Wikipedia talk:Admin reform

The following discussion was copied from WT:RfA reform (continued). ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This project needs renaming and complementing with another project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few things that should be in the current scope:

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

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

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

Close

This thread is off-topic. That doesn't mean that the ideas aren't worth discussing, just not on this page. This page is about discussing direct solutions to improving the RfA environment. The ideas discussed in this thread are indirect solutions that aim to reform what it fundamentally means to be an admin, with the expectation that those changes elicit an organic change in the RfA environment. No one is saying that one solution is better than the other, we're just saying that we want to keep the discussion on this page on-topic. I hope this request can be respected, and I encourage the creation of a forum to discuss proposals that reform adminship. -Scottywong| confess _ 03:46, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have moved the above discussion from WT:RfA reform (continued) to here with some minor refactoring (un-closing the discussion). ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Admin reform: the new page and the new effort - a bold goal

I'd like to see this new page go from an attempt at continuing the aborted discussion at Rfa reform to a full and deliberate examination of the entire process of adminship as it currently exists in Wikipedia-en. It is my belief that process is badly broken, and that rightly or wrongly we are discouraging and even losing editors who deeply resent the fact that, as they see it, that Wikipedia is rigged against non-admins. As I and others above made clear, we should have a full-spectrum, ad-hoc discussion of what can be done to fix that, including creative ways of thinking "outside the box" that some may term "radical" but in the end may just prove to be logical.

"Admin reform" should be ultimately healing, not divisive, as a goal. Not just the broken process of Rfa, but the current structure of adminship itself should be changed in a way that engenders trust in a vast majority of active Wikipedians and the wider Wikipedia readership as a whole. It is an ambitious and worthy goal, as I see it, and if done with wisdom, civility, good will and mutual respect, I believe we can take the results here to the community, Jimbo and the Wikimedia Foundation.

It is my belief that this discussion is vital to the growth and evolution of Wikipedia. While we may have to move forward to recommend actions which, if completed and enacted, may not be to the immediate liking of a majority of currently active admins, it is my belief that the bulk of those admins will eventually come to agree that the reform actions taken were for the best of the project. Wikipedia so far has been a brilliantly actualized effort to make all knowledge free to everyone. It must be undeniably administered in a fair and transparent manner by everyone, for everyone, and that a consensus agree is for the best of the Wikipedians and their readership around the world. Jusdafax 12:46, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Any time you have someone who has the ability to restrict or deny access to a site, it's by default a "big deal." Anyone who contends otherwise is, frankly, fooling themselves. It's one thing when the admins are board owners...they pay the bills so it's really their right to run things and to do so for as long as they continue to pay for the board...but in an environment that is supposed to be open and collaborative the approach should be different. Sadly this does not seem to be the case. One thing I have found interesting in my limited time here is the rapidity with which one can be accused of being "anti-admin" if one expresses a concern (or even an opinion) about an admin action. Being dismissed as part of X's posse or lumped in with the "puling masses" isn't conducive to collaboration or discussion, yet it happens every day with apparent impunity. This sort of thing, I think, contributes to RfA's atmosphere for two basic reasons (although there are more): 1) It's one of the few places people feel they can express an opinion without getting hammered, and 2) When you're considering someone for a lifetime position that is seen to have real power (and yes...being able to deny someone access IS power, not a tool) people feel they should push and ask questions calculated to get a response. It's a testing ground, although it may not be planned that way; both to test the nominees and the reactions of their supporters. None of that will really change until the reason for that reaction is changed...the admin system. Intothatdarkness 14:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and I think you have well expressed some thoughts I had not considered. Jusdafax 01:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The last comment

- was posted 1 year, 3 months, 17 days ago. Most of the thread was copied from another project. It would be interesting to examine and understand why this Admin Reform project did not gain traction. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)