Wikipedia talk:Proposed adminship

Opening thread

A single user denying another user adminship? I think that will cause an awful lot of personal grudges. In a perfect world, people would just accept the criticism and move on. That doesn't happen. Removing prod tags from articles can be contentious; denying someone adminship in the same way? I doubt too many people are interested in unilaterally deciding that and dealing with the headaches (and possibly harassment) that will come with it.

On the other hand, requiring multiple users to agree on its removal would just bring us back to a tally. X number of opposition and the RfA fails. So, as far as I can see, this just adds another layer of bureaucracy (albeit a thin layer) without doing away with any of the existing process. Kafziel ^Talk 16:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I do accept that, but this would run along side the existing RfA process, it wouldn't replace it at all, in fact users who fail proposed adminship will be actively encouraged to take out a full RfA (that could be added to the proposal). It's simply meant to be an easier way for the clear potential admins to get the mop without messing around with pile-on support. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There is value to "pile-on" supports. They represent another pair of eyes that has looked through the nomination and not found a major issue that should prevent the nominee from becoming an administrator. That's not the case in this type of system: we don't know if a "successful" nominee's contributions have been researched, thoroughly or otherwise, by three people, ten, or a hundred... or if they haven't been looked at by anyone. Dekimasuよ! 03:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I dislike it for the same reasons I don't use prod. It's an extra, optional step in an already convoluted process. It's easy to abuse (in this case by grossly unqualified users) and essentially just forces good users to waste time, first by removing it and then by defending themselves from attacks after they do so. I don't see any benefit here, because an RfA with absolutely no opposition is a rare thing indeed. Kafziel ^Talk 16:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree for this case, and I do like prod. I think I made these points in the WT:RFA thread already. Dekimasuよ! 03:53, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Already defeated

This proposal has already, in effect, been turned down. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Let.27s_end_this_silliness. There are a number of strong reasons to reject this proposal outright. --Durin 16:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

A comment

I'm a big fan of any attempt at getting more good admins on board, but I do have a concern. Under Wikipedia:Proposed adminship#Removal of the template, #2:

"2. Made at least 100 edits across all namespaces."

Seems somewhat subjective, and should probably get pared back some. I myself have a fairly high edit count,[1] but don't have 100+ edits in all namespaces (and of course, a non-admin just simply can't have any edits in the MediaWiki space); specifically, I'm lacking in the MediaWiki, Portal, and Category spaces (and their respective talk spaces).

I don't really have a solution to recommend, I'm just pointing out that it may need some rewording; I've been an editor for over a year and an admin for about six months, but according to this, I shouldn't de-prod a prospective admin, which just burns my ass. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

EVula, I think you misunderstood the proposal. I read it to mean 100 edits regardless of which namespace the edit was in. That's a really low threshold. It means 100 edits total in some combination of Mainspace, Talk, User and User talk would be enough to qualify an editor to remove the template. --Richard 16:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that's what I meant, it most probably should be worded clearer, but we need to attempt to stop disruption only accounts removing the template. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That won't stop disruption-only accounts. I can make 100 fully legitimate edits in 1-2 hours (spelling, minor rephrasings of text, stub sorting, vandalism reverts + vandal warnings). -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay, after re-reading it, that does make sense. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms of the Proposal

My first criticism is that this proposal was already introduced at WT:RFA and failed to gain consensus. Here are some others:

Process

1. How do we prevent the category from being filled with hundreds of potential candidates? The only way this can result in more promotions is by reducing the transparency of RfA.
2. PROD was created to lessen the load on AfD. What is the purpose of this? RfA is not under any heavy load or in danger of being overwhelmed. Why create an additional layer of bureaucracy?

Removal

1. "Made at least 100 edits across all namespaces." I think this may need to be narrowed ... very few people have 100 portal talk edits. ;)
2. "A good reason to provide to the candidate as to why they are not suitable." How exactly do we define a "good reason" ... the RfA talk archives are filled with megabytes of debate on this. We will never have an objective definition of a subjective concept (unless we just coercively impose an arbitrary one).

Promotion

1. Is this really like PROD? If an article is deleted via PROD, it can be contested and undeleted at any time. If an admin is promoted, can s/he be recalled at any time by a single user in good standing? This will result in two classes of admins: "community-supported" and "community unopposed".
2. This proposal assumes that silence equates to consensus. I don't think that assumption is uncontroversial.

-- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 16:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Marked as experimental

We may want to run multiple experiments. We need several people together, and we need a kind of sandbox. For now we can use subpages of this page as our experimental workspace.

I'm kinda busy, so I hope folks will pick up an experimental design by themselves :-) --Kim Bruning 17:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not willing to support even an experimental use of this process until several of the above concerns have been addressed. This represents a fundamental change in the way that the sysop bit is given out, and thus differs from 'experiments' in RFA formatting conducted recently. -- nae'blis 17:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Nae'blis. Not even a trial run. This has almost no support from anyone at all, and countless arguments have already been listed against it. There's no need to proceed with this. Kafziel ^Talk 17:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. This is not just a simple modification to the format. In the absence of consensus support, this proposal should not be advanced, even if only experimentally. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

As follows: We do a proposed adminship for someone, exactly as if it were the real thing, but we leave out the final step: we do not actually give the user the flag. We then do an actual RFA, and see if the same concerns are raised, and if the results are similar. The differences would be interesting. We can then also quickly ascertain whether peoples objections are wrong or right.

People participating are somewhat compensated, because a proposed adminship would hopefully help candidates figure out how they will do on RFA.

Basically if people want to experiment, it's none of our business, as long as they don't disrupt the rest of wikipedia. On the other hand, disrupting experiments is frowned upon.

--Kim Bruning 17:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

While that sounds like a lovely experimental design, I will stake my reputation on no one passing who would not otherwise sail through RFA (due to the veto feature). Therefore the process only seems to expand the delay before someone can become gain the sysop bit. Unless you're proposing to nominate someone who is somewhat controversial, in which case I can't see what that will prove, except maybe to alleviate the concern that some users will fly under the radar (but the fishbowl effect of any experimental setting renders that data somewhat suspect, in my view). -- nae'blis 18:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so in short, no harm done to wikipedia, but you're not participating because you think it's a waste of your time? Fine. Done and done. :-) --Kim Bruning 22:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Note that your own requirements are what will cause any fishbowl effect. You required it, so you will have to live with it. Consensus cuts both ways. :-P --Kim Bruning 23:29, 30 April 2007 (UTC)