Wikipedia:Adminship poll

It's the time of the year again! Opinions regarding adminship held by a variety of people might have changed, and perennial discussions about adminship or the related procedures are talked about more often than ever. New procedures and revisions (or lack thereof) have been made to policies governing UserRights. This survey seeks to find out if a substantial majority of editors believes that certain changes (or not) should be made to our procedure or precedent. This is in line with the belief that consensus may change over time.

This is NOT a policy proposal, neither should it be treated as pure voting, or/and in any way binding. This is a gauge of public sentiment. However, if public sentiment is that a certain policy would be beneficial, effort can be made towards creating a policy proposal. While some people consider voting to be evil, measuring public opinion is not. If a public opinion is obvious, people may want to take it into account for their future actions or judgments.

All editors may participate, and are strongly encouraged to explain their rationale behind their opinions whenever possible, to allow for a full discussion and diversity of voices. - Mailer Diablo 18:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Previous surveys : 2004 (informal), 2006, 2007

Requests for Adminship (RfA)

Are bureaucrat chats working?

Last year, several controversies were escalated and the Requests for Adminship (RfA) process put under intense scrutiny as some editors were promoted under disagreements (even amongst crats) on what constitutes a consensus. Has the introduction and the use of bureaucrat chat effective in determining consensus, and henceforth the long term solution to making RfA work and less controversial?

Yes

1. I think that they are a Good Thing for potentially contentious closes. - jc37 20:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. I certainly think they have been quite well used for controversial closes, at least in the cases I have seen. For that matter, does anyone have a list of occasions a 'crat chat was used? I much prefer a public discussion between 'crats to the private channel discussion that would probably be the alternative. That said, the question is poorly worded, and to attempt to judge them as "the long term solution to making RfA work and less controversial" is just silly. the wub "?!" 21:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. These chats occur in situations where tempers are flared after contentious RFAs. There's a mistaken belief that the chats are part of the problem. No. The RFAs in which they occur are already nasty affairs. Mistaken correlation to believe there's something wrong with the crat chats. --JayHenry (talk) 22:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
4. I personally like seeing the way the crats reach their decisions on contentious RFAs, and think it would be nice to see them more often. They're certainly not pointless - how can anything that's more transparent and public than what might otherwise be the case be pointless? Tony Fox (arf!) 23:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
5. I think they are helpful on tricky situations. The calibre of the participants (by virtue of teh prerequisites to become one) is such that the chats appear to be quite productive really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Even though they made a wrong decision, its still a workable thing that I think is good. MBisanz ^talk 01:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Andre (talk) 05:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Yes, by and large. They provide enough tug and counter-tug that explosion are largely being avoided. Splash - tk 12:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
10. hmwithτ 12:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
11. Anything that brings transparency to RFAs that could be potentially volatile is probably a good thing. If the deliberations were held in private, I think we'd see much more irritation around the outcomes. - Philippe 16:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
12. Rudget 16:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
13. It's better than a private chat, but there are other ways RFA could be improved to address this. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
14. Yes they make the decision process more open to the public and allow people to see the bureaucrat's reasoning. James086^{Talk | Email} 00:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No

1. I'd say its about 50% effective, which is about as good as a bureaucrat flipping a coin. Mr.Z-man 19:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Pointless. -- Naerii 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. They're a good idea, but in practice most chats contain disagreements among the bureaucrats, and their discussion needs consensus interpretation, which defeats the purpose. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
4. No, an individual bureaucrat should be trusted to make the decision. If they mess up, request for comment is that way. EJF (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Per EJF—a crat should take the lead. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
6. No. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 03:17, April 21, 2008
7. Since it's a vote, there's no need. Majorly (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Per Z-man. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Other

1. They're good on paper, and they do work sometimes. There are other times that they don't and it ends up seeming lik ea waste of time. Wizardman 20:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. I don't understand the question. I don't really understand the 'crat role in admin recruitment, selection and "bit setting". Dan Beale-Cocks 20:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   Bureaucrats don't have anything to do with recruitment or selection. They simply assess the discussions at RFA when they have reached their end time, and decide if granting adminship is justified. Then they make a few clicks in the software, and the user has all the rights of an admin. the wub "?!" 21:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

3. With the wording of this question, I would say no, but I think that when it comes to actually deciding to promote someone, they do work. bibliomaniac15 20:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
4. I'd say sometimes. In theory, they make perfect sense: One 'crat can't make heads or tails of a discussion, so s/he asks other 'crats to give input. Unfortunately, this often leads to long, protracted discussions with little satisfaction in the community, such as Danny's RfA. On the other hand, it has produced satisfactory results. If this were asking "should the practice continue", I would say that it should, with more discretion than shown now. Don't we pick 'crats for their judgment? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
5. I have to agree with those above me. They are useful, and it is better to have them than to not have them but at the same time they are not the ultimate solution. SorryGuy  Talk  23:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
6. It's better to have bureaucrats evaluate RfAs, to minimize the impact of gaming and other disruption. However, I'd prefer that in highly controversial cases (not just votes in the 70-75% range, but issues that are truly divisive), they respect the weight of the controversy, and close as "no consensus". Bureaucrats are there to evaluate consensus, not act as tie-breakers, and I'd say divisive issues are by definition "no consensus".--Father Goose (talk) 02:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
7. I see a slowly improving degree of consistency incontestable instances. I'd hope for considerably more, but it is a slight improvement so far. DGG (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
8. I am not opposed to the idea, but I think they need to take the consensus, rather than their personal opinions, more strongly into account. The bureaucrat chat at the Danny RfA was a total failure, with one of the participants completely overlooking that several opposers had serious trust issues. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Ideally, it would have been a good thing. In reality, some of the chats are only a small part of the discussions that happen off line just as they did. Thus, the board creates an illusion of openness which may actually be worse than when the secrecy being an admitted mode of this. --Irpen 22:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
10. They would work if RfA was not a vote. RfA is a vote. — Werdna talk 02:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
11. I am not opposed to the idea either, though I agree that they have not solved all controversy relating to bureaucrats decisions on closures of RFA/B's, especially over Danny's. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Requests for Adminship the best process for granting of sysop rights?

Hence or otherwise on the first question, do you think that Requests for Adminship is currently the best process for granting of sysop rights? Or is there a better process you may wish to suggest?

Yes

1. Requests for adminship is the worst process, except for all the others. Grandmasterka 19:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. -- Naerii 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. But the optional questions are getting ridiculous. J Milburn (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
4. I agree with Grandmasterka. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Not sure of another thing that would work. Wizardman 20:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
6. It could probably use some tweaking, though. (An adaptable process, it is.) - jc37 20:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
7. The lesser of a bajillion evils. bibliomaniac15 20:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
8. There's a better method out there, but we haven't found it yet. Captain panda 20:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
9. per Grandmasterka; while many of the requirements voters at RFA put upon candidates are onerous and unnecessary, I doubt that a better workable system could be devised. --Wikiacc (¶) 20:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
10. "The hardest part of being a wizard is not using magic. Any sod can not use magic when they don't know how, but to have the ability and not use it, that takes some skill" (or something like that, from Terry Pratchett). We're not appointing people who will use the tools properly, we're looking for people who won't use the tools improperly, and RfA is the least awful way of finding those people. Happy‑melon 21:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
11. I don't actually think the process is particularly flawed. It is the attitudes to it that seem to have been bred both at RfA and across the encyclopedia that bother me. RfA should not be a big deal. the wub "?!" 21:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
12. Per Grandmasterka - plus familiarity may breed contempt, but ignorance is worse. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
13. The system itself is not the problem, and at least a single user can't overwhelm an RFA, the way an aggressive user can overwhelm many of our other processes and discussions. --JayHenry (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
14. The least of all evils when it comes to sysop promotion, yet still evil (and yet somehow workable). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 23:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
15. It may not be optimal, but it does seem to be better than the alternatives. No matter what, users will perceive the process to be about trust, loyalty, and respect and no matter how you change the process when these ideals are at sake, controversy will occur. RfA may not be prefect, but it seems to work most of the time, even if not in a manner as comfortable as we would all like. SorryGuy  Talk  23:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
16. The most pragmatic solution, and if anything better than one year ago. There does appear to be more of a focus now on what the person can contribute, rather than a candidate merely staying out of trouble for a few months and passing, which I do recall as a criticism some time ago. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
17. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
18. Yes, however we need to make optional questions relate to the adminship candidacy. Pointless questions that are asked to be funny or just stupid are clogging things up. RfA is serious, because admins can seriously screw things up if we appoint the wrong people. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
19. Yes, though we do need to revise both the standard questions the the sort of optional questions permitted. Looking at it from different people's perspectives, I think most of us would think it works right about 80% of the time, which is remarkably good for personnel decisions. (about 10 % of the promotions are a mistake, about 10% of people rejected should have been promoted) I wish any of the other organizations or political bodies I've been associated with had been able to come near this record. DGG (talk) 05:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
20. Although my personal experience with the current process has been mixed, I think the flaws in the process are ultimately minor, not fundamental. RfA as we know it essentially works and we'll probably never be able to come up with anything better. Changes I support are making the threshold lower (60 or 65%), setting it at a definite number, and introducing a community desysopping process. Everyking (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
21. Noone has so far found a better one despite a squidgazuperillon proposals. We might alternatively say that it is the worse possible system — apart from all the others. Every process is going to have phases where it works less well and more well. Splash - tk 12:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
22. I wrote on an RFC on the RFA system that no process is better than the community which uses it, and I continue to maintain that. Problems with RFA are not inherent in the process, which is working alright. I made one proposal to scrap the segregated "support" and "oppose" sections, but after a single trial run, this was not adopted since it became to messy. I have not yet seen any proposal for major reform in our admin selection process which is better than the current. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
23. There may be problems with it, but I feel that it remains the best process, in theory. hmwithτ 13:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
24. Yes, but we still rely too much on numbers and percentages. The open scrutiny is a double-edged blade which works, most of the time. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
25. Yes, but it needs improvement. Mainly getting rid of the questions that have nothing to do with adminship such as 'Who's your favourite band?'. I fail to see the relevance. If an idea to replace RfA actually makes sense, then I will investigate. ><RichardΩ612 15:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
26. per Grandmasterka Dlohcierekim 15:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
27. While like any idea it can be improved upon, it is currently the best system available and I think the community is doing a fine job selecting its administrators. None of the alternative proposals I have seen have convinced me they would be an improvement. _(1 == 2)^Until 15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
28. Nothing better exists that is viable (yet). Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
29. Absolutely. iMatthew 2008 16:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
30. Yes, it works fine. Nobody has been able to suggest anything better. Well, anything better that is feasible. Sure, we could all fly to their hometown, meet at a donut shop and get to know them personally, but until airfare is free, RFA will have to do. Useight (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
31. It's public, (mostly) transparent, and allows wide input. Until a better system is found, this is the best choice. KrakatoaKatie 22:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
32. RFA does have many flaws, but I'm afraid the process itself cannot be made better, since all of the flaws in the process are caused by the people involved in the process, not the process itself. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 22:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
33. Most definitely. Malinaccier (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
34. The process is probably as good as it's going to get; the people and culture have to change. Singularity 03:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
35. Per Grandmasterka. Should be more of a vote though, because despite all the bellowing about Wikipedia being a consensus-based system, it doesn't work that way. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
36. The current process has many flaws with it definitely, how people use it is a big issue due to its openness - but that may also be its biggest strength. The current process also is the most close on having consensus to exist, and until a better process is found, it will have to do. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
37. The process is pretty good. It's the people using the process who set the high standards and ask too many questions. James086^{Talk | Email} 00:33, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
38. I think so. There are flaws, yes, but a request for adminship draws users who are specifically familiar with the user to join the discussion. If a bureaucrat granted adminship like rollback, s/he could miss something that User:Johndoe specifically remembers. All contributions can't be analysed at RfA, so it's partly aimed at those who have had dealings with the candidate. PeterSymonds | talk 18:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
39. Yes. RfA is a good method for evaluating a potential admin. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No

1. Last I checked it was still a popularity contest where the least controversial people won, with the explosion of optional questions, its actually gotten worse. Mr.Z-man 20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. That said, I don't know of a better system at the moment (oppose Rollback style). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
3. It's too hard to get adminhood, and too hard to lose it once gotten. I think the latter causes the former; since it's almost impossible to revoke adminhood even when the admin is acting like a dick, we're far too reluctant to award it in the first place.--Father Goose (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
4. No, it's not the best process. But it does the job. Andre (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Per Andrevan. A system that looks bad on paper but is okay on experience. Can't think of a better alternative, however. Rudget 16:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Limit alternative questions to direct clarification on specific past actions by the nom, and to topics specifically concerning use of the tools. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Absolutely not, as Mr.Z-man notes, it's still a popularity contest by and large (with good faith seemingly shoved out the nearest window). User rights should be given out in a manner similar to rollback; let editors request them one at a time in a short discussion (obviously the more damaging rights should be a little more scrutiny, but not so much that it's a "big deal"), letting them move up and try out rollback -> protection -> deletion -> blocking. In this way, trust can be established over time, and the user can gain confidence in their ability to correctly use the tools. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Per Mr.Z-man. Nakon 01:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Yes, as above. — Werdna talk 02:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Not bitter, but, it can be a popularity contest. Pile ons are rampant (both support and oppose) without giving proper due diligence. Can be a fishing expedition. Is there an alternative that's better? Err, no. Oh, and the the number of optional questions is beyond ridiculous. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

    I agree about the questions, considering I had 29 questions in my last RFA :p Gary King (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

11. It amazes me how apparently only mainspace article-building edits count towards experience on the project, as well the number of support votes based on the number of featured articles a particular candidate has contributed to. While I agree that some article contributions are necessary to fully understand the project, I can't stand how candidates who have a solid history of vandal-fighting or maintenance, administrative,or backlog oriented tasks are passed over for adminship solely on the basis of a lower mainspace edit count. It also amazes me how a single controversial incident that happened months or years before an RFA or a single disgruntled contributor's comments can stop an otherwise highly qualified candidate from becoming sysoped. On the other hand, I'm not sure there really is an alternative to the current RFA process, in theory it should work if the community are open minded and look at candidates objectively based on their strengths and whether they can be trusted with and have the motivation to use the tools. I'm sorry if this is sounding like a rant, but adminship is not supposed to be a big deal. RFA will only fully work when the community stops treating it like a popularity contest and assumes good faith. If an admin makes a mistake, it can be reverted, if an admin commits a blatantly bad faith action, they should be warned first and eventually desysoped/ blocked, just like ordinary users are. The community really needs to stop the "admin can do no wrong" attitude. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
12. Wow, what a surprise that I'm here. But MrZMan and Mr Senseless sum it up nicely. 21655 ^{ταλκ/01ҁ} 15:20, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
13. I wasn't expecting to put mine here but I 100% agree with Mr Senseless. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 08:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
14. An apprentice program like Wikiversity would be better. Zginder 2008-06-03T14:59Z (UTC)
15. Popularity contest, if you dont have the right friends you dont get in (or at least its a lot harder). Whats worse, its a game thats played well, too well. Those seeking adminship seem to lose track of independant thought in their conquest for approval. Oh and another thing, there is too much incivility, RfA is not a "get out of jail free" card for nasty, bitter, hormonal criticism. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 06:29, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Other

1. A) Enable rights to be granted or revoked on individual articles or classes of articles, or with respect to individual editors. A1) An WP:MENTOR should be able to block and unblock his protégé, for example. A2) Long-term members of WikiProjects should be able to apply for and, unless there is an objection, routinely receive admin rights to block individuals from editing articles associated with that project. I realize this will require code changes but it's something we can look at in the coming year. B) Full administratorship, which includes access to administrator mailing lists, administrator IRC channels, and global blocking, should be limited to accounts with at least a certain number of edits, a certain length of tenure, and should expire after a certain period of time, say, 2 or 3 years, with a waiting period before asking for those privileges back. Such retired administrators can continue to have courtesy access to the tools, particularly article-delete and user block/unblock. Not having perpetual access to discussion forums prevents cabals from forming. Yes, I know TINC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidwr (talk • contribs) 20:10, 20 April 2008
2. To be honest, I'm neutral, although Majorly's suggestion sounds good. ...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 20:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. I've only been involved in few RfAs. It seems like a lousy process. People with years of no controversy and very many good edits get turned down, because "they don't get involved in admin type stuff". And then some nongs, who don't have great edits _and_ don't really understand policy get the bit, because they've hung around the right bits of WP. Dan Beale-Cocks 20:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
4. It needs a polish. Right now, it is a challenging field for anyone who's going for their first RFA; I hemmed and hawed for ages before someone nominated me, and I suspect a lot of other folks feel similarly. The tendency for piling-on when someone who's dared to cross another editor that happens to have a few friends is pretty ugly as well. Something needs to be adjusted. Having said that, I'm not sure what to do about it. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
5. What Tony Fox said. What I hate is seeing a pile-on of support, followed by a pile-on of oppose — that happened to me on four of my five RfAs; I plummeted from 80% to 50% in a matter of days. Something needs to be fixed, I dunno what tho. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
6. I don't hang around there much. I'm not thrilled with the system (seems like 1 part student body elections and 1 part Room 101 to me), but no other proposals ever gain traction. shoy 03:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Change something, we're a wiki after all. Dorftrottel (talk) 03:27, April 21, 2008
8. It can be tougher for those who have been around a long time; some newer people probably get through too easily, whilst older ones get heavy flak. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Would be with stricter suffrage requirement, reasonable community desysopping in place (would make those on the fence less hesitant to support), and mandatory sabbaticals for admins to return to regular editing in main space to prevent them from loosing touch. Other than that, there is no better way to gauge the community's opinion on such issues than the survey. --Irpen 22:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
10. RFA is the right way to do this, but you are just doing it wrong. There are plenty of people who are trying to fix RFA, so I will leave changing Wikipedia to the Wikipedians. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
11. RFA in the abstract sense is good. I just hate to see the negativity. I would love more focus on encouragement and perhaps a stronger attention to the fact that all Wikipedians are volunteers and in that regard, I would like to see more support for whomever is seeking additional responsibility (i.e. it's not like they're going to be getting a raise--it's amazing we don't have to coerce people into it.) Lazulilasher (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
12. Tentatively yes but. The underlying idea isn't that bad (though that's not to exclude the possibility of improving it.) More emphasis on exploring attitudes, perspectives, and likely views on other editors if they misbehave or come to attention as plaintiffs or parties, would be a more helpful emphasis. We want admins who show calmness, resolving rather than escalating problems, balancing both helping and aggressive handling, and so on. These kinds of things could possibly do with a bit more consideration - a lot of admin work is simply having trust and credibility at calming and resolving problems, in one way and another. Ie, not simply just being trusted with "the tools". Examine what qualities we want to enhance or de-emphasize in the admin pool, and select for those. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:05, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Grant "Like Rollback"

1. Grant it like rollback to trusted users, and remove it from those who abuse/misuse it. Majorly (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Support Majorly's suggestion - RfA standards are extremely high on en.wp while poor admins are amazingly still able to keep the bit. EJF (talk) 20:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. I'm with Majorly on this one. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
4. With Majorly and agree with EJF. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 17:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Yes, this was the spirit of how it launched. Miught make us invest in a better removal method too. Hiding T 00:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Yes, there's no real possibility for abuse, and as long as the rights are given out slowly and one at a time, I don't see the problem. —Locke Cole • t • c 03:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

   And how is a user judged to be "trusted"? We could, I suppose, get feedback from the community - you know, like have an open discussion in which people give their views, and then a crat could close the discussion after several days with a decision based on overall consensus. SilkTork *^YES! 07:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

7. Yes - would return admins to the level of the community, reducing the counter-productive divide which currently exists. DuncanHill (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Oh Hells Yeah - Currently, becoming a sysop is like some deranged obstacle course, after which you become an untouchable God. If obtaining sysop wasn't a big deal, then losing it wouldn't be a big deal either, and sysops would cease to be what they are now; immortal, invincible authorities. Ziggy Sawdust 00:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
9. We have 853 admins, we have about 1,228 rollbackers, this gives some perspective, it is quite likely that people that does not want to become admin have not asked for rollback. If we use a harder requirements for admin and have a easy way of removing the admin bit I do not think that it will be much difference from rollback, which all opposers said would be disaster. --Stefan ^talk 11:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
10. This is the wiki way. Zginder 2008-06-03T15:00Z (UTC)
11. Lightweight processes where ever possible. Friday (talk) 02:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Oppose "Like Rollback"

1. While adminship may be "no big deal", it's also a position of community trust. And I think that a single user just arbitrarily handing it out would be a very Bad Thing. - jc37 20:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. J Milburn (talk) 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Ye gods no. Happy‑melon 21:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Ep! No. MBisanz ^talk 01:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Holy ****ing **** no. Mainly per Jc37. HUGE potential for abuse, and heavens knows what would happen if we ever had an admin vandal. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
   • Comment. Um, if anything happened...you know it could just be reverted right? And obviously the privilege would then be taken away, thus serving as an example for future editors. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
     • Largely per the below, we'd have 'crats "tank warring" (a bigger, badder version of "wheel warring") over who could and couldn't be a sysop. Not good. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
     • Not quite, SynergeticMaggot. Bureaucrats can only give sysop permissions: they can't revoke them. You need a steward to do that. So that would take time. Time in which a poorly appointed vandal administrator could do a lot of damage. —  scetoaux (T|C) 23:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
       • That wasn't what I was talking about exactly. If someone becomes a vandal, theres more than one way to stop it. Its really no big deal. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
7. no - things are too factionalised for this to work. If, then, it were as easy to remove as it would be to grant, anyone engaging in any controversial area would risk being desysopped fairly rapidly. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Bad idea. Andre (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
9. We need to make the process a bit easier, but making it as easy as rollback would be going too far. Everyking (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Who is going to do the taking away? I barely trust our current 'crats to promote correctly. I dread to think what would happen in an environment where a priveleged few could take away admin rights as they pleased. -- Naerii 09:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
11. No, and don't try to leverage this interesting page for proposals that you've proposed elsewhere already. Splash - tk 12:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
12. A "rollback" can be easily reverted. Deletions and blocks cannot be reverted easily by anyone (even admins need to go through heaps of discussion to avoid being accused of wheel-warring), hence those who are given these tools need to be subject to more scrutiny. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
13. This would be about the worst way to hand it out. While just about any admin action can be fixed, it's very easy for an admin to make a huge mess very quickly.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
14. Not a good idea. Dlohcierekim 15:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
15. Rollback actions can be reversed by non-admins. Admin actions cannot. I do not think it would be responsible to give out the admin bit like rollback, that is to say like candy at a picnic. The community is doing a fine job in selecting its admins, and I don't think a handful of people able to hand out and revoke the tool arbitrarily can do better. I think Hersfold said it best when he said "Holy ****ing **** no". _(1 == 2)^Until 15:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
16. Abuse of Rollback really is no big deal, in the grand scheme of things. It's no worse than what can be done by any editor who can use a History page competently. Abuse of admin tools is a very different matter. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
17. Definitely not! iMatthew 2008 16:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
18. Clearly not. A disturbing alternative to the RFA process. Rudget 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
19. nope. Clearly too much potential for misuse. - Philippe 16:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
20. Uh-uh. KrakatoaKatie 22:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
21. Even if we eliminated the idea of 0RR or 1RR for admin actions, I would still oppose this due to too many opportunities for WP:BEANS-style abuse. Mr.Z-man 23:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
22. Too much of an opportunity for abuse. Nakon 01:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
23. Per Sheffield Steel and others. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
24. No, this would be rather poor. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
25. I think I missed this. I must chime in. If rollback itself was minorly contentious at one point, this would be a windstorm of a nightmare. Besides, granting sysop rights by a single person may lead to unpleasant results. The person dishing out the rights is responsible for that person's actions and can be placed in a negative light. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
26. While I think adminship is no big deal, I think this would take it to far and has far to much potential for abuse. Also, a single person unilaterally granting admin rights would have a very heavy weight on their shoulders given the potential unpleasantness the admin tools can make if misused. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
27. Not a good idea. SPeɴceʀ^T♦C 00:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
28. Never, how many bureaucrats we will need to have to desysop users who constant abuse of tools? I have already seen misuse of rollback, user granted with admin tools like rollback would be much more worse. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 08:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
29. "grant it to trusted users"? Trusted by whom? Either the community would have to appoint especially qualified editors who could decide who was trustworthy; we could call them bureaucrats and select them by consensus - or we would have to present potentially trusted editors to the community to ask for consensus directly. Which we do now in RfA. Or else we could descend into chaos, hopefully ameliorated by the large number of extra Stewards we would need to undo inadequately informed decisions. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 15:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
30. This does not adequately reflect community consensus, which adminship should be. PeterSymonds | talk 18:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA Council

Have a group (elected or open) who make the decisions. Already we have a bunch of people who participate in many RfAs and so have an interest in and some knowledge of the process. The Council could overlook procedures and make decisions on the number and type of questions asked. SilkTork *^YES! 07:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

1. I would be in favour of an open council. SilkTork *^YES! 15:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Interesting idea. I think that if this is well implemented, it would be better than the current system, but as a supplement to the current RfA process. —  scetoaux (T|C) 23:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
3. This is interesting, and quite possibly passable - certainly light years better than "granted like-rollback" proposal. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Not a bad idea but it strikes me as even further diverged from the idea of community consensus on promotion. A criticism of RfA is that many comments come from RfA regulars rather than the wider community - thought well-intentioned, this seems to move further in the opposite direction. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Maybe, if the council were elected like arbcom (though in a simpler process and for shorter terms) and there were set criteria like FAC. If we just allowed them to use their own personal criteria, it could be a disaster. Mr.Z-man 00:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

   Honestly, a huge problem nowadays with RfA is the disparity in support and oppose criteria. I really think it needs to be standardized somewhat. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 00:52, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA by area

I did have this thought. Maybe instead of "yes/no" generally, we should emphasize the main areas of adminship by seeking yes/no on them separately? And it would likely diminish in a big way supports and opposes for unhelpful reasons, by focussing on major aspects of the mop.

Opinions: Understands the project from enough different perspectives and with enough experience (yes/no/comment) Would understand and use the tools responsibly (yes/no/comment) Would be seen as fair, neutral and trustworthy by our users (yes/no/comment) Communicates well, helping and being firm as needed (yes/no/comment) Shows good judgement in decisions and application of norms and policy (yes/no/comment) Would calm and resolve rather than escalate a problem (yes/no/comment) Would work well with others (consensus-seeking, discussion) in a dispute (yes/no/comment) Would you trust this user as an admin overall (yes/no/comment)

I wonder if something like this would perhaps draw attention to what we need in admins and hence encourage new RFA candidates to focus their efforts on our priorities?

Just a thought - I'm not expecting agreement, and it'd be a longer page - but just maybe if RFA candidates were directly yes/no against our needs in admins, we'd see an immediate improvement in the match between RFA passes and admin qualities. And fewer issues with common "RFA problems".

An RFA candidate really needs to have a high trust rating and decent to good ratings on each of the above anyway, so more focus and asking directly is no bad thing. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:27, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of benefits to doing it your way:

1. It would force people to abandon the "bandwagon" approach to RFA (there's no sections dividing "yes" from "no" votes, or from other comments in general)
2. It would force people to consider individual traits rather than letting one incident or trait overwhelm their decision
3. It should encourage discussion (for both support and oppose) since people would likely want examples affirming others positions

The only down side I can think of is that it would complicate RFA to the point that participating would become more burdensome and time consuming (especially if there's a lot of debate about individual traits). But I think the payoff in highlighting the most important traits of potential admins is worth it. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:43, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible answer to "debate" - maybe keep the comments brief and non-threaded, and optionally linked to the talk page for more detail/discussion if needed. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 03:24, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, this is a great idea. The only concern I would have is that it would make the page longer otherwise, I like the idea that it would objectify criteria and to rationalize the decision process. Lazulilasher (talk)

I like it. It'll help keep things a bit more focused, and after all the criterion should be "not insane" and "highly unlikely to abuse the tools" - David Gerard (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. Lazulilasher (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it, though I feel the onus on supplying the evidence should be the nominator and/or candidate.

I don't think that the community should be asked to address each question as some people would simply not bother or would answer yes to all or no to all without paying attention, and I'd rather hear from a person who would like to raise a single compelling point than read a list of people who say No to every point because they view all self-noms as prima facie evidence of power hunger, or Yes to every point because Why The Hell Not?

If the points were addressed by the nom/candidate, discussion could be directed to the points - such as "Oppose due to poor evidence of working well with others" and "Support for meeting all criteria" - while also allowing the flexibility for other points to be brought up not listed in the criteria. In a sense, this criteria box could replace the random and arbitrary list of questions now being asked. SilkTork *^YES! 09:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Criteria: 1. Candidate understands the project from enough different perspectives and with enough experience (Evidence) 2. Candidate understands and would use the tools responsibly (Evidence) 3. Candidate has displayed fair and neutral judgement (Evidence) 4. Candidate communicates well, helping and being firm as needed (Evidence) 5. Candidate shows good judgement in decisions and application of norms and policy (Evidence) 6. Candidate would calm and resolve rather than escalate a problem (Evidence) 7. Candidate would work well with others (consensus-seeking, discussion) in a dispute (Evidence) 8. Candidate has already earned trust (Evidence)

A slight adjustment of focus. SilkTork *^YES! 09:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's see... we're after others views on what they feel about the candidate in various areas (which will usually be based on the candidate's history), not the candidate/nominator's self-claims; the fact the candidate nominated says they themselves believe they're okay in all those areas. The difference between the two wordings is present vs expectation of future - do we ask "what has the candidate shown", or "what do you think the candidate shows for the future"? Even if they gave evidence in each area, others views would be more important.

If someone objects then it's then useful to discuss that, and you're right that some might answer without thought, and one compelling comment is worth a lot. But if there is an objection then it will get raised on the talk page, and discussed, which seems a much better place for it. The main difference still seems to be the tense (present vs. future), ie "shows X" vs. "would show X". Thoughts? FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 09:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we're after the community's views on a candidate. What happens in a RfA is that some evidence and rationale is presented to the community for why a candidate may be trusted. At present the evidence and rationale is poorly structured and people ask random questions - there is no consistency between one RfA and another. There are some members of the community who have some knowledge or experience of the candidate and they will present some evidence. And there are a few committed members who will do some research into a candidate's history. The research will be random. Some talk pages arbitrarily selected. A look at a few article edits. Nobody has the time or inclination to search methodically through a candidate's history fully. The majority of comments and !votes in the AfD will focus on the evidence that is brought to the table by the candidate, the nominator, the candidate's allies and enemies, and the select few who will do some random research.

Much of this will continue. However, what might be interesting is to replace the random questions section of the process with the criteria box that you've suggested. By supplying some evidence (or not as the case may be) that the candidate is aware of the sorts of traits that the community are looking for and then the candidate and/or nominator directing people toward those places where the community might find evidence of those traits, would certainly make the business more consistent and fair. There would still be as now those individuals who would pick up the stuff a candidate might rather remain hidden, and the criteria box may serve as a useful focus for people who wish to do a bit of that skeleton hunting.

I certainly would, however, have some concern about personally investigating all the criteria before being able to make a comment on a candidate. Already I find RfA time consuming, and there are too many times when I start looking into a candidate's history, only to give up after half an hour or so without having made any comment at all because I have to do something else, or I'm unable to make a judgement on the evidence I have. And what I am mainly looking for is a simple reason why I shouldn't trust a candidate. If I am looking for eight reasons why I should I might find the business just a little too daunting. SilkTork *^YES! 18:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Most times if there is a concern someone'll raise it and others will then check it out. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Situation on RfA/RfB : More functional or politicized?

A common criticism for Requests for Adminship over the years is that the process is overtly politicized; some bring their advocacy on the table, others personal vendettas, and at times things can get pretty nasty on candidates. Over the past year, do you think the process has improved (as it has become more civil and functional), or there is more mudslinging than ever?

Worse

1. Far less civil, more of a popularity contest, too easy to game. Mr.Z-man 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Oh, it's gotten really bad on this front. Wizardman 20:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. There are too many people to please and too many things a candidate must be proficient in for an RfA to be successful. Captain panda 20:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
4. "Oppose — user is a Romanian nationalist". That is the state of affairs at RfA. EJF (talk) 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Definitely. Candidates are often put under far too much pressure over silly things. Plus discussions are often derailed for irrelevancies or vendettas. JudgeAssess the user, not their RfA. the wub "?!" 21:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
6. RFA can't decide what it's supposed to do, so we've got a ridiculous state of affairs where people are being held to wildly varying standards for wildly varying reasons. It's basically a forum for vendettas, in many cases, or point-making about aspects of Wikipedia. --Haemo (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
7. The standards are way too high, and yes, it's politicalized. We have people who could be excellent admins, but only have been here for three months, or only 500 contributions. IMO, anyone that can be trusted with the tools should be given a probationary period, and after that is up, they get re-evaluated for permanent adminship. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
8. You could put a clean white sheet up for RfA and at the end it'd need ten trips through the washing machine. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 23:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Ref: Cohen's RfA. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 00:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
10. I have some questions for the creator of this poll... MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
11. Too many stupid questions. MER-C 02:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
12. I think it's even significantly worse than when I ran last September. I'd be about afraid to go though it the way it's been recently. hmwithτ 13:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
13. the number of questions has become staggering. The idea of opposing for self noms and the idea that the nom should have expertise in everything are troubling, as are some fo the other -itis based opposes. Dlohcierekim 15:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
14. It's the questions, the people who oppose pretty much every RfA, and the users who are here just to be admins who ruin the process. If these things were removed, RfA would be like heaven. Majorly (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
15. I oppose popularity contests as prima facie evidence of a broken system. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
16. Kind of a popularity contest (not a lot, but a little, and I think that would be hard to fix), but the sudden influx of questions, wow. Useight (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
17. RfA/RfB is getting more and more awful; perfect candidates are crushed by token but loud opposition, and only candidates lucky enough to have never spoken up at the wrong time or crossed paths with a particular RfA-sinker seem to be able to pass without controversy. krimpet✽ 17:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
18. I definitely agree with Majorly above regarding the insane amounts of questions at the moment, and the people who oppose every RfA they participate in: neither of these factors help the process. I also strongly agree with this post from Malleus Fatuarum the other day about RfA (and RfB) being a place for some people to get revenge or "strike back" against users they've disagreed with. The other things I really dislike about RfA is when a "popular" user opposes an RfA, and friends/supporters of that person then oppose the RfA, or when someone decides to sink an RfA by bringing back an old dispute, therfore turning it into a battleground. Finally, now that "user self-nominated" is becoming a more common reason to oppose, RfA really is worse now than it was 1 year (and even 6 months) ago. Acalamari 20:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
19. Per Mr.Z-man. Too easy to pass and driven by opinion, and aside from that theres the hassle Opposers get. They should make a page to go along with Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers. It could be entitled, Wikipedia:Please don't Bite the Opposers or at the very least, Wikipedia:Please do not bite Kurt Weber--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 21:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
20. Nakon 01:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
21. Definitely. We're so concerned about that "one little edit" or that "response I don't agree with" that it clouds our judgment. It seems that things like "trust" don't pass anymore. Singularity 04:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
22. I went over and looked at RfA just now, and... Wow. That's really unfortunate. What can we do to change the culture? I honestly don't know. Grandmasterka 05:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
23. Questions have become rampant, opposes are nitpicky, supports aren't detailed. The process can be mechanical and unfriendly. Very stilted. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
24. From that time I started contributing to Wikipedia I feel with RfA that civility has gone down hill, opposition has become more over trivial issues, and choice of questions has become much more of an issue. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:22, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
25. Definitely worsened. One mistake can bring down an RfA if it pisses off the wrong people. James086^{Talk | Email} 00:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
26. The "minimal requirements" (WP:ITIS) increased which is worrying. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 08:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Still the same

1. Wikipedia is diverse, people are diverse, opinions are diverse; ultimately the dynamics are going to be the same. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. I'll add that, in addition to what LHvU says, the dynamics are going to be the same in most of the proposed alternatives to RFA. People are people. Welcome to being in a community with very many people. --JayHenry (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Pretty stable, from what I've seen over the last few years. As noted above, this is the kind of thing you get in a community - it can be good, it can be bad, it can be painful. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Doesn't seem too much different to a year ago. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
5. I'd have to say its the same, depending on the case. Some make it look more worse than others. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Seems to be causing the same amount of drama as ever (which is to say, too much). shoy 03:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Pretty much the same, although I believe the average IQ has slipped another point or two. Dorftrottel (complain) 03:29, April 21, 2008
9. More stupid questions, but essentially the same as a couple years ago. It is no tougher than applying for any job that requires trust. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Still the same - that is to say, very bad. I've seen way too many RfA's derailed by grudge-holders, and way too many participants willing to accept mudslinging without checking into the slinger's history. The net result is to discourage good candidates who have actually been involved in controversies from applying - yet those are exactly the editors who make the best admins. MastCell ^Talk 16:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
11. It hasn't changed much. Discussion is flattened on WT:RFA by fueding groups and we can't get anywhere. But that doesn't mean the whole process is bad. Malinaccier (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Other

1. This question assumes that you thought it was bad in the first place. -- Naerii 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. I am constantly told it's not a vote, and the closing person can ignore any not relevant comments. So why do people get so worked up when an editor always !votes no to self-noms, or yes to people who have two syllable names (or whatever criteria they like?) Indeed, why don't they just find someone who'll always !vote yes to self noms? Also: The amount f questions people have to answer is freaky. I've seen some people recommend asking a couple of Fills AGF questions, which seems like a good idea. Expand that list, and ask 3 or 4 questions from it. Dan Beale-Cocks 20:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. I'm not certain I am understanding what's being asked. I really think that this section's premise should be re-phrased. The responders are clarifying for you. ("Axe-to-Grind" would seem to be the sense you're looking for? Or just the civility issues? Or the seeming popularity contest? Or some combination? Or something else?) - jc37 20:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Refuse to answer such loaded questions. Splash - tk 12:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
5. I see less advocacy of the type "Oppose, because the user is too deletionist", but there has been an unfortunate explosion in the number of so-called "optional" questions. It has changed in many ways, some for the better, some for the worse. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Per DanBealeCocks. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

What do you think of the RfB Bar?

Is it previously said that the RfB standards were too high for candidates to pass. After a long dry spell last year, there are few but successful candidates who passed Requests for Bureaucratship (RFB). Now considering this fact, what do you think of the promotion standards of RfB?

(Still) too high, should be lowered

1. Way too high for such a little thing. Majorly (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Far too high, its higher than we require for stewards and many arbcom candidates. Considering that the vast majority of bureaucrat actions require minimal judgment, the current level makes no sense. Mr.Z-man
3. I can't understand why everyone thinks it such a big deal. J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
4. bibliomaniac15 20:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
5. It has to be recognised that the sheer diversity (and its pressures) apparent now within the encyclopedia means that candidates are less likely to present themselves as unblemished in their interactions with other users, and the expectations of the existing 'crats on the perceived standard is too high. Perhaps with the influx of new 'crats there will be a different perspective, but lowering the bar in the meanwhile will allow the infusion of new blood which will address this seemingly archaic standard. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Is Riana a bureaucrat? No? Well, then, I guess the level is too high. Seriously, though, I do not understand how consensus changes with the perceived importance of an action. SorryGuy  Talk  23:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
7. High standards mean it will be gamed, lower standards mean it will be gamed in a slightly different way. I prefer the latter. Dorftrottel (complain) 03:30, April 21, 2008
8. As per Z-Man, most 'crat actions don't require that much judgement, why make a fuss over it? ><RichardΩ612 15:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Too high. - Philippe 16:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
10. The ridiculously high bar is not necessary: many people have high standards for bureaucratship anyway, plus, there are other factors to consider: admins make enemies, and an RfB would be a good place for some people to "settle scores"; the "one year as an admin" criteria that some people use; and finally, "no need for more bureaucrats" votes. The high bar, plus these factors, make RfB nearly impossible to pass. Acalamari 21:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
11. You need to be an admin for 1 year, have no arguments whatsoever, be a good writer and vandal-fighter and deletion closer, and still get 90% of people to support your bid. Too high. Malinaccier (talk) 01:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
12. Shouldn't be that much a big of a deal. Singularity 04:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
13. When people oppose for nonsensical reasons (I'm thinking anything involving article namespace contributions here) then this is too high. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
14. About the only thing a bureaucrat could do to disrupt things that an admin couldn't do would be to make a known vandal into an admin. And I don't know why they would do that anyways. It's not like no one will know who made the vandal an admin, so why wouldn't they just vandalize themselves? They're going to get blocked either way, so they might as well have the enjoyment (if you can call it that) of destroying Wikipedia themselves and then getting blocked rather than letting someone else have all the fun. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 20:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
15. Flawed just like RfA with nonsense opposes. Bar is incredibly too high, even if it's been pushed down from 90%, which was beyond absurd in the first place. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
16. If adminship isn't a big deal then why is it a big deal to promote admins? But really there is no need for the standards to be so high. It's not like performing crat duties is ridiculously hard and there's bureaucrat chat if they're unsure. James086^{Talk | Email} 00:40, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
17. Riana should be a bureaucrat. Quadell should be a bureaucrat. It looks like I'll be saying a week from now that Avraham should be a bureaucrat. Why do we tie our hands behind our back by rejecting candidates with more than 80 percent support? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
18. per everyone else... - DiligentTerrier (and friends) 20:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
19. Per above which is per everyone else :/ ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 08:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Acceptable

1. It's fine where it is now. 90% was ridiculous, but it was fixed. Wizardman 20:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Assuming that the bar has been moved to around 85%. EJF (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. People who are saying it should be lower and simultaneously complaining about promotions and RFA are not holding a coherent position. Introducing even more bureaucrats into the procedure will make RFA less predictable, not more so. We have the option to have a bureaucrat corps that is universally trusted. There's never been a good reason to promote bureaucrats who are not universally trusted. Yes, "factions" can sink an RFA and factions are definitely bad, but promoting bureaucrats without trust does absolutely nothing to address the problem of factions. --JayHenry (talk) 22:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
4. 85% is fine, if we're there. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
5. As per previous. I'd be happy with either 85 or 90%. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
6. 85% is smack-on. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
7. 85% and above for teh win.--Father Goose (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Comfortable with the 85-90% range, but not below. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Acceptable, because the result is that enough people do pass to provide the necessary number of Bureaucrats. It does the job it needs to do. DGG (talk) 05:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Andre (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
11. It's probably fine, but noone yet has any evidence to back up the claim that it is anywhere in particular, nor that a change has fixed a claimed problem. Splash - tk 12:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
12. Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
13. Until the 'crats start complaining about there not being enough of them, then the bar should be plenty high. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
14. 15% shouldn't override 85%, not in any debate (or discussion). Unless of course valid queries are brought up, in which case, there wouldn't be 85% support anyway. Rudget 16:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
15. 90% is too high, but 85% is more reasonable. Useight (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
16. I would not object to lowering it further, but I think 85% is reasonable and should now produce the bureaucrats that are needed. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Too low, should be raised

1. If it has been lowered to 85%. I think it was, but we have yet to test that. Bureaucrats should have near universal trust. I do not believe 85% is. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   Please explain how they should have near universal trust. Stewards are the ones that should have that, and they pass with 80%. All bureaucrats do is see if a vote is <75 or <75% and close the RfA appropriately. A bot could do it. Majorly (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   Except that sometimes they don't do that. For example, they promoted you. -- Naerii 20:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   No idea what you mean. Majorly (talk) 09:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Probably referring to WP:Requests for adminship/Majorly (withdrawn (thus no consensus), yet you gained the tools shortly after). No comment personally. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   It was still above 75%, so I still have no idea what Naerii is talking about. Probably just itching for a chance to have a snipe at me. Majorly (talk) 15:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Or, s/he was pointing out that you technically received your tools without an RfA that had resulted in a pass. Therefore, if we merely had a bot and a bright-line rule, you would not have been promoted. The bureaucrats used their discretion in that instance, and that discretion needs to have universal trust. Hence, I support an very high RfB bar, which only people whose judgment has been thoroughly approved by the community, (and therefore representative of the community's thoughts) can pass. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

   We need univeral trust of a couple dozen people for such controversial situations that arise maybe twice a year, at most? Mr.Z-man 00:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

2. At least 90%, although even that probably wouldn't protect us. -- Naerii 20:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   Protect us? You mean from the 10% minority who effectively get to decide? Dorftrottel (canvass) 03:33, April 21, 2008

3. Bureaucrats should have virtually unanimous support. We don't need more of them—we may have too many as it is—so there's no reason not to be extremely demanding of RfB candidates. Everyking (talk) 08:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
4. This has worked pretty well in the past. Splash - tk 12:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
5. 90% works well. It shows strong consensus without allowing a rogue to veto all RFBs. There is no need for lots of bureaucrats, so we can afford to be picky on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
6. 90% Dlohcierekim 15:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
7. RfB criteria, just like RfA criteria, are too low. 90% sounds like a good call for RfB IMO. If not, 95%.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 21:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
8. 'crats have a lot of power. They really need to be of the highest quality editor and they need to be trusted significantly. We cannot just lower the bar so more people can slip through. What is the advantage of that? — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 22:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
9. 90% was fine. Even if it prevented a couple of good candidates from passing, there is no reason why the projects needs more 'crats at all while it always needs more admins. So, if there is not so much work but the position requires a lot of trust, avoiding bitter accidents takes priority. --Irpen 04:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
10. 90% has always worked for me; similar view as Irpen. I like the idea that 'crats have a significantly higher bar than admins, and comparatively few get through (but those that do have a 'very high level of trust established). As a rule, the quality of crats has been uniformly high, and they play a quiet but solid role in the community. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 01:56, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
11. I like it at 90% Captain panda 22:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Other

1. I have no idea who the 'crats are, or what they do, or what the difference i between 'crats and admins. That's maybe a good thing; I don't want people to see levels of editors - anon IP < registered account < twinkle rights < rollback rights < admin < crat < whatever else goes here. But you can see some editors thinking about a WP "career path". Dan Beale-Cocks 20:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   They essentially deal with userrights like granting sysop, or semi-related tasks, such as changing usernames. - jc37 20:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   Ah, well, I changed my name and it was a quick and painless process. Much easier than a bunch of other stuff I've got involved in. Dan Beale-Cocks 20:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

2. As I see from the above comments, no-one is now "sure" what the bar is : ) - I think the result from last time was that 80-90% was now roughly discretional. (80-85? 85-90? Not sure.) And that a closer was to be more concerned about the concerns raised than the arbitrary percentage. - jc37 20:46, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. It's not a bloody vote in the first place. So why are we arguing about the pass mark? It's not an exam :D Happy‑melon 21:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   Refactored to here to avoid creation of endless arbitrarily-long section headings, one for each editor. Splash - tk 12:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

4. Not sure whether the guideline level has been moved down from 90% or not - could not see a clear decision being reached when it was discussed. If it has not been lowered then I am fine with the level. If it has been lowered to 80% then I strongly believe it should be increased as the previous level was fine in producing enough Crats. Some discretion in the 85 to 90 range, as has previously been given is fine. Davewild (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
5. 'Crats should not allow be admins they should be one or the other. THis way One group does not hold to much power. If you wish to be a 'crat you give up adminship. Simple as that. Zginder 2008-06-03T15:07Z (UTC)

Current performance of admins

(Particularly for non-sysops) Do you feel that admins generally are putting their mop and buckets for the overall good of the project, or are they abusing them for some other purpose? Have they been sufficiently accountable to you in their performance?

Admins are doing a good job overall

1. Of course! ...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 20:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. The janitorial crew has, for the most part, used its tools well. --Wikiacc (¶) 21:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Andre (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Looks like I'm in the minority on this one, but I think the term "overall" allows me to !vote here. A vast majority of admins are doing a good job, and I think that is to be expected due to the difficulty in passing RFA. Useight (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
5. They are doing well in their capacities, however, administrators should look towards more bold futures. By going that little bit further, we'd solve quite a few more crises. Rudget 16:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins are doing a good job, but there are some bad eggs that should be removed

1. Majorly (talk) 19:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Good luck doing it though. Mr.Z-man 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Mostly good, I just don't think I can quite say that every admin should have the tools. J Milburn (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Sure, just as in any group of people. - jc37 20:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
5. bibliomaniac15 20:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Yes, there are some admins who are abusing the tools, that is for sure. Unless a proper community procedure for desysopping can be brought into place, the bad eggs will not be removed. On a more positive note, there are many admins who are doing a fantastic job. EJF (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Captain panda 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Mostly true. I wish it was easier to remove the abusive bad eggs though. Wizardman 20:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   Harder? - jc37 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   I meant easier, oops. It can't get any harder. Wizardman 21:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

9. the wub "?!" 21:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Admins who behave outside the norms of community conduct are the primary cause of high standards at RFA. The high standards are a defense mechanism, from the community, to prevent more of these admins. It's schizophrenic to say adminship is no big deal, and simultaneously allow a handful of them to behave as omnipotent wikigods. --JayHenry (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
11. Agree with JayHenry and Wizardman here. There are a few problematic folks, and there needs to be a better, easier and quicker way to deal with them. ArbCom does its best, but it sometimes seems like problems linger for long periods before anything's sorted out. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
12. Not everyone makes a good administrator; Archtransit has taught us that. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 23:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
13. SorryGuy  Talk  23:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
14. As always. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
15. Any behavior that would keep you from becoming an admin should keep you from remaining an admin. All admins should be be subject to some form of recall when they are disregarding standards of conduct. ArbCom only deals with the admins that have completely lost their minds.--Father Goose (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
16. Per Z-man and JayHenry. shoy 03:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
17. Will almost never happen though. Dorftrottel (canvass) 03:35, April 21, 2008
18. Losing adminship should be no big deal, as someone nearly said. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
19. The vast majority of admins do good work with few problems. There are, however, a few disastrously bad admins who have done unbelievable amounts of damage to the project over a long period of time. We very badly need to develop a way to deal with these people. Everyking (talk) 09:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
20. Splash - tk 12:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
21. I'll not mention any names, but I have at times seen some hair-raising [unilateral and/or speedy] deletions of what are clearly notable subjects. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
22. Like any other organization. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
23. Unfortunately there's not much of a feedback process once you're an admin. I've tried talking to fellow admins who are deleting or blocking inappropriately, but if they don't respond it doesn't do a lot of good.--Fabrictramp (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
24. If it were easier to lose adminship, granting the bit in the first place would be less of a big deal than it is now. Hopefully, it would also be easier to regain the bit after a fall from grace. (Admins for deletion? Deadmin review?)SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
25. The problem is not just with admins that are abusive, but with a culture that protects them, and a second culture that cries wolf on abuse far to often. It is not just admins, but other regular users often are allowed to be abusive through this culture. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
26. The Community giveth, the Community should be able to taketh away as well. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
27. I've noticed a few admins who have passed the RfA, and go on to get into edit wars, and get away with it. iMatthew 2008 16:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
28. Most admins do a good job. - Philippe 16:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
29. I agree that most do good, but there may be one or two who shouldn't necessarily removed, but put on the right path. Malinaccier (talk) 01:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
30. Nakon 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
31. Admins do fine overall, I think. However, as with anything involving people, there are a few that need to be corrected. Singularity 04:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
32. This one's right. It is, sadly, far too hard to remove bad admins. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
33. It is inevitable with appointments for life and no effective means to terminate such appointments that we have a number of frankly appalling admins. DuncanHill (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
34. I do think that most (if not all) admins are doing a good job. However, I think that it would be better for admins to have more accountability. For example, what if they had to go through RFA again every 18 months or 2 years or something? Obviously, the second RFA (and subsequent RFAs) would be much more lenient, (i.e. ~65% oppose to de-sysop) but I think it would be good if adminship was more of an election than an appointment. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
35. I get a good feeling from most Admins, others I believe are incompetent. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

    I do have to wonder how convergent or divergent everyone's mental list of 'bad eggs' actually would be...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

    Unfortunately, I doubt that one would be allowed a page like User:DuncanHill/List of bad admins. DuncanHill (talk) 08:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

36. Obviously, many are good; some were bullies before promotion and continue to be. There should be a time limit for adminship, with indefinite re-eligibility. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
37. Make it easier to get and remove the admin bit. --Stefan ^talk 11:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
38. Unclear to me that we could get a concensus on who the 1/2 dozen bad eggs are, though. WilyD 14:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
39. There are definitely some admins who shouldn't be admins. Admins open to recall being voluntary is a bad idea. Even removing their sysop privileges for a week or month would be an improvement over the current situation. --Pixelface (talk) 14:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
40. Most admins I feel do a good job, but it is certainley been made clear by past events there is a minority that don't. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
41. Most admins that I've seen so far have been doing their job fairly well, but there are some who seem like they're more interested in destroying things than building things or helping other people to build things. Our primary goal is to build an encyclopedia, not destroy one; the regular activities of admins should reflect that, and while it generally does, there are a few that come to mind that are well-entrenched within the editing community that should probably have their bit removed. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
42. This will probably always be the case. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
43. About 5% of admins definitely need removal. Unfortunately, it's just too hard to do. Arbcom will reluctantly remove an admin that just blatantly crosses a line (for instance, proven abusive sockpuppetry) however these cases are very time-consuming for those that try to build them and it's more likely that the accuser will be vilified than the admin. (We're not good at whistle-blower protection around here.) Our larger problem is with the several dozen abusive admins that are weekly doing shabby, unfair or stupid things no one of which is bad enough to provoke Arbcom to act. They can carry on for years poisoning the community despite multiple admonitions from other editors. We have to have a process for the community at large to deal with these people. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
44. I agree with A. B. , while admin on wiki-FR, I rewritted totally an article on Wikipedia-EN , and went in opposition with -an admin- who perfectly played with the line of the acceptable, reverting with false but credible edit-summaries, doesn't answered on the article's talk page, didn't read my edit summary but reverted either. I quickly discovered that this admit was in fact the former author of this article, and vissibly didn't accept that his work be rewritted. He softly accused me about 5 times of vandalism (calling for other admin involvment, but making biaised statements without stating that I just wanted rewrite "his" article). The 5 times, I had to explain again the situation. The 5 times, others admins agreed to said that it was no vandalisms, and we (this admin and me) should work together. I was not blocked because I'm a skilled user (admin on both wiki-FR and Commons), and so I knew how the things works. But it's clear for me that this admin is able to out/block/make-mad good-will new users and lead them to become vandal -and so to get blocked- as he want. This kind of admin perfectly know how to play, how to make their opponent become crazy, thanks to my experience : I was able to match him, I was not blocked 5 times.
    It stay that this admin is still admin : I hadn't the force to start an Arb. request. Yug 18:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
45. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 09:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

A few admins are doing a good job, but most of them are not

1. -- Naerii 20:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. --KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 20:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Admins are doing some jobs well, others poorly

1. Admins are doing the easy jobs very well. Blocking people who replace George W. Bush with "PENIS" is at an all-time level of efficiency. Similarly for people who make legal threats or start swearing at others. Admins are not doing the hard jobs well at all. They are not providing the supporting role that is required for the community to move forward on the serious issues which affect Wikipedia as an encyclopedia — nationalist disputes, fringe POV pushing, conflict of interest, etc. Due to the nature of RFA, we chiefly promote people who do not raise eyebrows, and are not willing to facilitate these aspects of the encyclopedia — we are electing janitors who avoid the real messes. Since the adoption of WP:BLP there has not been a serious move by Wikipedia on any of the numerous content issues that Wikipedia faces — even when ArbCom has specifically enjoined the community to do so. Part of this blame falls on admins — by and large, they are unable or unwilling to help the community create methods to address these problems. They prefer to focus on easy problems, such as incivility, instead of working with editors to solve the hard problems. This has to change. --Haemo (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
   • I think the community as a whole is at blame here, for not expressing its views on such problems. greater general participation of RfCs and other difficult situations is what's needed. The admins can only enforce what they think to be the view of the community. People can not hope to be listened to if they do not speak up in the first place. DGG (talk) 05:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
     • Agree strongly with Haemo. You can't speak up against perceived hard problems unless you're an admin yourself, otherwise you get labelled a "troll," a POV-pusher, and a troublemaker by admins, and get ordered to shut up by admins, ending the discussion and the issue. Many admins seem to prefer making 1000 easy decisions a month instead of one decision that might be controversial, or might actually require a few days of discussing and thinking. This means Wikipedia has steadily increasing amounts of near-useless meta-content (projects, task forces, social groups, categories, etc.) while the encyclopedic content on many controversial issues remains stale, non-neutral, and unverified. Blackworm (talk) 20:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Agree with above—AIV blocking is usually done OK, dealing with ArbCom restrictions, or civility of "valuable" users (to take a recent example) isn't. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Things like CSD & RFPP are handled great. controversial things like AE are handled well enough. But the continual backlog at AFD (partially my fault), and the inability to scale up for things like mass DFUI noms, means we're doing a bad job handling those. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   COuld that be because AFD has become so stressful that people a avoid it because they don' need the aggravation? Dlohcierekim 15:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

4. The number of admins available to perform straightforward houskeeping tasks is at an all-time high. The number of admins willing and competent to mediate or intervene in complex disputes is, proportionately, at an all-time low. I think this is a function of the criteria we use to select admins. MastCell ^Talk 16:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
5. We've got plenty of vandal fighting capacity, but few admins willing to step up and counteract the culture of corrupt POV pushing and cronyism that still pervades the project in many areas. krimpet✽ 17:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Except of conceptually trivial tasks, admin-corps as a whole fails despite a good share of admins are good. There is an institutional problem rather than individually problematic admins. --Irpen 22:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
7. With the exception of a few, AfD closings rarely have a reason given. The general idea of "If you have a problem with it, then ask on my talk page." is garbage. They are the 'trusted' ones doing the closing, state a reasoning right on the AfD so everyone knows when no consensus is ignored. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Other

1. "wheel warring" (admins undoing the admin action of another admin without consensus) is really bad, and seems quite rare. But that just means there's an amazing amount of bitching going on. People say "It's okay, we're used to the rough and tumble, so our standards are different, we know each other, we know that sometimes people are stressed." I dunno, that seems like a copout to me. There are some really challenging parts of wiki, and those editors (esp admins) will be under attack. Doesn't that mean that it's more important to (i'm not going to say 'be civil') respect another editors edits, even if that editor is a fuck-headed idiot? unless they're vandalising Dan Beale-Cocks 20:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
   • Another point - I'm picking on a few visible admins, the fact that there's like a thousand means that most of them are probably doing good work. Dan Beale-Cocks 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Out of the 1000< active admins I can name you perhaps 20 and recognise another 40-50. As DanBealeCocks comments, the other 90% are using the tools sufficiently non-controversially as not to raise questions. However, to answer whether they are using the tools effectively is impossible. (That is not to say that the sysops I am aware of are either poor or great in their button pressing.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. This is a tough one. Obviously there are some folks who appear on AN/I regularly but it is hard to tell sometimes whether it is because they are abusing admin tools as such or are being difficult. The size and scope of the 'pedia mean that conflicts inevitably will arise. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The level of tolerance toward admin behaviour is inappropriate

• The community gets frustrated when a greater allowance for poor civility and mistakes is granted to admins by other admins than is granted by admins to the rest of the community; while the community itself seems to expect a higher standard of behaviour from admins than from the community as a whole. These dual standards, more than the tools themselves, result in a divisive hierarchy. SilkTork *^YES! 23:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Grant individual tools on request rather than grant "admin" status with a baggage of tools

• I personally have no interest in blocking other users or in having "admin" status - but I would welcome the ability to protect or unprotect pages, to edit protected pages, to move over an existing page, to view deleted material, etc. In the same way that rollback is now granted on request, other specialist tools should be granted to editors in good standing on request, and the position of "admin" should be abolished as divisive and against the spirit of equal co-operation in a community project. SilkTork *^YES! 23:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
• I agree only with protection. Deletion and blocking are big issues(deleting=destroying contribution and blocking=stopping contributions), but protection, protects contribution and is therefore not as big a issue. Zginder 2008-06-03T15:38Z (UTC)

Is ArbCom a sufficient check and balance?

Currently, only the Arbitration Committee (including Checkuser outcomes) has the power to desysop an admin for abuse of the mop and bucket (excluding obvious incidents that resulted in ad-hoc removal). Do you feel that this measure alone is sufficient in acting as a check and balance against abusive admins? If not, what other process should be adopted?

Yes

1. working fine. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Yes, though I wouldn't mind seeing other additional alternatives discussed. - jc37 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Despite many claims to the contrary, nobody ever points out a decision I can see as faulty. At least not more often than any set of humans makes a mistake. The failure in checks and balances rests on the segments of the community that either tacitly or intentionally enables such failures. The idea that established members who contribute a lot should be given a free pass for policy violations is one of them, it creates a system where a senior member has an advantage over a new member. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
5. - Philippe 16:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Y Archtransit. Rudget 17:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
7. ArbCom pwns --Koji†Dude ^(C) 23:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No

1. Certainly not. Majorly (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. -- Naerii 20:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Mr.Z-man 20:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
4. J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Peer review perhaps? There should be a step below arbcom for admins who don't make serious mistakes but make a large number of minor ones. Have a "recent admin action notice board" and let people review actions. Administrators who have a larger-than-normal number and percentage of negative comments across multiple admin actions can have their adminship put up for review. This peer review concept goes for any privileged function. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Wizardman 20:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
7. There appears to be no way of removing the bit from consistently poor admins (you know, those whose names are always appearing at WP:ANI). It seems you have to annoy the WP:TINC before desysopping is possible. EJF (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
8. I also think that there should be a way to desysop admins without the bureaucracy of ArbCom. bibliomaniac15 20:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
9. I don't know how it should be done, but there should be another way to do this. Captain panda 20:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
10. No. It simply doesn't work, and it's occasionally used really oddly. Plus, it takes too long to make any decisions. --Haemo (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
11. The ArbCom does not do a good job. --JayHenry (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
12. There is sometimes a fundamental disconnection between what is requested from ArbCom, and what ArbCom provides; issues are laid before the Committee, who then decide among themselves what the questions should be and decide the answers on that basis. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
13. There needs to be a swifter way to deal with the more obvious abuses. Also, ArbCom has sometimes shown itself unable to deal with more contentious cases in a reasonable or timely manner. Black Kite 23:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
14. Agree with the above, in general. Something else is needed, a lower level than ArbCom that can provide quick response to situations that arise. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
15. ArbCom cases more often than not take too long and require too much prerequisites for them to be much use in curbing abusive administrators. I agree with a peer-review system or a compulsory recall system. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 23:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
16. We need a requests for de-adminship process, if not recall. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
17. No, Arbcom is for emergency abuse of admin tools or privacy stuff like socking. We need a way (universal standard recall, etc) to deal with the bad apples on a regular basis. MBisanz ^talk 02:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
18. No, but every admin recall proposal goes nowhere fast. Last time someone tried, it got hand-waved away as a "solution looking for a problem", etc. Maybe it's time to see if the community's opinion has changed. shoy 03:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
19. Dorftrottel (canvass) 03:41, April 21, 2008
20. ArbCom is for when the community consensus is not capable of reaching a solution, and they seem unwilling to defintively settle things. By the time it gets to them, a verdict of advice that people be more polite to each other is usually a good deal besides the point. We need some group with the power and resolve to make definitive solutions.DGG (talk) 05:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
21. Per my answer to "bad eggs", above: ArbCom only deals with the admins that have completely lost their minds. All admins should be be subject to some form of community-driven recall when they are disregarding standards of conduct.--Father Goose (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
22. Absolutely not—a community process is needed. (I am amused by Father Goose's suggestion above that I have completely lost my mind.) Everyking (talk) 09:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
23. The Arbcom has had trouble with its vertebrae recently, and I've not enough confidence that they won't merely issue a "have a cup of tea" remedy for anything short of the so blindingly obvious the culprit steps down in embarrassment first. (This is as identified by DGG, also). The 2006 ArbCom was significantly better in this regard. Splash - tk 12:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
24. It's a very bureaucratic process. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
25. No, sorry. Much respect for the members though. They are still a happy bunch outside of ArbCom. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
26. Perhaps it's time for an Administrators for Recall process analogous to AfD. Closing an AfR should be a job for a Bureacrat. Similarly to DRV, in contested cases there should be a Recall Review process. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
27. Absolutely not. The good voices are drowned out by partisans, and top-down influence, and back-room gaming. Problems: Arbitration Policy being under the control of the Arbitration Committee is as fucked as is possible. The AC was formed by Jimmy Wales, but for English Wikipedia internal functions, Jimmy Wales has left the building and rarely does anything of use to the community any longer. The AC is now a function of the community, and thus should be under Community control in every aspect. Arbiters, like the WMF board, are our elected delegates and serve us under our own terms. The AC list needs to be just duly elected and seated arbiters. There needs to be a mechanism of checks and balances like a real government requires to function--and yes, we're not a democracy, but lets not play games and call the AC/admin/editor structure anything but what it really is: our government. It's time to move past our pedestrian and antiquated Wikispeech to just be pragmatic and literal. The Community needs to take control and tell the AC what it needs. Because, given how milquetoast the AC is now and unwilling in all but the most glaringly obvious cases to do the right thing, it's useless. Sorry, guys. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
28. ArbCom is the Star Chamber of the English Wikipedia, in just about every sense. krimpet✽ 17:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
29. Community desysopping mechanism (proof to being hijacked by trolls and socks) is needed. Incidentally, making desysopping less of a big deal, would also make sysopping a no big deal, just as it used to be and as it should be. --Irpen 22:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
30. Sorry, but no. We elect non-controversial people to ArbCom, then expect them to dig into controversial problems with ease and grace without necessarily having the temperament or ability to do so. Another problem is that we're working with the same structure and format that we used when we were a small project, but we're not small anymore. We have more than 5 million registered accounts and 13 arbitrators. How in the world do we expect 13 people to manage the problems of the 8th-most-visited site in the world? We keep complaining about this situation, but we keep getting the same result - nothing changes except the number and volume of our cries. We may need to form another group, or to elect more ArbCom members, or to change the position description or the method of selection. We may need a combination of these or something else entirely. Regardless, we've got to find a solution for these controversial issues like de-adminning or throw up our hands and forget about it, 'cause the status quo is broken. KrakatoaKatie 22:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
31. It is much to severe in most cases. Malinaccier (talk) 01:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
32. Nakon 01:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
33. Overkill in most cases. — Werdna talk 02:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
34. On some things yes, but on many important issues, no. (Ie, the bad admins case mentioned above by FatherGoose). --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
35. With the greatest of respect, this doesn't work. The fact that you have to be really egregiously bad as an admin for a very long time before you get desysopped (wheel wars and rampages notwithstanding) is making people nervous at RFAs. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
36. See my comments in the section above this one. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
37. I honestly can't imagine it working through any miracle of God Cthulu. Ziggy Sawdust 00:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
38. No. There needs to be a way to de-admin someone before they are generally regarded as bat-shit insane. ➪HiDrNick! 19:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
39. No. Per Stifle. Obnoxious admins should be dealt with before ArbCom and without the overhead. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:28, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
40. ArbCom's continued blind eye towards anything even vaguely content related means that acting in bad faith goes uncorrected. The common wisdom is correct "Be civil, don't sock, and ArbCom will let you get away with murder." and it's a huge problem. WilyD 14:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
41. Answering in this section is the easy part, but how do we prevent a new process from becoming a lynching-ground? Would it be adequate to require that Rf~A discussions require the sysop bit in order to be opened? Sure, we can require a 'crat to close them, but that won't keep everyone PO'd about a single event from starting them. We'd also need good guidelines on what actions constituted grounds for this (e.g., multiple reversed actions in a certain period of time, incivility, COI, other?). Ma^t_chups 02:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

    If adminship were not a big deal, deprivation of it would not be a big deal. If someone loses his bit, he can reapply for it in a few months, just like those who have failed RfA candidacies now; if it was a momentary anger that recalled him, it will have subsided again. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

42. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
43. ArbCom is good, and I think the members do a good job overall, but it alone does not provide a hugely affective check and balance on administrators, with it requiring high levels of abuse and a lot of time to produce results. I still support a full administrator recall system, and I do feel consensus is slowly changing to "yes" for such a process. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:36, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
44. ArbCom shouldn't be needed for some routine desysoppings. On principle in favor of tasks being devolved to the community over time. For example, bans were initially "Jimbo only", then ArbCom on his behalf. Nowadays it's routine and many bans are managed quite well by the community itself, with ArbCom still doing some, and acting as review and appeal on others. There is no reason in principle why desysopping could not follow a similar path over time. No obvious reason why a desysopping should need ArbCom stamp of approval any more than granting adminship does, provided there are clear grounds and such, room for appeal to ArbCom, and standards that crats can review ?RFD's? against.
    One possible objection that might copme up is, the main reason ArbCom is always involved is that desysopping is rare, high profile, and "the kiss of death". If desysopping became easier then community handling would be reasonable. (Counter-objection: even if it's rare, the community will probably take it seriously, set a high standard for removal, and ArbCom will still handle review/appeal. And we could have 2 or even 3 crats needed to concur for a RFD if quality of close was a concern.)
    Overall, then, in favor of the community itself handling more routine things like this and ArbCom less, on the whole. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:08, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
45. No, ArbCom is the last resort. In its entire existence, ArbCom has averaged around 6 1/2 cases per month. Currently there are 15 arbitrators and 1,539 admins. That's 1 arbitrator for every 100 admins. Why not have a Admin review process? The loss of sysop privileges doesn't even have to be permanent. We block vandals for increasingly longer periods of time. We could de-sysop admins for increasingly longer periods of time. First failed admin review? 24 hours. Second failed admin review? One week, two weeks, one month, two months, six months, a year, forever, etc. Or you could just remove certain privileges, like the ability to block or protect pages. Or have one-year term limits, after which a user would have to run for admin again. You could even have a vote among existing admins. If a certain number or percentage of admins support a desysop for one month, forever, etc, the admin loses the mop. All admins should be eligible for recall. A further check against abuses would be gradually granting user privileges like Locke Cole suggested. Rollback, protection, deletion, blocking — and a user would have to go through an RFA style process for the last three. That would necessitate a change to the user rights system, but I'm sure there's someone who could do that. --Pixelface (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

    Point of information: - the reason English Wikipedia doesn't have annual reconfirmation or time limits (where some wikis do) is 2000 admins ÷ 12 = 200 reconfirmations a month. Reconfirmation consistently stumbles over that statistic, leading to a preference to trust admins once appointed, and deal with problems as they come up case-by-case. But the rest of this (admin review) is viable. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

46. We should have something faster and less bureaucratic (no pun intended) than Arbcom. Perhaps something like a reverse RfA where opposition could be discredited if the user has been blocked by the admin (provided it was a valid block) or similar. The admin up for reverse-RFA could point out that the pair have a history and it can be decided whether or not to discount/weaken the position of the opposer. That would reduce the effect of grudge votes. Of course if the admin had acted innappropriately toward the user the opposition would remain valid and probably lead others to oppose as well. That's only a suggestion and there may be better alternatives. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
47. ArbCom is massively overworked and can't be bothered every time an admin does something stupid. There needs to be some other way to deal with problematic admins. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
48. I don't have problems with most admins, but I do think there need to be more checks and balances in the system. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:46, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
49. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 09:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Other

1. I think it works fine the great majority of the time. But the Archtransit debacle made me see that a community desysopping process would be good... Something like a ban discussion would suffice, as long as a good number of people participate. Grandmasterka 20:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Here's the problem. The tasks of an admin can make them (at times), less-than-popular. So who makes the choice in whether someone should be desysopped? Arbcomm seems a valid choice. Though I think we should be able to trust the bureaucrats (based on current standards for bureaucrat promotion) to have the ability to de-sysop (emergency, or per finding of arbcom). - jc37 20:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. I think I agree with Jc37 above. Seeing admins, uh, discussing stuff on ANI makes me wonder how well an admin-led de-bitting would work. A bunch of hard-working respected admins have left recently, and some have been through RfC, and some of that has been bitter. Taking a step away from the conflict, which some admins can't do, should help. But I guess you'd till get people complaining about evil ARBCOM. Dan Beale-Cocks 21:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Admins can put themselves up for voluntary recall. I don't feel that a "community-led" desysop process would work very well, but I'm not averse to trying it if someone comes up with a workable method. I think that working on improving ArbCom is the better solution. the wub "?!" 00:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Arbcom is always going to be contentious and many will always express their unhappiness with outcomes. Given the area, I am surprised it is not more complianed about and suspect this is because the job is being done adequately if not well, however I have not scrutinised it in great detail. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

BAG membership on RfA?

Currently, there is a trial on application of BAG membership being put forth in the same manner as Requests for Adminship. Do you think this step is in the correct direction?

Yes

1. -- Naerii 20:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC) Aww, I'm all on my own :( -- Naerii 22:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Not anymore, Naerii :) I quite like this. BAG is good. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
3. It's much better than the original situation where BAG members were promoted by other BAG members (effectively creating a clubhouse mentality IMO). This allows the community an opportunity to object to nominees/candidates and actually have their voice count for something. Also worth considering: it's under discussion to give BAG members the ability to directly set/remove the "bot" flag (thus making them bureaucrats basically; but only for bots). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Sorta. Takes the load off of the 'crats, like Rollback did for the admins. Malinaccier (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

   Huh? WP:RFR gave extra work for admins and one more RF* to close is more work for the bureacrats. Mr.Z-man 01:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

   WP:RFR made it so that admin had to spend less time cleaning up vandalism because other users could do it efficiently themselves. And "BAG" makes one more thing to close, but dozens of bots that they don't need to approve/deny. Malinaccier Public (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

   BAG has existed for a while now. All this does is create a new way to promote people to BAG, the bureaucrats have not approved bots for a while. They flag them after BAG approves. Mr.Z-man 20:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

   Ok, thinking in the wrong way then...Thanks for telling me this. Malinaccier (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

4. Nothing wrong with a little scrutiny in this area. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
5. There needs to be community input on this, or else only BAG members will appoint other BAG members, and we have already seen the power trip that this created. RFA is a good place for it. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
6. Yes, it decreases the cabalism of BAG. Zginder 2008-06-03T15:41Z (UTC)

No

1. I hate it. The bot approval group is something that doesn't really concern many users, and something not many people know anything about. I can't understand the benefit of adding it to the (already very long) RfA page. J Milburn (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. No, BAG needs abolishing. Majorly (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
   • No argument from me on that point. But so long as it exists, we should do everything we can to avoid potential abuse of BAG member selection. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
     • We're using an easily gamed system with a history of agenda driven voting to avoid abuse? Mr.Z-man 01:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
3. No. BAG should be selected based on technical knowledge. The community at large is not qualified to make such decisions. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
4. RFA is a bureaucratic mess beaten only by ArbCom. How BAG membership jumped from a tiny discussion to RFA, I still don't know. Mr.Z-man 20:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
5. No way. Wizardman 20:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
6. This should be decided only by users with the appropriate technical knowledge, not by the community as a whole. —Travis^talk 20:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   Your complaint seems to be problematically recursive. BAG is already the people deemed to have the technical knowledge to approve bots. You want a technically-knowledgeable group to appoint them? The BAGAG? And who determines if they're technically knowledgeable enough? Besides, recent events have shown that bot issues are not just technical but social. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 08:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

7. No. Whose idea was it even to stick it on the RFA page to grab attention? bibliomaniac15 20:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
8. I think the old way worked just fine. Captain panda 20:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
9. I see what they're trying to do, but I think it's like the XfD process. People will become involved if they wish to. A page of its own, open to all comers (those with interest) should be fine. That said, perhaps a link at RfA (as a similar though different process) might be appropriate. - jc37 20:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
10. I have no iea how the WP software works or interacts with bots. Thus I have little idea whether a bot would be harmful. It's daft letting me get involved in selecting which bots run or not, unless the "closing admin" is prepared to ignore any !votes that are technically illiterate. Seeing the fuss and bother some bots generate makes me think that community disscussions would be long and heated, but with little purpose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBealeCocks (talk • contribs)

    I really should point out that if you find it daft to comment on something you know nothing about (I would feel the same in your shoes), then you're certainly not obliged to comment. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    Surely Dan's point is not about being obliged to comment, but that anyone can comment, techno-literati or no. That is the weakness of the system now, is it not? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

11. Look at some of the "Skynet" opposes on bot RfAs to see why this is a bad idea. Not to mention this will just spread the bad vibes of RfA to another process. the wub "?!" 21:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
12. No way. BAG works well and we definitely don't need more RFA bureaucratic infighting. --Haemo (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
13. No, the BAG is a useless cabal of people, why make it messy and useless. Prodego ^talk 01:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
14. Daniel (talk) 02:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
15. No need for more internet politics. Voice-of-All 02:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
16. Dorftrottel (ask) 03:45, April 21, 2008
17. No, this is not needed. SQL^{Query me!} 09:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
18. No no no. BAG must be selected based on technical merit. A basic level of trust is needed, but an understanding of how bots work is essential. Besides, if it is not broken, then there is no need to fix it. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
19. No. BAG needed reforming, but this is the wrong way to do it. - Philippe 16:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
20. I agree with the many reasons above, placing BAG on the RFA page is not a good idea. Useight (talk) 17:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
21. Trust is needed for BAG operators, but consensus is needed before the process for achieving that is implemented. Rudget 17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
22. Awful. This project doesn't need more RfA-like processes. krimpet✽ 17:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
23. WTF BAG IAR DEL SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
24. I really do not think it belongs on the page. Adminship and 'cratship decide whether a users can have some pretty serious powers: deleting pages, blocking users; desysopping users and renaming users. Being in the BAG is not as big a power, you do not really gain an actual technical power. It is simply an admission into an exclusive group of people, sort of like ArbCom except they only decide whether bots are approved. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 23:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
25. Absolutely not. Nakon 01:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
26. We need community involvement. THis is not the best way to solicit it. — Werdna talk 02:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
27. Nope. Should be peer judged technical merit (or some such) not !votes. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
28. Too many processes. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
29. Oppose - Adding another election to an already broken RfA process is the wrong way to move. Since this is primarily technical, the existing system is fine, assuming that the criteria for membership is technical. The members should be very familiar with bots. Also, BAG members have no admin like powers. — Becksguy (talk) 10:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
30. No. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
31. BAG membership is very different compared to adminship and bureaucratship, and I think a technical based peer review or even the old system works better for this. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
32. No. I have no clue how bots work, so I shouldn't have a say in who gets to join BAG. Also, adds another level of process. Lazulilasher (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
33. (current bag member) I'm not opposed to election or group reform, but a section of WP:RFA isn't helpful for most of the community. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
34. I think RFBAG should be on a separate page, I have no idea what makes a good programmer and how to analyse someone's coding skills so it is of no use to me to have that on the same page as RFA. I do think that anyone should be able to decide who can go on the BAG though, just that it should be oriented more toward those in the know about bots and less at the community at large. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
35. I agree with James086 ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 09:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Other

1. If not here, then where would be best? Clearly where they are isn't getting sufficient community input, and many members of the community feel that they're being shortchanged as a result. Ral315 (talk) 22:11, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Future of the IRC admin channel?

It's been a year. The IRC admin channel is still criticized for group think and formation of ad-hoc admin actions, the recent one just a week ago. What should be done with it? Is it producing more heat than light?

Business as usual

1. Gee, I am there every day and all I can say is that it is a benefit to Wikipedia. A lot of people have bought into conspiracy theories about the IRC channel, but seriously folks it is just a place we use to improve Wikipedia. Many people complaining about IRC don't have any information on the topic other than what has been said by other people who don't know what happens there. If people are conspiring then they are using private messages, not the IRC channel. I have read through the logs, it is just not happening. Admins don't use IRC to make consensus based decisions, but they do ask for advice so that they can use their own discretion better. Admins are allowed to use their own discretion, and they can get advice before doing so. Now if they screw up then it was their fault, not the forum they sought advice from. An admin who takes bad advice has made their own mistake, but that is not a conspiracy, or a back room decision. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   You do understand that your argument actually feeds the "conspiracy theory" though, right? Saying "I've read through the logs, it is just not happening" is a statement of trust. You are asking all editors outside of the handful (by comparison) that view that channel to "trust me, I've read through the logs". I agree that 99% of the use of the channel is harmless and probably helpful. The 1% drama feeding is not worth it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   I don't to see how people failing to assume good faith contradicts my arguments that it should be business as usual for the IRC channel. I do think that the 99% of the harmless and helpful aspects of IRC justify the 1% drama. If the 1% drama was based on reason I may feel different, but I am not going to accept the "Prove there is no conspiracy" argument which is basically what the "why should we trust you not to conspire" argument is. The little evidence that has been presented to indicate that it is a problem simply is not compelling to me due to the fact that most of it is 20% fact and 80% spin. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   I personally wasn't failing to assume good faith, and assuming that everyone that has a problem with an admin only IRC channel is somehow automatically assuming bad faith is, well, not assuming good faith...and so the story goes... Seriously though, I'm not trying to get in an argument, I completely believe that the vast majority of activities there are good. And also unnecessary. I've stated clearly (I thought), that there is however an authentic perception that the channel has a touch of cabalism/conspiracy/groupthink mixed in with the good stuff that happens there. I'm not advocating the removal of the channel for my own interests, I can read the logs anytime. I choose not to participate because of the perception of hierarchy where hierarchy is not needed. It's not just not needed, it's not helpful, collaborative, inclusionary, or wiki. The argument I've heard of along the lines of "well if it doesn't happen there, it will happen somewhere" is a false argument along the lines of OtherCrapExists" (or will soon). To sum up my diatribe (and please know, Until1=2, this isn't directly at you personally as I highly respect you and your volunteered time and work, and my apologies if that is how it is coming across,) but I strongly feel that a rights-based off wiki channel of communication completely violates the true spirit of Wikipedia, and it further develops the aura of unequal editing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Fair enough, I assure you the respect is mutual, reasonable people can disagree without a loss of respect. However I have never seen the wiki-way to require the absence of private communication. It is not even that rights based, many admins do not have access, and many that do have access are not admins. Other groups can also form IRC channels. Many of our users, admin or otherwise, use outside means of communication for the benefit of Wikipedia, and as long as this is not used to abuse consensus it is fine and even something I would encourage. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   There are editors (non-admin) that have access to the admin channel? Forgive me for my ignorance, but I had heard otherwise, that it was not allowed. Also, I don't have a problem with communication that happens off wiki (I choose not to do it, don't even hae email enabled, but I'm at the extreme end of the bell curve on that). My issue is with the exclusivity of the channel combined with the "per IRC discussion", which creates an inaccurate air of authority. If non-admin editors have access to the admin channel, that's news to me! Is that true? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Yes, several non-admins have regular access to the channel, it has been that way for at least a year, most likely longer. I am the first to admit that "per IRC discussion" is a problem, but not a problem with IRC, a problem with any admin that thinks that is a basis for a decision. _(1 == 2)^Until 04:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Take/Keep admin decisionmaking to/on Wiki

1. But do not remove the channel, which is useful to get a quick second opinion or sanity check. J Milburn (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. The channel, 25% of the time is extremely helpful, 70% of the time is friendly discussion without all the trolling and nonsense of other channels, and it is incredibly rare that such incidents happen, then for some unknown reason, people blame the channel rather than the admin who did the action. Any admin who thinks IRC is a substitute for on-wiki discussion needs a slap upside the head and possibly a suspension from the channel. Mr.Z-man 20:14, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. What Mr.Z said. Wizardman 20:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
4. For the benefit of us non-IRC users here, just leave discussion here. bibliomaniac15 20:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Here. The main problem I see with irc, is that, unlike here, logs aren't "open to anyone". As a matter of fact, divulging logs without all involved being aware is considered a Bad Thing. Keeping things on wiki just seems better, more transparent, and trackable for potential future reference. - jc37 21:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Mr.Z-Man has said it perfectly. Captain panda 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
7. What Mr.Z-Man said. the wub "?!" 21:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
8. The drama needs to go. The channel is, I think, a social inevitability. --Haemo (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Per Mr Z-Man, who nailed it perfectly. Black Kite 23:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
10. With the **DRAMA** that seems to come out of using the channel, even if it's something that really should be non-controversial, it's time that stuff be kept here for specific discussion of actions. Leave the channel for general discussion or socializing. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
11. How does one enact a ban of IRC? Otherwise as per Mr Z-man really. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
12. Good for second opinion on quick, probably non-controversial things, but for actually getting consensus? No. There's usually around 60 or so admins in the channel at any given time, but only about 10 of those are actually active, with (maybe) another 15 or so that respond when you mention their name ("ping" them). Nothing should be done "per IRC", if a full discussion is needed, it's gotta be here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
13. Obvious utopia. Daniel (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
14. Mr Z-Man. Dorftrottel (warn) 03:49, April 21, 2008
15. I told you Z-man should have passed his RfB. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 11:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
16. Essential as part of our openness and transparency towards the public. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
17. This is not really a matter of choice. This is already a policy, save privacy and other small segment of issues. Why is this even brought up? --Irpen 22:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
18. Move it to wmf servers under community control and jurisdiction. --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
19. This was a fundamental principle. Hiding T 00:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
20. No real decisions on IRC. Malinaccier (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
21. Obviously, as is current practice. — Werdna talk 02:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
22. As it always should have been. Singularity 04:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
23. Per J Milburn. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
24. I am putting my name here as well as in the "Business as usual" section because we already keep our group decision making on wiki. Getting off wiki advice and then using your discretion is not the same think as making an "off-wiki" decision. It is making a decision with your own discretion after getting private advice. As far as I can tell, nobody is using the IRC channels to come to any sort of group decision, and any action taken by an admin should be attributed to that admin. _(1 == 2)^Until 13:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
25. I must agree with Z-man, despite WP:PERNOM. Not being an admin, I can't check his figures; but the overall picture seems blindingly obvious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
26. The channel certainley is helpful, but I agree it is better to keep admin decision making on Wikipedia, as generally currently done. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
27. Open-ness is important. James086^{Talk | Email} 08:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
28. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
29. This is what is was always for. Zginder 2008-06-03T15:43Z (UTC)

Scrap it

1. I still don't know of any substantive positive thing coming from IRC. Some people still haven't learned that the bad block decisions they make via IRC empower those who are at the receiving end. I can always get a quick second opinion at WP:AN if I need one. Grandmasterka 19:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Not against it in principle, but sick of the endless drama. -- Naerii 20:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. I have always been against it in principle. A private channel is anti-Wiki by definition and encourages the strengthening of cabals. --Wikiacc (¶) 21:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
4. The IRC/admins channel and its defenders have done a great deal of damage to Wikipedia. The theoretical benefits are outweighed by the stunning amount of disruption the channel continues to produce. Discuss things in an open channel or on Wiki. The secrecy is not helping. --JayHenry (talk) 22:37, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Zero transparency - there are even arguments regarding which are the "true" logs when presented, and there is no effective community sanction on any abuse (even should there be proof of same). LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
6. seems like more trouble than it is worth. Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Destroy it. In the rare case of something truly confidential , we have oversight and arb com and OTRS. Open decisions, openly arrived at, is the general principle behind WP, and a private channel subverts it. I have refused to join it, and I hope to encourage new admins to do likewise DGG (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
8. It seems to nurture a problematic mentality and has produced far too many abusive and harmful decisions. Everyking (talk) 09:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
9. It's divisive and inflammatory. We have no control over it, but the Wikipedia community can distance itself from it and explicitly state that its use is considered inappropriate. We should agree that it cannot be used to defend any administrative action on-wiki, as that can only be justified here, within the community. If those that control the channel knew what was good for Wikipedia as a whole, they would have scrapped it themselves long ago. The fact that they did not reflects badly on them, and their commitment to building an inclusive community. DrKiernan (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Scrap it. Too much drama, and too many power trips and problems for some people. I have not entered the channel for ages now, and hope to keep it that way. I haven't missed out on anything, and I feel great! I encourage more people to stop joining. Majorly (talk) 15:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
11. Burn pile. With gasoline. And a torch. And quickly. I'm utterly convinced that +/- 95% of the time, the admin IRC channel is perfectly functional, perfectly harmless, probably a bit of fun and in-jokey, perfectly sane, and perfectly useful. I'm also utterly convinced that the other +/- 5% of the time make it utterly not worth it. (Disclaimer) My percentages have a +/- 4% margin of error, as I've never been, and per DGG above, never will be, part of the channel.) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
12. Unless any and all actions that are decided "off Wiki" are required to be nakedly, transparently logged "on Wiki" -- posting of IRC logs, emails, etc., this is useless to the larger community. The needs of a minority of the admin population doesn't decide what is best for everyone. If "all" IRC logs are published in a place that any admin can review at-will, and no action that is formulated on IRC is allowed on-Wiki without full disclosure and logging, then sure, keep. Otherwise, it's doing far more harm than good. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
13. No. Transparency is needed, and on another note, so is better access. I've never known such a complicated system as IRC, but then that might just be me. Rudget 17:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
14. Scrap it. Produces more problems than solutions. PhilKnight (talk) 18:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
15. First choice. Scrap the current channel. Let those who want chat in private all they want but there would be no illusion anymore that they are doing anything but illicit through discussing good users behind their backs. Remove any mention of such channel from Wikipedia, similar to BADSIGHTS. Those with poor ethics can exercise their freedom of communication in an illicit way all they want but would not be able to invoke any poor excuses. We don't host WR policies. We should not host the policies of #admins, at least for as long as they are intendedly kept in an ambiguous and morally indefensible condition of deliberate ambiguity. If they are official, make it clear and meaningful. If not,... well, we don't host WR policy on Wikipedia servers. --Irpen 04:27, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
16. Shut it down. The potential harm outweighs any potential benefit. You can't stop people from talking on IRC but you can desysop any admins who have been using IRC to privately discuss Wikipedia matters. Publicly accessible logs would be an improvement, but there would still be private messages from admin to admin not in the logs. Off-wiki consensus does not apply to Wikipedia. Not to mention that unless an admin has a cloak, the IRC channel is an instant Checkuser for any other admin in the channel. There are only 28 users on Wikipedia with Checkuser access, and they must provide personal identification to the Wikimedia Foundation. Meanwhile, there are over 1,500 admins who can access the IRC channel, and admins don't have to provide any personal identification to anyone. --Pixelface (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Other reforms

1. Keep the channel but discourage its use except for very urgent matters. Use a public channel for chit-chat. If logs are not already available to all admins they should be. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:31, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. Do nothing as the wiki has no control whatsover over IRC. John Reaves 20:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   Perhaps, but on the other hand, should it be "unoffically" sanctioned by Wikipedia? I can tell you, as someone who doesn't irc, it often makes me feel as if I'm "left out" of what's "going on" concerning whatever issue is at hand. (That said, there are several "off-wiki" ways in which people communicate. Several noticeboards, email lists, alternative wikis, and irc channels. Not to mention personal interaction such as email, and IMs, and so on. So, we should realise that it's out there, but I don't think we should offically "approve" it for admins, et al.) - jc37 21:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

3. Proposal: Agree with John Reeves. You cannot control this, yet it should not be invisible to us. So I'd propose an Admin Chat, like the Crat Chat, in the case that consensus among admins is needed to do a controversial or semi-controversial task. Just a thought. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
4. We're still waiting on a solution from ArbCom about IRC, right? Right? :( shoy 03:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Removing the IRC channel to lessen the effects of off-wiki discussions will only move the venue elsewhere, most likely to another IRC channel. seicer | talk | contribs 04:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
6. I agree with John Reaves that WP has no control over IRC. hmwithτ 13:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
7. It's OK to have a channel for admins to discuss topics which are confidential, but it should NOT form the basis for any administrative action. Anybody blocking someone "per IRC discussion" should be desysopped on the spot. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
8. How about choosing admins who won't make bad decisions based on a few IRC comments? And simultaneously recognizing that people may be saying bad things about me on IRC right now but I don't really care? That would make this issue go away pretty quickly. IRC is a symptom, not the problem, and the focus on it generates a lot of shouting but no real solutions. People will always communicate off-wiki. MastCell ^Talk 16:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Make the logs public. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 16:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
10. per Sjakkalle. - Philippe 17:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
11. Second choice: define without ambiguity whether it is subject to the Wikipedia policies or not. If not, see the "scrap it" section above. Remove any mention from Wikipedia. We don't host the policies, rules, etc of Wikipedia Review either. If yes, make it clear, subject it to the community oversight (does not necessarily means publishing logs, just make its rules defined by policies written in the same ways like any others) rather than being Forrester's fiefdom. Current status of deliberate ambiguity passionately desired by some is morally indefensible. --Irpen 22:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
12. I was writing a long rant about this, but unfortunately my browser crashed and the automatic recovery feature unfortunately did not recover what I had written. In any case, I agree with ^demon: the logs should be made public due to the simple fact that anything that is discussed in the channel that someone wants to be hidden from the eyes of the community should not be discussed there. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 22:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Is rollback rights considered a success?

Initially there wasn't much community traction to go ahead with it, but it did anyway. Do you consider it to be a success or failure now? Any lesson we can take from it in future policy-making regarding UserRights?

Yes, it is a success

1. It works better than I thought it would. J Milburn (talk) 20:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. I think I initially opposed it when it was first brought up a couple years ago. But it was set up perfectly, and it's worked great. Grandmasterka 20:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. It hasn't turned into a bureacracy, it hasn't seen more than a few isolated incidents of misuse, and it hasn't turned into a clique of trusted users. Mr.Z-man 20:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
4. A complete success, excepting a few drama queens who think Twinkle is the same. As I said above, we should have RfAs like RfR. Majorly (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
5. Successful, but for the 5 rollbacks a minute limit which is too few. EJF (talk) 20:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
6. Has been very good. Wizardman 20:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
7. Successful. It should be granted roboticly to established editors but revoked if the editor shows he can't tell the difference between vandalism and a good faith edit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
8. Has worked much better than I thought it was going to. Davewild (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
9. bibliomaniac15 20:51, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
10. Definitely a success. Captain panda 21:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
11. Yes, it seems to be working well. I think the lesson to be learned from it is don't afraid of trying new things. the wub "?!" 21:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
12. It's settled down. It's making Wikipedia better (well, it's not -but it's helping to make sure Wikipedia doesn't become worse). Pedro :  Chat  22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
13. Unqualified success. I wish we would roll out a similar proposal with a +EditProtectedPages or other limited adminship rights. --JayHenry (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
14. Yes, and I agree with JayHenry: more atomised rights would be good, e.g. edit-protected, auto-patrolled. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
15. Agree with JayHenry; I'd appreciated EditProtectedPages etc. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 01:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
16. Seems to be running smoothly. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
17. It's been excellent. Acalamari 01:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
18. Daniel (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
19. Generally so, but the 5/min limit makes it useless for reverting spam. MER-C 02:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
20. Works fine, but I reserve the right to object later. MBisanz ^talk 02:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
21. Amazingly. shoy 03:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
22. Andre (talk) 06:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
23. Seems to work well. Everyking (talk) 09:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
24. Seems to be going along quite smoothly. SQL^{Query me!} 10:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
25. I like it. It gives me a quick tool for simple vandalism without the burden of doing administrative tasks. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
26. [Note, I have +rollback, so I may be biased!] I think it's working fine. No misuse that I can think of. I am glad that it hasn't become another bureaucracy though! ><RichardΩ612 15:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
27. Yep. When I remember to use it over Twinkle, which is 100x more functional. Alas... Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
28. It is working fine. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
29. I think rollback was a good idea and it seems to be working fine. Useight (talk) 17:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
30. No problems for me. - Philippe 17:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
31. I requested +rollbacker a couple days after it was first implemented, and since then, I have found it very useful and have not seen any abuse of it that would not have occurred without rollback. The process is simple and efficient, avoiding bureaucracy or drama. Keep rollback as is; it's just another good counter-vandalism tool. Pyrospirit (talk · contribs) 19:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
32. Big success IMO. Other user rights should follow suit (deletion/restoration, blocking/unblocking, etc). RFA is hopelessly broken, but perhaps we can return to it "not (being) a big deal" if we give out the rights slowly and in an orderly fashion (start people off with rollback, over time give them the ability to delete/restore a page if they show interest, and ultimately give them blocking/unblocking). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
33. It is obvious to me. Malinaccier (talk) 01:14, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
34. Nakon 01:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
35. — Werdna talk 02:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
36. It didn't cause any internal chaos. :) Looks to be doing well. Singularity 04:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
37. Absolutely. A clear case of the success of WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
38. As a proud rollbacker, yes. Editorofthewiki 14:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
39. Being a rollbacker, my opinion is obviously biased; I do think, however, that non-admin rollbackers should be allowed to do more than 5 rollbacks per minute. At least 10, probably 15 would be better. 5 is just too few for applications such as Twinkle and especially Huggle. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
40. Never really saw a problem with it in the beginning, and I still don't. The whirlwind has died down and editor's use it and misuse it - just like any other script. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
41. - SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
42. Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
43. A bit of a controversy at the start, but I think its worked brilliantly in the end. Camaron | Chris (talk) 19:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
44. Yes, it has been a good idea, I find it very useful. I also agree with Locker Cole's ideas above. Noble Story (talk) 02:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
45. Yes. Separating out a tool that makes anti-vandalism easier from the other, more powerful, tools that are rightly reserved to admins has benefited the project. Would like to see further incremental moves in this direction (e.g. some increase in the throttle limit, possibly giving rollbackers access to Special:Unwatchedpages). Philip Trueman (talk) 10:32, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
46. Yes. I could never put myself through the public hazing of an RfA, but thanks to WP:RFR I was able to gain rollback rights without any lengthy bureaucracy, and I have found them very useful. As far as I am aware, the same is true of many others; the number of cases of 'rollback abuse' is extremely few compared to the number of people who have been granted the right. That, to me, is a sign that the current process works well; I would support extending it with a similar process for gaining the right to edit protected pages. It's about time Wikipedians gave up their newbie-biting attitudes and accepted that the encyclopaedia would be improved if many more people had limited admin rights, not less. Terraxos (talk) 04:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
47. Yes, works fine but really isn't that big a deal. It saves a keystroke or two in reverting obvious vandalism but the inability to leave an informative edit summary is a limitation. Cases of misuse seem rare, and anyone with ill intent can cause just as much damage by typing the extra keystrokes as they could if they had rollback available. A small and very limited tool that offers small and very limited benefits. Happy to have it, wouldn't miss it if it was gone. Euryalus (talk) 21:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
48. Yes ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 09:02, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
49. I was initially opposed to adding rollback, but now that it's here I'm surprised by how well it's been working. While it's nice to know that I can quickly remove it from users who abuse it, I wouldn't mind having a central location where non-admin users could report abuses as well. --jonny-mt 01:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
50. Wikipedia did not fail apart because of this; it got stronger. The same thing will happen when protection is given out. Zginder 2008-06-03T15:49Z (UTC)

No, it is a failure

1. -- Naerii 20:04, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   May I ask why you believe it to be a failure? ><RichardΩ612 15:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

2. Twinkle offers a much better service with no prior registration. ...... Dendodge.Talk^Help 20:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

   But does that make it a failure? Or is there just an easier way? Malinaccier (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

3. I do use rollback a lot, but Twinkle does provide a sufficient replacement, not to mention Twinkle allows for different edit summaries in case the edit is not specifically vandalism. — Parent5446 ^{(t n c k e l)} 22:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Others

1. Abstain. I think it's too soon to tell. And I think that it's a tool such that misuse isn't "immediately" obvious. - jc37 21:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
2. I've seen a couple of problems; some editors see it as a "step in their WP career", which is probably a bad thing. A few editors use it inappropriately. that's only a problem if they continue to do it and it's never taken away from them. But then I see similar problems with scripts (which aren't always upto date with policy, or which make biting easier than welcoming.) I dunno if it's actually achieved anything, I'd like to see some statsDan Beale-Cocks 21:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
3. Too hard to tell. Some people are clearly playing MMORPGs with Wikipedia, and think this is just the first reward they get for slaying orcs. --Haemo (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
4. Abstain; I don't touch rollback largely because if I give it to a user who ends up abusing it, it reflects badly on me for trusting him/her. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)}
5. DGAF. Dorftrottel (bait) 03:50, April 21, 2008

   Um... what? Stifle (talk) 08:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

   [1] Garion96 (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

   Or, also plausible, WP:DGAF. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

   I should known that there is a redirect & essay for that. :) Garion96 (talk) 21:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

6. Harmless, but also useless. Not needed for anyone at all, admin or non-admin. All it takes is to restore the unvandalised version.DGG (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Definately not useless. If you don't believe me, look at my contribs before and after I was given rollback. Two clicks vs. three clicks (absolute minimum, most of the time more, plus scrolling down and clicking on "save page") = no contest. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

7. A useful tool, but bad in that it is considered another "level-up" by the growing army of social networkers and roleplayers we have to endure here, as demonstrated by the "This user has rollback rights" userbox George The Dragon (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

   Agree with that one, but only because of that daft cat picture in it. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

8. Per Dorftrottel. Meh. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
9. Abstain. I think it worked perfectly fine when it was limited to just administrators. At least preventing further editing from 'bad' accounts can be dealt with quicker that way. Saying that, rollback has worked towards a more positive note than I had previously thought. Rudget 17:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
10. I too am disappointed that it's becoming a coveted "rank" that people work for, rather than just a tool - this "WP as an MMORPG" culture really needs to be quashed. krimpet✽ 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
11. I'm not sure yet. I've seen bragging and userboxes/badges on the userpages of users who have been granted rollback which rub me the wrong way, but that's a separate issue from "is rollback working?". For me, the jury is still out. KrakatoaKatie 22:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

    I do have to agree with the userbox thing. Rollback is simply a streamlined version of undo-ing, and anyone can undo edits, so there is no reason others need to know you have it. Admins, on the other hand, can do things that other users cannot do no matter what, such as delete pages. I almost think that admins should be required to at least have the little sysop symbol in the upper right corner of their userpages. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 21:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)