The Signpost

Op-ed

The last leg of the Admin Ship's current cruise

Contribute  —  
Share this
By Kudpung

The Admin Ship comes back to port – where the voyage starts

Photograph of a large boat whose starboard side is listing and riding up against the harbor
The Admin Ship returns to port.

Is the Admin Ship actually sinking? No, but listing heavily. This last leg of our current cruise on the Admin Ship brings us to a round up of what seasickness or other ills deter candidates of the right calibre from coming forward – back to where it all begins: RfA. We list some of the comments we fished out of the dirty water on the way as well as some of the answers and advice from the admins we interviewed. However, if you are an aspiring admin, don't let it discourage you; and if you are a voter at RfA, the admins' and other users' comments reveal much about the situation and perhaps you may like to read Advice for RfA voters. With comments such as "My default attitude is that an admin is dishonest and/or corrupt. An individual admin has to prove themselves to be otherwise. So maybe their reputation is so slimy that it's hard to recruit any more" Carrite's opinion may be accurate based on his own experience but may not be shared by the majority of the community.

Commenting on the reforms he made in December 2015, Biblioworm says "I especially supported the idea of separate clerks, but every comprehensive clerking proposal has been rejected. I remember someone, maybe Montanabw, suggesting restrictions on the length of vote rationales. I didn't comment, but I, as well as Kudpung, thought it was a good idea. Perhaps someone could take that up."

No BIG deal?

Image macro meme depicting the Wikipedia globe logo with a mop layered over it; top text: "WP:RFA"; bottom text: "BECAUSE THIS PLACE IS NOT GOING TO MOP ITSELF" with "BECAUSE" misspelled

A big deal?

Back in July 2012, exactly six years ago, Andrew Lih—a 2003 admin (Fuzheado) and author of The Wikipedia Revolution—told a reporter in The Atlantic: "The vetting process is akin to putting someone through the Supreme Court," he said, "it's pretty much a hazing ritual at this point." Lih became an admin in October 2003 and was formerly an associate professor of journalism at American University in Washington, D.C.

Voting

Suggestions are frequently made to limit voting to users who at least have a minimum knowledge of what adminship is all about.

Her edit summary reads: "yeah, but there are people who can always find a reason to oppose. Why have we not taken steps to remove them?"

Where it stalls, however, is the paradox that because no official entry point exists for admin candidates, one can hardly impose regulations on those who vote. It's a Catch-22 question. The English Wikipedia is the only major language project not to operate such restrictions.

Advice for candidates

Beeblebrox, who succeeded at his second attempt, gives this advice: "If you believe you have the experience and have demonstrated the demeanor expected of an admin, go ahead and run. The worst that can happen is that you won't get it. It's not the end of the world."

This writer who has now been researching RfA for many years advises prospective candidates to read WP:RFAADVICE page – "properly, and don't waste our time. Unless you want something to brag about in the schoolyard, adminship is absolutely no big deal. Someone has to do the dirty work, so if you think being an admin is a cool job, think again. If you joined Wikipedia with the intention of becoming an admin on the world's #4 web site, you joined for the wrong reasons; go away."

Lourdes who declined the bit immediately following her second but nevertheless very successful landslide RfA (207/3/1), says: "My advice would be, don't go for it. Going for an RfA is not at all worth the time of a good productive editor, given the stress before and during the RfA and the investment of personal time further on; and later even the possibility of public denoument of admin actions. RfAs and adminship are not for those who can't take mass criticism on a public platform, and that includes the majority of editors here. While I sincerely extend all my support to RfA candidates, I would reiterate that it's not worth it."

Admins were asked to comment on their experience at RfA

"Very stressed. Very negative. I don't recommend it. That was in 2012, which was a different era than now. Don't seek RFA unless you can handle a lot of abuse. We are just glorified teacher's assistants with mops, and no teacher, so don't seek it unless your goal is to fix things and help people. It can be rewarding, but it is also a huge pain sometimes. There is no glory in the job, so make sure your reasons for wanting it are worth it. If in doubt, don't", says Dennis Brown whose very successful RfA (134/31/2) was something to write home about in the days when 100+ support votes were still rare.

On another successful bid at 121/3/2 in days of yore, Worm That Turned said: "It was stressful, despite having a very positive RfA. But it was also years ago, and things are different now – quite possibly worse."

"It went much better than I expected. I did a thorough preparation with the nominators and knew that if there was one thing that could cause RfA to fail it would be civility. However, in the event it only generated a handful of opposes," says Ritchie333 with a very healthy 138/3/3 in pre-reform days.

Again quoting Beeblebrox, who tells us that during his RfAs he was not relaxed. "...I was distressed to see one or two opposes that got basic facts wrong."

Cullen328 who currently holds the record for the most successful RfA ever (post reform), found the process somewhat stressful, but "...the result was gratifying. Once the trend was well-established, I was relaxed and a bit amazed. Very amazed and humbled in the end."

This writer describes his supports and opposes going up and down until the last two days. "I was on tenterhooks the whole time. I had been investigating the RfA system because I wanted to know how a couple of admins who harassed me ever got their bits (they've long gone). With that and other work I was doing I was urged to run for office. Due to lies and blatant PA (even from since desysoped admins), it was one of the worst ever examples of a 'horrible and broken process'. Although I finally passed with flying colours [100+ in 2011], it was not a pleasant experience so I've been involved in RfA reform ever since. I'm getting on for 70 and it was the most humiliating experience in my life."

Conclusion

Related articles
Reforming RfA

Jimbo's NFT, new arbs, fixing RfA, and financial statements
28 December 2021

Editors discuss Wikipedia's vetting process for administrators
26 September 2021

Administrator cadre continues to contract
31 July 2019

The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages
31 January 2019

The last leg of the Admin Ship's current cruise
31 July 2018

What do admins actually do?
29 June 2018

Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails?
24 May 2018

Recent retirements typify problem of admin attrition
18 February 2015

Another admin reform attempt flops
15 April 2013

Requests for adminship reform moves forward
21 January 2013

Adminship from the German perspective
22 October 2012

AdminCom: A proposal for changing the way we select admins
15 October 2012

Is the requests for adminship process 'broken'?
18 June 2012

RFAs and active admins—concerns expressed over the continuing drought
14 February 2011

RfA drought worsens in 2010—wikigeneration gulf emerging
9 August 2010

Experimental request for adminship ends in failure
13 October 2008

Efforts to reform Requests for Adminship spark animated discussion
23 April 2007

News and notes: Arbitrators granted CheckUser rights, milestones
6 February 2006

Featured picture process tweaked, changes to adminship debated
27 June 2005


More articles

S
In this issue
+ Add a comment

Discuss this story

The reason for the ongoing administrative attrition is pretty simple, albeit convoluted. We see a steady upward creep of "minimum" standards — from the NOBIGDEAL of days of yore we have devolved into a REALLYBIGDEAL world, in which you might as well forget it unless you've been around three years and amassed 50K edits without ever losing your temper and going off on anyone while authoring multiple Feature Articles™® and being willing to play 20 questions with any trivia quizmaster that comes along (not to forget the need to score 100%+++ in the game) all the while having your entire edit history picked apart. Guess what: there aren't many people willing and able to endure being buried beneath a twenty foot high wall of pyroclastic dogshit for a week to gain the luxurious ability to perform unpaid site maintenance for a multimillion dollar corporation while gaining the enmity of anyone whose wikipedia ox has ever been gored...

Nothing is going to be fixed until the crisis comes, and as long as there are a few hundred more or less serious administrators to get the work done, the crisis isn't yet arrived. But it is coming, make no mistake. Then we will see some combination of (a) a serious discussion about loosening standards; (b) WMF taking over more and more administrative duties with paid staff.

The best idea in this thread is that there should be an elected "Administrative Committee" to co-opt qualified candidates, thereby foregoing the wretched, overdramatic, gotcha quiz of overqualified candidates that continues to put up failing grades, year after year. You administrators are yourselves the cause of the lack of administrators. You and your exclusive club... When there's actually a shortage of administrators and you're ready to get serious about actually fixing the problem, let us know.

This still strikes me as on-point. Your mileage may vary. Carrite (talk) 13:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a reasonable interpretation. Maybe expecting people to put up with dodgy oppose rationales and some of the things that pass for questions is expecting more from Wikipedians than most users are willing to deal with. I also think that "but they'll meet more jerks along the same lines as admins so if they can't handle them now they shouldn't become admins" is a handwave pulled out of thin air. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Proving themselves' is not what RfA is for. It's not a training course for the SAS or an MI5 field agent. I was particularly moved by the comments by Bishonen and Spinningspark. And of course the quotation from long time doyen of Arbcom, Risker, should certainly not go unheeded. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As of August 10, 2018, 515 of the 1,211 administrators are truly "active" (defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months); 493 are "semi-active" (defined as fewer than 30 edits in the last 2 months but at least one edit in the last 3 months); and 202 are "inactive" (no edits in the last 3 months) and headed toward being desysopped for being inactive for over a year (defined as making "no edits or administrative actions for at least 12 months"), although they can be resysopped on request, without having to file a new RfA, for the following 2 years. Wikipedia:List of administrators.
Thanks to Kudpung กุดผึ้ง for the important and informative series of articles. Donner60 (talk) 04:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
+1 on the thanks to Kudpung. A few thoughts to ponder: 10 year term limits with mandatory evaluation at RfA at year 3 and 6, and then they step down after 10 years. They can reapply after a 2-yr break, if they wish. That's the only way it's ever going to be fair because oftentimes - not always - close friendships and longterm alliances are formed among the ranks. Alliances tend to compromise the integrity of accountability which is why an extra layer of checks and balances is needed. By eliminating the concept of "forever yours" and adding mandatory evaluations, one trickle down positive may very well be a reduction in the hesitancy and concerns that make RfA feel like sitting through a root canal. Another concern is that ArbCom may be passing the buck far too often to individual admins for issues that were once under their jurisdiction, particularly DS enforcement where decisions should be made after careful consideration over time by several rather than a single admin making an on-the-spot decision to block or t-ban an editor. While careful selection of admins and ArbCom candidates is paramount, so is making sure that they have the time to devote to the responsibility which help avoid snap-judgments that are made without careful evaluation of the evidence. I also believe that it's time to start allowing non-admins an opportunity to serve on ArbCom, and as a CU which will serve as another layer of checks and balances. While I very much appreciate all the work our admins do to keep the project running smoothly, there is no denying that we occasionally have a few bad apples in the bunch, and mandatory evaluation with term limits can only bring a positive result. Atsme📞📧 19:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 3, 6 and 10 program has a great deal to recommend it. MPS1992 (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Evaluating admins is not a bad idea -- and indeed, there is nothing to stop you or anyone else now.
However, "term limits" could have severe negative consequences. The key thing to bear in mind is that the long tail of rarely-active admins provides a potential "constitutional" mechanism to protect Wikipedia against sudden changes, for example domination by a specific reputation management company. If anything too crazy hits the news, they might step forward and provide deep tradition. Whereas if you get rid of all the old admins and then a single group manages to game the process for a few years, the whole project could be lost. Wnt (talk) 21:29, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just a mild clarifier that this point isn't right: it's time to start allowing non-admins an opportunity to serve on ArbCom. There's nothing preventing non-admins serving on Arbcom, indeed around half the Arbcom candidates each year are non-admins. 2018 elections are coming up, so now is a great time to start thinking about nominating. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:12, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]





       

The Signpost · written by many · served by Sinepost V0.9 · 🄯 CC-BY-SA 4.0