Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 14:49:14, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Purge this page

Looking forward, the role of 'crats

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know that this was not directed to me, but in defense of JC, I have no problems admitting that my failed RfB from over a year ago has affected how I view both RfA and RfB. It does not take much to get 15% of the community worked up to oppose a solid candidate and the responsibilities of a 'crat are much less likely to break wikipedia than those of an admin. The only tool that a 'crat has that really matters is the ability to change permissions---and that is so closely regulated, that I seriously doubt it'll ever be abused. Heck, even if you said that the 'crat is responsible for the actions of a questionable pass, which we don't, I doubt if anybody could point out a 'crat who consistently passed marginal RfA's (or obvious failures) wherein the new admin went on to abuse the system. There are only a handful of RfA's that were passed in the "crat discretion range" that ended up in the "I told you so" category. (Yes, there have been RfA's that were mistakes, but those were community blunders, not individual 'crats going off the reservation.) So, we have set an extremely high barrier for a job which in all honesty, doesn't require it. The barrier is so high that frankly only an idiot would consider throwing their hat into the ring. I had 4 or 5 people contact me last spring about what I thought of their running for 'crat. All of them indicated that they were going to run between May and August. Nine months later, only two of them (Mbiz and SoWhy) have actually run and based upon the comments from some of the others I would be surprised to see them run--and think it would be a mistake for them to do so. I think people are starting to see quality people, who want to serve the project fully, get burnt and leave it. This is particularly true when it comes to the realization that anybody who takes a stand on any issue or makes a single "mistake" might as well NEVER consider running. Minority opinions will easily find 10-15% opposers against voices who spearhead initiatives they don't like, especially if the initiative failed. Since it is so easy to find 10-15% who will oppose over trivial things, this becomes a barrier for people: "What have *I* done that will doom me? What cabal have I unknowingly offended?"---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Clearing throat

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unchecking the box

OK, here is something that may be pertinent for discussion. Currently, only ArbCom can cause a desysopping, and only stewards (or Jimbo) can unflip the bit. There is serious discussion about a community-based desysopping procedure which would likely increase the number of desysops. Even if that is not implemented, should 'crats be allowed to uncheck the admin or crat flag after whatever decision is rendered by the appropriate parties? This has been raised in the past, and my take in the past was that this is not necessarily what the community elects 'crats for. However, in light of the current discussion on community based sysop bit removal if the form of an RfDA (request for De-Adminship) which indicates a willingness on the part of the community to trust the 'crats judgment, when necessary, to measure their (the community's consensus) with regards to the desysop, does that indicate a willingness on the part of the community to allow the crats to actually perform the unchecking of the box too? -- Avi (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I always assumed it was a mere historical accident that crats had the ability to grant a role but not revoke it. Then, over time, the accident turned into an expectation (or so I've supposed). Regardless of how this situation arose, it's clearly weird, and I've never heard a good reason given for it. It makes no sense for the turning-off-the-bit to require a substantially different hoop-jumping process than was needed to turn it on. The entire rest of wikipedia does not work like this. Blocking/unblocking, protect/unprotecting.. these things go together. It only makes sense. Friday (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The chief argument I've heard for keeping that status quo is the concept of a rogue bureaucrat, where we could suddenly find ourselves stripped of any admins. Personally, I find the idea to be just this side of ludicrous (ie: it is technically possible, but it's far more possible that we could have a rogue steward, given their much larger numbers, and they could do considerably more damage, yet nobody seems concerned about that). I'd like to have flags removed locally (by 'crats) if only so that all relevant flag actions occur on one project, rather than jumping back and forth between enwiki and meta. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh... we have more 'crats than stewards, actually. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... for whatever reason, I thought we had more stewards than we do. Looks like we've got 33 stewards to 34 enwiki 'crats, though, so the argument is still valid (or, rather, the argument about the argument being invalid is still valid... wait, what?) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the argument about rogue crats/stewards is particularly valid. Any admin with an active bot coud reconfigure it to indef anyone with priviledges. The only thing a rogue crat could do in addition would be to promote an army of admins. Even so, a couple of clicks with Rollback/Huggle by Jimbo would fix things pretty quickly. The only positions that really require impeccable records are CU and Oversight, as the potential for abuse there is huge. I think combining an easy-come-easy-go philosophy with lowered standards would probably go a long ways towards clearing up some of the log jams, while still providing an adequate level of protection. The likelihood of 'crats going rogue in such a manner is pretty small, given the time investment it takes to get there in the first place. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, many projects already allow bureaucrats to remove sysop flags (like Simple Wikipedia.) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

EVula, it's much more dangerous if we have a rogue developer. If people start hacking at the servers with an axe (either virtually or in real life), that's not gonna be easily fixed. —Dark 04:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If it was a real life axe, there is a 51% chance that they will hit one of the 213 apaches or a 12% chance that they will hit one of the 50 squids, so the results shouldn't be TOO devastating... (X! · talk)  · @540  ·  11:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope our developers are competent enough to tell the servers apart from the squids. But then again, maybe not... —Dark 12:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do we have Teuthida specimens lying around? :/ –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So, would an RfC about allowing the crats to uncheck admin/crat be an appropriate step? -- Avi (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be a good idea but didn't we already have a larger discussion on that question? I found Wikipedia talk:Removing administrator rights/Proposal for example from September 08 but I think there was one later as well because I remember participating. Regards SoWhy 21:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The proposal sounds reasonable, so long as there's an analogous process for dealing with crats who abuse the box. Not saying it's likely, but the ability to desysop does carry some weight, and it would be nice to know there's a community failsafe should it be abused. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The ability to desysop is hardly significant when weighed against the ability to grant it. If we trust (the vast majority, anyway) our bureaucrats to follow consensus when promoting administrators, we should be able to trust them to take the bit away. —Dark 11:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Even now, if a 'crat abused his or her privilege by deliberately checking the box without a valid RfX, I'd contact a ArbCom and perhaps even a steward directly, pell-mell for an emergency desysop/decratting, and I am certain it would happen quickly. I expect the same for a deliberately abusive desysop/decratting on the part of a rogue 'crat, so I am not worried about the failsafes. The same ones that protect against making a bunch of sysops protect against removing them. -- Avi (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with 'crats being able to flip the bits both ways. Has a 'crat ever made an admin without consensus in an RfA? I'm not aware of one, and I think it's very unlikely that the opposite would occur, either. If 'crats did receive the ability to flip the bits either way, and one went bananas and decided to flip the bits one way or the other without the corresponding discussion and consensus, I'm 100% positive the other 'crats would deal quickly with the issue. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The bureaucrats' role is small enough that adding this additional responsibility won't be much of an issue in my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's what it really boils down to. Anyone smart enough to get the 'crat bit is smart enough to keep things un-fucked and not try to rock the boat. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"Has a crat ever sysopped without consensus in RfA?" Actually yes, several times; all by mistake, and all rapidly reverted. Eg Shanel ([1][2]), Carbonite ([3][4]), Rogerthat ([5][6]). However, this actually supports the suggestion that crats should be able to desysop: it is very anti-wiki for users to be able to do something they cannot undo; if the crats had been able to immediately undo their errors, these users would have been admins for minutes rather than hours or days. Happy‑melon 12:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget when OverlordQ was made a crat by accident... ([7][8]) (X! · talk)  · @721  ·  16:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I made someone a steward by accident once. :) Fortunately they didn't go rouge (or rogue) ... Although some projects allow this, I think for this project I'm not in favor. Going to Meta to ask and having to show that the request is within process seems a good check. I could be convinced otherwise but that's my thinking. ++Lar: t/c 16:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking. Thank you, -- Avi (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: term limits for administrators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think of several editors that I'd consider "experienced" (by any definition) that I would decidedly not want to have the final say in who has to re-run their RfA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A fair point, however, these users would only be able to say when they think an admin should re-run, their say in the actual RfA would count for no more and no less than anyone else's. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My comment was aimed at Andrevan, not you Arcayne. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I accept that a three year term would be less damaging than a two year one, but if you look at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month you would still have the majority of all admins having their terms end now, so if even a quarter of them were willing to run for a second term it would leave us with quite a bottleneck at RFA. But the situation in fifteen months time would be far worse, as the 408 admins appointed in 2007 would by then have had their terms elapse, along with the 85 appointed in the first quarter of 2008. This would leave you with whoever is left of the last 237 admins appointed during the last 21 months of RFA drought, plus anyone appointed or reappointed in the next fifteen months. ϢereSpielChequers 20:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

As bad as Washington? Ouch, that hurts :) Shereth 20:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I say that because the pool of administrators has gone through a vetting process far less discerning than that of politicians in the U.S. The vetting process here has rarely (if ever?) prevented someone from becoming an administrator who had no business being an administrator. RfA really sucks at what it is supposed to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem with this proposal (and its previous incarnations) is that we would be asking otherwise good admins to subject themselves to the rigors of RfA all over again. It has never been a particularly pleasant experience, and in my opinion has only grown more and more stressful and nasty over time. It is not a process I would wish upon anyone, which is why I've never nominated anybody :) Worse still, by virtue of the things we have to do as admins (issuing blocks, deleting articles, etc) we invariably must do things that will upset one user or another, and the possibility of these disgruntled editors reappearing as grudge opposes in a reconfirmation RfA is also rather unpleasant. If it were possible to do without the "OMG DRAMA" and in a way that would not subject editors to additional, unecessary stress and unpleasantness then the idea might gain some more traction; but right now the idea is about as attractive as a sharp poke in the eye. Shereth 20:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) One major trouble with reaffirming every admin is that it would be a time consuming process. According to WP:LOA, there are 1,707 admins with 873 of them active. If we were to give each a seven day reconfirmation RFA every two years, we'd have to have 32 a week during the reconfirmation year. If we staggered the reconfirmations, we could do 16 a week for two years. Or spreading out further, 8 every week for four years. That's a more reasonable workload, but it stretches the reconfirmations out so far apart that it nearly defeats the purpose. How many of our current active admins were active four years ago? How many will be active four years from now? Speaking of active, though, we could cut down on the workload by only reconfirming active admins. But that leads to the problem of what constitutes "active." Set it too low and it defeats the purpose of screening out the inactives. Set it too high and we'd increase the probability of inadvertantly screening out the admins that we were trying to remove (if any) via the reconfirmation process. Not to mention, if there's some arbritrary line drawn (i.e., every admin that makes X+ edits and/or Y+ admin actions during a calendar year) has to go through reconfirmation, will some admins (and, more importantly, the so-called rogue admins) purposely keep their edits and/or admin actions below that given threshold? If admins who would otherwise pass these reconfirmations intentionally limit their work, then it's a net negative. Useight (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There is one major flaw in your argument, Useight: You are talking about mandatory reconfirmation, but Arcayne proposed administrator terms. There is no assumption of a new RFA with terms. Each admin may request a new RFA or not; it's up to them. I consider this a more appropriate proposal than reconfirmation, as it is less likely to be a drama-magnet if we start from the assumption that adminship is temporary, not lifetime. The math for active admins comes out to 5 or 6 a week over three years or around 8 over two years.

This is by far the best way I've seen to make adminship generate less drama all around. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 21:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

They are more or less one and the same. "Mandatory reconfirmation" is only mandatory as long as the admin desires to remain an admin. He/she could simply never log back into Wikipedia again. Or just put down the tools rather than go through the so-called mandatory reconfirmation. Administrator terms, assuming the admin has the option of continuing adminship should reconfirmation permit them to do so, is the same concept. To quote a portion of your text, "Each admin may request a new RFA or not; it's up to them." -- seems to me that either a) the reconfirmation is mandatory should the admin wish to continue as an admin; or b) the admin can continue as an admin without going through the new RFA. The former results in the mandatory reconfirmation; the latter is pointless, because a vast majority of admins would decline this optional reconfirmation RFA. Useight (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Then why are you posting about how to determine if an admin is active or not? That would answer itself simply by whether or not they request a new RFA when their turn is up. I dislike "reconfirmation" as it still philosophically starts with the assumption that adminship is permanent, only to be reconfirmed periodically. "Terms" starts with the assumption that it is temporary, and any decision to run again is up to the admin. I feel the philosophical difference reduces pressure on admins to go through additional RFAs if they want to take a break from the responsibility. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I was simply posting on various issues that could arise; not that all would necessarily occur. Your "terms" versus my "mandatory" are indeed different philosophically, but I believe they are, from an analytical point of view, the same. And whilst it would reduce said pressure should the admin wish to take a break, admins who wish to continue would experience increased pressure. They would have to be extremely careful in the period of time just prior to their confirmation, avoiding anything potentially controversial or that would step on toes. These admins would possibly avoid heated AFDs or whatnot. We don't have so many active admins that we can have a bunch of them standing around with an air of "I can't get my hands dirty on that at the moment." I'm not saying that would necessarily happen, but it could be an unintended consequence. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I utterly (yet respectfully) disagree with your assessment, Wehalt: the process for removing a bad admin is so Byzantine and rife with inter-admin politics that removal is often seen as simply not worth the effort. That the process is as complicated and undefined as it currently is feeds the feeling in the community that admins feel they are above reproach. I agree that admins who make unpopular decisions face the wrath of the Body Wiki, but frankly, that is a good reason for making the process of RfA better. It isn;t going to improve itself. Those who have undergone it and passed have no vested interest in seeing the process better or more responsive, and those who have not passed are seen as having an axe to grind. Still others see the process as so ugly and contentious that they don't want to get involved in all the dramah.

Becoming an admin is not and should not be equivalent to being seen as an 'us-versus-them' proposition, but under the current guidelines, it is most certainly that. This proposition seeks to eliminate that, and make every member - admin, 'crat or user - equally liable for their actions. We expect better from our admins; we deserve to get what we vote for. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly support this proposal in principle. In order to be an administrator, an editor must have the community's support – not in one once-off snapshot, but sustained as long as that editor wishes to serve as an administrator. Speaking personally, I intend to resign or resubmit for the community's evaluation before finishing a year as an administrator.  Skomorokh  20:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• So you think having 32+ active RfAs a week is a good idea? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I admire your conviction, Skomorokh. You illustrate my point elegantly: unless an admin shows the gumption to re-submit, there is no real process for re-confirmation for admins.

(ec)Risking offending the Body Admin, I would again posit that those admins who see the re-RfA as a tool for the disgruntled to take cheap shots is looking at the process with a gimlet eye - a cynical pragmatism that illustrates the divide between admin and editor. While Hammersoft reiterated the way things should be, we need to address the problems presented by the way things are currently. It needs fixing.

And no, I don't think that having 32 RfA's sounds like a good idea. But the process has to start somewhere. If it can be handled on a rolling basis, eliminating the true inactives quickly and passing over those current admins having less than three years' with the mop, that number becomes far more manageable. If governments can do it, I think we can somehow muddle through. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Governments have a budget to work with, and politicians get paid. –xeno^talk 21:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The comparison was to demonstrate the practical application of the proposal. I am not saying we look for congressional pages beneath the desk of every admin. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure it's practical when you have paid employees running the show, fulfilling the nominations, counting the ballots, etc. Is that the case here? –xeno^talk 21:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about RfA backlogs and running through that gauntlet again are valid ones, but I can also see the valid arguments behind the notion of a reconfirmation. I think it might be more palatable in general if it were formulated as an "RfA-lite". There's no real reason, after all, to run through the gamut of standard questions; it is no longer asking a series of hypotheticals to ascertain how a candidate would respond in various situations, but rather a review of administrative actions that have already happened. After all, the question is no longer "Do we trust this user with the tools", but rather, "Do we still trust the user with the tools". I might be able to support a streamlined variant, but I suspect that it would still have trouble getting much traction. Shereth 21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just saw Juliancolton's comment, and wanted to clarify. I am not suggesting that admins can only RfA a limited number of times; I am saying that there needs to be a measure by which they answer to the Body Wiki periodically. Pleasant individuals or not, we should not treat them like Supreme Court Justices or royalty. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of Skomorokh's statement, I think it would be a good thing if potential admins were to state up-front in RFA's that they will only serve for a particular period of time, after which they will step down or submit to a new RFA. It could be a good way to go, as voluntary admin recall has not worked out well, from what I've seen. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Arcayne why are you making this proposal? What exactly are you trying to achieve? Because it seems to me that what you want is to make getting adminship easier. Yes? In which case, try fixing the RFA process. That's the actual problem isn't it? If people are being too nitpicky then we should tackle that directly.Theresa Knott | token threats 21:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I've already stated the need for the proposal: the current system in place clearly shows that there is a) some dead weight in the Body Admin, b) that admins should occasionally be re-confirmed by the Body Wiki as being effective leaders (which they effectively are), responsive and capable with the mop and c) to weed out those admins who are more interested in the title of admin than the duties and responsibilities of being an admin.

Secondly, I do not feel that the proposal makes the process of RfA "easier", while the RfA process is indeed well, lets just call it overzealous, this proposal seeks to develop a core group of active, responsive and capable admins. Again, I point out that most admins fit this bill, and would have little problems sailing through RfA. The proposal addresses the lack of effective community oversight that many admins enjoy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Arcayne says "Hammersoft reiterated the way things should be, we need to address the problems presented by the way things are currently". No, I stated the way things ARE. The only thing stopping the average editor from thinking that administrators work for them is their false impression of how things work around here. Case point; if administrators actually had more power to lead here, their vote would count more in all sorts of voting mechanisms here. They are not leaders. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for misinterpreting your point, Hammersoft. I submit that any interpretation of administrators as not being leaders is simply naive. When the fit hits the shan, editors come to an administrator for assistance/mediation. Users cannot block, decide the fate of articles or other media submitted for deletion or realistically be considered for membership in ArbCom (yes, i know that there have been non-admin Arbs, but by and large, its been populated by admins), the latter making decisions that affect the entire wiki. As I said, any argument that admins - without limitation - are just regular folk who eat pie and gruel with the rest of the proles is an ineffective and tangential argument. Regular folk have limitations on what they can do. Admins needs that too. Re-confirmation addresses that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Editors can and do decide the fate of articles and media. Also, just because an administrator can block somebody doesn't mean they "lead" anything. I've had several people blocked directly by actions I've taken with respect to those people. The administrators in those cases worked at my behest, on information I provided. They didn't lead me. I lead them. Also, ArbCom isn't a leadership body. They are a dispute resolution body. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The proposal for term limits for admins has been brought up and roundly rejected by the community several times. I think we need to keep the admins we have, he need more not less. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

at the german Wikipedia this was introduced last fall, after very long discussions. Now every admin has a "call for re-election" page (de:WP:WW) and when 25 users in a month or 50 users in 6 months sign it, he has to undergo a re-election or he loses his admin bit. After a succesful re-election, his re-election page is deactivated for a year. There was an initial wave of votes after which a lot of inactive admins and a few controversial ones lost their rights, but many admins were re-elected and things quickly calmed down. It's probably too early to draw any conclusions but in my opinion the major drawback is that there are less admins willing to make themselves unpopular by difficult decisions. The most positive effect is that criticism of the "admin caste" and complaints about injustice decreased considerably. Our experiences with the system might be interesting for you. But note that the system of power is completely different at de-wp: there is no strong ArbCom that would de-sysop admins, no Jimbo, basically no one with authority over admins, and instead of being evil, voting is everything over there because consensus is impossible to find in a community that large. --Tinz (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, Tinz; we cannot import, wholesale, the practices of another wiki. But at least we are now framing the problem correctly. It cannot and should not be 'this proposal has failed before, why bother now'. If an admin makes an unpopular, but correct decision, there are 1,707 administrators (counting the inactive ones) who can come to their aid during re-confirmation. I think that there is the stupid allegory playing through the heads of some admins that this proposal would turn RfA into some high school popularity contest; who's to say it isn't that already? My confirmation means that we end up keeping the good admins and shed the ones who aren't period.

• So ... what I'm reading is that somehow this proposal will reform RfA, because of course consensus will wrap around making things so much easier once we pitch the institutional memory of all the admins and have a crying need for more of them? Yeah, I don't think so. I'm sure most of us can think of things on Wikipedia that scream out for reform, but for which no consensus will for change exists. The only way RfA will ever be fixed is when either (a) it ceases to be a straight popularity vote, and/or (b) it's taken out of the community's hands.  RGTraynor  22:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that fixing the flaws that have developed with the RfA process is a different problem (and said as much earlier), but one that makes those flaws much more manageable by making admins answerable to the community in a regular, defined way. The Byzantine and lengthy process currently in place ensures the OMGDRAMA takes place. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• A couple of questions before I make any comment on this:

1. Apart from DE, are their any other Wikipedias which have introduced this (and if so, for how long)? How have they fared with their number of admins?
2. Is there any reason why admins who have been inactive for (say) a year cannot have the bit removed, and if they then come back and are active again and want the bit back, they have to re-RfA? After all, Wikipedia changes a lot in a year, and an admin who has been away for that long may possibly be 'out of touch' with what the community now wants? What effect would this have on the admin numbers? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

1. There are now three separate systems being discussed in this thread. Term limits was the proposal that started this thread. DE has from what was said above introduced a recall system but not a fixed term system. Removing the bit from inactive admins I'm pretty sure happens on Commons, and I believe that caused a big fall in their number of admins but I don't know if it affected activity levels - apart from knowing one commons admin who now makes a point of doing enough actions to retain the bit. I can give you a rough ballpark response as to how in the short term this would alter our admin numbers 873 of our 1707 admins are currently reckoned to be "active", though the definition is based on edits not admin actions. I suspect that if we took the bit away from inactive admins we would use a different criteria, but it would reduce the numbers of admins by between a third and a half depending on the criteria for inactivity. However this project is less than a decade old, and we simply don't know how many people who joined us in their teens and will be dropping in and out of the project over the next half century would be deterred by having the bit taken away during a protracted wikibreak. ϢereSpielChequers 23:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a few thoughts I think are on point:

• RfA is a process gets a small and constantly changing non representative section of the community to make decisions about who gets a sysop flag. The people who show up tend to think it is at least important enough for them to show up and say something, if not Very Important.
• RfA is an ugly process that was rather unpleasant for most who have been through it and many who havn't. This stems from people thinking it is important, being judged, and the ease with which one can be a total dick under the self delusion/guise of "criticism."
• Democracy is always a potential victim to crowds. Its the people who care who show up, and at any given moment, there are more people pissed off at an admin/candidate waiting to pounce than the number of supporters needed to counterbalance them.
• Term limits are about restraining the power of someone popular in a position with scarcity. there is no scarcity of sysop flags to hand out. Wrong solution for the wrong problem
• Any procedure that can take down your least favorite admin baddy you want to get rid of is equally likley to axe your friends. Its very likley to get admins who have been quietly working without so much as a how-do-you-do that you've never heard of in some far flung corner of the Wiki, getting things done. I, arguably, have invited scrutiny by working in high profile areas. Adminjoebob whos been quietly plugging away blocking persistant vandals on Category:Edible_fish has not.

--Tznkai (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am in favor of creating a community-based desysoping procedure (requests for de-adminship, anyone?), but I don't see the virtue in imposing arbitrary term limits. It would create a lot of extra work to recertify the good admins just to get at a minority of problem cases and you'd lose some number of good admins simply because they don't want to confront the ugliness of RFA again even though they may be entirely suitable candidates. I think it makes much more sense to think of ways to deal more rapidly and transparently with desysoping rather than to introduce term limits. Dragons flight (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If not term limits, how about some kind of "tenure review" done periodically, say annually or bi-annually. Similar to OfR but mandatory and only once in awhile. The system that Tinz mentions for German wikipedia also sounds very interesting.radek (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Frankly, there's a question on this issue for which I haven't had anywhere remotely close to a satisfactory answer. Are there so very many rogue, untouchable admins rampaging through Wikipedia that we have to have a cumbersome process which imposes a new layer of bureaucracy, will certainly result in a number of good admins getting pitched because they pissed off the wrong people, will certainly result in a number of admins not bothering with the hassles of reconfirmation, will absolutely reduce the number of admins working on the project and won't correct the hazing process that is RfA?  RGTraynor  00:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I congratulate user:Arcayne for his proposal, it's an excellent idea. Unfortunately the Admins' lobby is so powerful they can and will block this idea whatever the community thinks of it.  Dr. Loosmark  01:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. The "Admin's lobby" doesn't exist - I don't think it could as it suggests we're somehow organized in a way that we are incapable of doing so. Try to get five or six of Wikipedia's luminary admins to agree on something enough to lobby it. For that matter who are they lobbying to? What governmental body is doling out tax dollars and influence that we're peddling to?

Finally and most importantly, admins are part of the community. Its really easy to slap together something cynical and edgy say, but come on!--Tznkai (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Opposing this for the umpteenth time for the following reasons:

• There's no reason to re-confirm an admin that is not causing any problems
• Comparing admins "supreme court justices or royalty" is not a valid metaphor. Those people have real power and wealth, and their decisions can't be so easily overturned as a mere wikipedia admins can, and royalty don't generally have to go through any kind of confirmation process
• This would cause logjams at RFA
• This would probably reduce the number of new admin candidates since going through one RFA is daunting enough
• The worst admins are desysopped by ArbCom already
• A simpler community driven non-voluntary admin recall process would be a better way of removing the few remaining bad apples
• I would in fact support re-confirmation if the term were more in the realm of 3-5 years instead of 1-2
• Although consensus can change over time, this has been proposed several times in very recent history and has been shot down each time

Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Admin Lobby"? No. Assumed mutual interest? Yes. I'd welcome anyone who would try to make a case that there aren't at least some differences that play in favor to admins in regards to policy or trust. For better or worse, a whole lot of things many users would get a block for are seemingly swept away, or at the very least a lengthy discussion for consensus of many users is sought before taking any action. Not judging this and I actually think it can be better to slow down on seemingly snap judgments seen occasionally, but there are to many times the passive double standard is visible if one browsed through ANI or RfC/U. Users rushing to file at ArbCom to get a desysop (and shoved down) is a recent trend from persons very frustrated about the double standard as they feel it to be impossible to form a consensus against most any admin in an open discussion. They might be right.. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also agreeing with Beeblebrox that in the incredibly large majority of cases (95%++) there are no reasons to desysop anyone. Maybe blocks for possible abuses or other clear-cut things that are nearly automatic blocks for a set time for others I might like to see more of. As said, admins are members of the community too, and there's no automatic shame for losing one's cool for 30 seconds. I'd never think an admin should lose tools because they have a bad day or fall into being baited, so long as they aren't going on ridiculous abuse sprees or using tools in revenge. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I find the admin lobby hilarious not only because there is no benefit to doing this other than self-satisfaction, but why would you lobby against something when there are plenty of others who share your view? You could just sit back and relax while watching the drama unfold. Also, has anyone brought up the idea of having crats desysop people? It seems like the only thing that hasn't been discussed, but it might be more effective. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Also, has anyone brought up the idea of having crats desysop people" - the problem with this is that it would entail a more exclusive clique policing a slightly less exclusive clique. But the whole point(s) of the proposal is the unaccountability of the cliques combined with the development of a very hierarchical structure on Wikipedia. The idea is to avoid these top-down pronouncements and instead make Wikipedia more bottom-up, or "grass roots". The regular editors should have regulatory control of the admins who patrol them. The admins should have regulatory control of the crats who have the power to appoint them. And so on. Having the crats do the admin "knightings" would actually be a move in the opposite direction - it would reinforce the hierarchies (though at the same time increasing the power of one clique in the hierarchy at the expense of another, still leaving the folks at the bottom screwed) rather then build around the consensus model that Wikipedia relies on.radek (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I once waited for three hours in the admin lobby. They don't have any decent magazines, so I was bored most of the time. Luckily, I had my iPod with me to help pass the time. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to pause a moment; Nihonjoe's comment made me noseboot! :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm better now. Some good points have been made on both sides of the problem, but - and here's the thing - this proposal eliminates the personal rancor of reporting an admin, trying to get them de-sysopped. If they make an egregious screw-up, they take their lumps like everyone else (though, as Datheisen astutely points out, I've seen admins usually get more passes than most non-admin users would get). The community-based de-sysopping procedure suggested by RGTraynor would create more drama than it solves. The same goes for the tenure review that Radeksz recommended; the "only once in a while" part is subject to arbitrary use and/or abuse. And KTR101's proposal to let 'crats do it creates a circular problem: its been pointed out that all crats thus far have been admins. We have a very limited number of crats, and they are knee-deep at work with their Own Thang. What if someone needs to report an admin who is also a crat? Again, unnecessary OMG DRAMA. The proposal removes the ambiguity completely: every 3 (or however many we can agree to) years, your term as an admin is up. You can re-apply, just like everyone else. No drama. It's a procedure. I am personally flexible on this point; we can just as easily streamline the RfA re-confirmation process for non-problematic admins, say, a shorter RfA period. I'm open to suggestions.

Removing the bit from inactive (say 6-12 months) admins, after notifying them to edit or lose the bit is simply an economical use of manpower. What good is the claim of having over 1700 admins if only 850 or so are doing all the heavy lifting? And frankly, it has been pointed out by others that an admin who has been on an extended wikibreak might be a little out of date - our policies and guidelines can change pretty quickly. If these inactives are notified and they don;t edit, we remove the mop. If they want to come back later and reapply, awesome. If not, no real loss, as they weren't editing anyway.

I might have understated the possibility of drama via the proposal; there would be, in the form of folk heading over to the re-confirmation. This is where RfA can see some reform. While there is clear evidence to support the idea of smaller info-sharing cabals in IRC, they seem for the most part harmless. Howver, as Datheisen (again, astutely) points out, there is a mutual interest amongst admins to not rock the boat; what affects one potentially affects all. I am not going to re-hash the argument that without having to really answer to the Body Wiki, admins aren't really bound to be responsive to requests for behavior modification. The proposition, duly enacted, would focus a lot of attention on some of the failings of RfA, and might get them fixed. There is simply no impetus on the part of admins to do so currently. Not calling them lazy, just pointing out that most folk tend to stay in their patch.

Lastly, Beeblebrox stated that there was no reason to re-confirm an admin who wasn't acting poorly; unfortunately, that isn't the point. All admins undergo it, as that is fair, and not subject to favoritism, people flying under the radar, or some other big ball of crazy. Every three years, you get re-confirmed. If you have had problems, its a bumpy ride. If you are the conscientious admin, you sail through like grease through a goose. Granted, it won't always be sunshine and roses, but that is part of What We Do: we discuss, and discuss and discuss. Good stuff comes from that crucible, be it new policy or an Alison-type detective novel of uncovering a rat bastard in our midst who had until their reconfirmation escaped notice. The proposal isn't meant to be a hunting expedition; its meant to ensure, like a driving test, that the admins in question know what they are doing, are up to date on the current rules and have no outstanding problems. Period.

I can understand that some (and it deserves pointing out that most of the folk no favoring this are, well, admins themselves) are concerned that this would create a logjam of RfAs. Yep, it might. But we will address it, like we do with DYK noms, XfD discussions, noticeboard discussions and SPI/checkuser requests - we roll up our sleeves and we address it. Will we do things to fix RfA? Prolly. This proposal allows that to happen sooner rather than later. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Errr ... "community-based desysopping procedure" I advanced? You must be thinking of some other editor. I think the community's proven it can't handle any aspect of admin selection or removal, and I firmly believe the only sensible means of desyopping be by an impartial panel or group of panels appointed for the purpose.  RGTraynor  12:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

<- My proposal for "tenure review" was meant as a "second best" sort of option. Personally I think that term limits are the way to go. BUT, if we can't have those, there really should be some kind of check in place over existing admins - I think this is just common sense, even academic positions where folks are pretty much guaranteed full job security with tenure are subject to review. Of course, Wikipedia admins are more like appointed/semi-elected politicians than profs at a university. The key point is that most institutional structures have *some* kind of check or recall power over those that they trust with extraordinary tools. Wikipedia doesn't. And at the end of the day I think this is the major issue here - the point about "falling number of RfAs" is just a red herring (there's a falling number of Wikipedia non-admin contributors as well and both developments are probably driven by the same outside factors which are NOT whether or not admins are given lifelong tenure). If term limits on admins result in a more balanced RfA process (because the damage that a rogue administrator can do is mitigated by the term limit) then more people will apply and in fact term limits can serve to ameliorate the admin-shortage problem (if such a problem indeed exists).radek (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I asked my original question about other Wikipedias, as I'm sure I had read something along the lines of "on the xyz Wikipedia, adminship is decided by concensus/voting/whether it is sunny, and is an 1-/2-/3-year/indefinite appointment" for various Wikipedias - and was hoping someone would say "Oh, yes, I read that - here's the link..." (as I can't find the damn thing!). However, as no one else seems to recall something like that, I'll venture my opinion anyway!

I looked through all the "xyz Wikipedia" articles which I could find (via List of Wikipedias), and found that almost none of them have much to say about admins (most don't mention them at all, or if they do, it's as "there as x admins"). The only mentions I could find were that the Russian Wikipedia has a policy that Administrators who have been inactive (have used any administrative tools such as the "delete" or "block" buttons less than 25 times) for six months lose their privileges by an Arbitration Committee determination, and that the Swedish Wikipedia have admins who are elected for 1 year and who have to be re-elected after that time. (I'm obviously aware that the Swedish Wikipedia is a lot smaller than this one, and annual elections would be completely unworkable here!)

If we were to have re-affirmation RfAs for all admins (and if it was to be done, it would have to be mandatory), then it would have to be after a minimum of 3 years (I think anything less than that would be unworkable). Personally, I don't think it is a good idea to have these RfAs to re-sysop admins.

I think that if an admin is causing problems, then they should have the bit removed, if that is the concensus of the community. Obviously, how this should be done is an on-going debate, which may one day be decided! AOR could be one method of this, if the community can decide on how to get it to work!

I also think that if an admin has not edited in (say) a year, they should have the bit removed. My justification for this is the same that we sometimes see in RfA opposes: "this candidate does not require the bit for what they want to do". If I went to RfA, and said in answer to Q1 "I will do the occasional editing, but nothing much", I would be lucky to get even a moral support! However, procedures should be in place so that they receive a couple of week's notice (both on their talk page and via "Mail this user"). If they do not respond saying that they want to continue to be an admin, then the bit is removed. If they respond saying that they want to continue to be an admin, then we should expect to see some admin action (and hopefully article edits as well) during the following couple of weeks. If nothing like this happened, then it would be as if they had responded in the negative. (If we went for this, we would need to define how many edits would make an admin "active", and whether there would have to be a certain number of admin actions in that year, etc - but that is a discussion for elsewhere, in another proposal).

In summary, I do not agree with the specific idea proposed by Arcayne. I do not feel that it would help with the RfA process or admin-retention - and can see that it may in fact cause more problems. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Little known fact: on the Spanish Wikipedia, admins are called bibliotecarios (librarians in English). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In a way, admins who have not been active for more than a year should be removed as a matter of routine. Why is this even controversial? I can see an exception where an admin who hasn't done crap for a long time is about to be removed due to inactivity comes back and says "hold on guys, I've just been busy with real life stuff but I'm still committed to the project, gimme some time please" and then s/he gets to stay, also as part of regular routine. But the fact that even the removal of dead admin wood is seen as such a big deal illustrates pretty clearly that the objection to these kinds of proposals has more to do with protecting the privileged status of the caste rather than with any kind of objective of improving the functioning of the encyclopedia.radek (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't agree with the main proposal (reconfirmation every X years) as it would result in too many discussions to be workable as well as an easy way of losing even more admins (it's not like we've got many spare). I don't see any viable reason why inactive admins should not lose the flag, but I also don't see any reason why they should. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The fact that we all have real lives that may preclude us using Wikipedia from time to time is why I suggested that they should get a 2-week notification prior to de-sysoping. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Playing Devil's advocate, Stifle, I would argue that if someone isn't using the tools, they don't need access to them. If I was to put forward an RfA in which I said "I won't actually use the tools", then it would be quickly SNOWED. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a reason this is a perennial proposal (Wikipedia:PERENNIAL#Reconfirm_administrators). What might be useful is encouraging admins to do Wikipedia:Editor review occasionally, perhaps once a year. It shouldn't be quite mandatory (pointless to have it for inactive or barely active admins), but perhaps some mechanism to encourage people to do it (a list of admins by date of last review; an annual bot reminder?). To be clear: just like Editor Review, this would not have any significance except as an organised means for people to make helpful comments about the general decision-making of the admin, for them to take on board as they wish. Rd232 ^talk 13:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A more focused venue would be WP:Administrator review. –xeno^talk 13:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Rd232 ^talk 15:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactivity with the tools is an incomplete standard. Look, I'm a very active editor and turn in an article at FAC about once a month (John Diefenbaker is presently awaiting peer reviews). However, I don't use the tools very often. I granted a rollback this morning. But I warned people at my RFA 13 months ago that I didn't intend to spend that much time on adminly tasks and the community granted me the bits anyway. It is very possible that I could go months without using the bits, while turning in another six or eight Featured Articles. Yet my having the bits is a net positive for the project so long as I don't abuse them, as there is no cost attached to my having them. I would be offended if I logged on one morning to find the bits gone without warning or a nasty note on my talk page saying I don't use them enough. Let's concentrate on problem admins.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• After 62k of discussion, I think it's safe to say there's no point to continuing this proposal. It's dead, Jim. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? You think so, after only a day of discussion? Seems a bit quick, and awfully cynical. We are discussing how to make the wiki better, by asking admins to reconfirm once every 3 years. Most of the opposition seems to be coming from admins, with calls of 'it won't work', or 'that perennial issue'. The fact is, this keeps coming up because occasionally, we take note of the fact that admins are apparently admins for life, and most of them are chosen by less than 50 votes - out of apparently 11.3 million users. I cannot be the only one who finds this discrepancy not only lopsided but a breeding ground for feelings of invulnerability - a feeling not altogether undeserved. Term limits allows the good admin the confidence that they have a mandate - an acknowledgement that they are doing a good job. Bad/controversial admins are shown the door if their actions are a net loss to the project. All of the admins in between get feedback on their behavior amd understand that they serve at the pleasure of the Body Wiki, and not as an adversary.

Frankly, I have no idea how a proposal like this would get off the ground. I imagine we would have to vote on it, and I equally imagine that every one of the 843 active admins would nix it, as it adds a wrinkle to their currently unfettered ability to do relatively as they choose (many admins will not gainsay another admin, for internal political reasons, or simply to avoid a wheel war). I guess I was thinking that if enough people set aside their cynicism long enough, we could stop bitching about what couldn't be done, and take some positive steps towards what can be done. Whatever we agree to, it must be mandatory; OpenToRecall has clearly demonstrated that there is no enforcement for those who choose to later alter or discard the criteria at a later date. Making a review mandatory sidesteps all of the drama and favoritism.

So, Hammersoft, I propose that we give this proposal, which would undoubtedly be a benefit to the wiki-en, a wee bit more time than a day. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hm. So far, of those commenting, it's running about 80% against your proposal, which is certainly not a harbinger of success. There are certainly non-admins (oh, like me) who think it's a poor proposal, and I've two comments beside that: (1) Admins are editors like everyone else, and you acting like they are adversaries to be made to submit to an amorphous Body Wiki. They get to have opinions like any other editor, and sign off on issues like any other editor. They're even justified in thinking they've already jumped through hoops to get a thankless, salary-free volunteer job and that they might want to keep it without regular hassles. (2) Failure to sign off on a bad proposal doesn't make one an aimless, cynical whiner. We're under no onus to put a destructive proposal in place just so we can be seen to "do something."  RGTraynor  22:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Name one other administrative role that's given for life, and not even taken away when the holder dies. Which surely even you would consider to be bizarre. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Your point being?  RGTraynor  23:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Senator for life (but not after death =) –xeno^talk 23:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Admins who misuse the tools are already easily removed under the current process. Therefore, this process is either (1) a waste of resources to accomplish something already being taken care of, or (2) a backdoor run to allow the removal of admins for reasons other than misuse of the tools. Such reasons could include inactivity, grudges, enemy of a friend, etc. Inventing a process for the purpose of entertaining such discussions is not useful. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Easily removed"? You're a joker, or else you've been living in a cave for the past few years. It's generally easier to prise open the hands of a corpse in rigor mortis than it is to get an administrator to resign. With some notable and honourable exceptions, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've yet to see the current manifestation of ArbCom (the 2009 one, for simplicity's sake) ignore clear evidence of misuse; I don't mean resignation as resignation is unlikely unless you put someone's feet in the fire. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You claimed "easily removed". Perhaps you ought to define what you mean by "easily", as it doesn't match any dictionary definition that I'm aware of. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

OMG, I agree with Malleus on something! ;-) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

By easily I mean straightforwardly and with minimal effort, relatively to the complexity of the task. The procedures for WP:DR apply as in any dispute and generally the entire process would involve a couple dozen edits - to the admin's talk page, ANI, perhaps RFC and then arbitration - plus the evidence gathering and examination of context that will be necessary for any deadminship procedure, community-driven or otherwise. You'd also have the opportunity to respond to the thousands of other comments generated by the process, but this is largely optional. If indeed there is widespread consensus that there has been abuse of the tools sufficient to warrant removal, this won't be required to advance the process. Point is, the numbers of layers one must go through is fairly small (3, usually) and the complexity is low (at each layer you basically just need to write a prose statement about the dispute). The difficult cases are the contentious ones, where there is not widespread agreement the tools were severely misused or abused - and unless an eventual deadminship process doesn't require consensus to remove the bit, it will be equally drama-filled and equally unproductive. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

In an encyclopedia where anyone can edit, why do we allow a small group to be elected to a position for life with little recourse for removal?
Respectfully, Mr. Parham, it is precisely because it is difficult to remove an admin that this discussion keeps coming up (I believe one editor referred to it as "perennial"). It is not a perennial problem, but an ongoing on. There are some admins who are utterly unaware that they are "controversial" administrators; worse, some tend to take pride in it, fully aware that nothing short of a hand grenade is dislodging them. Many other wikis have set term limits for administrators. It is simply unreasonable to think that our admins should have the mop for life (and frequently, well beyond that). We elect admins here, not popes.
As I've said before, this proposal is not meant as a tool to "go after" admins. It serves as a community stop-gap against the 'us-versus-them' mentality frequently demonstrated on both sides of the administrative divide - and let us not be distracted by sidebar discussions that suggest otherwise in an attempt to cloud the issue. There simply is a divide: every admin and regular user feels it and knows it to be there. The fear of a block - and block records can never be undone - is but one aspect of this divide. Users cannot block ban, close discussion or threaten a user with same. Administrators can. Compared to becoming an administrator, removing an admin is nigh impossible. For actions that regular users are given a pass on, administrators typically protect their own. There are inactive admins, who haven't edited since gaining the mop. Whether RW matters took precedent, or whether they realized the mop (or Wikipedia) was not what they expected it to be, they stopped editing or administering. They are dead weight. These are the facts, and they are indisputable.
This is why this proposed protocol is necessary. Anything which improves the wiki is not a "waste of resources", as Parham has suggested; this proposal would change the Body Admin in that it would be forced to remain active and responsive to the community by making them answerable to same. It reinforces the qualities that the Body Wiki demands of its administrators by rewarding those who are exceptional, removing those who are incompetent or dysfunctional and serves as a teaching tool for those who are marginal. Far from being "destructive" (as RGTraynor has emphatically suggested) removing admins who are inactive is utterly reasonable. Currently, the list of administrators calls inactive those admins who have failed to edit in more than 2 months; far from being destructive, I opt that we expand this definition to encompass edits made in 6 months. The reasonable argument could be made that if you haven't shown up for work in 6 months, you aren't planning to. We aren't removing them (or any admin, for that matter) from the wiki-en. We are simply removing the mop to more accurately reflect the activity of who is actually here and working. Any argument favoring keeping dead weight on the rolls is clearly artificial in nature; many (admins, mostly) would begin to feel that if the inactive admins can be removed, then it would better highlight their activity. One would no longer be able to point to the dead (and hopefully) inactive admin and claim, 'well, at least I'm busier/better than this guy!'
RGTraynor is also of the opinion that once you are an administrator, you should be free of the hassles of having to go through RfA periodically. I'm sure most elected officials feel this way, but it is precisely the mechanism of periodic assessment by one's peers that makes the community a better place to be.
The proposal - by its very nature - cannot be used to pursue "grudges", as suggested by Parham (coincidentally, an admin himself); every three years, you go through RfA. Period, end of story. Since admins would have to weather this process every three years, the process would undoubtedly improve; they would bend their considerable talents to make it less of a gauntlet and more of an actual assessment of experience, capabilities and future behavior. This isn't pie in the sky thinking: its easy to ignore the bad part of town, but if you have to go through it more often, you are going to take more steps to improve it.
I'll reiterate my original sentiment: why, in an encyclopedia that preaches equality, do we allow relatively untouchable group of people the ability to direct the Wiki after only one mandate from the people? This is an unreasonable request of admins to make on the Body Wiki, and that there are those who repeatedly argue that this proposal would be used to to hurt the wiki is indicative of how great the divide has become. This is an idea whose time has not only come, but become somewhat striking in its need. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Mm, since you cite me often enough - possibly since I've outed myself as not an admin, which weakens the premise that the only opposition to this proposal comes from admins - I might as well respond. You state "this proposal is not meant as a tool to "go after" admins." Of course it is. Over and over you claim not only that there is an "us-versus-them" mentality, but that every admin and editor knows it ... that admins always "protect their own," that you equate them to "popes," that there's a pervasive fear of being blocked, that users are subject to threats, that there is this massive divide, that there is a "Body Admin" that isn't really part of the "Body Wiki," except in so far as the implication that it's a parasite.

Arcayne, with all due respect, we're all capable of speaking for ourselves. I don't feel a divide myself. I don't live in fear of being blocked. I don't find that being required to follow WP:3RR is a terrible imposition. I don't feel that being requested to ratchet down the rhetoric in an overheated debate is an attack on my manhood. And ... I'm curious what your proposal would do to counter any of that. Would term limited admins no longer be allowed to block users? Admonish users? Would they cease to have powers you don't? Would there be any less of a so-called "cabal?"

Never mind your assertion that inactive admins are "dead weight." "Dead weight" how, precisely? Are there only so many slots available, and inactives prevent new admins from being approved? Does an inactive admin account suck up system resources? In what way does someone who doesn't edit or use his admin powers a detriment to the encyclopedia? This just doesn't make sense.

There's a .sig I use on VBulletin-based forums which runs "It's not that I don't understand what you're saying. It's that I don't agree with what you're saying." Whatever your own experiences or run-ins with admins, not all editors share them. We are perfectly capable of deciding on our own either that there is not a problem, that if there is, it's not a big deal, or that this cure is significantly worse than the disease.  RGTraynor  12:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, there's so much wrong with your post, RGT, I am unsure where to begin. Sigh.

*The only equitable position wherein a person is voted into an office by a comparatively small number of people that they hold for the rest of their natural life (that I am aware of) is that of pope. If you know of another office, please feel free to share it. Until then, I feel the comparison is valid

*As far as I know, only admins (and 'crats, who are admins) can block another user. Even if the block is a bad one and is reversed immediately, the user is forever tainted by that block. They can delete pages, close XfD discussions peremptorily. This represents an authority that regular users do not have.

*The proposal is not a tool to "go after" admins, and your cynical interpretation of it as such tells much about what you think of RfA as well as how little esteem your hold your fellow editor. It is a process wherein every admin is re-evaluated after three years of service. Nowhere else in the world (outside of dictatorships) is an employee, volunteer or elected person not subjected to periodic re-evaluation. Of course, if you are aware of such a comparable position, please feel free to share it with the rest of us.

*I do not believe that I have intimated, implied or stated that I think admins are "parasites". Maybe you should point out where I implied that.

*Please see my previous comments about anyone who would actually have the stones to defend retaining inactive or dead admins on the rolls. I'll presume you simply missed it. Inactive admins inflate the perception of activity, and its patently false to state that we have over 1700 admins working in the wiki, dor we quite simply do not. Perhaps you could cite their usefulness as inactives, aside from favorable comparison? I am speaking of quality over quantity (I believe you have a userbox to that effect on your user page, RGT); we do not reward inactivity here. No one is saying that an deactivated admin cannot reapply; they can. Until then, they can act as editors, just like the rest of us. :)

*I am not speaking for you, RGT; this is a proposal which I am submitting to the community for reasoned discussion. debate and hopefully implementation. Nor am I the only person who considers the current state of adminship to be considerably less than fair and less than ideal. I totally get why you would want to make this about me; its a debating tactic designed to isolate the opposition. Anytime you want to play fair and actually discuss the matter, I'm here. Making it about me is going to get you nowhere.

*You should feel free to offer an alternative plan to address what you have called in your previous post a disease. It's easy to state how something is wrong; working to a solution is somewhat less so. I'd suggest you might want to propose an alternative that doesn't take the cynical approach 'that nothing can be done so just leave it be.' Clearly, that has not worked thus far. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any actual point to continuing this discussion other than collectively arguing at the top of our proverbial lungs? While I may some day understand why people feel that RfA is worth the effort expended I am rather less likley (or frankly, willing to try) to understand why people are willing to get mean nasty and condescending over arguments about it.

Wikipedia is not a battleground - its purpose is not to import or nurse grudges as everyone knows by now, but it is also not a place to create them. At some point, we need to expect people to have the wisdom to walk away from arguments as the probability of personal irritation increases and the probability of actual communication decreases. And if you can't walk away, try not to write tiny treatises on discussion pages. Before I made this comment, we've reached 12000 words or so. The three entries above this alone were 1759 words.

WT:RfA is a public forum, so in a sense yes, all are entitled and/or privileged to use it as they will, but I think it serves the community best if ya'll use user talk pages for personal conversations, or write essays in user space and later import them if you have something suitably important and lengthy to say.--Tznkai (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Arcayne is free to name the rogue admins who do not enjoy the trust of the community and should be desysoped forthwith. Absent a showing that there is a problem, I see no reason for a solution waiting for a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm in complete agreement with Tznkai; responding further to Arcayne's missives serves no fruitful purpose. Whether he can muster consensus around his POV is the remaining issue.  RGTraynor  16:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's simply ridiculous. Since 2007 I and many others have spent our time doing dirty, nasty and annoying work. We've had to make tough judgement calls: sometimes (though not usually) we've got things wrong, and we've all certainly done things the wisdom of which did not become apparent til much later - certainly enough to ensure I and most others have made enough enemies to torpedo any reconfirmation RFA. And the proposed thanks for years of service in aid of WP:ENC? A reconfirmation RFA. Do you want the admins corps cut down by half, or something? Keeping basic backlogs clear right now is a struggle, even without initiating a mass cull. Moreschi (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  ...and to take Moreschi's comments a step further: with mandatory reconfirmation RFAs, there will be fewer admins willing to make tough/unpopular decisions even if they happen to be the right ones. –xeno^talk 18:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  I think cutting the admin corps down by half is an excellent idea. Who'd miss the 850 or so inactive ones, for a start. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  So are you proposing that admins who are inactive for X period of time automatically be desysopped? That would be a horse of a different color, to quote the Guardian of the Gates, and would likely win more approval.  RGTraynor  20:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  I wouldn't waste my time proposng anything, as it's clear that nothing changes here. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In many ways. Tan | 39 21:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Since some editors appear determined to pretend they didn't read how this proposal is not out "to get admins", I'm going to wait until they do. I don;t know of any rogue admins, and this proposal doesn't seek to address simply the raving lunatic running down the streets. It serves a 'preventative medicine', to reinforce that admin behavior which demonstrates the highest standards of what we expect from administrators. It can certainly serve as a means to allow the body Wiki to remove a problematic admin who fails to fulfill those standards. Between those two extremes, the proposal seeks to foster more suggestions and advice for admins who are neither wondrous nor pathetic to receive community input - most of which is received currently in a far more confrontational style than a reformed RfA would allow. This isn't a tool to quickly get rid of the "rogue admins"; once every 3 years would take too long to address an emergent issue. This is a tool to address and strike down the idea of Admin For Life (and Beyond).

Moreschi, you knew while accepting your candidacy that some of the work as admin was going to be "dirty, nasty and annoying", did you not? Even after, when you discovered these aspects, did you resign? Clearly, if you didn't feel that the work needed to be done, and had a grand pair, you'd have resigned. That you feel that because you've made decisions that would "torpedo" a reconfirmation only confirms the siege mentality that a great many admins feel - the aforementioned 'us-versus-them' attitude. To this I state that - if admins are concerned that RfA is going to pick on them unnecessarily, then fix RfA to make it more streamlined and less of a nitpicky bitch session. If you are a good admin (and I happen to feel that a great many admins are spectacular, you included), you have little to worry about; have a little faith that the rest of us who know your excellent work aren't going to leave you to twist in the wind. For most admins, reconfirmation is simply going to be an instructive tool, helping the admin to confirm or point out their strengths and weaknesses. Which can only be seen as a Good Thing. This is not available currently. Some admins will be found lacking, and will not be reconfirmed. This is part of a fair process of evaluation. One thing you should not be allowed is to be elected to a position of relative power for the rest of your natural life (and, in some instances, well beyond that).

The only "mass cull" to occur is the removal of the mop from people who have left it sitting in the corner, unattended anyway. Inactive members artificially inflate our numbers of administrators, and place the burden of the resulting expectations on those admins actually here doing the heavy lifting (ie, 'you couldn't clear out DYK or XfD when you have over 1700 admins? What the hell are you lazy SOB's doing, eating bon-bons?'). We want admins who do the work, and to stop treating the job as a key to the executive washroom.

Tznkai, you will forgive me if new proposals to the community are a bit on the long side. I would prefer to be not misunderstood. If the wall of text bothers you, allow me to sum up the proposal:

• The proposal would require every admin to reconfirm their admin status every three years. This is on par with many of our sister wikis.
• This reconfirmation must be mandatory for every active administrator to ensure parity and to avoid both favoritism and grudge matches.
• Additionally, admins who have been inactive for more than 6 months lose the mop, but can re-apply for it once they return.

This is the basic proposal, Tznkai. Also discussed was the side effect of this proposal to reform RfA to make it less of a gauntlet and more of a reasonable enquiry into the experience, skill set and wisdom of the candidate. the reasoning is that if admins have a stake in RfA becoming less contentious, more work to make it less contentious will occur.

I apologize for the earlier wall of text; I initially felt obligated to cover most of the bases with the initial proposal, and later to call a spade a spade. I know a false argument when I see it and think this is worth actual discussion based on the merits and flaws of the proposal. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Haven't agreed with everything you've said through this thread, but this proposal actually looks better thought out than a lot of the ones I've seen. bibliomaniac15 07:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It has potential, but I'm wondering if the three year term is too long to make much of a difference. If the process of reconfirmation isn't too intensive, would an annual or semi-annual term make more sense? Throwaway85 (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Arcayne, that was all perfectly sane and rational, until I got to: "then fix RfA to make it more streamlined and less of a nitpicky bitch session". Clearly desirable, but implausible, ridiculous, impossible. I've seen too many disasters over the last couple years to have any trust in this farcical process. Moreschi (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking to Bibliomaniac (and others), the proposal isn't going to be perfect for everyone; the whole point of submitting it here is that we can work together to find a way to make a fair approximation of the proposal work. The point of Wikipedia is that I add a little bit of my knowledge to the knowledge of thousands of others, and that what eventually emerges is something that benefits the largest number of us. This proposal is an example of that. I don't expect it to wave a magical wand and fix RfA. I do expect that - once 850 of our more experienced minds bend their will to finding something that works - it would get addressed. And it would get addressed, because simply because of who admins are, they wouldn't like the failings of RfA continue if it was something they had to submit to repeatedly. Not to say that experienced non-admins would have been sitting on their hands all this time, but currently, the process is seen as so uncouth and undesirable that many potentially excellent candidates would rather have multiple root canals whilst giving birth. There's got to be several ways we can improve that, and I believe we can.

And Moreschi, I know that there have been several disasters, and that wringing success from them seems 'implausible, ridiculous and impossible. If any one person had to do it all by themselves, it would certainly seem that way. But you aren't alone; none of us are, and together, we are fantastically brilliant. Every time we fall down, we can make sure to avoid that obstacle that made us fall down in the future.

The term of three years started out as being just the Goldilocks choice (two is too short a time, four is too long), but I completely agree that reconfirmation should not have to be the same sort of RfA that initial applicants undergo; they've already received the bit; we are just making sure they are doing well with it. I'm open to suggestions on how we could streamline the process for admins, but a simple yea or nay would definitely be open to grudge matches. I think it needs to be something in the middle. Just brainstorming, but perhaps limiting reconfirmation ¡voting to those with at least 2-6 months of editing themselves. Just an idea. = Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't that the approach they took in books like Atlas Shrugged? If you don't fix it, we shoot you. Fallacy somewhere, I fancy!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really sure I get your meeting, Wehalt. I'm saying it needs fixing so no one gets shot. As more emphasis would be placed on RfA, handling not just initial RfA's but reconfirming admins, it would seem wise to fix those parts which aren't the smoothest-running. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a cogent argument could be made that RfA runs perfectly smoothly if you're an arse-licking sycophant who has studiously avoided ever falling out with another editor. Is that the kind of person we want as an administrator? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think that's a question outside the scope of this proposal, Malleus. I think the best admins will make the tough calls because they are the right calls to make. That way, the only editors who they fall out with are pretty much the ones who are here for a limited time anyway. Again, we aren't here to kick admins; we're here to make sure that their knowledge base and work product is consistent and well-founded in policy. Currently, an admin without say, a good knowledge of Image policy or whatnot, might not get the input they need to be the best admin they can. If there is no term limit, there might be no impetus to develop admin skill sets outside of the politicking at AN or AC. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Another 30k (now 92k) of discussion and still no closer to this proposal being reality. There's a reason it never gets off the ground. I acknowledge there's a reason it keeps getting suggested, but in practice applying this proposal would seriously compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. Ah well. I guess I'll be called premature again, which is fine. But, count on it; this proposal will never become reality. You're just wasting your breath. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hammersoft, I am unclear how the proposal - which only strengthens our admin base, removes dead weight (often literally dead) inactives and helps to improve the encyclopedia compromises it. I get that you think the proposal is a waste of time. Some people would rather live in a world of crap than be the first to work a shovel; I get it. I'm sorry, I honestly don't understand why any good admin would feel threatened by this proposal (and I count you amongst this number, Hammersoft). This makes your job easier. Wouldn;t you prefer to work alongside who knows the policies and guidelines just as good or better than yourself? Wouldn't you prefer to be counted to not be grouped with inactive or dead admins? Seriously, I don't get it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that dead admins are desysopped anyway... (X! · talk)  · @014  ·  23:19, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure we desysop those admins who we know are dead. But as we have no effective way of communicating with our inactive admins, there is the disconcerting possibility that one or more are dead. And unless at some point we start desysoping longterm inactives I would predict that within decades we will have hundreds of inactive admins who unbeknown to us have passed on. ϢereSpielChequers 23:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Something that has yet to come up is that I don't particularly want 5.51 new RfAs a week. (X! · talk)  · @996  ·  22:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Read the bit above; I suggested that not only can some work be done to streamline RfA, but that the reconfirmation RfA's would - for the most part - be even more streamlined than normal RfA's. Someone who already has the mop pretty much knows their stuff; the RfA just confirms it and looks for trouble spots. I'm unclear on your math. How are you arriving at your RfA's per week? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(undenting as it is unrelated to the previous post) Simple. 859 admins. Each one must go through 1 RfA every three years. That's 286.33333333333 admins a year. Divide by 52, and you get 11 admins a week. (X! · talk)  · @013  ·  23:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought; the actual numbers are about half of that, X. There are almost 850 active admins. As part of the proposal, the over 850 inactive admins lose the mop, but can reapply. As many of them have been gone for more than 6 months, I don't imagine they will be coming back, so little in the way of traffic that way. I think we can handle 4-5 extra RfA's, especially if the process is streamlined somewhat for the reconfirming admins. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly perhaps far less than half as not everyone will volunteer for another RFA. But the process would have to have a throttle of no more than say 10 reconfirmation RFAs at a time - otherwise you start off with hundreds in the same week. I'd also suggest that anyone who passes RFB or been elected to Arbcom be deemed to have renewed their three year mandate. (I still don't like the concept - but if we did it those changes would make it function). ϢereSpielChequers 23:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have to confess I haven't read through every single word here, but I read quite a lot so I'll put my two cents in. :) On the one hand, we have no real de-admin method, nor even a method for realistic feedback to admins. Working in CSD and REFUND, I see a whole lot of back admin deletions, and when I ask about them, I'm often told by the admin that they don't give a rat's ass about policy or rules. No wonder so many editors think there's a cabal or that admins are a law unto themselves. The few who act that way make life awfully hard for the rest of us. On the other hand, if I had to go through RfA again today, I wouldn't do it. I don't need the aggravation and drama -- there's plenty I can do here without the buttons. So if this proposal goes through (and it's the best I've seen in a while), and RfA shapes up, all will be well. If it goes through and RfA doesn't shape up, we'll have no admins in a couple of years because anyone who runs will be mentally suspect and not suitable to be an admin.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that sounds pretty fair as well, Chequers. The 3-year date for re-confirmation should coincide the incipient 'crat or Arb-date (and to prevent people from going from one to the other, sidestepping it, a 4-year date) - though someone can be a crat or Arb without being an admin, right?

Fabrictramp, you've been here for a long time. Maybe it would be helpful if we started to figure out how to address some of the most glaring snags of the RfA process. Maybe a new subsection would be good for that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Glad we can agree on some of the details even if we disagree on the substance:). In theory someone could become an Arb without being an admin. I think technically a crat is a type of admin so it may not be possible to be a nonadmin crat. In either event you can word it as any admin who is elected an Arb or passes RFB should be deemed to have been reconfirmed as admin with their three year term recalculated from the new date. Probably a bit more contentiously I would suggest that to avoid us running low on active admins we set a threshold below which the number of active admins shouldn't fall, and suspend reconfirmation RFAs when it does. ϢereSpielChequers 01:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

While I think you might be under-estimating the number of excellent admins out there who are going to fly through the RfA process, I think having a critical number sounds reasonable and wise. I think it might prove - as you said - contentious to set that level, as it would appear to be highly subjective. I have no idea how many admins can dance atop an AE. You do understand that implementation wouldn't mean that every admin with over three years of experience would be forced to re-confirm all at once; that would be madness. Maybe that's the logjam to which others have been mentioning. I'd suggest we set a reasonably small number per week (howzabout 4?) and see how that goes. If it goes fairly smoothly, we can increase the number to an optimum of 5-6 until we are caught up with those over three years. Though i hate the comparison, no one starts the factory at 100% capacity immediately; some fine-tuning is always necessary. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

Reading (most of) the above discussion, I note the possibility of an alternative, which would address some of my concerns, and maybe the concerns of some others. The discussion of term limits and recall (voluntary or otherwise) occasionally conflates two related but distinct concepts - recall or rerun options aspect assume that an admin can serve forever, but must periodically be reaffirmed, while a term limit imposes an upper bound on the length of time an admin can serve. I see these three concepts as:

1. Status quo - admins can serve forever, absent screwing up sufficiently to get Arbcom involved
2. Term Limits - admins can serve n years, then never again
3. Recall/rerun - admins can serve forever, but must be subject to a new RfA in some form

In all three cases, we are implicitly accepting the following notion - an admin can be affirmed by consensus of the community, but over time, change in such a way that is viewed as detrimental to the community. The recall option address the concern by assuming that an admin who has to run the gauntlet again will be less likely to abuse the tools. The term limit option assumes that abusing is inevitable, and we might as well refuse to allow a editor to be an admin for more than a set period of time. The status quo acknowledges the problems but either find the costs of the alternatives to be too high, or cannot agree on a single alternative.

I think there is value in an admin remembering what it is like to be without the tools. So my alternative proposal:

An admin is chosen for a fixed period of time (say, three or four years), at which time the admin must relinquish the tools for a fixed period of time (say, three months). The admin is automatically restored to admin status once, but must go through an RfA after the second break.

Rationale - I think admins may forget what it is like not to have the tools, and an enforced break may help them appreciate the responsibilities.

Details - The time periods I selected can be tweaked; existing admins can get varying terms to make sure there isn't a period where literally hundreds of experienced admins are without tools simultaneously. --SPhilbrickT 18:06, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that this would have the desired effect. The great complaint against admins is that some say, all things being equal, they are sanctioned less severely than non-admins. Do you think an "admin-on-adminwikibreak" would be any less an admin in the eyes of other admins or ArbCom?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, although I acknowledge that they might not be treated exactly as an pure editor. I think some editors tiptoe around admins because of the possibility that they could be blocked - if they did not have the block tool, they might see a different reaction form some, for at least a period of time. OTOH, you might be right, and editors would decline to challenge an "admin-on-adminwikibreak" for fear of a long memory, but I would hope than an blocks implemented after a return of the tools would be viewed carefully. You could be right, but I see it as an experiment worth trying. In fact, I hope that some former admins will weigh in, telling us if the world looks different to them now. --SPhilbrickT 20:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

YMMV, but I see the cost of taking all of our admins out of action on a rolling basis (and a large number of admins, no one has any complaints about) as higher than the supposed benefit of "attitude adjustment". And again the same thing, many admins, having seen the elephant, might not choose to subject themselves to a second RfA. I believe that there are enough editors who do not view admins as a suspect class, who need to be restrained, to veto any such proposal.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wehwalt. The issue is not that there are too many admins at any given time, rather there are certain areas that are perennially in need of more. Any proposed solution should address the concerns that have been raised without negatively impacting the project. Furthermore, many of the actions that admins engage in, be they bot-writing, long-term mediation on contentious issues, or any number of things, are ongoing endeavours that cannot simply be dropped so as to take a wikibreak. I feel the disruption that would arrise as a result of this proposal would outweigh any improvements it might bring. Throwaway85 (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion this may sound stupid but perhaps we can have a "Post Admin Review" (Much like Post Tenure Review) where after a given date of being given the tools, (oh say 6months to a year) the admin undergoes a review by the comminuty to see if they still deserve the tools. But im sure that most times, the review would be a list of suggestions for the admin to take notice of instead of a "congresional hearing". Either way, it can prevent admin abuse and alow editors to voice their opinion for the admin in a civil and calm way.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment It has been talked about and has failed to gain consensus. I'm sure you can find it in the archives with a search. I suspect it will not satisfy those who believe they have grievances against admins, but who have no recourse (unless the admin is very stupid or chooses to run for crat or ArbCom. Personally, I am fine with a deadminship process, so long as it is those who believe the admin should have the bits removed who have the burden of consensus.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I rather agree with Wehalt and Throwaway, Sphilbrick. Your idea is well thought-out, but it presupposes that admins forget what it is to be a "regular" editor. In point of fact, most admins still work the articles they love as editors, create bots, and mediate disputes - all without using the mop. The initial proposal suggested not that they don't remember that they are also editors (they often bemoan the fact that they no longer have time to do what they like), but rather the idea that some admins could benefit from feedback, preventing them from going off the rails.

Additionally, I think you might be confusing how the phrase "term limits" is being utilized here. The initial proposal did not suggest that admins serve x years and then then never again. It just says they have to be re-confirmed by the community (the original RfA being a confirmation of the community's trust). The proposal addresses the implied inequity of this turning into a lifetime appointment.

I think admins should be allowed to remain as admins as long as they wish, so long as they are reconfirmed every three (as mentioned before, this is the "Goldilocks" choice - not too short and not too long). There are current sitting admins that I wish were immortal; no one here wants to lose good admins. Additionally, no one wants to lose potentially good admins through an overly harsh RfA process either. Some reformation of the process would be a side benefit of the proposal. I'm all for discussing how to implement the proposal and addressing some of the problems of RfA. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

While I tend to support term limits and/or some kind of mandatory OfR/Tenure review process, I think that requiring breaks for all admins automatically is a bad suggestion. Part of the idea behind these proposals is to evaluate admins' use of tools, not to punish anyone or to just to make things harder. Automatic enforced breaks would affect those deserving and non-deserving alike.radek (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still rather fond of my RfDA proposal that I whipped up a while back. I think it provides a viable alternative to the three situations that Sphilbrick outlines above (or, rather, it's a modification of the first: you're essentially an admin forever, but to have the sysop flag removed doesn't require ArbCom to step in). I don't like the idea of term limits, but I do like the idea of the community having full say in who administrates Wikipedia at all times (rather than after an arbitrary amount of time has passed since their promotion). EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the idea of an RfDA in principle, however I have some concerns about what would happen in practice. Certain venues, such as AN/I, have the tendency to become rather... heated. Using Wehwalt's recent ArbNom as an example, he made an unpopular (although I still maintain correct) action that resulted in him losing his Arbcom bid, simply due to timing and the temporary furor that errupted. I don't want to implement a system whereby an admin takes a principled, albeit unpopular, stand and loses their bit for it. I feel that this would tend to select for the wrong kinds of editors maintaining their bit. We don't need admins who are unwilling to be bold in their actions. The only ways around this I can see would be to a) have a mandatory cooling off time of 1 month before an RfDA proceeds, or b) have the RfDA be certified by Arbcomm. The problem with a) is that it is both arbitrary, and seems like it would allow problematic admins to watch themselves for a month, and then carry on doing what led to the RfDA in the first place. The problem with b) is that it's essentially the system we currently have in place. I'm open to suggestions on how we might solve these issues. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Having read EVula's RfDA, I have to say that there are parts of it that are quite elegant and well thought out. My sole concerns for the implementations is that this would likely create more work than less. As well, there is the fact that a lot more responsibility for evaluating the criteria for a RfDA would fall under the purview of the crat (which would seem reasonable that he does this; he is a crat, and he knows the job description as it is). While the idea of a rogue crat is right up there with flying cars and cold fusion, we have to consider the possibility that that much increased authority might lead to increased chances for abuse.

I do think that there are really solid points there, though, and many of them could be applied to RfA itself. We really need to avoid any arbitrary action that could allow problematic admins the opportunity to game the system.

Are we pretty much together on the choice to remove the inactives from the mop? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 11:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Really though, how many problematic system-gaming admins are there? Sure, there's been a few abuses here and there, but hasn't arbcom dealt with it relatively effectively? It seems like a solution in search of a problem. I admit, there's some admins who probably shouldn't have the bit, but there's none I can think of who go out of their way to intentionally damage the project. [hey, who said this? the sig got lost at some point]

"this would likely create more work than less" Eh, I think the work put into an RfDA would be less than the work put into an ArbCom case. It'd be more work for the bureaucrats, certainly, but I think we can handle it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

For the reasons Throwaway85 brought up, I think a term-limit or regular reconfirmation process would be much preferable to an RFDA process. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 3

While the part of the proposal discussing the removal of inactive (or dead) admins is discussed below, are there any other questions about the main thrust of the proposal - discussing setting a term for adminship to three years, after which time the admin must be reconfirmed? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

After struggling through all of the above, it is clear that some holders of any office who go through an election process with arbitrary requirements of support who are unqualified get elected, and that some who are qualified, don't. There is no reason to believe that limited terms will help much - the bad apples should be culled well before the three year mark, and the good ones shold hold office on good behavior. Democracy is fine - but few cities hold a popular vote on City Manager. WP needs a substantially improved vetting process as a minimum. Perhaps an "Administor Review Committee" without the drama inherent in ArbCom cases would work, perhaps another mechanism would work, but simply installing terms would not. Collect (talk) 17:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

For the (many) aforementioned reason, there are those who feel admins serving specified terms would be better for the wiki-en - just like it is at many of our sister wikis. The point of terms - stated once again - is that it will catch behavioral problems before they get to the point where ArbCom and the stewards must get involved. Every admin goes through the process, which provides honesty and fairness. Great admins will sail through the process. Bad admins will have a bumpy ride, having to address criticism of prior mistakes over the past three years that - without a term - they could simply ignore. Most admins, being somewhere in the middle, would simply get pointers on slight mistakes, and receive guidance from both regular contributors and admins alike on how to do their job better.

Better admins make the wiki a better place to edit, which creates a better product. Having admins for life - a situation incongruous with Foundation Principles - alienates the admin from criticism that might help them become better admins, and alienates them into an adversarial relationship with the regular editor. This is what costs us editors in droves. This is the vetting process being suggested, Collect; it addresses every concern but that of the fear of the average admin that a cabal of users are going to come to the re-confirmation RfA to "get" an admin. For those people, the adversarial relationship cannot be denied, and is itself the strongest reason for setting a term for administratorship. Rather than the invalid comparison of a city manager, which is an appointed position, we should be discussing how every ther elected position in the free world has an end of that term, wherein they must run again. This proposal doesn't suggest that you lose your adminhood and have to apply again; it states that you may apply for reconfirmation - while still an admin. If you are approved, you remain an admin for another three years. If not reconfirmed, you lose the bit and can re-apply at a future date. Pretty no-nonsense and utterly equitable, - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Which other wikis have re-confirmation elections for admins? I am familiar with several that desysop for inactivity, but I do not know of any WMF-wikis with set terms for admins who then face re-confirmation and would be interested to see which ones exist. MBisanz ^talk 02:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The other, aforementioned wiki's don't need reconfirmation; unline the wiki-en, they hold regular elections. As we tend to have the mentality that admins are elected for life (and often well beyond that), reconfirmation becomes necessary.

I'm sorry if that was confusing for you, MBisanz. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am wondering if this matter shouldn't be opened to a wider audience, instead of just here at RfA. I'd like to get some input on this, as I don;t wan tto be accused of forum-shopping. Clearly, though, opinions from a wider cross-section of the community might serve us all better. So far, those who don't like it think it is going to cause more problems than it solves, be too much paperwork, or is yet another secret plot to "get" admins. While all of these incorrect assumptions have been carefully explained away, they keep coming up. Since some people learn through different examples (and I make no claim to being brilliant), maybe having a wider audience would allow for many more ways for these concerns to be finally assuaged - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:CENT would be an option. There aren't that many different people taking part in this discussion. But there are probably some people like me quietly watching it all unfold. Useight (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Lurker! Well, the proposal was introduced to inspire folks to chime in on how something like this could be made viable. I have heard some awfully good ideas from some, and some insightful worries (as well as some few outright cynical claims) about why it might not. I get that admins are afraid of this; change doesn't come easily to our merry little band, and change that makes admins more answerable to the editorship can be seen as a bad thing, especially by those admins with just cause to be worried. By taking it to a wider audience, we get input not just from admins but all users. After all, it isn't an us-versus-them arrangement, right? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Arcayne, I appreciate your position here. However, I will ask you, courteously, not to ascribe emotions to others in this debate. So far, and I've only dug a little bit, you've said that "admins are afraid of this", that some "have just cause to be worried", that "change doesn't come easily to our merry little band", that "some admins feel like this proposal is trying to rake them over a cheese grater", and I could go on further. Suggesting that people are acting in debate because of their emotions and personal interests is a way of denigrating the positions of others. Please do not do that. It impresses no one. Cut it out.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, Wehalt, you could benefit from your own advice: I'd appreciate you not ascribing emotions or ulterior motives (1, 2) to my motives that aren't explicitly stated denigrates and devalues my position; not attacking the proposal but attacking me, seeking to get a rise. It's a fair cop, as I'm known for having a temper, but this is a rather important proposal. It's patently bad faith to suggest that - at best - what I am doing here has no value to the wiki and at worst seeking to "get some admins desysoped" (sic) - despite not a single shred of evidence to bolster that opinion, and contrary to every single comment I've uttered about the intent of the proposal. I would ask that you and others not do that. It's tangential to the discussion and is essentially disruptive to what is being proposed as a good faith measure to better the wiki-en. Maybe you could "cut it out", too. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a bit disingenuous on the "get some admins desysopped" part. On Jan 6, you made a string of three edits, first calling on myself and Keegan to be desysopped, then calling on arbcom to desysop us, and then making this proposal. That was all done in 45 minutes without any intervening edits, which leads to people seeing this proposal as being linked from that incident and not being a truly neutral propsal. MBisanz ^talk 20:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with MBisanz. Neither of those diffs go to your emotions in any way. You patently do want to get some admins desysoped (which I think it is the correct spelling btw). You've said so yourself! None of which goes to your emotions. Discussing your motives "you want this proposal so as to get some admins desysoped" is very different from saying "you are angry at the admin corps and want to get your own back at them". I haven't presented others as angry, or afraid, or showing an inability to change, etc. You have. Please refrain from ascribing emotions to others and review WP:CIV.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll point out again: the proposal says nothing about admins who've gone off the reservation. Indeed, the proposal cannot do anything about such admins, except for expecting the admin to address their reasoning for decisions made in the three years since their reconfirmation. AS I understand it, only ArbCom can address and de-sysop for admin malfeasance, like outing a user both publicly and via IRC. As for your links, you might want to check them a bit closer, MBisanz; while I do indeed believe your error is worthy of losing the bit, nowhere in the second link do I discuss that. And I wasn't suggesting that Keegan de-sysop, it was yourself and another admin who created a godawful mess that will be extremely difficult to clean up, if indeed it ever can be. It would seem wise to have a system in place where admins receive valuable feedback that they must respond to and learn from before they go off the rails - like distinguishing between policy and guidelines. However, I am not going to discuss that matter more in depth, as I believe that ArbCom - due to the outing and privacy issues - is still discussing privately.

Do I feel that some admins who probably shouldn't have the mop? Sure, I can think of a few. So can you, MB and Wehalt, and so can everyone else in the wiki. This proposal isn't about me, MBisanz and it isn't about you, either. The point is; we currently have no way to keep that list of correctable error down. The proposal allows admins to either receive valuable insight into their behavior and practices, or losing the bit because they wouldn't or couldn't learn via a 70% community !vote (just like a normal RfA). Last time I checked, I'm just one editor, and nowhere near 70%. I haven't the foggiest as to when either of you were made admins, but at those confirmation RfA's for MB I would certainly - at that time - ask MBisanz and the other admin what they thought they were doing sidestepping policy and championing a guideline instead. However, this discussion page isn't the place for you to answer it.

You lads can seek to hammer away at my "ulterior motives" all you want, let's simply recognize that you are attacking me, not the proposal. I'm allowed to be upset at mistakes I feel an admin has made. if it inspired me to suggest something that would help keep this sort of problem from happening again instead of going on some uncivil tireade, you should applaud (or simply throw money - I always accept money). Pulling out diffs and ascribing implicit meanings from them is disingenuous. It's a series of cheap shots, and I'm asking politely for it to stop. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:27, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My compliments on how well you dish it out, shame about the taking it.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, why - as an admin - do you feel the need to give it at all? Why do you feel so threatened by this basic proposal, that you feel the burning need to attack me? While I have made characterizing statements based on available evidence, I have not pointedly referred to anyone. You are taking this far too personally; maybe you need to have a nice sit-down and some tea. All the proposal does is ask admins to be reconfirmed every three years by the Body Wiki; are you of the opinion that the community wouldn't be able to see all your admin work (which you say you only do maybe once a month)? This proposal seeks to address the 'us-versus-them' mindset that many admins have by making them more responsive to community feedback - do you feel that the community should not have the right to provide that to you, or that you don't have to act on it?

Here it is in a nutshell, Wehalt: being an admin is about being trusted to use the extensive admin tools wisely. Trust is not a one-time occurrence (like a single election); it is an ongoing process, and our polices should reflect that. Our sister wikis recognize this, and most if not all have a form of a defined term for admins. This proposal is simple: if you are a good admin, you should have no problems sailing through conformation. If you have behavioral problems or use the tools unwisely, you're going to have to answer some tough questions, and how you address these concerns might affect that reconfirmation. You might even fail to be reconfirmed by 70% of the community, which means you lose the bit (but can reapply). I know you do not agree with the idea, but taking shots at me isn't going to alter the basic common sense and fairness of it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

What you seem to think is that denigration of your proposal is denigration of you, 'taint so. On the other hands, blanket comments about the admins' emotions or personalities is helpful to neither you nor the project. And you've done it again, you are saying that I "feel threatened". This is a style of argument popular with demagogues, it is not productive here. You responded to my request that you cease it with a "Well Bobby does it too!" which I will refrain from an age comparison because you would no doubt see it as an attack. If you had refrained from such comments, and perhaps even spent some time recognizing the merits of admins, who do hard work for no pay, perhaps you would have picked up more support by then.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, Wehalt, and I've simply not mentioned enough of the merits of admins, who volunteered to do hard work for free. Let me correct that now: the vast majority of admins do fine work, and it cannot be stressed enough that the proposal to reconfirm them is not a denigration, but a recognition that we as a community need to reinforce those attributes which are beneficial qualities in an admin, and help to correct and help guide those admins who need some guidance. and might not otherwise ask for it and risk of opening themselves to attack by a few editors. No admin should feel above receiving guidance and constructive criticism, I think - just like no editor is. If anything, this reconfirmation RfA can and should be seen as a valuable tool to help admins chart their development - not just by achievement of title, but accumulation and increased level of skills.

Those who see this proposal as an attempt to "get" admins are missing the most important point: great admins are virtually bulletproof; their decisions, while sometimes difficult, are always sound, their civility weel-known and their ability to handle difficult matters rather hard to top. This includes those admins who work quietly in the background. They needn't feel that they come to reconfirmation with hat in hand; there are likely enough who know of their background work to make sure the rest of us know of it. As others have mentioned, the truly bad apples inconveniently self-immolate on a schedule outside the 3-year proposed term for each admin before re-RfA. Therefore, the proposal cannot really address them. The admins who are best served by this proposal are other 80%, who are at neither extreme, and ned some input to put them on the path to greatness. That's the point of the wiki; all of us working together to create something better than we are individually. I thought I might have said something akin to that before, but if I had not, then forgive me. If your intent was not to attack me, then forgive me for perceiving it as such. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, an alternative suggestion for the overt lack of support for Arcayne's perfectly reasonable proposal is that very few editors can be bothered to engage in a discussion that will be filibustered by those holding the entrenched position that only administrators can be be trusted. A view that you so eloquently express, but which is patently absurd and insulting to the body of hard-working editors who are so frequently subjected to the whims of the current crop of "admin-for-lifers". --Malleus Fatuorum 22:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactive admins

Yes to cleaning out inactives, btw. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a diplomatic way to handle inactive admin accounts would be for admin rights to lapse on any account that hasn't logged in for 12 months 48 months, provided you combine that with admin rights restorable by crats with a guideline of a couple of weeks resumed activity. Ideally I'd like that combined with some sort of refresher material available so that returning admins can get back up to speed. You'd also need to email the accounts involved well before this started. ϢereSpielChequers 13:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of that but the date before the admin rights lapse with inactive accounts. Six months is long enough; if you aren't editing, you are likely not coming back. a year is simply too long to wait to remove the mop, and far too long to be out of practice that a few weeks of 'refresher material' is going to catch them up. Does anyone have any numbers on the admins who've been inactive two, four, six and twelve months? It might be easier to decide this is we know what numbers we are dealing with. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Before deciding that all 6 or 12 month wiki breaks are permanent I think you'd need quite a bit of research. Its not as if going on wiki-break for one's finals year or the first 6 months of a new job or new relationship is either unreasonable or to be penalised. Also we are still in the first decade of the pedia, we need many more years before we will know how many of our inactives return at later stages in their lives. As for numbers, 161 have been inactive for more than 12 months, 235 for 6 months and 345 for three months. Also I would dispute the idea that a few weeks return and some refresher info is insufficient, trust and clue don't degrade that easily. ϢereSpielChequers 14:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if we only do 4 each week to avoid an RfA logjam, by January 2011 we'd finally be getting up to admins who last edited in May, 2009. Personally, I'm comfortable with 12 months on inactive admins if we also have the 3 year term. Or a shorter period, with auto-re-approval that doesn't restart the 3 year clock.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the idea of an inactive admin's bit getting auto reapproved mean that it doesn't matter how long they're inactive for? I thought the idea was more for housecleaning than anything. If an admin is inactive for 6 months or a year or whatever, they can still ask a crat for their bit back and have it autoapproved, right? Throwaway85 (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that they should. Six months is not a huge amount of time. Perhaps a crat could do a quick look, see renewed activity, and if there are problems, send it to a crat chat. Thanks for the comment on my ArbCom nomination, I'm content that I got more than half those expressing a preference and the margin between me and the lowest elected person was wide enough that it would be hard to lay it to any one thing. Besides, this way I get to devote my time to racking up FA's rather than all the crap that goes on there. Getting back to the inactive admins, I would say the main benefit is that we get accurate stats on how many admins we have, really. No other real positives, I haven't seen Rip von Admin wake up and start sowing chaos ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re Throaway's point about autoapproving. Not necessarily, in fact I think that may be the contentious part of this. Arguments for desysopping longterm inactives include:

1. Security risks, especially as PCs get recycled etc
2. In the long run unless we do this after ten or twenty years absence we will have a whole load of deceased admins
3. Inactivity may mean admins become unfamiliar with policies and practices here.
4. More accurate stats on admin numbers

Those who support for the first two reasons only will I suspect support auto re-adminning on return. Those who support for the third reason are liable to want some sort of refresh process or RFA for returning admins. Having done a little more research, and established that we have had admins return from three and four year breaks without as far as I'm aware any drama I would modify my support to "Auto-retirement after four years inactivity across Wikimedia, with readminning on request, but a reminder that as with all admins using unfamiliar aspects of the mop - please tread cautiously and reaquaint yourself with current policy" ϢereSpielChequers 19:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

How about demopped after six months, autorestored after 2 weeks resumed editing? Throwaway85 (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The numbers are not, I think, the big issue. Tend to think Were is right. There are those who want the thing set up to get some admin scalps, which forcing people who have done no wrong (either on term limits or inactivity) to undergo auto-da-RfA would certainly accomplish. I continue to insist that any process seeking to have an administrator removed give the burden of consensus to those advocating desysoping for that admin. However, desysoping after a period of time and warning, so long as the editor can get the bits back on request absent red flags, is not unreasonable.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Furthermore, I think it should be just as difficult to lose the bit as it is to gain it. I think a 70% threshold for an RfDA would be reasonable, with 60-70% falling to crat discretion. I think that's high enough to make reactionary desysops unlikely, and low enough to stop some hypothetically disruptive admin from rallying his friends to block an RfDA. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well folks, here's your inevitable "What problem does this solution propose to fix" question. Really, though, I am not seeing much (if any) benefit to removing the bit from inactive accounts and imposing an arbitrary "be active for this long" bar to getting the bit back. To my knowledge there are no inactive admin accounts causing us grief; nor am I aware of any situations where an admin came back rusty from an extended wikibreak and caused havoc. So I'll ask the question : What problem does this solution propose to fix? Shereth 20:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the only benefit that been proposed for clearing out inactive admins is to get a better idea of how many admins we have, and where we need more. As for inactive admins coming back and causing disruption, there's always the Cremepuff incident, although I hate to bring that up, as I think he got a bit of a bum rap. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Cremepuff incident was a little different as it was intentional disruptive behavior, not mis-weilding the mop due to being out of practice. In any event, the workload required to constantly remove the bit from inative admins and restore it to those coming back (we'd need some kind of mechanism to identify inactive accounts, create a de-sysop request to send to a steward, then the policed period of new contributions post-reactivation) is quite high in relation to the workload caused by the rare instance of trouble from inactive admins. Sure, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but when we're wasting so many ounces on so many preventions that are unecessary we've become pennywise and pound foolish. Shereth 20:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This should be an uncontentious issue, but the RfA community is too reactionary. There are reasons to desysop inactive admin accounts – although they apply to a minority of cases that does not mean we shouldn't take precautions; you don't dispense with flood defences because it doesn't look rainy outside. Turning the argument round, what are the reasons to allow inactive admins to keep the tools? Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've gotta agree with Shereth on this one. This seems very much like a solution to a problem that, for the most part, doesn't exist. If someone can point out multiple incidences where lapsed desysopping would have prevented problems, please do so. I have a feeling, though, that the time that it would take to maintain such a system would be far, far greater than any measurable results said system would produce. Simply put, inactivity desysopping doesn't solve any problem that we currently have. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm merely looking at it from a cost versus beneift perspective. The cost in terms of "extra work" generated by the routine de-sysopping of inactive accounts is minute in comparison to the cost in terms of "extra work" generated by cleaning up after a bad apple, yet it is my belief that the bad apples are rare enough that the compounded "extra work" generated by the routine de-sysopping would, in the long run, prove to be greater, therefore the cost generated by this proposal outweighs the benefit. There is no specific reason to allow inactive accounts to retain the tools, except for the fact that doing otherwise generates an unecessary workload. Shereth 20:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing ow it would be so time consuming. There's a list of inactive admins maintained by bot (it works on 2 months without an edit); this could be tweaked slightly to generate a list of admins who haven't edited in a six months, or year, or whatever, thereby taking a lot of the effort out of it. Nev1 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can see two problems which this would "fix": firstly, it would allow the number of admins to more accurately reflect the number who would probably actually do something! WP:ADMIN says there are 1708 admins - but that is all of them. 161 of them have not been active in the last 12 months - that's almost 10%; secondly, a point I've made before: if I put in a request to be an admin, but didn't need the bit, I'd be told that I shouldn't be an admin. The admins who are away for 12 months+ don't need the bit.

What I would support would be a proposal that said that if you do not edit (note that I do not say "do not perform admin actions") in 12 months, you lose the bit - but when you come back, you can ask for it to be given back, and you'll get it. In this way, we'd have a more accurate figure for admins (i.e. those who are still editing) - but an admin wouldn't permanently lose their bit, just while they aren't about. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The first "problem", specifically the accurate reporting of our admin corps, is a trivial one. If we have a mechanism to identify "inactive" admins and report them for de-sysopping, there is no reason to continue the process beyond merely identifying them and regurtiating a number of inactive vs. active admins. The second "problem" is contentious, in that the rationale "doesn't need the bit" is not universally accepted and should not be codified into any kind of official process like this. Shereth 21:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

We currently have 25 admins who have not edited here since 2005 (including one who has died and his account has therefore been blocked) and a further 24 who have not edited since 2006. 12 months ago there were 55 who hadn't edit since 2006 but I think one account was desysopped - which implies that 5 have returned last year after gaps of more than two years. So the above 4 year desysop proposal would automatically retire 25 accounts now and another 24 in the next 12 months if they continue to be inactive. Longer term these numbers will grow, but I doubt if there will be many returns per month. This is all on the basis of inactivity on EN wiki - it is entirely possible that some of these are active on other projects and I would prefer that this was implemented on the basis of the SUL account being inactive across the whole of Wikimedia. I for one would have no objection to a long quiescent EN:wiki admin returning from wiktionary or wikicommons to block someone on a multi project vandalism spree.As for why - the only reason I find truly compelling is that I think it impolite to leave dead people's accounts open for ever. ϢereSpielChequers 21:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That would either necessitate a lot of additional manual work, or contacting the devs and asking them to code for it. The second option seems preferable, but I'm not sure they'd go for it. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(un-indent). I'm not sure desysopping inactive accounts is needed (except when we can verify that an admin passed away). Are there any examples of inactive admin accounts coming back and vandalizing the site with their tools (ie mass deletions, blockings, etc.)? I think it's more likely an active account would get hacked into. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 21:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you guarantee that inactive admins accounts can't become compromised? If not, surely it's better to err on the side of caution and remove the tools from inactive accounts? Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There have been 2 admin accounts that have been compromised, to my knowledge. User:RickK and User:Zoe's accounts were compromised some time after they had retired. As far as I know, the cracker didn't use the tools, they just simply posted on the Administrators' noticeboard. [9] The Thing _{Editor Review} 21:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, those passwords were guessed, not cracked. –xeno^talk 21:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well still, either way, they were compromised. The Thing _{Editor Review} 21:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

@DC: "Hacking" accounts never really happens. It's usually due to people using the same passwords as their email address, and using stupidly easy questions for their "lost password" thing. Perhaps a simple "How to not be dumb with your passwords" page for admins to review would accomplish the same thing with less work. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I made this same point last year when there was a discussion of purging inactive crats. If they aren't using the tools, obviously they aren't misusing them either, so what is the point of adding more processes and rules to remove their admin rights? And I totally don't get the objection to dead admins retaining the tools, I think it's based on the mistaken idea that being an admin is some great honor and there are hordes of hackers trying to crack open old admin accounts. If a police officer dies, do you think the chief shows up at the widow's house and demands the dead officer's badge and uniform? Of course not. It's not only pointless to remove the bit from deceased admins, it's downright disrespectful. Actual hacked accounts are extremely rare and can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • • You said that the idea that "being an admin is some great honor" is mistaken, in that case so is suggesting that removing the tools from an inactive account is disrespectful. Nev1 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm tempted to agree, although I do realize the housekeeping value of getting rid of inactive/deceased admins. The thing about accounts being compromised is yes, it can happen to anyone, but if the account is active then the owner is likely to realize there's something wrong and take appropriate action, whereas an inactive account would have to cause mass disruption to be picked up on. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
    • If a police officer died, his widow gets to keep his badge/uniform. But they'd take away the gun. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 00:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious housekeeping value, it is also one of honesty; yes, we have 1708 admins, but how many of them are actually doing work? If in the odd event that some admin who's been gone for years and years comes back, we can give them their bit back, after they get up to speed. I think the cut-off between actives and inactives should be right around 6 months. There is no real extra process needed for this. We simply de-list them (after proper notification), and let the inactive admin take the next step. If they remain away, then no big deal; they're gone, Jim. If they express an interest in remaining active, then let them. Being an admin is not a badge; if you don't do the work, you shouldn't get the title. It's a slap in the face for a guy who does squat on the wiki for six months to be able to group himself with those folk who use the bit every day.

It should be stressed that this isn't a contentious de-sysopping; it is house-cleaning. If you are inactive and passed RfA 3 or more years ago, you have to reconfirm (not a new admin RfA). If you are inactive and have been an admin for less than 3 years, you are reinstated. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

An excellent idea, despite the fact that it has been killed every time it is proposed. But just a quick show of hands, who would be willing to work on a draft RfC for "desysoping due to inactivity"? -FASTILY ^(TALK)

Meh, this comes up every few months or so, and I'm not sure what problem it's trying to solve, or how it plans to go about it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem though, is everyone on the opposition just says it's a solution to them in search of a problem, why do it. I say to them, why not? I have never heard anything compelling from the opposition on why not to do it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The extra work argument seems rather compelling. That is, of course, unless we can automate the process. Is there such thing as a bot with the crat bit? Throwaway85 (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Crats can't desysop. It needs to be done by stewards. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 06:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an RfC about that open now, DC -- Avi (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Back on topic, while currently it does not "hurt" to have retirees keep the bit, there is some sense about a sunset clause, as over a period of a number of years, while the core rules may not change, enough may have changed that a brief refresher to the current policies and guidelines may not be a bad idea for someone out that long. So while "removal" may be a bad term, a "hiatus" until the return an re-familiarization (a week or two?) may be a good idea. -- Avi (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost any solution will create problems of its own - the only question is whether those problems are bigger or smaller than the ones they attempt to solve. If you don't even have a problem that needs solving, all you're doing then, is creating more problems with no benefit. That's a pretty good reason not to do it. In the interests of full disclosure, I'm an inactive admin, just starting to get back into the swing of things. If I had to go through RfA again, I wouldn't. It's not pleasant. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How long were you inactive? More than three years? For someone who was, wouldn't a a two-week or so period where s/he would not use the bit (outside of obvious vandalism and such) until s/he gets a bit more comfortable with how guidelines and policies may have shifted in his/her absence be reasonable? -- Avi (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that's reasonable and it's what I'm doing. I also think it's reasonable to go to the dentist once a year for a check-up, but I don't think we should make a law absolutely requiring it. There seems to be an obsession with some to make rules that cover every possible situation, but this practice is not only infeasible, but counter-productive. Unless there's a specific problem that needs to be remedied, I don't see the need to create more process. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The creation of a new process for its own sake is a form of instruction creep. Unless it either fixes an existing problem or proves to be a net benefit to the system, there is no compelling reason to enact any new process or policy. As no one has come forward with a problem that this proposes to solve, and I remain unconvinced that it is a net benefit to the project, I will retain the opinion that it is something that should not be done. Shereth 22:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Desysopping after extended inactivity is has the simple benefit that it adds to the general tidiness of the wiki and the accuracy of the administrator count. It would be hypocritical of me to suggest any sort of remedial period as opposed to receiving the bit back upon request, as I am actual proof that admins do in fact, go away and come back after long periods of time.--Tznkai (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest, then, that on the WP:ADMIN page, the part that says how many admins there are be amended so that it says 'The English Wikipedia has 1,709 administrators as of January 12, 2010, of which 1,473 were active within the last 6 months? This would satisfy some of the commenters above - reflecting the true sense of how many of our admins are actually active. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember someone once saying that becoming (ergo being) an administrator is "no big deal", so I guess I am stymied by the resistance to removing someone who isn't doing the job of administrator from the list of administrators.

What is the substantial problem with honestly stating how many admins we actually have? I'm sorry, but I have not heard how an absent (and Tznkai's example being among the exceptions) and nonproductive admin should be grouped with those who do the work. In sort, it's disingenuous to say we have 1700+ admins in the Project when only a little more than half are doing all the work. This isn't a process, as far as I can see; it's an email to notify the absentee admins that their bit is about to lapse. This in itself is a good thing, as those admins who mean to return will do so. This is followed by removing the bit from those who are inactive and not planning on returning. Those who return after the fact can be given the bit back - they would still have to be reconfirmed if they have served for over three years, though - no one gets to sidestep reconfirmation - that's what makes it fair. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple answer - admin tools are editing tools. I helped clean up after a non-admin page move recently. We had to move 26 archives and several other subpages manually. All could be done at once with admin tools. Or if you've made in typo in a category name. Or if you've tried to fix a cut-and-paste page move. Maybe you started an article in a sandbox, and then when you're ready to move the page to mainspace you realise that you really don't want all that old crap in the article's history, so you need to do a history de-merge. Or maybe you're trying to do a page move, but can't because someone randomly typed something into the redirect. Or maybe... Quite simply, admin tools are as much editing tools as anything. So if you're an active editor, especially if you do a lot of page creation, or set up WikiProjects, or edit templates, or... it's a real nuisance to have to ask someone to do the job for you. It hinders the editing process. And, as you know, encyclopaedia creation should come first. Making article creation more difficult for productive editors doesn't further the aim of the project.

Now you could say that deletion tools could be separated from blocking tools. But when it comes down to it, trust matters most for page deletion/undeletion. Because you can do a lot more damage with those tool than with blocking tools. Guettarda (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am hearing you tell me that the admin tools are editing tools, Guettarda, and I get that. However, the processes you describe are being done by active editors, not inactive ones who - as the name suggest, are inactive within the wiki-en. Someone pointed out earlier that if an editor stated that they were only going to edit for x amount of time and then stop, they would never have initially passed RfA. All reasons aside, we have hundreds of admins who aren't doing anything, and haven't done anything for months. Or years. The trust in being given the mop is that you are actually going to do the work, and not consider it a god-given right that can never be taken away. Being an admin must mean something, or it means nothing but a title and a perceived elevation above the ranks of the regular editor. Being an administer is not a lifetime appointment and it certainly shouldn't apply to those who - for whatever reason - aren't here doing the job they were elected to do. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

RFA isn't "election to do a job". It's a discussion to see whether the community trusts you not to misuse the tools. Adminship is not a job. We wouldn't take away rollback status or autoconfirmed status simply because someone is inactive. Guettarda (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but admins tools are far more extensive than those of rollback or regular users. As admin activity is far more scrutinized internally and externally, it's far more reasonable to present clearer numbers of those who who evaluate that activity. To say that 10% of admins work in AN is a lot more honest when you are describing the percentage of admins actually doing the heavy lifting. And not to hammer away at the logic being offered, would we have offered adminship to anyone who told us they were going to edit for x amount of time and then absent themselves? We both know the answer to that; even in a non-contentious RfA, it would still present a SNOWBALL situation. Being elected to admin is not a lifetime appointment, and shouldn't be. You get it for being trusted to do certain tasks. If you aren't doing those tasks, or doing them to the best of your ability, you shouldn't be able to be called such. It doesn't seem to get much simpler than that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, sorry. If you are granted the tools, you have no obligation to use them. I probably take an administrative action about once a month, if that. Having the tools in the hands of trusted users is a net positive for the project. Not all "inactive admins" will remain that way, and there are few instances of problems from inactive admins becoming active (again, discounting the Cremepuff case, which had to do with a kid's maturity level). The harms complained of seem insubstantial, if that. And I don't agree, if someone asked for the bits and said, "by the way, next year I will be off for six months because I'm (whatever the reason is)", I don't think it would make a difference in the RfA.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Where was it ever said it was not a lifetime appointment? Assuming a person became an admin at age 20 and made a deletion everyday through the age of 70 when they died of natural causes and never acted in bad behavior, that is the description of lifetime appointment that I cannot see an objection to. MBisanz ^talk 07:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(←dent) Wehalt, I am sorry, but you are missing the point; it doesn't matter that admins might come back. It only matters that they aren't editing now. Some won't, as they are dead. We have a responsibility, when noting the administrators in our wikipedia - which strives to be concise and accurate in every other way, choose to exaggerate about the numbers of administrators active in the Wikipedia. You state that you use the admin tools"about once a month"; I am guessing you probably do some editing during that time, right? Well, we are talking about admins who left the building 6 months ago and haven't made a single edit. We can expect that from regular users, but admins chose to have a greater responsibility. Most choose to accept it by working in the wiki and, like you, use their admin tools as needed. The admins we think shouldn't have the bit are those who - for whatever reason (death, job, family, Hee Haw 6-month marathon, etc.) - aren't here doing the job that at least more than half are doing.
And again, I don't think anyone was suggesting that we just up and remove the bit. We notify them and give them the opportunity to come back and edit and (if necessary) use their admin tools, lightening the load for the ones already here. The ones who don't come back aren't coming back. At least not now. When and if they do, they can reapply for administrator. I am not sure I see the problem with this, unless the prevailing opinion is that, short of an Act of God, ArbCom or a steward, admins should enjoy a lifetime membership to the admin club.I'm guessing that most don't see that as fair or healthy for the wiki.
MBisanz, just because there isn't a sign in the Men's bathroom to 'not eat the big white mints' doesn't mean you should go eating the urinal cakes. That's a fairly old debating tactic, wherein someone claims that its okay to do something because no one has said they cannot. It's a bad faith argument, designed to bog down discussion. We are actively discussing why the perception of a lifetime position based on a single election should possibly change, and that all admins should be reconfirmed as being qualified and responsive to suggestions about improving their skills and to address potential problem spots. Having qualified, responsive admins is to be considered a Good Thing for the wiki-en.
Now, I think there is HUGE and patently false premise floating about that we are throwing the admins out of the wiki. We aren't. However if they are going to be listed as being admins here, they need to actually be here, and occasionally use the admin tools. We are talking about taking the bit from people who havent edited a single stroke in six months. Admins chose to be more active participants. If they aren't active, they forego the bit. If the inactives come back and edit, then they can have their bit and be reconfirmed like every other admin. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I find the matter of removing inactive admins illogical. Why? The answer would seem to be to promote more admins. Lambanog (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree to the idea of appointing more admins, if we could get back to the idea that there is no shortage of mops and that most longterm editors should be admins then the whole election for life argument falls. There are arguments for making our figure of active admins more accurate, though I can't think of many things that I'd give less priority to, but removing the mop from longterm inactives would have no short term effect on our number of active admins, and the longterm effect of losing us a few returnees from long wikibreaks doesn't seem positive. I still think that there is some length of gap where a refresher or period of re-acclimatisation would be beneficial; But on further reflection I'm not convinced that a year or so is a long enough gap to require a formal process for this - I think we should presume that admins returning from long breaks still have the common sense which got them through RFA and will tread carefully until they are back up to speed. WT RFA is not the easiest place to achieve changes and I suspect this could take many years before we implement it; But I would support some sort of refresher training or return period before restoring the bit to admins who have been inactive for several years. ϢereSpielChequers 14:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Your arguments in the two sections of this page seem to be confusing the proposals that inactive admins should be desysopped and that all admins should undergo re-confirmation elections. The concept of objecting to or supporting lifetime appointments doesn't really have a place in the inactivity debate, since inactivity is not related to lifetime appointments. Also, where does it say that if someone is to be listed as an admin they must be here? That is an argument you are making, but it isn't a pre-ordained fact. MBisanz ^talk 15:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Arcayne wants admins easily desysoped and their terms limited. To that end, he is searching for the thin edge of the wedge. He is posting dozens of times; with the same time and effort he could have brought an article at least to GA. He looks for the argument that will get at least some admins desysoped, which will in his view establish the principle and make Step B easier. However, there is one extremely misleading word in several of his posts. That word is "we". I'm not terribly worried he'll be successful.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth would you be "worried" by Arcayne's proposals? Are the tools really that dear to you? Nev1 (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I am one of the admins he has indicated he thinks should be desysopped, hence my interest in his proposals to define the criteria for desysopping. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am also aware of that false faith debating tactic, too. Wehalt and MBisanz - making it about (and attacking) me. It quite simply isn't. It isn't about you, either. If necessary, tattoo that across your mind: the proposal does not seek as it s goadl the removal of ANY admin - how many times must it be said? What I think of your individual talents or shortcomings as admins is immaterial here, as we are talking about a wiki-wide alteration, not one targeted towards a specific admin which would indeed be wasteful. In short, its a tad arrogant for you to assume its all about you. It would seem clear that you are overly concerned about standing a reconfirmation. Perhaps, we should test out the proposal on an admin. Who would care to volunteer?

Mayhap your answers could easily be found by not expecting us to repeat ourselves over and over and actually taking the time to read the proposal. As far as that relates to this section, removing inactive admins who aren't contributing seems wise. There have been arguments about what we do with inactives who return, but aside from the one or two who return after 6-12 months, can anyone indicate that a significant percentage returns? I think that providing that information is going to be key in effectively countering removing inactives. The face of the argument here is that inactives aren't participating; we should therefore not be including them. IF that means we have a little house-cleaning to do to remove the clutter, then so be it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Already re-passed an election after becoming an admin, Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/MBisanz, and I can speak from the experience that even if an admin is not concerned with critical commentary, it is still a stressful occurrence with the detailed questions, needs for responses, etc, to the extent that I would not support making it a general rule for all admins and instead suggest pursuing something similar to EVula's RFDA proposal. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Aw, poor lickle diddums. Doing the honest thing would be too stressful. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably also worth pointing out that I already have one of the broadest recall criteria of any admin, so the desire of myself not to subject others to additional stress is not a cover for avoiding the stress myself. MBisanz ^talk 04:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I was called every name in the book during my recent unsuccessful ArbCom candidacy, I am apparently both pro-Nazi and pro-Israel, which is a pretty neat trick. I did still get a majority of those expressing a preference, which contented me. But I feel no need to subject myself to the tender mercies of Arcayne's unwanted and unneeded voting. Still not seeing a need for what Arcayne wants. Still a solution in need of a problem. Inactive admins are not a problem and dead ones less so.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As was pointed out earlier, could you please confine your commentary as to this sectiontopc: that of removing the mop from inactive admins? If you really wish to address the topic re-confirmation, a conveniently placed subsection exists, with large friendly letters: "Arbitrary break 3". You should feel free to address your concerns about reconfirmation of admins there. If you wish to move your posts there, I would be happy to address your concerns, though i think you will find that myself or others have already addressed them a number of times. Either way, being snippy isn't going to benefit anyone; some admins feel like this proposal is trying to rake them over a cheese grater, and it really, really isn't. There is no room or reason for unfriendly language. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not about "the one or two who return after 6-12 months", or rather it is about the one or two a month who return after 6-12 months. As I pointed out early in this thread "we have had admins return from three and four year breaks without as far as I'm aware any drama." What I should add to that, is that I found out about those returning admins by just analysing a quarter's data. Those numbers for very long breaks are too low to safely extrapolate from, but during that same period we were getting one or two admins a month coming back from inactivity of over 6 months. I see no benefit in doing something that might make those admins feel unwelcome. As an off wiki example, my driving licence didn't lapse simply because the only driving I did in 2009 was in December. ϢereSpielChequers 13:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That example isn't really on point, Chequers; you will note that your license has an expiration date, which needs periodic renewal. After a longer period of inactivity, you are usually required to submit to a written exam as well as a driving test. Our admins currently have no expiration date, meaning that admins stay on the rolls until well after they are dead or otherwise departed from the wiki-en. As there are limited, largely ineffective controls on helping admins who are encountering issues until well after they go off the rails. The point is that, once a editor becomes an admin, we simply cross our fingers after a little bit of training, hope for the best and essentially forget about them. This is why we end up with a long list (nearly half of all admins) who aren't actually here anymore. Some inactives do come back, but no one has produced numbers to indicate that this is anything more than a trickle. For those that do come back, I think that they are mature enough (one of those things we usually look for in admins) to understand that they have to ask for the bit after an extended absence. They know they've been away and understand that their admin-ship had probably lapsed. Thin-skinned admins who freak out and get depressed at losing the bit after being away for 6 months are usually pretty bad choices for admins in the first place.

The last reason is - as mentioned before - inactive accounts are more susceptible to tampering, etc. Now, this isn't a common occurrence with either regular editors or admins, but because the toolkit that an admin can bring to bear is more extensive than that of a regular user, it would seem wise to keep these accounts in a protected status. If it helps folk understand that removing the bit from inactive admins is not a punishment, call it a protected status. Either way, when (and if) the admin comes back, they can get the bit back. If they never do, we've effectively protected the account's potential to be used as a platform for damage by minimizing what it can do. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, aren't UK drivers licences good for 25 years or something? The purpose in short term (four or five year) licence renewals is not to take bad drivers off the road, it is to gain revenue and keep ID photos up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You recall incorrectly. 50 years from passing the test assuming no DR10, over point total or medical or otherwise disqualification. What that has to do with the above I don't care but let's at least get something right on WT:RFA :) Pedro :  Chat  21:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea, but Arcayne brought it up, and I'm glad I picked the "under". And I did say "25 years or something", hedge, hedge.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The worst bit is you made me look at my drivers licence to check this out and therefore 25 / 50 years - heck close enough - the expiry date seems worringly near :) Pedro :  Chat  21:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, then! We will now consider Arcayne's proposal to remove the bits after fifty years of inactivity, absent Editing while Intoxicated.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you do them often enough, speeding and jumping red lights are other ways to lose your license. - Pointillist (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove the bit from someone who has done nothing wrong with the tools. Being inactive is not a crime, nor should it result in the loss of the bit. No admin is even required to use their tools.Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, I started off thinking temporary desysops due to inactivity might be a good thing, siply from a housecleaning perspective, but now I'm not sure if the (marginal) gain would offset the necessary work. Furthermore, the arguments I've read regarding there being no requirement to use the tools are convincing. I think the nail in the proposal's coffin, however, is the claim that this is a solution in search of a problem. Can anyone honestly list a case where an admin's inacticity proved a source of disruption upon return? Remember, policy is in place to reflect the accepted practices of the community, not to change those practices. Furthermore, we are specifically encouraged not to anticipate problems. While this suggestion isn't particularly beany, it's still an attempt to premptively solve a problem that does not yet exist. Should there be a rash of disruption caused by returning admins, then the proposition would warrant a review. For now, however, I simply don't see the need. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, being inactive is not a crime. However, an admin is at least partially elected based on work that they said they will do - it pretty much one of the primary questions each candidate is asked. Here, we have almost half of our admin corps AWOL with nary a word as to why. Common sense tells us that someone who hasn;t shown up for work for 6 months - with a very few notable exceptions (still waiting on how many have actually ever come back, btw) - they aren't planning on coming back. We strive for honesty here - we block people for failing to be honest, and yet we apparently are condoning a lie that hyper-inflates our actual admin numbers, counting people who don't do the job they were elected to do. Common sense tells us that people who do not do the job they were elected to do should not be counted among those who actually do the work. So, the problem of dishonesty does indeed exist, for those who don't want the inactives removed also want to keep the dead admins as well.

I'll offer an alternative to simply de-sysoping the inactive admins. Let's at least send an email to the over 800 inactives we do have, and re-address this issue in 30 days. If the vast majority of them respond that they intend to come back and act as admins, there isn't a need to remove the mop. However, those who do not get back to us in 30 days should lose the bit, as they probably aren't coming back, and are dead weight. That would seem to provide the necessary proof to the argument. I don't have access to every inactive admin's email address, but I am sure that someone can find that list and send a mass email to each of them, asking if they intend to return in their elected capacity of admin. If no one wants to exert even that effort at notification, I'll volunteer to do it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not just send emails to all "inactive" admins who have enabled "email this user" and explain who you are, what you are doing, and give them a chance to tell you exactly what they think of you and your proposal?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do I keep having to ask you to back off the aggressive tone, Wehalt? You act as if I am attacking you. I am not. Please assume good faith and try to find some civility, please. You're an admin - act like one, please. I don't want to have to remind you of that which you should already know.

Folk have submitted that the inactives come back all the time. I am suggesting that - instead of simply de-sysoping them as dead weight - we ask them if they plan to return, and wait 30 days for them get back to us (and again, I am offering to shoulder that load). That seems an appropriate amount of time Those that don't get back to us are either uninterested or incapable of returning. I have no idea what to about admins w/out email capability, but don;t think we should do this piecemeal.

This alternative accomplishes two tasks: first, it tells us fairly clearly who is interested in returning and who is not. Secondly, it might inspire the inactive user/admins to return sooner rather than later, their interest in the Project reignited. Everyone wins. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A little late, but my 2 cents. Desysop of inactive admins is something that we will have to do eventually. 10 years from now, who will argue that we should have 25,000 inactive sysop accounts, most of which haven't logged in in years? The liability keeps growing the longer that we put this off. Do we wait for the first eBay auction or do we put a reasonable policy in place before that point? Gigs (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, Arcayne. Why not email inactive admins and ask them to give up the bits? Instead you seem to be referring I don't know what. Perhaps a gentler way of doing this would be to have admin actions by an admin who has been inactive for six months flagged in some way in the admin log for the first two weeks he's back. That would cover both the comprimised account and the Rip van Winkle scenarios.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies; I was unaware that the outstanding question wasn't answered. I think that you are perceiving my intent incorrectly here. I would love if all 1707 admins were 'hi ho hi ho'; practicality (and the long list of inactive admins) suggest this is a fanciful notion. My alternative is that we write an ask them if they are interested in continuing to act as admins in the wiki-en. Those that get back to us answering in the positive are good. Those that don't - I submit - aren't planning to either respond or come back. Those we can remove with some sense of finality. This isn't about "punishing" those who aren't here; it's championing the title of those who are here, actively doing the work. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Accepted, and apology offered in like spirit, both here and at the other thread. Still, it strikes me that flagging the revisions and admin actions of a newly returned admin for two weeks (or give, say, a checkuser the power to quietly extend that) would be a better way of doing it. It doesn't solve your point about having an accurate number of admins, but it was proposed somewhere that we break out the number of six month inactives seperately. We could even refer to the number of "active admins" that we have.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Civility

The arguments presented at RfA, specifically, the tone of the opposition is concerning. Bashing and humiliating a good-faith contributor over not being ready for adminship. That does nothing to help the project, and only discourages people who came hoping for the community's trust. South Bay (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Please note that my opinion is that of an editor, not that of a bureaucrat. Keepscases (talk) 17:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In general, I think most people are pretty good about maintaining a professional and respectful tone when voicing their opposition. Although I've always been of the opinion that if one has a hard time handling the opposes on their RfA, they have no idea what adminship is like. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've jumped in the boiling water a few times, JC, but I've never found the "live fire test" a convincing excuse for incivility. Perhaps we should instruct the opposers to be even more uncivil, just to be sure the candidate is REALLY ready, then?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Are we actually discussing something specific here, or is this a general "RfA opposers are mean" thread? Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 18:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

More than once, RfA has been described as "hazing." I haven't much changed my mind.  RGTraynor  18:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Incivility is not desirable, but 1) incivility at RFA is usually pretty mild compared to other wiki-venues (with some exceptions, of course); and 2) a good response by the candidate can actually rebound to increase support, while a poor response is often indicative of a candidate who shouldn't get the mop anyway. Fear of incivility might keep some away, but I suspect that just the fear of intense scrutiny, even if perfectly civil, is enough to stop most of those. --RL0919 (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean an eloquent response by the candidate can rebound to increase support, while admin candidates who aren't smooth talkers fall by the wayside. In either instance, I'm at a loss to imagine what debating skills have to do with whether a candidate is qualified to perform adminstrative tasks, or why it's excusable that RfA is an incivil hazing process because there are far nastier flame wars and slanging matches elsewhere in cyberspace.  RGTraynor  19:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Debating skills? How about de-escalation skills? How about personal anger management? Showing that you don't somehow freak out when opposed is good, and there is an element of eloquence to it. Admins find ourselves in situations where multiple editors are looking to us to keep cool when the editing gets hot, and to communicate clearly with people coming from widely varying backgrounds. Those are reasonable skills to bring to the mop-closet.

As for your main point, about RfA being needlessly uncivil, I don't disagree. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Two sides to this coin. Sometimes the oposition may go to far in their tone. Yet unless you list every fault the candidate has ever shown you get the supporters pestering you about your oppose reason and begging the crats to ignore it. Action meets reaction.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a few memorably incivil opposes at RFA, I remember challenging one from a vested contributor who would have been far more effective if he'd used more temperate language and added a diff or two to illustrate his concern. But I don't think the occasionally deliberate rudeness in a 7 day RFA is the issue here. SouthBay referred to "not being ready for adminship" so I think this is about the forgotten majority of RFAs - the ones that come and go so quickly many miss them, and close per snow or notnow because the candidate hasn't done anything wrong, but hasn't made the contributions needed to be taken seriously at RFA. I agree that we have a real problem there, I'd like to reduce it by raising the threshold for self nom candidates to 6 months tenure and 1,000 edits but I know that a vociferous minority will oppose that. IMHO our current practice of allowing newbies to submit RFAs is akin to storing your spirits collection in an adolescent's bedroom. ϢereSpielChequers 20:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd second that, were it not a perceived slight against our younger admins. I think that raising the threshold for candidates is a no-brainer. Six months and 1000 edits should be the minimum. Some applicants treat Wikipedia like a video game, where adminship is just a level to be achieved; I pray these are the minority, but I suspect it occurs far more often. Were Chequers' idea adopted, we'd see a lot more candidates with a real history. Of course, this could just be a delayed reaction to the Cremepuff meltdown. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies to our younger editors if any perceived that as a slight. I grew up in a time and place where teenage drinking of beer was far more tolerated than seems to be the norm today, and to my mind we had a better system. But the point I was trying to convey was that giving easy access to something people are not ready for is not a sensible way to do things. ϢereSpielChequers 11:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• Setting a minimum bar is just as likely to confuse and mislead the type of person who would submit a "not now/snow close" RFA. They will now mistakenly believe that once they reach that threshold, they're in. No amount of big bold letters explaining that this is not the case is going to stop them, just like it doesn't stop them now. Also, while a lot of persons, myself included, feel that it is best to be blunt with a person who has submitted an extremely premature RFA, most of the time that bluntness is only that and not incivil. In fact I think the way some users treat such candidates is bit too coddling of their feelings, offering pointless "moral support" when in truth they do oppose the candidate, but I don't think we should "outlaw" that either. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't want to confuse newbies, and I haven't broken down the RFA stats by tenure or number of edits yet. But my impression is that we get a lot of candidates who are at the very beginning of their editing career, and then things tail off as most people who've been around a while know that the admin bar is pretty high nowadays. If that were the case we'd just need to set a bar on running that delays people until they've been round long enough to know just how difficult RFA is. However if analysis of failed RFAs showed a smoother progression with lots of candidates in the 30% - 60% range, or if we tested this and it didn't work, then I would have no problem reverting to the current arrangement. I agree with you on the risks of a moral support mixed messages issue though. Don't you agree that if we could reduce the number of failed RFAs even by one a week it would be worthwhile? ϢereSpielChequers 17:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd support the minimum bar idea, but Beeblebrox is likely right, it wouldn't change the rate of failed RFA's that much, it would just shift the failures to the 6-month-a-versary. But some subset of newbies might during that time discover that they just like editing and forget about being an admin until someone else nominates them - so for those few new editors, yes, a minimum bar for self-noms would be a good idea. Franamax (talk) 19:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I would oppose a minimum standard. The work done to close early nominations per WP:NOTNOW is not great, and from what i have seen, is a workload widely shared. The potential for confusion is great; the need is not there.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that a standard would be beneficial because it would help to encourage editors to improve their prospects rather than running into a SNOW situation. If an editor sees that there are set guidelines, they might be encouraged to try harder to start doing something that will boost their chances of getting elected. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Kevin is right, I think. A set of minimum guidelines would encourage a potential candidate to understand the wiki a lot better. I totally get that some are going to treat it like a video game level, and do bit edits that equal 1000 (or whatever number we decide upon), and be disappointed if they blow off everything else in the wiki to get those edits. Clearly, we've seen candidates who've done precisely that before, but those are the candidates who are going to create three or four articles on their favorite comic book or gaming character and expect to have Jesus and the Twelve Apostrophes give them a sloppy wet kiss. With a minimum standard, we at least raise the bar on what candidates are doing the actual work. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As a note, over at the Dutch Wikipedia we do have a requirement of 6 months tenure and 1000 edits before being able to run for adminship, and the problem Beeblebrox notes (people applying immediately upon reaching the threshold) does not occur. There are failed RFAs (you can read the archives at nl:Wikipedia:Aanmelding moderatoren/archief), but not of the type Beeblebrox mentions. Attitudes may be different here, but I think Franamax's assertion that the rate wouldn't be changed is shed in a different light. Ucucha 19:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That is good data. FWIW I would support that as a minimum as well. I don't think we've had anyone succeed with less than 1000 edits in a very long time. Gigs (talk) 03:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/lustiger_seth was not too long ago, though. (X! · talk)  · @245  ·  04:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

And as I recall, a lot of the opposition was "not enough activity" too. There will always need to be provision for exceptions to the rule I guess. lustiger_seth was one of them, he was certainly not a brand-new editor. Franamax (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

SoxBot reports the Floquenbeam Expired...

Resolved

 – Sorted out by Soap

Does anyone know why? It's only been showing on the page for a couple of hours.... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a minor error when the RfA was first transcluded, and although it was quickly fixed, SoxBot hasn't updated its frontpage yet. I'll go fix it now. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out, Soap! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for not mentioning that the "minor error" was because I can't read directions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot Approvals Group Nommination

Hey Wikipedians, I am here to advertise my nomination to be on the Bot Approvals Group. Take a look if you have some time. Tim1357 (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

RFa Disclouse questions

• Are you required to disclose that you had a prior RFA?
• Are you required to disclose that you had a prior account in Wikipedia while running for adminship?
• What is period for a right to return to fresh start for those doing so for Privacy reasons and those for vandalism or other reasons for leaving Wikipedia under a cloud for those returning in the shorter term.
• The Longer Period is fine as even a Kid with a vandalism only account may return as Productive user after 5-10 years.The conflicts normally which were there would disappear in a longer period.We believe in Assume Good Faith and we are not doing Background check and hence feel that a issue will not reoccur in the longer period .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If disclosing a previous RFA for the same account is not required, it should be. The prior account thing is another story. If there was no overlap and the account was retired while not "under a cloud" then it shouldn't matter, the user is asking that the account the currently used be judged on it's merits. However, despite the fact that it isn't a requirement and the user questions are theoretically "optional," these sorts of questions are going to keep getting asked, and since not answering a supposedly optional question will make some people oppose, they'll probably keep getting answered. Thank that charming snake-in-the-grass PastorTheo for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hiding a previous RFA would potentially backfire -- in the likely event that it was uncovered and revealed by someone scrutinizing the candidate, that reason alone may get enough opposers to sink the current RFA. Useight (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The process tends to weed out less-than-honest applicants. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I was reading Pharaoh of the Wizards' questions wrong, but I thought he was asking different things than were answered. I'll answer the questions the editor was maybe actually asking:

• I think its a moot question; most RfA's are pretty significant affairs, and leave a hefty paper trail that anyone can follow. I don't believe it's actually spelled out as a requirement, but most folk would consider it a lie of omission, and that would create enough omg-distraction drama™ to sink an RfA.
• This is not specifically spelled out in policies or guidelines. It depends a great deal on the candidate's prior account history (vandalism, blocks, etc.) as well as why they left. Many departing users utilize the behavioral guideline, Right to Vanish to close out an account, and while it isn't spelled out, its intended that users choosing to do so are expected to never edit the wikipedia again. However, this directly contradicts an actual policy called CleanStart. If a user left an account in good stead, has no overlapping edits in controversial articles and stops using the prior account, they can set up a new account. That one should notify ArbCom, notifying them via secure email of the connection between the new and old account, is a matter being heavily discussed at this time. My personal opinion is that the entire matter can be sidestepped during RfA by noting that you had a prior account in good stead and left it to make a CLEANSTART, have notified ArbCom of such, and have an Arb in the know confirm that the prior account was left in good stead. Again, none of that is required, but it simply seems smart to CYA.
• There is no required "pause" between the old and new account. They simply should not overlap (commenting in the same article as two different editors,etc.) CLEANSTART means precisely that: you don't edit the same articles you did under the old account. Period. And it deserves restating that CLEANSTART is policy, whereas the right to vanish is simply a behavioral guideline. I know of at least one situation where a user was outed on their previous account and invoked RtV, completely unaware of CLEANSTART. RTV was used against them at a later point, since they didn't so much 'vanish' as they made a fresh start. Your mileage may vary.
• I am not sure of policy regarding the fourth situation, but I feel that a large part of maturity is accepting ownership up for your past mistakes and to have hopefully learned from them. In the example you provide, yeah - you should still mention it, if for no other reason to contrast who you were then and who you are now. That's the sort of maturity we should be expecting from our admins. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Can CDA (Community de-Adminship) really be a "reverse RfA"?

There is further polling on refining a proposal here, though as some point soon it is likely to be put to RfC whatever the outcome is there (people don't seem to be voting). But can CDA really be a 'reverse (or mirror) RfA'? I'm not sure that people are even in tune with what CDA is supposed to be. Or maybe it's just me. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's pretty much turned into some kind of indulgence for poll fetishists at this point. I gave my best effort at slicing through the bureaucracy and turning it back into a consensus building endeavor, but I have given up. Gigs (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure you just haven't developed a form of 'poll phobia' over years of Wiki? The additional two polls, and the questions we needed answers to, are being polled in one poll to make everyone happy and avoid boring criticisms. It should be the final poll before the RfC - and there has only been this one since we tolled up all the CDA ammendments. So its not been that bad - essentially this will be the only 'final stages' poll (I hope). It was either poll this, or see the RfC on CDA running anyway without proper concensus. One thing about polling (which can be over-used I agree), they can get people's attention. We needed answers to questions but people were not around to give them. I tried to get it all over in one multi poll. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but there has been so little success at building consensus (I don't know how to do it better than the attempts, which were very patient) that IMHO the RFC is DOA.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, but I'd rather our comfy admin be forced to fail it by just voting "oppose", rather than "oppose (per mrpointyhasshownthisisnotnconsenus) - this was rushed through etc etc." OK, they probably still will, but I'm hoping this poll will have a large-enough turnout to at least be able to counter that in some way. Without this poll - no chance. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a good point. And it may well be that the percentage vote among admins won't be particularly higher than the rest of the community's up/down vote. At any rate, it will shut this up for the next six months or a year.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Does the community even know this exists (admins AND editors alike)?

I know we spend a great deal of time discussing this kind of thing. However, I had a thought... just one. Really the only thought I had all weekend. But I digress... Most people only clue in to RfA when they intend to run a campaign for election/acclimation to the post of admin. I have to think that the majority of admins don't pay any attention to this page after they achieve victory here. Likewise, I have to think the bulk of the community doesn't even care. Has anyone ever run metrics on the number of editors and admins actually involved in the greatest majority of drama? Seems to me that you generally see the usual suspect of drama whore admins waging battle against a small corps of unhinged editors who have been denied adminship (or who have been stripped of the sword) simply because enough people realized said individuals were unhinged at a given moment in time.

I bring this up because I strongly of the belief that if we conducted all of our business here via polling, we would quickly be subject to hysterical screeching of an ignorant mob. Wait. A. Moment... A quick breeze through RfA, RfC, AfD, ArbCom, etc., demonstrates that we already are overrun by a hysterically screeching ignorant mob. Why, in hell, would we want to make things worse by inflicting a CDA on a small group of people charged with ensuring that 12 year olds in Russia are not refighting the Mongol invasion, or that 12 year olds in Japan are not fighting 35 year old soldiers in China over the ownership of small rocky islands. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)