---

This idea was brought up in the brainstorming phase [1], and I believe it merits further consideration here.

---

Within an RfA, anything that can be liberally construed as incivility or personal attacks should be immediately removed. This would not require any changes to the civility or personal attacks policies, but would be a new guideline for RfAs directing that participants apply a strict standard of civility in order to avoid a corrosive atmosphere. Criticism would, of course, still be permitted, but it would need to be presented dispassionately and objectively.

---

All RFAs are semiprotected so that anonymous editors and non-autoconfirmed accounts cannot edit them. Only !votes made from registered accounts that were autoconfirmed when the RFA starts will be counted.

---

Admin elections are held every three months, replacing the current asynchronous nominations of RFA.

Candidates must sign up by a certain date, and all the RFAs for that quarter will start and end at the same times. The nominations themselves run just as current RFAs do (7 days, public voting and discussion, etc.)

---

With such pronounced rising criteria, clear standards for starting an RfA should be added, so editors do not have differing views about what is needed to pass adminship.

---

A random set of 5 users who meet a select base criteria would, using an opt-out system and sortition, be nominated for adminship every 4 months.

Support 4A Opt-out sortition to nominate candidates[edit]

1. Sounds good to me, I think many problems are surmountable.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. Curious to see whether this will work. Worth a try. The problem of not having enough candidates is urgent enough to try more radical measures. Femke (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. I support this idea in concept, though I'd potentially want to change the numbers of candidates and timeframe. Not entirely sure how. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   I'm sure RfCs could change numbers/exact criteria if any prove to be a problem, but establishing a mandate for the sortition in some form is the most important priority. — Bilorv (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. Worth trying. —valereee (talk) 17:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Strong support for an excellent proposal. Without some institutionalised/formalised process to encourage nomination, no method can improve on the existing system of a few highly-respected admins reaching out to individuals offering to nominate them, which has—due in no part to these admins—been an astounding failure in the last few years. We have had 10 RfAs in this calendar year, which have produced 6 currently-active admins ("active" generously construed), and we need at least 100 successful RfAs per year if we expect to maintain over 1,000 admins and expect every single new admin to contribute for the next 10 years and no admin to be desysopped.
   A sortition is a good way of eliminating human bias that arises from such things as a few elite admins being responsible for a supermajority of RfA nominations, to address 力 below, and could plausibly see a new diversity of admins promoted that would encourage existing editors who had never considered running ("I don't see why I'd want to be admin" / "I don't work in any of the 'admin areas'") to do so.
   The sortition also has very well thought out criteria, timings and associated processes, but I would be supporting it nonetheless if it didn't, as it is far more important to get some sort of process like this off the ground, and it can be refined as the community sees fit once we've had a couple of runs of it and understanding which criteria/bureaucracy can be improved upon. — Bilorv (talk) 19:07, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Qualified support on the condition that this be a one year trial, after which a subsequent RfC is required for it to continue. I think this is worth a try, but I'm uncomfortable with authorizing it and just hoping it works. I would like the community to have a chance to evaluate whether it worked and what changes could be made to improve it. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Support As the proposer. Regarding HighInBC oppose comment, I would submit for consideration this MFD and {{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}}. As most people there agreed, most folks think that using the userbox which actively states you want to be an admin will most likely result in you not becoming one for longer (something literally written in WP:RFAADVICE). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. The best leaders are the people who don't really want it. Dragging more people to RfA is a good system. Chess (talk) (please use {{reply to|Chess}} on reply) 03:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Support. But I am curious to know what the needs are to be qualified for being considered a Sysop candidate.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   @Paradise Chronicle: have you read the "Full details" that propose the initial set of criteria? — Bilorv (talk) 12:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Now I have. Thanks. Seems fair. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10. Support trying something new. To me, I see a culture that states that potential admins should not want to be admins; if volitional adminship is deemed so negative, what alternative is there than conscription? I would advocate, if this was considered, that the nominee have to accept before the process officially began. From the oppose section, I see a consensus that a full AfD without the nominee's knowledge would be a poor course to take. Ifnord (talk) 01:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. I don't see the harm in trying it, if it's opt-out, then it's not "drafting" or making anyone an admin without their consent. Maybe it'll be hard/impossible to implement, but I just don't see what harm could come from trying it (it certainly won't drive anyone off the website). Levivich 16:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. I'd suggest nominating everyone who holds more than a handful of advanced permissions (not sure whether they should be allowed to opt out). —Kusma (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. This is a really good idea. --JBL (talk) 18:42, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support at least a trial run. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
15. Support But based on AfD and discussions the list will be small; as it is an unlikely combination of talents - NPP, AfD, FA, No blocks, x thousand edits, agreement that some current procedures is correct, ideological purity, Proposals, Village pump .. Suggest instead that selection of Opt outs be done by most active Wikiprojects by their members; they can choose who polices them and assign them a day each week to do so. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 10:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
16. conditional support. Instead of five years clean backlog, it should be three. And the candidate should not be aloowed to ignore the RfA. Also, the process should be simple. Simply make a list of eligible candidates using a bot, ask them "yo, wanna run for RfA?": "Y/N". Rest of the advocate/no nom stuff seems good. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    struck my own vote after some thinking, and reading the oppse votes. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

17. Support, however you should be aware that some of the criteria you listed for potential candidates is not practically obtainable by an automated process. So, if your goal is to search through millions of users for those that meet these criteria, that almost certainly won't be possible (with an automated process) using the current set of criteria. In particular, an automated process cannot determine if a block was accidental, if a user is under any restrictions like interaction bans, or if the article a user created is a stub. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
18. I like much about this idea. Needs to be ironed out, but is the most exciting proposal I have yet seen to improve admin uptake. It sort of combines what we have now, with the original Jimbo, "no big deal", random selection of suitable people. I like that it is opt out, as many suitable candidates (and probably the best ones) hesitate to put themselves forward. Also that underlines that being an admin is a duty role on Wikipedia, not a privilege. People are being thanked for what they have done, and are being requested to do a little bit more. In the same vein as the donation requests that are made. As part of the ironing out of the proposal, there could be an option to not be selected, so a user who really doesn't want to be an admin, would not be part of the scheme, unless they later removed the opt out. Problems and hesitations with this proposal could and should be ironed out rather than the proposal dismissed simply because it's so radical. SilkTork (talk) 16:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support - great way to field more qualified candidates. If the user does not want it, they can decline the nomination - no big deal.  Mysterymanblue  05:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support - this worked in Ancient Athens :) Sortition as a procedure is a great way of solving the problem that sometimes people who want the tools aren't the ones who would wield them best. Ideally I would see it paired with temporary adminships. Alaexis_¿question? 12:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support - As long as the user can say no, I see nothing wrong with automatically proposing clearly experienced users. Fieari (talk) 00:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 4A Opt-out sortition to nominate candidates[edit]

1. I disagree with nominating candidates who have not indicating their willingness to serve prior to the nomination. I also feel the process is better served by having a dialogue with the candidate. I'd prefer a revived admin nominators wikiproject to use whatever criteria they want to find potential candidates, and then work with them on following the standard request process. isaacl (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. The Jargon file story about Sussman and Minsky comes to mind. Randomness may cultivate a mystique for the process, but I see no reason it will find more or better admins. The community has struggled for decades to find reasonable criteria to determine adminabiles; if these criteria manage to find wide acceptance why not just write a bot to suggest a nomination to anyone who reaches the threshold? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. The given criteria does not demonstrate suitability for being an admin. The most crucial criteria is that they want to be an admin. I don't believe the solution is closing our eyes and throwing darts at a list of names. As 力 suggests you could write a bot right now with no change in policy that suggests RfA to such people, go for it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:46, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Per 力 and HighInBC. I don't think it makes sense to nominate editors unless they have actually expressed an interest in being an admin. Having a bot inform editors that they might be good candidates seems like a better idea. Nosferattus (talk) 23:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. RfA should be opt-in, not opt-out. No one should come back from a vacation in Hawaii to find out that they were involuntarily nominated for adminship, let alone read an RfA that sank like a rock and laid out all the reasons they weren't suitable for it, if they never wanted to serve in that capacity anyway. Adminship is a volunteer position, and so an RfA should only be initiated once the candidate has actually volunteered. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Seraphimblade. Doesn't actually solve an existing problem, and I can't imagine this would be a good experience for anybody who gets sent on a surprise trip to RfA. -FASTILY 04:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Unimplementable as proposed. Not even one of the seven separate criteria can be automated, and each individually has far too many matches for the group as a whole to be done manually. —Cryptic 04:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   @Cryptic: have you expanded on this somewhere? I don't follow. For instance, for (1), we've already got a similar list and the code could presumably be altered to add the namespace conditions. (4) is logged at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. For (7), you just need to test if Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Example exists (for User:Example). And so on. None strike me as beyond the feasibility of getting a list that works well enough (and someone could appeal if they're not in it, or wrongly in it). — Bilorv (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   1. Sorting by total number of edits is possible because there's a column in the database specifically for total number of edits. There's no way to get a count of edits that aren't to the user namespace and aren't to Wikipedia:Sandbox except to query the billion-row revision table, like we had to before that column was added in 2007. If you go digging through the history of WP:MOSTEDITS, you'll find that updating it then was a major project that happened maybe two or three times a year; and it would be much worse, since there were barely a tenth as many total edits on the project then as there are now. —Cryptic 19:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
   2. "Active editing" isn't defined. First edit was more than 20 months ago? Then it should've been phrased like that, and everyone would be opposing because the criterion selects specifically for sleeper socks instead of against them. Some variant of the WMF's absurdly-low metric of 3 and a third edits per day? That's only efficiently measurable averaged over the whole of a given time period, and only if you use a similarly low cutoff; otherwise, it's nearly as expensive as counting edits above as in #1.
   3. Manually excluding accidental blocks only works if you have a (relatively short) list of otherwise qualified users.
   4. I'll admit I was wrong on this one, if you assume that WP:Editing restrictions is comprehensive. It's still of limited usefulness, since it only excludes roughly 300 accounts by itself.
   5. There's no way to programmatically find out who was responsible for promoting a good/featured article/list; and while you can - somewhat inefficiently - query for created pages, and whether they're currently categorized as stubs, you can't see whether they were at creation; or whether the same editor was the one to expand them. Criteria other than categorization (which I'll preemptively agree is terrible) to figure out whether a page is a stub fare worse - number of words or sentences or so on isn't queryable; and while page length is, there are freakin' redirects more than 100k chars long.
   6. What counts as participation? Having at least one edit to 35 different pages starting [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/]] can be automated, but do you really intend to include people who only deletion sort with a script?
   7. Checking for [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/{{username}}]] only works if you don't care about accounts that have changed their username since their last RFA, since the way the rename log is set up makes it prohibitively expensive to walk backwards to a user's prior names. —Cryptic 19:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

8. This pressures people to run for RFA and puts them in uncomfortable positions they don't want to be in. --Rschen7754 07:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Strongest possible oppose: RfA should be opt-in, not opt-out. Sure, find some automated way to get a list of all users that match these (or some other) criteria, but then talk to them to see if they would be interested in running for adminship. --rchard2scout (talk) 09:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. I strenuously oppose any route to adminship that explicitly allows a candidate to ignore any questions by the community. There is, rightly, an expectation that candidates are responsive to its concerns. If people want to maintain VOLUNTARY, they should mandate that a candidate accepts the nomination instead of this baffling process where you're given a week to object. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Random? No, no, no. What if the user doesn't want to be an admin? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. Wow, just no. Many people who would quality prefer to stay out of the spotlight, and this could end up running people off the site. No. Not everyone wants to be an admin, or even noticed. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. I think it would be a good idea to write a bot that would identify editors that meet your criteria and post a message on their talk page encouraging them to run. Or put them on a list or something. But nominate people without their explicit consent? Absolutely not. Can you imagine how you would feel if you took a break from Wikipedia for a few months, only to come back and find that in your absence, you'd been scrutinised by hundreds of fellow editors for a position you didn't even ask for? – Joe (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
14. Don't see a point in nominating people who have not expressed any interest in being an admin. Will add more in talk section. - wolf 17:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
15. As soon as a process is used to identify, select and contact editors minding their own business seeking to thrust them into the unexpected spotlight of RfA, that is applying pressure well in breach of WP:VOLUNTARY Leaky caldron (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
16. Basically drafting admins? No thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
17. Users have the right not to be admins, as absurd as this comment would be in any other context. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
18. We're having this discussion because RfA has become sufficiently unpleasant that few people want to go through it. Putting people through it at random, without them even having volunteered, would be practically a hazing ritual. Hut 8.5 20:08, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
19. I can't imagine that very many people would be pleased by a surprise nomination. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
20. Opposing on the basis that it sets up a murky expectation that the candidates should ignore discussion or other interaction with the community - I'd expect opposition to rise along the "Won't answer my question that I'm concerned with", while leaving it vague to the closing 'crat if this is something that is expected to be discounted. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
21. As per above, being willing to volunteer to do admin work is an essential characteristic of an admin, and this could discourage candidates from running without being randomly selected. — csc^-1 21:54, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
22. Like others have said, I don't like the idea of forcibly nominating candidates. Yes, they can opt out, but it is putting undue pressure on them. A bit like giving young men and boys a white feather in the WWI. SpinningSpark 17:26, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
23. Among other concerns, this risks entrenching hard numeric criteria for adminship. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
24. I think sortition is a fantastic process for populating legislatures or juries - i.e. a small representative body that votes on important decisions. But the role of an admin on Wikipedia is more like that of a judge. In most cases we rely on them to independently make wise decisions about the application of policy. The criteria here do not guarantee that selected editors can be trusted to be impartial, competent interpreters of policy.
    Also, as a side note, some of the criteria strike me as overly narrow. e.g. 10k edits is a lot, and will tend to select for editors who do lots of small, high-frequency edits (e.g. adding categories, adding Wikiproject templates, mass fixes to typos or dab wikilinks, etc.) rather than editors who focus on content creation, where a single edit might represent hours of work. If we were to use sortition for this process (though again, I don't think it's a good fit for the role), I would suggest much simpler criteria, such as: no blocks or active restrictions, and at least X distinct days in which they have made at least one edit. Colin M (talk) 18:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
25. The underlying cause of a lack of RfA candidates is that RfA is a scary, grueling process that isn't inviting to users. I don't think this process does anything to address that. Furthermore, the adminship is not for those who reluctantly answer a request to serve. To over-dramatically quote Toby Ziegler from the seventh season of The West Wing, pointing out that the Democratic presidential candidate had to be convinced and presented with the option to run for office:

    The man in that job shouldn't have to be presented with anything! It's for someone who grabs it and holds on to it, for someone who thinks the gods have conspired to bring him to this place, that destiny demands of him this service! If you don't have that kind of drive, that hubris, how in the hell are you going to make the kind of decisions that stump every other person in this country? How in the hell are you going to hold that kind of power in your hand?

    The quote's a bit much, to be sure, but the adminship is a trust. The balance of confidence and humility needed to make sane decisions is not one achieved by randomly nominating editors who look qualified. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
26. No, just no. It would certainly not encourage more users to run the gauntlet for a week, and as such the idea does not belong in this suite of reform discussions. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
27. Difficult to implement and could possibly lead to lots of bad RfAs, as mentioned above, but beyond that, it might erode trust in admins in the general editor population to think that no one wants to be an admin to the extent that sortition is necessary.--Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 06:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose - IMO, potential admins should demonstrate an interest in the role and a requirement for having access to the toolset. The criteria could be used to identify possible candidate who can be sounded out. BennyOnTheLoose (talk)
29. Oppose This could lead to all kinds of trouble: unworthy editors reaching adminship (which I would find undesirable even for a short tenure), admins that don't really care to do anything with their admin privilege's. Debresser (talk) 22:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
30. Good idea in principle, but I disagree with the proposed criteria. Neutrality^talk 05:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
31. Sortition § Incompetence should indicate to us why this is not a good idea. And as others have said, it contradicts the voluntary nature of this enterprise. On the other hand, I would have no objection to a bot choosing candidates through agreed upon parameters, after a person has indicated interest in the position through a userbox, list, or some sort. StonyBrook (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
32. Oppose per Dennis and SpinningSpark - Not everyone wants to be an admin and my sentiments are the same as Sparks - I don't like the idea of forcibly nominating candidates either. –Davey2010^Talk 14:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
33. Oppose This is a volunteer project. Also, the criteria are way out of line with current standards at RFA; Even if you added the criteria that three of those active months have to be the last three months. My experience as a nominator is that potential candidates need a private chat not a public approach - plenty of candidates have a non obvious/private reason why now is not the right time for them to run. ϢereSpielChequers 16:59, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose for all the reasons given above. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
35. Oh hell no. If I want the tools, I'll ask for them. RecycledPixels (talk) 08:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
36. No. It's important that admins are true volunteers, not draftees who didn't manage to say no firmly enough. (Or were not at their computer!) Espresso Addict (talk) 03:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
37. I generally like the concept of sortition, but it was already established that RfA has an unpleasant atmosphere and levels of scrutiny. Forcing people to go through that runs too much risk of a negative experience driving them away. Yes they can opt out, but I'm not sure all will fully understand the level of scrutiny that they might face. the wub "?!" 02:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
38. As per Trainsandotherthings, Users have the right not to be admins. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
39. This website is a volunteer project. There is no point in making people do something they don't want to, and no mechanisme to make them do it. Sandstein 20:15, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
40. Oppose - This is a volunteer project and an editor must be able to freely decide on their own if they want to become an admin or not. Like other people have said, RfA should be opt-in, not opt-out. A person should always have the complete freedom of deciding on how and when they want to run for their RfA/RfB. TheGeneralUser (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
41. Per my !vote on 4D. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 4A Opt-out sortition to nominate candidates[edit]

• An interesting idea which I need to think about some more. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding criterion 2, how specifically is "20 months of active editing" defined? Regarding criterion 3, would there be a provision for excluding e.g. accidental blocks that were immediately undone? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Sdkb: I've updated the criteria to specify accidental blocks should be manually excluded from blocking a user from being entered in the drawing. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What mechanism is going to be used to ensure "randomness"? — xaosflux ^Talk 17:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it would have to be a Random.org-type of pseudo-random number generator that would pick from the given list. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is "random" selection of candidates better than a cabal selecting 5 candidates they think have the best chance of success? User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 17:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, for starters, we wouldn't have to argue about who gets to be in the cabal. Either way.. Sortition offers several benefits which is why it is used for jury selection in the United States. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We could use sortition to choose the cabal members. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Assuming this isn't a joke, the difference here is that the community still has final say over matters just to ensure the process doesn't lead to an outcome that the community finds negative. Either way, folks approaching users who are perceived to have the best chance of success is basically the system we have now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:27, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Who do you expect to come up with the list? —Cryptic 19:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It would most likely be a group of functionaries with some level of technical knowledge operating similarly to the ACE election coordinators. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:23, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not just have a page called: "Users interested in being an admin", with a brief explanation of what an admin does, where anyone can sign up? Probably get a phone-book worth of new people, but for experienced users who seek to nominate people, if they come across a user they believe has a good head on their shoulders, they can easily check to see if they're on the list. If so, and they meet the criteria, then fire off a nom. If they don't yet meet the criteria, then watch them, maybe even guide them until they do, then nominate. That way we only have people who want to be admins running, instead of ferreting the few who do from a bunch that don't. (jmho) - wolf 17:23, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  We already have one, actually. – Joe (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  For the record, Davey2010 is on that list because 7 years ago he had {{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}} on his user page. Caker18 is on that list despite being CU blocked 2 years ago.
  I don't think having user publically list themselves in a centralized place is good idea. There is a reason why most potential noms get discussed offwiki. Secondarily, it's just inviting users to have a revolving WP:ORCP/pre-RFA at their talk page. The longer between a user publicly announcing their intention to become an admin; the less likely it is for them to pass. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How times change!, For me personally the off-putting thing about adminship at that time was the crap the admins had to put up with ... that and my short fuse at that time. Just couldn't be doing with people coming to me 247 complaining over my every move, Anyway unfortunately these days I have 0 interest in being an admin - quite happy trundling along as an editor.

I think the page was kept for historical purposes but if someone really wants me to remove the userbox I'll begrudgingly oblige, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 20:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Davey2010: You could just set |nocat= to yes, and the bot should remove you from the list in a few weeks. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Well how about that? Didn't even know the page was there.)
That page just seems to be a list of people automatically added because they have the "admin someday" userbox on their page. I wonder how many of those people are actually aware of that? Many of those userpages appear to be copied from others userpages, with any and all userboxes included. But intead of debating the usefulness of that page, I'll go back to my original idea, that being a page where users manually sign themselves up with at least some idea what an admin is, what it takes to become one, and the active intent of achieving that some day. Such a page would ideally have some information regarding that at the top, along with links to all the relevant polices & guidelines and any useful essays. As for MJL's comment, I don't see where the concerns comes from; Davey2010 has never run for admin has no interest in being one (again, one of those userbox addees). Caker18 is one of about a dozen currently blocked users on that list, so what? On the list I'm suggesting, perhaps(?) there could be criteria for removal. You'll have to clarify: "There is a reason why most potential noms get discussed offwiki." for me. How would it "invitw users to have a revolving WP:ORCP/pre-RFA at their talk page"...? Is that happening with any of the listees now? (And again, there could be criteria for that if needed.) And your last comment: "The longer between a user publicly announcing their intention to become an admin; the less likely it is for them to pass.". I'm not sure what you base that on, but regardless of time, people pass or fail on the merits of their record and their RfA responses, no? But also, this isn't about newbie editors unwittingly adding themselves to a list with a userbox on the very first day they create an account. The idea here is that editors, with some idea of what becoming an admin entails and want to be one some day, can add their to a list. Experienced editors (especially those who seeks to nominate people) can look at the list and nominate those who they think are ready. Moreso, anyone who sees a name on the list that, though not currently RfA-ready but has potential, may want to give some helpful advice, or even guide them along until they are ready. That's all I was suggesting. - wolf 01:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@wolf: In my experience, RFA is about scrutiny. In general, people who seek forms of power (whether it be the social capital or the technical abilities that +sysop offers, it is hard to deny that the status of admin is a form of power) are scrutinized heavily. If you are someone who works in the more controversial areas of this project, announcing publicly your intention to run for RFA soon will give people who perceive you as an enemy more time to prepare tank it.
Potential noms get discussed offwiki to ensure the public window of time between when the RFA starts and ends is as small as possible. The less amount of time people publicly discuss a candidate; the less scrutiny that candidate will receive (and thus the chances that something terrible in their contributions will be found).
To answer your question directly, I think people pass or fail on whether the opposers can form a compellingly negative narrative about the candidate before the RFA closes. A candidate's true nature and the totality of their actual contributions matter little if someone can demonstrate a sustained issue the candidate has. In the end, all that matters during RFA, as in most socio-political processes, is the perception of how things are. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: I agree that potential RfA candidates are scrutinized, even heavily... as they should be. Yes, you can have people opposing for legit reasons, and some opposing out of spite. But a legit oppose, even if spiteful, is still legit. And I believe that otherwise empty opposes, made for whatever reason, can be identified as such as struck during the process, or given zero weight afterward. Are you trying to say the RfA process is flawed or even broken? I agree with you again - 100%. This is why I'm suggesting some ways to hopefully improve it. This was just one suggestion. I actually have another that's still just forming, but that might address your concerns. I'll let this suggestion I posted stand as, perhaps it will gain some more interest... or not. Meanwhile, I'm gonna take few day to mull this other idea that's just popped into my head. Thank you for the replies, I enjoyed discussing this with you. Cheers - wolf 04:15, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page already differentiates between active and inactive users, so you only need the first category really when trying to find potential candidates. The bot could probably be expanded to add more information about the editors listed (like edit count, article creations etc.) but the main problem is disuse, not lack of usefulness. I also don't think people not being aware that the userbox feeds into Category:Wikipedia administrator hopefuls is really a large problem. The list is just a converted version of that category with some info added for usefulness. Regards SoWhy 17:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've opposed this as stated, but I would support some sort of sortition being used to make an approach to a potential candidate. The candidate should make the decision to put forward a nomination. If they do nothing, then the default is it doesn't happen, not that it does happen. SpinningSpark 17:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, this can be done now without needing any community ratification. When Anna Frodesiak initiated the creation of the optional RfA candidate poll, she requested that anyone come up with lists of potential candidates using whatever criteria they thought reasonable, and she invited everyone on the lists to consider starting a poll. The same can be done by, for instance, a revived WikiProject Admin Nominators, where interested parties can engage with the potential candidates and figure out the best path forward for them. isaacl (talk) 00:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Spinningspark: You wrote this comment and then 2 minutes later opposed a proposal below that is exactly what you suggested. --JBL (talk) 11:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not how I read the variant proposal. It says it is the same as 4A except the candidate must positively affirm. That reads to me like the nomination is made (which is what 4A says) but does not proceed any further until the candidate endorses the nomination. That's still got the same problem – the candidate is being put under pressure by a nomination being in esse rather than in posse. If that is not what the author meant then it is a poorly thought through, badly worded proposal thrown together in a hurry in a desperate attempt to save this crap proposal. SpinningSpark 14:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I have added clarification just for you. (I guess I should not be surprised that your response is to shift the goalposts and move to pure insult, given the evident bad faith with which you are engaging in the whole process.) --JBL (talk) 14:30, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Excuse me for giving an honest opinion. I don't believe this proposal is a good idea and neither are a lot of the others. It is not bad faith to say so, but it is extreme bad faith to accuse me of bad faith for doing that. What exactly do you think my bad faith agenda is here? SpinningSpark 16:32, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it is bad faith to say "I would support ..." when in fact there is nothing that could have been proposed here that you would have supported. And I think it's clear from your votes and comments here and on the talk page that that's the case. (Maybe I am using the phrase incorrectly; perhaps I should have just said that your contributions are dishonest and unconstructive.) --JBL (talk) 18:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Give it a rest with the personal attacks. I've made clear on the talk page what I would support. I am perfectly entitled to not support other proposals or ones that I think irrelevant. There is nothing dishonest in rejecting ALL changes if that is ones position. It's not my position, but it would not be dishonest to do that. To be clear here on my position relative to this proposal; I think it is fine to approach editors individually to find out how they feel about running for adminship. That can and does already happen. It's fine to run some kind of algorithm to find likely candidates. What is not fine is starting any kind of process, either formal or informal, BEFORE the potential candidate has agreed to it. SpinningSpark 17:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• How would accidental blocks be manually excluded? 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:30, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone would have to look at the block logs of every otherwise-qualified candidate that had any blocks and check them. —Cryptic 06:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Aside from all the other objections, this has been done before, multiple times, with less stringent and more practical criteria. Two representative examples. They're consistently either so overbroad as to have no predictive value as to whether someone could pass RFA (as in the first), or so narrow as result in no more than a few dozen candidates. To my memory, none of them have ever produced someone who went on to pass an RFA. I'd expect the criteria proposed here - even if they were practical, and I maintain they are not - to have both problems: too few total matches, and too little relevancy to passing RFA. —Cryptic 06:03, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cryptic: You are not wrong. For me, the criteria matter less than the other parts of the process. I wanted to see an alternative process that would fundamentally change the dynamic present at RFA. While a lot of opposes feel otherwise, I genuinely think people would be a lot less cruel in a discussion clearly divorced from the candidate's initiative. I mean there obviously other problems present with 4A/4D sortition, but I did want to respond to the criteria concern just for my own sake. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Create an academy where qualified applicants may apply for grouped training over an approved curriculum. Mastery-based learning model. Graduates who pass RFA become next generation of instructors.

---

Formalize/establish a program in which qualified volunteers may approach willing administrators as potential sponsors for admin coaching/training. Trainees would be responsible to their mentors and be willing to accept conditions set by the sponsor for activity and judgement. Successful trainees become their sponsor's apprentices, perhaps on a path toward RFA.

---

Exactly like 4A, except (1) 10 people are randomly chosen instead of 5, and (2) each candidate must affirmatively accept the nomination.

Added 14:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC): apparently the meaning of (2) was not entirely clear. It replaces the sentence "Following the drawing, candidates would have one week before the RFA goes live to do a final opt-out." of 4A with "Following the drawing, candidates would have one week before the RFA goes live to affirmatively accept nomination."

Support 4D Sortition variant[edit]

1. Sure. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 14:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. As proposer. Basically, this would institutionalize and automate the idea that long-time productive editors should consider running for RfA, and automatically group them into a cohort. (It would go particularly well when combined with a version of 8B (making the voting process secret ballot) and also with an initial adminship term of finite duration, but I think that even without these things it would be a significant step towards increasing the pool of potential administrators.) Precise details of the invitee pool and frequency of elections could be modified later. --JBL (talk) 15:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support for the same reason that I supported 4A. — Bilorv (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Support at least a trial run. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 21:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Support as an alternative to 4A. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Support for the same reasons as 4A. Alaexis_¿question? 12:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 4D Sortition variant[edit]

1. As mentioned regarding proposal 4A, I feel the process is better served by having a dialogue with the candidate. I'd prefer a revived admin nominators wikiproject to use whatever criteria they want to find potential candidates, and then work with them on following the standard request process. isaacl (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. No, for the same reasons as above. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. As above, this can't possibly automate anything, because none of the criteria are automatable. —Cryptic 16:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   @Cryptic: The automated aspect is irrelevant to the goal and value of the proposal; if it requires a few hours of someone's time every few months, it will still be worth it. I also think "support on the condition that the requirements are replaced with something that can be done in an automated way" would be an excellent and constructive !vote on this proposal. --JBL (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

4. Per my oppose and those of many others at 4A. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Oppose. This still has the same problem. SpinningSpark 17:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   The problem you identified above is "forcibly nominating candidates" -- anyone who doesn't want to be nominated in this model can just ignore it. --JBL (talk) 01:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

6. Per 4A; also this shouldn't even need an RFC. There is nothing stopping a determined editor from nominating 10 candidates for adminship without this proposal (other than the limited pool of candidates who both want to run and are likely to succeed). User:力 (powera, π, ν) 17:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   @力: There is a world of difference between one person randomly nominating 10 people (everyone will correctly identify that one person as a crank behaving in crank ways) and making an institutional decision that that will happen on a regular basis. Accepting the nomination of someone who is acting in an abnormal or even ridiculous way has obvious negative connotations; accepting the nomination of a community-supported process is entirely different (even if the criteria of selection are exactly the same). --JBL (talk) 18:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

7. Does not address my concern with the original proposal. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Does not solve the issues with the original proposal. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   What if the user doesn't want to be an admin? 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC) Vote struck. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!}[reply]

   @Chicdat: Then, by the simple method of not affirmatively accepting nomination, they will not become an administrator. --JBL (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   @JayBeeEll: Even so, the only problem with RfA is that nobody wants to run. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   @Chicdat: I think that you should reconsider the behavior that is leading you to write rationales that suggest you haven't understood what you're voting on, let alone taken the time to consider their potential advantages and disadvantages. --JBL (talk) 11:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   @JayBeeEll: You're right. I rushed through making my !vote. I've struck it now; my new one is below. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

9. This is a WP:SLOP. It is a proposal that solves no problem, and creates a few in itself. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 11:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   I guess it's better that you replaced a transparently ridiculous vote, made in haste, without reflection, and without engaging with any of the discussion with ... one that is all of those things except not transparently ridiculous? But maybe you could figure out how to un-bork the numbering in this section? --JBL (talk) 11:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10. Better but I don't think it solves the issues with 4A. The fact that someone meets these very bare-bones criteria doesn't mean they'd have any chance of passing RfA. Someone who accepted one of these auto-nominations and didn't do very well would likely have a very negative experience of the process and of Wikipedia generally. At least with a human nominator somebody has checked the candidate and thinks they have a realistic chance of passing.
    More generally, I don't think it's a good idea to try to solve the "not enough candidates" problem in isolation. There aren't enough candidates because prospective candidates don't think they'll pass, don't want to go through the process or don't want to be admins. If those problems were fixed then the number of candidates would go up. Keeping the process as unpleasant as ever and herding more people towards it won't solve much. Hut 8.5 17:55, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Per my reasoning in 4A -FASTILY 01:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. Doesn't address my concerns with 4A. the wub "?!" 02:04, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. Conscription / draft / mass cold-calling is directly repugnant to WP:VOLUNTARY. Leaky caldron (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
14. I think Hut 8.5 summarizes the problems with this idea well. While it's an interesting concept, I don't think it would work as intended: large numbers of minimally qualified candidates would fail, exacerbating RfA's unpleasantness. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
15. Oppose - Although this sortition variant is slightly different from 4A, the fact remains that this is a volunteer project and an editor must be able to freely decide on their own if they want to become an admin or not. Like other people have said, RfA should be opt-in, not opt-out. A person should always have the complete freedom of deciding on how and when they want to run for their RfA/RfB. TheGeneralUser (talk) 07:11, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 4D Sortition variant[edit]

I would urge people who take the view that the problem with this proposal is the particular criteria rather than the structure of the proposal to make a !vote of the form "conditional support, if the criteria are changed to [list the qualities you care about here]". --JBL (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

To provide candidates more flexibility to discuss their goals and motivations change standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator?

Support 5A Revise standard Question 1[edit]

1. Sounds good to me.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. This is a better way to ask the question. Admin candidates should not feel pressured to only work in certain areas, as experience shows the areas admins work in can and do change. This wording makes the question more about the candidate, which is how it should be. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. I agree that this is a better question. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Seems like an improvement over the current wording. Isabelle ^🔔 17:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Sure, but don't want to set some precedent that future improvement of this area would need a multi-stage, multi-month RfC. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   In theory none of the changes need a multi-stage RfC to pass. In reality large changes often take that process to form consensus. I certainly agree that this, and other similar tweaks, can happen successfully outside a process like this. It just so happened to come through in this process. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

6. I'd remove Q1 altogether, but I'm fine with revising it to this. —valereee (talk) 17:29, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Yes, that would work. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 17:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Good idea. – Joe (talk) 17:52, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. Sensible. MER-C 18:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. I support this non-controversial minor change. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 18:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. A fantastic proposal from (I think) Barkeep49, which I have been waiting a week to properly praise. It directly addresses the statement that received widespread support in the first phase with a simple but effective wording change that still gives candidates the same (if not better) opportunity to communicate relevant thoughts they want RfA participants to know, but without the same implicit assumption of a requirement that the community no longer thinks is necessary for candidates. — Bilorv (talk) 18:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    It is Wugapodes who wrote it as the idea emerged from the brainstorming process. I did propose it here so there would be an example proposal when the page went live. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12. I doubt that this will cure RfA's problems in any real sense, but it is indeed incrementally better than the current wording. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:08, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. Good idea. Certainly beats insisting on, or even inviting an additional self-nomination statement. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:34, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
14. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 20:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
15. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
16. Makes sense. DanCherek (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
17. The difference to the current "What administrative work do you intend to take part in?" doesn't seem to be as large and meaningful as some of the support appears to imply, but it's fine. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
18. A positive and sensible change. The fact is no user needs to be an admin, it is simply a way for them to contribute to the project in a different way. This question has always been loaded and I agree with the proposed change. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
19. Levivich 00:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
20. Certainly an improvement in the current wording. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
21. Okay. --Rschen7754 03:51, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
22. An elegant edit. I see it lowering the entry-point to the candidate's willingness without lowering the criteria for the candidate's responsibility. I don't see a downside. As of this datestamp, no opposes. BusterD (talk) 05:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
23. Anarchyte (talk) 06:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
24.  ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
26. I sincerely hope that this isn't the only thing that comes out for RFA2021, but yes. Worm^TT(talk) 08:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
27. Any user running for adminship with enough experience, civility, and ability, by default, does have a need for the tools. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
28. Sounds good to me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ritchie333 (talk • contribs) 14:16, November 1, 2021 (UTC) (diff).
29. Sure - wolf 17:30, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
30. Sounds great. However I must add that what bothers me more is not oppose !votes saying "no need for the tools" when the candidate isn't already doing admin-y things, but rather when the candidate is doing lots of admin-y things but they don't have significant mainspace edits or enough AfD !votes, etc., and people use that as a reason to oppose. Anyway changing the wording of Q1 as proposed I think can help this side of the issue as well, as it sort of broadens the scope of adminship. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. Need for the tools is secondary to not being likely to misuse them. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
32. Sure, seems a worthwhile focusing. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:33, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
33. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 06:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
34. Spencer^T•C 20:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
35. Looks good. — csc^-1 21:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support: I think the proposed open question should prompt better answers. —¿philoserf? (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
37. I can't imagine this will have a large positive effect, but I also can't imagine it would hurt. --JBL (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
38. Also not convinced of the value (I opposed the issue this was based on in Phase 1), but this doesn't harm anything. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
39. I'd rather just get rid of this question entirely but this is a good start. --RegentsPark (comment) 18:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
40. Meaningful edit. The new version seems more welcoming. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:31, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
41. Seems reasonable. Djm-leighpark (talk) 00:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
42. This seems good. Offers a more positive experience for the candidate and doesn't really change how others respond. I'm all in for it. Liamyangll (talk to me! | My contribs!) 07:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
43. 'No need for the tools' is a very poor reason to oppose. No volunteer “needs” to do anything. New admins can get into doing admin things tentatively, and even if they don’t, there is no loss. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:17, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
44. Concur. DS (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 15:18, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
46. Yes. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 17:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
47. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
48. Agree. Neutrality^talk 05:32, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
49. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:19, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
50. There is (and will) always be work to do. Just because there's little or no backlog now doesn't mean there won't be one in the future. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 17:51, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support. I really dislike "no need for the tools" opposes. Nobody needs the admin tools because none of us is indispensable and all of us can contribute productively without the tools. On the other hand, long term productive level headed editors who are willing to accept the tools and the responsibilities that go along with them should get the tools. I had no idea when I became an administrator that WP:UAA would be an area that appeals to me. A more open ended phrasing is better, because a frank, thoughtful response is more useful than a constrained response. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:36, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
52. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 06:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support. –Davey2010^Talk 14:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
54. Yes. Or no question at all. Suitability and experience is what counts, not what motivates someone to do something. That is, well, a bit personal, and somewhat intrusive. People sometimes want to be an admin as a sense of wanting to help out on this project a bit more, to feel more involved, because this is the most significant thing ordinary people have done collectively since building the Hoover Dam or the Pyramids or Stonehenge. But asking people to reveal that can be a little embarrassing. It's enough that they have offered to do the work. And nobody is going to put: "I wanna be an admin because I wanna see blood and gore and guts and veins in my teeth. Eat dead burnt bodies. I mean kill, Kill, KILL, KILL." SilkTork (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
55. Per SilkTork immediately above. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:21, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support. This is always a very weak oppose reason on RFAs, I'd be glad to see it gone. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 10:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support. Or even no question. Motivation is important but so many ultimately-desysopped-with-cause admins cheerfully went through RFA in days gone by talking about how enthusiastic they were and how ready they were to do certain tasks, who then did not focus on those tasks and turned out to have poor attitudes. FOARP (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
58. A small but definite improvement. the wub "?!" 02:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
59. It's an open question. It will bring interesting responses. --Whiteguru (talk) 07:07, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
60. This is a very good change and I support it. TheGeneralUser (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
61. Solid improvement, however small. Anyone ready to call consensus on this one yet? Retswerb (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 5A Revise standard Question 1[edit]

Discussion 5A Revise standard Question 1[edit]

• I'm not going to oppose this because I think it's harmless. But it seems to me that, to the extent that it'll impact "no need for admin tools"-esque opposition at all - its stated rationale - it's more likely to cause more of it than less. The current Q1 at least nudges candidates towards preemptively countering such opposition. —Cryptic 10:33, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Per Cryptic. It would make a real difference if the community instructed Bureaucrats to give little or no weight to "no need for the tools" arguments. I'm not convinced that rewording Q 1 would make any difference. ϢereSpielChequers 17:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't want to start an oppose section, but I don't think this is quite as wholly positive as the supporters appear to. The "No need for the tools" oppose is not going to go away and might, as Cryptic suggests, be exacerbated by the change. It also might encourage candidates to write non-specific statements about how much they love the Wikipedia concept, rather than to think carefully about which areas they are knowledgeable about or skilled in. As an aside, if this does pass, what is going to happen to optional questioners coming along and asking "What administrative work do you intend to take part in?" Espresso Addict (talk) 03:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Before starting their RfA, a candidate may contact the bureaucrats, asking them to enforce bespoke recall criteria. If the bureaucrats agree that the conditions are objective and enforceable then the candidate can start the RfA with the recall criteria. Example criteria: "adminship will be removed 10 years after my RfA is closed" or "any administrator may start a petition: if signed by 20 extended confirmed editors within 7 days then I will be desysopped".

Support 6A Binding recall criteria[edit]

1. Sounds good to me. Per the talk page, the effect of this is merely to prevent 'crats from refusing to abide by community consensus w/r/t desysopping criteria.  – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:14, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
2. I'd support this, but I'd rather see a set of standardized binding recall criteria. —valereee (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support as proposer. If someone wants to propose standardised recall criteria then feel free to do so separately, but I think the right path forward is a mandate for binding recall criteria, which would be groundbreaking. The fundamental issue we have that needs a formal RfC is that no recall criteria are enforced by crats, so candidates who want to set them can only pledge to follow them, and voters who want to support them are forced to either trust the candidate to act sensibly in a situation where they are unfit for adminship, or oppose because the criteria are not enforceable. This is the minimum viable proposal, with a lightweight stage of crat input to determine that crats can/will support the recall process in each case, and specific types of criteria approved/disapproved by the community ad hoc at each RfA (as opposing over someone for not being more easily recallable would be completely valid). — Bilorv (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. (Moved from Oppose): One main problem with having many different recall criteria is the lack of standardization. In wikis with a standardized recall procedure for all administrators, recalls regularly happen because upset editors know which path to universally take to vote for a recall, and because every editor knows about the effectivity of that process, and because it is always properly enforced. The proposal does not provide the necessary standardization. It does not even enforce having recall criteria at all. But that's okay for now. At least it is an improvement per Bilorv's points. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per Bilorv and TBF, this would be an incremental improvement, and there seems little downside of trying it. Levivich 00:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Per Bilorv. And per Valereee I'd also like to see a set of standardized binding recall criteria.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. Proposed process is bad, especially the bespoke nature, but I've always been in favor of recall. We've never gotten buy-in for a universal recall system here, but by the same token we've literally never tried it. I don't think this idea is good, but IMO a system of universal, binding recall would be a massive good. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Incremental improvements are better than no improvements, and provide good proof-of-concept before making drastic changes. --JBL (talk) 18:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
9. I'm leery about any type of mandatory recall procedure but, since the decision here is optional for the candidate, I would weakly support it. Chetsford (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
10. This is a step in the right direction. I'd rather have a mandatory set of recall criteria, but this is a good first measure. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:43, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. Though this may seem like it would reduce the number of admins, I have a feeling that recall criteria may actually help retain them in the long run, in terms of editors becoming more interested in trying admin status out. It would have to be stringent - none of us wants to see admin status passed out like a free sample at the supermarket - but offering the potential for admin status to expire in whatever amount of time, and then asking after this period if they'd like to consider admin status for a longer period of time, such as ten years or indefinitely, may increase comfort with potential admin status and increase interest, too. Give people an easier in and an easier out, and it reduces stress for all involved, making it altogether a more comfortable experience that I'd hazard a guess to increase admin retention and admin numbers.
    Asking to be desysopped at the minute feels like it'd give editors an aura of shame, whereas rolling recall criteria into part of the process of becoming, staying or leaving administrator status would remove this shame to a degree, if not entirely, as it'd be a respected choice that would not put editors in the same league as those desysopped for violations of rules. I don't like the comparison of try before you buy, but I wonder how many editors may decide to stick around and commit to a longer period of admin status following a short, maybe one or two year period of such permissions. I know I'd actively consider it, whereas before I would never have considered an RfA. I don't think I'm alone in holding this view, and as such, I support this proposal.--Ineffablebookkeeper (talk) 14:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
12. This is a neat idea. It would add "teeth" to the recall process, but still give us the flexibility to experiment with different recall criteria to see what works and what doesn't. That could help to lay the groundwork for an eventual community desysop process applying to all admins. Tim Smith (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 6A Binding recall criteria[edit]

Moved to support. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1. This will only reduce the number of admins we have. Enforcing policy is not always a popular decision and it should not come down to criteria set out when the admin is at their lowest level of experience. There is a list as long as my arm of admins who have been desysopped with our existing process, it is a myth that admin is a lifetime tenure.
   Our desysop criteria is a careful analysis of behavior and how our policies and community norms relate to it and it is called ARBCOM. You are an admin until you do something that gets your mop taken away, or stop using it for a year. The 'crats have already made it clear they do not want to be in charge of determining if arbitrary criteria has been met. Binding recall criteria will create a whole new barrier to becoming an admin and we will have even less.
   This is also unfair to new admins because of the huge amount of old timers who get to be an admin without these criteria. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:53, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   @HighInBC: The 'crats have already made it clear they do not want to be in charge of determining if arbitrary criteria has been met – in this proposal, crats are contacted in advance of the RfA to agree that they are willing to enforce the criteria, which must be objective and enforceable (the opposite of arbitrary). If they do not want to determine if the criteria are met then they will reject them. The intention is that criteria are so obviously objective that any uninvolved bureaucrat should be able to determine uncontroversially whether they are met (it is no more difficult than determining to desysop for inactivity). — Bilorv (talk) 23:09, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Have any 'crats indicated that they would want to take this task on? Because as I have said they have indicated in the past that they are not willing to make judging binding recall part of their responsibilities. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   If this passes with substantial consensus and existing bureaucrats aren't willing to enforce it, it should be straightforward to promote new bureaucrats running on a platform that they are willing. —Cryptic 03:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. The bureaucrats have already made very clear that they are unwilling to take on the role of judging or enforcing recalls. Unless they have changed their position with respect to that, we would be telling participants that the criteria are binding when in fact no one will enforce them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:47, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
3. I was skeptical about fully bespoke criteria, and with at least one bureaucrat on the record against it I'm going to oppose. I might support a similar proposal with a small set of permissible recall criteria that would get pre-approval from the community (and bureaucrats). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 02:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
4. Candidates already have the option to choose to be open to recall, I don't see what codifying this accomplishes. And with others stating above that the bureaucrats are unwilling to be the recall police force, this is impossible to enforce anyhow. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   @Trainsandotherthings: candidates do not have the option to be open to binding recall, and indeed there have been instances in the past of people who simply refuse to abide by their recall criteria when the conditions are met (example given below). The point is to make recall binding, and this is the minimum viable codification to do this. If the crats are "unwilling" to enforce the criteria then they will simply reject them when a candidate requests them to. — Bilorv (talk) 11:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

5. This could result in de facto bullying: "Oppose unless you agree to XYZ". --Rschen7754 02:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
6. Not the right way to go about removing adminship. Forcing arbitrary processes onto people that haven't even got the tools yet will just make the process more hostile. We need to discuss reconfirmation RfAs and non-ArbCom sysop removal instead. Anarchyte (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
7. We need more admins, not fewer! 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 10:50, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
8. Unenforceable in a fair way. People have different criteria, and to enforce it, Crats would have to interpret individual "rules" which may or may not always be clear. If I were a Crat, I would refuse to participate in a recall petition because of this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   @Dennis Brown: I don't understand this comment. The proposal involves consulting the crats in advance, who must agree that the criteria are objective and enforceable (hence, not "may not always be clear"). How would a situation arise that the crats are asked to judge something unclear? — Bilorv (talk) 11:42, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   They may not be the same crats. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

9. Seems rather pointless. It's optional, so why would any admin do this? And if they do, they can set whatever "bespoke" criteria they want that bureaucrats might not even follow through with. (more on talk below) - wolf 17:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   @Thewolfchild: It's optional, so why would any admin do this? – many admins already do and have done since at least 2006. I'm not sure I understand they can set whatever "bespoke" criteria they want that bureaucrats might not even follow through with – in the given proposal, how could a situation arise where the bureaucrats would not follow through on enforcement? — Bilorv (talk) 18:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   I think it should mandatory, for all admins, not optional. And there should be a standardized recall criteria, not a bespoke list. It was mentioned above that some crats might not follow through with any recalls, hence the reason I mentioned it. If that is indeed the case, then it would need to be addressed beforehand, to remove any choice in the matter. - wolf 18:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

10. I agree with Rschen7754. At my own RfA I felt pressured into being open to recall (Q4). I never wrote my criteria, as the whole concept of optional recall seems off to me. !Voters should support candidates because they trust them, not because of some criteria the 'crats may or may not actually enforce, or the candidate may or may not abide by. I think there should be standard recall criteria for everyone or none at all. — MusikAnimal ^talk 18:21, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
11. The people who keep trying to give this unused process some teeth need to drop the stick, like, yesterday. Let it go. Recall isn't a thing. Maybe it had potential when it was new, but it hasn't been used in a very long time and does not have broad community support. Continuing to try and make it into something useful is a waste of time, what we need is an entirely new process, not a rehash of this failed one. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:08, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd argue it's never really been tried. It's never been accepted at a community level, and it won't here, but I don't think it's fair to say it's a failed process when it's never been used project-wide. Failed to gain consensus, sure. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

12. Community de-adminship should operate on consistent standards, not bespoke criteria which could depend not on the merits of the admin but on how hard they were pressured into signing up for recall at their RfA. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:17, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
13. Per King of Hearts, plus I doubt (based on the comments at WP:BN) that the crats would be willing to execute this proposal in any way true to its intent. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
14. I got rid of my recall criteria because it is a useless process --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
15. per Anarchyte. Isabelle ^🔔 16:15, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
16. I think a recall process would be fine, but not this one. Specifically, all of the mandatory secret prescreening and approval by bureaucrats parts here are a no go for me, not just as a 'crat - but because these shouldn't require any secret proceedings. I'd prefer a standard community-wide recall criteria. — xaosflux ^Talk 10:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
17. I don't believe we should be encouraging the creation of bespoke recall criteria, any community recall process should be universal. — csc^-1 22:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
18. Recall is inherently a mess. ArbCom is very effective at removing admin access when necessary, and sometimes when not. Jehochman ^Talk 08:11, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
19. Agree with the first comment here. If the problem we are trying to address is that there are not enough admins and that it is too difficult to recruit more, then making more ways to remove admins is hardly going to help. SpinningSpark 17:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
20. Per Beeblebrox and Rschen. Evidence shows recall doesn't work, and whether candidates sign up to this would be entirely arbitrary (i.e. whether they were bullied into it). I don't see why a realistic prospective RfA candidate would decide (before starting their RfA) that having a mandatory, immutable recall criteria is the only way the RfA will pass. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
21. Per Beeblebrox, and unless the question (a Catch-22 question anyway) is asked at RfA: 'Will you be open to recall?', it's probably not in the back of the minds of most voters. Secondly, Recall has been used so rarely that the sample size is too small to know if it would ever be effective as a community desysoping process or pre-process and some admins have refused to abide by their own criteria. Finally, as WP:BARC demonstrated, it's not in the Bureaucrats' job description - it's not what they signed up for. Building a new league of 'crats would take years at the rate of RfB. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:40, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
22. Oppose. DS (talk) 14:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
23. Oppose. Having the tools doesn't mean you need to use them. If a person is no longer interested in using the tools, they can resign. And if an admin were to abuse them, they would be blocked fairly quick. Lifetime tenure reduces bureaucracy (not having to run yearly RfAs), and allows Admins to make difficult decisions without a threat of their tools being stripped away. Making bad decisions would get their tools stripped away by our current processes anyway, and we don't need another way to remove admins, since this big RfC is about the opposite. JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 15:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
24. Pressure to commit to recall criteria would be very unhealthy for RFA. GAB^gab 18:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
25. I like the idea of a standardized recall criteria, but this is not that, because it's optional and can be "bespoke", it would only add more complexity to the process. ASUKITE 16:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
26. Pretty much per Rschen7754 and GAB, noms should not feel compelled to commit to arbitrary recall criteria. Cavalryman (talk) 01:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC).[reply]
27. More bureaucracy won't help anything. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 05:57, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
28. Oppose per Kudpung & Dennis - Barely used process. –Davey2010^Talk 14:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
29. It's a no from me. SilkTork (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
30. The first example given isn't even a recall criteria, it is a term length. Things change over the years, as do interests. A recall criteria of "I will hand in the mop if five of the ten most active admins at AIV support this" might make sense for an admin who starts out entirely focussed at AIV, but would look dated if three years later they are mostly a sock hunter. ϢereSpielChequers 17:12, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
31. Per above. At best, this could lead to increased bullying, at worst, extortion. Bad idea. -FASTILY 01:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
32. Having been involved in a desysopping via Arbcom, it does seem to work. I do not see how having a recall system instead/on-top of this adds anything. There seems to be pressure on nominees to accept re-call because they're afraid people will oppose them if they don't accept it. Quite what will happen if someone accepts the re-call criteria and then later on says "actually, no, I'm not going to just quit because of this recall petition, y'all have to take me to Arbcom" is not clear. The real problem is the "super-mario" problem where admins just get desysopped for bad behaviour that would otherwise have seen them banned, but this does not address that. FOARP (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
33. Not convinced that bespoke recall criteria, whether binding or not, really help to address the problem. Additionally although the example criteria in the proposal are very straightforward, I looked at a few random examples from Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Admin criteria and many are far more complicated e.g. User:Lar/Accountability. I don't think it's fair to put it on bureaucrats to decide if these criteria and processes are "objective and enforceable", and the comments here and at BN suggest they don't desire this extra burden either. the wub "?!" 02:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
34. Oppose - This would clearly be a very bad idea. Every editor would have their own arbitrary recall criteria which could be completely different from others. Also, an RfA is about finding the suitability of a person as an admin and a forced binding recall is a completely unrelated and counter productive idea to that. We all are here looking for ways to make the process easier and stress free for all potential candidates and this would be completely opposite of that. TheGeneralUser (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion 6A Binding recall criteria[edit]

• Recall criteria are something which I proudly have, and will stick to. I'm unsure if making them unchangeable makes this a good idea as with change that will always come the recall criteria may need to be updated. For example, a user right mentioned in the recall criteria may cease to exist. Without having a way for the criteria to be changed, they could over time become un-useable. As such I'm not voting support unless there is a way to change the criteria. Such a way should include community discussion to make the change. If there was a way to change them, I would be supporting this. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 16:51, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dreamy Jazz: make a suggestion of the most lightweight process through which they could be changed (a discussion at AN? a new process at RFA?). Proposals can be altered within the first seven days and if no supporters object to the changes then we could introduce a measure to change the criteria, other than the method that would be available by default: run a reconfirmatory RfA with new recall criteria. — Bilorv (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I strongly support the concept of admin recall. That being said, I haven't opted-in to recall because I find the whole process weird and complicated and confusing. There should be a standardized, mandatory, community-based admin recall process. WP:DESYSOP2021 failed, but it's worth putting the effort into figuring out why it failed and coming up with a better proposal. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  PS, orthogonal to this discussion, I was just granted that most coveted of collectable hats, admin on testwiki. And what I discovered is that my mop is temporary ("Expires 17:35, 31 October 2022"). I didn't even know admin rights could be granted with a time limit in the currently software, and I'll bet most people didn't know that either, so mentioning it here as a PSA. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If you look at the archives for meta:SRP, you can see that on most small projects (the ones that don't have local 'crats), temporary adminship happens regularly. Some projects are apparently small enough to not even require a permanent administrator. --rchard2scout (talk) 09:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  A bit off-topic, but on those projects temporary adminship is generally given if 0-8 people have supported the request. This is basically a mandatory confirmation to protect that smaller project in case the admin turns out to be bad - and stewards also have more leeway to revoke adminship immediately if someting goes wrong. --Rschen7754 04:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Ditto. I'm totally open to recall, have it as a category on my user, but I have zero idea what to put down as criteria. Levivich and EEng both tell me it's time to hand in the mop? —valereee (talk) 20:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• An unnecessary layer of buraucracy. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Kudpung: I'm confused about what this means you think about recall in general. Do you think the whole thing is a waste of time? That recall is fine as is, where an admin decides whether or not to stand by their own criteria after the conditions are met? Or that a standardised process could have less bureaucracy than this specific proposal? — Bilorv (talk) 19:43, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Bilorv, I haven't stated what this means I think about recall in general. I would have thought however, that an admin who subscribes voluntarily to their own recall criteria would abide by them. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:03, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Sadly, there is historical precedent of admins not abiding by objective recall criteria once they are met. Here's a statement by an admin deciding to simply ignore the outcome of a successful recall discussion about them in 2008, and they remain an admin today. (If you think 2008 is too long ago, take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Past requests: very few recall attempts have been started since 2010, because the community understand that recall is useless with no power of a crat to enforce it.) — Bilorv (talk) 20:32, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Bilorv, I'm possibly more confused than you are, but probably because I did some research. What's not been mentioned, and is glaring by its absence, is the number of desysopings where the community didn't ask an admin to answer to his or her recall criteria, and just covered him/her with tar and feathers and dragged him/her straight to Arbcom. !Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've gone ahead and started a thread at WP:BN asking for an opinion on whether bureaucrats would be willing to enforce this. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 01:52, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Recall in principle is a good idea, but it should be the same for all, not opt in. There have been a number of general recall proposals, but they have all had flaws. Recall by ArbCom is recall, and it works. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to some extent with SmokeyJoe. Admins should for the most part be indistinguishable. Abiding by the same recall criteria, which inevitably means community imposed recall criteria (or none) is a major component of ensuring all admins are much the same. To do otherwise invites WP:ADMINSHOPping. I don't see that Arbcom needs to be the only route. Cabayi (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've always opposed recall because it asks too little of admins behaviourally, and too much of their time. If a community member has issues with my use of the tools, I feel obligated to listen and act accordingly. I will never set recall criteria because I believe it sends the message unless you get enough people on your side, I'm not going to listen. We need enforceable standards for admin behaviour, ones that anyone dragging an admin to ANI can point to. (WP:ADMINCOND isn't much help - it basically says "don't do things that other editors wouldn't get away with".) If we had more clearly defined standrds, iadmins who chose not to abide by them would have the option to resign, or we can ask the arbcom to decide. Recall, in my opinion, sets procedural standards for removal, not positive standards for behaviour. Guettarda (talk) 21:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crat comments on their role[edit]

There was a request for 'crat comment on the WP:Bureaucrats noticeboard - If we're going to chat about it, why not here? Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Bureaucrats will decide on a way for them to be contacted privately e.g. by a centralised email. & A candidate who wants to be open to recall may contact them in advance of their RfA, laying out their recall criteria.

  We closed down the bureaucrat mailing list a while back, and it was never used for creating consensus (towards the end it was only for renames, and few crats did them from there). Crat's don't work as a committee, it's an individual thing, so I'm reluctant to start it back up. Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The community has on more than one occasion failed to agree a generic recall process. Delegating the decision to crats, and then asking us to determine it secretly, is not a process conducive to maintaining community confidence in the crat cadre. ϢereSpielChequers 17:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The bureaucrats decide among themselves whether the criteria are objective and enforceable. & If they privately approve the criteria, the candidate can start an RfA with these criteria as public, unchangeable and binding if the RfA passes.

  So the crat's decide if the criteria is good enough? Not as written. The crat's role is to weigh consensus - we'd need something measurable that the crats can see if it works against. Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Objective and enforcable is not the same as "good enough", "likely to be useful" or even "relevant". "Desysop me if AOC becomes President of the USA or I change my username to a word that is obscene in Old Norse.", is objective, enforcable and about as much use as a chocolate tea pot. ϢereSpielChequers 17:34, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• When recall criteria are met, any user can notify the bureaucrats at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard with evidence that the criteria are met; any bureaucrat can verify this and remove admin rights.

  I have no issue with this part. Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Me neither, though I'm assuming that if the first crat to respond says at the crat noticeboard "criteria not met for reason x" another crat may disagree and question that or start a crat chat but not simply perform the desysop. ϢereSpielChequers 17:42, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If a user has adminship removed by recall, they may only regain adminship through the standard process for non-admins.

  Nor this part, which is not really crat based. Worm^TT(talk) 09:18, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Worm That Turned: I don't understand why "objective and enforceable" are not "measurable" and, themselves, two objective criteria? The role would not be to say "these recall criteria do not meet community standards"—that's part of what participants would vote on at RfA—just to say "if the community agreed on this then it's logistically possible to implement". This is no different to if we gave specific recall criteria to choose from and the crats were consulted to say "yes, we would be willing to do this", except that it would be done on a case-by-case basis. As for the reason the system needs to be private, this is because candidates would object to it being public, as it gives the game away that they are about to run for RfA (and you'll have noticed as surely as I have that very few people are comfortable publicly declaring in advance when they are about to run for RfA). — Bilorv (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've left a comment at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard#Bureaucrats and 2021 RFA review. I have that page watchlisted, so will respond there to any queries. SilkTork (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bilorv - The same reason that recall has always been a problem. "Objective and measurable" can include "if one of these specific 5 editors says I should quit", "If 10,000 editors with over 150 edits say I should step down", "If the party of the first part explains that the party of the second part that the incident in question is a violation of technical point 4 of my personal recall criteria", and any other stupid criteria. You could say that the community can shout it down at RfA - but that's not the problem, the question will be posed of the 'crats "Why did you let that through?". And the answer will be "because it's objective and measurable" - and I foresee disagreement. Worm^TT(talk) 12:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Why not just have mandatory RfAs every five years, for every admin, current and upcoming, no exceptions. This allows the community to determine their continued suitability. No different than the elected positions in many democracies, except there's no term limits. (jmho) - wolf 17:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thewolfchild: because (a) that's nothing to do with recall and (b) the community literally rejected mandatory RfAs every ten years as too harsh by a two-to-one margin earlier this year. — Bilorv (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did state "jmho", but that aside, it should be noted that WTT did describe it as a "perennial proposal". And while it was voted down, there was still a significant number of supporters, many of whom had good reasoning attached to their !votes. And while there was an even larger number of people that opposed, I believe that in of itself is evidence that the process could work. But, again... jmho. - wolf 18:26, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The objections include that our problem is too few admins not too many, and something that reduced our number of admins arbitrarily would mean we had to cut more slack for marginally problematic admins because we couldn't afford to lose them. Solutions that would make sense if our number of mops was limited are not so helpful when our shortage is admins not mops for admins. ϢereSpielChequers 17:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]