Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship

RFC
This should probably be transformed into an RFC on the relevant policy. --Tony Sidaway 17:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't too sure, the policy style RfC is better suited being on a talk page and for discussion which isn't going to get as large as this.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh I see that we already have a new RFC on this subject:
 * Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship
 * --Tony Sidaway 17:13, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Listing
Any idea's of where this should be listed? If the bot is going to be listed, where should the tag be placed and under what section to send people to comment here.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure, I was just thinking that myself. That, and I've not used RFC since the bot system was put in place, so I'm not exactly sure how to set it up.  ^ demon [omg plz]  17:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put it under user conduct as it is a community discussion we want. If someone disagree's then I guess they can figure out how to list it elsewhere! :-)  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:36, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone will probably disagree as a simple matter of process/beureaucracy... SamBC(talk) 18:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm listing it at Requests for comment/Policies - which seems the appropriate place. No harm in multiple listings though... no need for excessive process-wonkery :-) . WjBscribe 18:15, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just added it to the Community bulletin board. --  Chris   G  07:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The format is screwed
Organising this like a personal conduct RFC, as a sequence of opinions oddly called "outside views" (completely inappropriate where there is no conduct dispute for anyone to be "outside") is a huge mistake. I suggest we start again before it grows unmanageably huge with dozens of "outside views" that nobody reads except the author.

How about this? Hold a discussion about RFA? --Tony Sidaway 09:32, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm, we've tried that over at WT:RFA. It hasn't worked so far. This probably won't work either, but I do think that the explicit endorsement of outside views may help us to build consensus on individual points. If any productive reform (i.e. reform that doesn't involve giving the bureaucrats extra power) comes out of this, I will be surprised but happy. WaltonOne 10:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This method is guaranteed, and in fact could be almost tailor-made, to destroy consensus, by dividing us up into a series of camps with different views. Which is, of course, one of the main problems with RFA itself. --Tony Sidaway 10:51, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Then feel free to use WT:RFA at any time... It's only taken us two or three years and many, many kilobytes of discussion to come to this point, while producing no substantial change to RfA whatsoever. I wish you luck. :-) Grand  master  ka  11:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Um. So, disorganized discussion based on "consensus" alone doesn't work well to make decisions... thus we should reform RfA to be more like it? -Amarkov moo! 22:54, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, of course we should. In fact, why not abandon discussion altogether and just let the bureaucrats, aided and abetted by Jimbo Wales and Kelly Martin, sit in a committee and "review the arguments" before promoting whoever they like? WaltonOne 23:00, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Gee, could not get a consensus at WT:RfA for change, could not at MfD, now trying RfC. Did it occur to folks that there simply is not consensus for this change and no amount of change of venue is going to change this? (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 23:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * At least I've noticed it, but trying stuff out isn't a bad idea. — O 2 (息 • 吹) 23:57, 06 October 2007 (GMT)
 * Clearly, quite a lot of editors desire some change to take place and some of the suggestions have common ground. It's not that huge a leap towards forming a short list of well-formed proposals and actually discussing them, but the RFC format is not going to foster that. I am already resigned to the almost inevitable lack of change, to be honest.  Adrian  M. H.  00:03, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, many want some change to take place. The problem is, there are many different ideas of how change should come about, and those who support one are usually strongly ideologically opposed to all the rest. We can't decide that a change most don't want should happen because we need some change. -Amarkov moo! 00:10, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, votes of support scattered over an increasingly lengthy page is getting us nowhere fast. Alternatives? Is it time to just give up again? Moves for change seem to go that way all too often.  Adrian  M. H.  00:28, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Traditional RFC format isn't going to help us. I took one look at the page and thought Holy crap. The whole thing is a jumble even worse than Moralis' RFA. The only other way I can think of is to categorize it into something like a straw poll, but polls are evil.  bibliomaniac 1  5  01:08, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Holding a poll about whether or not deciding things by poll is broken would be kinda silly. -Amarkov moo! 03:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with this format is that in its current form it is in effect a poll, or rather a long series of polls. To date, there are thirty-five views, each which is followed by a list of numbered endorsements.  Not surprisingly, the most popular view to date only has a moderately larger number of endorsements (fifty) than the number of views.  Sadly, that view seems to be quite orthorgonal to the discussion, as it's a proposal for a new desysopping procedure.


 * We're falling into the trap of polling people on half-baked proposals, instead of discussing. --Tony Sidaway 05:43, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The winning view is most definitely not orthogonal to this discussion. A desysopping procedure would cause the RfA to change entirely. If the tools are easily taken away, then they are easily given out. People's criteria for granting admin status would become much lower than they are today, and a lot more people would become administrators, if there were an easy system for desysopping. Adminship would stop being such a big deal. The whole concept of being an administrator and becoming an administrator would change. a.z. 06:01, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree the existing format makes for very difficult going. If there would be any way to create an "outline" format, where each of the so-far stated variations could be listed under various major headings, it would make things a lot easier to follow and comment upon. John Carter 18:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The bit can be summarily removed at any time, and this does happen almost invariably when serious problems emerge. That absolutely doesn't impact the question of whether RFA could be better.  Perhaps when some people say "desysopping" what they're really thinking of is "probationary sysopping", perhaps for a trial period of three months to see if problems emerge. --Tony Sidaway 16:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The format is fine
There are polls, there is discussion, 117 people have already contributed and the page is not that long. a.z. 01:25, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 117 people having contributed is a bad thing. Three people together have trouble enough discussing a topic; 117 simply can not have any sort of rational discourse with each other. -Amarkov moo! 03:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you think that 117 people can not have any sort of rational discourse with each other? Do you think we should elect representatives for this discussion? a.z. 03:31, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that we should either decide to have a vote (which would kinda be against the point here), or have a discussion without voting, thus removing all the people who aren't interested in a serious discussion. RfC tries to be a hybrid, and thus utterly fails on things like this. -Amarkov moo! 03:39, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Question, if 150 people give an opinion in an RfA, but 117 people say RfA is broken, who wins? Don't mind me, just being a smartass. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 05:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should regulate the inflow of views, somehow. Make it so that every view is given a fair share of appreciation, make sure every option is considered. Subpages, with a new view featured every quarter of a day? This is a very weird suggestion, I know, but how else can we make sure everyone is heard, and every alternative considered properly? -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, as you see here we are having the fundamental problem of trying to have a discussion with 60+ people... its hard, especially as we are limiting our selves to no abstractions. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 18:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find the exact quote, but something like, "A committee is an organism with 48 limbs and no brain". --Quiddity 19:41, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I know the quote as well. Of course, 117 editors and 48 limbs does produce kinda weird results. John Carter 19:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so if we really want to change things to be more "wiki" like and more towards discussion, we need to figure out how best to manage a discussion with 60+ members. As it is now, RFA does the management by allowing everyone to persuade others to their points of view. (note the per User:USERNAME votes). A system would have to allow easy to follow discussions, and thats not "just drop 60 editors on a talk page and have at it". ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 01:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One format that could be considered is the "evidence" sections of RFA... and leave it to the B-crats to determine if enough evidence has been found negative to disallow adminship. Thats a system where all choice making is put in the B-crats hands based on evidence gathered by the RFA community. I don't advocate this... as of now... its too raw, and not well thought out, but such a system has been proven to work at arbitration. Customs would have to be developed as to if folks were allowed to post in other's evidence section... should similar evidence go in one location, should people be allowed to comment / vote on evidence as saying "thats important to me" etc. No matter what though the key problem is the sheer number of people involved, right now RFA as it is, can deal with those numbers. ——  Eagle 101 Need help? 01:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If someone had an idea that was truly better than what we have now, I think it would be clear that it is supported, instead of the fractured groupings of ideas that are floating about here. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 20:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Community enforced administrator recall
Please see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship for discussion on a new community desysopping process.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  16:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Moving Ahead
Okay, here is how I see it, we have 40+ opinions, many of which have gathered a fair amount consensus. I feel we need to take the next step, and starting finding out if the community likes certainly proposals. Consensus is currently impossible to establish on the page. A new page needs to be created and then One suggestion at a time the overall "New Deal" needs to be sorted out. -- Eye of the minD 20:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you can come up with one idea that people will come to a consensus in this matter on that is great, but it hasn't happened yet. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand that, but do you think that the page is really accomplishing anything? -- Eye of the minD 21:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Not in this form, no. I will leave it to more experienced minds to suggest what form these discussions take next, but it needs to go somewhere or it will go nowhere at all. RFC was probably less than ideal as a venue, but other discussions had been tried. Certainly, taking it away from WT:RFA and giving it a dedicated page was a good start.  Adrian   M. H.  21:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the best way to proceed at this point would be to try to decide on clear, specific phrasing of the various proposals here, and listing them all separately, in some sort of order of logical progression, and maybe asking the respondents to say which options they would support? John Carter 21:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember there being such a page already (And I think it was longer than this page : ) - jc37 22:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

But as for a new page: How about list the basic statements:


 * RfA is broken, and needs to be removed/deleted
 * RfA is broken, and needs to be rebuilt from scratch into something else;
 * RfA is not broken, but is rather, successful;
 * RfA is not broken, but could use adjustment;
 * RfA is not broken, the people are misusing or misguided;
 * RfA is not broken, people's expectations of adminship is more the trouble;
 * RfA is not broken, there just needs to be a way to de-sysop, which will change the outlook of RfA "voters";
 * RfA is somewhat broken in that it focuses too much on "voting" and not enough on Consensus;

(I think I got all the general ones)

And honestly, I think that these would make a good new RfC.

Then make a page for proposals of how to "fix" RfA: Admin probation, Admin review, Admin recall, remove the Support section, 2 days of discussion before "voting", etc. - jc37 22:04, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me. John Carter 22:07, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not so much that RFA is broken (it does seem to work after a fashion) so much as that it has such painfully low yield. This has an impact on the perception of administrators on English Wikipedia (they're held to ever more unrealistic standards, and treated more like a police force, which they really are not).  Administratorship should not mean much; all experienced editors should have it unless there is a good reason for them not to have it. We're a long way from achieving that. --Tony Sidaway 16:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, not giving out a mop to experienced editors is against AGF (unless that editor has histories of abuse or misuse tools) OhanaUnitedTalk page 16:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, and it is to be presumed that all experienced editors who do not encounter significant opposition should be given the tools, maybe the process could be reformed such that there is, as it were, a group of "reviewers" who check to see if any editor who has achieved threshold X should not be made an admin, and only turning down admin status to those who reach that status that they think seem to have some sort of decision-making or behavioral problems? John Carter 17:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Almost nobody seriously opposes experienced editors without clear evidence of abuse. The problem is that people (including you, and I admit including me) sometimes disguise everything they don't like as lack of experience. -Amarkov moo! 20:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm not so cynical about that. I'd leave determination of experience, recent edits, and the like to the commonsense of the bureaucrats. --Tony Sidaway 21:24, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't thinking of bureaucrats per se, given the number of requests. What I wouldn't mind seeing would be something like an "electoral college", consisting of editors with solid and proven judgement looking over the requests. A simple process might be something like a much quicker ArbCom case:
 * (1) editor is proposed for adminship
 * (2) statements pro and con are filed (maybe for up to one week), along with questions to be answered by the candidate
 * (3) vote of selectors is taken.
 * If the members of the college were themselves chosen by broader election, maybe to serve in that capacity for up to a year, with enough "spare" members to account for attrition, I think it might go a lot faster and easier. John Carter 21:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * While interesting, I don't think that that is an idea that will get off the ground. To get consensus you'd have to get past Wikipedia is not a democracy. It will also add a level between editors and those who will be determining who will be an admin, so there may be concerns of Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Also note that there are editors who oppose any process which moves from editors the ability to directly make choices.
 * I wonder, as an aside, if it's due to those exact reasons that RfA is at a standstill in development... - jc37 10:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Add another to that list:
 * RFA is not broken. Please redirect time and energies toward coaching/mentorship more good editors into adminship.  Durova Charge!  —Preceding comment was added at 17:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)


 * When adminship was first introduced to Wikipedia, was there a specific criteria for those who would become an admin? I believe that a consensus is just too...inappropriate for a project this huge. Everyone has his or her own ideas; not everyone agrees with one consensus. There would be, no, there will be a change in the consensus. And after that, another change. And so on. Sooner or later, something like this must happen if we continue to rely on general opinion. We have to make guidelines, they are crucial. If there is such a fuss just about choosing administrators, the very users who are supposed to maintain order among us, I am afraid to think of what will happen to us in the not-so-far future. Let there be criteria(s) for future admins to follow, and then, and only then, we take general opinion into account. At least, if there are any doubts, we can always adhere to the guidelines. -- Zachary crimsonwolf  14:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)