Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:13, 13 July 2013

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

Archives

2003 · 2004 · 2005 · 2006 · 2007 · 2008 · 2009 · 2010 · 2011 · 2012 · 2013 Most recent Template:Archiveline Template:Archiveline

This page has archives. Sections older than 10 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Current time: 16:11:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Purge this page

20+ questions is pushing the limits

I don't know who's watching this but 21 questions so far in this RFA is pushing the limits of what I think is reasonable. The candidate is passing by a landslide. There is no reason to bomb them with pointless questions. Kumioko (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

The candidate is on their way to 200 supports, and I do not see any way they can fail, so that it is not that much important. It would be much worse if the candidate were close to the threshold.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

PIle-on on questions - and although (almost) every one is entitled to their vote and opinions - some oppose votes, are purely disruptive in an RfA that is so obviously going to succeed. There is rarely a virgin pass however, because someone will always think it's clever to be the one to break the spell. It's interesting and not entirely surprising to see who broke the spell in this case. If there has been a trend in RfA since the WP:RFA2011, is has been a markedly higher turn out, and while over 100 supports is nowadays nothing extraordinary, going back over the last 7 years anything approaching 200 is still extremely rare, especially for a first run:

• Fluffernutter 152
• SarecOfVulcan (2nd) 166
• HJ Mitchel (3rd) 164
• VernoWhitney 151
• DaBomb 188
• Tide rolls 162
• Tinucheria 174
• MZMcBride (3rd) 203
• Jake Wartenberg 151
• PeterSymonds (2nd) 197
• lustiger seth 151
• Cirt 166
• Epbr123 (2nd) 160
• Werdna (3rd) 186
• Jbmurray 161
• VanTucky (2nd) 194
• Elonka (3rd) 176
• Anonymous Dissident (2nd) 165
• Danny 256/118/9
• Persian Poet Gal 179
• Daniel.Bryant (2nd) 233/3/3
• Newyorkbrad 225

IMHO, I believe a lot of questions, particularly from those who have a history ofrcreating drama, and newbies who don't fully understand admishship or its process of election, do not contribute to the overall building of consensus. particularly late ones in an RfA that is almost certain to pass, and with exceptionally flying colours. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, I think in general more than 10 comments is unnecessary, 15 is pushing it and 20+ is just ridiculous. Kumioko (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Editors should be free to ask as many questions they want, and candidates should be free to ignore as many questions as they want. GiantSnowman 15:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As much as I agree with you GS - I'd fear that ignoring questions could likely bring about oppose !votes that were not justified. Just a hunch. — Ched :  ?  15:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

If an oppose !vote is not justified then the closing crat would simply ignore it. GiantSnowman 15:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see it as a problem - though it would be nice if editors voluntarily confined themselves to one question each. Think of an RfA as not just a process of choosing an admin but also one of giving other editors a voice and a place to air what they see as issues and concerns involving admins. If we restrict the number of questions, we also restrict the openness of the process and that would be a very bad thing. --regentspark (comment) 17:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• What I see is posturing. Just as some may have done in the past in the Neutral area, where they don't want to really participate, they just want to make some WP:POINT about RfA or admin in general, and they don't care who it hurts. People are on the interwebs aren't real, after all. I'm not sure what you can do to prevent it. I had 13 questions at my RFA in 4/12, which was considered a lot of questions at that time. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 18:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • And I think 10 is probably reasonable or within a couple questions of that. But 21 questions for an RFA that is passing by a landslide is excessive. I think we should at least limit the number to 2 per submitter. Maybe 3 tops. Kumioko (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • I had exactly ten questions at my July 2011 RFA (perhaps one of the most boring on record--which I'm rather proud of) and that seemed about right--providing enough insight while not cutting too much into time reserved for other things. The problem with limiting questions however, is that questioners might just split their questions into multiple-part questions to fit within the limit instead of cutting down on them. That's the tricky part, since limiting question parts would be difficult considering limiting questions themselves would be something of a long-shot. Tyrol5 18:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  Limiting questions per questioner is probably better than limiting the number of questions. We don't want to cut people out just because they aren't online 24/7! Though I agree with Dennis that some questions are mere posturing or, at best, indirect WP:POINT types, but it is better not to try to control that. Subjective control is not good because it circumscribes (if that's the right word) thought. And, sometimes, it is useful to see how a candidate responds to a "What do you think of this absolutely unfair way of dealing with this really important problem?" type of question. --regentspark (comment) 19:13, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Limiting to two per person is a good idea. That means if you want a follow up question, you should only ask one question to start with. And the 3rd question should simply be reverted out. Compound questions with more than two questions should be simply reverted out with the instruction of "Limit 2, try again". 2 is pretty reasonable, more than that may stop someone else from asking something worthwhile because they may think that there have already been too many questions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 20:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think editors should be encourage to post only one or at most two generic questions that would apply to all or most candidates, on the theory that if more than a handful of editors post multiple questions, things will quickly get out of hand. I would be less prescriptive about questions addressed to the specifics of a particular candidacy, as these often are helpful in clearly up specific issues that might be of concern to the !voters (although again this, too, shouldn't be overdone). Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• FWIW - I had 27 questions in 2009 (counting an a. b. c. question as 3). meh - whatever. — Ched :  ?  21:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm at the other extreme, having gotten no optional questions at all in my RfA. (But the community made up for it big-time on the questions page at the ArbCom elections; last year it felt like I spent a wiki-month answering all of those.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
    • That is an interesting point, but if I really have a question about an activity, say their participation in a previous Arb case, I can always hang in the Neutral area and say "I'm concerned about and can't commit without know why he considered $x to be a violation of policy." The candidate can chose whether or not to address it or not. That would be a proper use of the Neutral section, instead of using the question section trying to create drama and make the candidate look bad: to persuade my posse. I was lucky that all the questions at my RfA were solid policy questions, except #11, which was still valid, although I now disagree with that answer. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 22:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I very rarely ask questions on RfA - and I just as seldom give much weight to the user questions and their answers. Unless a question has exposed something really egregious, I base my votes on my own research. It seems quite obvious to me that a great many voters do little or no research at all; evidence has shown in the past for example, that opposers have piled on to an oppose vote that has subsequently been proved wrong, and in some cases even retracted, but the piler-oners don't even come back to change their own votes as a consequence. Extensive research data and discussion on RfA questions here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Most "optional" questions become "mandatory" and most questions have an ulterior motive in my opinion. Most people who run at RFA are doing so because they believe they could be a net gain i.e. can spot a vandal at five yards and block, i.e. can spot an abused page and protect. Many "optional" questions wander into the obscure and irrelevant, but gain traction because of various cliques. I've deliberately "cn'd" myself because I'm not going to get involved with finding diffs etc to prove the point, but anecdotally we're seeing perfectly reasonable candidates opposed for the most esoteric reasons which would put off the most qualified folks. Back to basics. Can you edit a page? Can you spot a vandal? Do you have a clue? Three ticks = admin. If you blow it, well let's de-mop you. And maybe therein lies the rub, that community desysop doesn't have a clear framework. If it did, we could be awarding flags to everyone knowing that we could protect Misplaced Pages from rouge or even rogue admins going "broken arrow". The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppets

Why don't we refer new accounts that come to RfA to make their first edit to SPI? I am fairly sure most of them are sockpuppets.

Also, please note

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:JustAnotherWuBanger

Who seems to fall into this catgeory of single purpose RfA sockpuppetry account.

Thanks, ★★RetroLord★★ 08:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that we often don't know who the master is. In any case, this particular sock has been taken care of.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Surely we could just check their IP and see who else uses that IP? Or is there some rule against doing that ★★RetroLord★★ 08:47, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

We can do that given enough evidence. It's being handled and I'm sure it will be checked.--Jasper Deng (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

• I've actually done so before, as you can see here. Kurtis 05:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Are there fewer editors willing to go through the process?

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

I'm not sure if there is a trend of less editors wanting to through the process of RFA, but it seems like it. An admin that I respect said that he can't wait till I decide to go through the process. I do appreciate it, but it is hard for me to see why anyone would want to go through the process. I don't ever see myself even considering it even 5 years or so in the future. SL93 (talk) 03:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I can't speak for other admins, but I can't say that I really enjoy being an admin. It keeps me involved with Misplaced Pages at a time where I have run out of ideas for content creation and where I get quickly bored with routine tasks such as copyediting, finishing articles for lazy editors, or translating articles from other languages, and I suppose I do like the forensics that come with the admin tools and a good knowledge of policies. As an admin however, unless you gnome away at deletion cats and avoid contentious areas such as ANI and RfC/U, someone has to do it. It's very often on their RfA that they get their first taste of the flak that they're almost certain to get as an admin even if they are just doing their job. Some people can be as mean as hell, especially when they go candidate baiting in concert like a pack of wolves. Whether candidates are likely to pass and come out of the process relatively unscathed is very much up to them. If they have any skellies in their cupboards, or too many duff CSD tags, or civility issues, they should at least read all the advice first, and take a year to prepare themselves. Those who are in a hurry to get the bit probably shouldn't be getting it, and usually they don't. The downside is that the longer you wait, and the more you get involved in the areas that are expected of admins, the more enemies you make. If you keep your nose too clean you'll be accused of not having a thick enough skin for the job, and if you participate at adminiy discussions too much, you will get accused of trying to climb a greasy pole. It's all a bit of a Gordian knot, but generally, for better or for worse, the vast majority of RfA conclude with an appropriate closure, so no serious candidate should be really afraid to run the gauntlet for 168 hours. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:10, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes there has been a huge fall in the number of successful and unsuccessful RFA runs since the 2005/7 peak. It isn't easy to tell why as there are clearly several interacting factors, but yes I think that many good candidates being unwilling to run is part of the reason for the decline in RFAs. I haven't looked at your edit history SL93, but speaking of candidates and potential candidates in general; A large part of the decline is because the de facto standards have risen, editors with less than a years blockfree editing rarely run and would be unlikely to pass, as would be editors who can't point to reliably sourced content that they have added (or at least unsourced content that they have been able to reliably source). My fear is that RFA's reputation is become far worse than the reality. Your five year comment could perhaps be an example of that. I have seen individual opposes for lack of tenure even of people who've been editing for over a year, and while I haven't seen a successful candidate with less than 3,000 edits in some years, anyone opposing a candidate with much more edits than that will usually have a better reason than lack of edits. Similarly you now need to be a content contributor in order to pass RFA, and a question of I've trawled through quite a few of your edits and not yet found one where you've cited a reliable source. Can you show me some edits of yours where you have cited reliable sources? Would derail an RFA if the candidate was unable to give good examples. But an unadorned "not a content contributor"oppose would hopefully be deservedly ineffective, pretty much anyone can get the odd oppose for not being a content contributor, I've even seen a candidate with featured content opposed for "not being a content contributor". It's the sort of oppose that really requires the opposer to state their definition of a content creator and be prepared to reconsider if they have missed something. So if any of the non-admins reading this are nervous about some of the more bizarre opposes at RFA, I would suggest not worrying about the outliers as unanimity is not required. ϢereSpielChequers 07:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

There are less editors; it follows there are less editors willing to go through the process. I was quite nervous about the process, and put it off for several months after an admin suggested I do it; it wasn't nearly as bad as I'd anticipated. That said, there's no need to become an admin; if you're worried about the animus you're likely to face during the RfA, you're not going to like the animus you face once you start taking admin actions. WilyD 08:32, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes we have fewer editors than at peak in 2007. But the decline in RFA has been far steeper than the drop in editing levels, on its own the drop in editing levels does not explain the drop in RFA numbers. Worse, if it was just a problem of fewer people editing then we wouldn't have our growing wikigeneration divide with an admin cadre who have mostly been admins since the 03/07 era administrating a site where a growing proportion of the active editors have only become active after the RFA drought began in early 2008. ϢereSpielChequers 08:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't a "content creator" when I passed in April of '12, I was a gnome who patrolled AFD and ANI. I didn't get a GA or FA until after I got the bit. Of course, I had 18k edits over 5.5 years before the bit and passed with only ~81%. There are several editors who will oppose if your content is less than ~50% and if you don't have at least one GA, but the majority of voters aren't that way. Misplaced Pages isn't new, back in '06 when I started, there were still plenty of people who didn't know what Misplaced Pages was, now everyone knows what it is. We don't have the inflow of users who just "discovered" Misplaced Pages anymore, pretty much anyone of age already knows we are here and has formed an opinion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 09:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there a problem? To the average content editor, the wikiworld seems to function reasonably adequately with the number of admins we have now. The only people who really seem to make this an issue are existing admins complaining about their workload. If that's the case, they need to do a better job of persuading non-admin editors that there are good reasons for them to become admins. Although there are obviously some editors who see becoming an admin as an aspirational target, those are probably not the sort of people anyone should be encouraging. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think there is a mild to moderate problem when too few admin do the majority of admin tasks. I think we are better served if there are more hands doing fewer things each. Not only does that allow more variety of thought but it frees up admin to do other things. I sometimes struggle to edit articles when I see that SPI or other boards are backed up. I think that "too many" admin would be a better problem than "too few". Concentrating all the administrative control in too few hands brings its own problems. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | © | WER 11:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Kumioko (talk) 11:44, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Comparison of the number of new admins to the number of total editors isn't the proper comparison; one should either compare the total number of editors to the total number of admins, or the number of new editors to the number of new admins. Those are the apple to apple comparisons, and the relative differences are much smaller. Yes, a growing proportion of editors have only been active since '08, but a growing proportion of admins have only been admins since '08 as well. Neither proportion is really all that large. WilyD 10:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

My personal opinion is three fold on this particular matter:

1. First, the decline can be partly contributed to multiple factors including, but not limited too, the decline in editors in general; the nightmare the RFA process has become; the toxic nature of what editing has become in general; and the general hypocrisy of the attitude that many of us that have the skills for the job can't pass it but many that do pass it don't have the skills because you have to be meek and a mediator in order to get the tools.
2. The second part is that there are about 1400 admins but its the same 30 or so that do 90% of the admin actions. The vast majority of those admins seem to just be hat collectors who never or rarely use the tools. Most of those that do 't use them all. They focus on one or two specialty tasks.
3. With so much more content in Misplaced Pages these days needing the tools to edit, it is becoming increasingly frustrating to edit. Add to that the attitude that it seems every edit is against some policy or will upset someone for some reason, the odds that people can get enough edits and skills to get the tools without pissing someone off is next to impossible.

I personally hate the us and them mentality displayed between many admins who feel that adminship is just below godhood and I think the term administrator should be abolished and the toolset broke up into modules. But neither of those will ever happen. Just like myself (and a number of others) will never be allowed to be an admin eventhough I do primarily admin related stuff. So frankly, I don't have any sympathy for the admins being overworked and under-appreciated because there are more that should be helping out and aren't and there are a number of us who would help out if we could, but aren't allowed too. Kumioko (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses. I was wondering what was going on when I barely saw any RFAs this month. Among other issues with RFA, it seems like people may not know that they have enemies but then RFA could bring them out. SL93 (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Regarding the supposed us-vs-them mentality: My personal favorite essay on Misplaced Pages is User:Antandrus/observations on Misplaced Pages behavior. I believe observation #31 is pertinent here: " People who loudly accuse the community of some vice are almost invariably guilty of, but blind to, some variant of that vice themselves." Some of the participants in this thread spend a lot of their time attacking admins as a group, helping to create an us-vs-them mentality by tarring us all with the same brush and are somehow unable to see the irony in that... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I think its only a small % of the admins that do it. Unfortunately its a vocal and active minority giving the other 1380 a bad reputation. I do think the vast majority of the admins are guilty of allowing their peers to get away with things that shouldn't be allowed though. So for that I suppose you could say they are guilty of at least benign neglect. Kumioko (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank goodness the grammar of the section title has been corrected! John of Cromer (talk) mytime= Thu 21:41, wikitime= 20:41, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

No stifling

You guys want more admins? Then, make more admins and take it out of the hands of the adversarial game-players who frequent this board. Oh, and while you're at it, devise some formal procedures for admins to follow so their actions are more consistent, even, and less arbitrary. Cla68 (talk) 00:09, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

No shit! Succinct and spot on! PumpkinSky talk 00:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Not to mention holding them accountable when they screw up or violate the rules. Its hypocritical to tell an editor they can't be trusted and then repeatedly come up with excuses when admins do something wrong and its brushed under the carpet. Kumioko (talk) 00:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

NO SHIT. Admins screw up and nothing is done to them. The victim does all the suffering, just like the real world where the criminals get all the rights, and at tax payer expense. PumpkinSky talk 00:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I can pretty much agree with this. I think the formal procedures exist - but that "open to interpretation" thing gets a little too much work. Also .. since we also have measures for non-admin editors in the form of blocks which can be for a day, a week, or until such time as the person accepts the problem and agrees to change .. then I wouldn't even have a problem with a community solution of desysoping an admin for 3 months .. or 6 months .. or however long it took for them/us to get their heads right. But then again, as are all things wiki .. I'm sure that would be gamed as well. I think we have a good collective group, but it's like the "one bad apple" syndrome. And on some days - it really does have that "sucks to be you" feel to it. And no offense intended, but we really get tired of hearing how awful "all you admins. are". Most of us really try to do a good job here. We even disagree with each other. But I'm getting into venting territory, so I'll leave it at that. — Ched :  ?  00:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

No one said all admins are bad, but the situations we're talking about are getting worse and something needs to be done about it. PumpkinSky talk 00:32, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, its really a minority that are the problem. I would say around a dozen of the 1400 admins. But when they know that they can do whatever they want then that's what happens. Some people can handle power, some can't. But too many excuses are made when abusive admins make mistake after mistake or continuously act like bullies. Kumioko (talk) 00:45, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Several things come to mind 1.) actually DO make it easier to get and remove the tools. 2.) (for admins), actually do the legwork required to make an informed decision. 3.) Don't skip steps, every user is different. There's been times I've seen an editor going the wrong direction - and it's usually pretty obvious what the outcome is going to be. And as much as one may be tempted to feel "been there, done that" indef. It's wrong. Tensions are high right now among some admins. Sometimes there's an influx of kids going through that rebellious teenager stage who simply defy any type of authority at all. I'm not saying "authority" in the sense of admins., but rather our rules. Our policies. I've seen this influx before too .. vacations, holidays, summer breaks etc. And we also have some older editors too. Retired with some time to give something back to the world in articles. But sometimes with age comes a lack of patience. — Ched :  ?  00:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, more than once I have suggested an annual "admin review board" for each admin ... just like a performance review at work. The "board" could recommend re-training, recusal, or removal ... none of which would be binding (at least at first), but that recommendation would certainly hold a lot of weight in an RFC/U. Just like at work, you're never likely to be let go for a bad first review. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

On WikiSource admins are required to stand for reconfirmation periodically. I think it's every year or two years. PumpkinSky talk 00:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(ec)I agree with all that you said and personally I think that should fall under the Audit subcommittee, or maybe a whole new one. I don't even think they all need reviewing. Of the 1400 most don't or rarely use their active tools (just some of the passive ones like seeing deleted content or editing through protection). That gets us down to about 200. Kumioko (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)(edit conflict)::::::The situations requiring admin intervention are also getting worse and more frequent and hence admin mishaps appear to be on the rise. But let's be absolutely fair, a lot of the recent bad weather is being caused by absolutely unmanageable children (plenty of diffs available) who are hell bent on baiting sysops and giving the corps a bad name. That said, if the number of times admins are brought to book is not on the rise it's either the community's fault for not bothering to do something, or there is not enough evidence or gravity to make a complaint stick. Or are we saying that Arbcom is too lenient? I would, but certainly not only for admins. I do believe however, that admins, and possibly also 'crats and arbs have been defrocked in the past. Shows that something works some of the time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

@ Kudpung. I agree with much of that. I think "community" and "Arbcom" are two entirely different things though. My complaint with Arbcom (the collective body, not the individuals) is that they too often try to interpert consensus rather than the rules. That makes for a lack of consistency. Also .. there's too many of them - so there's a lot of diversity. If there were 5 or 7 or whatever, and we knew what to expect, then I'd prefer that. Bad today and ok tomorrow isn't a good thing in management. — Ched :  ?  01:04, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

@ Kumioko .. and "audit" committee to evaluate Arbcom is a great idea. But as long as it's staffed by and picked by arbcom - it's simply not going to have much value in the check and balances sense. — Ched :  ?  01:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Its no surprise that I am not a fan of the Arbcom process. But I would be fine if there were a subcommittee or something that reviewed admin/beauracrat/checuser behavior and abuse. I think the Arbcom should be handled by the WMF. But unfortunatly all they seem to be able to do is implement unfinished, unwanted and unasked for changes to the software. Kumioko (talk) 01:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Funny, that - I only suggested a couple of days ago that perhaps there weren't enough arbs! But that was mainly based on their workload which most of us mere mortals don't even get to see in print. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Good point - they do get tons to deal with. Maybe some sort of filtering system? A group that says: "here - you have to deal with this". (note: I don't think I've ever participated in an Arb RfC, but I know there have been a few of them) — Ched :  ?  01:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :Interpreting consensus vs rules (and/or policy & guidelines) is one of the daily headaches on Misplaced Pages. We see it all the time at AfD where two near identical articles will have totally different closures depending on who, and how, turns up to !vote, and on many other kinds of discussions which are supposed to be closed according to policy. It's a bit the same at RfA, but fortunately almost every RfA is concluded with an appropriate closure. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:18, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems with any Misplaced Pages disciplinary board, whether it's ANI, RFC/U, or Arbcom, is that there are too many totally uninvolved admin wannabe's who come along and comment just because they want to see their signature on the page. Please, nobody interpret that to mean that I advocate the exclusion of non-admins on those boards. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I have always suggested that Admin Review Boards themselves be more private in nature, to prevent drive-by's and those with grudges. It would be an honest, frank review of a) the admin's quantity of actions over the year, the b) areas of action, c) the responses to being challenged in those actions, d) the community response to those actions, e) the policy-based nature of those actions. The "results" - ie. re-training, recusal, etc become public knowledge (✉→BWilkins←✎) 01:28, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• WMF? Good grief! I thought most oligarchies went out of fashion in 1989. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
  • This year's arbcom is a joke. Total inconsistent and lenient. PumpkinSky talk 01:35, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @BMW. I do like the review board idea. It would be tough to figure out how to set it up though. The community wants transparency, and yet I think it's hard for anyone who's never been an admin. to evaluate the job. Another question is how do you give it teeth. I'll be honest, I'd never go through another RfA - not that mine was bad, but because I didn't realize how tough the job could be. And there's really no benefits. Yes, it's nice to be able to see deleted stuff. And it's a good feeling to recover some deleted article for a user to work on. And it's a really REALLY great feeling to unblock an editor and see them do well. But worth the aggravation? IDK. I'm going to ping User:Dank here - because I know he's been busting his butt on admin. reform around here. — Ched :  ?  01:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I feel a ping coming on. - Dank (push to talk) 01:51, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Creating a new board would just add to the bureaucracy and hierarchy. Perhaps drawing on a committee from the 'crats? Give them something to do with only three tools left in their box. I see also no problems with Admin Review being held in camera, but the ant-admin brigade would - they pretend to trust nobody. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

There are about 36 active 'crats. More than enough for such a task. Compared to the close knit Arbcom, they would possibly come up with more balanced verdicts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Not that anyone cares about my opinion, but maybe rather than sorting through all the messy bureaucracy, it might be easier to just start nominating more people. I know, nobody wants to run. I also know we are not capable of attaining consensus to support any major policy changes, particularly if those changes deal with something as controversial as RfA. The only way to change anything is to slowly chip away at the problem, one RfA at a time. Of course, you guys might also try coordinating things so that we have a big batch of about 10 requests all active at once. Maybe that would jump-start things. Probably not. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:54, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

break

• Dank, I know I've neglected a lot of the admin discussions - but: What is the current state of the RfC on admin. reform that you've been doing? Where is the link again on the current one?

• Kudpung. I like the idea of giving the crats a role here. They have that job because they know how to determine consensus. — Ched :  ?  02:20, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• @ ASO. But folks don't want to run. We can't force them to. And why wouldn't we care about your views? I'm not sure why you'd feel that way. I know some of us are ... ummmm ... concise with our posts - at times it's often seen as rude. It's very different on this side of it. The one thing I'll say though is this. All admins have been non-admins., but not all nons have been admins. Have some of us forgotten how tough it is to be a non-admin.? Yea .. probably. But I think most of us can be talked to. — Ched :  ?  03:08, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• I fear I sent an inaccurate message. With respect to some of the divisions in the community, I actually almost see myself as an admin at heart. I know that would raise some eyebrows, as one of the sad realities of the community is that a non-admin can't even express widespread support for admins without being viewed as an admin wannabe. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  04:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with both of you. It would be great if we could nominate more people, it would be great if more people ran and it would be great if they wanted the job. The problem is half the people that run, don't get it and many of those that do frankly don't have the skills necessary to do it and don't use it. The problem is, if you are involved in the process enough to actually know enough then there's a good chance you have pissed off too many to get the tools. But if you keep your head down and don't get involved in day to day problems and maintenance, accrue a reasonable amount of edits and vote on the occassional winning for deletion venue, then you can easily slide through. Kumioko (talk) 12:50, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• @ ASO. Since the number of RfA has dropped, the actual participation on RfAs has increased dramatically. For example, where once having a +100 support was something unusual, it has now become commonplace. having 10 RfAs on the go all at once would rapidly tire the !voters - note that it takes me at least one hour to research and make up my mind how to vote, and IMHO (and only IMHO), anyone who takes much less is not voting objectively. That said, I will point out that there has always been plenty of comments over the recent years that one of the reasons that RfA is perceived as broken is that a concrete system for handling admin abuse does not exist other than the long and weary Arbcom whose members are severly overloaded with work that we don't see or get to hear of. Stay tuned for developments around the theme of desyoping - I'm sure the anti-admin brigade will welcome it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Kudpung, as much as I respect all of your efforts to fix the RfA problems (and you have done much more than your share), I would have to oppose any proposal that received an enthusiastic response from the anti-admin brigade. If the anti-admin brigade crafted an op-ed endorsing the use of water, I'd probably start drinking more juice and soda pop (well, maybe not). To me, the greater 'admin abuse' problem is not one of admins abusing their tools, but rather one of non-admins abusing admins. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  04:38, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the first time I have ever considered addressing the RfA issues from the angle that so many have contended for so long: the question of desysoping. None of us admins relishes the thought of being pinned to the wall by a franzy of righteously indignant children or outraged blocked adults and we already have to take a lot of baiting, provocation, and unjustified shit from both, but the anti-admin brigade does exist and we'll have to live with it. Any changes to policy or procedures need a consensus and we can't disenfranchise them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

@Kudpung, Sawadee krap! "a concrete system for handling admin abuse does not exist" is precisely the problem here. Not even flagrant cases. The system of reconfirmation on Wikisource works rather well but that's only every year or two. If some admin cocks up in the meantime, there's nothing to be done. Any system can be gamed but the bulk of the community will see through that and it would be better than what we have now, which is nothing for the victims. Take the case of a certain editor (not me, someone else) and the amount of abuse (horrendous blocks etc) this editor had to endure before Arbcom woke up and did something was just sickening. And blocks, however unwarranted, can not be erased from the log and wiki never forgets so however unjustified wearing of the Wiki Scarlet Letter is, it's never removed.PumpkinSky talk 10:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hang on .. gimme 5 min. and then check your email PS. — Ched :  ?  13:55, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• I, personally, would support a "sysop review" every couple of years or so, as long as there were a few rigid things in there. IPs and new users would need to be prohibited from being involved, for reasons I hope are obvious. Anyone making complaints against the sysop will need to provide diffs for each and every thing they've seen the admin do wrong. "This admin is crooked" type votes should be prohibited for an admin who made a single mistake - everyone makes the odd mistake. The discussion would be non-binding, but if there is clear consensus the sysop is abusing the tools, then it should be promptly kicked up to ArbCom, or something like that, to get it dealt with. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Your comment about providing diffs for each and every thing reminds me of my RfDA idea. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Not entirely a bad idea, that. Shame I didn't know about it. Still, I have taken something not entirely dissimilar a stage further. Stay tuned. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

RfX Reporter Down

If you'll notice in the timestamp, Cyberbot I went down, meaning the RfX reporter went down. Sorry. NFS at labs has failed, and because no one is there to fix it now, everything is collapsing into itself. :/—cyberpower _Online 01:04, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

RfX Reporter Updated

I have updated the reporter to update instantly when an RfX changes, or at least every hour to show that it is still alive.—cyberpower _{Limited Access} 14:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Random thoughts

While some may disagree with this, I would argue that adminship has become more of a big deal than it needs to be. This perception has helped to create a gap between admins and non-admins, a gap that is not conducive to a peaceful community. Many attempts have been made at fixing the RfA process, but I now believe that what really needs fixing is the RfA perception. Yes, the scrutiny is sometimes too high. Yes, the disagreements over !votes can lead to potentially volatile arguments. However, do well really still believe that policy changes and RfCs are the way to resolve those problems? Actually, that seems more like dealing with the symptoms instead of the disease. I think the main problem is that so many view or have viewed adminship as a big deal or as a goal to be attained (I know I did). Obviously, the more and more important it becomes, the harder and harder it will be to get. If the number of active admins continues to drop, we will eventually have a serious problem on our hands. It doesn't appear that the RfA process is really picking up very much steam. Furthermore, the difficulty that we face in acquiring consensus on major changes makes it doubtful that we can somehow legislate adminship into being less of a big deal. Frankly, I think that the underlying problem with RfA is that people view adminship as a big deal. If they didn't, the scrutiny wouldn't be so high and worthy candidates would be more willing to run. However, I also think that the way to change the perception is for people to start running for adminship, but with the mindset that if they don't succeed, it's no big deal. Those are my thoughts. Not everyone will agree, but at least it might help get the discussion going. AutomaticStrikeout  ?  02:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

that and the fact virtually no one (ie arbcom) is willing to reign in abusive admins these days. PumpkinSky talk 02:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Just do re-elections. Board has room for it and it is simple, does not require a new structure/bureaucracy. It will clear out the non-participatory deadwood (there are people doing one edit a year and keeping the button now). NYB says there would be too much log jam but he is not considering how people are whining to want more things to vote in...and how much more traffic the board supported before, and that the total number of ACTIVE admins is much, much less than the total of badged ones.

It will get away from the "forever a problem" concern. It will hold back on some arrogance as people serve. And don't worry about people being unable to pass. HJ Mitchell had thrown out blocks and he got re-elected fine when he did it as a trial. I think almost his only opposes were die-hard pro-admin-for-life people, rather than his banned hayterz. Heck, even if one did get booted out after a 2-3 year term, who CARES, given more people would be brought in as replacements and lot of this Arb/Admin lot seems to think they are better than everyone...some sort of permanent nobility. Cf. Cincinnatus). But the admin clique will never go for it. They don't have the guts.