Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC: Difference between revisions

Please note: Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC#Discussion is the place for discussing the pros and cons and other issues about the proposal itself. Talk here is mainly about formatting the discussion page.

"IT IS EXPECTED TO BECOME A LIVE RfC ON OR ABOUT 30th January 2010." Is it late? --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is late as the proposal remains under discussion. I will change the date. Ben MacDui 14:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this page was copy & paste moved, shortly after I made a number of suggested changes accompanied by detailed explanation ([1],[2],[3],[4],[5]), but immediately after all of my changes were reverted: [6]. This sort of problem is why I was so concerned about the format of the poll, and explicitly raised this matter earlier: Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC#suggested RfC polling page. I hoped that we were on the same figurative page there. I'll try to hit the high points again.

The introduction. I use 'introduction' here to describe the block of text which heads the page. This is the first thing that people will see when they come to the poll. It should be as neutral, unambiguous, and unbaised as we can possibly achieve. It is also something that we should be able achieve a consensus on before the vote goes live — which probably means it needs to be short and to the point. (Just the facts, ma'am.) Since Tryptofish won't let any edits I make stand, I'll give you some text here.

This poll concerns a proposal to implement a new mechanism for removing administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

You can read the proposed new policy at Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship.

The outcome of this poll will determine whether or not this proposal becomes Wikipedia policy. The polling period begins at time and date and ends time and date plus 30 days.

It's short, it's to the point, it explains the purpose of the page, it provides an unpiped link directly to the proposal being voted on.

The FAQ. The FAQ is written by editors who strongly endorse CDA. That's fine; they should have the opportunity to present their arguments in favor of the process. I see no problem with presenting those arguments in the 'Discussion' section of the poll however and wherever the proposal's proponents feel is suitable. However, the FAQ does not belong in the introduction. That implies a degree of broad acceptance of the FAQ's structure and conclusions which isn't justified. The entire first page of the 'Discussion' will apparently be a presentation of the pro-CDA viewpoint; the introduction should be neutral. When I edited the poll page, I moved the link to the FAQ into the 'See also' right under the 'Background' header. If the proponents prefer to put it somewhere else in the 'Discussion', that's good too.

The nutshell. The nutshell is unnecessary. The introduction is already brief and to the point, and explains clearly what the poll is about; there's no need to add in a two-sentence summary of the preceding four-sentence section. The subsequent content of the 'discussion' section gives the proposal's proponents ample time and space to fully elaborate on what they see as the merits and justification of the proposed process. In any event, the nutshell here adds to confusion instead of removing it. It draws a potentially confusing parallel between the term 'Admin Recall' (which has historically been used on Wikipedia to refer to a series of individually-established, voluntary criteria and processes) and CDA, which is this new, compulsory, proposed process. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Since Tryptofish won't let..." Oh, my. Please see what I said at User talk:Tryptofish#RfC format. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This poll isn't a private document, to be prepared by the proponents of the proposal only. You're attempting to conduct a scrupulously neutral, unbiased, inclusive, open poll of as much of the Wikipedia community as possible. There is a moral obligation that the introduction to this poll – describing its purpose and parameters, nothing more – be as fair, unambiguous, and unslanted as we can possibly make it. You'll notice that I haven't objected to the poll Discussion section opening with as many arguments and justfications as you wish, but the intro text, above the fold, should be utterly above reproach or criticism. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closure. The current text reads "When the debate here is concluded, it will be closed in the usual way.". What does that mean? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. Ben MacDui 10:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended the second sentence per your suggestion. I agree about the nutshell in that it has been largely superceded by the revised introduction. However I don't think it is doing any real harm. I'm not sure about the FAQ - I think it would get lost if placed lower down and the caveat is pretty clear. It is hard to imagine that counter-arguments are not going to be offered prominently on the RfC page itself when the discussion gets going. Ben MacDui 11:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My view of 'nutshell' statements and the nutshell template is that they should only be used to provide short, consensus-guided summaries of pages (usually policies and guidelines). In this case, that purpose is served by the introductory material in the header section. I am, however, concerned by both the header and the nutshell wording about the purpose of this page; I'll comment further on that in the next section, since that seems to be where it's going. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer see much purpose for the nutshell. I was retaining it previously only because I had understood MacDui to tell me that he wanted, at that time, to retain the contents of what is now that section of the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion could be publicized in the following locations:

1. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator Done Jusdafax 10:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
2. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall Done Jusdafax 09:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard Done Jusdafax 01:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
4. Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard Done Jusdafax 01:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
5. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions Done Lyc. cooperi (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
6. WP:CENT Done (Don't know by whom or when)
7. Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
8. Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Done Jusdafax 02:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
9. Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship Done Jusdafax 02:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
10. Individually to all editors who have participated in the process.(!)
11. User talk:Jimbo Wales Done Jusdafax 01:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also: To my surprise a notification regarding this RfC has has gone up on the watchlist page! I cannot claim any direct credit for this huge blast of publicity. Jusdafax 09:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was I who did the watchlist notice, the CENT listing, and Village Pump Proposals. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having to revert these while writing out an rfc/u. Cannot we sit down and talk about this? It is madness. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madness it is, but as the number of individuals both awake and watching these pages is probably very small, (for reasons I imagine are obvious) and some may actively oppose the whole concept I am not sure how any kind of well developed "consensus" can be contrived unless a whole new cadre of individuals, (with of course a whole new set of suggestions and tweaks) appears. Furthermore adding "needs to be discussed" to items that, in my opinion have been discussed to death and without any positive suggestion, is pretty pointless. However, rather engaging in a childish series of reverts here is my suggestion. I propose that this RfC goes live today, using this version by Tryptofish at 16:30, 6 February 2010, plus the capitalised "Please do not amend during the RFC per this edit or similar. To repeat what I have said several times already, I personally have no interest in further long discussions. It is the consensus of the community regarding the principle that will make the difference, not whether the handful of editors involved can (ever) agree on the precise wording required. Ben MacDui 14:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understood your "weariness" MAcDui, and these things have not been "discussed to death" imo at all. Changing tack from honing the proposal to floating the idea to the community is not one I agree with. It is neither fish nor foul. I'm simply into discussing more - and people are discussing matters. I'm giving all the time to CDA that I have. People like TenOfUs and Hammersoft, though still highly critical, are engaging more now. Why not stick with it? So often I've seen things prematurely pushed out fail dismally on Wikipedia. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to say this briefly. I agree with MacDui. I also think that, no matter how much longer we continue to discuss this, Matt will always have one more issue that just has to be discussed before starting the RfC, and the RfC will never start. But I will refrain from edit warring over this. I am just going to step back and see what happens. I remain confident that the community, as a whole, would like to see this proposal brought forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that you have no evidence for saying that I'm always going to have "one more extra thing". I did try and address a new problem with a new idea recently (more - as promised - later), but all the issues I've personally been working on have been there for a while. Things have been cropping up, no-one can really deny that. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go live, I want to know why it is that the link to the FAQ, written by and for the proposal's proponents, shouldn't go with the rest of their arguments in favor of the proposal. Tryptofish had resisted any attempt to move it to the 'Discussion' section, but I'd like to hear from someone else on the matter. The header on this page is for neutral, factual information about the format and specifications of the voting process; it shouldn't be part of the campaigning either direction.

(edit conflict) This is one of the many things that I don't feel strongly about. If you think it would be better positioned after "Closure" and above "Poll" that' is fine by me. Ben MacDui 15:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As well, there hasn't been any sound answer to the question of how a decision is made upon closure of this RfC. Ben MacDui referred me above to Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs, but that doesn't actually contain any information about making a decision. (Probably because RfC isn't usually used as a method for carrying out a vote.) That link simply notes the standard timelines for the RfC bot. How is this vote going to be closed? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm assuming you mean "what happens when the discussion is closed". The !votes would be counted and as per the previous three stages a short summary arrived at. There are several possible outcomes, the simplest of which are either <50% support or overwhelming support. In the former case the process is closed with no further action. In the latter, the proposal would then go to the 'crats and Jimmy Wales for review. One imagines in such a case they would review it with a view to implementing it, but who can say for sure? If, as is quite probable there is some unclarity in the outcome - a very small majority in favour, an apparent majority in favour of the general principle but with significant numbers only offering support subject to some change to the wording or numbers etc., then it gets more complicated. A discussion would no doubt ensue with those in support arguing for a way to move onto the next stage. In such a circumstance it is clear that the weaker the support the less likely that the review would be favourable. Hope that is helpful. Ben MacDui 15:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC) PS This is just a personal opinion but in my view unless there is a clear majority in favour (without caveats) I can't see it being implemented.[reply]

We'll deal with a few things (inc the FAQ), don't worry. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose the idea to start now, not so much due to proposal issues but because the format of this page hasn't really been vetted by a broader community or seen a significant number of eyes, or been widely linked (4 incoming links at this time seems awfully low). Christopher Parham (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher the wording has been on display both here and at WP:CDADR in a slightly earlier form since late November. I have no idea how many people have actually looked at it but it would have been available to all those who participated at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC/Archive 1 and after. What is it in practical terms, that you think needs to be done? Ben MacDui 16:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I think Christopher Parham may be concerned about the format of the poll page, rather than the format of the CDA proposal itself — is that correct? The format and structure of the poll were only revisited fairly recently on one of the myriad talk pages. Moreover, there seems to be quite a bit of confusion about the purpose of this poll, even now. Is this meant to be a proper vote on whether or not to accept this policy proposal, or is this just another request for comment that happens to contain a straw poll section?

That is my assumption too, and my comments stand. Ben MacDui 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also still the issue of what happens should this proposal manage to garner a middling level of support (45 - 65%) instead of the clear consensus which is usually required to make policy on Wikipedia. Finally, there is the question of what happens after the vote, if the proponents feel that they can generate an 'acceptable' proposal after a failure in the vote. Do we vote again? At this point, there's been more than four months of discussion to generate a document that is substantially identical to the one put forward by Uncle G in early October last year. How much more work is necessary, and how many bites at the apples will be required? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only agree about the last point. As to the first, if I knew what the result was going to be I would tell you what I think should happen next. As I said above anything less than 50% means the process ends. My view is that anything much less than 65% would make it hard to argue that taking it forward was useful, but there may be all kinds of complications. Re an " 'acceptable' proposal after a failure in the vote" what I mean is if 40% say yes, 40% say yes, but with a change of wording - (say) the closure wording from RfA only, and 20% say no. That is an overwhelming yes but with a caveat that would have to be discussed and worked on. Ben MacDui 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the major contributors to preparing this proposal (the CDA/Rfc) are in disagreement (as is currently the case), it wouldn't be the best course of action (IMHO) to present the proposal to the community, at this time. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, actually, and I'm going to try to step back and get out of the way for a while. But there is something more needed, beyond what GoodDay just said: editors who want to see a successful proposal need to step up and make it happen, not simply wait for others to do it for them. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The meta-discussion is about the value of an essentially elitist system of perhaps over-worked but informed and trusted individuals (ArbCom) versus a populist system that could work more quickly and deal with a wider range of issues. These are complex issues but at present the evidence of this process is beginning to suggest that the latter is too deeply mired in what some of my friends might call performative contradiction to be effective. Ben MacDui 19:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not perfoming a CDA, we are still developing it. WP:CONSENSUS is how Wikipedia moves forward, and that will apply for CDA in practice, and also of course for it's development. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat: editors who want to see a successful proposal need to step up and make it happen, not simply wait for others to do it for them. It's not enough to have the same small group re-discussing the same things over and over. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page, which currently only documents the reverted attempt to start an RfC on Cda in early February 2010, should be archived on the grounds that is both confusing to first time visitors, and obsolete. Start the talk page fresh! It is useful for historical value, however, and an archive link should be available at the top of the page. I hesitate to do so myself, for a number of reasons. Jusdafax 23:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me draw attention to the Discussion section that is on the poll page itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No dispute from me to your replacing the content if you feel its still of value, although I do think most of it has been obviated by events (specifically the RFC actually beginning). I do think the publicity checklist should be given some prominence so the boxes get ticked off as soon as possible. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for that. I felt a little badly about reverting you that way, but things were happening awfully fast. In any case, I would encourage anyone who wishes, to make use of the discussion section on the main page. Prior to starting this, there was a lot of discussion between me and TenOfAllTrades, who felt strongly that the discussion should be formatted that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've already asked Tryptofish about this. Why are people starting their voting posts with support, oppose & neutral? Your votes are already in their 'Support', 'Oppose' & 'Neutral' sections, thus no need to put it in your posts. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just did it out of habit...it does make it easier to see it in bold if you are quickly scrolling through a large page of votes quickly. And sometimes people use it to add emphasis, like strongly oppose. It's not a problem, surely? ^OohBunnies!...speak 00:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose not, as the numberings are there. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This trend can be observed in almost every !vote ever held on Wikipedia. Good luck in trying to eradicate it! AGK 01:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It's such a well-written page that will get you up to speed" — Someone should re-word the ombox, which doesn't lend much credence to anything being well-written at all. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. What an awkward sentence, garbled and foolishly self-congratulatory at the same time. I'd change it myself, but I'm too close to this. Jusdafax 05:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish has removed it, which is surely for the best. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was utterly ridiculous. --Tryptofish (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit [7] noted on the poll page, under "Expression of concern". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Now that Cda has opened in RfC, I have taken the liberty of notifying various pages, per the 'Publicity' list, for sake of a job well done. (I am co-operating despite strong reservations I have expressed elsewhere.) I have checked off the pages I've notified, but work remains to be completed. I used the most neutral wording I could, though I did mention the original 'Uncle G version' at least twice, on the Jimbo page and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Further publicity work is needed including notifying those individual editors who have worked or voted on the Cda or Admin Project. That's a lot of notifications.

• Also, I would like once again to ask for archiving of the obsolete and stale material on this page. It is confusing, in my view, to first time visitors, and just isn't needed here. Keep the new stuff and the 'Publicity' section, as was done earlier today. It's just common sense.

• Finally, I see at least one (not unexpected) Bureaucrat has come out against Cda in the !vote, and another is neutral. I have said since my very first Cda !vote for what was then 'Option 4' that if the 'crats were to line up against this, that I would have grave doubts indeed about my support, and in fact I have yet to !vote myself. If four or five more 'crats take a hard line on Cda then in my view the effort is toast. A close watch will have to be kept on how they !vote, or don't. Not all 'crats identify themselves as such, as in the case of the one that voted 'neutral'. Jusdafax 07:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jusda, about your second bullet point: During the time that you were not watching the discussion closely, there was an extended discussion between me and TenOfAllTrades, who feels very strongly that there needs to be the discussion section on the poll page itself, above the poll. I have been supporting him on that, in the spirit of fair play. That being the case, I think that it could be a mess to have two discussions, one there and one here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason not to add a tally (manually-updated or automatic) to the top of the the Poll section?--~TPW (trade passing words?) TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft 13:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be a 'request for comment' (at least to some degree). We shouldn't put undue stress on the running vote tally imo. People should be really encouraged to read the actual requested comments before voting (rather than just the pre-written stuff). Matt Lewis (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of pre-written blurb, I've ammended the so-called "FAQ" to include the Criticisms section, which should never have been deleted in the first place. It's less of a manifesto now. I've also made it clear that it wasn't just written by supporters (a problematic fix I'm afraid ever since I changed my opinion on the viability of CDA). Matt Lewis (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough - I guess I get thrown when I see voting, no matter what you call it.--~TPW (trade passing words?) TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft 20:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious: what percentage of the supporters and what percentage of the opposers are admins? I'm too lazy to do the research myself, but I'd love to know the answer.--Father Goose (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I checked about this time yesterday about 27% of those supporting were admins, and about 52% of those opposing were admins. Surprised? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just curious; how are you ascertaining how many are administrators? By hand? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the precentages are irrelevant. Only sockpuppets are barred from the polling. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Especially since it doesn't sound like there's consensus even among non-admins. Though no doubt if a majority of non-admins !vote support, it will be trumpeted by the bitter-enders.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the percentages are entirely relevant. Administrators don't have more of a vote than a regular editor, but seeing how administrators as a body have voted on this compared to the regular editor pool is interesting. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Hammersoft: I have a script enabled that shows whether someone's an admin or not when you hover over their sig. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, does it tell you edit count too? :) Where's the script? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, it does show edit count too. Just add importScript('User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js'); //Admin detector to whatever skin you're using. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious too, but I also think it a mistake to oversimplify how any group of users, whether administrators or "bitter-enders", are motivated. This poll and discussion page will be open for a month. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to see whether there is a relationship between tenure and how people voted and whether that explains any of the relationship between adminship and voting patterns. I suspect that has quite a bit to do with it. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that users with a longer amount of experience might see things differently than inexperienced users do? Yes, that is interesting. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it's an experience issue so much as a matter of when people were first inculcated in the project's values, given how those values might have changed over time. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that such an assessment shouldn't be used to oversimplify the matter. Mostly I'm curious to find out how many admins have the balls to make themselves directly accountable to the community, for better or worse. All the opposes on the basis of "gaming" or "admins will lose the ability to be rouge handle unpopular tasks" mean nothing to me. There are established ways to deal with gaming and with the barrier to deadminning set so high, I suspect the community at large will be able to distinguish between an admin doing his or her job and one using the tools and privileges to impose their views. If your actions can't withstand community scrutiny, turn in your keys. Being an admin is about being trusted, not about being privileged. IMO.--Father Goose (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was so well said! Thank you for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a script on the toolserver [8]. Nakon 18:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Nakon! Is that auto-updating? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the script updates on each page load. Nakon 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks indeed. It would appear that currently 54% of non-admins !votes support (although that drops to 49% if you include the neutrals in the denominator). -- Bfigura ^(talk) 19:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it admins voting against the proposal, or experience?

These numbers are based on the state of the vote at this point in history.

While some editors have suggested (sometimes thoughtfully, often with derision) that this proposal is being killed by administrators who are afraid of the process, there may be alternative – and more benign! – interpretations of the data. Nakon has put together a neat little script that pulls out the number of contributions of each voter, their dates of registration, and their admin status. While it is true that a majority of administrators are voting against this proposal, that isn't the only group which is doing so. Using Nakon's tool, one also observes that the average opposer has made four thousand more edits than the average supporter. The average opposer has almost exactly 1 year more Wikipedia experience (27 months vs. 15.5 months.)

Of course, averages can be skewed by the 'long tail' distribution of Wikipedia editors. A few high-edit-count Hugglers could easily skew either average a thousand edits one way or the other. The pattern is even starker if one looks at quartiles or medians, however. The median edit count among supporters is 8032; among opposers it is 14626 — more than 80% greater. (The first-quartile boundary, meanwhile, is at 2922 for supporters and 6024 for opposers.)

At the moment,

• the raw support percentage (223 voters, disregarding neutrals) for the proposal is 46.2%;
• among editors with more than 1000 edits (197 voters), the support for the proposal is 44.2%;
• among editors with more than 2000 edits (186 voters), the support for the proposal is 43.5%;
• among editors with more than 5000 edits (160 voters), the support for the proposal is 41.3%;
• among editors with more than 10000 edits (120 voters), the support for the proposal is 35.8%.

In other words, increasing editing experience correlates quite strongly with opposition to this proposal. Is there an overlap between 'editors with lots of experience' and 'editors with admin privileges'? Certainly — the community is more inclined to trust with the tools experienced editors with a long history of contributions. Does the fact that the community has vetted these experienced editors and found them likely to be trustworthy constitute a reason to disregard or denigrate their opinions on this proposal? That seems nonsensical. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nakon's tool lists the average supporter as having registered on 26 Dec 2006 and the average opposer as 15 Aug 2006, a difference of only 4 1/3 months. The difference in edit count is also not that large; those 4000 edits you speak of are only 21% higher (22542 vs. 18669), and editcountitis suggests that a difference that small is going to tell us nothing about experience. To be honest, the small difference between the two groups is not what I expected -- I'd expect much more inexperience amongst those supporting the proposal, especially given the high admin (=experience) count amongst the opposers. But the two groups are pretty close, experience-wise.

I can't claim to be surprised that far more admins are voting against it than for it. Who would be willing to risk losing the extra power and influence that comes with the tools and status? One has to expect most admins to be motivated by self-interest in this regard. Principles or rationales may come into play as well, but the role of simple self-interest is unavoidable.--Father Goose (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it self-interest on behalf of admins, or self-interest on behalf of non-admins, who are eager for an additional cudgel with which to threaten adminstrators enforcing policy? Perhaps we should only solicit the opinions of individuals not affiliated with Wikipedia whatsoever? =) Christopher Parham (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators enforcing policy have nothing to be concerned about. The ones who ought to be concerned are those who invent their own policies to suit their personal preferences and prejudices, or who behave as if the policies they enforce don't apply to them. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to see what the same analysis would look like if it were run on all supporters and opposers excluding admins. Would the "experience trend" be even more evident?--Father Goose (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be wary when equating "elapsed time in the project" with "experience". Also, consider the possibility that those who have been at Wikipedia longer are more used to the way things are run, and are therefore more resistant to change. This seems to be the case with most oppose votes that boil down to "ArbCom is good enough." ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 06:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that no metric can reliably indicate experience, although I do feel time-on-project means more than edit counts. I've spent 1000s of hours on the project -- something my edit count doesn't reveal. A lot of experience comes from observing, not from editing -- and a very narrow kind of experience comes from the kind of fast-twitch editing that is required to achieve edit counts well above 10,000.--Father Goose (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• To respond to an earlier request, excluding admins voting, >1000 edits 59% support, >2000 58%, >5000 60%, >10000 60%. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the answer to the question "is it admins voting against the proposal, or experience", the answer is admins? ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Speaking as someone who has had only positive experiences with admins (and who notes that none of the administrators he has has any contact with have had the time or the inclination to weigh in here): I'm not surprised in the least. J.M. Archer (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's obvious that many admins have voted on this issue, since it directly concerns them. Admins represent 852/121,930, or roughly 1% of active users. Can we now weight the !votes here accordingly? In other words, take Hammersoft's calculated ~59% support from non-admins, multiply that by 99% to get ~59%, and add that to the (?)% support from non-admins, multiplied by 1%. You end up with ~59% support for the proposal. I'm not trying to diminish the value of any admin's vote here, it's just that a MUCH higher percentage of that interest group has voted on this issue, while only a minuscule percentage of the non-admin interest group has chosen to vote. Simply counting the !votes reflects a biased response. I'm not proposing that this RfC be closed by using the weighted votes calculation...I just want to provoke thought (hopefully not drama) on the matter. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on not provoking drama. I'll say again that I hope we don't get ahead of ourselves in counting !votes before the !voting is over. What does matter here is consensus, and I think BFizz's observation is best taken in that context. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't have said it better myself. My observation wasn't intended to grind figures from !votes, but rather, to illustrate a point. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 02:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point comprehensively missed by these thoughts is that admins are generally a large proportion (often a majority) in any major policy discussion. By definition, admins are experienced and committed editors, interested in more than just content editing. How many of the "active users" is that true for? (And how many of the non-admins it's true for would never pass RFA, being unsuited for it?) Bottom line, admins are not a random sample of active users; and they've all gained adminship with the approval of the community and ultimately retain it at the pleasure of the community (via the elected Arbcom). CDA would not change that, it would just introduce a mob element, and ultimately would fundamentally change the nature of adminship from Janitor/Cop to Elected Politician. Such a change would be highly undesirable. Rd232 ^talk 11:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should remove the "mob element" from all policy discussions, RfAd, etc? Or do you only trust the rest of us when we give you power, not when we say "Enough! Thank you and goodbye"? DuncanHill (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mob element in WP:Consensus doesn't matter so much for general policy issues, because policy can fluctuate on occasion without long term harm; even high drama basically blows over. That's not true of attempted or actual desysopping, in terms of the effect on the individuals affected, or the example set for others who don't want to go through the same experience. Processes of justice should be grounded on impartiality (WP:INVOLVED ring any bells?), which electoral processes do not offer. If the spirit of WP:INVOLVED could be enforced on all participants in CDA, most of the issues would fade away. It can't, and they don't. Rd232 ^talk 22:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship is said by some to be no big deal (not something I've ever believed). If it truly were no big deal (which I do think would be a good thing), we wouldn't see anything like so many admins objecting to the community having the ability to say "That's it" to them. As for "processes of justice" it is well established that Wikipedia is not fair and doesn't do due process or anything like that (I think it should, and I do honestly believe that those who first formulated the ideas that WP "doesn't do fair" were idiots with no conception of how humans interact in a large community). Special protection for those with the power at the expense of those without it just increases the comtempt that many feel for the admin corps. This proposal strikes me as a welcome move to a fairer Wikipedia - and that will in the medium to long term reduce conflict and drama, and as I said in my support will also increase the trust and respect that admins enjoy. DuncanHill (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, several admins who oppose this plan are against this particular plan, not all plans.
Second, maybe the proponents can try to clear something up for me. Is this a plan to allow the community to get rid of bad admins, or is it aimed at all admins? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, only bad ones. Although I do not deny that there are, as always, some users with agendas, I think that answer is obvious. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen from the development of the admin recall process so far, is that it's for admins who have systemically abused their power. For your evidence, please see one of the guiding graphics which has often been used to explain why a CDA might be useful: Five Problems with a Single Solution. Also, from this proposal's FAQ: "The community appoints Administrators through the WP:RfA process. Many feel the community should also be able to recall Administrators that have lost its trust. Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) can and do de-sysop Administrators on a regular basis. However, the procedures are often lengthy and cumbersome, and ArbCom seems to some people less willing to take on cases where there is a perceived loss of community trust, rather than cases that show a specific "bright line" abuse of Administrator tools." --Lyc. cooperi (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one here is saying that admins do not deserve to be able to vote, or that admin votes shouldn't count in policy. However, I think I agree with B Fizz in saying that I think it is prudent, for the purposes of this proposal, to consider that administrators may be faced with a natural conflict of interest when voting on this particular proposal. That doesn't mean their vote should not count; but I think it is important to analyze the votes at the end of the vote period with the number of admin voters in mind. If we find, like at the time of Hammersoft and B Fizz's count, a disproportionately high number of voters are administrators, and that when administrative votes are applied they swing the vote on the proposal from positive to negative, then that is something that, if we are being rational, we should consider. We should consider what that says.

Even if we accept the premises that wikipedia policy should be decided by more active, experienced editors, and administrators are among the most active editors, they could not possibly constitute the majority of, say, the top 20,000 editors, who have all surely contributed much. The admins may have the best, most innocent intentions, at heart, and no instinct of self-preservation or self-interest at all when voting here. That may be true. But I just can't know. There's no way for me, or anyone, to know. That's why conflicts of interest are a problem. Conflicts of Interest are a problem in every community, even a community as rational as the scientific community has to deal with conflicts of interest (a popular example being the funding of pharmaceutical studies and journals by pharmaceutical companies). Likewise, it is important for the credibility of this vote for the decision to be made by a more representative sample of the Wikipedian community. --Lyc. cooperi (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. On the flip side, we have no way of knowing how many support votes are down to editors wanting something they can use as a weapon for revenge and intimidation in relation to their personal battles, regardless of the proposal's merit for Wikipedia as a whole. In other words, if you want to talk about selection bias (many admins !voting here), you might also consider the vast silent majority who aren't asking for an additional process like this. Yes, additional. There's absolutely nothing to stop people implementing the substance of CDA through existing processes right now, via 10 disgruntled editors launching an RFC and on the basis of that RFC making an Arbcom motion request for desysopping. Do that and line up a few unreasonably denied Arbcom desysop motions, and you'd have a stronger case for saying Arbcom isn't enough. PS Arbcom is elected by the community and bases decisions on policy+community evidence, so defining it as not being a "community process" is arbitrary. Rd232 ^talk 10:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the way in which CDA was morphed by a handful of editors from one of many options at the Admin Recall RFC to the only option reminds me of a quote from Yes Minister: "it's a well-known fallacy... something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done!" And illustrates perfectly how a small number of editors can set an agenda - which ought to be a cautionary tale. Rd232 ^talk 10:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, morphed in some mysterious way! Perhaps we now have the angry mob cabal? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current watchlist notification states that A poll is being conducted on whether to implement community recall of administrators as a policy. You are invited to join the discussion. However, much opposition to the idea expressed in the discussion is based on how CDA is proposed to be implemented, not whether it should be formally implemented. These seem to be two distinct concepts that should be considered separately, rather than lumping the whether and the how together. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 23:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I maybe don't understand what you mean. Do you mean that we should be discussing alternative versions of the proposal? That's what we've been doing for the last several months. I don't know how we could alter this poll to consider alternatives in a way that editors would find acceptable. On the other hand, are you raising a question of whether this proposal, if implemented, would be enforcible? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. You bring up a valid point that I don't think has been thought of. The simple obviousness of it is blinding. In short, you ask if people should be asked if they want some form of Cda aside from this one... and I'd have to say yes, I agree, and no one thought to ask that simple question. Bravo. As to what to do about it I'm not sure. I'd be tempted to add it as a separate question, but we are a couple days in and I suspect some folks might beef about it. Hmmm. Jusdafax 00:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. If that's the case, at least it's appropriate to look closely at oppose and neutral comments, and compile the mentions of preferred alternatives. I would point out that we already polled last fall on whether to support the status quo, as one of the multiple options from which the original Uncle G version was picked. The status quo was overwhelmingly rejected. The hard part, obviously, is that it's easy to say one is unsatisfied with the status quo but difficult to create a concrete alternative that does not elicit concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us a link to that conversation? ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 21:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall#Opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 23:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem word is "whether". Maybe change it to:

A poll is being conducted on whether to implement an administrator recall policy. You are invited to join the discussion.

Since it's a vote on a particular policy at this point, rather than a discussion of whether a policy is needed.--SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If you asked the question of whether to implement that, you'd get just as muddled a picture as you claim there is. However, instead you'd get people saying "Well, it might be a good idea. But, I'd have to see a proposal first before I could say yea or nay". Chicken or egg, egg or chicken? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted elsewhere in the discussion, anyone who came in late wasn't really able to participate meaningfully without reading for many hours, and so we didn't help mold this particular option. I think there are probably good ideas for dead-minship (if you put the hyphen there, does it change the meaning?), but this one just isn't it for me. I'd much rather see terms - not limit, but admins having to spend a week having the community decide if they still want them. I don't understand the argument that it would be too difficult to implement. Sure there would be a lot of admins on the list, but if the community doesn't participate we can either have a relist option (as in XfD) or simply close it as support (as in, "supported unless proven unsupported"). You can be darned sure that controversial admins would not be ignored, it would not start "ten in the hole" or only be when somebody screwed up, and ArbCom could continue to get rid of the really bad ones. That's what I would vote for in a heartbeat.--~TPW stands for ^{(trade passing words?)} or _{Transparent Proof of Words} 13:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Reconfirmation proposals have been shot down every single time they've been proposed (which is a large, large number of times). There's a rather long laundry list of why this would be a bad idea. Wikipedia:PEREN#Reconfirm_administrators scrapes at the tip of the iceberg. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen comments elsewhere that about 5% of admins are trouble and the majority are fine. If so, reconfirmation is a waste of time, and de-sysop of the problem admins would be more efficient and a clear indicator of what the community regarded as bad behaviour by admins. --Philcha (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who on earth says "95% of admin are fine" though? Those madness-inducing lifetime awards, combined with no taste at all on Wikipedia to tell admin off for anything less than the most serious indiscretions (repeatedly swearing at concerned arbcom members on a case page etc), has lead to 'bully culture' that a lot more that 5% of admin have fallen into. Many of those people sould not be admin, but others could be better if they simply did not have that level of 'power' given to them.

The biggest crime is admin routinely coming to the defence of other admin by slandering the critical editor. It is impossible to criticise an admins behaviour without putting yourself in danger. The reasons for the criticisms are then overshadowed by "what other admin think". Favours due, favours made, emotionalism, POV-assisting, revenge - it's all there. Many are human weaknesses, and admim are more human than your average people in authority, as we know nothing about them when they enter our lives. I'm suspicious of anyone who wants to be a Wikipedia admin, as the rewards (if someone wants to misuse them) are just so great. The way so many admin behave is simply against the spirit of Wikipedia, and is just plain dodgy. There are no clear rules on how admin really should behave. No court of Justice in the developed world would lawfully ignore someone's 'case' if the accused had enough friends, but Wikipedia is primitive and corrupt and does it all the time. If you have anything in your block log it is doubly pointless criticising an admin. And can tarnish your block log far too easily. It's the Dark Ages in 2010. ASSUME GOOD FAITH (crack) ASSUME GOOD FAITH (crack) ASSUME GOOD FAITH (crack) ASSUME GOOD FAITH (crack). Matt Lewis (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The biggest crime? That's the biggest problem? How does CDA solve that problem? Speaking anecdotally, I've been blocked just once. The once happened when User:William M. Connolley blocked me after I had made a request for assistance at the edit warring noticeboard. I was highly upset about his decision to block me, and the block was overturned 16 minutes later. The blocking administrator has since been forcibly de-sysoped for an unrelated incident. That's the only time I've been blocked, or even threatened with a block. Yet, I routinely take administrators to task. The suppositions in your post here depend on our acceptance that the times when administrators come to the aid of administrators against a complaining user are (at least often) cases where the administrators are clearly in the wrong. I don't see evidence of that, and my own experiences fighting against administrators acting poorly tells me it isn't the case. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I'm talking about cases where admin are in the wrong! I'd hardly be complaining about admin coming to the aid of people who are clearly in the right, would I?

You know I don't support CDA, so why are you asking me why I think CDA solves the problem? Is that your "Certified Idiocy" again? As I've said to you on my talk page and elsewhere, I stopped supporting the idea of CDA because there is no way for it to address the problem of general admin behaviour. Their consistent (and nearly always unchallengeable) poor behaviour will make CDA a nightmare in practice.

OK - if you 'routinely' bring admin to task Hammersoft, what results do you get? Matt Lewis (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He just told you, he got blocked. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how you choose to see it, so be it. It's not all of what I said, but each to their own. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless "routinely" = "one time", then that is an incorrect characterization. Please see, "That's the only time I've been blocked, or even threatened with a block". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So far there's only been one comment in response to my suggested solution to the lack of consensus of the current proposal: user:B Fizz/Admin for X years. Please look at it and give your feedback, thanks. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 02:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It sounds like a good idea. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'd give any process a whirl that makes admins directly accountable to the community. Though re-running would in effect make it so that only 20%-30% opposition would be needed to end an admin's tenure. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but it is more harsh than the current CDA proposal as a result.--Father Goose (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Different name, same logistical nightmare. It's still a rehash of admin reconfirmation, and as such still impossible to enact because the logistics of it are such that RfA (or whatever page this gets shunted off to) would end up being utterly useless for any purpose, including reconfirmation. Also, this proposal (and others like it) equate beat-cops to Congressmen, a wholly inappropriate comparison. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 04:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeske, did you even read my proposal? It discusses the flaw in the "logistical nightmare" argument, and recommends that we begin test-driving the idea of fixed terms for Admins by first allowing volunteer Admins to opt-into the restriction. As for "equating beat-cops to congressman", I completely disagree. If the Wikipedia community entrusts a fellow Wikipedian with the sysop bit, then that Wikipedian should maintain that trust. There should be an easy, less-controversial way to de-sysop someone than ArbCom. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz

Even of the ones that opt-in, it's still admin reconfirmation. Even assuming only half the admins opt-in (given that the active admin corps is approximately that large) it remains logistically unviable. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 04:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, we handle about 100 AfDs a day -- has that become a useless process? How burdensome would evaluating 15 admins per week be to the community? If most of the admins who come up for reconfirmation have "done right" by the community, I doubt glad-handing them back into office will take that much of the community's time.--Father Goose (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that most of the admins who come up for reconfirmation will invariably have a faction that wants them de-opped. That's the same issue I brought up with the proposal that's the focus of this RfC - The focus isn't on deeds that are good for Wikipedia, but politics (hence my beat-cops to Congressmen comment). —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 04:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And so is the ArbCom members. Sole Soul (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but now you've shifted your argument from how impractical it would be to process 15 reconfirmations a week to how the community cannot be relied upon to evaluate admins in an apolitical manner. And that exact same problem comes up at RfA right now.--Father Goose (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy is right; admins are not elected representatives, and as such notions of recall and term limits are way off base; do cops get recalled or term limited? No, there are other processes for dealing with cops who break the rules. In addition, the fact that RFA has this political problem is not an argument for introducing an unnecessary process that has the same issues. PS AFD isn't comparable to RFA for a number of reasons, including DRV. Rd232 ^talk 12:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you want to bring up police misconduct, surely you must have some sense of how many abuses a cop can get away with over the course of a career. I'd say the community's attitude is the same toward "the worst of admins" and our ability to reel them in using existing processes. That about half of the community (or 73%, going by the earlier general poll question) thinks some sort of recall process is needed suggests that we do not have the same confidence as the cops that their current oversight is sufficient.--Father Goose (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fixed term is a bad idea. The critical point is that the admins who really help the project are those who get involved helping to revert the promotion pushers (spammers, POV merchants, copyright violators, vandals, etc.). These admins gather a cloud of angry stalkers, and a fixed term would give those stalkers (and their sockpuppets) a wonderful get-even opportunity. Even if the stalkers were rebuffed and the admin were re-affirmed, the emotional toil (not to mention the pointless waste of time) would be a win for the opponents of Wikipedia, and would definitely lead to some admins dropping out – the system would cripple the most effective admins. Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My proposed term of two years gives plenty of time for an admin to out-live the spammers, vandals, and so forth. My perception is that such troublesome individuals usually get bored of Wikipedia quickly or are dealt with accordingly.

Please don't misinterpret my quick responses to mean that I am dismissing your points of view; in fact, I very much appreciate that you are shedding light on issues with fixed terms that I hadn't thought of. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 07:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I have done some work in the anti-spam area, and the amount of flack that the admins take there can be amazing. Sure, a particular spammer or reverted vandal is not going to wait for two years to cause trouble, but I have seen three admins take a persistent stream of irritation at their talk pages, and occasionally at ANI, and when their time for re-admin came up there would be at least half a dozen malcontents who would attempt revenge. Johnuniq (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated User:B Fizz/Admin for X years, specifically adding a Recent concerns and my responses section (though the "my responses" part is not done yet). Kindly review that section as well as the Previous objections and my responses section to make sure I'm accurately capturing the concerns raised. Thanks. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 08:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say this is hopeless. The admin group is so large and so powerful, they will not allow anything to pass. The only reason ArbCom cannot have it for life is because there is no 1000 one of them. Sole Soul (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned briefly above, but I think it's worth saying again. Look at how many of the users who oppose CDA are concerned about people ganging up on a good administrator who has made enemies in the course of doing good work. The kind of reconfirmation here would oust such an administrator if only about 30% of the respondents !voted to do so. In contrast, CDA would require at least a 2/3 majority to accomplish the same thing. Thus, reconfirmation would actually be much harsher than CDA. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be. The reconfirmation could be based on consensus to desysop rather consensus to keep the bit. This way, the ones with grievances can not as easily torpedo a reconfirmation. Also, in another discussion, I mentioned that a when a term is up, an admin has a week period where if there is no protest, the bit is automatically renewed, thus saving a lot of time for everyone. MrMurph101 (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you are describing what is essentially a CDA required for all administrators after a set period of time, minus the nominations. That's still potentially a lot more draconian than the present proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing like a CDA, just that when there's a reconfirmation, the bar is lower so that those with grievances can't derail it as easy. Also, it wouldn't be all admins since there will be a 1 week window where if there are no objections, reconfirmation is automatic as to lower the amount of discussion and limit it to the cases that really need it. MrMurph101 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've again updated User:B Fizz/Admin for X years, responding to concerns and adding the idea of auto-confirmation. Please review and respond to my responses as you feel appropriate (including the new section, Dealing with the idea that "there's not enough admins"). Also, please note that my proposal is not reconfirmation, though elements and ideas from reconfirmation (such as auto-confirm) could be included. My proposal is a paradigm shift from "Admin for life" to "Admin for X years, with the chance for re-election", largely motivated by the idea that an admin is an elected representative. Thanks. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 20:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that really a reconfirmation, with the alternative of resignation? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to think of it that way, then yes. But like I said, I'm trying to promote the concept of "Admin for X years, with the potential of renewability" rather than the concept of "Admin for life, unless routine reconfirmations remove you from office." Under my proposal, resignation is the default. If a user chooses to "re-run" for admin, then they may. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 02:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see neutral number 23 for what I think is a particularly interesting idea about having something like a continuously-archived Wikipedia:Administrator review for every administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've created a survey regarding WP:NOBIGDEAL, and I invite anyone and everyone to participate. It is found at User:B Fizz/Admin for X years/Survey 1. Thanks. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 17:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is overloaded, but wasn't there a similar survey about the same question pretty recently? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there was, I'd love to read over it. Anybody got a link? ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid having parallel discussions of the same thing in two different places, I'm moving this to the discussion already in progress: link.--Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any wikiprojects dedicated to improving the quality of administrative work? A wikiproject could do several things—such as implementing the permanent admin record or a CDA-like process that eventually goes through ArbCom—without needing to gain the entire community's consensus and establishing such practices as "policy", so long as such things are implemented in a way that improves Wikipedia.

If such a group does not exist, would anyone care to help me propose/create it? ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 18:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like there really isn't going to be significant growth or shifts in the outcome of the poll here.

• Poll opens: [9].
• After 1 day: 139 new votes, 139 votes total.
• After 2 days: 55 new votes, 194 votes total.
• After 3 days: 38 new votes, 232 votes total.
• After 4 days: 23 new votes, 255 votes total.
• After 5 days: 22 new votes, 277 votes total.
• After 6 days: 15 new votes, 292 votes total.
• After 7 days: 13 new votes, 305 votes total.
• After 8 days: 6 new votes, 311 votes total.

A glance at the votes (or at Nakon's counter) reveals that the proposal remains mired in the low forties percent support. (While I shan't belabor the point here, I also note that a number of 'support' voters are expressing a simple preference for any process, and have reservations about this particular proposed process.) It is obvious that this proposal isn't going to become policy, so the poll has served its purpose.

Despite the original clock, I think that it's time for this poll to close — or at least to be unlisted from RfC and CENT. The proponents of the proposal may of course feel free to carry on any discussion they wish about new processes, though I hope that they will resist the temptation to rush another proposal before the community in the near future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. So you are pre-emptively trying to close this process and to argue against "the temptation to rush another proposal before the community in the near future". Nice. My understanding is that the watchlist page listing is set to expire soon. No one is being put upon by seeing a listing at RfC-policy or at CENT. Let users continue to discuss it, unless you just don't trust the community to carry on a discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it isn't being discussed, and what truth could be garnered from a poll such as this is already present in its current form. Why waste the community's patience, time, and effort by continuing? If we should continue, what benefit is there to be gained? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I advocated for delisting this some time ago. I think what information could be gathered from this poll is available now. I seriously doubt any future revelations will come out in it. It may be revealing to look at this graph. While this graph shows RfA and this isn't RfA, it does show that after eight days there's precious little change in outcomes. I've been keeping stats at 3 hour intervals on this poll. Leaving out neutrals (which is to the supporter's favor), the highest support percentage in the last week was 47.3%, which was 24 hours ago. Since then, six new opposes have come in to one support. At this point 20 support votes are needed to get to 50/50. 174 support votes are needed to get to 66.6% support (which is more votes than there are supports). We're never going to reach 2/3rds support, and it's highly unlikely we'll reach 50/50. Even if we do reach 50/50, implementing this with a simple majority as a shift in policy will cause a huge uproar. This proposal had its chance. It's dead. The post-mortem should begin, and all comments (regardless of where on the page or on this talk page) need to be weighed and considered in a dispassionate manner. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the proposal appears to have no chance of succeeding in its present form. I think this should be closed and effort should be concentrated on modifying it to attract more support. Everyking (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing not dispassionate here is the way opponents are trying to shut this down. "Waste the community's patience"? No one is being forced to do anything they don't want to do. Who exactly has said that they are going to "implement this with a simple majority"? There is time to resolve whether this is "fail" or "no consensus". It is highly disrespectful of the over-100 users who have contributed in the "support" section to treat this process the way the three persons above are doing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've certainly exhausted my patience. Over and over and over again my efforts here are being treated with disdain. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to help this proposal. Shutting it down now and reviewing all comments dispassionately as a step forward is a way forward. Maybe you don't like it, fine, but don't treat my comments as some sort of malicious attempt on my part to shut this thing down. I am sick to death of you characterizing me and others who disagree with you as some sort of evil plague on this proposal. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't I be saying that to you? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early on, I got called disruptive to CDA discussions for asking a question. It's gone downhill from there. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been multiple instances during this RfC when emotions have run high. Let us acknowledge that and acknowledge any deep-seated disagreements, but let us please avoid focusing on participants. Too much time has already been spent scrutinizing the identity and supposed intentions of individual participants, whereas our real focus should be on concrete arguments, constructive proposals, and the preferences of the community as a whole. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Tryptofish, I'm a supporter of the current proposal. I just don't want to waste time on something that cannot pass—I want to figure out a way to actually accomplish something here. Everyking (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the RfC should be allowed to run for a while longer—at least for a few days more, if not the full 30 days. That participation has declined steadily without much change in the % of support for the proposal is undeniable, but the RfC still seems to be generating some constructive dialogue. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Falcon, thank you very much. Of course, you are right. Everyking, sorry about that. I guess that, in fairness to people who have read the original statement about when it will close and are waiting before commenting, I would still insist on letting this stay open until the originally-announced close date. Honestly, doing so does no harm to anyone, nor does it interfere with discussion of what will come next. See the discussion under "Intentions" on the main page, for such discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I should note that my suggestion was to close the poll, as the decision about whether or not the extant proposal will become policy has been made. The RfC, watchlist, and CENT notices encourage people to vote in a poll which has already achieved a clear outcome. The discussion can continue in whatever reasonable way the participants like, but at this point the poll is just a distraction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ten, I think we all understood what you were suggesting. You obviously have your own strong opinions. Please let others, who do not all share your opinions, be able to express their own. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, I think Ten meant only to clarify his position and not to stifle anyone else's. Ten (I hope you don't mind the shortening of your user name), that is true, but I think that the RfC is not just a venue for discussion (and voting) but still continues to be a source of discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a source of discussion, I don't know where. There's lots of meta discussion to be sure, but discussion about various points of CDA? Precious little of that. Lots of voting of course, but discussion? No, not really. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually referring to meta-level discussion and discussion about alternatives to a CDA-type proposal (e.g., permanent record, fixed terms, though I think neither one is a practical solution). It's true that discussion of CDA itself has mostly died down, but that is to be expected in light of the course of the poll and the steady opposition to some of its finer points and even core principles (e.g., the vote-based system). I think Rd232 also makes a good point: closing the RfC so early will engender feelings (most in good faith, some not) that the initiative was stifled and could hinder efforts to move forward and consider alternatives. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this proposal can get any deader, but closing it early is only going to cause the most vocal supporters to cry foul. Let it be. Rd232 ^talk 20:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is as clear to me that what Tenofalltrades wants to do is undermine the actual integrity of the proposal (and by extension the preceding work on admin recall), with the ultimate intention of preventing any further changes to the admin system, such as Fixed Terms and Reviews. I don't support CDA, but I won't accept any attempts to close it early - unless it is a clear and obvious consensus from a large majority from all 'sides'. It is far too early for that, if it ever happens. I would be prepared to actually revert another "Lets kill this" poll (Hammersoft), as would others I'm sure, an as act of general bad news. CDA is a stage in a long and essential process that cannot allowed to be so easily perverted. I may have moved my support from CDA, but I'm still very aware of those who will do whatever they can to keep the status quo. Fairness is still a concern, whether we support this particular CDA proposal or not.

My big regret is not dealing with TenofAllTrades idiosyncratic (and weirdly impossible to edit at all) 'comment system' when the RfC started, but unfortunately I had not long decided that CDA was the wrong way to go. An undermined proposal is no good to anyone, although the tidal wave behind the behemoth is something that no serious Wikipedian can now ignore - however much they are told to do so by the fanatical few. The Support vote is always around 15-20 votes behind, and there are a number of 'positives' (ie "I support CDA, but..") in the Oppose and Neutral votes too. Being so fervently against CDA is far far loopier than being fervently into it. One horrible CDA in practice, and it would be unlikely for it to be used again, or even continued with on the first CDA, if it was that disruptive. Real deep-seated anger over CDA must be there for underlying reasons beyond a CDA process itself, it is just illogical otherwise. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And once again I am characterized as an evil demon plague upon CDA, singled out in particular no less. Unreal. Absolutely unreal. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is no surprise that you and TenofallTrades (CDA's two most vocal critics from its inception) are here arguing for the RfC poll to close within days of it opening! Isn't it telling that nobody new (from around 200 people) raised the burning issue of 'early closure' instead? Or has even backed you up when you suggested it? Matt Lewis (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. WP:AGF. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, at least one person so far has supported the suggestion to close early (Everyking, who supports CDA). I confess that I am unaware of much of the background discussion that preceded this RfC, but TenOfAllTrades' suggestion was not an unreasoned attempt to quash discussion of the matter. He (I'm guessing...) supported his argument with clear data showing a steady decline in participation accompanied by very little change in the level of support for this particular proposal. It's your and everyone else's right to be unconvinced, or to suggest that there are factors that Ten overlooked, but there appears to be no cause to jump to an assumption of bad faith. I will repeat my request from above: please let's keep the focus on the arguments and not on the people making them. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Everking then? I am not 'jumping' to anything regarding TenofAllTrades I asure you - he has been like this since CDA was being worked on. That's why I am so vocal with him - he has unrelentingly tried to quash CDA, no question about it. Someone made him an "Awesome Wikipedian" today (this is his "own day" apparently). I find all the politics pretty sickening, and the only way I can think of doing my bit is by pointing things out when I see them. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let the Poll run its course. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"RfC" != "poll". Last I checked, RfC stands for "Request for Comment". There may not be many more !votes but plenty of talk seems to be ongoing. I say let it continue, though I myself don't have many more comments to add. ...but what do you think? ~BFizz 23:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; the activity on the RfC now seems to be shifting from voting to discussing what the community has responded to positively, and what they've rejected. Unless you're in a rush to bury all further discussion of it, there's no justification for closing the RfC earlier than its planned duration.--Father Goose (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The was put up for the Watchlist at one poin't What happened with that? I'm getting increasingly concerned about the fairness of all this now. I would like to see Tenofalltrades 'reponses' ot this RFC to be 'refactored' to under the poll comments (in the comments section), not at the top. He can incorporate general criticism into the "FAQ", as I have done. I didn't cover all of them - more can be put in. I may no longer support CDA, but I'm not prepared to have my time wasted. This has to be a credible RfC, and all the evidence is of TenofAllTrades claiming things have been an unprofessional 'waste of time'. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Credible or not, it's clear that it won't be adopted in its current form. Keeping it on the watchlist-notice won't change that. I think at this point, discussion needs to shift to what changes are needed that would make a CDA process palatable to the community.--Father Goose (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been a credible RfC if it had not been formatted as a poll. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A disproportionate, if not majority of oppose votes were from administrators. If we were to discount votes by admins, then it is possible the proposal may in fact have a majority. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Nakon's script has a breakdown. Non-Admins support the proposal by 54.15%, whereas 78% of admins oppose the proposal. So the majority of editors who do not have a COI support the proposal. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So? Do you plan on disenfranchising editors from voting on this poll just because they are also administrators? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Discussion section. I will note that the 'Discussion' section was deliberately placed on the page above the voting (and after the introductory material) to encourage poll voters to review the arguments for and against the proposal before jumping straight into a vote. Further, it was hoped that it would encourage them to engage with other editors and discuss those arguments. Finally, it was hoped that it would tend to discourage long, deeply-threaded discussions cluttering the body of the vote by providing a natural outlet for longer conversations. Anyone was – and still is – welcome to add their own comments to that section. What's unfair about that?

I don't know how or when the 'Comments' section arose, but it wasn't part of the original design of the RfC page. At this point, it seems that the 'Discussion' section is for discussion about the proposal being voted on, while the 'Comments' section (at the bottom of the page) has morphed to a discussion of alternative proposals. Refactoring all of the discussion relating to the current proposal down into the post-proposal what-does-the-future-hold comments would seem likely to increase confusion and clutter and disrupt that ongoing to discussion.

Watchlist notice. The reason why the watchlist notice no longer appears is persuant to the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. It is quite normal for watchlist notices to appear for a limited time, and a seven-day lifetime for the notice was set prior to the start of the RfC.

RfC and CENT. I suggested pulling these notices (and the now-expired watchlist notice) because they now refer to a part of the discussion which is moot. (The wording of CENT is "Discussion on whether to implement Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship", while the RfC notice opens with "This is a Request for comment (RfC) on a proposal to implement Community de-adminship (CDA) on the English Wikipedia....". The watchlist notice, recently removed, read "A poll is being conducted on whether to implement community recall of administrators as a policy....") I don't think there is any real dispute over the outcome of the poll — the current CDA proposal isn't going to become policy; inviting people to a discussion on 'whether to implement' it is wasting their time. My point above – and here – is that the poll is now a distraction from the current focus of this page: to discuss alternative proposals. Neither notice, on CENT or RfC, represents that reality. If you're going to have a month of requesting comments, then you might want to reconsider and readjust what it is you're inviting people to. This will be my final comment in this thread, since I don't need any more abuse and insinuations of bad faith from Tryptofish and Matt Lewis. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ten, I was admiring your comment until I got to the last part. Anyway, as Ten correctly said, when I placed the request for the watchlist listing, the discussion ended up being to run it for seven days only. And I think that I have treated Ten with a remarkable degree of fairness in supporting the placement of his full-protected criticisms above the poll section, and allowing it there from the opening of the poll even though no supporters of the proposal were given an opportunity to see it before it went up, while the proposal, the FAQ, and everything else was developed on-Wiki in full view of anyone interested. We can go around in circles about whether the CENT notice is causing the sky to fall, or whether the !votes of administrators in this poll should be treated as those of second-class citizens, but I maintain that it would be a lot more productive to, as Father Goose, Black Falcon, GoodDay, and BFizz have said, continue the discussion that is going on, and find ways to create something that will have the support of the community, and serve the community well. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While I have no particular preference on whether the poll should remain open, it is clear to me that the proposal as it stands does not have community consensus. I do note, however, that a significant number of opposers mention that they would support a de-adminship process, just not this one - and likewise, several supporters note they support the principle, but that certain details are lacking. So I will post here my analysis of why this proposal didn't work out, and a simple counterproposal.

The main thing that appears wrong is simply instruction creep. The proposal is six pages long, most of which deals with exceptions, limits, suffrage, and balancing efforts. Simply put, Wikipedia Does Not Work That Way. Any numerical limit can be gamed, any judgment by vote count is missing the point. Debating whether the cutoff should be 68% or 86% or whatever is really not helping. Per the KISS principle, the only kind of proposal that has a chance is one that works like most other processes in Wikipedia: get people in to discuss the topic, and get a responsible party to close the debate and gauge consensus. That is all we need, and that is how e.g. deletion and adminship requests already work.

This brings us to the main issue: who is eligible to close a de-adminship debate? Realistically, there are only two groups that can judge it for consensus: the bureaucrats, and the ArbCom. In either case, having a group of e.g. five crats or arbs examine it is preferable to having a single person close it. The arbs strike me as the best choice here: if people feel that admins aren't accountable and shouldn't have a lifetime position, then this isn't solved by leaving the decision to 'crats, who have the same term lengths and accountability (or lack thereof) as admins do.

Aside from the above, I note that several opposers mention that they do not support this because it is too lenient; this includes the perennial notion of admin term limits. These people should consider that if a perceivedly lenient proposal doesn't meet consensus, then a sterner variant certainly won't. When it becomes clear that your own ideal will never gain enough support, is it better to do nothing, or to compromise with a step in the right direction?

And, of course, several people claim that this is not needed, or that we already do this. And they may well be right. Traditionally, the best policy comes from merely writing down what we already do, so why not do exactly that? New editors may be unaware of what we already do, and may become upset for an apparent (but not necessarily actual) lack of accountability. If we write it down and have a neat page to point them to, this may be a decent boost to editor morale. We just need to write it down in such a way that it doesn't become a straitjacket. I'll make an attempt in the next section, and leave this section open to comments on my analysis, or different analyses by others. >Radiant< 16:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the analysis above, I am formulating this proposal which I believe to be largely based on current practice.

When an RFC about an administrator's conduct has been ongoing for at least a week (subject to existing RFC procedure), any editor may make a request for this admin to resign, at the bottom of the RFC. The request gets a support, oppose and neutral section, that editors can use to express their opinion; and it is advertised on WP:AN and the village pump, and other public news pages as necessary. The rest of the RFC will remain open for further discussion.

The goal here is not to ascertain whether the admin has abused his tools; instead, the question is whether the admin's actions have caused that admin to lose the trust of the community. Per Arbitration precedent, admins displaying systematic bad judgment, severe lack of civility, or an unwillingness to discuss their actions may have their adminship revoked even if no abuse of tools has taken place.

This request is closed after one week. If during this time, at least fifty editors support the resignation and a majority of editors supports the resignation, then the Arbitration Committee will examine the request to see whether consensus supports the resignation. Alternatively, a subcommittee of at least five arbiters, as decided by the ArbCom, may examine it. Generally, the Committee will decide one of three things:

1. The adminship is not revoked, and no such requests may be made about this admin in RFC for six months. This is the default outcome if public support for the resignation is lacking.
2. The adminship is revoked, and may be regained only via a new successful WP:RFA. This is the default if the admin voluntarily steps down during the process.
3. An arbitration case is opened to further examine the behavior of all involved.

The intent is to add this to the RFC and Arbitration policies. Essentially, the only new thing here is that the ArbCom promises to examine a serious de-adminship request. Now I suspect that they would do that anyway; however, this isn't written down anywhere, and seeing how many editors would like some kind of (semi-)formal de-opping process, I think it would be beneficial to write this down.

I believe this addresses most of Ten's points on the main page. For instance, there is at least one week of discussion before any kind of !voting begins; detailed discussion remains at the top of the page; the arbcom can filter out socks and canvassing; there is no numerical threshold; and the admin's rebuttal appears near the top of the RFC. Also, this is only half a page, as opposed to six. Do people think this can fly? And also, can we please discuss this instead of putting it to a binary vote? >Radiant< 16:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]