Which admins would fail if they had to do a new RfA for reelection?

[Starship Enterprise]

Curious what you guys think

[Randy from Boise]

Welcome to WPO!

tim

[Giraffe Stapler]

Curious what you guys think

That's a difficult question to answer without knowing why they would need to do a new RFA. There aren't many admins that could get re-elected if they had the tools taken away by Arbcom, for example, but even in that case it would depend on the circumstances.

[Starship Enterprise]

Curious what you guys think

That's a difficult question to answer without knowing why they would need to do a new RFA. There aren't many admins that could get re-elected if they had the tools taken away by Arbcom, for example, but even in that case it would depend on the circumstances.

Maybe if there were terms and they needed to pass again for reelection

[Hemiauchenia]

As noted elsewhere on this forum probably Mzajac (T-C-L), barely uses the tools and is somewhat of a controversial editor in the Eastern Europe topic area.

[Catfish Jim & spd]

As noted elsewhere on this forum probably Mzajac (T-C-L), barely uses the tools and is somewhat of a controversial editor in the Eastern Europe topic area.

It's a difficult one... the RfA process is supposed to demonstrate that you can be trusted with the tools, but the bar has been pushed somewhere else.

On the basis of activity and regular use of the tools, I would probably not pass an RfA.

[AndyTheGrump]

I suspect that a whole swathe of 'legacy admins' from the days when having a pulse was essentially the only requirement for getting admin status would have trouble getting through a new RfA. Every so often, I come across one, while trying to figure out how someone can be so sure of themselves, while so obviously wrong about Wikipedia policy.

When you see this sort of thing, it generally explains it all:

Mzajac talk contribs‏‎ (autopatrolled, administrator) (Created on 8 June 2004 at 22:15)

Beyond that, amongst the actually-active admins, there are probably a few who'd get the boot, and a few more where discussions would likely resemble a Glasgow pub brawl, but if the 'community' somehow persuaded itself to force the entire admin corps to go through RFA again, it would probably end up keeping most of the regular active ones, on the basis that any alternatives available were likely to be worse.

There is a tendency amongst some critics of Wikipedia (most often, those on the receiving end of blocks, bans etc) to see the 'evil admins' as being responsible for all or most of the failings of the project. As explanations for failures (real or imagined) go, this doesn't actually explain much, given that the broader 'community' keeps appointing new admins. The 'community' evidently considers admins necessary, and provided one defines 'necessary' as meaning 'keeping the whatever-it-is going', this seems more or less self-evidently true. A Wikipedia without admins would almost certainly end up being something else entirely, and I have my doubts that it would last long.

[Ritchie333]

Curious what you guys think

Me.

[Vigilant]

Curious what you guys think

Me.

Absolutely.

[Mojito]

Curious what you guys think

JPxG (T-C-L)
Of the recent Guess the Joke Contest fame

[PartikleZoo]

To become an admin you need to do everything you can to keep your nose clean - not get into too many arguments, not piss people off, and generally just work hard without raising too much attention. If the same standards that are applied to potential new admins were applied to existing ones when redoing their RfA, they would fail. At least if they had been doing some of the dirtier work and had butted heads with various editors. Therefore I assume that the answer is either relatively few, and probably only those keeping busy in areas like RFPP or copyvio, or the standards applied would have to be different, in which case I can't predict.

[rnu]

Curious what you guys think

Me.

Assuming that you actually mean that, could you elaborate on why you thing you wouldn't get reelected? Of course it's completely fine if you don't want to answer this.

[rnu]

My guess is that those frequently warning and blocking editors would have difficulties especially those active at AE. It's one of the most important tasks, but also one where you are bound to piss people off whether you're doing a good job or not. I think the easiest passes would be people who can say "Look, I do a lot of tasks that have to be done by someone, but that you hardly even notice because they happen in the background. Most of you probably weren't even aware that I am an admin."
What I seriously wonder is whether abusive bad faith admins would have a better shot at reelection than good faith admins.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

I guess I could still ask for my admin bit back (which I have no intention of doing), but if I ran for RfA again I'm sure I wouldn't pass now. I'm too jaded these days, too critical, spend too much time at criticism sites, and my recent activity has been very low.

[Jip Orlando]

Curious what you guys think

Me.

Ritchie333, I would certainly vote for you over Sandstein. Not that that's saying much... but I value your judgment.

[Vigilant]

Curious what you guys think

Me.

Ritchie333, I would certainly vote for you over Sandstein. Not that that's saying much... but I value your judgment.

"Siri, show me 'damning with faint praise'... "

[eppur si muove]

Ritchie333, I would certainly vote for you over Sandstein. Not that that's saying much... but I value your judgment.

Maybe WIkipedia could have an Athenian-style ostracism vote each year.

[Vigilant]

I would prefer a Highlander motif.

[Ritchie333]

Assuming that you actually mean that, could you elaborate on why you thing you wouldn't get reelected? Of course it's completely fine if you don't want to answer this.

Off the top of my head.....

* I told Rschen7754 to fuck off.
* I wrote "I silently cheer from the sidelines when Wikipediocracy fires both barrels at an admin doing silly things, that's good enough for me" which was criticised at the RfA. Nowadays I cheer somewhat less silently.
* I hadn't pissed off Fram when I ran for RfA.
* I hadn't pissed off Bbb23 when I ran for RfA.
* I've been blocked twice.
* I've still got an interaction ban.

[Vigilant]

Assuming that you actually mean that, could you elaborate on why you thing you wouldn't get reelected? Of course it's completely fine if you don't want to answer this.

Off the top of my head.....

* I told Rschen7754 to fuck off.
* I wrote "I silently cheer from the sidelines when Wikipediocracy fires both barrels at an admin doing silly things, that's good enough for me" which was criticised at the RfA. Nowadays I cheer somewhat less silently.
* I hadn't pissed off Fram when I ran for RfA.
* I hadn't pissed off Bbb23 when I ran for RfA.
* I've been blocked twice.
* I've still got an interaction ban.

I wasn't trying to pick on you.

You're active in a lot of trouble spots and you have your own opinions on how to do things.

en.wp doesn't like that.

[Ritchie333]

You're active in a lot of trouble spots and you have your own opinions on how to do things.

en.wp doesn't like that.

At least I'm aware of it and admit it. Some people on en-wp can't even do that.

[Boing! said Zebedee]

Off the top of my head.....

* I told Rschen7754 to fuck off.
* I wrote "I silently cheer from the sidelines when Wikipediocracy fires both barrels at an admin doing silly things, that's good enough for me" which was criticised at the RfA. Nowadays I cheer somewhat less silently.
* I hadn't pissed off Fram when I ran for RfA.
* I hadn't pissed off Bbb23 when I ran for RfA.
* I've been blocked twice.
* I've still got an interaction ban.

And you're mostly too nice to the good people and try to help those in trouble who actually contribute content, which could be your biggest problem. I'm quite convinced that Wikipedia culture is moving more than ever towards hard rules enforcement and away from help and rehab.

[Jip Orlando]

You're active in a lot of trouble spots and you have your own opinions on how to do things.

en.wp doesn't like that.

At least I'm aware of it and admit it. Some people on en-wp can't even do that.

I view you as a sort of 'outsider admin,' a fellow who isn't part of the legacy culture, but has a technical background and a good nose for bullshit. We need more noses for it on en-wp.

[Vigilant]

Off the top of my head.....

* I told Rschen7754 to fuck off.
* I wrote "I silently cheer from the sidelines when Wikipediocracy fires both barrels at an admin doing silly things, that's good enough for me" which was criticised at the RfA. Nowadays I cheer somewhat less silently.
* I hadn't pissed off Fram when I ran for RfA.
* I hadn't pissed off Bbb23 when I ran for RfA.
* I've been blocked twice.
* I've still got an interaction ban.

And you're mostly too nice to the good people and try to help those in trouble who actually contribute content, which could be your biggest problem. I'm quite convinced that Wikipedia culture is moving more than ever towards hard rules enforcement and away from help and rehab.

Rigid and formulaic flowcharts that only people deep on the spectrum could love.

[No Ledge]

I think the easiest passes would be people who can say "Look, I do a lot of tasks that have to be done by someone, but that you hardly even notice because they happen in the background. Most of you probably weren't even aware that I am an admin."

[No Ledge]

I'd probably still get some opposition, because I'm still not a "content creator"

[MrErnie]

Floquenbeam, Ritchie, Sandstein, BBb23, Drmies, for starters. Probably Bishonen by this point but that’s closer. Black Kite, El C, David Gerard, Michael Hardy, Ymblanter.

[Black Kite]

Floquenbeam, Ritchie, Sandstein, BBb23, Drmies, for starters. Probably Bishonen by this point but that’s closer. Black Kite, El C, David Gerard, Michael Hardy, Ymblanter.

Yeah, me probably *shrug* On the other hand, it's always a tricky one when you're trying to tell people who are being fuckwits, that they're being fuckwits whilst being nice about it. Apparently it's the Wikipedia way. I'm from Yorkshire, and we tell it how it is. Still, it's 18 months until I retire (at 57, yay) and I can assure people that I'm definitely going to be prioritising spending time with my wife and on the golf course over arguing with neckbearded basement dwellers.

[nableezy]

Floquenbeam, Ritchie, Sandstein, BBb23, Drmies, for starters. Probably Bishonen by this point but that’s closer. Black Kite, El C, David Gerard, Michael Hardy, Ymblanter.

Except Floq passed a recent RFA? Drmies won a seat at ArbCom? That reads more like a list of admins you dislike than ones that would get the boot, though I will grant there are a couple that have crossover roles.

[Vigilant]

How about "everyone who got admin rights more than a decade ago has to stand for RfA again." ?

[Randy from Boise]

Floquenbeam, Ritchie, Sandstein, BBb23, Drmies, for starters. Probably Bishonen by this point but that’s closer. Black Kite, El C, David Gerard, Michael Hardy, Ymblanter.

Except Floq passed a recent RFA? Drmies won a seat at ArbCom? That reads more like a list of admins you dislike than ones that would get the boot, though I will grant there are a couple that have crossover roles.

Sandstein and Drmies would be in trouble.

t

[Arishok]

Leyo and TheresNoTime would have trouble due to recent Arbcom admonishments. Leyo in particular would almost definitely fail an RfA that started today. TNT would probably wind up in crat chat if I had to guess.

Out of MrErnie's list I'd say Floq, Bish, and El C would have a good shot to pass. David Gerard and Michael Hardy would SNOW fail. Sandstein and Bbb23 have poor reputations for over-harshness and would probably not make it. Ritchie might have trouble due to the active Arbcom IBan. Black Kite's Arbcom trouble is really old at this point and he probably makes it I think. Not sure about Drmies or Ymblanter, could see those going either way.

Tamzin would also have serious trouble though not as much trouble as a year ago. ScottishFinnishRadish might also have trouble due to making controversial AE actions and being a controversial candidate to begin with. I think everyone else who passed RfA in the last two years would pretty easily re-pass (except for any that might have gone almost completely inactive, I haven't checked that).

[Ming]

Floquenbeam, Ritchie, Sandstein, BBb23, Drmies, for starters. Probably Bishonen by this point but that’s closer. Black Kite, El C, David Gerard, Michael Hardy, Ymblanter.

Except Floq passed a recent RFA? Drmies won a seat at ArbCom? That reads more like a list of admins you dislike than ones that would get the boot, though I will grant there are a couple that have crossover roles.

Sandstein and Drmies would be in trouble.

t

Drmies would have a lot of trouble. Getting on arbcom is in some respects easier in that the voting is not public and there isn't a discussion page centralizing the emotionality of the thing. At best Drmies does all the things that got Fram de-adminned.

At best.

[Vigilant]

Leyo and TheresNoTime would have trouble due to recent Arbcom admonishments. Leyo in particular would almost definitely fail an RfA that started today. TNT would probably wind up in crat chat if I had to guess.

Out of MrErnie's list I'd say Floq, Bish, and El C would have a good shot to pass. David Gerard and Michael Hardy would SNOW fail. Sandstein and Bbb23 have poor reputations for over-harshness and would probably not make it. Ritchie might have trouble due to the active Arbcom IBan. Black Kite's Arbcom trouble is really old at this point and he probably makes it I think. Not sure about Drmies or Ymblanter, could see those going either way.

Tamzin would also have serious trouble though not as much trouble as a year ago. ScottishFinnishRadish might also have trouble due to making controversial AE actions and being a controversial candidate to begin with. I think everyone else who passed RfA in the last two years would pretty easily re-pass (except for any that might have gone almost completely inactive, I haven't checked that).

And if the ballots were anonymous?

[orangepi]

I expect three types of admins would fail.

First, legacy admins who have done almost nothing over the past decade.

Second, admins who are viewed as enablers of the unblockables.

Third, any admin with more than about 18 months experience at AE enforcement.

The last group isn't fair, but it is true. That is one of the two reasons why "admin reconfirmation" proposals always fail. (The other reason is, roughly, "ain't nobody got time for that".)

[Arishok]

Leyo and TheresNoTime would have trouble due to recent Arbcom admonishments. Leyo in particular would almost definitely fail an RfA that started today. TNT would probably wind up in crat chat if I had to guess.

Out of MrErnie's list I'd say Floq, Bish, and El C would have a good shot to pass. David Gerard and Michael Hardy would SNOW fail. Sandstein and Bbb23 have poor reputations for over-harshness and would probably not make it. Ritchie might have trouble due to the active Arbcom IBan. Black Kite's Arbcom trouble is really old at this point and he probably makes it I think. Not sure about Drmies or Ymblanter, could see those going either way.

Tamzin would also have serious trouble though not as much trouble as a year ago. ScottishFinnishRadish might also have trouble due to making controversial AE actions and being a controversial candidate to begin with. I think everyone else who passed RfA in the last two years would pretty easily re-pass (except for any that might have gone almost completely inactive, I haven't checked that).

And if the ballots were anonymous?

That'd be a very different system, more like ACE. Everyone would get a lot more opposes and the 65%-75% threshhold would have to be lowered significantly for it to make any sense.

[Midsize Jake]

Out of MrErnie's list I'd say Floq, Bish, and El C would have a good shot to pass. David Gerard and Michael Hardy would SNOW fail. Sandstein and Bbb23 have poor reputations for over-harshness and would probably not make it. Ritchie might have trouble due to the active Arbcom IBan. Black Kite's Arbcom trouble is really old at this point and he probably makes it I think. Not sure about Drmies or Ymblanter, could see those going either way.

Since I don't interact with these folks directly, my opinion on this subject is probably dubious at best, but this is almost exactly how I would figure it. I expect Drmies would just barely squeak by, maybe on one of those "crat chat" deals where they give him the benefit of the doubt. So he'd probably be "the one who most deserves to get the axe but wouldn't."

[Emptyeye]

I'm quite convinced that Wikipedia culture is moving more than ever towards hard rules enforcement and away from help and rehab.

One person's "moving more than ever towards hard rules enforcement and away from help and rehab" is another's "After entirely too long finally letting 'content creators' know they are not, in fact, exempt from the civility pillar, nor other Wikipedia principles". Just saying.

[Ryuichi]

So he'd probably be "the one who most deserves to get the axe but wouldn't."

On the podium with Tony B and the "pretty boy", in no particular order. With an honourable mention to Florida Rob.

[utbc]

I am surprised to see a consensus against Drmies here. I hadn't noticed any large block of enemies. Which demographic would vote him out, and why? Ernies don't like Drmies, but they don't really have the numbers, I don't think.

[Midsize Jake]

I am surprised to see a consensus against Drmies here. I hadn't noticed any large block of enemies. Which demographic would vote him out, and why? Ernies don't like Drmies, but they don't really have the numbers, I don't think.

Sorry if I'm being dense, but what's an "Ernie" in this context...?

To answer your question though (again, not that I'm the ideal person to do so), there's definitely a minority of Wikipedians who take a "there but for the grace of whoever go I" approach to admins who are "just on the edge" of being abusive, if not actually abusive. (In other words, they still have some level of empathy towards the targets of admin abuse.) Mr. Drmies is also unusually snide and rude, even for a Wikipedia admin, often to the point of being insulting purely for the sake of being insulting. Most Wikipedians seem to like that though, which is why he'd probably pass.

[utbc]

I am surprised to see a consensus against Drmies here. I hadn't noticed any large block of enemies. Which demographic would vote him out, and why? Ernies don't like Drmies, but they don't really have the numbers, I don't think.

Sorry if I'm being dense, but what's an "Ernie" in this context...?

To answer your question though (again, not that I'm the ideal person to do so), there's definitely a minority of Wikipedians who take a "there but for the grace of whoever go I" approach to admins who are "just on the edge" of being abusive, if not actually abusive. (In other words, they still have some level of empathy towards the targets of admin abuse.) Mr. Drmies is also unusually snide and rude, even for a Wikipedia admin, often to the point of being insulting purely for the sake of being insulting. Most Wikipedians seem to like that though, which is why he'd probably pass.

I was referring to MrErnie who was the first to bring up Drmies. "Ernies" are as of this moment the relevant subset of the subset of editors whose positions and !votes in both content and conduct discussions can be predicted with a high degree of certainty from only knowing their politics, which is in turn obvious from only a small sampling of their contributions. I really shouldn't have but it looked like it rhymed, so I couldn't resist.

I grant that Drmies is harsh but I don't think many of those who are affected last long enough to dent his chances. And the no nonsense approach of admins like Drmies, Bbb23 and Bishonen makes life easy for many regulars who work the most frustrating areas. India caste scene, for example, would not want to lose Bish. In many ways, it was easier to take care of spammers when you knew nine times out of ten, RHaworth would be the one "reviewing" your CSD. That said, when it comes to Drmies, the Fram element may still have decisive influence.

[MrErnie]

I like Drmies quite well. The question wasn’t which admins we do or don’t like, but who could pass an rfa.

[MrErnie]

Bbb23 should have been forced through another rfa after his blatant and longstanding abuse of the checkuser tool.

[Museum Nerd]

Me.
Not because of Teh Dramaz, but because I still prefer stubs and writing about newer topics than building GAs and I don't work with images. The latter came up in my RFA, but while edit counts were a thing- the need for FA/GAs wasn't yet as prevalent.

[Bezdomni]

Surprised nobody has mention Cullen328. It would be an interesting re-RfA—establishing community approval for admins advertising their services as paid advisors (or not)—which is why it will never happen.

[utbc]

Surprised nobody has mention Cullen328. It would be an interesting re-RfA—establishing community approval for admins advertising their services as paid advisors (or not)—which is why it will never happen.

Surprised you mention Cullen before MastCell.

[greyed.out.fields]

Ritchie333, I would certainly vote for you over Sandstein. Not that that's saying much... but I value your judgment.

Maybe WIkipedia could have an Athenian-style ostracism vote each year.

I'm Spartacus and so is my wife!

Actually I easily passed an RFA a long time ago, and a process server served my 2006 marriage divorce papers while I was editing some kind of WoRMS (T-H-L) estuarine snail species back in 2017 or so

[Boing! said Zebedee]

Surprised nobody has mention Cullen328. It would be an interesting re-RfA—establishing community approval for admins advertising their services as paid advisors (or not)—which is why it will never happen.

That's an interesting one.

For years, we've heard about all the problems with organisations wanting to write on WIkipedia, but not having a clue about how to do it without violating COI criteria. And they're seen as the scum of the earth even if they only want to fix a genuine factual inaccuracy.

And then we have someone offering to put effort into advising organisations on how to comply with Wikipedia's COI policies (without doing any editing on their behalf), and wanting a modest recompense for his time and work (on top of the vast amount of direct work he's put in for free). And, he's one of the most experienced and knowledgeable Wikipedia people there are.

But he's evil scum for trying to help achieve what everyone actually wants orgnisations to do anyway.

[Randy from Boise]

Surprised nobody has mention Cullen328. It would be an interesting re-RfA—establishing community approval for admins advertising their services as paid advisors (or not)—which is why it will never happen.

That's an interesting one.

For years, we've heard about all the problems with organisations wanting to write on WIkipedia, but not having a clue about how to do it without violating COI criteria. And they're seen as the scum of the earth even if they only want to fix a genuine factual inaccuracy.

And then we have someone offering to put effort into advising organisations on how to comply with Wikipedia's COI policies (without doing any editing on their behalf), and wanting a modest recompense for his time and work (on top of the vast amount of direct work he's put in for free). And, he's one of the most experienced and knowledgeable Wikipedia people there are.

But he's evil scum for trying to help achieve what everyone actually wants orgnisations to do anyway.

Jealousy.

t