Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 195

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 190

←

Archive 193

→

Civility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know if this is really anything new - RFA's always been an unpleasant place - but it feels to me it's become ridiculously incivil recently. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Dr Dec was pretty ugly, and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Joe Chill featured the astounding comment 'Yet another nonsense, probably juvenile, self-nomination.' - on a request that was not even a self-nom. Why are admin candidates required to hold to a level of civility vastly higher than those of the voters themselves? The problem is compounded by the way some users love to add 'pile-on' opposes to RFAs that are already going down in flames. If an RFA is already failing at 25% or less, adding another highly critical Oppose is not going to help in any way - it's just kicking somebody when they're down. Robofish (talk) 00:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think that that's precisely the viewpoint that fuels these sorts of actions, Wehwalt. I mean, look at the point where it is; they are voting on a proposal that has far less controls than the one I offered above. While maintaining may of the same principles, an admin can ose the bit over a single bad day. Under proposal I submitted, your single bad day is seen in the context of three years.. True, it would be more of an intense experience for problematic admins, but at least they have a structured date. With this, an admin would always be looking over their shoulder. That causes wiki-stress. The sheer volume of feedback from the Body Wiki that this problem isn't going to go away anytime soon. If you consider the imposition of any community review of admin behavior to be wrong, you might want to consider the lesser of wrongs. I doubt things are going to stay the way. Change in this area is inevitable. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I know we spend a great deal of time discussing this kind of thing. However, I had a thought... just one. Really the only thought I had all weekend. But I digress... Most people only clue in to RfA when they intend to run a campaign for election/acclimation to the post of admin. I have to think that the majority of admins don't pay any attention to this page after they achieve victory here. Likewise, I have to think the bulk of the community doesn't even care. Has anyone ever run metrics on the number of editors and admins actually involved in the greatest majority of drama? Seems to me that you generally see the usual suspect of drama whore admins waging battle against a small corps of unhinged editors who have been denied adminship (or who have been stripped of the sword) simply because enough people realized said individuals were unhinged at a given moment in time.
I bring this up because I strongly of the belief that if we conducted all of our business here via polling, we would quickly be subject to hysterical screeching of an ignorant mob. Wait. A. Moment... A quick breeze through RfA, RfC, AfD, ArbCom, etc., demonstrates that we already are overrun by a hysterically screeching ignorant mob. Why, in hell, would we want to make things worse by inflicting a CDA on a small group of people charged with ensuring that 12 year olds in Russia are not refighting the Mongol invasion, or that 12 year olds in Japan are not fighting 35 year old soldiers in China over the ownership of small rocky islands. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:36, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I lost the reference there at the end, but I tend to agree with Hiberniantears' view of the CDA. It is an irregular and slapdash solution to a problem that is inevitably going to need a better solution than CD wold seem able to provide. We need to shed this 'us-versus-them' mentality; the longer it is allowed to permeate both the Body Wiki and the Body Admin, the more scrubbing its going to take to get the stench of it out.

Yes, RfA is a gauntlet. I submitted a proposal earlier on this page wherein all admins would serve a specific term (probably 2-3 years) before undergoing a reconfirmation RfA. Because most admins try to get far away from the omg-drama that RfA's usually represent, it has gotten worse, not better. If admins know they have to undergo this process periodically, they might be inclined to turn their attention and talents to reforming RfA's numerous failings. When they have a stake in it, the job is more likely to be done.

CDA is designed to punish admins who piss off editors, pure and simple. This is inequitable, as it targets those editors who make unpopular decisions, be they right or wrong. The lack of parity underlying the CDA is going to be corrosive to the quality of admin handling. As far as I can see, there are several options currently in the field seeking consensus for how to deal with admins who aren't giving them what they want. I think its fair to say that the idea of lifetime tenure is one swiftly moving past its prime. I would point out that my proposal (submitted above) is far more fair than the CDA is. One bad day isn't taken out of context and used to throttle an admin who might have made a single mistake.

The proposal I submitted suggests that every 2-3 years, admins reconfirm their RfA. At that point, they are presented with questions about admin actions taken since the last RfA, and they can be seen in their proper context and perspective. Unless they up and lose their minds (the Cremepuff matter immediately comes to mind, as well as a few others), their one bad day is seen amongst hundreds or thousands of good days. My proposal isn't out to "get" admins. It is there to reinforce the good habits of good admins (thereby setting a benchmark) and to help guide admins into being better admins. That the proposal would also weed out problematic admins is a given, but again, that isn't the point of the proposal I submitted.

And yes, I was shamelessly promoting my proposal; I happen to think its the better choice. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

The CdA proposal has enough safeguards and hoops to jump through that it shouldn't be required that often. Your mandatory 2-3 year reconfirmation on the other hand is going to necessitate the initiation of a procedure even for no apparent cause. Your proposal seems likely to be more of a distraction. Lambanog (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it wouldn't, Lambanog. The purpose of setting a finite term to admins, extendable via reconfirmation, serves at least four purposes:

It creates a resource by which all admins can receive feedback for their performance over the past three years of their term, as admin training has begun to fall to the wayside. All admins, being human, can always stand to receive feedback.
It sets by example benchmarks of what makes a good admin, allowing most admins practical examples of what sorts of examples to follow;
It also allows admins with problematic behavior to receive feedback on how to correct problems before they show up on ArbCom's radar. In extreme cases of problematic behavior, the admin would not achieve reconfirmation and thus lose the bit. Such serves as a benchmark of its own (as in, what not to do).
By making the reconfirmation RfA's mandatory to every admin, no one is singled out. Every admin goes through the process and learns.

By contrast, CdA's safeguards would actually exacerbate the 'us-versus-them' mentality that exists between many editors and admins. We aren't trained seals; we don't want to jump through hoops when an admin screws up. And I've read the proposal; the "safeguards" are at best arbitrary recommendations, and their application is depressingly open to vastly different sets of interpretations.

None of that exists within the proposal presented here. It is equal, fair and not subject to interpretation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Community input requested: WP:ADCO/RFC

I request community input on Wikipedia_talk:Admin_coaching/Requests_for_Coaching#.7B.7Bhistorical.7D.7D.3F > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 10:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Closing RfAs

I was wondering, after looking at the unsuccessful RfAs, if any sysop can close an RfA? I thought that only crats could close RfAs, but of the last 16 unsuccessful RfAs, only 3 were closed by crats, the rest by admins. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 00:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, anybody can close WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW RfAs. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't even have to be a sysop. Useight (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

But what would happen if a vandal with an account closed one as WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW, when it really should have been successful? Would it be re-opened? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 01:53, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Presumably yes, and it certainly should be. SNOW/NOTNOW RfAs can be reopened if the candidate disagrees (and should only be closed in those fashions in the first place when there is negligible possibility of success). The only exception is when there is an early final close by a bureaucrat, which is done primarily when the existence of the RFA is clearly counterproductive; I can think of only one candidate offhand that this has happened with regard to. I also don't see why malicious NOTNOW closing could not be dealt with in the same fashion as any other form of WP:DISRUPTION, including blocks if necessary. Pak aran 02:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that doesn't strike me as a particularly prominent issue. Just revert and block if it's obvious vandalism. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: term limits for administrators

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break

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

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

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

I had a few thoughts I think are on point:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Opposing this for the umpteenth time for the following reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's simply ridiculous. Since 2007 I and many others have spent our time doing dirty, nasty and annoying work. We've had to make tough judgement calls: sometimes (though not usually) we've got things wrong, and we've all certainly done things the wisdom of which did not become apparent til much later - certainly enough to ensure I and most others have made enough enemies to torpedo any reconfirmation RFA. And the proposed thanks for years of service in aid of WP:ENC? A reconfirmation RFA. Do you want the admins corps cut down by half, or something? Keeping basic backlogs clear right now is a struggle, even without initiating a mass cull. Moreschi (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
...and to take Moreschi's comments a step further: with mandatory reconfirmation RFAs, there will be fewer admins willing to make tough/unpopular decisions even if they happen to be the right ones. –xeno^talk 18:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I think cutting the admin corps down by half is an excellent idea. Who'd miss the 850 or so inactive ones, for a start. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
So are you proposing that admins who are inactive for X period of time automatically be desysopped? That would be a horse of a different color, to quote the Guardian of the Gates, and would likely win more approval. RGTraynor 20:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I wouldn't waste my time proposng anything, as it's clear that nothing changes here. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Haven't agreed with everything you've said through this thread, but this proposal actually looks better thought out than a lot of the ones I've seen. bibliomaniac 1 5 07:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alternative proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arbitrary break 4: comparison with other proposals currently being discussed

My understanding is that there is at least one other proposal currently in discussion (and gearing up for RfC) that could possibly affect admin abilities. Whereas this proposal suggests limiting admins to a term of 2-3 years before reconfirming them as an admin, the CDA suggests that a community De-sysoping of Admins "board" or set of protocols be set up to allow the community to vote on and possibly remove the bit from admins who sufficiently anger enough of the editorship. I was wondering if we could get some input further comparing the two proposals. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Great. I guess everyone is in favor of this proposal over the CDA. Silence is assent. ;) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with trying to push that through as consensus. ;) ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Lol, I was joking, Nihonjoe; just trying to ge tpeople to talk. There are currently 4 different proposals making their way through the wiki which seek to address admin conduct; mine is the least intrusive. If everyone fights them all, they might win in the short term, but the longer view is going to be the smarter move, as the belief that admin-for-life is swiftly becoming an outdated idea. I am open to suggestions, Joe. Tell me what the next step of this is. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it is outdated, in fact, Meta-wiki abandoned the reconfirmation model in favor of the inactive model, showing that there really is no movement in the WMF-universe towards a particular model. MBisanz ^talk 04:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, you aren't paying attention to the right models, then. Most of our sister projects hold elections for admis that serve a very specific period of time before they must run again, thereby facing community scrutiny. We are one of the few that do not, and one of the busier wikis. Pay attention to what I said, MBisanz: there are four increasingly strong proposals seeking to allow the community to desysop admins for wrongdoing. Each proposal has several proponents, and the same arguments appear to be made every time: too much work, that the proposers are gunning for some admin's head, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. These proposals keep coming up, and simply dismissing them as sour grapes or general nuttiness is, frankly, stupid. Unless something is done to address them, the proposals that call for de-sysoping are only going to get more numerous and harsh in their terms. Every time these proposals crop up, they call for harsher penalties. You think it's tough being an admin now? You think that my proposal weakens your ability to make the tough choices? Try making them when you can get demoted for simply having a bad day - a very real possibility with any of the other three proposals out there. This proposal protects admins while responding to a very real need to set some limits to admin authority.

Wake up and smell the coffee, man - the problem isn't going to go away, and the proposal presented here at least allows admins to avoid a lot of the vendetta nominations that every other proposal cannot adequately shield against. Let's say you make a phenomenally bad call on an issue, MB - I mean one that - with any one of these other proposals - would send you packing. With my proposal, you at least have the built-in cool-down period of three years. So unless you cock up phenomenally right before confirmation, chances are, your previous cock-up is seen as an aberration, and dealt with both calmly and civilly. It doesn't lessen the severity of the screw-up, but it allows cooler heads to discuss the matter. For the majority of admins, the proposal means that they gain community insight into situations where the admin handled everything right or better. Of course, this means that the admin has to believe that the community has any place offering them advice. If they cannot shed the 'us-versus-them' mentality, they will likely have the same sorts of problems over and over again. Eventually, it will cost them the bit.

With this proposal, admins aren't blind-sided by process; they know exactly when their reconfirmation date is, and can plan accordingly (like one would for RfA). They don't receive a notice that they are being called on the carpet by an angry mob screaming for blood, which can be a bit unsettling and cause for feeling defensive.

That every single admin goes through it means that no one is singled out. Admins get to learn what the best admins are doing right and adopt some of the lessons there. Since admin training appears to be one of the last of the fig leaves contending that admins should still be learning, and that fig leaf appears to be rotting on the vine, this proposal helps admins in that way as well.

This proposal isn't perfect, but its likely the best - judging from the increasingly punitive proposals circulating - that admins are going to receive from the wiki community. I submit that agreeing to this proposal is the best way to address the criticisms from without and within, and still give admins control over their mop. If you want it eventually taken away by a group of editors who get together to capitalize on a mistake you might make on a single bad day, then do nothing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Which projects are these again that do reconfirmation elections? Commons doesn't, Meta doesn't, Wikiversity doesn't, Wikisource doesn't, and MediaWiki doesn't either. I also already have my recall criteria that will send me packing for any major screw ups, regardless of what method is used otherwise. MBisanz ^talk 05:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you had read the previous discussions; you might want to revisit them. Our sister wikis like German, French, etc. all have standard elections for admins. As well, while your recall criteria are commendable, this is not - apparently it needs to be said again - about you, MBisanz. Not all admins submit themselves to recall, while others change or conveniently drop them altogether shortly after RfA. This proposal addresses not just you but all admins, recall criteria or not. This makes it fair for all admins. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So the solution to the problem of some admins not following recall and some admins not retaining community trust is to require all admins to go through reconfirmation? And fr.wiki use an inactivity standard for desysopping, using google translate I could not find a re-election page. De.wiki has some kind of reconfirmation status based on the way in which a user first passed RFA (if I'm reading the translation right). Which other wikis have reconfirmation again? That is one so far, compared to no reconfirmations that I am aware of at any of the dozen english language projects or multi-lingual projects. MBisanz ^talk 05:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but did you miss the part where other editors discussed the material? It's understandable, there is a lot of information. Tell you what, until the others chime in with more info (I am not a regular in other wiki projects). let's concentrate on the needs of this wiki.

As to your attempt at "reframing the question", no - this proposal does not seek to address the various flaws and failings of Recall. Those are an admin's choice to opt for, and since all are subjective and specific to the admin's own preferences, they cannot be applied with any single standard or - it has become clear - in any way enforceable. If every admin has to undergo reconfirmation, then those that wish to decline the right to be recalled as well as those open to the same are all governed equally by the same protocols.

MBisanz, if you are unclear as to what the proposal seeks to do, please take a moment and actually read it. Please do not ask folk to continuously repeat the same thing to you over and over. It's tedious and comes across as disingenuous. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I checked with a German editor about their process, they do it based on inactivity and a mandatory recall system. You still haven't shown me a single major WMF installation that uses reconfirmations based on time periods. AFAIK, every wiki uses admin for life, which some desysopping for inactivity and all desysopping for bad behavior. MBisanz ^talk 16:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said, others have pointed out that our sister wiki-x have set terms for admins, which flies in the face of your assertion that adminship is for life. Admins should not get to serve in the same way as popes. Periodic reconfirmation is necessary as evidenced by the steady increase in proposals to limit admin authority. As I have mentioned before, this is most fair and reasonable of the proposals. But hey - you want to leave your fate in the angry mob you are so worried about, just go ahead and nix every choice that comes the pike. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So, what is the next step for this proposal. It appears that those who are not in favor of it are pretty much not in favor of anything that threatens the admin-for-lifetime mindset of some; nothing this proposal suggests is going to make them happy. Those in favor of it think that the admins are squeeze out anything that they feel threatens their tenure. I'd like to hear from others what the next step is. RfC? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my crystal balling, but I can see the future, I see an extremely long RfC in a backwater archive with a "no consensus" tag on it.... What I'm saying is, proceed with an RfC if that's what it will take to stop this from clogging up the RFA talk page forever, but I wouldn't hold your breath in anticipation of a different result from this conversation. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Your crystal-balling is forgiven, Beeblebrox. Since the proposal doesn't actually threaten the adminship of any admin (whereas the other three gathering a head of steam actually seek to arbitrarily remove an admin for a single bad day), perhaps you could suggest a better way for this to be approached. While some of the positive feedback has been from admins, virtually all of the negative feedback (save for one) has been from an admin, so clearly, they see this (or any proposal) as a challenge/threat to their authority. I am listening, but it would be helpful if I could get feedback on how to help admins look at this proposal a lot less defensively. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes you have to concede the point that the difference in opinion is simply philosophical and that no amount of discussion is going to persuade your opponents to change their mind. Moving the discussion to an RfC will open it up to a wider audience - the folks who read this particular page do represent a relatively narrow subsection of the Wikipedia community as a whole (though it does happen to be the narrow subsection of the community most concerned with adminship issues). Those who are stridently opposed to any kind of term limits for administrators, however, will likely remain strident opponents regardless of the arguments presented to them. It's not a matter of being closed-minded, but some opinions are so deep-seated that they are unlikely to ever be overturned. Shereth 17:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I imagine good King George also felt the same way. Perhaps opening it to a wider audience is the best avenue; those rocks unlikely to be overturned are usually bulldozed away. It's a shame that it might come to that; this was by far the most giving of proposals for admins. They might not like the eventual alternative. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(outdent)Looking through much of the above discussion, one would have to say that much of it is people looking to generate more of a bureaucracy, address issues in a round-about way, and crack walnuts with anvils. One solution is being addressed but not for the specific problem, but more the implicit nature of how the weaknesses in a system are viewed. No evidence has been presented that a time in the role is the issue, rather than individual behaviour.

An administrator is a person with access to tools to perform administrative tasks. That is the role.
Opinion-makers and -leaders are people who are heavily involved in the project, make commentary, etc.

There is an intersection of the two groups, definitely, however, don't bind the two together as one when looking for problems or solutions.

To me there has been no demonstrated reason for an expiry date for use of administration tools. If someone is using the tools, and properly on a (sufficiently) regular basis, then it is not broken, and leave it alone.

If there are issues about administrators' use of the tools, then get a (functional and timely) process to deal with it. If one has concerns about administrators' behaviour, processes exist, and if they need to be beefed up, then beef them up.

(Note. The length and nature of the discussion is only going to interest opinion-makers, those of us who just quietly wish to use our tools to further the project can get so bored with the iterative commentary. … There is a high hurdle to get these things through on consensus, so making them easier to read, discuss and comprehend is more than perfunctionary, it is necessary. The above discussion fails that test. :-/) billinghurst sDrewth 00:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

RFBAG

I am currently standing for BAG membership. Your input is appreciated. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 02:52, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Input requested at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment

There is currently a request for amendment at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Request to amend prior case: Ryulong which, if passed, would resysop a user outside of WP:RFA. The Arbitration Committee is seeking community input on the matter, and encourages anyone with an opinion to comment on the request.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 17:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Collapsed thread

Extended content

I'm open to becoming an admin; I've admined a couple of sites and have been given the impression I do a rather good job of it, but I'm not prepared to stand around while complete strangers throw shit at me. You do something wrong months previous and that gets used as an excuse to tell you to fuck right off for trying. HalfShadow 20:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive my bluntness, but if you can't handle strangers being nasty to you, being an admin on this website may not be for you. The stress of RFA does serve a purpose, it shows how a user will act under pressure. We say it's a discussion, not a vote, but what it really is is a test. If you handle the criticism in a calm and mature manner it shows qualities to be looked for in an admin, because we have to take a lot of crap for doing our (unpaid) jobs. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

And I think the entire voting process should be open to other admins only; they're the ones you have to work with. In respect to adminship, their opinion means far more than Joe Whatshisface. HalfShadow 20:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are just about two of the most stupid things I've ever seen on this most pointless of all talk pages. RfA should be a hazing, and only those that have been so abused are allowed to haze others? Give me strength! --Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As always, if you have an idea for a better way to test how a user will respond under stress, I'd be more than willing to hear all about it. This is why RFA never changes, because we have plenty of folks who like to talk about what's wrong with it, but nobody ever has a better idea. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Your question only makes sense against the background of no effective desysoping process, but I'll give you one example anyway. There are some editors who spend their time working on articles instead of gazing at their navels, and some of them even work in contentious areas like Irish Republicanism, currently subject to an ArbCom imposed 1RR restriction. Try hanging around there for a while to see how someone reacts under pressure. RfA is by-and-large just childish name calling by comparison. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Halfshadow, you insult the entire non-admin population of Wikipedia and we're the one with the problem? It may be time for a little self analysis.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Simply put, I can't insult you; you don't exist to me. To me, you're just a potentially helpful sub-program until I decide I have a reason to assume you're 'alive'. HalfShadow 21:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't run for adminship on en.wikipedia any time soon HalfShadow; You've blown it for at least six months to a year I would think. Pedro : Chat 21:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I wonder then if you're in the right place.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, you assume I care. I wouldn't waste my time: the noise to data ratio makes this a pointless endeavor. HalfShadow 21:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Certainly your own endeavours are pointless, I agree. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Then it may or may not please you to know, Malleus, that I will probably never consider you a person, much less useful, potentially or otherwise. HalfShadow 21:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, complex stuff I appreciate, but one "assumed you cared" when you offered to put yourself forward around an hour ago. Clearly in the last 60 minutes things have changed. Pedro : Chat 21:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I said no such thing. I said 'I would but...' I fear it may be some time before you leave the the definition of 'potentially useful subprogram'. HalfShadow 21:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) *... and it may be even longer before you understand it. :-) --Malleus Fatuorum 21:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

HS, I have an idea. How about contributing to the encyclopedia in a constructive manner instead of acting like a belligerent troll. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure this sub-part of this thread is making progess. I've just warned HS (although he/she seems to be under a surreal impression I can't block them) [1] that this is trolling. I suggest we drop this part of the discussion that has derailed the true thrust of the thread. Pedro : Chat 21:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

By strict definition, you can't. As an 'involved admin' you aren't allowed to. HalfShadow 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
- You might want to consider rereading WP:UNINVOLVED. "Admins are not considered to be 'involved' with a given user if the only interaction has been to warn that user against further actions which are against policy, community norms, or..." NW (Talk) 21:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ignoring the fact that this is irrelevant to this thread, I'm not an "involved admin" and your bizarre misinterpretation of any form of "strict definition" around WP is exactly why you should not be an admin. Now do as Wisdom suggests, stop derailing this thread with your crap and either add value here or better edit somewhere where you can. Continued dispariging remarks and general POINTy behaviour will result in a block. I'd rather that did not happen. Pedro : Chat 22:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/J04n 2

Are Coldplay Expert (talk · contribs)'s first two questions really appropriate? As there is no black or white answer and someone may oppose because J04n's opinion may differ to theirs. —Aaroncrick (talk) 03:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

People can find fault in any answer. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I assess answers to policy questions like this on the basis of "how well-reasoned is the candidate's answer?" rather than "did the candidate give the answer that I agree with?" I haven't seen too many opposes recently based solely on answers to these questions.--Mkativerata (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those questions are fine. I tend to look at them in a similar fashion as does Mkativerata. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have been surprised if there were no questions in that vein, and I think it was/is fair game. J04n(talk page) 14:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Adminbot BRFA: 7SeriesBOT to put the "speedy" into CSD-G7

It is proposed that Bwilkins (talk · contribs) operate an Admin-bot that deletes strictly-complying pages tagged with [[WP:CSD-G7]|]. All other CSD-G7 tagged pages are ignored.

Any entry in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion by user is checked for simple compliance with CSD-G7: a single contributor page containing {{db-g7}}, {{db-self}}, {{db-author}} or {{db-blanked}}. Complying pages are deleted. Checks against the category are run every 30 seconds.

CSD-G7 allows for pages other than those with a single contributor to be deleted (no substantial contributions from others), but that requires judgment and so the bot will only delete those with a single contributor.

For the related discussion, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/7SeriesBOT. Josh Parris 12:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(Copied verbatim from WP:AN. Any discussion should be held at the above noted BRFA link –xeno^talk 13:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

BAG membership request

I have been nominated for Bot Approvals Group membership by MBisanz, and I am posting a notification here as encouraged by the bot policy. If you have time, please comment at Wikipedia:Bot Approvals Group/nominations/The Earwig. Thanks, — The Earwig @ 03:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Require Committed Identity for all Admins

Well, in light of the recent compromise of my own account and associated drama, I would like to suggest that we require all administrators to add a Wikipedia:Committed identity to their user pages as a condition of RfA. Thus, at the very least, an admin with a compromised account would be able to prove that he/she is the same person who passed RfA. Creating a committed identity only takes a minute, and I think it has the potential to really increase security. Cool three (talk) 15:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me, I imagine a lot already do. No need to force the issue though, maybe just leave a note on the talk pages of admins who don't suggesting they do so--Jac16888 ^Talk 15:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, true, there's no need to be overly forceful about it. I don't know if it's necessarily an idea everyone would agree with, but what if someone with some bot savvy could create a bot to find all admins who don't have a committed identity and then leave a pleasant note on their talk pages asking them to create one? Cool three (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There are other ways to make sure an admin could be identified in the event of losing control of their accounts. For example, I have been to a number of meetups and there are plenty of users in good standing who could identify me. Recently, a user claiming to be an admin who could no longer access his account was identified by means of an image of himself that he had previously uploaded to the project, which (though it had been deleted) could be compared to a current picture of him. Certainly it would be wise for admins to make sure that there is some way that someone in good standing could identify them if they lost access to their Wikipedia account, email accounts etc. WJBscribe (talk) 15:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. For example, I've uploaded a lot of images to commons, taken using my camera. I would simply take another image, upload it or email it, and the metadata, which contains the serial number of the camera, could be compared. Several editors know my email address as well.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Of the 886 admins on WP:LOAA, 111 have {{User committed identity}} transcluded on their base user page. 775 don't. (Some may have it somewhere deeper in their subspace, mind-you.) –xeno^talk 16:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm number 737 on that list. Useight (talk) 16:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a committed identity, yet I don't have the template. This is not uncommon. (X! · talk) · @793 · 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure you do =) Your point is taken, however. 11 users removed from the list [2]. –xeno^talk 18:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I was looking at the page yesterday. I need to sit down with it and make sure I understand all the implications, then come up with a string that I will have no trouble remembering and that anyone else would be unlikely to know or deduce.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned this on Cool three's RfA because i went looking through everything i could think of to find some other means of verifying identity and i didn't see any. Olaf Davis then made it Q7 on Cool three's RfA. Metadata would be good too, if you upload your own pictures to Commons. Being real life friends with a bureaucrat who lives two streets over would be another option. Just yesterday i posted a note on my website to show User:Soap that it was my domain. It was meant as a joke but could be used as identity confirmation too. Having some means readily available to confirm the identities of users with advanced permissions is a good thing. It doesn't happen often but Cool three is the latest example of why you should have something. Please forgive him his zealousness at this time. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 16:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

@Wehwalt - it should be something personal enough that only you know, but also something you wouldn't mind telling a functionary to confirm its you. –xeno^talk 16:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Meetups work for me. - Dank (push to talk) 16:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm one of the 775 admins who hasn't used the committed identity route. As a regular at the London meetups, and an occasional skyper I would hope that several editors would vouch for me if my identity was compromised, and I recently changed my password to one that is about as long as I can trust myself to remember. I prefer a non password based backup system over the committed identity route as I don't know enough about the technology to understand how one could have one's password cracked but be sure that their committed identity was still secure. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I've only been to one meetup, and have only met Nihonjoe. I don't think that method would work out for me. I figure having control of User:Useight's Public Sock and User:Us8 are decent failsafes. Useight (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

While I'm no expert, I suspect the time, resources, and effort, required to crack a SHA encrypted passphrase would greatly outweight the negligible benefit obtained from having an admin account for an undetermined amount of time. The committed identity route is really a fairly straightforward way to provide a check and balance to your account. –xeno^talk 16:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In addition, theres not really any restriction on your choice of word you hash, its recommended you use your name, but thats only so you remember it I imagine. As long as its something unique you can remember, theres nothing to stop you using the name of your next door neighbour's, great aunt's, 3rd black cat--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

So basically what we're getting from this is that all admins should have a way of verifying who they are in case of a compromised account, but the method can be a variety of things, a Hash, legit socks (that use a different password I would hope), photo metadata, offwiki contact etc. Anyone got any ideas how to make sure they all do?--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha, yeah, my alternate accounts use passwords different from this one's. Useight (talk) 16:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, "make sure" is a problem as it is difficult to "make" a admin do anything. Also note that we have a number of admins who have not edited in a while. You'll never get 100 percent. I am fine with the idea of dropping a note to the talk pages of admins saying "this is a good idea. Please consider it" and also making it a question at RFA (as in, you do it or I oppose).--Wehwalt (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't think we should make it a requirement as such. While it's annoying for the individual if their account is cracked, it's not likely to be a serious loss to the project as a whole, so if an admin didn't want to created a committed identity, we shouldn't force them to. Also, it may be a bit of a waste to notify all our current admins, since most of them are inactive. But maybe it would be an idea to place it on the how-to create an RfA page instead of having a bot? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Make sure" was a poor choice of words there, I simply mean to make other admins aware of verification options. As a start I dropped a note on AN--Jac16888 ^Talk 16:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If people want multiple ways to prove their identity in case they need to recover their account then two other possible methods are:

Q&A based software where you save some questions and their answers on a server and if you need to verify your identity and recover/reset the password you need to know the answers.
A second saved email for password recovery. Currently I use a Gmail account for Wikipedia, but I also have a work account that I could recover by talking to my real life colleagues in IT. I wouldn't want to use my real life work account for ordinary Wikipedia Email, but I would happily save it on a secure server for password recovery purposes.

The more methods we offer the safer the site will be, and remember it isn't just admins, there are plenty of other editors who might want a secure way to recover a compromised account. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea, but it should not be restricted to a committed identity. For example, anyone who is identified to the foundation for whatever reason (CU, etc.) should be safe--just call Cary. Anyone who has a GPG key which relates the account with an e-mail address and is signed by other users should be able to use signed/encrypted e-mail to verify their ID. Anyone who already has a Thawte or Verisign ID attached to their wikipedia account should be able to use it. Lastly, what about anyone whose real-life ID is known by one (or more) other users who themselves are trustworthy, should they be be allowed to confirm their identity through real-life friends or colleagues whom they have met at, let's say a wikimeetup or a wikimania? -- Avi (talk) 17:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Some good ideas there. I was 200 on the first list of Admins without a committed identity. I've added one now. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. Added mine as well (thanks Dougweller!).--RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 19:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree that admins should be strongly encouraged to have a committed identity. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Encouraged, yes, have it suggested to them, sure, but required? Definitely not. I don't have a committed identity hash (and definitely don't want one), but there are several trusted users here that can confirm my identity via email, telephone, facebook, in person, etc, so it's not something I worry about. And it isn't necessarily the sort of thing you want to tell everyone at your RfA, for whatever reason, or on your user page. Forcing people to admit to off-wiki associations is a big no-no. And if I say to that RfA question, that yes, I can confirm my identity if the need arises, do I have to say how, or who can verify it? That's creeping way too much into personal territory, beyond what's acceptable for a website staffed by volunteers, many of whom are interested in anonymity. Sorry if this comes across as a rant, it's not meant to. I'm just concerned by something of a police mentality here, with something that is essentially a private matter. I do, of course, appreciate the motivation behind it, which is fine, but any ideas about enforcement or pressure are taking it too far. Maedin\^talk 19:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about forcing the issue, and there would be no need to identify who can identify you. The point of this is just to try and brainstorm some ideas that people can use and encouraged them to do so. You have a way of confirming who you are, that all that matters--Jac16888 ^Talk 19:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, no one is forced to do anything, but having a way to have yourself identified, in emergencies, may be helpful. -- Avi (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) I apologise if I misunderstood, but there are several above comments (particularly in the earlier part of the discussion) that imply the compliance is a desired requirement. The heading, for a start, and the concerning comment "you do it, or I oppose". Again, I know not everyone is looking at it that way, but I wanted to check it before it headed into enforcement territory, :-) Maedin\^talk 19:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Curious - Maedin - what is your seeming apprehension to setting up a {{User committed identity}} ? –xeno^talk 19:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Because I know that I will never remember what the string is, which means I will have to write it down somewhere, which means that (knowing me) I will lose the bit of paper, or forget where I've saved it on my computer (or accidentally delete it). It would be a bugger to rely on the string and then realise you can't find it or remember it. And if my account is compromised because, say, my laptop is stolen, et voilà! Hacker has my committed identity string and my account. Of course, I can come up with these objections because I know I have other ways of proving my identity, so I'm being picky, I know, :-) Maedin\^talk 19:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, just curious. Funny you mention it, we recently had an admin who was trying to regain his ops under a new identity also couldn't remember their committed identity. =) –xeno^talk 19:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree also. I also think that all registered users who are contributors (like myself, as opposed to most of the ACC-created accounts that I have created which have yet to make a single edit!) should be encouraged to do so as well. I have had a committed ID since last July, as I found about it then, and felt that it was a good idea. I don't think it should be a mandatory thing for admins, but certainly it is worth encouraging them to have one. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with some of what Maedin says. The identity commitment on my userpage? No idea what the string is. Probably should change that. Tan | 39 19:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are who you say you are! <shifty eyes> –xeno^talk 20:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I could swear and be curt with you, if that would do the trick. Tan | 39 20:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You could just use your full name, (including middle names). Alternatively you could make it like a security question, you could even have the question on your userpage with the hash.--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering the amount of personal data that is collected on administrators, seemingly without their consent (google Wikipedia Hive Mind if you don't know what I'm referring to), I'd strongly suggest that any committed identity consisting mostly of name, address, email, or telephone number isn't such a good idea, :) Maedin\^talk 20:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A lot of those so-called "outings" those people do are bullshit, for some they just make it up, others they're revealing stuff like that User:User:Jimbo Wales is called <name redacted WP:Outing>. But if that is a issue for you, don't use your name. Have you ever told anyone on the internet the name of the neighbours cat which ate your first hamster? I'm sure you'd remember it but no one else would--Jac16888 ^Talk 20:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)