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: 02:24:34, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Possibly the best essay about an RFA experience I have ever seen

Just posting this. It describes just about everything that is wrong with RFA, by somebody who was unfortunate to go through it. AD 17:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought about posting that here; I agree entirely, that's probably the best RFA essay I've seen. Swarm ^X11|11|11 17:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Just seems like the predictably bitter ramblings after a failed RfA to me. In what universe does "Truth be told, I figured I'd be leaving Wikipedia whether I succeeded in my RfA or not" make any sense? Why not just leave without the hassle of RfA? But it is a good example of RfA's greatest flaw, the way it dispirits those who fail. Malleus Fatuorum 17:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The "I was going to leave regardless" bit had me scratching my head as well. I have to assume he didn't actually mean that, 'cause WTF. 28bytes (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Dayewalker meant that the basic nastiness of the Rfa experience would have soured him on Wikipedia whether he passed or failed. Cloveapple (talk) 21:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That aside, he does make a lot of good points. For example, he says "no articles created" is a perfectly reasonable oppose, but people can't just say that, "they instead had to pass judgment on me based on what they, as total strangers, would expect from me, another total stranger" (referring to the "you're a writer, Y U NO CREATE ARTICLE" opposes). It's actually not bitter ramblings as much as it is a very frank warning about what unprepared RfA candidates will face. Swarm ^X11|11|11 18:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking. Several good points, some points I wouldn't be willing to agree with. But definitely worth reading. WilliamH (talk) 18:16, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

That is a good Essay and I agree there are a lot of good points. After my RFA I vowed to never go through that madness again and still maintain it at almost 300, 000 edits and with 1000 or more edits in almost every namespace (except book and Book talk I think). Personally I can't imagine why on earth someone would want to go through that for a volunteer position. --Kumioko (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. It also seems as though WP:AGF is thrown out the window, jumped up and down on a few times, and put into a shredder when it comes to RfA. Dayewalker's essay perfectly outlines all some of the reasons why many editors have cried "RfA is broken" lately. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO, it was a mixture of good points, frank warnings, bitter ramblings and the type of incivility he wants to block others for. I doubt anyone is puzzled as to whom the "unrepentant shitheads" remark was directed. However, I can certainly understand his frustration; the support/oppose numbers were just about the same as mine when I withdrew from my first RfA, and I got some of that "you knew what WP:REFUND was? SOCK!" crap too, so I can certainly emphasize with being attacked for having a clue as to how to do things. 28bytes (talk) 18:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Im confused about why he has a blog, yet hasnt even created a stub yet. Swarm, like the date in your signature. Do you have to retype it daily and save under preferences, type it every time you date your signature, or did you set it up so you can just use ~~~~? mysterytrey talk 19:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are not actually focused on article creation its actually quite unlikely that you will create them in any numbers. Not many redlinks around these days in articles that people actually look at on a regular basis.©Geni 22:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

You'd be surprised. In the most-viewed articles, redlinks tend to get removed - that doesn't mean they don't exist. Furthermore, taking an article from stub to B+ is to my mind "content creation" as much as creating a stub from nothing is. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me add another dimension. If Dayewalker really meant to retire whether or not his RfA was successful then he was clearly deceitful in his answers to the questions asked of him, and in his statements about what he would do with the admin tools if granted. Why assume that he's being any more truthful in his essay? Malleus Fatuorum 18:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Take his advice and take everything that editors like you say with a grain of salt? Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

It's perhaps the case that I am one of the very few editors here who doesn't lie, hence my block log. Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the number of editors on wikipedia that strikes me as statistically improbable.©Geni 22:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Given the number of dishonest wankers here it seems not at all improbable to me. Malleus Fatuorum 23:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure to what extent randomised incivility towards our general editor population supports your point.©Geni 23:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I've got no idea why you might believe my observation to be "randomised" or even "incivil" ... unless you're a member of the civility police of course. Who only see whatever it is they want to see. Malleus Fatuorum 02:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that is an impressively long block log. You must be a very honest person. Hawkeye7 (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that every possible solution will piss people off. We could ask the 'crats to babysit RfAs and clamp down on incivility, but then people would complain about their freedom of speech being infringed. We could require that oppose votes show diffs, but people would say that it's unfair and complain that they're not trusted. We could empower the 'crats to overrule the numerical consensus if a crat chat decides that there is a bunch of groundless opposes, but then people would shout 'cabalism'. And then of course, we could scrap RfA, but we don't despite years of trying, have anything else to put in place instead. I see the situation as rather hopeless. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Who knows? Perhaps there's a Henry Clay among us, just waiting to come up with a compromise? ;) The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 18:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

The compromise position is very clear, and has been for some time; sort out desyopping and put an end to the admin for life mentality. Malleus Fatuorum 18:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Already in the inventory. Arbcom are quite prepared to remove adminship.©Geni 22:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Eventually. But admin is supposed to be no big deal, right? Why do so many incompetents have to have their sheriffs' badges prized from their hands after the inevitable acrimony of an ArbCom case? Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

They don't. Why do you think that arbcom had to come up with the whole resigned under a cloud thing?©Geni 22:45, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

But for "resigned under a cloud" to apply, the admin in question actually has to resign, which some won't do for whatever reason. In that case, assuming a still-active admin, you generally need a full ArbCom case to desysop. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Right... a bitter rant full of what might in other contexts be block-worthy personal attacks. As for the IP edit issue: surely the nominator should have seen that one coming? Certainly for the candidates I've nominated (only two of them), I've made those checks of early edits. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

A lot of votes on RfA are block-worthy personal attacks. I'm convinced that some participants just come along to RfA for the opportunity to criticise an editor, any editor, as nastily as possible and for the entertainment. 'Oh, there's a stoning in the market place today - he's probably not guilty of course, but what a great opportunity to hurt someone and get away with it'. And if he survives to talk about it, let's kick him in the groin a couple of times for good measure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:32, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

You're absolutely right; as I said about a year ago, people like to pick one flaw in an otherwise perfectly qualified RfA candidate and oppose over it, and this generally causes a pile-on that leads to the failure of the RfA. People are saying that we need a change in RfA, but what is there to change? We can't change the way people think, we can't change the way people act. All we can do in that area is encourage !voters to be more civil, and we know that hasn't exactly worked in the past. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I know this suggestion might lead to a firestorm, but is it worth asking the 'crats to step in and police RfA? At this point I wouldn't mind it if the 'crats were empowered to remove blatantly uncivil comments (replacing them with {{RPA}}) and giving the 'crats the ability to topic ban users from RfA if they've had to be reminded multiple times to keep it civil. It's not an ideal solution, but is there a better idea that is feasible? Sven Manguard Wha? 05:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

While some of the most fragrant incivility could be dealt with in a pretty straightforward manner, many of the worst comments made at AfDs are not of the potty words variety. To seriously address the problem with nasty opposes we'd need some fairly firm guidelines on exactly what one was supposed to comment on when opposing a candidate, and there are a lot of users (not all of them in WP's amateur dramatical society) who are strongly opposed to that. Either that, or we need to abolish the idea of thresholds at all and give 'crats the freedom to evaluate the candidate solely on the arguments made with no respect to the actual numbers, the way things (theoretically) work in other parts of the project. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Entirely agree with Chris. Vulgarity is hardly ever the most effective way to get what you want, and some of the most hurtful and provocative oppose comments are expressed in perfectly civil language. Abolishing thresholds would help with one of the key points in Daywalker's excellent essay: the perceived 'cone of silence' that inhibits some candidates and their supporters from duly responding to opposers. A perception that gets its strength from way the threshold weighs an oppose as equal to three supports. If folk don’t want to remove the threshold another option would be to lower it to a more reasonable 50%; then if we really wanted to take the drama out of RfA we could also switch to a kind of Arbcom election-light with a secret ballet. Have no objection to Crats policing RfA - its so broken that any feasible change might be better than nothing – but something much more radical is likely needed. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with about a third of what Dayewalker said in his essay. One point was very good - much acrimony is indeed caused when a user going through RFA has the temerity to reply to someone's hamfisted and ill-thought-out oppose vote, asking for diffs, or a rationale, or a sane and non-bitter response. Apparently, doing so suggests you are incapable of dealing with the 'pressure' having access to a block button and a delete button brings (clue: there is no pressure, being an admin is easy). I would suggest being willing and able to justify your thoughts and your actions in the face of someone with a one-track mind who will not listen - repeatedly - is the key skill an admin needs. Unfortunately, doing this in an RFA is the kiss of death. One of the best ways to manage this would be for bureaucrats to be stringent when evaluating oppose votes - if they aren't backed up by evidence, assign them less weight. If they are opposing for facetious reasons, such as the candidate failing to adopt a deferent and submissive attitude in the face of incompetent pile-on abuse, instead trying to stand up for themselves, weight them less. fish&karate 12:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

AfD stats

We see to be posting AfD !vote stats lately. However, the most recent decision I can find about this is the following:

• [1] A decision with pretty clear consensus in March 2011 not to do it.

What have I been missing? DGG ( talk ) 01:43, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why doing it publicly is not an improvement on doing it privately, which certain individuals have studiously done for years. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say I disagreed with using it. I didn't comment in the decision, & I am not sure I know what I think on the matter myself. I don't see it as a deletionist/inclusionist issue--if I did, I would support them, for I think by the general run of comments that the majority of the people who come here tend to be a little on the inclusionist side. But if that's the only argument, I suggest we reopen the discussion DGG ( talk ) 05:25, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Another RfA essay

I have written an essay on RfA voting here. Any feedback is appreciated. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:58, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO this process would be less vitriolic if editors did not comment on others' votes except to correct errors of fact. --Surturz (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:07, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Have you changed your stance here? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

You're not suggesting that user make their own minds up are you? O.o fg^t_c 05:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I actually disagree with that. I think we should encourage civil discussion among participants so as to better understand their rationale for supporting/opposing an RfA, and in particular how it relates to the candidate's potential performance as an administrator. That way, we can develop a much more elucidated perspective on whether the community considers someone to be competent enough for the role. Master&Expert (Talk) 11:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Right, not commenting on others' !votes isn't the answer. If anything, we should be emphasizing that RfA is a discussion, not a vote, and people should absolutely not feel entitled to say whatever the hell they want without the potential of their comment being discussed or even criticized. Swarm ^X11|11|11 21:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

In the unlikely event that the community would acquiesce to allowing for an RFA code of conduct, that's an excellent start. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Utahraptor, your essay is an excellent reflection of my own perspective on the adminship process which I have held for years now. The reason RfA is so difficult to pass isn't because the system itself is broken, it's that there is a long-standing trend towards only supporting exceedingly well-rounded people with generally flawless records. The only viable solution to this is a gradual alteration of the high standards set for administrators at RfA — not through the use of coersion or alienation, but by setting a positive example. Being proactive in the RfA process by promoting civil discussion and looking for reasons to support someone, rather than opposing them, will leave a lasting impression on less experienced users who come across the RfA page for the first time. They will get the notion that it is an overall lenient and constructive community process, and their subsequent participation at RfA will likely reflect this perception. Phasing out the negative aspects of the RfA atmosphere is not something that can be done overnight, but will take a genuine committment from the community towards fostering a civil and productive environment. This is becoming more and more important for Wikipedia, which is facing an unprecedented decline in the number of active administrators to handle the maintenance tasks that are essential to the site's day-to-day functioning. By improving the RfA experience, we can influence the creation of a large and efficient administrative team, thereby improve the Wikipedia experience as a whole. Master&Expert (Talk) 12:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I personally believe that setting up a policy, or at least a guideline, outlining what is and what is not acceptable as an RfA vote is what needs to be done. There are editors here, though, that oppose this idea, so I think, eventually, we should start up an RfC on the matter and, depending on how that goes, act accordingly. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd support such a move in principle but I doubt we could get consensus for any but the most trivial rules. We could get consensus for a rule that says "Support !votes go in the support section and oppose !votes go in the oppose section". We could not get consensus for "Be civil to people even if you don't think they deserve civility" or "Judge candidates on maturity not age" &c. bobrayner (talk) 14:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Are we going to have to start an RfC over whether we should start an RfC about RfA voting? ;) In all seriousness, though, I think it's at least worth a try. Many editors agree that RfA has become a venue for incivility and personal attacks. I don't want to sit around and watch qualified candidates fail at RfA and get their self-esteem damaged, and I don't think anybody else does, either. Something needs to be done, and I think an RfC regarding an RfA voting policy (or guidelines) is the best thing we can do. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 14:24, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It is very difficult to define or classify "incivility", Utahraptor. I'm afraid that the meaning of this word is different and changeable in various parts of the world, but it is not the only problem. Everyone of us has — to some extent — its own concept of what is acceptable behavior and what is not; a possible 'personal attack' may be almost indistinguishable and irrelevant for someone but significant and offensive for someone else. Wikipedia (not only the RfA) is full of accusations of incivility, but I rarely notice anything that would be worth the drama ... and I don't think I'm a barbarian who don't know how to treat others. Maybe that's because I prefer searching a solution or addressing a problem instead of time consuming contemplation over the form and (seeming) incivility of someone's comment. But I don't think you can determine a flawless and unified standard of 'civility' for everyone, that would be in my opinion ridiculous. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 16:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I acknowledged the fact that the definition of incivility isn't solid in my essay (link above in the very first post of this discussion). By suggesting that we form a policy or guideline regarding RfA voting, I'm not saying we define civility, I'm saying we define what should and should not be accepted as an RfA vote. This does involve civility somewhat, but it also involves several other things. Have a look at my essay (particularly the "Don't's" section), and you'll see what else I'm basing this suggestion on. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 17:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

There should be no perceived need for any user to describe why he or she is supporting an RfA. If a user agrees with the case made by the candidate and/or nominator(s), he or she should be able to simply support and be done with it. Asking for diffs and such for a *support* would just be discouraging users from voting. Keepscases (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

While RFA is one of the few explicit vote systems in WP, rationales are still strongly approved because they indicate that the editor making the comment has actually engaged his brain while making a decision rather than simply following a herd or helping a friend out (or, of course, done whatever amused him). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Oppositional voting is the problem. Being required to give a reason for Opposing means you need to criticise the candidate. That will always be inflammatory. If RfA were not a soviet-style single candidate election, then we would be asked to choose the best from a field of candidates, and oppose voting would not be necessary, you would only need to support the candidate(s) you liked. --Surturz (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

That's one of the most sensible things I've ever seen written about the slough of despond that RfA has become. Anything other than a straight vote invites dispute when opposers are obliged to be critical of the candidate for their votes to be counted. Malleus Fatuorum 23:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Really? In a multiple-choice system it is usually the case that someone still has to be elected even if all of the candidates are mediocre. I'd understood you to strongly oppose that sort of thing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 00:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Chris, I didn't interpret Surturz's comment to mean that he favors a multiple-choice system, I think he was merely making a comparative observation. And I agree with Malleus (despite the fact that I thought that both her and Surturz were both jerks at Steven's RfA) that Surturz's observation is insightful. And though (at the only other RfA I have participated in) I have found Keepcases to be a major horse's ass, perhaps he too is right. Maybe we should just have an up-and-down vote and leave the reasoning [or what passes for it (see User: Badger Drink)] off the page. Or maybe if it was just on talkpage. Emotions would probably be lessened. I don't know--I found this whole experience so revolting and upsetting that almost any kind of change would seem to me to be a likely improvement. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I'm on your userpage too? Stalker alert. Keepscases (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I do actually support a multiple-candidate-election-with-term-limit process as I have proposed here: Wikipedia:RfA_reform_2011/Radical_alternatives#Rolling_administrator_elections. Why this is a "radical" proposal for WP is beyond me. It has worked for governments and voluntary organisations for decades, if not hundreds of years. I don't know why WP is so special it needs to have a completely different process to the tried-and-trusted. --Surturz (talk) 01:45, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The key to making that work though is term limits. Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

@Surturz: I think that proposal does have its benefits, but it might prevent some well-qualified editors from becoming admins. The process itself isn't the problem; the problem is with editors who fail to assume good faith and who badger and attack the candidate and their defenders to the point where good editors leave Wikipedia.

@HuskyHuskie: I don't think we should remove reasoning from RfA votes; many supporters and opposers provide valid arguments in their reasoning. We do need to cut back on the dramatics, though, and a guideline outlining RfA voting etiquette is, in my opinion, a good way to go. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 01:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The current process is inherently adversarial, and nothing can change that, not even insisting that every criticism is prefixed by "with all due respect". Surturz has proposed just about the only alternative to RfA that could possibly work, yet one that has no chance at all of being adopted. Malleus Fatuorum 02:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

One of the concerns I have with that proposal is the following: "The current RfA process would run in parallel with this process..." If this alternative were adopted, we'd still have the problems we see here at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, and we'd still have people posting suggestions for improvement on this talk page. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Malleus is completely right about this. It IS adversarial and there's really nothing that can be done about it under the current system. I suppose an option would be to just drop the threshold to a hard 70% and make it just support or oppose without discussion. Anyone who is taking the time to participate in an RfA should be doing their own homework about the candidate rather than being sheep who just glance through the opposes and see if anyone dug up something juicy. Trusilver 02:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It would eliminate the personal attack and incivility hassle that has plagued RfAs for years, and it is a good proposal. But I'm just not comfortable with completely wiping rationales out of votes; I'm even a bit uncomfortable with moving rationales to the talk page of the RfA. Some of the rationales are incivil and add unnecessary heat to discussions, but some of them are actually insightful and good to consider. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:19, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Surturz's ultimate solution is, I think, quite breathtaking in its clarity: we have staggered terms for administrators, at the end of which they're up for re-election. That's the way that local elections have been run here in the UK for as long as I can remember. So every month, three months, or whatever, a bunch of hopefuls present themselves for election, and those whose term has expired may choose to go for re-election or not. Malleus Fatuorum 02:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I recall having this discussion before and I think that could work. The only question is the volume of voting that would be taking place. Doing it this way would mean we only have truly active administrators, so we could do more with less. But figure (I'm just throwing a number out here) 600 admins. Give them terms of three years. That's 200 admins elected every year, so seventeen or so elected every month. That's a hell of a lot of researching and making judgments on candidates. Increasing the term length fixes this, but means more admins as the longer amount of time means more going inactive. Trusilver 02:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

17 elected each month seems like a lot, but consider how many would need to run each month to actually elect 17... With maybe 30 candidates a month, less obvious problems with candidates would be much less likely to be detected, which only makes the lack of a practical method to remove problem admins an even bigger issue. Monty₈₄₅ 02:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Trusilver, what do you think are the shortcomings of creating a guideline outlining RfA voting etiquette? That's why I initially created this thread (to discuss the creation of an RfA voting etiquette guideline), and I feel as though the creation of an RfA voting etiquette guideline would work best in this situation. But I'd like the opinions of others, as well. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There can be no "voting etiquette", that's almost an oxymoron. You just vote. If you demand that voters explain their votes, that's no longer a vote: that's a debate. Malleus Fatuorum 02:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

True. But what are we going to do? We shouldn't stand by and watch qualified candidates get butchered by fellow editors. There's always Surturz's suggestion, which aims to eventually render this RfA process obsolete, but that could take a while to do, and in the meantime we'll still be scratching our heads here, wondering how we can "fix" this process. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Surturz's suggestion could be implemented immediately, were there the will. Malleus Fatuorum 03:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have misinterpreted what I meant, Malleus. I wasn't meaning that Surturz's suggestion would take a while to implement, I was saying that, after implementation, Surturz's suggestion would take a while to render the current RfA process obsolete, as permanent adminship, in my opinion, appeals to more editors than does temporary, elected adminship. I apologize for not being clear in my first comment. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 03:14, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I misunderstood. The fundamental idea is ultimately that all administrators are subject to terms, but initially only new ones are. It would be insane to have two separate routes to admin; it's bad enough having one. Malleus Fatuorum 03:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Why is there endless talk of RFA reform with no actual fixing of RFA? There was even a recent RFC on it that I took part in that went nowhere. RFA (and other wiki problems) aren't fixable because wiki isn't fixable. The basic problem is wiki itself. Unless wiki is fixed first, and I'm not sure that it can be, RFA etc can't be fixed. PumpkinSky talk 03:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that... I think that elected admins might resonate with the community. There has always been an undercurrent of grumbling about the concept of "admin for life". Term limits would go a long way to change that. I am not saying that this plan is perfect, but it beats what we have going right now. I don't think it's the right time yet, though. I think the system is going to have to deteriorate further before community support starts to emerge. There's going to have to be a situation where things actually begin to fall apart in a measurable way before I see the community really rallying behind a drastically new RfA procedure. Trusilver 03:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh for chrissake! It's all about term limits or specifically, the lack of them. RfA people are mean because they still know in the back of their distorted, warped, fragile and probably little heads that granting an adminship to someone is for evah! And so even these kinds of people understand that if you gonna give this kind of power (the "no big deal" kind of power) to someone you better be damn careful about who you're giving it too. So they grill the hell out of the potential candidates (and sure, at the same time it gives'em an excuse to indulge the sadistic, self-righteous tendencies which by this point the average Wikipedian is famous for) and it makes RfA a particularly nasty place. Given that it's a nasty place because of this ... well, not that many decent people are interested in putting up with it. So you get low admin nominations. You stretch that over some months and you get a falling number of active Wikipedia admins.

Sure. You can patchwork it. You can impose some restrictions on what the mean people are allowed to say and what they're not allowed to say. You can gag the supports and opposes. But at the end of the day, they're still gonna be thinking those mean thoughts. You might make RfA "look" nicer but you're not gonna solve the fundamental, underlying problem.

Seriously, why is Wikipedia's answer to every very obvious dysfunction ... "Give it More Hypocrisy!" (GIMH) ??? Since when has hypocrisy become some magic pixie dust which solves all problems? Or is it just convenient? Volunteer Marek  04:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with PumpkinSky's above statement. The problem with RfA is the same problem we are having with new editor retention. As of late, I have seen a number of cases were new users have been bitten by established editors because of generic warnings that didn't really address the issue. In many of the cases, the users were blocked, or they just left. The problem with new editor retention is our own unwillingness to help new editors learn policy. Due to a decrease in active editors, we have started to create more and more semi or full automation. While it is time consuming to slow down and help new editors, they are vital to continuing this project. If we keep slapping generic warning up, rather than truly explaining the problem with their edit(s), we aren't helping them. Generic warning templates are indeed helpful with dealing with vandalism, but for issues such as neutral point of view or sourcing issues, generic warning templates really don't help them. The templates (in particular warning levels 3 and 4), create a negative atmosphere, one that more often than not causes new editors to leave. Similarly, the RfA process isn't the problem, it's the atmosphere involved with the process. As stated above, less candidates are willing to come forward because of the general hostility surrounding the process. In order to fix both issues, we need to take a look at what is causing this negative atmosphere. The essay created by The Utahraptor above is indeed a good start. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the connection to RfA, but AQ is spot on with the way newbies are handled. I think that it should be forbidden to do an auto-message to any newbie account unless it is blatant vandalism. One of the great things about Steve was that he didn't just adopt newbies and forget about them, he had a real method for teaching them the ropes. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The same problem we are having with new editor retention is the exact same problem we are having with RfA. I honestly don't think turning the process into a vote is going to solve the issue. The current process works. I believe we should focus on figuring out why there is such a negative atmosphere surrounding the RfA process, and attempt to correct the issue. The Utahraptor's essay points out several such reasons. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

RFA is a pretty hostile environment for many candidates, but is not always. I'm not sure if eliminating all discussion or comments is a good idea. Bureaucrats are elected to sift through the good and the bad !votes, this would be impossible without discussion. I'm not so sure how to proceed from here. RFA can be unpleasant, but turning it into a raw vote would require a lower threshold than 70% I think. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The proposal by Surturz appears to do just that, turning RfA into a sheer !vote count. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:27, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Removing comments entirely is a terrible idea. Voting sucks, people. There's absolutely nothing which has to tie term limits (which I'm fine with) to a raw vote system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The Surturz Proposal

I have just read User:Surturz's proposal for staggered elections. I really, really like it, and see only one problem, which has already been alluded to above: the sheer quantity of elections, combined with the constant campaigning. As to the first point, let me say, as one raised in Illinois (the US state with the greatest number of elected officials—over 8000): voters become numb when ballots become too lengthy. They are far more likely to be informed when there are fewer candidates on the ballot. Someone said that there might be 17 mops up for grabs each month. So that might mean dozens of candidates on the ballot. You think there are uninformed votes at RfA now? Combine this with the second problem: Though these are multi-year terms, in order to avoid a ballot with 1000s of names, we are having these elections every month. That might be fine for the RfA regulars, but the rest of us (who, in any reform should become more active in the process) are going to be less likely to participate with any kind of meaningful impact. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Won't work either but some times any change is good. PumpkinSky talk 03:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Real elections present real obstacles for candidates. Here in the UK for instance, to prove they're not just being disruptive, candidates have to put up a deposit, which they lose if they fail to reach a certain percentage of the vote. That might translate into an automatic block for any editor with fewer than 10 edits putting himself forward who failed to get more than X% of the vote, as just one example. Malleus Fatuorum 03:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting idea. If I recall correctly, the UK requirement is that one must achieve 12.5% of the vote. Why not just use that percentage? HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

And MF, the block could be really brief, like a week. It would just be a sort of embarrassing tweak. Isn't the UK deposit forfeited only a small sum? HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a great deal of money, about £500 IIRC. Malleus Fatuorum 04:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think the potential for blocks if one doesn't get enough votes is not overly encouraging. One could propose a minimum set of requirements, but we've had that discussion at least 9001 times. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

In Australia elections are always compulsory, so I presume voting would be compulsory here too. All editors would have to vote or lose their editing privileges. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This American doesn't favor that idea. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

There are almost a million editors at Wikipedia. Unless I'm reading this wrong, that would leave very few editors left on Wikipedia. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:04, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Steve, I think it's just a ploy by Hawkeye to create an Australian cabal; I'm sure there's a place in there for you. :-) HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Lies. There is no cabal. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

How would the electorate be provided the information they would need to make an informed decision? If there is still a discussion section where candidates were campaigned for and against, the electorate would be made well aware of potential problems, but it would probably result in a similar "problem" to what we experience now. But without such a method to inform voters of potentially obscure but important problems with a candidate, wont we get a lot more problem admins? Monty₈₄₅ 04:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sururz's proposal explicitly states that the Wikimedia Foundation can remove adminstrators without having to explain themselves. That'd rein in those problem admins quickly. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't imagine the foundation removing admins as an office action for merely problematic behavior. Isn't it the community's responsibility to police itself, removal of admins included? For that matter, why don't we just cede all decisions about adminship to the foundation? Monty₈₄₅ 04:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely the foundation will get involved in mundane tasks like adminship. We're a community, we should come up with a way of dealing with it. If what we have at present is inadequate, then we need to think of something else, but I don't think asking the Foundation to intercede is going to work. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:25, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

(ec^4) It's a well intentioned idea (with some elements of reasonablessnes) but basically dumb. Why, why, why, do you have to take a simple idea like term limits and make it so god damn complicated that there's no chance in hell it could ever be supported? It's simple. You get adminship. You serve two (N) years. Second+ time around it's an up/down 50% vote. If you want complicated then let's say, that the existing admins get grandfathered/rolled into it - reconfirmed based on a 50% up/down vote - based on when they first got the mop, old ones first, say 2 per month. Probably even a way to simplify that too, if somebody spend some time thinking about the practical issues of instituting the procedure rather than pie-in-the-sky super weird voting systems or procedure. Volunteer Marek  04:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I still don't understand how term limits can work; eventually, all the experienced admins will term limit out, never be able to run again, and we will be in a much worse place then we are now. Sure, terms are a reasonable idea if we can make the reappointment process manageable, but why term limits? Monty₈₄₅ 04:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Some of the people calling for "term limits" are using that phrase to mean "limited-term" adminship. 28bytes (talk) 04:36, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, Surturz is not proposing a maximum period that one could be an admin, as you may be thinking. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but is Volunteer Marek? In my review of past RFA discussion, my understanding is that there are some editors who support a limit on the number of terms. It is not entirely clear if that is what Volunteer Marek is proposing, but the "serve two (N) years" format looks like the proposal is talking about actual term limits. Monty₈₄₅ 04:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikisource has one year adminships, with reconfirmations each year, and it seems to work well there. They also have a simplified way of dealing with problem admins, three users can call for a vote of confidence, where 50%+1 is required to retain access. Dunno if this would work here, but thought it's worth mentioning. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

How many admins do they have? HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

38 admins there. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hypothetically, with this proposed voting system, no admin in their right mind would ever do anything controversial. Admins would be more concerned about getting reconfirmed than making close calls. Say an admin closed a very controversial deletion discussion. One "side" had a stronger argument, so they closed it that particular way. Now when reconfirmation rolls around, those editors can come to oppose. Unless the admin appears to have lost community support, are reconfirmations really necessary? Term limits would only provide a possible way to get rid of problematic admins. The benefit of making mandatory reconfirmations and term limits is minimal. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:40, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hypothetically, with this proposed voting system, no admin in their right mind would ever do anything controversial - no. Even assuming that an admin only cares about getting re-elected they would still do the controversial thing only if they thought that doing it would get them more Support votes rather than Oppose votes. But more or less this means that their action had "community support". Right now "no admin in their right mind gives a shit about what anyone thinks".

And honestly this particular statement is laughable: Term limits would only provide a possible way to get rid of problematic admins - that's the whole point! Or look at it this way. A person is nominated for adminship. You don't know much about them. They could be good, they could be bad. If they're good, IF they get the admiship they will do good administratin'. If they're bad they're gonna cause trouble. Under no-limits, you're stuck either way. It's fifty-fifty (if you're lucky) so you might as well be careful and grill them over their edits, their dog's sexual preference and their momma's cooking (not exactly, but equivalently). But if there's a term limit and you don't know for sure whether a particular person is good or bad potential administrator... well, you might take a chance on them exactly because you know that if they show themselves to be bad you can get rid of them next year. So RfA gets nicer. Now, the fact that you're willing to take chance (which is equivalent to RfA getting nicer) means that you will probably make some mistakes and grant adminship to some bad people. But you will also give it to people who, in the interest of being too-careful, you skip. And the bad people, you can remove them after a year if they show that they're "not worthy". The good ones, you keep forever (and everybody loves them and all that - no seriously, it WOULD improve average admin quality over time).

I am explaining this in detail here but honestly, this is like old school stuff. This is why almost pretty much every single position in the real world is subject to term limits. This is like Political Science 101. This is why I said that term limits are fundamental to any kind of meaningful RfA reform. You cannot even begin that conversation seriously without considering them. And these convoluted proposals for weird-ass term limits structures or what have you just distract folks - and hey, we all like to give our opinions about convoluted meaningless proposals - but let's keep it simple.

The only meaningful question here is actually how to deal with existing old-time administrators, given that we reasonably impose term limits on new ones. Do we keep the old guys? Do we make them go through it again? If so how? Etc. THAT is what the conversation should be about. Not this "if .0485 of voters express dissatisfaction then we move it to a committee which then decides whether to send it to an RfC for comment blah blah blah" crap.

There's no RfA reform without A-term limits.

Term limits first, details later. Volunteer Marek  06:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Any admin who was seen to have acted fairly is such a situation would have nothing to fear. Term limits are inevitable if Wikipedia is to survive, it's that basic. Malleus Fatuorum 05:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Key word: basic. Actually Malleus is not living up to his usual role as the guardian of proper usage of English language. "Basic" means simple. This is "cardinal". But ya'll get the point. Volunteer Marek  06:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

How can getting rid of all the admins (for their terms will all eventually expire) help the project? I think what you really mean is that wikipedia must move beyond volunteer editors. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok. Stop. Think. Stop. Think. ... are there any Senators in the US Senate? Do Senators terms expire? Yes? Are there still Senators in the US Senate? See what's wrong with what you just said?  Volunteer Marek  06:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Heh, I agree, limited duration terms are inevitable. My view is that within the history of democracy, the admin corps are in the "House of Lords" stage. The basic idea of my proposal is to create a "House of Commons". There's nothing to say that the two systems couldn't run together for a long time - lifetime admins could make the controversial decisions, while elected admins do the routine stuff. If an elected admin serves a couple of terms with distinction, then perhaps they would consider going for a traditional RfA to get ennobled.... errr.. get lifetime admin status I mean.

As for grandfathering in the existing admin corps (letting them keep their lifetime admin status) - that is simply commonsense realpolitik. --Surturz (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC) P.S. though I am Australian, there is no practical way to make voting mandatory, I would never suggest that for WP.

Like I said above, the whole HoL vs. HoC idea is nice and it's reasonable (I'm not sure if I expressed that part clearly - it was the "reasonablesness" part of the comment). But it's way to fucking complicated at this stage. Wikipedia is not even up to the point where it has a house of lords. It just has a huge big mess. Term limits, motherfuckers! Everyone is doing it and has been doing it for the past few hundreds of years. For a good reason too, unless you hate democracy, children and "the project". Volunteer Marek  06:22, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be done this way: Existing admins are grandfathered in to lifetime terms, other admins are appointed for one year terms that are subject to a 50%+1 vote of confidence after a year, after 2-3 years extends to lifetime. I'm not sure. Just throwing an idea out there. I don't think running every year for eternity and having their mistakes for each year digged up will be overly helpful. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes at some point one says "anything that will work is acceptable". A lot (all?) of the opposition to term limits comes from established administrators. Last time the idea was pitched it was something like 90% against /10% for, AMONG ADMINS, 20% against/ 80% for AMONG NON-ADMINS (dig up the diffs). In other words, people were very clearly voting their "class interest". At this point, I don't give a fuck any more about all the useless assholes that are gonna do whatever is necessary to hold on to their precious trinket. Let'em have it, and yes, you're right, over time most of them will get bored of it and give up... eventually... we sort of have to accept their existence I guess. I DO care however about how to get out of this mess of a dysfunctional situation, because I want to see Wikipedia become better. And that means NOT creating another cohort of privileged-for-life useless shits who are gonna screw it up for the people who are going to be editing Wikipedia say three years from now. I would like for these people to have inherited a better set of admin-related institution than the idiotic feudalism we have right now. So, as much as I very much dislike the current crop, I'm perfectly willing to say "whoever has the adminship now gets to keep it for the next... 3 years, but from now on let's be smarter and put a term limit on all appointments". So yes, I think there is some way to grandfather the old daddies in without pissing them off too much. Maybe do it like the Soviets did: after two years strip them of the adminship, thank them very very profusely, post something to Jimbo's page about how they did all this great work for Wikipedia and give them like the biggest barnstar ever. There's at least a few that I'm pretty sure will like it.

But anyway. Whatever it takes to appease the existing admins - a guarantee that their existing privileges will exist for ever, barnstars galore, or whatever, let's take a view towards the future. The present way of doing things is just not sustainable. We need a professional, competent admin corp and that means people who are responsible. And that means term limits. Volunteer Marek  07:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

professional? You are going to start paying us?©Geni 01:50, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Red herring. "Professional" as in "competent". Here's a clue: I don't get paid for creating and improving articles and neither does Malleus. But neither one of us tries to whine about it and neither one of us tries to use that as an excuse for gross incompetence. Admins do. I guess the argument is "hey, you're not paying us so why are you complaining when we do a shitty job? You should be thankful!". If you do believe that the interests of the community trump those of a particular admin then that's obviously a pretty vacant argument. Volunteer Marek  23:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The WMF has expressly stated that they will not be getting involved with any local consensus concerning RfA. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Why all the comparisons of admins to government legislative branches?

In the above discussion on "term limits", there are numerous statements that compare term limits and re-election for admins to the election requirements on legislative branches of various governments around the world (e.g. the US Congress or the UK House of Commons). But does this comparison really make sense? Admins don't legislate. It seems to me that adminship is more of mix of a civil servant position with a police officer, with a little "vote counter" and "lower court judge" mixed in. Anomie⚔ 12:01, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Because they do legislate, in a sense. WP policies are more descriptive than prescriptive; strict enforcement is discouraged, admins follow the spirit, not the letter of policy. In aggregate, admin actions define policy, not the other way around. Also, there is no separation of powers; admins can edit policy and then enforce it. --Surturz (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

None of the items in the first half of your post are "legislating", that's just latitude in enforcing the "laws". The community as a whole defines policy, not just admins; furthermore, most uses of admin tools are clearly restricted by existing policy and admins are discouraged from taking out-of-policy admin actions. And anyone, not just admins, can change policy and enforce it or convince others to enforce it; if an admin unilaterally changes policy and enforces it in a manner not supported by the community, the change is unlikely to stick and the admin will face drama and possibly ArbCom. Anomie⚔ 18:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixed-term adminship is the only method of addressing admin tenure that is simple enough in implementation to make pushing it out practical. (Term limits, i.e. allowing admins to serve only a maximum number of fixed terms, are quite a different proposal btw.) And it's not so much by analogy to a real-world job: in real life police officers / security guards / janitors / dog catchers are kept in check by their employers and by the law, neither of which we can fall back on. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The proposal to turn RfA into a simple !vote count isn't going to work. The problem with making it a "election", is you turn adminship into an authority position. Administrators would now have elected authority, or at least a perceived authority, backing their actions. Administrators really just have three extra buttons that allow them to perform maintenance. The buttons really cannot cause any long term damage if abused. They don't, and shouldn't have extra authority with their actions. Reconfirmations would be helpful, and I agree there should be such a desysopping process. However, we shouldn't go as far as to make RfA a simple voting system like the ArbCom elections. Users would be able to simply oppose the candidate for any reason. The opens the door to turning admins and admin candidates into politicians. It makes adminship a popularity vote, rather than based on how well they would do the job. Having a term limit, simple voting, and mandatory reconfirmations isn't going to solve the RfA problem. If anything, it is only going to make it worse. The current discussion system works to a degree. The problem we are having is the unwillingness of good candidates to step forward. And as I stated above, the number of good candidates is decreasing because of the way we are treating new editors. With fewer new editors, there are fewer editors taking the place of experienced editors leaving the project. Thus, we have fewer candidates running for adminship. We need to solve the core problem, not drastically change the entire process. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 16:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The "core problem" is in a very real sense insoluble given Wikipedia's consensus-driven decision-making process (or lack of decision-making process). That's why the only viable alternative is to set up a completely new system along the lines that Surturz has described. Malleus Fatuorum 19:51, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

As for the core problem, that's what I said in my 03:23, as for the shurturz thing, maybe, not sure. PumpkinSky talk 19:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

All of these suggestions about limited terms and regular elections, and the comparisons to government seem to dangerously misunderstand the point of adminship. The most important part of adminship is that it is supposed to be no big deal - an admin's view is no more important, they have no more of a say, no additional rights to change policy or whatever. If an admin has an idea, it is treated the same as anyone else and they have to deal with content and conduct disputes in the same way. Essentially, admins are editors who are trusted to carry out the will of the community. I am well aware that the current situation is not always like that and that some admins (which, I must stress, make up a small minority) do use adminship as a position of power. However, these references to government and elections just add to the prestige of adminship, which is contrary to the whole idea of being an admin.

The only things that should really be considered for potential admins are trustworthiness and competence - do we trust them to do their hob properly and are the familiar with Wikipedia, its community & its policies? Elections do not do this and turn adminship into a popularity contest. One of the biggest problems without our current RfA system is many people support candidates because they like them and many oppose candidates because they hold a grudge. I see no reason as to why monthly elections will improve this situation and, to be honest, I can only seeing it exacerbating the problems. If candidates are pitted against each other, it becomes a competition. We are looking for volunteers to do a demanding and often unrewarding job - forcing them to compete with others to get the position will attract those who want to enlarge their egos and scare off the good candidates who are not interested in authority or power.

I also have a problem with the idea that admins are all so untrustworthy that we need limits on their 'terms'. It is true that governors and legislators are often elected and have term limits - that is why we elect ArbCom and Stewards. However, the role of an administrator is not to govern or legislate (as I have already mentioned). The only reason we would want to desysop an admin would be if they are abusing the trust given to them. I would not disagree that better recall procedures may be required; however, having limited terms makes the assumption that admins are untrustworthy and need to be regularly checked. That grossly undervalues that vast majority of admins here. We do have problematic admins, but I see no reason to force an arbitrarily limited term on every admin. Moreover, if admins are required to reapply for adminship after a period of time, we yet again subject them to unnecessary populism. If an admin is doing a good job, there is no reason to make them reapply, just because they've been doing a good job for a long time. All we do is allow anyone who doesn't like them to have another dig.

I don't believe that the current system is great, but any attempt to run elections, have limited terms or liken adminship to politics and government seems to misunderstand the role in a manner which I am uncomfortable with. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 20:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"Term Limits" vs. "Fixed-Term"

As Chris pointed out just now, and Monty and 28 bytes did earlier, Marek is using the phrase "term limits" in a manner very different than most of us know. Marek, in the United States (hence, the majority of Wikipedia editors), the phrase "term limits" means a limit on the number of fixed terms to which a person can be elected. So no, the US Senate does not have "term limits", because a Senator can be elected to as many six-year terms as his constituents want to elect him. We would simply call what you are referring to as a "defined term", or "fixed term", or even just a "term" (since part of the definition--to us--of a "term" is the length of time one serves). Since this has confused so many of us, perhaps you would change your wording? HuskyHuskie (talk) 13:17, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

"hence, the majority of Wikipedia editors" - seriously ? --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• Hi. We have a job for you. There's no money or other compensation involved, you have to go through a "hell week" to get it, you will be attacked by lunatics if you do a good job, and in two years we will fire you for no reason because some people have the sorely mistaken impression that this mundane job is actually a pass to (imaginary) realms of great power and authority and so should not be held for too long by anyone no matter how good a job they are doing. We need to stress that this supposed power is not real, and most of what you do will be very boring. Interested? Beeblebrox (talk) 18:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Why the reluctance to admit that the ability to block another editor who gets on your tits, as happens every day here, is not a form of power? Malleus Fatuorum 19:47, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

That's the problem. Not all admins are the same. I block vandals, socks, spammers, edit warriors, and blatant violations of the username policy. That's pretty much it as far as blocking. I have never blocked anyone I was in a dispute with, and as far as I can recall I have never issued a civility block. (I'm assuming that is what "on your tits" means, I'm not familiar with that expression) So why should I, and the vast majority of admins who could say the same, be tarred with the same brush because of a few admins who do treat it as a position of power and authority? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Because no matter how good or bad a job you do you pretty much have it for life, and that's quite simply unacceptable, as it makes you effectively unaccountable so long as you manage to stay below ArbCom's radar. Malleus Fatuorum 20:02, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

This is always where it breaks down for me. The problem is how difficult it can be to remove a problematic admin. One way to deal with that is to remove the tools from anyone who has had them for a while without regard for how well they use them. I find that unacceptable. I manage a crew of people in real life. Sometimes there are people on that crew who are not doing a good job, or even abusing their position of trust. (supervision is fairly minimal in my line of work) I don't shitcan the entire crew because of the bad apples because that would leave me with nobody to do the work, on top of being patently unfair. I can't say I have a solution, but this is a bad idea, not to mention one that has been repeatedly rejected. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

What I find very strange is that every democracy "shitcans" the lot every five years or so, therefore I find your objections to be completely incomprehensible. Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Resolute 22:33, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it should be. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

• I agree with Malleus. As long as you have a class of editor/admins, many who gained the "mop" for life in an era with wildly different standards than exist now, who have the power to block others with impunity, you have a system that engenders distrust, intimidation and abuse. Term limits are a partial solution, de-adminning the entire group now and starting anew is another. Neither will happen because the admins vote as a group to stop change, as seen in the Rfc for WP:CDA. The only way out is for the Wikimedia Foundation to impose a top-down solution, which they seem unwilling to do. It's a badly stuck situation. Jusdafax 20:31, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree that there is a problem, I just don't think this is the solution, and I find the comparison to a legislature or government invalid. Admins don't make the rules and do not constitute a government. When someone in real life is hired to do a job, which is a more valid metaphor, they aren't fired later on because somebody else with the same position abused it. I'm aware of the old-school admins who can't seem to get with the times, and again I agree that something needs to be done about the situation. I just don't see why those of us that aren't causing a problem have to go through the hell of RFA again because of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

And neither do I. The point is to replace RfA with something more humane, not to force anyone to go through it again. Malleus Fatuorum 20:58, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

...by turning it into a popularity contest? That is exactly what turning it into an election will do. We can not start treating adminship like it is an authority position. Elections will make the position even more of a big deal than it currently is viewed as. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and we should not start treating it like it is. Part of the problem with RfA is the emphasis that the position is a big deal. In the unlikely event that the admin goes rogue, what is the worst thing the admin can do? Block several hundred highly active users, delete several thousand pages, mess up the user interface, or vandalize the main page. All of these things can be undone rather quickly without too much difficulty. Best case scenario, the mess is cleaned up in a matter of minutes (or seconds). Worst case scenario, Wikipedia has a mess for a few hours while other admins revert it. Even a non-admin can cause a mess on a wide scale. Nothing an admin can do can cause permanent damage. Adminship can easily be removed by a crat in the event of problems. Therefore, there is no point in treating adminship like it is a big deal. Yes, the admin could abuse his tools without drawing scrutiny, but that just means we need a process to desysop the user. Running all of the admins through periodic reconfirmations trying to catch the bad ones is like running water through a strainer trying to find a few grains of sand. Most of the time, they will slip through. With the sheer volume of admins, users will either just not vote, or only vote occasionally. The only users that will be sure to vote are the users who dislike the candidate. So unless the admin candidate is only making noncontroversial decisions, they will expect trouble passing. Yes, mandatory reconfirmations will catch some of the bad admins, but too many of the good ones will be caught in the process. We would be better off with a on demand reconfirmation process, but even then, it would be open to abuse of process. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You can't turn what is already a popularity contest into a popularity contest. RfA has always been a popularity contest. Malleus Fatuorum

Often the !votes made in RfA are based on the voter's opinion on how well the user will handle the tools. To a degree, the current system is a popularity contest. Past experience with the user is part of the considerations. However, this is not the sole consideration users make. Changing the system to allow anyone to support or oppose for any reason, and only electing the top 10 users with the most support votes will turn it into a flat out popularity contest. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 22:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Which is what it already is, so no change. Malleus Fatuorum 22:43, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Alpha Quadrant; RfA has some of the elements of a popularity contest, but it doesn't have all of the elements of a popularity contest. If we were to switch to this election voting process, the popular, not necessarily qualified, editors would go through, and some of the better-suited admins wouldn't go through. As has been stated multiple times, the problem with RfA isn't the process itself, but the incivility and ignorace of assume good faith that many voters have displayed. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 22:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The truth is that RfA has the characteristics of both a popularity contest and a lynch mob, and no amount of tweaking will ever change that. Time for a rethink. Time for a new system. Malleus Fatuorum 23:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I still think that some of the more qualified admin candidates will be beaten by the more popular admin candidates. Currently, both the popular and the qualified have a chance of making it through; with the new process, at least in my opinion, the chances of the qualified candidates becoming admins will go down and the chances of the popular candidates becoming admins will go up. We need qualified, not popular, admins to take care of the backlogs and other administrative tasks. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:07, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you reveal your bias by using the word "qualified". What qualifications do you have in mind? Vandal bashing? Mindless voting at AfD? Voting for popular RfA candidates in the hope they'll return the favour? Malleus Fatuorum 23:13, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

By qualified I meant people who are better-suited to deal with administrative-related tasks and who have more experience in such administrative-related areas. I don't believe I was being biased, but I apologize if my comment came across as such. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:18, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

But how do you judge such candidates, as by definition none of them have any experience at all with these mystical and legendary admin tasks. Malleus Fatuorum 23:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The community judges the candidates in the current process. The major deciding factor in many RfAs is whether or not the user has the experience required to be an admin. If they do, then they are more likely to succeed. If they don't, then it may fail, possibly under NOTNOW. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

You are not the community, and of course neither am I, but the increasing disquiet among the community ought not to be ignored. It's very clear, for instance, that the voters at RfA place civility well above competence. Malleus Fatuorum 23:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I like your style, Malleus. I know you won't want it, but I'd vote for you for admin, crat, and arbcom. PumpkinSky talk 23:48, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The solution to mindless, cliquey children who have too-high an opinion of themselves is not curmudgeonly old men who have too-high an opinion of themselves. (Although it'd have to be better).101.118.44.91 (talk) 00:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No it's not, but it might make for a more representative mix. BTW, as one of those "curmudgeonly old men" I wouldn't have made the mistake of hyphenating "too-high". ;-) Malleus Fatuorum 00:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

That's very kind of you PumpkinSky, but to be honest I wouldn't even vote for myself. I'm better suited to pissing into the tent. Malleus Fatuorum 01:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You're right above, it should be "fixed term" not "term limits". For whatever reason "term limits" was the phrase used in previous discussion hence my usage here. Most of the above discussion is just excuses, false analogies (in real life, if you're hired for a job and are crap at it you do get fired. This doesn't happen on Wikipedia. Hence the analogy of a lifetime appointment is more apt), and red herrings. Volunteer Marek  01:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

At the present time there are 53 former admins who were forcibly de-sysoped. So admins can be ah "fired". Throw in the further 26 who resigned under a cloud and the handful who later managed to get their adminship back and the claim that adminship admins can't be "fired" is inconsistent with reality.©Geni 01:55, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Calling other editor's opinions "excuses and false analogies" to try and argue against them is ad hominem. Adminship isn't a political office, or even a job. Editing Wikipedia and helping out in administrative areas is volunteer work. When a candidate runs for adminship, they are volunteering to help out in a difficult area. Admins have to make close calls, take flack when they mess up (or sometimes even when the make the right call), and are quite often are subject to greater scrutiny than normal editors. Add to that, news coverage often covers what an admin does, rather than what a normal editor does. So there is a possibility real life scrutiny as well. The candidate has to run through an often tough and draining process to do so. Now because some admins have become somewhat abusive, we are going to make all of them suffer going through reconfirmations every 1-2 years just to make sure they haven't become abusive. Now, do you think that there are many users that are going to want to have to keep jumping through that many hoops to do so? And changing the discussion system to a voting system where the only the 10 most popular candidates pass? Over time, the only admins we will have left, are the ones that never make difficult decisions, are extremely popular among the RfA community, and have a perfect record. The ones that do make close calls and difficult decisions won't make it through a reconfirmation because it would now be a popularity vote. Being an admin occasionally calls for them to make a difficult decision. They may take flack for it, they may loose popularity, and garner opposes at the next reconfirmation. We need a reconfirmation process to deal with abuse. We do not need to slap a term limit requiring all admins to run for "reelection". Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 01:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

At the present time there are 53 former admins who were forcibly de-sysoped... - out of how many? Over how long a period of time? How big of a % is that? US Presidents can be impeached, and some have, but having term fixed terms for US presidents is STILL a good idea.

Calling other editor's opinions "excuses and false analogies" to try and argue against them is ad hominem. - no, it's not. It seems you don't understand what an "ad hominem" is.

As to the other points, yes, it is volunteer work but that doesn't mean we throw common sense out the window and refuse to learn from real world experience. The people who get adminstrated' are also volunteers. The rest of your post - stuff about coming under scrutiny, having to make difficult decisions, etc. describes ANY kind of position of power. But that's precisely why most positions of power have fixed terms in the real world. Here you're basically saying that precisely because it is a position of power it should not be subject to standard limitations. How does that make sense?  Volunteer Marek  19:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The community has stronger expectations for administrators. The real world media often perceives administrators as an authority position because they don't understand how Wikipedia is run. That does not make it a position of power though. Admins are not senators or hired workers, so you are the one using false analogies. Other than getting rid of some particularly bad admins, what benefit will come from having a term limit? None whatsoever. On a side note, both you and Malleus seem to have difficulty simply presenting a logical opposing argument. Instead you resort to attacking the opposing views or editors. (is that not ad hominem?) If you want to discuss this issue, then discuss it in a civil manner. I am open to opposing views. Simply stating "it's so obvious isn't presenting an argument. Such a comment is the same as claiming an article is adequately sourced, then not providing any sources in the article's AfD to back it up. So far, I have presented multiple reasons why creating a simple voting system with term limits is a bad idea. You have argued against this by calling the arguments "excuses" and "false analogies". You haven't explained why you think adminship is a position of power. Additionally, you haven't explained why you keep comparing admins to elected politicians. Admins don't make laws, govern Wikipedia, nor do they have any kind of special authority. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 20:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If I have to explain to you why an administratorship is a "position of power" or actually convince you that it is then there is no point in having this discussion.

Other than getting rid of some particularly bad admins, what benefit will come from having a term limit? - that's like saying "aside from the fact that the proposed solution fixes an actual problem, what benefits will it have?". If you give me 1000$, aside from the fact that it's 1000$, what good does it do me? Can you see why having this conversation with you - and some others like you - is pointless?

But actually, I already mentioned another benefit above - it will make RfA a nicer place because people will not feel a need to make a candidate jump through so many hoops because they're afraid of giving them super powers for life. Volunteer Marek  21:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So you believe that by adding more hoops, you are making it easier for users to become admins? There are many alternatives to term limits where bad admins can be desysopped. Why not create a process where whenever any two users in good standing believe an admin shouldn't have their tools, a reconfirmation can be held. Problem with dealing with bad admins solved. Forcing all admins to go through continuous reconfirmations just because of the amount of time they have been an admin. It should be on demand. And you still haven't explained why you think changing the voting system will fix RfA? Like PumkinSky has stated, the problem is the editors involved in the process, not the process itself. Making it so only the 10 most popular candidates pass will make the situation worse, not better. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm done talking to you. You have not been able to comprehend the most basic points and issues raised in this discussion and at this point I feel like I'm simply being trolled. Volunteer Marek  23:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Data on former admins, total admin numbers and admin history is available if you wish to inform yourself.©Geni 21:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, then how many total admins has Wikipedia had over the course of its history? Or at least over the period of time during which these 53 admins were desyssoped. I want to inform myself. Where do I look? Volunteer Marek  21:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Most of the relevant data can be found at Wikipedia:List of administrators and Wikipedia:Former administrators.©Geni 21:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes, I'm aware of these two pages but that's not what I was asking for. This just tells me how many current admins there are, and how many got desyssoped in the past. It does not tell me how many total admins there have been. I guess that if Wikipedia:List of administrators is generated automatically and always correct someone could go through the history and add up all the folks that have been ever listed on there but ... that'd be a real pain in the ass to do. So the question still remains, how many total admins have there been on Wikipedia? That should put that "53 desyssoped" in perspective. Volunteer Marek  22:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually, even trying to use the history page of Wikipedia:List of administrators doesn't work, because if I click on the version of that page from, say, March 2009 [2], it still tells me... the CURRENT number of administrators (There are 1,514 (as of 12 November, 2011) administrator accounts). Another words, the data doesn't seem to exist. So so much for "getting informed". Volunteer Marek  22:49, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

1541+53+4+278+3+141=2020. But really thats an irrelivance. Your claim was that admins couldn't get at "fired". Are you going to withdraw the claim?©Geni 23:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop trying to play a silly game of "gotcha". Sure, there are exceptions which prove the rule. Something like 2.66% of admins have gotten "fired". That means that 97.4% have not. So yeah, for all practical intents and purposes, admins can't get fired, unless they do something really really really bad. See below. Volunteer Marek  23:31, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Please stop trying to use outdated English. The fact is that admins can be de-sysoped and when they cause problems they are. The low rate is mostly due to a mix of most admin tasks being pretty easy to do without screwing up and a fair chunk of admins being only slightly active as admins.©Geni 00:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"outdated English"??? What in the world are you going on about? And the numbers pretty clear show that you have no clue as to what you're talking about. Volunteer Marek  00:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"prove" has changed it's meaning a bit since that phrase was coined. As for not knowing what I'm talking about I've both been involved in other people being de-sysoped and been de-sysoped myself. Its a subject I know a fair bit about. You on the other hand appear to be unaware that the concept even existed.©Geni 00:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, where is this "outdated English" you speak of? Honestly, it's really hard to make out what exactly you're talking about. How about you start using "clear English" and avoid these weaselly and irrelevant insinuations? And I don't see how your experience in getting de-sysoped here actually helps your case. One more time: "impeachment" is different from "fixed term". Just because you have one, for emergency situations, doesn't mean you don't need the other. There's a reason why most real life institutions have both. And one more one more time: the numbers pretty clearly show that a "de-sysoping" is a very very rare occurrence. Volunteer Marek  00:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

most real life institutions don't have term limits. They are not required by Robert's Rules of Order don't require them and anyone who has had any dealings with charities will know that in many cases there is only a 50% chance of any given position being removed upon death (Jeremy Bentham being a rather extreme case). It perhaps should be mentioned that out of all the positions in the US federal government only one is term limited. So anther incorrect claim. Will you withdraw this one?©Geni 00:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No, most real life institutions - to be precise, positions within these institutions - which matter do have term limits (fixed terms). I have no idea what you are talking about in regard to positions being removed upon death, there's no way that this is pertinent to this discussion and it's basically another way to derail it into irrelevancies. And unless you're playing some other "nuanced" word game, the claim that "of all the positions in the US federal government only one is term limited" is patently false. Honestly, this claim is either nonsense or you're trying to be cute.

And oh yeah, where is this "outdated English" that you accused me off? Still waiting on that one. Volunteer Marek  00:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh the reference to dated English is that prove had a different meaning which makes that statement make sense. As for the rest well the president has term limits however VPs don't neither do any members of the Cabinet of the United States. Nor do any of the deputies and so on down to whoever makes up the bottem layer.©Geni 01:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh the reference to dated English is that prove had a different meaning which makes that statement make sense. - as in how? I'm gonna call you out on this because you purposely insulted me and now it very much looks like you had no idea of what you were talking about. I don't mind being insulted. I do mind egregious (if that's "outdated" English to you, look it up) ignorance. Speaking of which:

"however VPs don't"!!!?!?! Right... which is why Hubert Humphrey is still vice president. Or scratch that, that might be a bit too much for your average Wikipedian these days. Who's the current VP? Dick Cheney right? See the problem? Why am I having a conversation with someone who is so fucking ignorant that they think that the vice president of the United States is not subject to term limits? This whole experience just boggles the mind and at the same time perfectly illustrates the reason why we need to be able to get rid of administrators who prove themselves of being so clueless. Imposing a minimum age limit would probably help as well. There's probably a good reason why you got de-admined before. Let's streamline that and make it the norm. The encyclopedia would improve much as a result. How old are you anyway? If you honestly think that the vice president of the United States is not subject to a fixed term, then you have no business participating in ANY kind of discussion on governance, on Wikipedia or anywhere else on the internet. Go read a book first.

And just for the sake of accuracy, yes, the members of the cabinet, though appointed by the president are also subject to fixed terms. That's why Condoleeza Rice is not the Secretary of State anymore. Please, please, please at least know some basic stuff about basic workings of real life governments before you jump into these discussions and start insulting people left and right. Volunteer Marek  03:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thinking about it a bit more, let's take WP:List of administrators at face value. Then we have

• 1514 current admins
• 53 that got desyssoped
• 4 that passed away
• 278 that got desyssoped for inactivity
• 3 temporary ones
• 141 admins who resigned
• 5 admin bots (let's ignore these)

So that's a total of 1993 non-bot admins. The 53 who got desyssoped constitute 2.66%. Taking your above claim of 26 who "resigned under a cloud", that's another 1.3%.

There have been 44 US Presidents. Two of them got impeached. That's a 4.45% that got impeached. So the probability of an admin on Wikipedia being desyssoped is a few % points less than the probability that US President gets impeached. But the thing is, the Office of the President of United States is still subject to fixed terms (and term limits). In other words you have a higher chance as a US President of being impeached, then a Wikipedia administrator has of being desyssoped.

Likewise, the 1.3% who resigned under the cloud are comparable to 2.27% (Nixon) of president who resigned "under a cloud".

Basically right now at Wikipedia we DO have a sort of "impeachment" process which removes admins who have committed "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" (and even that is probably not strong enough). But "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" aren't the only reasons why you'd want to remove someone. It really shouldn't be that someone has to do something really really nasty before they get removed. Oftentimes a particular admin is just plain ol' doing a bad job ("low crimes and misdemeanors"). And that's why we need reelections, just like in the real world.

 Volunteer Marek  23:26, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

who cares what the Americans do? Do prime ministers count for nothing? The Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution wasn't passed until 1951 so most of the presidents you list weren't term limited. Your other problem is that the position of president focuses a lot of power one individual where as what power admins do have (which in any case is mostly due to being a collection of long standing fairly sane individuals) isn't concentrated in one individual. There is no government on earth that places limits on how long someone can remain a minor functionary within the department of transport.©Geni 00:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh for fuck's sake, it's an illustrative example. Wikipedia administrators are not "minor functionaries within the department of transport". Aside from ArbCom, stewards and the like (all of which impinge upon the day to day workings of regular editors to a much smaller degree), they squat squarely and securely atop the Wikipedia hierarchy. And the point of the illustrative example - which you brought up actually - is that, no, Wikipedia administrators DO NOT GET FIRED, except in very very rare and exceptional circumstances. Volunteer Marek  00:17, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well of course it's rare and exceptional circumstances. If admins screwed up all the time we would never get anything done. As it is when admins screw up arbcom are prepared to step in. See thing is that the raw percentage of admins removed doesn't tell you anything on it's own. You would need a percentage of admins that should have been removed. So how many do you think it should be? 1%? 10% 50%? Remember the majority of admin actions are done by very few admins so for all practical purposes there are far fewer admins than you actually think. Your " squarely and securely atop the Wikipedia hierarchy" claim is a nice ego boost I guess (securely? then why do I keep getting de-admined?) but there is little evidence that it is actually true and even if it were you would need to show that admins are different from any other demographically equivalent (long standing editors who are viewed as fairly sane) group.©Geni 00:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Well at least there's a semblance of an argument in the above comment, for once. But no.

If admins screwed up all the time we would never get anything done. - again, this is not the right analogy. It's not an EITHER/OR type of thing. But say they screw up 50% of the time. Stuff still gets done though not as much as if they screwed up 20% of the time? Doesn't it make sense to implement procedures which would lower the screw up rate? You seem to have this thing for considering only extreme cases (i.e. "because a couple admins have been desysopped in the past that means that admins get desyssoped all the time" - which is simply not true. "because admins don't screw up all the time that means that they don't screw up a lot" - which is also false, etc.). Just please! Stop and think about these things before you actually type in those letters into your computer.

securely? then why do I keep getting de-admined? - I dunno, that's on you. How many times have you been de-admined? Maybe the reasons for that are particular to yourself. Volunteer Marek  00:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Now think through what happens when an admin screws up. It has to be fixed usualy by another admin. So high levels of admin screwups would be such a timesink that we would never get anything done. Heck I'm not the most active of admins these days but I have still performed over 10K admin actions. 20% error rate would mean 2000 things needing to be fixed.©Geni 01:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you going to actually answer any questions that have been brought up or just endlessly keep changing the topic of discussion? Again I'm having trouble understanding what it is you're talking about - So high levels of admin screwups would be such a timesink that we would never get anything done - the whole point of term limits is that they would lower the rate of screw ups. How you managed to flip this into term limits increasing the rate of screw ups is beyond me.

What was this "outdated English" you were referring to or was that just a bullshit attack (I take that kind of thing personally)?

How many times have you been de-admined? You're very quickly becoming the poster boy for the need for fixed terms it seems. Keep talking. Volunteer Marek  01:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Your questions tend to be based on flawed assumptions so answers to them would be meaningless. You've failed to present any evidence of screwups being common or that term limits would have any impact on them (experience is useful).

the outdated english was the context in which you used the word "prove". In modern english it is illogical.

I've been de-admined 3 times that I can recall.

I find it interesting that you feel that I'm a poster boy for term limits when I'm actually one of the rather unusual cases who has passed RFA twice which is about the closest you can get to a term limit like situation under the current rules. I also find it interesting that you decide to make the decision on the bases of a single conversation on WT:RFA rather than you know my actual admin actions.©Geni 01:51, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Holy shit Wikipedia is even more fucked up then I thought. I honestly did not think that was possible. Volunteer Marek  03:58, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No big deal?

If I knew how to create a bot, I'd write one that would go through and strike out every time someone says that being an admin is no big deal. Yeah, I know The Man himself said that, but it's become The Biggest Lie on Wikipedia. If it was no big deal, Steven's detractors would not have been so vehement in their opposition. The reason they fought so hard is because everyone recognizes that it is a big deal. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're right, of course. But how can you help the blind to see clearly? Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Questionable. To a large extent its only a big deal if people treat it as such. This results in the irony that the ah "clip the wings of the admins" crowd are probably the greatest allies a power hungry admin could have.©Geni 01:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

To a large extent its only a big deal if people treat it as such. Geni, may I introduce you to my friend, Mr. Tautology? That's the whole point; it is being treated as a big deal, and as such, Jimbo's cliché is now a corpse. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact in the matter is Adminship should not be treated as a big deal. Everything an admin does can be undone, just like any other editor. The fact that a few editors get all riled over adminship and view it as a position of authority is fairly concerning. However, do their claims that adminship is a big deal hold any weight? The only risk in granting someone adminship is the off chance that they will abuse it. In really bad cases, they are desysopped. In minor cases, they are let off the hook because we don't have a formal process to desysop them. We need such a process, we do not need term limits. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:23, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Adminship is a big deal to those who consciously choose to make it one - and that applies both to admins and non-admins. Resolute 02:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree that is should not be a big deal. But the "fact in the matter" is that it has become a big deal. As you may know, the US Constitution has no mention of political parties and the President's selection was expected to be a non-partisan affair. The fact that Constitution reads one way, however, does not change reality. And the reality is, being an admin is a big deal, for the very reason that Geni mentioned above. HuskyHuskie (talk) 02:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It's like communism: we know it's broken, but we really really really want it to work. ResMar 02:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Point of fact: the biggest lie on Wikipedia is "we use consensus, not voting". But carry on. Danger ^{High voltage!} 02:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) HuskyHuskie, do you have diffs to back up your claim that it has become a big deal? Yes, it is a commons misconception for younger editors and new editors to believe that adminship is a position of authority. And what is up with the references to government and jobs. Wikipedia is not a government or a workplace. Nor are we trying to become a government or a workplace. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia run by volunteers. If we start making it harder for them to help out, do you really think they are going to stick around? I'd say it is fairly insulting to demand that all current admins go through a reconfirmation, just so the community can make sure they haven't gone bad. We as a community have entrusted them to perform maintenance. If they abuse that trust, we take the tools away. It should be easier to take away the tools from users who have abused the trust. We should make sure that we don't hurt good admins in the process. Term limits are not the answer. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

As neither a younger editor nor a new one, I think that it is in fact a big deal. So fail. And asking for "diffs" in a discussion like this is silly. Volunteer Marek  03:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Silly and entirely typical of the childish bullshit around here. Malleus Fatuorum 03:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I said it was a common misconception among the group. I never said it was limited to that group. Why do you believe it is a big deal? How is giving a maintenance tool to a trusted user a big deal? Please refrain from making ad hominem comments. Asking for examples where RfA is considered a big deal is not unreasonable. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

How old are you? From your ramblings I'd guess about 14. Am I close? Malleus Fatuorum 03:30, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No, you're not even close. It is unfortunate that you cannot keep the discussion on the issue at hand. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

How would you say your question is relevant to a rational debate?©Geni 03:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a large number of editors who believe RfA is a big deal. That is why I asked for diffs or examples. There have been a number of claims stating that adminship is now a big deal, but no one arguing this is citing examples. Instead they are relying on attacking the opposition. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 03:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a large number of editors who believe RfA is a big deal. - when you say stuff like that you're basically showing how out of touch with reality you are. And you want examples? Look at every RfA for the past four years. Plenty of evidence there that it is indeed a big deal. People are not humoring your requests for 'diffs' and 'evidence' because it is so obvious to begin with that the demand itself appears to be bad-faithed. Volunteer Marek  03:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The whole No Big Deal thing annoys me. How many people have actually read the quote? I'll put it here to help out those who haven't.

I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.

I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.

I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.

— Jimmy Wales, wikimedia.org archive entry

It's often misquoted and often misinterpreted. The important factor for me is that admins are not more important than other editors, they hold no more authority. It is true that their role is important and there are some things that they can do that others cannot, however that doesn't make it "a big deal". Worm^TT · (talk) 05:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It isn't big deal. Indeed. I don't see any problem in giving this permission to anyone who is established and we can be sure that they would use it in proper way. Sysop permission doesn't give anyone rights to perform action which could not be rolled back, and even if there was someone who wanted to misuse the permission in order to do harm, they would not probably be trust worth anyway and wouldn't get it, it's very unlike that any of the recent candidates, even those who didn't pass, would use it to harm anything. Petrb (talk) 08:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Adminship shouldnt be a big deal., just some editors like to make it such. Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:22, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ill extend this a bit; veteran editors (not just those with edit counts) but those who conduct themselves with maturity and understanding of policies are often asked for advice from novice editors. These novice editors often have no idea what adminship actually is, they just observe good conduct and assume the veteran editors know the ropes to fix the problems., and thusly assume the veteran editors can fix the issue. In most cases they can without the aid of any 'tools'. Even veterans ask other respected ones for advice for simmilar reasons. It would seem that some people have decided that adminship is a title to judge that respect, and thusly they scrutinize candidates quite harshly, solely on isolated one off cases several years ago or incorrect answers to trick theoretical questions, or merely piling on without reviewing the pros of the candidate. Its no big deal wether it says adminship next to your account or not- your actions day to day judge your wiki rep and respect as a trusted editor. And regardless of admin or not people will still come to you for advice if your conduct on wiki is good. Ottawa4ever (talk) 08:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I think some (but clearly, not all) of the posts here indicate that I was not entirely clear. I don't mean that I think having the mop is a big deal; Ottawa4ever's comments are ample evidence that one's ability to be effective here is not tied to the mop or title (well put, by the way, O4E). What I am saying is that RfA subjects would-be admins to a level of scrutiny and expectation far beyond what is commensurate with the position, and that by doing so, has made it a big deal. Maybe what I should say is that being an admin is not a big deal, but RfA is a big deal. Except, as one must go through RfA to get the mop, the mop has effectively become a big deal by association. And while honest and intelligent people can easily see differently the issue of whether or not being an admin is a big deal, I can't believe there are many out there who fail to see that RfA has become an intractable fucking nightmare a "big deal. Indeed, I imagine that Jimbo's words were delivered for that very reason, that people had begun to make too big a deal of things at RfA. And look how far we've come since he delivered that bit of advice. HuskyHuskie (talk) 03:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Nominations for the 2011 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are now open

Nominations for the 2011 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee elections are now officially open and will run until Monday 21 November at 23:59 UTC.

• If you are interested in running for the Arbitration Committee for 2012 and meet the requirements for candidacy, please go here.
• If any other editors are interested in coordination, please go here.

–MuZemike 00:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Would fixed terms make any practical difference?

I've read the discussion above about making adminship for a fixed term instead of indefinite with some interest. Personally I'm not convinced that this would solve the problems with RFA - as others have said, I think it's the voters that are the problem, and I've seen plenty of spiteful and vicious opposes that I can't imagine would have been any different if the candidate had been standing for a fixed term. But I'm open to any suggestion that might make RFA a less unpleasant and dysfunctional place than it currently is. So, to everyone promoting this proposal, here's a simple question: can you give a single example of a time when you opposed an admin candidate, who, if they had been standing for a fixed term, you would have supported? Robofish (talk) 14:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It might help in that bad admins would lose the bit but it still, as I mentioned before, would not solve the underlying problem, which is that WIKI itself is the problem. That MUST get fixed first but I fear it's unfixable. PumpkinSky talk 15:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

There will always be some psychotic assholes around. But from what I've seen - and what common sense suggests - most of the Opposes and the crazy standards they set are simply due to the fact that the voters know that what's at stake is a lifetime appointment, with little or no possibility of correcting a mistaken 'support' vote. If we have term limits people will be willing to take a chance on someone who appears "good" but maybe not 99% "good" (say, 89%) because then, if it turns out otherwise, the damage will be limited only to the finite time of the term. So yes, the voters are a problem, but they are problem because of how the system is set up (i.e. with out fixed terms). Volunteer Marek  21:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

If the admin is not doing anything incorrectly, what is the problem with a lifetime appointment. Fixed terms will not solve the problem. We need to have a formal process any time there is a problematic admin. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 21:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ughhh! Ok, you're doing this again. Your argument is "if there is no problem then we don't need a solution. Hence the solution will not solve the problem". That just. doesn't. make. sense. Volunteer Marek  21:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

No, I am saying the proposed solution will cause more problems in the process of fixing one. We need a desysopping process, that is the problem this proposal seeks to address. The proposal argues that by having a formal desysopping process, candidates might have an easier time passing. This is indeed an accurate statement. With that said, making periodic mandatory reconfirmations just to make sure that particular admin hasn't gone bad isn't a viable solution. It should only be done if there is evidence presented suggesting that the admin has gone bad. Also, the proposed voting system isn't going to work for several reasons. Most notably, it will make the process a complete popularity vote and admins will therefore have to act like politicians in order to pass. It will also worsen the current problem of some users viewing adminship as a big deal and a position of authority. Adminship is neither, and it should be as easy to remove sysop as it is to remove any other user flag. If rollback is abused, it is removed after a discussion establishing the abuse. The same should be true for adminship. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 23:14, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, giving rational discussion with you one more shot, yes, a rigorous desysopping process would help things as well. In fact, in some way, a requirement of a re-election IS a rigorous desysopping process (presumably any other desysopping process wouldn't always necessarily result in a desyssoping). So they're really more or less the same thing. But with a an ad-hoc desysopping process you're always gonna have the person in question "fight to the death" and proclaim that their adminship will only be pried from "their dead cold hands" or what have you. On the other hand a fixed term regulation would make this sort of review routine and ... "no big deal".

As I mentioned above, it's sort of two different things. One is a sort of "impeachment" process which is what "de-sysoping" is right now. It only happens in cases of egregious abuse, but of course we should retain something like that. The other procedure though is just a run-of-the-mill reconfirmation through re-election that happens all the time in most positions of authority in the real world. Seriously, "term limits" (fixed terms) really should be the "no big deal" aspect here. Volunteer Marek  01:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Except adminship isn't and shouldn't be viewed as a position of authority. RfA is the formal process where the community determines whether or not the candidate can be trusted to perform routine maintenance. There is nothing prestigious about performing maintenance. As I have said above, abuse of admin tools should be as easy to deal with as abuse of rollback. Having rollback is no big deal. An admin makes sure the user understands policy, and then grants the request. With adminship, the user needs to be trusted to correctly use the tools. In the wrong hands, the tools could be abused, or they could be used to make a mess. With rollback, we only analyze the rollbacker if there is presented evidence of abuse. An admin doesn't go scrolling through the list of rollbackers looking for abuse. It would be an incredible waste of time the admin could be doing working on administrative tasks, or the main purpose we are all here, to build an encyclopedia. Similarly, if we entrusted the candidate enough to perform maintenance, we shouldn't need to be checking up on them periodically. Not only that, but considering the fact that we currently have 1,509 admins (not countin adminbots), if we wanted to run reconfirmations on all of them we would need to do an average of 30 a week. Considering that under the proposed voting system only the top 10 candidates can pass, we will always loose admins. With a cap limit on the number of passing candidates, Wikipedia will always be restricted to 120 admins. Even if we godfathered all the current administrators, we would still only be able to keep 120 non-godfathered admins around. If we set the term to 3 years, we would just increase the maximum number of non-godfathered admins to 360. The admin cap will hurt our ability to promote a user to an admin, and keep them as an admin. Even if the user is doing a great job. The popular, not necessarily the most qualified candidates will pass, and the rest won't. That coupled with the statistical difficulty of running 30 reconfirmations every week, along with the new candidate nominations. How could we possibly catch many abusive admins that way without catching a large number of the good ones in the process. The proposed voting system will not work. Reconfirming admins that haven't abused their tools is a waste of community time. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Except adminship isn't and shouldn't be viewed as a position of authority... There is nothing prestigious about performing maintenance. As I have said above, abuse of admin tools should be as easy to deal with as abuse of rollback. Having rollback is no big deal. - ok then make me ... no, actually, make Malleus, an admin in the next month or so. Otherwise quit talking what is patently nonsense. Volunteer Marek  04:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes fixed terms would make a difference - they'd lose us most of our admins. Almost every fixed term proposal seems to involve terms as short as three years, but with only 250 admins appointed in the last three years the vast majority of our 700 or so "active" admins have been admins for longer than three years. So to be practical any proposal for term limits has either to explain how it would get far more admins through RFA, or be accompanied by a proposal to radically lighten the admin workload. ϢereSpielChequers 02:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Again. There are fixed terms for US Senators. Yet, there are Senators in the US Senate. Hence, the idea that fixed terms "would lose us most of our admins" is just not true. This idea that term limits = no more admins, is a simple reflection of people completely unable to think beyond 'step 1' of a chain of thought. The fact that we have so few candidates for admins, the fact that RfA is such a nasty place and the lack of term limits are all RELATED to each other. Honestly. It's not that hard. You just have to think a little. I am having real trouble discerning whether this kind of obfuscation is some kind of bad-faithed self-serving bullshit, or genuine stupidity. Either way, it's not good. Volunteer Marek 

Belittling your opponent because they disagree with you does not engender one to support your viewpoint. As far as losing admins goes, I can speak only for myself, but I would not bother running in any kind of election or re-certification if you said my adminship were to expire. I am not particularly active with the admin tools, so you might state the loss is minimal, save for a slight increase in the backlogs at RFPP or AIV given I would no longer be able to deal with vandals as easily. RFA is a nasty place, and I doubt very much that adding a term limit would change that. Indeed, asking an editor to go through such a process on a semi-regular basis is an excellent way to reduce the number of people willing to serve in that capacity. You are right that the concepts are linked, but likely not in the way you anticipate. You need to fix the poisoned atmosphere at RFA before a term limit would become viable. Resolute 04:30, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The atmosphere at RfA will always be poisonous as long as there are no term limits. You're confusing cause and effect. Also, it's not like the idea of term limits has any practical chance of succeeding at this point. That doesn't mean we cannot point out how dysfunctional the situation is and how ... juvenile (to be charitable), the arguments for the status quo are. I might be willing to kiss some ass if it would make a difference. But it doesn't so I'll settle for the critic role. Volunteer Marek  04:38, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I am not confusing cause and effect, I merely disagree with your assessment. The situation at RFA exists regardless of whatever term you put on adminship. Resolute 04:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

And again, Wikipedia is a volunteer run organization. Administrators perform maintenance, they have no special authority. The US Senate makes laws, the senators have a paid salary. We would indeed still have admins. We just would never have more than 360 at one time. Given we are having trouble running Wikipedia with about 700 active admins, I don't see how 360 could handle it. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 04:23, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

US Senators are volunteers too. They get paid a measly salary which has nothing to do with why they run for office. So what? Somehow we have term limits on US Senators and - holy fucking shit, wonder of wonders! - we still have enough senators in the senate. Likewise we would have plenty of administrators if we had term limits. Where do you get this "360" number from? You made it up. Pulled that shit out of your ass. Which is a form of lying. If we had term limits, RfA would be a nicer place, we'd have more candidates willing to stand for RfA and the rate of acceptance would be much higher. These days, anyone with half a brain, or who is not an outright masochist declines a nomination. It really is not that hard to think this through. Just let go of these prejudices. Try actually thinking before writing stuff into your computer. Volunteer Marek  04:34, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

"If we had term limits, RfA would be a nicer place..." Given you just made that up, did you just out yourself as a liar? Resolute 04:45, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sigh, what is it with these "gotcha" games. No. I didn't just make it up. I offered an explanation for why this would happen. Ok. One more time. Pay attention because I'm getting tired of repeating myself to people who don't bother paying attention. Ok, here we go. You ready? You gonna read and think about it this time? You promise? Fine: IF there are term limits then in an RfA, by voting 'support' you won't be giving away a huge amount of power for life. Only for a limited amount of time. Hence, you might take a chance on somebody who seems only 'sort of good' rather than 100% good. Because if it turns out to be wrong, you can undo the mistake. So people will be willing to support more candidates and they will be nicer to them. Not that hard to follow is it? (Maybe it is, I dunno). Volunteer Marek  05:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You see, this is where you are going wrong. Everyone understands your assumption. I, for one, simply do not buy it. I do not think for a second that term limits would eliminate the poisonous atmosphere at RFA, and "because Volunteer Marek says so" is not a compelling argument. Resolute 05:49, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Have fun with the status quo. You deserve it. Volunteer Marek  06:00, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Marek, I have two requests of you:

1. Please stop referring to "term limits" when what you mean is "fixed terms", and
2. Kindly calm the fuck down, if it wouldn't be too much trouble. It accomplishes nothing to persistently belittle your fellow editors.

Thanks, and enjoy your debates! HuskyHuskie (talk) 06:08, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I... am perfectly calm here. Not sure what you are referring to. The term limits vs. fixed terms thing has already been explained. It also accomplishes nothing NOT to belittle them. Except that they deserve it. It's not like anything is going to come out of this either way. It's gonna be same ol' same ol' with more and more people giving up. Volunteer Marek  06:25, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The term limits vs. fixed terms thing has already been explained. I know; by myself and others. But the way you are writing does not appear to reflect this.

It's not like anything is going to come out of this either way. Then what is your purpose here? It certainly does not appear to be anything in good faith . . . I'm done here. HuskyHuskie (talk) 07:35, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Marek, the kind of dialogue you are conducting here is not entirely dissimilar to the style of voting that has poisoned RfA as a process. If that system were to be devoid of its customary invective and deceit, there would be a lot more users of the right calibre prepared to run for adminship, for whom no term limits or fixed terms would be necessary. Fix the voting, and the talk of fixed terms will fix itselfKudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Tweak to RfB

FYI since it's transcluded and I'm guessing most of you don't have it watchlisted, I tweaked the RFB intro here to reflect that 'crats can remove sysop rights. Cheers. Crazynas ^t 18:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Yet another proposal

After an afternoon of thought, I"ve written another proposal here based on the RFA process over at wikihow. Comments would be, well, fine. Buggie111 (talk) 01:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)