Wikipedia talk:Administrative Standards Commission

Credit where it's due

The editors in the topic below should receive the credit for this idea. My only role was typing it up. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, idea was originally proposed at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_115#Proposal: administrators must be civil servants, not politicians Oiyarbepsy (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Should Requests for Adminship be supplemented or replaced by an elected committee?

The problem with RfA, as it is presently structured, is that it is based on what are essentially democratic principles. Being a Wikipedia administrator is a technocratic job. It is a job of maintenance. It is not a position of leadership, nor is it a legislative position. Democratic principles stymie and obfuscate the purpose of adminiship, and turn it into a populist post. Civil servants are properly appointed, not elected. That's the way it works in most governments, and that's how it should work here. We need to remove the democratic element, and stop this mob rule nonsense. Therefore, I'd propose the following. This is just a basic idea, sans details. A search committee is created with the sole purpose of appointing administrators. The committee is elected by the community, similarly to the present Arb Com elections. The committee would accept applications for adminship, and evaluate them based on merit. A simple majority of committee members in favour of a candidate would lead to that candidate being granted adminship. The committee would not just accept applications, but would also seek out potential candidates. This strikes me as the best way forward. Democracy is not the answer to every question. RGloucester — ☎ 04:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Now that I like - the first major change proposal here that I could support, though success should require more than a simple majority. Suggestions to flesh it out: number on the committee at least six, maybe ten. Once it's established, two-year terms with half retiring (but re-electable) each year, to maintain continuity. Committee's deliberations are private, but where they decline a candidate the reasons are stated publicly. JohnCD (talk) 09:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I've suggested this before, in the labyrinthine by-ways of Wikipedia RFA discussions. This culture directly elects its enforcers and you don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to see why that's a problem. What we should do is elect a supervisory body ("commissioners"?) who will run our admin corps: they'll select, promote, coach, support, discipline, encourage, demote where necessary. Arbcom lose their "emergency desysop" function in this proposal, which I think is a good thing: they're already overempowered and overloaded.—S Marshall T/C 09:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A system like that would have my preference, too. It saves time for the community (no need for dozens of editors going through candidate's histories) and be easier on the candidates themselves (I certainly would have gone for admin earlier under such a system). --Randykitty (talk) 12:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I've proposed a variation of that idea more than once, but it hasn't received any traction. While it doesn't address all issues, I think it does address some of the important issues. My most recent post was written as a response to someone else,, I've edited slightly to write it as an essay: User:Sphilbrick/RfA reform. It short, we should start with an organized selection committee.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:13, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I knew I had already seen this idea. And the problem is also that the Foundation requires vetting by the community to see deleted stuff, as it contains copyvio and other bad things. The other problem is that being on that committee to select admins, that is a LOT OF POWER, so you've made that a political position. One corrupt person there, or someone that is forcing their ideology in secret (no Christians allowed / No Republicans /No whatever) and you have a worse situation. That method is vulnerable to corruption, which would be far reaching before it was noticed. Dennis - 2¢ 13:26, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The committee members would be held to account by elections, just as arbitrators are. As suggested above, they'd be required to release a report on why a candidate was granted adminship. To be frank, I feel the fear of corruption is unwarranted. The present populist system is much more prone to "corruption by mob", than this system will be prone to "corruption by individual". Also note that there are enough members on the committee to override any one corrupt individual. RGloucester — ☎ 13:32, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

The idea that a mob made up of several dozen people is more susceptible to corruption than an oligarchy of seven is rather amusing. I think this overall proposal has merit, but lets not pretend that this committee would be immune from problems of its own, particularly if some people actually believe a certain person named in this thread is somehow an ideal candidate to be on this committee. The risk of corruption is massively increased by the proposal's current statement that committee members would be able to make up their own rules. Resolute 14:17, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea and in theory I think would be better. The biggest practical problem I can foresee is in selecting the committee, in particular the risk of a shortage of good candidates. There's also the risk of giving the appearance of adminship being a "private club" if the majority (or all) of the committee members are admins. Mr.Z-man 15:58, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest that the committee should have an equal number of seats for administrators and non-administrators, so that both sides of the coin are included. RGloucester — ☎ 16:04, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Admittedly, this is not a bad idea, and something to think about if all other alternatives fail to work. However, I'm concerned about the lack of outside participation and the extra level of bureaucracy that this would add to our already bureaucratic system. I have an idea or two concerning a new election process, but I'm not going to post them until the RfC is finished. --Biblioworm 16:27, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Our system is one of mob rule, and it isn't working. Sysop candidates should not ever be subjected to a public humiliation, a popularity contest, or indeed any kind of mass vote. They need to be selected on merit. We need administrators with skills. We do not need political leaders who can figure out how to wheel-and-deal people into "voting" for them. There would be outside participation, that is, the committee would be elected by the community. We need a way to check the mob, and this is it. RGloucester — ☎ 16:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

What would the requirements be to get elected into this committee? Would there be terms for committee members? How could a committee member be stripped of his membership if he started to behave unacceptably? --Biblioworm 16:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Personally, I'd want to offer Eric Corbett one of the seats on the first commission.  :) Yes, I think there'd have to be terms for commissioners: they'd be re-elected every year or so. Unacceptable behaviour by a commissioner strikes me as an unlikely circumstance, but part of their charter might be that a commissioner could be de-appointed by simple majority vote among the other commissioners (which action would trigger a by-election for a new commissioner). Or something. The details can be sorted.—S Marshall T/C 17:14, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd propose that the body we create be termed the Administrative Standards Commission. This body would consist of eight commissioners, each elected by the community for a term of one year. Election procedure would mimic the Arbitration Committee's election procedure. I would propose that four commissioners be non-administrators, whilst the other four would be administrators. As stated above, a commissioner could be removed from office by a simple majority vote amongst the other commissioners, triggering a new election. The duty of the commissioners would be as follows: to search for potential candidates for adminship, to accept applications for adminship, evaluate those applications, to appoint administrators, and to serve as a forum for the review of administrative actions. I'm not opposed to the idea of maintaining the existing RfA process as a parallel option in the interim period. RGloucester — ☎ 18:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

This is definitely an interesting system that I would be willing to try out. My only concern would be what to do in case of ties? Say the four administrators vote for a candidate and the four non-admins don't? Is it just marked no consensus? My suggestion would be to forget the whole admin, non-admin thing and just let the entire community elect who they feel is right and have an ODD number of people (Say, 7) there to prevent that from happening. --Church ^Talk 18:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it is good to ensure representation for non-administrators. We must remember that "adminship is no big deal". It has become inflated in importance in recent years, but that's not how it should be. Having non-administrator representatives will entrench the idea that adminship is no big deal, and that administrators are not "ranked" higher than anyone else. They are technocrats employed by the community to take on tasks important to the maintenance of the encyclopaedia. I wouldn't be opposed to an odd number, say the seven you proposed. In that case, I'd recommend three non-administrators and three administrators, with one slot open to anyone. RGloucester — ☎ 18:52, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I like this idea, but there should be a limit on how long anyone can serve, so that we do not get an entrenched oligarchy. I suggest a three year term, with zero or one repeat (community choice when it is set up). There would be three classes with initial elections for one, two and three year terms. If we wanted an odd number there could be 9 positions, with three new ones elected per year. There could be 5 designated nonadmin seats and 4 designated admin seats. To avoid a buddy system, nonadmins leaving the body could be excluded from running for admin for one year. Edison (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I would not mind if all members would be non-admins, in the spirit of "no big deal". I would not even object a system where admins would be excluded, given that this committee would also deal with desysopping. The elections would ensure that non-qualified people (e.g. somebody who just joined with 300 edits and such) would not get a seat. --Randykitty (talk) 19:57, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think excluding admins entirely would be a good idea. The main job of the board is choosing people to be admins, desysopping will hopefully be a much smaller task (if not, then they're probably doing their first job poorly). It makes sense to have some people who actually know what being an admin entails. Not having any admins would be like having a medical board with no doctors on it. Mr.Z-man 20:18, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Why 4/4 or 3/3/powercard? Administrators make up about 4% to 6% of the population of active editors on wiki, so why give them so much power in this process? I'd much rather see a 1 crat, 2 admin, and 4 non-crat/non-admin editors who would not be eligible for the admin tools during their term. I'd see this as a much closer representation of the population of editors (although still skewed in favor of crats and admins). — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• It would be extremely hard for commissioners to do their admin-supervising job unless they could view deleted contributions, so I think that for reasons of practicality they'd have to receive the admin tools on being elected.—S Marshall T/C 20:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be possible to grant them the ability to see deleted contributions without giving them other administrator powers? Given that these candidates will have been vetted by the community in the elections, I see no reason for the Foundation to object. RGloucester — ☎ 20:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the level of power this committee would effectively wield, it is possible that the foundation may want members to confirm their identities in much the same way Arbcom members and stewards (and crats?) do. Something to consider. Resolute 14:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm seriously against the idea that committee members should have to identify, because we already have enough elitism and secrecy around here. Making people identify would probably keep the regular "laymen" contributors from being elected onto this committee. According to that logic, let's make 'crats identify, because they're the ones who have the actual power to promote, which means that they could give a whole bunch of vandals admin powers, if they went rouge. (I'm sure there would be quite a bit of objection to that.) --Biblioworm 15:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• This is getting out of hand. The key to proposals like this is that they cannot be overly complicated. I stick by my suggestion that we should have one-year terms. I'm strongly opposed to complicated distributions of power based on population representation. As said above, administrators are the ones that deal with administrative matters on a daily basis, and hence are important to a balanced Administrative Standards Commission. I think that a 3/3/1 allocation is the best we can hope for. Three administrators, three non-administrators, one open seat. I see no necessity for bureaucrats to be allocated a seat. RGloucester — ☎ 20:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

With that said though, I don't think we should prohibit a crat from holding the seat if the community decides that. Crats are admins after all.--Church ^Talk 21:29, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course. They merely would not be allocated a special seat. RGloucester — ☎ 22:06, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm very uncomfortable with the "Rights" section of this proposal. Since non-admins will be elected to this committee, granting them the 'viewdeleted' right is almost certain to cause an extensive amount of difficultly with the WMF, which is the very last thing we need. Why do committee members even need to view deleted content anyway? Even if they do have to, can't the admin members of the committee view the content and then privately distribute it within the private mailing list? --Biblioworm 00:30, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That's perfectly acceptable to me, though I think that the elections would be reason enough for the Foundation to believe that said Commissioners were adequately vetted by the community. RGloucester — ☎ 00:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Oiyarbepsy: I'm not sure this proposal is ready for its own RfC on adoption. Many more details need to be hashed out. Is there a reason why we have the RfC template on this page at this point in time? RGloucester — ☎ 01:12, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Should I get rid of the RFC tag? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to invite comments from the community during the brainstorming phase, so I feel the RfC tag should remain. RGloucester is clearly correct to say that we're not ready to have a yes/no vote on adoption.—S Marshall T/C 13:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think RGlouster has it exactly wrong and I oppose creating this commission. Adminship is not technocratic, it's political. I became aware of this poorly advertised RfC thanks to the discussion about shutting down RFCU. I'd support a commission as designed with admin and non-admin members to act as judge and jury for user conduct. This venue would be ideal with long-term abuse situations that ANI doesn't adequately solve and ARBCOM won't deign to hear. Chris Troutman (talk) 03:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Number of members and composition

Use this section to comment on how many members there should be and who they should be. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Six members is not very many. If a couple leave or resign, then there will be only four. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I do think we should have an odd number of members, so as to avoid ties during votes. How about 11 members? We could have five seats for admins, five for non-admins, and one open seat that anyone could take. --Biblioworm 21:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

...Or we could have three seats for admins, three for non-admins, and five open seats that anyone could take. That seems more flexible to me?—S Marshall T/C 21:14, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

The proposal is for seven members, not six. I oppose anything but a seven-member proposal, with three administrators and three non-administrators, along with one open seat. We don't want a large and expansive Commission. RGloucester — ☎ 22:01, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm okay with upping the number so long as the formula is equal admins and non-admins and the one "wildcard" seat. I don't think we need a mass panel, but if someone retires or abstains then chances are it's going to be an equal number and we would have the problem we're trying to avoid with the tie breaker.--Church ^Talk 22:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

It seems un-necessary. How often has ArbCom had members resign or whatever? RGloucester — ☎ 22:29, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the last four years, I counted the following: this year, one; in 2013, four; in 2012, none; in 2011, one, and one removed due to inactivity. isaacl (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Setting up an odd number does not ensure against ties, since for any given candidate one or more members might not participate due to some personal connection (such as a previous interaction with a candidate) or some personal issue (illness, work or school crisis). The proposal seems to call for a simple majority to approve an admin, so a tie is a fail, and there is no ambiguity or need for a coin toss or further process. A fail is a fail. Edison (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I would think that maybe such a small number as six or seven would be insufficient for this board to function properly, as it more or less premises that those few individuals would contribute to this process extremely regularly, and the history of even ArbCom indicates that with their greater number of people they have frequent retirements, breaks, etc. I might suggest instead that a rather large number of editors be elected, maybe about twice as many as would be required to constitute a quorum, so that we don't have the same level of recusals, retirements, breaks, etc., that ArbCom has rather regularly, at least once a year, shown. The expected annual loss of at least 1 of only 7 people in this body would be an extremely serious blow to the proposed body. John Carter (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

How many would you suggest? Double it to 14? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 23:58, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

That would work. And maybe try to keep the overall proportion of admins and non-admins equivalent so that that it would be easier to achieve the sought-after balance. John Carter (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Thirteen members, six non-admins, six admins, one open seat. RGloucester — ☎ 00:17, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• I still think it's over-prescriptive to specify the exact number of admins and non-admins; it's an unnecessary limitation on the community's power to elect the candidates of their choice. It reminds me of Cenarium's suggestions which I also find unnecessarily complicated and restrictive. We should just have, say, somewhere between six and nine seats, and let the community elect whichever Wikipedians they feel deserve a seat. If someone resigns or becomes inactive this should trigger a by-election for their seat.—S Marshall T/C 10:04, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I had modified this aspect to be more accommodative, and included reserve members. But as Graeme Bartlett suggested on the talk page, an RFC on the general idea would be first proposed. Cenarium (talk) 10:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm late to this discussion, but this seems to be a good point to jump in. I agree with S Marshall's previous comment. One of the problems that I see with policy discussions, notice boards, and overall governance of the project is disproportionate influence by admins, so I would be strongly opposed to creating another governing entity that increases such influence. I would think a commission/panel/committee should be composed of whomever the electorate elects, although some minimal qualifying threshold should exist to prevent meatpuppetry. I think that there should be at least nine member on the panel.- MrX 12:41, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I strongly object to giving the electorate too much power. The purpose of this proposal is to curtail democracy, not expand it. Otherwise, adminship will quickly take-on "big-deal" status, whereby it will be assumed that one has to be an administrator to get on the commission. This is exactly what we don't want. We must have non-administrators on the commission, otherwise the commission will be further entrenching the idea of administrators as higher-ranked than other editors. If we don't specifically delegate that non-administrators must be on the panel, merely by convention, administrators will come to dominate it. Equal representation must be guaranteed, to show that administrators and other editors are equal. RGloucester — ☎ 13:40, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you were responding to me, but I just want to say that I agree that we should be moving in the opposite direction of a full democracy. Did you interpret my comment to mean that I support a commission of all admins? On the contrary, I support a commission composed of users elected irrespective of their current role. If that means an election results in a commission consisting of only bureaucrats or a commission consisting of only gnomish content contributors, so be it, as long as the community can freely vote on for its representatives. I will have some further comments about the current draft that tie in to this, later.- MrX 14:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

And that's what I object to. I object to allowing mob mentality decide who should be on the panel. We must have some checks on the idiocy of people in general, and that's why democracy must be limited to small doses. We don't want people being swayed by negative ideas, such as those that administrators are more qualified for such a commission. I strongly oppose any Commission does not specifically allocate seats to non-administrators. RGloucester — ☎ 14:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, admins already have too much power and influence (I know I'll get slammed for even suggesting that there is a cabal), and I'm afraid that they will gain even more influence if we don't make it clear that non-admins must be on this commission. Knowing the general trends around here, people will begin to think, "If you have the power to promote new admins, you should have to be one, too." Or, even worse, people might start electing only bureaucrats to the position, making it even more exclusive and secretive. --Biblioworm 15:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Points well taken. I agree with the idea of specifically allocating at least some seats to non-administrators. I disagree with specifically allocating any seats to administrators, but of course nothing would stop them from being elected to seats that are not allocated to non-administrators. Of course, this could be a little challenging to implement.- MrX 17:18, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Duties

Use this section to discuss what rights and responsibilities members should have. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 14:25, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing on the project page so far says how open the process would be in its deliberations. If Candidate X nominates himself, and is denied the bit, can he and can others see the reasoning behind the denial? Was it because he !=voted the "wrong way" on too many AFDs? Was it because he lost his temper in some discussion? Was it because he was unfamiliar with some policy or guideline and made flawed speedy deletion nominations?Was it because he had too few mainspace edits in proportion to edits at AFD and Reference Desk? If Candidate Y applies and gets the bit, but seems to lack experience, or has been a problem in the past, how will we learn the rationale for a surprising decision to make him an admin? If a commissioner makes a factual error in support of or in opposition to a candidacy, are only the other commissioners allowed to comment on the error? A closed forum or secret process might be seen as a Star Chamber when it denied adminship or a "buddy club" when it granted it. On the other hand, that would achieve the goal of getting away from the present toxic snakepit. Edison (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

As it says in the proposal, the deliberations would be held amongst the Commissioners themselves in private. However, as it also says, they'd be required to issue a comprehensive public report and rationale after they take action. The community elects these Commissioners. They are not materialising out of thin air. In these elections, the community is delegating power to the Commissioners to make decisions. RGloucester — ☎ 04:32, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

In my view the commissioners would decide for themselves which discussions needed to be private and which would be best held in public. I don't think it's necessary for us to constrain them in that regard.—S Marshall T/C 12:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not keen on deliberations being done in private nor do I understand the necessity. Lack of transparency is something that Arbcom is often criticized for. Also, why make them write a report, when they can simply discuss, vote, and communicate the result.- MrX 17:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The reason for it is so they can discuss who would be suitable/unsuitable to be an administrator frankly and honestly without causing offence. RfA is criticised for being stressful for the candidate; indeed, that's one of the biggest criticisms of it. A commission appointment would be less stressful because it wouldn't have to involve the candidate's shortcomings being discussed in public.—S Marshall T/C 21:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Real identities

I've seen some comments above, both pro and con, for whether members would need to confirm their real-world identities. Thoughts? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 20:02, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why this necessary. RGloucester — ☎ 20:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I strongly oppose. This is not ArbCom. The ASC would not be handling super-secret information. All this requirement would do is make ASC elections more stressful, bureaucratic, and less accessible and open to the common non-admin who might be interested in getting a seat on the committee. --Biblioworm 20:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I see no reason why this would be necessary. ASC should not be handling "super-secret" stuff, whatever that might be. RGloucester — ☎ 20:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I see no reason for them to identify.--Church ^Talk 21:49, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

If they have no business viewing "secret stuff" then will have no credibility as a body for reviewing admin behavior. If they can't even see what an admin revdeleted, let alone suppressed material, they will be entirely toothless in that capacity. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Most administrator behaviour is visible to everyone. The few small things that are not can be dealt with by the administrator members of committee. If there is something they can't access, they can defer to ArbCom. In the vast majority of cases, this will not be an issue. RGloucester — ☎ 20:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm with Beeblebrox, and as I've said before, I think anyone who's appointed to this committee should receive the full range of admin tools on appointment. There is no procedural problem with this because the process we've designed for it is more rigorous than the current RfA process. Committee members need the authority, and the technical power, to view, and where necessary reverse, admin actions. Otherwise they're toothless tigers.—S Marshall T/C 22:22, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The point of the Commission was never meant to include "reversing administrative actions". That was never the intent of my proposal. I want non-administrator voices on this Commission, and I think that's valuable for a variety of reasons. I do not want an all-powerful Commission controlling administrative actions. I merely intended that it would serve as a forum, as the proposal says, for administrative review. That review would be an informal process. Given that the Commission is endowed with community support through elections, a request to a bureaucrat to take action should be respected. RGloucester — ☎ 22:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I accept that your vision of the Commission was never meant to include this, RGloucester. I've noticed that you "strongly oppose" changes to your vision of the Commission quite frequently, and I'd ask you please to consider being less obstructive.—S Marshall T/C 23:03, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't "obstructive". I have my right to express my opinion on a proposal largely draughted by myself. I think it is plain wrong to establish a Commission with the purpose of bringing administrators to heel. ArbCom already deals with such extreme cases, and there is no reason for this Commission to take up standard behavioural or content disputes. It should serve as a forum for review, but it certainly should not be an all-powerful body that is using "teeth". RGloucester — ☎ 23:10, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Whoa there buddy. Nobody said the ASC should be "all-powerful", nor that it should have "the purpose of bringing administrators to heel". Its main functions would be (1) to recruit administrators and (2) to provide ongoing support, coaching and training. It would be empowered to investigate allegations of admin misconduct, and a little bit of experience at AN/I or Deletion Review will tell you that while such allegations are often made, very few of them are well-founded. Our admin corps is, by and large, well-meaning, if occasionally bumbling and incompetent. Bad apples such as User:Pastor Theo or User:Law are rare, and I don't expect desysopping to be a common event. It's included in order to address users' concerns about the RfA process: (1) there will be a route to desysopping that doesn't involve the thermonuclear Arbcom option and (2) there will be ongoing supervision and mentoring for admins, so there should no longer be a need for every candidate to be fully experienced in every aspect of adminship. But this isn't a replacement for other avenues: deletion review will still function, and there will still be a block review process, for example.—S Marshall T/C 23:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason their real identities should be disclosed. There are some true loons who might seek to "get even" with anyone who ever thwarted their efforts. A requirement to reveal real identities would open commissioners up to harassment, such as phone calls, death threats, threats against family members, or bogus complaints to police or employers. It would reduce the numbers and nature of potential commissioners for no good reason. Edison (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to disclose identities either, but all editors should be aware that participation on Wikipedia dies involve "phone calls, death threats, threats against family members, or bogus complaints to police or employers." I've seen all of this, and everyone should expect it as a consequence of editing Wikipedia. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason for disclosing the real identity for a member as such any more than there is for an admin to do so. As some one said above, then bureaucrats should also be required to identify. --lTopGunl (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

View deleted

@Philippe (WMF):

Should the non-adminstrator members have the right to view deleted articles. Some have voiced the opinion that they need this ability to review administrators, especially if there are able to revoke admin rights - others see it as a legal problem. I have pinged Philippe, knowing the possibility of legal problems with this idea. Just to be clear, they would only be able to view deleted pages, not delete, and no technical ability to restore. Manually restoring a deleted pages would get them booted from the commission as soon as it's discovered. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Why would they need to view deleted pages? What is the current procedure for RfA with regard to deleted pages? If it isn't necessary for RfA, why would it be here? RGloucester — ☎ 22:02, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe the concern is allowing the non-admins to see deleted pages so they could determine possible admin wrong-doing and investigate. I think that could be more investigated by the admins who then report their findings, however.--Church ^Talk 22:11, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Quite right. There will be administrators on the Commission, so this shouldn't be a problem. RGloucester — ☎ 22:28, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

If the situation calls for it, perhaps the admins could even distribute the content within the private mailing list. --Biblioworm 22:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

That might be something to check to see if the WMF and the community at large is okay with.--Church ^Talk 23:16, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think the simple and obvious solution here is to remove this responsibility from the proposal. Overreaching is one of the primary reasons proposals end up failing, and I think moving all power to grant or remove the admin toolset into the hands of six or ten people is not a change the community is going to be willing to accept. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: I don't think that is what was proposed. This body would run in parallel to RfA as an alternative process, per the implementation wording. It would not be granted the bureaucrat user right, nor would it replace it. It would be able to review administrator behaviour, and would be able to request that a bureaucrat desysop an administrator in the same way that ArbCom does. RGloucester — ☎ 20:14, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it may be better to first focus on the question of trying to improve the process by which administrators are sought and appointed, before adding another venue by which their actions can result in the removal of administrative privileges. Just as a practical matter, I feel it will be easier to gain consensus on the first issue, and assuming it runs well for some period of time, there may be more support for expanding the role of the committee to the question of administrative review. isaacl (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

@Isaacl: I think that is an excellent idea. A gradual implementation is best, and is most likely to gain consensus. We can start with a Commission that only deals with seeking and appointing administrators, with a future RfC to determine whether its powers should be expanded. Perhaps that RfC can be held in conjunction with the one on whether to abolish RfA. What say you, Mr Marshall? RGloucester — ☎ 23:43, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I think it's all tied together. I think the absence of a workable community desysopping mechanism is a big concern for editors, and I think a proposal that addresses this concern is more likely to succeed. But I'm also concerned that there's a relatively small number of editors taking part in this conversation, and I'd like to see more input from others who haven't spoken up yet before I finally make up my mind.—S Marshall T/C 23:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is tied together, and I agree that we should wait for more input. I also agree that such a measure is needed, and that that concern is widespread in the community. I also believe, however, that there is an astonishing resistance to change, as evidenced by multiple failed RfA reforms over the past decade. Given this, gradualism seems like the best approach. If we start with our base proposal, which is to remedy the failings of RfA, I think we will have a better chance of being able to expand the "jurisdiction" of the Commission at a later base. The first thing we need to do is establish the Commission as a legitimate body. The best way to do this is to get it up and running, and see the results it produces. If the results are good, it will not be hard to expand its purview to administrative review. RGloucester — ☎ 00:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think introducing a new group with considerable power to affect Wikipedia's community is something that will understandably concern many editors. I believe putting in an alternative to the arbitration committee to remove administrative privileges will be more controversial than having a search committee for new admins, so I don't think tying the two together makes the proposal more likely to succeed. I agree more input is desirable, but this discussion thread is still very new, so hopefully others will contribute. Additional advertising of the discussion may be worthwhile. (It is of course a challenge to maintain an ongoing, productive conversation, but we can only hope for the best.) isaacl (talk) 00:17, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

It's possible to present these as options without risking torpedoing the basic proposal: see Wikipedia talk:Administrative Standards Commission/RfC draft.—S Marshall T/C 00:41, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that this has a chance of making consensus harder to establish. I favor the approach that the Right Honourable Mr Cameron took with regard to Scotland. Either you're in, or you're out. I'm not opposed to a multi-choice question, but I do not think that composition should be up for discussion. We need to come to that decision before, so as to make sure people know what they're voting for in the first question. We don't want to end-up with a no consensus on the composition, but a yes on the establishment. RGloucester — ☎ 00:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to present an exactly seven-member committee with a very specific composition as the only choice. We need to accommodate the kind of person who goes "oppose, but would support if the committee design were more flexible".—S Marshall T/C 00:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

We need to present some composition as the only choice. Whether it is seven members or fifty should be decided through this RfC now and consensus here. It would be a disaster to submit a proposal that is not tight. That'd be like going into a referendum on some law, but not knowing what the law was that was being put to said referendum. RGloucester — ☎ 01:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of retaining some flexibility to build a broader consensus, I suggest that it's not crucial to decide that a seven-member committee is preferred over a nine-member committee, for example; we just need to agree that something within a certain range is preferred over something outside that range. Hopefully everyone can compromise to that extent? isaacl (talk) 01:06, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not clear on your proposal; are you suggesting that the separate sections in the RFC on this talk page be replaced with the questions in your RFC draft? Personally I don't think the discussion will be much different, so I'd as soon leave the RFC as it is right now. I suggest it would be best to continue the current discussion on crafting a proposal for a new committee that can gain consensus support . As the proposal continues to firm up, an increasingly broad base of commenters can be solicited to reach an overall consensus. If there is sufficient dissension over this idea, then it can be dropped and other proposals pursued. isaacl (talk) 01:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm not so sure that the desysopping part would make it less likely to succeed. On one hand, simpler is better. On the other hand, one of the reasons the current difficulty of RFA is tolerated is because it is even more difficult to remove adminship. Unless an admin totally goes rogue or turns out to be a sockpuppet of a banned user, the removal process is usually a 2-month-long ArbCom case following days or weeks of discussion elsewhere. So people see a stringent RFA process as okay, or even necessary. If removal becomes easier, people may be more willing to accept an easier system for granting. And I agree with RGloucester that it could make consensus harder to achieve if it's a separate question. We'd end up with a lot of "Support, but only if X" or "Support, but not if Y." If we're going to ask, we should do 2 separate RFCs, one to determine support for individual components without asking about approval in general, then another yes/no on a final proposal for actual approval. Mr.Z-man 01:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to initially grant the Commission the ability to desysop only those administrators that it appoints. RGloucester — ☎ 01:15, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

My feeling is that the intent behind this proposal is simply to streamline the process of selecting an editor to receive administrative privileges. In other words, the committee would approve editors that could pass the current RfA process, but by doing the heavy lifting of vetting candidates, the committee achieves the same end in a more efficient manner. If this is the case, then I think the issue of concentration of power in the proposed committee is a bigger concern than that of making the appointment of administrators too easy. isaacl (talk) 01:39, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I certainly hope not. The problem with RFA isn't "efficiency", it's that it's not promoting enough people. The process itself is toxic and off-putting, and the standards are absurdly high. If the goal is just to streamline the process of rejecting qualified applicants because they're not completely perfect, then this is pointless. Mr.Z-man 03:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe the goal is to lower standards, nor do I think the community's consensus standards are absurdly high. I think some editors feel that some individuals have overly strict standards, and the current RfA process gives these comments undue emphasis in proportion to their importance. Accordingly, I feel the committee proposal is not intended to grant administrative privileges to editors who meet a lower standard; rather the idea is to try to appoint them in a less confrontational manner. By doing so, the process will be more efficient and effective, both of which will hopefully aid in attracting more editors to take on the role. (There are of course drawbacks to the committee approach, given the culture and interpersonal interactions of any large group, which may hinder achieving this ideal.) isaacl (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

There are no "consensus standards"; that's part of the problem. The "community's standards" are whatever gets applied at RFA on any given day. A single individual cannot derail an RFA. Either a significant number of other people are agreeing with them or there are significant numbers of other people with different unreasonable standards. If the community in general had reasonable standards, there would be enough people to overwhelm a few unreasonable individuals. Since there apparently aren't, it stands to reason that a large fraction of the community holds absurdly high standards or at least isn't willing to disagree with them. Mr.Z-man 04:32, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

By consensus standards, I mean the results achieved by the RfA process. I believe, as do some others, that those who pass RfA are generally qualified, and those who do not are generally not, and thus the community indeed does overwhelm a few unreasonable individuals. Are there specific RfAs you have in mind in the past two or three years where you believe unreasonable standards were applied, causing the RfA to fail? (Upon further reflection, if you'd like to discuss specific RfAs in detail, we should perhaps take it to another page, as it is a bit out of scope for this discussion.) I don't think it is a good idea, though, to propose the formation of a committee that would choose to not follow the standards of a majority of the community. For better or worse, I believe the community would feel their concerns were being disregarded. isaacl (talk) 05:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I very much agree with Mr.Z-man's views here.—S Marshall T/C 09:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

The fact that we're promoting far fewer admins than we're losing to attrition suggests that the standards are too high and the results achieved by the RFA process are seriously inadequate. It's difficult to point to specific RFAs because we're now at the point where potentially qualified users aren't even trying. Because they know they'll be opposed for voting "delete" on an AFD that closed as "keep", taking some time off from editing, having too low a mainspace edit percentage, having too high a mainspace edit percentage, etc.

In 2007, based on a random sample of 15 of the over 400 successful RFAs, the average edit count was around 10,500. 9/15 had fewer than 10,000 edits. 2 had fewer than 5000 edits.

So far this year, the average successful RFA candidate has over 37,000 edits. Only 2/16 passed with fewer than 10,000.

So over the course of the last 7 years, the "consensus standard" for edit count has more than tripled. Few people are !voting purely based on edit count of course, but it's reflective of the amount of effort someone has to do to be a successful candidate. Mr.Z-man 20:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I believe the low number of promotions this year is indicative of the lack of candidates. This could be due to potential candidates being afraid that the standards are too high, or it could be a lack of desire to assume administrative duties, for a variety of reasons as described by Dennis Brown. Even if no consensus is reached on this proposal for a committee to select new administrators, I think it would be a good idea for interested editors to proceed with the search aspect of the proposal, and for those who decline to pursue administrative privileges, the reasons why can be recorded so a better understanding of how to improve matters can be gained (the specific details can be kept anonymous if the person in question desires). A revived version of Wikipedia:WikiProject Admin Nominators may be a good place to keep this information. isaacl (talk) 23:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Resolved matter

The current proposal is for this new committee to seek out and appoint new administrators. Unless the proposal is expanded, it seem premature to consider a need to review the actions of current admins. There might be some usefulness in viewing the deleted edits of potential candidates, but typically any controversial deletions will be accompanied with related discussion, so it may not be essential. isaacl (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the proposal before commenting. The Commission is also meant to serve as a forum for reviewing administrative actions. RGloucester — ☎ 22:56, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

My apologies; I had indeed read the proposal previously but for some reason upon reviewing the latest comments, I only read the RFC text on this discussion page. isaacl (talk) 23:17, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed implementation

I've written this text: "If accepted by the community, this proposal would be implemented in stages. Firstly, the Commission would be established as a parallel to the existing RfA process. During a transitional period, both processes would continue to be used. After a period of time determined through community discussion, a widely-advertised RfC would be held to determine whether to retain the RfA process as an alternative to appointment by the Commission, or to wind up RfA". In other words, I think that this should not outright replaced RfA, at first. Such a proposal has more chance of being accepted, and will be able to be evaluated on merit over time. RGloucester — ☎ 02:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Voting

So, then, no major objections, no major parts of this in dispute - Let's make it happen. Vote Support to establish the ASC or oppose if not. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

No way. This proposal is not anywhere near ready to be put to community consensus, which would require a formal and very-widely advertised RfC anyway. RGloucester — ☎ 04:35, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, what needs to be improved before this happens? Are there outstanding issues? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

We need to wait for more comments, see what people say, make sure the proposal is tight, and then draught a formal RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 06:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, okay - I just don't want this to peter out and go nowhere because people forgot about it. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 06:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Failure is failure, whether gradual or instant. RGloucester — ☎ 06:10, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for a temporary commission with a narrow mandate supplementing RFA

I find this proposal interesting but flawed for several of the reasons already discussed above. The mandate afforded to this commission is too vast, this would create lots of problems : make it more controversial than necessary, risk interfering with ArbCom, muddle their role in appointing admins, etc. I also don't see the need for a permanent body, and think that a commission with a temporary mandate to appoint admins, convened by the community at times of necessity, and disbanded when their job is done, would be more effective. I made a draft proposal at User:Cenarium/AAC and welcome any input. Cenarium (talk) 17:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

To anarchical, and too American, for my taste. It's like the ability to call a "constitutional convention" in most American states. Sure, it can be done, but it never actually happens. The mandate of this proposal here would not be "vast", given that it would exist in parallel to RfA, and would not have powers of administrative review unless explicitly granted those in a follow-up RfC after it had already been established. RGloucester — ☎ 18:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that the community is ready to make it happen. I don't see how it's anarchic, the fact that something is convened temporarily and only when necessary doesn't make it anarchic. As written in my draft it's a very orderly process - and we could convene a commission by simple majority or some super-majority so it would be pretty clear. If we have two competing permanent processes for granting adminship (RFA + ASC), it would create tensions between the two, and users would likely accuse each other of gaming. A permanent commission would likely run into similar problems than RFA, such as how to maintain a consistent standard for long periods, and we may not have enough candidates to fill those long term positions. There's also that making a selection once among several candidates based on a predefined need is easier than having to decide on each candidate in isolation. Hence a temporary commission which would select a batch of admins and disband. Cenarium (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

We need a rock to stand on, not an unstable mess. That's my view. RGloucester — ☎ 21:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that's wishful thinking to the extreme considering the situation we're in and knowing how things go on Wikipedia. Cenarium (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I've always been an idealist extremist. That's not going to change. RGloucester — ☎ 21:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm personally opposed to this idea. We're here to improve the admin election system for the long term, not just when we're desperate for new admins. --Biblioworm 21:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• And what's this grand solution to improve the admin election system for the long term ? It's been years since we're talking about it. It doesn't exclude a reform of that type anyway. And this would likely influence the RFA process itself for the better, commentators would likely reassess their standards in light of the commission appointments. (Also, what's the point of you saying you're opposed to this idea ? I'm not proposing it, yet.) Cenarium (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What would I do? I would abolish elections all together, and replace them with a solely appointed system. That's not likely to gain consensus, but it is what should happen. RGloucester — ☎ 21:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I should also note that this could be scheduled regularly, for example we could elect the commission in February and have them work out the appointments from March to May. So we would have our new batch of admins in May. Or any other date. Cenarium (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't really think a temporary commission is a good idea, Cenarium, but good luck with your proposal all the same.—S Marshall T/C 22:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not that interested in the subject so it was just an idea, I likely won't have the time to work on it further, let alone propose it. Cenarium (talk) 22:30, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've formulated a different idea based on this feedback, this time to replace RFA : Administrators Appointments and Reappointments Commission. This commission would be convened every six months, appoint a new batch of sysops for six months and reappoint (or not) previously appointed sysops. After having been reappointed at least once, a sysop could ask the community for permanent adminship. This would take care of several problems at once : fear of the RFA process, fear of granting adminship 'for ever'. Appointment by committee for a limited period would be more relaxed than RFA, and deciding whether or not to grant permanent adminship would remain up to the community, which could base its decision on 12 months of service. Cenarium (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Hmm. This is an interesting idea. I've always thought a sort of "trial period" would be beneficial, so that candidates can prove their trustworthiness without the community having to worry that the bit can never be taken away. In fact, this is similar to how we do it over at wikiHow, with a few differences. --Biblioworm 01:08, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes, it's sort of a trial, although an admin may choose to not seek a permanent term and just keep getting reappointed by the successive commissions. But it's my guess that after long enough as an admin, it should be non-controversial enough to be granted permanent adminship by the community. However I haven't proposed that the commission be able to remove adminship from the admins it appoints for 6 months term, so it would be handled the same way as with admins on a permanent term, because it would make the commission's work much more controversial, and I prefer it being in the hands of ArbCom than risking spillover on the commission's core mandate (and this would also open up this can of worms of sensitive information, non-admin members, etc). The risk of not getting reappointed by the next commission should be dissuasive enough on its own to make appointed admins behave, most of the time. Cenarium (talk) 02:57, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
• Too many restrictions on the commission for my taste. I still prefer the original idea of a free, unconstrained commission with a wide mandate, aiming to replace RfA after a trial period.—S Marshall T/C 17:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This would replace RFA, but a wide mandate would be unworkable in my opinion, I've detailed this here. Cenarium (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
  • I've significantly expanded the proposal. This could also be used to institute a form of reconfirmation as an ArbCom sanction. Indirectly, by virtue of reappointing non-permanent admins, this would substantially increase the mandate of the commission in a manner that should be workable, due to the good delineation with ArbCom. Cenarium (talk) 00:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• How would it select admins? Would there be an application process? Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• I've detailed this here. The admin would apply privately, or someone would suggest him/her, or the commission would seek him/her out. They would discuss by email with the admin, and take email feedback from other editors, and relay this feedback (diplomatically). This would take a few weeks, at a relaxed pace and privately, then they would decide. Cenarium (talk) 05:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The people who remove adminship should not be the same people who give it. Otherwise, the givers would be accountable to themselves for their own judgments. Other than that, I am not opposed to having a committee appoint admins because presently a RfA is over-interpreted as some sort of mandate to exercise power. Civil servants, to go back to that useful analogy, see themselves as office holders but as holders of an office that largely implements and executes the will of others as opposed to their own will. --Brian Dell (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Archiving

This page is getting very long, which I think is a bit daunting for potential new participants. Should we consider archiving the inactive discussions?—S Marshall T/C 16:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

• No action for 10 days: Either be bold and go ahead and launch the RfC for it or tag the project as a failed proposal. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

It isn't "failed". It merely isn't ready to be put to an RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 16:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Do we want to formally put forth this proposal at the Village Pump?

Read the section heading. Shall we go forth? RGloucester — ☎ 02:12, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I would say yes. The only serious concern I've heard hear is the number of members, something that is a relatively easy thing to revise. How do we ensure that it gets enough attention? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Concerning the number of members, can we agree on a compromise, such as 9? --Biblioworm 23:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I like 13 members better, given people's concerns above. RGloucester — ☎ 00:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Tend to agree with the larger number, and 13 is a good choice. Go for it. John Carter (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. I'll draw up an RfC statement. RGloucester — ☎ 00:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• RfC opened at the Village Pump. See here. RGloucester — ☎ 00:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposal rejected

The community rejected this idea at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 117#RfC: alternative to RfA: appointment of administrators. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)