Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship

Discussion Page

As the statistics from the wannabe_kate tool is posted on each RfA's discussion page, is it possible to get this automatically done, or is that too much of a hassle. (Probably is, if it is just a quick task, and there *aren't* that many RfAs.) Also, is there a quick way to do it, as I find if I just copy and paste the statistics, it does not leave a sufficient gap between the number and what it is referring to, and I have to go through and Tab to get a space in between. Phgao 06:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling mathbot could do it if we really asked nicely - he already adds the ESU link. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) 07:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, what is admin revert? ( you mentioned it on a RfA) Phgao 09:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

An admin revert or "rollback" is when an admin clicks a link and it reverts the edit on the server. Unlike a user script such as twinkle which edits the previous version, a rollback is a separate server command rather than an edit that has the same effect. It's marginally faster than twinkle or popups, and leaves an automatic summary, but there's nothing really special about it considering popups and twinkle especially. Oh and it also undoes all of the edits by the last user until the previous user. So I made 3 edits to a page then someone clicked rollback it would undo all 3 of my edits. James086^{Talk | Email} 09:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, it's possible to do a rollback in such a way that neither the rollback nor the edits it reverts show up in Recent Changes; this is hardly ever used (its only purpose is to restore Recent Changes from a flood attack). --ais523 13:10, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I just do it by hand; it's not that hard. Kids these days and their bots and their automated tools and their rock and roll... why, back when I was a boy, if somebody twinkled an article, we'd block 'em! Damn whippersnappers... EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And get off my lawn. Raymond Arritt 20:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

:D Indeed, I prefer to do RC patrol by hand as well, although tagging for CSD is done using twinkle! Phgao 05:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

<EVula> You mean I'm not the only one who does RC patrol (and everything else) by hand? :) Shalom ^Hello 17:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Not me! I patrol RC with AVT, then rollback with twinkle! It's all about the scriptage, baby! J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 18:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The closest thing I come to an automated editing tool is the rollback feature. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is uncool :) J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:30, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is faster, as well, as I don't have to wait for all the javascript junk to load... yeah, I'm an old fart, apparently, but there's nothing like the good old days. Back then, we would scroll the RC feed by hand, and we wouldn't have any of the fairy stuff these kids have today. Back when I was your age, we would actually stand side-by-side cleaning up with the mop and the flamethrower, and have a drink while getting warm over a bonfire in quiet nights... ah, the good old days. Too bad that the kids of today don't know anything about that, they just use whatever script thingie is cooler and they go on their merry way. They don't know what life truly is, I'm telling you. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 08:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Abolish bureaucratship as a special status

I propose that bureaucratship as a special status should be abolished, and all administrators should be given bureaucrat tools in addition to their admin tools. I have several arguments in favour of this proposal.

• Firstly, it already works this way on many other wikis, notably Spanish Wikipedia. They have not experienced any problems as a result of this situation, and (AFAIK) there are no proposals over there to change to our system. I realise their wiki is smaller; however, a larger wiki is all the more reason not to concentrate power in the hands of a small group.
• I realise many people will argue that a rogue 'crat account can do much more damage than a rogue admin account, so the position has to be exclusive. However, I don't think the RfB process necessarily helps in this regard. In general, anyone who passes RfA is already a trusted user, and gives the impression of being sane and balanced; someone who can fool the community into thinking they're trustworthy enough to pass an RfA is likely to be able to do exactly the same thing on an RfB. Furthermore, the Essjay incident shows that we can, and do, promote people to bureaucratship without being 100% certain of their trustworthiness, just as we do for adminship. So the argument that RfB helps avoid rogue 'crat accounts doesn't hold water.
• People often argue that only the 'crats can determine "consensus" on a controversial RfA (see this post made by a current bureaucrat). However, I disagree with this. Administrators already close XfDs and other community discussions, and we are trusted with discretionary authority in sensitive areas such as page protection and blocking users. Anyone who is trustworthy and intelligent enough to perform admin duties, is trustworthy and intelligent enough to close RfAs.
• It is also a well-publicised fact that standards for adminship now on English Wikipedia are higher than they used to be, and higher than on most other wikis. Thus, if Spanish Wikipedia admins (and their counterparts on many other projects) can automatically be trusted with the 'crat tools, then why can't we be?

I realise this proposal has been brought up in the past, and failed. However, consensus can change, and I hope the community will read my arguments and take note of the compelling reasons why we should do this. Walton^One 18:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Weak oppose. Sounds like a good idea (I too have made a proposal dealing with crats, though not in the same way), but we need to have a much higher sense of trust in these users at RfB, higher than at RfA. I feel that if we abolish Bureaucratship, standards for RfA will skyrocket, and a lot of good users who deserve to have the mop and bucket won't get it because it comes with the wrenches. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that, for a proposal like this to work, we'd need to also implement an easier system for de-adminship. (not saying that I disagree with you on any particular point, I'm just saying that I don't think it'd get community support without an easier system of checks and balances) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose this proposal. There's only been a handful of bureaucrats promoted in the past year or two. There's obviously not consensus to create any more crats than needed (the exact number is frequently debated). While it may work well on the Spanish Wikipedia, I highly doubt it would scale to a project this large. The main effect of this proposal would be to make it virtually impossible to become an admin. Chaz ^Beckett 19:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Haven't you proposed this before? Anyway, this would cause RFA standards to raise. As much as you can argue that it really shouldn't (and I agree with that), the practicality is that it would. So we'd end up with really high adminship standards, basically solving nothing (not that I think there's anything to solve anyway). --Deskana (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's an idea. Put in an RFB for every administrator. Something like Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/All administrators. Incase anyone can't tell, I am actually being serious. --Deskana (talk) 19:20, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean have a vote (OK, !vote) on them as a whole, or work through the 1300 saying yes or no to each? BTW, if Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Penwhale stays the same it will have exactly 75% support, so we'll get to test 'crat discretion in its purest form — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

One for all admins. That's the way to promote all users to admins. It'd never pass, which makes the communities views on promoting all admins to bureaucrats pretty obvious. --Deskana (talk) 19:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry Walton. I'm with the "will increase RfA standards" thing here. Hell, we badly need more admins (and now I am one I really do believe that). And I'm kind of leaning towards the "we have enough 'crats at the moment" argument too. WP:CSD was backlogged all day, not just on the usual image stuff but on simple A7, G1, attack page stuff - let's not give people more reasons to oppose at RfA - let's just get some sensible policy wise punters into adminship before the standards get too high. Pedro |  Chat  19:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, no. The big problems is that if admins can give admin bits, then some guy goes nuts and gives Willy on Wheels the admin bit, and he gives it to every vandal on AIV, and on and on. It is not about a special type of person. The separation exists you can give someone access, without giving the ability to give other people access. It is not about classes of people, it is about security. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with 1 == 2 here. Anything an admin can be done can be reverted by another admin. So, when an account is compromised, we can play cleanup until they are desysopped. Now, if a crat account would get compromised, the first thing they would go to do in my opinion is sysop everybody they could find (all there vandal friends) who would in turn promote all there vandal friends and this would be MUCH MUCH more detrimental to this project and much more difficult to clean up. Instead of one compromised admin acocunt, we could have 100's easily, deleting, blocking and that would be a HUGE mess to clean up. I strongly oppose maming all admins crats. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 20:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Bigger problem: rogue adminicrat bots. We saw in the last few months some rogue/compromised admins. Imagine a rogue/compromised adminicrat bot handing out the admin bit to everyone on the planet. Get 10 of those running on bots constantly re-opping each other and there's nothing a steward could do. Bad idea. Very, very bad idea. --B 20:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

...which is exactly why I don't think this could happen without a strong de-opping process in place. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, B is correct. Given that bureaucrats can bureaucrat other users, this could essentially create a case where the compromised account could create more compromised bureaucrat accounts faster than a steward can control the situation. -- Renesis (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Your arguments are purely reasons why it's not a bad idea. You haven't given any good reason why it's a good idea. There is no backlog at RfA (or the other crat jobs, as far as I know, not that you've addressed them at all - is this idea for all crat jobs, or just admin promotions?), so why do we need more people able to promote admins? As for determining consensus - bad decisions on RfAs are extremely controversial, bad decisions on XfDs just result in a deletion review. --Tango 21:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous in my eyes, I'm sorry. Wikipedia as a whole has been operating excellently with this permission for several years now. RFB is a trial I think is needed to show that an administrator really is ready for the next permission upwards. If this were to happen, we would face the chance of rogue bureaucrats, or, at least, users with that amount of power. Why change this system of operation? It is certainly not broken. These extra tools should be reserved to those with that extra knowledge of policy, that extra amount of experience; those that have earned the trust of the community, through RFB, to have those tools. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 22:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not while the RfA process is so broken. We have admins who probably shouldn't be (they look good at RfA, but then turn out to be jerks when sysopped), we have some people who skate through RfA with little scrutiny (how they turn out is yet to be determined) and we have good editors who would make great admins who can't pass RfA for various reasons that have little to do with adminship. The extra tools should not be automatic. Too much damage can be done. - Crockspot 23:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose - Editors have to earn the communities trust to become admins. I think it's appropriate that admins earn the communities trust to become 'crats. Like Crockspot noted, some admins become douchebags when they get the tools, so we don't need any Jekyll & Hydes getting 'crat tools. LaraLove 02:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I was always a douchebag. the_undertow ^talk 17:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well then, that gives me hope. :) LaraLove 17:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Add me to the chorus that would oppose a blanket grant of the bureaucrat bit to all admins. Not without a stronger desysopping procedure, and not until there are considerably more stewards to reverse the damage 'crat wars could cause. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Status defined

(If the analysis below misinterprets the crux of the matter here, I would appreciate enlightenment.)

Based on the title assigned to this discussion, I wonder if this is really so much about the tools as the — real or perceived — "status" for Bureaucrats. In other words, is the effort really to abolish a possible "some are more equal than others" structure? --Aarktica 20:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think RfA's should be decided and closed by non-crats. Admin actions are often undone and argued about, I would hate for this to happen on some guys RfA. The 'crats have a very good track record of not reverting each other, something that cannot be said for admins. I don't think the current system has failed us, so a drastic change like this would more likely be to our detriment. In, my, opinion. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Though, I don't see why rename and usurpation requests could not be handled by general consensus. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 20:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the reason that rename (and by extention, usurpation) is limited to 'crats is because it's a massive server drain (moreso when there are lots of edits to reattribute), and keeping it in a few hands has a very real benefit over the potential of having just any admin do it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think that the b'crat thing is less of a "special user" feature than the admin piece is. mostly because it is so obvious how lame most of the b'crat work is. The only part that requires high function is the closing of special disucssions (RfA's and similar). The rest is just technical drugery that must be done by a highly trusted person. I tend to think that people view the admin bit as a rank to obtain to be a "more important" user, as much more of that work is fairly highly visible. While the official line is that the admin bit is "no big deal" in reality it is a rank to obtain, especially for newbies (until they realize what a drag it can be). --Rocksanddirt 00:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

EVula, why would permitting admins do renames increase the server drain? Is the idea that we'd wheel-war with each other over whether a rename should be permitted?--Chaser - T 07:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a truly dreadful idea. As of right now, I do not believe that our 'crats are seriously overworked; I therefore see no reason to have more, except to replace natural wastage. Having a natural hierarchy of reponsibility - editor; admin; bureaucrat; steward; developer - helps to ensure the (reasonably) smooth running of the project. Give everyone total authority and you generate chaos and ultimate dissolution. No. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

This makes no sense at all. There is no hierarchy of responsability, there's just fear that people will misuse the tools if we give them to everyone, and that's the only reason why we're not all developers. At least for me, this is what a wiki is all about. A.Z. 04:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is called the principle of least privilege. Although in reality, most bureaucrat work is menial in nature (renaming/usurpation/flagging bots) and only the RfA closure could be consider a "status" by the definition you are using. In a way, I would support splitting the bureaucrat class to 'promote' and 'rename' privileges, as they are more granular. But then, that's probably just me. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not just you :) However, I don't see that change as being implemented. Compartmentalization of privileges is a good thing :) SQL^{(Query Me!)} 09:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What I meant

OK, so there's no consensus for this proposal so far. But, in the hope of changing everyone's mind, I'd like to address a couple of the objections people have made.

• We don't need hundreds more bureaucrats, the existing ones aren't overworked. That's irrelevant. This proposal isn't about making things run more smoothly; it's about decentralising power. It's about (as A.Z sensibly noted) the need to get rid of this idea of a "hierarchy" and "status". At the moment, bureaucrats have far too much power.
• A rogue 'crat account is more dangerous than a rogue admin account, so it should be more exclusive. I addressed this already. The RfB process is no more likely than the RfA process to weed out untrustworthy people, as demonstrated by Essjay. Basically, someone who can game the system enough to pass RfA without being trustworthy can do exactly the same at RfB.
• The existing 'crats have a good track record of not reverting each other. Firstly, this is because bureaucrats can't wheel-war, as they can't take away sysop privileges, only grant them. Secondly, I don't think their unanimity is necessarily a good thing. When a small elite group has a "bureaucrat chat" and comes to a unanimous decision, it isn't necessarily in line with what the community wants.
• It would drive RfA standards even higher. Possibly, but this would be outweighed by the benefits of decentralising power. I also think we could counteract this by reducing the workload of admins, by transferring more admin functions to non-admins; although certain technical functions (e.g. deletions and blocks) can only be performed by admins, there are decision-making functions that experienced non-admins could be trusted with. For instance, we could start allowing trusted non-admins to close any XfD discussion (not just snowball keeps) and, if the result was Delete, to tag the article for speedy and wait for it to be deleted by an admin.

Basically, my main reason for wanting this is that having special status and hierarchy is not a good thing. Wikipedia seems more and more to be structured like the Jedi Order; the inscrutable Jedi Council (bureaucrats) deliberate amongst themselves in secret, examining those who face the Trials (RfA) and deciding whether to admit them to the rank of Jedi Knight (admin). On the other hand, the young and inexperienced Padawan learners (non-admins), who actually do a lot of the work, have little power or influence and are increasingly disenfranchised. (I know the analogy is inexact, but it illustrates just what is wrong with Wikipedia's power structure.) Walton^One 10:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• • The risk posed by a rogue bureaucrat is huge (not the chances of a bureaucrat going rogue, rather the risk posed by one who as already gone rogue). The idea of a bureaucrat-bot is chilling, the only way I could see a group of them being stopped is to lock the server, identify all of them and remove their bit. Even the cleanup would cause a big mess, with lots of collateral. Before someone dismisses the idea as very improbable, doesn't the extra power given to admins increase the chances that someone will try it? Admittedly, if the flagging bit is given to admins the standards at RfA will increase, and judging by the history of RfB there will be very few successful RfAs. Unless you have been an admin for a year, there's no point submitting a RfB, much like the 1000 edits for RfA, so that means that I (an admin) wouldn't be able to pass an RfA under the system proposed. I doubt that people are going to change their voting patterns so it would make RfA virtually impossible and many of the current admins would probably not pass. If that were to take place I think the criticism of centralised power would become much worse. There are claims of admin abuse and cabals almost daily and by bumping up the RfA standards to the point where almost no-one can pass would mean that all the power rests in the hands of ~1000. So not only do we have the regular accusations, but now there is the point that our club/cabal/gang is exclusive of everyone else. I can't see this working without adding another user level between registered user and admin (leading to exactly the problem this proposal is trying to fix), although there may be some other way around it. James086^{Talk | Email} 11:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We wouldn't need to add another technical user level between regular user and admin. We could just trust the many established regular non-admin users with more responsibilities than at present. Like I said, we could pass over some of the decision-making powers to trusted non-admins, while leaving admins to carry out the actual technical tasks. Just an extra idea to fill in some of the holes in the main proposal. Walton^One 14:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't address the fact that administrative backlogs will be harder to clear, unless there is another technical user level. The thing is, admins aren't trusted as much as bureaucrats so if admins start getting the bureaucrat tools, the level of trust required to be an admin increases; promotion rates drop and therefore administrative backlogs (CSD especially) will grow. Sure we can handle CSD now, it's usually kept below 100 articles, but there is a need to keep promoting admins (or some other type of user with the ability to delete) otherwise it will build up over time. AfD could be handled by non-admins for all "keep" results, but even if they were to speedy tag the articles, the deleting admin would still need to check that the AfD has been closed properly. I think the load on administrators would become large and unmanagable. I support the idea of having trusted users to handle various tasks however, I don't see why admins have better judgement than non-admins who are experienced in the wiki-ways. James086^{Talk | Email} 14:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll be a rebel here, and say that I love Walton's idea. What amazes me is how people immediately think to themselves "What could go wrong with this". So OK, there's a "rouge" bureaucrat around. What of it - there's probably loads of rouge admins around who get away with abuse everyday. And remember the occasions that an account has gone "bad" are very, very low. And did any of them use bots to delete hundreds of pages, or block hundreds of users or whatever? I don't recall. They deleted, perhaps ten pages before they were stopped. Of course I agree we should have a de-admin process (most other projects do) just in case but the amount of worry over nothing makes me laugh. If we trust them to be an admin, we can trust them to be a 'crat. * Aillema 12:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's just a thought, but much as there are editors who don't want to be admins, I'm sure there are admins who don't actually want to be 'crats.....Pedro |  Chat  13:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • They wouldn't have to use the 'crat powers, just as they don't on Spanish Wikipedia. Likewise, if they wanted to do user renames and bot flagging, but not close RfAs, that would be possible. At the moment, anyone who ran for RfB saying "I want to do renames, but not close RfAs" would probably be opposed on the basis of "no need for the tools", which highlights yet another flaw with the current system. Walton^One 14:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I don't see the point. There isn't a need for additional 'crats right now, so why even risk it? I don't see why people get so upset about a "hierarchy". There are too many editors of various levels of maturity to trust everyone to be responsible with everything. Editors have to earn the trust of the community. The argument that "if we trust them to be an admin, we trust them to be a 'crat" isn't accurate. The level of responsibility is higher. The potential risk of abuse with great consequence is increased with the addition of 'crat tools. For that reason, admins need to further show that they are mature and responsible as well as display a further knowledge of policy. I'm not even an admin, but this all seems terribly obvious to me. LaraLove 14:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
      • However trusted and reliable they are, it's inherently wrong to give a group of 15-20 users so much power over the whole community. Not to mention that many of them are also checkusers and arbitrators, leading to far too much concentration of power IMO. Yes, there is a "risk of abuse", which is why I've repeatedly argued for a community desysopping process, or possibly annual reconfirmation of admins. (I would be happy to be a guinea-pig for the latter idea, if anyone wants me to stand for reconfirmation.) Walton^One 14:23, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Why are you so worried about "authority"? This makes the whole idea seem rather silly. Is this a purely symbolic gesture? We don't tend to do that sort of thing here- it doesn't help build the encyclopedia. Yes, its good that Wikipedia operates without us needing much in the way of "power" or "authority", but let's not go too far. Friday (talk) 14:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
          • I agree. It's not as if the community is suffering at the hands of these 'crats. Has there been any abuse by 'crats? LaraLove 14:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Yes, there has. Walton^One 14:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Ok, there's one case of very poor judgment by a crat. But calling it "abuse" is going a bit far. Is there some reason to believe having way more crats with no screening process will make them collectively have better judgment? The exact opposite seems far more likely to me. Friday (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
                • As I've said a few times before, I don't think 'crats should really need to exercise "judgment" in the vast majority of cases. When voting on an RfA, each editor weighs up the arguments, measures the candidate against their own criteria, and takes the decision whether to Support or Oppose. The discretion lies with ordinary editors, not bureaucrats, hence why RfAs should be closed by the numbers in almost all cases. The 'crats shouldn't be giving "more weight" or "less weight" to any considered opinion offered in good faith by an established editor; the only opinions that should be discounted are those which are given in obvious bad faith to disrupt the process. The only time when any judgment should be required of the 'crats is when an RfA falls around the 75% mark. In such cases, I generally don't think they should promote; someone who was opposed in good faith by 25% or more participants is unlikely to make a good admin. Walton^One 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
    • The thing is, the Spanish Wikipedia uses a direct vote for electing bibliotecarios (the term they use for admincrats) at WP:CAB. Since we don't use a straight vote (whether we should do this or not is tangent to this discussion), there is a higher potential for controversy in en.wp. Also, many of the policies of smaller wikis run into problems of scale in the English Wikipedia, so we need to verify whether what they are doing is a good idea, and whether it is a good idea for us. I'm not that sure that it is. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"having special status and hierarchy is not a good thing." - Why not? Why shouldn't people that have proven themselves trustworthy and competent have more power than other people? It seems this proposal is based on a purely ideological argument, and I really don't see the reason behind the ideology. Hierarchy for hierarchy's sake may be a bad thing, and most things just for the sake of them are bad things. I see nothing inherently bad about a hierarchy. --Tango 17:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• I see no problem with the current system. If we allow every admin crat abilities, as stated ,requirements in the mind of editors rise, the risk for abuse increases, and conflict could certainly become a issue. Let's it like this. If admins have crat powers, then because of potential conflict of interest, admins who vote at RFA can never close RFAs. Now that would mean that closing admins would have to never participate in RFAs or at least not the ones they close. First of all, that "rule" would be broken, so admins that perhaps should have not been promoted would be, and if it was not broken then power would rest in the hands of 20 admins or so, who never vote.

We also face the risk of admin bots being created by rogue admins and deleteing the main page and blocking every other admin. Wikipedia could be shut down for hours, and the damage would take quite awhile to fix. So yes I have a problem with this proposal. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 18:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Bureaucrats must be extremely well trusted by the community, and not giving deserving users the administrator tools is not worth "decentralizing power". Though we aren't a bureaucracy, a sense of a very select few possessing certain access privileges and deliberating amongst each other as to how they should be used gives me (at least) a certain sense of comfort. We have a loose hierarchy, and if the Crat privileges came under the discretion of a larger crowd, wikipedia could become an anarchy. I'd rather have the security of a bureaucracy than the mayhem of an anarchy. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 02:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• The current policy of electing bureaucrats works very well. There is nothing constructive to be gained by changing it.--Fahrenheit451 00:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Deadminship

RfC

There has been more talk recently about a deadminship system. How about this simple policy: "If, following a Request for Comments, a bureaucrat determines that there is a consensus to remove an admin's admin status, they may do so." No new system is required, we just use the existing RFC system, which is already used to complain about rouge admins (I know it doesn't work, but that's mainly because it doesn't change anything - this would fix that). There is no vote, just a standard RFC with lots of healthy discussion (no need to officially make it a discussion about deadminship - just state your opinion and if enough people agree, then that's it). RfCs aren't closed like RfAs after a certain amount of time with a "yes" or a "no", the crat just comes along at whatever time they feel appropriate and removes the admin status if they think there is a consensus. If they don't think there is one, they just do nothing. If a crat removes the admins status and someone disagrees, they can go to ArbCom. If no crat removes the status, someone can still go to ArbCom. All this system requires is adding one line to the policy on RFCs and getting a sysadmin to give crats the power to remove adminship. --Tango 17:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure RFC is the proper place to discuss blocks, article bans, desysops, etc, because RFCs are "requests for comment", and should only be used for getting outside opinions on a matter, and not for actual remedies. We could possibly expand WP:CSN so that proposals to desysop may be raised there. Giving crats the power to remove adminship wouldn't be that difficult, by the way. Melsaran (talk) 17:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

While CSN is still kind of a work in progress, I think that would be the place to add those potential deadminship discussions. Those discussions would definately need lots of participation. --Rocksanddirt 17:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

RFCs are about gathering input from various editors. A crat could then choose to act on that input. Even if crats don't get the technical ability to literally do this themselves, a steward would do it if the crat requested it and pointed them to the discussion where consensus was established. Friday (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this idea, though perhaps CSN would be better than RFC. There would need to be an extremely strong consensus for removal of rights though... like you need to pass an RFB. --Deskana (talk) 17:27, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? That sounds tougher than getting desysopped by arbcom, in which case this process probably isn't at all useful. I would think that if there's significant consensus that someone has misused the tools and has continued to do so after being asked to stop, that should be enough. Friday (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that. --Deskana (talk) 17:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That's probably not such a bad thing. Misusing the tools is one thing, proving that continued misuse is actually damaging the project is quite another. Arbcom aren't great at this, but having them decide whether the misuse is so great and so dangerous that desysopping is the only solution is considerably better than letting a bunch of idiots start an RfC as a means to an end, a way to desysop someone that's crossed them is quite another. Nick 17:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Admin recall has, in my view, already demonstrated that such frivolous complaints are easily recognized as such. Friday (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, slight change to the proposal: The crat doesn't desysop the admin, they just start another RfA for them. If that RfA passes, by the usual criteria, they remain an admin, if it fails, they are desysoped. Basically, this gives crats the power to recall any admin if they consider there is a consensus to do so. This is a much less drastic act, so it doesn't require anything as organised. It could be done following any discussion, not just an RfC. If, at any time and for whatever reason a crat thinks there is a consensus to recall, then they do so. This could follow an RfC, a discussion on AN/I, a discussion on CSN, whatever, if a crat sees it, they can act on it, regardless of where it is. There is no need to ensure that everyone gets a chance to comment, since there is still and RfA for people to comment on. --Tango 17:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Why does any crat have to do it? Why there needs to be consensus to do it? Why not allow any editor to start another RfA for any user? A.Z. 17:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That would cause chaos. We can't do a full RfA every time someone disagrees with an admin action. --Tango 20:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

The RfA is not supposed to happen every time someone disagrees with an admin action. Do you think that only bureaucrats have common sense? A.Z. 20:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That's the wrong question. We don't need one non-crat to have common sense, we need *all* non-crats to have common sense, and that is, most certainly, not the case. --Tango 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

No, we don't. We could close the RfA (or leave it there: if it's a stupid recall, few people will support desysopping anyway). We could even have a permanent RfA for everyone. Do you believe all bureaucrats have common sense? A.Z. 21:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Dealing with the RfAs would waste a lot of time. A permanent RfA for everyone has been suggested before, but is a completely different suggestion to the once being discussed here. Since RfB is so strict, I think we can probably assume all crats have a decent amount of common sense. --Tango 01:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I support Tango's modified proposal. If a Bureaucrat calls a RfA on an admin, and the RfA fails, the admin is desysoped by policy.--Fahrenheit451 00:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

RfR

• Wouldn't Wikipedia:Requests for removal of admin status be a good idea?? WP:CSN, by its very nature, is for sanctions. If an admin was sockpuppeteering or wheel-warring, then I could see an argument for discussing it at WP:CSN.

However, as a slightly off-topic note, don't Jaranda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Doc glasgow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) have a record for being de- and re-sysopped??

Also, over on my wiki, click here to visit we can try all these processes. It's a cross between Wikipedia, a petitions site and a sandbox wiki. Feel free to join. NOTE: Bureaucrats cannot rename users or give bot status there, only sysop users due to the wiki's host not adding these extensions. However, it's version 1.10 they're running.

Discussion of removal of rights is by far a good idea. However, we could test any new Request for adminship ideas there. --Solumeiras ^talk 17:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

What the hell do Jaranda and Doc glasgow have to do with this. They were never actually desysopped, they simply asked that they have the actual permission removed, and later, they asked if they could have the permission reinstated. Throughout the whole period, they were still technically administrators. An absolute nonsense to even mention their names here. Nick 17:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for mentioning that. I know that they did it of their own volition so it's not a "de-sysopping" as such. Sorry for being off-topic. I apologise for that. It was a mistake to mention them. --Solumeiras ^talk 17:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• This would seem to be redundant per WP:RFAR. Guy (Help!) 17:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • RFAR can take a long time, this would likely be quicker. The two processes would be seperate, but have the same outcome. --Deskana (talk) 17:46, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
  • WP:RFAR is for arbitration requests, this is a proposal for a community desysopping process. I have always said that the community should have a way to desysop people, it would work the same way as RFAs (discussion, a bureaucrat determines consensus in the end), it is already done at Wikipedias in other languages (such as nl:) and works fine there, and we could have certain requirements for starting a desysopping process (something like "5 users with at least 3 months of activity and 500 edits must certify it, an admin may not be nominated for desysop more than once every 6 months", etc). Melsaran (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrators can already ask stewards to revoke sysop bits if there is an urgent need to do so. For less urgent matters, I don't think the current procedure for desysopping is lacking. --Tony Sidaway 17:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think our current system is pretty good too. But I think this might be better. --Deskana (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't want fast de-adminships. We can emergency desysop anyone who has gone berserk. Arbcom is doing a fine job. There is always WP:CSN if you think the user needs behavior limitations, but that has nothing to do with admin bits as if a user uses their admin buts to get around community sanctions it will be a very clear case for arbcom. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The current system is fine, but arbcom deals with specific instances generally when it comes to sysops. It doesn't deal with someone who is just below the threashold of generating an arbcom case in any one incident, but over time has a problem that needs a community discussion to resolve (not necc. deadmin, but resolve and explain the issues).

In addition I put a note about this discussion on the Csn talk page to see if the regulars there have any input that might be helpful. --Rocksanddirt 18:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, how is this system going to work? I have yet to see how it will make the current proccess any faster. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 18:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Check out todays WP:CSN. A longish term edit warrior, who is not all bad, is going to be community banned in a discussion that is going to be very full, very complete, and very done in two-ish days. And not over one incident, but rather the exhaution of community patience. That is what CSN could bring to the deadmin, open discussion that is not terribly dragged out. I do think that a discussion for deadmining that happens there should be closed by a b'crat with an explaination as to the decision. --Rocksanddirt 00:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think CSN is well suited for that. Durova^Charge! 03:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I do think CSN would be OK for desysoppings; they could be discussed in the same manner as a community ban. However, I strongly oppose the idea of user conduct RfCs being used as the basis for a desysopping; they don't have an appropriate format at all, and it would just amount to someone reading the RfC and deciding "Hmmm, based on this evidence I'm going to have the guy desysopped." (Although no one seems to have remembered that technically, only stewards, not bureaucrats, can revoke admin status. I've never understood why.) Walton^One 09:10, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

What is with the sudden drive of ideas going on around here? First we are abolishing cratship, and now this recurring post on deadminship. Pardon me for mentioning this, but has anyone noticed that this page goes round and round in circles? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It goes round and round in circles because RfA is a mess, but no one can agree on how to fix it. Walton^One 09:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

RFA is a mess if you, or anyone else, wants it to be. Looking at it from one of many possible perspectives, RFA is actually simple and clean. People are making it into a problem, largely because of all of the huffing and puffing that goes on on this very page. We are complicating a process which, just like the functions those who take part in this process are striving to be given, should be "no big deal". -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It's easy for those of us who have already passed RfA to say that it's "no big deal" or "simple and clean". But I remember the sheer emotional rollercoaster of my second (successful) RfA; during that week (in April) I remember going to one of my friends' 18th birthday parties, feeling really depressed and wanting to leave because my mind was fixed on a Strong Oppose that someone had left on my RfA. Possibly I took it all too seriously. (This, if you were wondering, is why I take such an interest in the RfA process and am so active here; I have great sympathy for the suffering of candidates.) However, as it stands, the process is very poor; because we have no procedure for desysopping, there are lots of admins who bend the rules and get away with it (sometimes driving editors away in the process), and, likewise, because admins are so hard to remove, RfA standards keep going higher and higher, leading to good editors failing to pass RfA. If we had an "easy sysop, easy desysop" approach, the encyclopedia would be much healthier. Walton^One 15:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think I agree with you in some regards. But I don't think there is any way to really go about this process without it being something of a challenge for the nominee, and why should it not be a challenge, a hard process, anyway? Why should it not be a trial, be stressful? The final hump to show the candidates true caliber, to show that they can deal with the stresses of adminship. Why make the process to becoming an admin a breeze when being an admin certainly is not, in so many regards (emotional, policy-based, stress-based etc. etc.)? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 00:33, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If the tools are taken away easily, they are also given out easily

If we have an easy way to take admin tools from people, we'll be able to have ten times more administrators than we have now. This is the main reason why I think we should have such a system. People's criteria for giving admin status will be much more liberal, because they will be able to take the tools if someone turns out to be a bad administrator. Nowadays, a lot of people don't become administrators not because they wouldn't be good administrators, but because they couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are going to be good administrators. Many users who could be helping Wikipedia more by having more technical access are not administrators because people fear that abusive people get the tools —eternal tools. By the way, people's high criteria for giving tools aren't even that good at their job: even people who have proved they can be trusted and gained consensus among the community to have the tools some times turn out to be tool abusers, so this is one more reason to have a system to easily take the tools from someone. I think something unbureaucratic like the RfAs would be good, requiring an RfA-like consensus. Some people fear that these would become a "request for lynching", but I disagree that people would do that. If some few people did that, this would have no consequences anyway, because a consensus would be required. I also think that, if we have an easy system to take the tools from people, we will be able to give the tools to everyone that doesn't have a consensual opposition from the community, which means we could invert the RfA's: if people have 40% support and 60% opposition, they should become administrators, and should stop being administrators only when they have 25% support and 75% opposition, like a banned editor: all editors get editing tools nowadays, and they only lose them when there's consensus to do it. A.Z. 16:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Hear, hear. (Except for the last point; I don't think we should lower the percentage threshold for RfAs, it should stay at 70-80% Support. I just think that standards would naturally reduce, if we had a community desysopping procedure. The level of trust needed would be less.) Walton^One 16:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah easy come easy go is a good way to operate. Will also stop the whole "they are an admin they are better and deserve better treatment" part in its tracks. Viridae^Talk 02:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea and explanation A.Z. I think a two-thirds majority should be the quota to pass RfA under an easier and quicker desysop process. 80% is absurdly excessive. Puts an prospective admin into a position of ass-kisser/apple polisher to get that sort of approval. --Fahrenheit451 01:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, the threshold is 70-75 percent, which seems ok. I also don't see a large problem with the RfA system (other than editcountitis). We seem to have few problems with the admins already. For the problems we do have, there's CAT:AOR and WP:RFC/ADMIN. For serious things, we have ArbCom. I wouldn't be opposed to a Removal system, but we should not create it for the purpose of lowering RfA standards so that they can be removed more easily. I think the removal process should be the same as the current process, but with the opposite goal. Maybe, before we do anything drastic, maybe we should give desysop privileges to crats. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 01:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem exists

RFA is not a mess. People make in into one because they want to create a problem where none exists.Rlevse 16:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Read my post above. As it stands, the process is very poor; because we have no procedure for desysopping, there are lots of admins who bend the rules and get away with it (sometimes driving editors away in the process), and, likewise, because admins are so hard to remove, RfA standards keep going higher and higher, leading to good editors failing to pass RfA. If we had an "easy sysop, easy desysop" approach, the encyclopedia would be much healthier. Walton^One 16:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yet another solution looking for a problem. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't saying anything about desysop, just RFA, meaning becoming a sysop.Rlevse 16:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Walton was referring to RFA. He said: "the process is very poor; because we have no procedure for desysopping, there are lots of admins who bend the rules and get away with it (sometimes driving editors away in the process), and, likewise, because admins are so hard to remove, RfA standards keep going higher and higher, leading to good editors failing to pass RfA." A.Z. 17:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Bending the rules is a problem? You have gotta be kidding. Someone who doesn't know how to bend the rules is generally going to be way more harmful than someone who does. Friday (talk) 17:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

To some extent, bending the rules is fine where common sense is involved. However, I was referring to those admins who perform controversial actions out-of-process, behave incivilly, or otherwise commit infractions of policy which, under the present system, are not severe enough to lead to them getting desysopped. At the moment, you have to do something really bad to actually get desysopped (rather like academic tenure), and that isn't a healthy situation IMO - if nothing else, it drives RfA standards higher because admins, once promoted, are so hard to remove. Walton^One 17:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I agree with that. Arbcom wants a smoking gun. We should be able to remove sysop permissions whenever there's consensus to do so. The knee-jerk reaction is always "But then all it takes are trolls or problem editors making noise, and a good sysop will get their bit removed." That's simply bullshit. We already know how to separate unfounded complaints from legitimate ones. Do people really think our crats would be unable to do this job? Friday (talk) 18:00, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Can I have an example of an admin who the community thinks should be desysoped and arbcom has refused? ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

That's not the main point. There are people that the community would think that are good administrators and that are not administrators today because people have too high criteria for giving admin tools. People have high criteria for giving admin tools because there's no easy way to take out the tools. If more people became administrators, there would be less of a feeling that administrators are a separate group. Wikipedia would be, as Walton said, healthier.A.Z. 18:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Adminship is already too much of a popularity contest. People have high criteria for admins tools because they have the potential for damage, misuse of tools already results in de-admining. What this new system is more likely to notice is when an admin becomes unpopular, because if it had to do with the use of the tools then it could be dealt with under the existing system. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 02:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

They could be, but they aren't necessarily. An Arbcom case against an admin causes lots of drama, and takes lots of work, especially with all the other dispute resolution it requires. Usually, it just isn't worth the time. Who knows how many cases of admin abuse we don't know about because nobody cares enough to go through an Arbcom case? -Amarkov moo! 02:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Good, de-admining someone should be dramatic, it should require effort, it should require people to care enough, and it certainly should require an attempt at dispute resolution. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. You know what that sounds like to people who have a complaint? "Oh, you think that this admin is being abusive. Here, jump through all these hoops. If you don't want to waste your time jumping through our always annoying and occasionally arbitrary hoops, then you don't care enough about his abuse so we won't do anything. Nyah nyah." -Amarkov moo! 05:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree strongly with Amarkov here. At the moment, you basically have to go on a rampage in order to actually get involuntarily desysopped. Plenty of admins get away with day-to-day incivility, biting new users, out-of-process deletions, and other minor infractions, and receive nothing more than a formal slap on the wrist. We need a situation in which complaints against admins are handled fairly, consistently and speedily. The current system creates problems for everyone; for one thing, it means that good candidates find it hard to pass RfA, and have to jump through arbitrary hoops, because we're all so reluctant to hand out the admin tools, since it's so hard to take them away again. We need to move over to an "easy sysop, easy desysop" culture, in which granting adminship is really viewed as no big deal, and taking it away is not viewed as analogous to capital punishment. Walton^One 13:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think RfA should be changed just because we have no desysop procedure, it just means we should have a desysop process. The only problem with RfA is that too many editcounters oppose based on "lack of experience" when users have been here for a very long time. Editcount doesn't show a high knowledge of policy. RfA should stay untouched. There are no problems that can't be fixed. A Request for the Removal of Adminship (RRA?) process should definitely be implemented, but it should be as big as deal as people believe RfA to be (and that doesn't mean lowering our standards to accomodate the removal of the tools). J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 16:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov I just don't think of dispute resolution as a set of hoops. They are not arbitrary, but are designed to find a voluntary resolution before resorting to the blunt force of removing the tools. If there are specific people who the community feels should not be a sysop, but still are then they should be addressed directly, but I still have not seen how arbcom has failed to regulate admin abuse. Frankly incivility is not abuse of admin powers, it is a regular behavioral problem that can be handled the same way for admins and no-admins alike. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:26, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

But removing the tools is not always a brute force tactic if nothing else works, sometimes it's the goal. If I think an admin is being abusive, I want their acess to the tools removed until such time as they demonstrate they will not abuse the tools. "Yes he did something wrong, but he said he would stop" doesn't work for me when admin abuse is involved. Why do I need to go through a long painful RfC to show that I will accept no intermediate solution? -Amarkov moo! 17:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

If I may make an observation of this discussion on Deadminship, I have noticed that discussion for reform in removing adminship suffers from the same problem as discussion for reform in granting adminship. There is no agreement on a better method than what we have now. For example, many people believe that desysnopping should be reformed, but there is plenty of arguing on how to do it. Looking at the previous part of the discussion, some support having a RfC with a bureaucrat determining consensus of removing adminship. Others wish for something like the Community Sanction Noticeboard for removing adminship. After plenty of discussion, there are many who say that neither of these methods are practical. There are also plenty of people who are fine with the desysnopping procedure as it is and want no reform at all. Compare these suggestions to various forms of RfAs at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Moralis using an AfD format and Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Matt Britt using an RfC format. These were both popular suggestions for RfA to become and the consensus for them after being tested practically was that they both are definitely not good ways for RfAs to operate under. There was absolutely no consensus on how to grant adminship back in March when this talk page was ablaze with discussion. It seems the same is true today with discussing on how to remove adminship. I doubt that a consensus on how to take away adminship will come of this discussion. Perhaps it will and I am wrong, but there sure doesn't appear to be a consensus right now. Captain panda 18:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried going over to the reform page, but all we had were some sucky ideas and some less sucky ideas. I guess it was just fun to see how the community felt about how we thought wikipedia should run. We had no consensus to change, and RfA remains, for the most part, static. But one quick question: how were those RfA formats you gave us chosen? Like, who said, "Hey, you know what would be cool? If this is what an RfA looked like"? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• Good luck to all of you for the efforts to make de-admiship process a working one. Been there, done that, the discussions I used to put forth in my time all fell flat. Perhaps you guys might pick up what previously failed and got left behind. - Mailer Diablo 08:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • How about we just try it when it's needed - that is to say, next time someone's abusing the admin tools, start a discussion on CSN and call expressly for their desysopping (rather than banning). No reforms would be needed to the actual CSN process, and we wouldn't need to seek express consensus for the change, since we're not creating a new process. If there was a clear consensus at CSN to desysop, then there would be clear pressure on the stewards to carry out the desysopping as the will of the community. Walton^One 12:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
    • It sounds reasonable, but you'll get a lot of people saying "Oppose. Only arbcom can desysop" with no better reasoning than "that's how it's always been done". Friday (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Probably, but so far as I know it's never been tried. The worst that can happen is that it doesn't work. -Amarkov moo! 02:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/williebruciestewie

Just came across Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/williebruciestewie, not sure what's up with that- isn't listed on the RfA page and looks like it's only partially filled out. OSborn^arf 23:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, pages often take a couple of days from creation to transclusion. That said, this RFA has zero chance of passing. willibruciestewie is too new. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 23:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah- thanks. OSborn^arf 00:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

{{nobots}}

I suggest we add {{bots|deny=SineBot}} to the RfA template, as it keeps signing things that need not be signed, such as questions (see [1] for an example). --Agüeybaná 23:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

tough call, as people also forget to add their name to stuff and it is important in some places. --Rocksanddirt 00:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Then the community can add {{unsigned}} when that happens, but, right now, it's doing more damage than it is helping the process. --Agüeybaná 00:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rocksnaddirt - the questions make up only a small part of the RfA, and for the rest of it we really don't need unsigned patrollors... Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) (Drought) 03:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Besides, when asking an optional question you're supposed to sign, as far as I know. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H₂O) (Drought) 03:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't remember the last time I actually saw the signing bot screw up on something like that (especially since signing your question isn't a terrible idea). Might be a bit of a jump-o'-the-gun here. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:13, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why SineBot is signing the rfas isn't I ment to just do talk pages? --Chris  G  05:17, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

I've opted out of SineBot myself. I've not noticed an instance in an RfA where I felt there was an inappropriate sign, but I'm one to go back and amend my comments for spelling mistakes or add additional bullets in a review for GA, and it's bad about signing those, which is inappropriate, in my opinion. I'm not sure that would be a problem in an RfA, though. LaraLove 05:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just contact the bot owner and see if they could tailor its behavior on RfAs? Grandmasterka 05:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

A proposal (yes, I know the infamy of RfA proposals)

To cure editcountitis, how about we remove the wannabe kate link on the RfAs? I understand the lack of success of proposals, and I know this probably won't pass, but I wanted to generate some more discussion on the fight against heightening edit count standards in RfA. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 19:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd be against that - ignoring the edit count, it's the best way to see which articles the user's put a lot of work into, which projects/pages they're active on, etc. Plus, it would encourage more people to use WannabeKate direct, which wreaks havoc on the server — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:03, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't wreaking havoc on the server a bad thing? Otherwise, I understand your point. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I think what Iridescent is saying is that when someone goes to an RfA page and wants to see the edit count of the user and there is no edit count listing on the talk page, that person has to go and make a special request for the edit count himself or herself. If, say, 10 people do this instead of it only happening once, that makes quite a difference. Captain panda 20:13, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I see. Thanks! J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please keep the editing stats. They are useful and convenient. You can't make people think right by withholding info. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And my point is what are they really useful for? Edit count standards are rising, and so I proposed to lower them by not making them as public as they are now. Also, I am not trying to make others think right by keeping the info from them, I am trying to encourage people to review the quality of their contribs instead of the amount. Someone can make 30 vandal-edits to a page (it's possible, though unlikely), have that show up on their wannabe kate report, and be praised for the amount of work they've done on it. This isn't right. we should be reviewing contribs more. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 20:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with J-stan, and see posting the Wannabe Kate stats as a WP:BEANS violation. "Please don't base your vote on the numbers we're posting on every RfA talk page." rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 21:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And I agree with Iridescent. I find the WannabeKate analysis quite useful to see what articles and Wikispaces the candidate is most involved with. This gives you something to look for when you go through their contributions. There is useful info there, aside from the raw numbers, which I agree are of limited probative value.--Kubigula (talk) 21:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I also agree with not removing them. Yes it is true they do not tell you everything you should know of a candidate in an RFA; but WannabeKate does provide me with a good starting point on what a candidate generally does on Wikipedia beyond total edit count, which is useful when looking through their contributions. If the WannabeKate results are removed from the talk page of RFA candidates in the future, I and others will simply use WannabeKate direct instead, which as already said, is not that helpful to the server. Camaron1 | Chris 21:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And my proposal let's people really go through their contributions to find all the useful info you mentioned is on WK. Also, just for clarity, my proposal does away with posting the stats on the talk page as well as removing the link on the project page. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 21:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

We could still plug their name into Wannabe Kate. LaraLove 13:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well the point isn't to keep this info from people, it's to discourage people from using WK. Right now, it's just there. You can click on it, and no one will say anything. If you go to WK and plug it in, what does that say about your contrib reviewing style? J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 14:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(←) I don't get it. WK is a good way to gauge the broadness of a candidates focus. It gives you quick reference to the articles and areas they are most involved in so you can easily focus on those areas while reviewing them. It shows you who they talk to most as well, which can also be helpful. I don't think you'll be able to take WK out of the RfA equation. LaraLove 15:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think Wannabe Kate really is that bad; it is how people use the information, not the information itself which seems to be the problem here - and it has been established WK is a useful starting point for some when looking at a candidate. Saving a link to WK is simple enough so I don't think removing all evidence of its existence from an RFA is going to make much of a difference in practise. I prefer the idea of creating a tool to give more information beyond that given by WK - as suggested below. Camaron1 | Chris 17:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe RfA should stay the same, but someone should make a tool as an alternative to WK. It just shows the most edited pages, edit summary usage, and participation in XfDs and AIV. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 17:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no point in blaming the information when people mis-use the information. What we need is more information so that edit counts are not the only summary available. I am working on a tool right now that will estimate the block rate of reports a user has made to AIV. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe instead of removing the stats altogether (which I admit is a bit extreme), maybe we just need another tool. We could keep the WK stats, and if you wish, you could just use another tool. J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 16:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like a great idea to me, (1 == 2). Would certainly save time. LaraLove 17:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the word proposal not be allowed in any thread headline on RfA talk. (I have no comment on this particular proposal.) Marskell 15:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Another valid use of the edit count: I've added a user's edit statistics to RfAs that I knew for a fact I was going to be closing per WP:SNOW not more than two minutes later. In snow closures, it provides an exact reason for the closing (and, in my opinion, helps maintain the entire transparency thing that should permeate our administrative edits). Also keep the historical perspective in mind; the talk page let's you see the editor's contributions and edit stats at the time of their promotion; if you check back a month afterwards, there's not much change, but if they've been an admin for a while, there will be. I know my old edit stats are incredibly different from my current stats. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Definately not. We need that to see how often they use the edit summary, use Wikipedia and to identify areas they work well in and the areas they don't. It is so very useful, and to get rid of it would be bordering on madness. Lradrama 17:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ever optimistic about making improvements

Is there a principal somewhere that people making RfA comments should disclose any past disputes or involvements they may have had with the nominee? I think this would help prevent retaliation and improve transparency. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for everyone, but unless it was particularly memorable, I certainly couldn't say for sure who I have & haven't been in conflict with - if a user runs for adminship, and I forget that I reverted their addition of unsourced content to Parsnip in January, then when someone brings the fact up it makes me look like I'm trying to hide something. Don't see how it would work. — iridescent (talk to me!) 20:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Nothing can eliminate common sense. A de minimus interaction like that, especially if you don't even remember it, wouldn't count. But you make a good point. In any case, past involvements can be highlighted and the comments can be judged on that basis. - Jehochman ^Talk 01:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The more experienced a Wikipedian gets, the more disputes he/she will have (it's quite inevitable) and the less likely one will be able to pick a particular incident out from memory. Lradrama 17:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. There are only two editors I distinctly remember having serious disputes with, but I know I've had plenty in the course of my wiki-career (though I've had a lot more post-adminship than pre-adminship). EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As is evident by your insult collection. LaraLove 17:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, EVula I just noticed. --Тhε Rαnδom Eδιτor 23:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Only 95 insults? You must be new here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't updated it in a while. :P Eventually, some of the insults just became repetitions (c'mon, I don't need to document every time I'm called gay... if I did, I'd never get any editing done). EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, gay is quite a common name Wikipedian's get called. However, another regularly recurring one seems to be do you have a life? I'm so fed up of that now. :-( Lradrama 13:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

My personal favourite is "You have 36DD man boobs" — iridescent (talk to me!) 15:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Usercheck-short

This template is on every RfA page, and 1) not protected (I'd say semi protect) and 2) not substituted. Either it need to be subst, or protected. Also, shouldn't the templates on most RFA pages be substed to begin with? CO₂ 02:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I just semi-protected the template. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Why must it be subst? It's going to create a mess in the edit box. Please note that there's no policy or guideline saying that these signature templates should be subst. --Agüeybaná 02:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The next admin is the 1,337th.

On Special:Statistics as of a few minutes ago, there are now 1,336 admins on Wikipedia. The next admin will become the 1,337th user to become admitted as administrator on Wikipedia. This is one "leet" milestone. --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 07:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

So? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:39, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, cute. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I am still confused. So it relates to l33t... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 07:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

1337 = leet in 13375|°34|< :P Viridae^Talk 07:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Very funny. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm very disappointed that I am not the l33t admin! Damn. It would have been so fitting! (I was L33tLara in the gaming world for many years. My Y!im handle remains as such! :p) LaraLove 16:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone remember who was admin 666? Pascal.Tesson 18:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have been Shimgray. Kat Walsh (spill your mind?) 04:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Remember, we are eagarly anticipating the leet admin only because Jaranda left. Otherwise we would have already had the leetest admin. hbdragon88 06:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, and that leaves anyone who really cares that much to go make a request on meta and then turn around and ask for their bit back before the 'crats get to the next likely promotion. Um, oops.--Chaser - T 06:46, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So Ronnotel is the 1,337th admin then? I just checked Special:Statistics a minute ago and saw that we now have 1,337 administrators. If he is, then my congrats goes out to him for being a "leet" administrator! --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 10:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

He is indeed. Neil ム 10:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

...not to be a dick or anything (not that it's ever stopped me before), but you do realize that Jaranda isn't the first admin to have their sysop bit removed (by any process), correct? If we're talking about the total number of sysops ever, we're well past 1337. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned Jaranda because he left about a week ago. I do know that other admins have been desysopped before. User:Chick Bowen/Desysop is good reading. hbdragon88 21:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia: Former administrators for a full list. Captain panda 21:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, something to impress the kids with when they're older, I guess. Thanks, everyone. Ronnotel 11:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

|_33T --Deskana (talk) 11:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but who was user 1337? -- Earle Martin [^t/_c] 15:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC) (user 9867)

Special:Contributions/1337 ? :) Pedro :  Chat  15:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh, I just saw "I am one of the 1337 admins on the English Wikipedia" on someone's userpage. I thought it was some new admin "cabal" (like rouge admins) that think they're leet :) Melsaran (talk) 16:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, F00K, m1553d 1t! ;-)

What's the next c00l mi13570n3, I wonder? --Kim Bruning 19:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

42. Oh, wait... Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 19:34, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Truly elite people use every letter, the correct letters and adhere to accepted grammatical standards. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it could be User:Ronnotel. bibliomaniac15 00:13, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

• This fails to account for all the desysopped people. So the actual 1337th admin is actually a few promotions back. -Amarkov moo! 02:00, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The system itself does not number admins, it only numbers users and has admin flags on them. So really, you are all welcome to count it any way you like. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 03:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fully Uncompelled Binding Administrator Recall

People frequently ask about Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall in discussions on WP:RFA. Some feel that it's a red herring, since, once sysoped, little short of Arbitration committee ruling or Walesian intervention can an editor's adminiship away. Sometimes people will go so far as to say, "I would support this candidate if only recall were binding." It is doubtless that many people have thought before that they would be more willing to give some candidates access to administrative tools if only there were an easier way to take them away if they use them poorly. I've proposed a policy that intends to put teeth behind the idea of (voluntary) administrator recall, by outlining a specific binding process for recall that future would-be administrators can promise to follow if they so choose. I'll call it "Fully Uncompelled Binding Administrator Recall" for now because I'm really bad with names.

If this is something that anyone else thinks may be a good idea or worth a closer look, you can help flesh it out and shop it around. ➪HiDrNick! 03:41, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you intentionally name it for the acronym of FUBAR? LaraLove 05:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not that hard to sidestep that question, when I ran for admin, I lied about it consciously, and I suspect other users do/will do/have done the same. I said "sure, I'll let six people from a site containg over 5,000,000 registered accounts, any number of which may possess terrible grudges against me for no sanely identifiable reason, decide that my hard-won status is in dispute." Then I just never added myself to the category. I didn't agree with its purposes then and I still donj't today. RyanGerbil10(C-Town) 05:37, 27 September 2007 (UTC)