Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:18, 9 January 2010

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

Current time: 19:52:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
Purge this page

Just a mop and bucket

It's been a long time since I was seriously active, but as an moderately old-school user and admin I have to say that the modern RfA process is completely insane. 12 questions? Follow-ups? Minutae on policies? And many of these questions look like they're just part of the paperwork, with no thought or care whatsoever — there's even boilerplate acceptable answers. Many of the other ones aren't relevant at all to the topic at hand. Seriously, folks, it's just a mop and a bucket. The famous Jimbo quote appears to be completely forgotten.

Of course, maybe I'm missing something from my absence, but please keep this in mind, people. Remember what the point of this whole thing is: to get reasonably qualified and careful people some extra tools. RfA isn't there to grill people and it's totally unreasonable to expect them to know even half of the policies on Misplaced Pages. And I thought it was getting bad in my time.

Obviously this doesn't affect me at all, but I still do care about this project and maybe a few of you will take a second look at where this is going. Kyle Barbour 01:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of RfA. (I do envy you old wikipedians, I sure would have liked to run for RfA in 2003...) (X! · talk)  · @235  ·  04:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the best post ever made on this project. –Juliancolton |  05:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

... except the title is wrong. It should be Just a mop and a bucket and a big stick. Misplaced Pages went wrong when it confused maintenance with control. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

We have a cheatsheet for RfA now? Oh dear... —Dark 06:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed a great post, and gives me perspective on an era of Misplaced Pages I regret missing. Jusdafax 07:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Malleus: The only problem with this idea is that you're totally wrong. It's not "control". Admins do not have more authority. Blocks are totally reversible, easily challenged, and usually very quickly resolved if incorrect. Protections are exactly the same. Nothing an admin can do is irreversible: the closest thing to a counterexample is fixing cut and paste moves, which is extremely difficult, but not impossible to reverse. But that is not exactly a hot spot for rogue admins or whatever, the admins you're worried about don't care about that kind of stuff.

Don't get me wrong — I'm not getting on your case. There are serious offenders, but serious offenders can and have been desysopped. If you're really concerned about abuse, support community recall proposals and drive them forward. I think they're a good thing. But don't make RfA insane and prevent 99% of the potentially awesome admins from getting the mop and bucket, which, as I've said, completely lacks any flamethrowing capacity, just because you're concerned about one or two power maniacs who would likely be desysopped in a year anyway. Kyle Barbour 13:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you must be inhabiting an alternate universe, one in which being an administrator is "no big deal". --Malleus Fatuorum 13:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what I said? I just tried to talk to you about why being an admin is not a big deal. You haven't explained why you don't agree, however. What I can say is the the director of this project also happens to live in the same universe I do, so it's one that's probably worth paying a little attention to. Kyle Barbour 13:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I did read it, yes. I don't have a big hammer to shut up those who're saying things I don't like though, so reflect on that. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is needlessly antagonistic. Kyle Barbour 02:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think Malleus means that adminship is a big deal in reality while you explained why it shouldn't be. Let's face it, in theory, as you say, adminship is no big deal and everyone with a good track record should get it without problems but in practice it has become a big deal. For example, admins should not have more authority but in reality they do. People see that it's only a small group and how hard it is to join that group and they will automatically assume that this group thus consists of "better" users. Regards SoWhy 14:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right, that's pretty much what I meant. What I'd forgotten though is that nothing said here makes the slightest difference to anything. Waste of time even discussing it. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Many admins are very experienced and have done a lot of work, and yes, they resultingly get more respect and attention and should. And, to prove the point, there are other editors who also have that seniority that aren't or weren't admins because they didn't want to be and they also got that respect and attention (not people who have been around since forever and are difficult to work with, but great editors who just didn't want to do admin work). You've got to discriminate between respect gained from work, demonstrated intelligence and integrity, and so on, from authority just because they're an admin. I don't see much of the latter and never have. Case in point: I'm an admin, what authority do I have? Can I block random people and delete random pages if I wanted to? Of course not. The perception of authority is a perception and nothing more. Just stop making RfA crazy. It's in the hands of the people who participate. Kyle Barbour 02:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Malleus is correct, there is a reason we humorously call it the "mop-and-flamethrower™"; whether the mop should be separated from the flamethrower is a completely separate question. -- Avi (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Per last July:

• Admin WITH clue
• Admin WITHOUT clue

-- Avi (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I only went through RfA this year, and I don't remember mine being anywhere near as interegatory as the current version. This is a very good post I think, thanks to Kyle Barber for highlighting it again. GedUK  08:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason it became like this is that many !voters have directly or indirectly experienced what can happen if someone unsuitable passed an RFA too "easily" and then had to be desysopped using a quite complicated process and as such they now try to be more careful when trying to determine whether a candidate is suitable for this "job". But if you think RFA has become crazy, just take a look at the recent RFBs. Jimbo called cratship a "dull technical position" and we have managed to make it sound like some kind of a demigod-position. Rising standards can be a good thing when they try to prevent unsuitable candidates from getting into a position where they can do serious damage (large scale deletions, blocking people they don't like, protecting pages because of WP:OWN etc.) but there is a fine line between standards that benefit the project and those that harm it by preventing otherwise capable candidates from passing RFA (for, as Kyle says it, adminship-unrelated reasons). Regards SoWhy 11:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If the rising standards is to prevent the wrong folks from getting the tools to minimize the risk of them making large scale deletions, blocking people they don't like, protecting pages because of WP:OWN etc. then the tougher standards are wonderful. However, this can be determined by looking at the nominee's contributions to the encyclopedia and interactions with other editors. My answer to the what's-the difference-between-a-block-and-a-ban question caused an uproar. I had never been blocked, no one ever considered blocking me, I never considered blocking anyone else, and I didn't know there was a distinction, big deal. I'm not here to whine about my failed RfA, but to agree with Kyle Barbour that the recent trend is out of control. J04n(talk page) 11:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, RfB is crazy and was even in my time. However, the problem with what you're saying about rising standards is that none of the things you say cause "serious damage" actually cause serious damage. Look, when I first came on Misplaced Pages I got really pissed off about someone deleting a whole bunch of pages without due process (if you're reading through that, my username used to be Blackcap). Guess what? They were all restored and everything was fine, even without the RfC. If you just calm down and hash it out like reasonable human beings then it's all going to be O.K.

So mass deletions aren't really a problem, because they're totally resolvable. The things that are actually serious problems are AfD, because it's permanent, newbie-biting, and mean; edit wars and people being dicks, because they make people leave; the lack of established editorial standards, because they lead to deletionist/inclusionist wars and so on; and the insane ever-burgeoning bureaucratic nightmare of rules, rather than people just being kind and understanding and writing articles based on what should be clearly established editorial standards and the policy trifecta. And guess what? None of those things have anything to do with adminship. So again, adminship shouldn't be a big deal, isn't a big deal, and people's attitudes about it being that way have to change. Kyle Barbour 13:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sadly I fear that incorrect deletions are a problem as not every newbie comes back if their initial experience here is negative. However much of the damage is done by incorrect speedy deletion tags before an admin gets involved. I also agree that adminship is becoming a big deal - if only out of scarcity. Barely half our 1700 admins are still active, the days when we had a thousand active admins are now well over a year ago, and those admins we have are mostly very very experienced editors, as few of our admins have accounts created in the last three years. I fear this is creating a widening gulf between admins and other users, as many of our editors see adminship as simply not an option for them. ϢereSpielChequers 14:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning on running soon, but I feel a ton of aprehension about what could go wrong. I'm a positive person, but I feel people who feel less positive about an RFA are likely to leave. The whole thing of RFA though is not as bad as it could be as it only consists of 15 or so questions, and then people just pile on to others. In response to the RFB problem, I feel that people are really elevating them to a god-like status. When you look at it, there is a pyramid of hiearchy here, and the bureaucrats occupy an ever smaller slice of the top. I can see why people are arguing against lowering the standards, but maybe we should conduct a straw poll or something to see what those in the community feel about this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/RfB bar –Juliancolton |  16:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember asking about that a month or so ago and getting that. I also talked about re-running it, and that too was shot down. Oh well, thanks Julian. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

So long as "janitors" have the power to block other editors, your position is not only incredible but also dishonest. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Malleus, at least mostly. This whole "just a janitor", "just a mop and bucket" description is just unrealistic. It's true that quite a bit of administrative work really is just cleanup, probably even the vast majority of admin actions carried out in any given day, stuff like blocking obvious vandals and deleting articles like "FUCK HEIMSTERN!!!". But there's always that other side: the controversial actions like blocks of established contributors (can anyone seriously claim the recent block of Giano, for example, was a custodial action?) and deletions of borderline cases, both in terms of CSD and XFD. Not to mention the ArbCom's discretionary sanctions, which allow administrators to levy sanctions in certain disputed content areas. And there's no way to ensure that an administrator candidate will only carry out non-controversial actions if granted the tools.

Essentially what I'm saying is that it's time to leave behind the concept that adminship is "no big deal" or "just a mop and bucket". Quite honestly, that's tripe. At one time it probably was more valid. It's not anymore. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This misses the point, but whatever. It's your Misplaced Pages, make it what you want it to be. Kyle Barbour 03:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You're being very hostile, which doesn't make sense since no one's attacking you. Your accusation that I'm lying also makes no sense and simply isn't true. If you're actually interested in having a reasonable conversation about this based on mutual respect, let me know and we can do that. Until then, however, I don't see how we can talk about this. Kyle Barbour 03:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't been active much for the last while, you may have missed noticing that Malleus is habitually hardline and often, dare I say, a little brusque on this page. This is not Malleus being hostile, this is Malleus being polite. ;) MF and others here do have a certain point though, adminship is a big deal. Not because it should be a big deal, but it has become that way. The words and actions of admins gain importance beyond what they should really have in the eyes of the general editorship, you will often see talk page discussions where people say "admin So-and-So agrees with me", even in areas where the admin bit is not relevant. Partly this is because admins as a group have more editing and policy experience on average, but indeed a large component is that admins have the power to block. Less experienced editors use this implied threat against each other in disputes, and defer to admin opinions even in content areas where a more experienced non-admin would say "I don't give a damn if they're an admin". And admins who aren't bad enough to get turfed can still cause a lot of problems, even if their actions are reversible. I fully agree that adminship is no big deal - and yet I would also say that it is a big deal, like it or not.

A long list of RFA questions shouldn't be that big of a problem of itself. An admin candidate really should be able to read a few policy pages and understand them quickly enough to give a decent synopsis on any particular point. Where the problems comes in is where we see !opposes based on "failed to close parenthesis in answer to Q#12, sub-part b)ii", rather than an overall evaluation. But proper vetting and forming an overall impression is a lot harder than jumping on one particular point, so we end up with this incredible detail just to make sure nothing is getting missed. Fixing the RFA problem is harder than spotting the problem though. Franamax (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I perfectly agree. On most 2.0 websites that have different contribution powers (such as blogs, forums, etc), the words of the admins do have more power than the vox populi. Misplaced Pages is the exception. Admins: How many times have you been asked to have a user blocked because of a tiny content disagreement? I have, and quite a lot. These people assume that Misplaced Pages admins are like forum admins. They assume that we can make arbitrary blocks as we wish, because we are the all powerful admins. They do not think that we have a binding set of policies that will get us into a load of trouble if blocked. The experienced user will not make this mistake, as they're more used it it. Additionally, go find someone editing Misplaced Pages anonymously in real life. Go up to them and say, "Hi, I'm an admin". 9 times out of 10, they'll say something to the extent of "you're one of those evil admins? Don't block me...." There seems to be an inherent fear of admins. It's a shame, really, because many people stay away from Misplaced Pages because they're afraid the "evil admins" will delete their article. (Don't get me wrong, we do quite a lot... ;)) Many of those people have valid contributions that we've just lost. What more, there are valid adminship candidates who refuse to run for RfA because they're afraid that they'll be seen as another "evil admin".

It may not seem like a huge deal to us admins. However, the vast majority of the people who are aware of Misplaced Pages's existence either look up to us admins, or have a deep hatred for us. (X! · talk)  · @725  ·  16:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the problem with people's articles being deleted by "evil admins", has more to do with the CSD process than anything. Now, adminship might be "not a big deal", but it's not adminship that really matters, it's tenure. I think the title "admin" might at least give some newbies clarity that there is a structure on this site, but in all reality it's whether or not you can use common sense, and whether the community trusts you to act per that common sense. As long as you aren't using the tools, the term "adminship" has nothing to do with your actions, you're just a trusted editor with time on this site. Adminship isn't a big deal, and it should never be looked at like it is, but being a trusted editor is. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys are probably hated because the average person comes in here without a whole lot of policy knowledge, create a page, see it deleted, and hate the administrators who deleted it. I think if they understood, they wouldn't hate you guys, but I think that is the newby experience here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. But we, as individual admins, can help fix that, fortunately, by explaining what's going on to them and trying to get rid of the "everyone new is a vandal" attitude. Kyle Barbour 02:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is brilliant, totally true. I think we'd agree, then that the "admin" problem isn't really an "admin" problem as much as a perception problem. People need to segregate the +sysop flag from editing, and realize that admin's aren't (by and large) interested in harassing people, and I think that once that perception problem is solved RfA will be too. In fact, I don't think RfA can be fixed without that happening. Kyle Barbour 02:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• Wait! WTF? Some of you got a bucket too? But yes. I agree with the original statement in this thread. Perspective was lost long ago when the kooks fixated on the "power" of adminship and turned this into something more serious than an FBI background check. Due diligence is a good thing (i.e. is a candidate who they claim to be), but putting every candidate through a templated public ringer for no good reason just takes it too far. If anything, the current level of scrutiny is just meant to test whether or not an RfA regular who runs for RfA has any common sense. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but sometimes people take it too far when they started putting joke questions on WikiGreekBasketball's recent RFA. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WGB was asked to withdraw, I actually untranscluded and closed his RFA, and explained on his talk page that it had no chance of passing, and he insisted on re-opening it. Why it was a bad idea was explained to him in a calm, clear, and respectful manner, and he responded with remarkable vitriol. Treating it as the joke it was from that point forward was perfectly ok in my book, as it was an absolute farce. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

True, I too closed it and saw the consquences. Oh well, I guess the past is the past and nothing can be done about it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I find Kyle's comments quite interesting and spot on. We've made RFA more than it should be. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

We certainly have. That said, perhaps people would be more willing to get back to "is this person trustworthy" if we had an easy to follow process for admins who abuse their tools because admins have tenure once they've passed an RfA. HJMitchell You rang? 23:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should go to a hybrid between the old and new ways. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

For me, I've always tried to operate on a "do I trust this person" standard. There are two components to that trust - the first is "do I think this person means well," which is almost always a pass, absent some bizarreness which may pop up - there have been some interesting ones. The second is "do I trust that this person has the skills, the seriousness, and the temperament to do a good job?" On that one, I admit to judging what's thrust in front of me. If there is interest, expressed or implied, to work on CSD/XfD, I look more closely at their deletion work. If they have antivandal experience, I look at their newpage and RC patrolling. If they want to work in DyK/ITN, I leave that to the other editors who know that, and usually default support. I also support to counteract what I consider to be opposing rationales that I don't want to gain currency - one of the most odious being things like "not old enough." In general, I act on the principle that demonstrated seriousness and competence in one admin subarea or so is sufficient for adminship, in the absence of serious negatives. That said, Malleus has a huge point, which drives a gaping hole through my logic: I have not noticed any admin candidates declaring that they want to join the Sword and the Shield of Misplaced Pages to police and block their fellow editors for uncivil behavior, edit warring, and engage in Battle High and Low across the Plains of ANI, AE, RFAR, and many more acronyms that we without bits have learned to fear in the dark. Yet these admins do exist - Misplaced Pages would not function as it currently does without them, and they easily form the most controversial aspect of admin activity. I think, so long as effective admin tenure-of-office persists, and future police admins do not declare themselves in candidacy, a high level of skepticism in treating admin candidates is not entirely irrational. I just prefer not to do it -- whether that makes me a credulous fool, or an optimist, is currently a matter of speculation and argument, rather than settled fact. Ray 23:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason that candidates don't go in saying, "I want to patrol this site with an iron fist and block all those who disturb the project," is because they will likely get opposes along the lines of, "Too eager," or, "We don't need another block-happy administrator." I think that administrators gradually go over to blocking as they gain more experience, since they don't want to mess things up. I'm all for declaring my intentions, as I did in my first few RFAs, but I have learned to just shut up and go along with the flow, as speaking your mind can be dangerous. This is quite unfortunate, as we are getting administrators who are probably getting the tools without the rest of the site hearing their true intentions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. Or on the other hand they could simply be being dishonest. There's a great deal of that here. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's probably part of it, as we have had some pretty dysfunctional administrators here. Either way, I do wish that there would be a greater transparency with potential administrators, and this would hopefully lessen the meatgrinding at the RFAs. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Having just gotten tenure, I can safely admit that there are problems with how adminship is handled. One "big picture" issue is that adminship combines disparate permissions/authorities into one package. In my RFA, I expressed no intention to be involved in blocking users, nor did anyone ask me any questions about it. I didn't even get the canned questions about blocks vs. bans and cooldown blocks, which surprised me. But the nature of the 'sysop' permissions group is that I now have that capability. Deleting pages, page protection, blocking users, etc. -- these are essentially unrelated capabilities. But if you get one, you get them all. For page deletions, you also get permissions across all namespaces, even though very few users have depth of experience in the full range of namespaces. Similarly, the block permission includes users, IPs and IP ranges, even though candidates are rarely asked about their technical knowledge of IP addresses. One possible cure for RFA paranoia (and its evil twin, the Admin Who Should Not Be) would be to divide up these permissions to a greater degree, so that editors who seem trustworthy in one area could be given more tools for that particular area, rather than a full toolbox. (Yes, I know that something like this is on WP:PERENNIAL. So is having a community de-adminship process, which is also a good idea. Some perennial suggestions are good ones.) --RL0919 (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The ironic thing about dividing the tools: People don't want them because it creates more bureaucracy, yet we're already in about as deep a bureaucracy as we can be. (X! · talk)  · @108  ·  01:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with just running under the general RFA, asking for certain tools, and being granted those tools. It would likely work in theory, but that is just fantasy until we try it out. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"we're already in about as deep a bureaucracy as we can be" - ORLY?. Anyway, as to RL0919's point, yes adminship does confer some permissions requiring high-level tech skills few possess and which RFA doesn't tend to discuss. The point is that we trust admins to evaluate their own abilities and experience reasonably, and ask for help if necessary, etc. The main thing to evaluate, I think, is the potential admin's (self)critical thinking. Rd232 01:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You may trust administrators, but I certainly don't. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole purpose of having the user right sysop is that it is assigned to people the community trusts. Not every person will trust every sysop, and a few may not trust any. This has no effect on the validity of the principle. Rd232 00:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What community? The few that bother to take any interest in RfA? There's no trust. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If being an administrator is just being given a mop and bucket how does one describe bureaucrats? Also what is fundamentally wrong with seeking to put on a lot of hats? Isn't that called ambition? Some places actually encourage it.... Considering there isn't much chance a bureaucrat will become a tyrant that will enslave Wikipedians—Jimbo has already done that—what's the problem? Lambanog (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'm coming in late in the game for commenting - for which I apologize - but all this was kicked over a year and a half ago with the well-publicized RfA review. A couple hundred editors responded to the review's questionnaire; nothing ever came of it. In my own responses, I opined that the system was broken and would remain broken as long as it was in the community's hands, with abuses such as the "optional" questions that were nothing of the sort. Voters show neither hesitation or shame in Opposing any candidate unfamiliar with a particular area or admin task, even if a candidate pledges openly along the lines of "I'm not really familiar with fair-use image rules, so that's an admin task I'm not going to do." Admitting the same has been the kiss of death for many RfAs. Then there's the startling fact that RfA is completely a popularity contest: no matter the candidate's qualifications or lack thereof, a Support vote of 75% is the breakpoint past which no candidate fails to gain the mop, and below which no candidate succeeds to get it. I was nominated once, withdrew from the process, and have steadfastly refused to be renominated under the existing process ... no matter how many edits I have, no matter my experience as sysop of a major university forum system, it ain't happening.  RGTraynor  20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Threads like this are pointless because the poeple who lose perspective of what adminship really is, or who vote "Oppose: per not knowing the difference between a block and a ban" don't read this page and will still vote "Oppose: per not knowing the difference between a block and a ban" once this thread is archived.

And nothing will change until some form of Adminship revocation process has passed, or that bureaucrats decide to flat out strike insane/weaksauce votes as they are being made. Headbomb {_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly a large part of the problem. Why is RfA one of the very few areas of Misplaced Pages that's nothing but a straight vote? I was shocked when in researching RfAs from mid-2007 to mid-2008, every single candidate who hit 75% and did not withdraw was promoted (a total of 331), while only three candidates out of several hundred were passed with a threshold lower than 75%. In almost every other part of Misplaced Pages admins and bureaucrats can rule for policy over vox populi. In RfA, it never, ever, ever happens; there's never been a case where a bureaucrat has said "Half these Oppose votes are pure nonsense." I can chime in on every RfA with "Oppose per above," and my vote counts exactly the same as anyone who actually proffers a reason. This is why a lot of skilled, talented, experienced folks want no part of the process.  RGTraynor  21:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking forward, the role of 'crats

I'd just like to advertise my thoughts regarding my recent request for bureaucratship and its associated 'cratchat. Overall, the process worked as it should. But I get the feeling, once again, that the community is still unsure as to what the role of bureaucrats is and what it should be going forward, and I think this is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to achieve consensus at RfB. I like to think of bureaucratship as a minor technical role that can be described as access to three extra buttons. It's clear, though, that others believe the 'crat team should be leaders of sorts, and should be comprised of only Misplaced Pages's most experienced and trusted contributors.

Obviously, the role differs from project to project. At Meta-Wiki, for example, bureaucrats are generally appointed with little fanfare after having served six months as an admin. On the other hand, at Commons, they are expected to be "capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues. They also have to be able to deal sensitively with confidential information (occasionally disclosed to the bureaucrats as a group), and to be able to judge what is and is not appropriate to discuss publicly on wiki."

I think that after having a fairly successful year of promotions during 2009, having had appointed four additional 'crats, we now have a sufficient collection of data to go by in terms of plotting and charting how we want RfB to work, and as such I think it might be time to initiate another RfB bar discussion. However, before we do so, I feel we need to decide what we want the role to be: an insignificant technical responsibility or a position of community leadership.

Personally, I'm of the belief the standards for RfB are vastly too high, and to be honest I can't recall ever opposing an RfB. Speaking as a long-term sysop on en.wiki and an admin and bureaucrat on several other Wikimedia projects, I can say that the block and delete functions are far more contentious, controversial, and difficult to use than the RenameUser button. And I know that many folks agree with me in that respect. A problematic admin can do far more damage than a problematic bureaucrat, as bureaucrats don't have any bearing on the editorial community.

This has been my opinion since I was promoted to adminship, so it has nothing to do with my RfB in particular. It simply inspired me to express my thoughts and ask for other opinions. Make of this rant what you will. –Juliancolton |  16:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree that the waves in the Sea of Adminship are far rougher then the waves in the Sea of Cratship. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've expressed similar thoughts a few times. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. If admins can do damage, the people who appoint those admins can do even more damage. Thus the selection of 'crats should be held to a very high standard indeed. Mr. Language Person (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The people who select the admins are the people who vote for them, not the bureaucrats. Julian is of course quite right; there's hardly a job at all for bureacrats, and they certainly aren't leaders in any recognisable sense. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem with that logic is that in the discretion range, it is ultimately up to the bureaucrat to determine whether or not that user will become an admin. On an unrelated note, Julian, I agree that delete and block is a lot more contentious than Renameuser is. However, it's the Special:Userrights that makes the job a Big Deal. I seem to recall a thread a couple of months ago that was created after Ryulong was desysopped, 2 years after his RfA was closed controversially. That was a lot more drama (both after the RfA and desysopping) than most deletes or blocks ever get. This is why the bureaucrat position is so controversial. This is also why we can't have a bot close RfXs. (X! · talk)  · @810  ·  18:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I can think of about two or three requests for adminship where the end result was particularly controversial. In 99% (76% of statistics are false, mind) of cases no judgment is required whatsoever to determine the outcome of an RfX. Yet every day we have out of process deletions at WP:DRV, bad civility blocks at ANI, and rogue admins at RfAR. Which brings me back to the question of why the RfB standards are so much higher than those for adminship. –Juliancolton |  21:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Julian in that we're going to need a serious community discussion on whether or not we should officially lower the discretionary range for RfBs. A significant portion of the community seems to be in favor of looser standards for RfBs. Timmeh 18:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that the purpose of any fresh community discussion would be to determine if a lower bar was now considered appropriate (by the community). From the preceding comment it appears that a “significant portion of the community” has already determined that to be the case. If so, where is the evidence? Leaky Caldron 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/RfB bar. (FYI, not the first time its linked on this page, and it comes up in every discussion on this topic). Worth noting, though, that even with the lowered threshold Julian's RfB is still on the edge, with either up or down remaining a fair call. Nathan 18:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd read it. It's 22 months old. I thought from Timmeh's remark that some new evidence of the community's desire to change the existing process had emerged. Leaky Caldron 19:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That long already? Wow. As far as I know, there hasn't been anything since then. Discussion has been struck up a few times, but nothing has really come of any of them. I was surprised it did even then, Wikinertia being what it is. Nathan 19:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My claim isn't really based on any hard evidence. It's pretty much just based on my observations of multiple editors voicing a dissatisfaction with the high RfB threshold, both in individual posts and in whole threads on this page. The trend also seems to be moving toward greater support for lowering the bar, especially in recent months. It's just what I make of it though; that's why I said "seems to be... " Timmeh 20:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to try to avoid conflating some editors being noisy on a subject with a clear community consensus. Spartaz 20:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What is there clear consensus on, and amongst whom is there consensus? Regarding the RfB bar poll, I agree that in 22 months, a lot has changed. For example, in today's RfB, I can't imagine the 86% WP:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana failing. –Juliancolton |  21:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but the RfB Bar was written in response to Riana's RFB. You can see that almost the entire discussion was anchored to what was happening at her simultaneous RFB. Pompously, I'll quote myself at the RFB Bar: "If we can have a pool of bureaucrats to whom nobody objects and who can attend to the small number of pages for which they are responsible, why would we benefit by adding bureaucrats to whom more people object? It would allow more people to collect a bcrat trophy, but would do nothing whatsoever to help the project." This is a question I do not believe has been satisfactorily answered. --JayHenry (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What JayHenry said above, and you arguing over the bar because it directly effects you Julian is, frankly, causing me a lot of ill will in respect of you. Honest mate, it's all no big deal and the desperation I see from you in being a "bureaucrat" is,well, unsettling. Pedro :  Chat  23:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, my post above is in no way a plead to get myself appointed. I enjoy writing an encyclopedia, and I know that the readers couldn't care less whether or not the author of the content is a bureaucrat or not. That's why I don't view userrights as much of a big deal on Wikimedia. I simply feel in response to my RfB, which was entirely fair, that we need to discuss the role of bureaucratship. –Juliancolton |  00:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Do we need to be highly selective in in electing bureaucrats ? IMO, no. However, the RfB workload is small enough, that a relatively few editors suffice for the task and we can be pretty selective. Next, organizational behaviour and group psychology come into play, and set us along a vicious path: We can be selective. → We are selective. → We rationalize and start imagining that the high standards are required for the job → We raise the standards even higher, and voters, candidates start thinking of this dull responsibility as a trophy or feather in the cap. I don't have a solution to break out of this chain, but I think it is useful for us to recognize the phenomenon. For example, I often see proposals on this page to split the administrative functions and elect distinct corps of editors to speedy delete article, protect articles, close AFDs, block users etc. Our experience with RfB's (and, ArbCom) should show that this would be a very bad idea, since, suddenly we will start setting insane standards for editors to be selected to these specialized roles, and start imagining that protecting a page requires 2 years of experience, 3000 edits at RFPP etc. Increased bureaucracy and specialization inevitable starts justifying itself, and arguing for its own indispensability (the position of Arbcom Clerks is a fine example). I hope we don't miss out on this larger picture, while discussing the finer points of how to select bureaucrats. Abecedare (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  Well, this didn't happen with rollback, and I see no reason an easy-come-easy-go page protect feature would be any different. The key insight is that page protector would be a lesser role than our current form of adminship and the easy-come-easy-go complements laxer standards. I would expect devolution of the tools to do the opposite of what you expect. --JayHenry (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

  Sorry I wasn't clearer: Of course, opening the permission to a larger group of editors is not problematic (for example, if we allow any autoconfirmed user to move pages over existing titles, or allow any admin to grant/revoke such a right). The problem I am alluding to arises when we make certain function even more exclusive. Abecedare (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  The proposals I have seen on this page regarding devolution propose doing the opposite of that. --JayHenry (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  Then, I would support such procedures! Sorry, if my memory was faulty; I wasn't trying to argue against a strawman above. I hope my larger point is clearer though: making certain functions exclusive and building up complicated processes to elect editors to such roles, only serves to fluff up the importance of such functions more than they deserve. I am all for easy-come/easy-go granting of tools (except checkuser, which has privacy implications). Abecedare (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  Indeed. In fast, personally I think it's a bit silly that RenameUser is not available to admins. –Juliancolton |  00:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  I think I agree, but doesn't this argument break down a bit when aimed at RfA? The sysop workload, unlike that of 'crats, is large enough that we shouldn't have a high bar since we need them, yet the requirements have significantly increased regardless, presumably since the tools are relatively significant. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  My analysis is certainly not a one-solutions-fits-all universal explanation! What I find incongruous is the high standards we apply at RfBs contrasted with the limited role and chance of abuse, for such a position. The RfA situation is admittedly more complicated because (1) we need many more admins than bureaucrats, (2) the admin tools (especially blocks and speedy deletions) are more powerful and more open to being abused than the limited role of bureaucrats, (3) we have had a some history of admin tools being misused, and (4) admin tools are very hard to take back (this is true for bureaucrats too, but I can't think of any situation where this was an issue; Nichalp was de-crated, but for unrelated cause). Abecedare (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• It seems a lot of people agree we need more bureaucrats, or that the bar should be lowered so that RfB is easier to pass. There is merit to this position, but I'd like to offer a counter-argument. The bureaucrat body is most effective when we have enough bureaucrats to keep the renaming and bot flagging backlogs in check, but not so many that the collective is indecisive in its judgment-centred functions. For example, if we had perhaps ten more active bureaucrats, bureaucrat discussions for RfXs would be noisy and uncoordinated, and would take much longer to go somewhere. In my view, we've presently achieved the correct balance between technical efficiency and social efficiency; too many more bureaucrats right now would be undesirable. The need, of course, fluctuates with the activity level of the current cohort. —Anonymous Dissident 01:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I support lowering the standard, but this is perhaps one of the strongest arguments I've seen for keeping them where they are at. I would, personally, rather see higher individual criteria, but a lower bar. 85-90% is a high bar to pass, especially if somebody is willing to be controversial and take stands in certain places.---Balloonman 02:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that's certainly important to consider. However, by my reckoning, we have about six or seven truly active 'crats, which is astoundingly low for the size of the English Misplaced Pages. Take for instance the Simple Misplaced Pages, which has 10 bureaucrats, most of whom edit regularly, and there have been no issues with overcrowding over there. –Juliancolton |  02:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For contentiousness, let's wait for a crat to encratify his friend after an RfB at 70. Same goes for sysopping to a lesser extent. This will start to happen if the threshold is lowered too much. Reversing admin actions/decisions is easy. That's not the case for crats. And crat tasks are much more complex and consequential even ignoring ease of reversibility. Importantly too, there's their future role. There a huge power vacuum on wiki. Atm it's being filled by an expansionary ArbCom, but in the future more and more power may go to crats. People will argue that they too are elected and trustworthy ... and indeed that's what's been happening on the various admin removal RfCs. It's really not that hard even now for a non-controversial user with lots of IRC friends to stack the kind of votes needed to win RfB, without really having done anything or being known to anyone, esp. as current crats seem to be demanding more and more of opposes. And as there's no real need to get more crats, there's no need to lower the bar. It has worked so far ... let's not eff it up now. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As I see it most people can't get through RfB at all, let alone through IRC scheming. Perhaps you could point out one such case? –Juliancolton |  06:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I confess to being a triffle disappointed that your response to your recent unsuccessful RfB appears to be to argue for a change in how the system works to make it easier for RfBs to succeed, rather than working to convince those who opposed you that you would in fact make a good bureaucrat. WJBscribe (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that this was not directed to me, but in defense of JC, I have no problems admitting that my failed RfB from over a year ago has affected how I view both RfA and RfB. It does not take much to get 15% of the community worked up to oppose a solid candidate and the responsibilities of a 'crat are much less likely to break wikipedia than those of an admin. The only tool that a 'crat has that really matters is the ability to change permissions---and that is so closely regulated, that I seriously doubt it'll ever be abused. Heck, even if you said that the 'crat is responsible for the actions of a questionable pass, which we don't, I doubt if anybody could point out a 'crat who consistently passed marginal RfA's (or obvious failures) wherein the new admin went on to abuse the system. There are only a handful of RfA's that were passed in the "crat discretion range" that ended up in the "I told you so" category. (Yes, there have been RfA's that were mistakes, but those were community blunders, not individual 'crats going off the reservation.) So, we have set an extremely high barrier for a job which in all honesty, doesn't require it. The barrier is so high that frankly only an idiot would consider throwing their hat into the ring. I had 4 or 5 people contact me last spring about what I thought of their running for 'crat. All of them indicated that they were going to run between May and August. Nine months later, only two of them (Mbiz and SoWhy) have actually run and based upon the comments from some of the others I would be surprised to see them run--and think it would be a mistake for them to do so. I think people are starting to see quality people, who want to serve the project fully, get burnt and leave it. This is particularly true when it comes to the realization that anybody who takes a stand on any issue or makes a single "mistake" might as well NEVER consider running. Minority opinions will easily find 10-15% opposers against voices who spearhead initiatives they don't like, especially if the initiative failed. Since it is so easy to find 10-15% who will oppose over trivial things, this becomes a barrier for people: "What have *I* done that will doom me? What cabal have I unknowingly offended?"---Balloonman 16:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response to Pedro above, thanks. –Juliancolton |  14:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Deacon, though I kinda agree with your eventual point (that things have worked out reasonably well so far), I have to say that a lot of that seemed like incoherent paranoia. Seriously, there's just so much of what you said ("encratify his friend after an RfB at 70"? really?) that makes me cock my head to the side and go "wha?" EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearing throat

While everyone is busy preening about this page on how the crat workload is so low that we don't need to change it (and everyone else is talking about how the bar is too high and we need to change it,) could some people please remember that RFA is 1/3rd of the crats' job. The other 2/3rds, renames and bots, are far more vital cmtcrats tasks than RFA, given the infrequent nature of RFA. At any given time there is usually 2-3 RFAs, 20-something renames, and over a dozen active bot requests. So RFA is easy for the foreseeable future and renames are rather simple to review and approve.

But, the Bot Approvals Group only has 9 members (compared to 20 some active crats) and is critically strained to process the requests up to the crats for flagging. I've nominated almost all of the recent additions to BAG over the last year and have been trying to process the requests as quickly as I can, but we do need help over at WP:BRFA. We even have banned sockpuppets slipping bots through the process since few people with experience look at bot requests to notice patterns.

When I got out of the ER this week, as soon as I could sit up, I was busy reviewing bots since I know they perform most of the heavy lifting around here and it is important to get them reviewed in order to keep the dozens of wikiprojects, processes, and systems running. So rather than continue to pontificate over how many crats can fit in the head of a pin, could we please try looking around for more people who might like to join BAG or at least commenting at a couple bot requests so I can know if the task is a good idea? Thanks. MBisanz 00:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I have almost no RfA closes to my name, but have made hundreds of edits to WP:CHU. --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree as well; my RfX closures are very few and far between, but I've been a lot more active on CHU (though not so much as of late). EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, MBisanz. At the current rate, there is 1-3 RfAs to close every week. Since only a single crat can close an RfX, many crats don't even get a chance to close one. CHU, on the other hand, has dozens of requests that need completing every week, and BAG has plenty of bots that need approval. You do see CHU and BRFA with a few outstanding requests quite often, and that is what we need more crats for, not RfA. (X! · talk)  · @594  ·  13:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Unchecking the box

OK, here is something that may be pertinent for discussion. Currently, only ArbCom can cause a desysopping, and only stewards (or Jimbo) can unflip the bit. There is serious discussion about a community-based desysopping procedure which would likely increase the number of desysops. Even if that is not implemented, should 'crats be allowed to uncheck the admin or crat flag after whatever decision is rendered by the appropriate parties? This has been raised in the past, and my take in the past was that this is not necessarily what the community elects 'crats for. However, in light of the current discussion on community based sysop bit removal if the form of an RfDA (request for De-Adminship) which indicates a willingness on the part of the community to trust the 'crats judgment, when necessary, to measure their (the community's consensus) with regards to the desysop, does that indicate a willingness on the part of the community to allow the crats to actually perform the unchecking of the box too? -- Avi (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I always assumed it was a mere historical accident that crats had the ability to grant a role but not revoke it. Then, over time, the accident turned into an expectation (or so I've supposed). Regardless of how this situation arose, it's clearly weird, and I've never heard a good reason given for it. It makes no sense for the turning-off-the-bit to require a substantially different hoop-jumping process than was needed to turn it on. The entire rest of wikipedia does not work like this. Blocking/unblocking, protect/unprotecting.. these things go together. It only makes sense. Friday (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The chief argument I've heard for keeping that status quo is the concept of a rogue bureaucrat, where we could suddenly find ourselves stripped of any admins. Personally, I find the idea to be just this side of ludicrous (ie: it is technically possible, but it's far more possible that we could have a rogue steward, given their much larger numbers, and they could do considerably more damage, yet nobody seems concerned about that). I'd like to have flags removed locally (by 'crats) if only so that all relevant flag actions occur on one project, rather than jumping back and forth between enwiki and meta. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh... we have more 'crats than stewards, actually. –Juliancolton |  04:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... for whatever reason, I thought we had more stewards than we do. Looks like we've got 33 stewards to 34 enwiki 'crats, though, so the argument is still valid (or, rather, the argument about the argument being invalid is still valid... wait, what?) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the argument about rogue crats/stewards is particularly valid. Any admin with an active bot coud reconfigure it to indef anyone with priviledges. The only thing a rogue crat could do in addition would be to promote an army of admins. Even so, a couple of clicks with Rollback/Huggle by Jimbo would fix things pretty quickly. The only positions that really require impeccable records are CU and Oversight, as the potential for abuse there is huge. I think combining an easy-come-easy-go philosophy with lowered standards would probably go a long ways towards clearing up some of the log jams, while still providing an adequate level of protection. The likelihood of 'crats going rogue in such a manner is pretty small, given the time investment it takes to get there in the first place. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, many projects already allow bureaucrats to remove sysop flags (like Simple Misplaced Pages.) –Juliancolton |  03:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

EVula, it's much more dangerous if we have a rogue developer. If people start hacking at the servers with an axe (either virtually or in real life), that's not gonna be easily fixed. —Dark 04:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If it was a real life axe, there is a 51% chance that they will hit one of the 213 apaches or a 12% chance that they will hit one of the 50 squids, so the results shouldn't be TOO devastating... (X! · talk)  · @540  ·  11:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope our developers are competent enough to tell the servers apart from the squids. But then again, maybe not... —Dark 12:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do we have Teuthida specimens lying around? :/ –Juliancolton |  14:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So, would an RfC about allowing the crats to uncheck admin/crat be an appropriate step? -- Avi (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be a good idea but didn't we already have a larger discussion on that question? I found Misplaced Pages talk:Removing administrator rights/Proposal for example from September 08 but I think there was one later as well because I remember participating. Regards SoWhy 21:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The proposal sounds reasonable, so long as there's an analogous process for dealing with crats who abuse the box. Not saying it's likely, but the ability to desysop does carry some weight, and it would be nice to know there's a community failsafe should it be abused. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The ability to desysop is hardly significant when weighed against the ability to grant it. If we trust (the vast majority, anyway) our bureaucrats to follow consensus when promoting administrators, we should be able to trust them to take the bit away. —Dark 11:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Voting

I have two questions about voting.

1. Do all voters have to be logged in? I have seen many RfA debates and I have never seen any voter that is an IP address. Also, most of the voters are sysops, oversight, CheckUsers, rollbackers, crats, and autoreviewers.
2. Why does everyone, not just for RfA, but for AfD, FAC, and many other things write '!vote' instead of just 'vote'?
   

--The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 00:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes. That is detailed on the main project page. Sometimes IPs comment, and their discussions are helpful, but they cannot vote.
2. See the section here. It's a comp sci joke.

~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, almost all the voters are sysops, oversight, CheckUsers, rollbackers, crats, and autoreviewers. Is this just because usually only those who have experience vote, or do you have to be one of those groups? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 01:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to be, these types of users are just more likely to have familiarity and interest in this area of the project than editors who may focus on the article space or are relatively new to the site. Input from members of the community that aren't in those groups is welcome. Camw (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just going a little further-- There are very few places where discussion is truly restricted to admins or other special permissions compared to the thousands of places where discussion is frequent, and any restrictions are labeled. Go ahead and be bold! I'd highly suggest reading through a lot of archived requests, both successful and unsuccessful, to pick up on a lot of matters that might be of large community concern you hadn't realized count be in the past. There are ever-so-many beautiful tourist areas for non-admins that like some good debate and policy research instead of article expansion and research, so do your homework and try either. If keen on discussion here, perhaps you could write down what your theoretical !vote would be with your rationale behind it for, say, 2-4 (or more) RfAs. If you feel your statements are on par or better in quality and substance, go for it. The "!" from !vote, as Armory noted, is a programming joke, but it's also completely appropriate since no support/oppose comment is ever a hard up-or-down vote on Misplaced Pages. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 10:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Question: You say there are "very few places" where discussion is limited to admins only. What would those be? I've never heard of any page that is restricted to admin comments only. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you have a point. I can think of a very short list limited to 'crats, extremely narrow or external discussion of things like bots operators and developers, and the few minor spots limited for CU, SPI and ArbCom clerks, but none for just sysop level vs standard editors... Unless you want to include any fully protected pages or being able to view deleted articles and histories for reference and research. There are also the off cases where discussion from non-admins is essentially ignored or is shunned. Technically correct? I admit, I think you've got me beat. In spirit there are plenty of places it could be limited but common sense could avoid it anyway. Or, if not limited the input by non-admins holds a lot lower weight. I just know I've seen a handful spots saying "for administrator discussion below", but I'll also also admit I think much has been in essays, unofficial projects or requests by other users in the short-term. I'd also argue that any discussion section geared toward "final decisions" or "conclusions" likely could be more limited. At least I stay away from those spots, especially if blocks are discussed since I haven't been 'okay'd' by the community to offer a trusted opinion on something that serious. Related would be things needing a seconding by another admin.

It's a strange line. There are also users who can get upset if a non-admin does more admin-looking acts even if it's entirely non-binding and reversible such as a normal template addition or removal... then the whole matter of weight if in a discussion with more famed users, etc etc. Honestly, I've been meaning to write an essay on these ideas in general since I'm trying to write up some basic do's and don't on "Brooms", being an admin clerk of sorts that can take care of a number of generic actions, give advice to all, collect evidence and such while waiting for admin views expressed at incident boards. The only thing I really do not know about at all is how deleted articles and contributions are viewed as I can only dream of a convenience like that. Credit is due though, since you got my really wracking my brain on this. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The only place I can think of is certain sections on Arbitration pages. Since all the arbitrators are admins, it's de facto admins-only. :) (X! · talk)  · @594  ·  13:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Much in the same way being a Wikipedian is restricted to mammals. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, how fun. I never knew that page existed, much less that I was classed as Meteorological. Jonathunder (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The only time anything RfA-related is restricted to a single user group are the bureaucrat chats for contentious RfAs (or RfBs), where discussion is limited to bureaucrats. Other than that, the process is largely open to anyone and everyone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And in those cases, all users may participate on the discussion's talk page. :-) Regards SoWhy 18:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so are there any areas where people can limit things with enforcement as being admin-only? Not that I agree with this. I replied here first because at a recent ANI I'd run into this, with the diff adding it. Even after noting that it was going to highly limit the amount of input since there are approximately zero admins remaining that have been 100% avoiding that topic that would still be daring to do so it didn't change. Unsurprisingly, talk there was small compared to the rest of that whole gigantic discussion. Being flat-out told by another non-admin that anything I wrote would be refactored as a meaningless opinion was discouraging, especially after lengthy efforts to be fair in a number of posts in that thread until then.

Anyway, I didn't mean in RfAs there are any limitations and was suggesting to the OP that they're on the right track  :) ...I actually love this about Misplaced Pages, as the primary assumption is AGF for anyone bold enough to participate, which is contrary to basically anywhere else on the internet. Besides, it would kind of be impossible to demonstrate any track record on appearing suitable for adminship in an RfA without this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datheisen (talk • contribs) 01:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: term limits for administrators

I think that this pretty much gets shown the door every time it comes up, but I'm putting it out there again: becoming an administrator shouldn't be a lifetime appointment. In most countries that have a voting mechanism in place for choosing their leaders, they periodically reaffirm this trust by re-electing/re-appointing these leaders. And let's face it, admins are considered leaders here by the community; they set the tone and guide the project as both editor and admin.

Because every single admin and 'crat will point out that they are not perfect, we need a process to weed out the admins who either consider adminship a goal/prize/medal or who have simply lost touch with the rest of the community. A periodic renewal of these admins allows the community (of which admins and crats are but a part) to reaffirm the effectiveness, usefulness and general ability and wisdom to use the mop wisely and effectively. It also allows the community to not renew the adminship of those sitting admins who have not performed their duties to the satisfaction of the community.

Recently, one of our oldest-standing admins commented on how contentious and nit-picky the RfA policy has become, and the general response can be encapsulated by a throwing up of the hands and saying 'we agree, but alas, what can be done?' This powerlessness needs to cease. While the Body Admin generally policies itself via off-wiki discussion, by and large the problems of adminship are defined by their lack of limitation. If, once an admin is in place, they can only be unseated via voluntary action or a byzantine (and largely undefined) process, it can easily lead to a distancing between the editor and the administrator. This is not what was intended. By imposing a term limit on administrators, we preserve those admins who act in the best interest of the Project and weed out those who's interests lie elsewhere.

A side effect of putting this proposal into effect is that it will also serve to reform the process of RfA. As it stands, new candidates are scrutinized with a level of detail unheard of in previous years. The common response to this concern would be to point out that the wiki has grown more complex since its inception and early years, and that admins need to know more about the tools than before. I would agree with this assessment, and point out that an admin chosen four years ago might not have the same qualifications/skill set as a new admin now. Sitting admins have no vested interest in reforming RfA; they are already in, and it takes virtually an act of god to get them out. Place those same admins on a term limit, and you could boil an egg in the time it takes for reform to come to RfA, guaranteed.

This isn't to be seen as an attack on sitting admins; most are conscientious, skillful and civil editors who wield the mop both gracefully and effectively. This proposal would help to ensure that this is a standard amongst all admins. Thoughts? - Arcayne () 19:31, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A reasonable proposal, but I'm not sure I see the point. I agree that there needs to be some process to discuss and remove problematic admins, but arbitrarily adding "term limits" seems like a bad idea to me. –Juliancolton |  19:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I see the reasoning behind this, and it even strikes me as a fairly good idea, but maybe it would be better just to make so that if any two "experienced" editors (to be defined) reckon that an admin should have to re-run then they simply have to go through another RfA? Also, would WP:VPR be a more appropriate venue for this discussion? Kind regards, Spitfire 19:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think of several editors that I'd consider "experienced" (by any definition) that I would decidedly not want to have the final say in who has to re-run their RfA. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

A fair point, however, these users would only be able to say when they think an admin should re-run, their say in the actual RfA would count for no more and no less than anyone else's. Regards, Spitfire 09:42, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not one of our oldest-standing admins. I became an admin before he even joined the project and my first edit was years before his. The same is true for many other admins. This is not to pull rank or downplay his enormous contribution to our encyclopedia. But you correctly point out that proposals like this are shown the door when they arise and that's not about to change regardless of opinions. The reason is that the RFA system has worked very well on the macro-scale since its inception. While many agree that RFA support and oppose comments are increasingly nitpicky, a few bad eggs here and there might have been responsible for this. Essentially the RFA process is self-regulating. Anyway, this discussion is a waste of time at best. I suggest you return to editing the mainspace. Andrevan@ 19:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

proposals like this are shown the door when they arise and that's not about to change regardless of opinions. Point taken.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

We have enough trouble getting good admins to stay, why make them leave when they've not abused their position? — Rlevse • Talk • 19:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point too. Andrevan@ 19:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

"You correctly point out that proposals like this are shown the door when they arise and that's not about to change regardless of opinions", I must disagree with you when you say the above since Misplaced Pages is run on consensus, which basically means that everyone's opinion is seriously taken into account and judged based upon its merits. Your apparent opinion that this should be "showed the door" is noted, but it does not overrule anyone else's opinion to the contrary. Kindest Regards, Spitfire 19:54, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Does this have anything to do with another issue you're currently following up? Because if it does, that particular admin had a re-affirmation of the community's trust in them just a few short months ago. –xeno 19:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• The practical difficulty with term limits at this moment is that there has been a drought at RFA for nearly two years now - so a term limit of four years would take out a large proportion of our admins. A limit of two years would take out a large majority of our admins, with no guarantee either that you could persuade enough of them to stand for another term or that the remaining admins would be able to cover the gap. There is also a philosophical difficulty, is adminship an election for a small ruling elite on the pedia, or an interview to establish if someone can be trusted to take on a few chores for the rest of the community? As someone who strongly holds to the latter position I would oppose something that has the potential to make us an even more exclusive club (full disclosure - I'm one of the 100 most recently appointed admins so presumably would be one of the few admins still in post even with a two year term limit). ϢereSpielChequers 20:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Last question first: no, Xeno. While inspired by that incident (involving two admins, not one), this addresses the larger, continuing issue of ensuring that the admins we have on the roster have an effective, up-to-date skill set. It also serves as an initial step to addressing matters such as notification of ArbCom where necessary of relevant information, etc.

Spitfire, it isn't my idea that this proposal should be "shown the door" (quite the opposite, for why would i have submitted the proposal in the first place?) However, the dismissive tone of Andrevan's reply: "this discussion is a waste of time at best/I suggest you return to editing the mainspace" is a far better illustration of the idea that sitting admins are less likely to be interested in this idea because they are already in place. In contrast to Andrevan's opinion, the process of policing should not be left to other admins, but to the community at large, and on a regular basis. This is also the reason we do not allow law enforcement agencies to police their own; there is too often the 'thin blue line' which prevents deep problems from coming to light and therefore addressed properly for the good of all.

I submit that admins cannot be asked to police their own, and should not be tasked with doing so. This is also what hamstrings the suggestion of two admins recommending re-RfA for a sitting admin; while "there is no cabal™" it would not be unheard of for two like-minded admins to help undercut another by nom'ing them for re-RfA. It would be best to remove it utterly from the control of admins completely. It better suits the transparency of the RfA process, and works to eliminate the idea of admins as being beyond the reach of the regular editor.

Addressing Chequers' comments, I would point out that we start the process of Administrative Re-Confirmation slowly: we re-RfA those admins that are the oldest (referring to date of affirmation as admin), and move forward from there. As there is no current yardstick to define "problem" admins, I think the oldest-to-newest procedure would be more effective and neutral. And while I am not married to any particular term, three years sounds like a good limit; those admins appointed recently would face re-confirmation at their third year.

This, I believe, would address the drought that Chequers referred to, and not leave us without admins in place. For those admins who might resign in protest at having to reaffirm their administrator standing, I say good riddance - they clearly feel that they should be above such, and as such violate the spirit and the letter of what Jimbo has already unequivocally stated is not a station above the regular user. - Arcayne () 20:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My comment was aimed at Andrevan, not you Arcayne. Kind regards, Spitfire 09:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I accept that a three year term would be less damaging than a two year one, but if you look at User:WereSpielChequers/RFA by month you would still have the majority of all admins having their terms end now, so if even a quarter of them were willing to run for a second term it would leave us with quite a bottleneck at RFA. But the situation in fifteen months time would be far worse, as the 408 admins appointed in 2007 would by then have had their terms elapse, along with the 85 appointed in the first quarter of 2008. This would leave you with whoever is left of the last 237 admins appointed during the last 21 months of RFA drought, plus anyone appointed or reappointed in the next fifteen months. ϢereSpielChequers 20:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• The second position is certainly correct by my thinking, admins are simply users trusted to take on a few chores for the community, however, if the community loses its trust in that admin to carry out those chores then surely the admin-ship should be removed? I don't think that the best way to establish whether the community has lost trust in the admin is a regular re-run, but rather I think it should be determined by making it easier to have admins re-run at the suggestion of other users (see my top-most comment on this thread). Really this should make the admin group less bureaucratic, at the moment once a user gets admin-ship they become almost untouchable, in my opinion, the proposed measure would make sure that admins would be more aware that they should have community support in everything they do which involves administrative access (since we are run by consensus), (which plenty of admins are already aware of, yourself for instance, but there still needs to be measures to make sure this hits home to others, in my opinion). Kindest regards, Spitfire 20:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• While it is a bit old now you might want check out Misplaced Pages:Adminship renewal. The talk page there has a rather extensive discussion on the matter. While i appreciate having admins who are up to current standards for RfA it has long been held on enwp that once an admin always an admin unless removed voluntarily or for cause, whether active or not, until death. I think first off on the confusion that would come from a bureaucrat who fails a RfA renewal but whose (hypothetical) bureaucrat term limit is not yet over. While technically there is no requirement for a bureaucrat to also be an admin i have yet to find a bureaucrat who has not passed an RfA. The proposal has merit but would need significant refinement to address a variety of issues it would create. delirious & lost ☯ 20:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on history, I doubt this will get far, but I do not feel the process of removing an admin should be easy. Admins sometimes have to make unpopular decisions, and the process of removal (and a requirement for a new RfA is an effective removal, since anyone can have an RfA) should be arduous absent clear misconduct and an ArbCom ruling.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well I sure as hell don't look to administrators as leaders. Rather the reverse. 'Editor' is by far the best, highest title on this project. EVERY other classification of rights here results in the people having those rights doing work in support of editors and/or the project. They are not leaders. They do not formulate policy, editors do. They do not chart strategy, editors (and/or Foundation) do. Editors rule this project. Everything else is a voluntary demotion into more work in support of editors. And if we are to face something, let's face the reality that administrators get things wrong so many times it makes Washington look like a well oiled, efficient machine. It's not that being an administrator makes you screw up, but that administrators are just as human as the rest of us, and they sure as hell haven't been given the extra bits to 'lead' anything. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

As bad as Washington? Ouch, that hurts :) Shereth 20:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I say that because the pool of administrators has gone through a vetting process far less discerning than that of politicians in the U.S. The vetting process here has rarely (if ever?) prevented someone from becoming an administrator who had no business being an administrator. RfA really sucks at what it is supposed to do. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem with this proposal (and its previous incarnations) is that we would be asking otherwise good admins to subject themselves to the rigors of RfA all over again. It has never been a particularly pleasant experience, and in my opinion has only grown more and more stressful and nasty over time. It is not a process I would wish upon anyone, which is why I've never nominated anybody :) Worse still, by virtue of the things we have to do as admins (issuing blocks, deleting articles, etc) we invariably must do things that will upset one user or another, and the possibility of these disgruntled editors reappearing as grudge opposes in a reconfirmation RfA is also rather unpleasant. If it were possible to do without the "OMG DRAMA" and in a way that would not subject editors to additional, unecessary stress and unpleasantness then the idea might gain some more traction; but right now the idea is about as attractive as a sharp poke in the eye. Shereth 20:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) One major trouble with reaffirming every admin is that it would be a time consuming process. According to WP:LOA, there are 1,707 admins with 873 of them active. If we were to give each a seven day reconfirmation RFA every two years, we'd have to have 32 a week during the reconfirmation year. If we staggered the reconfirmations, we could do 16 a week for two years. Or spreading out further, 8 every week for four years. That's a more reasonable workload, but it stretches the reconfirmations out so far apart that it nearly defeats the purpose. How many of our current active admins were active four years ago? How many will be active four years from now? Speaking of active, though, we could cut down on the workload by only reconfirming active admins. But that leads to the problem of what constitutes "active." Set it too low and it defeats the purpose of screening out the inactives. Set it too high and we'd increase the probability of inadvertantly screening out the admins that we were trying to remove (if any) via the reconfirmation process. Not to mention, if there's some arbritrary line drawn (i.e., every admin that makes X+ edits and/or Y+ admin actions during a calendar year) has to go through reconfirmation, will some admins (and, more importantly, the so-called rogue admins) purposely keep their edits and/or admin actions below that given threshold? If admins who would otherwise pass these reconfirmations intentionally limit their work, then it's a net negative. Useight (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

There is one major flaw in your argument, Useight: You are talking about mandatory reconfirmation, but Arcayne proposed administrator terms. There is no assumption of a new RFA with terms. Each admin may request a new RFA or not; it's up to them. I consider this a more appropriate proposal than reconfirmation, as it is less likely to be a drama-magnet if we start from the assumption that adminship is temporary, not lifetime. The math for active admins comes out to 5 or 6 a week over three years or around 8 over two years.

This is by far the best way I've seen to make adminship generate less drama all around. Sχeptomaniac 21:52, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

They are more or less one and the same. "Mandatory reconfirmation" is only mandatory as long as the admin desires to remain an admin. He/she could simply never log back into Misplaced Pages again. Or just put down the tools rather than go through the so-called mandatory reconfirmation. Administrator terms, assuming the admin has the option of continuing adminship should reconfirmation permit them to do so, is the same concept. To quote a portion of your text, "Each admin may request a new RFA or not; it's up to them." -- seems to me that either a) the reconfirmation is mandatory should the admin wish to continue as an admin; or b) the admin can continue as an admin without going through the new RFA. The former results in the mandatory reconfirmation; the latter is pointless, because a vast majority of admins would decline this optional reconfirmation RFA. Useight (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Then why are you posting about how to determine if an admin is active or not? That would answer itself simply by whether or not they request a new RFA when their turn is up. I dislike "reconfirmation" as it still philosophically starts with the assumption that adminship is permanent, only to be reconfirmed periodically. "Terms" starts with the assumption that it is temporary, and any decision to run again is up to the admin. I feel the philosophical difference reduces pressure on admins to go through additional RFAs if they want to take a break from the responsibility. Sχeptomaniac 22:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I was simply posting on various issues that could arise; not that all would necessarily occur. Your "terms" versus my "mandatory" are indeed different philosophically, but I believe they are, from an analytical point of view, the same. And whilst it would reduce said pressure should the admin wish to take a break, admins who wish to continue would experience increased pressure. They would have to be extremely careful in the period of time just prior to their confirmation, avoiding anything potentially controversial or that would step on toes. These admins would possibly avoid heated AFDs or whatnot. We don't have so many active admins that we can have a bunch of them standing around with an air of "I can't get my hands dirty on that at the moment." I'm not saying that would necessarily happen, but it could be an unintended consequence. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I utterly (yet respectfully) disagree with your assessment, Wehalt: the process for removing a bad admin is so Byzantine and rife with inter-admin politics that removal is often seen as simply not worth the effort. That the process is as complicated and undefined as it currently is feeds the feeling in the community that admins feel they are above reproach. I agree that admins who make unpopular decisions face the wrath of the Body Wiki, but frankly, that is a good reason for making the process of RfA better. It isn;t going to improve itself. Those who have undergone it and passed have no vested interest in seeing the process better or more responsive, and those who have not passed are seen as having an axe to grind. Still others see the process as so ugly and contentious that they don't want to get involved in all the dramah.

Becoming an admin is not and should not be equivalent to being seen as an 'us-versus-them' proposition, but under the current guidelines, it is most certainly that. This proposition seeks to eliminate that, and make every member - admin, 'crat or user - equally liable for their actions. We expect better from our admins; we deserve to get what we vote for. - Arcayne () 20:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• I strongly support this proposal in principle. In order to be an administrator, an editor must have the community's support – not in one once-off snapshot, but sustained as long as that editor wishes to serve as an administrator. Speaking personally, I intend to resign or resubmit for the community's evaluation before finishing a year as an administrator.  Skomorokh  20:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• So you think having 32+ active RfAs a week is a good idea? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I admire your conviction, Skomorokh. You illustrate my point elegantly: unless an admin shows the gumption to re-submit, there is no real process for re-confirmation for admins.

(ec)Risking offending the Body Admin, I would again posit that those admins who see the re-RfA as a tool for the disgruntled to take cheap shots is looking at the process with a gimlet eye - a cynical pragmatism that illustrates the divide between admin and editor. While Hammersoft reiterated the way things should be, we need to address the problems presented by the way things are currently. It needs fixing.

And no, I don't think that having 32 RfA's sounds like a good idea. But the process has to start somewhere. If it can be handled on a rolling basis, eliminating the true inactives quickly and passing over those current admins having less than three years' with the mop, that number becomes far more manageable. If governments can do it, I think we can somehow muddle through. - Arcayne () 21:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Governments have a budget to work with, and politicians get paid. –xeno 21:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The comparison was to demonstrate the practical application of the proposal. I am not saying we look for congressional pages beneath the desk of every admin. - Arcayne () 21:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure it's practical when you have paid employees running the show, fulfilling the nominations, counting the ballots, etc. Is that the case here? –xeno 21:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about RfA backlogs and running through that gauntlet again are valid ones, but I can also see the valid arguments behind the notion of a reconfirmation. I think it might be more palatable in general if it were formulated as an "RfA-lite". There's no real reason, after all, to run through the gamut of standard questions; it is no longer asking a series of hypotheticals to ascertain how a candidate would respond in various situations, but rather a review of administrative actions that have already happened. After all, the question is no longer "Do we trust this user with the tools", but rather, "Do we still trust the user with the tools". I might be able to support a streamlined variant, but I suspect that it would still have trouble getting much traction. Shereth 21:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Just saw Juliancolton's comment, and wanted to clarify. I am not suggesting that admins can only RfA a limited number of times; I am saying that there needs to be a measure by which they answer to the Body Wiki periodically. Pleasant individuals or not, we should not treat them like Supreme Court Justices or royalty. - Arcayne () 21:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

On the subject of Skomorokh's statement, I think it would be a good thing if potential admins were to state up-front in RFA's that they will only serve for a particular period of time, after which they will step down or submit to a new RFA. It could be a good way to go, as voluntary admin recall has not worked out well, from what I've seen. Sχeptomaniac 22:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Arcayne why are you making this proposal? What exactly are you trying to achieve? Because it seems to me that what you want is to make getting adminship easier. Yes? In which case, try fixing the RFA process. That's the actual problem isn't it? If people are being too nitpicky then we should tackle that directly.Theresa Knott | token threats 21:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, I've already stated the need for the proposal: the current system in place clearly shows that there is a) some dead weight in the Body Admin, b) that admins should occasionally be re-confirmed by the Body Wiki as being effective leaders (which they effectively are), responsive and capable with the mop and c) to weed out those admins who are more interested in the title of admin than the duties and responsibilities of being an admin.

Secondly, I do not feel that the proposal makes the process of RfA "easier", while the RfA process is indeed well, lets just call it overzealous, this proposal seeks to develop a core group of active, responsive and capable admins. Again, I point out that most admins fit this bill, and would have little problems sailing through RfA. The proposal addresses the lack of effective community oversight that many admins enjoy. - Arcayne () 21:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

- Arcayne () 21:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Arcayne says "Hammersoft reiterated the way things should be, we need to address the problems presented by the way things are currently". No, I stated the way things ARE. The only thing stopping the average editor from thinking that administrators work for them is their false impression of how things work around here. Case point; if administrators actually had more power to lead here, their vote would count more in all sorts of voting mechanisms here. They are not leaders. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies for misinterpreting your point, Hammersoft. I submit that any interpretation of administrators as not being leaders is simply naive. When the fit hits the shan, editors come to an administrator for assistance/mediation. Users cannot block, decide the fate of articles or other media submitted for deletion or realistically be considered for membership in ArbCom (yes, i know that there have been non-admin Arbs, but by and large, its been populated by admins), the latter making decisions that affect the entire wiki. As I said, any argument that admins - without limitation - are just regular folk who eat pie and gruel with the rest of the proles is an ineffective and tangential argument. Regular folk have limitations on what they can do. Admins needs that too. Re-confirmation addresses that. - Arcayne () 21:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Editors can and do decide the fate of articles and media. Also, just because an administrator can block somebody doesn't mean they "lead" anything. I've had several people blocked directly by actions I've taken with respect to those people. The administrators in those cases worked at my behest, on information I provided. They didn't lead me. I lead them. Also, ArbCom isn't a leadership body. They are a dispute resolution body. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

The proposal for term limits for admins has been brought up and roundly rejected by the community several times. I think we need to keep the admins we have, he need more not less. Chillum 21:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

at the german Misplaced Pages this was introduced last fall, after very long discussions. Now every admin has a "call for re-election" page (de:WP:WW) and when 25 users in a month or 50 users in 6 months sign it, he has to undergo a re-election or he loses his admin bit. After a succesful re-election, his re-election page is deactivated for a year. There was an initial wave of votes after which a lot of inactive admins and a few controversial ones lost their rights, but many admins were re-elected and things quickly calmed down. It's probably too early to draw any conclusions but in my opinion the major drawback is that there are less admins willing to make themselves unpopular by difficult decisions. The most positive effect is that criticism of the "admin caste" and complaints about injustice decreased considerably. Our experiences with the system might be interesting for you. But note that the system of power is completely different at de-wp: there is no strong ArbCom that would de-sysop admins, no Jimbo, basically no one with authority over admins, and instead of being evil, voting is everything over there because consensus is impossible to find in a community that large. --Tinz (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, Tinz; we cannot import, wholesale, the practices of another wiki. But at least we are now framing the problem correctly. It cannot and should not be 'this proposal has failed before, why bother now'. If an admin makes an unpopular, but correct decision, there are 1,707 administrators (counting the inactive ones) who can come to their aid during re-confirmation. I think that there is the stupid allegory playing through the heads of some admins that this proposal would turn RfA into some high school popularity contest; who's to say it isn't that already? My confirmation means that we end up keeping the good admins and shed the ones who aren't period.

• So ... what I'm reading is that somehow this proposal will reform RfA, because of course consensus will wrap around making things so much easier once we pitch the institutional memory of all the admins and have a crying need for more of them? Yeah, I don't think so. I'm sure most of us can think of things on Misplaced Pages that scream out for reform, but for which no consensus will for change exists. The only way RfA will ever be fixed is when either (a) it ceases to be a straight popularity vote, and/or (b) it's taken out of the community's hands.  RGTraynor  22:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that fixing the flaws that have developed with the RfA process is a different problem (and said as much earlier), but one that makes those flaws much more manageable by making admins answerable to the community in a regular, defined way. The Byzantine and lengthy process currently in place ensures the OMGDRAMA takes place. - Arcayne () 22:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• A couple of questions before I make any comment on this:

1. Apart from DE, are their any other Wikipedias which have introduced this (and if so, for how long)? How have they fared with their number of admins?
2. Is there any reason why admins who have been inactive for (say) a year cannot have the bit removed, and if they then come back and are active again and want the bit back, they have to re-RfA? After all, Misplaced Pages changes a lot in a year, and an admin who has been away for that long may possibly be 'out of touch' with what the community now wants? What effect would this have on the admin numbers? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

1. There are now three separate systems being discussed in this thread. Term limits was the proposal that started this thread. DE has from what was said above introduced a recall system but not a fixed term system. Removing the bit from inactive admins I'm pretty sure happens on Commons, and I believe that caused a big fall in their number of admins but I don't know if it affected activity levels - apart from knowing one commons admin who now makes a point of doing enough actions to retain the bit. I can give you a rough ballpark response as to how in the short term this would alter our admin numbers 873 of our 1707 admins are currently reckoned to be "active", though the definition is based on edits not admin actions. I suspect that if we took the bit away from inactive admins we would use a different criteria, but it would reduce the numbers of admins by between a third and a half depending on the criteria for inactivity. However this project is less than a decade old, and we simply don't know how many people who joined us in their teens and will be dropping in and out of the project over the next half century would be deterred by having the bit taken away during a protracted wikibreak. ϢereSpielChequers 23:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I had a few thoughts I think are on point:

• RfA is a process gets a small and constantly changing non representative section of the community to make decisions about who gets a sysop flag. The people who show up tend to think it is at least important enough for them to show up and say something, if not Very Important.
• RfA is an ugly process that was rather unpleasant for most who have been through it and many who havn't. This stems from people thinking it is important, being judged, and the ease with which one can be a total dick under the self delusion/guise of "criticism."
• Democracy is always a potential victim to crowds. Its the people who care who show up, and at any given moment, there are more people pissed off at an admin/candidate waiting to pounce than the number of supporters needed to counterbalance them.
• Term limits are about restraining the power of someone popular in a position with scarcity. there is no scarcity of sysop flags to hand out. Wrong solution for the wrong problem
• Any procedure that can take down your least favorite admin baddy you want to get rid of is equally likley to axe your friends. Its very likley to get admins who have been quietly working without so much as a how-do-you-do that you've never heard of in some far flung corner of the Wiki, getting things done. I, arguably, have invited scrutiny by working in high profile areas. Adminjoebob whos been quietly plugging away blocking persistant vandals on Category:Edible_fish has not.

--Tznkai (talk) 22:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I am in favor of creating a community-based desysoping procedure (requests for de-adminship, anyone?), but I don't see the virtue in imposing arbitrary term limits. It would create a lot of extra work to recertify the good admins just to get at a minority of problem cases and you'd lose some number of good admins simply because they don't want to confront the ugliness of RFA again even though they may be entirely suitable candidates. I think it makes much more sense to think of ways to deal more rapidly and transparently with desysoping rather than to introduce term limits. Dragons flight (talk) 22:45, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

If not term limits, how about some kind of "tenure review" done periodically, say annually or bi-annually. Similar to OfR but mandatory and only once in awhile. The system that Tinz mentions for German wikipedia also sounds very interesting.radek (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Frankly, there's a question on this issue for which I haven't had anywhere remotely close to a satisfactory answer. Are there so very many rogue, untouchable admins rampaging through Misplaced Pages that we have to have a cumbersome process which imposes a new layer of bureaucracy, will certainly result in a number of good admins getting pitched because they pissed off the wrong people, will certainly result in a number of admins not bothering with the hassles of reconfirmation, will absolutely reduce the number of admins working on the project and won't correct the hazing process that is RfA?  RGTraynor  00:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I congratulate user:Arcayne for his proposal, it's an excellent idea. Unfortunately the Admins' lobby is so powerful they can and will block this idea whatever the community thinks of it.  Dr. Loosmark  01:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh for crying out loud. The "Admin's lobby" doesn't exist - I don't think it could as it suggests we're somehow organized in a way that we are incapable of doing so. Try to get five or six of Misplaced Pages's luminary admins to agree on something enough to lobby it. For that matter who are they lobbying to? What governmental body is doling out tax dollars and influence that we're peddling to?

Finally and most importantly, admins are part of the community. Its really easy to slap together something cynical and edgy say, but come on!--Tznkai (talk) 01:15, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Opposing this for the umpteenth time for the following reasons:

• There's no reason to re-confirm an admin that is not causing any problems
• Comparing admins "supreme court justices or royalty" is not a valid metaphor. Those people have real power and wealth, and their decisions can't be so easily overturned as a mere wikipedia admins can, and royalty don't generally have to go through any kind of confirmation process
• This would cause logjams at RFA
• This would probably reduce the number of new admin candidates since going through one RFA is daunting enough
• The worst admins are desysopped by ArbCom already
• A simpler community driven non-voluntary admin recall process would be a better way of removing the few remaining bad apples
• I would in fact support re-confirmation if the term were more in the realm of 3-5 years instead of 1-2
• Although consensus can change over time, this has been proposed several times in very recent history and has been shot down each time

Beeblebrox (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Admin Lobby"? No. Assumed mutual interest? Yes. I'd welcome anyone who would try to make a case that there aren't at least some differences that play in favor to admins in regards to policy or trust. For better or worse, a whole lot of things many users would get a block for are seemingly swept away, or at the very least a lengthy discussion for consensus of many users is sought before taking any action. Not judging this and I actually think it can be better to slow down on seemingly snap judgments seen occasionally, but there are to many times the passive double standard is visible if one browsed through ANI or RfC/U. Users rushing to file at ArbCom to get a desysop (and shoved down) is a recent trend from persons very frustrated about the double standard as they feel it to be impossible to form a consensus against most any admin in an open discussion. They might be right.. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Also agreeing with Beeblebrox that in the incredibly large majority of cases (95%++) there are no reasons to desysop anyone. Maybe blocks for possible abuses or other clear-cut things that are nearly automatic blocks for a set time for others I might like to see more of. As said, admins are members of the community too, and there's no automatic shame for losing one's cool for 30 seconds. I'd never think an admin should lose tools because they have a bad day or fall into being baited, so long as they aren't going on ridiculous abuse sprees or using tools in revenge. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I find the admin lobby hilarious not only because there is no benefit to doing this other than self-satisfaction, but why would you lobby against something when there are plenty of others who share your view? You could just sit back and relax while watching the drama unfold. Also, has anyone brought up the idea of having crats desysop people? It seems like the only thing that hasn't been discussed, but it might be more effective. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:59, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Also, has anyone brought up the idea of having crats desysop people" - the problem with this is that it would entail a more exclusive clique policing a slightly less exclusive clique. But the whole point(s) of the proposal is the unaccountability of the cliques combined with the development of a very hierarchical structure on Misplaced Pages. The idea is to avoid these top-down pronouncements and instead make Misplaced Pages more bottom-up, or "grass roots". The regular editors should have regulatory control of the admins who patrol them. The admins should have regulatory control of the crats who have the power to appoint them. And so on. Having the crats do the admin "knightings" would actually be a move in the opposite direction - it would reinforce the hierarchies (though at the same time increasing the power of one clique in the hierarchy at the expense of another, still leaving the folks at the bottom screwed) rather then build around the consensus model that Misplaced Pages relies on.radek (talk) 07:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I once waited for three hours in the admin lobby. They don't have any decent magazines, so I was bored most of the time. Luckily, I had my iPod with me to help pass the time. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to pause a moment; Nihonjoe's comment made me noseboot! :) - Arcayne () 07:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm better now. Some good points have been made on both sides of the problem, but - and here's the thing - this proposal eliminates the personal rancor of reporting an admin, trying to get them de-sysopped. If they make an egregious screw-up, they take their lumps like everyone else (though, as Datheisen astutely points out, I've seen admins usually get more passes than most non-admin users would get). The community-based de-sysopping procedure suggested by RGTraynor would create more drama than it solves. The same goes for the tenure review that Radeksz recommended; the "only once in a while" part is subject to arbitrary use and/or abuse. And KTR101's proposal to let 'crats do it creates a circular problem: its been pointed out that all crats thus far have been admins. We have a very limited number of crats, and they are knee-deep at work with their Own Thang. What if someone needs to report an admin who is also a crat? Again, unnecessary OMG DRAMA. The proposal removes the ambiguity completely: every 3 (or however many we can agree to) years, your term as an admin is up. You can re-apply, just like everyone else. No drama. It's a procedure. I am personally flexible on this point; we can just as easily streamline the RfA re-confirmation process for non-problematic admins, say, a shorter RfA period. I'm open to suggestions.

Removing the bit from inactive (say 6-12 months) admins, after notifying them to edit or lose the bit is simply an economical use of manpower. What good is the claim of having over 1700 admins if only 850 or so are doing all the heavy lifting? And frankly, it has been pointed out by others that an admin who has been on an extended wikibreak might be a little out of date - our policies and guidelines can change pretty quickly. If these inactives are notified and they don;t edit, we remove the mop. If they want to come back later and reapply, awesome. If not, no real loss, as they weren't editing anyway.

I might have understated the possibility of drama via the proposal; there would be, in the form of folk heading over to the re-confirmation. This is where RfA can see some reform. While there is clear evidence to support the idea of smaller info-sharing cabals in IRC, they seem for the most part harmless. Howver, as Datheisen (again, astutely) points out, there is a mutual interest amongst admins to not rock the boat; what affects one potentially affects all. I am not going to re-hash the argument that without having to really answer to the Body Wiki, admins aren't really bound to be responsive to requests for behavior modification. The proposition, duly enacted, would focus a lot of attention on some of the failings of RfA, and might get them fixed. There is simply no impetus on the part of admins to do so currently. Not calling them lazy, just pointing out that most folk tend to stay in their patch.

Lastly, Beeblebrox stated that there was no reason to re-confirm an admin who wasn't acting poorly; unfortunately, that isn't the point. All admins undergo it, as that is fair, and not subject to favoritism, people flying under the radar, or some other big ball of crazy. Every three years, you get re-confirmed. If you have had problems, its a bumpy ride. If you are the conscientious admin, you sail through like grease through a goose. Granted, it won't always be sunshine and roses, but that is part of What We Do: we discuss, and discuss and discuss. Good stuff comes from that crucible, be it new policy or an Alison-type detective novel of uncovering a rat bastard in our midst who had until their reconfirmation escaped notice. The proposal isn't meant to be a hunting expedition; its meant to ensure, like a driving test, that the admins in question know what they are doing, are up to date on the current rules and have no outstanding problems. Period.

I can understand that some (and it deserves pointing out that most of the folk no favoring this are, well, admins themselves) are concerned that this would create a logjam of RfAs. Yep, it might. But we will address it, like we do with DYK noms, XfD discussions, noticeboard discussions and SPI/checkuser requests - we roll up our sleeves and we address it. Will we do things to fix RfA? Prolly. This proposal allows that to happen sooner rather than later. - Arcayne () 08:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Errr ... "community-based desysopping procedure" I advanced? You must be thinking of some other editor. I think the community's proven it can't handle any aspect of admin selection or removal, and I firmly believe the only sensible means of desyopping be by an impartial panel or group of panels appointed for the purpose.  RGTraynor  12:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

<- My proposal for "tenure review" was meant as a "second best" sort of option. Personally I think that term limits are the way to go. BUT, if we can't have those, there really should be some kind of check in place over existing admins - I think this is just common sense, even academic positions where folks are pretty much guaranteed full job security with tenure are subject to review. Of course, Misplaced Pages admins are more like appointed/semi-elected politicians than profs at a university. The key point is that most institutional structures have *some* kind of check or recall power over those that they trust with extraordinary tools. Misplaced Pages doesn't. And at the end of the day I think this is the major issue here - the point about "falling number of RfAs" is just a red herring (there's a falling number of Misplaced Pages non-admin contributors as well and both developments are probably driven by the same outside factors which are NOT whether or not admins are given lifelong tenure). If term limits on admins result in a more balanced RfA process (because the damage that a rogue administrator can do is mitigated by the term limit) then more people will apply and in fact term limits can serve to ameliorate the admin-shortage problem (if such a problem indeed exists).radek (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• I asked my original question about other Wikipedias, as I'm sure I had read something along the lines of "on the xyz Misplaced Pages, adminship is decided by concensus/voting/whether it is sunny, and is an 1-/2-/3-year/indefinite appointment" for various Wikipedias - and was hoping someone would say "Oh, yes, I read that - here's the link..." (as I can't find the damn thing!). However, as no one else seems to recall something like that, I'll venture my opinion anyway!

I looked through all the "xyz Misplaced Pages" articles which I could find (via List of Wikipedias), and found that almost none of them have much to say about admins (most don't mention them at all, or if they do, it's as "there as x admins"). The only mentions I could find were that the Russian Misplaced Pages has a policy that Administrators who have been inactive (have used any administrative tools such as the "delete" or "block" buttons less than 25 times) for six months lose their privileges by an Arbitration Committee determination, and that the Swedish Misplaced Pages have admins who are elected for 1 year and who have to be re-elected after that time. (I'm obviously aware that the Swedish Misplaced Pages is a lot smaller than this one, and annual elections would be completely unworkable here!)

If we were to have re-affirmation RfAs for all admins (and if it was to be done, it would have to be mandatory), then it would have to be after a minimum of 3 years (I think anything less than that would be unworkable). Personally, I don't think it is a good idea to have these RfAs to re-sysop admins.

I think that if an admin is causing problems, then they should have the bit removed, if that is the concensus of the community. Obviously, how this should be done is an on-going debate, which may one day be decided! AOR could be one method of this, if the community can decide on how to get it to work!

I also think that if an admin has not edited in (say) a year, they should have the bit removed. My justification for this is the same that we sometimes see in RfA opposes: "this candidate does not require the bit for what they want to do". If I went to RfA, and said in answer to Q1 "I will do the occasional editing, but nothing much", I would be lucky to get even a moral support! However, procedures should be in place so that they receive a couple of week's notice (both on their talk page and via "Mail this user"). If they do not respond saying that they want to continue to be an admin, then the bit is removed. If they respond saying that they want to continue to be an admin, then we should expect to see some admin action (and hopefully article edits as well) during the following couple of weeks. If nothing like this happened, then it would be as if they had responded in the negative. (If we went for this, we would need to define how many edits would make an admin "active", and whether there would have to be a certain number of admin actions in that year, etc - but that is a discussion for elsewhere, in another proposal).

In summary, I do not agree with the specific idea proposed by Arcayne. I do not feel that it would help with the RfA process or admin-retention - and can see that it may in fact cause more problems. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Little known fact: on the Spanish Misplaced Pages, admins are called bibliotecarios (librarians in English). -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In a way, admins who have not been active for more than a year should be removed as a matter of routine. Why is this even controversial? I can see an exception where an admin who hasn't done crap for a long time is about to be removed due to inactivity comes back and says "hold on guys, I've just been busy with real life stuff but I'm still committed to the project, gimme some time please" and then s/he gets to stay, also as part of regular routine. But the fact that even the removal of dead admin wood is seen as such a big deal illustrates pretty clearly that the objection to these kinds of proposals has more to do with protecting the privileged status of the caste rather than with any kind of objective of improving the functioning of the encyclopedia.radek (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't agree with the main proposal (reconfirmation every X years) as it would result in too many discussions to be workable as well as an easy way of losing even more admins (it's not like we've got many spare). I don't see any viable reason why inactive admins should not lose the flag, but I also don't see any reason why they should. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The fact that we all have real lives that may preclude us using Misplaced Pages from time to time is why I suggested that they should get a 2-week notification prior to de-sysoping. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Playing Devil's advocate, Stifle, I would argue that if someone isn't using the tools, they don't need access to them. If I was to put forward an RfA in which I said "I won't actually use the tools", then it would be quickly SNOWED. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a reason this is a perennial proposal (Misplaced Pages:PERENNIAL#Reconfirm_administrators). What might be useful is encouraging admins to do Misplaced Pages:Editor review occasionally, perhaps once a year. It shouldn't be quite mandatory (pointless to have it for inactive or barely active admins), but perhaps some mechanism to encourage people to do it (a list of admins by date of last review; an annual bot reminder?). To be clear: just like Editor Review, this would not have any significance except as an organised means for people to make helpful comments about the general decision-making of the admin, for them to take on board as they wish. Rd232 13:08, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

A more focused venue would be WP:Administrator review. –xeno 13:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course. Rd232 15:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactivity with the tools is an incomplete standard. Look, I'm a very active editor and turn in an article at FAC about once a month (John Diefenbaker is presently awaiting peer reviews). However, I don't use the tools very often. I granted a rollback this morning. But I warned people at my RFA 13 months ago that I didn't intend to spend that much time on adminly tasks and the community granted me the bits anyway. It is very possible that I could go months without using the bits, while turning in another six or eight Featured Articles. Yet my having the bits is a net positive for the project so long as I don't abuse them, as there is no cost attached to my having them. I would be offended if I logged on one morning to find the bits gone without warning or a nasty note on my talk page saying I don't use them enough. Let's concentrate on problem admins.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• After 62k of discussion, I think it's safe to say there's no point to continuing this proposal. It's dead, Jim. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Really? You think so, after only a day of discussion? Seems a bit quick, and awfully cynical. We are discussing how to make the wiki better, by asking admins to reconfirm once every 3 years. Most of the opposition seems to be coming from admins, with calls of 'it won't work', or 'that perennial issue'. The fact is, this keeps coming up because occasionally, we take note of the fact that admins are apparently admins for life, and most of them are chosen by less than 50 votes - out of apparently 11.3 million users. I cannot be the only one who finds this discrepancy not only lopsided but a breeding ground for feelings of invulnerability - a feeling not altogether undeserved. Term limits allows the good admin the confidence that they have a mandate - an acknowledgement that they are doing a good job. Bad/controversial admins are shown the door if their actions are a net loss to the project. All of the admins in between get feedback on their behavior amd understand that they serve at the pleasure of the Body Wiki, and not as an adversary.

Frankly, I have no idea how a proposal like this would get off the ground. I imagine we would have to vote on it, and I equally imagine that every one of the 843 active admins would nix it, as it adds a wrinkle to their currently unfettered ability to do relatively as they choose (many admins will not gainsay another admin, for internal political reasons, or simply to avoid a wheel war). I guess I was thinking that if enough people set aside their cynicism long enough, we could stop bitching about what couldn't be done, and take some positive steps towards what can be done. Whatever we agree to, it must be mandatory; OpenToRecall has clearly demonstrated that there is no enforcement for those who choose to later alter or discard the criteria at a later date. Making a review mandatory sidesteps all of the drama and favoritism.

So, Hammersoft, I propose that we give this proposal, which would undoubtedly be a benefit to the wiki-en, a wee bit more time than a day. - Arcayne () 21:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Hm. So far, of those commenting, it's running about 80% against your proposal, which is certainly not a harbinger of success. There are certainly non-admins (oh, like me) who think it's a poor proposal, and I've two comments beside that: (1) Admins are editors like everyone else, and you acting like they are adversaries to be made to submit to an amorphous Body Wiki. They get to have opinions like any other editor, and sign off on issues like any other editor. They're even justified in thinking they've already jumped through hoops to get a thankless, salary-free volunteer job and that they might want to keep it without regular hassles. (2) Failure to sign off on a bad proposal doesn't make one an aimless, cynical whiner. We're under no onus to put a destructive proposal in place just so we can be seen to "do something."  RGTraynor  22:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Name one other administrative role that's given for life, and not even taken away when the holder dies. Which surely even you would consider to be bizarre. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Your point being?  RGTraynor  23:00, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Senator for life (but not after death =) –xeno 23:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oppose. Admins who misuse the tools are already easily removed under the current process. Therefore, this process is either (1) a waste of resources to accomplish something already being taken care of, or (2) a backdoor run to allow the removal of admins for reasons other than misuse of the tools. Such reasons could include inactivity, grudges, enemy of a friend, etc. Inventing a process for the purpose of entertaining such discussions is not useful. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:41, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Easily removed"? You're a joker, or else you've been living in a cave for the past few years. It's generally easier to prise open the hands of a corpse in rigor mortis than it is to get an administrator to resign. With some notable and honourable exceptions, of course. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've yet to see the current manifestation of ArbCom (the 2009 one, for simplicity's sake) ignore clear evidence of misuse; I don't mean resignation as resignation is unlikely unless you put someone's feet in the fire. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

You claimed "easily removed". Perhaps you ought to define what you mean by "easily", as it doesn't match any dictionary definition that I'm aware of. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

In an encyclopedia where anyone can edit, why do we allow a small group to be elected to a position for life with little recourse for removal?
Respectfully, Mr. Parham, it is precisely because it is difficult to remove an admin that this discussion keeps coming up (I believe one editor referred to it as "perennial"). It is not a perennial problem, but an ongoing on. There are some admins who are utterly unaware that they are "controversial" administrators; worse, some tend to take pride in it, fully aware that nothing short of a hand grenade is dislodging them. Many other wikis have set term limits for administrators. It is simply unreasonable to think that our admins should have the mop for life (and frequently, well beyond that). We elect admins here, not popes.
As I've said before, this proposal is not meant as a tool to "go after" admins. It serves as a community stop-gap against the 'us-versus-them' mentality frequently demonstrated on both sides of the administrative divide - and let us not be distracted by sidebar discussions that suggest otherwise in an attempt to cloud the issue. There simply is a divide: every admin and regular user feels it and knows it to be there. The fear of a block - and block records can never be undone - is but one aspect of this divide. Users cannot block ban, close discussion or threaten a user with same. Administrators can. Compared to becoming an administrator, removing an admin is nigh impossible. For actions that regular users are given a pass on, administrators typically protect their own. There are inactive admins, who haven't edited since gaining the mop. Whether RW matters took precedent, or whether they realized the mop (or Misplaced Pages) was not what they expected it to be, they stopped editing or administering. They are dead weight. These are the facts, and they are indisputable.
This is why this proposed protocol is necessary. Anything which improves the wiki is not a "waste of resources", as Parham has suggested; this proposal would change the Body Admin in that it would be forced to remain active and responsive to the community by making them answerable to same. It reinforces the qualities that the Body Wiki demands of its administrators by rewarding those who are exceptional, removing those who are incompetent or dysfunctional and serves as a teaching tool for those who are marginal. Far from being "destructive" (as RGTraynor has emphatically suggested) removing admins who are inactive is utterly reasonable. Currently, the list of administrators calls inactive those admins who have failed to edit in more than 2 months; far from being destructive, I opt that we expand this definition to encompass edits made in 6 months. The reasonable argument could be made that if you haven't shown up for work in 6 months, you aren't planning to. We aren't removing them (or any admin, for that matter) from the wiki-en. We are simply removing the mop to more accurately reflect the activity of who is actually here and working. Any argument favoring keeping dead weight on the rolls is clearly artificial in nature; many (admins, mostly) would begin to feel that if the inactive admins can be removed, then it would better highlight their activity. One would no longer be able to point to the dead (and hopefully) inactive admin and claim, 'well, at least I'm busier/better than this guy!'
RGTraynor is also of the opinion that once you are an administrator, you should be free of the hassles of having to go through RfA periodically. I'm sure most elected officials feel this way, but it is precisely the mechanism of periodic assessment by one's peers that makes the community a better place to be.
The proposal - by its very nature - cannot be used to pursue "grudges", as suggested by Parham (coincidentally, an admin himself); every three years, you go through RfA. Period, end of story. Since admins would have to weather this process every three years, the process would undoubtedly improve; they would bend their considerable talents to make it less of a gauntlet and more of an actual assessment of experience, capabilities and future behavior. This isn't pie in the sky thinking: its easy to ignore the bad part of town, but if you have to go through it more often, you are going to take more steps to improve it.
I'll reiterate my original sentiment: why, in an encyclopedia that preaches equality, do we allow relatively untouchable group of people the ability to direct the Wiki after only one mandate from the people? This is an unreasonable request of admins to make on the Body Wiki, and that there are those who repeatedly argue that this proposal would be used to to hurt the wiki is indicative of how great the divide has become. This is an idea whose time has not only come, but become somewhat striking in its need. - Arcayne () 10:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Mm, since you cite me often enough - possibly since I've outed myself as not an admin, which weakens the premise that the only opposition to this proposal comes from admins - I might as well respond. You state "this proposal is not meant as a tool to "go after" admins." Of course it is. Over and over you claim not only that there is an "us-versus-them" mentality, but that every admin and editor knows it ... that admins always "protect their own," that you equate them to "popes," that there's a pervasive fear of being blocked, that users are subject to threats, that there is this massive divide, that there is a "Body Admin" that isn't really part of the "Body Wiki," except in so far as the implication that it's a parasite.

Arcayne, with all due respect, we're all capable of speaking for ourselves. I don't feel a divide myself. I don't live in fear of being blocked. I don't find that being required to follow WP:3RR is a terrible imposition. I don't feel that being requested to ratchet down the rhetoric in an overheated debate is an attack on my manhood. And ... I'm curious what your proposal would do to counter any of that. Would term limited admins no longer be allowed to block users? Admonish users? Would they cease to have powers you don't? Would there be any less of a so-called "cabal?"

Never mind your assertion that inactive admins are "dead weight." "Dead weight" how, precisely? Are there only so many slots available, and inactives prevent new admins from being approved? Does an inactive admin account suck up system resources? In what way does someone who doesn't edit or use his admin powers a detriment to the encyclopedia? This just doesn't make sense.

There's a .sig I use on VBulletin-based forums which runs "It's not that I don't understand what you're saying. It's that I don't agree with what you're saying." Whatever your own experiences or run-ins with admins, not all editors share them. We are perfectly capable of deciding on our own either that there is not a problem, that if there is, it's not a big deal, or that this cure is significantly worse than the disease.  RGTraynor  12:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, there's so much wrong with your post, RGT, I am unsure where to begin. Sigh.

*The only equitable position wherein a person is voted into an office by a comparatively small number of people that they hold for the rest of their natural life (that I am aware of) is that of pope. If you know of another office, please feel free to share it. Until then, I feel the comparison is valid

*As far as I know, only admins (and 'crats, who are admins) can block another user. Even if the block is a bad one and is reversed immediately, the user is forever tainted by that block. They can delete pages, close XfD discussions peremptorily. This represents an authority that regular users do not have.

*The proposal is not a tool to "go after" admins, and your cynical interpretation of it as such tells much about what you think of RfA as well as how little esteem your hold your fellow editor. It is a process wherein every admin is re-evaluated after three years of service. Nowhere else in the world (outside of dictatorships) is an employee, volunteer or elected person not subjected to periodic re-evaluation. Of course, if you are aware of such a comparable position, please feel free to share it with the rest of us.

*I do not believe that I have intimated, implied or stated that I think admins are "parasites". Maybe you should point out where I implied that.

*Please see my previous comments about anyone who would actually have the stones to defend retaining inactive or dead admins on the rolls. I'll presume you simply missed it. Inactive admins inflate the perception of activity, and its patently false to state that we have over 1700 admins working in the wiki, dor we quite simply do not. Perhaps you could cite their usefulness as inactives, aside from favorable comparison? I am speaking of quality over quantity (I believe you have a userbox to that effect on your user page, RGT); we do not reward inactivity here. No one is saying that an deactivated admin cannot reapply; they can. Until then, they can act as editors, just like the rest of us. :)

*I am not speaking for you, RGT; this is a proposal which I am submitting to the community for reasoned discussion. debate and hopefully implementation. Nor am I the only person who considers the current state of adminship to be considerably less than fair and less than ideal. I totally get why you would want to make this about me; its a debating tactic designed to isolate the opposition. Anytime you want to play fair and actually discuss the matter, I'm here. Making it about me is going to get you nowhere.

*You should feel free to offer an alternative plan to address what you have called in your previous post a disease. It's easy to state how something is wrong; working to a solution is somewhat less so. I'd suggest you might want to propose an alternative that doesn't take the cynical approach 'that nothing can be done so just leave it be.' Clearly, that has not worked thus far. - Arcayne () 13:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any actual point to continuing this discussion other than collectively arguing at the top of our proverbial lungs? While I may some day understand why people feel that RfA is worth the effort expended I am rather less likley (or frankly, willing to try) to understand why people are willing to get mean nasty and condescending over arguments about it.

Misplaced Pages is not a battleground - its purpose is not to import or nurse grudges as everyone knows by now, but it is also not a place to create them. At some point, we need to expect people to have the wisdom to walk away from arguments as the probability of personal irritation increases and the probability of actual communication decreases. And if you can't walk away, try not to write tiny treatises on discussion pages. Before I made this comment, we've reached 12000 words or so. The three entries above this alone were 1759 words.

WT:RfA is a public forum, so in a sense yes, all are entitled and/or privileged to use it as they will, but I think it serves the community best if ya'll use user talk pages for personal conversations, or write essays in user space and later import them if you have something suitably important and lengthy to say.--Tznkai (talk) 16:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Arcayne is free to name the rogue admins who do not enjoy the trust of the community and should be desysoped forthwith. Absent a showing that there is a problem, I see no reason for a solution waiting for a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm in complete agreement with Tznkai; responding further to Arcayne's missives serves no fruitful purpose. Whether he can muster consensus around his POV is the remaining issue.  RGTraynor  16:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's simply ridiculous. Since 2007 I and many others have spent our time doing dirty, nasty and annoying work. We've had to make tough judgement calls: sometimes (though not usually) we've got things wrong, and we've all certainly done things the wisdom of which did not become apparent til much later - certainly enough to ensure I and most others have made enough enemies to torpedo any reconfirmation RFA. And the proposed thanks for years of service in aid of WP:ENC? A reconfirmation RFA. Do you want the admins corps cut down by half, or something? Keeping basic backlogs clear right now is a struggle, even without initiating a mass cull. Moreschi (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  ...and to take Moreschi's comments a step further: with mandatory reconfirmation RFAs, there will be fewer admins willing to make tough/unpopular decisions even if they happen to be the right ones. –xeno 18:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  I think cutting the admin corps down by half is an excellent idea. Who'd miss the 850 or so inactive ones, for a start. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  So are you proposing that admins who are inactive for X period of time automatically be desysopped? That would be a horse of a different color, to quote the Guardian of the Gates, and would likely win more approval.  RGTraynor  20:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

  I wouldn't waste my time proposng anything, as it's clear that nothing changes here. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

In many ways. Tan | 39 21:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Since some editors appear determined to pretend they didn't read how this proposal is not out "to get admins", I'm going to wait until they do. I don;t know of any rogue admins, and this proposal doesn't seek to address simply the raving lunatic running down the streets. It serves a 'preventative medicine', to reinforce that admin behavior which demonstrates the highest standards of what we expect from administrators. It can certainly serve as a means to allow the body Wiki to remove a problematic admin who fails to fulfill those standards. Between those two extremes, the proposal seeks to foster more suggestions and advice for admins who are neither wondrous nor pathetic to receive community input - most of which is received currently in a far more confrontational style than a reformed RfA would allow. This isn't a tool to quickly get rid of the "rogue admins"; once every 3 years would take too long to address an emergent issue. This is a tool to address and strike down the idea of Admin For Life (and Beyond).

Moreschi, you knew while accepting your candidacy that some of the work as admin was going to be "dirty, nasty and annoying", did you not? Even after, when you discovered these aspects, did you resign? Clearly, if you didn't feel that the work needed to be done, and had a grand pair, you'd have resigned. That you feel that because you've made decisions that would "torpedo" a reconfirmation only confirms the siege mentality that a great many admins feel - the aforementioned 'us-versus-them' attitude. To this I state that - if admins are concerned that RfA is going to pick on them unnecessarily, then fix RfA to make it more streamlined and less of a nitpicky bitch session. If you are a good admin (and I happen to feel that a great many admins are spectacular, you included), you have little to worry about; have a little faith that the rest of us who know your excellent work aren't going to leave you to twist in the wind. For most admins, reconfirmation is simply going to be an instructive tool, helping the admin to confirm or point out their strengths and weaknesses. Which can only be seen as a Good Thing. This is not available currently. Some admins will be found lacking, and will not be reconfirmed. This is part of a fair process of evaluation. One thing you should not be allowed is to be elected to a position of relative power for the rest of your natural life (and, in some instances, well beyond that).

The only "mass cull" to occur is the removal of the mop from people who have left it sitting in the corner, unattended anyway. Inactive members artificially inflate our numbers of administrators, and place the burden of the resulting expectations on those admins actually here doing the heavy lifting (ie, 'you couldn't clear out DYK or XfD when you have over 1700 admins? What the hell are you lazy SOB's doing, eating bon-bons?'). We want admins who do the work, and to stop treating the job as a key to the executive washroom.

Tznkai, you will forgive me if new proposals to the community are a bit on the long side. I would prefer to be not misunderstood. If the wall of text bothers you, allow me to sum up the proposal:

• The proposal would require every admin to reconfirm their admin status every three years. This is on par with many of our sister wikis.
• This reconfirmation must be mandatory for every active administrator to ensure parity and to avoid both favoritism and grudge matches.
• Additionally, admins who have been inactive for more than 6 months lose the mop, but can re-apply for it once they return.

This is the basic proposal, Tznkai. Also discussed was the side effect of this proposal to reform RfA to make it less of a gauntlet and more of a reasonable enquiry into the experience, skill set and wisdom of the candidate. the reasoning is that if admins have a stake in RfA becoming less contentious, more work to make it less contentious will occur.

I apologize for the earlier wall of text; I initially felt obligated to cover most of the bases with the initial proposal, and later to call a spade a spade. I know a false argument when I see it and think this is worth actual discussion based on the merits and flaws of the proposal. - Arcayne () 06:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Haven't agreed with everything you've said through this thread, but this proposal actually looks better thought out than a lot of the ones I've seen. bibliomaniac15 07:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It has potential, but I'm wondering if the three year term is too long to make much of a difference. If the process of reconfirmation isn't too intensive, would an annual or semi-annual term make more sense? Throwaway85 (talk) 07:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Arcayne, that was all perfectly sane and rational, until I got to: "then fix RfA to make it more streamlined and less of a nitpicky bitch session". Clearly desirable, but implausible, ridiculous, impossible. I've seen too many disasters over the last couple years to have any trust in this farcical process. Moreschi (talk) 13:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking to Bibliomaniac (and others), the proposal isn't going to be perfect for everyone; the whole point of submitting it here is that we can work together to find a way to make a fair approximation of the proposal work. The point of Misplaced Pages is that I add a little bit of my knowledge to the knowledge of thousands of others, and that what eventually emerges is something that benefits the largest number of us. This proposal is an example of that. I don't expect it to wave a magical wand and fix RfA. I do expect that - once 850 of our more experienced minds bend their will to finding something that works - it would get addressed. And it would get addressed, because simply because of who admins are, they wouldn't like the failings of RfA continue if it was something they had to submit to repeatedly. Not to say that experienced non-admins would have been sitting on their hands all this time, but currently, the process is seen as so uncouth and undesirable that many potentially excellent candidates would rather have multiple root canals whilst giving birth. There's got to be several ways we can improve that, and I believe we can.

And Moreschi, I know that there have been several disasters, and that wringing success from them seems 'implausible, ridiculous and impossible. If any one person had to do it all by themselves, it would certainly seem that way. But you aren't alone; none of us are, and together, we are fantastically brilliant. Every time we fall down, we can make sure to avoid that obstacle that made us fall down in the future.

The term of three years started out as being just the Goldilocks choice (two is too short a time, four is too long), but I completely agree that reconfirmation should not have to be the same sort of RfA that initial applicants undergo; they've already received the bit; we are just making sure they are doing well with it. I'm open to suggestions on how we could streamline the process for admins, but a simple yea or nay would definitely be open to grudge matches. I think it needs to be something in the middle. Just brainstorming, but perhaps limiting reconfirmation ¡voting to those with at least 2-6 months of editing themselves. Just an idea. = Arcayne () 17:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't that the approach they took in books like Atlas Shrugged? If you don't fix it, we shoot you. Fallacy somewhere, I fancy!--Wehwalt (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really sure I get your meeting, Wehalt. I'm saying it needs fixing so no one gets shot. As more emphasis would be placed on RfA, handling not just initial RfA's but reconfirming admins, it would seem wise to fix those parts which aren't the smoothest-running. - Arcayne () 20:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a cogent argument could be made that RfA runs perfectly smoothly if you're an arse-licking sycophant who has studiously avoided ever falling out with another editor. Is that the kind of person we want as an administrator? --Malleus Fatuorum 20:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I think that's a question outside the scope of this proposal, Malleus. I think the best admins will make the tough calls because they are the right calls to make. That way, the only editors who they fall out with are pretty much the ones who are here for a limited time anyway. Again, we aren't here to kick admins; we're here to make sure that their knowledge base and work product is consistent and well-founded in policy. Currently, an admin without say, a good knowledge of Image policy or whatnot, might not get the input they need to be the best admin they can. If there is no term limit, there might be no impetus to develop admin skill sets outside of the politicking at AN or AC. - Arcayne () 22:45, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Another 30k (now 92k) of discussion and still no closer to this proposal being reality. There's a reason it never gets off the ground. I acknowledge there's a reason it keeps getting suggested, but in practice applying this proposal would seriously compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. Ah well. I guess I'll be called premature again, which is fine. But, count on it; this proposal will never become reality. You're just wasting your breath. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hammersoft, I am unclear how the proposal - which only strengthens our admin base, removes dead weight (often literally dead) inactives and helps to improve the encyclopedia compromises it. I get that you think the proposal is a waste of time. Some people would rather live in a world of crap than be the first to work a shovel; I get it. I'm sorry, I honestly don't understand why any good admin would feel threatened by this proposal (and I count you amongst this number, Hammersoft). This makes your job easier. Wouldn;t you prefer to work alongside who knows the policies and guidelines just as good or better than yourself? Wouldn't you prefer to be counted to not be grouped with inactive or dead admins? Seriously, I don't get it. - Arcayne () 23:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Something that has yet to come up is that I don't particularly want 5.43 new RfAs a week. (X! · talk)  · @996  ·  22:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Read the bit above; I suggested that not only can some work be done to streamline RfA, but that the reconfirmation RfA's would - for the most part - be even more streamlined than normal RfA's. Someone who already has the mop pretty much knows their stuff; the RfA just confirms it and looks for trouble spots. I'm unclear on your math. How are you arriving at your RfA's per week? - Arcayne () 23:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

(undenting as it is unrelated to the previous post) Simple. 847 admins. Each one must go through 1 RfA every three years. That's 282.33333333333 admins a year. Divide by 52, and you get 11 admins a week. (X! · talk)  · @013  ·  23:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/ToxicWasteGrounds

Found this malformed RfA floating about, created by a user who has nominated himself for Admin in only his 6th ever edit. Not sure what the procedure is here...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I would probably contact ToxicWasteGrounds, explaining how unlikely better not say impossible it is that they would be granted adminship, and see if they want to withdraw the request before it is transcluded. If they insist they want to go ahead with it, then explain how to do so. If they are willing to withdraw, close the RfA as "withdrawn by candidate before transclusion". That's what I would do, were I an admin. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just G6 it if they decide not to go thru with it. –xeno 13:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

For reference, a similar case was brought recently, although subsequently G6d. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Official" stance: until it's transcluded it doesn't matter. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that the "official" stance by someone "not in a position of authority"? Tan | 39 17:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that a question was added, even though it's not been transcluded - is this allowed (I know that !voting can't start until it's been transcluded). If so, I've got a couple of questions I could quite easily add about deletions and the like... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have placed a not now message on the editor's talk page. I don't see anything in the guide that specifically forbids the addition of questions before transclusion, though. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 19:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And it just got closed a couple of minutes ago. Useight (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Note the not superfluous use of quotation marks. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've gone ahead and closed it. –Juliancolton |  19:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If this RfA was never transcluded, why has it been marked as unsuccessful? Currently it looks like the candidate has had an unsuccessful RfA despite the fact it never even went live, and it will end up being held against them in a future RfA, regardless of the editor's future improvement. I don't really understand the fuss over an inactive RfA anyway. Acalamari 19:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the closure and the vote. Until it goes live or the editor requests its deletion, it can just be left well-enough alone. –xeno 19:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Complete and total agreement. Seriously, one of my biggest complaints about Misplaced Pages is that people think that because they can edit anything that they should. Just because a page exists somewhere doesn't mean that anything needs to be done with it. Let sleeping dogs lie... and by "sleeping dogs" I mean "obvious newbie errors" and by "lie" I mean "collect wiki-dust". That's just my personal opinion, though (and, since the question was asked earlier, I'll note that my opinion is as an editor, not as a bureaucrat). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that your opinion as a bureaucrat would have any addition weight. Seriously, I don't mean to be a dick about this, but cut out the thinly veiled badge-polishing. Tan | 39 23:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? If a 'crat posted an actual official position, speaking as a bureaucrat, maybe or maybe not on behalf of all the crats - that would have weight indeed, all hell might break loose in fact. Why is disclaiming one's affiliation to a role badge-polishing? How else does one make clear they are speaking as an ordinary editor? Franamax (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

To Franamax - if a 'crat posted his/her opinion on a matter, speaking as a bureaucrat, that has no extra weight whatsoever. Bureaucrats are not in any sort of position to "post... an actual official position". Your understanding of their authority is sadly mistaken. To EVula - again, I didn't mean to be a dick, more like an at-the-bar "cmon, man". I do think you were bringing up your extra button frivolously, but I suppose it doesn't much matter. Tan | 39 04:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should read my words once more before deciding I'm sadly mistaken. I didn't say that an "official 'crat position" would carry weight in the outcome of this discussion, I said that an official 'crat position would carry weight if such a position were taken, largely because it would generate resistance from other editors. And I said it in context of my hopefully mistaken belief that you might somehow prefer EVula to comment here without disclaiming any role beyond just plain 'ol editor like anyone else. Lots of people read this page, they deserve to know in which role a functionary is speaking. And functionaries deserve the chance to speak in their role as editors without being accused of medal-polishing too IMO. Franamax (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I did read your words. Even your sentences, if you can believe it. There is no such thing as an "official 'crat position". A nonexistent thing cannot carry any weight. You will notice on my talk page that EVula agrees with me. Tan | 39 05:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I will endeavour in future to write in such a way that you can also read my meaning. Try to focus on ideas, not people. Franamax (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"If a 'crat posted an actual official position" But there is no official 'crat positions. "Read my words, I said that an official 'crat position would carry weight if such a position were taken". Well, it's hard for anything to carry weight that doesn't exist. "Whatever, next time please read my mind and ignore what I actually type." Good talk, Russ. Tan | 39 05:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it "focusing on people" to state that your argument was totally pointless? The crats have aboslutely no authority on making "official positions" on things, therefore as Tan said, something that doesn't exist, doesn't carry any weight. --— Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for relentlessly pounding on facts of which I was previously well aware. Next week's lesson will be on the use of dramatic contrast as a discussion device. I understand this may be a challenge for you, so please study up. Franamax (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, but that's certainly not my intent. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(jumping to way higher) It was me on the question, I thought "aha! my chance!" about adding it; I saw the page pop on my watchlist... knew it was still in prep phases but to be honest I figured that's how additional questions always appear within about 2 minutes of the RfA starting. Sorry if it broke the transclusion process. Extremely weird things have been happening lately for candidates and theoretically doesn't it have to be opened for at least a moment before closed? Lord only knows what oddity could be next. A new sock of some sort? Accidentally nominated the sock instead of self? Who knows. It's been that weird *Shrugs* If all done in good faith, they can't say they were completely ignored this way before the proper closing at least. Again, my apologies. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 01:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)