User talk:Roux/RFA-reform/Archive1

I have taken the liberty of breaking this talkpage into sections that reflect the sections of the proposal. Hopefully this will help keep the discussion coherent and structured. I've included Support/Oppose straw poll options for now; if someone thinks that's premature, please remove them. → ROUX   ₪  06:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Entirely sensible idea, although the exact criteria would need to be tightened and well-defined. For example, one month of answering helpme requests is not easily verified and is open to argument. See SMART (project management). Stifle (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear God I thought leaving the corporate world meant I'd never have to see that acronym again, you jerk!:P How would you rewrite to avoid argument? Something I was thinking was for criteria such as that, have the regulars of the page sign off on it (e.g. a CU should sign off that $User has been clerking at WP:SPI). This would also make sure that someone wanting to RFA has to ask specific people to initially approve the very nomination, which would be another good reality check. →  ROUX   ₪  08:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Tentative support. Roux is not saying that people with 100 points would be automatically granted adminship, just that they would be allowed to run.  He is just proposing setting up a minimum requirement that would prevent people who have no chance of passing from running.  One might say that this would keep out potential good candidates who don't have enough points, but looking at the table I would be willing to wager that none of the last 100 admins promoted would have been disqualified by the requirements.  Nevertheless, I have a "fear of numbers" when it comes to things like this; meaning that I don't like the idea of putting numbers on entry requirements when general verbal descriptions could suffice, and I am only voting here in the support section in order to distinguish myself from the majority Oppose and because there is no neutral section.  -- Soap Talk/Contributions 04:58, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Not commenting on the whole proposal, but I am generally against any arbitrary restrictions like that because they might (and would) scare away good candidates and make the whole process needlessly bureaucratic (and NOTNOW/SNOW candidates will ignore such requirements anyway like they tend to ignore the rest of the page where it tells them what is usually expected). Also, using GAs, FAs and DYKs heavily to calculate such points penalizes people who are more WikiGnomes, usage of terms like "regular" is highly subjective and to be frank, other WMF projects should never be a reason to run for RFA here. We have wikis with a handful users in obscure languages where everyone can achieve adminship by simply asking a steward. No, there should be no restrictions for people to run for adminship, arbitrary or other. RFA is a process to judge an individual's ability to wield the mop, not their ability to fulfill any "requirements". If they run without having a real chance then that serves both as an indication to the community that the candidate is not ready as well as to the candidate that they have not judged themselves correctly. We offer a lot of information for potential candidates to read before they run for adminship - but we should allow them to decide whether to heed any advice given, not force them to. Regards  So Why  07:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I think it would be exponentially more helpful if this was simply voluntary - a metric, if you will, for prospective candidates to measure their experience. Hard requirements like the ones suggested are unhelpful, and in my opinion, against the open and community-based philosophy of Wikipedia. The idea that one "must" have such-and-such points to do something just can't reconcile with the "anyone can participate" philosophy here. Calvin 1998  (t·c) 07:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) As Calvin 1988 said.  Plenty of users have their own "RFA pre-requisite" pages; this can be kept in userspace as one of them, or at most moved to project space as an essay.--Aervanath (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose any hurdles; oppose any "voluntary metrics" even more. Voters are different, each has their own "metric" (this includes "no metric"), and, most curiously, makes discretionary exclusions on a case-by-case basis. NVO (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Quality is far more important than than quantity, and the value of most contributions is too complex to be assessed against a simple objective scale. For example, 50 irrelevant and unhelpful 'per nom' Xfd comments are far less valuable than one reasoned argument backed by policy.  EyeSerene talk 08:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Will give the project admins who know how to game the point system. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) I think that it will make new users make a bunch of "per nom" and "per above" comments at AfD. I also think that it will lead to new users giving unhelpful advise to other new users. If a user doesn't know an answer to a question, he/she normally leaves a helpme or help desk question to be answered by someone who knows. These points may encourage a new editor to respond with unhelpful responses.   hmwith  τ   14:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) No. I passed RFA near-unanimously last year, and would have gotten virtually all of my "points" via tenure (70% credit for not being banned!  woo!).  I understand the "not a guarantee of success" part, but it's a lousy bureaucratic replacement for one of the parts of RfA ("hmm, what does a typical successful RfA candidate look like?") that isn't broken.  Someone who can't be bothered to determine community norms won't be bothered to calculate points either. &mdash; Lomn 14:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) A point system would prevent some good editors from even trying to become an admin, and to get the necessary number of points, they'd just make useless comments at AfD and elsewhere as pointed out by hmwith. The 100 point threshold is too high anyway. Different people have different standards, and this would just be imposing a set standard on everyone. There's no reason to assign numbers to editing experience, and it would additionally just complicate things. It wouldn't work. Tim  meh  15:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Arbitrary, inflexible systems should be avoided. Mr.Z-man 16:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) The problem with rigid performance metrics is that you get exactly what you ask for, even if it isn't what you want. If you require candidates to have 100 points to apply to RfA, you will get candidates who have figured out the easiest way of accumulating 100 points.  (As a side note, under this system, I couldn't have become an admin when I did: 70 points for tenure + 15 points for VFD is only 85 points; my 5000+ edits don't count because the majority were to articles.)  --Carnildo (talk) 21:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Notice my most recent edit; '60% outside of mainspace' was a typo. Should have been userspace. Please also read the footnote I provided showing a real-world example of this sort of system in use. → ROUX   ₪  22:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Even with that change, it's still got problems: Tawker, operator of the original anti-vandal bot, wouldn't have made admin when he did, with only 15 points (for participation in AfD). Even today, he'd only have 90 points: 70 for tenure, 15 for AfD, and 5 for rollback.  Warning users makes for a lot of userspace edits, and very few non-deleted article edits. --Carnildo (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) No requirements for RfA should be needed. Plus you will get people gaming the system, and this will make the process look like a video game where you must rack up a certain amount of points to get to the next level. Plus this leaves no room for cases in which an editor has done the equivalent in some other area, or if the editor is trying to become a "specialist" admin.  Malinaccier P. (talk) 22:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no, no. This only reinforces the idea that adminship is some kind of "prize" that you get for having completed certain tasks on Wikipedia.  Everyone has their own criteria and there is nothing that can be done to dissuade them from supporting/opposing on arbitrary metrics, but it should absolutely not become a concept endorsed by the community. Shereth 14:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Ummmm....No. per all the above.  I must agree - this really makes gaining adminship feel like a game - which it isn't.  Once a user has 100 points, they might feel like they have beat all the levels of the game and then have to beat the boss (WP:RFA) to beat the game and have admin tools.  This isn't a good idea.... -.- -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 02:31, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss

 * I have my doubts. This could possibly turn into an arguing game ("define 'major contributor' or 'regular participant'"). I think 20 opposes in an RfA in the first hour is a good enough system, but that's my opinion. I'd also like to see a featured picture be worth some points. :-)  wadester 16  07:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have several doubts about the points sytem:
 * It looks like an invitation to unending debate about what factors should be included / excluded and what weights they should have. Wadester16's "I'd also like to see a featured picture be worth some points" is a good example.
 * Some the weights look odd to me. The highest (70) is for adminship on another WMF project, but: there's no consideration of the candidate's record as an admin on the other WMF project(s); it may not be relevant to the major issues at en.WP (see below).
 * It looks like a distraction. As far as I can see the issues that arouse passions are blocks, deletion debates, page protection (especially whether the effect is neutral) and the admin's conduct in the last year or so (any sign of self-righteousness or bullying is a killer). A new RFA candidate can't block, so the only evidence is the answers to the questions and the candidate's contribs (if any) to discussions at WP:ANI and WP:RFAR. I suspect it's even harder to gauge a new candidate's trustworthiness on page protection. Conduct is simple - as at present, see how many complaints there are, how well-founded they are and how serious they are - I think this is an irreducible part of RfA. --Philcha (talk) 08:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Several doubts about the point system. "2500 edits[2], at least 60% outside of mainspace" is problematic to me. Let's say someone has 10,000 edits -- 7,500 in main space, 2,500 outside of mainspace. Are they less qualified than someone who has 2,501 edits, of which 1550 are outside of mainspace? I think not. Also, what is regular participation in helpdesk and adoption? Once a day? Once a week? Every 10th edit? Who decides what regular is? While the idea behind this point system is good, the devil will most definitely be in the details, and it will quickly descend into a festival of mud slinging. (So I guess I'm also in the "oppose" category unless changes are made.)-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  14:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Aw, crap. I'm a typo master--that should have been 60% outside of userspace. → ROUX   ₪  17:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why, may I wonder? Writing large articles in user space is, IMO, convenient to both writers and readers; there's no need to expose incomplete, sometimes incoherent chunks of underconstruction text to the public. So an editor who spent some 300 edits on a long article in userspace and aspires for the buttons, must somehow raise another 300 by unnecessary edits elsewhere? Rules designed to be gamed? NVO (talk) 07:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We do need a higher threshold for self noms at RFA. Currently several newbies are needlessly bitten every month by the process. But we don't need anything a tenth as complex as this because your typical 2,000 to 3,000 wannabe admin knows they aren't likely to pass an RFA. What would be useful would be a threshold of say 1,000 edits before you can self nom at RFA - below this you are unlikely to even get serious feedback from an RFA, restricting this to self noms allows for exceptions to be made. If you look through Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) above I defy you to find an RFA from the last 6 months where the candidate had less than a thousand edits and the RFA looks like anything other than the result of leaving mantraps in the nursery.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers 22:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur that some of the point system doesn't appear well thought out. One I'm surprised nobody has mentioned: AWB (worth 10 points) is only available for the Microsoft Windows operating system. So this process will put people at a disadvantage that either by choice or necessity use a computer with a different OS? Or alternatively, expose them, but not windows users, as only applying for AWB for a leg-up on the point scale?Dave (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Support

 * I support the idea, but I do have concerns that it will inhibit admins from wading in to controversy when it's needed.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  14:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) While the idea of term limits in general is a good one, it would eventually become unmanageable. See PEREN; with the number of admins we have currently, this could mean over 30 XFAs a week.  Of course, because this proposal would exempt administrators who went through RFA before the proposal was adopted, there wouldn't be any XFAs until a year after this proposal was adopted.  However, after that, the number of XFAs would just keep increasing as time went on, and eventually would become untenable, no matter what the term length was.  The longer the term length, the longer until it became untenable, but it would happen.--Aervanath (talk) 07:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see that happening much, not with the general churn of users and admins.→ ROUX   ₪  07:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) This makes it too easy for non-tenured admins who take unpopular, but correct, decisions to be hounded out of their positions. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) I like the idea, but I think it's unworkable. A swift, effective de-sysop process would be much better. --Philcha (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) The outcome would be too many RFAs, often clouded by those who have become disgruntled with the project in many and sundry ways. Moreover, there is already a turnover in admins. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) Per Stifle, and per Philcha's replacement. &mdash; Lomn 14:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) As stated above, this will clog up the whole reconfirmation process. Also, there's no need for it if we have a good desysopping process. Tim  meh  15:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) We need to be able to get rid of the bad ones without requiring all the good ones to jump through hoops, which could also backfire, per Stifle. Mr.Z-man 17:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) This will give us a large collection of low-activity admins. The typical vandal-whacking admin burns out after three to six months; this ensures that even those who don't won't last more than a year. --Carnildo (talk) 21:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Admins are volunteers doing chores, we should value the good ones not drive them away. A fixed term would exacerbate our admin shortages by losing us a whole load of good admins who do the occasional hour of useful stuff at Wikipedia but have too much sense to try and run through RFA in its current state.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers 22:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) As Stifle said, the administrators that stand up for what is right but unpopular will not be re-elected. There will also be an unpractical amount of re-requests for adminship at all times. Malinaccier P. (talk) 22:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Stifle brings up a good point no doubt. Also, if someone hasn't done something wrong with what they have, what's the reason to remove it?  You can't vote, drive, own a gun, drink, etc., just because you have for x-number of months/years already?  sorry, I can't get behind that idea. — Ched :  ?  04:55, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 11) The benefit of weeding out the relatively few "bad" administrators is far, far outweighed by the cost of having to reconfirm the entire lot every single year. Many of us would agree that RfA is a greuling experience that we would rather not repeat; putting "good" administrators (the vast majority of them) through that grinder again and again is just not worth it. Shereth 14:15, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 12) Oppose because of the fact that reRFA's would vastly outnumber regular RfA's by the time a few years had passed. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 05:00, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 13) per Stifle and Soap. -  F ASTILY  (T ALK ) 02:33, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 14) Really not good, as people have cited above, also that its too much of bureaucracy issue.Mitch/HC32 20:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss

 * I don't see any major problems with this part, but I have my doubts that it won't be abused or turned into some overly-bureaucratic mess. I think XFA would take care of admins gone rogue. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 07:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Second Calvin' opinion. An active admin will piss off a lot of editors, it's the job. And since nobody's perfect, opposes will be carefully researched and appear invincible. Piling this mess on bureaucrats' shoulders in too much of a burden. But without it the admin race will be reverse-selected to docile Eloi. Dunno... seems like a no-win situation. NVO (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * We'll need some more bureaucrats to make this work fully.  wadester 16  07:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This whole terms idea seems really redundant to XFA. As long as we have a good desysopping process, there's no reason for terms. If an editor really feels an admin doesn't deserve the tools anymore, he can bring up his concerns in an XFA. Having both systems would cause more problems than it would fix. Tim  meh  15:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) Oppose If an admin's ego is getting in the way, then someone should just come out and say it. While there may be a large number of admins, not having some of them for a month could be detrimental to some specific projects, and the project in general (plus, it's been a while since I've seen this empty). Not to single this user out, but Howcheng and WP:POTD come to mind. And making exceptions to a few sysops because they're essential personnel isn't fair.  wadester 16  07:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose CAT:ADMINBACKLOG has NEVER been empty. No need to make it harder to work on the backlog.--Aervanath (talk) 07:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Part of the point of this is to make RFA less strenuous due to admins being easier to remove if they are bad at the job. Which, theoretically, would mean more people passing RFA; the bar is set so high precisely because of the impossibility of getting rid of someone. Which would even out the problem. → ROUX   ₪  07:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Preamble to the section appears to fight perception (perceived perception?). Sorry, you won't change perception by offering monthly holidays. And why bother about perceptions, at all? NVO (talk) 08:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because there is an unnecessarily antagonistic attitude between (many) admins and (many) editors. Editors seeing that 'admins are just like us' would have the wind somewhat taken out of their sails. I don't agree that such perceptions should exist; admins really should be seen as people with extra buttons. The hall monitors of Wikipedia, as I said elsewhere recently. The fact is, they're not seen that way, and something like this would help change that. → ROUX   ₪  08:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * if all admins agree to be hall monitors without extra buttons I might subscribe to your POV... buttons are an objective difference ("The gun made him older"). NVO (talk) 08:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Is there actually an antagonistic attitude between many admins and many editors? (I have a feeling that the attitude is just a vocal minority of each). And will this proposal actually change the attitude? I have my doubts.-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  14:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) We have enough backlogs as it is, and there are several processes or pages which are managed almost singlehandedly by one sysop, which would fall apart under this proposal. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 2) If we have an effective process for getting rid of bad admins, we'll need all the good admins we can get, and taking some out of circulation is a bad idea. --Philcha (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 3) Taking the bit away from helpful admins would only hurt the project. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 4) I don't think it's necessary.   hmwith  τ   14:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 5) Lovely in theory, senseless in practice.  Foremost, there's Gwen Gale's concern.  Further, without term limits, a meaningless symbolism.  I'm aware that TLs are discussed above, but they're not proving much more popular.  Finally, what evidence is there that unnamed complaining editors will actually view temporarily-buttonless admins as peers?  Am I really back on the "other side of the fence" if, in a month, I automagically regain my Phenomenal Cosmic Powers?  I doubt it -- at least not from the perspective of someone raising a complaint in the first place.  So not only do I not find it a good solution to a purported problem, I don't find it any solution to the purported problem.  &mdash; Lomn 14:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) Completely unnecessary and pointless. Gwen Gale says it well. Tim  meh  15:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 7) I don't see what this is supposed to accomplish. Mr.Z-man 17:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 8) Not only will this cause backlogs to pile up, at crucial times admins will be out manned by vandals and trolls. As it is, the administrators still get behind on things from time to time. Malinaccier P. (talk) 22:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 9) I can't think of any better wording than what's been expressed above. — Ched :  ?  04:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)  Awww crap, I guess I'm just incapable of keeping my mouth shut.  OK.  If "adminship" were a limited number of seats that could be filled - I could understand this.  But, there is no limitation (that I know of) as to the number of admins we can have.  So, if someone has experience with the tools, I see no reason or need for them to give up those extra tools. — Ched :  ?  04:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 10) Again, the benefit gained by forcing "problematic" administrators to cool down does not add up to the cost of hampering the "good" ones. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 14:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I don't think this is workable.  You either trust an administrator, or you don't.  If temporarily removing the admin tools is designed to remind the admin of 'what it is like to be a normal user', then frankly I don't want that admin to have the tools to begin with. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) See my opposition to Proposal One above. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)