Misplaced Pages

talk:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:11, 18 September 2009 editDank (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users133,970 edits →Recent unsuccessful candidates: not the right time← Previous edit Latest revision as of 15:04, 25 December 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,293,112 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 270) (bot 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{pp-move-indef|small=yes}}
{{info|This is '''not''' the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. '''To do so, please ].'''}}
{{Skip to bottom}}
{{info|This is '''not''' the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. '''To do so, please ].'''}}

{{RfA Navigation|WT:RFA}} {{RfA Navigation|WT:RFA}}
{{RFX report}}
{| style="float: right; background:#F8FCFF;"
<div style="float:right; text-align:right">''Current time is {{CURRENTTIME}}, {{FULLDATE|type=dmy}} (UTC)''. — {{purge|Purge this page}}
| {{User:X!/RfX Report}} <!-- {{User:ST47/RFA}} --> <!-- {{User:SQL/RfX Report}} --> <!-- {{User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report}} -->
</div>
|}
{{Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Recent}} <!-- {{User:X!/RfX Report}} {{User:SQL/RfX Report}} {{User:Tangotango/RfA Analysis/Report}} -->
{{archives
<div style="clear:both;"></div>
| auto = {{{auto|no}}}
| root = {{{root|}}}
| 1 = {{{1|] - ] - ] - ] - ] - ] - ]}}}
| image =
| style = {{#if:{{{box-width|253}}}|width:{{{box-width}}};}} {{{style|background-color:#f0f0ff}}}
| collapsible = {{{collapsible|no}}}
| collapsed = {{{collapsed|no}}}
| search = {{{search|yes}}}
| search-break = {{{search-break|}}}
| search-width = {{{search-width|22}}}
| search-button-label = {{{button-label|Search}}}
| index = {{{index|/Archives}}}
| editbox = {{{editbox|no}}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 100K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 183 |counter = 270
|minthreadsleft = 2
|algo = old(5d)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(31d)
|archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for adminship/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{archive box|
{{flatlist|
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
}}
----
{{center|Most recent<br />{{Archive list|start={{#expr:{{#invoke:Archive list|count}}-9}}}}}}
}}__TOC__


== Notification of RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation ==


There is an RfC on seeking tools via a voluntary RfA after resignation at {{slink|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy)|RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation}}. ] (]/]) 21:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
<big>Current time: {{FULLDATE|type=wiki}}<br></big>
__TOC__

== A philosophical discussion ==

Out of all the privileges exclusive to administratorship, which one would you be willing to spin off into an individual privilege granted at Requests for Permissions? I think it would make sense to couple rollbacker with semi-protection. ]''']''' 19:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
:I'd quite like to have the ability to grant autoreviewer status, and I'm sure most of the admins who hang around IRC would agree with me there. I keep having to bug them to grant promising content creators the right, and it's save a lot of time for everyone. ] (]) 19:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
::Meh...I'll probably be alone in this, but I'd really like the idea of users being to able to '''''see''''' (not undelete) previously deleted articles. This way, we wouldn't have to repeatedly ask administators to temporarily undelete them or copy the entire text. This would also really help at UAA :) Cheers, ''''']''''''<sup><small>]</sup></small> 20:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I'd grant the privilege to be taken seriously. Admins have unfair weight in discussions that have nothing to do with the use of admin tools. A close second would be a working understanding of IAR, but then I wake up and realize that most admins probably haven't got that. ;) -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Of all the privileges, this is the one least likely to ever be spun out, as the Foundation's lawyer has said if it was done, the Board would step in and overrule the community. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I had to do a double-take on that one, Matt. I thought for a moment you were referring to the "unfair weight" never being spun out, but then the indentation/alignment snapped me back into reality. ] (]) 22:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
:I would like to see the move-subpages or noratelimit aspects spun out at some point, also probably editinterface and when it is turned on, movefile. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 20:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

*Movefile, semiprot (useful for vandal patrollers, as long as they are limited to doing e.g. a 12h or 24h semiprot only--can that be limited programmatically?), edit-through-fullprot (perhaps with a caveat: misuse it once and you ''never get it back''). Definitely ''not'' viewdeleted, per Mbisanz above and Godwin's comments on the matter. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;20:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)</small>
:::Fascinating Roux. So I am better "qualified" to look at deleted pages than you? What makes me so special exactly? <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 20:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Lots of people use quotation marks to indicate a word being quoted. Since Roux said nothing about "qualified", it's interesting that you express it that way. -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:51, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Lots of people use quote marks to indicate that the word is not being quoted - but to demonstrate an approximation - as per my date stamped comment below. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 20:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::Oh, I see... is that like what I've come to know as "scare-quotes"? I've also heard them called "scorn-quotes", or something unpleasant like that. "Approximation" (a quote this time)... that's an interesting term to use. I'll have to meditate on this. -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

*Agreeing with Matt, and ImperatorExercitus - the ability to view deleted pages would be an ideal unbundle. However, "apparently" RFA somehow qualifies people to view extreme libel, attacks etc. wheras just editing here does not. It is ever so slightly surreal that the foundation would, and Matt is right - they would-, make sure that non-admins could not view deleted pages - yet every admin can - despite most admins being anonymous usernames and little more when it come to the eyes of the law. Odd. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 20:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
**Odd, yes, but I'm not sure anyone has ever explicitly claimed that admins are more qualified, or that anyone even had that thought in mind. It seems more to me as if the cookie crumbled that way, and here we are. That it doesn't make much sense is simply an indication that we're still humans, living on Earth. -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
*** As I noted on your talk, a remark in quotes does not have to mean litteral quotation. I'm using them to make apprximation or to add a proxy voice. Please - this thread is marked "philosophical" (to use quotes per that convention) and thus to take second or third voice is perfectly normal. I'm sure if this were a spoken conversation the ill-will would not be here. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 21:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
****There's no ill-will. Were this a spoken conversation, that would be clear. Also, the remark to which you've replied just here had nothing to do with quotation marks. I'm neither upset nor offended in the least. I'm raising another glass to you now. Ahem... everyone: To Pedro's health. This being a philosophical conversation, drink! :D <p> Regarding the history of admin privileges, I am pretty sure that nobody ever explicitly decided "admins are qualified to see deleted pages, and others aren't". I think it's more an artifact of a lot of decisions that were made whenever. Again, cheers. :) -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
*****I have to inteject here... I do believe that on previous discussions on this peren debate we raised the question of viewing deleted pages. And apparently, somebody, I want to say <s>Useeight(?)</s> Mbiz talked to one of the Wikifoundation lawyers or quoted a wiki foundation lawyer, wherein the position of the Wikifoundation was that they wanted to keep viewing of deleted pages in the hands of Admins only. Apparently there was an expression of concern related to privacy, copy vios, etc. and that from a foundational level, it was easier to justify the keeping of these records if they could show fewer people had access to them and that those people were "admins." In short, in a past discussions, the unbundling of the ability to review deleted content was killed from powers on high. While you and I may see it as the easiest to spin out, it is actually one of the least likely to be done.---''']''' '']'' 21:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
**''However, "apparently" RFA somehow qualifies people to view extreme libel, attacks etc. wheras just editing here does not.'' This is perfectly understandable. The foundation isn't saying that it makes one magically qualified, but it is an effort to show some sort of control/limitation on what people can/cannot do. In my profession, I've learned you often put controls in place as CYA's sometimes knowing that it isn't the perfect option. This is the type of control that the foundation can use to say, "We don't let just anybody see them... look at our RfA process and how many people fail. This is a volunteer project, but we have controls in place to prevent abuse." It says nothing about the people who have the tool, it just says, "we (the foundation) did something."---''']''' '']'' 21:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

*I don't think many current features would be suitable to be unbundled, but there are some things that could be useful to non-admins (eg. semiprotect for short periods of time, delete pages in own userspace, etc.) –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 20:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
**I particularly like that second example. Does the technical ability exist to create such a privilege? ]] {{small|(])}} 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
***Aye, that is a good one. I see no reason to oppose it. -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
***IIRC, there was a discussion about that several months ago, but obviously it didn't go anywhere. I expect that nearly any conceivable feature is technically feasible. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 21:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
****Yeah, it's not as if it's difficult for non-admins to get user-space pages deleted at will. -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
*****True, but it would still be more convenient. :) –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 21:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Ability to read deleted edits would be useful. It's the one reason I never got many other admins to retire voluntarily. O:-) --] (]) 21:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're going to bundle more things with rollbacker, you might as well do away with administrator entirely. I fail to understand what problem this is solving, and I fail to understand how this isn't addressed by ]. --] (]) 21:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
:"Philosophical discussions" are often not geared towards solving any particular real-world problems. Nevertheless, they may give rise (unexpectedly?) to good ideas. No harm in a little chat, eh? We spend so much time here being serious as nails... why not blow some bubbles? -]<sup>(])</sup> 21:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
::Because this talk page is not for philosophical discussions, it's for ways to improve the RfA page only. You could try village pump, but even there "lowing bubbles" is not a good thing. Why not do some gnoming instead? ] (]) 22:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Yeah, the wiki works in mysterious ways. Asking people to stop discussing something seldom results in much progress. I'll keep my own counsel on the value of bubbles; thanks. I mean, who is prepared to say that no good idea on this site ever arose from a seemingly pointless discussion? Not I. -]<sup>(])</sup> 22:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

*] viewability could be granted to proven non vandals. If there was finer grained control on the mediawiki interface pages or edit protected then more trusted users could be allowed to edit those, for example spam blocking or including requested edits. ] (]) 22:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
**Unless things have changed in the last three months, they've yet to make ] visible to admins, let alone non-admins, so I wouldn't hold your breath.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 22:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Well, I can see it, so I guess they have... Unless they only let checkusers see it? (which makes no sense) ]]] 22:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I'm an admin, and I can see it, but I'm no checkuser. --] - <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 22:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::As far as I know, it's always been available to admins. I remember looking at it in my first week of being an admin, which was almost a year and a half ago. <small>(]&nbsp;·&nbsp;]) &nbsp;·&nbsp;] &nbsp;·&nbsp;</small> 22:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::You can see the first 1000 or so entries. Try looking at pages starting with anything further down the alphabet than "C".&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::If more people put them on their watch lists, we could get it down the alphabet further.. Particularly if we have enthusiasts who liked big watch lists. ] (]) 23:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
@Hammersoft: The admin role as such is pretty much obsoleted as is anyway. It might be handier to give the diverse tools to diverse specialists, as needed. :-) --] (]) 22:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
: You're the first really to make a "philosophical" point and it's a good one, though the problem may be how to put it into practice. Surely not RfBlocker, RfAfDcloser, RfPagedeleter... ] (]) 23:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
:@Kim: Good suggestion, however, the problem remains-How to prevent the pyromaniacs from getting the keys to the drawer with the matches...and how to quickly take those keys away should they gain access to them anyway.--] (]) 00:50, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
*I can ask, fairly easily, for an admin to do anything I need done, ''except'' tell me what's in deleted edits. There are times when that would be quite useful to a non-admin, especially when working on sockpuppetry, or at the help desk when someone asks "why was my article deleted?", or when trying to decide if someone was AIV-worthy or not. Unlike most of the other tools, it is harmless to give it to someone ''trustworthy'', but not necessarily very active or highly experienced in "admin-related areas". If any one tool was unbundled, speaking only for myself, I'd want it to be viewing deleted edits. Ironically <small>(Alanis Morisette "irony", not irony "irony")</small>, however, that's the one tool that someone nefarious could most easily damage other people with, so it's the one tool I'd never want to be handed out without a decent level of user review. As Pedro (I think) mentions above, it's not like passing an RFA is a great indicator of trustworthiness, but it's better than nothing. If it ever was unbundled, you'd have to have an RFA-type screening process for it, rather than a PERM-type one, or handing it out with rollbacker. --] (]) 00:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
** If it required a screening process not unlike RFA, I think we're best off leaving it for RFA. ]''']''' 00:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
***Oops, I meant to end with that. I agree. --] (]) 01:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
*Editprotected, imo. there was a proposal to spin it out but it died quickly when it was splintered across various mutually exclusive (and non-mutually exclusive) options. I would back another proposal to spin that right out again, provided it didn't require an RfA style confirmation. ] (]) 01:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
*I've never understood why moving a page over a redirect that only has minor history is an admin-only task, other than that it ''technically'' involves deletion. That could very well be enabled for non-admins as well in my opinion. (With minor history I mean pointing the redirect to another target and adding categories to it.) ] (]) 05:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
:*I think the issue is that the system has a hard time distinguishing between minor and major histories. It doesn't keep a count of the number of revisions until after the deletion process is started, which is why even with the BigDelete restriction, admins can sometimes trick the system into letting them delete pages with more than 5,000 revisions. This would in theory become a larger liability if more non-admins could trick the system in a similar manner. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 05:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
*I would say that blocking should be spun off for highly trusted users. More specifically, blocking limited to, say, a 3 month time limit, and any longer would require an administrator to block. '''<span style="background:white; font-family:Segoe Print; text-shadow:grey 0.5em 0.5em 0.1em"><font color=red>]</font> <sup><font color=orange>]</font></sup>&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>''' 06:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
:*Blocking is really the only feature I'd specifically object to unbundling. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 14:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
::*I would say that viewing deleted material would the feature that I wouldn't want unbundled, due to whatever legal ramifications that can occur. <font face="Segoe print">[[User talk:Until It Sleeps|<span style="color:
#0078FF;font-size:100%;">'''Until It Sleeps'''</span>]]</font> 23:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
===Requesting contents of deleted pages===
Looks like some good ''did'' come out of this discussion. Non-admins, please enjoy ]. ]''']''' 01:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
:Is this the first useful outcome, ever, from a WT:RFA discussion? --] (]) 01:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
:: I wouldn't be surprised. ]''']''' 01:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
:Please see ]. ] (]) 01:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
:: This would only be for the contents, not for wholesale undeletion. ]''']''' 01:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Take a loot at the requests handled there. REFUND does anything with respect to deleted content that doesn't need a DRV. It's basically a noticeboard for ]. ] (]) 01:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
:::: Let's redirect it, then. ]''']''' 01:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Why would someone redirect an active noticeboard, where people interact in a centralized venue, to a Category? That makes very little sense to me. I would add that ] is the most cleverly named shortcut I've seen in some time. -]<sup>(])</sup> 08:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::...because people have ''spent'' or ''invested'' time into making an article, and want a ''refund'' or their article back. It is very clever. :) – <font color="blue">''B.hotep''</font> •]• 08:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That's kind of nice. Sometimes for investigations, it helps to discretely review controversial deleted edits too. ;-) --] (]) 10:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

=== A level of trust ===
Are there differing levels of trust? I would suspect the answer is "yes" based on the fact that we have rollbacker and other such lower-standards positions with tools. To this I must ask the question, "what levels are these"? I ask on a philosophical level, not simply that of looking for the answer of "oh, these rights and these rights make one level".

To answer that question myself in the specific sense I noted, I have to say that the level of trust I would have would be to trust people who have demonstrated ability in a certain work-role on the wiki. This was mentioned earlier by Kim Bruning, but I'd like to ask the question rather than pose the observation. Who, and in what circumstances, would you trust a certain right to a user?

Perhaps a second(ary) question (or expansion, after reading the paragraph) I would pose is, why does the mentality exist (as exhibited by harej replying to floquebeam) that "we shouldn't produce more processes to judge the different levels of trust"? Simply ]? I hope not; we should be employing as many people as we can in as many different areas as they possibly can aid in. Further, it's a poor argument. For example, User:Example is someone who understands the protection policy fairly well, and has been known to request protection frequently. Would it be appropriate for him to be handed the tools for deletion or blocking? Again, this comes to an issue of trust; is it possible that I may trust him enough to allow Example to protect articles but not to delete articles? Why, of course it's possible that this is true! and in fact, we see these same concerns (sometimes as supports and sometimes as opposes) pop up on many-an-RFA.

I was just a-pondering. --] (]) 06:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
:Yes. But there is no defined standards for each level. There are many ways to become viewed as untrustworthy, and many ways to become trustworthy. Of those who are trusted, that's really the only level. However, if someone who is trusted finds that they would like to do more maintenance around here, we consider them for administrator, which is essentially someone who is trusted, with a demonstrated track record. What qualifies someone for administrator depends entirely on the RfA voters who are active at that moment in time. After adminship, it is really just a matter of how many people you miss off with the mop that prevents you from climbing any higher in the "ranks". ] (]) 09:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
:: Ironically, actually taking ones responsibility as an admin seriously is a good way to make many people angry. This is because some admin actions lead to there being winners and losers, and not all losers are sporting about it. If you're active enough, or you are an admin for long enough, it starts to add up. --] (]) 11:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Yeah, it can get a bit hairy after a bit - you do your best, but the losers in a decision will treat you as an enemy or an automaton, and drag you through the mud for it. I once had a chap whose page I'd deleted drag me straight to RfArb for doing so. Non-admins so often forget that admins are just people trying to help out as well. ] (]) 11:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Responding to comments scattered through this section ... Flagged Protection will be here shortly, and requires a new trusted position called "reviewers", and I don't think the decision has been made how to select reviewers, someone correct me if I'm wrong. As was mentioned above, the ability to see deleted material would be helpful for a variety of non-admins, but I don't personally think we'd want to handle that at ], and even if I did think that, I have a feeling the lawyers would overrule us on this one ... OTRS problems are often handled by deleting material, and if untrustworthy people could see the material, that would mean that the usual legal solution to these problems would be no solution at all. So then the question is: has RFA improved over the last couple of years? If both successful and unsuccessful RFAs have generally led to fewer hurtful comments and hurt feelings, better communication and more useful work getting done for the project, and if enough people are willing to volunteer some extra time for a new process, then for me, an RFA-like process for "reviewership" and the ability to see deleted pages (and maybe we could unbundle other admin privileges) wouldn't be unthinkable ... I'm not saying "yes yes", I'm saying "I don't know, I'd be willing to try". I continue to believe that the biggest current failing of RFA is how we treat unsuccessful candidates ... we don't give them a clear enough idea of what they need to do and how long they need to do it in order to pass a future RFA, and we don't give them much feedback after the RFA, not as a community and often not at all. If we could fix that, I'd feel pretty good about RFA and about a possible new RFA-like process. - Dank (]) 18:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

: If you read the 2 comments right above your own, and then think on the consequences for a moment, you will find that an RFA-like process culls not only the incompetent, but also the most competent. This alone shows that it might not be the greatest idea.

: More importantly, RFA has taken 8 years to obtain our current number of admins. Now, depending on what form of flagged revisions we use, we will need to hand out a fairly large number of reviewer flags (more reviewers than we have admins, I think), and we will need them in a very short time frame. Do you think an RFA-style process will work, at this time? :)

: That brings us to one of the big motivations for unbundling. It would be very useful for more people to have least some of the tools on-hand. If we can make more of the tools not-a-big-deal to have, people who need those tools will be able to avoid the overhead and drama imposed by RFA. Instead, they can quietly get on with the task of improving the encyclopedia.
: --] (]) 23:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
::Do you have an example of a "most competent" editor who was culled by RFA? - Dank (]) 02:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
::: I can up with several, but are you going to then argue that "hey, they were rejected by the community", or "well, they clearly did nasty things x, y, z" (where x,y,z would be admin-like actions) ? --] (]) 02:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
::Wishful thinking. Anyone can watch BLPs and "quietly get on with it" (Monty Python fans, anybody?) right now, with or without FR and without any tools. Bundling shmundling does not make a slightest difference. ] (]) 00:03, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
::: And you're telling ''me'' that? ;-) --] (]) 02:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

* We should let "reviewership" evolve on its own rather than following the RfA model. Let it start simple, be able to learn and discover its own sets of problems and to allow the community adapt to it, rather than pouring politics down right at the beginning. Requests for rollback and even CUOS has went surprisingly well in this regard. - ] 00:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

:tl:dr - rollbackers need *less* trust, because rollbacking is clearly defined and it's easy (and usually not controversial) to remove rollback, and rollback can be got again. It'd be great if all admin actions could be unbundled in a similar way; clear definitions of acceptable use, easy to grant, easy to remove, easy to re-gain. ] (]) 23:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

== Some incredibly useful info ==

Currently, are watchlisting this page! –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 20:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
:Two and half times as many as . ] 20:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
::But only about half as much as –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 20:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Maybe RFA and ANI should both be given founder status, on that score they both outrank . '']]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 22:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
*Is it possible that 2223 people are in fact watching ]? How many are using Gary King's script to ignore ]? –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 20:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
:: :D --''']]''' (], ])<sup>'']''</sup> 02:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
:Okay, somebody stopped watching since this was posted. ] please! ] (]) 23:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
::That's probably a desirable outcome. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 01:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Touché. ] (]) 02:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

An interesting tool. According to it more people are watching my than the ? Perhaps because the latter is rarely directly edited. ]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span> ]</small> 20:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
:Try for the Main Page. ;) ] 20:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
:: That's better! I had a feeling something was up. ]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span> ]</small> 21:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
::: I think is the best link, though. ''']'''] 22:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
This is intriguing - I learn that find my user page of some interest! ] '']'' 00:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I had no idea I was this . ;) ]] 00:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:How does this work? I thought that wathclists were invisible on the toolserver. ] (]) 00:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
::And doesn't that circumvent that ] is admin-only? Using that tool one can find out that I but one can also find unwatched pages (using a script maybe to try a bunch of article names), can't they? Call me paranoid but I see some use for vandals in that... Regards ''']]''' 08:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I was thinking along the same lines, that perhaps the same data source would make a useful list of pages with 0 watchers. Luckily most vandals do not want to put in a lot of work to find those article. And an article that no one looks at will not be nearly so attractive to a vandal as prominent one. ] (]) 11:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
::I'm almost certain the tool uses a MySQL query to find the data. ] (NSFW), limiting the results to the first 1000 entries in the table, and it yielded a list of page names and their namespaces. I'm not perfectly sure here, but I'm going to assume that each occurrence of a page name indicates that a user is watching that page (so if a page name appears four times, four people are watching that page), and the tool appears to agree with me. So in theory, you need only Toolserver access to get a list of all unwatched pages, not adminship. Hmm.... ] <span style="font-family:Verdana"><small>(] &#124; ])</small></span> 14:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
::: ] <span style="font-family:Verdana"><small>(] &#124; ])</small></span> 14:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Due to concerns over security this feature now only produces a numeric result if at least 30 people are watching the page. See ] for details. ]<small><span style="font-weight:bold;">&nbsp;·</span> ]</small> 17:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

== Nominating yourself ==

If you want to nominate yourself, do you just add yourself to the list of candidates? And do you need to add yourself to any other lists? --] (]) 23:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
:See instructions ]. However, note that only registered users are eligible to gain adminship. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 23:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

== Desysop ==

I am having a difficult time of why it is so hard to de-sop admins, perhaps the illogical programmers need to invent a new code of conduct that has a low degree of sophistication.. ] (]) 00:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
: The biggest issue is that we cannot reach any agreement on how to get it done, if at all. In the meantime, egregiously bad admins can be sent before the ]. ]''']''' 01:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

::Admins are desysoped when they need to be. I have not seen a case where it has been difficult to do so once it has been decided that is the thing to do. ] 01:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

::: It's the "once it has been decided" part which is troublesome. The lack of a clear policy which would mandate desysopping for whatever reason means that it always goes to community discussion, which basically means an ANI argument dominated by the same alphas whose self-preservation demands that precedents are not set. There have certainly been far more incidents where an admin has done something which would indicate unsuitability for the mop than have there been desysoppings. ] - ] 02:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

::::There is a proposed policy for desysopping at ]. Disclosure: I wrote it. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;02:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</small>

:::: (ec) See also: section above. TL; DR: Some feel that being an admin and doing your job competently is sufficient grounds for desysopping. ;-) As this is the contingent we would rather not see desysopped, we have a bit of a problem which we haven't been able to solve, up 'till now. --] (]) 02:59, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

* I would support a policy that enforces an instant desysopping for any admin that posts to RfA and its talk page. That would definitely clean up some stuff around here. :) ] (]) 03:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:: Across all wikis, right? O:-) --] (]) 03:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Can we make this retroactive to the admin's own RfA? ] (]) 03:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

:: I don't see very many sysops that need to be desysoped but are not. Is there any case where the community has made a clear wish that an admin be desysoped and it not happened? ] 03:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Define "clear." ] (]) 03:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Here's one definition: "In the eyes of the editors who feel they have been done wrong by the admin in question, it is clear that admin should no longer wield the tools". Can't poke holes in that, can you? ;) ] (]) 04:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Wow, you just used "clear" in your definition of "clear"... That's a bit like dividing by zero. ] (]) 16:57, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I know of only one instance in which an admin had the conditions for recall, written by that admin herself, met, which was not honored. The admin re-wrote the conditions so that the new conditions assure they will never be met, by the simple expedient of characterizing all discussion about said admin's actions as "having a dispute" which disqualified the concerned party from then having their voice count on a recall. In short, if you followed policies and tried to discuss with the admin first, you lost your voice should the admin fail to listen to reason. That admin is virtually retired now, showing every few days or weeks to make a couple of redirects or other innocuous edits, so no harm is being done by her at this time. Other than that, I don't know of any admins who "needed" to lose the bit who did not subsequently lose it. I may disagree with other admins; this is not the same as thinking they abuse the tools. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 12:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

===The Aitias model===
The problem of the difficulty of de-sysopping and proposals to alleviate it are perennial, and discussions on WT:RFA about it 99% of the time lead nowhere. However, desysoppings have occurred more frequently recently, through ArbCom '09. Most of these have been remedies at the end of long and arduous cases, but in one case, the desysopping of ], it was at least in part in reaction to ] which demonstrated a lack of community support for the editor.

I wonder, perhaps if this could serve as a model for future desysoppings – a widely-participated and extensive user conduct RfC on an administrator, with an appeal for a motion by the Committee. Now it's true that the Aitias action had been preceded by a full arbitration case that came close to removing admin privileges, and the argument could well be made that there would be insufficient due process or careful examination in a RfC/U -> ArbCom Motion model. However, I think this would be to overlook to fact that recourse to ArbCom is only to be made when community processes have failed to resolve the issue in question. It is not extravagant to imagine that under this model, editors could work through the issues and reach a definite consensus on whether the administrator still enjoyed community support, thereby giving ArbCom a clear mandate to act. This solution has the potential to erode the vast and unjust ] that exists currently whereby the community is entrusted to grant administrator rights, but has no voice whatsoever in removing them, and is essentially at the mercy of the administrator caste. Thoughts? ] 18:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:In the Aitias desysop motion, we had the advantage of a prior case, under which we retained jurisdiction. Having said that, and speaking only for myself, the existence of a very clear response to the RfC certainly made it very easy to support the motion to desysop. This may be a good way to give the Committee the community input that really helps to make such a decision; one of the challenges we have faced in some of the cases revolving around administrator behaviour has been the paucity of community involvement. As I say, I can't speak for the Arbitration Committee as a whole, but seeing such clearcut community opinion was genuinely valuable. ] (]) 18:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
::I think desysopping used to be a problem, but it's not the problem that it used to be, because Risker and the others have shown many times this year that they're willing to desysop when there's community support for it. Go team. - Dank (]) 19:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Not always, for instance WMC's desysop mere hours ago. I believe he still enjoys a wide margin of support from the community, yet he made one very bad block during the case, and plus a few occasions of misjudgments on the evidence page = Misplaced Pages losing a generally very effective administrator. Even when it's handled without a full case, there's still some room for improvement. For instance, just because Aitias's desysop was handled via motion, that doesn't mean it was a quickly handled situation; it took two user conduct RfC's and one full ArbCom case for them to finally stop and say "OK, enough chances." It was way overdue. But I do approve of ArbCom '09 overall. ] (]) 02:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
*Skomorokh, I had proposed something very similar just a week or so ago. ArbCom didn't manage to pass a desysop motion until they had absolutely no choice; the desysop of Aitias was ''long'' overdue. With a consensus like the one on his second RfC, we should practically be allowed to just bring it to a steward to desysop. Because ultimately, the community should make the decision on whether or not somebody is to be an administrator. ] (]) 02:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::I certainly sympathise with your position that there ought to be a more direct way for the community to remove administrator access, and that bureaucrats ought to be trusted to judge consensus to desysop as they are to sysop, but that has been proposed and proved less than unequivocally supported in the past. What my point here is that there already exists a trusted means of desysopping that could potentially have a lot more community involvement. ArbCom often lament in considering to accept cases that little community effort has gone into resolving issues. By stepping up to the plate and applying ourselves to just and thorough RfC/Us to put before the Committee, we can achieve the ''ends'' desired – abusive administrators disempowered – though the means may still be circuitous. Unlike the majority of desysopping reforms, this is not a proposal that needs consensus to implement; it's already available, and significantly underused. Regards, ] 02:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Indeed, this seems like an incredibly obvious method of desysoping. An RfC which either demonstrates whether or not there is consensus for desysopping, which is then presented to the Arbitration Committee, which should make a cursory check to ensure it is appropriate. How is not the simplest solution? '''\''' ] '''/''' (]) 14:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Soon (as in, within the next couple of weeks) ArbCom are supposed to come up with a model for Arbitrator recall. Whatever that model is, it should be applicable to administrator recall as well - and it should obviate the need for ArbCom to be involved in routine desysopping. ] (]) 03:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

== Active admins ==

]
As we touch 890 active admins today, I took the time to create a graph dating from two years ago showing the number of active admins at any given time. As the graph shows, we peaked in January 2008 and have gone downhill since then. Both in terms of cycles and absolute figures, we have never had this low of a level since before August 2007. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
: Thank you for more of this. Does this mean, then, that the time has come for me to scout out fifty non-admins for the purposes of nominating them for adminship? ]''']''' 06:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, that is what it means, just make sure they are ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 06:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:::"I am experienced and I am sane". Harej, IRC, whenever the hell he ran, replying to me a request in seven words why I should support. ] (]) 08:33, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:Okay, but what about productivity? It seems to me that many admins have over the years specialized and gained experience in particular areas and also that admins who do not run bots now have a host of tools and templates at their disposition that make the technical part of many tasks from closing an Afd over deleting a bunch of pages to declining an AIV or RPP report easier.--] (]) 08:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
::I actually was going to raise that point but since I always do I waited for someone else. A lot of what was done a couple years ago was non-botted and presently involves run of the mill tasks. Having to hit block, protect, delete isn't quite as necessary in addition to closing discussions, which includes RM (of which harej does many) that don't show up in the +sysop log. ] (]) 08:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a very striking graph. What happened about the beginning of 2008 to make the curve change direction so markedly? ] (]) 10:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

:Eric Goldman's claims that look relevant. Goldman alleges that: there is a conflict between high quality and freedom of editing; WP faces a labour shortage for dealing with vandalism and other chores. The "labour shortage" is apparent in the graph of active admins. We need to know what % of the total admin workload is accounted for by each admin task, as see what is needed to reduce the major time-sinks. --] (]) 11:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

It's back to the levels around the time I was made an admin. I've noticed a considerable shift in how admins do their adminning over this time, particularly in terms of anti-vandalism, which is something I tend to specialise in. I presume it takes up a large proportion of admin time. Back in the day we used to block AOL IPs for 15 minutes at a time, and schools until the end of the lesson. No more! Now we block proxies and schools that spew vandalism at us for years at a time. We even have whole school districts rangeblocked. This has reduced the vandalism enormously. We have auto-disallowed ] in the last six months, not to mention the thousands of other edits now being automatically filtered. We've cut down the number of moves a pagemove vandal can get away with, in fact we've move-protected most of the tempting ones. We have most of the major open proxy ranges blocked, Tor is completely prohibited, and other open proxies get blocked at an unprecedented rate. Any backlogs at AIV have been reduced dramatically. The biggest delay we have these days is caused by all the content disputes and non-vandalism being reported there. We use semi-protection far more liberally on high-vandalism articles, particularly on BLPs and articles like ]. We've basically got rid of template vandalism on the front page and elsewhere, we've got the image blacklist and title blacklist and two spam blacklists. We've got global blocking and more checkusers blocking repeat vandals. And then there's all the anti-vandalism bots, adminbots, huggle, and twinkle. I've found that the vandalism is so well covered these days that I can get back to focusing on other things, like content. We have lost some freedom of editing. We've found it necessary to anonblock large numbers of IP addresses, and we are far less tolerant of silly edits. But I'm not sure if having more active admins would help lower that number. More sensible admins, doing less, would be a good thing though. -- ] <sup>]</sup> 12:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

: We are better off with fewer admins. In an ideal world, we wouldn't need admins at all because ordinary users could always be trusted to do the right thing. ] <sup>]</sup> 13:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
::Im also curious about the notch in the graph around February 2009. I was pretty active then, but I don't remember any incident that caused 40-ish admins to resign and then 40-ish to come back again some weeks later. Was it an ArbCom decision that had only a temporary effect? -- ''<B>]</B>'' <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 13:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I think it was a combination of a few people burning out, as well as a couple of ArbCom decisions, and some frustration with BLP issues. ] (]) 13:38, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Well, we lost a few due to Jimmy violating blocking policy and then following up by calling people names, but that's water under the bridge now. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 13:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::That too. Forgot all about that. I would submit that overall, 2009 has been a pretty down year for Misplaced Pages. ] (]) 14:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::Yeah, the irony is funny. Jimbo beats up on the admin corps, arbcom puts them under a microscope, not to mention heckling from the sidelines on both internal and external fora, and everybody puzzles at why admins decide to give up their huge paycheck. ] (]) 15:34, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Soap, check out the history of ] around that time to get an idea. December 2008 and January 2009 saw many administrator resignations, most of which (IIRC) were in protest to the various issues of the project (BLP, admin recall, etc). ] 18:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::I would like to see that graph going back another year and having a scale starting at 0. With the current limited scale a variation of only 11% looks like a shocking decline, but it could be simply an 11% boost during the year then going back to regular levels. I cannot really tell from the data presented. ] 15:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:::<s>It would also be interesting to know the ratio of admins to users: one user in every (X-amount) is an admin. ''']&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#007BA7">]</span>''' at 15:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)</s>
::::I think I just figured it out. If I'm correct, there is approx. '''1''' active administrator in every '''167''' active registered accounts. There is approx. '''1''' administrator in every '''6242''' registered accounts. ''']&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#007BA7">]</span>''' at 15:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Fair point chilum, but seen in comparison with overal internet useage levels the trend is even more alarming. Projections suggest this has increased by about 15% these last 18 months, and if we go back further the discrepency becomes even more shocking, though I guess it depends on how you view the efficiency improvements zzuuzz talks about. Imatthew , what date was it when we had one admin per 167 users? ] (]) 16:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::According to ... today. ''']&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#007BA7">]</span>''' at 16:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Chillum, sadly this is the only continuous dataset that exists. Below is the extended non-continuous dataset, other than this information, there is no other information available by any source that I am aware of. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 16:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:::{|
!Date
!# of active admins
|-
|August 19, 2007
|912
|-
|March 3, 2007
|849
|-
|January 18, 2007
|814
|-
|}

::Thanks for the info MBisanz. If you drop by my talk page with the criteria for "active" being used I think I can make a bot to fill in the gaps. ] 16:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


===RFAs brokenness and the urgent need for a solution===
A common view is that the break down of RFA is a primary cause of the declining active admin corps Mat illustrates above. We've talked about negativity, grudge bearing and excessive scepticism.
Another problem is the stunning inconsistency in the communities expression about what it wants from successful candidates. For example, lets contrast two recent RFAs scarcely two weeks apart, in both cases with a good, friendly and helpful editor whose arguably only prominent flaw was a lack of copyright knowledge.
At ] the candidate gave an imperfect answer on copyright. Several users said they'd prefer that in cases where he wasnt fully conversant with the relevant policy he should undertake to check with an expert before acting. Chamal did eventually commit to checking with an expert, but even before that he enjoyed a very high support %.

While at ] the candidate was upfront right from the start that if asked about images and copyright he'd refer to someone more experienced. A position in line with even the harshest opposers on Chamal's RFA , yet his RFA nosedived to 60% - apart from a coupled finding fault with his AfD closures, this was almost entirely based on the complaint that admins need a comprehensive grasp of policy, totally contradictory to the sentiment expressed a couple of weeks before.
Such arbitrary outcomes risk making good editors feel the community is against them, no wonder talented folk are abandoning the project.

'''On the need for more admins'''

zzuuzz outlines many reasons why admins have increased their productivity, but the fact remains we still frequently have administrative backlogs, with other work queues only kept clear due to the dedication of a small number of highly active admins. Even if we werent at risk from a chain reaction of burn outs caused by key admins dropping out due to overwork coupled with a feedback effect where more resign due to increasing pressure, there's other problems with having individuals feeling compelled to do so much work, not least the effect on the admins themselves. Most of the busy admins im aware of are young, and if their sense of duty causes them to spend more time than they'd like keeping this place ticking over, its unfair as
* they miss out on other areas of life by being on here so much.
* they especially miss out on the chance to express high spirits due to the obsession some seem to have about editors acting maturely including off the main space.
* though being an admin teaches one about mediation and the use of power, the mostly menial duties primarily only offer experience in how to be a good functionary. Not the most profitable use of intelligent young peoples time, especially compared to researching and writing good articles, which develops many of the same skills academics need to write papers that advance their carerr, or which analysts in the commercial or public spheres need to reach the highest levels where they get to advice senior leaders.

The drawback to addressing work load concerns with further enhanced productivity is that as zzuuzz admits it reduces freedom of editing. The knock on effect is to reduce the aggregate amount of editing here, the good as well as the bad.The only serious issue with more admins is that inevitably there will be more bad ones, but apparently the arbcom have streamlined the process for dealing with these and can likely make further improvements if need be.

'''Possible solutions.'''

1) Change the default result of RFA to promote, so a consensus will be needed to prevent the candidate becoming an admin. (possibly with some safeguards like a min of 3000 edits)
2) Have an intermediate rank below full admin, possibly with all the same technical powers but not expected to be fully clued up on polices so they wouldnt be expected to intervene as an admin in the more complex disputes. There will be many other workable alternatives.

'''On the need for urgent action.'''

When this has been raised previously some requested more stats and studies before any action is taken to reform RFA. In my view Mat's already provided close to the optimal level of empirical data. It might be useful to compare the active admin graph to overall editing levels, global internet use and the easily definable work queues like the XfD backlogs. But the total admin work performance is probably not quantifiable. One can look at queues ANI , but what the raw numbers wont tell us is how many disputes are being resolved in a fair way that helps the parties become collegial editors? And how many editors havent left or became increasingly frustrated as they dont trust admins to fairly address their concerns, and so havent gone to ANI in the first place? etc etc

Let this be understood: if we hold back from fixing RfA until its brokenness is obvious to every single editor, the community will suffer massive disruption and Misplaced Pages may even loose its no 1 ranking. Either way it will be a tragedy as our noble mission will be substantially delayed. If attempts to reach consensus for a solution are blocked, it might be an idea for a respected admin or crat to raise the issue with the foundation. ] (]) 15:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

:I don't think the decline is due to the rate of promotion on RfA. The problem may not be a lack of new admins, but our ability to keep the old ones. It is getting more and more common for admins to be accused of corruption and bias over the slightest issue, and while there always seems to be a pack of people ready to pile on such baseless accusations one cannot count on a defense. Admins have a tough job which they don't get paid for and if they are treated like shit then there are going to be less of them. Just like any other type of volunteer.

:Two years ago it was not like this, accusations needed to be supported by evidence or were dismissed quickly. Now it seems that the burden of proof is always on the admin to show that the accusations are false instead of the accuser showing the accusations to be true. I know this has made me consider quiting. You don't fix a leak by adding more water, more in and more out only reduces the quality of the whole. Food for thought. ] 15:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
::I agree that poor retention is likely also a primary cause, though that again is likely related in part to workload. Folk like to be part of a successfull project, and if things are going to pot as we lack sufficient hands to do the admin work with due attention some will sense this and become discouraged. I also agree it would be best not to make it easier to de –sysop admins; the only time I commented on an arbcom case I said the proposed de-sysoping seemed too harsh (even though it was a deletionist) . The process can become more stream lined without making it easier for folk to attack good admins, including ones who make the odd mistake. Im not sure what the project should do to make admins feel more appreciated, hopefully someone will think of something. ] (]) 16:05, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
* '''Strong second''' to what Chillum just said there. Admins have already been promoted, having survived the scrutiny of Rfa; the onus most assuredly must be on the not-as-highly-vetted Random User providing compelling evidence for their claims of Foul Play. One puppy's opinion. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 16:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
::strongly thirded. i didnt mean to sound like making it easier to desyop admins ought to be part of the solution. ] (]) 16:14, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

:::Re the presumption in favour of admins (] 15:28, 13 September 2009; ] 16:07, 13 September 2009):
:::*I've raised a case at ANI where an admin was incivil not once and several times in quick succession. I've seen non-admin users blocked for less. The presiding crat stalled, started a diversionary attack on the conduct of one of the victims, and then said effectively "too much time has passed, it's water under the bridge."
:::*Another admin seems to have a habit of rainsing that are hasty, excessive and quickly unblocked or much reduced.
:::*RFA is a process operated by humans, and therefore is fallible. So ]'s 16:07, "Admins have already been promoted, having survived the scrutiny of Rfa" (13 September 2009) is no substitute for requiring admins to comply with ]. --] (]) 18:19, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
::::It is well known that established editors get away with far more than new editors do. I understand your concerns, but it's a much bigger problem than just admins, the topic of discussion today. ] (]) 21:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:::the "presumption" is in your interpretation, not in either my or Chillum's posts. We were speaking of "innocent until proven guilty" and I merely noted that Admins have passed at least one vetting which shows at the minimum that they are not vandalism-only or SPA accounts. Please refrain from extrapolating more from my post than I placed there. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 01:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(od) My take on this (as a new admin whose RfA was described as "the most bat shit insane week RfA has seen" by more than one person):
IMO, the following reforms should be implemented:
*The discussion taking place in the !voting section should be between the !voter who made the statement and the nominee. The discussion should be encouraged, but between those two parties only. Any 3rd party interference should be stopped.
:I will admit, that in some cases this was beneficial, as a concern raised was responsibly addressed while I was out, so I didn't have to answer it myself. That was the exception, not the norm. The majority of the time it was petty bickering, that served only to make a hostile atmosphere. It resolved nothing.
*All allegations should be supported by evidence. Specifically raising allegations of plagiarism, falsification, etc. must be backed up by evidence, or the accuser is blocked, and their comments stricken. No more poisoning the well should be allowed at RfA.

As for the next part, how to keep admins from leaving. I'm still working my way into the duties. I've been surprised when I've pinged admins "what would you do in this situation". I've come across many situations where the admin thought action was appropriate, but was unwilling to act because they don't want to get involved in the drama that would follow. The day admins are afraid to do their duty, it is a sad day indeed. Not sure how to resolve it, but I think it's a point that should be raised. ] (]) 21:07, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:Those sound like good recommendations, as long as they're accepted as a package. Unless opposers align with the practice you outlined, we'd probably loose out if supporters stop engaging with the oppositions arguments. Candidates are often advised to leave it to supporters to counter oppose rationales and some dont respond to them at all. Someone posted to this link about why its good to be defended by others rather than do it yourself. Goethe , whoes been estimated to have the highest IQ of any European, said: "Against criticism a man can neither protest nor defend himself; he must act in spite of it, and then it will gradually yield to him". As you say it does sometimes help an RFAs chances when supporters respond to persuasive but challengeable oppose reasons. I've held back on responding to comments in the past , thinking others would see the flaw in the rational, only to see a pile on for the same reason when I next check. Sometimes you dont even have to point out errors of fact or logic, just offer an alternative perspective. When opposers over play their hand it can turn the RFA if the opportunity they provide is skilfully capitalised on. On the other hand I agree that arguing against opposers often backfires, especially when the discussion becomes heated. I might write a user space essay on this one day, with examples to flesh it out. Interesting subject. ] (]) 13:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::In response to the original post, specifically the section "Possible solutions".
:::''1) Change the default result of RFA to promote, so a consensus will be needed to prevent the candidate becoming an admin. (possibly with some safeguards like a min of 3000 edits)''
:::''2) Have an intermediate rank below full admin, possibly with all the same technical powers but not expected to be fully clued up on polices so they wouldnt be expected to intervene as an admin in the more complex disputes. There will be many other workable alternatives.''
::For 1, I don't understand exactly what that means, but I think what would be a great change is to have the community flesh out some basic standards. Some things will always be up to personal preference of the voter, like the amount of content work a candidate has. But some things don't need to be left up to personal preference. Community consensus should dictate things like number of edits (and percentage of those that are automated) and time served, basic experience with administrative tasks, knowledge of policy, etc. Quality of edits require vetting, but the most basic things should be standardized for reasons noted above. To have to similarly qualified candidates have the same issue come up in their RFAs and one pass while the other fairs, completely arbitrarily, it stupid, and it's a great example of how this project is an unorganized mess. Also a great example of why good editors don't want to go through the RFA process. There's no telling how it will go down. So, back to the point, 'crats should have something to go on to determine just how much weight votes should be given. For example, if the community consensus is that 5,000 unautomated edits and nine months of consistent editing is good enough, the '''''Oppose'''. I think users should have 10k edits and a year on the project.'' would be appropriately disregarded.

::RFA is overly arbitrary, to the point that it's stupid. This, of course, doesn't even take into account the grudge votes. Want to improve RFA and increase the number of active admins? Give 'crats greater power to discount votes and let the final decisions outline those that were dropped. Let enough people know that their reasons for opposing are so stupid and baseless that they were completely ignored and you might find a decrease in the number of opposes that are so stupid and baseless they should be completely ignored. From there you may find more people willing to go through the process. Some of the greatest minds, who would be the greatest asset to our admin corp, may just be those who are smart enough to know RFA isn't worth the time or stress.

::As for 2, this has been recommended before. Splitting the various tasks up and having content admins and behavioral admins. Well, that was my idea. There have been others. The problem, or one problem rather, is getting the developers interested in making such a change. You'd have to get the community behind it first, of course; but looking to the future, even if the community agreed on some admin packages, and somehow managed to decided whether or not current admins would remain full admins or somehow be divided among the new ranks, there still is no guarantee the devs would design and implement it. Quite likely, as I was told, they wouldn't bother. ] 19:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

=== Back to how to get more hard-working admins ===

] doesn't put people on the right track to adminship because Wikipedians don't show up en masse unless there's a fight, or at least something at stake. It's not pretty, but there it is, and we have to deal with that if we want more admins. It's not my call, but if it were, I'd say: create a new position called <s>Trainee</s> , with the userrights to see deleted material and to move pages without leaving a redirect behind. (<s>"Trainee"</s> "Assistant" because we want people to stay focused on what Misplaced Pages needs, which is hardworking admins, and by analogy to modest titles like "janitor" and "bureaucrat".) I'd propose we not involve other userrights unless/until there's a clear need. We've already got some solid support for making the "view-deleted" right more widely available, because taggers and some reviewers can't do their jobs properly without it, and I want to add RFA voters to that list, too ... which is a more serious problem since not being able to see a candidate's deleted contribs partly disenfranchises them from an important !vote. I mentioned above that there's a legal problem with letting untrustworthy people see deleted material, so this has to be something more than "Yeah, you're okay" ... maybe 3 days at <s>]</s> some special page , and a crat won't flip the switch unless it's clear that a serious evaluation effort was made. (It's a Foundation issue that crats are required to flip a switch to let people see deleted material, although I suppose we could change that if we really wanted to.) These two userrights would help people do a better job with the kind of work that might eventually lead to RFA. Even better, this would give anyone who is willing to help a chance to give people feedback on what they've done so far that would put them on the road to an eventual successful RFA; if principles of volunteer management work roughly the same around here as elsewhere, and I think they do, a successful application for <s>Trainee</s> Assistantship, accompanied by RFA-style feedback on what it would take for that candidate to be an admin, is a lot more likely to produce an eventual admin than the same advice delivered at a failed RFA. - Dank (]) 20:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:An apprentice admin. Sounds like a good idea. This should be integrated along with ]. -- ]] 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
::Sounds like a good idea, but how about calling this something like "Superuser" instead of "trainee" or "apprentice"? Those words (i.e., "trainee" and "apprentice") imply that the person is supposed to be continually asking for coaching, instead of simply using the tools as appropriate. --] (]) 22:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
::::How about ''(administrative) assistant''? The parentheses show that the first word can be omitted. Or "manager" (prob' be confused with admin/sysop though). -- ''<B>]</B>'' <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 00:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I hadn't thought of that. My only preference is for some name that doesn't say "You've arrived!". - Dank (]) 23:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
::::The best way to get more admins and have them stick around is for people not to give them so much crap when they make a call that is within policy; ie, the wolves howling at the moon because they don't like a decision.<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — ] • ] • </span> 23:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Agree 100%. ]]] 00:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::"(Administrative) assistant" sounds good, too. How do we make it clear that we're taking the risk and giving extra tools to make it easier for them to participate at RFA, tag and edit, and eventually, to help them succeed at RFA? Perhaps these tools should automatically expire in 6 months, <s>or they could apply again at PERM after 6 months, but the tools are gone forever after 1 year? (until/unless they succeed at RFA)</s> - Dank (]) 02:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
*There's a related discussion at ]; this could be a third (informal) userright to go with Assistantship, some functionality in Twinkle that makes userfication easier. Several people, including Amalthea, are generally positive on the idea but have expressed reservations about making it easier for just anyone to userfy articles. - Dank (]) 13:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
*The "browsearchive" right touches on legal issues, and judging by the {{diff|Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/Persistent proposals/Straw poll for view-deleted|prev|242245446|last comment on the issue by MGodwin}}, this won't happen. The "deletedhistory" right might be possible, but since libelous edit summaries have often only been deleted and not oversighted, maybe not. ] 13:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I raised the same issues above, and thanks for the link, we should talk with Mike sooner rather than later. The counterargument is: OTRS didn't fall apart in 2003 when a typical discussion to promote at RFA was "Yeah, he seems okay", and it didn't fall apart in late 2007 when we had 30 RFAs going at a time, most of them successful, so I can't see why OTRS would fall apart when we follow the much stricter standards we have now, and only promote to Assistantship if it appears to the community that a candidate is well on their way to a successful RFA ... particularly if the userright is removed after 6 months (on the theory that either we were right, and they pass RFA, or we were wrong and they don't need the extra tools). - Dank (]) 17:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::Sounds like a plan! The assistant title sounds more appealing. I see you've struck it out but i like the idea of the six month window to apply to be a full admin. Your idea seems a most elegant solution to the problem of getting more admins without substantially lowering the bar and hence creating additional pressure to make it easier to desyssop (which I agree would be undesirable for many of the reasons above). Would it be possible to get round these legal objections to view deleted if there was an election for assistants (a less hostile one with promote as the default result, maybe thats in line with your thinking on the application process) and perhaps more oversighting of libellous content? ] (]) 13:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
*I recently began a Wikiproject with similar aims, but of a more informal nature - ]. It recognizes the existing involvement in admin activities of motivated non-admins. It's not yet ready for roll-out, but any suggestions are welcome on the talk page. ] (]) 17:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::Yeah, I shifted my recommendation from a max of 1 year to a max of 6 months because that keeps us on well-trodden ground; we can just rely on all the input people have gotten in failed RFAs as our guide for how to tell when someone should get Assistantship ... they qualify if they look like the kind of RFA candidate who would be told that they would probably be successful if they do X, Y and Z and come back in 3 to 6 months. On the point raised by MGodwin and Amalthea and you, last night I changed my mind and don't think we should do this at PERM as if it's no big deal ... being able to see deleted material is a serious responsibility requiring some serious community input. Of course, any process is what it is ... if people take it seriously, then it's serious, and if they don't, it's not. But we can at least suggest that it ought to be taken seriously by drawing a connection to RFA and trying to get as many as possible to participate in the election and advice-giving.
::I'm encouraged by the response, proposals like this usually require asbestos suits ... are we ready to discuss all the positive and negative intended and unintended consequences, maybe at Carbuncle's page? - Dank (]) 17:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)



====Coaching with Tools====
I'm still watching my stuff despite being in retirement, but there was an allusion above that piqued my interest. I'm an advocate of Admin Coaching and think that if it is done right, it is a great benefit. Unfortunately, there are a few (vocal voices) that oppose it. I think an interesting idea would be to introduce the tools to admin coachees. The process would be as follows:
# An admin would apply to become a coach. This would be done via a simple request to the 'crats. We could establish a minimum tenure/requirements as an admin, but assuming the admin is in good standing, the admin will be allowed to have 1-2 coachees with tools. (The coach might have more, but only 1-2 will actually get access to the tools... this number might increase as we gain comfort with the process or individual coaches.)
# The coach is then expected to review potential coachees to ensure that the coachee meets the coaches minimum expectations. If the coach is willing to accept a coachee, they simply make the request of the 'crats to grant the rights.
# The coach will then work with the coachee on the use of the tools and will actually be somewhat responsible for ensuring proper usage of the tools.
# If the coach looses confidence in the coachee, the coach can request that the tools be removed. If other admins have concerns about the coachees activities, they can ask the coachee to stop using the tools until the issue is discussed between the coachee, coach, and other involved admins. Additionally, admins can request that the tools be removed from a coachee if there is cause and coaches could lose their ability to have coachees if their coachees go unchecked.
# After a 2-3 month coaching period and with the blessing of their coach, the coachee could formally request that addition of the tools become permanent. At this point, there would be more of an onus to show that the coachee failed to use the tools properly or did so in a destructive manner.
# Have a limit (say 4 months) that a person can be a coachee with tools. If they complete the 4 month period and can't pass an RfA, then they don't get the tools.
This process would A) make it easier to get the tools into people's hands, B) make it easier to get them out of new admin's hands, C) ensure some mentoring and D) assuming decent coaching, passing an RfA should become a fait accompli. There won't be as much of a question as "what kind of admin will this person be?" but rather this person has used the tools for 3 months without destroying the wiki or going before ArbCOM. If there was going to be an issue, it would have more likely arisen during the coaching than during the RfA itself. I know that this proposal could probably be tweaked as I am writing it on the fly, but wanted to throw it out there....---''']''' '']'' 19:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

* Comment: I have objected in the past to admin schools and coaching which had, oddly enough, non admins as instructors or coaches. I find that... questionable. I think your idea has merit. ]<small><sup>]</sup>]</small> 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
**Agreed. Significant merit. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;20:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</small>
*** It can easily get a bit ''in bred'' under the training school, mentorship umbrella, the pages ] are good for new admins. I think of adminship as being something you are ready for but unskilled and that you grow and learn into the work, helped along by experianced admins. ] (]) 20:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
****What? →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;20:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)</small>
****No offense, but I think the cries of ''in breeding'' via admin school are a crock... take a look at ] Many of them I routinely butt heads with and do not see eye-to-eye with... Seresin often votes exactly the opposite of me on many issues, Tan has drastically different views, Stephen comes to me for advice but is still his own man, and the others I haven't had too much interaction with since their coaching. But I can proudly say that as far as I know, none of my coachees have had any problems with ANI/ARBCOM/ETC (although I can't say that for all of my candidates.) In fact, if you are looking for Balloonman clones, you are more likely to find people whom I haven't coached mirroring my stance than those whom I have coached!---''']''' '']'' 20:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
*I love it. ''']&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#007BA7">]</span>''' at 20:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
**Regardless of its merit, I would be totally put off of applying for adminship if it required coaching. This is volunteer work, not school.--] (]) 20:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
***I don't think that he's saying you HAVE to get this coaching to become an admin, but that it could be a good idea to implement. FWIW, I wholeheartedly agree and think that this is an excellent way to improve a somewhat defunct admin coaching system. Regards, <font color="green">]</font><sup><font color="red">]</font></sup><sub><font color="black">]</font></sub> 20:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
***Absolutely not. This would in no way become a requirement, but another avenue towards coaching. It would become an easy way to get the tools into people's hands while they proved themselves. It would appeal to people who might be interested, but don't want to subject themself to an RfA. It would also become a way for somebody to find out if it was worth it.---''']''' '']'' 20:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
****Yeah, I didn't read that well enough. Anyway, they idea seems hard to implement. Wouldn't it overburden the few 'crats we have? Besides, I can already see the "'''Oppose, didn't have coaching'''" votes coming a few years down the road.--] (]) 20:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
*****I don't think it would over burden the 'crats we have now nor do I think it would become the norm. You would still need to get people to be willing to be coaches and to take on the responsibility of reviewing their coachees actions. Coaches who don't review their coachees actions would lose the ability to have coachees. In the past, I would guess that we've never had more than 20 active coaches, let's assume that number doubles to 40. Most of those coaches will be one and done, coaching a friend or colleague on a project (thus coaching would not be as institutionalized.) So at any time, optimistically speaking, we might have 40-60 coachees. Even if we rotated in and out of those coachees on a quarterly basis, we are talking about 200-250 additional actions per year---half of which might have occured anyways. The only place where there might be an increase would be on desysopping at the Stewart Level, but still we are only talking about flipping a switch on those people who fail/drop out... so 40-80 people? It wouldn't be that great of a burden. If it were to become the norm, it would be because it was an easier process.---''']''' '']'' 20:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
***I like it, and I'm normally a (silent) voice against coaching. And the level of schooling absolutely depends on the coach, just as the mentoring at ] depends on the adopter: If I'd be asked to coach someone under this program, I'd normally be content to stalk the coachee's contributions, certainly not have lessons or a program I want to go through. Well, maybe except requiring a certain amount of CSD work, since I expect every admin to be on very sure footing there.<br>So yeah, I'm in principle in favor of such a proposal. I was thinking for a moment that there should be some kind of crat discretion when allowing a coach, but that would be counterproductive. ] 22:33, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
****In my vision, the crat would have two pieces of discretion. First, is the person requesting the coaching an admin in good standing? Second, is the coachee a candidate in good standing that meets some general guidelines on experience. (The coach should check those first.) But yes, this would change the nature of coaching.---''']''' '']'' 22:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
** me too. Here is the link to the school. I like this it seems good and I was saying before that .. with mentors and personal teachers that ] can ] in. Here is the school ..] ] (]) 20:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
***If that is a concern, we could make it a requirement that coachees/coaches are not related.---''']''' '']'' 20:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
*I'm in favor of trying this and various other things and gathering data. All you really need is to come to some agreement beforehand on how to tell if it's working or not working, and then watch it and see. - Dank (]) 20:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
**Caveat: there are some options I'm not willing to experiment with. Any promotion to any position of importance, and I don't see how "coach" wouldn't be an important position, has to be a community decision, per ]. The crats are only there to decide what the consensus was, not to make the call.
*I strongly support this proposal. Part of the problem with RFA is that it's just such a big leap to go from 'ordinary editor' to 'admin', and voters often feel uncertain whether they can trust an editor with all the tools even if they've had no problems so far. Having a system of 'trial administrators' (which is basically what this is) would give candidates a chance to demonstrate what they would use the tools for and what problems they might have with them, and thus would make things much easier for voters when they came round to the RFA. It would also probably make it easier for good users to pass RFA, by giving them a chance to demonstrate competence with the tools. And I like the whole 'presumption in favour of the candidate' as well, where they get to keep the tools ''unless'' there are obvious problems with their having them. Of course, it would be crazy to introduce this process for ''all'' candidates; but if it was offered as a voluntary option, I expect many would take it, and the wiki would benefit as a result. ] (]) 21:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' Per above, brilliant idea.--] (]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]) 23:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - brilliant! There's only one problem I can think of: "what does ''this'' button do?" Perhaps making sure coachees know exactly what ''that'' button does, before using it in a potentially destructive manner... It can all be reversed, but still...--] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 00:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
*'''Support''' and I would like to formally volunteer to become the first coachee ;) -- ]] 02:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
**knowing WP, it would take 2-3 months before we had enough consensus to get this through ;-)---''']''' '']'' 02:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
*Before we go further with this, we should probably ask the crats if they'd be willing to promote someone even temporarily on the say-so of the coach, in light of objection that was linked above. Wouldn't we need some kind of community consensus that the candidate is at least trustworthy? - Dank (]) 03:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
**I've set up a separate page with a little more fleshed out proposal ]. Yes, this would require more input and a wider community, it would require not only the 'crat approval but also Stewarts (as they might have to desysop more people) but I don't think we would be adding a tremendous amount to the process. As for Mike's concern. I think the main concern is having powers granted out willy nilly, understanding where the concern comes from, I think the foundation would be open to this idea if it was something the community sought. I went ahead and emailed him about the issue.---''']''' '']'' 03:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

=== Another way to look at it ===

]
I think the graph at the top of this discussion may not be the most enlightening way of looking at the issue. I have graphed the situation in a different way, that is how many admins performed an administrative action in each given day. Instead of counting how many admins have edited without 2 months of a date this only counts how many admins performed an admin action on a given day.

I am not sure what this graph says in regards to the debate happening here but this is I think a better representation of how many active administrators there are over time. The green area is an approximate match to the time period covered by the graph at the start of this section. ] 00:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:Ooh, pretty, thanks for crunching these numbers. I think this trend still shows a decline, with the peak in late 2007/early 2008 (which is identical to the peak in the graph above). ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

One thing I notice is a sharp drop every Christmas. Perhaps something about the birth of Christ is driving off our admins? ] 00:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:(ec)<sup>n</sup> I wonder how much a coincidence it is that the downward slide began in earnest during the tenure of the 2008-vintage arbcom (which I affectionately refer to as the Arbcom From Hell). ] (]) 00:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you will see the same slow decline after most exponential rises to a peak. I don't think I included enough information in the graph to blame one group of people. The graph does not show the quality of the admin actions or the quality of the admins. ] 00:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:I can blame a group: The community for not planning for such an eventuality. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the majority of these actions are deletions. ] 00:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:Would it be possible to restrict it to mainspace actions? The others aren't terribly important. ] 00:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting, thanks. I noticed the sharp decline around the holidays each year as well. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 00:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there anyway you can extrapolate your data out say five years into the future? ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I can extrapolate the data 5 years into the future dozens of different ways, each with drastically different results and none of them likely to be accurate. (yesterday the number of graphs-per-day I uploaded was zero, today it is one, by this data this time next year I will have uploaded 365 graphs - http://www.xkcd.com/605/ (read the mouse-over text)) ] 00:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Might I ask how you extracted the data here? Also, it would be most interesting, if it's not too hard, to plot another line representing edits or something similar on the same graph; I think that edits per day actually looks pretty similar, reaching a similar peak and then a slow and steady decline. Also, once again, if you have a chance, it would be interesting (though I'm not sure exactly what it says) to plot something like the ratio of active admins to active editors. Just thoughts. Anyway, great graph. ] (]) 02:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I took the timestamps of every admins action in the logs and put them into a mysql database which then broke it down into days and counted how many admins were active that day. As for edits, I could get the edits of admins but not how many edits in general. If the statistics for how many people a day edit are available then I can plot the ratio between the two. ] 14:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:There are monthly stats for edits per day, active Wikipedians, etc. , but I don't know about daily figures. ] (]) 16:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

::We don't have quite enough admins because that's a decision that we all made and all enforce, as a community. One trick we use to keep the admin numbers low is a kind of deception; the general principles of passing RFA aren't hard to learn, but every candidate brings different strengths and weaknesses to the table and every candidate is treated differently at RFA, and in practice, it's been very hard for the candidates to guess what the issues and the votes are going to be. If we want more admins, the first step is to stop tripping up the people who are trying to become admins by withholding information they apparently need. ] doesn't work because not enough informed people show up because there's nothing at stake; failed RFAs repel as many candidates as they educate. Another trick we use is not giving people a sufficiently interesting but attainable intermediate target they can aim for. ] is one proposal, but any proposal that tackles these issues is IMO better than the status quo. - Dank (]) 17:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::P.S. Another way we trip candidates up is by requiring (for many of them) extensive experience in deletion work, without letting them see some of the occasionally critical pieces of evidence (deleted edits and pages) that would allow them to make good decisions and justify those decisions. - Dank (]) 18:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem this graph and all others have is that it doesn't take into account the affect of tools/bots on admin functions. A good admin with a tool/bot can do more in a day today than a score of equally good admins could have done two years ago. The question I'd want to see are lag times at areas needing admin actions. Do we have a significantly larger gap between the time a 3RR request is made an action taken? CSD? etc. If the areas requiring admin actions are not going up, then the number of admins or the number of actions per admin are irrelevant.---''']''' '']'' 19:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:Chillum, I like this graph.
:Everyone, one thing I believe I see, (though of course I haven't done a proper statistics test to a 95% confidence level), is that there is a seasonal decline during the northern hemisphere summer. In 2006, it shows as a temporary flattening of a growth curve. In 2007 it shows as a decrease before returning to the same level. In 2008 it isn't as much of a decrease but it shows. In 2009 - the curve doesn't show the post summer period yet. So too soon to tell, but this may well be one of the factors.
:Why would we have fewer admins active in the northern hemisphere summer? Vacations and school. (We know our editors are disproportionately from the northern hemisphere.) Some of are on vacation from school and/or work so do less during the summer. And many of the things that need admins to deal with are done by people in school, and thus there is less demand for admin actions in the summer.
:I think this chart will be even more informative in October, as we'll be able to see what the stats look like after school is back. But looking at the chart, I'd date the start of the trend downwards at sometime in the first four months of 2008. ] 00:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

===Another graph===
]
Here's another graph for your consideration, showing the number of promotions at RfA (the red line) and the number of admins lost in that year to inactivity, resignation, or involuntarily desysopping. Please note that the inactivity figure only includes admins who left during that year and '''never''' returned, thus it does not take into consideration admins who became inactive for a period of time and then returned. I must say that, frankly, this one is quite troubling. The number of admins we lose is almost perfectly exponential, while the number we promote is declining precipitously. Here is the raw data for lost admins and RfA promotions as well. Please further note that in the data set, a 12-month estimate has been used by extending the data for the ytd. ] (]) 17:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Year
! Admins Lost
! RfA Promotions
|-
| 2002
| 2
| &ndash;
|-
| 2003
| 9
| &ndash;
|-
|2004
|14
|239
|-
|2005
|21
|387
|-
|2006
|54
|353
|-
|2007
|77
|408
|-
|2008
|120
|201
|-
|2009 (ytd)
|165
|88
|-
|2009 (12 month estimate)
|234
|124
|}
:This is why the community needs to get off its ass, ignore the fearful bad apple admins who protest against an easy desysop process, and force something through that will 1/ improve the RFA process, making it less of a week from Hell and 2/ make stripping the crap admins of their tools less of an act of congress, or ArrbCom as the case may be. ] 19:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::In order for that to happen, everyone would have to take the cotton balls out of their ears and actually listen to the ideas that many editors have about improving RfA. ''']&nbsp;<span style="font-family:Century Gothic;color:#007BA7">]</span>''' at 19:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:::While I wholeheartedly agree with Lara that we need to make desysopping a much easier process, which would then make RfA a less strenuous process, I think the graphs above are misleading. Yes, the number of active admins appears to be declining. However, as alluded to earlier, what impact has this had on the functioning of WP? Are the backlogs increasing? If not, why are we worried? ] (]) 19:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Both administrative and editorial backlogs have indeed been increasing. ] is almost always backlogged; DYK is just barely getting by these days due to a lack of participating admins and clerks; ] is populated by 50,000 pages; the list goes on and on. At first glance it appears everything is running smoothly, but this isn't the case. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 19:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::There was a surge in new admins from 2005-07 and I imagine that many of those, like myself, now have less time for Misplaced Pages or are no longer interested in committing as much time. Meanwhile admin growth has dried up. Part of this is the effect of higher standards. But I also feel that Misplaced Pages is not as interesting as it once was. This is partly the unavoidable fact that it is no longer "new", and partly the fact that it now has a more antagonistic relationship with its own growth. I think the project has deliberately undertaken to reduce its scope (e.g. across large swathes of the pop-culture area) and limit growth in other ways. While this might help ensure better quality, it lowers growth prospects and in this way makes the project less exciting to be a part of. ] ] 22:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Agreed!!!---''']''' '']'' 22:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Well, the project is going through stages. Perhaps we're entering a stage where we've come to focusing on harboring a professional community and creating a high-quality work, where in the beginning, Misplaced Pages was little more than an experiment and our goal was to create as many articles as we could. I for one think it's a step in the right direction; the project will inevitably continue to mature over coming years, as even now, several years after its creation, Misplaced Pages is in uncharted territory. Certainly in the two years I've been a contributor, the atmosphere has evolved. Overall, I agree that Misplaced Pages has become less "fun", so to speak. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 02:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
::::That is a fair assessment, and I concur with your idea that the project is taking on the attitude of a "professional community" as a way of achieving higher quality. Perhaps, though - and I am wholly speculating - in becoming more professional, we become less attractive to the sort of young, high energy individuals who probably lack the writing skills and research capacity of their older colleagues but have more time for and interest in administrative/maintenance tasks. There are a lot of admins who do mainly administrative work in their old wiki-age but I sense that few people become attracted to Misplaced Pages in the first place without stumbling upon an article they can meaningfully contribute to; between the filling in of blank space as Misplaced Pages grows and our increasing aversion to low-research-intensity material like plot summaries, it's harder for new users to stumble onto such an article. ] ] 13:20, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
:You raise the bar you lower the number of people that make it. That's not rocket science. The knowledge expectations in RfA are really exorbitant: copyright regulations, the whole nine yards of the deletion process, questions to which no one has a convincing answer (''difference between block and ban''), trick questions (''cool-down block''), implicit behavioral expectations which require following RfA for weeks (''Oppose: excessive badgering of opposers''), and so on and so on.
:Besides, ] has also not made the process better. To create a half-page stub with correct templates, basic formatting, and one or two sources one edit is sufficient. Do it this way and you take many years to reach the threshold. But if you don't know where the preview button is you'll be there in six months -- I have yet to see an ''Oppose: too many edits to boost edit count'', as well as a successful RfA for a user with 500 high-quality edits across the spectrum (yes, I do know ] exception). The usual response, it takes 2500-3000 edits to gain understanding of policy, is ]. --] (]) 10:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
::I have to correct you: ''Oppose: too many edits to boost edit count'' = ''Oppose: too reliant upon tools."---''']''' '']'' 18:11, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:This chart is garbage. It is strongly biased to show an up trend of departure in the most recent period, regardless of real trends. The definition of "became inactive and never returned" oversamples people that recently became inactive. Admins who become temporarily inactive do so for varying lengths of time. The definition used will count any temporarily inactive admins that aren't yet back as permanantly inactive. We know that time period exceeds a year (e.g. ] who came back from a long break and has been doing good work). So the 2009 data is totally useless, and the 2008 data is suspect as well. A better definition is needed that lacks that inherent bias - it will have to be one that counts temporary inactivity as a departure in all periods, or one that just doesn't look at departures within a period long enough that I'd still be counted as an admin.
:In addition, if existing admins were departing with a constant probability in a given period of time, there would be a growth trend in departures so long as the total admins are growing. (A more reasonable model, of course, has a distribution of probabilities of departure based on tenure as an admin, this is the nature of burnout.) ] 00:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

===Timeline of events===
{{hat}}
<small>Please use Misplaced Pages Review to shout about injustice or whatever else you came to complain about. This page is for discussing en.wikipedia's process for assigning admin rights. Complex stuff, obviously.</small><small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 20:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC) <br/>

If you're interested in some of the unfortunate events that took place in the first quarter of 2008, when the decline noticeably began, there is an of Misplaced Pages events, maintained externally. Some key things to note:

:'''January 2008'''
::Misplaced Pages moves its headquarters from St. Petersburg to a secret location in San Fransisco.
:'''January 6th'''
::Jimmy Wales replies to journalist Seth Finkelstein, "Seth, you're an idiot." Seth had questioned the viability of the about-to-be launched Wikia Search.
:'''January 22nd'''
::Spanking Art Wikia utilizes GFDL content from Wikimedia Commons - An inappropriate wiki site hosted by Wikia, later shut down due to outcry about the content hosted.
:'''February 7th'''
::Administrator User:JzG makes a number of changes to the biography of Rachel Marsden.
:'''February 29th'''
::Valleywag reveals that Jimmy Wales has been having a relationship with Fox TV reporter Rachel Marsden. Wales intervened in her Misplaced Pages biography back in 2006, as was noted by Misplaced Pages Review, and the intervention reportedly led to an in-person meeting. Valleywag also publishes "transcripts of Misplaced Pages founder's sex chats" with Marsden.
:'''March 1st'''
::Former Wikimedia Foundation employee Danny Wool blogs that Jimmy Wales used to boast about several affairs extra-marital affairs during his time at the organization. Wool also alleges that Wales "was certainly not frugal in his spending on his endless trips abroad" and that Wales was "careless" with his receipts while using money donated to the Foundation in good faith. Wool also alleges that Wales spent donation money on a massage parlour in Moscow, spent $650 of donors cash on two bottles of wine, and thought he needed a limousine "because I am like a rockstar too." Associated Press report that WMF Chair Florence Devouard castigated Wales, "I find (it) tiring to see how you are constantly trying to rewrite the past. Get a grip!"
:'''March 5th'''
::The mainstream media universally cover both Jimmy Wales's Rachel Marsden debacle, and the allegations from Danny Wool that Wales misused money donated to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Those are just a few excerpts that would cause me, if I were an admin, to give up on the project. -- ] 19:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::You don't have to be an admin to quit. <small> hint hint </small> Why would those examples affect you differently if you were an admin? If you hate the project, just go. ]]] 19:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:::These events definitely figured into my decision to resign as an admin. Obviously I can't speak for the others. ] (]) 19:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Well, I guess for me, I didn't imagine that something would make you want to resign as an admin, and yet not resign from editing, so to speak. But maybe that's just how I roll... ]]] 19:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::]. It's entirely possible to think this project can be turned around and it's worthwhile trying to do so, without wanting to be interrupted every ten minutes by random cranks screeching "abuse" and "conspiracy" at every single thing you do.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 20:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

:Another explanation would be that the number of active Wikipedians started to decline in early 2007 (). It takes a while to become an admin, so there were still 408 RfA promotions in 2007, but there was less "fresh blood" available in 2008 and 2009 and RfA output was much lower (299 for the two years combined so far). Combined with the large number of departing admins, this reduced the number of active administrators. Thus, I would say that if you're looking for causation (which is not to say that there is any one event responsible), you should really be looking in early 2007. ] (]) 19:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
*Fuck me. Let's use the talk page relating to an obscure in-house process to get some extra permissions on a website to rant about people's off-wiki commentary, James Wales knobbing some bit of totty and load of inconsequential twats who bang on about this bollocks on thier blogs. If I wanted to read gobshites who love their blogs I'd have gone to Misplaced Pages Review and read the self-reverental and insecurity laden bullshit from Kato and Barbour. Someone please remove this rubbish from this page. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 20:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
**Seconded...---''']''' '']'' 20:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
{{hab}}

== Success Rate of RfA ==

I've crunched a few number on the overall success rate of RfAs since 2004. Based on ] and ], there have been a total of 3552 RfAs of which 1676 were successful and 1876 were unsuccessful (there were also admins promoted in 2003, but I could not find readily available data on unsuccessful RfAs in that period). This means that over the course of RfA history, 52.8% of RfAs have been successful.

The surprising fact, though, is that this number has plummeted in the last two years. In 2008, only 33.9% of RfAs were successful and in 2009 so far only 36.5% of RfAs have been successful (2008 was the worst year on record and though there were nearly twice as many RfAs in 2008 (593) as 2004 (302), less admins were promoted in 2008 (201) than 2004 (239). This drop in the promotion rate, is perhaps in large part to blame for our current admin shortfall.

If, in 2008 and 2009, we had promoted administrators at the same rate as the historical average (52.8%), we would today have 151 more administrators. In other words, if we kept promoting at the average level, then our number of admins would probably be about the same as it was in 2007, and we would presumably have shorter backlogs and a lot less moaning and groaning about the lack of administrators. It is also, in my opinion, a reasonable assumption that a higher success rate would encourage more candidates to try an RfA, further driving up our numbers.

What would it take to get back up to 52.8%? The answer is actually fairly simple. There have been 241 RfAs so far this year of which 88 have been successful. At 52.8% success, we would have promoted 127 candidates (39 more). There have been 42 RfAs so far this year that failed with more than 50% support. So, if we simply promoted all candidates where a simple majority of !voters favored promotion, we would have promoted 130 candidates this year (53.9%) and we'd be on track to deal with the plummeting number of administrators. ] (]) 19:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:Out of curiosity, would it be possible to determine how many of the unsuccessful nominations were closed prematurely in accordance with ]? –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 19:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:But consensus means something, not just at RFA but all over the project, and on probably every WMF project. If you can't get even 70% agreement on anything, there's usually a reason. On top of that, in any approval vote almost anywhere, you're going to have more people willing to support than oppose, it's just politically more savvy to be nice to people than to kick them in the knee, so if only 55% are supporting, that's not a good sign in general. I don't want to rag on people who have failed at 55%, but I think if you go back and look at the RFAs, you'll find significant concerns. Thank the wikigods that we somehow manage to hold on to people who are willing to oppose bravely and convincingly. Rather than make the test easier, I will always favor helping people to be the kind of candidates who can pass the test, and only if that approach is failing would I consider something more drastic. - Dank (]) 19:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::I don't actually have the data to back this up, but it is my impression after spending a fair amount of time looking at older RfAs that people were a lot more willing to support back in 2004 than they are today, and that there has been a generally rising level of opposition at RfA ever since then. It is also a well-known fact that standards at RfA have risen exponentially over the last few years (there was a time when 500 edits and 2 months of activity were considered sufficient experience to promote). RfA has over the last two years in particular become much bitterer and we see less people trying and less people getting promoted. A solution exists, which is to simply adjust the bar needed slightly. Sure, when a candidate fails at 55% there are often significant concerns, but a majority of people didn't find them a big enough deal to oppose over, and we simply need more administrators. ] (]) 19:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I don't want to name names, but I'm not at all comfortable with the idea of promoting the people who got 55% over the last two years. Not at that time, not with that record. I'm on board with the frequent proposal to lower the discretionary range to 65%, but only on condition that we get very specific about what it is that would drop someone into that range but still make them a desirable candidate. For the people who have passed with less than 70%, most recently ], the reason they passed was usually that a large part of the opposition was saying, "Sure, they're qualified in other respects, but there's a particular thing that I think is important that they're not good at," and the closing crat decided that wasn't enough to stop promotion. - Dank (]) 20:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::::It's no mystery that perceived requirements for becoming an admin have gone up over the years. I say perceived, because the only real requirement is competence, which is subject to opinion. However, the community as a whole doesn't become more competent over time, as editors constantly quit and new ones take their places. Therefore, I think the amount of editors that meets these constantly rising standards (and also applies for adminship, not every competent editor wants to) is steadily declining. I don't think the answer is to lower the discretionary range. That would be countering the community's higher standards, rather than deal with them. I've seen proposals to proactively seek out prospective admins, which I think is a good idea.--] (]) 20:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::::: Here's an idea for someone with some bot savvy. Perhaps a bot could be created that would run through all users and create a list of users meeting a certain set of criteria that might make them good administrators candidates. Say for example, flag users with at least 3,000 edits, 6 months of experience, and at least 50 edits in the last month. Obviously, we'd still have to check over the list ourselves and nom accordingly, but it might be a good starting point (there is ] but some people there only have 200 edits or some such). ] (]) 00:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
::::(ec) Dan, Not quite. Those were the opposes that were kept. The opposes that were ignored were the ones based from of accusations of falsification and plagiarism, that were later shown to be false accusations. The opposes on the grounds of inexperience, were legit, and were not ignored.] (]) 20:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:Imagine a user who clearly states that "I will not work in area X", who then gets 40% oppose because "Does not understand policy of area X" - I'm happy with that editor to get the tools, with the understanding that they are very very careful if they ever do use the tools for area X. How would RfA handle this? Would RfA -or wiki- be ready for editors who say "I'll never work in X, and you can de-sysop me if I ever do"? ] (]) 20:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::That seems an argument for unbundling, maybe? Not every X is unbundleable, but some are. ++]: ]/] 21:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Occasionally, when I look at the RfA of an admin who's made a particularly poor decision in area X, it turns out that they stated at RfA that "I will not work in area X." In other words, those sorts of campaign promises tend to help more than they hurt at RfA - they assuage concerns. But they suffer from the common flaw of campaign promises - no real mechanism of accountability once the election is over. ''']'''&nbsp;<sup>]</sup> 21:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
::The analogy to ] is most definitely flawed. Not only were there concerns about copyright knowledge issues, but there were also concerns regarding clarity and effectiveness of communication, plagiarism, and closing AfDs not in accordance to ]. Those would all be reasons to oppose by themselves. On the other hand, we do have ] for limited adminship; perhaps we could expand that further for future cases by adapting the ]? <font color="navy">''']</font>''' ''(<font color="green">]</font>)'' 22:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
:::We should definitely incorporate those precedents when we present our plan to the community. As we seem to have a consensus emerging here ] has been created so we can keep track of the different strands of our overall reform effort. ] (]) 12:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
::::What, we have a plan now? The only thing I read on this page, are a bunch of threads showing statistics about admin decline and Balloonman's suggestion to reform admin coaching. Admin coaching is not part the RFA process, despite it being discussed here. No one has presented any feasible plans to reform RFA.--] (]) 13:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
::::: We have the beginnings of a plan, still in the early stages. Balloonman's suggestion, which is a crystallisation of Dank's idea, is actually related to the RFA process. If you read the details it offers an alternative track for editors to be granted the tools, with initially no RFA needed. The concept is that after proving the can use the tools well under mentorship they'll have an easy time passing the RFA which will still be needed to become a regular admin. Also they'll have gained experience and clue thats hard to achieve without having the tools. ] (]) 13:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
:One thing to remember in any comparison is that in the early days, the only tools were the ones that admins had. If you wanted to be efficient and were a regular editor, you needed the tools. Over the years, tools like Twinkle and godmode-lite have put some of the features into the hands of regular users. That doesn't account for the declining percentage of approved candidates, of course, but it may account for the fact that the number of admins as a percentage of all users is also not keeping pace. -- ] <sup><font color="green">]</font></sup> 13:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

== So let's talk about it here ==

Yeah, he screwed up, but ArbCom, yet again, blew it. . Of course, I've been here before, and know the fallacy of such a line of thinking. Whatever helps you sleep better at night. Hey Majorly? How did this page work out for you? Right. It didn't. Fine example of yet another solid admin who, when not receiving the support of the community in doing the right thing and taking care of contentious, tendentious editors, finds himself kicked to the curb by a bunch of ass kissing wet shirts who wouldn't know an encyclopedia from a paper weight. There. I done brung it here. ] (]) 04:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
:@hen you were told to take it RfA, I can only guess that he was talking about another RfA for WMC. This isn't really the right place for discussing the removal of adminship. '''\''' ] '''/''' (]) 07:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
::Yeah, thank you for your rant. I hope you feel better now. I'm sure 'crats will now rush to give WMC the tools back. Seriously though, try an actual RFA if you feel that strongly about it.--] (]) 07:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

== Alternative RFA reforms ==

I have a suspicion that if the admin coaching route is adopted it could wind up being counterproductive and even reduce our number of new admins - especially if it becomes the normal method of becoming an admin. So I'd like to resurrect some of the other ideas for RFA reform that have previously been rejected because not everyone was willing to accept that we had a problem here.
#Synchronise standards. If this was a job interview you would expect the interview panel to have done some work to agree what standard they were looking for, as it is that partly happens by experience at RFA. But the drawback of that is that we give out mixed messages at RFA with people opposing or supporting based on differing standards and the same information. Too many RGAs degenerate into adhoc discussions such as whether ] is compromised by RFA, or whether a candidate with a lot of automated edits can be assessed just on their manual edits. I suggest we set a series of RFA standards for candidates to aspire to and RFA !voters to assess candidates against.
#Consensus at 75% values an oppose as being worth three supports - hence the ratchet effect that leads people to think I was on the losing side perhaps I should reconsider my standards, even when they were in the majority. Lowering the threshold to 50% would solve this problem, If that's too big a jump for some, lowering the crat discretionary range from the current 70-75% to 60-65% would reduce the ratcheting effect and produce more admins. Looking at those like me who achieved that range in an RFA and made it on a subsequent attempt I'm reasonably confident that we won't break the wiki if we lower the bar a bit. So I propose that the crat discretionary zone be lowered to 60-65% of valid !votes, with any decision outside that range requiring a crat chat.
#Make ] a policy and encourage the crats to ignore !votes that use such oppose rationales.
# Enforce ] at RFA and strike votes that are attacks without diffs to substantiate them.
# Survey our active longterm users who are not admins, have clean block logs and have not run at RFA for at least a year and ask them why they haven't run, or haven't run of late. Then use the feedback from the survey to improve the RFA process.
#Set a minimum standard for self noms. If we agreed that certain criteria must be met before you could self nom at RFA then some of the Dwamah would be avoided and we could focus on things that really mattered - exceptions will happen but they can get someone to nominate them and explain why they should be an exception: So I propose that self noms at RFA must have
:# 2,000 manual edits
:# 6 months tenure.
:# 3 months since their last RFA
Obviously some of these reforms would interact and are best not all done at the same time. But I believe that any or all of these could improve the RFA situation '']]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 14:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
:I don't think it would help much. Civility rules apply to RFA, also a tenure requirement is a bad idea as it will jst get bigger and bigger.--] (]) 15:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
: I really like the Coaching idea, but I agree its not the ideal solution on its own. For many good candidates coaching wont be suitable. It would be great to have a package with something for everyone. 1) & 6) could be effective and are in line with Lara's suggestion above, maybe we need to guard against scope creep per Pattons point. 3) & 4) could maybe be left out of the initial proposal as they're likely to be unpopular? Like the other two. ] (]) 15:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
*The possibility of reforming RfA is zero. It just isn't going to happen. So, in response, the community has come up with an ever widening way of effectively limiting the need for admins. I look at things like ] and ], and don't see backlogs. With the abuse filters in place, along with protected pages, autoconfirmed, etc. the opportunity for vandalism (a frequent area of admin work in the past) has gone down. There's a crap load of automated tools out there now, reducing the work load admins typically shouldered. Plus, there's a large number of bots operating as well. This trend will continue. The need for administrators will continue to decrease. As the need goes down, the standards will keep rising; no need to be non-selective when you only need a few. Make sure they're good ones. This is a natural, evolutionary process. Attempting to change it is like getting angry because the tide is coming in. --] (]) 15:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
:: That's one way of looking at it. Looks like in addition to the graphs above we'll need well presented evidence that admin queues are growing or at least are persistently large, else the argument you've just made will kill the proposal when we take it to Village Pump. ] (]) 15:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Vandalfighting bots don't block accounts - we still use admins for that. If anything the decratting of an admin earlier this year for running unauthorised admin bots has left us with adminship less automated, while the things that admin wannabees do are getting more automated. So the admin shortage that most now accept exists will tend to get worse through automation as it limits our traditional pool of recruitment. '']]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 15:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

:If we could agree on standards, vote counting would become entirely unnecessary. A single oppose, ''for good cause'', should be enough to prevent promotion. The trick of course is that nobody can agree on what counts as "good cause". I've seen enough here to conclude that the "community" is hopelessly incompetent at the job of picking admins. Let the crats or somebody do it, with minimal input from the peanut gallery. ] ] 15:35, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
:*It's a growing trend; the 'community' isn't really trusted anymore. Protection, autoconfirmed, throttles, the upcoming color coding of articles, etc. New users are treated like shit around here, and IPs are treated like the scum of the earth. This too will expand, and it is a natural progression of the project as it ages. Lots of people are blogging now about the changing nature of the project in this way. The number of active editors is going down too. --] (]) 15:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Completely oppose making arguments to avoid a policy. Those are positional statements that are subject to change. What is an argument to avoid today may be a valid argument tomorrow or might be substantiated at a later date by somebody making a solid rationale. Plus, I don't think everybody agrees with every point in that essay.---''']''' ''[[User talk:Balloonman|<b><sup>
<small>NO! I'm Spartacus!</small></sup></b>]]'' 15:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
:That sounds like a good argument for challenging some points in the essay whilst turning it into policy, and of course like any other policy or process being willing to review it over time to see if it still works. Just as we currently need to review the RFA process.... '']]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 16:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
::You miss my point. We are an evolving community. An argument to avoid that year may be accepted today as a valid argument because the validity was substantiated or became accepted. Two examples. First, Admin Coaching. There was a time where being admin coached was perceived as having value. When Kurt Weber first made the first "Admin coachee" argument (and yes Kurt was the first I looked it up!) it probably would have gone into the Arguments to Avoid umbrella. Kurt however continued to make his arguments and eventually convinced others that coaching was evil. Second, again a Kurt argument, Self noms. Kurt's prima facia oppose is still the stuff of legend. Without looking at ATA, I'm pretty sure that Oppose per self nom was listed as an ATA. Yet, when Kurt was RfA banned, others were accepting that rationale and actually opposing due to self nom. I suspect that if Kurt had been active here for another 6 months that Self Noms would have become an accepted reason to oppose. The community changes and expectations change... we should not codify the reasons people could give to oppose, that could stymie productive discorse. The 'crats know that "Oppose self-nom" is not an argument that the community embraces. However, if the community were to embrace it, I have no doubt that the crats would acknowledge that change in how they review RfAs.---''']''' '']'' 14:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I agree that our criteria may change over time, I'm merely suggesting that such changes be done by consensus outside of an individual RFA rather than by policy drift during successive RFAs. And I suppose I'm trying to solve the admin shortage problem by resetting the clock and taking the RFA process back to a time when people who'd now get a snow close were sailing through RFA. '']]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 23:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
* ''Comment on 2 - lowering threshold to 60-65%''. If we include this suggestion, would it work better if we combined it with a proposal for "desysop light" that only applies to new admins for their first 6 months? Something like if there is a clear case of the new admin mis using the tools they can be desysoped by a panel consisting of say only 3 arbitrators, with streamlined proceedings that wont drag on. So the fear of bad apples slipping through is addressed, but also we wont make wiki life harder for long term admins? ] (]) 16:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
:*I'm not convinced either that new admins are any more likely than old hands to need decratting or that resolving any problems in the decratting process should be linked to RFA. I'm aware that there are some who consider the decratting process broken and who have frequently turned conversations about reforming RFA into discussions about decratting. But I don't agree either that the problems are related or that the decratting problem is anywhere near as severe as RFA. That said if someone did a study of decrattings and detected a problem such as admins with fancy signatures or more than 2 FAs are more likely to get decratted then I would expect that provoke some interest here. '']]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 16:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
:*(too Feydhuxtable) See ], hierarchical structures. --] (]) 16:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
::: (too WSC) I wouldn't expect a strong causal relationship between difficulty of desyoping and the declining active admin core. If there is one it might even be inverse. I just remember that when lowering the threshold's been discussed before, several expressed a strong concern that bad admins are already a problem and they wouldn't want it to be made easier for new ones to slip through. If we can allay that concern there might be less resistance to the idea of lowering the threshold? But yeah change to desyop need not be linked and if the idea can pass on its own that probably would be for the best.
::: (too Hammersoft) thanks, yep IronHolds pointed me to that a few weeks back. Im hoping that now we've gathered such strong evidence about the problem, concensus for previously rejected proposals can change, especially as we're introducing a few differences. Already we've had admins like the Puppy who previously opposed this type of reform making positive comments about the idea. ] (]) 16:37, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
::::*I’d like to see progress in synchronization of standards. I use the word “progress” deliberately, as complete synchronization is an impossible goal, but asymptotic progress may be possible.
::::*I support a gradual reduction of the consensus bar. 66%, where one oppose equals two supports has a nice feel to it, but I could live with 65%, and maybe 60%. I have reviewed some of the past requests, and getting into the fifties is too low.
::::*I’d like to drop the pretense that adminship is no big deal. I gather someone important said it once, so it became gospel, but when I see the detailed understanding of policy expected – it is misleading to pretend it means so little.
::::*More specificity regarding minimums would be helpful. They should be soft, meaning you can apply with fewer, but the expectation will be more evidence of quality in the smaller number. 2000 edits is too low, moreover, one can have 2000 edits without learning any appreciable portion of policy. Can we add some suggested edit counts for relevant areas like XFD? Maybe 500 edits to XFD, ANI or similar?
::::*I’d like to see a strong suggestion that participation in RFA is a sign of taking the process seriously. It is possible to read the RFA pages and still not cast an !vote, but ten !votes would be a sign of minimal involvement. (I can understand concern that encouraging !votes might produce poorly researched !votes).<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva; font-size:15px;">]]</font> 18:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Percentages, rules, and limits are fine and well, but in the end, RfA, like any community discussion, boils down to "consensus". –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 18:40, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

== Vote weighting ==

Just curious, so I thought I'd ask here. Do you suppose that the votes of long-time, established and respected editors carry more weight around RfA in the eyes of bureaucrats, or are all legit, reasoned votes weighted equally? I can think of numerous names of regular voters here (I won't bother mentioning them, we all know who they are) who no doubt produce extremely valid points the vast majority of the time.

Imagine this hypothetical (and I do mean that, I'm not going off any past experience whatsoever) scenario where there are numerous oppose votes by registered editors with decent reasoning, but there is an equally lengthy list of established RfA voters with convincing supports. Would that hypothetical RfA be closed as successful due to the respect, perhaps subconsciously, held by the closing 'crat towards those editors? I appreciate there are a lot of variables in this scenario and it's hard to place accurately in your head, but I'm interested in hearing others opinions. My apologies if this has been brought up before.

Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">] |]</span></small> 18:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

:Obviously true. Hence the fact that the instructions repeatedly say it's not a vote count. Ten opposes from established editors more than counter 30 supports from three-day-old SPAs. The only alternative would be minimum-edit-requirements for voting, as it done with Arbcom elections, but that's more hassle than it's worth.&nbsp;–&nbsp;<font color="#E45E05">]</font><font color="#C1118C">]</font> 18:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
::Whilst I appreciate the obviousness of the case with SPAs, I was suggesting a scenario a little less clear. For example, registered editors = respected editors from elsewhere on the Wiki who rarely vote at RfA, and established editors = those who regularly vote here such as yourself. Maybe it's just me overthinking the situation/the situation doesn't exist. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">] |]</span></small> 19:06, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I would sincerely hope that a bureaucrat holds the opinion of any editor in good standing equal to that of any other editor in good standing. Granting extra weight to the !votes of "respected" editors, or worse still - RFA regulars - kind of brings up the whole specter of cliques and cabals. I really, really, really hope not. ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 19:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Second that, but I feel the effect might not be voluntary. There may not even be an effect, I can't be bothered to research it, but if a bureaucrat holds certain editors in very high regard, their opinion on an RfA might influence the closing 'crat's decision. Regards, --—<small><span style="border:2px solid #340383;color:#5a3596;padding:1px">] |]</span></small> 20:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::I was going to say that I trust our current bureaucrats not to hold any of us in ''very high regard'' that their opinion is influenced. But I wonder if I ought not bite my tongue with that comment .. :) ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 20:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
:An editor in good standing that has a crappy RfA argument is easily and soundly trumped by a brand new user that can show that the candidate has posted numerous copyvios, and that's exactly the way it should be. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 20:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
::^ Trust the crats, they're smart people or they wouldn't be crats (Also the only people who can speel their title).--] (]) 20:16, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
:::EVula's comment is exactly what I would have expected to hear and what I trust our crats to do. No matter how well-reasoned someone usually !votes, in those cases where they don't, their !vote is not worth more than any other !vote with a weak or no argument. A crat who would judge !votes based on !voters rather than the arguments is not worth their money (hypothetically speaking) but I am confident that none of them would do so. Regards ''']]''' 20:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Yes, but I would say that an experienced editor with a strong argument would have at least a ''bit'' more weight than a new user with a strong argument.--] <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> <sup>]</sup> 20:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Where a !voter's experience comes into play is in influencing ''other editors'', rather than the 'crats themselves. ] <span style="color: #999;">// ] // ] //</span> 21:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::<small>(edit conflict with EVula, saying exactly the same thing in twenty times as many words)</small> I do like the mental image of our bureaucrats sitting there with a calculator and individually weighting votes, but I have to say I doubt that happens. A tight RfA close is always going to be made on the subjective definition of "strength of argument", and unless there's some serious influx of low-edit-count SPAs I doubt the experience of individual editors in the mass of supports/opposes tends to make a difference - it's the overall relevance of the points raised and the level of consensus that the point is an important one.
::::::That said, the experience and reputation ''does'' have an effect on the power of their vote: other people participating in the RfA are rather likely to take the opinions of editors they respect into account when making their own votes. I know that if I read through an RfA and find an oppose by an editor I respect the judgment of, I will take the concern seriously when deciding on my own position. Conversely, if I run across an oppose by an editor I know to have a vastly differing opinion from me on a particular point, or to be generally overly picky, or just someone who's clearly unaware of key facts - I'm far less likely to care what they think. So rest assured that people's standing in the community does affect the force of their argument: it just may not be directly via the 'crats, but via the decisions made by other RfA participants based on your view. ~ <font color="#228b22">]</font> <sup>]</sup> 21:08, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::{{ec}} With an experienced !voter making a strong argument, it's more likely to have "per X" !votes than with an inexperienced or new user. But such !votes do not change the strength of the argument itself. Similarly, multiple "good guy" !votes by experienced users are not the least bit more convincing just because they are made by experienced users. Quite the opposite even maybe because one would expect them to know better... Regards ''']]''' 21:12, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

== Is there an admin shortage? ==

I don't really see huge backlogs. I stopped bothering with AIV because it gets cleaned up quickly. Moves are usually a bit backlogged but that's more because it is hard to figure out consensus in some cases (when in doubt, I wait for someone else to do it and, if no one does, do try to clear it up). CSD goes through cycles (and, IMO, CSD purists are likely responsible for many an RfA failure - just saying!). RFPP is usually fairly up-to-date. The edit warring notice board is almost always current. Given the lengthy discussion above, there must be a humungous shortage of admins. Let me know where - I'll be happy to help out. --] <small>(])</small> 02:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:] needs 30,000 pages reviewed by admins for deletion and ] needs 20,000 history merges fixed by admins. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 02:35, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::Just looking at the content of those two tells me that having many more admins is not going to be a great help. --] <small>(])</small> 02:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::But only admins can review/delete the pages there. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 03:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::: True. But the work involved seems tedious (which is why new or old admins won't be flocking there in a hurry!) and there doesn't seem to be consensus that there is any work to be done at all on, say ]. Also, there are no instructions on what an admin is supposed to do. For example, I can see that ] has a backlog but what does one do to clear it (assuming that there is consensus to clear it in the first place). Perhaps we should be focusing our energies on creating better instruction sets. --] <small>(])</small> 18:16, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
: Please note that ] maintenance is not strictly an administrators' task. ]''']''' 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::Noted. But it is largely done by admins (even though an admin is only required for page deletion, I'm not sure why few non-admins close move discussions). --] <small>(])</small> 02:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::One thing that stands out to me is when vandal/hoax tagged CSD articles stay around for a few hours (e.g. ] - recently deleted after tagged for 4.5hrs) - this one actually originally contained an attack too. Not sure what (if any) targeted turn-around time there is for CSD tags... sometimes it's within minutes, but sometimes CSDs are handled days later. But for 3+ hours for this kind of content, it seems a little long. I am wondering if it is less an issue of shortage, and more an issue of timezone concentration. ] 03:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::::This is partly a timezone issue, or at least certain timezones illustrate our admin shortages more sharply than others. I suspect that I'm sometimes the only admin looking at CSD in the later part of the UK morning. But not all articles tagged for speedy deletion have the same priority, that's why there is no targeted turnaround time at CSD. Subcategories such as attack pages get much faster attention than others, looking at the attacks I've deleted this morning some were up for less than ten minutes but one was up for about an hour. However it isn't just the stuff that's already tagged. One of the downsides of the admin shortage is that there is less time available to look for the stuff that the hugglers have missed, a couple of days ago I deleted a particularly nasty attack page that had been up for over two years. '']]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 12:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Definitely agreed on the timezone concentration issue. Naturally there are fewer EN admins active during my (Japan) timezone. I also agree that different CSD categories should receive different priorities by a wandering admin. Makes sense to clear out attack and copyvio first and save the harmless junk for later. Just thinking that if the average time it took to process the average CSD (in any category) started to dramatically exceed what the community felt was ideal that it might be an indication that more hands might be needed to hold the mop. ] 14:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::: I disagree with the argument that ] is a proof that we have an admin shortage. Vandalism occurs all the time on all sorts of pages; it's built into our system. It is not prevented by any number of admins. Even a duplication of admins - which would be a huge effort - would (on average) only cut the time for an administrator to see it by one half. That means, the vandalism would have been up for more than 2 hours. Hardly an improvement worth the effort. This sort of vandalism could have been much easier prevented by flagged revisions. &mdash; ] 21:13, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:I'm not sure there's a shortage, ''per se'', but there is ''turnover'' as admins burn out, leave the project, "take their ball and go home", stop doing admin stuff, etc. etc. I seem to remember Mbisanz or someone doing an analysis of "active" admins, and I am pretty sure that the number of "active" admins has stayed relatively constant despite the fact that we still keep making new ones; I think we are pretty much at "replacement rate" now, and are not actually growing the admin corps... But I could be wrong on that... Just the impression that I have of the situation. --]''''']''''' 03:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

::Yo Jayron, if you think fallen admins are been replenished with the blood of the anointed, well... look up. ] 03:48, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

:::Ah yes, thanks for bringing that to my attention... So we have actually dropped BELOW replacement rate. Which answers teh question as an affirmative yes. We are currently in the process of having an admin shortfall. Or maybe a "market correction"... --]''''']''''' 03:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

::::What I'm reading so far makes me cautiously optimistic that we'll be able to get at least a small, helpful tweak of some kind to RFA. Previous battles have been along the lines of "RFA is broken, kill it"; this time, almost everyone is being more constructive and open-minded. - Dank (]) 11:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

== A fork in the road ==

There are several big questions floating around ... how to ensure that Assistants get sufficient RFA-style feedback and sufficient oversight by coaches, what subset of the tools to give them, and how high to set the bar. (A major problem is the objection of the WMF lawyer and others that there should be a fairly high bar to clear before someone can see deleted material.) But putting those aside for a second, imagine that we succeed in creating some kind of Assistant role, carrying some or all of the tools; then either the tools expire automatically in 3 to 6 months unless the Assistant does an RFA, or they are automatically granted admin status by applying 3 to 6 months later if their tools haven't been removed. To maximize the chances of success, it would be a good idea to figure out which way we're pushing. Feel free to add pros and cons:

Convert automatically to adminship after 3 to 6 months if the Assistantship tools aren't removed:
*Pro: This year, Arbcom has been more than willing to desysop admins for misuse of tools (the recent WMC-Abd case is a clear example), but not everyone has gotten the message yet. If the community gave Arbcom clear guidelines for what should trigger a fast-track tool removal of whatever tools we give Assistants, not only would it get the people who know best (Arbcom) involved with tool removal, it would allow Arbcom to better get their message out about what kind of tool misuse can get any admin into trouble.
*Pro: A lot of people don't prepare for and run for RFA because they think it's too hard to pass, and they're wrong, they could make it with a little effort. One option is to do a single RFA with 3 options (fail, promote to Assistant, promote to admin), which would give us some "accidental" admins from candidates who thought they were running for Assistantship. Sometimes the voters really like modesty.
*Con: If the tools don't get removed for misuse in cases where the community would have wanted the tools to be removed, ], so there has to be a lot of communication between Arbcom, RFA voters and candidates for this to work. - Dank (]) 15:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


Tools expire automatically unless candidate does a normal RFA:
*Con: We'd need a second RFA-like process to promote an Assistant to adminship. Twice as much work, more opportunity for things to go wrong.
*Pro: OTOH, the lack of RFA-style input before a candidate gets to RFA is a big part of what's wrong now, and maybe this would provide that input. Also, until the community feels sure-footed with this new process, it might be a good idea to force the community to do it twice, so that everyone can check their own assumptions ... "Oh, I was worried about X the first time around, but now I see I shouldn't have worried" ... or "I told you guys this would be a problem, and no one listened to me ... see, I was right".
*Pro: The people who oppose at RFA don't generally get off on opposing, they have legitimate concerns. Most of them would be happier if they weren't forced into the bad-guy role, and the candidate would be happier to get the same advice with a Support vote. The lower standards (lower tool-expertise standards, not lower standards for honesty, civility and trustworthiness) at RF-Assistantship would allow a greater percentage of voters to shift to Support, and the training during the Assistantship period would both prepare the Assistants to pass RFA and warn them if they're not going to pass. Happier candidates, happier voters. - Dank (]) 15:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

:The first option seems more problematic to me. For one, as you mention, should something go awry there will be hell to pay, and all it will take is a single "oops" to throw the entire process into disarray. Regardless of that happening, I still have a feeling that the intial review process will quickly evolve into what RfA is now; the community will want to retain a certain "gatekeeper" status on the entry to the Admin pool. Knowing that passing a candidate for "Assistantship" means future decisions are out of their control, the community will almost invariably tighten their control on that first review and turn it in to a mirror of the current RfA - and who would want to subject themselves to the rigors of RfA for a kind of admin-lite?

:I understand that option two introduces a double-review process: once to become an "Assistant" and once to become an administrator. This shouldn't necessarily mean a much higher workload. The second review need not be an onerous affair. Questions of trust and the like can be dealt with up front, while the second review need only ask the question "Has this candidate used the temporary mop wisely?" There should be no need for a cavalcade of questions covering hypotheticals. The second review should be a much more straightforward affair, a simple yes-or-no kind of situation. ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 16:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

::Some have said in the past that they could never support 2 review processes, although we haven't heard from them recently; also, I'm curious about whether this is something Arbcom might want to do for reasons of their own. For myself, I agree with everything you just said. - Dank (]) 19:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Whether we have one or two elective reviews, I really like your idea of the third possible rfa result: "promote to assistant". Assuming we're able to build a convincing case that we have an urgent problem , we can combine this nicely with the threshold lowering suggestion WSC and SPhilbrick have been advocating. That is , at the crats discretion a % slightly below the current norm will now be a pass if it's a long term editor, or coaching offer for a fairly new editor. E.g.

+> 70% generally an automatic pass

60 – 70% typically an offer of coaching for a new editor , or a regular promotion for a new editor.

< 60% generally a fail.

This takes into account the fact that established editors have a lot to offer, likely have less need & desire for coaching , and are more likely to narrowly fall below the pass threshold due to the grudge factor. ] (]) 20:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

:Initial reaction: that can't possibly work, because sometimes the issue at RFA is trustworthiness, and we're agreed that we don't want to give people the tools if we can't come to something approaching agreement that they're trustworthy. Second reaction: maybe it could work, if we can impress on voters the need to come back and take a second look in close cases (and contrary to the rumors, I think most voters do take a second look ... they just don't change their minds as often as some would like!). If we're agreed that we don't want untrustworthy Assistants, and that's the issue in their RFA, then everyone will know it and switch to Oppose if necessary to push it under 60% (or at least push it under 80% (or 75% or 70%) so that the crats feel they have discretion ... they should be able to figure out if the issues are a stopper for Assistantship). I'm still a little skeptical, but it would be so great not to have two different processes and not to have 4 different voting sections in an RFA (promote to admin, promote to Assistant, oppose, neutral) that I'm willing to keep an open mind. - Dank (]) 21:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::OTOH ... of course we'll need to have a trial period, and for the trial, one option is to convince at least one crat (hopefully most of the crats!) to pass candidates with 60%-70%, convince coaches to watch them, work with them and revert them as necessary for 3 months, and if they can't pass a second RFA, convince at least one steward (hopefully more) to desysop them after 3 months on the grounds that they didn't have community support for anything but 3 months with the tools, or convince Arbcom to desysop them for the same reason they'd desysop anyone, misuse of tools. We can still talk about whether a different system would be desirable if the trial is considered a success, if you like. - Dank (]) 22:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::If we create 'provisional adminship' I think we have then created a need to give 'crats the technical right to desysop, removing one of my objections to that particular user right. We would be best off using a low level solution like that rather than calling a steward. ] (]) 22:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Sorry to interject out of thread order, but requests to turn bits on or off at ] that are clearly in policy (in this case, linked to a discussion at a standard page and requested by a closing crat or whatever) are among the easiest tasks for stewards to do, and there is rarely any great lag in getting them done. It's the harder stuff like cross wiki CU, usurpation that requires investigation, and the like that lag a bit. Just thought I'd point that out... a well formed request like that usually takes me under 2 minutes to do.. and that's if I'm dotting every i twice and double checking all the T crossings. Hope that helps. It's not intended to argue against giving 'crats the turn off right, just as a datapoint. ++]: ]/] 03:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Agreed. I don't remember the link, but I believe that proposal got majority support, but not support from you or me, Protonk, on the theory that the poll was bass-ackwards ... first come up with a reason, then give crats the desysopping tool. If there's community support for even a trial of Assistantship, that's a good enough reason for me to switch my vote, too. - Dank (]) 00:57, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::See ] and ]. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 00:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

===What problem is this supposed to solve?===
What problem is this supposed to solve? --] (]) 16:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:The admin corps growing steadily smaller via attrition; the replacement rate is negative. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;16:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)</small>
:*That's a ''perceived'' problem. Why is the admin corps growing smaller a problem? We can agree its growing smaller. How is this negatively affecting the project? --] (]) 16:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Hammer, you gave your position on RFA and on RFA reform above, and I respect it. One of the things that's been discussed at ] is that people who prefer "no change" in a policy discussion will sometimes achieve their result (intentionally or not, I'm not asserting bad faith) by objecting to every little step along the way, as if the smallest points were all critical, when in fact they simply object to the whole idea. If neither of these options is appealing to you, then say so; all I'm trying to do here is to lower the total number of options under consideration, so that when we take this to ], we don't all die in a big ]. No new process will be approved here today. - Dank (]) 16:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::*And what I'm getting at is that before a solution can be carved out, you have to understand what the problem is. You've advocated a solution. You've not identified what actual problem this solves. It might increase the number of administrators. Let's assume it does. Let's assume it doubles the number of administrators. Does it matter? No, because no problem has been identified. You're asking us to ''assume'' that fewer administrators is a problem. I call that assumption into question. I'm not suggesting no change in policy or procedure. Let's just stop discussing that, ok? --] (]) 16:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::And I'm saying that your perspective is very welcome, but not in this section. Many people disagree with you and think that the case was made above that admin jobs are not getting done, and that the trend is bad. I know you don't agree; you said that. This section is for the other side to prune away some of the options on the table, so that when we take this to ], it doesn't become so confused that nothing gets done. - Dank (]) 16:44, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::*Don't presume to tell me where I can and can't comment. If you don't want me commenting in sections you start, then don't start sections. I look at the "Is there an admin shortage?" and I see a lack of consensus, and not "many people" agreeing that a shortage of admins is bad. If you take this to VPP without figuring out what problems this proposal solves, it will go up in flames. I'll guarantee it. Identify the problem first, then work towards a solution. See ]. --] (]) 16:52, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::Good point; this is a question for ] ... the question has been debated before, with informal understandings but no update to policy, perhaps it's time to add something to policy. See you there. - Dank (]) 17:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::*I'm not interested in chasing a rabbit into the brush regarding whether the noted section had consensus or not. Identify the problem, then work towards a solution. If you don't, this proposal will not fly. Look, I'm trying to help you. I'm showing you where your plan fails. If you want to charge ahead without ever identifying what the problem is that this proposal is supposed to follow, it will fail. These proposals are a dime a dozen, and have been tried many, many times before. Every time they've been proposed, they've been shot down. There's a reason for that. Believing that reason is going to go away because we're at some crossroads we were never at before is resting this proposal on a belief, a belief that ]. --] (]) 17:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

::::::] asks for the problems to be identified, which is fair. It seems the consensus at ] is that:
::::::*Admin recruitment is below replacement rate.
::::::*CSD is understaffed. The problem may partly that geography makes holes in coverage over the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The best realistic solution might be to look for additional admins located on the east coasts of the Atlantic and Pacific.
::::::*] and ] are heavily loaded, but it's uncertain that addig admins will help.
::::::*] is struggling to keep up, but not all of that needs admins, non-admins could do some of it. I suggest that a non-admin who's not really confident about the rules would be unwilling to get involved in case a blows up, and an editor who knows the rules well is probably already an admin. --] (]) 17:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
<left adjust> Responding to perceived problems outline by Philcha:
*'''Recruitment below replacement rate''': Acknowledge this is the case. Not acknowledged this is a problem. Without companion analysis showing admin workload increasing in concert with this rate, it's meaningless.
*'''CSD understaffed''': If it is, then we should see ]. We don't.
*'''Histmerge needs help''': We don't know if more admins will help or not.
*'''Requested moves backlogged''': but non-admins can do it.
Great to bring these points forward! But, so far we're not identifying a problem that having more administrators would solve. Other thoughts? --] (]) 17:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:There is no point in worrying about not having enogh admins. If things do get so bad that we need more people will reduce their standards, which will result in more passes and as a feedback effect more candidates, untill we reach this stage again when the cycle will start over.--] (]) 17:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
*(ec) Is there any reason to believe that these new semi-admins would work in those areas as opposed to the areas that are already well staffed? It seems that the first step would be some sort of encouragement to existing admins to take a hand in these underworked sections.--] (]) 18:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
**This spring and summer, I deleted a ton of promotional pages from userspace, most of them tagged by ] (who rarely seeks or gets credit for his hard work, btw). The majority of these pages had been around for at least a month, some for years, and anyone doing a Google search on any of those terms (and many of these pages used ] techniques, and were probably pulling more hits than most of our articles) got a very poor impression of the quality control on Misplaced Pages. The fact that we patrol for that kind of stuff was a major factor in drawing people to Misplaced Pages in the first place, and ] deletions are a critical admin job that never gets finished. Others have pointed out other jobs above that aren't getting done. - Dank (]) 18:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
***The ]. That's not a backlog. Sure, it ''was'' a problem. But the problem was taken care of by the existing admin corps. Show a chronic problem that the current admin corps isn't handling well, and a problem that is truly a problem. For example, ] being backlogged (which it isn't...occasionally it is, it's brought up at ], and the backlog vanishes...that's an admin corps that is working well). --] (]) 18:19, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
****That's not the only issue; there are at least 3 others. Almost every morning, there are pages in the G11 queue that were there the night before. Some are still there 8 hours later. What effect does this have on taggers, knowing that we're only barely keeping up and probably couldn't keep up if they did more tagging, and knowing that we don't consider their work urgent enough to recruit more admins to get the deletions done? Second: tagging is not done in a vacuum; it's an exchange of information between admins and taggers. The more and smarter admins, the more successful tagging gets done. Third: although taggers as a group are happy with the occasional barnstar, many of the more prolific ones would like to at least hope that they'll become a part of the admin corps some day. We've got a lot of evidence that indicates that when these hopes are dashed, they get a lot less interested in tagging. Providing an intermediate step that seems attainable to them can only help.
****On the other point ... are we good? I'm seriously not pushing back against you; what I'm saying is that there are people on the other side who need to talk about this very complex issue in order to get anywhere with it. If people who don't buy the premise keep jumping in the middle, then people stop watchlisting and the critical prep work never gets done, and the proposal can't proceed. Not that that's going to happen in this case; I'll keep bringing these questions up until the community provides answers. I don't have any serious disagreement with your point that there are other options that don't involve RFA that could be tried and ought to be discussed. And I never said you're not welcome; comments that aren't relevant to a particular conversation are not welcome in that section. I created your own section, you converted it to a subsection, and that works for me. - Dank (]) 19:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::(ec) Thanks to both of you for the work. However this anecdote completely ignores my question. Is it too few admins, or to few who want to do those jobs. What reason do we have to think that the new trainee admins will move into these areas?--] (]) 18:21, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::: Cube lurker, we cant be sure, but if we increase our aggregate admin function in line with the perceived aggregate admin workload , theres a fair chance things will balance out on there own, especially if we promote enough gnomnes \ vandal fighter who enjoy doing the more process orientated work. ] (]) 20:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::Also, I recall reading something somewhere else where Wikimedia and Google agreed not to have anything other than article, image, and portal space indexed. I don't think that's been put into play yet (a casual test showed it hasn't), but a solution like that obviates the need for user space to be patrolled for spam. --] (]) 18:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::That's a long story, and it doesn't look like we're going to get anywhere with that. A proposal to noindex user pages was defeated (by a whisker) in July. - Dank (]) 19:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

* Additional analyses of admin workload and queues would definitely be helpful. However we don't necessarily need to demonstrate those rising in concert with the declining numbers. There's very often a time lag between the decline of an essential resource and the subsequent collapse of the community it supports.

Example: The Easter Island culture collapsed due to the lack of trees, but authorities like Jarred Diamond suggest that their quality of life wasn't much effected until very near the end.
They would have had little shortage of firewood and the like even close to the last tree being felled, just less dead wood being left to decompose. Even with no trees they still would have had a stockpile of rope to build statues, and for a while plenty of crops as it took years before the deforestation led to serious soil erosion.

''King:'' "What do you mean we need to replenish the forests? We're good as gold here, folk have as much food as ever, babies are still being born, and even if you're right about firewood its summer now and nice and warm! Lumberjacks, off to work!"

''Easter Island scientist:'' "You just signed our death warrant"

''King:'' "Prophet of doom!! Away with you and your perceived problems!"

Succesful communities act to head off potential problems before cast iron evidence exists, as by then its often too late. No ones saying Wiipedia is going to collaspe if the active admin ranks arent replenished in the next few months, but it would probably be wise to address the issue. ] (]) 20:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
*How about ANY evidence that a problem exists? So far, I've seen none. I noted much earlier on this page that there are a number of things that have taken the place of the traditional role of administrators, frequently reducing or eliminating their workload. Case point; administrators don't have to manually update ] anymore when they block someone. A bot does it for them. That makes it less time consuming to patrol WP:AIV. I ''do'' think it is worth studying what is happening to the community and identifying potential problems. But, to use another analogy akin to the Easter Island one but with a rather different outcome; nobody thought the end of the horse drawn buggy was an imminent sign of the end times. Yet, we have an awful lot fewer horse drawn buggies than we did a hundred years ago. I simply fail to find a reducing number of active administrators to be a problem since no negative outcome of their being fewer administrators has been determined. None. --] (]) 20:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
**Replacement rate is negative. Mean time since last admin action for active admins is growing larger. Your argument relies on a notion of increasing productivity subsuming losses in labor, which is true but has special connotations for small communities. As the admin community grows smaller, the active admin community provides a bigger and bigger share of actual task completions (deletions, protections, moves, etc.). The marginal impact of desysopping or retirement becomes much larger. The comparison to productivity and labor is that increasing returns to scale from productivity gives us an incentive to build fewer factories. In a world where factories ] over time that is a losing strategy. In english the fewer admins we have the more important admins like WMC become and the more desysopping him or him retiring impacts us. ] (]) 20:53, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
***Totally agree with what Protonk's said. The horse drawn buggy was replaced with vehicles that could 100% duplicate its function several times over, unless you count the cuteness factor. No large human organisation has ever managed to do without administrative personal that I can think off, it's a function that technology can enhance but never replace. Some of the specific area's suffering from the lack of admin attention have been summarised over at ]. Nothing new there though, I agree you’ve identified our weak point. ] (]) 20:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
****Well I want to make clear that I agree w/ one point of Hammer's. the productivity of admins has increased dramatically over time thanks to improvements in the interface, semi-automated tools, and bot accounts (e.g. I don't de-link images after I delete them in most cases, a bot does). ] (]) 21:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:Protonk: Suppose there is, indeed, a problem. And all the king's supermen who victoriously cleared the allegedly draconian RFA hurdles cannot solve it because there's too few of them. Now you suggest to lower the standard, let in a bunch of users who would not otherwise make it or even try to, and expect significant relief? Why? Their skill set and productivity is lower; their functionality is limited by design; they will drain ''your'' own batteries because they need to be coached and watched, right? I have no evidence to back up my feeling that sub-sops will actually reduce the capacity of the system, only a live test will show. Get a Joe from the street and a stopwatch, and a few uninvolved Swedish wikipedia referees to double-check the records... ] (]) 21:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::A few things. (1) I don't necessarily support the admin-lite issue. (2) I have '''no''' evidence that RfA is a good check of productivity or skillsets. On the contrary I would imagine that productivity is relatively uncorrelated with RfA success for candidates, given that the candidates wouldn't be snow closes. (3) I think rollback offers a great example of how assigning subsets of admin rights to users makes everyone better off, even if those users can't do all the things admins can. ] (]) 21:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::Ah. Perhaps I shoudl actually respond to your question. :) I didn't fully get it until I saw the edit summary. I don't think that coaching from current admins will appreciably reduce their productivity. The reasoning follows my discussion w/ Timmeh over the productivity lost in status indicators (]). The common belief, best summarized by the admonition "let's get back to work on the encyclopedia" is that content work trades off with non-content work (WP space stuff, drama, talking, etc.). While this is ''generally'' true, we make the further implicit assumption that the marginal productivity is the same, which is obviously not true. By that I mean we often say things like "in the time we spent arguing about blah, we could have improved 10 articles on generals in the War of Jenkin's Ear". That assumption is false. It is '''much''' easier to undertake some tasks than others and the relative ease of those tasks differ between individuals. So I don't suspect that admins who are productive will lose ''so much productivity'' from coaching that the net effect of their loss and the coachee's gain is <0--this is doubly so because coaching is not time sensitive. I could chose which part of the day I respond to questions or check up on actions. Does that make sense? ] (]) 21:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

=== Editing break, editing break ===
Another general point I will make. I am open to debate on a lot of things, but My reservoir of goodwill runs dry when I am engaged in a debate where someone sees ] ] and ] combined and does not see the problem. Slightly decreasing number of admin actions, combined with a negative replacement rate '''and''' a clearly decreasing admin stock spells disaster in the future. Period. Full stop. End of story. We don't have to . We can adopt reasonable assumptions about the existence of inflection points, but even if we do so, the future is that fewer admins do fewer total actions all while increasing the number of actions done per admin ''and'' increasing the hazard rate for admin attrition. That doesn't have to continue very long before there isn't a wikipedia anymore. Meaning before we have to lock page creation and semi-protect articles in order just to keep content manageable. And it will happen very drastically. One month we will have enough support to get by and the next a few admins retire or are removed and we literally don't have enough volunteers to overcome the flow. This will be true '''even if''' we make reasonable assumptions about increasing productivity of admins as a decreasing function of the number of admins (obviously we can make an unreasonable assumption about that function and be fine forever). There is a problem. We need a solution. ] (]) 21:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

:* We can probably hold out a couple of months beyond the "danger point", if we don't mind letting low priority tasks stack up.
:* Some kinds of action that are currently being done by admins can really be done by anyone, if people were willing to be a tad flexible.
:* There's a ''lot'' that can be done with a little smart systems-design, depending on whether the community is still flexible enough to allow folks to do it. <small>(granted, the whole "policy must be stable" movement doesn't really inspire confidence here ^^;; )</small>
:* We could probably do without the specific admin role. The buttons are (almost) (all) sufficiently nerfed that most people can use them without harming the wiki. For instance, when the admin flag was first created, "deleting an image" actually physically and irrevocably deleted the image file. Nowadays there's an undo option, thank goodness. <small>(a few known exceptions exist)</small>
: The wiki probably won't die over this issue, and it won't drop dead tomorrow. But we *do* need to start thinking and planning as to how to prevent it from failing in the course of the coming year or so.
: By analogy: Driving a modern car is quite safe, but if you don't turn the wheel when you come to a corner, you're still going to crash ;-) Same for the wiki: we can see the corner down the road. We have plenty of time to decide to turn the wheel and change gears. But when we get to the corner, we do need to be ready and do so.
: --] (]) 00:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:*The problem here is we do an absolutely shitty job of looking down the road and seeing what the problems approaching us are. We do a masterful job of saying "Hey, there's lots of roads in this country and some of them have bends in them!" but a crappy job of saying "Hey, we're flying at 100mph down this straight road, but I can see a bend in the road 1/2 mile ahead, I'd better slow down". Almost nobody here is willing to perform any analysis to gain understanding of what the problems are. Instead, everybody and their brother's pet dog's second cousin's cat's pet fish is incredibly happy to come up with ''solutions'' (not picking on any one person here. We all do it). --] (]) 13:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I think at this point you're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. I'll direct you again, as Protonk said, to ] ] and ]. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;13:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)</small>
:::*Oh come on. All I'm asking is people approach problem solving with proven techniques. How is that being contrary for the sake of being contrary? I'm not saying there isn't a problem. I'm not saying we don't need to do something. I'm saying that we should figure out just what the problem IS before running off into the sunset on the nearest galloping horse. Solutions are easy to make. Everybody's got an idea. But without some problem analysis and use of problem solving techniques, you're just fumbling about in the dark. --] (]) 13:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Oh come on yourself. You've been sniping here over and over without contributing anything constructive, and indeed flat-out ignoring what people are saying to you. I'll make it nice and simple. The problem: losing admins faster than we replace them. The solution: replace them faster. Again, look at the graphs. The rate of loss is getting faster and faster. Even without assuming a linear progression--even taking best case from this trend--there is a significant downward spirial and it needs to be addressed. You're welcome to continue pretending that it doesn't need to be, and disingenuously claiming that because there are no backlogs ''at this moment'' that nobody has shown an actual problem, but those of us who are interested in actually trying to fix this problem will continue doing so, and shall ignore people who have nothing constructive to contribute. You keep saying "Waaaaaah what's the problem waaaaah." And as far as I can tell, that's ''all'' you're saying. And yet, you just said you're not saying there's no problem... so put up or shut up. Answer your own question, or to use one of my favourite sayings: lead, follow, or ''get out of the way''. At this point you're just being a particularly loud lump on the side of the road. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;13:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)</small>
::::*Just because you don't happen to like my approach to how to solve this problem doesn't give you or anyone else permission to attempt to force me out of the discussion. If you don't want Misplaced Pages editors contributing to the discussion of your solution, then take it off site and have a discussion among yes-men who are quite happy to go along with your solution.
::::*As I've repeatedly stated, losing admins faster than they are being replaced hasn't been shown to BE a problem. It could be a ''catalyst'' to a problem, but isn't a problem in and of itself. If some real problem analysis was performed, this would be blatantly apparent. But since none has been done, this is being viewed as the problem. And kindly cut the crap with my noting a lack of evidence of backlogs is disingenuous. It isn't by a longshot. If the number of admins is going down, maybe it's because we don't need as many admins as we did before. Abuse filters in place, bots handling routine work, people using automated tools, uploading interface change, autoconfirmed users, patrolled pages...all of these have had a HUGE impact on the amount of work administrators need to perform. Comparing Misplaced Pages now to Misplaced Pages two years ago and saying the sky is falling is absurd on the face of it. Misplaced Pages has ''dramatically'' changed. Just because there are fewer administrators doesn't mean there is automatically a problem. For all you know, the attrition rate vs. promotion rate will level out. You don't know, and you don't know if fewer administrators is actually a problem, because not one of you has provided shred one of evidence that there is an insufficiency in the number of admins to keep up with the work demand. If you'd read my comments, you'd know I already have, as you so eloquently said, put up or shut up. I've been telling you how to begin this process in a proper, logical way. That you don't ''like'' using problem solving techniques and therefore discount them as a place to begin isn't my problem. Just because you don't like my suggested course of action doesn't mean I haven't suggested one.
::::*Regardless of this ridiculous bickering, I am happy for one thing. It's blatantly obvious this proposal has already gone up in flames for a variety of reasons. A while back, a very hard worker (] I believe) started a review process that approached RFA reform in a way similar to what I'm suggesting for approaching the determination of whether there is a problem with fewer administrators. Look at ]. Unfortunately, Gazimoff has largely become inactive. But, that case is a study in how to do it.
::::*Coming up with a 'solution' to the 'problem' when you haven't ascertained the problem is highly problematic. Have any of you stopped to consider ''why'' the attrition rate is as high as it is? The number of administrators resigning has skyrocketed over the last three years (I'm looking at the table ]). The other half of attrition rate is the number of resignations. I don't see people coming up with any effort to interview these people, get them to answer a survey regarding their adminship and why they resigned, etc. Maybe if you did that you would uncover some kernels of truth. But, since no problem analysis is being done, nobody has a clue what the problem is. You're just fumbling about in the dark. So, my suggestion as I've been stating all along here is get off the solution horse and get on the problem analysis horse. If you stay on that solution horse, you're going to find you're trying to win the Kentucky Derby with a ]. It isn't going to work. --] (]) 14:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Blah, blah, blah. Are you going to actually ''contribute'' something or keep whining that people aren't doing what you have decided they must do? →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;14:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)</small>
:::::*Shockingly, I've decided to keep whining that people should use problem analysis and solution techniques to develop a reasoned, careful approach to this 'problem'. I'll keep maintaining that finding a problem is important to determining the solution. I'll keep suggesting to those willing to listen that solutions are most effective when they address a known problem. I'm terribly sorry this is violating ], ], and who knows what else. But, having a logical, reasoned approach to problem solving is just my queer bent. Go figure. --] (]) 10:50 am, Today (UTC−4)
:::::::Are you going to ''do'' anything, or are you going to sit there telling everyone that they have to do what you tell them to? →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;14:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)</small>
:::::::*Are you going to do anything other than scream at me for suggesting people follow problem solving techniques? --] (]) 14:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::*Scream? No. If I were screaming you would be in no doubt, I assure you. You're not suggesting, you're dictating and bitching when people don't jump when you say frog. Having seen a lot of your posts in various places the past few days, this seems to be par for the course. Again: you going to ''do'' anything? Or just keep whining when people don't do what you say? You said you're not saying there's no problem--so identify what you see as the problem. You say people should use problem solving techniques--so use them. Or is this a matter of do as you say, not as you do? →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;14:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)</small>
::::::::*I like "Lead, follow, or get out of the way." I try to apply it to how I live. I've never seen a situation where telling someone that resulted in them saying, "oh gosh, you're right." Empirically speaking, it tends to lead to more arguing, which is fun and all... -]<sup>(])</sup> 15:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::*And Roux, you're doing the same thing you're accusing me of. You don't like it that I'm not jumping on your band wagon, which is making you angry. Tough ritz crackers. You don't like it, then lead better. Look, I can say there is a lack of using problem solving techniques and not have to do a million man hours of work to conduct the work myself before I have a right to say the lack of using the techniques is an issue. I honestly was trying to help yours and Dank's efforts. Instead, both of you have attempted to railroad me out of this conversation. Frankly, I'm done talking with you. If all you can do is yell at me for not jumping on your band wagon, keep on yelling my friend. The soapbox is all yours. --] (]) 15:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::*See this? It is the wrong end of the stick, and you are holding it very firmly. What you are doing here is this: "You go do what I tell you to do. What? No, of course ''I'm'' not going to do it. You go do it." You fail to see how that is not constructive in any way. And Protonk has done an excellent job of clearly and concisely explaining one enormous facet of the problem: fewer admins means more actions done by each admin, increasing error rates and rates of burnout. Again: '''do something constructive''' or shut the hell up. That you ''disagree'' is immaterial; it is that you ''refuse'' to actually do what you are telling other people to do that is the problem.There is no railroading here; you are showing that all you are interested in or capable of doing here is sniping from the sidelines. That is not constructive and it is not a contribution that is useful in any way. If you would actually do what you keep telling everyone else to do, you'd be worth listening to. Since you're not, well... old saying: you're part of the solution or you're part of the problem. You're not solving anything here, so I leave it as an exercise in your own self-awareness to figure out exactly what you're doing. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;18:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)</small>
::::::::::*Nice soapbox you have. Though, it's looking a little worn. Still, telling me to "shut the hell up" puts a sparkling shine on it! --] (]) 18:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::*(I don't understand how you cats indent, and) I think that Roux thinks that if he keeps criticizing you, such criticism will somehow become effective, or have a beneficial result other than feeling good to him. He's wrong, which is a shame, because he's usually very smart. In this case, he prefers the psychological satisfaction of yelling at you to the real-world effectiveness of using his time for something useful. That's right, Roux, yelling at Hammersoft is ''useless'', because it will have ''no effect on him or anyone else''. I have no idea why you, who are intelligent, don't realize the utter fatuity of bitching this guy out. Sad, really. -]<sup>(])</sup> 19:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::*Maybe he's actually frustrated with hammer. ] (]) 19:18, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::*Then he should do something effective, not something juvenile like filling up this page bitching about his personal frustration. Adults know the difference between venting and getting something done. This website is for getting something done. For venting, get a punching bag. -]<sup>(])</sup> 19:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::::::*I suffer from a terrible affliction: the vain hope that people can actually use what's between their ears, or at least learn to. Alas, I am proven wrong time and time again. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;19:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)</small>
:::::::::::::::*If you're inferring that I am not using my brain, why thank you for the compliment! --] (]) 20:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::*(after ec) Oh, it can happen, Roux. Being rude to them just isn't the way to get them there. You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar; ever hear that saying? It's very, very true. Tact costs nothing. -]<sup>(])</sup> 20:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

<!-- Learn to leave whitespace before outdents. -->

:::::I tend to agree that looking at Misplaced Pages from the perspective of a reader, I have a hard time understanding how the decrease in active administrators has harmed my experience. Vandalism control does not seem to have suffered, control of spam in widely viewed articles does not seem to have suffered, the content dispute mechanisms that maintain quality in widely viewed articles does not seem to have suffered. I wholly support lower RFA standards since I think the rise in standards has been unfair to new editors and harmful from a morale perspective, but I don't see that the quality of our final product is threatened. ] ] 14:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
*I also found ], ] and ]. All very interesting reading. --] (]) 14:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
*Ah! Even more interesting; I just found ] and ]. Both of these show a very significant drop off in the number of deletions and blocking since the beginning of 2007. If the ''needed'' number of deletions and blocks remained static or increased, we'd see backlogs in deletion and blocking queues. We don't. One conclusion to draw from that is we need less deletion and blocking work than we did two years ago. Both of these sets of statistics don't seem to support the conclusion that the sky is falling or is about to fall any time soon. --] (]) 14:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
**Blocking queues? Considering that blocking is used to stop ongoing disruption, I don't think that concept makes any sense. If it's been two days since someone vandalized, then they don't need to be blocked. Or is there something I'm missing? -]<sup>(])</sup> 14:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
***] seems to show 80% of our blocks happen with anonymous users. I think most of those would appear at ], where there's no backlog and when there is, a message to ] always clears it up quickly. --] (]) 14:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
****Right, so I still fail to understand... how would a "blocking queue" ever occur? These blocks are either very, very easy to take care of, or else they're obsolete. There's no force to that part of your argument. Think about it. -]<sup>(])</sup> 19:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
*****I understand what you're saying, but ] does get backlogged from time to time. If we weren't responding to requests for blocking in a rapid fashion, we'd see problems with insipid vandalism. But, Christopher Parham notes that is not happening. Further, we could easily run some numbers on how long after a block request is posted to ] it gets addressed. At least that would provide some analysis to determine if there really is a problem with blocking vandals in an efficient manner. Right now, we're just guessing and there isn't agreement. --] (]) 19:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
******Maybe dealing w/ vandalism is ''easy'' admin work, and dealing w/ other backlogs isn't. I think AIV is the last place likely to get backlogged, because of qualitative differences between it and other admin tasks. No? -]<sup>(])</sup> 19:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
*******Maybe. If that's the case, then we should see a backlog at places that are 'hard' admin work. What would those be and where are the backlogs? --] (]) 19:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
********Um.... ]? -]<sup>(])</sup> 19:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
*********Can you identify one or more areas in there that are actually backlogged? It's labelled as backlogs, but the reality is a lot of things aren't. For example, ] has 58 files in it. Not much of a backlog. --] (]) 19:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

<!-- useful whitespace before a de-indent. Please leave it here to separate threads, thanks -->

*Hammersoft makes the '''important point''' that forecasting suffers from the fundamental fallacy of extension of current trends. This is a point which should be shouted from the rooftops. I don't think he deserves the hassle that he is getting for it. ''However'', we have to accept it and move along. As I see it we have a few trends at work: slightly decreasing total activity, decreasing individual activity and increasing loss rate. All three of those are general of course and can be broken into their principal components. Those three trends result in a sort of meta trend (through nothing other than division): an increasing share of admin actions are undertaken by more active admins. That meta-trend has the important implication that it ''exacerbates'' the impact of the third component--admin loss rate gets more painful. This doesn't even include the allied problems with more tasks undertaken by fewer people. In order for things to get worse we '''don't''' need to assume that all these trends continue along their merry way. Indeed the admin activity graph looks to be at an inflection point (making forecasting especially difficult). We can even assume (As I said above) reasonable counter-trends like increasing admin productivity as the number of admins decrease (again, just talking about quantity and ignoring the obvious issue that quality suffers). We can assume that total admin activity remains constant, that the replacement rate stops decreasing (or growing more negative if you prefer) and that the hazard rate for admin loss decreases mildly. '''Even under those assumptions the meta-trend gets worse'''. And making those assumptions requires that three reasonably unrelated characteristics of the 'pedia get better (or their 2nd derivative gets better) simultaneously. So my point above is that opposing the forecast requires that all three components reverse their trend (even if they stop growing worse it isn't enough). When does it become more sound to argue that simultaneous across the board improvement might occur? Why is that the grounded approach? I don't think it is. I think the sober approach is to review the data, conclude that we have some problem in the future and try to undertake some solutions. More important is the historical understanding. Misplaced Pages will not be the same resource it was in 2003 ever again. In 2011 it will not be the resource it is today. If we are not cognizant of that we fail. ] (]) 16:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
**One more comment. In order for me to believe that trends will reverse I have to be given some way to rationalize it. I don't see how fewer admins causes the loss function to decrease (and I can see a half dozen reasons along w/ some empirical support indicating that it might increase). Ditto the other trends. This may be due to lack of imagination on my part. So let me know what I'm missing. ] (]) 17:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

===Admin retention ===
Hammersoft has rightly pointed out that we should consider the attrition side of this as well as the dearth of new admins. My view is that attrition is very much the lesser side of the issue - we expect to lose a proportion of admins, not all of those who have ceased to be active are actually lost, and as expressed on a graph the fall in new RFAs seems to me the main problem. However I would support doing some sort of survey on our formerly active admins, and I see no contradiction into looking into this at the same time as trying to resolve the larger problem of the dearth of new admins. I'm hoping that such research would show that many of our inactives may come back at some point in the future, and that the increasing numbers dropping out is in part a reflection of the high numbers of admins appointed in 06 and 07 coming to the end of their wiki careers but that is mere speculation on my part - we need research on this. I'll see if I can track down some of the researchers who presented at Wikimania. '']]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 15:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
*Excellent! --] (]) 15:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
*Was there a corresponding bump from returning admins in 2005-2006 or reason to believe that loss/return rates would differ over time? ] (]) 16:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

===Upsetting the cart===
(being jokingly facetious here to start off; smile people) I know one of the worst things you can do in a debate is introduce statistics that flip the cart over. Nevertheless, at the risk of incurring the wrath of many...

I did a synthesis of the data presented at ] and ] (updated daily by bot) to generate figures on the average number of actions per admin per month for the last several months, going with the 17th of each month to the 17th of the prior month for that month's numbers. What I found:
*May 2009 : 129 actions per active admin
*June 2009: 118
*July 2009: 120
*Aug. 2009: 105
*Sep. 2009: 104
If anything, the number of actions per active administrator is going down, not up. I don't see any trend supporting the idea that each administrator is having to carry additional load to keep things going.

Another factor to consider; have a look at ]. The amount of time it takes for our editors to accumulate 10 million new edits has effectively remained static for more than two years, varying between 6 and 9 weeks. Yet, thanks to things like edit filters, the numbers of actual vandalism has gone down. With less vandalism, there's less need to block (just one example of many). There really is less work for administrators to do around here. --] (]) 19:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:I don't think you can draw too many conclusions from these data. If it was stretched out over several years, sure, but I bet there could be seasonal shifts accounting for this. ] (]) 22:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:This seems like a very reasonable conclusion. It's also worth noting that on the vandalism front, active admins are complemented by the growth of the rollbacker class. ] ] 22:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::I agree with IronGargoyle. Five months worth of numbers doesn't tell us much in terms of trends. We really shouldn't conclude anything unless we have data going back at least a year or two. ]] {{small|(])}} 22:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I'm not sure that the edit filters alter the admin workload - we are still getting ten million edits in the same time period, the vandalfighting bots are reverting vandalism but we still need admins to block people. What the vandal fighting bots have replaced are some of the vandal fighters who once would have been huggling towards adminship. I suspect that in the longterm our indef blocking of millions of IP addresses has reduced the admin workload, but cost us an unknown number of potential editors. As for admin actions per "active" admin, those admin actions won't include declining incorrect speedies, and those "active" admins will include a fair few editors who still do the 30 edits every 60 days needed to count as active editors but haven't done any admin type things for yonks. If we are going to try and live with fewer and fewer admins then I think we need a better definition of an active admin, preferably not including people who are currently retired, on extended wikibreaks or who haven't recently done anything admin related. '']]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span>

== Other forks (the pointy kind) ==

There are some other decisions that should be made before we head to VPP so that things don't get too wild and crazy. 3, 4 or 6 months? Sounds like a hard question but my guess is that it's actually easy; we just look at failed RFAs and correlate the following items: 1. advice of "wait 3 months" vs. "wait 6 months" 2. Showing up at RFA again after 3 or 6 months 3. long-term trustworthiness of the candidate, at least sufficient to overcome Mike Godwin's objections. Any volunteers?

Another question is what subset of the tools is ideal. A minimal subset ... seeing deleted pages and moving without redirects ... would only allow the candidates to better perform tasks to help them eventually pass RFA ... so, lower risk, but not as much admin work gets done and they don't get as much practice. Julian and others have said the blocking is the problematic userright, that any other userrights are fair game. Balloonman is suggesting we give them the whole box of tools, as long as a coach or coaches are watching them like hawks. Is it possible to discard any of these options before we head to ]? - Dank (]) 16:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:If we give someone the whole box of tools and then keep an eye on them, I would think that 3 months would be long enough to figure out whether or not they have a good grip on them; any mistakes should show up in that amount of time. If the purpose fo this "admin-lite" is to create a preview mode, allowing us to judge whether or not the candidate is ''competent'' with the tools (I assume the question of ''trust'' would be handled previously), then giving them an incomplete set of tools will result in an incomplete assessment of their competency. ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 16:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Another fork, credit to Balloonman for the excellent idea of bundling this with some form of coaching/oversight: one coach per Assistant, or does everyone who wants to volunteer as a coach and all the Assistants participate on the same page? - Dank (]) 20:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:It would be a single page per coachee/coach, but others (like now) could drop in and add their comments/thoughts.---''']''' '']'' 20:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:(ec) I suppose the coach-assistant relationship would need to be defined a little more firmly, no? I get the impression it is the sort of thing where a coach is accepting a certain amount of responsibility for their Assistant's actions; for example, it should be incumbent upon them to correct minor mistakes, and to request a removal of the tools in more serious cases of Assistants gone wild. That being the case, it seems to me that a "one coach per Assistant" rule is prudent. Multiple coaches can muddy the issue of responsibility, and in some cases may provide inconsistent feedback and oversight. Too may cooks in the kitchen, and all. I could forsee some instances of multiple coaches who have an ability to closely coordinating their efforts, but in the long haul I imagine a 1:1 ratio being the most sensible. ]<b><font color="#6060BF">]</font></b> 20:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
::My initial proposal was that somebody could accept up to 2 coachees at a time, but if they showed themselves capable, that number could go up (or down) with 'crat discretion. But a coachee would have one formal coach, who is in essence lending them the tools, but could have multiple couches for guidance. (EG I know that under the old system new coaches often asked for help with coaching.) But yes, the principle difference in my proposal over the old "temporary admins" which has always been shot down is that the coachee is not an admin, but is working as an extension of a coach. The coach takes some responsibility in the coachees actions and should the coachee go off the deep end, would need to request an emergency desysop. Similarly, if a coachee goes off the deepend, other admins could request that desysop as well. As they are not admins yet, this would be a simple process.---''']''' '']'' 20:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:::That makes sense, let me put it another way. Presumably, the community will pull the plug on this if the coaches plus concerned admins don't perform as expected by the voters. My question is: do we send a message to the coaches that we believe they're signing up to make the whole project work, or just signing up to look at one or two coachees? Only 1 or 2 coachees is more prudent; on the other hand, it's possible the community won't back the proposal without knowing that there's a group of people who are trying to make the whole thing work, because otherwise, mistakes may happen that slip through the cracks. I don't have a good feel for what we need to get the votes. (Btw, it makes sense to call them coachees informally, but User:Vandal is going to be less than impressed when they get blocked by "Coachee" Smith, it will probably just fuel the backlash ... User:Soap suggested "Assistant", does that work for you?) - Dank (]) 20:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm actually not sure I agree with the admin-lite concept as a solution to the problem. I think what we need is an unbundling of tools in an apolitical fashion, much like rollback was intended to be. Obviously the low hanging fruit has been picked, there aren't any clear analogues to rollback in the admin toolkit (insofar as rollback was basically simulated with semi-automated tools when the right was unbundled). But I think rollback has been an enormous success and we would do better to follow that success and push for devolution of rights rather than establishing a tiered approach to adminship. A few problems w/ assistantship/admin-lite:
#We place another implicit step between editors and admins.
#We place an extraordinary amount of faith in coaches and trust in candidates. If someone 'fails' a RfA in such a way that they become a candidate for admin-lite we have to believe that the coach will effectively cover the concerns listed in the RfA ''and'' that the candidate won't just go through the motions of the coaching process.
#We implicitly lower the bar for RfA where that isn't necessarily the problem (while I agree that replacement rate is a problem it doesn't follow that RfA standards or ''percieved'' RfA standards impact that replacement rate much).
#Lowering RfA standards (I'm assuming the model of 60%-->admin lite for 3-6 months-->Admin) may result in getting admins we ''don't'' want. There are folks who (in my opinion, obviously) should '''never''' have the bit but might scratch 60% in an RfA. If that isn't convincing then remember that with a ] promotion criteria of 75% each opposing vote is worth three support votes at the margin. At a bright-line promotion criteria of 60% each opposing vote at the margin is worth '''half''' as much, only 1.5 supporting votes. It becomes increasingly difficult to prevent promotion.
I'm not opposed to this wholeheartedly. I certainly prefer a WP:PERM style devolution of some tools ''over'' admin-lite and I strongly prefer some real check over autopromotion. But those are my thoughts. ] (]) 21:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
:I would favor something like "apprenticeship" instead, which would happen ''before'' RFA instead of after a failed RFA. The idea would be that a candidate who finds a coach and gets approval from (say) five current admins is given temporary adminship. The coach is given the power to request de-sysop, which would be done immediately with no questions asked. The candidate would have to do a proper RFA within (say) three months, or the adminship would expire. ] (]) 16:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::It's just not possible; decisions are made by ] on Misplaced Pages. That's a Foundation principle, it's been policy since Day One, and it particularly and especially applies to handing out admin tools, including the right to see deleted material. The Wikimedia lawyer has gone so far as to say that he'd ask the Board to take action if the community ever decided to let non-administrators see deleted pages, so we need to make the argument that if someone passes RFA in an "Assistantship" role, the same standards of trustworthiness and dedication are required. So there has to be something like an RFA, and we might as well do it at RFA, to let someone experiment with the tools. - Dank (]) 17:26, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

== A modest proposal ==

Can someone please concisely summarize the positions in the spiraling mess in the above sections, for those of us who havn't been engaged since minute 1? Please take several minutes to think about it, and write it with the quality and neutrality we expect of articles.--] (]) 16:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:This would be a good time for us to construct the TLDR summary. There are some questions still outstanding, but maybe we can fill them in as we go. Here are some notes, I hope people will change or fill in details:

*There's enough concern about the long-term trends involving admin work that many people are willing to try out some new things and see whether they work.
*One trial would involve spinning-off of certain userrights; many userrights have been suggested above. (Obviously we don't have a way to do this for real until we get consensus, and we're not going to get consensus until we have a successful trial. I'll volunteer my admin services to help us get past this paradox; if someone is selected by the community as a likely candidate for some userright, then I'll work with them, let them tell me what articles they want to use that userright on, and I'll push the admin button if I agree and I won't if I don't. At the end of the trial, we come back and see if the community still thinks it would be a good idea to give them that userright. If a bunch of admins volunteer to do this, we should get sufficient data.)
*Another trial, I'd suggest we try it for one month before making a more permanent decision, is to allow for a new possibility at RFA. ]) 18:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC):] If the supporters for full adminship, plus the opposers who say they're okay with "Assistantship", together constitute a consensus in the view of the closing crat, then the candidate could be promoted by the crat to "Assistantship" with full admin userrights for 3 months. Some coach would need to volunteer to answer the Assistant's questions and revert any mistakes the Assistant makes for 3 months, and approving the Assistantship would de facto approve that coach in that role. The Assistant would either come back to RFA 3 months later and pass, or lose the admin bit if they don't. (Obviously, for purposes of the trial, we need to get some kind of agreement from a steward or Arbcom that they'd be willing in principle to take the admin bit away after 3 months. Whether things actually work out that way, who knows, but as long as we can get agreement in principle, that's probably good enough to conduct the one-month trial in good faith that things will turn out as planned.) There's some talk that if the trial works out, the community will request the desysop bit for crats, for the limited purpose of desysoping Assistants after 3 months if they fail RFA or don't do RFA. Who knows what the voters will do, but the hope is that Assistantship will require the same standards of trustworthiness and dedication that we'd expect from any admin, but not the same standards of familiarity with the tools; that's what 3 months of coaching is for. - Dank (]) 17:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks. Could someone summarize the long term trends?--] (]) 17:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::Protonk did that above; it's ], ] and ]. - Dank (]) 17:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::With fairness to Hammersoft, please realize that summary of past trends don't automatically extend to future trends. You have to wade through some claims and counterclaims and see which story speaks to you if you want some idea of future paths. I could write a summary but it might be biased toward my view that enough of current trends may continue to place us in extremis in the near-distant future. ] (]) 17:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I don't think it insults Hammer or anyone else to say "There's enough concern about the long-term trends involving admin work that many people are willing to try out some new things and see whether they work." No need to claim crystal balls, the claim is that many people are concerned and feel the need to try new things and see if they help. - Dank (]) 17:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I'm just saying for purposes of a concise summary hedging is ok. If/when we write up a longer summary I am ok with asserting the consensus view above and offering some detailed qualifications. ] (]) 17:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::I think it would be helpful to get a breakdown of where admin activity is lacking, unless the contention is tat there is a general loss of admin "presence" with its attendant inefficiencies. --] (]) 17:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::Biggest backlogs are in deleting maintenance style pages like spam userpages and nonsense minor talk namespace pages as well as blocking drive by vandals. ''']''' <sup>]</sup> 18:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::Well my first contention (summarized above in the 'editing break editing break' section) is that the current trends manifest '''primarily''' in fewer admins each performing a larger share of admin tasks. Anecdotal support for this can be found by perusing the less 'emotional' XfDs (basically all X not A), SBL operations, EF operations (which isn't strictly an admin task of course) and so forth. The threat from that isn't increased backlogs but the possibility that desysopping someone like WMC a year from now could move WP from an operating equilibrium to collapse. ] (]) 18:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::So your argument, in summary would be that there is an increased concentration of overall workload onto fewer admins, and if for whatever reason one of those admins quit or was desysopped or otherwise stopped, the workload would not be spread quickly and efficiently enough?--] (]) 18:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::That's one of my arguments, yeah. ] (]) 18:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::That's part of the problem. Loss of institutional knowledge is another. In a previous life, one of my job functions involved working with the executives who oversaw the sales team, which meant a lot of focus on transition plans. We operated on the 'hit by a bus' theory; If Mr Sellsalot gets hit by a bus tonight, how do we pick up his clients where he left off? If Ms Companyboss gets hit by a bus, how do we keep the company functional until a new CEO is picked? Of no less concern is how to deal with workload balancing if/when a tragedy occurs, and particularly around heavy holiday times. At such times, more work is devolved to fewer people anyway, so each person then becomes that much more crucial to ongoing success. Which is basically the position we're in now. The solution is therefore twofold: more admins--however we do that, preferably this trainee (I prefer that over 'assistant') scheme--and a radical realignment of how RfA works. Really, RfA needs to boil down to one simple question: can this person be trusted to follow consensus as expressed via policy and guidelines? That's it. Nothing more. However, the reality of trying to turn RfA into anything less than a trial by fire (and knives and pointy sticks and small biting insects), to say nothing of even making it ''rational'', is simply impossible the way Misplaced Pages works; this site is one of the longest-running examples of the Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory (anonymity = fuckwad). The short version: people like to assume the worst, RfA is largely the only place where it's not only allowed but positively encouraged. So that's not going to change anytime soon.
::::::::What ''can'' change is how we get people ''to'' RfA. And the trainee/assistant scheme is the best way of doing that, Provisionally grant the tools for three months. At the end of those three months, demonstrate at RfA that you used them wisely, with the requirement of opposers that they must show ''abuse'' of the tools in order to oppose. And done. Hand-in-hand with this we need a desysopping system (my proposal is still twitching ]; I haven't had much time to really dig my brain into things lately) so that when someone--this has happened with RfA, it's happened everywhere on this site--games their way through this process and then becomes abusive after an RfA, the tools can be removed quickly and with a minimum of fuss.
::::::::As a side note, given the Archtransit and Pastor Theo debacles, obviously CUs should be run on coach/trainee pairs. Sorry if that ruffles feathers, but that's how it is. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;18:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)</small>
:::::::::Here Roux offers a powerful corollary to my general statement, one which I should have added in the summary. I agree almost completely. ] (]) 18:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::IMO not a good idea to force CUs on admins because 0.1% of admins happened to have problems that would have been detected by using it...If anything it would scare people off.--] (]) 18:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::I understand that people are wary to give up certain "civil liberties" (such as anonymity) for "security" (from truly rogue admins), but what is so 'scary' about being checkuser'ed? –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 22:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Does anyone have any tweaks to my rough draft of the summary on Assistantship? Has anyone heard what the WMF lawyer, ], thinks? He's probably our next stop, since he could be a stopper. - Dank (]) 18:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:Pointer to the project page, dan? ] (]) 18:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:{{ec}}Balloonman has apparently contacted Godwin. Not sure what the response, if any, has been. Bear in mind he's only needed if the viewDeleted right is included in this traineesistantjuniorgophership. If, instead, we had the devs create a userright called sysoptrainee or something, we could easily keep viewdeleted out of it (thus removing WMF's objection) while still allowing all other admin tools. →&nbsp;]&nbsp;]<small>&nbsp;18:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)</small>
::If the community clearly says "yes" and MGodwin clearly says "no" then I suppose we'd have to ask the devs to give us a version of Assistantship without the ability to do deletion work or see deleted pages. But no telling if the devs would do that. - Dank (]) 18:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::If there is community support for a new usergroup, they will make it. cf. <tt>'confirmed'</tt> which was created fairly swiftly after the discussion closed. –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 22:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Thanks, that's good to know ... but we'd still have a problem: no one has expressed any interest in a version of Assistantship that doesn't involve deletion work. - Dank (]) 22:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
*Deleting pages of temporary wikipedians is a job an adminbot can take care of very quickly, and non-controversially. Poof. Problem gone. MBisanz suggests there's a backlog of blocking drive by vandals, but there's no evidence to suggest there's a backlog there. --] (]) 19:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
*:Indeed, CAT:TEMP deletions aren't even really that imperative anyway. No space saved, etc. We used to have a CAT TEMP deletion bot, didn't we? –<font face="verdana" color="black">]</font>] 22:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

== Probationary adminship ==

I'm not sure if I buy the idea of assistant ship - it seems like a lot of work thats unreliable, so I thought I'd offer something similar but a bit simpler in conception. There are some problems with this approach, but I thought it might be worth considering.--] (]) 19:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
<blockquote>

All new admins (or admins under a certain threshold) starting (date) are considered probationary administrators. Probationary administrators have all the permissions duties and standards that full administrators have. After (x) months, they must pass a reconfirmation RfA, or a steward is asked to desysop without prejudice.
</blockquote>
*And I'll ask the same question I asked above; what problem does this solve? --] (]) 19:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:Interestingly, ] doesn't address this. What you're suggesting here is the same as the proposal that's being discussed, except that you're changing the name from Assistant to Admin, there's no mention of coaches, and the current proposal allows the RFA community to decide whether someone needs a reconfirmation or not, which seems like a reasonable time-saver to me. - Dank (]) 19:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:I'm fine with this where threshold >60% and x is between 3 and 8 months. I would prefer it be done concurrently with devolution of some rights (which I prefer over this and other 'provisional' style proposals). ] (]) 19:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:*(To Dank) ] does note the perennial proposal of a probationary period, which is what this is. --] (]) 20:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::(e/c)The absence of coaches is actually a major difference, and streamlines the ordeal rather significantly. Its also considerably more intuitive, and does not need additional bits to flip, and doesn't imply tiers of authority. Rather, it is considerably more like the difference between tenured non tenured professors rather than teachers and student teachers. (Which reminds me, a variation here is to allow repeated probationary periods) The assistant model creates a supervisor/supervisee relationship, which the extensive failure of multiple mentorships proves is not systemically reliable. (To be fair, many mentorships do succeed) Probationary adminship have a number of benefits, and also disadvantages, which I'll try to outline below:
:::'''Advantages''': Allows an opportunity for "bad apple" admins to be weeded out. If x is a sufficient number, most admins will show their warts. Additionally, some newly admins will find they really don't like having their bits, approach burn out, and will have an easy out by simply not requesting reconfirmation. These opportunities to control the admin population will also ease concerns of the community members who are always on the look out for not promoting a bad admin. This should increase the number of admin candidates, and bring along with them more good admins, which I will simply assert is good.
:::'''Disadvantages''': The probationary admin is likely to be excessively risk adverse, unwilling to step into areas where admins may well be needed, or unpopular opinions will arise. This could make newly minted tenured admins suddenly run wild with their freedom. Likewise, the known flaws in the RfA process are likely to be exacerbated if any candidate is voted on twice.
::I think this process is superior to the assistant model because it doesn't make one volunteer admin disproportionately influential or responsible for monitoring a new admin, and doesn't tier admins in their abilities.--] (]) 20:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::Further thought: I'm only lukewarmly in favor of my own proposal. I am merely trying to refine the changes that are being suggested into something more practical, in case the change is made.--] (]) 20:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I don't see those disadvantages that are listed above really being disadvantages. The trickiest areas are, almost by definition, rare. I think of things like deletion review and cases of long term abuse/bad behavior. Deletion review's workload is almost half of what it was a couple of years ago (although why this is, I have no clue). The backlogs are on things that provisional admins would have no problem tackling. As for newly minted "real admins" suddenly running wild, psychological data simply doesn't back that up. Behavior stays consistent over time. An admin who begins cautious is likely to remain cautious. Sure, there may always be "sleeper agents" but there is very little that can be done to prevent someone with truly bad intentions from screwing us later if they are behaving well at first (I'm thinking ]). ] (]) 21:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::The disadvantages that you mentioned are why provisional admins have never been encouraged, which is why there would be a coach. The coaches job would be two fold 1) to encourage the coachee to get involved in new areas and 2) to help run interference when they do mess up. If a coachee messes up they would have the safety net of having a coach to talk them through what they did and why they did it wrong. A mistake thus doesn't become the kiss of death that it would have in a simple "provisional admin" scenario... in fact, mistakes would be a chance to show growth and development.---''']''' '']'' 22:17, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This notion has been proposed ad naseum and killed every time. The coachee/coach method is a variation on this but with a few distinct differences that I hope would get this past the objections. Namely, that the person would NOT be an admin and would be supervised from the start.---''']''' '']'' 21:30, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:I think it brings way to many attendant difficulties in the coachee/coach. Hierarchies are not only bad inherently, but they're impossibly difficult to make work on a wiki of this size. Honestly, those worried about the drop off in admins may just need to go out and recruit.--] (]) 21:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::Heirarchies are inherently bad? Sounds like you must be an anarchist? Now, I know that on WP, we try not to have heirarchies, but in the real world they are what maintain order. As for making them work? I don't see much of a problem. A coach would be allowed a maximum of 2 coachees and would be partially responsible for monitoring said coachee's actions. If the coach fails in this, he won't be allowed new coachees amd removing the buttons from a trainee would be rather simple. We won't have to go through an RfC/ArbCOM/ANI, we simply make the request showing why it is necessary. (Again preferably with the coach involved, but in the case of a rogue coachee, that wouldn't be necessary.) But the coaching model also gets rid of the two step RFA confirmation process that has been criticized in previous provisional admin models.---''']''' '']'' 22:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Thats an oversatement on my part. How about "hierarchies have inherent flaws" I'm not sure if I can explain the problem with maintaing hierarchy on wikipedia adequately, but it revolves around the instability of the time, space of volunteers , and restricting/relying on the volunteer on a project like wikipedia.--] (]) 22:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::We rely on volunteers all over the place around here. The coach who accepts the responsibility is simply accepting another task. While s/he is assuming additional responsibility to be directly invovled, s/he won't be alone. If a coachee goes off the deep-end it will get the attention of others (just as an admin who makes a questionable call get the attention of others.) The coach is merely stating, I trust this user enough that I'm accepting some of the responsibility for his/her actions. Most people won't do that for strangers or people they don't trust. Similarly, if a coachee really starts to blow it, the coach will pull the plug because the actions are linked back to them! But other admins can (and will) step in if necessary. The coach is also sitting there saying that s/he will help monitor the actions to make sure they are done right.---''']''' '']'' 22:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

== A thought ==

All this seems unnecessarily complicated to me. Apparently the admin system does work to some extent since rogue admins get caught sooner or later and desysopped. Assuming that there is a shortage of admins, wouldn't it be a lot simpler if all the people proposing proposals on this page just stepped back a bit and agreed to cut that extra bit of slack for RfA candidates? So the candidate doesn't yet understand 'fair-use rationale' - explain it and assume they will. Messed up a few CSD tags, list em, explain why, and move on. If we all did that, more admins would automatically flow into the system. The proposals above make little sense because the true rogue admin will just lie low until reconfirmation (do a few routine things and avoid anything that looks hairy) while the dedicated apprentice admin will try to do something and his/her reconfirmation RfA will go down in flames ("you csd-a7 THAT page! How could you!" - that sort of thing). Not to mention that editors willing to undergo two RfAs will skew the admin population toward the masochistic set! --] <small>(])</small> 19:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:Good luck getting people to vote more sensibly. Making the selection process less democratic might have a chance, though. ] ] 19:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:Okay, can you support the proposal to break off one or more userrights and make them available by a (presumably easier) community decision at ]? Or does that have the same drawbacks for you? - Dank (]) 19:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::That makes sense to me. For example, I can think of hundreds of editors who could safely be given the right to delete pages but won't run for adminship. Ideally, for the system to work well, we really want lots of non-hard working admins. One way of achieving that is unbundling the tools and distributing rights. --] <small>(])</small> 20:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::I agree that a probationary period is not going to be terribly useful. As usual, I think the best solution is to make adminship non-permanent (I dislike reconfirmation proposals because they still generally start from the assumption that admin positions are permanent, unless removed). When a term is up, an admin can choose to stand for a new RfA or not. It sets us up for less drama when admins want to give up the tools or when they fail a subsequent RfA. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:Second Friday's comment, although I suspect for different reasons. :) The RfA process isn't all that bad; but when you have 100+ editors, each with their own distinct view, participating in a fairly high-profile discussion, it's hard to get anything that resembles consistency. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 20:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

::Just an editorial comment: at this point in the discussion, there's enough variation in what people would like that we can't, as a practical matter, get any farther with Assistantship ... it's not that there's a clear yes/no, it's the ] thing, it would fragment into too many different discussions to be able to come to resolution. If opinions come together over time, I'll say something, but at this point I'm thinking that the proposal for a trial of unbundling specific userrights is way less controversial, and won't have us fighting the Foundation attorney. - Dank (]) 20:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

==Enough with the questions already?==
Does anyone have any evidence showing that the ridiculous mountain of "optional" questions which are now asked in RfA (beyond the basic 3) actually provides us with a <u>better quality of admin</u> than before these questions were the norm? I know we can't prohibit the asking of questions (nor should we), but I'm sure it is very discouraging for many editors to see the number of questions that they will have to answer in a way that dodges traps and placates every special interest. It is one thing to identify a particular concern in an edit history and pose a question in relation to that concern, it is quite another thing to just ]. RfA is stressful enough. If it doesn't improve the quality, we should take a serious re-examination of all these questions as the individuals asking them. ] (]) 21:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

:Do you have data showing that it doesn't improve the quality? If you want to change things, don't you have the burden of proof?--] (]) 21:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::It was more an open question. I see people presenting a mountain of data above. I thought there might be something in that mountain of numbers that could be data-mined to answer my question. ] (]) 22:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::e.g.: Do admins confirmed before X date have a higher (or lower) rate of blocks/desysops/RFC/arb sanctions per month of service? ] (]) 22:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

:::I should also say that I'm not proposing a rules change per-say. I don't think it's a good idea to prohibit questions, I just think that people should, perhaps, self-censor themselves if it isn't helping things. ] (]) 22:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:The problem is, simply, people asking questions for the sake of asking them - and in particular the pseudo-science "what is your favourite pie" type rubbish. In addition this current vouge for "what policy/process/bit of Misplaced Pages is in your view broken" ''etc.'' seems to me to be exceptionally without value. If one finds, on review of a candidate, an edit or series of edits that they would like clarification on then that is exactly when a question should be asked - ''RFA is "allegedly a discussion''; Indeed it would be discourteous to oppose if their is benefit of doubt on an edit without seeking clarification. However it should be perfectly acceptable to ignore frivolous questions, or ones where the response would seem self-evident if the person asking the question looked further.
:<small>'''tl;dr'''</small> questions at RFA are a good thing. The people who ask them, however, need to think more about what value they, and the community, will derive from an answer before asking. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small>
I strongly oppose any questions that, when answered, would not provide the community with any understanding of the candidate's ability to use the admin tools that they could not get from looking at the candidate's contributions. ]] {{small|(])}} 22:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:That was exaclty what I said Timmeh - you just managed to prune it to a sensible length! <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 22:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::Being pressed for time and encountering five edit conflicts will often result in a neglect to read just-added comments and the necessity to shorten what would otherwise be long responses. I'm glad we're thinking alike on this issue, though. <b>:</b>) ]] {{small|(])}} 22:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

They actually are optional. If the question asked was completely frivilous, or did not have anything significant to do with the candidate's adminship candidacy, I would be well within my discretion as a bureaucrat to ignore opposes based on "not answering my question". --], ] 22:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:Indeed - and rightly so. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 22:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:Yes. Though I have only rarely seen candidates who explicitly refuse to answer a question on the grounds that the question is vacuous. ] (]) 22:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::We should encourage them to.--] (]) 22:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I would certainly be more inclined to vote for someone who deftly and politely refused to answer a bad question than someone who gave a pat answer. I think I have in the past (the only example I can think of is MZMbride's reconfirmation RfA or however you say his name, the guy who isn't MBainz...). ] (]) 00:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed. Echoing what the above folks have said, questions should only be asked if they pertain directly and specifically to the candidate. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 22:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::What Protonk says is true, but it's normally pretty transparent when they oppose citing really vague reasons and their question hasn't been answered. --] ] 23:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I just added ] to PEREN. This is one that comes up ever month or two...---''']''' '']'' 22:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:Some questions are relevant to the candidate, some are really using RFA as a soapbox and some are genuine tests of an admins much needed ability to respond politely to the totally bizarre. I've run twice in the last year with about a dozen questions each time, and I appreciate with even fewer candidates we are now beginning to get even more questions per RFA. But I would much rather have had someone who asks an awkward question and waits for an answer than someone who opposes without giving diffs to show they've thoroughly vetted me and found something worth opposing over. So of all the problems at RFA I think excess questions are the least of our worries. But if anyone out there is thinking of running, my advice is:
:#Go through the previous months worth of RFAs, identify the questions that you will probably be asked and make sure you already have an answer in your sandbox before you run.
:#Always reread the relevant policy before posting up an answer, especially if you think you know it and have spotted the trick in the question.
:#There is no such thing as an optional question.
:#Answer the questions in order and if you need 24 hours to answer just say so (most questions will rush in at the beginning).
:#When you are ready to transclude your RFA stop and go to bed. Reread it when you log on for a longish session, fix the time and transclude it - things are about to get busy, (I was up till 3am last time).
:'']]<span style="color:DarkOrange">Chequers''</span> 22:37, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::''shudder'' I remember when it was "no big deal". -]<sup>(])</sup> 22:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Ask ironholds about questions IMO. :p ] (]) 00:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

== Nobody's said it yet.... ==

OMG there's NOBODY running for anything right now!!!---''']''' '']'' 22:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:Quick, someone desysop me, so I can run again! Oh wait, never mind. I couldn't pass in today's climate. -]<sup>(])</sup> 22:34, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:{{tl|historical}}, anyone? ]] 22:38, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::You think ''you'd'' never pass .... <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 22:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I've never written FAs, for example. Apparently that matters now. -]<sup>(])</sup> 22:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::] - which would, incidentally, seem ripe for a refernce or two... <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 22:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
This just means I get the next week off. --], ] 22:42, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:You know Dan, someone might be reading this, and run for RFA, just to give you something to do.... <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 22:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::Steve, wasn't I suppose to nominate you at some point? My email gets a bit heavy but I could have sworn I needed to do that. Maybe we can throw the feeding frenzy a bit of Steve C. .... let's chat. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 22:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::Meh, these threads are getting old... :P –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 22:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Like me :) <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">] : ] </span></small> 22:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::This thread isn't all bad! It helped me notice a stray comma in my signature. --] ] 23:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::You only just noticed that? I've noticed it for ages.... <font face="Forte">] <sup>]</sup></font> 23:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
::::::Yeah... we weren't gonna mention it, but that's the kind of carelessness that keeps someone from getting admin rights, Desk. -]<sup>(])</sup> 23:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)<small>;)</small>
Do we really need this? It's kinda obvious no one is running at the moment... <small><span style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:1px;">] | ] </span></small> 23:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:We need to engage in irrational panic about how the end of the <s>world</s> Misplaced Pages is nigh though! ] <sup>(])</sup> 23:55, 17 September 2009 (UTC).

Why do people feel compelled to create useless joke threads like this over and over again? We get it, it's happened frequently in the past. ] <sub>(] / ])</sub> 23:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
:Eh, it's all in good spirit. Way too much discussion here is taken too seriously. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 00:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

:::To keep this page going while we wait for more RfAs, perhaps Pedro, Balloonman and Julian can simultaneously run for 'cratship. It will give us something to do in the meanwhile. ] (]) 00:21, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
::::Then maybe we'd have multiple passed RFBs in the same week, something that hasn't happened since 2007. ] (]) 00:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
:::::Interestingly, of 36 successful RfB nominations, there were two occasions where three passed on the same day. –''']'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;] 00:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
*Shall we start WP:RFS; Misplaced Pages:Requests for Scroogeship with Wisdom89 as the first nominee? ;) (all in jest Wisdom, all in jest) --] (]) 01:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
:*We already have ]. ~ <font color="#FF0099">Amory</font><font color="#555555"><small> ''(] • ] • ])''</small></font> 01:27, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Boris ask why Misplaced Pages have no ], offer himself as servant of people. ] (]) 01:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
*In soviet Misplaced Pages, RFA find you! --] (]) 01:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

No one's running? EVERYBODY PANIC!! RfA is gonna die oh noes! :O ] 02:26, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

:Given how apparently easy it was for a snake like Ecoleetage / "Pastor" Theo / Wolpoff to get adminship, maybe it should be ''more'' difficult, not less, to get there. Meanwhile, what about the reported hundreds of inactive admins? Maybe they could be contacted and asked if they could help out? ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 02:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

::Don't nominate it for ] yet! ] (]) 02:35, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

==List of editors who should be considered for adminship==
How about a list of editors that deserve consideration for possible adminship?
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*] if enough time has passed?
I hesitate to mention ], but they seemed okay to me even in light of the content issue that was raised. No need to attack me if I'm way off on any of these. My endorsement is probably a kiss of death anyway. I'm just making suggestions for discussion and consideration. Do other editors have ideas? I'm pretty self centered so I don't notice much about what other editors are up to. :) ] (]) 02:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

:Good idea CoM, though we might wish to remove editors from the list who might through modesty not wish to be mentioned. I'll have a look through the unsuccessful "nearly there" candidates from last year. ] 02:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

::I've only bumped into Drmies and Bongomatic in limited fashion but it's been positive for sure and I 100% second that Kelapstick would make a great admin after working with him in weeding out notable and non-notable minor league baseball players.--]](]<nowiki>|</nowiki>]) 02:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
:::Interesting - but just to play devils advocate... Wouldn't this type of listing just get subjected to the same comments and scrutiny as a full RFA? Wouldn't it be hard (impossible) to take someone whose name was on the list here but had a few negative comments and then have them successfully pass an RFA - it seems like people would refer to the pre-nom list comments which would strongly bias their actual RFA !votes. Similarly, if a person listed here received wide pre-nom support from well respected admins and editors wouldn't that almost hand them the mop automatically (a la an Ambassadorship handed down by the president). Not saying it's a bad idea, and we might benefit from some pre-nom discussions... just saying there are some logistics. ] 02:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
::::I'm not really suggesting we get into an in depth discussion and wouldn't want to bias the RFA itself one way or the other. I was just throwing out names for consideration that might be good to nom. I was hoping other editors might be willing to do the vetting and nomming or have other names worth looking into. For some strange reason I'm a bit controversial on the Wiki so I don't think I'm in a good position to actually nom anyone myself, unless they really like uphill battles. ] (]) 02:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
::Note: ] was only a few months ago; the RfA was succeeding, but he chose to withdraw anyway because he felt he wasn't quite ready. -- ''<B>]</B>'' <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Someother potentially-useful lists are non-admins from ]/] (inb4 content doesn't matter to adminship, yes it does), ] (participation in meta-deletion indicates interest, if not aptitude, in deletion policy), WikiProject co-ordinators (Milhist, Film in particular), clerks from ], frequent petitioners at SPI, ], ]. I'm not sure how to usefully extract candidates from recent changes/new page/vandalism patrol, but that would be another avenue. ] 03:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


== Odd patterns ==
===Recent unsuccessful candidates===
This is an arbitrary selection of unsuccessful candidates from September 2008 – February 2009 who might have a shot.
::{{user|iMatthew}}
::{{user|Sephiroth storm}}
::{{user|Mayalld}}
::<s>{{user|Until It Sleeps}}</s> <small>just ran a few weeks ago ''<B>]</B>'' <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> </small>
::<s>{{user|Itsmejudith}}</s> Not the right time, see below, but I've left a message on her talk - Dank (]) 03:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
::{{user|Ecoleetage}} (I kid, I kid)
::{{user|The ed17}}
::{{user|Suntag}}
::{{user|Undead warrior}}
::<s>{{user|Dendodge}}</s> <small>just ran a few weeks ago ''<B>]</B>'' <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> </small>
::{{user|Realist2}}
::{{user|Eastlaw}}
::{{user|Blanchardb}}
::{{user|Adolphus79}}
::{{user|Wisdom89}}
::{{user|Gtstricky}}
::{{user|Mvjs}}
::{{user|Krm500}}
::{{user|Ironholds}}
::{{user|Kww}}
::{{user|Vishnava}}
::{{user|Neurolysis}}
::{{user|Jamesontai}} - If Jameson becomes active enough to pass RfA, I'll be happy to nominate him, we worked in ] together, but he has very few recent edits. - Dank (]) 02:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
::{{user|Editorofthewiki}}
::{{user|Plasticup}}
::{{user|Synergy}}
::<s>{{user|Danielfolsom}}</s> has left the building :(
::<s>{{user|SchfiftyThree}}</s> {{tl|retired}}
::{{user|Morbidthoughts}}
:Feel free to strike the admins, inactive and recently-blocked editors from the above list, and to remove yourself if you'd prefer not to be considered. No negative comments about the above-listed editors please. ] 02:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
::Haven't really bumped into many of these. {{user|Mvjs}} has slowed down his contributing substantially. iMatthew should possibly run soon? ''']''' ('']'') 02:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
:::I just crossed out UIS and Dendodge because, while they might have a chance at RfA in the near future, now really isn't a good time, because they both ran just a few weeks ago: ] ¦ ]. -- ''<B>]</B>'' <sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub> 02:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
:I think I have a better chance than most of them. ] (]) 02:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
::Neurolysis might be worth considering again. I think it's been a while since their last effort. And I've seen good contribs from Ironholds. If someone failed in the past it means they may have made some mistakes, but if they've stuck with editing, gained experience, and stayed out of trouble I think it's worth considering them. Of course I'd be willing to give Ottava a chance too (depending on what diffs people can dig up :) So who knows. ] (]) 02:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
:::IMathew looks okay to me at first blush. Anyway, I just wanted to throw out some names and see if others had any. I think there must be qutie a few good editors who deserve a shot, even if they possess some imperfections that deem them more or less human. :) ] (]) 02:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
:{{user|Itsmejudith}} declares on her userpage an intention to run again, and is currently active. Anyone want to privately review? ] 02:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
::She had no edits before today for roughly two months, so it's the wrong time, but I'll be happy to help when she's been back for at least a month. - Dank (]) 03:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


The currently open RfA (]) has unanimous support votes (201/0/0 as of last check). I can observe that such unanimous supported RfAs are often for indviduals who have an ''exceptional'' track in copyright matters, if I remember correctly, since this area tends to be understaffed when it comes to admin capacity, as is the case with the subject of the RfA. Furthermore, for some reason, co nominations tend to be successful and self nominations tend to be unsuccessful (through means of withdrawal, ] e.g ], or ] e.g. ]). These are a few patterns that I could find at RfAs, but I do not see a reason for the latter (co noms better than self noms). ] (]) 20:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
The ones who were rejected, were booted because there was too much known about them. Presumably "Pastor" Theo got in because he was not so well known and was good at convincing everyone he was Mr. Nice Guy. Anyone who "creates drama" (code words for "speaks his mind and won't kiss up") gets a lot of negative votes, for fear they might actually do what admins are supposed to do. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 03:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
:All ill consider RfAs - i.e., someone ignoring all the guidance - are always self nominees. That alone would create a bias towards self nominations being less successful. The other reason is, perhaps, that !voters can't be bothered to review the track record of most candidates so for self noms will either tend to not !vote at all, or if they do !vote oppose, but will happily trust nominators and support. But without surveying !voters, who can say for sure. ] (]) 21:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
:Speaking of which, I was hoping you'd run again sometime Bugs, do you want any help? - Dank (]) 03:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
::I'd say that when the person is qualified and happens to self-nom, they tend to pass. Some relatively recent examples include me, Spicy, and 0xDeadbeef. ] ] 06:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
::Not interested at this time, but thanks for asking. Meanwhile, (ec) I was going to say that I feel ''more'' comfortable with flawed but reasonable "known quantities", and the one on the list I know best and would support is Neurolysis. As a practical matter, he's starting at college and most likely won't have time. Maybe that's the explanation for the hundreds of other supposed admins who don't work here anymore, but it might be worth canvassing them and finding out. ] <sup>'']''</sup> ] 03:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
:Why, self-noms are "prima facie evidence of power hunger", of course! /j ] (]) 11:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Let me put it differently: If a respected user nominated someone for RfA and that RfA ended as NOTNOW, it means that something went seriously wrong, most likely the nominator did not make proper research. Most nominators do, or at least attempt to do proper research, this is why NOTNOW RfAs tend to be self-nom. ] (]) 11:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:Nominators also serve as coaches. They often tell the candidates if and when they should run or not run, and provide other very useful advice during the process, helping to avoid common missteps. A respected nominator can also provide a boost in supports, due to folks trusting the nominator. –] <small>(])</small> 17:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 15:04, 25 December 2024

    This is not the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. To do so, please follow these instructions.
    Advice, administrator elections (AdE), requests for adminship (RfA), bureaucratship (RfB), and past request archives
    Administrators Shortcut
    Bureaucrats
    AdE/RfX participants
    History & statistics
    Useful pages
    Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
    No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)
    Current time is 13:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC). — Purge this page
    Recent RfA, RfBs, and admin elections (update)
    Candidate Type Result Date of close Tally
    S O N %
    Sennecaster RfA Successful 25 Dec 2024 230 0 0 100
    Hog Farm RfA Successful 22 Dec 2024 179 14 12 93
    Graham87 RRfA Withdrawn by candidate 20 Nov 2024 119 145 11 45
    Worm That Turned RfA Successful 18 Nov 2024 275 5 9 98
    Voorts RfA Successful 8 Nov 2024 156 15 4 91


    Archives
    Most recent
    261, 262, 263, 264, 265, 266, 267, 268, 269, 270

    This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 2 sections are present.

    Notification of RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation

    There is an RfC on seeking tools via a voluntary RfA after resignation at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Voluntary RfA after resignation. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

    Odd patterns

    The currently open RfA (Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Sennecaster) has unanimous support votes (201/0/0 as of last check). I can observe that such unanimous supported RfAs are often for indviduals who have an exceptional track in copyright matters, if I remember correctly, since this area tends to be understaffed when it comes to admin capacity, as is the case with the subject of the RfA. Furthermore, for some reason, co nominations tend to be successful and self nominations tend to be unsuccessful (through means of withdrawal, WP:NOTNOW e.g wp:Requests for adminship/ToadetteEdit, or wp:SNOW e.g. wp:Requests for adminship/Numberguy6). These are a few patterns that I could find at RfAs, but I do not see a reason for the latter (co noms better than self noms). ToadetteEdit (talk) 20:34, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

    All ill consider RfAs - i.e., someone ignoring all the guidance - are always self nominees. That alone would create a bias towards self nominations being less successful. The other reason is, perhaps, that !voters can't be bothered to review the track record of most candidates so for self noms will either tend to not !vote at all, or if they do !vote oppose, but will happily trust nominators and support. But without surveying !voters, who can say for sure. MarcGarver (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
    I'd say that when the person is qualified and happens to self-nom, they tend to pass. Some relatively recent examples include me, Spicy, and 0xDeadbeef. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 06:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Why, self-noms are "prima facie evidence of power hunger", of course! /j GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 11:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Let me put it differently: If a respected user nominated someone for RfA and that RfA ended as NOTNOW, it means that something went seriously wrong, most likely the nominator did not make proper research. Most nominators do, or at least attempt to do proper research, this is why NOTNOW RfAs tend to be self-nom. Ymblanter (talk) 11:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
    Nominators also serve as coaches. They often tell the candidates if and when they should run or not run, and provide other very useful advice during the process, helping to avoid common missteps. A respected nominator can also provide a boost in supports, due to folks trusting the nominator. –Novem Linguae (talk) 17:37, 23 December 2024 (UTC)