requests For Adminship/Archive 106

After some of the discussion on Wiki: Requests for comment/Wiki:Requests for adminship, I've decided to try my hand at creating another desysopping proposal. Please read it over (a read of the RFC might help too) and discuss it on the talk page. Mr.Z-man 01:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, are people allowed to do things like this? What's our official stance on RfA voting icons and the like? Thanks. GlassCobra (Review) 17:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

They're not prohibited, although many find them redundant and annoying. Removing them is unnecessary, though. Melsaran (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Okay. I think I'll go restore it, then. Thanks for the quick reply. GlassCobra (Review) 17:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Please do no such thing. I have thoroughly answered your question at my talk page. We do not use these icons. Will (aka Wimt) 18:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Here is a link to the last time that this was discussed. Consensus was that these were to be removed when used. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 18:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Even though consensus can change, the status quo with sans-icon comments shall stand, since the community-at-large dislikes them (subsequent TFDs and discussions bolster that), and that this is not a multilingual project, unlike Commons and Meta. O₂ (息 • 吹) 23:53, 07 October 2007 (GMT)
I don't like them, as we can see here. I remove them when I see them. They're unnecessary. Bandwidth isn't an issue and all, but why bother having them at all? --Deskana (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't midn them that much. I suppose they further make clear someone's position. They are used much over at Meta.... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't care if they are used or not. What I don't like is that some are saying "this came up before and we don't use them so we're not entertaining it again". Consensus can change stifling a discussion is not right.Rlevse 00:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict)…and that is because it's multilingual there, where some users do not understand English that well. O₂ (息 • 吹) 00:18, 08 October 2007 (GMT)
Well, I suppose. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
How much "further clear" can someone be than posting under the correct "support" or "oppose" section of the RFA? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, really. I actually don't think separate support, negative... sections are truly necessary since it's a discussion. I suppose it makes closing the requests much easier... But still; the current layout works fine. *Cremepuff222* 01:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
(outdent)I don't use them, but would never think of removing them from someone else's comment, just as I wouldn't refactor a Super-de-duper Support in to a Support. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

They're used at multilingual projects such as Meta or Commons because everyone can understand them. There's no need for them to be used here; they only reinforce the incorrect presumption that requests are votes. --bainer (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

As has been pointed out already, those templates are only useful in mixed-language environments. The English Wikipedia isn't one of them. EVula // talk // ☯ // 06:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
From my perspective, it seems the consensus hasn't changed. And neither has my opinion: they are not necessary because we don't have   A favor/Di accordo/D'accord/Да issues here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 06:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If you like the way they look, you can use User:ais523/votesymbols.js to add them to RfAs, AfDs, etc. to your own view, and so avoid inflicting them on everyone else. (This solution - allowing users who like them to see them whilst not annoying everyone else - seems to me to be about right.) --ais523 09:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a pretty good way of skirting this issue. It's a win/win. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that seems a pretty nice solution. Nice coding, ais532. :) *Cremepuff222* 21:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

I just thought of an idea of when closing adminships that failed. Maybe there should be a summary from all the comments of what is good and bad and why they failed. Or would this be too much like WP:ER? Simply south 12:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I see where you're coming from, but again this is basically asking the 'crats to 1) do more work and 2) justify their decision. Other than a tiny tiny number of cases consensus is normally clear. I don't think a candidate needs to be further beaten up by a closing 'crat summary identifying their failings as seen by others. If RfA is a discussion then a candidate who fails RfA should review all the input, both support, oppose and neutral, to help themselves in either their editing and/or any future RfA. Succinct closing statements may be nice, but time consuming and less valuable than a review of the input. Of course this assumes positive input from the opposers, but IMHO generally it is. Pedro :  Chat  12:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
What would be the point? I haven't gone through an RfA, but I've read, and I'm sure it'd be the same for me, RfA candidates generally watch it constantly and read everything posted. It's not a matter of transcluding and coming back a week later to check the outcome. So who would the summary be for? Lara❤Love 12:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Also, as with XfDs etc, if whoever closes it does so for a reason that's not obvious they generally leave a reason anyway. I can see a (faint) use in that if someone's running a second time it would be easier to see why their first one failed, but you're relying on the summariser to get it right in that case. — iridescent (talk to me!) 13:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Most people give a decent summary when they post a comment / vote on the RfA, and often list necessary improvements as it is anyway. Lradrama 13:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
FWIW, as part of my (ultimately successful, but then very much on the bubble) RfA, I did my own summary of take-aways. Perhaps we can add something like this to the RfA template to encourage this sort of thing. Encouraging failed candidates to reflect on what was said would likely help them to be successful at the next one, no? Ronnotel 13:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, the crat should post his or her reason for making the decision if it can't be determined by first reading the request. It should be pretty easy to figure out why the nom was rejected by simply reading the request. *Cremepuff222* 14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

From the current RfC it is clear that the community would like a way to remove admin status themselves without the need for the aribtration. I have therefore created Wiki: Community enforced administrator recall‎ which gives an option for admins to be recalled by the community but in a way that would ensure they don't get recalled over minor problems. Have a read through it, but basically any user with over 500 edits and 3 months service can request recall of an admin, a week long dicussion then begins into the users actions, during this time at least 5 users must endorse the need for recall. At this point a 7 day vote opens and if there is 75% support of recall a crat closes the request and posts on meta for the user to be desysopped, if it is below 75% then the user is not desysopped and no-one can request recall of the user for a period of 3 months. The requests are transcluded onto Wiki: Requests for community enforced administrator recall where all discussion occurs. I've created a very basic template (Template:Community enforced administrator recall) for what could be used to create a recall nomination. I strongly believe that this will put more power the the community to decide its own fate with respect to who it's admins are, but without removing admin status willy nilly. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• I totally disagree that the community wants a way to remove admin status without the need for arbitration. The discussion at Wiki: Removal_of_adminship has not produced a consensus and I'm not even sure what RfC you are refering to. If you mean the one at Wiki: Requests for comment/Wiki:Requests for adminship, I see no consensus there (a mess of opinions, yes, but no consensus). It sometimes seems like the same group of people whine on and on that there is a problem with not being able to remove problem admins, or a problem with the admin selection process. However, I find it interesting that most editors and admins do not take part in these discussions, probably because most editors and admins do not see a problem. In short, Wiki: Community enforced administrator recall‎ is a solution in search of a problem. ArbCom already handles these problems perfectly well.--Alabamaboy 16:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

All I see at that RFC is a lack of consensus. The enforced admin recall idea has failed to get consensus numerous times. Alabamaboy has worded my thoughts in regard to "it not being a problem" and "same old folks" very well. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Wiki: Requests_for_comment/Wiki:Requests_for_adminship#View_by_Friday suggests quite a stong consensus for a community recall process. some desysoppings could easily be handled by the community and ArbCom should be a last resort. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ya, did you notice that other "views" have as much consensus saying it is not broken? There is also plenty of opposition to Friday's view, the format simply encourages "support" votes, and has no place for opposing in a nice little counted list. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The other views are concentrating on the RfA proces itself and don't really mention a removal process. Many of the views tend to suggest that if the community could remove admin status then then the RfA process may run smoother. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This page indicates a lack of consensus for this type of change: Wiki talk:Removal of adminship. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Ryan, I still fail to see any consensus at the link you provided to Friday's view, which is only one small part of an overall discussion on that page. You appear to be cherry picking the discussion at Wiki: Requests_for_comment/Wiki:Requests_for_adminship to find support for this recall idea. Like Until(1 == 2) said, there are numerous people on that page who oppose this recall idea or say there is no problem or, most important, didn't even take part in that discussion but commented instead at Wiki: Removal_of_adminship. In fact, the consensus appears to be to keep the current system, not to create a new guideline or policy for recall.--Alabamaboy 16:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Alabamaboy makes good points, plus the proposed standard is too easy: "over 500 edits and 3 months service can request recall of an admin, a week long dicussion then begins into the users actions, during this time at least 5 users must endorse the need for recall." When I had 500 edits, I still knew nothing about wiki, much less what an admin was to do. The proposed makes it easy for a lynch mob to form. I could even possibly see giving admins more weight in the removal process than non-admins. Rlevse 16:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. 500 and three months is way to lenient. Admins should have more say, because they can better judge the actions being taken. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 16:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Rlevse makes a good point. I'll add in that the current program seems to work. The ArbCom is a good place to start if you wat to see a desysopping. Also, the best admins are not always the well liked ones. Mercury 16:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Mercury that the total number of de-sysoppings is small enough that Arbcom can handle them without creating additional bureaucracy. I am concerned about cliques where half a dozen to a dozen established editors predictably vote together. If an admin attempts to set policy-based limits on clique members--for instance, warnings about POV pushing--the clique could retaliate by dragging the poor admin into a week long stress-fest. The proposed process seems easy to abuse. I have confidence in Arbcom because cases there are not started without a solid basis. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

While I was initially opposed to the entire idea, I'm not willing to write this off as hopeless. As long as a grown-up (the bureaucrat) is in charge of the process and has explicit instructions to adjust for collective action, it is possible to make the process fair. See my contribution to the proposal. Ronnotel 17:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We do not need a consensus that "RFA is broken" in order to consider ideas on how to improve the process. Friday (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If not broke, why fix? Mercury 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

"Broken" is too loaded a term. It's divisive and not useful to moving forward. Wikipedia already depends on people being able to make small incremental improvements. We do it with articles; no reason not to do it with processes too. In fact I think you'll see this happens with processes all the time. Insisting that people must demonstrate broken-ness in order to suggest something new is disruptive and unhelpful. Friday (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Then let us be blunt: Nothing is broken. ArbCom works fine in handling this issue, aside from the process occasionally being a bit slow as Newyorkbrad says below. And since the process works as it should, there is no need for anything like this process.--Alabamaboy 18:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It might be a religious issue, but having some new recall procedure only makes sense if you don't believe arbcom has been doing an adequate job of this. Arbcom generally wants some pretty serious misbehavior to pull someone's bit. Many people see the usefulness of some way short of arbcom to re-evaluate who is or isn't suited to the tools. Friday (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

It must be a religious issue, it keeps rising from the dead. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

This may indicate that we need a better answer than "We can't do that! We've never done it before!" Friday (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not support expansion of the administrator recall process because many (I do not say all) prior recall attempts have been trollish or meritless in nature, even when commenced by users who met any reasonable edit-count or similar requirements, and there is little reason to believe that the process would not be misused again in the future.
To the extent that arbitration is not seen as a viable means of removing or otherwise addressing administrators whose conduct is problematic, I think this is a function of the fact that arbitration cases often last too long and the process is overly complicated. That perception, if shared, warrants finding a way to streamline the arbitration process, not creating a new admin recall process which would have problems of its own. Newyorkbrad 17:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Newyorkbrad has hit the nail on the head here. - Crockspot 20:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(after ec) I'm not sure that I agree that many of the serious prior recall attempts have been meritless. In fact I'd say one advantage of the voluntary system is that most of the attempts have not been meritless, because of the way the system is structured, and that the majority of meritless ones were rebuffed quickly and painlessly. (Some considerable thought went into it way back when to make it work that way) A mandatory system, even if apparently exactly identical, is much easier to game. Which is why I am against a mandatory system that applies selectively. ArbCom works. Now, if on the other hand what was proposed was a reconfirmation discussion once a year or whatever, which every admin had to go through, that would be different. ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In looking for examples of cases where a non-arbcom de-adminship process may have been useful, we should not restrict ourselves to looking for bad admins who've not yet been desysopped by arbcom. In some cases, those who were de-adminned by arbcom might have done lost the bit sooner if there were some other way to do this. If you accept that these people were harming the project through poor use of the tools, then you will agree that the damage might have been stopped sooner if something like this were in place. One could also argue that the existence of some new means of bit removal might encourage sysops to behave themselves better, but there's probably no real evidence to be had, for or against this. In my mind, the biggest advantage of an easier bit-removal process is that it lets us be liberal in handing out the tools in the first place. What problem are we trying to solve? People are reluctant to hand out the tools because of the difficulty in removing them from those who misuse them. Friday (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As much as I'm reluctant to name specific examples, perhaps it's useful here. Betacommand comes to mind. He started showing bad judgment in use of the tools pretty much immediately. Many people tried to get him back on track. In the end, it took months and months of bad judgment and an Arbcom proceeding to get him to change his tune. Arbcom doesn't scale particularly well. We need to look for a solution that does scale. Friday (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If the argument is that we need a process that is both quicker and more reliable than Arbcom, I don't see a community process as offering that. I think it can quite likely offer either benefit alone depending on how structured, but I don't see it offering both. To ensure a fair and reliable outcome, I expect significant restrictions, quorums, waiting periods and the like, would need to be imposed to prevent a group from gaming the system to retaliate against admins who may incur displeasure in the course of doing their jobs. I expect that in order to successfully avoid system-gaming, these restrictions would probably have to have enough teeth that they would tend to slow down the process and frustrate anyone who wants a method for achieving a desysopping quickly. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Old Boy Network extant among certain admins will keep those in the clique with the tools in the face of an ArbCom which rarely removes admins who misuse their privileges. There needs to be a police action that can rapidly remove admin privileges.--Fahrenheit451 04:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Some members of the "community" have done spectacularly stupid things like voting with reasoning of "He's a good person; give him the bit" in RFAs involving former admins whose behavior was so bad that Arbcom desysoped them for good reason. So you'll forgive me if I trust "the community" about as far as I can throw them. Let the crats do it; they were chosen for their judgment. Friday (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee (as you've indicated) already deals with problem administrators. Having bureaucrats also do so doesn't seem to offer anything. Of course if the argument is that urgent desysopping is sometimes needed, that is already taken care of by the stewards (and I've no objection in principle to the bureaucrats on English Wikipedia also having steward powers). --Tony Sidaway 14:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the arbcom occasionally does this. Often after months and months of bad judgment and drama-causing foolishness, as pointed out above. We rely on social pressure to help get editors and admins to undo their mistakes. Why should we not have the benefit of social pressure on the crats to fix their mistakes? I'm not saying I want this to be the only tool at our disposal; I just think it should be one of them. Friday (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Where is this great horde of administrators who have been desysopped "after months and months of bad judgment and drama-causing foolishness, as pointed out above"?

In trying to address that question myself, I've looked at recently desysopped editors:
• User:Rama's Arrow (Hkelkar_2 case)
• User:Geni and User:Yanksox (Daniel Brandt case)
• User:Husnock (Husnock case)
The most surprising thing I found here was how far I had to go back to find that many desysoppings--you'd think we had dozens and dozens of admins who needed desysopping, but this evidently isn't the case.

It's certainly true that Geni had a history of bad administrator actions, which was noted by the arbitration committee at the time, but I'm really not convinced that he would have failed to pass a popularity contest. I suspect that any process like that currently proposed would have been likely to permit Geni to keep his bit, for entirely the wrong reasons. --Tony Sidaway 15:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Absence of a hoard is not a good reason to ignore a handful. Friday (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to Ryan Postlethwaite's statement that Wiki: Requests_for_comment/Wiki:Requests_for_adminship#View_by_Friday suggests quite a stong consensus for a community recall process" I'd suggest that 56 supporting out of those who have taken the trouble to edit that RFC hardly amounts to consensus, although clearly there is substantial support. --Tony Sidaway 14:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Tony, you say that the community would have supported Geni as an admin "for entirely the wrong reasons". It doesn't matter whether you or anyone thinks they are the wrong reasons. Wikipedia is controlled by the community, and the community should be able to make important decisions, whether you agree with them or not. If the community wants to desysop someone, then let them be desysopped. If the community wants someone to keep the bit, then let them keep the bit. Simple as that. Saying "let's not give the community more power because the community decides things "for entirely the wrong reasons" and we know better than they do" implies an attitude of elitism. Melsaran (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Setting limits on disruptive users is challenging enough without the threat of getting dragged into a long process by frivolous claims. Administrators are volunteers. If we expose administrators to being pilloried every time a clique of five users is unhappy with their action, I predict serious harm to Wiki English. Going through RFA once is enough. The current arrangement with Arbcom seems to work and Arbcom members are selected by the community. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am against this on the grounds that desysopping should be a big deal. This new system is unnecessary because if something truly is a big deal, it should go to Arbcom. If someone is offended by an admin action, just remember that they are human and they make mistakes. It shouldn't ruin your life. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 16:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

 

As part of this analysis I made a plot of all logged user rights events, which consist nearly entirely of making new sysops. Dragons flight 01:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• NoSeptember might be interested in these numbers to update his statistical admin project. - Mailer Diablo 08:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Can someone close this down please - I'm busy in RL right at this moment, haven't completed a full RFA close before, and haven't time to check that I do it correctly - and I don't want to upset the 'crats! The reasons for my actions will be clear if anyone checks the history of the user..... Pedro :  Chat  10:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it. --Deskana (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh, well, that was an easier route. Thanks Deskana. Pedro :  Chat  10:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Did you have to make it this public? — Dorftrottel⁠ 07:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Eh? Anyone looking at the history of the RFA page will see the transclusion and removal of the RfA. Only admins can see the deleted page. And I hardly intended to make it "public" but I hardly intended not to either. What's the harm / problem here ? Pedro :  Chat  07:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I was kidding. I think that blankings and deletions of wikispace pages are getting a bit out of hand lately, and IIRC I gave Soumyash my support, so I'm naturally interested in what might have happened. However, since I don't need to know, I ironically commented to the contrary because I might never have noticed without this thread here. — Dorftrottel⁠ 07:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
The point of course is that User:Soumyasch is not the same as User:Soumaysch. Whoever created the latter being very knowledgable of wiki in that they created the account, transcluded the genuine user page and talk, and then created an RfA with well thought out answers properly wikilinked. Just another troll at the end of the day though. Pedro :  Chat  08:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh. That... kind of explains it. Thanks. — Dorftrottel⁠ 16:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)