Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 10:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Current time: 20:03:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Would it be ok...?

...to add {{User:X!/RfX Report}} to the main RfA page of any candidate whose RfA is in progress? It'll allow editors to view the current percentage of the ivotes garnered and might provide them additional information for their ivote. Views please... Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'd disagree with this - when I'm adding my !vote, I'm not looking at the number of current supports, opposes or neutrals. I'm going to look at the candidates history, and what other people have commented, but I'm not going to look at the current percentages -- PhantomSteve.alt/talk\^{[alternative account of Phantomsteve]} 18:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If anything, it'd just encourage a pile on. — Fly by Night (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur, this suggestion just leads to opens the door to more "follow the herd" mentality. Who cares about the current percentage? Sure things fail and RFA's that were dead in the water sometimes pass. Courcelles 18:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I'm in favour of this proposal (I'm not), but I'm wondering why you Fly by Night think that it might encourage a "pile on"? Do you not believe that voters think for themselves? Malleus Fatuorum 22:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not that. It's not as black-and-white as that; there is a grey area. That's why I said encourage and not cause. There would be a certain level of peer group pressure that could change how people !vote. Some people might not feel comfortable !voting one way, when 85% of other people have !voted another. Although that might not alter most people's votes, it would alter the swing !voter's vote. On top of that, sadly, I think there is a small minority of users that don't check the candidate's history like they should do. They make a cursory assessment, and then use current !voting patterns to come to a conclusion. If it weren't so, then the idea of a pile on wouldn't be as well known as it is. — Fly by Night (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it is black and white. In the current RfA I was the first oppose in the face of 12 supports, a third of them from administrators, and I wouldn't have cared less if there had been a hundred supports, all from administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand me. You asked me if I thought that eidtors don't think for themselves. I said that it's not black-and-white. All editors behave and think differently, to varying degrees. It's not a case of (a) they don't think for themselves, or (b) they all think for themselves. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Support this addition. This would be a simple way to shortcut having to scan an entire RFA (or go to some other page) to see the current status of the RFA. I disagree with the suggestion that putting this on the RFA would suddenly encourage "follow the herd" votes, when there are so many other pages that already feature the count and percentage - if that has any negative effect, the negative effect is already out there. Townlake (talk) 20:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

• Uh, there is already a counter at RFA. "Voice your opinion on this candidate (talk page) (50/29/6); Scheduled to end 04:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)" is right at the top of the current RFA. Sure, it doesn't provide a percentage, but it gives the raw numbers. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Quite; but in the spirit of the comments above I think we'd be better off without any additional temptation for !voters to be distracted by the number of other people who have previously supported or opposed. bobrayner (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I somewhat agree with that. I'd even be sympathetic to a proposal to remove that count at the top of each RfA. Malleus Fatuorum 22:39, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I would even favor taking it a step further and removing the count all together. Its a !vote rather than a vote and how many election are held were the percentages are being read live while voting is still taking place. It is really only useful for Bureaucrats. I feel they are smart enough to figure out the totals and post the percentages at the closing. Leave the RFA box, with who is running and time remaining. I don't think it was ever intended to help with deciding ones !vote (not that I believe all editor use it in such a fashion). That is what one's careful evaluation of the candidate should be doing along with leaving their rational. Calmer Waters 00:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really make too much sense, as it's childishly simple to work out a percentage when shown the raw data. Your assumption that bureaucrats are smart, or in some way smarter than the average bear, doesn't really stand up to much investigation either. Malleus Fatuorum 00:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Not meant that way. Yes, anyone can do the raw data including the closing bureaucrat themselves (just mean't added them in at the end with the closing rather than while running). Most anyone can do enough with the raw data for edit count without x! tool (articles edited, main space edits, etc) to evaluate a candidate they are are unfamiliar with, but how many complained that it interfered with their ability to !vote when he took it down for little over a week, even after he stated it was never intended to be used as sole or main quantifier for admin-ship and to encourage reviewing the candidates contributions. Just wonder if this tool has also garnered an unexpected and unfortunate side effect. Just that if this is truly about editors opinions, trust, and thier rationals, then rid the numbers. Just my 2 cents on the discussion is all. Calmer Waters 01:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

RfA has not been about trust and rationales for some time now, else the "why not?" and "I see no issues" votes would be discounted, which they obviously aren't. RfA is about back-scratching; those who want to be admins support those others who want to be admins, on the basis that if I support you then you'll support me. But of course that's just my 2 cents. Malleus Fatuorum 01:38, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It would be worth a whole lot more than 2 cents if you could back it up with real examples.  Frank  |  talk  02:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile doing that if it would make any difference. It would be a lot of effort for nothing though unfortunately. Malleus Fatuorum 02:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

So, the emperor has no clothes, but you're the only one who can see that? Your considerable editing skills - well nigh legendary around here - should lend themselves to easily supporting such a statement with references. "A lot of effort"? I think not. I think the reality is that you've made an assertion based far more on feeling than actual observation. You may dislike the admin corps in general, and/or specific admins or the way the whole hierarchy operates, or any number of other things. But your assertion that it's a "back-scratching" club doesn't seem to hold any water. Yes, there are people who know each other personally around here. Yes, there are admins who tend to think alike, and as such haunt the same corners and tend to agree with each other. But these are natural social phenomena which have little to do with pre-meditated "support me and I'll support you" group-think. "Why not?" and "I see no issues" may not be to your taste, but they are just as valid in support of candidates as your own frequent opposes are.  Frank  |  talk  02:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Returning to the subject of the counter,I don't see any pressing need to do anything about it either way. Adding a percentage ticker is of little value, and removing the current counter would not change the fact that the comments are numbered and anyone can see what they are at any given moment by simply scrolling to the bottom of each section and seeing what the last number is. Unless we are going to stop numbering supports and opposes altogether it doesn't really make a damn bit of difference either way. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

You may choose to believe whatever you like Frank, without any evidence, as may I. One day I fully intend to analyse the voting patterns at RfA to prove my hypothesis, but not today. You may of course equally choose to support your own argument with some evidence in the meantime. Malleus Fatuorum 04:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

My "argument" is that yours is unsupported...unless and until you choose to support it.

In the interest of being even-handed, not something that administrators are generally accustomed to admittedly, it may be instructive for you to consider why a "Why not?" support is considered perfectly acceptable whereas a "Why? oppose is not. Don't break sweat though, I'm sure you've got editors to block, the important stuff around here. Malleus Fatuorum 04:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Once again, you are making an assertion without supporting it. I've been observing and participating in RfA long enough to see that there are far more cases of discussion in the oppose section than in the support section. That does not mean, however, that a "why not?" support is "perfectly acceptable" and a "Why?" oppose is not, as you assert. You, too, have been observing and participating in RfA long enough to know that it is a discussion, in an attempt to form a consensus about a candidate. This discussion is not new to you.

On the matter of "editors to block, the important stuff around here", perhaps you'd care to look at what I'm actually doing around here, instead of sneeringly painting me with the "admins-are-evil" brush: My last 20 blocks go back to early August 2010, while my last 20 article edits go back less than two days. Let's not try to pretend that blocks aren't necessary around here, even though not every block is well-executed. If you find any of my blocks to be anything less than useful and necessary, please feel free to let me know. Likewise, if you find my article edits to be substandard, feel free to let me know about them. (I'd rather discuss the latter, honestly; it's the more significant of the two.) In the meantime...how about assuming just a little good faith? Why, just hours ago I even corrected a glaring grammar mistake that showed up on the main page under DYK...a weak spot around here I've seen you criticize; did you catch my fix?  Frank  |  talk  06:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• @Beeblebrox and others. What if we look at the contrariwise perspective? What would be your view if one were to suggest that we take out all the summation numbers - even including the serial numbers of votes, which you rightly pointed out - from RfAs of candidates? Would the community prefer that? Again, views would be more than welcome. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 10:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• There's something else that I thought should be mentioned. At the moment the !voting figures are on the general RfA talk page WT:RfA, and they're on each individual's RfA's talk page. The only place they're not is on the individual's RfA itself. I find that ironic given that we're not (supposed to be) voting per se; but (supposed to be) having a discussion. Why should the way people have not voted (a.k.a. !voted) be plastered on every possible surface? To avoid this we should either stop putting the !vote figures on the pages, or we should admit that RfA is, in all but name, a vote!
• Personally I think that the !vote counters should be removed from general availability. It should still be there for the candidate and closing bureaucrat. Any WP:SNOW or WP:NOTNOW will be clear without a count. I'm not sure how it'd work; maybe all the !voters will just go to X!'s tool and find out the numbers anyway, I don't know. If someone can't be bothered to read through the whole RfA then they shouldn't be involved in it; they'll make summary conclusions based on partial information. — Fly by Night (talk) 22:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The !voting figures are not on the individual RfAs' talk pages. 28bytes (talk) 22:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad. — Fly by Night (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems as though RFA is a vote (at least to some), its tallied at the end during close X support, X oppose X nuetral.... if its below 60% or above 90% its closed in such a way. And Heck (Im guilty of this though..) how many people put in their comments(edit summaries) '+1 or + seems like a indication of voting and not discussion to me? The gray area generates discussion though which is what the RFA should be and in those cases the comments seem to be more discussed. I would feel if the numerical tallies were absent there would be more engagement of discussion resulting. But with that said I think there still are some merits to the concept of having a tally. If its overwhelmingly oppose or overwhelmingly support the rfa can easily be concluded and consensus determined (snow cases...). Anyway Id love for abolishing the counters and only having discussion points, but at the very least (and I will make an effort doing this myself from now on) we need to stop using +1 ++ in our edit summaries indicating oppose and support unless we truly percieve RFA as a vote. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Small point: I don't think those edit summaries are a problem if the user writes a substantive comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I do agree to an extent, but if they(we) do write a substantive comment shouldnt the edit summary sumamrize what the comment was and not that its a tally? More of a personal feeling i suppose ( i mean the dit summary doesnt have a bearing on the outcome). Just something thats been on my mind reccently. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:01, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Request for comment on inclusion/exclusion of numerical summaries from candidates' RfAs

Archived; RfC on numerical summaries in RfAs
Discussions are closed; kindly do not make changes to this archive
{{rfctag|policy}} This proposal is being made after appropriate discussions on the RfA talk page with respect to whether we should include/exclude numerical summaries of !votes on the RfAs of individual candidates. The genesis of this proposal lies in the perception that providing numerical summaries influences certain !voters to !vote without considerately analyzing the RfA candidate's contributions. The scope of this proposal does not include anything beyond the RfA pages of individual candidates and the RfA talk page. If commentators in this RfC wish to include other additional areas, it is encouraged that the same be done via separate RfCs. For contextual clarity, the proposal is broken up into three separate sub-proposals. You may oppose, support, comment on each individual sub-proposal section. Regards. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Remove !voting summation at the top of individual RfAs Remove the summation of !voting (!vote tallies that give a summary of cumulative support/oppose/neutral !votes obtained) provided at the top of individual RfAs. Let the closing bureaucrats calculate the final !vote tally on their own while closing. Support. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose. I understand how participants theoretically could be influenced in this way, but in the absence of evidence to show that they are, I'm not convinced that this change is necessary. 28bytes (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC) By the same token: there's no evidence that people are not influenced by it. So this has more to do with faith than it does with evidence. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose, I'm not convinced that this is a problem. Nakon 18:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose - it's obviously useful and important information how many people supported and opposed a candidate, and it should be prominently displayed in their RFA. Robofish (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Philosophical Support − It is supposed to be a discussion and not a vote; hence the notation !vote meaning not vote. As long as we pretend that it's a discussion we need to remove the vote counter. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to us admitting it's a vote and treating it as such. — Fly by Night (talk) 19:58, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Mild Oppose. I'm sympathetic to the intent, but I don't believe this will accomplish it. It would just make an automated calculation into a manual one for the crats, wasting a bit of their time. It would be better, more to the point, to develop a policy revision that strengthens the idea of discounting !votes that are presented without rationales. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC) I think that's a great idea. There are too many per Pete pile ons. That usually says to me that they've read the support and oppose and said "Yeah, that sounds like a good reason to support/oppose; I'll support/oppose too." But without actually checking out the candidate's work themselves. That's why some RfA's can sometime be sunk by one link to a bad edit summary or a bad answer to a single question. — Fly by Night (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose. The numbers provide a type of "at-a-glance" information. Doesn't tell you a whole lot, but it is indicative of the general direction of the RFA. Useight (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose RFA is a vote, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's silly to pretend otherwise on either count. Townlake (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose. Even if RfA isn't supposed to be a vote, most people treat it as one. Taking away indications of the "vote tally" would be pointless without first changing the underlying criteria. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose per above. The vote tally does serve a purpose of convenience and removing it is unlikely to result in any significant change to user behaviour, nor would it change how RfA operates. CT Cooper · talk 00:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose Removing the tally would be like putting lipstick on a pig. For all intents and purposes, RFA is a vote (not saying this is a good or bad thing, just that it is) and removing the tally doesn't accomplish anything as people can make their own tally in their head. DC T•C 00:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose Why hide the truth? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose People will waste time counting them manually anyway. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC) The tally for this is currently (2/11/0) in general or (1/1/10/1/0) to be more specific about votes. Time Well Wasted™ delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 09:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose People will still be able to see where the opinions of others fall. It just means being a little less lazy and scrolling through the entire page to see which section is the biggest. If you are to truly not influence anyone then something like the secret polls used for Arbitration Committee elections would be required. It is extremely unlikely anyone would take it that far considering the troubles each time they try to use it. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 09:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC) The tally for this is currently (2/12/0) in general or (1/1/11/1/0) to be more specific about votes. Time Well Wasted™ delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 09:57, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose for all the reasons already given. I see no valid reason for them to be removed. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:48, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose per the swarm of people above. I fail to see how this would be at all helpful or constructive. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Remove !voting serialization Remove the serialization of support/oppose/neutral !votes within the individual RfA. In other words, remove the usage of the # symbol and replace the same with a non-counter prefix. Support. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose. If there are participants who don't exercise due care before supporting or opposing, I don't see how the replacement of numbers with bullet points would either convert them into thoughtful analysts or dissuade them from participating. 28bytes (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose, I'm not convinced this is a problem. Nakon 18:04, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose - unnecessary and unhelpful. It's good for both candidates and !voters to know the current state of an RFA. Robofish (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose for much the same reasons as what I said in the section above. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose. Pretty much the same thing as I mentioned in the above section. The numbers at the top are useful and these numbers help ensure that the numbers at the top are accurate. Useight (talk) 15:09, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose. Per my comment above — no point in talking about abolishing the "vote tally" stuff without first addressing the question of whether RfA really should or should not be a conventional vote. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose - Like removing the vote tally, this would achieve little except inconveniencing users. CT Cooper · talk 00:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose it's a minor change that would have no lasting effect (see also my comments in the first subsection). DC T•C 00:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Nay Again, if people can't have the tally at the top to read and can't count the votes then there is still the simple and obvious size of the section which would indicate somewhat accurately the status of an RfA. You would have to hide all voting and comments. Not very practical to censor all characters in a discussion. That would make it more like a straight up vote. IF that were the proposal THEN i would support THAT but not this. If you remove the sections then you have free-for-all commenting and it will be a fight of 'you close that rfa. no you, i spent 4 hours closing the last one. someone has to read through that.' And to mention the inherent concern about a person who comments 18 times in an rfa swaying the outcome because the closer missed the user name of the commenter a couple of times. This really invites more potential problems than it is proposing to solve. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 10:10, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose, again for all the reasons already stated. This seems to be a pointless suggestion which serves no useful purpose. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose per the swarm of people above. I fail to see how this would be at all helpful or constructive. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Remove bot-reports from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship Remove from Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship the numerical summary of RfAs provided using bot-reports like those generated by {{User:X!/RfX Report}} Support. Additionally, editors who're interested in getting a bot-report can use, and have used, various available bot-reports in their own user and usertalk space. Wifione ....... Leave a message 07:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose. The status quo of having the counter on the talk page but not the RfA page itself seems like a reasonable compromise to me. 28bytes (talk) 08:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Support Out of all proposals, I like this one i think the best. I do feel this will encourage people to equally participate more in the event that an RFA is steering one way. like wifione said interested users can still keep their reports on their user pages. Ottawa4ever (talk) 12:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Support, The counter would still be available to those that want to use it. Nakon 18:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose - I for one like being able to see the current status of all active RFAs at a glance, and I'm not convinced there's a problem here that needs solving. Robofish (talk) 18:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose I do not think that the removal of information will solve any problem. Ruslik_Zero 20:32, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Strong Oppose. A good thing about the bot report is that it helps make more users aware of what the active RfAs are. I'd like to see it posted in more places, in hopes of increasing participation. I would certainly oppose any effort to close down the report in its entiretly, for that reason. Here, I think we are just talking about whether to post it at the top of this talk page, which seems to me to be no big deal either way, absent evidence that people first come to this talk before !voting in RfAs. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose. The bot report should be spread more widely, not less. Also see my comments on the previous proposals above. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose - I don't see any problem that needs solving here, and again, removing the report is unlikely to achieve much when it comes to how RfA operates. If I remember correctly, having the report at WT:RFA was a compromise between having it on WP:RFA and not having it on either, and a fair one at that. CT Cooper · talk 00:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose in line with the reasons I provided above. DC T•C 00:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose Numbers good to have and are quite useful if you want to direct a friend to a certain vote number. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose No real benefit. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC) aye for having avoided seeing the bot reports as much as i could it has reduced my time spent voting on the RfAs. I noticed a bit of a trend. Those admins and bureaucrats whose candidacies i supported have mostly either gone inactive, resigned, or had rights revoked for actions that had not been known to the people at the time of their campaigns. Those candidates i have opposed have mostly been unsuccessful. No bot reports = less awareness = less voting = less Time Well Wasted™ That being said i am here on this page today because i saw the bot report on someone's user page and was curious. delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 10:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose for serving no real purpose. Having the report there allows for easy access to the discussions as well as an at-a-glance summary of the current trend of the discussions. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose This is a terrible idea. Plenty of good, useful things come from these reports. Removing them would unequivocabally make the situation worse. Like the other two motions, I fail to see how this would be at all helpful or constructive. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Find a real problem to solve In all the various conversations about how to fix RFA over the last several years this has never even come up before. No real, substantive problem would be solved by any of the proposals to change the counters. Support. This is a non-issue. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Support and it seems this way for most people, judging by the above opposes. :.:∙:∙∙:∙:.:|pepper|:.:∙:∙∙:∙:.: 21:58, 18 December 2010 (UTC) Support. The first question to answer is whether RfA should be a vote at all. Then, work on the desired criteria. Richwales (talk · contribs) 23:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC) This we manage an RFC for, whilst discussion on this gets archived for inactivity?? Rd232 talk 00:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Support I'm particularly interested in what comes from this discussion from Jimbo's talkpage. DC T•C 00:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Oppose And do something productive? Gasp! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Support Although writing articles would be much more useful. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 04:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC) The tally for this is (5/1/0/1), more Time Well Wasted™ delirious & lost ☯ ~hugs~ 09:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Support as long as they are Real Problems™. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 21:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Support Let's move on. There have been many substantive and reasonable proposals for reforming the process. This is not one of them. This is a collection of bad ideas that do not address the core issues that plague the process. Sorry to be so blunt, but it has to be said as such. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC) Support Give it up already. Wifione ....... Leave a message 05:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Admin reapply

Why is it that admins promoted years ago when RfA standards were lower, somehow remain an admin indefinitely until they do something to be removed? I've seen dozens of admins doing and saying things that I see people oppose for all the time. Why can't admins reapply for adminship after a set period of time. I guarantee many current ones would fail on a redo. CTJF83 chat 08:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:PEREN#Reconfirm_administrators.  Frank  |  talk  08:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I think there may also be a secondary issue, in that some people expect particularly high standards of admins now because it's a lifetime appointment. If, hypothetically, one ever managed to get consensus for some kind of reapplication mechanism (or term limit, or recall, or whatever), I think some !voters at RfA might go a little easier on current candidates. bobrayner (talk) 13:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't you agree a lifetime appointment is pretty ridiculous. It's longer the U.S. President and much harder to remove an admin then it is an Iowa Supreme Court Judge who is removed by simple majority, to me that is ridiculous. CTJF83 chat 15:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

In theory, every active Wikpedian can be an admin; it's not an elected representative position, it's an endorsement by the community that the person is trusted with the tools. If you prefer an analogy, adminship is not like being elected to a local council, it's like being licenced to carry a gun: in theory every local resident can carry one. Rd232 ^talk 17:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose you're right, I just don't like the ridiculously high standards now compared to years ago. But it sounds like it isn't going to change. CTJF83 chat 17:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The standards rose pretty much because people are trying to weed out anyone who might do anything bad. Although these have partly worked, you can't completely tell ones sanity from and RFA and mistakes are still bound to happen. It's kind of like gun laws in the states: Well intentioned but fundamentally flawed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The issue is and forever will be that a good admin is in the eyes of the beholder, and our collective standards have gotten higher. I, personally, would consider 4,390 edits in almost 6 years to be enough, but you didn't. Grandmasterka 04:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

No need for an ad hominem tangent, Grandmaster.--Chaser (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ya, not sure what Grandmaster's comment about me personally has to do with my question...it just validates my point that admins should reapply/be more easily removed. CTJF83 chat 06:15, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Lovely. Responding to ad hominem with more ad hominem. This is how discussions become arguments.--Chaser (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Comment: What I see as the real problem is that the admin numbers are currently inflated. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia; however I've already come across many admins that have either "Retired" (but are still listed as an admin, or even 'crat) or are practically inactive, having minimal involvement and only responding to talkback once a month or less. I think a bot should perioidically go though and remove privileges for any admin that has not been sufficiently active in the last 12 month period(Q. Is it possible to measure how many admin actions a user performs?). If a user who has lost admin rights, sees benefit and would like to be an admin again in the future; they should reapply.Aeonx (talk) 07:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, as a convenient example, here is Chaser's admin actions [1] (not sure how to inter-Wiki link) CTJF83 chat 07:24, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

What harm is caused by the existence of people who have the mop but don't use it? There are no technical constraints on the number of mops that can be handed out. bobrayner (talk) 10:42, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere (I forget where) there are numbers which show currently active admins, as distinct from all admins, for a fairly low threshold of monthly activity. I seem to recall even that reduces the number by about half, to circa 900. However the main issue, really, is not the absolute number of admins, but whether there are enough relative to needs, which is best measured by looking at admin-specific backlogs, plus how many admins are active in specialist areas (which gives a sense of the risk of backlog explosion if someone goes inactive). Rd232 ^talk 21:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Wouldn't you agree a lifetime appointment is pretty ridiculous?, I think a good case could be made that the longer a person is an admin, the more likely he/she is to do the right thing, adminwise. That's known as experience. Plus, if an admin is going to be a problem (that is, the RfA outcome was a mistake), that's more likely to arise sooner rather than later. [It would be an interesting exercise to generate some charts/statistics on length of time between passing an RfA and being desysopped, excluding compromised accounts.] In short, I think that admins have it tough enough as is (lots of relatively routine work, and opening oneself up to all sorts of verbal attacks, not a lot of thanks, and, of course, no pay) without adding the possible complexity of evaluating whether what they're doing is going to make reconfirmation less likely. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 20:57, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

All that is true. I'm not sure if I ever proposed one approach I thought of: have an annual election to select 5 admins for reconfirmation RFA. That might, possibly, achieve a balance between making admins worry too much about reconfirmation, and not having to think about it at all, plus limiting the absolute numbers and hence work/drama involved. Having 5 reconfirmation RFAs going on at once would also help give some perspective on issues arising. Well, I'm not going to push the idea, but if anyone likes it, be my guest... Rd232 ^talk 21:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Fine, maybe not reapply, but it should be much easier to remove troublesome admins than it actually is. It should just be the opposite of an RfA. Currently it is too hard to remove admins. CTJF83 chat 21:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec with below) I've been quietly following this discussion, and I agree with that last statement. But the question is how to make that work. (For the unfamiliar, see WP:CDARFC.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• The entire concept of a "lifetime appointment" is flawed. Admins are not senators, we do not comprise a legislature that controls policy. The community as a whole creates the policies, admins are charged with enforcing those policies. It's not an appointment, it's a job. (and an unpaid job that gets you a lot of grief if you actually do it at that) Most of the time when a person is hired to do a job they are hired essentially for life, and only let go if there is a problem with their work. I agree that there are a few admins who got in years ago who are now somewhat out of step with current practices, and as they make themselves evident by their misuse of admin tools they are being either corrected or removed, and many have voluntarily given up the tools or retired. I'm quite certain this would lead to fewer good, experienced admins out there instead of more as many of us would probably walk away if faced with having to repeatedly be dragged through RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

However, since we are tossing around all sorts of crazy proposals, here's mine: term limits, but the term is very long, say 7 years. In the majority of cases the admin will have retired and the process will be moot. If the admin is still very active they should have no problem getting through if we craft the process correctly, and the admins who are still operating based on what policy was five years ago will be weeded out. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

7 years?! That is way long in my book, Wikipedia barely got off the ground 7 years ago, I'm thinking if time limits come up it'd be 3-5, leaning towards 3...but I would assume this whole conversation is useless, and nothing seems to change on this subject. CTJF83 chat 21:46, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy to see an admin removal process, so long as it places the burden of consensus on the removers.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree, I'm opposed to a user being mad at an admin from a week ago, and then voting to desyop just based on that. There has to be a long term history of poor admin decision to desyop. CTJF83 chat 22:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't do that much as an admin, most of my work (and there is a fair amount) for WP is in content contributions. So I've made enemies, but not that many. I think I'd pass a Re-RfA. However, I would not go through it. It was harsh enough the first time. Having "reapplication" or "reconfirmation" just isn't practical for that and other reasons. Recall, though, with a process overseen perhaps by a crat, who could make a preliminary evaluation of the claims and enforce other safeguards, I'm fine with. However, a process like community ban, which is in my opinion overused, I'd fight like hell to stop. I do not see the point in giving the pitchfork and torches brigade another weapon.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then we need to have a less harsh way of going through RfA the first time, so a subsequent time isn't bad. I do also agree RfAs get overly nasty for someone who is volunteering their time to Wikipedia. CTJF83 chat 22:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

One eminently sensible suggestion which rapidly went nowhere was the idea of encouraging (if not requiring) candidates to do an Editor Review shortly before they expect to do an RFA (stating their intention at the review launch), and only make the decision whether to actually do it after getting input there. Rd232 ^talk 22:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

In theory that is a good idea, but mine, as a pre-RfA basically went no where with only basically 1 review with 1 user giving 1 comment, so ER (at least in terms of my review) is dead. CTJF83 chat 22:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well it may need more input; I suspect that reviews explicitly linked to planned RFAs and promoted at RFA would get decent levels of input. Rd232 ^talk 22:55, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

How do I promote it at RfA? The opening sentence said I planned an RfA. CTJF83 chat 23:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There's no current mechanism, but I imagine it would look a bit like the promotion of RFC/Us at eg WP:ANI - that sort of template link on the RFA page. Rd232 ^talk 23:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Why not try an experimental probationary period for new admins?

We do have a perennial question here, and I don't see any easy answer to the tussle between competing paradoxical truths:

1. that most admins do a fine job, and submitting 50 or 100 of them to an RFA every month is unlikely to be a productive use of the community's time;
2. arbcom desysops the worst admins, yet for admins who do badly but haven't gone completely rogue, we lack a workable method of saying "thanks for your efforts, but please put down the mop" for now
3. no method of selective recall has yet been able to achieve consensus, largely because of concerns over its abuse

However, the lack of any alternative to indefinite adminship is probably one of the factors which is currently driving standards so high that RFAs have a very low success rate. The high barriers at RFA are then one of the factors which deters editors from acceting any sort of reconfirmation process.

I am not averse to Beeblebrox's proposal of very long term limits, and another option worth exploring is to try an experiment: for a few months, make initial promotion to adminship a short-term appointment, for (say) six months. In effect, a probationary period. The experiment would answer two questions:

1. is the high threshold at RFA a product of the awareness that adminship is forever (except in cases of gross misconduct?
2. in what proportion of those promoted will the community want to change its mind after six months?

Isn't this worth a try? My hunch is that in most cases the second RFA will be a formality, but only a test will show whether that's the case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It's an idea, but my main concern with starting this thread was old admins who were approved with much lower RfA standards, not new ones who have a lot harder time with the much higher RfA standards. CTJF83 chat 22:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I know, but it's unlikely at this point that any single step would resolve all the problems that have been identified. The probationary period could be one part of a package of measures which would help us to resolve our current inability to square several circles. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well the logic of that is to define in some way the "lower standards" - perhaps by year, or by total RFA participation. Make a list of admins passed by these standards, and have 1 RFA per month (or week?) to gradually work through the list (skipping any currently inactive, for further consideration if/when they become active again). I'm nto sure that's a great idea, but that's the sort of direction the logic takes you. PS for an example of how dramatically standards have changed since 2005, you could do worse than look at this RFA! (And look how that turned out... :P ) Rd232 ^talk 22:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I can agree to that...so how do we go about discussing/actually implementing such a policy? WP:VP? here? CTJF83 chat 22:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of any sort of correlation between poor admins and laxer RFAs in the past? Plenty of very good admins got through very lax RFAs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Any such correlation would be hard to distinguish from statistical artefact, because so many active admins are from that "lax" period, and new admins of any era are less likely to cause major problems, due to what one might call "new admin caution". Plus new admins get cut more slack as part of a learning curve, plus evidence of serial errors of judgement etc has had less time to accumulate. So a link between standards at RFA and standards of admin conduct is not likely to be provable (to the point where if it could be proven, it would probably be worth an academic paper...). Rd232 ^talk 23:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

• Probationary adminship is also a perennial proposal. It's never achieved consensus to implement, and likely never will. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A probationary period doesn't really make sense per se. What might be helpful is having a mandatory Admin Review scheduled after 6 months, so that new admins know they'll be getting a shed-load of feedback on early performance. Rd232 ^talk 22:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The note on perennial proposal seems to be mostly about partial adminship (restricted powers), rather than probation (full powers, limited duration) ... and I'm not sure why you think it doesn't make sense. It's standard practice for employment in the non-virtual world, and seems to make sense there. However, if probation really has been definitively ruled out, then a mandatory Admin Review after 6 months could offer some of the same benefits, and I would definitely support it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me because major mis-steps and abuses don't come from new admins, and minor and medium ones are more easily forgiven as part of the learning curve. So any "probation" will just make new admins excessively cautious about engaging with controversial issues or topic areas, and if anything we need more admins willing to engage with controversial issues (albeit cautiously, especially at the beginning), and not drift off into hardly using the tools. Rd232 ^talk 23:26, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There's a danger here of doing nothing because any given strip won't solve everything. I think it's much better to look at whether a proposal produces some benefit, and then whether those benefits outweigh any costs. So far, I'm not seeing any sign of serious costs to probation, tho little enthusiasm for my view on its benefits.

I think that there are two sorts of "bad admin" I'd be looking to weed out. The first group are those who aren't as much up to the job as hoped: they lack clue, don't properly follow policy etc. Some of that should be evident in a probationary period, even if there is some self-restraint, and it would be great to have a mechanism to say to them "sorry, but this isn't working out". The second group are those who develop an attitude problem, which usually comes much later on, as they gain confidence. Probation probably wouldn't do much to help weed out the second group, but it would help to identify at least some of those whose grasp on policy and procedure has not developed adequately. A lot of the discussion at RFA currently focuses on grasp of policy and procedure, whereas it used to be accepted that a certain amount of that was learnt on-the-job. It seems to me that probation would allow for some restoration of the old seems-ok-and-will-learn-the-fine-details spirit ... and that would both allow through more of the applicants who are rejected as NOTNOW, and encourage more to apply without feeling that they need a PHD in policy to do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:52, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, OK, I have some sympathy for that logic - especially the need to avoid requiring people to have a phd in policy! So perhaps it's worth a try. Rd232 ^talk 00:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe every administrator should be confirmed every year. If admin is good, he/she will have no problem to pass this confirmation process that I see as being similar to RFA process.--Mbz1 (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be in the wrong section, but anyway... that approach has been perennially rejected as too much work and too much of a deterrent to making hard decisions. Rd232 ^talk 00:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Zero successful RfAs in December 2010?

• Well, given that December 2010 could well be the historic month when there are zero successful RfAs, it won't be long before we reach another historic month when nobody applies for the RfA process... I don't have answers, but I seriously hope editors like Mr.Wales and others out here take this issue up too seriously; and hoping that this thread is not viewed as just another perennial request (which it actually is). Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

• Well last month, Jimbo initiated this discussion on his talkpage. As far as I know, nothing has come of it yet, but maybe it will change. DC T•C 05:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)