Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Food for thought

Please note: I am writing this paragraph merely so that everyone understands where I'm coming from. I acknowledge that the majority of people who frequent this talk page disagree with me, and would encourage those of that opinion to agree to disagree and focus on my second and third paragraphs. Personally I'm of the opinion that adminship should be broken down into janitorial and judicial roles, but that's beyond the remit of this discussion and unlikely to happen in the short to medium term, in part due to opposition from current admins. Failing that, I'm of the opinion that there should be a simpler mechanism for tool removal, but that is again beyond the remit of this discussion, and again is unlikely to happen in the short to medium term.

Accepting that we are where we are, RfA should in the meantime focus on ensuring that people who become admins can both be trusted with the tools, and where applicable have demonstrated that they understand any objections to their candidacy. I'd like to highlight User:GiantSnowman's two RfAs as an example of why reform should be very careful not to lower the pass rate or reduce scrutiny. Several issues relevant to adminship were raised in his first RfA, albeit several of the opposers did acknowledge that GS had the potential to use the tools well. Were the pass rate lower, as is the stated objective of this proposal, he would in all probability have passed. Were we stricter about what questions you can ask, or on what basis users can oppose a candidacy, he would in all probability have passed. Bearing in mind that admins have tenure (barring gross misconduct or failing to make a single edit in a year), I ask whether this would have been the optimal outcome?

In any event, this didn't happen. The candidate did not pass, and once the usual drama surrounding a relatively close RfA subsided, both Wikipedia and the user carried on. GiantSnowman worked very hard to acknowledge and tackle the issues raised, and in February 2012 passed his second RfA unopposed. I see this as a success story for RfA, as whether you agree or disagree that we needed to wait a year to give GS the tools, it is undeniable that as a result of the first RfA, GiantSnowman is a far stronger admin now than he would have been had he passed a year ago. I would encourage proponents of this process to ensure that an outcome of any change is that we see more results like this. I believe we can achieve this by going out of our way to ensure that good faith RfA candidates that do not pass are not made to feel like failures, and by either encouraging or possibly mandating repeat applicants to demonstrate what they have done to address issues raised in previous attempts. —WFC— 17:47, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm usually careful to avoid naming specific examples especially of failed RFAs, so I won't comment on that specific pair of RFAs. But leaving that on one side, my concern and I suspect that of many others is that the total number of new admins is falling by a third each year, and after a January with only one successful RFA, 2012 hasn't got off to a good start. We don't know how long our remaining admins will continue to be active, or what the minimum number/level of activity is before we hit serious problems. But we do know that a dwindling group of volunteers cannot indefinitely maintain 24/7 coverage at AIV, or indeed do all the other things that the community expects of us. Lowering the threshold and other ways of making it easier for weak candidates to get through will be unlikely to get community support. Indeed one of the problems is that people who come up with good reasons to oppose sometimes word their opposes in ways that are intemperate rather than effective; I've seen at least one RFA succeed because the opposer hid a good reason to oppose beneath what looked at first glance like mere abuse.

We only had four candidates in January this year, and with only four candidates even if you lowered the pass mark to 0% you would not have more than 4 admins. To reform RFA at least to the point where we can stabilise our number of admins we need to find out how to persuade more good candidates to stand. ϢereSpielChequers 22:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Surely, we don't want to diminish to the point that global sysops have to be given access, but that may be the only option. Hopefully this won't become RFA2013.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm certainly not in favor of lowering the bar so much so that unqualified candidates pass their first RFA, nor am I heedless of the value of experience in priming admin candidates. I would have to agree, though, that making RFA more appealing to experienced and qualified editors ought to be a priority of this task force. Let's face it, RFA can be intimidating, even for the most qualified editors. Although I'm sure there are other things that might provoke this increasingly worrying trend, I can't help but wonder whether a sense is conveyed that editors who've made even the slightest of slip-ups or aren't content creators might be scrutinized for these things at RFA. And here's another thought: could efforts for RFA reform be furthering this notion? (i.e. how many editors are waiting for the process to be reformed to apply?). At any rate, WFC, I'm certainly not opposed to breaking adminship into judicial and janitorial roles. There are plenty of editors out there, I'm sure, who'd be more than willing to grab a mop and help out in the backlogs or what have you, but won't apply because they haven't wrote any GA's or FA's or aren't versed in as many areas as !voters would like. My point is, maybe we ought to focus our immediate efforts on allowing those who work in the backlogs to do so in a larger capacity with the tools. After all, the underlying problem here is an increasingly likely shortage of active administrators (ones who pop in every few weeks to correct a typo or "speedy" a page or two, I don't consider active) to take care of things like AIV or UAA, areas which are only tangentially related at best to content creation and the like. Tyrol5 [Talk] 01:05, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Patrolling and judging disputes are two very different things. Most people can do one or the other, but only the few that can do both are admins. I think it's worth a RFC, but let's discuss further.Jasper Deng (talk) 02:19, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

That's why (so it seems to me) a shortage of admins becomes more inevitable with each passing year. I certainly think splitting the role is worth considering. Like I said above, the underlying problem is that RFA is simply not appealing to a substantial portion of editors who might otherwise be very effective janitors if given the mop. If we could somehow allow them to gain access to the tools without having to be heckled about lack of experience in areas orthogonal to gnomish tasks, I think we'd see an increase in new admins. Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hhm... Let's craft a proposal.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

My favourite reform would be to unbundle block button for individual IPs and editors with fewer than 100 edits. That would leave range blocks and issues like civility to full admins. I think that this would be a practical measure that would be easy to understand and would enable us to keep AIV manned for the foreseeable future. I very much doubt that those who worry about editors who don't create content being able to block those that do would be worried at experienced hugglers getting this right.

Another reform would be to upbundle some admin roles such as the blocking and unblocking of experienced editors or even the closing of RFCs and other consensus judging to crats. Currently all crats are admins who the community trusts to judge consensus in areas where it doesn't empower all admins, so restricting certain current admin powers to crats wouldn't be giving them a power they don't have already, just concentrating more work in their hands. If the upbundled powers required more crats than we currently have then we could easily have that as "With effect from x months time" and I suspect we'd then see some RFBs. While this wouldn't lower my RFA criteria I suspect it would lower some people's unusually high criteria. ϢereSpielChequers 13:27, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We need to make sure that people won't cry "bureaucracy" if we do this.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

The one qualm I have with proposing to unbundle the block button to the community is the opposition, and there will be opposition. Those who oppose "admin-lite", as is the apparent colloquialism of unbundling the block function and other such things, will say that if they trust an editor not to abuse the function in question, they'd support them for full adminship. The problem is, there are plenty of editors who contradict this by opposing a candidate based merely on inexperience in content creation or whatever else. And that's where the problem is. There really ought to be a way for the editors who perpetually work in the backlogs to get a mop to dig through the admin backlogs too (some would argue that there aren't many severely backlogged admin areas, but there certainly will be if the trend continues). The fact of the matter is, we've got to do something to make RFA less repulsive to the exact editors who'd make efficient use of the tools working in the uncontroversial maintenance venues on WP, or we're going to have serious problems in the not-so-distant future. Tyrol5 [Talk] 21:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

We didn't actually try this particular proposal before. We need to convince the community that the "he can block, he can do anything" attitude is not the right way to solve the problem. We also need to invent a process for this "sub-admin" or "moderator" position, like RfM or RfSA.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that provided we make it very clear that people with this right will not be able to block our content creators then I would hope that said content creators will accept that we need to give this right to "expert hugglers" - in fact that might be the best name for it. Another group of very picky RFA voters are those like myself who are very wary of heavy handed users of the delete button. Lots of RFAs have failed and candidates been given a bit of a grilling over CSD tagging. But this proposal would not involve the deletion button at all - so two groups of frequent opposers will hopefully accept such candidates. As for Tyrol5's concerns, admin lite proposals usually involve complex subsets of the admin tools, or temporary or probationary adminship. By contrast this, like rollback, account creator and filemover is a simple unbundling with a clear need and an obvious group of candidates. I started drafting something a while back and may finally start an RFC later this month after I've got a couple of other things off my plate. ϢereSpielChequers 00:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

To a degree, it's rather complacent to write off a proposal by saying simply "he can block, he can do anything" and not realizing that these sorts of editors, many of whom I and many others would trust with the block button, can't get the mop without putting up with opposition because they're not experienced in areas that have little to no overlap with the work they're engaged in and would continue to be engaged in as an admin. I know I sound like a broken record, but we've got to drive that point home, and I fear it won't be driven home completely until we begin to have serious problems. In response to Jasper's second point, I don't know if we should go off and begin proposing different processes altogether; historically, the community hasn't been particularly receptive to major policy changes if some feel it is being imposed upon them. @WSC: Good points. Regardless of what opposition we might be likely to see, It's certainly worth a try. Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As perhaps one of those potential content creator opposers you're thinking of WereSpielChequers all I can say is that I think some kind of unbundling is inevitable, long overdue, and I certainly wouldn't oppose it. But I do think you'll struggle with the WMF's clear position on the recruitment of new editors at whatever price. Malleus Fatuorum 01:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Malleus, obviously that WMF position wouldn't affect an RFC but I can see it could be awkward afterwards, hopefully we could convince them that these were editors who in 06 or 07 would have made admin. I have a draft at User:WereSpielChequers/Unbundle blocking I put it on one side some time ago, but it is almost ready to move into wikispace and start an RFC. Comments and collaboration would be welcome. I think the biggest risk is that supporters of RFA reform might try to expand this proposal into the sort of admin lite that perennially gets rejected. PS to Malleus, what do you think of the idea earlier in this thread of upbundling certain rights to crats? ϢereSpielChequers 01:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We still need to work out specifics, like edit count. Such a restriction may have to be left purely in words (like 3RR) - if any give blocks to people who are not new, they may have to be required to take it to ANI (or some other board where the drama can occur without disrupting actual things like NLT violations), or, preferably, simply lose it automatically.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

It really needs to be programmatic, otherwise we will have endless incidents where one side says it was a good block, perhaps another side says it was a bad block but others say that only a full admin should have made such a block. It should be fairly straightforward for the devs to create such a userright, and yes eventually we will get someone whose unblock request tips them over the 100 edits so that a full admin has to unblock. But as most blocks are of IPs or editors who haven't been autoconfirmed this would make a big difference to the admin load whilst leaving al the contentious blocks and unblocks to admins. ϢereSpielChequers 09:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'm all in favour of unbundling or sub-bundling the admin tools. I wouldn't ever want to be a "full admin", but when I'm doing npp (which, granted, I haven't done for a couple of months) The one toolset I could make good use of would be delete/undelete, for dealing with obvious CSD's. I could possible also make good use of page protection buttons, but other than these, I can;t see any need for me to have any other varieties of mop, and would oppose myself on the basis of "no need for the tools". I'm sure there are many other capable editors who would make excellent use of a small subset of tools, and I do like the idea of vandal-fighters (once they've proved their "worthiness" and are obviously competent editors) having a block button available for dealing with vandals, which can't be used on anyone with more than x-number of edits, etc.

However, I think that one of the best ideas to come up recently – and not even here – was KW's one of having AE-weight sanctions on the RfA page, as regards bad behaviour there. If the entire community were put under caution on that page, as they are on other specific pages, that would do a great deal to de-tox the atmosphere there. Bad behaviour on RfA would get a one-month topic ban; repeat bad behaviour would get a further two months' topic ban; every repeat instance of bad behaviour and the topic ban time gets doubled. Something like that (it's kinda similar to something I suggested months ago, but this time with AE-weight teeth behind it). What do we think of that? And I'm talking about real bad behaviour, not just the odd "naughty word", which is a rather different thing. NPA-type of stuff; belittling, demeaning, that stuff. Could this idea go straight to a RfC? If implemented, it could provide a massively successful solution with little other input; then we would be left needing tweaks to pre-weed-out the snowfails, the not-yets, and the not-evers from applying, and make those editors who'd actually make damned good admins but don't want to run the gauntlet more inclined to have a go. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We do need to detoxify RFA as it has had various problems with incivility and even personal attacks. But I'm not convinced that we need to go from lower than usual standards to a hair trigger and topic bans, not least because some of the most egregious attacks have been by relatively rare visitors who may possibly have been keeping an eye on a particular editor. In my experience we have a problem with some editors who think that upping the emotional quotient of an RFA oppose makes them more effective. Since the opposite is true there is a risk that such editors keep upping the invective factor until they get blocked or realise that a civilly worded diff supported oppose can easily derail an RFA whilst an incivil and unevidenced oppose can often be counter-productive. My preference would be for crats or maybe RFA clerks to simply and quickly remove incivil votes and give those voters the opportunity to rephrase, evidence and recast their !vote.

As for unbundling the delete button. My proposal earlier in this tread is for one very specific unbundling to create a limited form of bock-unblock. If we broaden it to a general unbundling then we shouldn't raise the idea for a few more months because the community has only quite recently rejected a general unbundling. Also those who support a general unbundling should anticipate that many like me who would support a proposal to unbundle a limited version of the block button will oppose general unbundling. Speedy deletion is the area where admins most frequently make mistakes and much as I want to reform RFA I couldn't support a proposal to make it easier for people who can be shown to be heavy handed at CSD tagging to get the delete button. That isn't in any way a comment on your CSD tagging as I haven't checked that and I don't recall ever declining one of your CSD tags, but I would only want to hand the delete button to you or anyone else after we'd effectively screened out the more heavy-handed of our newpage patrollers. ϢereSpielChequers 08:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, obviously anyone with access to the delete button would need a good record of tagging first; I started off with a few mistakes, but improved as I went along which I guess is par for the course). If I had a delete button, I personally would only use it in circumstances where it was absolutely obvious (copyvios seem to be my speciality, for some reason ... I have a "nose" for them ;P) Anything I wasn't 100% sure about, I would tag and leave for someone else to pass judgment on. But, true, we'd have to be very sure that whoever was trusted with it could be ... well ... trusted with it, I suppose! I feel that there's no shame in leaving something which one's not 100% sure of for someone else to make the decision on, but I can quite see the potential risks in a trigger-happy and inaccurate deletionist acquiring the button and not passing dubious cases on to someone else. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 09:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

@WereSpielChequers: I'd be all in favour of transferring some rights to bureaucrats, it would give them something to do; it's always seemed a non-job to me. So far as unbundling the delete button is concerned, I'd probably be against that on balance. Sure, there are some cases where things are clear cut, but many more where it's a matter of fine judgement, in my experience at least. So I like the present system where one editor flags an article and another comes along and reviews and acts on the flag or removes it. Even if I were an administrator there are rather few cases where I'd delete a new article myself rather than flag it for someone else to look at. Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Well with RFA in its current drought that would be hard to argue, I don't know how many bots get flagged and users renamed, but last month we only had one successful RFA and I'm not sure if any of the unsuccessful ones lasted long enough to need a crat to close them. The question we then have is what rights would the community like to see upbundled? I think that large contentious RFCs would be a logical move, and blocking/unblocking of vested contributors another possibility - though probably best not floated at the same time as the unbundling block idea. Are there any other areas so high profile that it would encourage the community to see adminship as not such a big deal and yet happening in small enough numbers that the proposal is viable? ϢereSpielChequers 20:12, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that for unbundling of anything to work it would have to involve the removal of whatever was unbundled from the administrator package, else it would just become another politicised trinket like rollback. Which nobody really needs anyway, but it's attractive to bauble collectors. For instance, what on Earth was the thinking behind giving every administrator the ability to edit abuse filters? I'm quite certain that the majority of them wouldn't recognise a regular expression even if it bit them on the bum. I think there are two obvious initial candidates for unbundling. The first is the one that's already been suggested, blocking of new editors, but as it would likely require a software change that'll never happen. (Some spurious objections to unblocking the delete function get repeated every time the idea is floated, notably a misguided legal notion floated by Godwin that only administrators should be allowed to read deleted material.) The second candidate I think is the ability through edit through page protection; I often find myself itching to correct a TFA or DYK blurb while it's on the main page, but it's just too much trouble to go looking for help at the appropriate noticeboard. More generally, is it really a problem that few administrators are being promoted? I know that it's become a blockable offence to suggest that there are in fact already too many administrators rather than too few, but the figures seem to speak for themselves. There are currently 749 active administrators and about 3,500 active editors, broadly construed. That's a ratio of 4.6:1, which makes Wikipedia look like the most heavily policed organisation on the planet. Malleus Fatuorum 20:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

So are you saying that adminship should be phased out as the main bit required for routine maintenance?Jasper Deng (talk) 00:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That ratio would be irrelevant, if we were talking about the proportion of editors trusted to do maintenance with tools that carry low to moderate risk, and are easily removed. The ratio is problematic because (by your figures) over 17% of all active editors can interpret any situation as they see fit, provided it is not a blatant breach of WP:INVOLVED. To make matters worse, many of these editors became admins for reasons other than showing an ability to get tough calls right. —WFC— 02:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm pleasantly surprised to see that this has sparked debate. Unbundling is the community's way of recognising that adminship is causing problems, whilst refusing to accept that the answer is to reform adminship. In most cases it's an improvement of sorts, but it's not the true solution. But unbundling continues to seem a likely outcome of all this.

Concerns about bureaucracy are understandable, but unfounded for the reason Malleus gives above. If we trust a smaller group of people to make difficult blocks, close contentious AfDs, RfCs, BFGs and so on, why wouldn't we trust them to do the things crats currently do? And indeed, why wouldn't we trust existing crats to do those things? Reform along these lines needn't lead to additional usergroups, but as I see it there are three sticking points to reform along these lines.

Firstly, we would need (near-)exhaustive lists of which aspects of adminship are predominantly mechanical, and which are predominantly judgemental. Secondly, there is the "current admin paradox". Some would expect existing admins to receive a "grandfather clause", i.e. to retain the tools and judicial rights. However, if this happens, some supporters of reform might oppose on those very grounds. Thirdly, if the solution to the "paradox" is a grandfather clause (it will almost certainly have to be), existing admins would expect hard reassurances that reform would not make it any easier to remove judicial priviledges from them. If they get such reassurances, the options would then be to either have what will undoubtedly be derided as "two-tier adminship", or to bite the bullet and make them all crats. After all, the extra buttons are "dull and technical", and blatantly mis-closing an RfB or misusing bot priviledges is a sure-fire way to get them taken away. —WFC— 02:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think if we're going to talk about unbundling the block button (or upbundling something to the bureaucrats or whatever would be consensus) we've got to be careful to not propose multiple of these ideas to the community at once. History has shown that that's a great way to effectively kill a proposal or, even worse, diminish it to an endless WP:PEREN cycle. Nonetheless, we've so far come up with some great ideas. I don't want to speak too soon, but we might be on to something. Tyrol5 [Talk] 03:15, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Did the community change while I wasn't looking? Are we suddenly able to realistically discuss proposals like unbundling adminship without living in a fantasy world? I say this with no offense intended to anyone, but really, does anyone actually think this is a realistic idea? I'd love to be proven wrong, but I don't see it happening. Swarm ^X 03:38, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Admittedly others have said different things, but I explictly pointed out that unbundling is not the real solution. For me, it's a question of how we turn the granting of the existing toolset back to what it was six or seven years ago, without rocking the existing boat too much. —WFC— 03:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, back then I believe the standard was far lower. There's no way we can revert to that point without lowering our standards by a lot, and we aren't lowering our standards any time soon.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You changed your name! Anyway, though, I agree with you. It just looked like the discussion was semi-snowballing in the direction of unbundling. Just wanted to remind everyone that it's not very realistic. Swarm ^X 03:53, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to detract from the open forum nature this thread, but at the same time I was hoping to have a discussion which centres around one idea. To that end, I've created another thread at the succinctly named Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2011/Radical alternatives#Make all existing admins crats, merge WP:ADMIN and WP:CRAT, and then redefine what admins can do with the tools. —WFC— 04:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

@Malleus. Abuse filters and various such esoteric things might be worth upbundling to the crats and taking away from admins, but as I've never worked with them I'm hesitant to suggest change. For all I know the regulars there might not be crats or want to become them.

As for whether we have sufficient admins and the appropriate ratios, I think that one thing what matters is whether we have sufficient volunteers to do what's needed, and that includes 24/7 coverage at AIV. But when I think of who we police I don't think about the other active editors, rather the newbies and casual editors who contribut much of the more problematic parts of our circa 200,000 edits per day and the couple of thousand new articles. As an admin I don't think I interact much with the non-admins in the 3,500, OK I delete their U1s and G7s, but that really is admin as janitor not cop or moderator. I occasionally appoint Autopatrollers, I look at deleted edits at RFA and sometimes I delete things they've tagged at cat speedy. But most of my interactions with the rest of the active editors are as a fellow editor. The people who create the badfaith and obviously non-notable articles that I delete are unlikely to be among anyone's definition of 3,500 active editors, and I doubt if I've ever blocked an editor who had over 100 edits, unless an IP editor got caught up in a block of a vandal on the same IP. That may not make me typical as admins go, but between us we make over a million admin actions a year, and I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of those involve blocking vandals and uncontentious deletions. If you could separate out those roles then I'd suspect that the actual policing of the 3,500 active editors is only a small part of what admins do. Maybe the community would get a bit more relaxed if the blocking and unblocking of our most active editors was something that only crats could do?

I'd actually like to have us as a self policing community where most longterm clueful users have the tools, though with the way that admin numbers are declining that is just a dream. But the tools are useful for all editors not just "moderators", yesterday I found an article where different people had changed the subject several times, and with a few deletes and restores I was able to turn it into a disambiguation page and three separate articles. With the trend in RFAs and admin numbers over several years we know that at some point we will have too few admins. and no organisation can turn a blind eye to such a clear and negative long term trend. ϢereSpielChequers 14:21, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

In theory I agree with the way you word it WSC: upbundle the contentious decisions to crats, and then lower the bar for RfA. It sounds simpler than my method, but the reason I have gone further is to overcome the practical difficulties with getting it passed. Firstly, while we may not need 750 active editors making the difficult calls, and we may not feel that the existing 750 are the right ones, we probably do need more than a grand total of 34. Secondly, current admins would never agree to their power being diluted in that way. Thirdly, the problems at RfA would simply shift to RfB. This third issue would to an extent be the case with the way I have framed my suggestion, but the difference is that with my method existing admins wouldn't require re-confirmation: those would be the most contentious ones. —WFC— 19:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The upbundling idea is interesting, but I'm concerned about how it would be received by the community. It's been shown that the community is not largely receptive to these sorts of proposals to redistribute user rights. I'm of the opinion, however, that some sort of change is long overdue. We've had a decline in not only new administrators, but requests as a whole over the past four or five years. That's a clear sign that something's wrong. Going off on a tangent, I personally think we ought to take the data we've compiled and some of the ideas here and begin a sort of open-ended RFC to gauge what proposals might garner consensus and which ones won't, instead of emphasizing a particular one. That way, we can ensure that solving the underlying problem here (that maintenance editors can't readily gain access to the tools through existing methods) is not an imposed process. Tyrol5 [Talk] 20:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Your first two sentences are good, pragmatic points, but I see this as the effective solution which is least likely to fail. Any proposal that results in an increased number of user rights/ user groups will be dismissed as too hierarchical, or a hat-collecting exercise. Any proposal that diminishes the rights of existing admins will be blocked by admins, as will any proposal that makes it easier for existing admins to be desysopped. Any proposal to lower the RfA bar is doomed, because in return the community would expect one of the things in the previous sentences to happen, and they won't.

I agree the time for an RfC is drawing near, but the important thing is to ensure that each individual proposal has enough time to prepare, so that the ideas are on a level field in terms of how prepared they are for the wide scrutiny they'll receive. Perhaps we should set a specific date on which the RfC will open. I'm thinking the end of March or start of April? —WFC— 20:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that might be realistic if we stick with it. Staying on-focus and on-task is of paramount importance as we move forward. In response to your comments, WFC, I think the proposal is certainly conducive to some productive discussion, so long as we can adequately accommodate the concerns of those who might be skeptical in a RFC environment, when we reach that stage. However, I think we ought to propose unbundling the block button before taking the upbundling proposal to the community. With that, I'd add that the community tends to be more receptive to these changes if they're broken up, rather than having one all-encompassing policy shift. In response to User:Swarm's comment above, keep in mind that the non-administrator rollback proposal, before eventually becoming policy, failed back in 2006. I wouldn't suggest unbundling of the admin tools, per se, but rather a specific tool (the block button) to users who would be willing to help out with uncontroversial blocks without having to put up with RFA. It's not a blanket solution, admittedly, but it's certainly a step in the right direction. Tyrol5 [Talk] 03:51, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Once that one's gone through, what about the idea of unbundling delete/undelete for people like new page patrollers who have already shown their judgment to be sound (I suggest something along the lines of them having patrolled at least 1000 new pages, with a suitable accurate CSD log, as a kind of auto-deleter, like auto-confirmed but obviously a much higher bar). Pesky (talk…stalk!) 07:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Two of the most frequent types of oppose at RFA are "content creators" not wanting to trust those who don't create content to be able to police them and delete their pages, and editors like me who are concerned at the proportion of errors at CSD. Both those groups might well accept unbundling the block button provided it wasn't to be used on the regulars; but neither group is likely to accept the idea of making it easier for people to get the delete button. Also there is the issue of lack of need, apart from attack pages which usually get blanked anyway there is no need to delete most speedies as quickly as we currently do. ϢereSpielChequers 09:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. That idea ties in with the idea of handing out the block button on a "lite" basis, only-to-be used on editors with less than x-number of edits, etc. The delete/undelete option could have a "lite" version, and I expect that quite a number of other functions might be possible to incorporate into the same kind of setup. Someone (I think it was Kiefer.W) suggested a kind of ranking system of apprentice admins, journeyman admins, and master admins, like the old guilds system. Something like that might work very well indeed, with the apprentice ranks only being able to use the mop on one level of editors (and their works) (X-edits, Y-weeks/months), journeymen having that range extended to be used on editors of up to 2X-edits, 2Y-months, and masters having the whole kit and caboodle. The concept of having a tiered ranking system isn't as daft as some people might, on first glance, think. I expect it would be as easily software-tweakable/doable as autoconfirmed is. Looking further into it, progression through the ranks could be done on a very simple calculation: apprentices have to have A-amount of admin actions with acceptable accuracy; journeymen would have to have nxA-amount; masters etc. etc. etc. This might look kinda complex at a cursory glance, but I think it's actually probably very, very simple. And one could have separate other requirements like, for example, master-Admins would have to have however-many-thousand bytes of (undeleted, un-automated) content contributions before they achieved Mastership. Again, not actually that hard to do, and many of the sums needed for progression from one level to the next could be automated. Adding: Kiefer has an excellent mind and some very sound and insightful ideas; how can we tempt him to join in here? I've tried .... Pesky (talk…stalk!) 10:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding grandmasters, masters, journeymen, apprentices: See below.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

That sounds rather too hierarchical for here. Also a key difference between unbundling the delete and block buttons is that the controversial blocks are generally of established editors whilst the controversial and mistaken deletions are usually of articles created by newbies. Before we create a delete lite button we need to identify a subset of deletions that are both large and uncontentious. Perhaps AFDs without keep votes, U1s and G7s would be an uncontentious unbundling, but you'd need a larger subset for it to be a worthwhile unbundling. You'd also need some way to prevent such an unbundling being gamed. It would be easy to program a block lite that simply didn't work on IP ranges and accounts with over 100 edits. But any deletion lite which relied on deletion tags would risk having people use the wrong tag so that someone with delete lite could delete it. ϢereSpielChequers 11:55, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

And G12's! Though when CorenSearchBot works, that's not so much of an issue. But I think, off the top of my head, that copyvios form the largest percentage of my CSD log. I still like the heirarchical kinda thing; you get trusted with some tools for use on some editors / articles, and once proven worthy with those and more experienced, you kinda auto-progress to have a wider range of influence, etc. Pesky (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I came across a G12 recently which had been deleted despite having five years and over a 100 edits before the copyvio was added. So I would be cautious about including G12 deletions in any admin lite or unbundling option. ϢereSpielChequers 23:39, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Ahh, I was thinking of new-page G12's and not ones with history to sort out! I should have made that clearer. Pesky (talk) 21:21, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

e-Quality

Above, Pesky referred to our conversation, in which I mentioned medieval guilds and their hierarchies of (grand)masters, journeymen, and apprentices.

I suggested such guilds as a well-known example of a practice that

1. fosters achievement and
2. recognizes that different persons are at different stages on the path to excellence.

Rather than medieval guilds, I could have mentioned, in contemporary life, athletics , mathematics (e.g. the mathematical circles of Russia) or martial arts or (I)go/wei chi/baduk or music---for example the guitarmasters Frank Zappa or Joe Satriani or Robert Fripp or the patron David Bowie....).

Contemporary examples or the medieval guild focus on the good of the practice---literally on the good of the product and on the good of the way of life of the practice---rather than on the rights of the individual or the rules of the martinet. In a good practice, rules are recognized as heuristics that can simplify life and are subject to improvement (usually by masters); rules help but are occasionally misused by the Barney Fifes and Gomer Pyles of the world.

In the same conversation, I suggested that most readers would prefer the example of total quality management] (TQM), which focuses on quality and removing hierarchies among employees (or stake holders). Unfortunately, many of our editors believe that TQM is inappropriate for not for profits or organizations staffed mainly by volunteers---perhaps having never read Peter Drucker on the Girl Scouts.

Medieval guilds and TQM (e.g. for the Girlscouts USA) each reminds us of the importance of focusing on the quality of the product and respecting good practitioners. These examples complement and in many ways are superior to the monomaniacal rules-orientation of the playground or Wikipedia. (This has been said better by Peter Drucker, Alasdair MacIntyre (After Virtue), and contemporary critics of Kantian ethics.)

Sincerely,  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 11:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm absolutely sure there is a good way forwards to be found in this concept. It may take some digging and sifting to find the diamonds in the gritpile, but they'll be in there. Pesky (talk) 21:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this has potential as a fertile approach, with many more sensible possibilities than the current demeaning silly-system. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Combine RFA2011 and RFA2012 proposals into draft RFC?

I plan to copy and combine all the proposals in WP:RFA2011 and WP:RFA2012 into a new draft RFC which I will not open or announce, but leave open so that senior admins and others can refine the ground rules and proposed RFC procedure in preparation for opening the RFC, perhaps in a few weeks or months. My initial impulse is to draft ground rules with blanks for three "senior admins" to close the RFC after 60 days, then open a new RFC to select between conflicting approved proposals, and then open another RFC six months later to decide whether to return to today's status quo. I am interested in others' ideas about drafting such an RFC.

Please comment at Wikipedia talk:RfA reform 2012#Combine RFA2011 and RFA2012 proposals into draft RFC?. 75.166.207.214 (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Revisiting - time to do something

In the light of Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Σ and its talk page, perhaps the time is now ripe to rekindle some interest in reform. Genarally, the idea we discussed for introducing minimum criteria for candidacy was to reduce the number of NOTNOW/SNOW, however, that seems to be no longer the major concern.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Examined all 100+ support RfAs that failed since Jan 2009. Only one (Everyking 5 in 2009) had a higher number of support and oppose votes:

(In chronological order)

• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Σ (140/65/18)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Steven Zhang (124/45/7)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ling.Nut (113/63/7)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Thing That Should Not Be 2 (123/59/21)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Kww 3 (123/56/11)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/A new name 2008 (100/45/9) (extended time)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Majorly 2 (107/67/19)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Everyking 5 (156/84/7) (former sysop)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ironholds 3 (102/55/13)
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ecoleetage 3 (119/28/3) see withdrawal/retirement statement. This was a particularly nasty RfA with long oppose votes moved to the tp.
• Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Enigmaman 2 (132/60/11)Unusual circumstances. Worth looking at.

Some of these are very unpleasant in the extreme but are no means the most unpleasant among all RfAs over the period. Some particularly nasty experiences were had by some candidates who actually passed, which gives credence to the claims that even users who stand a very good chance of passing are reluctant to apply for the bit - evidenced by the many responses received from canvassing possible candidates who meet the highest criteria and without a blemish in their history. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is there some reason to believe the nervousness about applying is a new phenomenon? I recall putting off an offer to nominate me in February 2007 because I was afraid of what'd get said about me, etc. Ultimately, any person going through any test of whether they have the community's trust is going to be upset to hear "no", and why "no" if they care enough about the project to be a plausible admin candidate. WilyD 08:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

There are no new phenomena. RfA degenerated to a snake pit a long time ago as examination of the links above will demonstrate. Anyone who has a clean history, and can fulfil some of the more serious criteria practiced by the civil regular participants should have nothing to fear. That will not exclude disingenuous voting however, from those who use RfA as a platform to demonstrate their aversion to the concept of adminship in general as a feature of Wikipedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

That is key, RfA has become a contrarian's paradise, where they are given more free reign than any admin board or talk page. I'm starting to think having the primary page be a straight up and down vote with all discussion on the talk page would be a better idea. This way people can vote without the fear of their vote being directly undermined or attacked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ryan Vesey (117/48/11) Ryan Vesey 13:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RfA reform (continued)/Candidates#Comparison RfA other Wikipedias shows that no comments generally accompany votes on es-wp (although advised for oppose votes) or se-wp, with de-wp restricting comments to a single paragraph, and prohibiting commenting on other votes (within the RfA itself).

• I'd support something similar on en-wp, which should result in a tidier and less distracting presentation (an untidy RfA is bound to reflect badly on the candidate, not always through any direct fault of theirs). Detailed discussion of issues arising could be restricted to area(s) at the bottom of the nomination page or on the associated talk page.

-- Trevj (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

I also support disallowing threaded discussion on the RfA page. Everyone should be allowed to cast their own (single) vote of unlimited length, but no one should reply to those votes. If someone is compelled to discuss someone else's vote (or any other topic), then that discussion must be started on the talk page of the RfA. This will eliminate badgering, and should greatly limit the breeding of drama (or, at the very least, move it off of the main RfA page). I would love to see someone start an RfC on this proposal. -Scottywong| spout _ 22:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• After a very long and fruitful conversation with Kudpung today, I think we all should read all the archives. He assures me that a lot of the ideas that we might have, likely have already been discussed in the many subpages. He said it was about 3 hours of reading, and I want to spend the next couple of days reading and digesting the information and data that has already been gathered here by a great number of experienced people. I'm tired of talking, I'm ready for action, which starts with reading what has already been discovered. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  Noted the 3 hours' reading. I'll try to fit that in, if possible. -- Trevj (talk) 07:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I don't think Sigma's RFA is reason to revisit RFA reform. While I've spoken out in a limited context of Sigma's RFA, the system basically worked, even if it was IMO harsh. Steven Zhang, TTTSNB2, and Ironholds 3 all show larger problems I think need to be addressed, but not in the heat of the moment from this recent RFA. That said, if someone can manage to ram through some changes, I have no objection to it. MBisanz ^talk 23:32, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

  Actually, I would disagree as to the system working. Abuses took place, and people tolerated it simply because the candidate suddenly fell out of favor. That is hardly ideal. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 08:51, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

  There's actually more than that. I saw the abuses, thought "Oh no, not this again", and turned off from it in disgust. And that wasn't the right thing to do - "All that's needed for evil..." and all that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

While I agree with MBisanz that 'the system basically worked' and indeed generally those who should pass generally do, and those who shouldn't don't. How it works is not acceptable and our major concern now is the overall collateral damage this kind of behaviour is doing to Wikipedia. The actual process is not broken but RfA has come to be regarded as a playground for those seeking a venue to be nasty and spiteful with impunity and real change can only come from them by either changing their ways, or staying away from RfA, and if they can't, they need to be made to. Such systematic disruption of an important process is no different than vandalism on Conservapedia. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

And this is actually costing us editors. Not just admin candidates, but actual editors turned off at how abusive the system is. The badgering of voters at RfA is causing many to stop participating there as well. It is to the point that we have to swing the pendulum in the other direction, and become less tolerant at RfA than we might be in other venues when it comes to disruptive behavior, it needs some informal clerking, forcing extended comments to the talk page, and blocking disruptive people until the end of the RfA. The problem in part is a seeming lack of clarity as to what is acceptable and what is not. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

If the problem is a lack of clarity as to what is acceptable, perhaps it would be helpful to modify the edit notice that people see when they're voting on an RfA. You could add material about the length of comments, badgering, civility, etc. Here's an example of how it might be tweaked. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• If you are interested in my views in this discussion, I will be happy to participate, though they appear to be sharply different than what I am reading here. In a nutshell, the concerns expressed about the recent Rfa are that we turned away a decent candidate and it was because of the lengthy oppose that turned the tide of the voting. I was grateful for the work put into that oppose, and voted against, because I thought the concerns regarding maturity were quite valid. Now, my experiences in WP:CDA in 2010 convinced me and many others that admins will fight tooth and nail to avoid community de-adminship. I have had particularly nasty experiences with abusive admins who have had agendas of various types, though I have never been blocked once in over 50 k edits, and frankly I choose to err on the side of caution in an Rfa !vote. I don't think eliminating !voter commentary is the answer, because the problem is much bigger. We have to think outside the box about the current state of adminship, but going away from people's comfort zone usually gets me and others shut down via "hatting" or tag-team dismissive comments that don't touch on my points. And by the way, I have been a volunteer at WMF under Cary Bass in San Francisco in 2009-10, have been reasonably deep in many aspects of the organization, and think a top-down shakeup of the current entrenched admin community, up to and including a mass de-adminship and/or tool/block-power unbundling, is the only way out of this mess. I don't see much will to do that currently at WMF. Yet you have a lot of angry editors who get stomped on and leave the project, for very different reasons than Rfa's threaded comments. Any discussion, in my view, that does not take these factors into consideration is just adding to the larger problem. Again, that's how I see it. Jusdafax 11:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

For my part, I am disappointed that a good admin candidate was rejected - but that is not my complaint. The problem was the appalling way in which *some* participants expressed their opposition - it was done with no respect for the person they were attacking, and looked more like a baying mob calling for a lynching. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Leaving aside our seemingly different views of what the definition of a "good admin candidate" is (and I don't want to rehash the Rfa, myself) I think you had abuses on both sides. To be as brief as possible, I think when you have adminship a lifetime "promotion" with the power to block or otherwise intimidate regular users, with admins who communicate and canvass in a non transparent manner via IRC, a method many are unable to access, and when you have admins banding together to make it difficult for the community to take their powers back, and when many of those admins were given their powers in the early era of Wikipeda when it was much easier to pass an Rfa, then you have a situation that engenders deep resentments. That's the real issue here, again, as I see it. Jusdafax 12:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The candidate is irrelevant now. The question is the behavior of others, regardless of who the candidate was. What you are talking about is taking away admin powers. There have already been two serious proposals and one major RfC on that topic earlier this year. WP:RAS and WP:RRA, which were part of Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept. They were all widely advertised and that was the venue you should have discussed those concerns, particularly since the response from the community was rather tepid. THIS proposal doesn't cover desysoping, it covers RfA, which is a completely different topic. Accusing admins of "banding together" isn't particularly helpful or civil, particularly considering the great number of admins who are working very hard to make it easier to pass RfA as well as to be desysoped, and actually participate in desysop discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• Sure, there may well have been "support" abuses too, but it's abuse of the candidate that I'm specifically referring to, because abuse of candidates is what really turns people away from running. I don't doubt there are many reasons for dissatisfaction with the whole concept of adminship and for the resentments that surface in RfAs (and I suspect we would be largely in agreement about them), but I don't think there is any excuse for using them as a basis for abusing the candidate. But yes, I think there are at least two levels that we could address this on, one being addressing the underlying reasons for dissatisfaction in the first place. But we should also address the problem of individuals who abuse the process by taking out their general resentment on the candidates - there were plenty who formed their supports and opposes in perfectly respectable and civil fashions. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Dennis, the actual admin !vote at WP:CDA in 2010 is what I am talking about. But that is just one aspect I mention and you ignore the others and dismiss me as unhelpful when I am pointing out larger issues, and as usual my other points are ignored. So it goes. Boing!, for what it is worth I deem the underlying reasons for dissatisfaction the key to this discussion. The abuses in the process of Rfa could be solved by an uninvolved admin hatting or otherwise removing uncivil comments. Pretty easy solution, and easy to implement if that power isn't abused itself. I absolutely oppose restricting lengthy !votes if they are civil and comment on valid concerns. Jusdafax 12:49, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

"The abuses in the process of Rfa could be solved by an uninvolved admin hatting or otherwise removing uncivil comments": Perhaps so, and that did happen in one case, but it just led to warring over it. And you surely don't need reminding what a horrible can of worms the concept of "uncivil" is around here. The mooted solution would probably just replace one intractable problem with another - how would you feel if I hatted something I thought was uncivil, and you thought it wasn't? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:11, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I didn't care for being hatted on this very page, previously. But I got over it, and came back to comment again! I'd say enforcement of existing rules of civility in Rfa's solves the problem. I think a double standard has existed at Rfa for a while. Stop that, problem solved, in my view. To be frank, I see some of this as an attempt to shut down longer !votes that stop Rfa candidates with issues from getting extra buttons. Perhaps I am wrong, however. Jusdafax 13:22, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Considering that we're facing a looming admin shortage, I think our time would be better spent figuring out how to make it somewhat easier for qualified candidates to become admins, as opposed to figuring out how to make it easier to desysop current admins. I find it hard to believe that the attitude at RfA would naturally relax if all we did was add an easy desysop procedure. To paraphrase recent interesting comments on my talk page, that change would not create sufficient selection pressure to force a change in behavior. There are also other side effects to that solution which are undesirable. Rather, we should be proposing ways to eliminate the lynch mob attitude at RfA, while ensuring that unqualified candidates still don't make it through. -Scottywong| communicate _ 14:15, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing you Jusdafax, I'm saying there is a time and place for everything. The RfC I pointed to was the time and place for desysop. This project is the time and place to figure out how to fix the ills of WP:RfA. They are two different problems. It is important to stay on topic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

• This project was originally created to be able to work without the unproductive blog-style banter at WT:RfA and its snide comments. Comments and threads here that are just to complain about the good faith efforts of those who are trying to get RfA improved are off topic. Theories and conjecture that the people here have an agenda are also misplaced - we're here to examine all suggestions, and if shortening the posts at RfA is one of them it will be examined objectively along with all the others. RfA has demonstrated time and time again that it is capable of sorting the wheat from the chaff - those who should be given the bit generally do, and those who are not ready for it generally don't. This object of this project is to discuss possible remedies for the snake pit it has become. The general consensus is that it's the voters themselves who are at fault and that's where we need to look for solutions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:08, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The only real solutions to the problem fall into two categories: one category are solutions that bring about a voluntary, grassroots change in editor attitudes and behavior in RfA, and the other category are solutions that enforce new rules of engagement to ensure that those who are unwilling to change their attitude/behavior cannot derail the process. The first category is proving to be far more difficult than the second. I'm a firm believer that change will not happen naturally or organically (or, at least, it won't happen naturally within the time frame we need it to happen), and that any change will need to come from mandating rules of engagement. Kudpung, is there a subpage for discussing (or where a discussion has already taken place) a proposal to move all threaded discussions to the RfA talk page? If not, I'd be interested in creating one. -Scottywong| soliloquize _ 18:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

It was discussed somewhere but only briefly. If I remember rightly, the conclusion was that it would only put the nastiness somewhere else, and that sit might even invite longer discussions that are held on the RfA main page, hence possibly inviting even more civility, PA issues, and disingenuous comments. We've seen the result of this at Sigma's RfA, but if you would like to start a thread on it at to obtain more community intt to the idea, you are of course more than welcome to do so. I would suggest either here or here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• I would support introducing no threaded replies, with the exception that the candidate may offer factual corrections in a threaded response, and the original poster may offer a further factual response. So we might have "oppose because of this diff," to which the candidate may respond: "but that is out of context, look at the next diff," to which the opponent may respond: "but here are five other diffs showing the same behaviour." But no one else is allowed to jump in, and the opponent and candidate are advised to keep things strictly factual (never "you're horrible," "no I'm not," "yes you are").

  I would also support asking bureaucrats to start clerking the page as soon as an RfC turns nasty. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"I think our time would be better spent figuring out how to make it somewhat easier for qualified candidates to become admins, as opposed to figuring out how to make it easier to desysop current admins." In one of several "2p's" I have on the subject of RFA, my thoughts on this statement is that making it easier to give an editor about whom the community has limited knowledge the opportunity to delete project pages, sanction editors and join in gang warfare at WP:AN, WP:ANI etc. seems irrational. I would be happy to give many of those I would usually oppose the opportunity to prove me wrong, provided the community had the chance to re-evaluate after 3 - 6 months. Admins on approval is better than a bad Admin for life. If you don't see the connection between the current pillories & stocks approach and the fact that we are giving someone tools for life then maybe that proposition should be tested. Leaky Caldron 19:06, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for this POV, and consider it a desirable goal for all admins to be open to recall. IMHO there's a link between this issue and the actual RfA process, regardless of the participation level in previous disscussions about desysopping. There may even be community support to impose mandatory recall on longstanding admins, regardless of the conditions under which they were originally appointed many years ago. Although such a move may result in an immediate loss of a number of admins, it could result in a net benefit to the project if the community's faith in adminship were restored elevated (I'm not suggesting that faith is completely lost, and I don't currently have enough knowledge/experience to even attempt to evaluate this). -- Trevj (talk) 20:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I think I'm going to get some popcorn and just sit back and watch how this unfolds. :) Leaky Caldron 20:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

This project needs renaming and complementing with another project

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This project is misnamed. It is not about reform, it is about buttressing the status quo. It should be renamed something like "Empowering RfA". It is has nothing to do with the deeper admin reforms that need to take place on Wikipedia.

It should be complemented with another project where real admin reform can be discussed. There is no forum on Wikipedia for editors who would like to see more workable and effective admin structures. The problem is that, even if it were started, such a project would rapidly sink into the Wikipedia quicksands, just like the distant RfC Dennis pointed to above. Past attempts at such discussions demonstrate how quickly admins and admin hopefuls sink them. Content builders are usually interested in building content, and don't want to spend what they see as wasted time on admin issues. They tend to assume that those who want to look after admin issues will do it in a way that enables content development. Increasing, I would suggest, content builders are also fearful of the consequences of raising their heads above the parapets, the insults, misrepresentations and threats.

The facts are simple, but it seems they need to be restated from time to time. Eventually the current admin system will collapse under the weight of its own dysfunctions, and then there might be a new dawn and renewal of Wikipedia. I agree with Jusdafax in the thread above. Unbundling admin tools and reassigning them on a needs basis, and decoupling the discipline of editors by establishing a separate board of some sort, with members voted in for finite terms by the community as a whole, would go a long way to restoring respect for the way Wikipedia is administered. Strangely, certain admins accuse me of having no respect for authority. It's rather the opposite. I have the utmost respect for enlightened authority, and very much support any moves to work towards that. There is a deepening divide taking place, as certain admins equate content builders with everything that is problematic on Wikipedia. Kudpung seems to repeatably call for content editors to be indefinitely blocked or site banned unless they uncritically accept the status quo. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Very well said Epipelagic. The problems with RfA are obvious and the solutions are self-evident, yet so many refuse to see them. Instead they attempt to evict what they see as the barbarian hoi-poloi from their priestly temple of adminship. Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll just repost part of an earlier message this for the benefit of anyone who missed it:

• This project was originally created to be able to work without the unproductive blog-style banter at WT:RfA and its snide comments. Comments and threads here that are just to complain about the good faith efforts of those who are trying to get RfA improved are off topic. Theories and conjecture that the people here have an agenda are also misplaced - we're here to examine all suggestions, [...] The object of this project is to discuss possible remedies for the snake pit it has become. The general consensus is that it's the voters themselves who are at fault and that's where we need to look for solutions.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:51, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Then I'll just point out that you're talking cack, and are claiming a consensus that quite simply doesn't exist. Your agenda is very clear, to eliminate all opposition at RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 03:03, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Kudpung, your repost has little to do with what has been said in this thread. It is not at all "off topic" to point out that the project needs renaming. Nor is it at all off topic to suggest the project needs balancing with a complementary project. How can you say with a straight face that we're here to examine all suggestions when you seem to be refusing to examine any of the suggestions above? --Epipelagic (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Though I probably wouldn't use the language, I agree with Malleus. I don't see consensus that voters are at fault, I don't approve of the reactionary approach to an RfA on an editor I nominated and I do believe this project now appears to be agenda driven. I am afraid I'm going to have to take my name off it. Worm^TT(talk) 07:42, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I am afraid I am headed that way as well, Worm, unless Kudpung agrees to a more open approach to this discussion. By attempting to rigidly control the direction of this "reform," he confirms the very authoritarian tendencies many of us are concerned about. I say lets bring in all points of view and kick this around some. The process is broken, we mostly all agree. How, why and what should be the points of discussion of reform, not finding a way to limit Rfa threads and length of !votes. And frankly, I feel it bears repeating as an established fact: the most reactionary force to change are the admins themselves, who largely voted as a bloc in 2010 (see my comment above) and who arguably act to keep their powers like an entitled club with a lifetime mandate. This is a recipe for disaster, in my opinion. Thanks to Epi for the validation, and pass the popcorn Leaky. Jusdafax 14:46, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• I wouldn't be here if I thought the goal was to eliminate all opposing at RfAs, yet I'm here. I haven't read all the back text in this Project yet, but my goal quite the opposite: I want more people at RfA voting. I want more people at RfA as candidates. I want a level playing field for all voters and candidates. I want genuine debate, but that requires a little formality and structure or one or a few can dominate the process, which has made it ripe for abuse. If we DON'T fix it, then only the most politically astute candidates can pass, and you will only have politicians for admin. No thanks. I haven't crossed paths with Epipelagic, but Malleus knows me well enough to know I am sincere. We don't need the current system to crash and burn before we fix it, and we need to do more than just talk it down, we need to incrementally improve it. That is part of the problem, resistance to change and protecting the status quo. No solution is going to be perfect, but radical changes never take place here, so we need to at least start moving in the right direction, and chip away at the problems instead of just talking about them. That said, I don't claim to have the answers, I'm here trying to figure out what others think would be the best small steps towards fixing the problem, and I'm willing to dig in and try to make it happen. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:20, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Dennis on this one. It is a massive assumption of bad faith to say that Kudpung's agenda is to buttress the status quo. In contrast, I would say that Kudpung is making the most serious attempt at reform that currently exists on the project, and he is attempting to limit the ideas discussed to those that actually have a realistic chance of being adopted by the community at large. We can discuss "real admin reform" (which I assume means changing what it fundamentally means to be an admin) until we're blue in the face, but anyone who has been here for any appreciable amount of time knows that enormous paradigm shift proposals never succeed on Wikipedia. It's another assumption of bad faith to imply that the cabal is secretly organizing to shoot down any ideas for reform that might threaten their godlike lordship over lowly content creators. What we need is to identify specific problems with RfA, and propose targeted solutions to incrementally solve those problems. The smaller the impact to the current RfA system, the more likely the change will be adopted. Discussing paradigm shift ideas here would simply derail the process. If you don't like the topic of conversation on this page, then no one is forcing you to contribute to it. This page is about incremental changes, if you'd like to discuss paradigm shifts then you can just as easily start a different forum for that topic. I agree that this thread is off-topic, and should be hatted. -Scottywong| comment _ 14:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

And I say again Scotty, that as I see it you are shooting yourselves in the foot if you do that. Maybe there is a way for big ticket proposals to come to pass. Don't you think it is possible you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater by not being inclusive? We have an interesting cross-section of long-term Wikipedians here with an extremely wide range of viewpoints on the Rfa problem. As for bad faith, I have not been acknowledged on what happened in 2010 with the WP:CDA !vote. Look at it, it would have passed but for the very high percentage of admins that voted it down. This is a fact. And I also say to you Scotty, that the admin community has not got to just avoid impropriety on this topic, but bend over backward not to even appear to have same. Hatting and limiting discussion, in my view, sends a chilling message... intentionally or unintentionally. Let's meet together on this turf, right here and right now, and hash this out for a bit, then go to the wider community, even if just Jimbo's page, with the results. I think the process could well be revealing and edifying. Jusdafax 15:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, I appreciate your enthusiasm for radical reform, but I'm personally convinced that there is an extremely small chance that radical reform will be successfully pushed through. It's been tried many times in the past, and frankly, I doubt you have any radically new ideas that haven't already been discussed ad nauseum. I would rather spend my time discussing practical, incremental changes that have a high chance of success. Why not start WP:Radical RfA reform and discuss your ideas there? Being overly inclusive to discussing every possible idea here will only result in over-fragmentation, and is a recipe for getting nothing done in the end, except listen to ourselves complaining. -Scottywong| chatter _ 16:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That is the key, community support. Anyone else can start any project they want to get any change they want. It looks like this project was/is about RfA support as a single thing. Just as my previous RfC was about admin sanctions as a single thing. The problem with focusing on too broad of an issue is that you can't have a coherent conversation because the topic keeps shifting. Firemen don't shoot water all over the flame, they direct it at the source of the fire. RfA is one fire. Admin accountability is another. I personally want to keep working on both, but they aren't the same thing. Otherwise, there is no chance of making any change, and it is all talk. I'm not that interested in talk for the sake of talk. I want to define the problem, pick a direction, and start chipping away at the problem, one idea at a time, building momentum. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Epip, Jusdafax and Malleus. Here's an idea. A 3 months probationary period and shake hands & part company if the new Admin. doesn't cut the mustard or doesn't like the empowerment. A bi-annual (biennial??) re-confirmation. Doesn't apply to the existing closed shop members - that would be seeking the impossible. Admins. should feel able to easily hand in their badge and that is far easier when you don't feel as if you are resigning from a "members for life" club. Some other fairly minor process changes, variously discussed, might also be welcome. Leaky Caldron 17:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

That is not an even remotely new idea. Search the WT:RFA archives and you'll see a thread on that very idea approximately 4 times per year. There is insufficient support for that idea. -Scottywong| speak _ 17:21, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't even matter that this is an old idea, that idea isn't within the scope of this project, which is why this thread will end up getting hatted as offtopic. The goal of this project is solely the RfA process, not admins in general. You might as well talk about FA nomination process or changing AfD, they are just as offtopic. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:37, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not disputing what either of you say, I'm sure you are both correct. But here's another 2p. The community, or at least the regulars that turn up at RFA, are stringent in their assessment and want more than nominees who's primary qualification is recommendations from highly prominent Admins. A job for life needs more than a nod and a wink. The ability to recall, re-confirm, or the unbundling of high risk functions would reduce the bar. Second, since the reason we are here is as a result of a highly recommended candidate who at one time was 96% until unacceptable behaviour was revealed and evasive answers provided, did not fail due to any other reason than the community had no confidence in him. I've rarely seen so many supports switch to O or N and that had nothing to do with alleged bad behaviour, which incidentally occurred on all sides. I'm not expecting any Admin to agree with any of this. Leaky Caldron 19:09, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

• Leaky nails it. As for me, I want to treat the disease and not just the symptoms, and, again, feel an inclusive approach would be for the best. If we stay within the parameters Scotty, Dennis and Kudpung want to restrict us to, in of merely streamlining the !voting process, we should indeed examine changing the name from "reform." By the way, I rather question who "owns" this project, the operation of which is a revealing process in itself. Let's question all assumptions at this point. Jusdafax 19:36, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

A few things that should be in the current scope:

1. Better standard questions, including some on the candidate's of off-wiki background
2. Withold !votes until these questions and the early other questions for candidates are answered (this would reduce early oppose or support "pile ons" in at least some cases
3. A policy on the involvement of nominators, including disclosure of all related pre-transclusion discussion and their role during the RFA itself. Leaky Caldron 19:50, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

So it sounds like Scotty and Dennis are saying that this page is focused on problems the RfA process itself, while Leaky and Jusdafax are saying that at least part of the problem with RfA is because people are really nervous about admin accountability. I think everybody has good points. Admin accountability is important, but as Dennis pointed out, trying to shoot two fires with the same hose isn't very productive. Anyway, that's my 2 c (or p) on that.

@Leaky Caldron, I'm a little curious why you think knowing the off-wiki backgrounds of our candidates is going to make the process run better. Are there any other specific standard questions you have in mind? ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• This closure is very wrong. Scottywong has practically fallen over himself in the haste to suppress this thread. Seven editors have commented so far. Apart from Scottywong, only one other editor thinks this is "off topic". I invite Scottywong to do the right thing by assuming some good faith and reopening the thread, so this project can retain some credibility. Either that, or change the title of this project so it does not imply it is about reform. --Epipelagic (talk) 04:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  Why not just move the thread to the /Radical alternatives sub-page? Or, just start a new project. There is resistance to renaming this project, but the title of the thread also suggests complementing this project with another project, so let's create another project. (Disclaimer: I'm very new to this area, so I have no idea what already exists.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Because the problems with RfA are symptoms of deeper problems, and can be simply resolved by addressing the real problems. The alternatives are not "radical" alternatives, as Scottywong insists on characterising them, but simple common sense solutions that can be largely introduced in seamless stages. The project cannot proceed with integrity if it merely fiddles with the mechanics of RfA and refuses to look at the very things that most need looking at. For some reason, admins seem afraid of allowing discussion of the deeper issues and how they might be resolved. That may be because they see it as a threat to their hegemony, but in practice it would probably result in a climate that frees admins as much as content builders. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Epipelagic that the closure is wrong, and an example of the type of authoritarian action that creates deep resentments in the editing community. Also agree that dismissing the emerging discussion as "radical" shows contempt for thinking not to the liking of parties who have an agenda for Rfa. This closure of an interesting open discussion is divisive and creates factions that are out of touch with each other. I am sorry it has come to this. This type of top-down decision making by an admin is, as I see it, in fact a symbol of the very thing that makes people reluctant to !vote for lifetime admin powers for anyone. To exclude a full discussion here when a number of parties want it is breathtaking. Jusdafax 05:47, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, the nice thing about a volunteer wiki is you can go right ahead and start any new discussion you like, regardless of what other conversations are ongoing. isaacl (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Not on this project. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

So where do we now discuss any reform at all? I see no link. The reason for closing this seems perverse. @~Adjwilley. I have just a few issues about off-wiki activity but since the thread is closed there is no point adding more stuff here. Leaky Caldron 06:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Start a new page for it? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead and make a link and start the conversation; as long as there are interested parties, discussion will ensue. isaacl (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Conversations are just groups of people who are discussing topics of interest to them. The nice thing about conversing on the web is that you can participate in multiple conversations at the same time; there is no need to mix them all together (and focused conversations can help discussions move forward.) isaacl (talk) 07:03, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

• I do certainly agree that there are fundamental problems with the whole admin thing, and I'd love to see it all properly addressed. But the problem is, if people try to attack the issue holistically here and review "Adminship" from the bottom up, it'll achieve absolutely fuck all - see the thousands of wasted person-hours over the past years of RfA Talk as evidence. If you want to start a project/discussion/whatever to fix adminship in general, I say great and you have my full support (but I won't try to help, because I don't think it can be fixed by the Community - to me the Community, including admins, is the problem). But if a bunch of people want to try to address one small part of it - reform of the RfA process - why not let them have a go and see if they can achieve anything? And to be radical, why not wish them well in it? That is, after all, the specific reason this page was set up - it was deliberately kept apart from the swamp that is WT:RfA, and reverting it to an alternative but identical swamp would be pointless. Anyway, that's (almost) all I'll say on this, as it has gone off-topic enough already - I suggest this extra discussion should be collapsed before too long -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 07:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:07, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

If that is what the project is about, then its title is disingenuous, pretending to be about reform, when it only about buttressing the existing RfA. Since the project title claims it is about reform, then it is appropriate for editors to add threads about reform. It is out of order, given the current title of this project, to hat or remove this thread. If reform issues are going to be hatted or removed the project needs renaming. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It says RfA reform, not Admin reform. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

But it's not about reforming RfA. RfA will remain as it is. It only about procedures for controlling awkward or inappropriate comments from content editors during RfAs. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, I'd say discussion of that is on-topic here, while general admin reform is not. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

That is supporting the point I have been making... the project needs renaming. Anyway, the reforms I have in mind would fundamentally reform RfAs in such a manner that the current problems would simply dissolve. What could be more relevant to this project?--Epipelagic (talk) 08:12, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This is rising to the level of WP:IDHT. I tried to be as clear and as cordial as possible. No one is trying to stifle your ideas. In fact, I'm interested in hearing your ideas. As Zebedee points out, this page is about RfA reform, not admin reform. It was specifically named for that purpose. This project doesn't need renaming, it needs to be split into two projects: RfA reform, and admin reform. Even if your admin reform ideas are designed to also reform RfA, we're actively trying to keep the discussion here focused on how to reform the RfA process itself. It's as simple as that. Rather than continuing to complain and cast accusations of bad faith, why not just start WP:Admin reform? In fact, feel free to post links to an admin reform project in the header at the top of this page, and on the main page of this project. This is getting tiresome, and continued grumbling here will lead me to suspect that this is an intentional effort to derail the discussions here. Since this thread began, no substantive discussion has taken place on this page. -Scottywong| verbalize _ 13:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I've made WT:Admin reform a blue link and copied the above discussion there. Is this ok with everybody? ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I vehemently disagree with the decision of an admin to close a discussion on the nature of adminship on what is little more than a technicality. Rather than risk an edit war by removing the archive box, I will simply ignore it by continuing the discussion. If the comment is unanswered, then clearly the discussion is dead. If others decide to ignore the archive box and respond, it can reasonably be assumed that there is a consensus to continue the discussion here, or at the very least that the closure should have been done by someone uninvolved, and in the meantime should be reversed.

Anyway, I have strong opinions on RfA, and adminship more generally. My feelings on the issue are possibly too strong to accurately convey on-wiki. What I can say within policy is that those who believe that RfA reform alone is the answer are ignoring the bigger picture – possibly for a good reason, such as what they see as pragmatism (it's easier to make a small change than a big one), but ignoring it nonetheless. The tone of RfA is a problem, and a big one at that. But it's only a symptom of the problem – that people feel that adminship is now such a big deal that they need to be vociferous in their opinions. Therefore adminship and RfA are inextricably linked. RfA may be one of the main focal points, but ill-feeling about the role of admins can be seen throughout the project.

As much as I'd prefer it, I'm not saying that we must tackle RfA reform and admin reform simulaneously (or indeed the particularly thorny issue of admin tenure). But we must be mindful of the effect that one element of adminship has on the others. That is why, in my opinion, it is so important that discussions on things that would be directly affected by RfA reform be allowed to continue here, regardless of how loose their relationship to the project page is. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 23:40, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

All of your points are absolutely spot on. Anyone suggesting that there is no link between life-long Admin and the justifiable difficulty some candidates experience due to issues of their own making is kidding themselves. If RFA was for a fixed period, a probationary period or a non-harmful toolset I would not bother turning up there. Trying to curtail participation from those who are simply trying to ensure that some strongly favoured candidates are actually ready for a life time stint of deleting content and blocking editors is not the right approach. Leaky Caldron 11:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with the WFC and Leaky. I'll go check out the admin reform page. But what I wanted was a disparate group having an open, cordial discussion here. I didn't get that, and for reasons I don't agree with. On to the admin reform page. We stand divided, but for how long? Jusdafax 03:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

WT:Admin reform which was little more than a copy of the thread above, didn't gain any traction whatsoever. By misunderstanding the goals and objectives of WP:RFA2011, divisive opinions appear to have brought any hope of either RfA or Adminship reform to a standtill. More recent discussion at WT:RfA and WT:WER do not appear to have rescued the babies from the bathwater. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

That's true of course. Reform of the present system is fundamentally controlled from within the system. Systems which assign power to certain individuals over others are almost never capable of reform from within. And the Wikipedia admin system, despite superficial appearances to the contrary, is controlled by the admins themselves together with the admin wannabes and habituates of the various drama boards. This group always holds the casting power when it comes to the crunch. The last hope we had was intervention from outside the system. On past performance, it is clear this is not within the competence of the WMF. That leaves Jimbo Wales, who said he was going to intervene early last year. But then he seems to have backed off. So there it is. Kudpung is right on this occassion, any hope of reform is unrealistic. Wikipedia's content builders deserved a system which respected and facilitated their work, including those who aren't, and those who don't want to be admins. Instead we have what we have got. I long ceased commenting in the hope of rational reform. I comment only in the hope of lessening the obscuration and confusion content builders who are not admins otherwise experience if they have the misfortune of stumbling onto one of these boards. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)