Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

ok folks .. let's stop fighting with each other and work together... please. — Ched :  ?  04:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Recall - Something to do whilst we are waiting for a better idea

Ye problem so far:

Lots of solutions, all with good ideas but inevitably contradictory.

I see little purpose in having an RfC about the general principle myself - is it really likely that there would not be support for it? However, even if a "general idea RfC" does go ahead, we would, I believe, still need something along the following proposed lines.

Suggestion: Draft RFC that identifies these competing processes and is a step towards an RFC about them (not just one of them). It is deliberately unfinished to encourage input so that in a few days/months/weeks something worth putting out to the community might be achieved. Bits and pieces nicked from some of the existing proposals. If nothing else, it might act as summary of ideas. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Ben MacDui 19:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think this format might be on the right track for getting a proposal passed. There's widespread agreement, I think, that something must be done. The status quo isn't popular. Previous proposals have failed due to an inability of the community to unite behind a single solution. This format could solve that. --Alecmconroy (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If we really wanted to be radical, we could make The Status Quo one of the options, so that it has to get explicit support, and doesn't win by default... Probably would need a prior RFC to show support for that approach, though. Rd232 ^talk 15:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Gadzooks sir, I think you will find that such radicalism is incorporated already! Indeed I am so fiendishly radical, that I see no reason to request anyone's prior support to be so. (Perhaps this is going too far?) Thank-you both for your kind remarks. I will continue to tinker with it, mostly because I'd like to figure out the relevant pros and cons and have a clear opinion of my own. Please feel free to do likewise. Ben MacDui 18:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest an even stronger effort to get this publicized, including posts in the Signpost, Village pump, all admin-related pages, the various IRCs, Wikipedia Review, and a page-top banner. Cla68 (talk) 00:47, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

How about a {{Wikipedia Ads}} banner as well, for use on participants' talk pages? (Not that I'm volunteering to make one or anything.) Rd232 ^talk 02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection whatever to any of the above, but I am not on IRC or WR, of a shy and retiring disposition and unfamiliar with the advertising protocols involved. I may not get around to any of this soon. Ben MacDui 08:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

THIS POLL WILL CLOSE at 7pm GMT ON MONDAY 16th NOVEMBER. Ben MacDui 19:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The poll will close before determining the next step? I have been considering these proposals, and trying to decide which ones I would like to support or oppose. Since there is none that completely encompasses what I would like to see (Admin initiated, minimum editor support requirement, agreement to not use the tools during debate, RfA to reconfirm), I was waiting for the decision on the next step before opining. If the top 3 are to be moved forward, I will support and/or oppose differently than if the individual qualities of each are to be moved forward and debated indeividually. The poll should not have an end date set until the next step is clearly determined. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 20:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I take your point, but given that we could get a further twenty comments that might make a difference to the end result I would be loathe to specify a set of next steps until the process is complete. By all means make some suggestions on the processes talk page if you want to. Ben MacDui 11:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The poll has just closed, with results available at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall#Results table. Ben MacDui 19:58, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This process now continues at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC. The intention is to iron out the issues raised at the above poll prior to taking it to an RfC, perhaps earlier in the New Year. Ben MacDui 10:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

The actual RfC is in preparation. We have decided to produce an FAQ at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/FAQ. I'm keen that a few uninvolved eyes take a look at it as it is always difficult to see things from a newcomer's POV when you are on the inside. Any assistance appreciated. Ben MacDui 17:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Even better, there is this muti-vote poll, on finalising the form CDA will take. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The RfC is now live at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Ben MacDui 12:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the rush rfc. CDa has elements that are demonstrably non consensus (esp the 80% baseline figure), and it still needs work. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Hiberniantears/AdministratorCommunityFeedback

I'm soliciting unfettered feedback on my work as an administrator. Located at: User:Hiberniantears/AdministratorCommunityFeedback

Request for your comments at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC

Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC went live yesterday, and your comments are invited. The long-awaited run-up to the RfC (indeed, this is not the first attempt) was not without incident, but love it or hate it, it's up.

I also suggest a discussion regarding this RfC here, on this page, which now becomes a default spot for such. One topic I would like to see discussed is where we go from here, if anywhere, if the RfC fails. A major thumping or a strong bureaucrat thumbs down, or both, mean it's back to the drawing board.

And for reference: Wikipedia:'Community de-adminship' - The original Uncle G proposal, so that members of this WikiProject can judge for themselves where we were and are now. Thanks to all who have taken an interest, Jusdafax 10:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Better link is the archive of the original posting. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject Administrator/Term Limits: a proposal

I propose, regardless of the RfC fate of the current version of Cda (at this writing well under 50% in the !vote) that a different, and vastly simpler approach be tried at dealing with the ongoing issue of the current admin-for-life culture of Wikipedia. I suggest a four year term limit (good enough for the U.S. President, after all), followed by a Rfa for those admins who wish to retain the tools.

As for the current crop of administrators I quote WBardwin (from the current Cda RfC, in the 'neutral' vote section): "In a term limit set up, I would suggest using each admin's "anniversary" of their "ascension" as the cut off date." In other words, on enactment, and after an interval of say, 3 months, Admins with over four years experience would be desysopped if they failed to stand for reconfirmation in the six weeks prior to their term ending.

Keep it simple, keep it short. The less drama and self-congratulatory pontification the better, both in the process and the final wording of 'ATL' proposal . Indeed, I'd suggest a 500 word cap on the final proposal to keep those runaway wordsmiths in love with their own thoughts firmly under control. We are talking about something very easy to understand, and if it is not allowed to bloat into a swamp of words, I predict it will pass muster in an RfC.

For those concerned with accountability for admins, term limits are an answer, in my view. Jusdafax 19:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please consider this. Under the system you propose, how many currently-sitting administrators would be coming up for reconfirmation at a given time? Would we be able to handle the logistics? (As for keeping the wordsmiths under control, good luck with that!) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No doubt the first year's worth of reconfirmations would be eventful. But I believe the Wikipedia admin ranks could stand a good housecleaning. The inactives obviously won't stand for re-Rfa, and others will not for varied reasons. But with term limits, we need not put candidates for Rfa under the gruelling microscope that has evolved at present with a lifetime appointment at stake. To answer your question directly, I believe so. Jusdafax 20:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm thinking more specifically than that. This has been discussed before (no surprise). What would be the actual numbers? When you find out the answer to that, you'll be in for an unpleasant surprise. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If you know, or have an inkling, please just say so. If absolutely needed to lessen the numerical burden, an odd-even year system could be put in place to cut in half the initial load. As I say, the initial period(s) will be memorable. But as I see it with the RfC for Cda headed for failure, the alternative is to keep in place the current system. Many of us don't want that. Jusdafax 20:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Now you know what I've been feeling like lately. I have an inkling: really, really, big. You can find the list of administrators, which gives you numbers and also dates of appointment. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

If the vast majority of active admins are from three or more years ago, as you imply (and I suspect) it merely reinforces my view that something must be done about it. In other words, if a large number of admins were elected when standards were substantially different then at present, then something is wrong and there should be an effective, constructive push for corrective measures. Jusdafax 21:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been giving you a bit of a hard time here, sorry. I agree with you in principle, always have. The hard part is making something that will work. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have opposed this in the past, I oppose it now, and I'll oppose it in the future. Tell me one other unpaid volunteer in the world who has "term limits" on their ability to help the organization they donate their time to? Adding term limits is absolutely the wrong approach. Admins are not Senators or Presidents with great prestige and awesome power. They're just users with a few extra abilities that they are granted because the community believes they can act responsibly with them. If the community turns out to be wrong about that in a particular case, then they should have the tools removed, but not just because some arbitrary length of time has passed. A lot of admins would probably just walk away if forced to go through another RFA, and we need more not less. The only way I will ever support this idea is if the term is ten years or longer, since that would make it more or less moot anyway given the lifespan of the average Wikipedia account. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"Tell me one other unpaid volunteer in the world who has "term limits" on their ability to help the organization they donate their time to?" That's easy! I am a member of a relatively large and active arts organization -- covering half of our state. Term limits are essential to the success of the organization. Board members serve for a limit of three years and elected administrative officers serve for two years. That allows enough time for people to develop an administrative memory of recurring events and to develop and refine administrative policies and procedures. But it also allows the membership to rotate in and out of office. This brings in new "blood" with differing perspectives and approaches and keeps the organization fresh. It also allows members to serve and then feel comfortable in devoting more time to their own interests and careers. Another example: my mother has served as a volunteer for 40+ years with an international service organization. They have similar term limits for both local officers and boards, but have a paid board on the international level. In my opinion, a similar rotation here would be benificial to Wikipedia. WBardwin (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I submit that to the average editor in Wikipedia, admins DO have awesome prestige and power. In many communities, City or Town Councilmembers are paid a nominal fee for their efforts, but still must face re-election. And the point of term limits, both in politics and potentially in Wikipedia, is to moderate the use of that power so that, like it or not, when officeholders face review of their actions, the community can judge how the prestige and power were used - for the good of all, or in a demonstrably self-serving or POV-pushing way. Ten years is too long. There are those that will say four is too long.

As for admins walking away when we need more, as I say above (in my comment posted after yours was) that term limits will, in my view, encourage new people to step up once Rfa's stop being a gruelling examination by the tenure board of Wikipedia. Even ArbCom members have to face electon. I firmly believe the time has come to make it a requirement for admins as well. Jusdafax 20:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Experienced volunteers should not be arbitrarily removed from their jobs if they are still active and there is no reason to limit the number of people in the job, so I do not support term limits for all Wikipedia admins. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a project page for a proposal - indeed, a proposed proposal. It is for discussion of how to form it up simply and in an expedited manner. It really isn't up for a !vote at the moment, so with all due respect to those who want to express a 'No' vote, I say this is neither the time or place for such. Best, Jusdafax 20:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(Sound of me gloating.) Sorry, I couldn't resist. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(Shrugs) What I find interesting is how fast two admins jumped to register disapproval mere minutes after my starting a proposed proposal to enact term limits for them. Rightly or wrongly, this will reinforce the view of those who feel we are dealing with a virtual entitled nobility who will fight like hell against any attempt at limiting their "powers". Jusdafax 21:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, even I do not think that! A lot of administrators have helped with CDA. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite so. Nor do I claim to think that way myself, I hasten to add. I merely make the the point that I find it interesting, and that those on the far end of the spectrum will doubtless see it as I suggest.

Further, I find it ironic that so many admins are jumping up and down on Cda at your RfC, when it is quite moderate compared to term limits - which will require a re-RfA and a 70% approval, compared to the quite reasonable 35% approval this version of Cda asks for to keep the bit. You would think admins would sense that any version Cda was in their long term benefit as a saftey valve for "the mob". Term limits, which the average editor can understand and relate to, will, I believe, pass if correctly and simply drafted and presented as an RfC. If it can't be managed here and now, it will be sooner or later, I suspect. Jusdafax 21:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The proposal seems to involve a lot of churn (about 250 RFAs per year given current admin volume, rouhgly doubling the workload of this process. Meanwhile, supporters of reform have exhibited roughly zero instances of alleged failure in the current desysopping model. This seems like too much effort directed toward resuming probably the most effective process in existence on WP. Judasfax, I think you will find that it is popular but inefficient systems that eventually must undergo reform to release the pressure created by their own unsustainable nature. Unpopular but efficient systems tend to survive quite well because the pressure is easily released by constant griping and complaining about distasteful we all find them. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Time will tell, of course. Regardless of concerns re: churn or lack of concrete examples (which involve fingerpointing and attendant drama here) I maintain a four year term limit is reasonable. As for those who have had already had the mop beyond that limit, a re-RfA is also reasonable, in my view. This is a simple concept: power should have limits, and a review. Only those with something to fear need be concerned regarding a re-!vote every four years. Jusdafax 22:27, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

These things need at least some kind of coordination, Jusdafax! You've been pressing for the CDA proposal to start ASAP since early Jan, and a week ago you promised to run a variant "Reverse RfA" version of CDA ("the Uncle G proposal") at your own RfC, forcing the real one to hurry up and start. You then decide against running your own CDA (after seeing the opposition at the now-started CDA poll I would guess), and now - 2 days into the 28 day CDA proposal poll, you come here and make a new proposal on Term limits, while the community is encouragingly discussing admin recall (and this perennial 'term limits' idea too) on the page of that long-awaited poll! I have to say that you don't seem to have the patience gene at all!

Surely you can get your own proposal in when people are focused again on this issue. A four year term at very least is something people need to discuss first. The 'proposal first' method isn't really a helpful, as opposers can answer it with a direct negative. It limits possibilies too. We need ideas that become a discovered consensus through discussion. The idea isn't new - it just needs the snowball of attention. We will surely get that after the CDA results are in, in few weeks time. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

"..." Jusdafax 22:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

• Two things: Trying to stifle dissent by saying it's "too soon" to oppose this is not such a hot idea. What is the point of even having a preliminary discussion if only those with the viewpoint that this is a good idea are allowed to express their opinions? Secondly, I wrote one of the early proposals that led to the current CDA proposal, so don't even go there with the "entitled nobility" bullshit. We're not nobility, in fact we get treated like crap a lot of the time, and because there is always someone waiting for their chance to cry out "look an abusive admin, let's get 'em!" we have to be very careful about how we use our tools and how we respond to criticism of our actions. The fact is that most admins who have been desysopped have been brought down at least partially by other admins. There is no cabal, we are not all a homogenous group with a hive mind, there is as much diversity of opinion among admins as there is among Wikpedians in general. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

And I will point out that language from Beeblebrox's draft is in the CDA proposal. I pushed for it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: My quotes from above:

1. - "Rightly or wrongly, this will reinforce the view of those who feel we are dealing with a virtual entitled nobility..."
2. - "Nor do I claim to think that way myself, I hasten to add. I merely make the the point that I find it interesting, and that those on the far end of the spectrum will doubtless see it as I suggest."

Your response: "...so don't even go there with the "entitled nobility" bullshit."

Hardly worth cursing about, I'd say. A non-admin less experienced than I might find themselves, well, intimidated by your current admin demeanor. Is it such a stretch to see youself, here, as perhaps part of the very problem that creates the type of resentment I refer to? I have no intention of cursing back, for obvious reasons... So I, a non-admin, am in the odd position of pointing out a civility issure to an admin.

As for your blanket refusal to consider any kind of term limits for admins... You are entitled to your opinion, naturally. But the purpose of this section is to discuss a short draft for admin term limits. I fail to see how you or anyone else coming in and making hard-line statements like "I have opposed this in the past, I oppose it now, and I'll oppose it in the future" aids the purpose of the section. Furthermore, you assert the right, and even the need, to keep saying it. Believe me, I got your message after the first sentence. I daresay we might be friends under different circumstances, but currently I find myself wondering at you. With wishes for a calm exchange of views, Jusdafax 00:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Saying it's bullshit doesn't mean I've lost my ability to think or act calmly. I'm sorry if this seems condescending, but it's difficult to explain to a non-admin what a "golden turd" adminship can be at times, and it's aggravating that so many users seem to believe it puts you in some special upper crust where it's all wine and roses (or puppies and rainbows if you prefer). It mostly consists of doing things that no one ever notices or appreciates combined with getting yelled at for days on end over the slightest error, whether real or imagined. On top of that, if you handle blocks or unblock requests you have a very good chance of being singled out for special attention by trolls. (there have been at least ten accounts created for the sole purpose of attacking me and trolling my talk page) To make a different analogy, consider a high school principal or headmaster type. That is a better analogy than the politician/nobility one. Here is a guy with just a bit more authority than those he works with, but he still works with them, he's not their all-powerful overlord. And does he lose his job automatically after four years unless he shows up at a school board meeting with his hat in his hand asking to be allowed to remain, despite the fact that he has done a good job? should hope not. Would he be fired if he's beating the kids with a stick for no reason or cutting the entire budget for art class because he was sleeping with the art teacher and his wife found out? I should hope so. I hope this clarifies my objections to this idea. (and I certainly don't consider you my enemy, we just happen to disagree on this one thing) Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, and eloquently stated. Above "wondering" withdrawn. As a rollbacker, I have had a taste of what you refer to... perhaps a very small taste, but enough to see your point, as my user page has been defaced 171 times to date, by my count. Let's start over, here. I'm curious what you would see as a compromise. Say established admins didn't have to face another formal RfA but a mere majority reconfirmation !vote... 50% + 1. Could you see that as correct and proper? Jusdafax 01:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

How about a process that doesn't create any bureaucratic overhead in 95% of the cases? I would support a process that requires takes exactly zero seconds of any potentially productive editor's time away from writing the encyclopedia for the 95% of admins that I would expect to be uncontroversially reconfirmed.

To put it another way: You have a solution in search of a problem. I have some instinctive sympathy for this perennial proposal, but it's still an unnecessary solution to a non-existent problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

To be brief: I disagree, and think a solid majority of non-admins disagree. Terms of office for admins, I believe, are going to be coming sooner or later to Wikipedia. To attempt to find common ground, as I do with Beeblebrox above, how about a simple system to "pass" active noncontroversial admins? Jusdafax 07:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a comment: I have been asked more than once to become an administrator. After careful consideration I decided against putting my name forward. Part of my concern is the inevitable attacks by trolls and other editors as summarized above. I was also concerned about the time such a function would entail. But I largely declined because there was no way "out", other than resigning the position in anger or frustration or leaving Wikipedia. If the job was for a limited duration for everyone, I would reconsider. I suspect I am not alone and that term limits would actually bring more editors into administrative positions. WBardwin (talk) 05:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Outdent: I see that there is actually some interest from what I suggested(not saying I'm the only or first one to make it) but I have an idea to help reduce the red tape. When a term is up, it will be noted that the admin is up for reconfirmation, if a week goes by and no one objects, the term is automatically renewed, no drama needed and less discussion to deal with. If someone requests another reconfirmation, then go ahead with it. This could dramatically decrease the possible flood of rfa's. MrMurph101 (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• This comes up every few months and I really can't see any possible way that a reconfirmation process for all admins could work without derailing any useful work on the wiki. The suggestion that reconfirmations be done only if one or a certain number of editors support it is effectively a limited version of Wikipedia:Community de-adminship, which is cruising towards rejection at RFC. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Code of conduct

There is a proposal, Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct, that was last edited in October 2009 and has been in proposal form for a long time now. Is there anything within it that is objectionable, or can it be promoted to be a guideline to supplement WP:Administrators#Administrator conduct? I think it looks broadly OK, but it may really be redundant. Fences&Windows 15:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. Given the relative paucity of the response here, I suggest an RfC might be a good idea to make sure this proposal is communicated adequately. Jclemens (talk) 23:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Related discussion

Please note that there is currently a related discussion at Jimbo Wales' talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)