Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 212

Changes to policy
Could we please make a few simple changes:
 * 1) Reiterate WP:NPA: negative statements must be supported by evidence, otherwise they will be removed by any bureacrat (or administrator).  Any removal of content should allow the voter to re-vote properly, if at all possible.
 * 2) Reiterate WP:CIVIL: all comments, especially criticism should be civil and focus on the editing rather than the editor.
 * 3) Change support and oppose to less confrontational terms, such as approve or not yet.   RfA is not meant to be a struggle so let's not use conflict-laden language.  Language has a strong effect on cognition and mood. Jehochman Talk 02:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with points one and two, but I don't think the current support and oppose terms are the cause for distress amongst RfA candidates. I think their concerns are more with incivility and borderline personal attacks, as you stated in points one and two. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 02:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me add on to this thought here real quick. If an RfA candidate fails, they may say, "I failed because I was offended by people in the oppose section." If we did change the words to "Sure/Approve" and "Not Yet", it wouldn't change the rude oppose (or in this case "not yet") comments the candidate would get, and as a result, the candidate would be equally as offended by the editor's !vote as they would if the words were "support" and "oppose". I agree that the power of language does cause a lot of problems (especially when you're on the Internet and can't judge the tone of a person because you can't hear their voice), but I don't see how it causes problems in this case. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 13:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's all one, and everything contributes to the atmosphere. I think changing the language can help and I thinks its a good idea. George Orwell knew the power of language. "Sure/Approve" and "Not Yet" are great. RxS (talk) 04:58, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * My thoughts:
 * Re #1-2 I agree with both points.
 * Re #3: Well, it can't hurt, that much is true. But on the other hand, if "Support"/"Oppose" causes such consternation for an editor, I suspect they may not be admin material. I think the tone of the actual responses, no matter what they are prefaced with ("Not yet"/"Heck no!"/"Oppose"/"Sorry, try later"/"Whatever) is the core issue in that respect - and #1-#2, if monitored by a 'crat, resolves the true part of that issue. An admin will have a lot worse to deal with than "Oppose" on an RfA. Heck, as much as it makes for a hostile environment, how they deal with nasty opposes is actually a telling thing as to how they will deal with being an admin (ie: get pissed off and do something rash, or stay calm in the face of confrontation while using the tools responsibly).


 * Only two cups of coffee today... so I might be a wee bit off base, but those are my thoughts of the moment. ;-) R OBERT M FROM LI &#124; TK/CN 05:05, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone with no room to talk (according to 22 people and Steven Zhang), #1 and #2 are the big elephants. One particular extended discussion I took umbrage to yesterday was User:Malleus Fatuorum's, which devolved into insults and a flamewar. The discussion was moved to the talkpage (Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Jéské Couriano 2), but its tone was overall inappropriate for an RfA, and two other editors called him out on it, only for him to dismiss them out-of-hand. It's nice to have civility police, but who polices the civility police? — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 06:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Your point #1 is old -- however, it emphasizes diffs too much in my opinion. Opposes without diffs have far less negative effect on the way the RfA will run, and so candidates should be happy when opposers don't include diffs that other people can take out of context even more and base their opinions on. (I think RfA voting should go like this: remember own interactions with user, check user page and talk page, look at user's contributions, then vote support if the users looks like they'll become a good admin, oppose if it is clear they won't be a good admin, and do nothing if the situation isn't clear. A major problem at RfA is people influencing each other's votes through comments and questions, and not enough people independently vetting a candidate on their own strengths and merits, based on the individual voter's admin criteria, not based on what other people say). —Kusma (t·c) 13:29, 26 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For point #1, I would just end it after the word "evidence", for the reasons stated by others above. For point #3, part of the issue is some who oppose may honestly believe "not ever", so any workable change must not put words in participants' mouths. How about: Promote and Not promote? That takes it away from being personal and focuses on the actual decision, while also being neutral as to the reasons why. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't exactly work, Tryptofish. Based on what you said, they could turn that into "Never promote". The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 23:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, promote suggests that administrators are in a hierarchy above regular editors, when in fact they have been given a mop to facilitate maintenance. Perhaps Mop and Don't Mop (semi serious). Monty  845  23:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Or Demote, come to think of it? Yes, you both make good points. But I would insist that any new language, if made mandatory as opposed to used ad-hoc as I earlier recommended, must not put words into the !voters' mouths. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, if you think about it, it's hard to avoid putting words into people's mouths. No matter what, if they're wanting to oppose you and if they're wanting to get their point across by being a bit rude, even if you're not trying to give them something to work with, it will most likely happen unintentionally. Nothing is going to stop them if they've got their mind set to opposing rudely like that. The Utahraptor Talk/Contribs 00:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

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


 * The idea that it would be advantageous to change "Support" to "Promote", for instance, is yet another example of the rottenness at the heart of Wikipedia. In what sense is it a "promotion"? Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Only in the sense that I was wrong when I said it, as has already been pointed out and agreed to. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Regarding the original post, I have a few questions. On point 1, 'Crats are busy people and few and far between, it can take half a day before one closes an RfA (something they have a weeks notice on), I don't believe they would be available to remove items. So who would do it? If it was a free for all it would lead to accusations of gaming the system, similarly if it was just admins but with added cabal. I know, how about a new role - a clerk, if you will? That only leads to the problem of "what constitutes negative" - is any oppose without evidence uncivil? What if the evidence is unavailable, or intangible?
 * On point 2, focus on editing rather than the editor? Much of my vote is on temperment, I will look at 2-300 talk page interactions to see if I can get a general feel for what sort of temperment the editor has. Assuming that there's nothing so egregious as worth bringing up, but a general feel of "does not engage in discussions as well as I'd hoped for an administrator" are you saying that my vote would be invalid? RfA is one of the very few areas that should focus on the editor as a whole - as it is trying to predict how they would behave in the future
 * Finally point 3, people have brought up good comments, adminship should not be a promotion, mop seems almost facetious, not now leads to problems with not ever. However, I think that a new term for oppose would do wonders long term (even though it's just a surface change, it is a psychological one). Even agree and disagree would be an improvement, though I'm not sure it's enough of an improvement to warrant doing. WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 07:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You may  be interested to  learn that  a recently  created active project  to  bring  about  reforms of the very  kind  you are discussing is located at WP:RFA2011. It's a highly structured area and any positive  suggestions and support  are most  welcome in the appropriate sections. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Policy changes
 * But it's going nowhere. Malleus Fatuorum 00:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the opinion Malleus. I'd agree it's going nowhere fast, but in my opinion progress is being made and changes (small at first) will happen at least in part due to it. Around Wikipedia, change is resisted - and the larger the change, the more resistance there is.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 07:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Malleus, sometimes it takes far longer to lay in decent foundations than it does to build on them. It's a bit like decorating - 90% preparation for 10% decoration!  Pesky  ( talk  …stalk!) 07:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And then years of realising that it's not quite the right shade of peach. :) --Taelus (talk) 08:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The trainwreck of pages at WP:RFA2011 must have been set up by someone who was mentored by the regulars at DYK. No wonder it's going nowhere fast.  As to the proposal here, I disagree entirely; negative comments should be supported by evidence to the same extent that positive are (they're not).  RFA would work if it were like FAC, where the burden is to affirm that criteria are met, and the problem at RFA is pile-on supports without examination of candidates.  Same ole, same ole.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Seriously, was your first comment necessary? If you prefer to have no affiliation with the task force, why take the time to criticize it?  Ryan Vesey  Review me!  01:27, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


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


 * Ryan, we are lucky to have SandyGeorgia willing to comment. Let them speak unabridged, and presume good faith intentions. Sandy would be a great ally in moving this stuff forward, My76Strat (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The reason RFA is not like FAC is that they are two totally different scenarios. FAC is like asking, "Is the diamond ring polished and refined enough to sell?" This question is an affirmation request, so it will yield answers such as "Yes, and this is why." RFA is more like asking, "Can we trust this man/woman to mop the floor and wash the windows without making off with the rings?" This question is a de-affirmation request, so commenters will reply with answers such as "No, and this is why." Reaper Eternal (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, in my view the most concerning problem with RfA is that it is producing genuinely silly rejections, and the only practical way to fix it is to lower the threshold for consensus. James500 (talk) 08:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I can understand how you come to that view, but I disagree. Firstly I would argue that silly rejections are rare, but the number of candidates successful or otherwise is far below replacement levels or what would be healthy for the community. RFA has become something that well qualified and experienced members of the community are loathe to subject themselves to, and that is a problem both in terms of daytoday running of the community and of community health. Three years ago the most active dozen or so vandalfighters were all admins, their current equivalents are mostly not, as the number of active admins declines problems such as this will grow until the community is forced to take action. Personally I would like to see RFA reformed before it gets to the point where an uninvolved steward has to dole out adminship to the most active vandalfighters. The movement has procedures in place to deal with the situation where an individual wiki has insufficient admins to operate, I think it would be embarrassing if they had to apply those here.
 * The emphasis on edit count, statistical analysis and the question section has in my personal opinion left RFA less likely to screen out genuinely problematic candidates than it used to be. There are candidates whose RFAs I have derailed after dozens of votes had been cast, that leads me to believe that there are relatively few voters like myself who actually trawl through a candidates edits before voting. Lowering the threshold would let in very few extra candidates, and by definition only candidates who a large minority of the community perceived as not ready for adminship. I somewhat agree with Sandy Georgia in that FAC would be a good model to base a reformed RFA process on. The first key change would be to agree at least some of the criteria for adminship - it is a farce that individual RFAs frequently degenerate into arguments not as to whether the candidate meets a criteria but whether something should be part of the criteria. At FAC if someone comes up with an erroneous objection such as "too many redlinks" it is much easier to deal with them. Agreeing an adminship criteria or at least a partial one will not be easy as the community is divided on certain issues, but if we can agree it then a lot of potential candidates will be able to look at it and get a pretty good idea as to whether or not they are ready to run. Dropping the voting element of per nom supports would certainly make RFAs shorter, but I suspect would be a step too far for the community. I like the current compromise whereby a support is only a third the value of an oppose but a supporter who simply agrees with the nomination can in effect add their name to it, but an opposer has to give a reason for their objection. Of course once one oppose has been written up others can agree with that oppose, but in my experience the least satisfying RFAs are usually those where the oppose is an unsupported borderline attack rather than a diff supported argument. Supports that don't disclose what the supporter has checked do no harm to the process, if something major emerges during the RFA then a lot of them will be reversed and it does give newcomers to FA an easy entry route.  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  09:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't entirely agree. I think that humans have quite a knack for remembering community members who they feel have violated community norms in the past (a human "feature" which probably causes half the drama on various noticeboards), so even without looking at a block log, somebody with a track record of problematic behaviour is likely to be remembered by somebody round here. (There's one previous miscreant-candidate who I fully expect will turn up here again with a different username, and even without really thinking about it I look through each RfA to see if it's them...) Of course, sometimes humans generalise about entire outgroups or fixate on a poor measure of contribution quality, but when that kind of thinking influences RfA !votes, it doesn't go unnoticed.
 * So, if a "bad" candidate sneaks through, I think it's more likely to be because previous problematic behaviour has gone undetected - in other words, something like copyvio rather than AN/I drama. However, I'm not convinced that many candidates have got through who shouldn't. bobrayner (talk) 10:17, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well very few candidates of any sort are getting through RFA at the moment. The rolling total for the last three months has dropped into single figures for only the second time since March 2003. I hope that there are relatively few bad ones that have snuck through recently, the acid test will be at some point in the future to look through desysopping trends in 2011/12/13. I accept your point that if someone has gained a reputation at AN/I then that will probably be remembered when they come to RFA, My concern is more at the sort of candidate whose edits indicate that they would be unsuitable wielders of the tools, especially the block and deletion tools, sometimes you need to trawl through people's edits to spot that. My fear is that the increased emphasis on the Q&A section and the stats has left insufficient eyes on the candidate's edits.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  14:50, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree - it's put too much emphasis on specific data points that, in and of themselves, are irrespective of the total behavior a candidate has shown throughout his Wikipedia career. As it did in my case, an incident or two of unmitigated stress will cause people to reject everything else that the candidate has done. — Jeremy v^_^v Components:V S M 22:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the analysis of the extensive data gathered from several  hundred RfAs has sufficiently  demonstrated that  in general the right  candidates pass, while the community  excercises caution in  the few instances where 'established' users fail, or fail to  be re-sysoped. There is no  'bar' or standard set of criteria; apart from  a very  small  corps of regular voters who  are mainly  experienced and mature and whose criteria are also  very  different, the bar is set anew for every  single RfA. There is a couple of individuals who rarely have anything  nice to  say  at  RfA, but  their oppose votes appear to  be  directed against  the concept  of adminship rather than directed at  the candidates themselves. The current system would work if it  were not  for the superficial pile-ons, vengeance, personal attacks, and incivility that  are allowed with  impunity. Fix the voters, and the shortage of candidates will  fix itself. This we know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Interjection: The data shows no such thing. If you wanted to prove that the right candidates were respectively passing and being rejected, you would have to collect data on desysopping etc, and you would have to show that there was a statistically significant correlation between the "standard" set at RfA and the incidence of admin tool abuse, and what that relationship was. You have not done that. James500 (talk) 11:16, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The ludicrous pile-ons I see are usually in the support section, which you seem to have studiously ignored Kudpung in your quest to have everyone be nicer to each other. Malleus Fatuorum 01:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * There was no pile-on support for NYMets2000 after your !vote of support. I guess that came to mind because you did mention ludicrous. My76Strat (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That RfA was indeed ludicrous, and demonstrates very clearly one of RfA's fundamental problems; it attracts the wrong kind of people. Malleus Fatuorum 01:33, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It would greatly help if people would give up their crusade against the idea of power-tripping admins and perhaps work within the standards we'd like them to. Indeed there are some people who aren't really admin material, but there's a way to communicate that without being a complete fucking douchebag or a general dick. For me, I'm not so much worried about civility (I don't give a fuck about swearing; it's just words) as I am worried about keeping the comments at least constructive, and not gleeful grave-dancing and blatant attacks on a candidate (will provide examples if necessary). I don't think the number of unqualified candidates who pass will materially increase if we start asking for a modicum of tact, but the number of qualified candidates will almost certainly increase; that's what we're looking for. I don't think people here disagree in our goals as much as they seem to think. And yes, that RfA was very badly considered. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 01:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * What would help even more would be if you could bring yourself to wake up and smell the coffee. The reality is quite plain for anyone with eyes to see. Malleus Fatuorum 02:53, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Believe me, I understand your point of view, and I happen to disagree with it. It would seem a substantial percentage of the community does as well.  Consider that it may not be everyone else who's wrong on this; I've had to do the same with our CSD.  Do tell me what harm my idea of simply asking people to tone it down a bit will do, not so much for my purpose (as I already know where you're coming from) as my wanting to actually see you articulate your position instead of resorting to veiled shots at me. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 03:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * In my experience many if not most people who support will reconsider if something emerges that they hadn't previously noticed. I've torpedoed a few RFAs in my time, and I hope I've never been incivil in an RFA. My experience has been that a civil, clear, diff supported oppose for valid reasons can sink an RFA even if it was heading for success. I don't think that rants, abuse and opposes that aren't evidenced are as damaging to the candidate of that particular RFA. They besmirch the project and deter good candidates from running. But I don't think they particularly damage the candidate they are slung against. I think of RFA as a venue where mud sticks to the hands of the thrower, in that I remember some vitriolic rants and their authors, but not necessarily who their intended victims were. So my suspicion is that if some of the opposse were to change tactics, tone down the vitriol and make sure they evidenced their opposes, we would see some candidates fail because despite keeping their noses clean in the run up to their RFA there was a clear and problematic pattern beforehand. But hopefully a more collegial atmosphere at RFA would attract more candidates, and especially adult candidates who I suspect are more likely to be deterred by the hazing ceremony aspects of RFA than younger editors are.   Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  09:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


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

"Over-zealous contributions to RfAs concerning younger editors"
Malleus commented that RfAs "attracts the wrong kind of people".

IMHO, recent RfAs have attracted bus-loads of "editors" denying that candidates have committed close paraphrasing/plagiarism/copyright violations (or that candidates may lack competence in article writing).

Soon I shall face an RfC/U, whose draft charges include "over-zealous contributions to RfAs concerning younger editors".

Sandy and Malleus, consider yourselves warned!

Kiefer .Wolfowitz 02:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My position on child admins is no secret, and quite clearly this most most recent request was made by a child. No doubt the saintly Newyorkbrad would also have felt obliged to support, as his position on child admins is at least as well known as mine. Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Folks, I'd appreciate if you ignored this section (and if someone uninvolved could close it) - it was an attempt to resolve some underlying issues regarding Kiefer, which is a matter for an RfC. Neither Sandy, nor Malleus have acted in a similar manner and will not be subjects to the RfC.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 06:37, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see my WP:CIR complaint on Keifer at WP:ANI.--Cerejota (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Is it okay to vote against an RfA on principle (rather than the qualities of the candidate)
I don't think I've ever voted in an RfA, but is it acceptable to vote against an RfA if the candidate refuses to be open to recall? --Surturz (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * In answer to your second question, of course it is acceptable. Your first question isn't relevant though because refusing to be open to recall is a quality of the candidate. Opposing an RFA based on some principle, e.g. "We have too many admins", is absolutely not okay. AD 11:39, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What happens if an admin makes commitments in their RfA application and they aren't honoured? e.g. if an admin agrees to be open to recall in their RfA, but then refuses to resign if a subsequent recall process is successful? Is that grounds for RfC/U on the basis that they lied on their job application? --Surturz (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You could try an RfC/U, but this would probably be viewed as a waste of time (or retaliation in some cases), unless the administrator's behavior was sufficiently egregious to warrant an RfC. Do you know of any case where an administrator has failed to honor a pledge of accepting recall? Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if that is a sarcastic request, but if not then yes, it has happened many times, see here  Jebus989 ✰ 12:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I assure you that my question was sincere (and ignorant). Thanks for the list and your reply, after which I view RfA without even a second naiveté . Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * These questions are hypothetical, I am not thinking of any particular existing admin. I am however, thinking of voting in future RfAs and asking that candidates agree to term limits akin to the USA's 22nd Amendment (resign after 4 years and submit to another RfA, then resign permanently after 8 years). In the unlikely situation that any candidate agrees to the term limit, I was wondering what recourse there would be if they reneged. My feeling is that an RfC/U would be appropriate, though that RfC/U could of course legitimise the reneging. (ie. agreeing to recall/term limit then reneging is not automatic grounds for desysopping, but enough to trigger an RfC/U inviting the admin in question to explain why they have reneged). --Surturz (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, by my reading, it looks like every request in which an administrator recall process has happened, the fair result happened. In one case, a majority supported a sitting administrator. It seems to me that the administrators pledging themselves to recall have so far honored that pledge, 100%. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 12:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * All but one, anyway. That one rewrote their recall criteria, took a long wikibreak, and came back a better admin. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 12:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Even the exception has a happy ending, a story line by which Hollywood makes its fortunes. :) 24/25 accuracy is better than usual for me.  Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to name names, but more than one admin has dishonored their pledge when faced with a recall. Though I think the case you are alluding to was the most clearcut.  I used to oppose RFAs based on recall promises - on the grounds that it was ad captandum vulgus and unenforceable.  I viewed it as not a !vote on principle but rather an evaluation of the candidate's judgement.  I stopped because a) several recalls were successful, b) I got tired of getting bitched at for expressing an unpopular opinion, and c) I just don't care anymore except for the most egregious candidacies, which tend to fail RFA anyway.  Skinwalker (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ad captandum vulgus---maybe you mispelled Andy Capp? "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard!" (H. L. Mencken: A Little Book in C major (1916) ; later published in A Mencken Crestomathy (1949)   Kiefer .Wolfowitz 17:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

It's perfectly OK to oppose an RFA candidate for any reason or no reason, just like it's OK to support an RFA candidate for any reason or no reason. However, the closing 'crats tend to discount certain oppose rationales, particularly when those rationales have little or nothing to do with the candidates themselves (e.g. "too many admins"). Townlake (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much this, with the caveat that those that oppose RFAs for overly superficial reasons, or lack of any, should go that they're going in ready for plenty of criticism at the move. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 18:14, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I could add that if one person participating in an RfA decides to oppose a candidate for not agreeing to recall, term limits, or anything else, no one else participating in the RfA is obliged to agree with that one person. (By the way, I can remember one administrator recall process that could reasonably be viewed as having malfunctioned pretty significantly.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * At RFA one votes on principle or comments based on personal opinion. It really is not complicated. If RFA is a vote, then vote accordingly. If it is a consensus gathering discussion offer your opinion. Just hope that in the latter case WJB, Avi or EVula (and a couple more at best) close the discussion - or your input will be pointless. Can we close this thread ? Pedro : Chat  23:08, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
 * my questions have been answered, certainly. Thanks to all that contributed. --Surturz (talk) 23:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

No, let's be clear: this is disruptive
At Requests for adminship/Ks0stm, Surturz has now decided to take the above advice and apply it rather drastically. I think we need to be clear about this: opposing based on something like this with zero basis in policy is being disruptive. I don't know what point is being made here (presumably, that term limits need to be introduced) but that is a discussion for itself, and people should not be opposed because they refuse to commit to something an editor thinks should be policy but isn't. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 05:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not disruptive. He's entitled to his view and his vote, and we should not attempt to silence him, wrong though he may be. 28bytes (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If he's wrong, why do we allow this kind of thing? AD 10:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with the notion that this is disruptive. The editor opposed because they did not agree with the candidate's view on something pertinent to the role of administrators. One can disagree, but to say doing so is disruptive is almost an insult to a good-faith, competent editor. wctaiwan (talk) 07:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously, this is disruptive. Opposes should not be made based on disagreements, but whether the candidate will make a competent admin. People can cry "free speech" and nonsense about being entitled to an opinion, but it's disruptive. We all know it's wrong, so why do we put up with it? Yet another reason why RFA is broken. There are certain places to soapbox policies and individual ones are not the place. Of course if Surturz can demonstrate how the candidate will not make a good admin because they don't agree with term limits, I'll be happy to join him and oppose. But right now, it's a "principle" oppose, rather than one based on the candidate as it should. And that's why it's disruptive. AD 10:21, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't believe the point raised is disruptive, but rather illegitimate. Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 10:24, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The particular vote in question isn't disruptive or illegitimate at all. It's a perfectly valid case of someone voting on the basis of answers received to questions, and to imply otherwise is to violate the WP:AGF policy. If I were to vote "Oppose" purely to make a POINT for this discussion, that probably would be disruptive, since it's nothing to do with the candidate or its stated positions, but that's not what's happening here. Absconded Northerner (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The vote itself is a violation of AGF because it assumes the candidate will be a bad admin with no evidence whatsoever. AD 10:52, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Not at all. Having an Emergency Stop handle in railway carriages isn't to imply that the train will need to be stopped, it's there just in case. Same with this. Anyone is perfectly free to vote on that basis. Absconded Northerner (talk) 11:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly it is because of the lack of evidence otherwise. We should assume a candidate is competent unless proven otherwise. Right now it's an oppose "just in case you go crazy with the mop". AD 11:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:AGF is a behavioural guideline, not a policy. "It is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * To advise a user it is acceptable to do something and then accuse the user of being disruptive when they do it appears disruptive to me.-- Club Oranje T 11:11, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just because it is acceptable currently does not mean I agree with it in the slightest, nor does it make it anywhere near the right thing to do. AD 11:19, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1. It's impossible for my !vote to be disruptive, the closing 'crat can simply ignore it. I am not disrupting any of you, you can ignore my vote too. 2. I am comfortable voting to grant admin status to this candidate for a period of 4 years. I am not however comfortable voting to grant admin status to this candidate for forty or more years, which is what is being asked of me. If the candidate wants my !vote, he can agree to a term limit. I suspect he doesn't need it. --Surturz (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * 1 is wholly untrue - an easy example of a disruptive vote would be a personal attack. In this case, your vote appears to be that a candidate does not agree to something that the rest of the community also does not agree to - I wouldn't call that disruptive, but it doesn't do you any favours. You were told above that if a candidate doesn't meet your requirements - say, because they don't subscribe to the transparency of recall, that you could vote based on that, but a vote based on say "too many admins" would not be acceptable. Well, your vote is based on "admins do not have term limits", not based on this candidates abilty. You've worded it so it's borderline about the candidate - but you are making a WP:POINT.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have not made a personal attack. Even if I had, that would be a violation of WP:NPA, not WP:POINT. WP:POINT requires disruption - damaging articles, spamming edits, etc. I believe your example misrepresents WP:POINT --Surturz (talk) 14:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I did not intend to accuse you of making a personal attack - I was refuting the idea that "it's impossible for a vote to be disruptive". If you define "disruption" as "interruption of normal work or practice", it's clear that this vote has caused a fallout - and by that defnition, yes, I think that you are disrupting this candidate's RfA to make a WP:POINT.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 14:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see the !vote itself as disruptive, but I do see it as an attempt by Surturz to force a policy change after the standard procedures failed to go his way-- Jac 16888 Talk 11:49, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm… I also opposed this candidate on a matter of principle. I suppose this is disruptive and just being pointy also. --Epipelagic (talk) 12:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not in the slightest, yours is a completely different objection altogether (and completely legitimate and relevant to the candidate). Not at all disruptive, unlike the first oppose. AD 12:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Your oppose is based on something the candidate has done while editing (or not done), as is the oppose after yours. That's a very different kettle of fish from Surturz's oppose. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 12:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Whether he has other reasons to make the !vote is not relevant, since there is no evidence for that and AGF goes both ways. For example, I do not support anyone who is not using edit summaries more than 90% of the time but that does not mean I do it to force a policy change that requires edit summaries for everyone. You don't have to use them and I don't have to support you - everyone has their choice. The same applies here. The community has time and time again accepted that people may be opposed for not being willing to meet the standards a !voter has set for a candidate - such as content contributions, talk page involvement, agreeing to be open to recall etc - even if you think those standards are utterly and completely wrong. I don't agree with Surturz's !vote for example, I think it's complete nonsense to require an admin to be willing to step down after a certain period of time but my disagreeing with him does not make his !vote disruptive. It's not disruptive as long as those !voters apply their standards based on the candidates actual actions and comments - e.g. it's not disruptive to oppose someone who openly states that they do not meet a certain standard - instead of !voting a certain way no matter of the candidate. It would be the best course of action if we just let Surturz !vote as he likes (as long as he does it about the candidate in question) and let the crats, who are tasked with closing the RFA, sort out whether that !vote is relevant or not. Remember people, RFA is a discussion and if no one agrees with someone's !vote, then the !vote will not (significantly) influence consensus. Regards  So Why  12:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * People equating "disruption" with "doesn't agree with the majority" are a far bigger danger to the health of the project than someone who opposes based on an unpopular personal opinion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ^ QFT--Cube lurker (talk) 14:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * This isn't the first time, nor will it be the last time, that someone chooses to oppose a candidate because they wont (or did) commit to a recall or term limit. I don't think lengthy discussion on it is a good use of anyone's time. – xeno talk 14:38, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wise words, can we close this? I agree we should eliminate POV based reasoning (and for that matter, no reasoning) from RfA (among a ton of other stuff), but there is nothing disruptive with the !vote and arguing so endlessly is indeed disruptive. !Votes that are idiotic/POV based/Ignore policy/Are personal vedettas/irresponsible/whatever are allowed - and because they are allowed is one of the reasons we need reform. --Cerejota (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Close of original thread
Just a last note... I was a little blindsided by the level of opprobrium against my vote. I think the editor that closed the original thread did me a disservice because the tone was mildly encouraging. I clearly explained what I intended to do and nobody said that I would cop a lot of flak over it. I feel a bit tricked, to be perfectly frank. --Surturz (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Just let it go. The thread gave some, imho correct, advice, someone else objected nevertheless when you acted upon it, we had another discussion, you feel tricked. Now there is nothing productive left that might come from re-opening this can of worms again. Regards  So Why  18:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

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

I therefore ask – as vaguely as I can so as not to be opposed for proposing a specific too hastily – whether the community might now or in future seriously consider setting a date for the end of the current system? —WFC— 15:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a sensible suggestion. We have a number of suggested RfA changes, ranging from slight tweaks, to complete overhauls, to parallel processes. Your fear may well become a reality but picking a date to end a fully-functional process is not the answer  Jebus989 ✰ 16:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Right now you may be correct, hence my decision to include the phrase "or in future". —WFC— 16:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah I must have missed that. Well then, certainly at some stage in the future we will begin to most seriously consider the possibility of discussing the commencement of deliberations regarding a potential endpoint. I trust that your fears are quelled  Jebus989 ✰ 17:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Optimists think that we are not yet in the phase of degeneration.


 * However, it is safe to say that the present system will end when the sun expands in a billion years. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 16:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We are making progress with the RFC on allowing Bureaucrats to dessysop, and under what circumstances. This will make losing the mop easier, and so make it less risky to select new people. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah Keifer needs to browse WP:RFA2011 which seems to have more momentum every day... CHange is slow, but it will happen - there is simply no justification for the current system that as of today is nearly unique in the large Wikimedia projects as not having recall and tenure requirements, and allowing free-for-all RfA funfests. Hell, Wikiversity has a two step process. It seems to me the problems with change have more to do with inertia than unwillingness, and bickering over the details rather than moving forward boldly... --Cerejota (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * By nature, Wikipedia is about as bold as a bowl of muesli. I don't mean that as a criticism of the project as a whole, but it's certainly a weakness in this instance. —WFC— 18:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

A standard recall
There is always talk of empowering the community to recall administrators who face a decline in trust. Why not close an RfA in some manner which allows anyone who participated prior to the close to append their edit after the close? Then the RfA exists as a living authorization of consensus and if ever enough who did support, vacate that support, A new RfA would be mandated? My76Strat (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That would create a privileged class of "old RfA voters" who would wield unusual and undeserved power. A relatively small and self-selected group of "RfA regulars" already have a very significant (and, I dare say, not always healthy) influence over adminship standards on Wikipedia; I have trouble seeing it as beneficial to give them additional extra clout: The cabal giveth; the cabal taketh away. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The cabal would be a much more inclusive club than the cabal. I know because I am in one and not the other. RfA participation is not a closed process at all. My76Strat (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no cabal, My76Strat. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I oppose this notion. Other issues aside, being an administrator signifies trust of the entire community, so giving an arbitrary group of editors (those who supported) some right to "judge" an admin doesn't make much sense. On the other hand, if the entire community was allowed to "vote," the possibility of mobbing in the aftermath of a controversial incident is too huge to ignore. In addition, the dated opinions of those who voted in the actual RfA and then went inactive would weigh heavily in a discussion, which is rather illogical. The current system of having RfCs, while imperfect, is much better. wctaiwan (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Perpetual RfA

 * I wouldn't be averse to the inclusion of new contributors after the close. The idea is that the RfA remains an active instrument where related discussions can centralize on the talk page and the possibility of a loss of trust is possible. My76Strat (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I like that idea! The RfA page is a user subpage of the administrator, and is never closed. Editors can add, remove or change their vote at any time. If the consensus of the RfA changes, then the admin status of the editor changes. If we are serious about admins "maintaining the trust of the community", this is a fine way to prove it. There would need to be a little bit of bureaucracy - if the admin lost WP:CONS on their perpetual RfC (pRfC) page, then every editor on the pRfC would need to be pinged to reconfirm their vote (to avoid having an admin status change based on stale votes). --Surturz (talk) 05:10, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't this invite those upset with an admin to go stack the oppose section long after the fact? I mean, who is going to go back to an old RFA if this process is implemented? Only those who are upset with the admin. Maybe if there was some community notice when an admin started getting into borderline territory it would attract some neutral editors to take a look, but I would still be very worried that a process like this will get manipulated by those with axes to grind. Monty  845  05:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is part reason why I originally suggested closing to the ones who had already voted. Naturally there could be problems and anticipating them would be the way to mitigate their occurrence. If it was closed to the ones who participated prior to the close. New grievances can be raised on the talk page but not affect the consensus by !vote. That doesn't mean they couldn't sway someone who had supported into opposing. If it were to remain perpetually open in a sense, well this could just become a new Paradigm. My76Strat (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You could have a use-by date on votes. After X years, your vote becomes stale and is automatically removed from the pRfA. At that point if you are still active you can re-vote of course. --Surturz (talk) 05:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, admins would naturally tend to !vote for each other, so there would be a bit of ballast there, as a counterweight to a small group of aggrieved editors. --Surturz (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many ways to tailor an effective means by which the RfA itself can remain a living instrument where the administrator derives the right, operates under the implied trust, and remains accountable to the very community who gave their proxy. My76Strat (talk) 05:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Good lord, this is an awful idea. The only pleasant thing about going through an RfA currently is that it eventually ends. 28bytes (talk) 05:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we just assume that every existing admin will oppose this an any other idea to make admins more accountable, rather than turning this into another admin gripefest? Let's assume that the following arguments have been made:
 * The bit is WP:NOBIGDEAL and admins are just normal editors with extra buttons
 * We already are having trouble recruiting enough admins as it is and this proposal will mean that there won't be enough admins
 * RfA is too time consuming and all these extra processes will mean we'll never get through the backlog
 * It's open to abuse
 * Those evil non-admins will bloc vote to get rid of any admin that has a content disagreement with them
 * Like Sauron, ARBCOM's baleful eye watches over all, destroying any rouge (or rogue) admin
 * Admins are delicate flowers and they should be nurtured because being an admin is so hard... the mop is sooo heavy... emo emo...
 * Now that those arguments are out of the way, let's continue constructively developing this excellent idea. --Surturz (talk) 07:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin, and I still oppose this for the reasons I have outlined (just above this thread). I don't think your mockery in the last 3 points is constructive, either. wctaiwan (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Addendum: When should bureaucrats be asked to gauge results? Does desysop occur if at any point the support falls below a certain threshold at any point in time, or are they allowed a grace period? If votes are made stale by technical means, how much extra developer work is that? What will be the new responsibilities of the bureaucrats? I support making it less convoluted to desysop an admin, but this proposal seems like way too much work and just plain poorly thought out. wctaiwan (talk) 09:04, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Surturz - I'm all for accountability. I'd support term limits, I'd support reconfirmation RfAs, I'd support a mandatory recall requirement. I don't support this, because (IMO) it's stupid never going to work . Keeping an RfA open wouldn't prove anything - because the old votes become irrelevent and the new votes will be added slowly to the oppose column. It doesn't prove anything. As to your other comments, I'll see you at your talk page.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 09:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think stupid is being reluctant to comment on a thing for fear of the inevitable ad hominem attack. My76Strat (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thinking about it, stupid is an emotive response and does not accurately convey my meaning. Have redacted and replaced.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 10:15, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

For the reasons set forth by several of the other commenters above, I don't believe this is a viable proposal. However, let's not spend a lot more time discussing it, unless more than two people indicate they might support it. While the purpose of the idea is a legitimate one, I don't think the core concept here is workable enough to become the basis for something that might be adopted. Sorry. Newyorkbrad (talk) 09:31, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Re-reading my earlier comments, I must reluctantly admit that I may have overstepped the bounds of politeness a bit by making unfavourable comparisons. I unreservedly apologize to emo's, Sauron, and mops. --Surturz (talk) 10:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

New standard for de-admining
Please see: Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision. It appears that ArbCom has decided that administrators now can be de-sysopped for conduct other than actual misuse of administrator tools. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you feel that proposed decision reflects a material change from the current policy outlined at Administrators (perm) ? – xeno talk 19:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC) ( this probably belongs at Wikipedia talk:Administrators) realize now why it is here 
 * Admins are expected to uphold a high standard of conduct and if they constantly fail this standard to a point when it becomes disruptive, then the sanction can include removal of adminship. But that's not a new standard or anything. ArbCom remedies are for specific cases and bound to be based on the user in question. Also, and I think that's the most important point, ArbCom didn't even decide to desysop Cirt! At this time the remedy is still in voting and by the current numbers, it will fail because a support of 2 is required (see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision). I thus fail to see what you are trying to tell us with this comment. Regards  So Why  19:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As a point of order, that implementation table needs updating. See the majority table at the top of the proposed decision. – xeno talk 19:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Where I'm coming from in making this comment is WP:CDARFC. To SoWhy, I could easily be confused about this, but I think that Xeno is right and the proposal passed. To Xeno, no, I don't think it represents a change in our policy on administrator conduct. I think it represents a change in how the DR process deals with the criteria for removing administrator powers. In other words, we have long had a policy that administrators should conduct themselves in a professional manner. We just didn't hold them to it when it comes to revoking tenure. The attitude has been: if there is no misuse of the tools, we don't de-admin. During the CDA debate, I was told, over and over again, that we would have mobs with pitchforks if admins could be removed without evidence of misuse of tools. I do understand that ArbCom is not a courtroom and stare decisis doesn't apply, but I'm pretty sure this is the first time on the English Wikipedia that an administrator has been removed when there was zero evidence of misuse of tools, but there was, in effect, a judgment that community trust was lost. In that sense, this is Wiki-historic. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The remedy is currently passing (not passed). – xeno talk 20:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why you're where you are and I'm where I am. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Because I'm a hopelessly bureaucratic process wonk? =) – xeno talk 20:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comments on the proposed decision. I have voted against the proposed desysopping in this case, but I cannot agree that in principle, the Arbitration Committee cannot or should not ever desysop an adminstrator for misconduct that did not involve the misuse of administrator tools. And in fact, if one thinks about the matter for a few minutes, no one should really take that position, at least given the absence of any other mechanism for involuntary desysopping. To take an admittedly extreme case to make the point, if an administrator commits blatant vandalism on a hundred articles, we are going to revoke his or her adminship, even if the vandalism is committed using nothing more advanced than the "edit" button. So it is not a matter of the Committee's not having authority or reason to desysop for misconduct "as an editor," but a matter of line-drawing and degree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of that. In a way, I think the five arbitrators, including you, who voted against the proposal got it "right" in terms of where the lines have been drawn in the past, and the six arbitrators who voted for it got it "right" in terms of where the community is now. It doesn't mean that ArbCom is going to de-admin every time, now. But it does mean that admins, and RfA participants, should realize that the possibility is on the table. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

As for the historical point, I don't believe it's true that the Committee has never desysopped for conduct that didn't involve misuse of administrator tools, although I do believe that such decisions have been rare. Two that come to mind for me are the desysoppings of Henrygb (though that case is more than four years old and predates my time on the Committee) and of Geogre (though I dissented strongly in that case and would not want to see it used as a precedent). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I probably wrote proposed decisions desysopping users for violating non-administrative conduct. It's something that should be happening per your above note. Wizardman  Operation Big Bear 20:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this really true, that a reason other than tool abuse has never been the reason for adminship? Like perhaps deadminned for advocating a hate group or child molestation? Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Brad mentioned two past cases (before my time), that I guess would fit that description (at least in terms of severity, but I don't know the specifics), more or less. However, in this case, here is the sole "Finding of fact" that would form the basis for the desysopping remedy: "According to statements in Evidence, and by his own admission, Cirt has, against policy, placed "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs" and followed poor sourcing practices." By the logic of how ArbCom makes decisions, that, and only that, would be the basis of the decision in this case. I think that is new. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I think I see your point. I can see losing the bit for "conduct not befitting an admin", esp if long term, but I'm not sure if Cirt's case would rise to that level. Pumpkin Sky   talk  22:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What I find expecially problematic here is that the problems are not relevant to his use of tools and they are irrelevant in any other way, because Cirt admitted that there were some probems in the past and he a priori agreed to ArbCom imposing some remedies to make sure these issues won't repeat themselves. And he was very productive with using the Admin tools. There are many more admins who have a far worse record on far more relevant issues than Cirt has. Count Iblis (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Up until the last vote came in, I would have bet just about anything that the de-sysop would not pass. This is why I think this is such a significant change. It is very much a statement that administrators are going to be held to a higher standard than in the past. Perhaps "no big deal" is also passing into history. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it could be lower standards. This decision was not made on the basis of a proper job evaluation. The whole case was based on Cirt being unpopular to a group of editors based on his editing in some controversial topic areas. An Admin who doesn't do his/her Admin work as good as Cirt did, but who doesn't have a cabal following him/her isn't going to face charges. At RFA people are nominated who we can only guess how good they will function, but later we are going to remove people based on irrelevant factors? This will lead to degeneration by unnatural selection. Count Iblis (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

GlassCobra's desysop by the ArbCom had nothing to do with his use of admin tools. Graham 87 02:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Those were not technical tools, but were admin "tools": admins are required to intervene against all behavioral issues that threaten the wiki (regular editors are not) - that is different than evaluating editor behavior. Am sorry if I sound legalistic, but its ArbCom we dealing with - being legalistic is the house rules. :)--Cerejota (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, admins are not required' to do anything - we're volunteers, just like (almost) everybody else. Admins are, however, required not to do certain things, as are regular editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I haven't voted on this particular desysop (given that I was recused entirely vis a vis Cirt), but I'm on the record as supporting the general principle that an administrator that has misbehaved is necessarily at risk of loosing their tools because – whether that was the original intent or not – they are the public face of "wikipedia-as-a-project". The other editors expect administrators to help protect the project and to enforce our policies; this creates the (entirely legitimate) expectation that they will follow those policies themselves. An administrator that engages in behaviour that wouldn't be tolerated from any other editor without consequences destroys the confidence that the project is fair and that non-administrators' contributions are exactly as valuable as everybody else's.  Because of that, administrators must be held to a higher standard. Certainly, nobody needs to fear losing the bit over the occasional error we are all bound to make, but patterns of concerning behaviour will eventually erode the community's trust.  &mdash; Coren (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong agreement with Coren. Adminship is a big deal, and this is not the first time that ArbCom has affirmed this principle. Even as far back as this case in 2006: "Administrators are held to high standards of conduct, as they are often perceived as the "official face" of Wikipedia. Administrators must be courteous, and exercise good judgment and patience in dealing with others." Administrators are also seen as rolemodels: In any online community, new members look to the authority figures to learn how to behave.  So it makes perfect sense that if an administrator engages in a longterm pattern of policy-violating conduct, even if not specifically related to tools, that their admin access may be removed. --Elonka 18:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong agreement with both Coren and Elonka. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong agreement here as well! But a much more streamlined process should be the goal. Arbitration is better suited as recourse for the desysopped admin in cases where sufficient mitigation warrants their intervention; like a Supreme Court! We need to be able to hold our admins fully accountable at the local level. IMO My76Strat (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Something just occurred to me. Since we're here to discuss RfA, after all, I note that this talk about being a public face might lead some people to the argument we sometimes see in RfA of What, he hasn't written an FA? Off with his head!. I just want to say that I'm quite happy with administrators who focus on gnomish work, but who conduct themselves in a considerate and professional manner. Your mileage may vary. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

On a related topic...
I think this means that there is momentum and possibility for that perennial proposal for de-adminship, RfC/A-then-ask-ArbCom? Or am I wrong?--Cerejota (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That doesn't require a policy change; it's an option that's always been on the table. As a policy matter, the final decision will rest with ArbCom (as a safety valve and opportunity for sober reflection after a heated RfC, if nothing else).  As a practical matter, I suspect it would be rare indeed for an RfC to generate an unambiguous consensus to desysop, so the ArbCom's evaluation of the evidence and circumstances will be required anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree this could in theory be done, but I have seen some really awful cases of admins being total dicks-pointy-nasties-meatpuppeters and getting topic banned, getting sanctioned up their ass, getting CU/Crat removed, and still are admins because they didn't misuse THOSE tools. Even if the above doesn't result in de-adminship, this is the first time a simple majority (AFAIK) goes for desysop when tools are not involved.--Cerejota (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Circumstances that would have prejudiced those admins' promotions ought to be grounds for their demotion. Malleus Fatuorum 04:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Given my past experiences with CDA (which I know that both TenOfAllTrades and Malleus Fatuorum remember well), I followed the arbitration case with a keen interest in exactly the question that Cerejota asks above. As I said earlier, I was genuinely surprised by the decision that the Arbs apparently have made. But it sure looks like they made it (albeit by a single-vote margin). In fact, the talk page of the proposed decision now has a thread in which Cirt requests reconsideration of the decision, and (as of this time) at least one Arb has responded very clearly with a statement that the decision was, in fact, a matter of loss of trust.


 * Today, I believe that TenOfAllTrades is correct that we already have a process in place in which one can have an RfC/U followed by arbitration. Ever since the CDA proposal failed, I have become convinced that it was a mistake to propose a process in which the final decision about de-sysopping would rest with the community, and that instead ArbCom should make any final decision. What I have wondered about is whether we might need a new policy in which the existing RfC/U processes would be supplemented by something (to be determined) that would be designed to be more efficient in giving ArbCom the information that it would need. Seeing how inconclusive the RfC/U on Cirt had been, and seeing how closely divided the Arbs have been, I still wonder whether we might be able to do it more effectively. Had the result been 5–6 instead of 6–5, I would probably be working right now on such a proposal.


 * But that didn't happen. In a single case, the Arbs have, narrowly and messily, put down a marker that they are ready, at least sometimes, to determine that an administrator who has not misused the tools, and who hasn't done something so blatant as to sockpuppet or mislead the community about other accounts, can be removed for loss of community trust. In this case, the loss of community trust is attributed to a pattern, over time, of bad sourcing and editing with respect to BLPs, and suggests that conduct leading to a topic ban can be sufficient reason to de-sysop. My motivation for CDA was that there are a few administrators (a small minority, not typical of the rest), most of whom went through RfA in the "good old days" when, in my opinion, standards were too lax, who engage in bad editing practices and use their administrator "status" to gain an improper upper hand, without actually misusing tools. For what I think is the first time, ArbCom has indicated that they may, in the future, be prepared to de-sysop in cases such as those.


 * So, for now, I see no reason to propose any kind of new de-admin procedure. TenOfAllTrades told me many times that ArbCom is capable of doing what is needed. I'm a lot more sold on that argument now than I was a day ago. I'm sure that in the months ahead there will eventually be other arbitration cases in which some of the parties will be administrators who edit badly. We'll see what ArbCom does. If they continue as they did this time, I'll be on the side of those who say we don't need any new procedures. If they backtrack or prove to be inconsistent from case to case, I think the community will watch that closely, and perhaps be ready to find better ways to provide input to the Committee. And I suspect that administrators will watch their own behaviors a bit more carefully going forward.


 * In the mean time, I'll feel more comfortable about supporting RfA candidates, knowing that "tenure" is now a little less etched in stone. I'm sure some RfA participants will disagree with me, but my hope is that RfA can now be a less harsh, more friendly process. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think a new policy is needed, but perhaps a new ammendment or even a guideline might be in order to explain to the community a possible process of de-adminship. RFC/U is obscure and non-sensical, and clarity is needed - and I think ArbCOm is saying: if we get cases, we will look at them on the merits and make the hard choices. So a guideline could have support. --Cerejota (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you mean revising the instructions for RfC/U? That might be worth discussing (there). But anything that would actually change the process, the procedures, seems to me to be premature, pending how ArbCom does in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Also look at this Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Proposed_decision has that happened before with such a vote margin? Notice how de-sysop is for violating editing sanctions, not tool use...--Cerejota (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, that won't be enacted so long as the de-sysop passes. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I know, but look at the vote margin - It seems that even those voting against straight up desysop are not philosophically opposed to it, just feel that one more length of rope must be given. Feel me? If I were ArbCom, I would have probably voted - in this case - to not desysop but give the rope, however, I have zero opposition to ArbCom removing tools. Hell, I would make it a bureaucrat discretion, like blocking users - but I know thats too radical for most :)--Cerejota (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean now: that there are Arbs who voted against the de-sysop who would nonetheless de-sysop if, in effect, it happens again. Myself, I recommended against de-sysopping in the Workshop, and am still unconvinced that the evidence really supported it, but I accept that the decision will be final soon and that's that. Look at that: six of the Arbs are more radical than I am! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Tryptofish: "...an administrator who has not misused the tools, and who hasn't done something so blatant as to sockpuppet or mislead the community about other accounts, can be removed for loss of community trust".

I don't think it is as simple as that. This "loss of community trust" is a nebulous criterium that can be invoked by some cabal do get Admins removed who they strongly disagree with on POV grounds. The fact that an RFC against Will Beback will start soon doesn't bode well. We really must make sure that any de-admining process will only look at relevant criteria in an objective way. Count Iblis (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I argued against it. And you've described quite well a lot of the objections that were raised against CDA, which is another reason I'm not in favor of proposing anything like it right now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with there being a "de-admining process will only look at relevant criteria in an objective way" in theory, but I have a few comments on that:


 * How realistic it is? - Given that in human history there has never been a 100% transparent and unproblematic and cabal-less desicion making process, this objection strikes me as obstructionist: essentially saying the status quo of Supreme Court Justice level tenure is OK. I think that is a valid position if put in the open, but if it is obscured behind a claim that the only alternative is a utopic process that is free of subjectivity, well the argument is invalid.
 * Much more relevant, is that there is a complete and absolute difference between how adminship is achieved, than how adminship is removed. If desysop were to require a "process will only look at relevant criteria in an objective way", then it follows that the process of selection should equally be a "process will only look at relevant criteria in an objective way". What a lot of the active non-admin long-time users see in the process is a self-serving position in which adminship is a popularity contest, but removal is next to impossible. It follows that if an admin behaves in the same way they did before RfA, that any removal process that is equally a popularity contest would have a different result. Only admins who use their adminship to intimidate other editors have anything to fear. It strikes me as a load of horse and bovine manure that we need a different set of criteria for getting The Mop and another to lose it. However, I also recognize social reality, so I do not advocate such a radical position. What I do advocate is that the admin selection process not be a popularity contest, that way, the process of removal wouldn't be so different. Many editors and not too few admins, hold the entirely reasonable suspicion that opposition to criteria-based adminship has to do with a certain cabal of editors and admins who have grown comfortable in their position as RfA gatekeepers, and who do not want to give up this social power.
 * Again, the issue that really needs reform is getting adminship, de-adminship is secondary.--Cerejota (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Where I come from you get your driving license if a qualified driving examiner passes you on the basis of a driving test where under exam conditions you demonstrate an ability to drive. You lose your driving license if the courts take it away for misuse. Ability to drive when sober is not a reason for mitigation when the verdict is guilty of drunk-driving. Driving examiners and magistrates are two very different groups of people, not least because as with adminship the criteria for awarding and removing a driving license are necessarily different.   Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  07:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The analogy is indeed an interesting one, but misleading on a certain respect: the process to get a driving license in all of the jurisdictions I know off are highly objective. The process to select admins in En-Wiki (not all of the Wikimedia projects) is highly subjective. The process to remove the driving license is a mixture of subjective (judge discretion) and objective (point systems, mandated sentences etc) but it is still a defined process, however, the process for removal of tools in En-Wiki is non-existent. The only certifiable process is that of inactive admin accounts. Everything else is ad-hoc, at best.


 * People drive well not just because they are competent to drive, but also because there are clear rules in terms of what will result in a reprimand and what would result in losing the privilege. We lack such clarity, and we lack a process - and process is important.--Cerejota (talk) 23:35, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Adminship is not simply a matter of "having tools"
People commenting here would do well to realize that having adminship is much more than simply having a set of tools. It is a position of power which affords editors a certain amount of added social capital. IMO Cerejota's comment in the section above is one I agree with for that reason particularly, but it isn't just a matter of how you become an admin but what you become when you get the bit vis-a-vis the community and the other editors within it. In other words "abuse of tools" is not, and should not be the only thing you can do to mess things up for yourself as an admin. General abuse of the community's trust should be enough to get you canned, and there is no way to measure that through "objective criteria."Griswaldo (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also add that in the case of Cirt, he abused his social capital specifically when he dragged opponents to various noticeboards to have them flogged. I presented evidence about that in both his RfC and in the arbitration case. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * None of which was accepted by the Arbitration Committee; it was not reflected in any findings against him. There's nothing wrong with referring people to noticeboards if there are genuine issues to be addressed. What do you think the RfC was? Prioryman (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What is your point? I was simply making an observation that is relevant to the topic, not explaining why the arbs did what they did. The arbs appear to have based their conclusions on Cirt's repeated policy violations and his lack of explanation of why he violated policy. By admitting to violating policy but not explaining why he leaves the community thinking the worst -- that he knowingly violated policy in the service of his cause. Of course I'm not sure that admitting to having done such a thing would be a better option, but then again doing such a thing in the first place is the real problem here, and we ought not to forget that. I would like to add here Prioryman, that you have continually argued suggested that Cirt did not violate policy at all, a position that is not even in step with Cirt's own admissions, and as such lends little to no credibility to your other arguments in my opinion. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a complete lie, I have never said any such thing. You can't expect your arguments to have any credibility if you resort to lying about other editors. Prioryman (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Does that mean that you agree that he has violated policy? I'd love for you to answer that question. Meanwhile maybe you'd like to explain these comments?, , . You might consider yourself a clever chap because you never explicitly said "Cirt has not violated any policies" while repeatedly suggesting that he hasn't by claiming that he is being asked to answer for crimes he has not committed, and then only ever trying to refute specific claims of policy violation. I consider it disingenuous, not clever.Griswaldo (talk) 20:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I already agreed that he violated policy. I also said that Cirt was being attacked for things that there was no evidence that he had ever done, like collaborating with Anonymous or manipulating SEO results - things for which he was repeatedly condemned with not a single piece of evidence posted to support them - and I criticised the way in which Jayen and others hounded Cirt off-wiki, including trying to get a hacker to disclose private ArbCom discussions about him. Nobody has covered themselves in glory here. Cirt didn't do himself any favours, but his enemies also went well beyond what was acceptable practice as well. If people are going to make serious claims of misconduct against so-called "coworkers" then they damn well should substantiate those claims. It's just as well that Cirt's enemies are not in fact "coworkers" because if they were they would undoubtedly have lost their jobs too. Prioryman (talk)
 * What policies did he violate? What I saw from you is what is in those diffs I provided. Perhaps you can state here what policies you believe Cirt violated? Do you agree with his own admissions?Griswaldo (talk) 21:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I also think that just "having the tools" can sometimes have a "chilling effect". Back in 2006 I saw a PRODDED article and considered removing the PROD. However, I noticed that the editor who added the prod was an "administrator" and wondered if he would get mad and block me if I did. Of course if he did so it would be a big no no but I didn't know that. (I removed the PROD and he sent it to AFD) Still I wonder how many times an editor didn't revert an edit because it was made by an "administrator" or didn't make a bold edit to an article written by an "administrator"? This is the reason I try to as much as possible "downplay" my role on my user and talk pages. (it's hard to do that on my talk page when almost every post is about an article I deleted but I do follow a no stinkin badges policy on my userpage) If an admin is misbehaving or generally acting like a dick, even if such dickery doesn't involve the use of his tools, the community should be able to decide if said "dick" should continue to have a position of responsibility. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As per Ron Ritzman. I've been editing here for a while, but IIRC it was many years before I realised that Administrators were not the top dogs around here. I suspect that new and casual editors would not know about WP:Arbitrators, Bureaucrats, Stewards, and Trustees. I am still coming to grips with how all these officers interact. Is there a Wikipedia Organisational Chart? (Preview says no! I might create the article and see if it survives :-) --Surturz (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ron and Surturz, I agree very much. My own early experience was with a long-time administrator who went around calling me a sockpuppet because I disagreed with them about content in an area where they had strong opinions. (I'll add that this is no longer an issue.) A second point: to some other editors in this thread, the arbitration cases have closed now, and I wish you wouldn't try to re-argue them again in this talk thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ron, precisely. This is a "position of responsibility," and as such it requires acting responsibly. People might also consider that jobs are lost all time in the real world for actions that do not relate to the specific functions a person may perform when at work, in their capacity as an employee. This is particularly the case when such people are caught breaking laws, or other social rules. I think Wikipedia can sometimes be so insulated from the manner in which society at large functions that people forget to consider similar situations outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a social space, a community comprised of human beings. It is not a board game with a rules brochure that supersedes basic social conventions.Griswaldo (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Could not agree more. To me, the extra tools an admin has is only a small part of the job. Although being an admin is no big deal, admins do tend to command some level of respect. Admins are given the 'position' (for want of a better word) because they are valued and trusted community members. This means that they must retain this trust - if they are consistently uncivil to other users, break Wikipedia guidelines or the like, then they lose the trust. In addition, admins do tend to be looked upon as people who can be turned to for advice or help. Thus, their editing and participation in the community needs to be exemplary. I would expect no admin to abuse the tools they have; they must also be outstanding editors and community members. ItsZippy (talk • Contributions) 16:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Y'know, I like the idea of a Wikipedia Organizational Chart :) It's a good idea. I've been editing for about 5 1/2 years, am an admin, and am not entirely sure what all the different offices do. There sure are a lot of roles...rollbacker, admin, oversight, trustee, steward, bureacrat, checkuser...I'm sure there are more. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm so glad I'm not the only one! Somebody tagged it for speedy about twenty seconds after I created it, so I requested G7 and have moved the content to User:Surturz/Wikipedia Organisational Chart. I must have missed the memo where new articles now need to spring from the aether as fully formed encyclopedia articles . I'd love some help. --Surturz (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * On a side note, thanks to Bob the Wikipedian the administrator's userbox now has a "noannounce" option that makes it say "this user don't need no stinkin badges". If the "nocat" option is also used then it can also be used by non-admins if any "rollbackers" or "account creators" want to make it clear that they "don't need no stinkin badges". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Griswaldo:"...there is no way to measure that through "objective criteria.""

If we make important descisions based on subjective feelings, we will tend to discriminate against good editors/admins who hold unpopular views on some issues. That's the lesson we can learn from thousands of years of history, so there is no reason to believe that on Wikipedia things would magically work differently.

In fact, it is well known that on online social media, people are far less restrained to launch personal attacks than in real life interactions. Minor differences of opinion become major disputes far sooner than in real life.

My experience here on Wikipedia and other online media confirms this. Sticking to the "Griswaldo doctrine" would i.m.o. destroy Wikipedia within a decade. We have to realize that we always have the tendency to move in this wrong direction, so we must make an effort to resist this. So, instead of letting vague community perceptions dominate, we should always WP:AGF about everyone. Only if there is very strong proof that you really can't trust someone to have some function here, should we restrict such a person.

If we move in the wrong direction then over time that will affect the pool of editors ad admins, who will then cause us to move even faster in the wrong direction, ultimately causing Wikipedia to completely degenerate beyond repair. Count Iblis (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)


 * And what exactly is the "Griswaldo doctrine," other than a toothless straw man? The world is not as black and white as to be divided between "objective criteria" and "subjective feelings" and I have never argued that we should make decisions based on our "feelings" alone -- never, meaning not once. My point is, in fact, that there are more basic rules, outside of those of any particular rule book, through which social groups keep themselves alive. Yes "feelings" (if that's what you want to call them) like trust, empathy, respect and so on have a very important place within these rules. And by the way, that is a basic assumption underlying modern sociology, which does not treat human social life as a matter of contractual relationships, although apparently that is what the "Count Iblis doctrine" promotes. When someone commits a crime on their day off and loses a job they do not do so because they broke rule 3.5a in the employee handbook, they do so because they've lost the trust of their employers and their coworkers. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Claiming that Cirt had "lost the trust" of his "coworkers" is hardly accurate. It's hardly even accurate to say that he had lost the trust of the ArbCom. The desysop passed by the narrowest margin, one vote, and only because one arbitrator recused at the last minute. The desysop was very clearly a sop to the lynch mob that descended on Cirt after the Santorum row. Neither the RfC nor the arbitration case would have happened if the Santorum controversy had not given some of Cirt's long-time enemies (not "coworkers", but enemies who had systematically harassed him off-wiki) the leverage to get an RfC and arbitration case through. I strongly suspect that this case will turn out to be the "Bush vs Gore" of Wikipedia - a unique decision adopted to deal with a unique though unacknowledged issue (i.e. the Santorum fallout) which will not be treated as binding precedent in future. It's a sad reflection of the way that politics has come to trump every other consideration on Wikipedia. Prioryman (talk) 19:23, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I made that comment as a generalization, but even so I don't see any of the opposing Arbs saying that Cirt continues to have their trust. Indeed, even among the opposers there appears to be some doubt, while the supporters of the measure quite clearly feel that he has lost it. I find your continued accusations of lynch mobs to be beyond the pale. What you did at the RfC when you went around casting aspersions and mucking the waters up should have been cause for sanctions against you. That said you do provide a perfect example of how important feelings can be to community cohesion, since your only aim, this entire time appears to have been to stir up feelings of distrust among the community against those who were critical of Cirt's editing. You have provided no evidence of harassment, witch hunting, or a lynch mob mentality yet you have trafficked in this type of rhetoric repeatedly. Count Iblis here is your perfect example of someone trying to manipulate the feelings of the community in order to win a political game. Prioryman you claim that it is sad that "politics has come to trump every other consideration on Wikipedia," but what are we to make of this when you have yourself been engaging in a political game of character assassination acting as the Wikipedia version of Carl Rove ? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I provided evidence in the case that was directly referenced to back a finding against Jayen466. It's unfortunate that Cirt's harassers seem to have been given little more than a slap on the wrist; evidently WP:HARASS is a dead letter these days. Prioryman (talk) 20:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The finding of fact about Jayen's behavior was based explicitly on Tryptofish and Cbrick's evidence, not on yours. This finding of fact did not state that Jayen had violated WP:HARASS. This finding of fact was clearly the basis for the two remedies involving Jayen as well, neither of which established that he was harassing Cirt either. That the arbs did not buy your overzealous rhetoric does not mean that policies are "dead letters." Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision, comment 4 by Roger Davies: "While I note what the opposers say, I do not think the end justifies the means. I am also troubled by the this" [sic] Prioryman (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I see the confusion. You said it was used to "back a finding" but you meant it was used by one arb to partially explain their vote on a finding. Fair enough, but that's a tad less significant than what you wrote.Griswaldo (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The Carl Rove metaphor was in poor taste. I think you are intelligent enough to know why. My76Strat (talk) 20:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Why, what are you saying about Carl Rove? I'm happy to strike it, but I'm not sure you are familiar with how Prioryman conducted himself at that RfC talk page. It was pure character assassination, which is why I made the analogy.Griswaldo (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for striking that, even before I gave cause. To remain focused on the things being said, I'll share the full answer with you another time. For now, I am sorting this president, for the things I can glean (there are many). My76Strat (talk) 21:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Assumes facts not in evidence.... Prioryman (talk) 20:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you need diffs again to your character assassinations? They have been provided several times before and if you insist I'm glad to oblige.Griswaldo (talk) 21:30, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You cannot sack someone "because they've lost the trust of their employers and their coworkers" - that is unfair dismissal. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No one was "sacked". You most certainly can remove someone from a position of trust within a company for such reason. While you may not be able to fire them, that would be equivalent to Cirt having been banned, which he was not. My76Strat (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Like all analogies this one is not perfect. Rather than having a prolonged discussion about the merits of the analogy I'll just say that I agree with My76Strat, who makes an excellent adjustment to the analogy. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 12:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * It shouldn't be such a big deal being defrocked, and RfA shouldn't be such a big deal. ArbCom doesn't need to find misuse of tools or repeated violations of WP:INVOLVED to have grounds to desys.; just an erosion of trust. Tony   (talk)  06:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are exactly correct. What's nice about this silver lining is that clear direction is being defined, increasing the likelihood by many fold that we will finally arrive at the heretofore elusive goal of change, and implementation of the better ideas. My76Strat (talk) 06:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

This is off-topic for this page but it's been raised here so I'll address it here. Re: Prioryman, above: Cirt behaved badly over many years and was never sanctioned for it, at least not as User:Cirt. The arbs seemed happy enough in this recent case to simply rebuke him and apply an interaction ban and some editing restrictions. But Count Ibis, Prioryman and others continued to play down the seriousness of his behaviour on the Arbitrators decision talk page, as they do here. I believe their continued insistence that Cirt's behaviour was no big deal left the arbs with no place to go but desysop, in order to drive the point home about how seriously they view his behaviour. Still Prioryman is claiming the desysop was "very clearly a sop to the lynch mob that descended on Cirt after the Santorum row." A hollow piece of rhetoric which is insulting to me, other editors who saw a real problem and took time out of our lives to address it, and the arbitrators. You might want to consider for a moment, Prioryman, that the behaviour highlighted at the ArbCom case and RfCU/Cirt actually was serious and deserving of serious sanctions and behaviour change. Try thinking that for a couple of minutes and see how it feels. It is clearly the view of many of your fellow Wikipedians, and all ArbCom members. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be a shame if members were spurred into "driving a point home" for the perhaps misguided zeal of Cirt's supporters. I prefer giving them more credit; that they acted in a manner they believed was in Wikipedia's best interest. I also prefer to believe a clear precedent has been set. I actually believe Cirt has the wherewithal to overcome this decision, and emerge whole, in time (if he chooses to). What I truly hope, is that everyone will realize that fair warning has been given, and conduct themselves as if they know and believe, shenanigans of the past will no longer be tolerated. Imagine collaborating in a truly collaborative environment. Because this new direction takes us to that reality. Where we need to be, and by rights should have been. I say Bravo! My76Strat (talk) 09:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think I agree with all of that, except the first point. It was important that the arb's respond in such a way that both Cirt and the rest of the community get that the highlighted behaviours are not trivial,, and if ongoing conversation demonstrates that hasn't been achieved, there would be nothing improper with adjusting the response accordingly, in my opinion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

About the "seriousness of Cirt's behaviour", I think one can acknowledge that there were serious problems but one could still have moved on with mutual consent. E.g. Cirt withdraws from certain BLP areas as he said he would do, ArbCom just makes this a formal ruling in the form of a topic ban. Now, what I have observed on Wikipedia since about 2008 is that there is a gradual movement toward an ever more strict "rules are rules" mentality here, with more and more draconian measures being taken.

What happens in practice is that while clear disruptive editors are booted out more easily, for more established editors who really do work constructively, but whose editing sometimes poses problems, we are very inconsistent with taking draconian measures. Irrelevant factors that have little to do with maintaining Wikipedia, determine whether or not we throw the book at the editor. What we have ended up with is that the "rules" have become sticks to remove certain unpopular editors from the project.

This shouldn't be a surprise. Zero tolerence style draconian laws typically lead to these being applied selectively to people who society is prejudged against. This is why in the US, 40% of the inmates are black. Count Iblis (talk) 16:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I have read the mission statement on your user page: "My mission on this planet is to enlighten the primitive creatures living on this planet (a.k.a. humans) with my infinite knowledge." Your comments above are in genuine keeping with such a premise. The downfall is that it is rot with fallacy. In building upon such a weak foundation, you are now prone to ad hominem straw man arguments that require the audience to be primitive. Perhaps you could try framing your comments as if your audience was a bit more refined. My76Strat (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion for RfA procedures arising from this
Would it be a sensible policy to require that all candidates for a RfA should disclose any previous user accounts they have formerly edited under? Had all of the voters known of the conduct record of Cirt’s previous usernames Smeelgova and Smee, some of them might not have been quite so ready to vote in his favour. Quite probably he would have been appointed anyway in view of the considerably lobbying that had clearly taken place and the measures he had taken to ingratiate himself with large numbers of editors, but perhaps by a smaller margin. More importantly, the nature of his obsession would have been known to an important section of the community, and it would probably not have taken three years for the extent to which he was abusing Wikipedia by using it as a soapbox to come to light.

At the time of the RfA, Cirt’s supporters went to considerable lengths to suppress any discussion of the previous account on the clearly spurious grounds that to do so would in some way endanger Cirt’s RL identity (for example, I was threatened with a block for raising the issue). I suggest that anyone who still feels that Cirt’s treatment is "draconian" or that he is the victim of a "lynch mob" takes the time to review the editing pattern[] of his former account, and then take a look at the edit histories of some of the same articles and observe Cirt’s interactions.

There is no doubt that Cirt has made substantial high quality edits on a wide range of non-controversial topics, and been genuinely helpful and supportive to many editors. Unfortunately it is difficult to escape the conclusion that these were tactics to game the system. The longstanding agenda has plainly been to subvert Wikipedia as a tool for propagating his own extremist viewpoint on a range of NRMs and branches of the Human Potential Movement.

The Arbitrators are to be congratulated on their scrupulous treatment of an extremely difficult and intractable case. DaveApter (talk) 10:48, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is RfA; though I'm no partisan supporter (or opponent) of Cirt, I think it would be very unhelpful to frame proposed process changes for future requests in terms of specific drama following one (high profile) previous request.
 * However, I do think it would be a good idea for to require any RfA candidate to disclose any previous account.
 * If there are genuine concerns about giving away real-life identity then as a minimum the candidate ought to be saying "I have given the details of my 2 previous accounts to TrustedThirdParty; neither has any blocks/bans", and TrustedThirdParty then has a little wiggle-room to reply to that comment, just in case they feel it was a mendacious attempt to conceal accounts with a bad record &c. Even the mere implication that somebody had prior accounts but felt unable disclose them openly is something likely to arouse suspicion in a few !voters so I wouldn't see it as an easy get-out clause for a problematic editor.
 * bobrayner (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your endorsement of my substantive point. Just to clarify: I wasn't making the policy suggestion dependent on this particular case, merely suggesting that it would be obvious sound practice in general and would have maybe saved a lot of grief in this specific instance. The argument that Cirt's RL safety might somehow be compromised by linking the Cirt and Smee user accounts never held water in any case. If anyone who was enraged by Smee's editing knew his real world identity he would have been at risk anyway, and if no one did there was no justification in being coy about the Cirt/Smee identity.  Your fallback proposal would have had the required effect - it would have revealed that this candidate had, only a year previously, a record of prolific tendentious editing with numerous warnings and blocks for violations of NPOV, OWN, 3RR, CIVIL etc. DaveApter (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"Unfortunately it is difficult to escape the conclusion that these were tactics to game the system. The longstanding agenda has plainly been to subvert Wikipedia as a tool for propagating his own extremist viewpoint on a range of NRMs and branches of the Human Potential Movement."

Indeed and Cirt is likely only the tip of the iceberg. We urgently need to set up a special committee to root this problem out once and for all. Count Iblis (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * How predictable can a response possibly be? Oh right, that predictable. Sorry Count, but every time someone states that Cirt was purposefully violating policy to promote his POV, those persons are not starting an inquisition, a witch hunt, a lynch-mob or a special committee to route out subversives. Sorry, that's simply not what's happening. You would do well to realize that your insinuations, along with those of your cronies at the RfC, are quite offensive to those they have been levied against who have been acting in good faith. They are nothing but personal attacks. I wish you could see fit to stop. Thanks sincerely.Griswaldo (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Please try to move this conversation from the specific to the general
I think that this discussion would be more useful for both RfA participants and bureaucrats if it were to move from discussing specifics to discussing generalities. (Or just closed altogether, for that matter.) This is not the appropriate page to re-litigate the Cirt-Jayen case. – xeno talk 22:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Moving to the general
OK so my specific general suggestion was that candidates for RfA should be required to disclose any previous user accounts they have held on Wikipedia, so that the conduct of those accounts can be given due consideration by Wikpedians when deciding how to cast their votes. DaveApter (talk) 09:21, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone object to this proposal, at least in broad principle?
 * Are there any situations where ther might be legitimate grounds for restricting such information, and if so how could the general intent be preserved?
 * If there is consensus on this proposal, what does it take to adopt it as policy?


 * It really depends on how long the user had edited for with his/her newest account or how many contributions she/he has had. If the person had edited for a long time, then I don't think there are any grounds for further questioning. However, if the user has committed any blues with their newest account, or if they don't have sufficient edits, then I think we can ask them whether they had done anything uncalled for previously. If the answer is yes, we'll go into more detail. If no, we ask them what their motives were behind their change of pseudonyms and what that pseudonyms was. In short, if they've edited for only a short time, then I think the community's got the right to know what the person's past actions were. Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 11:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * If someone abandoned a previous account for reasons that go beyond the project - harassment, personal safety, etc - then no they should not have to disclose that. But they can't then rely on those edits and that history to bolster their nomination, and if their new account only has a few thousand edits, they can't say "Oh but I had an old account with 20,000 edits and 3 FAs" without disclosing which old account that is. Consider, also - if they say they had an old account, but can't disclose it due to harassment, that's going to poison their RFA. Someone will say they can't handle regular admin abuse, others will call shenanigans for hiding some dark history. Better, I think, that they not mention it at all - and then e-mail a bureaucrat to inform them, just so that - if they are called on it - the bureaucrat can confirm that they did disclose it privately. The bureaucrat could, in theory, doublecheck the old account to make sure they didn't leave under a cloud, or to avoid sanction. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:30, 13 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Even if an account was abandoned for legitimate reasons, I don't think it's a good idea to outright deny the existence of the previous account. I'm still foolish enough to believe that this is dishonest, and isn't a practice to be encouraged.


 * In spite of the complications it caused, I still think the approach I took in my RFA was the best of several imperfect options:
 * Acknowledge up front a previous account,
 * Have a person trusted by the RFA community vouch for the fact that it isn't an attempt to avoid scrutiny,
 * Not try to claim "credit" for that previous experience, and
 * Be willing to accept you'll get opposes based on lack of transparency, accept that they're valid opinions, and accept that they might very well sink the nomination.
 * --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think declaration should be added as an 'opttional' listed question 4 for every RFA. Ive of the opinion that a basic declaration not disclosure is necessary. They could simple say ' I had an account X years ago, i switched accounts due to....(my fear here is always 'outing', I never actively edited under more than one account, and i left under good standing without any blocks or topic bans..... etc. Obviously by not declaring the account they are not trying to use the edits to pass an RFA, and if they are editing for a long enough time, they effectively have some trust. Of course this has pitfalls like anything does, but at least always listing the question would still give editors the ability to further question the candidate, or have a trusted party investigate if the statement is not satisfactory (ie what conditions were those past blocks etc....). Just some thoughts Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Disclose to bureaucrats or ArbCom and let them judge if disclosure to community is advisable - while I generally love transparency, our accounts are pseudonymous for a reason. A previous account that was abandoned for good reasons, and which would be immaterial to the result of the RfA, doesn't need to be fully disclosed - just the fact that it existed. If the user doesn't want to fully disclose, then the discretion of crats or arbcom should be respected. I do not think it is good to force people to open themselves in this way if they are uncomfortable with it without good reason, and I trust the judgement of the Crats or ArbCom in this matter. --Cerejota (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a can of worms I think. It's what's called 'conflict of laws' (rather rules/standards in wiki's case). Herein, privacy vs transparency. Pumpkin Sky  talk  23:16, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that with regular editors, and even for some user rights, privacy is paramount and not negotiable, on the terms of the privacy policy. However, becoming an admin is an optional process that is based on trust, and part of establishing trust is giving up a bit of your privacy to gain trust - that is not a can of worms, that is a sensible request, which anyone wanting sysop rights should be able to humor.--Cerejota (talk) 23:40, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Humor? I don't see anything humorous about the RFA process. Pumpkin Sky   talk  23:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside, Pumpkin, Conflicts of law means a case tried in which the law of two jurisdictions might apply. For example, in the United States some jurisdictions have adopted statutes which another jurisdiction has not. If such a case came to a court, the judge will have to apply (my favorite term here) "Conflicts of law law" in order to conclude the case. Conflicts of law is actually a quite fascinating, but rather action-less, body of law. What you are referring to is a Balancing test; that is, a court must decide which factor (herein privacy v. transperance, as you said) will dominate. Sorry for butting in :) Lazulilasher (talk) 01:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * When Ottawa4ever suggested that a question about the existence of previous accounts should be 'optional', did you mean just in the sense that it would not apply in the majority of cases, or that it should be optional in the sense that a candidate might choose to keep quiet about a previous account and hope that nobody notices? Concerns about privacy issues seem to be fully addressed by the procedure followed in Floquenbeam's RFA which he offered voluntarily.
 * Are we in any case in agreement that the community should know about the existence of a previous account, and whether or not it had been guilty of extensive policy violations, blocks and warnings? DaveApter (talk) 10:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * responding to the above, quickly, yes im in agreement with the above (knowledge of previous accounts)., I personally feel declaration is sufficent- ie telling an account exists and describing it and reasosn why it was stopped. I guess in retrospec you cant have an 'optional' question thats always listed as if no one reponds they will be treated anyway as hiding something anyway- so optional isnt the word I should use- i do feel it necessary for some declaration but thats all- just my preference, Ill assume good faith accordingly and ask further questions if truly necessary. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So would a satisfactory solution be to have a (compulsory) question "Have you had any previous user accounts on Wikipedia?", to which satisfactory reponses would be: either:
 * "No", or
 * "Yes, and the username was xxxx", or
 * "Yes, and I have given the details to Admin aaaa who has posted a summary of tis conduct on the Discussion page." DaveApter (talk) 14:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment on Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011
I have started a request for comment for the 2011 Arbitration Committee Elections. The community is invited and encouraged to discuss the issues at hand in order to develop a rough consensus for the procedures and rules for the election in December. –MuZemike 00:37, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

RfA counter
FYI - Since X!'s RfA vote counter has been inoperative for an extended amount of time, I threw one together myself, reusing a lot of code from my AfD vote counters. If you're interested, see http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/rfastats.html &mdash;SW&mdash; confabulate 22:34, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll try it out. 28bytes (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Looks like a good design, but it has an interesting flaw: it seems to work for some users but not others. I assumed that was caused by the lack of a bolded !vote at the start of a comment, but apparently that isn't the case since it has no trouble picking up !votes like this. Any idea what's causing this? Alzarian16 (talk) 16:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If an underscore is included, it will not work! Remove the underscore and it will. My76Strat (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Malleus' signature includes an underscore in his name (i.e. User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum ). Theoretically, we should be able to get around this by specifying an alternate name of "Malleus_Fatuorum", but that doesn't seem to be working.  I'm looking into it currently.  &mdash;SW&mdash;</b> chat 19:12, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, so now the alternate name works, I found a bug there. See here.  I suppose there might be a valid argument that the tool should automatically replace any underscores that it finds in usernames with spaces, since (I believe) underscores are not allowed in usernames.  I'd want to look into that a little further before I implemented it though, to make sure there are no unintended consequences.  If someone can confirm that underscores are not allowed in usernames, that would help.  Thanks.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#00a -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#5a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> confess 19:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes that would be efficient. Until then, most of the time when an error like that occurs it is because an underscore was used. Same thing happens with Soxred's counter if an RfA is transcluded with underscores. It will not pick it up. My76Strat (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * An underscore is an unsupportable character for any page name which includes user page. My76Strat (talk) 19:51, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Underscores and spaces are interchangeable in page names and user names. E.g. User:__28bytes__ and User:_ _ _28bytes_ _ _ both go to my userpage. 28bytes (talk) 19:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * But they can not be used as part of the user name, and when an underscore is used in place of a space, it will work for a wikilink but it will not work with tools supported by toolserve. I'm pretty sure about this, My76Strat (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably the thing to do would be to read the page, convert all underscores to spaces, then trim the whitespace before and after the user name. 28bytes (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, and you don't have to be concerned that an underscore was anything other than a space, because it wouldn't be part of the name. My76Strat (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * An interesting tool, thanks. Personally I would exclude neutral votes from the calculation of "This user's vote matched the end result of the RfA" percentage though, or offer the option to ignore neutral votes for it. --Taelus (talk) 22:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Updates: underscores in signatures are now treated as spaces, so Malleus can view his RfA voting history without having to use an alternate name. And, per Taelus' valid comments above, neutral votes are no longer counted in the calculation for how often the vote matched the result.  Thanks again for the comments and bug reports.  <b style="white-space:nowrap;text-shadow:#000 0em 0em 0.4em,#5a0 -0.2em -0.2em 0.4em,#5a0 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;color:#ddd">&mdash;SW&mdash;</b> converse 23:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Just so you know, there's still a few places where the text says "AfD" per your previous tool, when it should say "RfA."--~TPW 11:59, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Archiving and linkrot
Could the archiving for this page be changed from MiszaBot to ClueBot III? ClueBot III archival is preferable, as many links here grow linkrot, which CBIII cures by intelligently changing the link-to-be-rotted to the archives of material (here for instance), whereas MiszaBot just cuts and pastes while the link rots, grows mold, gets absorbed into the ground, and reincarnated as an apple tree. → Σ  τ  c. 06:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you explain that again, without the jargon? I don't really understand what you are proposing. Linkrot? --Surturz (talk) 12:16, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone were to link to this section for example, then it would read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. However, when this section is archived, the link will be broken. ClueBot fixes this by changing the link to read Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive n#Archiving and linkrot . - Kingpin13 (talk) 12:26, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. Given the rate at which this page gets archived, it would make sense to prefer a method that sustains extant links. --Surturz (talk) 12:29, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

consensus can change
(omg there are 200 archives for this talk page!?! I wont be surprised if this has already been proposed and shot down.)

There are quite a few sysops who had an RFA with only 30 voters, and most of those supporters have since left the project. The project changes, but some sysops don't. Consensus changes, however we don't apply that principle to sysops.

I've often promoted the concept of sysop reconfirmations, and usually I have recommended regular reconfirmations. (Annual reconfirmations work well on English Wikisource, but of course that would be silly at enwp because there is a very big scale difference).

How about five year re-confirmations? Or the other idea that just came to me was that we could schedule reconfirmations when 50% of voters at the successful RFA have not edited for two years, or something to that effect. i.e. if the slice of the community which supported the sysop have since left the project (as best we can tell), then surely the sysop should be reconfirmed by the current community. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't overly concern yourself about this being shot down in the past - remember that consensus can change on consensus being able to change... or something like that. As for the concept overall, I like it. Perhaps not the specific time limit reconfirmations, 5 years currently seems too long to me and the difficulty in getting people to agree to specific term will be insurmountable (in my opinion). However, I do like the concept that consensus can change, and a reconfirmation should be triggered when we no longer have consensus. I'd be interested to see if any other ideas came forward on how best to judge that, but I do think there's something in the concept.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 12:38, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * From a practical perspective the fact that the number of RfAs has declined drastically in recent years means most administrators were promoted some time ago. In the period 2008-present 439 people passed RfA. Suppose optimistically that these people are all still administrators, and that we want to reconfirm anyone appointed before 2008. That means 1,089 reconfirmations, which at a rate of one a day (considerably more than the number of RfAs we get at the moment) would take nearly three years. If we wanted to reconfirm people promoted in 2008 as well, which means a period of three years, then all but 238 of our administrators would have to be reconfirmed - over 85%.
 * There is also the point that RfA is almost universally agreed to be a severely flawed process, and until this changes it's difficult to imagine using it in this way. Certainly if we judged our existing administrators by the same standards we expect of new candidates now I suspect a large proportion of reconfirmations would fail. This could easily result in much larger admin backlogs in some areas, especially the ones only a handful of people are working on. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 16:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've seen a lot of voluntary "If XX number of editors in good standing (some with 'accounts at least XX months old/ XXX non automated edits') believe I have erred, I will go through reconfirmation." style recall options. If one of those came forward that was (a) able to be triggered legitimately (i.e. not an absurd number of hoops to jump through), and (b) was at least somewhat gaming proof (i.e. protected against a lone nut and his army of socks, or from editors who support any and all such motions, regardless of merit), I could see supporting that as a method of selecting admins for reconfirmation.  S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I dont know much on the RfA process, but what flaws are in the current RfA process? Wouldnt the longer a person was an administrator the more theyd learn about Wikipedia policies, or are the regulations stricter now? mysterytrey   (talk)  05:04, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * We have 725 "active" editors who are also admins, and of those not all are active admins. This is nearly 300 less than we had at peak, but still a huge number to process through any reconfirmation procedure, even if we could persuade them all to volunteer for it. So reconfirmation is a lot of work and the end result would be to exacerbate our shortage of admins. I'm really not seeing much benefit to the pedia in return for that. A good analogy would be with driving tests, we don't retest drivers because their driving examiner has subsequently retired, and where I come from, while we check that older drivers still have their faculties, we don't systematically retest everyone, Even if the rules have changed and the current test is much harder than it was thirty years ago.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  17:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * For anyone who has an interest in looking back at previous discussions, there's WP:CDARFC and the pages it links back to. In my opinion, the basic concept of reconfirmation is a good one in principle, but as others have already pointed out, the numerical constraints make it essentially unworkable. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Finding a numerically sane way of reconfirming appears to be the first challenge.  It might be good to start with a six or seven year reconfirmation window.  I wonder how many sysops from 2005 and earlier are still sysops.  In a few years time, we will have admins who passed RfA's 10 years ago, with 10 supports. (e.g. w:Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Tim Ivorson)  Do we have a way of finding sysops by year of RfA (or year of obtaining the bit)?  If not, we could categorised Category:Successful requests for adminship by year.  The logs start at 2004. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Successful requests for adminship has the chronology of successful RFAs (though some of those people may have left or lost the bit). There are about 750 successful RFAs from 2005 or earlier. Dragons flight (talk) 22:54, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It is very weird looking at RFAs from 2003, and +sysops from earlier with no records. Its great to see so many from that era are still active. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Recent events show that  existing  desysopping  methods are still effective. Is there any  reason  why  desysopping  and/or reconfirmation  has to  be the subject  of perennial  discussion? Who  are the people who  want it, and why? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The link I gave just above contains a ton of discussion about who wanted it as of about a year and a half ago, and why. Here is recent discussion of whether things have changed following those recent events. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the consensus on whether consensus can change has changed and consensus can no longer change. --How much wood could a woodchuck chuck... (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Given the overly beauracratic and at times stressful event that an RFA turns into I wouldn't support a forced renomination if the admin is active. I do agree that if they are not active then they shouldn't have admin rights though. --Kumioko (talk) 17:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't see why this bureaucratic step is required. Can someone please show me a trend of old admins not being able to perform well on the modern-day Wikipedia? There was that one incident a while back, but one incident shouldn't dictate policy here. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I would kinda support this for the really old RFAs, maybe, but since it opens the door to a blatant threat to my own "rank" and "status", which yeah, whatever, the poisoned chalice of extra privileges and duty to respond and explain and be perfect, I need to cling to it. Speaking just for myself, I don't act as an admin all that often, but I'm confident that every one of my admin actions is eminently supportable. If I were to be called up on the rota for reconfirmation, that page would likely not be on my watchlist. If the only problem was that I'd done nothing wrong for too long, doesn't really catch my interest. Franamax (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not think that forcing every admin who has been around for a while to resubmit an RfA is helpful. It seems to me that, unless they are acting uncivilly or abusing their tools, they are not a problem for the community. I do believe that some kind of recall should be in place so that the community can remove request an admin submit another RfA if they feel the need. However, to force every admin to go through the process seems arbitrary. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a recall process in place, its called Arbcom. And funny thing is, despite many threads here about getting some extra type of desysopping system that would get rid of lots more admins than Arbcom does; When it comes round to election time we don't see the community booting out the incumbents and replacing them with ones who promise to desysop far more admins than the incumbents did.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  22:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What WSC said, the worst abusers are removed by ArbCom already. Most admins from "the old days" who know they have lost touch with current practice don't use their admin tools for anything controversial anymore, so the problem is minimal to begin with and does not require a solution that involves reconfirming everybody. I suppose I could support a term limit... of ten years. After ten years you can either hand in the bit or run again. Inactive admins are already being desysopped and few admins make it past the five year mark and still want to do it so the numbers would be manageable, and we would still have a few years to figure out the details. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I've only started looking at the old sysops, and it is pleasing to see that many of the old sysops are still active and using their tools appropriately, but I'm finding a few which would either not be reconfirmed, or would have difficulties. I don't like naming specific old sysops, especially ones who put in a lot of effort in the early days, but here are two worth considering.
 * Oliver Pereira wheel warring over David Cook (line of succession) accusing other admins of "gibberish" and "straightforward lie", and
 * Tannin in a slow moving move war over Bluebonnet (bird).

In my opinion, Oliver would be desysoped at a reconfirmation, and Tannin would keep the tools if they indicated they accept consensus on the relevant naming conventions and agree to use WP:RM for renames that have already been reverted once. The reconfirmation process should allow old sysops to voluntarily be desysop'd rather than face what would be a strong vote against reconfirmation. Many of them are good editors, and didn't use the tools, and probably arn't interested in keeping up with policy that sysops should be aware of. John Vandenberg (chat) 02:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed some syosps who wouldn't stand a chance of promotion at  today's standards, rarely  use the tools, but  regularly contravene other policies, and bully  users who  complain,  with  impunity by  being  sure to  stay  just  below the radar. In spite of User:Protonk's insistence that  not  posting  a list  here is childish, I  do  not  consider that  it  would be a particularly  mature move, and  WT:RfA, in  my  opinion,  is not  the place to  begin an investigation  into  the behaviour of individual  admins. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Kudpung. I agree that this isn't the right place to target individual sysops.  However I do want this discussion to take the problem seriously, and some people are being dismissive.  I don't think these cases need an arbitration case, and I would like a better method.  One way is to ask each of them whether they will submit to a recall.  That is a bit more humane than an arbitration case. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:39, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: I'm afraid that probably the only  thing  WP:CDARFC proves, is that  this is a cyclic, perennial  issue. I'm sure that it's not  even in  the minds of most  of the candidates and !voters at  RfA - except  for those whose regular 'oppose' !votes are a demonstration of their aversion  to  adminship  as a system of regulating  the Wikipedia, rather than aimed at  the candidates themselves. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:38, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Since you posed the comment to me, I'll point out that I provided the link because you asked why members of the community have argued in favor of such a process. Whether an individual argument was a thoughtful one, or a perennial one, or both, is of course a subjective matter. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I can't  argue with  that  John. Recent events have demonstrated again  that  admins can be desysoped for general  misbehaviour, but  it's nevertheless difficult to  make a case stick. It  looks to  me that  the more prominent  they  are, the more likely  they  are to  fall,  while the sneaky  ones who stay  under the radar actually get  away  with  far worse.   Ask each of them whether they will submit to a recall is problematic because those that  have a guilty  conscience will  immediately  decline the suggestion. Only  those who  have nothing  to  fear will  agree to  AOR and even then, most  of them (including  me) only  entertain  AOR  on  the basis of misuse of the tools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Been there, tried that, didn't work. I think it may be due to a general fatigue with the RfA process. It would be even harder to get this moving especially since desysops due to inactivity have addressed part of this problem to some extent. - Mailer Diablo 20:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I originally wrote this as a criticism of the underlying proposal, but its meandered into a more general comment. There are two ways we can understand RfA. A common, but incorrect one, is to see RfA, and the agreement of those at any particular instance as a source of authority, legitimizing the technical access. The other, and in my opinion correct one, is that RfA is a measuring device, standing in, at anytime, for the collective wisdom of the entire Wikipedia community. We hope beyond hope that fundamental characteristics in each admin (intelligence, flexibility, diligence, grip on reality) are of the same relevance over long periods of time, and furthermore that Wikipedia is not, and should not be a permission culture. You begin at can until you are told you may not. Limited access in the first place is a concession to pragmatic concerns.

On the other hand, there is a serious threat of dead-hand decision making. The needs of today are not the needs of yesterday. The wisdom of our forefather's is often pretty questionable. The entire wiki is built on the abandoned production of users long past, and I loathe the status quo bias that has infected our culture since we went mainstream. If we're going to attack the status quo bias, I'd like to start with article space, but maybe admins aren't a bad place to start either.

But again, I have some pragmatic concerns. The first of which is the oft forgotten uncontroversial administrator. The one you've never heard of who quietly blocks vandals, axes bad redirects, solves petty disputes on little known indie rock band pages and don't pay much attention to wiki-en politics. I haven't been hooked into the news, but I presume these people are still around and will never even read these words. They are doing important, unsexy jobs and they don't deserve to have their flag yanked because they didn't get the memo.

Second, like my concerns with mainstreaming in real life, sending back administrators to RfA would be a better idea if RfA was fundamentally sound. I again admit I haven't been paying much attention recently, but last time I checked, RfA was widely considered a cesspool of myopia and petty hatred just short of the despair of Arbitration and Arbitration enforcement.

Generally, what is the problem that is trying to be solved? Bad admins? Mediocre admins? Admins who leave for a while, come back, and stumble over a new Wikipedia culture embarrassing themselves? Or is this more about an abstract principle? --Tznkai (talk) 00:04, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You'll get some answers at  WP:RFA2011. If  you  haven't  been there before, you'll  need to  spend some time catching  up  on what  has been discussed and what  is being  planned. It's more organised, focused, and structured than the discussions here. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Here are some observations I've made lately on this kind of subject:
 * Administrators who have become inactive (and would be the ones who are the most out-of-touch with the way Wikipedia currently works) are having the bits removed automatically, so they are something of a non-issue.
 * Administrators who have had their bits removed due to inactivity, but then return and request that the bits be restored, don't always have the bit returned. I've seen a couple of times at WP:BN where the crats haven't felt comfortable returning the bit. So that makes inactive admins even less of a problem.
 * Administrators who have been around for a long time and have been active, for the most part, just have a lot of experience and to me they seem to be very valuable to have around.
 * Long-time admins who seem to be causing problems due to disagreements with our current policies, or ignorance of them, or having similar conflicts are often identified as such, and it doesn't seem to be difficult for the community to come to a consensus to have the bit removed. In most cases these admins do so willingly.
 * Overall, I don't see that grandfathered "old-timer" admins who are causing disruption are able to enjoy any kind of immunity due to their status. There's something of a stigma against such admins, which I think is what led in part to the successful implementation of the policy of removing inactive admin bits, and I think that stigma is simply something that has grown over time. So essentially, I think that the community is already dealing well with these issues and a reconfirmation process isn't necessary at this point. --  At am a  頭 20:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Unlikely to have any significant benefit to Wikipedia for a lot of extra bureaucracy. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  17:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Who opposes the opposers?
OK, I'm a bit new at voting in RfA's but it seems completely silly the lengths to which editors will go in order to refute oppose votes. Particularly irritating to me is the practice of attempting to censure voters for "bad voting" or "opposing for the wrong reasons". <BR /> There are no objective criteria for adminship, nor is it feasible that there ever would be. Everyone has different opinions as to what makes a good admin, and the core criterion - trust - cannot be meaningfully measured in an objective way. It seems to me that the very reason for voting in the first place is to accommodate and amalgamate all the different opinions of editors as to what sort of admins wikipedia needs. If editors always vote in favour of female candidates to alleviate some perceived gender bias, or always oppose candidates with a number in their username ... so what? Either their criteria is so off the planet that no-one else votes the same way, or a significant number of editors DO vote the same way, in which case the numbers voting that way self-justify the criteria.<BR /> What I do think is damaging to the credibility of the RfA process is how admins and even at least one arbitrator is quite willing to threaten other voters with sanctions for "bad voting". If RfA is to mean anything, it is to give some measure of community approval to successful candidates. If editors are bullied into changing their votes, it compromises the legitimacy and authority of the process.<BR /> I'd also like to appeal to common sense. In Anomie's current RfA the vote tally is running at 153-to-1. One or two Oppose votes are not going to make any difference to the outcome. If those one or two oppose votes are "wrong", then the only damage they can possibly cause is wasting people's time talking about them - in other words, it is not the oppose vote doing the damage - it is the opposition to the oppose vote doing the damage. The only reasons I can think of for spending energy opposing oppose votes is if 1) there are major errors of fact that need to be challenged, or 2) grievous misuse of wikipedia e.g. sock puppet voting, or vandalism of the RfA page. --Surturz (talk) 07:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * As a general rule, the amount of badgering directed at opposers is inversely proportional to the number of opposes. If there are, say, 20 or more opposes, you can get away with just saying "oppose" with no reason and often no one will bother you. If there are 1 or 2 opposes, they'd better have a darn good justification, because the eyes of all the supporters will be focused like a laser on them. 28bytes (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Suturz!
 * There is discussion on User:Keepscases's talk page, where I expressed my surprise that anybody would not participate in RfA because of 1-2 opposes, particularly Keepscase's. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 07:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Can I just suggest that you look at the argument from the opposite point of view? RfA, like everything else on wikipedia is meant to be a discussion - leading to consensus. If a editor A is opposing for a reason that the other editor B disagrees with - then there should rightly be a discussion.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 08:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * There is a big difference between "bad voting" or "opposing for the wrong reasons", and downright  trolling. RfA  is supposed to  be a serious discussion  for selecting  janitors which  a web site like Wikipedia unfortuanetly  needs. Potential candiates are staying  away  from  the process as a direct  result  of the constant  flippancy  with  which  RfA is treated. If the problems can't  be prevented by  appealing   to  the drama mongers, we might  end up  with  the imposition of an admin selection  system that  perhaps the community would not  necessarily  have wanted. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Worm's response follows from an endorsement of participatory democracy. As organizational practices, participatory democracy and consensus decision-making favor those with the greatest willingness to continue participation at the sacrifice of other interests. It is reasonable to expect some participation in a limited discussion, we all agree.
 * Kudpung's response raises related issues. Organizations that practice consensus decision making, such as the meetings of the Society of Friends (Quakers), usually prohibit displays of anger, particularly at those voicing minority concerns. Rather, such consensus-organizations encourage expressions of minority viewpoints, and have mechanisms to prevent such viewpoints being drowned by weight of the majority, rather than reasoned arguments. Do we really need 10 or more persons questioning Surturz?
 * Wikipedia has a ban on bad faith aspersions, which Kudpung is breaking, probably because of his concern for RfA nominees, particularly of the future . Hostile phrases like "drama mongers" and exaggerations like "constant flippancy" harm the atmosphere, and imho, harm the atmosphere more than Keepcases's eccentric questions. Kudpung, would you explain your foreboding hints about an alternative system being imposed, please? (Has Jimbo suggested taking unilateral action, despite the concerns of users like SandyGeorgia about some of your RfA-reform proposals?) Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the answer to your question can be seen here. That proposal is based on a statement by Jimbo (you'll see a link to his original statement at the beginning of the proposal). There are some even more radical proposals seen here if you care to look. --  At am a  頭 16:41, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course editors may generally post their opinions and cast their !votes on RfA as they see fit, and do so for a variety of reasons. Nonetheless, during the history of Wikipedia, there are a handful of editors whose participation on RfA has been widely seen as disruptive, including Boothy443, Masssiveego, and Kmweber, all of whom were eventually expressly or implicitly disinvited from RfA participation because their conduct was perceived as unhelpful and disruptive to the process. Keepscases, with his questions posing such useful quandaries as how one RfA candidate might react if she faced the chance of her computer exploding if she edited, or which fingers another candidate would be willing to have cut off rather than leave the project, etc., is increasingly falling into this category, and his declaration yesterday that he does not regard answering his questions as optional does not in the least improve matters. Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, you're right, look at the fun I've been missing :) If Keeps is ever banned from RFAs, and I don't have a position on that, I would hope that the voters will be clear about (what I believe are) two differences from for instance Kmweber: Keeps's heart seems to me to be in the right place, and the relevant question strikes some people as subtle, it's not like the thinly veiled anger of previous disruptors. If you show up for a job interview staring at a room full of people, and the first interviewer asks you a bunch of silly questions and stares at you expectantly for an answer, that actually raises the hostility level of the interview ... because humans do judge each other in a whole lot of unmeasurable and unpredictable ways.  It's so much saner when an applicant is tested on what they need to know to get the job done.  Keeps genuinely believes (I think) that he's injecting levity into a process that sorely needs it ... and I don't think he's an idiot, or intentionally disruptive, he's just wrong, and wrong in a way that makes a difficult process more difficult. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The RfA with the missing fingers question is, I think, an interesting case study. By all accounts the candidate seemed to handle it brilliantly. That particular RfA was the equivalent of a crowd of people punching the candidate in the face, a couple punching him below the belt, and one (Keepscases) throwing him a rubber chicken, which he adroitly threw back. What you see in the oppose section is what scares serious candidates away from the RfA gauntlet, not the goofy question. I think most people with any feelings at all would rather take an off-the-wall question than be told they're an aggressively hostile deletionist with a strong personal bias who would be a disastrous administrator, to sample just a few of the oppose comments. 28bytes (talk) 19:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you're obviously quite right, and I don't understand Newyorkbrad's position at all. But why not cut to the chase and block or ban everyone who posts an unpopular oppose to an RfA? It's going to happen anyway the way things are going. Malleus Fatuorum 20:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * @28bytes, I believe SW, by the very choice of his name, has admirable self-awareness and even humor about issues that were addressed by the opposes. (Everybody agrees that he is exceptionally valuable to the project in many ways, and so it is natural that he received so much support in his RfA.) I think that you should show the opposes the same respect that SW did during his RfA, rather than pigeon-hole them as "punching". Kiefer .Wolfowitz 21:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, to be fair, many of the opposers were both thoughtful and respectful in their analysis. It wasn't exclusively a punching festival. 28bytes (talk) 21:55, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * It isn't the silly questions that cause trouble, Believe me, it wasn't Q16 on my fourth RFA that made it unpleasant. It was the incessant grinding attacks by A Nobody and Okip and a fully inflamed Article Rescue Squadron that made my third RFA a hellish experience. My advice to Snotty is to emulate me: I waited until A Nobody's and Okip's misbehaviour resulted in a point in time where both of them were blocked, and did RFA 4 then. It's all in the timing.&mdash;Kww(talk) 22:03, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Very true. But turn that on its head a little, if the enemies you've made are administrators then you've got very little chance of ever finding that window to sneak in. Administrators are of course perfect though, so I suppose that's as it should be really. Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * After much e-mailing with Snottywong about matters unrelated to RfA, I can say two things for sure; 1. he's a human (and therefore not perfect, although he's a great guy) and 2. when the subject came up, he told me he came out of his RfA feeling like he had been through a wringer. His problem isn't that his detractors are administrators so much as they're the more vocal ARS types who attempt to bludgeon the rest of us to death with their positions on inclusionism; honestly, I think the extremely inclusionist/deletionist types are more likely to seriously disrupt an RfA, especially if they don't like the candidate's position (even when it's a perfectly reasonable one). The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:47, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Interestingly, positive votes never have to be explained. --Yikrazuul (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The contorted logic is that supporters agree with the nomination statement, therefore no rationale is needed. But of course if it were truly logical then the opposite rationale would also apply: opposers disagree with the nomination statement, and therefore no rationale is needed. Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If someone agrees with the nomination statement then there may be little they can add to the discussion. Though personally I think it helpful if people say what they've checked. But if someone disagrees with the nomination then it is almost always helpful to know why. Sometimes an oppose is because the opposer has misread a situation and after discussion is happy to review their !vote, Sometimes the Opposer has found something so egregious that the RFA promptly tanks. Sometimes the candidate responds with sufficient reassurances that the opposer is happy to strike their !vote. If you oppose without giving a reason, then the candidate has no idea what you think they are doing wrong. If your undisclosed reason was one that if disclosed would have tanked the RFA then we get an admin who we'd probably be better off without. I've opposed quite a few candidates, sometimes my oppose has swung an RFA, sometime the response to my oppose has resulted in my amending my !vote. I don't understand why someone who has spotted a good reason to oppose would oppose without disclosing that reason (though once one person has opposed opposing per them is as reasonable as supporting per nom).  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think its actually a reflection of the original ideal behind granting sysop bits being "If no good reason not to, do." Thus, the bias was actually heavily in favor of more sysops. As the community grew in size and the problems grew in complexity, older non-sysops tended to either rely more on sysops to administrate, or lost trust in sysops. Newbies got a different, more stratified and bureaucratic view of Wikipedia. Our understanding of consensus has moved increasingly towards a strong enforcement of status quo bias, and RfA has changed, but not adapted as a result. Lest I sound completely like a nostalgic old man, there have long been problems of combining discretionary authority, consensus decision making, egalitarian access principles, vote like structures and a dominantly Anglo-American community.--Tznkai (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In other words, to counter the standard assumption of maintaining the status quo, we probably need to do this in one form or another. —WFC— 22:41, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know. Maybe. The problem is more cultural than structural. The procedures aren't the real culprit. Its us, collectively.--Tznkai (talk) 00:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Due process
I'd just like to draw attention to the fact that I recently attempted to remove a disruptive comment, which was restored by a third party. After repeating, I was informed that if I remove disruptive commentary from RfA in future, I may risk a block on the grounds that it would constitute a pattern of edit-warring. For the avoidance of doubt, I concede that it unquestionably would constitute edit-warring if I were to continue. Third party statements to this effect or on my conduct should be directed to my talk page, not here.

Nonetheless, this sorry mess does beg the question of just why we haven't pulled our fingers out of our backsides and gotten rid of this god-forsaken method of selecting sysops? Correct me if I'm wrong, but by my count it has been nearly seven months since the community concluded that carrying on as we were is simply not an option.

And if it is possible to answer this without referencing a particular user, can someone tell me why one of the most viewed websites on the planet has such difficulty in dealing with long term patterns of disruption? —WFC— 20:18, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, other issues aside you were wrong to remove a users question unilaterally because you did not think it was serious enough. Non-standard questions are not a problem; several recent candidates have passed with flying colors while ignoring them entirely. JORGENEV  20:26, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for completely ignoring the relevant questions and focussing on my conduct. —WFC— 20:30, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your questions are based on a false premise. You did not remove "a disruptive comment". You removed a perfectly legitimate question to the candidate (which the candidate answered quite well, in my opinion.) Asking a candidate where they stand on the "anyone can edit" question is perfectly in line with the goal of trying to select good admins. 28bytes (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I cannot answer those questions WFC, but as a bystander, the only disruption I saw was as a result of the question being removed. It wasn't a gross insulting question and I think it should have been left for the candidate to deal with. Leaky  Caldron  20:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, no the community didn't decide that we should get rid of RfA. WP:RfA reform 2011 is not defunct, it's still progressing. There's a lot of work in changing something of this magnitude on WP - and impatience won't speed it up. We've recently had a member of the foundation suggest that they are willing to help (though not make any changes top down). As for your last question - if there was consensus that it was disruption, it would have been dealt with. There is however, no consensus on that matter.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 20:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What happened (almost) seven months ago that you are referring to? I'm guessing that we have difficulty with disruption because anyone can edit. Although, like others here, I doubt I share your definition of "disruption". ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 20:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Some discussions at Jimbo's page and here, which lead to WP:RfA reform 2011, I believe.  WormTT   &middot; &#32;(talk) 21:00, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I've seen disruptive comments on RfAs in the past (not referring to Keepscases here) that I've removed from RfA without incident. I would absolutely have removed any of the "would you risk your life to edit" or "would you edit if it meant someone would cut your fingers off" type questions we've had in the past, if I'd seen them before others had commented on them, and I still expect to do so if we have such a question again. For what it's worth, however, I am not sure Keepscases' question on the current RfA was inane enough to deserve such a fate, although I also don't think it has much to do with the candidate's qualifications. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It wasn't "inane" at all. Can anyone edit or not was the question. That you believe that question to be inane reveals much. Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If I was awake and online at the time I probably would habe blocked you, WFC. It matters naught that you pulled just short of breaking 3RR. It is not acceptable to edit-war to make a point. I would have done the same to anyone repeatedly removing non-offensive questions from an RFA, be it you or an arbitrator. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It seems that only you regarded it as disruptive, WFC. It's always best to post to talk after being reverted once per WP:BRD. Valid exceptions would include WP:BLP, but I don't think it would encompass this case. If anything like this happens again, it would be best to post somewhere central (like this) rather than edit-warring. I speak as someone who has threatened admin action against RFA disruption before, but honestly it is best not to shoot from the hip on issues like this. One person's disruption is another's valid and interesting question. --John (talk) 22:31, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The issue here is that you unilaterally decided a comment was disruptive and edit warred to remove it, then over an hour later finally got around to posting to talk about what you were doing. Dayewalker (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to agree. I personally find Keepscases questions to be inane and disruptive... but not as disruptive as edit warring to remove them. You can believe that the the RfA system is broken, the people participating are broken, or both. But unless the question is uncivil, demeaning or somehow outs the candidate, I don't see a reason to get into an edit war over them. The system is what it is, and Keepscases IS operating within the parameters of that system. Years ago, I would get worked up about stupidity colliding with the RfA system, but I have since learned to adopt a much more serene approach to a faulty system. I do want to point out though... the candidate answered the question brilliantly. Trusilver  05:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * }

Request to close
Would someone consider closing Requests for adminship/Ankitbhatt 2? I don't think it's to the candidate's or anyone else's benefit to keep this open the way it's going. 28bytes (talk) 00:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I'll close it up. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. 28bytes (talk) 01:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from, 27 October 2011
Samuelriley97 (talk) 05:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ❌ Please read WP:NOTNOW.Jasper Deng (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Admins
We had 117 mops handed out in 2009 and 75 in 2010, and every time somebody makes a chart, the number of "active admins" has been trending downward, so obviously were losing faster than we're gaining, I estimate losing 10 active admins per month. Of course I have no desire to be an admin, but obviously I would propose it's a better idea to give the mop to the new and upcoming editors that will likely be here for years, instead of the old conglomerates that will likely fade off sooner than later. Monterey Bay (talk) 08:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no intention of "fading off", simply because this is my tenth year here. Besides that, I have seen no evidence to support the notion that newer editors are likely to stick around for years. Quite the contrary, in fact.--Atlan (talk) 09:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know if I agree that a new user is more likely to remain active. If anything, an admin who has been around a few years has contributed a lot more and will be more dedicated to the project than a newcomer. Having said that, I agree in principle that newer editors could potentially bee good candidates for adminship. However, that is only my personal view and I understand views to the contrary. As it is not unreasonable to oppose a candidate on the basis of time spent here, I think we need to leave it up to each !voter. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:10, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't say that new users are more likely to remain active than old ones, and I generally disagree with any generalizations made about users on Wikipedia. Everyone is different, and everyone should be considered for adminship on a case-by-case basis. Ajraddatz (Talk) 22:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, if Wikipedia is in a admin drought, I think an experienced admin should go poking around Wikipedia administrator hopefuls, give advice, and hopefully theyll be able to shape themselves up enough for a successful nomination. Also, pay special attention to those who are afraid of nominating themselves. If needed, I, even thought Im not an admin, am fairly experienced with Wikipedia, I can identify and notify obviously bad editing patterns. Im fairly-confident it will work if you format your advice like a GA review.  mysterytrey   talk   02:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Where is the evidence of any kind of drought? Some of us might argue that having fewer administrators is a good thing. Malleus Fatuorum 02:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * By drought I mean when Monterey Bay stated that active administrators are decreasing at an estimated 10-a-month (only 117 mops were handed out, then 75), the evidence being the charts of active administrators. The how-to on more admins was merely a suggestion, however I do request your reasoning/explanation for it better when there are fewer admins.  mysterytrey   talk   03:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm seeing periods of time during peak hours where vandalism reports are sitting unanswered at WP:AIV for an hour or more and page protection taking the same amount of time or longer. That alone is strong evidence that we need more active admins. We would never have seen such an extreme backlog in those two critical areas two years ago. Trusilver  03:27, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Trusilver has a great point.  mysterytrey   talk   04:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * In reply to Mysterytrey I am firmly in the camp that the Devil makes work for idle hands. There is much that could be done to ease the burden on every editor here at Wikipedia, not just or even mainly for administrators, such as not allowing new users to create articles, but the idiocy has spoken. And let's face it Trusilver, most AIV reports are a joke. Malleus Fatuorum 03:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Please elaborate, Malleus, why are they a joke? Dayewalker (talk) 03:44, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "Please Miss, someone was rude to me. Can you please block them?" Malleus Fatuorum 03:46, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It comes down to adminship really not being that big of a deal - in my opinion, a good number of admins would be admins jumping over each-other for blocks, deletes, etc. Adminship is little more than a set of tools which aid a user's ability to maintain Wikipedia - if vandals are going unblocked for up to 30 minutes during peak times as I saw a few days ago, then there is a problem. I actually agree with Malleus in regards to disallowing new users the ability to create articles, but as for adminship, I think that the more the merrier (assuming that everyone with the mop is competent). Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia ought to be looking to develop systems and processes that minimise the need for administrators, not trying to create more of them, but of course there's an entrenched hierarchy who resist any such moves to the death. As we've just seen with the new-user article creation fiasco. Malleus Fatuorum 04:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd ultimately prefer both more humans and more processes helping out. We could do a lot more in terms of expanding abusefilters, limiting new user abilities, working on an expanded editor that makes editing easier so that less good faith edits need to be reverted. But at the same time, we still need admins around for blocking, deleting, etc. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I doubt we'll ever agree on the need for or role of administrators here on Wikipedia. My view is that the administrator role has just become a rag-bag of ill-considered "rights" to which every new "right" is thoughtlessly added. Malleus Fatuorum 04:30, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Completely agree with the more the merrier, but what do you mean by "admins jumping over admins"?  mysterytrey   talk   04:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * By that I just mean admins block-conflicting each-other while blocking vandals, or delete-conflicting when deleting a page tagged for speedy deletion, etc. Ajraddatz (Talk) 04:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * What does the devil makes use of idling hands mean? Also, if you think there is a lot of work to be done to alleviate the pressure on everybody, having more administrators to do the work auto-confirmed, confirmed and unconfirmed users alike arent able to do is greatly contributing to the cause.  mysterytrey   talk   04:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Look, the real work isn't done by administrators, it's done by regular editors who are lorded over by administrators who think they do all the work. But in reality all most of them do is pop onto AIV or similar venues for a few minutes each day, if that. After all, having won their badge, what else are they expected to do? The game's been won. Of course I don't tar all all administrators with the same brush, just most of them. Malleus Fatuorum 04:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * So we remove the bad ones, putting more into office, then remove the bad batches of the newbies. I guess administrators do just review our/bots requests. PS:per the discussion here, today is a bad day to say anything bad about admins.  mysterytrey   talk   04:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Or maybe it was just a bad day to sling unwarranted personal attacks around for no reason.  Eagles   24/7  (C)  19:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Have you ever tried to remove a bad admin? Or do you believe that there aren't any? Malleus Fatuorum 04:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ive never tried but they do exist. Why?  mysterytrey   talk   05:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Malleus' philosophies aside, and notwithstanding the benefits of looking for efficiencies, it is troubling when there are backlogs in important areas. The truth is that the important admin work is not the "haha i'm an overlord" type stuff.  If admin's tasks were distributed and some editors were called, say, "Vandalism Report Responders" or "AfD Closers", you'd probably weed out all the status seekers.  Being an admin on wikipedia is not a resume builder.  And speaking of AfD, we have an unusual number of post 7 day discussions still open -- up to 11 days old!, Articles for deletion.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  04:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But why should it require an administrator to close them? Malleus Fatuorum 04:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * While I agree with you completely, the Foundation's legal counsel has specifically opposed any unbundling of admin tools. Trusilver  04:45, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Trusilver: Thanks for the link, I can understand Godwin's concern about unfettered access to deleted articles.  Which answers Malleus' question as well, plus the fact that most editors are idiots.  Even if most admins are also idiots, its a more controllable group.  Its just like local politicians, we need them to do necessary governing tasks.--Milowent • <sup style="position:relative">talk<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-3.2ex;*left:-5.5ex;">blp-r  04:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Except that admins, like the rest  of the volunteer community, don't  have a voice in  the 'government'. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * tl;dr, go recruit good admin candidates, leave discussions Wikipedia political philosophy for dorm-room bull sessions.--Tznkai (talk) 06:11, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Insert the obligatory WP:You don't own Wikipedia, even if you're an admin. Have mörser, will travel (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, I think that Godwin's point supports unbundling, just not in the way that that particular proposal was worded. Specifically, if the legal concern is over the ability to review deleted contributions, then that is the "tool" that should be kept accessible to only a few people, possibly even fewer than have it now. But the perennial "Vandal Fighter Role" doesn't, for the most part, need that tool, and thus we could give that right to more people. All they need is the ability to semi-protect a articles and block users; if it works, software-wise, there could even be a strict time limit (say, up to 3 days protection maximum, 2 days blocking maximum). We could even limit the blocking to IPs and unconfirmed editors. That alone would significantly cut down on RFPP and AIV reporting. This keeps the deleted edits "safe" (legally speaking), allows us to set higher standards for Admins (I'd even be willing to risk being "demoted" myself if it were deemed worthy to re-evaluate all current admins under newer, stringent rules), and still gets the high-speed stuff done. I don't know that this is the exact point at which we should split, but I just mean to say that Godwin's point actually supports splitting off any right except for deletion, as far as I read it. Qwyrxian (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If we have average users getting blocking rights, even with limits, then I think we need to bump up the requirements for autoconfirmed.  mysterytrey   talk   05:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * They dont have a voice in the WikiGovernment? They do have the policy section in the village pump.  mysterytrey   talk   05:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * That was a reference to a proposal that had consensus but was shot down by the WMF. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 07:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Godwin's posting goes no way at all towards answering my point, as he is specifically talking about viewing deleted pages, nothing else. Malleus Fatuorum 23:26, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Then even the mean administrators serve a purpose if they help Wikipieda exists and not be drowning in vandalism. As to why autoconfirmeds shouldnt be able to close discussions: To prevent abuse. Its fairly easy to create an account.  mysterytrey   talk   05:53, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * To test the badge theory it would be interesting to survey successful RfA candidates from the last 12 months and see how many are still highly active. Anecdotally I think the number would be surprisingly high. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think  we already  have a script somewhere that  can already  do  that with  a minor tweak. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I really don't like the badge theory - I think that basically all admins are mature enough to understand that what they hold is a mop, not a trophy. I rarely see an admin bragging about their sysop flag, whereas I quite often see users bragging about rollback/autopatrol/accountcreator flags. Ajraddatz (Talk) 21:40, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed, although I do mention my on-wiki "status" when describing my role(s) to non-wiki (i.e. real-life) people, I've never seen anyone do that on-wiki. Consider how having that extra permission bit gives you the ability, and to some degree a sense of obligation, to look at first-hand evidence of the very worst behaviour imaginable, sometimes as the last non-supressing editor involved, and sometimes getting back out of bed to check on something - who wouldn't want that wonderful prize? I think the desire is more powerful than the outcome of attaining the goal. Franamax (talk) 23:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to escalate one part of Malleus's comments to a (off-topic) higher thread level: "most AIV reports are a joke". Not because many of those reports are frivolous or self-interested, that is easy enough to spot and dismiss or redirect - but rather because of my own experience. I did frequent WP:AIV for a while but then stopped. I would see genuine reports and watch the editor contribs to see if they kept on beyond the final warning, allowing for the one-minute possible gap in edit timing, so I could be reasonably sure they'd actually read the final warning. What I found was that those editors got blocked anyway, perhaps by someone determined to "clean up" the AIV page. Once (pre-admin) I found an IP editor who had committed 4 vandalisms and asked them in informal wording to cut it out, and indeed they followed that advice (or study break ended). Then I watched as 4 escalating warnings were added to their talk. The explanation from the tagging editor was (paraphrased) "they always keep going, so I'm setting the stage for a block" So yeah, AIV is a bit of a joke, and part of the "I'm more poweful than others" mentality, just not the way Malleus said. And yes, I'm aware that if I have an issue I should be goiong to WT:AIV to discuss. But the way existing admins deal in a cogent fashion with noticeboard issues is related to the question of why an editor would seek adminship anyway. Is it all about a competition to see who shoots first? Franamax (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite honestly, a few changes need to happen in countervandalism here. First, the youhavenewmessages bar for anons needs to be changed so that it provides more info (such as "Please read these messages which have been directed to you" or something). Second, we need to take the focus off of warning every user four times and start using more common sense. If an IP has gone and replaced the content of five pages with "LOL you got vandalized", which makes more sense; warning or just reporting for a block? Likewise, if an IP has gone and changed the word cake to caek, which makes more sense; a vandalism warning template, or a personalized message telling them that their test worked and that they should use the sandbox instead. Instead, we get the countervandalism game happening, with users fighting for reverts and AIV reports. Ajraddatz (Talk) 23:10, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * During my RFA it was pointed out that I'd not done much at WP:AIV. True. My policy has always been to select something suitable from WP:USETEMP - either level 1 or level 2 depending on how many unsatisfactory edits they'd made, wait for it to happen again after warning, and escalate as necessary. I think I only took it to level 4 twice; I only reported to AIV twice too, and these were for cases where a level 4 had already been served and the bad behaviour had continued. For me, therefore, AIV was a last resort, not first. -- Red rose64 (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the vast majority of vandal fighters do use AIV as a last resort. Any user with a habit of issuing four warnings at once, as in Franamax's example, would find themselves blocked eventually. Tools such as Huggle have features which prevent vandals being warned if they haven't been given enough time to read their previous warning. Epbr123 (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there are many editors that would maliciously issue four warnings at once. I do want to point out that there are certain circumstances where someone who is inexperienced and/or inattentive CAN issue multiple warnings on Huggle within a very short amount of time. It's just something that is good to be aware of, especially among new Huggle users that can be lured into a false sense of security. Huggle is NOT foolproof and it still requires the vandal fighter to have a strong awareness of their surroundings. Trusilver  15:02, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you miss my point - I believe the editor who issued those serial warnings was acting in utter good faith and genuinely believed that was the right way to deal with vandalism. As noted above, it is the potential for competition to file a report that leads these behaviours astray. In particular (as also noted), counting AIV reports here at the page for consideration of adminship requests as any sort of measure of competence in vandal-fighting is misguided. Look through my own contribs and I think you'll see that I am very successful at spotting bad edits, and looking at the entirety of what the particular editor has recently been up to. I've successfully intervened on a thousand or two occasions now and when I stood for RFA I had approx. 2 WP:AIV reports. And the record will also show that I've never ever used a user warning template either (tho' I do sometimes use templates for block notices), it's 100% my own words. That approach is so effective I've never considered using automation. I've never bought into the "institutional" approach to vandalism, I don't think AIV reports should be used as a metric here, and I think existing admins could set a better example with more critical examination of AIV reports, and followup education and tip-sharing with the editors who are bringing less-than-clear-cut violations to AIV. Admins need to show leadership (as do all other experienced vandal-fighters), and that is how we will persuade other editors to join the admin ranks. Franamax (talk) 01:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If I have read correctly, what Malleus was trying to say is that instead of us trying to hunt for more new admins we should actually start thinking how to cut red tape for a change. - Mailer Diablo 12:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

 * Ill reiterate some stuff thats probably been said already, adminship is no big deal period. If maintenance starts lapsing though more admins will be let in naturally, or more likely, greater automation will simply evolve to make decisions easier (cutting that red tape so to be in a way). I personally feel so much of the fixes today are automated anyway today versus 5 years ago (even vandal aiv reports are so stream lined....) and thus i beleive more active admins back then were probably needed than today (just my feeling). Though i do find automation has created a cold bleak gap that chases away new editors anyway. But thats just my biased look at wikis future, probably something will change to be more optomistic. Meh just some rants Ottawa4ever (talk) 18:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ironically it's career malcontents like Malleus who make adminship a big deal by playing up the idea of a divide between the haves and have-nots. The vast majority of admins are regular editors with a few bits, who occasionally even do The Real Work Of Regular Editors&trade;, but I suppose if one hung around ANI all day (or, God forbid, Wikipedia Review) then it'd be extremely easy to get the impression that Wikipedia resembled pre-Revolutionary France. In reality the meta-commentary and court drama which gets picked over all day by our resident rabble-rousers actually has very little impact on how the project runs, and even RfA itself is far less full of intrigue than it was a few years ago. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Disagree with the unnecessary pejoratives; agree strongly with the idea most of the stuff we get up in arms about doesn't matter both as a matter of philosophy and pedestrian fact. I like tooling around the margins as much as anyone else, but try to keep it in perspective.--Tznkai (talk) 14:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is it that admins can get away with calling Malleus a "career malcontent", but if he so much as uses the word "wikilawyer", he's blocked? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:11, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Why? Two reasons: administrators know they can with impunity and and they believe themselves to be better than regular editors. Malleus Fatuorum 00:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you forgot the word "some", that generalization is just as unfair as calling you a career malcontent.--Atlan (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm prepared to compromise on "most". But the fact you've complained about the unfairness of my comment but were silent about about the unfairness of Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward)'s remarks goes some way towards proving my point about the immunity of administrators. Malleus Fatuorum 13:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There's nothing "unfair" about my comment. It is mildly pejorative, but no more so than I'd expect any other editor (including you!) to get away with. The alleged unfairness of my supposedly being able to get away with such things while a non-admin wouldn't is false, as I wouldn't have been expected to be blocked for that even as a non-admin (I certainly said worse) and nor would I expect anyone else (including you!) to be either. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Really? So how do you explain a one-week block for this? Malleus Fatuorum 15:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * About the same way you explain a one-week block for .-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I am shocked, shocked I say that there was slightly more context to this one-week block than Malleus using a naughty word. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * How strange Sarek. Gwen Gale herself described her block shortly afterwards as a mistake, but you stick stubbornly by the official admin line: all blocks are good. Malleus Fatuorum 15:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to continue randomly making stuff up.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And here we go again, the same old SarekOfVulcan touch. If I thought it would make the slightest difference to your objectionable behaviour I would post the diff, but as I know it wouldn't I can't be arsed. It's easy enough to find for anyone who, unlike you, has any regard for the truth. Malleus Fatuorum 16:27, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What diff? You said I was sticking to some official all-blocks-are-good line when I said nothing of the sort. As I said, feel free to continue making stuff up.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you're being disingenuous. You said I was making stuff up, which might lead some to believe that I was lying about the apology from the blocking administrator. Malleus Fatuorum 17:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So? You were lying about what I said, hence "making stuff up". Feel free to continue.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So now you're calling me a liar. Nice. You are the very epitomy of a poor administrator; when you inevitably ask for your tools back you can look forward to a lot of objections. Malleus Fatuorum 17:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ROFLMAO.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure. Has Malleus ever been blocked simply for calling someone a "wikilawyer"?©Geni 11:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * It's easy to check. On 24 May 2008 User:Swatjester had this to say on my talkpage: "A bit delayed, but calling people 'wikilawyers' is a highly uncivil thing to do. Please take note of our policies requiring civility and no personal attacks. Given that you've recently been less than civil with ST47, resulting in him leaving the project, and then chose to attack me for warning you, I'll be giving you this last warning regarding your incivility." After I pointed out his misrepresentation of the facts of the matter to him he blocked me. The very clear pattern is that administrators always think they are right, and the only acceptable response to a formal warning is to lie back and think of England while they screw with you. Malleus Fatuorum 13:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So you've not actually been blocked simply for calling someone a wikilawyer. Well that's cleared that up. So the answer to SandyGeorgia's question appears to be "thats not actually the case".©Geni 13:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I was blocked for not rolling over and playing dead when an administrator complained about my calling him a wikilawyer. No doubt you, like many other administrators, see nothing wrong in blocking someone with whom you are in dispute, particularly if you either misunderstand or deliberately misrepresent the nature of the dispute. Malleus Fatuorum 13:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure how that relates to SandyGeorgia's question.©Geni 13:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I can't help you with that, other than to suggest "try harder". Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I fail to see how a discussion of a block from two and a half years ago that was placed by an admin who has not used his tools in the last nine months is related to improving RFA. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That kind of snarky, condescending, and undeserved hostility is exactly why most users have given up even commenting here. I don't know what I did to deserve your ire and I don't particularly care. This page is not for discussing individual admin actions of a questionable nature. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, we most certainly can discuss double standards wrt admins on the page where they occur and where admins are promoted. If Malleus had called an admin a "career malcontent", Malleus would likely be blocked.  And then future admins would use Malleus's block log as a reason to continue blocking him, without even investigating to see how ridiculous his block log is.  It becomes something akin to a self-fulfilling prophecy, caused by admins.  The point of this thread on this page is why RFA is in decline-- if anyone here doesn't see the relationship between that and the MF situation, I really can't help, other than to say, y'all brought it on yourselves, and this very thread makes it clear how and why.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:52, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your initial question was based on a false premise and none of the further commentary has provided evidence to the contrary. The standards of basic intellectual integrity would suggests that you should acknowledge and seek to correct your error. I know I know I'm old fashioned and stuck in the past again but so it goes.©Geni 16:02, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yet another Wikipedia article that needs attention; so much to do, so little time, so few editors to do it. Carry on.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:05, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Evasion noted.©Geni 16:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Your evasion? What, in your opinion, was the proximate cause of the disputed block? That I called some unidentified editor a sycophant, or that I objected to an officious and inappropriate warning? Bearing in mind the potential for a butterfly's flapping wings in Beijing to cause global catastrophe, how far back do we need to look for the causes of anything, in your opinion? Malleus Fatuorum 16:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * thing is none of that changes the fact that SandyGeorgia's initial description of events was inaccurate. I admit there is little interest on my part in investigating long past admin actions when I wasn't even an admin at the time.©Geni 16:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You may continue to display your ignorance of basic logic for as long as you wish Geni, and by doing so appear to defend an administrator who has admitted several times that she was at fault, but it just won't wash. Malleus Fatuorum 16:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can we guys close this section, it's getting off-topic and unhelpful. Secret account 18:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Back on topic
I don't know why this keeps coming up-- we see the same (declining) trend in every area of Wikipedia (except, perhaps, the increase in the number of child editors and university projects). We don't expect that the appropriate response to the trend of declining editorship at FAC or GAN or DYK or AFD, for example, would be "more FAs regardless of declining quality"-- neither should the concern here be that we need more admins even if preparedness or knowledge are in decline. The project is in decline-- some of us believe that's partly related to abusive admins, others don't. YMMV, but the notion that we need to hand out more mops because of a general decline across Wikipedia is as faulty as the notion that we should promote sub-standard articles to FA simply because editorship is declining. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is at the present time no evidence that the standards of RFA have any real relationship with quality of our admin population. The reality is that the project survived promoting people with 1000 edits and 6 months experience without suffering from significantly more issues with admins than we do at present.©Geni 16:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There is at  the present time no evidence that unqualified supports at RFA are unrelated  to the quality  of our admin population. The reality is that  the project is in  decline after promoting  people with 1000 edits  and 6 months experience while suffering from significantly more issues with content than  in the past. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:10, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Nyet decline kicked in after standards had risen. I suppose those who follow the mmorpg model of wikipedia would find this unsurprising.©Geni 16:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The quality of RFA candidates is not going down. If anything, the bar has never been higher. That also happens to be the same for other areas of the project (I've seen 2007 FAs which would be lucky to get out of B-class today). You can choose to interpret that as decline, but I'd be greatly surprised if the consensus position was that people would take the 2007-vintage Wikipedia (when the "decline" meme started) over the present one. Editorship numbers are another matter, but as has been pointed out the vast majority of readers (and editors) never see all this court drama at all. Personally I put it down to Muffin Knight not existing in 2007. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * The quality of RFA candidates is not going down. I think that's my point-- it's never been particularly high, so how could it go down? Everything is in decline on Wikipedia, but FA standards have not declined in order to push more FAs under declining editorship.  RFA should be no different-- yet we see repeated proposals to make it easier to promote more admins.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:12, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * "The quality of RFA candidates ... has never been particularly high". Thanks for that :)  Black Kite (t)   16:17, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You're right-- that's not fair. Some of you are excellent .. in fact, many of you are excellent.  The problem is that a few bad apples really can spoil the lot. Anyway, I should not have digressed into a discussion of the bad apple effect, because there are some who will never understand how detrimental their actions can be on content, and that discussion goes nowhere.  It was not my intent to roll all admins under the umbrella of the unprepared, gadfly, abusive ones-- it was my intent to point out that we don't lower standards in response to declining editorship.  And thanks for all your good work, BK :)  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks :) It reflects real life though; I have to interview people as part of my job for many positions; sometimes they look fantastic at interview and have brilliant references, and turn out to be useless.  Equally, I've rejected people before who I've later found out have got positions elsewhere and have been excellent.  You can't judge on a day's interviewing, and RfA is equally non-functional.  Black Kite (t)   16:25, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Admins who make unjustified blocks or other actions do a great deal of harm to Wikipedia and its reputation. On that point I think we can (almost) all agree. However, there is as yet no foolproof way to insure that persons likely to take such actions will never be granted access to admin tools. So is the real question "what do we do about RFA?" or is it "what do we do about those bad apples?" We've tried a few times to come up with a better, community based approach to removing problematic admins, but as some of you may recall, it suffered from the same problems as so many other wide ranging policy discussions of the last few years: Everybody and their mother added their pet idea, to the point where there were so many proposals that it was basically impossible for any one of them to emerge as the one with consensus behind it. To my mind, this is one of the most serious problems facing this project. We can't seem to make any big decisions anymore. We argue about them until everybody is blue in the face, there is no usable result, and everything carries on as before except that all the participants are a little more convinced that changing anything of substance around here is impossible. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that's a fair summary Beeblebrox. What we're witnessing is the "consensus-death" of Wikipedia. Malleus Fatuorum 16:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * But when you're interviewing these candidates Black Kite, you're not interviewing them for a lifetime position. That's one thing that really has to change. Malleus Fatuorum 16:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The available evidence suggests that adminship has turned out to be a lifetime position in less than 1% of cases.©Geni 16:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That really does need a citation needed tag. Malleus Fatuorum 16:42, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * @ Beeblebrox and Malleus-- agree. @Geni, no idea where that stat comes from. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:44, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * We only know of 4 cases where admins have actually died.Former administrators. Alternatively If we completely ignore those desysopped for inactivity that it is around. 1.2%.©Geni 16:50, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks-- that's a misleading application of statistics, but I won't label it as "evasion" :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:59, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If adminship was for life we would expect to see death as a significant factor in people ceasing to be admins. It's not. Instead it's like most non-temporary positions. It lasts until you are removed and or quit.©Geni 17:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Whether this is deliberate obtuseness or naivete or an excess of literalism, it doesn't advance the discussion to ignore or pretend not to know what is meant, and commonly understood on Wiki, to be a lifelong position, and then to present stats to back such a literal interpretation of a common concept. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In the UK public sector Malleus, that's only partly true ... Black Kite (t)   18:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I think Geni's trying to make the point that few individuals who become admins remain so for life insofar as most admins move on to other interests after a fairly short span of years. Further, the arbitration committee now routinely revokes adminship where there is clear misuse. But to your original point, I think that the problems with condescending behavior that repels new contributors, while serious, are neither limited in source to the admins nor solvable through changes at RFA. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:32, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The original statistic is meaningless, because we don't know how many of those 268 admins desysopped for inactivity are still alive. The follow-up would be a little better but you got it wrong: ignoring the inactivity desysops (and temporary admins, who obviously aren't representative, and bot accounts since bots can't die) we have 197 former admins, so four of them is in fact just over 2%, not 1.2%. Now ignore the four whose accounts were compromised, since those accounts weren't in control of their owners when they were desysopped so we don't know if the owners were still alive at the time, and it rises slightly more.
 * More importantly, would we really expect death to be a significant factor? Bear in mind that admins have only existed for eight years, and a large majority have held the position for less than five. Which seems more likely to you: an admin dying in that period, or doing something that causes them to lose the tools? Then there's the fact that resignation, which is responsible for more than half of the non-inactivity desysops, is a voluntary procedure rather than an enforced one, so maybe these should also be removed from the sample. Last point: all of the four known deaths occurred in the last two years, suggesting that the significance of death is increasing with time - that percentage acutally hit a new high last month. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I don't think the problem at hand is the standards to which candidates are held. It's the difficulty and capriciousness of the process. For several years, most people who become admins choose to go through a series of specific steps over the course of several months. People who haven't gone through these steps have much worse chances. For reasonably qualified, noncontroversial candidates, the keys to a successful RFA have always been mobilizing early support and neutralizing those RFA regulars who like to find flaws in candidates they don't know.
 * 1) Demonstrate writing proficiency by grooming articles for FA and DYK.
 * 2) Be visibly involved in matters that touch on administrative activities, by placing speedy and PROD tags and voting at xfD (for example).
 * 3) Become known and trusted to the current crop of RFA !voters by making noncontroversial, well-reasoned !votes that support whatever consensus has already evolved regarding any candidates who come forward.
 * 4) Seek out other individuals planning for an RFA run, or who have recently completed one, offwiki and build mutual trust and support.

The problem for the project is that people who are able and willing to go through those steps aren't necessarily the best candidates.

As an aside, I think it's interesting that, no matter how long a break I take from Wikipedia, when I come back, the conversation about RFA's brokenness is still here, with no progress towards fixing it. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You forgot step 5: arrange for the assassination of any editor with whom you've had a significant disagreement in the past two years, or in some cases ever. Malleus Fatuorum 16:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * UC, glad to see you back and pitching  in, but my goodness, if DYK and FAC were comparable means of demonstrating content qualifications  in the earlier days of the Project, they fersure aren't now, and preparing for RFA via DYK is almost a dead give-away to less than thorough knowledge of policy. I do think that another thing that has changed since the early days is that enough of us have seen and endured enough admin abuse that we vowed to never be part of that club. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:49, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Nah. We've had people trying to play the "admins are a cabal I will not join" game for a long time. Not in the days when adminship basically boiled down to applying perhaps but ever since then. Its just one of those absolutely predictable patterns on wikipedia.©Geni 17:08, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmmm, the voice of experience. "I admit there is little interest on my part in investigating long past admin actions when I wasn't even an admin at the time.©Geni 16:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)" Let me help you out with a starting place: go investigate the desysopping of FeloniousMonk.  It may make you appear more informed in discussion.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:14, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * People get desysopped from time to time. I get desysoped from time to time (which is why I wasn't an admin in 2008). In my experience such things pass.©Geni 17:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I humbly bow to your most extensive display of exerpience (five RFAs is almost as impressive as an Oppose from The Fat Man, who knew everything worth knowing about Wikipedia). Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:29, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Was there a point you wished to make? Or are you seriously requesting a biography?©Geni 17:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Not one that you would get. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:40, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Uninvited Company is spot on. Running for admin is piss easy if you do it the right way. I say that from experience. While I didn't go to the lengths of cynicism that Uninvited Company suggests, there's no doubt that doing so would rack up the supports and I'm sure some editors do go to those lengths. That's a problem. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've talked about that exact issue for a long time. RfA isn't about how competent or knowledgeable you are, it's about how political you can be. RfA is little more than a game of lining up your allies, giving the answers you know others want to hear, and marginalizing (or better yet, getting your friends to marginalize) the opinions of those that disagree with you. And really, it shouldn't be that way. The same virtues that are proudly held as cornerstones of Wikipedia, like being bold and defending your beliefs as to what's encyclopedic should be seen as virtues, not a political death sentence. Trusilver  19:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think this is necessarily true. Most of the successful RfAs of the last year have been total blowouts, I think the political skill of the candidate probably wouldn't have mattered much. Of the close ones, my RfA had maybe 1 supporter who you might call a "friend", but I certainly didn't "line her up". I did not do UC's 1st or 4th bullet at all. I suppose I did #2 and to some small extent #3. I didn't do anything to mobilize support or neutralize anyone, except perhaps get "lucky" wrt. timing. There were very few other close RfAs that succeeded this last year; I don't really get the impression that politics helped these candidates too much? I do tend to miss these things, but still, I just don't see it. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 21:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Most RfAs are total blowouts these days because candidates have been conditioned to expect a week of hell and so only the most uncontroversial (or most thick-skinned) even bother to try. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 08:54, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I did #1 and to some extent #4. I did not do much or #2 or #3 at all, and several voters at RfA were therefore uncomfortable with an editor whose focus was so overwhelmingly on content. They looked at my edit count and found that over 60% of my edits were in the article space. Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think RfA nearly imploded when they saw I had almost 80% mainspace edits. When I ran, there was no jumping through hoops beforehand, I'd just been writing articles and occasionally participating at XfD for a couple of years and that was enough (second time round admittedly). I certainly didn't make an attempt to try and build up trust or rapport with anyone on or off-wiki. If someone is committed to the project enough, they will pass no matter how "political" they are. Big  Dom  10:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, as long as they aren't too "controversial". ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 11:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. In fact, I don't think UC could be more wrong. I never edited, in any sense, so I could pass an RfA&mdash; I simply edited here in good faith for a couple of years, without jumping through any hoops whatsoever, and my first RfA passed with WP:100 support. Yes, there were some editors I know and respect who supported me, but (to my surprise) the vast majority of !voters in my RfA were editors with whom I've never interacted (many of whom I'd never heard of at all). I can only assume that this holds true with most other RfA candidates as well (not all, of course).  Swarm   X 19:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)