Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship process

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Rationale

First of all, we should remove all traces of a voting system. The reason for no time limit is so that no one stir blind on that, the time the bcrat need is the important. I think also that the bcrat should have full power to deny or approve a nomination, that way there is no reason for anyone to try to vote. →AzaToth 20:32, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

An example "template" was made at Template:RfA/Draft →AzaToth 20:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Role of bureaucrats

I think you're leaving the role of bureaucrats to be quite vague. For example - what defines "frivolous" reasons of opposition, and with what discretion should a bureaucrat ignore comment(s) over others? What are the positives of a timewise open-ended RfA, as opposed to those lasting 7 days? Rama's arrow 21:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe if there is an obvious concensus after 7 days to support, then the bureaucrat should close. If there is no concensus, then the bureaucrat should use their own judgement whether to let it continue or not. If the obvious concensus is oppose, then a bureaucrat should close when they see fit (i.e. in order to prevent a pile-on). --Alex (talk) 21:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps it's a tricky question. The reason for no time limit, is that I don't want the process to depend on a set date, so instead it can be a free discussion spanning a few days to for example two weeks if that's necissary. We could thou ass a guideline that a process must at least be open for three days, but no more than 14 days. →AzaToth 21:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The problem is, what makes a definite oppose consensus? Each oppose in the present system equals 4 supports. Rama's arrow 00:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trial admins?

I wonder if a way to test an editor's adminship potential is for a bureaucrat to grant him limited powers in a probationary period? Perhaps this would help level the 4-to-1 advantage held by opposers. Rama's arrow 21:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

How long would this be for? Would there be bureaucrats willing to watch over the new admin? And would it be necessary to have a period for a user with overwhelming support, or almost no opposes? --Alex (talk) 21:53, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


Overwhelming support obviously needs no such period - I'm talking about people with like 70-60% approval. I think basically the community can watch him - bureaucrats don't need to. 1-2 admins can be appointed to make sure no malicious deletes or blocks are made. In any case, any admin's actions are reversible.
Perhaps during this period, the RfA should be on to allow others to ask questions and continue to interview the candidate. Rama's arrow 00:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Admin jobs

I am personally against forcing editors to edit things they don't want to just to become an admin, and help other users. It's bordering on ridiculous. Just my opinion though, Highway Daytrippers 22:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree 99% I don't think saying that one whom made 2000 edits is a better to be admin than someone who have made 1500 edits. →AzaToth 22:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
The quality of individual edits matters a lot. Take Jimbo Wales - he's got like 2,000 edits, yet we hang on to his every edit. The contributions should be diverse, with a low edits/page ratio. Rama's arrow 00:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Sometime ago, I did propose a floor for RfA nomins, based on the fact that anybody with just 1,000 edits and less than 3 months experience was being rejected. In the beginning of the project, it was different. Now with 1.5 million users and 1 million articles, it doesn't hurt to heighten standards. Rama's arrow 00:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Well, there are now more than two million registered users on this project. Visit Wikipedia statistics. Although I must admit that about 20 percent of them are regular editors. --Siva1979Talk to me 11:48, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose "well known by other users"

Personnally, I'm not too thrilled by the first criterion. I think that many WikiGnomes have shown to be tremendously valuable at doing underground work, wikifying, categorizing, referencing, merging and whatnot. Some of these guys would make fine admins and I hate the idea of someone being discarded on the basis that he has been flying under the radar. I have to say that there are a few well-known editors on Wikipedia which I would not support in RfAs. More generally, there's a danger in setting criteria in stone. Actually, sorry if that's a stupid question but why do we feel that the current proposal is needed? Is there really a concern that the current RfA process needs to be significantly altered? Pascal.Tesson 15:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree on your point. As for the proposal, it doesn't hurt to chew the fat. Maybe something good will come out of it. Rama's arrow 16:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. Chew away! I have to agree that the discussion on this talk page is quite interesting. Pascal.Tesson 16:28, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Agree that "well known by other users" is an inappropriate criterion. Is the RfA a popularity contest—to some degree it is—but that shouldn't exclude those who work in niches. The real issue is can the individual be trusted to understand and fairly & rationally follow the current consensus Wikipolicy in their decisions to block, unblock, delete & undelete. You don't have to be well known to do these things. Williamborg (Bill) 14:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have striked out that "criteria". As I only have had a vauge clue exactly what criteria an nominee should adhere to, my suggestions might not have been the best one, please if you can came up with some better criterias, I would be happy. →AzaToth 18:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] user:Geogre/RFA-Derby

Check this out - another effort to inspire RfA reforms. Rama's arrow 00:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


A more developed "Trial admin" idea: if a person pulls between 65-75% of support, then why not let him have the tools for say, 30 days? This could especially be useful in dealing with the requests of ex-admins like Carnildo and Chacor. During this period:
  • He will be monitored by normal users as well as other admins and bureaucrats. Admin actions such as abusive blocks or deletions can be repaired, so its not like letting a wild animal loose.
  • The RfA remains open, with people encouraged to ask questions and keep interviewing the fellow.
  • Allow others to give him tips and advice.

I think the final call is not another vote, but the expression of any serious complaint regarding the editor's behaviour in the 30 days. Perhaps in this latter way we can avoid the possibility that some editors would oppose just because they don't like some of his/her decisions. Rama's arrow 00:48, 22 September 2006 (UT

[edit] Admin accountability

I believe that the RfA process is under many pressures partly because there is no similar organized way to hold admins accountable for their actions or desysopp them if necessary. If we answer this latter question, we will see more people ready to say "adminship is no big deal." The consensus issue will also become less sensitive, and I'm sure that stuff like the Carnildo affair won't happen. To get the ball rollin':

  1. Blocks are serious, last resort measures. It can be useful to desysopp an admin who has been blocked (justifiably) by a fellow admin, but for just like a week or so to allow him/her to cool off - this is different than the "cool off" mandated by blocks themselves. The second block should result in a 30-day "cool off," and the third block should lead to desysopping.
  2. WP:ANI should also become a place where admins can receive advice and suggestions on how to perform potentially sensitive tasks. There are many admins who aren't abusive but simply make a mistake - they need immediate guidance of more experienced admins.
  3. Maybe a bureaucrat's committee can be created (subordinate to ArbCom) to look into cases concerning proposal no. 1 and cases of serious admin abuse. Rama's arrow 10:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  4. Perhaps admins should be encouraged/required to hold an editor review each year to receive suggestions and criticism.
  5. More and more admins should be encouraged/required to help at Admin Coaching. This way, they get to improve themselves and learn how to help others.
  6. Promote greater teamwork and coordination between admins. If you create a WikiProject Admintasks or a similar device to inform/coordinate admins on backlogs and serious issues, we will see greater efficiency as well as a culture in which admins don't feel compelled to make sensitive decisions themselves, in their own interpretation of policy. Rama's arrow 10:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
That said, this process should not revolve around the question of desysopping. Rather how admins can improve and learn. The same for RfA - every productive editor is a prospective admin, so the process should encourage learning instead of creating a contest, vote-like atmosphere. Rama's arrow 10:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Way too much power for b'crats

I can't imagine b'crats like this proposal -- it puts enormous pressure on them, as they are given discretion over essentially everything regarding a nomination. This is a terrible idea, and if this process passes, trust in the admin corps will degenerate dramatically. Xoloz 15:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updated

I have updated the proposal now, by analyzing what could be the general consensus how a process could be performed. →AzaToth 20:02, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's certainly better than it was before, but really... what needs to change with RfA? There is a general consensus that we'd like commenters to think a bit more thoroughly, but a discussion dynamic isn't the way to achieve this, in my opinion. In a discussion, there is an upper limit to the number of participants that can feasibly be noticed by a sane reader -- my own experience in closing AfDs suggests that this number is around 20, and I think I'm actually more attentive than average. A "discussion" environment cannot accomodate the hundred folks who attend every RfA.
Azatoth's proposal here probably stems from the perception that the failure of his first RfA was a failure of the RfA system. I happen to agree with that; but, as an RfA "regular", I also believe that these "failures of the system" are very rare. In this case, I feel the proposed cure is much worse than the disease. RfA can be improved, and I'm open to proposals for subtle reform, but overhauling the system is unneeded.
As a more direct point on this proposal, the number of supporters/"supportive comments" would need to outnumber opposers by 4-to-1 to achieve promotion. Anything less would represent "lower the bar on RfA standards", a result that a large number of conservative users would object to, for the reasons Rama's Arrow mentions above -- with de-adminship highly difficult, the bar to the mop must remain high, at about 80% support. Xoloz 22:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
The proposal wasn't ment as much as to reform the system, but more to formalize the system. But I've heard a lot of people argumenting that there is a too high degree of voting implied in the process, and that they want to minimize that picture somehow, thatäs why I tried to reform the system. I specified in the proposal that at least half would be a guideline, it's not a rule to follow, as as it is now, everyone stir blind on the 75% - 80%, regardless on what people have said, if they ever have done so (is a line stating "Support ~~~~" really worth much?). Also you have to consider if early "votes" should be discarded or not, as those probably have not been discussed (it might take some days for rellevant information to appear, for people to make decission). Third is that a "vote" only based on statistic, should that be weight as much as a "vote" defining nominee earlier actions in a particular event?. So the main idea is to change the process from beeing number crushing to be consensus targeting. →AzaToth 22:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
In a large group, to determine consensus, it is important to have a relatively simple way of processing information -- this is for the sake of transparency, accountability, and to avoid the poor b'crats having to pull out a divining rod to decide matters. The form "Support, signed" is certainly not ideal, but it does help to give one a sense of the proportion of the community that endorses a candidate. This is key, because the fundamental element of "WP not a vote" is that a consensus demands more -- much more -- than a mere majority. To my knowledge, those demanding a "pure discussion" format (like Kim Bruning, for instance) are a small minority of old-time users who don't seem to grasp fully that the scale of Wikipedia has grown dramatically. I have never seen a workable proposal to replace RfA as it is now that adequately addresses questions of scale. This proposal certainly falls far short, IMO.
To address your points specifically, "late-breaking news" in an RfA is accounted for by the relatively small number of opposers needed to derail a nomination. Weighty comments, filled with evidence, will attract many opposers, if sound, so evidence is given more due than simple commentary; and "voting" is not a mere statistic, but a ratio of portion of community endorsement -- it has real, powerful meaning in the context of finding consensus. It is not the sole determinant, but removing it is impractical, "cutting off the nose to the spite the face" in the name of some ideology that numbers are evil. I will agree with RfA reform only when someone creates a mechanism (other than voting) that allows equal opportunity to hundreds of commenters to be openly heard. Xoloz 02:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
You are free to adapt the proposal to gain a formale that might gain consensus, it's just not "my" porposal you know. →AzaToth 13:07, 30 September 2006 (UTC)