• I'm currently working this summer at an amusement park as a ride operator (so yes, I can operate a roller coaster). I do not recall ever being harassed or asked fifty questions by my colleagues while I was being trained for the operator positions. I do recall having my supervisor talk to me about the controls, what each button and switch did, what the indicator lights meant, what to do in certain situations, and then had me sit behind the controls under his watchful supervision, giving me advice as I went and telling me what I was doing well and what I wasn't doing well (and most importantly, how to correct it). He asked me a lot of questions to test my knowledge and to see if I was paying attention, along with a few trickier questions that taught more than humiliated. Although the training was about three hours in total, the bulk of it came from my supervisor watching me as I worked the lower attendant positions and seeing how I performed at those. Not once were past issues about me ever brought up; nobody scrounged through CCTV footage looking for whenever I picked my nose while I was on the job; nobody went around asking my colleagues about the thing they disliked about me the most. In short, it was much easier (and possibly much more enjoyable, since I got along well with my supervisor) to get certified to be an amusement park ride operator (a position that can badly injure or even kill someone if I'm not paying attention) than it was to become a Wikipedia administrator. Just my thoughts... and something for anyone who reads this to think about. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:21, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I generally try to stay to the same standards that there were when I successfully made my run in 2007. Which were pretty much "Have you been around long enough for us to know how you operate? Do you have a decent range of experience across various areas on Wikipedia? Do you avoid doing stupid things? If you have done a stupid thing, did you quit doing it and learn from your mistake?" If the answers to those were yes, great, have a mop, start cleaning up crap. Admin actions are all reversible at the click of a button, so I think we take it far too seriously. Doesn't mean we should hand the bit out like candy to everyone, but if someone's been around the block enough to know what they're doing and generally shows they have a clue and can play nicely with others, that should really be all the qualification we need. And quite honestly, I'd rather see someone who has screwed up a time or two, apologized, learned from it, and moved on, than someone who's seemingly flawless. We all make mistakes sometimes; what's important is how you handle them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:33, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I actually think the process itself for RFA is working fine. I rarely find myself disagreeing with the outcome of an RFA, be it successful or unsuccessful. Generally speaking, the RFAs will fall into these sorts of boxes:

  1. User has experience (including some content creation), and no civility issues, but a questionable need for the tools. Usually these pass with at least 75%. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Pbsouthwood was a recent example of that - there was significant opposition due to "no need for the tools", but not enough to tip it into no-consensus territory. That sort of RFA may be stressful as there will be arguing over the opposes, but ultimately the "right" result will still prevail and the candidate will be promoted.
  2. Same as (1) but adding in a definite need for the tools and experience in particular admin areas will push you towards almost-unanimous territory, which was how it was the recent Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Sro23. There's no stress involved at all at that stage.
  3. Civility issues regarding past behaviour raised and not adequately explained or apologised for by the candidate, with evidence that the issue will not recur. Usually these fail, and as much as I wish everyone here well, and assume the best in everyone, it's probably best if civility issues are dealt with before the user assumes the mop. These users will have a stressful time at RFA, and it's difficult for them, but looking at it from a glass-half-full perspective, it is useful to have the issues brought out into the open, and with the will, that user could seek to behave differently in future and then enjoy a successful RFA.

  Where there is more of an issue is with getting candidates to RFA in the first place, and that is probably partly due to the perception of it being a nasty place. IMHO most of our experienced Wikipedians probably fall into box (1) or (2) above and should have nothing to fear from the process. We should therefore be seeking to improve the prospects of those editors applying and demystifying the process for them. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, you teased my opinion(s) in the intro and then didn't include them or link to them. So, here they are again — minority view though it may (or may not) be...

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]