User:Useight/RFA Subjects/Reconfirmation

Renewal? (Archive 17)

One idea that might address (e.g.) Angela's concerns about the irrevocability of sysophood is to have periodic "renewal" periods for admins, say every four or six months or so. There could be a poll about whether to keep that person on as an admin, and proceedings would begin if there's opposition to doing so. Of course, this level of accountability may make some who take their status for granted uncomfortable, but it would address this issue, as well as the "missing Wikipedians" with admin status issue (if the admin disappears their status would lapse on its own). Perhaps current admins would want to grandfather themselves in with lifetime immunity, or at least a longer duration. Well, just a thought. (Another thought was to have a "trial" period for new admins, but I don't really like it.) -- VV 08:18, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think this would really be an improvement. How many admins would be voted down that don't have complaints about them already? It would create a lot of needless paperwork, but I believe that it would not weed out any more problem admins than we currently are. Renewal would just turn automatic, and it would create simply another hassle. Meelar 14:14, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree with Meelar. If there are problem admins noone seems to be making an effort to remove them as it is. Requiring periodic affirmation of all admins seems like a passive-aggressive way to put a tiny number of admins up to a vote--greatly expanding time spent on politics instead of Wiki. -- Cecropia 14:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

A passive-aggressive way to put a tiny number of admins up to a vote? I wonder who that could be. I bet it's not RickK. 172 17:29, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Renewal is indeed a lot of work. Who'd want to vote on 200+ people again? Perhaps a better idea would be to have a renewal poll only if several, non-new (meaning there has to be some limitation to discourage sockpuppets) editors request it. This way, bad admins would be forced to renew, but you wouldn't bother with good admins. And I don't think there is a big deal to be made about inactive admins. It's not like anything bad is going to happen because of them. Dori | Talk 14:39, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

How is this different from the "Requests for Review" page or whatever we have now? Meelar 14:45, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I think renewal is a good idea in principle, but there's a few alterations I'd make to VV's proposal:

• Longer term, say 12 months
• Staggered renewal, say 25% every 3 months
• Support in software

I think the administrative overhead would indeed be very high if it wasn't supported in software. -- Tim Starling 15:21, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

It seems to me we are about to embark on another new procedure without clear guidelines. We still don't have any bright line to determine adminship in the first place. No qualification for voters. No proof of assertions made for or against. No percentage or any other firm means for indicating approval. So on what basis do we decide to renew or remove. WIll a simple majority against remove an admin? Or two thirds? Or do we go the other way and expect 80% support to keep an admin? If we do that, then a disgruntled 21% minority can remove an admin. Is that what we intend? -- Cecropia 15:34, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't think renewal is a good idea even in principle. I can't see what good it would do. theresa knott 15:42, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. There is a page for possible abuses of admin power- what's wrong with using this? Perhaps we can alter policy to allow removal of adminship via that route to have less strict requirements (simple majorities, 2/3, some fraction...) I'll also note that "implemented in software" sounds like it'd make us more vulnerable to sock puppet games. - Fennec 15:45, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless it is proposed that there are too many admins, then I can see no reason to vote again on those already in place. Warofdreams 16:07, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I can also imagine it becoming a forum for sour grapes. Admins are frequently the ones who deal with inappropriate behavior, which breeds resentment even if the admin is acting completely within bounds. Isomorphic 19:14, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

Can we please just file this idea away under "Worst Idea Ever" and forget it ever existed? →Raul654 19:19, May 5, 2004 (UTC)

I sympathize with some of the noted problems, and was just throwing this out as an idea, but this is way too dismissive and possibly rude. -- VV 01:51, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I was doing that to blunt my criticisms, but if you want the "less dismissive" version, so be it:

Not only is this idea is a logistical nightmare and a gigantic waste of valuable contributor time, but it opens the flood-gates for everyone (read - trolls and vandals) to try to de-sysop their least favorite admins (read - the ones who are most active in fighting vandals/vandalism). Further, I think even suggesting this idea is dangerous because it puts the idea out there in concerete form and gives it a sort of "precedence" - IE, that it's already been suggested. Furthermore, I don't see how it improves on our current system at all - why should we have to tend to vote in all the good admins on the off chance that one or two bad ones slip in? Isn't this what the review of admin actions page, requests for desysoping page, mediation, and arbitration committees are for? →Raul654 01:46, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

There must be accountibility. This may not be perfect, but there must be a way. Perhaps a running tally vote? See Wikipedia:Vicious cycle. Sam Spade 20:23, 5 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Fennec that the page for complaining about admins should be used in cases in order to find out whether adminship should be removed. But I have never seen that page, where is it? Get-back-world-respect 01:47, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

We already have Arbitration and Mediation to deal with (among other things) admins-gone-bad and admin-accountibility. How many systems do we need? Each of us has plenty on our plate. I really don't want to waste our time setting up a system involving 200+ revotes in revolving intervals. Are you guys watching too much Survivor? Kingturtle 02:12, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Furthermore, you should all consider raising the bar you use for minimum requirements for a new admin. I think people give support to people who have too little experience in this community and/or in this environment. Don't feel badly for opposing a nomination. Kingturtle 01:13, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Kingturtle, I know your bar is higher than most, and that's fine. But I think it would help if some kind of guideline were spelled out, just to give a point of reference. Like two, or three, or four, or five, or whatever months of more or less continuous edits, and a minimum number of non-trivial edits. But give some specific numbers, otherwise we're wrangling over it forever. -- Cecropia

Just out of curiousity, how long were you around and how many edits did you have when you became an admin, Kingturtle? I realize the standards may be different now. Maximus Rex 01:51, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I don't believe that any there has been any series of events, or even really any isolated event, that would lead us to believe that adminship is being granted broadly enough to pose a problem. The only thing I can think of is the recent misunderstanding on the meta involving Perl, and that has been addressed through a policy change and is a situation unique to the meta. The abuses and desysoppings that have occured in the past have involved well-seasoned admins who, for one reason or another, became fed up with the project and needed the community's help to depart in an appropriate manner (e.g. Kils). Neither raising the bar nor periodic reviews would have helped with that.

If we were to make a change, we could ask prospective admins whether they are really committed to following recent changes and vfd and so forth. UninvitedCompany

Revalidation (Archive 27)

Seth Ilys has added a "self-nomination" to revalidate his adminship.

1. Is this thought to be a good idea?
2. If so, how often should we do it?
3. Should it be mandatory after a probationary period of, say, a year?
4. Should it be mandatory on each anniversary of adminiship being conferred?
5. Should we have a separate page?

-- ALoan (Talk) 09:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A very noble gesture by Seth Ilys, but noble gestures are not always a good way to form policy. Personally, I think it would be a good idea for any admin to do this after they have been the subject of any kind of ban or other serious problem; in fact, this might be the first step towards the long-discussed de-admining process. So admin A is banned for a 3RR ban (for example); at the end of the 24 hours they list themselves here (for transparency, I'd avoid a separate page) for revalidation; they probably pass, but with a significant number of voters warning that they will not support a 2nd revalidation vote. Now A will seriously ponder any future breaches of the rules. Might well be a good thing. Filiocht | Talk 10:01, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• The de-adminship discussion has started anew. The irony of the case is that admins tend to get involved in controversies, and any admin involved in page protection or user blocking (or sometimes even deletion) is bound to offend an immature user at some point or other. If, during a year, Admin:X gives temporary blocks to 10 users, they may hold a grudge and vote against his renomination. That doesn't mean that X was a bad admin. An admin breaking rules sufficiently to warrant a block should be investigated, but this is a difficult process and mere voting doesn't cut it. (case in point:RickK. Not everybody is convinced that he should have been blocked since he may have been reverting vandalism; the RFC and VFU filed against him, as well as the restarted discusson on de-adminship procedure, show signs of some people having their judgments clouded since they dislike them. Radiant_>|< 10:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• The de-adminship discussion has never really gone away. Yes, there are dangers in the voting idea, but they could be limited by a statement that the default position is to revalidate, with a clear majority required to de-admin. If an admin gets blocked, and if the consensus is that the block is justified, I believe that this raises serious questions around their suitability as an admin. Do you not share this concern? If not, at what point do you feel that an admin may have overstepped the mark?

  One block? Ouch. Everyone has lapses in judgement sometimes. If someone is persistently a problem, and rejects attempts to address their behaviour (i.e. Guanaco), then action may need to be taken. If you de-sysop someone, there is a very good chance that they will resign - indeed, it has happened every time someone has been desysopped so far. Let's minimise this to only the most utterly necessary cases. Our purpose here is writing articles, not browbeating admins into trying to be some pinnacle of behaviour. Ambi 11:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  I dunno, I don't think going far enough to get (rightfully) blocked is very hard to avoid. It has to be a pretty serious breach to earn that. One block that was considered legitimate is enough for me to ask that someone get revalidated if there were a perfect system. I just don't think there is a good system for that. I guess reapplying and only asking for a majority support may work, but the problem of user's angry at being rightfully blocked by the admin is still there. - Taxman ^Talk 11:54, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

  I hadn't been thinking about RickK, but as there is no consensus that his block was justified, he would not have had to submit for revalidation under the system I am proposing. But it occours to me that a revalidation voting system could be a workable way to adress the problems that arise from the current absence of a de-admining process. Even janitor jobs are not for life. Filiocht | Talk 10:57, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

  What problems? There is a de-adminning process. It has been used twice, because while the troll lobby has a tendency to whine and bitch a lot, there just hasn't been that many cases of serious admin abuse. Ambi 11:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't think voluntary revalidation is a good idea. It will only be done by those who are secure enough in their support (like Seth Ilys) and not by those who might actually be voted out (like Ed Poor). Mandatory revalidation for all is not very practical either; many admins are uncontroversial and repeating their votes would be quite a waste of time. I think there should be a revalidation vote if demanded by a certain minimum number of people with minimum qualifications of time and edits. The necessary support percentage could be somewhat lower on revalidation than on the original nomination, to allow for a few "immature people holding grudges". So you wouldn't need 75-80%, but you should still have at least 60% support. NoPuzzleStranger 11:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We've got a de-adminship process. If an administrator goes ape, he loses admin powers immediately. An administrator who is abusing his powers can also be hauled before the arbitration committee, which can remove the powers. These mechanisms don't have the problems associated with vote-based de-adminning, which would only restrain administrators from acting when they need to, for fear of becoming unpopular. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:12, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Some questions I really do not know the answers to: What is the process? Where is it documented? How is "goes ape" defined? Who decides? What safeguards of fairness and transparency are there? I've been editing here for nearlt 2 years; how come I've never seen this process? Look on the process I'm pondering as trial by a jury of peers rather than voting; what's to fear if it is correctly established? Filiocht | Talk 11:25, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Just as with regular user abuse, it is documented and put before the community in the form of an RfC to determine the views of the community on the matter. It can then be brought before the arbitration committee, who has the power to de-sysop users or make them reapply for adminship. The safeguards of fairness and transparency are just the same as with all other arbitration cases; the community elects people who they trust to hear user disputes, and most of the proceedings are conducted in open view on the wiki. The reason you haven't seen it is because there has been one serious case put to the arbitration committee - and that person was desysopped. The troll lobby is very good about screaming about abusive admins, but not producing any evidence when given the opportunity of making a complaint and following due process, instead of following the lynch mob path. What is there to fear? RC and newpages patrol are already painful, which is why so few people want to do them. It is also an unfortunately good way to make enemies. You'll see things like this getting neglected - or indeed, anything that could potentially make an admin unpopular, lest they be subject to a lynching. We already have the means for the community to make their voices heard, through an RfC. We already have the means for a trial by their peers - with genuine due process instead of a popularity contest/lynch mob. There aren't hordes of abusive admins marauding unchecked, making this a solution in search a problem. Ambi 11:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm happy with Ambi's answer, which is much the answer I would have given. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I know how RfC works, in Tony's original post, he said taht rogue admins "can also be hauled before the arbitration committee". My questions related to whatever the other option the "also" referred to. Filiocht | Talk 11:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

• The option that the developers can (and will) instantly strip admin privileges of an admin who goes on a vandalism spree. The reason that most people don't know that is that it doesn't really happen all that often. I'd say Tony and Ambi hit it right on the head. There is no evidence that any of the present admins should be de-adminned, and there is evidence that some people have tried, or are trying, to get users de-adminned for personal reasons or grudges. Radiant_>|< 14:18, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

There was a case a couple of months ago where a longtime user, an admin, left Wikipedia, deleting all of his pictures from Wikipedia. The pictures were recovered from various sources and mirrors, and the user's admin privileges were removed. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Seth Ilys "Nomination" (Archive 27)

I have moved Seth Ilys' "renomination" to his user space. If you like, you can vote "for" or "against" him at User:Seth Ilys/Renomination Poll. There is no process or policy or mechanism for what he is doing, and if this should "fail" there is no policy to remove him as an admin.

If it should fail (which is highly unlikley in the first place) then he can request to be de-admined, can't he? -- Joolz 15:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is not the proper place for this. If he must, he can request de-admining now from Angela or Anthere, as Stewards. If they de-admin him, he could then nominate himself new. If he succeeded, he would become an admin again; if not, not. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 15:47, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It seems a bit, um, odd to me to restart Weyes' nomination in the absence of any "process or policy" for that, and then abort Seth's confirmation on the grounds that there is no "process or policy". I know, WP:IAR, but I have to admit that I'm not really happy about it. Kelly Martin 15:55, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've got to agree with Kelly on this. I was thinking the same thing. Someone complained about me making a point on my vote regarding Weyes, but Seth's entire "nomination" seemed to be trying to make a point. --Xcali 16:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is "Requests for Adminship," not "Requests for Self-Validation." The Bureaucrats made a decision to salvage the mess that Weyes' nomination had become, which we are empowered to do. If you think otherwise, make an RfC. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not challenging your decision on Weyes' nomination. What I am expressing displeasure with is your justification for your action in relation to Seth's request for reaffirmation. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if there's a policy regarding Seth's reaffirmation. What I want to know is whether what he did is reasonable. If you think that it's not (and apparently you do), I'd like to know why.

I'm sorry that my comments reopened the discussion of Weyes' RFA; I consider that issue resolved and have no wish to revisit it. Kelly Martin 16:37, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I am not expressing an opinion on validations. The community can decide that; it's been discussed before, and it can be discussed now. Whether to do it, how to do it, should admins serve for a fixed term, etc. etc. But this is a topic for discussion. Seth Ilys is already an admin and has no standing to seek adminship. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If after all this Weyes actually is made an admin an Rfc will probably be the only option, SqueakBox 16:28, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Cecropia saved us from having to make reasoned arguments for or against Seth's idea by invoking objections against its form. It seems to me too that Seth was making a point, he just forgot to put in the disruption part. Cecropia made sure the community didn't have the potential to supply it, just in case. I cannot argue against his actions (but neither do I think he has strong arguments for them); I will argue it's overly protective. JRM · Talk 16:32, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

You can discuss Seth's idea all you want. You can create a straw poll here, as has been done on many other issues. You can frame and tear apart the arguments. But Seth is already an admin and his attempt at self-validation (and any subtext such as trying to force other admins to seek "validation") do not belong on the project page. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:40, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, let me formulate that more pointedly. You saved us from having to take Seth up on his idea, here, right now, as he demonstrated it. Instead you're trying to argue that by starting a nice little poll somewhere we can have just as productive a time. That's just not so. If you're arguing that having Seth's re-RFA here will actively harm Wikipedia, not just that it doesn't jell with what "proper course of action" Seth is obliged to follow by reading policy (as if that were exhaustive), then I'm just not seeing it. JRM · Talk 17:04, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

• Did anyone ask Seth Ilys if his renomination includes relinquishing his admin powers if it doesn't pass? If that's the case, I think his self nomination really is a "Request for Adminship" and not a "Request for Self-Validation" (which I find is a little bit of an insulting thing to say about his self-nomination, especially if he is resigning admin powers absent a consensus to keep them). --Unfocused 16:38, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Let him resign in advance, then. After the de-adminship becomes effective, he can seek adminship again. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 16:44, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I don't see what the functional difference between having the reaffirmation vote, with the understanding that if he is not reaffirmed, he will stand down his adminship, and forcing him to resign first and then run for administrator again. Can you explain why you feel that he should be required to resign first (and have that resignation accepted) before he can be reaffirmed? Kelly Martin 19:11, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

This reminds me of Wikipedia:Confirmation of sysophood. -- Netoholic @ 16:47, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Whether or not one agrees that the "re-nomination" was the right thing to do, Cecropia is not wrong in noting that this is putting the cart before the horse. There is currently no policy requiring admins to be reelected; Seth could propose one if that's the goal. If he wants place his adminship on the line for the purposes of seeking validation (or whatever less "insulting" term one might want to use), then he could certainly be welcome to resign and try again. The project page is not for experimentation or point-proving. siafu 16:53, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Two apologies - (i) I think I injected the term "revalidation" into this discussion: apologies if anyone thinks it is in any way derogatory or insulting, which was not in any way my intention. I certainly did not intend to alllude to "self-validation". Perhaps "confirmation" would be a more neutral term. (ii) I seem to have kicked over an ants' nest. Sorry. Shall we go back to writing an encyclopaedia? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:04, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

An attempt at a more detailed explanation

I don't see this as en exercise in self-validation; I'm not fishing for compliments (although I am touched by those I have recieved) or boosts to my ego. I've stated almost since I recieved admin status that it really doesn't make a big deal to me whether I have the powers or not. What disturbs me is that I see potential admin candidates who I have great sympathies with in terms of Wikipedia policy and culture (such as User:Eequor) being turned down; it makes me think that perhaps the community views adminship rather differently now that it did when I was nominated, and I think that the most reliable way for us to make an assessment of whether that's true is to have older admins go through RfA again under the new community standards.

I intended for this to be a binding discussion; if I don't meet precisely the same threshhold as is required for new admins, I'd expect that someone would take it upon themselves to remove my admin privileges. If someone didn't do that automaticaly, I'd start to pester a bureaucrat to do so and (of course) not use my admin powers in the interim.

Folks being up WP:POINT, which is somewhat relevant. If my nomination proves to be contentious, then I will have "broken" WP:POINT (which isn't a hard-and-fast rule anyway, and, regardless, I'd point to WP:IAR), but it will be a point which I (and others, judging from my discussions on IRC) agree needs to be made -- namely, that adminship isn't at all the "not a big deal" thing that Jimbo originally intended it to be. (There are, as Kim alludes to below, examples on nl. and de. where established admins have been given the boot in votes just like this for rather petty reasons). I think it's worthwhile for us to know if such an environment exists on en., as a number of folks have observed changes in the climate (including myself, particularly on Eequor's RfA). So that's the story. I think it's rather legalistic and instruction-creepy to insist that I resign my adminship before being reconsidered on RfA, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus that that makes sense, especially given what I'd stated above.

I hope I've been sufficiently clear here, but I'll try to answer any other questions about my intention if folks have them. I certainly didn't ask that a fight to put my rRfA back on RfA be taken up, but I won't stand in the way either way. I'm just trying to be an asset to the community by conducting a very slightly disruptive experiment to see if the community's attitudes towards adminship are majorly disruptive to the project. - Seth Ilys 19:36, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd add as an addendum that this may or may not be moot now, given all of the attention being paid to my motivations. However, I'd be inclined to let the experiment continue; I see three potential outcomes:

1. My renomination is confirmed by a very strong consensus, indicating that I'm considered to be a good admin; this tells us little or nothing about community views towards adminship;

2. My renomination is not confirmed because of legitimate greivances against me, incidicating that I'm not actually such a good admin and probably shouldn't have been given admin powers in the first place. (which would be telling)

3. My renomination is not confirmed because of petty trivial arrogant people who have only superficial complaints against me (easily confusable with #2, perhaps, but also, again, possibly a very telling outcome, and the one with the greatest possible ramifications for the community as a whole).

Only in this third case could my rRfA be considered to be remotely disrutive, and then I'd hope it would be agreed by sensible people that that's precisely the sort of disruption we need. I apologize, though, if my boldness in these actions have been confusing in my intentions or if I've stirred up unreasonable or unwelcome dissent and disruption. -- Seth Ilys 19:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Renomination experiment

Cecropia (et al),

I'm positive that you are acting in good faith here and doing what you believe people expect of you. Even so, please let Seth Ilys run his experimental nomination here. You can mark it with "experimental" or some such banner if you prefer. He's attempting to reconfirm data we got from the .nl and .de communities. The conclusions will have a direct impact on RFA, so this is the most appropriate venue for the experiment. Kim Bruning 17:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Would it be possible to let us know the data or results from the Dutch and German experiment, or would letting us know skew the experiment? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Don't you know that the lab rats are never told why they are being stuck with cattle prods? This leaves a bad taste in my mouth. If the consensus here is to restrore this "renomination" I won't stand in the way, but I will vote oppose and explain why. I will also expect Seth Ilys to step down if he fails the new nomination on the same basis as any new nominee. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I thought that last part was obvious, even if policy didn't mandate it. Seth said as much that he "expected" to be deadminned if he failed. I agree he might have been even clearer about it, though. JRM · Talk 18:52, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

It would be nice to know the background of these things up front (as in "transparency") before we become guinea pigs to experiments. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• This is similar to the reasons why the revote on Weyes has stirred up such a fuss. I don't think anyone thought an immediate revote was an option until it was already in progress (because it wasn't put 'up front' before being implemented. The whole RfA process has unintentionally been made a guinea pig.) --Unfocused 18:48, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) (I suspect you may be tiring of my replies, so I think I'll not say more on this whole thing for a while, except that I think the bureaucrats have been doing a very good job so far, but there's always room for improvement.)

I believe I explained in detail about the Weyes matter, including a timeline. This was not planned, but became necessary after another Bureaucrat reopened an already closed nomination. It is an attempt to put the best result on what was probably a procedural error. There is no intent to create policy out it. Please read over the extensive verbiage here, as this has been chewed over so much it resembles a haggis without the casing. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to see Seth's renomination back here. I think it won't get the feedback it deserves if it's tucked away on a user sub page. Talrias (t | e | c) 18:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Where is "here"? On the talk page is OK IMHO, but I don't really think it belongs on the project page, especially in view of the ingenuous way it was presented. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:11, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Holding it here on this page (or anywhere other than WP:RFA) will render the event meaningless, as it is unlikely to get the necessary attention anywhere else. People go to WP:RFA to express an opinion on on who should (or should not) be admins; they don't go to other places, such as this talk page or subpages of Seth's user space, for that purpose. Seth wishes the Wikipedia community to declare whether they wish for him to remain an admin (let's not read anything more into Seth's intentions than that, please; many people are wrongly guessing at his intentions without talking to him and jumping to erroneous conclusions as a result). Your actions indicate that you feel that he's not entitled to ask for such a declaration in a manner that would be effective without first convincing a steward to deadmin him (which, as you probably know, is likely to be ineffective). Frankly, that seems to me to be putting form ahead of substance, and that continues to concern me. Kelly Martin 19:22, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't think I was being ambiguous, but to clarify, I mean on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:30, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia is one big multifaceted experiment. After they're done, yes, we draft policy so we don't have to repeat them. But you can't replace everything with a dry exposition of your ideas, asking if people would please comment. Not everything has an impact that way. And also: what's done is done. JRM · Talk 18:52, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)

Seth is the one admin with the integrity to allow himself to be recalled by the community if necessary, while all other admins hide behind the rules that give them the status for life, Saddam Hussein style. It's pretty scummy to try to scupper his most noble gesture lest it become too common. — Chameleon 20:01, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I prefer to think of it as "Supreme Court Justice style". If the rules give it for life, then it's not really "hiding", is it? --Kbdank71 20:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

And besides, it's not for life anyway, any serious breeches of policy would result in deadminship rather quickly by a steward or bureaucrat. More subtle case are handled by arbcom, and admins have had their admin rights revoked by that process. - Taxman ^Talk 20:21, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, a lot of us would like to see a recall system of some kind put in place. If anyone's hiding behind the rules it's those who see no need for a system for deadminship. Encouraging admins to submit to a new RfA is a noble gesture, but not a blanket solution because those at risk of losing won't submit themselves to it. I'd like to see those of us who respect Seth for putting himself forward for this get behind a system whereby adminship can be removed by the same people who grant it - the community. — Trilobite (Talk) 22:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see no need for putting in place a recall system (and I am not an admin) as the current system works well. However much I admire Seth's gallant gesture, I surely hope that not all administrators feel the need to do the same, as it takes me a long time to evaluate whether somebody is worthy of adminship, and I do not want to have to vote more than once a day just to keep the administrators we already have. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 23:41, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think a renom system is vital to health of wikipedia. There are certain admins who have become POV warriors and use thier adminship as a false cloak of respect. As it is, admins are unanswerable, and there is no way for admins to be required to justify maintaining thier admin powers. Klonimus 30 June 2005 08:24 (UTC)

I like the idea of renominations as well. For instance, my original candidacy was a 4-0 vote on a self-nomination after about 4 1/2 months of use and less than 800 edits. Clearly standards are rougher now, and I think after a year and a half of being an admin it'd be fair for people to decide whether or not I've been using those powers to the benefit of the encyclopedia or not. Certainly more people are aware of my presence now, many of whom were not even present on Wikipedia at the time, and others who would not have considered voting in my initial election. Sarge Baldy 10:57, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Please review the 3 experimental renomination RFAs (Seth Ilys, Francs2000, Linuxbeak).

Having reviewed them, do you still want to have renominations?

If you're undecided, talk with Waerth. He's a steward, and is involved with nl and de, where people are using yearly review.

Kim Bruning 13:23, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

While I am a bit skeptical that in those tests the controversy tends to be more with the system than the user, they don't discourage me and I would like to proceed. Sarge Baldy 16:13, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you find some admins to volunteer for a second round of experiments then. :-) I'm quite put off, myself, but feel free! :-) Kim Bruning 16:32, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd be up as long as there was a little disclaimer on there that said you can't vote oppose just because you're against the concept. The vote is on the admin. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 16:39, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Opposition to the system should be done on the talk page rather than by attacking everyone using it. If someone wants to vote oppose based on the character of anyone who would use such a system, I see no problem with it. But it should not be used as simply a medium for one's own wiki-activism, which comments such as "my oppose vote, which I am maintaining, is not at all about your fitness as an admin" make abundantly clear. A jury member may vehemently oppose the death penalty outside the courtroom, but in it her choices are to work with it or walk out. That debate belongs elsewhere. Sarge Baldy 18:14, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes. But I'm sure bureaucrats can use their own discretion. I'm up for re-nominating myself as long as such votes do not become a problem. (Course I'm a bureaucrat as well, so does that make me re-nominated for both?) — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I suppose it's safe to just say admin, since it's probably evident that only an admin would have bureaucratic powers. As for the section I think it should be worded in a way so as to discourage votes against the system itself, although I'm not sure it's necessary to forbid them. If they do become problematic, I see no reason why you couldn't retract your bid, as 2 of the 3 original experimenters did. Sarge Baldy 06:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

Renomination idea

As renominating 500+ admins would be silly, I had an idea last night which i'll post here now. It may be an idea to implement review for new admins. Basically, after an RfA succeeds as normal, the user becomes an admin. After 30 days the user then goes under 'Admin Review', which is a second RfA. Should they pass that or result in no consensus, they remain an admin permanantely (barring any ArbCom decisions). This may not weed out those who are abusive later on, but most unsuitable admins would show that they can't control their powers in the first month. If anyone passed the review and was too abusive, ArbCom would normally intervene anyway. Hedley 10:58, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't meta survive with admin's being reviewed every year? This link is Broken 30 June 2005 00:33 (UTC)

Comparing meta to en is a clear case of apples to oranges. En has an order of magnitude more administrators, orders of magnitude more edits and articles, and basically 0 article conflicts and 0 user-admin conflicts. Just because something works on meta doesn't mean it would work on en -- it almost certainly wouldn't. →Raul654 June 30, 2005 00:36 (UTC)

En has 500 admins which would mean almost 10 have to be reviewed every week -- between 1 and 2 new ones a day. That's not something I'm personally up to, nor are most wikipedians. — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 03:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Silsor and adminship reaffirmation (Archive 38)

I think that Silsor makes an interesting case on his RFA, and it's unfortunate that some people immediately discount it as disruption. The issue seems to be the perennial question of adminship reaffirmation.

• Basically, the question is if adminship should be a lifetime position, or subject to review once per year. The latter system is used on Meta, and on several other language wikis such as .
• Review would simply mean to publically ask if there are any objections to the admin. If there are none, as would usually be the case, he remains an admin. If there are, a RFA-like vote is used.
• This is very different from RFDA, because an RFDA could be filed at any arbitrary time, such as whenever a dispute occurs; whereas revision only occurs once per year, around the admin's "anniversary". This makes revision far more even-handed.

What problem is this trying to solve? Basically, it's a matter of administrator accountability. Admins are said to have the trust of the community, and said to be held to very high standards. However, that isn't true in practice. Admins are subject to peer review but can choose to ignore it, and losing community trust has no effect whatsoever on their status, except if their behavior is so extreme that the already-overworked ArbCom has to deal with it.

Additionally, some admins have been around for years and have been promoted for different reasons than we use now. People change, and standards change, and people should not be in a position of authority merely for having been around longer.

This has been debated before, of course, but I've seen only two real objections. First, some people think that the sheer amount of admins here makes it impractical, but that's not actually true: for the vast majority of admins, reaffirmation would be automatic since nobody objects to them. If necessary, two or three objections could be required before the matter is put to a vote.

And second, it seems that some people oppose because they're afraid that they, or their friends, might lose their privileges. That hardly sounds like a good reason. There are a small number of controversial admins, and the thought that they should keep community trust may well serve as an incentive to behave less controversially.

Food for thought? Oh yes, and see meatball:DevolvePower and meatball:VestedContributor. Radiant_>|< 12:33, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Let an affirmation vote stand 48 hours. If three objections are raised it triggers a full re-vote and the admin will need the usual 70-80% plus to retain adminship. And I'll take a stab at something raised earlier: if an admin hasn't been active in a year they are automatically de-sysopped. Marskell 13:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Any admin who after a year of adminship hasn't pissed 3 people off hasn't been very active. Throw in those who will use this to try an impose insanely high standards and 3 votes per admin is pretty much garenteed.Geni 14:53, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

This proposal would virtually guarantee that anyone on ArbCom will have to face frequent affirmations; all of us (except maybe Mindspillage) have at least three people out there who don't like us enough to demand our adminships yanked. We'd all probably survive such attempts, but why waste our time and everyone else's? We have enough trouble convincing people to serve on ArbCom as it is. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps only allow admins to oppose on the first level, then push it to a full community vote if three objections occur. This would prevent someone who was blocked, had their feeling hurt, sockpuppets, etc... from voting against someone just for spite. --Holderca1 20:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked at least 3 people who are currently admins.Geni 02:49, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

A yearly AdministrativePower review wouldn't be a bad idea. Admins who fail to show up for the review, voluntarily ask to be de-sysopped, or are criticised and respond inadequately to criticism, would be de-sysopped. Other admins would be kept. — JIP | Talk 13:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll point out that, on a purely semantic level, you've misinterpreted Silsor's request. He has not, in fact, asked to be reaffirmed as an admin — instead, he has requested, technically, that his admin status be removed (and, by stressing that his request is no different from any other on RFA, seems to be suggesting that one can nominate someone else to be "promoted to usership").

And another objection you didn't mention: since this has never been tried before, nobody is quite certain of the potential scope of such a policy. There is, indeed, a "small number of controversial admins" (who, for better or worse, tend to be among the most active) who could be quite certain of being forced into a confirmation vote. There is a much greater number of admins for whom the the level of opposition is less clear — they have likely made some enemies, but nobody knows how many. Losing a few active admins may be unfortunate, but losing a hundred would be rather more traumatic for the project as a whole; thus, since no-one is certain of just how many admins would lose their positions, supporting such a policy seems rather ill-advised. Kirill Lokshin 13:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think Silsor's request was misunderstood. I think the idea here is let's take the implication of his request and try to create a more plausible framework. Also, I very much doubt we'll lose anywhere near a hundred and, of course, bureaucrats would still have their discretion if they feel "enemies" have suddenly materialized out of nowhere. Marskell 13:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Kirill, while I'm sure that a few admins would be "forced into confirmation", that by no means implies that we will lose all, or even most, of them. In fact I expect most confirmation votes to pass, so your allegation that we would lose a hundred admins sounds like a strong exaggeration. It is very unlikely that, as you seem to claim, many admins have sufficient opposition in hidden enemies. Please provide some evidence thereof? Being uncertain is no grounds for assuming the absolute worst.
• Most regular adminship nominations pass. If (as I strongly doubt) there are in fact a large number of current admins that would not pass an adminship nomination, then we are having serious problems with double standards here. Radiant_>|< 13:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

  My apologies — I didn't mean to imply that we would lose a hundred admins (I should certainly hope that wouldn't be the case). My concern, however, is that, if this were put into place and subsequently got out of hand, there would be no way of stopping it without being unfair to those who had already undergone the process. Kirill Lokshin 14:20, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Despite the response to "What problem is this trying to solve?" I think this is a solution looking for a problem. I also fear that it's a form of m:Instruction creep. I do agree that there is a limited accountability loop for appropriate admin behavior. That loop is, at present, restricted to dispute resolution processes. The appropriate area is Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct#Use_of_administrator_privileges. Notably, this area sees little in the way of traffic. I have come across users before who have complained of admin abuses. I have routinely asked users to show me the evidence of their concerns. So far, I've received nothing in return. I'm not saying that what I received wasn't substantiative; I'm saying I received nothing. Of course, that is anecdotal. At this point, I think a new level of procedure/bureaucracy is premature. More evidence of the need of it needs to be generated. In an effort to help keep admins accountable, I started a (still very notional) project called "Admin watch" as a subpage of mine. Feel free to contribute there. --Durin 13:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • There is a difference between being downright abusive (which are very rare and dealt with by ArbCom) and not adhering to the high standards to which admins are supposedly kept. According to Wikipedia:Administrators, an admin is a "known and trusted member of the community". If someone no longer has community trust, should that person remain admin indefinitely? Radiant_>|< 14:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

  You've avoided defining "community", however. There is a certain group of users — the trolls, the creators of speedied pages, the submitters of copyvios — who would love nothing more than to exact their revenge on the admins who interfered with them. Are you quite certain that this group is not large enough to constitue a significant voting block? Or that certain members of this group, given the capability to remove admins, could not restrain their destructive impulses long enough to create a "legitimate" account with which they could vote? Kirill Lokshin 14:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

  Chicken Licken thought the sky was going to fall in. It didn't. -Splash^talk 14:40, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The difference is that most admin nominees have never been admins before nor have they performed admin tasks. If we set the standard 70-80% threshold for reconfirmation, I expect that we will risk losing a large number of productive and useful admins simply because they are the ones who most often deal with active trolls and the most ornery editors. Every editor who you have temporarily blocked for 3RR, personal attacks, disruption, and other forms of asshattery becomes a potential revenge voter—and each of those revenge votes needs four support votes to be counterbalanced. Toss in a couple of 'legitimate' oppose votes from editors with honest qualms and suddenly we are in a position to lose a lot of admins. If we set threshold for reconfirmation lower to account for this, then you start getting charges that confirmed admins don't have the support of the community, and you taint their reputation for the next year.

Plus there's the delightful disruptive effect of encouraging the formation of cliques and voting blocs. If this is an annual process then we're looking at a couple of confirmations per day with our current admin population; it becomes a continuous election atmosphere. We've already started to see some editors engage in campaigning for and against RFAs—I don't want to see the practice take root in a reconfirmation process too.

This may also have an effect on our supply of new admins. If we start seeing a very ugly reconfirmation process–and frankly, I can't see how it won't be–then that is likely to give pause to new candidates who won't want to put up with the annual abuse.

Finally, if the vast bulk of confirmations are expected to pass, then the process is a waste of our time. Though the ArbCom is certainly busy right now, I don't see their docket crowded with cases regarding admin privileges. Requiring all of us to run through six hundred reviews every year seems kind of silly if we can't be bothered to refer six cases to ArbCom now. If someone has lost the trust of the community through misuse of their administrative power–even if it's not gross abuse–you can still ask the ArbCom to step in. If it appears that that process won't work, then we can consider creating a whole new massive bureaucracy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:29, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Very insightful. Not quite related to my RFA but insightful nonetheless. silsor 14:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• I think this would be incredibly divisive, and I think we have enough of that as it is. If an admin is active at all in some of the more difficult areas they'll get a review virtually automatically causing a lot of ill-will, discouraging taking and defending unpopular positions. Any group needs some of its members to challenge the status quo and community assumptions and this would stifle that. We have processes for comment and de-admin right now, if they are ineffective then I think we should look at improving those first as a review function. Rx StrangeLove 14:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• Kirill Lokshin hit the nail on the head above when he pointed out that silsor has "requested, technically, that his admin status be removed (and, by stressing that his request is no different from any other on RFA, seems to be suggesting that one can nominate someone else to be 'promoted to usership')". This is the vital big giant neon-illuminated red flag that everyone should be looking at: silsor's actions are creating a back-door Requests for De-adminship, when every attempt to do so through community consensus has failed. This should be ended now. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 14:42, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
• Two responses to Ten... first, you're assuming that most (e.g.) blocks would result in revenge votes; I don't think that's correct - first, most blocks are not against established editors, and second, most established editors are not vindictive. And of course the 'Crats would discount obvious troll or sockpuppet votes. I invite you to take a look at the , which is working fine on our 6th-largest Wiki. Second, you're assuming that we would have to vote on every existing admin, but that wasn't the idea. There would only be a vote on those to which objection is voiced. And I do believe that the average effect of campaigning is to vote down the nominee because he was gathering votes. You do have a good point about cliques though, but of course such cliques already exist in whichever discussion forums we use. Radiant_>|< 15:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, no—I don't actually assume that most blocks will result in revenge votes; I merely suggested it as an example of a reasonable administrative action that could result in retaliatory voting. Editors who act as mediators on our more contentious articles, or admins who try to keep the peace or warn users about WP:NPA violations might also tend to face problems. Any admin who's expressed an opinion on Gdanskig will probably face review. There are dozens of things that admins do (or should do) on a regular basis that may annoy the editors who don't take our policies to heart. We don't block editors (usually) for the more mild violations of WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:NPOV, and WP:NPA; frankly there are quite a few regular contributors who are dicks—it only takes a few to force a vote, and only a few more to push support below 75%.

Looking at the Dutch Wikipedia, they have only 66 admins: a tenth our number. Is it reasonable to assume that a process that works for them will work equally well when scaled up by a factor of ten? Of the fifteen candidates whose adminships are currently on the review board, nine are being voted upon; while it is true that they don't have to vote on all candidates, they still have to vote on a majority of them. I freely admit that I don't speak Dutch, so I'm doing a bit of guessing here—but between my broken knowledge of German and a little bit of machine translation, it appears that most of the oppose votes are based on candidates being insufficiently active rather than on their administrative actions or missteps. From what I can see, the Dutch process appears to affirm my suspicion that the process would be a waste of time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:49, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

A "factor of ten" doesn't begin to describe it. The English Wikipedia had more than 66 admins (68 to be exact) confirmed in the month of October 2005 alone (see Special:Log/rights). -- Curps 16:07, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

• And that will become more problematic over time. I did a linear progression of this recently. I don't have the finished data any more. But if I recall correctly, the progression showed that by the time two years from now we'll be nominating >100 admins per week. I don't think what is being suggested is readily scalable. --Durin 16:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

As an aside, Fred Bauder has recently created a page describing Administrative probation as a possible remedy that the ArbCom could impose. It is designed to cope with admins who are not "...able to adequately fulfill or conform to community expectations regarding some aspects of their responsibilities". Such a remedy could be appropriate for the cases where full-blown desysopping might be overkill but where there is serious concern about an admin's behaviour. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm minior burcratic challenge. If a review system was set to one year on what date would I be reviewed?Geni 03:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see silsor stating anywhere that he is trying to prove the point that Radiant describes up there, to wit, that there should be adminship reaffirmation. Maybe that is what he's trying to prove, but he has certainly not been clear about it, and this strikes me instead as somebody trying to hitch the wagon of their own issue to the minor disruption of silsor's RFA so that they can get attention given to the issue without personally having to WP:POINT.

I also have an issue with the statement that People change, and standards change, and people should not be in a position of authority merely for having been around longer. I agree that that shouldn't be the sole reason, but "having been around longer" is one of the most important things to me in an admin. From my point of view a lot of admins have not been around on Wikipedia as long as would like. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Temporary Adminship (Archive 47)

Has any thought been given to a proposal such as this:

Each Admin is appointed for a period of one year, after which he may reapply or give up his position. Some clear guidelines are set up for desysopping, so that Admins can be quickly stripped of their powers, temporarily, or permanently (though they could reapply), in response to conflict and uncivility. When an editor is blocked for uncivil behaviour, an Admin can be stripped of his rights instead, or additionally. -- Ec5618 17:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The first has been proposed previously (I think an annual review is a fine idea) but it's always been vetoed as creating an extra process when we don't need one. Marskell 17:34, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps consensus will shift, in response to the events and comments of the last few days. I've seen several suggestions to indicate that, perhaps, as Wikipedia grows, and extra process may be needed, to keep track of the number of editors and Admins. -- Ec5618 17:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

• A yearly review would not have stopped the revert war that broke out over the pedophilia userbox. All five admins that were temporarily de-adminned had been an admin less than a year. The oldest was 9 months. These proposals and many, many more have been proposed before. --Durin 18:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the biggest problem is that with 800 admins, that's about 16 a week that would have to be reconfirmed. Ral315 (talk) 02:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Temporary adminship to borderline consensus cases

Just an idle thought and I'm not even sure this is a good idea, but what the hey. Right now, the consensus to promote is around 75-85%. What if a candidate gets the orderline, say, 70-80% (or even lower)? How about we give those borderline cases the equivalent to the AfD "No consensus"? These candidates might be idea for a temporary adminship for a very short period of time (say, four to six months), after which they can apply again or give up their positions. The one major problem with this is that it adds a lot of the extra red tape and instruction creep that I've generally opposed. OTOH, it might give a second chance to desysoped former admins who might not be able to scrounge up the required 75-85% votes, and it might give us a chance to better evaluate good users who might have made a few enemies over the years (or, more likely, months) of Wikipedia-editing. ArbCom might even be more likely to give the "desysop now, you can go to RFA later" knowing that a former admin would have a better chance of being promoted in the future. Thoughts? --Deathphoenix 13:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• To me, it would depend on why they did not get a consensus - if 25% of the voters fear that the candidate will make a terrible admin and abuse admin powers, that's different than if 25% of the voters think the candidate will make a great admin, but is just too new, or doesn't use edit summaries enough. bd2412 T 15:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• (echoing BD2412)...which is precisely why we have bureaucrats; to make the tough calls. They do a pretty good job of it. I don't see there being a need for a special case. If a person doesn't pass, they should take the lessons from the failed RfA and reapply in a few months. That's worked very well in the past. --Durin 15:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Hmmm... the idea has merit though my concern is that as an admin there are some things that you can do that can't be undone, namely deleting images and merging pages - if it was temporary adminship without these two abilities then I would consider it. -- Francs2000 16:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

And what if the temporary admin goes on a blocking spree or wheel warring, thus demotivating experienced users/ admins? --Gurubrahma 18:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

• No. I do not favor adding another layer of complexity. Then we'll be fighting about where the level is between a rejection and a temporary and a temporary and a permanent. In the last few months we have spent a lot of time "playing with the process." -- Cecropia 16:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree with you on that point, even during my initial proposal. It was an idle thought. shrug --Deathphoenix 19:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Couldn't we just do what we usually do in borderline cases—tell the candidate to go do useful things, and ask again in a month or two? Are we sufficiently short of admins that we urgently need more people with blocking and deletion powers? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
• Can we string people along, follow one temporary term with another indefinitely? Then we can grandfather permanent admins and turn them into a "big deal" ^_^ .... No wait, that's a BAD idea. NoSeptember ^talk 17:02, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The best solution is to help the candidates prepare. This means being able to sell themselves as a good candidate, as well as racking up experience as a good editor. Candidates need good feedback from a variety of people well before the start of Rfa. --FloNight 17:28, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It might also help if we simply prohibited nominations before three months. -- Cecropia 17:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Helping potential Admins prepare. I like it, but did you have anything specific in mind? -- Ec5618 08:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

It bugs me that a couple of users who achieved very high numbers of Yes votes (CSCWEM comes immediately to mind) have not attained adminship. However, I do feel that twenty-five percent of admins thought it was a bad idea to promote them (for whatever reason). There is less harm in letting them reapply in a month, or a week, or whatever, than there is in creating a new layer of functions for the bcrats to wade through. While I like the idea presented, I don't like the overhead it adds. aa v ^ 17:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

A minor correction: 25% of voters thought it was a bad idea, not necessarily admins. --Gurubrahma 18:43, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. While some sort of mentorship program might be a good idea, temporary/borderline adminships just create needless complexity. Maybe separate the powers from the tools (I smell an essay coming in there, somewhere...). -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Adminship renewal (Archive 57)

I've written a proposal, Wikipedia:Adminship renewal. Please feel free to read it and comment/make amendments as you deem fit. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 03:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

For the one millionth time, no. Putting aside the obvious (and very often stated) problem that the admins who do the most beneficial work are often the ones who aren't terrible popular, it is simply logistically impossible to renew 1000 (or more) admins every 365 days (or about 21 per week in addition to the 20-or-so per week that already go through RFA). Raul654 03:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Being done at some other wikis. Not very encouraging results. Wasn't there a perpetual proposals page somewhere? Kim Bruning 06:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

"Wikimedia projects, including two of the better-known ones (Meta and Commons), have provisions that are already in place for inactive sysops to be removed/sysophood to be subject to confirmation." — I think this would be a better system than that proposed herein. Only inactive sysops would need to renew their sysop bit, all others exempt unless Arbcom says otherwise. I'd suggest sysops inactive for more than two years be de-adminned automatically, and when they return, they would need to have a "renewal" RfA (with a different success threshold?), in order to prevent their powers from being misused if their accounts fall into vandal control. Kimchi.sg 08:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

(Sorry if this should have been proposed already, but...) How about a request to remove adminship? With a treshold of let's say ...insert consensus here... for "successful" removal (85%?). And probably with a maximum repeat rate of ...insert consensus here... per year (once?). The community should be able to remove the sysop bit, after all it was the community who granted it. --Ligulem 09:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Or we could think positive and do a "Request to confirm adminship" (logically the same, just with inverted support/oppose). --Ligulem 09:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should put something in place to deal with inactive admin accounts. We have over a hundred admin accounts that haven't edited in the year 2006. We're leaving ourselves wide open if any of those accounts end up in the hands of someone with malicious intentions. Also, some admin is leaking to a certain site that shall remain unnamed ... this is likely an inactive sleeper admin account just being used for this purpose. --Cyde Weys 09:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

An inactive account is no more dangerous than your account or mine. If we have insecure passwords, we can be hacked. Ral315 (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it is a sleeper. Apart from anything else there are certain gaps in their knowlage that suggest they are not long term.Geni 12:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

This is why we don't do adminship renewal:

1. To renew 800+ admins yearly wouldn't work logistically.
2. Loss of adminship based on inactivity doesn't really make sense; we have lots of good admins (Zoe, for one), who take extended breaks.
3. Most importantly, it causes admins to worry for their job. This is the same reason that many judge positions in different countries are life terms- otherwise, politics plays big into decisions. "If you block me, I'll oppose your renewal, and so will my friends."

Ral315 (talk) 09:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Just renew the ones that don't respect policy. Get a petition with X number of signatures that say a certain admin doesn't respect policy, and then a renewal vote would be held. No need to have routine revotes on the vast majority of them who cause no trouble. Everyking 09:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I support that idea. A request to renew with a minimum of X petitioners. --Ligulem 09:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of stating the obvious, this would allow people like the GNAA to remove admins that were causing them problems.Kim Bruning 10:02, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we'd have to expect people to have some record as constructive editors to be able to sign one of these petitions (or vote). Everyking 10:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In reply to Kim: No. A normal RfA voting would be held after such a successful petition and the GNAA is not the community. The rate for such renewals should be limited, tough (minimum 3..6 months after the last confirmation). We also have TfD, Afd, whatever. This would help to keep admins in touch with the goals of wikipedia (and by also respecting the community needs for respectful communication). If the community is intelligent enough to elect admins, then it can also confirm them when needed. --Ligulem 10:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Nope, this was tested, well totally poisoned by a misbehaving user who tried something quite like that ;-) Kim Bruning 12:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with Ral315 and Kim Bruning, and would not like a system like this to be implimented. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 11:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I can see for desysopping someone is abuse of the tools. If there is extensive abuse, the offending admin will sooner or later be taken to arbitration, and can be desysopped by the ArbCom. A system that would make admins afraid to block disruptive users who might oppose their renewal RfA (and get their friends to do the same) would be a bad idea in my opinion. AnnH ♫ 11:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your first sentence, but after that we differ. Realistically, the only abuse of the tools that's going to get you to arbitration is either of the rampage variety or the ticking-off-the-wrong-people variety. But there's admin abuse beyond this: blocking people for poor (but not entirely insane—that would be "rampage") reasons, using the rollback button against edits aside from vandalism, and things such as closing a vote improperly (by which I mean in a way that is unpopular and generally contrary to standard policy interpretation, but is not so outrageous that it is impossible to defend). This is the sort of thing we need a way to deal with: the admin who uses the admin tools improperly, in a way that makes him/her unpopular and undermines policy, but isn't extreme enough to get him/her to arbitration under current practice. Also, I think that getting admins to be more cautious—to worry about a revote—would be a great thing. Problem #1 with regard to admin issues is the way some admins will act individually and aggressively, without community deliberation or agreement, essentially with impunity. Anything that would get them to worry about their popularity a little more, and have some feeling of being responsible to the community, would be a tremendous improvement. Everyking 12:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Anything that would induce an administrator to make the 'popular' decision is not a good thing. This would increase the likelihood of admins pandering to a) trolls, b) POV warriors or c) asshats, as they know that all of those three groups remember every admin who ever blocked or ticked them off, and all of whom would waste no time in turning any kind of revote into a fiesta of bitching and ill-will. Administrators don't have to make the popular decision, they have to make the correct decision. Wikipedia is not a democracy, it's an encyclopaedia, and the correct decision does not have to necessarily tie in with the most popular one. There are many examples of this. Proto||type 13:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like it if they pandered to the community a little more, really. I guess we have a philosophical disagreement. You want every admin to be a law unto himself, making "correct" decisions on anything according to his own say-so? Is this really a proper way to determine what's "correct"? Somebody has to decide the difficult issues, but it should be the community, not the individual admin. Everyking 13:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

So I guess we can toss out WP:NPOV, WP:V, etc. in favour of consensus, then? Consensus makes the right call 99% of the time, but the 1% of the time is what we tend to focus on, so we tend to allow wedge cases - the most unlikely eventualities - to define how we ought to behave for the other 99%. Admins are not a law unto themselves - rather, they are given the mop and bucket to utilise in however they best feel necessary within reason. If they make editors slip on wet slicks, or flood the hallways, they ought to have the mop and bucket taken away. This dangerous either/or philosophy - that admins should either be totally unaccountable to the community and accountable only to the arbcom, or totally accountable to the community alone - is not one that should ever be allowed to take root. We have mechanisms for ensuring that admins utilise their mop and bucket responsibly. Anyone can start a discussion at AN or ANI about a particular admin, and through this, the community is able to communicate its (dis)approval of an admin. Likewise, the arbcom is the only way to desysop admins because people have confidence in the arbcom to do the right thing - both sides will typically respect a decision (unless one of them is a troll or just plain disruptive), whatever it may be.

I'm sure the one admin always hanging on everyone's mind where this is concerned is Tony_Sidaway (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I don't mince my words, and I have no compunction about naming his name. I'm sure everyone is silently thinking, "Yeah, the arbcom didn't desysop Tony despite his history of wheel warring especially over userboxes". The problem again is that we have allowed Tony to be defined by the wedge cases - the exceptions rather than the rule. Tony does a lot of work with his mop and bucket outside the realm of userboxes, and remarkably wheel wars a lot less than he used to. Likewise, MarkSweep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) is famed for simply deleting any userbox he felt like deleting, but this obscures a lot of work he does maintaining TfD and performing other menial tasks. Since being banned from involvement in userboxes, he has continued to do good work.

The lesson is, if we the community had our way every time, we would act like the primal beings that we are in a large number of cases, and act punitively rather than preventively. Many rogue admins can contribute to Wikipedia without being desysoped, but a riled up lynch mob is the last creature on the face of the earth to look for compromise. This is why Jimbo delegates the trust we, the community, place in him to arbitrate disputes to the arbitration committee, and not back to the community ourselves. It hurts to be considered incapable of even-handedly resolving a polarising dispute, but this is exactly the last thing an angry - or even worse, angry and divided - community can ever be capable of doing. Individually, we may act rationally, but on a group scale, we act irrationally. As such, it is irresponsible and simply crazy to give the community full discretion in banning admins - and likewise, it would be irresponsible to only allow the arbcom input on whether admins are handling the mop and bucket well. We must have compromise, and the only way to do this is to elect impartial and capable arbitrators - not invent new forms of m:instruction creep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Very well said. You should save that diff for when you run for ArbComm. Thanks for saying this, it needed saying. ++Lar: t/c 16:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

With regards to Everyking's comments, I must politely disagree with him. I have yet to see any evidence that this "problem" with rogue admins really exists. Yes admins handle their affairs with some degree of individuality--within the larger guidelines and rules of Wikipedia--but that is a good thing and something that makes Wikipedia strong. What would scare me is if there were an "admin police" out there ready to smack down any admin who screwed up at some point (and we all do) or dared to use individual judgement when an issue arises which is in one of Wikipedia's grey areas (and it sometimes seems as if a lot of Wikipedia is grey). To quote Everyking, "I think that getting admins to be more cautious—to worry about a revote—would be a great thing." No, that would be a horrible thing. I am absolutely opposed to this proposal.--Alabamaboy 13:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Renewing admins is a solution looking for a problem. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 14:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

In case someone wants to take a look at the dustbin for past failed proposals of this type (the "perpetual proposals page" Kim mentioned), it's at WP:RFDA. For me, the above arguments quite convince me that to date there isn't any rogue admin problem the RfC+RfAr system cannot handle. (edit conflicted) Kimchi.sg 14:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Oooh... I agree with Oleg. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 15:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Any process that arbitrarily enforces admins to go through a stressful cross-examination by the community would be detrimental to the community. In particular it would be very harsh on our best vandal fighters, RickK would have had far from a smooth ride if he had to go through such processes during his heyday. Secondly, Admins like myself, and there are quite a few of us, would also probably be stripped of the buttons because we no longer have the free time we once had. No one has ever accused me of misusing the sysop tools, but I know many would oppose me because I do not have the time to RC patrol or close *fDs anymore (I am a final year undergraduate). It would be of no obvious benefit to put admins through a second request simply because we can, it makes no sense; if there is a problem ArbCom can, and will, sort it out. Rje 15:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, any admin who has been around for a sufficient period of time and made any kind of decision will usually have rubbed at least a few users the wrong way. I know that I have had 194 vandals attack my user page just from doing something as ordinary as reverting vandalism, and any sort of tough administrative decision would add a few users to a potential future lynch mob. I don't see a need to confirm adminships, except for cases of extreme inactivity (someone who hasn't made a single edit for more than two years or a similar benchmark). Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 19:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

As I made clear before, this proposal would not accept the votes of new users, and certainly not vandals. If you have rubbed constructive editors the wrong way through the use of admin tools, then those editors ought to have a way to oppose your continued adminship. Whether or not that opposition was successful would depend, perhaps, on the number of constructive editors you'd rubbed the wrong way.

Wikipedia is either going to be run by its community, or it's going to be run by a few admins who are particularly assertive and individualist in their decision-making. Admin confirmation after petition would swing a degree of power back to the community. Every admin needs to understand very clearly that they are responsible to the community and they must obey policy. Failure in those respects absolutely should carry with it some risk to one's adminship. Everyking 04:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

"If you have rubbed constructive editors the wrong way through the use of admin tools, then those editors ought to have a way to oppose your continued adminship." I'll give you credit - that was a very slick attempt to dictate the terms of the discussion. It's not hard to see why you put that particular qualification in there. This above all, to thine own self be true, James. Raul654 04:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I eagerly await Everyking's reply, as to why he felt it necessary to include the proviso that only admin actions may be considered. Raul654 22:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

What are you trying to imply, Mark? When considering whether someone should remain an admin we should look at her admin actions. This is axiomatic and it is the principle which the ArbCom and you yourself have applied in the past. There's no reason to paint this as some sort of self-serving ploy on James' part. Haukur 14:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I am implying that Everyking realizes he has plenty of baggage with regard to his non-admin actions and that he has devised this requirement as an attempt to head-off the inevitable opposition his own adminship renewal would generate as a result. Thus, for him to claim we need to crack down on admins who "rub others the wrong way" - but only for their admin actions - is hypocritical in the extreme.

As far as my own opinion on the subject, I oppose this whole proposal because it's an extremely bad idea for a the same reasons I have said the last 100 times it was proposed. But that's no reason I cannot point out the motives of people arguing in favor of it. Raul654 05:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

James has never abused his access to the administrator tools. You know this and it has been reflected in past ArbCom rulings which you have been a part of. When James calls for desysopping of people who have abused their privileges there is no hypocrisy on his part.

You were attacking his integrity—something likely to provoke him into a conflict with you—at a time when he is under draconian restrictions not to criticize administrators. And when he wisely declines the bait you try to taunt him into replying to you.

There is normally no reason to "point out the motives" of fellow editors. It is better to discuss the proposal on its merits, even if it is covering old ground. Haukur 16:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"When James calls for desysopping of people who have abused their privileges there is no hypocrisy on his part." - bzzzt, wrong, but a nice attempt to suger-coat what he actually said. EK's actual words (as I quoted verbatim above - a quote your reply apparently flatly ignored) is that we should desysop admins who "rub others the wrong way" - but only based on their admin actions. There is nothing in any arbcom decision pertaining to adminship renewal, despite your attempts to bootstrap our comments vis-a-vi desysopping into the discussion. So it's clear this caveat was cooked up by Everyking. Why would he do such a thing? Could his actions possibly be designed to prevent him from having to respond to all those irritating questions about his numerous past non-administratorial misdeeds. At which point, it beggars the imagination to hear him complaining about admins who "rub people the wrong way" when he is no doubt all too aware that he has rubbed an enormous number of others the wrong way. Those "draconian restrictions" (which, ironically enough, don't actually restrict any of his actions besides the unacceptable ones) did not materialize out of thin air for no good reason.

"You were attacking his integrity" - again, wrong (nice attempt to poison the well though). I'd be "attacking his integrity" if I called him a liar, which anyone who actually read my post can see I did not. I am, however, pointing out his transparent attempt to insert a caveat designed to benefit himself. And lastly, if EK doesn't want to be "baited" by people pointing out the transparent patent hypocrisy of his comments, he should not make hippocratic comments!! Raul654 01:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering if we could just drop this discussion? Adminship renewal ain't happening, and this particular debate on the topic just causes more ill-feelings and upset editors. Let's just drop this. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:43, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

My objections to the proposal have nothing to do with new editors or vandals messing up the vote. They are based on the fact that rational people acting as a group often end up unintentionally morphing into an irrational lynch mob. Many established editors called for (and occasionally, some still call for) Kelly Martin, Tony Sidaway and MarkSweep to be desysoped for their actions on userboxes, but this is a peripheral issue which has nothing to do with the encyclopaedia. People often allow wedge cases to define their thinking - these admins have contributed and continue to contribute positively to the encyclopaedia without being stripped of the mop and bucket. Community input is valuable, but it should not become the be-all and end-all of adminship. The mop and bucket should not become political tools. (And yes, contrary to popular belief, rational people do become political given the right circumstances - and one such situation would be the formation of a lynch mob. Group mentality based on the input of rational people often outputs irrational decisions.) Johnleemk | Talk 06:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)