and policy. Supporters aren't required to evidence they understand Wiki policy; Opposers are. Which goes back to the problem that RFA *is* a vote, and 'crats have no discretion to interpret those votes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Eyeglasses or no, hindsight is 20/20. To quote Theodore Roosevelt, "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better."--Wehwalt (talk) 19:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Crats already have discretion, usually this is within the 70-80% range though there have been results outside that. I'm tempted to support broadening that discretion, but I wonder if perhaps we should first get a community based decision as to what sort of RFA arguments crats can give greater or lesser weight to. ϢereSpielChequers 22:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Response 6

Where does the impression come from that there is an upper caste at WP? Why does it seem to be difficult to desysop? Because all bodies that could be involved in changing the admin bit are exclusively populated by admins. Bureaucrats are admins. ArbCom consists of admins. Every checkuser and oversighter is admin (I believe). Jimbo, you are admin. That makes it look as if the admin bit is the most valuable of them all.

ArbCom should maybe consist of an adequate proportion of admins, certainly they should form a minority there. Bureaucrats and stewards shouldn't be admins at all, if elected / promoted their adminship should be dormant. That would also discourage hat collection. --Pgallert (talk) 07:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be rather difficult for crats and ArbCom members to do their job without being an admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I am certainly lacking insight into those roles, but why would they need to be admins? For crats I cannot see any reason (aren't they "just" promoting and renaming accounts?), and Arbcom members could ask for support if they need CU or suppress revisions. There could be a few "Arbcom clerks" that would need to be admin to do the enforcement. Deciding Applying and at the same time enforcing "law" is not good style, anyway. --Pgallert (talk) 06:32, 9 November 2010 (UTC) refactored 06:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

There is an upper caste at WP (NOBIGDEAL is bunk), and in some cases, those in that "upper caste" have deserved it. If admins who misuse tools could be desysopped, the respect accorded to those in the admin class could be restored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think your opinion on respect is naive, but it certainly is a popularly held one. The question I have is who determines what constitutes the "misuse of tools"? Resolute 15:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there is such an upper caste isn't a result them being admins. It's that their more entrenched in the community, simply because they've been here longer. The "newest" member of arbcom has been on Wikipedia since early 2007, for example. DC T•C 17:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a big point that I don't think people are addressing enough: users who've been around longer know how to "get things done"; admin or not, all other things being equal, the longer an editor has been around and the more they have contributed the more respect they are accorded. The admin bit is not a separate and unconnected issue. Jclemens (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

One proposal last year (one of the election RFCs, as I recall) called for an arbcom with a mandatory number of non-admins, both for perspective and to give non-admins a voice in decisions involving admins. The logistics were flawed - how many checkusers are non-admins? - but the idea was sound, if you accept the premise that the goals and perspectives of admins and non-admins are incompatible, and that admins are likely to rule in favor of other admins specifically because they are admins. The trick then would be finding non-admins (and not former admins, either) who are trusted and accepted by the community enough to get elected. Many of the non-admins who are trusted have declined to run for RFA, whether to focus on content creation or to avoid drama - they'd likely eschew a seat on the arbcom for the same reasons. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:18, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't accept that the goals of admins and non-admins are incompatible or even particularly divergent. If they were we would see various debates such as pending changes and the BLP RFCs splitting on admin non admin lines. Nor am I convinced that Admins generally discriminate in favour of each other, though I accept the possibility that it might happen and urge those who observe it to complain, if necessary all the way to Arbcom, as if there were examples of this it would be troubling. As for the idea of reserving places on Arbcom for non-admins, If someone is sufficiently trusted and accepted by the community to become an Arb, why would they not also be trusted enough to be an admin? ϢereSpielChequers 18:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Were. There is no thin orange line. I would call upon those who say there is to name names and cite cases. I suspect the greater problem is cliqueism, which is not unique to administrators.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Amen to that. Some of you may be aware that I recently made a rather difficult administrative decision that I knew would make me the target of a particular cliques anger. They mostly were not admins, but damn, they were (and still are) relentless, and have no qualms about ganging up on somebody. By the way, being an oversighter is not a special privilege, it is work. Work that is almost completely invisible on-wiki. Work that for the most part nobody ever thanks you for doing. Work that you are actually not allowed to discuss on wiki. You learn all this personal information just so you can erase it and forget you ever knew it. And yet it is reviewed more thoroughly and stringently than any other type of work on Wikipedia. I'm not trying to whine about it, I'm happy to do it and I knew there was little to no recognition involved in it beforehand, I'm just saying it is not some elite clique of uber-admins, it's just a little job we do that has slightly more stringent entrance requirements than adminship, or even ArbCom. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Response 6a - jnr and snr admins

Admins need certain tools to do certain tasks, but they also have been given great power. Why should a single admin be given the power to ban indefinitely, why should one admins handle AE clarification cases when they may not know and may not take the possibly huge amount of time to look closely at a case. Its doubtful that abuse of admin tools occurs over technical matters but more probably in matters that deal with other editors. I wonder about layers of tasks and categories of admins. to deal with them. New admins would be able to handle only the most objective tasks, with time, say a year, more subjective tasks. Tasks could be labelled simply as 1, beginning level, and upwards becoming more complex and more subjective in scope. Indef banns, AE, AE clarifications would require more than one admin., possibly three, of more the upper level admins. Its much harder to abuse power, to be working in consort with someone behind the scenes, if you are one of several. Thisalso takes the weight of responsibility off the individual editor and places it on the shoulders of several. If new admins have a year to season themselves, this also make its possible for the RfA process to allow more admins. Possibly there could be 2 RfA's one fast, easy prelim RfA, and after a year, a secondary one looking closely at the year's work and the creation of upper level admins with more power. To summarize below( with a bit added) (olive (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC))

Admins two levels:

• Make more admins making the process fast and easy
• These admins have technical tools but are in a probation period for upper level work, ie more subjective, complex tasks.
• Label tasks level 1, beginner, level 2 advanced... (or something like that)
• 2nd RfA after one year... more scrutiny harder to pass.
• Tasks with large impact on editors, 3 admins.

Arbitrators 2 levels

• Beginning for simpler cases as predetermined by clerks
• Sr arbitrators as we have now, for complex cases

Response 7 (outside perspective)

I think it would be worthwhile to try to break up the task of being an admin into smaller pieces that are more manageable. My thought is that people who don't feel ready (or aren't ready) to devote themselves to being an admin could still be authorized to do one particular function: to edit protected articles, to close deletions, to block vandals, etc. Even if the software doesn't allow such fine-grained privileges, you might give someone adminship subject to a narrow "remit", as I'd term it, which says what things he's allowed to do with the privileges. A person could then go back to RfA to expand the remit, eventually reaching an unlimited remit if that is what he really wants. I think that this would (1) increase the number of candidates, because fewer competences are needed; (2) lower the standards correspondingly, and allow for the option of increasing RfA throughput by setting up different RfA's for admins requesting different types of limited remits; (3) make it much easier to lose the admin bit, because it would be clear when an admin is acting out of the remit stated in his RfA, and not many warnings would need to be given, and also because existing full admins could potentially receive a medium punishment of being subjected to a remit, just as some editors are subject to a topic ban; (4) the optimum number of admins should be much larger; but in some conversations has been limited by the prospect that illegal or damaging material could be read by those with access to deleted revisions; but many of the limited-remit admins described above might not even need to be granted access to these in order to perform more limited roles; and it is questionable whether the content in question is really that bad, or if it is, whether its permanent persistence is really a stable situation anyway. Wnt (talk) 11:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps more precise, the three main admin components, deletion, protection and blocking could be unbundled. RfAs for these three different functions can have different thresholds as protection for instance is less of a touchy issue than blocking. Adding a second function could be made every six months from there and subjected to an "RfA lite" where the candidate states what he needs the additional bit for, less questions asked, and just three days for the community to express major concerns. Gives a delay of at least one year before all three functions are active.

Contrary to what was said higher, I also don't see a fundamental reason why the crats need admin bits in the first place, and those could be unbundled as well. MLauba ^(Talk) 12:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No. Misuse of tools occurs at every level, and damages the encyclopedia and good faith editors. No one should be using any tool unless they have demonstrated integrity, trust and knowledge via RFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You apparently misunderstand. I'm advocating a full RfA for the first bit requested, and only RfA lite for admins requesting a second bit. The vetting for the first step remains the same, but I've found that in the past, unbundling proposals have always been opposed by the fear that nobody in their right mind would stand for three full RfAs. If someone was trusted with the deletion button, has demonstrated responsible use, confirmed the community's trust, and have not suddenly engaged in the kind of behaviour or interactions that would have been a reason to fail the full RfA for the first tool, I think that a shortened review for the second one will represent a decent compromise. MLauba ^(Talk) 13:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

ah, I see-- thanks for the clarification. My concern was that some recent misuse of the tools has been characterized as "petty", when it was far from that, and had an effect beyond the original misuse. OK, so understanding your proposal leads back to my original concern-- since part of the problem has been lack of scrutiny at RFA, how will we get more scrutiny if there are more RFAs, unless someone has some discretion to evaluate the validity of Supports and Opposes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the de-bundling as I see it would produce two effects: improve the quality of the vetting at RfA by focusing on what the candidate claims to want to do, but also provide additional checks if they need more tools. In terms of pass rates, I see unbundling lowering the bar for the least controversial bit (protecting), keeping it level for deletion, and raising it for blocking, in order to match the potential for disruption misuse each of these has. In an ideal world, I'd see a protection-only admin requiring only 60% support while a blocker requires 80% (but the numbers here is only my personal take). But the other advantage is this. In today's RfA, candidates make all kind of commitments and promises. If they fail to uphold them the moment the mop is handed to them, currently that means the community is a sucker - and unless they're being sufficiently abusive that an RFC + ArbCom desysops them, the story is over. With debundling, if you start out with protection only and 6 months later submit to an RfA lite, it gives the community another check point to see whether the admin has lived up to his promises.

Heck, in terms of implementation, as we currently have no shortage of admins who already have the block button, we could even envision that blocking will only be granted as a second tool, never a first one, and instruct the community to look at dispute resolution skills.

Today's RfA's problem is that scrutiny is as wide as what the three core tools provide for. With unbundling, a NPP can get protection tools even if he's not really a great content creator. But to get deletion you'd have to demonstrate that you understand what it takes, both in terms of policies but also sweat of the brow, to write content. And for blocking, that you're even tempered enough to handle the school kiddie vandal differently from the established editor who has a really bad day.

Last but not least, unbundling is of course not something I propose instead of any community desysop process, but one supplemental element. It wouldn't necessarily guarantee that any new candidates gets more scrutiny at RfA, but I'd claim that it gets better scrutiny, first by homing in on what the candidate intends to do with his first tool, and second through additional checks if he requires more tools down the line. MLauba ^(Talk) 15:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, where does WP:REVDEL fall in your scheme? And, often, when I go to the editor page of some previously unknown editor, to post about rather large mistakes they've made, I find they have some of the recently unbundled tools, that some believe were handed out as "baubles" by some admins who may not know enough about basic Wiki policy to be handing out those baubles, and which they've evidenced they probably shouldn't be using; how will your proposal to unbundle address the reward culture aspect? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

For WP:REVDEL, I don't know whether that's a separate right from deletion or not, and I haven't really given it too much thought yet. Regarding the baubles aspect, I'll be honest, beyond the aspect that you don't get any admin tools without at least one full RfA and thus at least one vetting, there is undoubtedly a risk with unbundling for people who treat wikipedia like a game and additional rights as a way to raise their personal score, to reinforce that sentiment. Yet at the same time, for second and third tool, you would at least get those additional RfA-lites as check points, and worst case scenario, force a new one-tool-admin to stay on his best behaviour for another semester at least. It may not be the best way to combat the reward mentality, it may even foster it on some people, but I'd venture that it might also help screen those people better, and beyond that, provide another semester for them to mature and grow out of it. MLauba ^(Talk) 16:44, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

My (unfortunate) tour through DYK showed me that unbundling so far may not have been a good thing, specifically wrt Reviewer and Autoreviewer, since many editors who don't even have a cursory knowledge of reliable sources have those tools. I found numerous DYKs that were not based on reliable sources, and one article that was actually on the main page that did not meet notability and is now deleted per (its third) AFD. We are giving unbundled tools to users, as baubles, who have no idea how to use them, and that results in article deterioration. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think PC is a good comparison, because it's new, controversial, experimental, and many find it confusing to use. I can't even remember asking for the reviewer status I was given.^{User_talk:Wnt#You_are_now_a_Reviewer} It wasn't nearly an RfA Lite, but just a two-month (...) experiment. Wnt (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I broadly agree. Specifically certain tools should be flagged for users (much as "auto-reviewer" currently is, as an example). Perhaps specific "vandal blocking" would be a simple one to implement - with the understanding that erroneous blocks would be quickly reversed (a vandal fighter has no real call to issue edit war or civility blocks). Another flag would be for "certified XfD closers" with the ability to delete articles (again, this is not critical if they err - as any admin can undelete the articles). Anyone abusing the tools would readily have them removed by consensus at AN/I, I would think. Collect (talk) 15:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• I would have agreed, were it not for the fact that it would reinforce the MMORPG malady by creating more hats to collect. "Sure, the blue vandal fighter set is nice, but if you want to start raiding you need some epics like revdel or checkuser!" — Coren ^(talk) 17:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC) (And yes, I am aware of the delicious irony of an Arb making that comment — I got most every bit except 'crat) (effing shammies keep rolling on 'crat and it's off-spec!) — Coren ^(talk) 17:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
• I like the idea of unbundling the block button, at least for blocking IPs and accounts that have not yet been autoconfirmed. We've had RFAs where people have been very clear that they don't want vandalfighters to become admins and make decisions about deletion until they've created content. I think that allowing vandal fighters to make an RFA style application for just the block button would work, and there are a several editors with thousands of AIV reports who could usefully and uncontroversially be given this. I don't like the idea of further unbundling than that, not least because of the old adage that that "to a man with a hammer every problem is a nail". Some problems need the tools to be used in combination, and sometimes you have a choice as to the best tool to use. ϢereSpielChequers 17:32, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I should just clarify that my proposal was to define the "remits" as tasks rather than tools, and accepted that specialized admins would likely end up with access to some software features that they shouldn't use at all, and others they should use only rarely, since the software (at present) wasn't written with these specific roles in mind. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This makes a certain amount of sense to me I think. The standards in an RFA could be lowered a bit because the editor wouldn't be getting the full set of tools up front. Then, 3 months later it'd be an easy "anyone object?" process to give them the full set. They'd have 3 months (or however long it is) to show compentance/good judgement. Unless I've misunderstood the drift here...RxS (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

CSD is rarely significantly backlogged, and the reason is that much of it is just deleted on the practice that "it was nom'd CSD therefore it goes". When I have tired to do CSD I have tried to edit articles that were wrongly nom'ed and 9 times out of 10 they are gone. Rich Farmbrough, 15:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC).

Response 8 (lessons from Wikiversity)

While Wikiversity as a whole has had a somewhat spotty record, one of the things adopted early on was to try an alternative to RFA (since the RFA process was already getting a bit too rough in 2006 when WV was started). The approach we took was to use a "mentorship" system, where a current admin could adopt a user and help them learn the tools for a month, and only after that month the person was put up for "election". The idea was to allow someone to establish a bit of a track record as an admin, thus changing the tone of the discussion from election to confirmation.

We never really formalized it as much as we should have (and hence the system is somewhat broken and in limbo now), but it had potential to make the process more collegial.

To do it right, the localsettings would need to be tweaked to make a new usergroup of "probationary admins" that the 'crats could both grant and revoke during the mentorship period, and probably have more 'crats around to serve as the mentors. If nothing else, the probationary admins would probably take a big load off of CSD and other backlogs. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I like this idea, however there are a few tweaks I would add in. First, the admin in training would not be allowed to block users for more than 48 hours, longer blocks would have to be done by the mentor. Second, the admin in training would have to be willing to be mentored by admin, they can't go shopping for someone who they think will be easier to work under or more prestigious of a name to attach themselves to. Third, users cannot canvass for people to mentor them. If there is one or two admins that the user has worked with for a period of time (such as the recent VernoWhitney/Moonriddengirl combo) I would not be opposed to the user asking the admin, with the understanding that the admin is under no obligation. However if a user were to go to ten or fifteen admins, that would be an issue. Finally, because mentoring requires careful oversight, I would ask each admin only have one admin in training at a time. Sven Manguard _Talk 16:52, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that some fairly tight ground rules would be appropriate. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not enthusiastic about this idea, particularly. For one thing, how would we know if they approached admins when so much around here happens via back channels such as email and IRC?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No doubt there would be a lot of that going on, but there's very little to be done about it (and it certainly goes on already for new admins), and it's not necessarily evil. Good coaching needs a bit of back channel discussion anyway, even in "real life". --SB_Johnny | ^talk 19:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

At the eventual RfA after the internship, one of the questions would be "Who did you ask to be a mentor and why? List all people you asked, including those that turned you down." The user would have to answer, and if he left a bunch of people out, those people would bring it up on the RfA, and the community would likely respond negitively. We would have to trust that the admins were being truthful (or have them present proof), but this solved the anti-canvassing requirement. Sven Manguard _Talk 23:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Response 9

There is no administrator shortage, which makes the answers to 1 and 2 "no" and the rest of this discussion moot. A declining number of administrators + occasional backlogs on some tasks does not necessarily = an admin shortage. The work that's central to the project is still getting done, and good candidates continue to pass RFA. Townlake (talk) 04:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Townlake is spot on when he says: "good candidates continue to pass RFA." It's been pointed out somewhere above that around 2/3 of Rfa's fail. Well, it's been that way for three years... it's not like the bar is constantly being moved higher and lower. We all have different personal standards for what we look for(and don't look for) in an Rfa candidate, but collectively the community has been remarkably consistent when you consider the past three years have been at 66.1, 65.9, and 66.5% failure rates. Is the bar too high? A quick check of this year's failed Rfa's suggests that at least half of the failures would have failed even if we moved the bar way down. So we have 1/3 who wouldn't make it under any reasonable standard and 1/3 who are "slam dunk" obvious successful candidates. So what do we do about the middle third? One of the attributes an admin should have is understanding the community, yet a large number of those who are unsuccessful Rfa nominees seem to misread what the community looks for in an Rfa candidate. That isn't to say that they aren't valuable members of the community- they are very valuable, but the community has spoken and the expectations should be pretty clear to anyone who has seen any 10 Rfa's. I'm probably considered one of the "jerks" who opposes candidates for lack of content creation, but I do actually feel bad for candidates (especially younger ones) who obviously thought they had a good chance when they were nowhere close to where they had to be. I do a lot of editor reviews... it really sucks telling an editor to spend the next six months working on certain things before applying and then having that editor ignore that advice by self-noming themselves the following week and seeing them get WP:SNOWed. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 07:50, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The bar has risen dramatically and in multiple ways, you only have to look at a few of the RFAs from years gone by and compare them to today to see that the pass rate is totally misleading. Nowadays potential candidates who've done their research know not to run until they've been here at least year and done at least 4,000 edits. Many of our currently active admins passed when the bar was far lower at least in terms of tenure and editcountitis, some date from the days when candidates could expect all their edits to be reviewed by the !voters. Comparing the overall pass rate today with earlier years is misleading as most potential candidates wait longer or simply don't run. Good candidates do sometimes still pass RFA, but in very small numbers and much later in their Wiki careers than the admins who were appointed in earlier years.

As for the admin shortage, there is a steady decline in numbers of active admins, but the workload is stable (as measured in gaps between ten million edits). If this continues indefinitely our unknown amount of spare capacity in admins will erode until there is a clear shortage. The issue is whether we take corrective action now when the trend is clear but the problem is not urgent, or we wait until some tipping point and then appoint a large batch of poorly scrutinised admins. I'd prefer that we take the former course, but I'm beginning to suspect that we will eventually wind up doing the latter. ϢereSpielChequers

I don't think it's a bad idea that people have to "wait" longer to become an admin. Those who have to work harder to get the tools are less likely to abuse them. Maybe the bar being raised was in part a reaction to this list. Yeah, I know how easy it used to be to become an admin... 1,000 edits and a pulse was good enough for the mop, but it created a lot of abuse. VictorianMutant^(Talk) 17:36, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That list is indeed interesting. Looks like we have lost 26 admins this year, with six involuntary desysops. How many have we promoted? Certainly more than 26. Of course this list doesn't cover admins who simply stop editing, but there is really nothing to be done about that, everybody burns out eventually. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We've promoted 71 so far this year (including one so far this month). But we currently have 79 fewer active admins than we started the year with. So our typical 7 per month promotion rate is about half what we need to stabilise numbers. ϢereSpielChequers 16:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The argument that too many admins have needed to be desyopped and we should be more picky is in one sense the opposite of the argument that Admins are invulnerable and never get sanctioned. But this opposite perspective is worth much more discussion because it is grounded in reality, half a dozen admins desyopped this year, approximately 1% of active admins per annum getting desyopped, this is a high rate of desyopping. Taking the customary analogy with a driving licence or the rarer analogy with a professional qualification, something is clearly wrong, few priests careers end in them being defrocked, very few Doctors or lawyers are struck off, but at current rates of desyopping a very significant minority of admins will eventually be desyopped. I've looked at quite a few old cases and I'm not convinced that Arbcom or Jimbo before it have been overly harsh, which leaves the possibilities that our recruitment method is flawed, our ongoing training is inadequate or that there is something in the nature of the role that makes people less cautious about keeping the mop than they would be about a real life appointment. When I looked into past desyoppings one of the things I noticed was a tendency for the rate of desyopping to go up with tenure, admins with three or four years tenure being more likely to be desysopped than newer admins, I also noticed that most were rather more qualified when they went through RFA than the thousand edits myth. I've just gone through a dozen desyoppings from before my time, and also looked at their preceding RFAs, and what struck me was that none were obvious minors, nor in the main were the RFAs close. The conclusion I draw from that isn't that RFA is flawed and not screening out poor candidates, I think if it were we'd see a pattern of new admins desyopped in what some propose to make their probationary period, nor do I think that lowering the pass mark would let in candidates who were unusually likely to be desyopped as many of those who were ultimately desysopped had very few or no opposes. I think that our near total lack of ongoing admin training is having the inevitable consequence of admins drifting away from the zone of acceptable admin behaviour, and that this is exacerbated both by the high rate of change on this site, and by some contradictions and ambiguities inherent in our policies and purpose. Another conclusion I draw from past desysoppings is that we should be less concerned about immature juvenile admins, as to be frank it is adults like me that are more likely to end up needing to be desysopped. ϢereSpielChequers 14:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree, continuing training might be beneficial. To continue the analogy, many professionals have continuing education requirements, so why not admins? Ronk01 talk 16:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Response 10

Eliminate administrators. Spin out all of the rights individually. There's no reason to bundle them. People can apply for them as they need them and this will enable the WP:NOBIGDEAL ideal to actually take hold as it did for, WP:ROLLBACK and IP-block exemptions. We should have "protectors", "page deleters", "blockers", "vandalism excluders", "interface designers", "automovers", "unwatchers", "permission granters", "username moguls". The idea for a "researcher" would also be appropriate here (someone who can view deleted edits).

ScienceApologist (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is much what I intended in #7, but I don't agree that administrators would be eliminated entirely. For example, there are still people who would be trusted to close AN/I and AfD discussions, to undelete articles, and so on, which are positions requiring a certain amount of trust. I think a more practical goal is to create a gradual continuum between the editor and the full admin (technically, to catalyze production of admins by stabilizing a transition state). Wnt (talk) 16:38, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin closes happen already on AfD for keeps. People with "delete" powers would just be the class of users who would be able to close "delete". For AN/I, users with the powers needed would be the ones empowered to close. This would have the advantage of keeping the discussions more focused. "I want an blocker to consider blocking User:X" is a lot better than, "Look at this situation: would an administrator please DO something?". The "continuum" is a good idea: many users will ask to get more and more permissions to do more and more complicated maneuvers. But the "full admin" status should be eliminated as unnecessary creepiness. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Surely this is a great idea for bull sessions late at night, but has so little chance of passage it is barely worth the discussing.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This plan can be done incrementally. Just start unbundling the user rights one at a time. Then, at the end of the day, when the administrator no longer has any rights just get rid of the administrator status. We can start by making all administrators "ROLLBACKERS" and removing that right from the admin package, for example. ScienceApologist (talk) 22:52, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• You lost me at "there's no reason to bundle them." There most certainly is. For example, fighting spammers requires the ability to delete things, to view deleted contribs, to block, and to protect. That's almost the entire toolbox for one of the most common areas of admin work. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not true that one cannot fight spammers without having all those tools and is a little insulting to users who don't have special user rights who are doing this now (I count myself as one of those users.) Certainly, we should have people who have all those tools, but it isn't necessary that every person who needs to be able to delete pages also needs to be able to protect pages or vice versa. Spinning out the rights won't mean that people will be prevented from getting all the rights, only that it will be easier to get more help. If someone wants to close AfDs, why do they need to be able to block people? If someone just wants to be able to move over redirects why do they need to be able to protect articles? ScienceApologist (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Closing AFDs, again, can require multiple admin tools. Being able to see deleted edits to the page, and being able to salt the page go hand in hand with closing AFDs. If I am not mistaken the Foundation has made it abundantly clear that they will not grant the ability to see deleted contribs to non-admins. This is a vital admin ability that I for one use constantly. Anyone who is able to block needs it, anyone who is able to delete certainly needs it, and with RevDel being so common now it's important for anyone who does protections. And of course create-protection and deletion are intimately linked. Under this idea a user who could delete but not protect would have to go find a "protector" and ask them to take their word for it that the page needs to be protected. That makes things more complicated, not less. I'm not trying to be condescending, but the fact is that the admin toolset often works as a unit, many of the tools are useless without the others. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:User_access_levels#Researcher. Users who are not administrators have to go find administrators at many different noticeboards as it is anyway. I don't see why it's a big deal to apply for multiple tools at once or have some people who are good to get all of them but some who shouldn't get, for example, the blocker tool. If we spin-out tools, they will be less of a big deal. As people realize they need them, they'll apply for them and probably get them with less drama than current RfA processes. ScienceApologist (talk) 01:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that the software considerations actually distract from the issue. You could have different admins who perform different functions. That doesn't mean that they're not admins, but only that they have a narrower area of expertise. If you wanted, you might be able to rule them out from using one or more tools by software, or someone could watch over a log of what everyone in the group is doing to make sure they are sticking to this narrower role, or you could just wait for complaints, which would be easier to act on when someone hasn't been qualified to do something at all. I think it's misleading to call the proposal "no admins" unless you also mean no deletions, no blocks, no protected articles, because people doing such things are always "admins" from the point of view of whoever is affected. Wnt (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The point is that bundling the tools isn't necessary. The question as to when a user is an admin would be purely a scholastic one. Some users treat me as the kind of "admin" you are describing because I have been here long enough even though I don't have the tools. That sort of "administrator" is very different than the sort we have currently. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Response 11

Some responses with a few of the comments made above, in no particular order (full disclosure: I am an admin, if nobody has noticed):

• There already is technically a permission for "permission granters" – they're called Bureaucrats; IMO I don't see why they should not be handing out the other permissions like rollback, reviewer, etc., but we'll leave it at that.
• Also, this does not guarantee that there will not be any sense of elitism in the blocker ranks, or the deleter ranks, or whichever "rank" you consider. Not to mention, you're going to create a further "caste system" than what we currently have (or is perceived) that would further alienate and shut out the regular editors out there who have no permissions.
• I mean, not to say "unbundling" of absolutely everything is a terrible idea; it looks good on paper, but I would not say the same in practice.
• I think one of the reasons why RFA is so hard and grueling is because how the community has made it; this is ultimately the result of the lack of hard-and-fast rules, which has allowed RFA to evolve into the "gauntlet" it is today.
• Term limits is not a bad idea, and perhaps admins should "re-certify", say, every year or so. My issue is that those admins whose times are "running out" who happen to run into the center of a major controversy would likely get shafted (the same happens all the time in politics, like most notably with Jimmy Carter).
• I have always supported the notion of removing bits from users who are inactive, from admins and all above advanced permissions, if they are not being used for a period of time, say, 1 year or so. That will ensure that we have a current group of users with those bits who are caught up with today's norms and not stuck in several years ago.
• Finally, we have just as many people who demand authority as those who are totally against any notion of it.

–MuZemike 23:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Response 12

1. No. No need. Moving on.

2. There is one very simple way to ensure that RfA improves. Mandate that every voter provide diffs. You want to oppose? Show examples of bad behavior, or point out what you dislike in X's counter. You want to support? Link to something positive, or point out what you like in X's counter. You don't have diffs? Stay in neutral until you find them. This ends the arbitrary stuff, the voting with a smiley face, the support per above, ect. You want to argue with someone's vote? You know exactly what their argument is, and oh, you have to argue with diffs too. Sure, it's going to be painful, and reduce the number of votes, but we should want quality votes, not just quantity.

3. No. Unless you're listening to a tiny but vocal minority, there are not enough bad apples to warrant opening this pandora's box.

4. Undefinable. Is everything getting done? Yes. We have enough. No? Go rouse some of them to get working.

Sven Manguard _Talk 00:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• The idea of a provisional stage of adminship has some merit, but perhaps it should be an optional part of RfA, whereby "Provisional Support" is a fourth voting option. If the "Support" alone is strong enough, make them an admin. If "Support" plus "Provisional Support" is enough, make them a provisional admin, and revisit in a year. Introducing it in this way would make the change less disruptive, and would let the community decide whether it wants it to be part of the process. I would hope that some of the current failed RfAs would be upgraded to provisional under this proposal, but few of the current successes would be downgraded.
• If we're going to have terms for admins, then perhaps we should reverse the burden of proof, and say that you need overwhelming opposition to lose the bit. Again, this would make the change less disruptive, and reduce the chance of losing admins rapidly. (I am opposed to term limits for admins, but I'm not sure that anyone really means to propose that.)
• I am strongly opposed to unbundling and partial admins. When I see disruption in Wikipedia, I have many tools at my disposal, e.g. editing, reversion, rollback, warning, protection, deletion, and blocking. I use them all as appropriate. If I had fewer tools, I'd face a continual temptation to act with those I had. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
• It's my view that the key to reducing the perception (or prevalence) of admin corruption is to change the etiquette related to wheel-warring. Currently, there is a strong taboo against undoing another admin's administrative action. I propose that we remove that stigma entirely. Any admin should feel empowered to boldly reverse another admin's administrative actions as if reversing their own actions, but it should be forbidden for the original admin to reinstate the action. This has been my unilateral policy for about three years but no-one has ever exploited it. For example, if Admin A blocks User X, then Admin B should feel free to shorten the block. Admin B's decision may be criticized on its merits, but there is no breach of etiquette and nobody is being a "cowboy". Admin A cannot reblock User X (for the same disruption), but Admin C may feel free to do so. Each successive reversal becomes less likely and the process will stabilize quickly. Controversial decisions are therefore opened up to the community of admins. Borderline disruptive users are given a little more rope. I would also add a guideline for admins that they should avoid ever blocking the same established user twice. If it's the right thing to do, then someone else will do it. Bovlb (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

We already have "once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus". So admin B is already free to revise or reverse Admin A's decision, and the onus is on admin A to talk rather than simply revert back. ϢereSpielChequers 15:10, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you're quite right. We do have that, and the language there is much stronger than that in the preceding section, "Administrators may disagree, but except for clear and obvious mistakes, administrative actions should not be reversed without good cause, careful thought and (if likely to be objected) usually some kind of courtesy discussion." However, from reading at AN/I, it's my sense that reversals are rare, long-delayed, and hotly debated on etiquette terms (search the archives for "cowboy admin"), whereas re-reversals are less contentious and seldom lead to ArbCom. (cf. "Wheel warring usually results in an immediate Request for Arbitration.") I haven't gathered hard data on this. My intention is largely to make practice conform more closely to policy, but also to shift policy a little by lowering the bar for simple reversal. I don't think we have anything strongly related to my "avoid blocking the same established user twice" guideline. Bovlb (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of many of my admin actions being reversed, nor have I often reversed other admins, but what experience I have had of that has been almost entirely positive. I suspect that though the incidents that get to ANI are a tiny proportion of what is going on, they probably skew people's perception of the situation. ϢereSpielChequers 16:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

A better way to put it might be that I'm trying to reduce the sense of ownership of administrative decisions. A lot of the drama that I observe seems to come from people becoming emotionally invested in their decisions. In an ideal world, we'd be able to treat our own past decisions and those of others equally, but that's not the world we live in. Given that, it's better if someone else can easily step in for us and provide the necessary objectivity. Bovlb (talk) 19:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree with that to some extent. I certainly think that admins should be much less territorial over their actions than many currently are. There is a taboo attached to reversing admin actions and it's my opinion that the current situation relies far too much on the judgement of a single admin. I personally am not at all territorial about my actions. I trust that my fellow admins made their actions for a reason and took into account that I believed I had a good reason for making the initial action. Real wheel-warring (combative reversal of actions) is very disruptive, but comparatively rare. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sven's #2 (and disagree with his #3). There are two distinct problems: the need for a more expeditious way to deal with admins who misuse tools (I suggest an expedited ArbCom committee process), and the need to lower the reward-seeking behavior of ill-prepared editors who appear at RFA, sometimes evidencing that they shouldn't even be editing, much lessing gaining admin tools. RFA is a vote, but in all the worst ways: Oppposers must provide solid reasons and diffs (which is what makes it "hell week", as they must dig up "dirt"), while Supporters only need sign, and often their signing amounts to nothing more than endorsing "I know this person on IRC, Facebook, MySpace, signed his guestbook, and ILIKEHIM. Supporters in no way have to justify their vote or evidence any knowledge of policy or the candidate. They only have to sign on-- a popularity contest. And Beaurocrats apparently (at least I'm told) weigh opposes, discount some, but not supports. This whole setup is distinctly the opposite of FAC: it has to demonstrated that an article meets criteria before it can be promoted, and one valid oppose will stop 20 driveby supports. Empower the 'crats to interpret supports and opposes and weight them according to diffs and logic supplied, exactly as at FAC, and we may at least promote less ill-prepared candidates, and lower the "hell" portion of the week, by placing less burden on Opposers to dig up dirt, more burden on Supporters to demonstrate why the candidate would make a good admin, by digging up "good" evidence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think RfA is too difficult as it is. Many good candidates fail because thousands of edits are worthless if they haven't written at least a GA while more than one content editor with no admin-related experience has got through RfA. To reform RfA, we need to look not at the supporters, but at the opposers, whose !votes carry thrice the weight (thus cancelling out a good portion of the supports from inexperienced editors who think that voting in RfA is a way to make a name for themselves). We need admins who have a broad range of experience, both in the mainspace and the project space (and yes, even in portal talk!) rather than placing too high a value on certain aspects and not enough on others. We may criticise editors for only whacking vandals or CSD tagging, but the fact is, that's what admins do! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I've been following RFA closely for several weeks now, and haven't seen anyone fail without good reason, certainly not for failure to write a GA (that is a meme that is propogated by some who don't pass), and if content contributors are passed without past evidence of vandal whacking, it's because they have ample experience during article building with vandals and know policy-- something one learns when actually building the encyclopedia (and gaining the trust of the many editors they work with in the process). I did see one very iffy pass with pile-on support, that concerns me, and one fail (Ling.Nut) of an excellent and knowledgeable content contributor, but he engaged the Quid pro quo trivia problem only days before his RFA, and others can't be expected to know his character and know he wouldn't behave that way with the tools. So, all in all, I disagree with your analysis of what's happening at RFA. If any opposer's vote carries "thrice the weight", maybe there's a good reason for that-- like writing an Oppose rationale that makes sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the "small but vocal minority" statement above: here's a case currently listed at ANI, and here is that user's talk page. Who speaks up for the responsible children on Wiki (to wit, we do have some of those) who have warnings slapped on their talk pages by admins for making absolutely correct edits, since when do they need consensus for making correct edits that improve Wiki, and why haven't those warning templates been removed? Who speaks for all the editors and IPs whose legitimate edits are reverted by vandal whackers who have no idea of Wiki policies? How can we make reasonable statements about how "small" this "minority" is, when they have no voice? Sorry, but for those of us who do have a voice, the responsible thing to do is speak up and help address these issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Good thing they still make those old fashioned wooden soap boxes, Sandy. The question is, it seems to me your concerns are very much in the eye of the beholder. You see "pile on support", others see "sailed through RfA because of his qualifications". Obviously there were two schools of thought regarding Ling.Nut, and given the sheer numbers of editors who voted, it is hard to be that dismissive. And as for adding material that "improves the article" without consensus, that way lies helplessness to do anything about it as everyone adds trivia to FAs. After all, improving the article, that's hardly an objective standard. How do you distinguish the (often worthy) things you want to do from the (often unworthy) things randoms want to do?--Wehwalt (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Who was dismissive about Ling.Nut? He tangled on an article talk a few days before RFA, many editors weighed in, he takes his lumps at RFA. And the issue here is not FAs-- it's a child with no voice being slapped with warning templates by admins for correct edits. Let's stay on topic, pls. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I realize that's become one of your new lines, Sandy, but on that matter, overdramatics such as "a child with no voice" seem not to the point.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Response 13

I dont necessarily think that we need to start chopping admin rights but I think there are some things we could/should do to clean up the list so to speak.

1. I think that if an admin leaaves for a while (maybe 6 months or a year) then they lose the admin privelage and haev to reaplly. So much changes in WP at such a rate its easy to fall behind with policy changes and I have seen some bad decisions based on this kind of action
2. I agree there should be levels of adminship and perhaps powers should be limited between them (maybe a 3 step adminship would be in order).
3. I think the process for becoming an admin needs to change and become easier. The current process is exhausting and leaves many with a bad feeling
4. I realize unbundling the Admin toolbox is a contentious debate at best but I think that some of the individual tasks an admin does (or abilities they possess) should be broken out by item so non-admins who have been around for a while can apply and get them individually without going through the whole admin process. Some have already been done but other remain. One that comes to mind is being able to edit a protected article. I am not an admin (nor do I particularly want to be one, no offense) but I have been around for several years and have over 140, 000 edits. It seems to me I have earned the trust to edit these types of articles.
5. I would also say that term limits could be a good idea as long as they didnt have to run the gauntlet and resubmit a whole new admin request. Maybe an expedited process. --Kumioko (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I also wanted to follow up and ask...Does the current number of admins respond accurately and efficiently to questions, concerns and problems? My opinion is most of the time yes, but it also seems to matter more the venue in which the concern is addressed. It seems that problems brought to the Village pump and a couple of others are responded too much faster than say comments made to an article/Category/Template talk pages. I do agree with Jimbo's assessment though that its next to impossible to haev the admin bit removed and Admins are typically above reproach, which might need to change some. --Kumioko (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Response 14

• 1) We should ideally make RfA easier to pass before we have another recruitment drive; otherwise we'll risk discouraging more editors.
• 2) Yes, ideally by lowering the passing range from 70- 80% to 45% - 55%. We should maybe leave the level of scrutiny up to the community, even if a persuasive case for going easier on candidates gains acceptance, attitudes could swiftly change back.
• 3) I like the mandatory 1 year confirmation idea for new admins, though dont see it as essential. As suggested above an ad-hoc community de-sysop process would be a drama ridden time sync and make admins who care about retaining the bit less likely to make unpopular but useful decisions.
• 4) We should aim to have enough admins so the outstanding workload is kept to a minimum so none of our dedicated sysops feel under pressure to spend more time doing admin work than they'd choose to in an ideal world. And so theres sufficient editors with the tools to always quickly and patiently respond to requests for assistance, including the difficult ones involving editors that are hard to communicate with. Probably we should aim to have at least 3000 active. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Response 15 and why I haven't stood

Administrators are trusted members of the community, are expected to follow Wikipedia policies, and are expected to pursue their duties to the best of their abilities. Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with administrator status; administrators are not expected to be perfect. -A Statement of Principle from several ArbCom rulings.

I happen to be one of those who believes that administrator status is "no big deal". Yes, administrator *actions* and *abilities* are a big deal, but my being one or not being one is no big deal; there's plenty for me to do either way. Unfortunately, while occasional mistakes are compatible with administrator status, they are unfortunately *not* compatible with administrator-Candidate status. Mistakes, and God-forbid *recent* mistakes are enough to sink an RfA with little further consideration of a candidate's qualifications.

Just this week I mistakenly reverted an IP user (twice!) who changed a year in an article from 1980 to 1981 with no edit summary. That sort of subtle edit, I have found, is often vandalism, so I reverted. The IP left a rather miffed note on my talk page, so I looked deeper into it, and found the IP was right. I bring all this up because, were I to stand for Adminship today, I would likely garner several Opposes due to this genuine mistake for Biting the IP. The rest of my 3+ years of contributions would likely be given less weight due to the recentness of this one event. The best case would be a "come back in 6 months and try again" oppose.

While admin status is no big deal, it is still disheartening for a genuine good-faith contributor who has volunteered much free time to the project, and who is essentially volunteering to start really getting his hands dirty and suffering the associated slings and arrows, to be told by the community that he is not trusted due to an event or two that is officially "entirely compatible with administrator status".

So what's the solution? I don't know... The voluntary recall process only works for admins with integrity, and by definition a recall process should be unnecessary for those. Term limits or mandatory re-confirmation votes will add extra overhead and bureaucracy to the process, and will result in admins not undertaking work in the difficult areas to avoid negative votes on their re-confirmation.

Like much of the US Judiciary, admins need to be lifetime appointments to remove pressure from coordinated special-interest groups. For example, 2 recent very contentious ArbCom cases, Scientology and Climate change, could easily generate a voting block on either side to derail a confirmation for an admin who opposed them, even if said admin was stellar in every aspect of policy throughout their tenure.

• quod vide

What we need is an easy way to remove a problematic admin that is immune from special-interest groups' "revenge votes", but is not so complex as to require a 3 month arbitration. So far the ArbCom sub-committee seems the most reasonable proposal I've heard.

Thanks for your time, and apologies for the length. Arakunem^Talk 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hits the nail on the head; you can screw up as much as you like once you are an admin, but never ever make a single minor mistake before you are one, else you'll never be one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 03:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Response 16 --- out of retirement comment

My thoughts are similar to those of scott's above. About a year ago, I made the proposal to have Coaching with tools, wherein admins would be able to actually coach others who would be granted the tools. Those people being mentored would be under the direct responsibility of the coach---eg if the coachee blew it, it was expected that the coach would step in. It would also be expected that the coach would monitor the coachees actions/edits to ensure they were in compliance.

I do believe it has become too hard to become an admin, but that stems from the corrolarly that it is too hard to remove the bit. I think we need to affect changes on both those fronts---make easier to remove the bit from those who need it to go away and make it easier for people to get (and get it back). Part of the problem right now is that it is too hard to take it away and when threatened with removing the bit people dig their heels in because they know how hard it is to get it back. Being an admin has become a big deal as a result, if we want to restore parity between admins/non-admins, then we need to make the chasm smaller. Make it easier to give and to take.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 17:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

New Arbcom Subcommittee

I believe it was mentioned above, but got lost in the other discussions. But there should be an arbcom subcommittee dedicated to finding abusive admins. It would be similar to the audit subcomittee, in that half the members would come from the community at-large, except they'd need to be non-admins because there seems to be a general feeling that admins don't police their own with enough vigilance. The subcommittee would ideally take complaints and then look for long-term patterns of abuse, and recommend cases to the whole committee. DC T•C 20:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

An excellent idea, though there should be some admins on the committee because it's difficult for a non-admin to understand what it's Really Like™ being a Cabal member admin on a day-to-day basis. This would also hopefully speed up the process of desysopping admins who consistently fail to adhere to the standard expected of them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Barring a major upset in this year's elections, all arbcom members will be admins. But it should be half admin/half non. DC T•C 20:28, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well the admin bit is pretty much a prerequisite for the tasks that arbs need to fulfil, but they tend not to get involved in day-to-day "admin stuff" once they take their virtual seats, which is why I suggested that some "regular" admins be involved in the decision-making of the subcommittee. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Endorse proposal. Additional accountability is an excellent idea, and bringing non-admins into the equation will provide an additional layer of legitimacy since some people (including some admins) don't seem to get the idea that admins are just regular editors with a few extra buttons. You do need an admin however, and probably a bureaucrat as well, in order to utilize some functions that a Admin-monitoring subcommittee would have to need to access. N419BH 20:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I to would endorse this, but would suggest that the non-admin members be experienced in dispute resolution is some way (ie work with MEDCAB). Additionally, we would have to look at how we want to select the members of the committee, especially the non-admins, since many of the non-admins who've been here long enough to understand the process simply don't want to be involved in the kind of drama that being on such a committee would entail. But yes, the non-admins are vital to the legitimacy of any such system. In terms of a lack of proper tools, if certain tools were unbundled for members only, that might solve the problem. Ronk01 talk 20:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

If that is its sole purpose, then suggest calling it the Wikipedia Un-Adminly Activities Committees (WUAC). (WP:STAR CHAMBER) Seems to fit.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Very high probability that this would turn into an admin + admin flunky group telling the masses "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."--Cube lurker (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Either that or they would be viewed as the "Rat squad" in much the same way as internal affairs is viewed by the police garnering no respect from the general population or the admin community. It could be a great thing... or not. --Kumioko (talk) 21:00, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It would actually be a joy to watch the admin haters running for office and give them a version of Hell Week ...--Wehwalt (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly why de-adminship should be in the hands of the community as a whole and not a group politicaly correct enough to pass through an election campaign.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that there needs to be a community process, but Dick Cheney has a better shot at being the next US President than a community based desysopping method being implemented. Plus, having an arbcomm subcommittee and a community based method aren't mutually exclusive. DC T•C 21:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I know there's a big difference between "should be" and "likely to be". However a sub-committe with the wrong people on it would just lul the community into a false sense of security.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Following Montesquieu et al, we should not heap more and more onto ArbCom, but have separation of powers. That means we should find another institution. One model might be the Plebeian Tribune. A cynic might think that the split between the senatorial admins and the normal editing plebs is reflected on Wikipedia anyways ;-). We could elect people for a limited time, give them admin tools and access to ArbCom communication, but with the clear understanding that they loose all these tools after 1 year (unless reelected) and then cannot regain them, any way, for another 2 years. Tribunes can veto ArbCom decisions and defrock admins.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be a very popular position, anyway!--Wehwalt (talk) 21:11, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• Just a random comment, but the non-admin members would almost definitely need to be given admin tools in order to serve (reviewing deleted edits would be a necessity). They wouldn't be allowed to use the tools though, except as needed for subcommittee duties. DC T•C 21:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• There is no need for this subcommittee as Arbcom already does a reasonably good job with the cases that are put before them. If people want change they should either make clear why people would be more willing to use this route than the full Arbcom, or what circumstances they think should lead to desysopping that wouldn't do so today. ϢereSpielChequers 15:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Sting Accounts

Sting operations in which editors are given new accounts, simulating (mildly) disruptive editors should be used to test the integrity of the administrative system. Count Iblis (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't hat kind of backfire with WP:NEWT with admins creating alternative accounts to create articles that were borderline CSD cases and then giving a bollocking to any editor who dared slap a CSD tag on it. What exactly would it test, anyway? Don't we have enough trolls and vandals etc running amok without experienced editors trying to provoke admins into blocking them under another identity? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:51, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

NEWT was intended to be existing editors using new accounts to create articles that didn't merit deletion, one reason why it became controversial was that at least a couple of the articles were somewhat borderline; deliberating simulating disruptive editors would IMHO be guaranteed to end in tears. Also it is somewhat easier to look at a random bunch of blocked users to see if the cases were handled correctly than it is to see if a bunch of deleted articles were handled correctly; There's simply no need to create extra fake disruptive accounts, we already have plenty of genuine ones to look at. ϢereSpielChequers 22:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that you don't want to simulate disruptive editors. However, what can be useful is for some Admin or ArbCom member to edit using the account of an editor who is part of some dispute (with the agreement of that editor). In many disputes you can see problematic behavior on both sides and each side can have said to have provoked something on the other side. However, sometimes this is just an excuse and there is actually is only one side who is provoking things and causing trouble.

E.g. in the climate change case, it would have been helpful if William had temporarily handed over his account to ArbCom who would then make edits suggested by William but they would play nice as far as interacting with other editors. They could then more clearly see if there is real bating going on, what the level of harassment really is, etc. etc. Count Iblis (talk) 23:17, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

But all those edits are publicly viewable, so there are other already allowed ways to monitor such editing. If we had an allegation that editors to a particular topic or with a particular userbox were being sent harassing emails then I could see a case for creating some fake newbie accounts as the best way to see what emails turned up and who sent them. But I really don't see what we gain by breaking rules about sharing accounts or having a good hand bad hand account. ϢereSpielChequers 13:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Because a "sting account" has no special off-wiki powers, why not just pay special attention to ordinary new accounts? In particular, I think the accounts of people who come to Wikipedia to revise their own articles or those of events in which they've been involved could use some attention - I think that they often get a hostile, bureaucratic response that gets them angry and can quickly lead to blocks and bans that seem really unfair. Not uncommonly they end up on this page, feeling they have no other recourse. In general it seems like new users run into a thousand prosecutors and no defense attorneys. I think that a group of WikiDefenders would do far more to rein in admin abuse than any amount of "sockpuppetry in a good cause". Wnt (talk) 18:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Count, thank you for making it clear to us that this is yet another attempt to deify WMC and not a real proposal to improve Wikipedia. Jimbo asked us to keep this conversation philosophical, but you seem hell-bent on being WMCs apologist and advocate in every possible forum. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This has nothing per se to do with William. I only used William as an example. You may be referring to this discussion. But also in that discussion, the issue is not "William worship", rather a serious issue regarding maintainance of Wikipedia articles (which is also discussed on my talk page right now). On the notification page, I also used Cla68 as an example, but you seemed to have conveniently misssed that.

Also, this can work both ways, it is an investigative tool. If William himself is the cause of problems because he harrasses people and ceasing to do that improves things, then that will also be immediately clear to an Arbitrator who temporarily edits using his account. Count Iblis (talk) 04:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

You are aware that giving someone else control of your account is a very bad thing, right? Not just in Wikipedia terms, but on the internet in general. This is something we should NEVER encourage. Resolute 04:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, anyone who operates a "sting" acount should have both the sock and their primary account blocked. We've got enough people running around breaking WP:POINT without encouraging others to do it deliberately. Resolute 21:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Question

Question: Why should discussions about things like this be taken at Jimbo's talk page? In which way is he related to en.wiki changes? Shouldn't discussions like this be brought to the village pump? HeyMid (contributions) 21:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

He initiated it here. DC T•C 21:27, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? Do you mean that Brews ohare initiated it here, so this is being discussed here? HeyMid (contributions) 21:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

To clarify Jimbo started the thread with #Adminship_and_RfA. I guess it just got broken up into it's own heading. DC T•C 21:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Will the good folks here please try to read the whole page and refrain from adding to the length if they haven't? I proposed an ArbCom subcommittee to handle expedited desysopping cases, apart from the huge cases they are usually attached to, well up on the page. (I think the idea of involving non-admins is a non-starter-- this is already an Arb function-- we just need to speed it up.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

No one responded to it, so it was necessary to start a subsection. DC T•C 22:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to make the same point. This is an entirely inappropriate venue for this discussion (even though it's listed on WP:CENT). WT:RFA would have been the obvious venue, and there are many other locations that would have been more suitable than this talk page. The purpose of the User talk: namespace is to talk directly to the user whose page it is, NOT for general discussion. Quite why Jimbo is starting threads on his own talk page, let alone large community discussions like this one, I don't understand. Such discussions should be taken to the correct forums, which are emphatically NOT Jimbo's talk page. (For the record, I'm not sufficiently familiar with RFA to feel qualified to offer an opinion on changes to the system. I was just interested to see what was being said.). Modest Genius ^talk 21:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Modest Genius; I find it quite unsettling that Jimbo start discussions with 'the community' on his own talk page rather than venturing into Wikipedia: space. I have refused to participate in discussion because it has been held here, and not at a community forum where we have norms for developing consensus and deciding outcomes. I've been watching only because I half expect Jimbo to overhaul RFA by fiat as a result of this discussion. IMO that will end well. The other alternative is that this discussion is a lot of hot air. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hot air is the 3-1 favorite on Bodog. Interestingly, end adminship all-together is at 50-1, compared to meaningful change at RFA/common-sense desysopping procedures at 200-1 each. DC T•C 01:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't. There is no reason to shuffle about the venue. A discussion is a discussion is a discussion. Protonk (talk) 01:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This looks distinctly like an RFC to me; what Jimbo intends to do with all the responses is unknown, but I'll hazard a guess and assume that he is going to take them on board and .. start an RFC. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Jimbo didn't initiate it. He called the ragged thread that preceded it to order, and in which I had aleady been criticised for suggest that the discussion might have been better located at WT:RfA. Anyway, I'm glad he's chimed in, because we now have some semblance of a structured, intelligent discussion, and there is now a ray of hope that an RfC (or two) might be launched in the not too distant future.--Kudpung (talk) 04:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Response 17

(Just as a data point, a proposal was made recently to lower the RfA assumed-passing percentage by 10%. It failed, with a headcount of 24-3 against, which I don't think you get a percentage like that for any proposal short of suggesting that we invade Albania. A lot of the opposition was indeed based the fact that we don't have admin recall.)

Making it easier to recall administrators scares me, because it's a major change, and it could result even fewer administrators. But I think that that, given an effective recall procedure, we would have that:

• Only a few administrators would actually be recalled.
• And I think the existence of recall would make it easier for admin candidates to win confirmation.
• And this would also lead to more candidates.
• And it would also increase support for other RfA reforms making it easer to pass RfA.
• So I think that overall it would increase the supply of admins.
• And as an added bonus, it would put the fear of God into admins, which I genuinely believe would decrease instances of bad admin behavior, to the extent that there is any.
• And as an extra added bonus, it would make a lot of editors feel safer (from potential admin abuse).

But that also you might have:

• More bytes spent on arguing over recalls == less bytes spent on articles.
• Potential admins declining RfA on the grounds that that they don't want to be subject to constant recall petitions or even recall RfA's. (And some current admins would resign over this also.)
• Good admins being in fact annoyed by recall petitions and threats of recall petitions.
• Admins behaving timidly because of fear of recall.
• The possibility of good admins being desysopped.

So I don't know. And neither does anybody else. We can just guess. But a couple of deciding factors for me are 1) in a certain sense, the admins "rule" over the community at the page level, and as a general principle we ought to be able to choose and oust our own rulers, and 2) my own experience.

I was the subject of a successful admin recall, and, keeping in mind that we were breaking new ground, it went fairly well. In my case, there was no question of abuse of admin tools; it was, to simplify, a matter of my general deportment. So I couldn't have been taken to ArbCom. And yet, people don't want want to be "ruled" (so to speak) by a fuckhat. (I'm not saying that I am a fuckhat, but it's apparently arguable.) And why should they? Some people felt that there was something somehow unfair about this, but I'm sure not one of them.

And so this: there is a community admin recall procedure. I know that there is, because I just wrote it. It's not a proposal, it's a how-to, and one could use it right now, tonight, to recall an admin if one wants to. Whether it would actually work I don't know, but it might. It includes a couple of choke points (as is proper) and I don't know if would get past those. There's only one way to find out, I guess, and as Barney says "When you try something new, you grow on the inside". It's here. I'm not likely to use it, as I have no need to and I have enough problems anyway, but anyone else can if they want to. Herostratus (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I should preface my comments by saying that I'm not specifically referring to Herostratus' case because I have limited knowledge of the situation, though I think there is something to be said about an admin actually going through with a recall request But this is the sort of example of things that need to be policed. Admin abuse isn't simply just abuse of the tools (which more often than not seem to get caught, particularly if the offending steps on another admins toes), it's things like incivility and other breaches of policy. These generally go unnoticed, and even if they are caught, there is no punishment. DC T•C 12:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Response 18

How bad is the admin backlog ? In other words, is there a real need for more admins and so for applications - if so I am sure that there are many out there who could be persuaded to stand.

How much time would an admin be expected to work on admin tasks each week/month ? Is it the case that the admins are actually doing admin work or is there a significant percentage that have the bit but are not doing admin tasks.

Many editors appear to be reluctant to stand due to the RfA process yet to me it seems it is no different than any other selection and election procedure. In general I see elections in the public eye tending to focus on things which might not actually prevent a candidate from doing a good job and perhaps this is the case in RfAs. Having said that it seems that there may be a problem where editors are elected for mainly vandal fighting rather than housekeeping or editing processes. That may be a problem more endemic to Wiki than just the RfA process where it appears to me that there is less recognition for working on prose, plagiarism and copyvio and more for having reverted a lot of spam and vandalism.

Chaosdruid (talk) 18:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that anyone is claiming that we currently have a bad backlog of admin work other than merges and some areas that few seem keen to help in. The divide seems to be between those who think RFA is broken because of the declining number of active admins and assert that if the numbers continue to fall by 1% a month we will eventually have an admin shortage, and that AIV is already sometimes clogged, with vandals able to continue sprees for sometime until an admin gets round to blocking them. Those who don't think RFA is broken point to the fact that most of the time we still have enough admins to handle the deletion, blocking, userrights requests and protection processes and assert that we don't have a problem at the moment.

I'm not sure anyone has tried to measure what time a typical admin spends on admin actions per month. Our definition of an active admin is 30 edits in the lasst 60 days, which could include people who scarcely ever use the tools and people who retired 7 weeks ago and haven't edit since. It also includes hundreds of active editors who are admins but only rarely use the admin tools. So we have an unknown amount of spare capacity of admins doing non admin things, but as admins are volunteers the more we pressurise them to concentrate on admin work the more likely they are to get burnout and leave, or to become detached from the general editing community.

The RFA process doesn't value work on "prose, plagiarism and copyvio" problems less than vandalfighting, actually it is very much the reverse, we've recently seen dedicated vandalfighters rejected at RFA for not having contributed to the pedia whilst our most recent successful RFA was for a specialist in dealing with copyvio problems. ϢereSpielChequers 09:16, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Summary

Can someone please summarize the discussion? It's getting severely TLDR. ResMar 14:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Response 19, proposal

We need a new class of userrights similar to non-admin rollback. See the extremely long thread on WP:ANI, where a sockpuppeter is currently getting all the attention they want while a massive rangeblock is being considered because there aren't enough admins to block all the IPs as they come up. This class will have two rights: the ability to semi-protect an article (not a userpage, talk page, or anything else) and the ability to block IPs and non-autoconfirmed users. These blocks and protections will be automatically set at 24 hours. Additionally, actions performed using this userright will be automatically logged at an appropriate location where they can be reviewed by the community at large. Use of these tools will be governed by a specific set of rules. For blocks, the user must be given four warnings and only blocked after failing to heed the final warning. For page protection, more than one account/IP must be targeting the page. Edits must be blatant vandalism; the use of the tool for any other reason is unacceptable. Any violations will be taken to ANI. Obtaining the tool will be done in the same manner as obtaining Rollback. This solves the problem of waiting around for admins to protect pages or block users (WP:RPP and WP:AIV often go unchecked by admins for an hour or more) and also resolves the problem of not having enough admins by taking the burden of performing one of the most common tasks off of them. This has already been done with rollback and it is time to do it with protection and blocking. N419BH 08:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Response 20, proposal

Purpose:

1. To facilitate the removal of underperforming admins without making community de-adminship a popularity contest.
2. To create more meaningful scrutiny of administrative actions.
3. To create a meaningful mentorship regime for admins.
4. To end the ritual hazing at RfA.

Suggestion:

1. Create a new usergroup, "Commissioner", with the technical power both to promote and demote admins.
2. Commissioners are elected via a RFB-like process, perhaps for a fixed term.
3. Their mandate is to see that Wikipedia has a sufficient number of admins to perform the necessary tasks and keep backlogs under control; to coach, support and supervise our admin corps; and to scrutinise administrative actions and administrator conduct. They're expected to be supportive of admins who do necessary but unpopular things.
4. Commissioners appoint admins exactly as they see fit. They can also summarily demote admins exactly as they see fit, although they might prefer to refer some cases to Arbcom. Admins are no longer directly elected. It's the commissioners who're answerable to the community, not the admins themselves.

Hope this helps—S Marshall T/C 22:38, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Again (going back to my response above to a couple other users proposing this), isn't that the inherent role of bureaucrats for that, to add/remove userrights? –MuZemike 02:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Response 21

Perhaps not the first time I've raised this, but I've never really heard a specific argument against it, so here goes.

Keep RFA the way it is, but as soon as the "vote" goes over (say) 50% and stays there for a week, the user is made an adminstrator but (and here's the difference) their RFA page is kept open, so people are welcome to add their votes, remove their votes or change their votes. As soon as the "vote" goes under (say) 50% and stays there for a week, or if the user ever changes their mind about wanting to be an adminstrator, they are automatically made not an adminstrator.

In this way, adminstrators are "elected" and truly maintained by consensus. The vetting that goes on can be reduced since it's so much easier for voters to just change their mind later. Due to the built-in week (or whatever) long hystersis, pitchfork waving crowds have time to cool down, and block-voters have time to be counterweighted by the community.

Lightweight, pretty-much stress-free, makes adminship avaialable to many more editors without any real risk, no more "gameable" than current RFA and in keeping with the "no big deal" ethos. 78.245.228.100 (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Response 22

I'll repeat the proposal I've made before. Get rid of the whole RFA process, and create an Admin Committee of 10-15 members, elected in the same way that ArbCom is, with full responsibility for giving and removing ops. Looie496 (talk) 18:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

• This strongly resembles proposal #20.—S Marshall T/C 23:09, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed it does. Looie496 (talk) 01:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Another question

Ok, so what we've got here are a lot of ideas, proposals, counter proposals, etc. What is the process for determining whether any particular ideas have community support? (Notice that last word there is not "consensus", which really means unanimity, but you may substitute it in if you wish.) And who is going to initiate that process. (Not it.) Neutron (talk) 02:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

fund raising

Just thinking of the nature of giving money, the psychology of it, a lot of religious organizations will send out direct mail campaigns with suggested donations listed like this: $5 $10 $15 $20 Other. Rather than $100 $50 $25, etc. which is what Wikipedia has when you click on the ad. There's a psychology to the smaller amounts in that it says to the guy with very little cash, "We won't think you're cheap if you don't send in the minimum $20 which is what we prefer because of the cost of processing your credit card and Paypal fees." Maybe if not the $5, then add $10. The "Other" box might seem to be asking for over $100, rather than indicating a small amount is welcome, too. Those small amounts remind me of the saying, "If you mind the pennies, the pounds will take care of themselves." :) Malke 2010 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

During the testing phase (the most extensive ever, this year) the fund-raising team tested a variety of alternatives, including ordering from high to low and low to high. The live configuration was based on the best performance.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Did the smaller amounts not test well, or is it too expensive to process them?Malke 2010 (talk) 21:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Didn't test well, as I understand it. During the testing, a very nice guy wrote to me and suggested that we should ask for more (than the test that was running that day), and then Zack at the Wikimedia Foundation wrote me a long email in response to my query about the testing, explaining that he did test higher amounts and lower amounts. It's really an empirical matter, in my opinion, with some psychological reasoning to explain the effects. Ask people for too much, and they feel their donation doesn't matter. Ask people for too little, and they'll give less than they would be willing to give, if only you asked.

I'm happy that we have had more actual serious testing this year, as compared to previous years. I'm confident that the performance is going to be great.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

(Better late than never with this comment, I suppose): For those interested in the testing that was done this year, all the results are publicly available: here. Thanks for the nice comments, everyone. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 11:48, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds impressive. And I like the ads running this year. Much better than the plain banner last year.Malke 2010 (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of fundraising, since we are beginning to finally move along with it, I would like to point your attention to the Wikipedia trading card game that a few of us are putting together. Do you think that we are headed in the right direction with this? Hi878 isn't home. ^{(Can I take a message?)} 01:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems fun! The one bit of random and possibly not-very-helpful advice that comes to my mind is to keep in mind that a game that we (insiders, Wikipedians) would find hilarious and fun, due to having lots of inside jokes, might not be so great for the general public.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I've got to say that this year's campaign and layout is so much better than other years. Much classier. Last year's had some awfully pushy slogans in it..♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

We're trying to keep the inside jokes to a minimum, but occasionally, there are some that are so perfect that we had to use them. The card designing phase is definitely the most fun. Hi878 isn't home. ^{(Can I take a message?)} 16:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Might as well take this opportunity to butt in here...in designing the trading card game, we've found it appropriate to use variants of the Wikipedia logo and wordmark (if Wikia's image server isn't down like it's been all day, you can see some already-designed cards and the reverse face of the cards)...how do we go about getting an "okay" on the use of Wikimedia images and derivations thereof? I'd hate to see several hundred cards designed and then have to change the layout, so it'd be good to find out now if it'll be an issue. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:39, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Better ask the Foundation, not me. :-) Zack, probably, but please let him be until after the fund raiser, I assume he's on nearly 24x7 duty for that...--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the redirect ; once the fundraiser ends, where do I find this Zack person? Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And also, Mr. Wales, I have a question. Is there any quote from you that you would like to see on your card? Also, any particular picture? I figured I should ask you, since you no doubt won't want to see something that you hate on your card, when it is a rather important card that will be in every deck. :) ~~ Hi878 ^{(Come shout at me!)} 05:58, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose my "Imagine a world..." quote would be lovely. Either version would be fine - my original one or the committee-rewritten "official" one which serves as the Foundation vision statement. (But I prefer the original. :-) )--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I would of loved to be able to donate $10, I use wikipedia often and am just starting to contribute. Just being on a fixed income makes it hard atm. I'll try and scrape together the $25 and donate, after seeing that Jimmy Wales actually reads and responds to this section makes me all warm and fuzzy, and encourages me even more. Most CEO's wouldn't bother. Keep up the fantastic work! 220.101.4.140 (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Ombudsman Commission unwilling to communicate with me

I was informed roughly five months ago that the Ombuds Commission was investigating a complaint against me. Since that time, I have made several email requests (both to Lar, the Ombud who initially contacted me, and to the Commission mailing list), and one on-wiki request ([1]) for further information.

Lar has told me a few times that I have "no need to be concerned", but the Commmission has refused to tell me anything about why I was being investigated in the first place, what complaints were made against me (even in the most general terms) that fall within their remit, or when they intend to finally and formally close the matter. By email (on 27 July to Lar, and on 10 September to the Ombuds mailing list) I asked them to complete and endorse – as the Commission – a fill-in-the-blanks four-sentence statement along the lines of

Suggested statement of closure
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"On or about [date], the Ombuds received a complaint from [User] regarding TenOfAllTrades. The complaint alleged [some things]. Upon investigation, we found that [choose one of (a) or (b)] a) ...the allegations were not supported by the evidence or testimony. We find no indication that TenOfAllTrades violated the privacy policy. b) ...the allegations did not relate to the privacy policy and were therefore out of the scope for investigation by the Commission. TenOfAllTrades and [User] were notified of this decision, and the matter was closed without further action."

Over roughly the same period of time (though starting well before I was made aware of any Ombuds investigation), I have openly criticized Lar's conduct in matters related to the climate change arbitration, so I can see how responding to messages from me would be a low priority for him; it's only human nature. Nevertheless, the complete lack of response from the Commission as a whole seems a disturbing neglect of their responsibilities. If they are unable to close (what I can only imagine is) a completely spurious complaint in a timely manner, how are they able to respond to genuine issues? After several months of being brushed off and ignored, I'm afraid that this talk page is my only recourse. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:25, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to do with the Ombuds Commission. I don't have in role in their appointment, policies, etc. If I were you, I wouldn't worry about it very much. "The commission already has disposed of this. There is nothing actionable and you have no need to be concerned," said Lar. I have no idea what it was all about, but it sounds like it was nothing. It sounds like someone whined to them, they looked into it, found nothing. If you don't even know what it was about at all, that's probably because it was just completely silly or something. If they didn't ever tell you what it was about, well, there can be good reasons for that (usually, drama reduction).

If there is a page somewhere (again, I don't really have anything to do with the Ombuds, so I don't even know where to look) that somehow looks bad for you, as if there is some kind of ongoing investigation, that's a different matter. But if there was never any kind of formal "case", I don't see any reason for a formal statement of the kind you are asking. Someone whined, nothing came of it. Another day on the wiki. :) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I would still like to know why the Ombuds Commission is unable or unwilling to issue a formal finding to that effect. Lar has promised such for months, and repeatedly failed to follow through; he has also confirmed that he cannot speak officially on behalf of the Commission. If this is a simple "Someone whined and nothing came of it", why can't I get the Ombuds to say so on the record? Either the Commission is actually still holding on to something that Lar doesn't want to tell me about, or Lar and the rest of the Commission are unable to prepare and endorse a simple statement declaring that I committed no wrongdoing.

In retrospect, I also find it very troubling that (given the interactions Lar and I have had before and since the beginning of the Ombuds investigation, and given the outcome of the climate change arbitration) Lar has not taken it upon himself to recuse from considering this issue. If the Ombuds were dealing with a spurious complaint, then m:Ombudsman commission#Neutrality would seem to suggest that best (and by far preferred) practice is to avoid investigating complaints on one's own Wikipedia (my emphasis added):

As a general guideline, it is best that ombudsmen avoid conflicts of interest as much as possible, particularly by avoiding routine use of CheckUser access and not processing complaints on the projects on which they are very active editors.

While there is no hard and fast rule, I am having trouble seeing why this guidance was not followed in my case. I suppose I find the whole matter disappointing, more than anything. The Ombuds are supposed to be responsive and responsible, and my sole experience with them has been the opposite. While I appreciate that you, Jimbo, have no official role in their appointment and policies, it would be disingenuous for us both to assume that you (or for that matter, your talk page) can have no influence over the way that they do business. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that the committee has not seen fit to give you an answer that exactly matches your desired form letter format. But this matter was asked and answered long ago, as far as I am concerned, and should be considered done and dusted, as you have been told multiple times. I asked the committee as a whole to make a statement to you, and I copied you on my note doing so (which you forgot to mention). I will repeat, there is nothing to the allegations in my view, and the silence from the rest of the committee would seem to endorse that. What I find dismaying is that you continue to raise this over and over and that you seem to be trying to spin the way it's went for political advantage. It may just be that you are not going to get an answer in the exact format you want. It does happen from time to time that we don't get exactly the answer we want on this project. It's happened to me many times, in fact. I eventually get over it. ++Lar: t/c 16:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

If I may chime in -- and I'm not known as a habitual supporter of Lar -- a body such as the Ombudsman Commission needs to protect the privacy of their sources, otherwise nobody will want to file a complaint for fear of retaliation. I completely understand why they would say nothing further about this matter other than It's resolved, forget it. We may not be worried that you'd retaliate, but how would future complainants feel if they saw confidences not being protected? Jehochman ^Talk 17:00, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting for the Ombuds to issue even a plain statement – on behalf of the Commission, not merely the opinion of one of its members – that they have closed their investigation and found no wrongdoing. I do not know why they are unwilling or unable to do so, even after Lar has repeatedly stated that such a statement was forthcoming. Obviously I recognize the need to respect the privacy and confidentiality of all Wikipedia editors; I have only reluctantly brought this matter on-wiki because off-wiki communications have for months failed to resolve the issue. If Lar wants me to 'get over it', it's very simple — he can get the Commission to communicate with me. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

And if they won't? What do you want me to do then? You've sent mail. I've sent mail. I sent more today. I suspect you are not going to get your form letter sent to you the way you want it worded. That's what I think you need to get over... silence from the other members ought to be taken as absolution in this case. Sure, a formal statement might be nice, and some public nudging might bring it forth, or might not... but your tone in this matter is not helpful as to me anyway it seems to place all the blame on me which, frankly, is BS. ++Lar: t/c 18:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't believe that you're the only one who has fallen down on the job here; the rest of the Commission members have been completely silent, and as far as I know have left you as the only member to even respond to any inquiry I've made over the last five months. On the other hand, you were the one who chose not to recuse yourself at any point, despite the guidance provided to Ombuds discouraging their involvement in cases on their home Wikipedias. You were the member of the Commission who decided to email me and tell me that I was being investigated in the first place. You were the one who chose to act as my point of contact with the Commission. And while you are just one of the members of the Commission, there are only five Ombuds — it is neither unreasonable nor unexpected that I might expect you to be able to engage with a very small number of your colleagues. (Do the Ombuds truly not respond to email from other members of the Commission? If not, isn't this a serious issue that should be immediately addressed by the Foundation?)

In July, you told me that you thought my proposed wording was a reasonable close for the case. In August, you told me that it was lax not to have driven the matter to a conclusion. In September, you acknowledged that you were remiss in failing to seek a formal closure of the investigation, but to my knowledge no member of the Commission ever took further action. That's why we're here now — neither you nor any other Ombud has made any effort to resolve this issue with me. I send an email, I get a polite reply saying that the Commission will get on it, and then nothing. No follow up. I'm cut out of the loop. If the Commission had privacy concerns or simply wanted to explicitly say that certain things were out of bounds for discussion (even in a private email to me), that would be something reasonable that I could work with and probably accept. But I'm just filed and forgotten. I don't know if you realize that it's not fun for a regular Wikipedia editor to know he's being investigated by the Ombuds; accused (however groundlessly) of serious wrongdoing; talked about on their mailing list. The Ombuds deal with the Foundation, with the Board, with Wikipedia's legal counsel. That's heavy stuff. Yes, my tone is definitely shading towards the irate — I've been getting the brushoff from an important and influential investigative body for months. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If Lar already told you that the complaint had no basis, I don't understand why you feel that you require further responses. However, you raise in passing a valid issue, which is that Ombudsmen need to recuse from cases involving their home wikis. If that's voluntary at the moment, it needs to be made mandatory. ScottyBerg (talk) 14:11, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Well if the complaint had no basis, and the committee has found nothing actionable, isn't it time for an official "that's all folks, case closed" to be posted/e-mailed or however it is done here? I mean I know this is all volunteer effort and such, but really, how long can it take to actually issue a finding in a case that everyone is saying is closed? Tarc (talk) 19:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, some kind of form letter response, speaking in generalities, would be helpful. But it seemed to me that he basically got his answer anyway. I must confess that I didn't know that there was an Ombudsmen commission, and that its members were appointed and not elected, so that there is no accountability to the community. ScottyBerg (talk) 19:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

My chief concern is that I got a comment from one member of the Commission, who when asked confirmed that he was not empowered to make binding statements on behalf of the entire body. It's like an Arbitrator saying "We haven't officially closed your case, but I'm sure there's nothing to worry about; we took care of everything on our private mailing list." I'm amenable to reasonable compromises about the amount of information that I receive, in the interest of protecting confidentiality (though I do wonder exactly how much protection a vexatious complainant deserves — Lar identified the complainant but not the nature of the allegations against me when he informed me that I was being investigated).

What is – or should be – completely unacceptable is that the Commission has so far refused to make any formal statement of closure. Until this thread started, I had been told off-wiki for months that my request was reasonable and that a response should be forthcoming. This sudden "get over it" from an Ombudsman is inconsistent with everything else that I had been told up to now. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Reasonable requests don't always get answered satisfactorily. Have you tried asking other members directly? ++Lar: t/c 00:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

As an Ombudsperson, do you feel that "reasonable requests don't always get answered satisfactorily" is an acceptable or appropriate standard of performance for the Ombudsman Commission? Doesn't the notion of an important committee of Wikimedia functionaries blowing people off bother you? Have you tried contacting your colleagues, to try to find out why they aren't able to respond to questions on the Ombuds mailing list? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:42, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

praise from an expert (not me)

Thought you might be interested (I already sent this info in an email, but apparently that was the wrong forum) that I got into a (civilized) content dispute concerning the article docudrama. I contacted an expert, published film historian David Bordwell to see if he could cite any sources to settle the dispute. He couldn't think of any sources concerning the matter, but he did end his email by saying "Let me also say how much I appreciate Wikipedia, which seems to me an extraordinary contribution to--no kidding--the progress of human civilization!" Just thought you should know that the experts are paying attention -- and apparently are impressed! Minaker (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The irony is that although Mr. Bordwell is an established expert on cinema, and his response included a rather straight-forward definition that would have settled the dispute, I could not cite his email, since it is a clear violation of Wikipedia's reliability standards concerning accessability! But since Mr. Bordwell disagreed with my definition of "docudrama" at least I could go to the talk page and admit I was wrong. Minaker (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for input

Hi. Would you please take a look at Commons:Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-German_stamps_and_all_it_tags_2? Thanks!   — Jeff G.  ツ 05:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia making money. Would it be such a bad thing?

What if there was a way for Wikipedia to turn around a profit without compromising its neutrality so it wouldn't have to rely on donations from users. Would that be such a bad thing? I'm not talking about going down the Facebook or Google route but a way Wikipedia could make a lot of money. Enough so it would never have to worry about server costs ever again. Tcla75 (talk) 11:07, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Devil is in the details about "not compromising its neutrality." I would wager WP has turned down advertising linkage offers a few times already. Collect (talk) 11:12, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree blanket advertising like Google use would be damaging to the site but there other ways it could make a lot of money. Tcla75 (talk) 11:17, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

we're not here to "make money". Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 12:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

If Wikipedia became a for-profit operation, how would it replace the large number of volunteers that keep the project running on a day-to-day basis? Providing free labor for a non-profit with a worthy goal can be justified as either a noble act or charity. Providing the same free labor so someone else can make money off of your efforts is just a bad deal. --Allen3 ^talk 13:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

For many "making money" is a dirty concept, but I think Tcla75's idea is to find some way to generate income to cover expenses. I, personally, dont have a problem with this, but I think WP would lose a lot of editors. I suspect at some point in time, WP will have to do something like what PBS does with "enhanced sponsorships" which really are commercials. I would rather see this than have WP disappear because it was no longer viable. I find the fundraising banner annoying as well (especially as someone who enters the site to edit sometimes several times a day), but even PBS still has its annoying fundraisers (one but not the most important reason why I avoid it and NPR.) Thelmadatter (talk) 14:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Wikipedia's business model has always mystified me.ScottyBerg (talk) 14:37, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It has been discussed a few times before, including during the strategy program strategy:Proposal:No_Advertising. Aside from the neutrality issues, and the demotivation of volunteers, there is also the issue that the current system works well and gets all the money we need in a short annual campaign. Whilst any divide between an advertising funded and advertising free Wiki would probably be won by the free one, as it would get the large share of volunteers, and Google and others would probably give it a higher rating rather than boost a competitor to them in the advertising market. ϢereSpielChequers 15:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Guidance re BLP issues

Hi Jimmy. I would very much appreciate your opinion regarding an article Werner_Erhard_vs._Columbia_Broadcasting_System which I recently proposed for deletion, and the wider issues that are implied.

I had thought that there was little doubt about the fact that the article was a clear example of a coatrack since only a small proportion of it refers directly to its ostensible subject and most of it is dedicated to propagating defamatory allegations aired in the television program that precipitated the courtcase. Clearly the consensus of voters on the deletion proposal is not aligned with my view of the matter.

This seems to me to be a flagrant attempt to circumvent the policies that preclude the use of Wikipedia to circulate damaging unverifiable accusations against Living Persons.

What do you think? regards DaveApter (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

One problem is that the primary exposition of the case in this article relegates the retractions from the daughters to being a bit of an afterthought. Where retractions occur, they ought to be substantially and prominently mentioned. Even the "most evil person in the world" (hypothetical example) is entitled to be fairly treated in any article falling under [WP:BLP]] which this one certainly falls under. Frankly, the article is too long by a factor of five at least. Collect (talk) 16:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

DaveApter, while I agree with you completely on the principles that you site, and I think that there are a number of WP:COATRACK articles that deserve attention, I am not sure that I would agree with a deletion here.

At least at the moment, the subsequent retraction of allegations by the daughters is prominently mentioned in the introduction, which is a good thing, although likely not good enough. And I suspect there is subtle bias throughout.

Let me give one example, which I have not researched, but which I bet I am right about if we dig more deeply.

We learn in the article that the case was against CBS and "approximately 20 other defendants". We are later told that "A lawyer for the San Jose Mercury News characterized Erhard's lawsuit as frivolous." What we aren't told, but which I bet is true, is that the San Jose Mercury News was a defendant, and that their lawyer was speaking in particular of the case as applied to them. (And he may well have been right: it's one thing to sue someone who published a defamatory news show about you, and another thing to sue newspapers who merely reported on the controversy. I don't know if that was the situation here, but I'm betting that I'm not far off the mark.)

So we are left with the perception that an independent legal expert at a reputable newspaper characterized the lawsuit as frivolous, when in fact what we probably have is a defendant in the lawsuit characterizing the aspect of the lawsuit that applied to them as frivolous. This hardly merits mention, really, since defendants in lawsuits are very prone to saying such things. But if mentioned, it should be noted that this was not an independent legal commentator, but a lawyer acting as advocate.

As to the length of the article, I am not so sure that I agree with Collect. It seems responsible to have a full and lengthy article if we are going to have one at all: it gives space to explore why the case is of historic interest, what the aftermath was, etc.

I haven't checked the history, but I am guessing that we are also facing some issues with WP:RECENT with respect to the BoingBoing/Wikileaks angle. I'm not sure that in 25 years time, this recent news blip will be of any particular importance to the story at all. And certainly not important to the degree that we currently cover the case.

Overall, then, my opinion is that this is not a great article, but could be an ok article to have. We absolutely should take into account the principles that you have raised, and work to be sure that the article is not a WP:COATRACK. One of the best ways to do that is to more fully explore the retractions of the daughters, and to minimize coverage of details that will tend to mislead the reader (the SJ Mercury News bit, perhaps).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your attention and thoughful comments. DaveApter (talk) 20:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Wondering if you would be interested in expressing an opinion on an essay

Hi Jimbo. Just wondering if you have an opinion on this essay: WP:HARDCORE. Herostratus (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I just glanced at it. I generally like it although I would change a few things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I know you're very busy. Specific (or general) suggestions for changes would be welcome if you have the time and interest. Herostratus (talk) 18:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI someone nominated it for deletion today. (Later edit: Which now I see Jimbo knows already since he commented at the MfD.) Neutron (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The "Random article" button isn't random enough

Maybe this could be posted elsewhere, but I'm lazy.

Could you modify the "random article" thing on the sidebar or is there a bot or script out there which does something like this?

The random articles aren't really random, because of bot-owners flooding Wikipedia with ripped data. Stuff that can be ripped is over-exaggerated: like geographical locations, athletes' names & competitions, school names, authors' names and book names, musicians' names and album names, company names, galactic formations, and pretty much anything that could be found in an online compendium. This is frustrating because the random article button could actually be really neat for finding obscure bits of useful or interesting knowledge or articles that could be fixed, but instead it's flooded with stubs generated by bots ripping compendiums. Try it yourself and see. Get a stopwatch handy, then start clicking the "random article" and count how much time (or how many pages) you have to go through until you find something interesting. In the distant past, the random article button did not generate results like this. 96.255.178.76 (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Falsely named

After I complained of the abusive behaviour of another editor, I was falsely named by a checkuser and indefinitely blocked, and my edits to a talk page were subsequently deleted. This is a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.31.42 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't show up in your edit history, and to get anywhere, I think you'd have to provide more detail, including which account is CU-blocked, at the very least. Rodhullandemu 23:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh you're not going to trick me like that again. I previouisly pointed out this mistake to a checkuser and their response was delete my message and block my ISP network. Like I said if checkusers are doing this then Wikipedia has a serious problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.31.42 (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, we're not psychic and without relevant information can do nothing for you. Take it up with the checkuser; otherwise, this is a fruitless conversation. Rodhullandemu 23:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Fine, the user I think is a Rogue Checkuser is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MuZemike —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.120.103 (talk) 00:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for not AGFing here, but how many innocent IPs do we know who understand what CheckUser is? That in itself coupled with the immediate "omg abuse" cry doesn't elicit much faith. Strange Passerby (talk • contribs) 00:51, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, complaints are more likely to be acted upon if they are made in good faith, and this vagueness doesn't appear to exhibit that. There's always an appeal to the unblock mailing list or arbcom, but we really can't walk around in the dark here. Rodhullandemu 01:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

This is indefinitely blocked user Iranian86Footballer (talk · contribs). He has tried to return after using Blackbackground (talk · contribs) to attack other editors. Revert-block-ignore. I'm trying to refrain from blocking the current /16 range he hopped to as it's a rather busy one. –MuZemike 01:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

If you think I am Iranian86Footballer then you are wrong. If you don't think I'm Iranian86Footballer but you're using it as an excuse to block me anyway because I complained about another user then that is a very bad way to do business. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.41.181.246 (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2010 (UTC)