Ricky81682 apparently has been sock puppeting

[Eric Corbett]

In the same way that presidents and prime ministers have fixed limits on their terms, then so should Wikipedia administrators.

Nothing else makes sense.

[Beeblebrox]

Yeah, reviewing every single users use of rollback would be completely insane. If someone is misusing rollback it's a simple matter for an admin to just revoke it.

There did used to be voluntary review systems, but not enough people actually did reviews to sustain it. I actually closed admin review after the last request posted there sat for seven months without a review. Editor review was closed as inactive way back in 2014.

[Poetlister]

In the same way that presidents and prime ministers have fixed limits on their terms, then so should Wikipedia administrators.

Nothing else makes sense.

Is the suggestion that nobody can remain an admin indefinitely even if he keeps passing RfAs? In the US, a president cannot serve for more than eight years (or slightly longer if he's a VP and something happens to the President). However, there is no limit to how long someone can be a president in some countries. In the UK, and indeed in every country that I know much about, someone can remain PM for as long as he can win elections.

[Eric Corbett]

I think it would be healthier for everyone if WP administrators had fixed terms, yes. If at the end of that term they want to go through another RfA, fine.

As UK parliaments have fixed terms, then so does a prime minister.

[Icewhiz]

I think it would be healthier for everyone if WP administrators had fixed terms, yes. If at the end of that term they want to go through another RfA, fine.

As UK parliaments have fixed terms, then so does a prime minister.

Some other language Wikipedias have fixed terms. The Hebrew Wikiepdia has a 3 year term. Once up - (if you want) you ask for a RFA again. Works.

[Eric Corbett]

I think it would be healthier for everyone if WP administrators had fixed terms, yes. If at the end of that term they want to go through another RfA, fine.

As UK parliaments have fixed terms, then so does a prime minister.

Some other language Wikipedias have fixed terms. The Hebrew Wikiepdia has a 3 year term. Once up - (if you want) you ask for a RFA again. Works.

Wikipedia arbitrators have fixed terms, so why not administrators?

[Osborne]

I think it would be healthier for everyone if WP administrators had fixed terms, yes. If at the end of that term they want to go through another RfA, fine.

This suggestion is also part of the working group proposals.

[Beeblebrox]

This has been discussed on-wiki many, many times. The usual objections are are that it would create huge waves of reconfirmations, especially at first, estimated at 20+ per week, and also admins aren't the president of the United States, they are volunteers on a website. That and arbcom already deals with serious breaches of expected standards of admin behavior. We've got three open cases right now that are basically all about this.

Arbcom is of course not perfect, (even with me on it ) and I've often disagreed with how they've handled certain admin issues, but I can't believe more RFAs is the best possible solution. A resurrected version of admin review, that was binding but not a full RFA, seems more reasonable but it would still have a very heavy case load.

Another alternative is of course community-based removal of admin tools, currently not a thing on EN.WP but it is on some other projects such as Meta. I think to actually accomplish this it would have to be a very long process, going step-by step through multiple RFCs, the first one asking only "should we do this at all" and leaving the details to be worked out later in the process. This is where previous efforts went bad, I drafted a proposed process, and asked others to help develop it. Literally nobody did that, they just wrote whole new processes and we wound up with 17 competing proposals, many of which were nearly the same my original draft. Didn't end well.

[Vigilant]

If admin rights expired and had to be renewed every year, RfA as we know it would cease to exist. And that's a good thing.

Make admin renewal a notice on a page where people can chime in.
"If anyone objects, let them speak now or forever (for a year) hold their peace."

Ballparking:
90% of admins would have no opposes.
5% would have stupid or vindictive opposes.
5% would have legitimate concerns that would prevent renewing the admin right for a year.



Edit: Fucking auto co-rectangle

[Randy from Boise]

The current system more or less works. Bad actors are being weeded out. The process is slow.

t

[Poetlister]

The current system more or less works. Bad actors are being weeded out. The process is slow.

t

It is far too slow and indeed too often nonexistent. Most people here can think of an admin, maybe more than one, who should have been desysopped years ago.

[Eric Corbett]

The current system more or less works. Bad actors are being weeded out. The process is slow.

t

On the contrary, the current system more or less doesn't work. The process, such as it is, is glacial, not just slow.

[Eric Corbett]

This has been discussed on-wiki many, many times. The usual objections are are that it would create huge waves of reconfirmations, especially at first, estimated at 20+ per week, and also admins aren't the president of the United States, they are volunteers on a website. That and arbcom already deals with serious breaches of expected standards of admin behavior. We've got three open cases right now that are basically all about this.

Indeed they aren't the president of the United States, but they act as if they are.

[Osborne]

This has been discussed on-wiki many, many times.

Yeah, by admins.

admins aren't the president of the United States, they are volunteers on a website.

Which is the ideology of why they aren't responsible for anything. The lack of accountability is a major source of the toxicity.

That and arbcom already deals with serious breaches of expected standards of admin behavior.

Like blatant violations of the checkuser policy and false statements violating the Terms of Use that were allowed to happen in full view of ArbCom and remain in effect for a year? Mkay.

We've got three open cases right now that are basically all about this.

This year's ArbCom seems to be doing a serious job. Especially compared to last year's. Kudos.

A resurrected version of admin review, that was binding but not a full RFA, seems more reasonable but it would still have a very heavy case load.

Editors do pay the price of bureaucracy when they are reviewed. It is the price of an overly bureaucratic society that can't focus on simple facts, but rather needs confirmation from allegedly "reliable sources" - such as arbs and admins in these matters - to be able to see what's in front of their eyes. Admins are prominent in creating these complicated practices, so if they want less "heavy case load" it's up to them to decrease the complications their actions and handling of cases introduces into the everyday contributor experience.
Yeah, I don't expect them to understand this.

Another alternative is of course community-based removal of admin tools, currently not a thing on EN.WP but it is on some other projects such as Meta.

It's unfortunate that the community thinks at first about sanctions when such a process comes to discussion. In a healthy community, matters would be addressed before coming to sanctioning. Regular review (feedback) of one's actions is a form to prevent things spiraling out of control. That's the good-faith approach. That's a lighter process than an RfA. It maybe as simple as "Everything is ok, thanks for helping with this and that last summer."

I think to actually accomplish this it would have to be a very long process, going step-by step through multiple RFCs, the first one asking only "should we do this at all"

This RfC without a vote actually happened a few months ago. Why are you talking in conditionals?

and leaving the details to be worked out later in the process. This is where previous efforts went bad, I drafted a proposed process, and asked others to help develop it. Literally nobody did that, they just wrote whole new processes and we wound up with 17 competing proposals, many of which were nearly the same my original draft. Didn't end well.

I'd be interested to read those if you were to link them.
I understand what you might have had to go through. There are many editors unexperienced in social matters, yet opining on questions regarding those matters, unknowingly causing disruption and tanking proposals. This is a major shortcoming of the community and the common values rather support these elements than experienced, trained contributors who actually have a clue.

[Poetlister]

This has been discussed on-wiki many, many times. The usual objections are are that it would create huge waves of reconfirmations, especially at first, estimated at 20+ per week, and also admins aren't the president of the United States, they are volunteers on a website. That and arbcom already deals with serious breaches of expected standards of admin behavior. We've got three open cases right now that are basically all about this.

Indeed they aren't the president of the United States, but they act as if they are.

Probably there are more people who trust what it says on Wikipedia (as produced by or under the supervision of these admins) than what the current President of the USA says. So they aren't that unimportant.

[Tarc]

...I don't know exactly what this was about, but harassment is a hot-button issue that won't be easy to overcome, plus whatever these other "serious policy violations" were.

The precipitating event (which we covered in this thread, registration required, sorry) was that he posted something mean about User:Masem (T-C-L) on Twitter, but before that he'd engaged in an "experiment" (lasting about three months or so) during which he pretended to be a black dude.

I mean, we can laugh about it now...

Yea, good ol' Masem, Sealion Extraordinaire.

It was mostly a jest, Beebs, as I'm not even slightly apologetic over that affair. Besides, socking isn't a big deal if you keep your head down...

Btw, the PoC thing was more of a blip/whim, really. The longer experiment was going conservative; a pre-Trump conservative, when they still had a shred of dignity, but it was dirty nonetheless.

I could always dig up that old Allen West avatar again and see if Vigilant is still triggered.

[Vigilant]

I could always dig up that old Allen West avatar again and see if Vigilant is still triggered.

It almost seems quaint compared to Cheetoh Mussolini