Wikipedia talk:Temporary Deadminship

Not a bad idea, all in all. --Merovingian - Talk 16:30, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think this has definite potential, and this might just be the nitpicker in me, but, I have a few suggestions/points for clarification. First, it may help if there was a "rationale" section to give context and justification to this proposal. Second, must the petitioner be a sysop? Third, because editors discussing in the poll might find the length to the de-adminship to be useful to their decision, does the petitioner have to decide the length of the temporary de-adminship at the beginning of the poll? -- danntm ^T _C 20:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

• For rationale, I was thinking in terms of basing on ArbCom's precedent of temporary de-sysop. That I'll try and work up one later. The petitioner need not be a sysop. For de-sysop length, the German version actually requires the petitioner to set the length first, but IMO it may be better to go through a discussion first so as for the petitioner to factor in mitigation, and a period of cooling off. - Mailer Diablo 07:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

One problem...

two additional sysops shall certify the RfC within 24 hours.

According to wiki-philosophy admins are to be given no more standing then any other respected editor. (for example, I wouldn't need the support of a single admin to become one...) This policy should respect that tradition. I would suggest the following re-write:

two additional users in good standing with the community shall certify the RfC within 24 hours.

Thoughts? ---J.S (t|c) 00:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• I thought so too, the main purpose for this clause is to do deal with suffrage issues - I'm expecting concerns of frivolous complaints by any two certifiers to be raised. If there is consensus to have just two users in good standing within the community, I certainly welcome that. - Mailer Diablo 07:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually have an issue with "in good standing," since it's one of the main reasons why we are even having this discussion. Yanksox 19:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Rather like the idea of two users. It shouldn't be harder to remove an admin than it is to create one. Some reasonable protections against socks is warranted through. Perhaps a minimum time limit, or... Williamborg (Bill) 02:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the German policy only stipulates that the users confirming the petition must be entitled to vote themselves (+200 edits). They do not need to be sysops. --Johannes Rohr 13:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

AFAIK there used to be a sysop requirement, but it was apparently changed sometime this year. Kusma (討論) 14:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I say any user who's opinion would have weight in an xFD, RfA, or any policy discussion should have the same kind of weight in this kind of prossess. Since consensus is decided in the same way everywhere admins would be automaticly protected from frivolus RFDa. And since the target of the RFDa dosn't even need to respond, abuse would take more effort then would cause in trouble. ---J.S (t|c) 01:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Fork

Perhaps we should combine this with the existing recall proposal? There is already quite a bit of thoughtful discussion going on there, and plenty of eyeballs. This is also very close to one of the proposals there. - brenneman ^{L} 01:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Um, doesn't seem anywhere close. The main difference is that this one does not go through ArbCom. It is designed to give RfC more bite with a previous poll overwhelmingly agreeing that RfCs are not being taken seriously. - Mailer Diablo 07:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Look at the middle of the three proposals, I've copied it out below. Yes, a lot of the talk (from a few admins) seems to be pushing for the quasi-arbcom, but I think that's a very weak solution, and predicated more on maintaining the status quo in face of a alternative that could gain wide support.
    brenneman ^{L} 07:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

At the other page right now

1. The initial step is a request for comment to allow an attempt at solutions by community discussion.
2. After at least undecided number of days Z[1] days of discussion, any administrator may initiate a 'recall petition' on the main request for comment page.
3. Providing that this motion is endorsed by at least undecided number X[2] other administrators and undecided number Y[3] users total, a request for recall/reconfirmation will commence.
4. This process will have a similar structure of an existing request for adminship, and consensus[4] will be interpreted by a bureaucrat.
5. Arbcom shall then consider whether an administrator still enjoys the confidence of the community, and is still of net benefit to the project.
6. If Arbcom deems the administrator to fail either of these conditions, it may certify the outcome and order the desysopping of the administrator, or impose other restrictions and remedies as it sees fit.

• Yup, the ArbCom clause actually weakens the other proposal a lot, as with comparison the opportunity costs of filing an RfAr and going through this makes not much of a difference. Another major difference would be temporary de-sysop, an option of sanction that would be seen as too lightly at ArbCom level, but more fesable at this level. - Mailer Diablo 08:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Merging

If no one screams I'm going to begin merging this with the Wikipedia:Administrator recall page in a day or two.
brenneman ^{L} 14:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In what form can this be merged other than petitioning ArbCom to use "temporary desysopping" as the default punishment for non-severe offences? Kusma (討論) 14:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Complete, simply as another of the proposals already there. having "competing" proposals is almost always a bad thing. A combined discussion leverages off the existing active contributors. That one has a more active talk page than this one, so it's the obvious target. It's also the best chance this proposal has of becoming policy. - brenneman ^{L} 14:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to scream then! ;) I have a bad feeling that this is very likely to get shot down once merged (as a duplication of the quasi-ArbCom method), and discussion appears to be dying down at the other side. Also I'd still want to get some of the clauses fixed for the next few weeks, and possibly some expansion on its own here. - Mailer Diablo 20:19, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I heard someone screaming and decided to pitch in. This seems to be unfinished and a merge looks premature. SynergeticMaggot 20:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

The last step mentions that a 'crat can give sysop status back when the user requests it. Now, is the 'crat obliged to do this or can they refuse? If the former, what happens if they do refuse? Yanksox 19:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• This is an interesting question. I actually thought that the latter situation would have a probability of almost neligible? - Mailer Diablo 23:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • If community consensus has been "desysop for 6 weeks", then that means "resysop in 6 weeks". If the 'crat declines to do that, he/she is not following community consensus. Sounds like a situation where ArbCom should decide whether to resysop or to debureaucrat :-) Kusma (討論) 08:37, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Same problem

This solution will not fly. Anything that means that a sysop can be killed off effectively with a 25% oppose vote is not going to work. It is two easy for a small group of motivated peopel to find those numbers. --Doc 02:10, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• It's 1/3. And that's from the German version directly translated. We can raise the bar to say, 50%. - Mailer Diablo 09:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Raise the bar to consensus... Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Votecounting sucks. ---J.S (t|c) 01:48, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• J.S, you have a point that Wikipedia norms consider voting to be evil, and generally operated by "consensus." However, a percentage does help guide the closing b'crat decide when consensus has formed. In RFA, absolute 100% consensus is rarely achieved, and often the rough guidline of 75%-80% support is the threshold used to determine whether a candidate has sufficient consensus to become an admin. (Although, to consider the other side of the argument, a fized threshold removes potential impropriety by the closer.)-- danntm ^T _C 03:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternatives - probation period and sunset clause

The goal is to help improve the behavior of the very rare admin who abuses admin "powers." How about an alternative-automatic probation period and a sunset clause:

• Probation period - Every admin would stand for endorsement after three months of probation (3 to 3-1/2 months) if, and only if, anyone challenges their performance.
• Sunset clause - And every two years (23-25 months) each admin would automatically stand for readmission if, and only if, anyone requests it.

This could be handled through the normal admin process (with a note from the nominator, who would be responsible for providing a justification for nomination or reconsideration and assuring the timing was in the zone). Williamborg (Bill) 02:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Different cultures

I noticed in looking at this chart that German wikipedia had tremendous admin growth in 2004, but not in 2005 or 2006. We need to the know the difference in culture and the reasons behind their admin trends and the adoption of these desysopping policies to fully understand if this policy may be of use to us. As I discuss NoSept/Arbcom punishments, I do like the idea of temporary desysoppings instead of requiring reapplication through RfA, which will diminish the trouble that trolls could cause in the process. NoSeptember 17:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

• It is still an upward trend, abeit decreasing rate, also noting that they factored in inactivity. A quick comparison appears to be leading me to the same conclusion to English Wikipedia. This may appear more to something to do with sustainability of editors (which is a bigger concern elsewhere to the project). - Mailer Diablo 20:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Never going to happen

This doesn't seem compatible with the English Wikipedia culture at all. The threshold on this thing is terrible; anyone can call for a vote and as long as one-third of people who show up are trolls and malcontents who you've previously had to reign in, you lose your adminship temporarily? Bullshit. --Cyde Weys 21:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The cultural difference involved here seems to be that on dewiki, more people (mostly non-trolls) show up for adminship and de-adminship discussions (compared to the number of users or number of admins, I'd say about two to three times as much participation). Ten trolls won't make a difference if more than a hundred people show up for a typical RfA. As you see from the fact that Wikipedia is not a bad encyclopedia, most contributors here are not trolls. If we can get enough people to participate, we don't need to be afraid of trolls. And do you really think a troll-infested desysopping request wouldn't easily get 100 votes at least from other admins to keep the sysop status? Kusma (討論) 09:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me to be a solution looking for a problem. --kingboyk 11:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is obvious: de-adminship is usually permanent, so it is a too severe punishment for admin misconduct. Kusma (討論) 11:11, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

• I appreciate your effort in replying, but I seriously think the original comment isn't worth any response at all for obvious reasons. - Mailer Diablo 14:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? That's quite incivil, I wouldn't expect that from you. What, pray tell, are these obvious reasons, because they sure aren't obvious to me?! --kingboyk 11:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Those "obvious reasons" would probably be that the proposal was changed to address the concern. (see #Typo?) Otherwise, not sure what he meant, but that was a weird way of putting it. --tjstrf 14:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Not directed at your comment [1], it is towards this [2]. If it was accidentally directed at you (kingboyk), please accept my apologies. Failing which, email me for clarification. - Mailer Diablo 15:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ah, OK. Sorry for my part in any confusion then :) --kingboyk 15:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• No problem. In retrospect, perhaps I could have worded my statements better. :) - Mailer Diablo 15:46, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Another problem: entitlement/McCarthyesque troll comments

Diablo, I really like the ideas to use a synthesis or slight tweak of existing process to accomplish these goals, especially like this. I have little hope of something like this actually going through to a process phase now on the community level, due to a small but vocal group of admins whose voices inexplicitely carry inordinate weight, and McCarthyesque screaming about trolls under every bed. They'll do anything and everything in their power to get it quashed so that the community has no reverse control over "them". I hate to admit it, but as long as some treat the community's endorsement to have a couple of extra buttons like some sort of entitlement, this'll never fly.

The ArbCom hybrid of my original proposal that Tony Sidaway is tweaking is probably the only one that will fly, and even then it will probably need to be rammed down the throats of people (by the people with real authority on wikipedia, the ones "higher" than admins) who feel that one single RfA is a lifetime endorsement of any behavior that may follow in it's aftermath. For what its worth, I do support this proposal, and would even were I an admin. Police have public oversight. Firefighters, the military, everyone does. Something as trivial in the scheme of the universe as a Wikipedia adminship certainly should as well. rootology (T) 15:41, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

These people have public oversight by a court of law, not a popular vote. The court of law in our case is the Arbitration Committee. One cannot call a public vote to remove a police officer from duty. No, an RfA is not a lifetime endorsement of any behaviour that may follow in its aftermath. One admin has just been desysopped by ArbCom and two other admins face ArbCom cases for alleged abuse of admin powers - including one that you have just initiated. I support a reasonable method of community oversight, but I still haven't seen any egregious examples of admin abuse that have not resulted in sanctions from the ArbCom. FCYTravis 05:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this proposal

What is the purpose of this proposal? No-one's really explained why we need a new solution to deal with deadminship. To me, it seems that there aren't that many admins that are so rogue that they need to be deadminned, so this seems more like a solution looking for a problem to me. JYolkowski // talk 20:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally agree - I can't believe that we have any/many admins that are so problematic that there would be a consensus of wikipedians willing to dessysop them, and yet, arbcom would be unwilling to take action. Give me one instance? The Stevertigo case is perhaps the nearest but that was atypical, and I suspect arcom would not repeat their misjudgement. --Doc 21:01, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

• You never know if history repeats itself. Anyway, I've written up the rationale/purpose, feel free to go through it. - Mailer Diablo 19:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I thought there were obvious reasons why this kind of question doesn't deserve an answer? (see above; /me rolls eyes). --kingboyk 11:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd still like my first question to be answered, and with more than 'you never know'. No, I don't know. And I strongly oppose bringing in another, potentially noisey, process for a problem that does not appear to exist. Give me some real instances where a consensus of the community would have supported deadmining (even temporarly) and arbcom wouldn't deal? I can't think of one. This seems totally unneccessary. --Doc 23:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

As best I can see, it makes the censure process more "wiki-like". Which may or may not be a good thing, depending on your POV. (Wikipedia: The free encyclopedia where anyone can de-admin you!) --tjstrf 23:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

That's the theory - and perhaps it is a good one. But in practice, for an admin to be so bad that there was a consensus to desysop - he'd have to be soooo bad that it is unimaginable arbcom wouldn't deal. People keep pointing to theory and principle and hypothetical. Well, I'm a practical type of guy - so show me a real instance where having this process would have been of real practical benefit to us. Actually, I don't think anyone can. --Doc 23:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The other attraction to this system, other than wikifulness, is that it would be more efficient than arbcom time-wise. Personally, I find the idea of the administrator recall system (if members in good standing dislike me, I'll quit) that certain admins have signed up for voluntarily as the most attractive of the proposals. --tjstrf 23:22, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Typo?

I noticed that, according to the process section, a supermajority must exist in support of the defendant for them to succeed. This is in direct contradiction to, well, anything else we vote on since it results in a motion that is passed when it is a minority position. This struck me as utterly illogical, the default for any vote which is undecided should be the status quo, the admin stays. I think it was a typo, actually. (If not, the German wikipedia must be one scary place for admins...) So, I changed it. --tjstrf 22:48, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, the supermajority requirement was derived from the German version. I, honestly, have been disconcerted by the requirement that a supermajority is required to preserve the adminship status, but the exact number can be ironed out in later discussion. Nontheless, this requirement can make sense if one views the de-adminship process as requiring the admin to prove that she or he still had substantial community support.-- danntm ^T _C 01:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comment on the status quo being the default above. Also, while I recognize that Wikipedia is not the US criminal justice system, it seems to me that admins are just as deserving as criminal suspects are of the presumption of innocence. This system would assume the admin was guilty. There's no online equivalent to confession under torture, but presuming the suspect guilty is only a step up from that. --tjstrf 01:46, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• I was personally surprised too, when I was told the same by another editor. I'm not going to object that the supermajority should be in favour of the plaintiff to get the motion passed, since I originally wrote that too. This itself should also address most of the concerns above that is likely to hinder the proposal. - Mailer Diablo 06:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Good points, I certainly would be more comfortable to require a supermajority to pass a motion to temporary desysop.-- danntm ^T _C 13:51, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• But it takes 70%-80% support to become a sysop. So ~^67% to remain a sysop doesn't seem very high. Besides which, any sysop is going to get a swarm of "keep" votes (ya think?) from brother admins on the basis of self-interested logrolling (you watch my back, I'll watch yours). Right? That's obvious, isn't it, human nature being what it is? Herostratus 00:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• It seems quite high to me, because administrators are entrusted with enforcing policy and thus often come into conflict with users who break policies. Most sysops who do any kind of administrative work, and even some who don't, will eventually accumulate enough people that don't like them enough that it shouldn't be too hard to find enough people to vote against them. JYolkowski // talk 01:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• On the other hand, one should also note that there are also several editors out there who are, and will support sysops on the basis that they are seen to be enforcing policy, even occasionally when their actions may seem to be an overkill. - Mailer Diablo 10:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus does have a point, in that a "cabal" of de-adminship patrolling voters who voted to keep admins with powers intact would almost certainly develop if the original wording of this policy were enforced. However, that would be a sad reality, and not one which we wish to support. A policy that plans on having a group of reactionary opponents emerge to keep it in check is hardly what we wish to create here! --tjstrf 12:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

• Emergence of a cabal would certainly defeat this proposal, because I wrote it up with the intention of dispelling such a notion within the community. - Mailer Diablo 12:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting is evil

I cannot support any proposal that talks about voting. Wikipedia is run by reaching consensus through discussion. I might consider entrusting a team of b'crats with the decision after people have a discussion. De-adminship should be based on clearly defined abuse criteria. If these can be spelled out, and then the discussion makes a case for or against. If the abuse criteria can be documented and the b'crats don't think there are some other extenuating circumstances, perhaps. -- Samuel Wantman 09:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You would have a good point, were it not for the fact that Wikipedia's RfA process operates via voting. Any process which was modeled on it, as this one is, would logically operate by the same mechanism. --tjstrf 09:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA isn't a vote or an election, though. It looks a lot like it, but in principle it's still possible for the closing 'crat to come to a consensus conclusion not reflected in the raw numbers. -- nae'blis 17:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that I said it "operates by voting", not that it was actually an election. And in that case, if you slightly modify the wording of this proposal to change the percentages from "hard" rules to bureacrat guidelines, like in the RfA process, your objection is met. --tjstrf 17:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you insist, then 2/3 support of a motion in a way is consensus already. Whether looks like a vote or not doesn't really matter, after all discussion has taken place 7 days prior to the poll. - Mailer Diablo 09:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

My point is that we have to stop using language that talks about voting. Part of the problem with RfA, CfD, AfD, etc... is that people think the number of votes matters. Numbers do not matter. What matters is what people say. Over time the "percentage" notion has gone from custom, to guideline, to holy dogma. This notion needs to be reversed. I don't think percentages should be talked about anywhere, except by saying "customary percentages" and by also adding caveats. -- Samuel Wantman 20:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Then write in some caveats. This proposal, as I understand it, still needs a lot of work before it can really even be accurately discussed. So improve it. --tjstrf 20:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

• I've refined the wording of the proposal. Feel free to go through it again and see if there is any "signs of voting". :) - Mailer Diablo 04:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• I still find consensus=2/3 to be troubling. There are no stated reasons or criteria for de-sysoping. That in itself would be alright if there was no statement about a 2/3 threshold. The combination is a process by which anyone can be de-sysoped for no good reason by a mob. If there are good reasons, the percentage does not need to be stated. If I were to work on this, I'd probably have a very different approach. Since this is not an area where I want to put much effort right now, I'm not going to start a competing proposal. Good luck. -- Samuel Wantman 06:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• The proposal will be built on the existing Requests for Comment and its associated criterias. See WP:RFC#Request_comment_on_users for details. - Mailer Diablo 06:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Enough "German solutions"

I totally support looking at how other Wikipedias solve common issues and incorporating their ideas but can we stop referring to those we borrow from German Wikipedia as German * solution? The similarity is a little too much for me to ignore, and I don't think I'm alone. It leads to things like this example of an edit, one of many identical ones made by Cyde which I will assume were unintentional in their tasteless wording. — GT 12:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde appologised for that - it was not deliberate. So 'unfortunate' might be better than 'tasteless'. But in general I agree 'German answer' or 'German consensus' or 'German remedy' or 'German policy' might all be better. --Doc 12:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The subtlely present racism the mass "German=Nazi" assumption demonstrates is the really frightening part. Well, in the fine tradition of similar renames, I present to you all with the improved, politically correct Freedom De-adminship Solution! --tjstrf 15:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is suggesting German=Nazi. Aber, Wörter können mißverstanden werden. I think Cyde's faux pas indicates that. That's all. I hate political correctness. --Doc 15:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

No one assumes that, but these words are just too sensitive. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

• Certainly more of 'reckless' than 'unfotunate'. My prediction is that if implemented, this would be just renamed as 'Wikipedia:Temporary De-Adminship'. - Mailer Diablo 17:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've already had a totally unnecessary fracas over one "German" solution that really has nothing to do with Germans, let alone Nazis. I'm going to be bold and move this page to the neutral name suggested by Mailer diablo now, before somebody blurts out something unfortunate about admin gas chambers. John Reid 09:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Done. I won't have any objection to a further rename, if Wikipedia:Temporary Deadminship doesn't cut it for someone. But I agree, enough is enough. John Reid 10:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

A different proposal

Personally, I think that the ArbComm, although slow, does a fairly good job of handling admins who should be permanently desysopped. The basic problem as I see it is that there are times that admins act just like other editors, and they just need a temporary time-out, just like other editors. What's needed is some changes in the MediaWiki that allows either Bureaucrats, or a new class of Supervisor Admins, to be able to temporarily block admins from doing anything on the Wikipedia, just like we block other misbehaving editors. I have an old essay on my ideas at On misbehaving Wikipedia administrators. You don't need all the process that is involved in this proposal, including the RFCs. ^BlankVerse 14:46, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll

I suppose almost all of the concerns have been raised here already? If so, I'll proceed with the straw poll to gauge community consensus on the possible amendments to address these concerns and refine the proposal accordingly. - Mailer Diablo 05:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they have not been addressed. Or at the very least, not enough exposure has been given to this proposal. Premature voting is generally frowned upon and would not help your proposal. --tjstrf 15:15, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• A poll might be useful for gauging consensus on the thing as a whole (since it might be impossible to see which of the two vocal groups is in fact the minority). But separate polls on amendments are just not practical, so please don't do that. Discuss the most sensible option with proponents of this proposal (which FYI does not include me) and then see how much support you actually have. Imho. >Radiant< 16:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Endorse Radiant's comment. John Reid 03:12, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Where's the pressing need for this process/policy?

WP:RFC, WP:RFAR and unilateral actions by Jimbo and the arbcom already provide methods for dealing with out-of-line admins. Notable offenders are constantly dealt with through these processes. Is there such a backlog at these existing processes of surly, reprobate admins awaiting community censure that a new process and policy is required? No. I see no need for this process, and so no reason to support it. FeloniousMonk 21:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that this proposed process will do more good than harm; I'll need to see it grow before endorsing or opposing it. But I strongly disagree that existing process is working. I think there are far too many loose cannons and the bar to deadminning needs to be lowered. John Reid 03:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This seems unlikely to work

About a year ago, Waerth (at the time a respected steward) pointed out some problems with the German adminship/deadminship procedures. We ran some experiements on wikipedia:requests for adminship, and concluded that it would be a bad idea to copy those german procedures over to en.wikipedia. (Other de.wikipedia procedures are often great, just this one wasn't so :-) )

Secondly, the RFC system is very much non-productive, so adding on more cruft probably won't make it better.

So well, nice try, but I don't think this is such a good idea. I'll mark as rejected, because we've already tested each of the proposed systems separately, and found them wanting. Combining them will likely only leave them more wanting.

Kim Bruning 09:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• While I'm not at all sure that this is actually a good idea, I feel I must point out that despite Kim's comments, this has not been tried before, and neither has anything like it. Any related proposals have always been rejected a priori, and so the argument of rejecting this because something similar was rejected a year ago doesn't really hold water (e.g., WP:PROD has been rejected a priori several times, and then we tried it and it turns out to work fine). I agree with Kim that user-RFCs are pretty much a cesspool, but other than that no part of this has been tried before - just discussed before. $.2 >Radiant< 14:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hear, hear. - Mailer Diablo 18:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't? Maybe I'm mixing things up, but I remember apologising to some bureaucrats because I'd forgotten to warn them I was going to do some experiments in their "territory" (oops, sorry guys). Wasn't that this experiment? <scratches head> Kim Bruning 13:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Kim. This was rejected previously and will not work. FeloniousMonk 18:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)