Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions

This is not the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. To do so, please follow these instructions.

Current time: 06:36:48, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Purge this page

Could we please make a few simple changes:

1. Reiterate WP:NPA: negative statements must be supported by evidence, otherwise they will be removed by any bureacrat (or administrator). Any removal of content should allow the voter to re-vote properly, if at all possible.
2. Reiterate WP:CIVIL: all comments, especially criticism should be civil and focus on the editing rather than the editor.
3. Change support and oppose to less confrontational terms, such as approve or not yet. RfA is not meant to be a struggle so let's not use conflict-laden language. Language has a strong effect on cognition and mood. Jehochman ^Talk 02:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with points one and two, but I don't think the current support and oppose terms are the cause for distress amongst RfA candidates. I think their concerns are more with incivility and borderline personal attacks, as you stated in points one and two. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 02:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add on to this thought here real quick. If an RfA candidate fails, they may say, "I failed because I was offended by people in the oppose section." If we did change the words to "Sure/Approve" and "Not Yet", it wouldn't change the rude oppose (or in this case "not yet") comments the candidate would get, and as a result, the candidate would be equally as offended by the editor's !vote as they would if the words were "support" and "oppose". I agree that the power of language does cause a lot of problems (especially when you're on the Internet and can't judge the tone of a person because you can't hear their voice), but I don't see how it causes problems in this case. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 13:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's all one, and everything contributes to the atmosphere. I think changing the language can help and I thinks its a good idea. George Orwell knew the power of language. "Sure/Approve" and "Not Yet" are great. RxS (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts:

• Re #1-2 I agree with both points.
• Re #3: Well, it can't hurt, that much is true. But on the other hand, if "Support"/"Oppose" causes such consternation for an editor, I suspect they may not be admin material. I think the tone of the actual responses, no matter what they are prefaced with ("Not yet"/"Heck no!"/"Oppose"/"Sorry, try later"/"Whatever) is the core issue in that respect - and #1-#2, if monitored by a 'crat, resolves the true part of that issue. An admin will have a lot worse to deal with than "Oppose" on an RfA. Heck, as much as it makes for a hostile environment, how they deal with nasty opposes is actually a telling thing as to how they will deal with being an admin (ie: get pissed off and do something rash, or stay calm in the face of confrontation while using the tools responsibly).

Only two cups of coffee today... so I might be a wee bit off base, but those are my thoughts of the moment. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 05:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone with no room to talk (according to 22 people and Steven Zhang), #1 and #2 are the big elephants. One particular extended discussion I took umbrage to yesterday was User:Malleus Fatuorum's, which devolved into insults and a flamewar. The discussion was moved to the talkpage (Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jéské Couriano 2#pile-on/creationism/whatever it's off topic discussion), but its tone was overall inappropriate for an RfA, and two other editors called him out on it, only for him to dismiss them out-of-hand. It's nice to have civility police, but who polices the civility police? —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 06:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your point #1 is old -- however, it emphasizes diffs too much in my opinion. Opposes without diffs have far less negative effect on the way the RfA will run, and so candidates should be happy when opposers don't include diffs that other people can take out of context even more and base their opinions on. (I think RfA voting should go like this: remember own interactions with user, check user page and talk page, look at user's contributions, then vote support if the users looks like they'll become a good admin, oppose if it is clear they won't be a good admin, and do nothing if the situation isn't clear. A major problem at RfA is people influencing each other's votes through comments and questions, and not enough people independently vetting a candidate on their own strengths and merits, based on the individual voter's admin criteria, not based on what other people say). —Kusma (t·c) 13:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For point #1, I would just end it after the word "evidence", for the reasons stated by others above. For point #3, part of the issue is some who oppose may honestly believe "not ever", so any workable change must not put words in participants' mouths. How about: Promote and Not promote? That takes it away from being personal and focuses on the actual decision, while also being neutral as to the reasons why. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't exactly work, Tryptofish. Based on what you said, they could turn that into "Never promote". The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 23:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, promote suggests that administrators are in a hierarchy above regular editors, when in fact they have been given a mop to facilitate maintenance. Perhaps Mop and Don't Mop (semi serious). Monty₈₄₅ 23:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or Demote, come to think of it? Yes, you both make good points. But I would insist that any new language, if made mandatory as opposed to used ad-hoc as I earlier recommended, must not put words into the !voters' mouths. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you think about it, it's hard to avoid putting words into people's mouths. No matter what, if they're wanting to oppose you and if they're wanting to get their point across by being a bit rude, even if you're not trying to give them something to work with, it will most likely happen unintentionally. Nothing is going to stop them if they've got their mind set to opposing rudely like that. The Utahraptor^Talk/_Contribs 00:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mop and Don't Mop are all well and good, but even if now/not yet or similar is used, there are some whose RfAs will garner never !votes. And I for one would be hard-pressed to censure that - quite frankly, there are those who should not ever be given any semblance of "power" over other editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that it would be advantageous to change "Support" to "Promote", for instance, is yet another example of the rottenness at the heart of Wikipedia. In what sense is it a "promotion"? Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only in the sense that I was wrong when I said it, as has already been pointed out and agreed to. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the original post, I have a few questions. On point 1, 'Crats are busy people and few and far between, it can take half a day before one closes an RfA (something they have a weeks notice on), I don't believe they would be available to remove items. So who would do it? If it was a free for all it would lead to accusations of gaming the system, similarly if it was just admins but with added cabal. I know, how about a new role - a clerk, if you will? That only leads to the problem of "what constitutes negative" - is any oppose without evidence uncivil? What if the evidence is unavailable, or intangible?

On point 2, focus on editing rather than the editor? Much of my vote is on temperment, I will look at 2-300 talk page interactions to see if I can get a general feel for what sort of temperment the editor has. Assuming that there's nothing so egregious as worth bringing up, but a general feel of "does not engage in discussions as well as I'd hoped for an administrator" are you saying that my vote would be invalid? RfA is one of the very few areas that should focus on the editor as a whole - as it is trying to predict how they would behave in the future

Finally point 3, people have brought up good comments, adminship should not be a promotion, mop seems almost facetious, not now leads to problems with not ever. However, I think that a new term for oppose would do wonders long term (even though it's just a surface change, it is a psychological one). Even agree and disagree would be an improvement, though I'm not sure it's enough of an improvement to warrant doing.Worm^TT · (talk) 07:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Policy changes

You may be interested to learn that a recently created active project to bring about reforms of the very kind you are discussing is located at WP:RFA2011. It's a highly structured area and any positive suggestions and support are most welcome in the appropriate sections. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it's going nowhere. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the opinion Malleus. I'd agree it's going nowhere fast, but in my opinion progress is being made and changes (small at first) will happen at least in part due to it. Around Wikipedia, change is resisted - and the larger the change, the more resistance there is. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Malleus, sometimes it takes far longer to lay in decent foundations than it does to build on them. It's a bit like decorating - 90% preparation for 10% decoration! Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And then years of realising that it's not quite the right shade of peach. :) --Taelus (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trainwreck of pages at WP:RFA2011 must have been set up by someone who was mentored by the regulars at DYK. No wonder it's going nowhere fast. As to the proposal here, I disagree entirely; negative comments should be supported by evidence to the same extent that positive are (they're not). RFA would work if it were like FAC, where the burden is to affirm that criteria are met, and the problem at RFA is pile-on supports without examination of candidates. Same ole, same ole. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, was your first comment necessary? If you prefer to have no affiliation with the task force, why take the time to criticize it? Ryan Vesey Review me! 01:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Sandy: What criteria do you have in mind? James500 (talk) 02:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, we are lucky to have SandyGeorgia willing to comment. Let them speak unabridged, and presume good faith intentions. Sandy would be a great ally in moving this stuff forward, My76Strat (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason RFA is not like FAC is that they are two totally different scenarios. FAC is like asking, "Is the diamond ring polished and refined enough to sell?" This question is an affirmation request, so it will yield answers such as "Yes, and this is why." RFA is more like asking, "Can we trust this man/woman to mop the floor and wash the windows without making off with the rings?" This question is a de-affirmation request, so commenters will reply with answers such as "No, and this is why." Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, in my view the most concerning problem with RfA is that it is producing genuinely silly rejections, and the only practical way to fix it is to lower the threshold for consensus. James500 (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand how you come to that view, but I disagree. Firstly I would argue that silly rejections are rare, but the number of candidates successful or otherwise is far below replacement levels or what would be healthy for the community. RFA has become something that well qualified and experienced members of the community are loathe to subject themselves to, and that is a problem both in terms of daytoday running of the community and of community health. Three years ago the most active dozen or so vandalfighters were all admins, their current equivalents are mostly not, as the number of active admins declines problems such as this will grow until the community is forced to take action. Personally I would like to see RFA reformed before it gets to the point where an uninvolved steward has to dole out adminship to the most active vandalfighters. The movement has procedures in place to deal with the situation where an individual wiki has insufficient admins to operate, I think it would be embarrassing if they had to apply those here.

The emphasis on edit count, statistical analysis and the question section has in my personal opinion left RFA less likely to screen out genuinely problematic candidates than it used to be. There are candidates whose RFAs I have derailed after dozens of votes had been cast, that leads me to believe that there are relatively few voters like myself who actually trawl through a candidates edits before voting. Lowering the threshold would let in very few extra candidates, and by definition only candidates who a large minority of the community perceived as not ready for adminship. I somewhat agree with Sandy Georgia in that FAC would be a good model to base a reformed RFA process on. The first key change would be to agree at least some of the criteria for adminship - it is a farce that individual RFAs frequently degenerate into arguments not as to whether the candidate meets a criteria but whether something should be part of the criteria. At FAC if someone comes up with an erroneous objection such as "too many redlinks" it is much easier to deal with them. Agreeing an adminship criteria or at least a partial one will not be easy as the community is divided on certain issues, but if we can agree it then a lot of potential candidates will be able to look at it and get a pretty good idea as to whether or not they are ready to run. Dropping the voting element of per nom supports would certainly make RFAs shorter, but I suspect would be a step too far for the community. I like the current compromise whereby a support is only a third the value of an oppose but a supporter who simply agrees with the nomination can in effect add their name to it, but an opposer has to give a reason for their objection. Of course once one oppose has been written up others can agree with that oppose, but in my experience the least satisfying RFAs are usually those where the oppose is an unsupported borderline attack rather than a diff supported argument. Supports that don't disclose what the supporter has checked do no harm to the process, if something major emerges during the RFA then a lot of them will be reversed and it does give newcomers to FA an easy entry route. ϢereSpielChequers 09:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely agree. I think that humans have quite a knack for remembering community members who they feel have violated community norms in the past (a human "feature" which probably causes half the drama on various noticeboards), so even without looking at a block log, somebody with a track record of problematic behaviour is likely to be remembered by somebody round here. (There's one previous miscreant-candidate who I fully expect will turn up here again with a different username, and even without really thinking about it I look through each RfA to see if it's them...) Of course, sometimes humans generalise about entire outgroups or fixate on a poor measure of contribution quality, but when that kind of thinking influences RfA !votes, it doesn't go unnoticed.

So, if a "bad" candidate sneaks through, I think it's more likely to be because previous problematic behaviour has gone undetected - in other words, something like copyvio rather than AN/I drama. However, I'm not convinced that many candidates have got through who shouldn't. bobrayner (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well very few candidates of any sort are getting through RFA at the moment. The rolling total for the last three months has dropped into single figures for only the second time since March 2003. I hope that there are relatively few bad ones that have snuck through recently, the acid test will be at some point in the future to look through desysopping trends in 2011/12/13. I accept your point that if someone has gained a reputation at AN/I then that will probably be remembered when they come to RFA, My concern is more at the sort of candidate whose edits indicate that they would be unsuitable wielders of the tools, especially the block and deletion tools, sometimes you need to trawl through people's edits to spot that. My fear is that the increased emphasis on the Q&A section and the stats has left insufficient eyes on the candidate's edits. ϢereSpielChequers 14:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree - it's put too much emphasis on specific data points that, in and of themselves, are irrespective of the total behavior a candidate has shown throughout his Wikipedia career. As it did in my case, an incident or two of unmitigated stress will cause people to reject everything else that the candidate has done. —Jeremy v^_^v ^{Components:V S M} 22:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the analysis of the extensive data gathered from several hundred RfAs has sufficiently demonstrated that in general the right candidates pass, while the community excercises caution in the few instances where 'established' users fail, or fail to be re-sysoped. There is no 'bar' or standard set of criteria; apart from a very small corps of regular voters who are mainly experienced and mature and whose criteria are also very different, the bar is set anew for every single RfA. There is a couple of individuals who rarely have anything nice to say at RfA, but their oppose votes appear to be directed against the concept of adminship rather than directed at the candidates themselves. The current system would work if it were not for the superficial pile-ons, vengeance, personal attacks, and incivility that are allowed with impunity. Fix the voters, and the shortage of candidates will fix itself. This we know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interjection: The data shows no such thing. If you wanted to prove that the right candidates were respectively passing and being rejected, you would have to collect data on desysopping etc, and you would have to show that there was a statistically significant correlation between the "standard" set at RfA and the incidence of admin tool abuse, and what that relationship was. You have not done that. James500 (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The ludicrous pile-ons I see are usually in the support section, which you seem to have studiously ignored Kudpung in your quest to have everyone be nicer to each other. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was no pile-on support for NYMets2000 after your !vote of support. I guess that came to mind because you did mention ludicrous. My76Strat (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That RfA was indeed ludicrous, and demonstrates very clearly one of RfA's fundamental problems; it attracts the wrong kind of people. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It would greatly help if people would give up their crusade against the idea of power-tripping admins and perhaps work within the standards we'd like them to. Indeed there are some people who aren't really admin material, but there's a way to communicate that without being a complete fucking douchebag or a general dick. For me, I'm not so much worried about civility (I don't give a fuck about swearing; it's just words) as I am worried about keeping the comments at least constructive, and not gleeful grave-dancing and blatant attacks on a candidate (will provide examples if necessary). I don't think the number of unqualified candidates who pass will materially increase if we start asking for a modicum of tact, but the number of qualified candidates will almost certainly increase; that's what we're looking for. I don't think people here disagree in our goals as much as they seem to think. And yes, that RfA was very badly considered. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would help even more would be if you could bring yourself to wake up and smell the coffee. The reality is quite plain for anyone with eyes to see. Malleus Fatuorum 02:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I understand your point of view, and I happen to disagree with it. It would seem a substantial percentage of the community does as well. Consider that it may not be everyone else who's wrong on this; I've had to do the same with our CSD. Do tell me what harm my idea of simply asking people to tone it down a bit will do, not so much for my purpose (as I already know where you're coming from) as my wanting to actually see you articulate your position instead of resorting to veiled shots at me. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 03:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience many if not most people who support will reconsider if something emerges that they hadn't previously noticed. I've torpedoed a few RFAs in my time, and I hope I've never been incivil in an RFA. My experience has been that a civil, clear, diff supported oppose for valid reasons can sink an RFA even if it was heading for success. I don't think that rants, abuse and opposes that aren't evidenced are as damaging to the candidate of that particular RFA. They besmirch the project and deter good candidates from running. But I don't think they particularly damage the candidate they are slung against. I think of RFA as a venue where mud sticks to the hands of the thrower, in that I remember some vitriolic rants and their authors, but not necessarily who their intended victims were. So my suspicion is that if some of the opposse were to change tactics, tone down the vitriol and make sure they evidenced their opposes, we would see some candidates fail because despite keeping their noses clean in the run up to their RFA there was a clear and problematic pattern beforehand. But hopefully a more collegial atmosphere at RFA would attract more candidates, and especially adult candidates who I suspect are more likely to be deterred by the hazing ceremony aspects of RFA than younger editors are. ϢereSpielChequers 09:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with #1 and #2, but #3 doesn't seem necessary. If anything, it could be Approve and Disapprove, but Not Yet can't stand for all the possible oppose reasons. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 22:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is that there is a reasonable chance that we will not see significant reform to RfA, despite the best efforts of a large number of contributors.

I therefore ask – as vaguely as I can so as not to be opposed for proposing a specific too hastily – whether the community might now or in future seriously consider setting a date for the end of the current system? —WFC— 15:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a sensible suggestion. We have a number of suggested RfA changes, ranging from slight tweaks, to complete overhauls, to parallel processes. Your fear may well become a reality but picking a date to end a fully-functional process is not the answer Jebus989^✰ 16:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now you may be correct, hence my decision to include the phrase "or in future". —WFC— 16:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I must have missed that. Well then, certainly at some stage in the future we will begin to most seriously consider the possibility of discussing the commencement of deliberations regarding a potential endpoint. I trust that your fears are quelled Jebus989^✰ 17:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Optimists think that we are not yet in the phase of degeneration.

However, it is safe to say that the present system will end when the sun expands in a billion years.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are making progress with the RFC on allowing Bureaucrats to dessysop, and under what circumstances. This will make losing the mop easier, and so make it less risky to select new people. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Keifer needs to browse WP:RFA2011 which seems to have more momentum every day... CHange is slow, but it will happen - there is simply no justification for the current system that as of today is nearly unique in the large Wikimedia projects as not having recall and tenure requirements, and allowing free-for-all RfA funfests. Hell, Wikiversity has a two step process. It seems to me the problems with change have more to do with inertia than unwillingness, and bickering over the details rather than moving forward boldly... --Cerejota (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By nature, Wikipedia is about as bold as a bowl of muesli. I don't mean that as a criticism of the project as a whole, but it's certainly a weakness in this instance. —WFC— 18:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision#Cirt desysopped. It appears that ArbCom has decided that administrators now can be de-sysopped for conduct other than actual misuse of administrator tools. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel that proposed decision reflects a material change from the current policy outlined at Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct (perm) ? –xeno^talk 19:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC) (this probably belongs at Wikipedia talk:Administrators) realize now why it is here [3][reply]

(edit conflict) Admins are expected to uphold a high standard of conduct and if they constantly fail this standard to a point when it becomes disruptive, then the sanction can include removal of adminship. But that's not a new standard or anything. ArbCom remedies are for specific cases and bound to be based on the user in question. Also, and I think that's the most important point, ArbCom didn't even decide to desysop Cirt! At this time the remedy is still in voting and by the current numbers, it will fail because a support of 2 is required (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision#Implementation notes). I thus fail to see what you are trying to tell us with this comment. Regards SoWhy 19:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of order, that implementation table needs updating. See the majority table at the top of the proposed decision. –xeno^talk 19:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where I'm coming from in making this comment is WP:CDARFC. To SoWhy, I could easily be confused about this, but I think that Xeno is right and the proposal passed. To Xeno, no, I don't think it represents a change in our policy on administrator conduct. I think it represents a change in how the DR process deals with the criteria for removing administrator powers. In other words, we have long had a policy that administrators should conduct themselves in a professional manner. We just didn't hold them to it when it comes to revoking tenure. The attitude has been: if there is no misuse of the tools, we don't de-admin. During the CDA debate, I was told, over and over again, that we would have mobs with pitchforks if admins could be removed without evidence of misuse of tools. I do understand that ArbCom is not a courtroom and stare decisis doesn't apply, but I'm pretty sure this is the first time on the English Wikipedia that an administrator has been removed when there was zero evidence of misuse of tools, but there was, in effect, a judgment that community trust was lost. In that sense, this is Wiki-historic. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy is currently passing (not passed). –xeno^talk 20:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why you're where you are and I'm where I am. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm a hopelessly bureaucratic process wonk? =) –xeno^talk 20:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on the proposed decision. I have voted against the proposed desysopping in this case, but I cannot agree that in principle, the Arbitration Committee cannot or should not ever desysop an adminstrator for misconduct that did not involve the misuse of administrator tools. And in fact, if one thinks about the matter for a few minutes, no one should really take that position, at least given the absence of any other mechanism for involuntary desysopping. To take an admittedly extreme case to make the point, if an administrator commits blatant vandalism on a hundred articles, we are going to revoke his or her adminship, even if the vandalism is committed using nothing more advanced than the "edit" button. So it is not a matter of the Committee's not having authority or reason to desysop for misconduct "as an editor," but a matter of line-drawing and degree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of that. In a way, I think the five arbitrators, including you, who voted against the proposal got it "right" in terms of where the lines have been drawn in the past, and the six arbitrators who voted for it got it "right" in terms of where the community is now. It doesn't mean that ArbCom is going to de-admin every time, now. But it does mean that admins, and RfA participants, should realize that the possibility is on the table. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the historical point, I don't believe it's true that the Committee has never desysopped for conduct that didn't involve misuse of administrator tools, although I do believe that such decisions have been rare. Two that come to mind for me are the desysoppings of Henrygb (though that case is more than four years old and predates my time on the Committee) and of Geogre (though I dissented strongly in that case and would not want to see it used as a precedent). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I probably wrote proposed decisions desysopping users for violating non-administrative conduct. It's something that should be happening per your above note. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really true, that a reason other than tool abuse has never been the reason for adminship? Like perhaps deadminned for advocating a hate group or child molestation? PumpkinSky talk 22:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad mentioned two past cases (before my time), that I guess would fit that description (at least in terms of severity, but I don't know the specifics), more or less. However, in this case, here is the sole "Finding of fact" that would form the basis for the desysopping remedy: "According to statements in Evidence, and by his own admission, Cirt has, against policy, placed "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs" and followed poor sourcing practices." By the logic of how ArbCom makes decisions, that, and only that, would be the basis of the decision in this case. I think that is new. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I think I see your point. I can see losing the bit for "conduct not befitting an admin", esp if long term, but I'm not sure if Cirt's case would rise to that level. PumpkinSky talk 22:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I find expecially problematic here is that the problems are not relevant to his use of tools and they are irrelevant in any other way, because Cirt admitted that there were some probems in the past and he a priori agreed to ArbCom imposing some remedies to make sure these issues won't repeat themselves. And he was very productive with using the Admin tools. There are many more admins who have a far worse record on far more relevant issues than Cirt has. Count Iblis (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Up until the last vote came in, I would have bet just about anything that the de-sysop would not pass. This is why I think this is such a significant change. It is very much a statement that administrators are going to be held to a higher standard than in the past. Perhaps "no big deal" is also passing into history. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could be lower standards. This decision was not made on the basis of a proper job evaluation. The whole case was based on Cirt being unpopular to a group of editors based on his editing in some controversial topic areas. An Admin who doesn't do his/her Admin work as good as Cirt did, but who doesn't have a cabal following him/her isn't going to face charges. At RFA people are nominated who we can only guess how good they will function, but later we are going to remove people based on irrelevant factors? This will lead to degeneration by unnatural selection. Count Iblis (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GlassCobra's desysop by the ArbCom had nothing to do with his use of admin tools. Graham87 02:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those were not technical tools, but were admin "tools": admins are required to intervene against all behavioral issues that threaten the wiki (regular editors are not) - that is different than evaluating editor behavior. Am sorry if I sound legalistic, but its ArbCom we dealing with - being legalistic is the house rules. :)--Cerejota (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this means that there is momentum and possibility for that perennial proposal for de-adminship, RfC/A-then-ask-ArbCom? Or am I wrong?--Cerejota (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't require a policy change; it's an option that's always been on the table. As a policy matter, the final decision will rest with ArbCom (as a safety valve and opportunity for sober reflection after a heated RfC, if nothing else). As a practical matter, I suspect it would be rare indeed for an RfC to generate an unambiguous consensus to desysop, so the ArbCom's evaluation of the evidence and circumstances will be required anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this could in theory be done, but I have seen some really awful cases of admins being total dicks-pointy-nasties-meatpuppeters and getting topic banned, getting sanctioned up their ass, getting CU/Crat removed, and still are admins because they didn't misuse THOSE tools. Even if the above doesn't result in de-adminship, this is the first time a simple majority (AFAIK) goes for desysop when tools are not involved.--Cerejota (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Circumstances that would have prejudiced those admins' promotions ought to be grounds for their demotion. Malleus Fatuorum 04:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is always talk of empowering the community to recall administrators who face a decline in trust. Why not close an RfA in some manner which allows anyone who participated prior to the close to append their edit after the close? Then the RfA exists as a living authorization of consensus and if ever enough who did support, vacate that support, A new RfA would be mandated? My76Strat (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would create a privileged class of "old RfA voters" who would wield unusual and undeserved power. A relatively small and self-selected group of "RfA regulars" already have a very significant (and, I dare say, not always healthy) influence over adminship standards on Wikipedia; I have trouble seeing it as beneficial to give them additional extra clout: The cabal giveth; the cabal taketh away. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cabal would be a much more inclusive club than the cabal. I know because I am in one and not the other. RfA participation is not a closed process at all. My76Strat (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no cabal, My76Strat. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this notion. Other issues aside, being an administrator signifies trust of the entire community, so giving an arbitrary group of editors (those who supported) some right to "judge" an admin doesn't make much sense. On the other hand, if the entire community was allowed to "vote," the possibility of mobbing in the aftermath of a controversial incident is too huge to ignore. In addition, the dated opinions of those who voted in the actual RfA and then went inactive would weigh heavily in a discussion, which is rather illogical. The current system of having RfCs, while imperfect, is much better. wctaiwan (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't be averse to the inclusion of new contributors after the close. The idea is that the RfA remains an active instrument where related discussions can centralize on the talk page and the possibility of a loss of trust is possible. My76Strat (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I like that idea! The RfA page is a user subpage of the administrator, and is never closed. Editors can add, remove or change their vote at any time. If the consensus of the RfA changes, then the admin status of the editor changes. If we are serious about admins "maintaining the trust of the community", this is a fine way to prove it. There would need to be a little bit of bureaucracy - if the admin lost WP:CONS on their perpetual RfC (pRfC) page, then every editor on the pRfC would need to be pinged to reconfirm their vote (to avoid having an admin status change based on stale votes). --Surturz (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Wouldn't this invite those upset with an admin to go stack the oppose section long after the fact? I mean, who is going to go back to an old RFA if this process is implemented? Only those who are upset with the admin. Maybe if there was some community notice when an admin started getting into borderline territory it would attract some neutral editors to take a look, but I would still be very worried that a process like this will get manipulated by those with axes to grind. Monty₈₄₅ 05:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is part reason why I originally suggested closing to the ones who had already voted. Naturally there could be problems and anticipating them would be the way to mitigate their occurrence. If it was closed to the ones who participated prior to the close. New grievances can be raised on the talk page but not affect the consensus by !vote. That doesn't mean they couldn't sway someone who had supported into opposing. If it were to remain perpetually open in a sense, well this could just become a new Paradigm. My76Strat (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could have a use-by date on votes. After X years, your vote becomes stale and is automatically removed from the pRfA. At that point if you are still active you can re-vote of course. --Surturz (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, admins would naturally tend to !vote for each other, so there would be a bit of ballast there, as a counterweight to a small group of aggrieved editors. --Surturz (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many ways to tailor an effective means by which the RfA itself can remain a living instrument where the administrator derives the right, operates under the implied trust, and remains accountable to the very community who gave their proxy. My76Strat (talk) 05:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good lord, this is an awful idea. The only pleasant thing about going through an RfA currently is that it eventually ends. 28bytes (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just assume that every existing admin will oppose this an any other idea to make admins more accountable, rather than turning this into another admin gripefest? Let's assume that the following arguments have been made:

• The bit is WP:NOBIGDEAL and admins are just normal editors with extra buttons
• We already are having trouble recruiting enough admins as it is and this proposal will mean that there won't be enough admins
• RfA is too time consuming and all these extra processes will mean we'll never get through the backlog
• It's open to abuse
• Those evil non-admins will bloc vote to get rid of any admin that has a content disagreement with them
• Like Sauron, ARBCOM's baleful eye watches over all, destroying any rouge (or rogue) admin
• Admins are delicate flowers and they should be nurtured because being an admin is so hard... the mop is sooo heavy... emo emo...

Now that those arguments are out of the way, let's continue constructively developing this excellent idea. --Surturz (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, and I still oppose this for the reasons I have outlined (just above this thread). I don't think your mockery in the last 3 points is constructive, either. wctaiwan (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: When should bureaucrats be asked to gauge results? Does desysop occur if at any point the support falls below a certain threshold at any point in time, or are they allowed a grace period? If votes are made stale by technical means, how much extra developer work is that? What will be the new responsibilities of the bureaucrats? I support making it less convoluted to desysop an admin, but this proposal seems like way too much work and just plain poorly thought out. wctaiwan (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surturz - I'm all for accountability. I'd support term limits, I'd support reconfirmation RfAs, I'd support a mandatory recall requirement. I don't support this, because (IMO) it's stupid. Keeping an RfA open wouldn't prove anything - because the old votes become irrelevent and the new votes will be added slowly to the oppose column. It doesn't prove anything. As to your other comments, I'll see you at your talk page. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think stupid is being reluctant to comment on a thing for fear of the inevitable ad hominem attack. My76Strat (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the reasons set forth by several of the other commenters above, I don't believe this is a viable proposal. However, let's not spend a lot more time discussing it, unless more than two people indicate they might support it. While the purpose of the idea is a legitimate one, I don't think the core concept here is workable enough to become the basis for something that might be adopted. Sorry. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]