Wikipedia talk:Automatic Adminship

kick off
I think this is a good idea - and although there some pretty obvious criticisms of the idea, in my opinion this would be a net benefit. Feel free to drop the objections in below, and I'll offer my rejoinders :-) Privatemusings (talk) 05:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside a gazillion other objections, this would creat the situation where it matters who gets the credit for a collaborative effort. Hesperian 05:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * probably the best objection - but in some ways is only a detail - what do you think of the concept of encouraging long term, highly rated content contributors alternate paths to adminship which complement RfA? Privatemusings (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This argument opens doors to other groups ... "highly rated twinkle fighters", "highly inventive bot designers" etc. Why single out content creators? Leave them alone, let them write, not delete. NVO (talk) 08:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What EXACTLY is a good idea? Automatic adminship? Where are the details of that proposal??? Gray62 (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The sum total of the proposal is here. Privatemusings made the proposal. → ROUX   ₪  12:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Please try and find a rejoinder to the objection that giving people like Ottava, Malleus and Giano the tools and tasking them to enforce policies on civility is absurd. The skills required for featured articles are completely different to those required for the use of the admin tools. Ironholds (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * As this discussion has just been brought to my attention let me offer a rejoinder. It is a serious misrepresentation, certainly of my position, and I suspect also of the others you've chosen for whatever reason to single out here, to say that we would not enforce a civility policy, because we would, just not the present daft one that causes so many problems because of its inconsistent and one-sided application. Again speaking only for myself, NPA is the policy that ought to be focused on and more strictly enforced, and civility ought to be dumped as the ill-defined piece of baggage it has so often proven itself to be. I would sugggest, for instance, that in personalising this proposal by involving other editors by name here as you have just done without informing them of your discussion could very well be reasonably considered to be uncivil. But then it's long been obvious that most of the vociferous supporters of the present civility policy believe that it only applies to others, not to themselves. --Malleus Fatuorum 12:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not just no, but hell no, not in a million years could this possibly be considered a good idea. Application of this would make Giano, Nichalp (who just had all special permissions removed for engaging in paid editing and sockpuppetry), and User:Malleus Fatuorum admins. In what universe would that be a good idea? This is completely leaving aside that the skills required to develop featured articles are completely different from those required to comprehend and enforce policy. Furthermore, there is a WMF-level reason why this will never and can never be allowed, thank God. +Sysop comes with ViewDeleted as a userright. Mike Godwin has stated unequivocally that the ViewDeleted userright cannot be given out on enwiki without the approval of the community, apparently on an individual basis, as we currently do at RFA. Given that, I move that this be archived as yet another of Privatemusings' policy suggestions that are not only at odds with current policy, but are not terribly conversant with reality as it is practiced on Wikipedia. →  ROUX   ₪  05:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Absolutely as Roux says, the skills required to uphold and maintain policy are completely different to those required for building content. An editor could be great at writing content, but have no idea about when a block is appropriate, how to deal with vandalism. Also they would not necessarily have the patience to deal with lengthy issues on the various administrative notice boards. All in all, just having featured articles to ones name is not proof that one is suitable as an administrator SpitfireTally-ho! 05:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just reckon we should try and find ways for long standing, highly rated content contributors to contribute administratively - this may be just simple moves / deletes, or more (or not!) - it's also intended as a 'check' for admin. culture, and a response to the rather common feeling that RfA isn't perfect in every way - whaddya reckon? Privatemusings (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * If RFA is broken (I do not claim that it is, I merely concede it for the sake of this arguement) this is certainly throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Content writing and policy enforcement are have no reasonable overlap, and this proposal will do nothing to ensure that fair-minded, rational, civil, and qualified editors become admins.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * just want to highlight the fact that this is intended to complement RfA, not replace it - does that preserve the baby to your satisfaction? Privatemusings (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Firstly, FA's are a collaborative effort - although an editor might be the primary editor of an article and that user or another one may nominate it, they are not owned by a user (my boasts on my own userpage aside, I see those as more for fun/bragging rights than any serious indication of status). Secondly, experience has proven that any process for which a political system and rules are created tends to lead to gaming of process, or even corruption of it. FAC is reasonably good at establishing quality of articles - I could see it ending up buried in ArbCom rubbish involving disputant editors if people aren't getting the FA's they feel they are entitled to to gain adminship. Orderinchaos 10:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * yeah - see my response to Hesp above - I reckon if we're up for this conceptually, we can probably work out the appropriate level of detail? - what do you think of the concepts I've explained a bit move above and below? Privatemusings (talk) 04:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I find it endlessly bizarre that when people tell you no, you respond with things like 'if we're up for this conceptually.' 'We' are not up for this. 'We' have been telling you no in several different ways. Nobody is up for this conceptually. You kept saying the exact same things on your censorship proposal; everyone was telling you no, and you would respond with things like 'great, now that we're talking about it...' → ROUX   ₪  19:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. To put it the other way round, IMO our shortage of really good content editors is even greater than our shortage of good admins, and it would be a crime to waste top content editors' time on housekeeping chores. However I endorse Malleus Fatuorum's comments:
 * WP:CIVIL is a waste of time, is used for Civil POV pushing and is what "Randy from Boise" complains about when confronted by someone who knows the subject. It's also such a source of gang-banging and general drama that it has often led normally sensible admins into serious misjudgements - no, I'm not going to mention names, see below. As Malleus says, we should scrap WP:CIVIL but enforce WP:NPA.
 * Ironholds and Roux have indeed gone too far by naming names. I think both should apologise, or remove the names. This is not WP:RfA, WP:RfC or WP:ANI, so gratuitous, sweeping and unfavourable comments on others' behaviour are dangerously close to WP:NPA. --Philcha (talk) 13:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * A personal attack is an attack on his character with no basis to it. The example I gave was him enforcing the civility and NPA policies. Since he's got four blocks for personal attacks, harassment, incivility and variations thereof I think stating that he'd be a bad person to enforce those policies is reasonable. Ironholds (talk) 06:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ironholds, your "giving people like Ottava, Malleus and Giano the tools and tasking them to enforce policies on civility is absurd ..." appeared at 05:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC) - before any of the people you named had contributed to this discussion at all, let alone given you any reason for such derogatory comments. Hence it was gratuitous. As an inevitable result you have violated the first 2 sentences of WP:NPA, "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor" - because there was no content for you to comment on. Since you have violated WP:NPA, you should apologise. --Philcha (talk) 16:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * NPA's list of "what constitutes a personal attack" includes "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence." Since I'm making accusations about personal behaviour that include lots and lots of lovely evidence, I'm not seeing a problem. Ironholds (talk) 07:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest Ironholds shoudl read WP:NPA thoroughly, for example "These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. Ironholds' comments that named certain editors qualify under this clause. --Philcha (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Malleus would be a better admin than the folks who think he would be a poor admin. So their universe is the bizarro one. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I totally concur with you. Unqualified hypocrites are too many.--Caspian blue 16:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Discussion from the administrator's noticeboard
In due course, I'll copy the discussion which is currently active on the admin.s noticeboard here, so anyone interested can follow / join / read more :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * discussion follows; Privatemusings (talk) 03:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * ps. I should note that Daniel was quite right to close the discussion at the admin.s noticeboard, which wasn't really a good fit, and was my mistake really - I'll drop a note into the village pump shortly. He was a bit cheeky to call it 'absurd' though, but that's our danny ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Automatic_Adminship - whaddya reckon? Privatemusings (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The skill set required to write featured content and the skill set required to perform the tasks of an admin have virtually no overlap. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. My first thought was "WP:BOLLOCKS". Surely this is humour? I would've thought Privatemusings has been around for long enough to know the difference between an FA writer and an admin. The idea of letting people like Giano enforce the civility and no personal attacks policy, for example, is absolutely anathema. Ironholds (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * to be honest, the idea of letting people who write posts like that enforce 'civility' is a bit of an anathema too, no? (are you an admin? I'm not sure!) Privatemusings (talk) 06:44, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh my good God no. → ROUX   ₪  05:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree there are flaws in the RFA system, but his would definitely not solve them SpitfireTally-ho! 05:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's see... RFA sometimes doesn't work because it lets in some admins who are unqualified or do a bad job. So instead, lets let EVERYBODY in.  That's a reasonable solution  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  05:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Everyone? There's only like ten or fifteen people who have written ten featured articles. I am pretty sure most of them are already administrators, in any case. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 06:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There are about 50 people with more than ten featured articles, FWIW. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 06:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I like Roux answer on this. Definite no. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 05:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh heh... let's start writing then. What's the limit for a 'crat?  C h a m a l  talk 06:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hah hah, Chamal :D. Juliancolton, there are 62 users with 10 featured articles, and 38 of them are already sysops, for the exact figures :P SpitfireTally-ho! 06:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support minus the 10 FA requirement. Too many editors already. And per Peter Damian. And per the tools are "no big deal" and "just a few extra buttons". And per Wikipedia's egalitarian roots. I'm not sure whether anonymous editors should be granted admin status though, but maybe. And to really even things out, I think current admins should have the status revoked, while it's given to everyone else. Fair is fair. Will this apply to Bureaucrat status also? Perhaps a lottery system? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * heh... I see what you did there, CoM! - if roux is 'good god'ing then I'm pretty sure I'm on a good track....;-) - More seriously, I think the community process of awarding articles 'featured' status is pretty rigourous (although not without big huge flaws on occasion) and I think this would go some way to achieving a much-recently-discussed 'check and balance' on admin culture which would significantly benefit the project. Privatemusings (talk) 06:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, if I'm 'good god'ing then you are on unequivocally the wrong track, same as the woefully misguided attempt at censorship you tried both here and at Commons a few months ago. → ROUX   ₪  06:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * PM, is this a serious proposal? I'm not that familiar with the FA process, but the GA process seems no less flawed than RfA. And I frequently see FA status used as a cudgel to fight further improvement and changes. "It's already an FA!!!"
 * Why is the RfA process broken exactly? I assume that's the assumption this is based on. A need for an alternative for those who can't get the tools the old fashioned way? It seems to me to work fairly well actually. I think the process for removing admins is far less smooth. How about any editor with 10 FAs gets to remove one admin. Now we're onto something!!! ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And an extra admin each when you get to 15! SpitfireTally-ho! 06:51, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * and shell access when you get to 20! ......or mebbe just admin at 10? You see in various chats around the place, it seems to me a fairly common theme that RfA is in some way broken - some people seem to think it gets a bit political, some people feel that it's a bit skewed to certain sections of the community, and some people just think it's completely rubbish. It's actually part of the wiki way, in my view, to be flexible, and open to new ideas, and to try new things to see if they breathe a bit more life / vitality / positivity into a community, and I think it's entirely appropriate to say to someone who's contributed 10 featured articles 'you know, if you'd like some more buttons, they are available to you, and if you want to help in this way, we'd really appreciate that'. Privatemusings (talk) 06:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But why can't just nominate them for RfA if we feel that they deserve adminship? How do you think it is broken? SpitfireTally-ho! 07:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * you're quite correct, spitfire, that (at least part of) this idea is predicated on the thought that for some, an RfA process might not seem attractive or work out for the best - if you'd like to chat further about why I believe this is indeed so, swing by my talk page anytime :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be fascinated to know under exactly what circumstances giving anyone who has written ten FAs +sysop rights is 'for the best', when the point of adminiship is that one has the trust of the community. Please also explain how the FA system won't be gamed for this. → ROUX   ₪  07:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that as I pointed out at the proposed policy page, RFA is required per Mike Godwin due to the userright ViewDeleted bundled with the +sysop flag. So this will never happen. That is quite leaving aside what you have thus far ignored: article building and adminship are non-overlapping skill sets (though some people have both), it would guarantee adminship for someone with possibly the longest block log on this site, we already have enough people complaining about 'bad admins' and you wish to guarantee that people who have not necessarily shown any knowledge of policy outside of article writing be given +sysop flags... I could go on, but it's late. I suggest that this thread be closed and the proposed policy marked historical (if not deleted), as per the WMF's legal counsel it cannot happen, period. You can take it up with him. → ROUX   ₪  07:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC) After : discussions on RFA belong at WT:RFA. →  ROUX   ₪  07:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * silly roux! I have it on good authority that the 'featured article' process is indeed run by the community, and further, a bloke down the village pump told me that Mike thinks this is quite a good idea, and not at all problematic - you can take that up with him if you'd like ;-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC) although you're right, folk interested in commenting should head over to the policy proposal talk page
 * Proof, please. → ROUX   ₪  07:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * all I'm really suggesting is that you don't tie your colours to the 'this would absolutely be outlawed by the foundation' mast just yet... I don't think it's a flier.. Privatemusings (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC) and doesn't proof deny good faith? - don't let your head explode adhering to every policy you perceive!
 * You're claiming that the legal counsel of the WMF has explicitly changed a statement he made approximately eight months ago (if memory serves; it was referenced during one of the perennial 'we should debundle more userrights' discussions). I would like to see where he has done so and what his reasoning is. Please provide a diff. → ROUX   ₪  07:16, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * no I'm not. Strange boy! What on earth gave you that idea? Privatemusings (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Who are the writers of 10 FAs that aren't admins? Are there other editors who do great article contributing that we should be considering for adminship? We could try straight nomming them...ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * See here. The two that would be most ...controversial... as admins would be Giano and Malleus Fatuorum. → ROUX   ₪  07:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Interesting. So the next logical question is whether Privatemusings thinks these editors should receive automatic adminship? And I see Sceptre is 3 away... ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:17, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * well duh! I think everyone who has contributed 10 featured articles (and actually, I'm prepared to chat about that bar - I could be persuaded of the merits of 5, to be honest) should be able to have sysop tools granted on request :-) Privatemusings (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, nom Malleus and Giano and let's see what happens. As a side note, I notice that user:Davemeistermoab is having a tough time at RfA over article contribution issues despite 4 FAs (rigorous debate over whether the objections have merit on his RfA's talk page). ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe the answer to 'see what happens' would be 'shitstorm of epic proportions.' And that particular RFA, CoM, is yet another excellent argument against what Privatemusings is proposing. I have yet to see a reasonable argument in favour. → ROUX   ₪  07:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This idea is utterly ridiculous. The FAC process is a way of rigorously checking an article, not a user. Since we're not giving the article +sysop, the idea that adminship should be based on number of successful FAC nominations is absurd. Claims that RfA is broken turn up all the time, and the same thing happens. We disagree over whether it is or isn't, and those who agree that it is can't decide what to do about it. Ironholds (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I've tagged the proposal as rejected, removing the template, given the pretty much unanimous opposition above. Hopefully this will reduce the number of words wasted on this absurd proposal into the future. Daniel (talk) 07:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Restoration
My notice of intent to restore the improperly closed page was acknowledged here. Two hours does not make consensus, and there were at least two supports of the idea. The manner in which it was closed goes beyond what is appropriate decorum in such closures. If people are unwilling to allow a discussion to exist for more than a few days, then there is a problem with their understanding of consensus and evidence of an underlying problem. Note - I am not in support of the proposal, but I am in support of discussion about the proposal, especially with the rush to closing it and the improprieties that were done by people who obviously should have known better. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You appear to have missed that--unsubstantiated claims by Privatemusings aside--Mike Godwin many months ago made it quite clear the ViewDeleted userright is not to be given out except through a community-based vetting process a la RFA. So this can never pass. Nor is this a reasonable venue for the general discussion of what's wrong with RFA; that's what WT:RFA and the VP are for. I fail to see what purpose keeping this open is, apart from pure process-w a onkery; it is the equivalent of a WP:SNOW result at XfD, RfA, etc. → ROUX   ₪  01:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't need a full RfA system. Furthermore, if Godwin was correct, then he should monitor many of the language wikis that don't use the same system. He should also be concerned about the cliques that pass off many users and let them through based on votes. As such, Godwin does not concern himself with these, which allow far more users who shouldn't have the rights have the rights. Until that day happens, Godwin has no real grounds to say that the community has no basis to discuss alternate means of determining trust. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And Roux, for your information, this is a legitimate way of discussing policy proposals. Village Pump is merely a place to -list- these discussions. This is what is called an "RfC". Please look at WP:RFC for more information as you seem to be ignorant as per your post. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You really are incapable of responding to someone without insulting them, aren't you? I can't be bothered responding to you now. → ROUX   ₪  01:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Being ignorant about what a certain item is is not an insult. People are ignorant about information all the time. Sure, you are just finding out this, but people make mistakes. Your hostile response to being educated on a subject is inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Roux, I agree with Ottava here. A question for you - why is it that you are allowed to shout down a Hell no, go on to name three established content editors by name in what is beyond the pale, not just uncivil but a downright attack on their character, but then when someone challenges your perspective, they are insulting you?  Highly hypocritical, and you owe at least three solid wikipedia editors (malleus, nichalp, and giano) a sincere apology for your grandiose nose smashing. So does anyone else with a pretentious pitchfork yelling "here here".   Keeper  |  76  02:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, no. There is a general community-wide consensus regarding two of the named editors, and as for the third he is currently mentioned on AN (or AN/I, whatever) in the context of having socked and engaged in paid editing. So, no, I will not apologise for stating simple fact: Malleus and Giano would make terrible admins. I recognise their content-building ability, but that has absolutely nothing to do with the skills required for adminship. As for the rest? Don't ever call me a hypocrite again. Ottava's track record of attacks and insults--against me amongst others--is well, well documented. So yeah.. nope, not going to apologise for accurately describing reality. → ROUX   ₪  02:18, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * So, then you are agreeing that you are "allowed" to malign three editors, and it's not an attack, but for someone (me, Ottava, whomever), cannot call you on it? I've not had any interactions with you (that I recall), I rarely see Ottava anywhere to know of any history between the two of you.  But I didn't call for you to apologize to him anyway.  If something is hypocritical (you are maligning others but not allowing others to comment back or else they are uncivil), than it is perfectly acceptable for me to call you a hypocrite.  If I started a thread where I said "these are the three worst admins, and they'd make horrible content editors", and named you, and two random others (I have no idea if you are an admin or not, don't care to look - it's not the point), I would be hauled off in a shitstorm of ANI and RFC crossposts.  It's hypocritical, and  someone called you out on it (and Ironholds, and whoever else responded here with the same level of vitriol), and then you made a hypocritical, overly sensitive response to Ottava's reasonable objection to your attack of three editors.  If you don't apologize, it is on your shoulders, but you will also be bearing the weight of my (and others') very negative opinion of your character.  You are being hypocritical.  By the way, I agree that this is not a good proposal, and I would oppose it, as would many of the content editors that have absolutely no interest in the political bullshit that is adminning.  They wouldn't get to do what they enjoy doing, which is making a better fucking encyclopedia.  Good day,  Keeper  |  76  02:34, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you understand what I was saying. That Malleus and Giano would make poor admins--and incidentally would never pass RFA--is beyond question. It's a comment on the level of "Gee, GWB is an idiot" or "Wow, Dolly Parton has big tits." Ottava specifically called me ignorant. That you don't see a difference is disturbing, but no it does not make me a hypocrite. Your hypothetical doesn't work, sorry, because it relies on a completely different set of circumstances. And now I really have had enough of this nonsense. → ROUX   ₪  02:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Ignorant means not knowing. It is not an insult. Please see www.dictionary.com for the definition. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done, compounding the insult with condescension. I knew I could count on you. → ROUX   ₪  02:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As stated above, it is not an insult. Your persistence to the contrary is contradicting the dictionary itself. Did no one tell you to not try to squeeze blood from a rock? It just wont work. There are four definitions provided here, each are applicable above and none are an insult: "1. lacking in knowledge or training; unlearned: 2. lacking knowledge or information as to a particular subject or fact 3. uninformed; unaware. 4. due to or showing lack of knowledge or training" Ottava Rima (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done, Ottava. More condescension. The problem is that you started from a false premise, that this was an RFC. It's not; it's a proposed policy. And then you became insulting and condescending. So... sorry, I seem to have gotten lost. Which one of us was wrong again? Oh right, wasn't me. → ROUX   ₪  05:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The reason why I assumed you were ignorant on what an RfC is from statements like this: "that this was an RFC. It's not; it's a proposed policy.". That is like saying water is not water because it is H20. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that saying that was my last statement here... so no, not really an excuse. And RFC has a specific meaning onwiki, one which doesn't apply here. → ROUX   ₪  19:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would recommend you actually reading our policy pages. This was obvious - "Place the template at the top of the talk page's discussion to further publicize your proposal." All policy proposals are RfCs. This is very basic and very easy to understand. Lack of knowledge of this is strong evidence that you do not have any experience with our policies nor actually bothered to read them. Please stop wasting everyone's time with such ignorance until you are willing to read what our policies say. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:19, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would recommend you actually taking a moment to believe that other people may think differently than you and they should not be routinely condescended to for doing so. I know that will never happen--your history speaks for itself--but one does live in hope. → ROUX   ₪  23:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The above proves that you are 100% ignorant about what you are talking about. The statement placed about my discussing your claims about what Godwin said with a WMF member places your other claims into question. So far, you have provided nothing correct but you have laid on the insults to people in a very unbecoming manner. Thus, you have proven to talk about what you don't know, possibly make stuff up, and just insult people without cause. Those are three things that would easily justify a block. Now, if you are done I would recommend you don't come back until you apologize to everyone here for trying to claim knowledge over what you clearly don't know and acting so offensive and unbecoming. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I beg your fucking pardon? Retract the accusation about me making stuff up immediately. → ROUX   ₪  00:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I ran your claim about what Godwin said and what Godwin actually said by over ten people and they agree that you manipulated his words and claimed what he did not say. This seems to be a growing trend with you. You claimed knowledge above about policy and you were clearly wrong. If you keep this up then a block is probably in your future, especially with your cussing instead of apologizing. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) By ten people in five minutes? Sure. I have manipulated nothing. This is your final chance to retract your accusations of lying and manipulation. → ROUX   ₪  00:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Five minutes? See, you are wrong yet again. You posted 23:59, 7 July 2009. My post by the time I talked to people was at 00:17, 8 July 2009. That is clearly 18 minutes. Once again, you are blatantly wrong and the facts are obvious and accessible. This is a severe problem and you have introduced these problems into every single post here so far. Do you bother to actually read before posting? It might help stop these rather obvious errors. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh for fuck's sake, I'm not allowed to make a mistake about the time? Whatever, struck--which you know is what grownups do when it's been pointed out they made a mistake. I see you still have not retracted your blatant accusation of lying, so it's off to AN/I with you. Again. → ROUX   ₪  00:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Assuming I'm one of Roux's "two of the named editors", I'd be interested to see where this "general community-wide consensus" has been discussed and decided upon. Bear in mind that I don't use IRC though. :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 02:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither do I, but good job bringing up your favourite bugaboo. → ROUX   ₪  02:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You really are a pretty unsavoury character. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I bow to your expertise. → ROUX   ₪  05:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Roux: There is no "community-wide consensus". Nobody ever tried to ask the "community", and I really doubt that even small poll groups will end up even in supermajority vote, not to mention real consensus. Two Malleus RFAs closed as far from consensus as ever (19/11/3 and 46/40/8) - but, again, 33 and 94 voices are not the "community". NVO (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * RFA is by definition asking the community. No consensus = consensus not to promote. → ROUX   ₪  06:41, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No consensus equals consensus, isn't it charming! NVO (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Roux, you continue to throw around insults on the presumption, and a holy-than-thou one at that, that everyone would be an idiot if they thought Malleus would (or wouldn't) make a good admin. Dozens of supporters believe he would, myself included.  You've indirectly called me an idiot with your pompousness.  Shoo.  Keeper  |  76  04:13, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be great if you could show me a diff of where I called anyone an idiot. Also it's cute.. you castigate me for a personal attack, and then make one of your own. And you called me a hypocrite? → ROUX   ₪  05:11, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And again, another fine example where everyone else is attacking and uncivil and unfit and un-Roux. But Roux, ah no.  He doesn't do any of these things, right?  Because Roux is right.  You brought this.  You blasted a good-faith (albeit unsuccessful and perhaps even pipe-dreamy unrealistic) with a "hell no", and went on to name three editors that, in your mind, would absolutely destroy the wiki if they had (gasp!) the ability to see deleted revisions and (gasp!) the ability to block a vandal or protect a page from them.  The editors that are too busy actually writing up and down the place to really give a rip about the over-bureaucratic "civility" policy and aren't afraid to tell it like it is.  For you to categorize that as "this is true, everyone knows it, just like everyone knows Dolly Parton has big tits" (loose quote), is an even more tragic and overly cruel bit of hypocritical hyperbole.  Enough of this.  It's like trying to talk sense into a brick.   Keeper  |  76  14:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear: the person who is taking me to task for alleged personal attacks is doing so by making personal attacks against me? I just want to make sure we're all on the same page here. It would also be good if you could respond to my request for a diff of where I called anyone an idiot, lest I be forced to believe you are engaging in the same hyperbole that you are accusing me of. I too am one of the people that prefers to tell it like it is... which is exactly what I was doing. I'm not really sure what your problem is, but if you're going to spend this amount of time telling me I'm wrong, it would probably be a good idea for you to not to exactly what you're accusing me of the entire time. → ROUX   ₪  19:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Bad idea
While I respect the honorable motivations behind this proposal - to create more admins, without having to go through the gruelling RFA process - it would be a very bad idea. Commenters at RFA have a great deal of respect for content contributions; almost any editor with 10 FAs to their name could easily pass RFA if they wanted to, on the strength of their content contributions alone. Any editor with that many FAs who can't pass RFA normally (and thus needs this process) probably can't pass for a very good reason, and shouldn't be an admin.

So, in practice, this proposal is unnecessary and probably counterproductive. It is problematic in theory as well - I'm not the only one who thinks no one should gain the admin tools (or indeed, any of the other sets of rights) without some sort of oversight. Even rollback requires the approval of an admin! But this proposal would give adminship away automatically, without any kind of check on the person receiving it, which is a dangerous precedent - especially since, as I say above, the kinds of people who would gain adminship by this process are those who probably shouldn't have it in the first place.

By all means, this proposal should be discussed, but I think doing so will make clear (if it hasn't already) what a bad idea it is. Robofish (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a system could be put in place (i.e. expanding the proposal) to allow for an easier desysopping? If many of the admin functions deal with content (deletion, moving, protecting, etc), then it would seem that content contributors would have experience. However, as many have argued (to throw it out there), the RfA system deals more with politics than actual ability. It is easy to recruit friends to put a lot of supports or opposes and it happens often. Thus, we lose good people and gain bad people. This seems to be a way to check that. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * actually, now that it's up there in black and white, perhaps a Alternate adminship management would be a better idea (we can always work on that basis, and move as / when required). The idea that this is check ( / balance) is exactly what I'd like :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether there's an alternative to RfA put into place, I think having an easier desysopping process would be a fantastic thing. People that may otherwise get opposed may gain more supporters, as there'd be less risk of giving someone a shot; right now, to give a borderline candidate (such as someone that's on the right track, but may not "be there yet"), it's basically a life-long appointment and they need to be reported to ArbCom before they are demoted. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 18:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I believe it was Balloonman who said that adminship needs to be much more of a revolving door, and we certainly need a robust desysopping process. But this is not the place for that discussion; WT:RFA or VP is. → ROUX   ₪  19:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Security wormhole
Oppose as a breach of basic security. Admins, by definition, must have strong password security, refrain from using admin account on public computers etc. Lay users don't have to. Will an unsuspecting "winner" of auto-adminship take care of his/her unexpected bounty? Will you issue adminship right to an IP? NVO (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with this proposal that does seem a particularly silly reason to oppose, particularly the little slippery slope argument. All users should have strong passwords, and a surprising amount of damage can be done with just rollback and twinkle if an account is hacked. Ironholds (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * These tools can be obtained in bad faith without hacking anything - will take a bit longer than autoconfirmed but is otherwise plain easy. NVO (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yyes.. but the same could be said of admin tools - that is doable without hacking, it just takes longer :P. Again, you seem to be making the assumption that these "lay users" don't have strong passwords because they aren't required to, or for that matter that admins do have strong passwords because they are. Ironholds (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment
Leaving aside the Mike Godwin requirement on the viewdeleted user right, the proposal as-is is a non-runner. Issues: There could be an alternative viable version of this proposal, but what's there isn't going to fly. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The skill sets of content writing and administration are drastically different.
 * 2) Many FAs are collaborative efforts; who decides how much work someone has to put in to get credited with a FA?
 * 3) The FA approval process is opaque, and the appointment of reviewers lacks substantial community input.
 * 4) Any user with ten FAs is almost certain to pass RFA anyway unless there is a serious conduct or behaviour issue, in which case he should not be an admin anyway.
 * What do you mean by "appoitment of reviewers"? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with "automatically giving away adminship to any FA writers". However, the assertion of The skill sets of content writing and administration are drastically different. is hard to be agreeable. Editors who can work on his article up to a FA are knowledgeable of our core content policies, and practice them with their own experience, so they can more understand how to enforce those policies to editors. The claim of things "drastically different" seems an exaggeration.--Caspian blue 16:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point! I think the impression may be based in part on certain passions and eccentricities shown by some extraordinary article content builders. But I agree there is a lot of overlap. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I talked to someone from WMF today and they didn't seem to know what is claimed about Godwin saying, so lets get a link and some evidence before this meme continues. Furthermore, Google cache and other programs already have most of our deleted revisions, so they are quite easy to find. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Godwin's comment on not debundling ViewDeleted is here, which he opposes as the legal counsel for WMF due to major legal issues that could accrue, including the statement "I normally favor and support community-driven initiatives, so please believe me when I say I am not raising this set of concerns lightly. The current system is not broken -- so the best advice is "don't fix it."" There was another statement attributed to him which further clarifies the need for ViewDeleted (as part of +sysop) to be granted via community approval, which I am trying to find. → ROUX   ₪  23:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Further to that point, Godwin was responding to a statement by SwatJester on behalf of OTRS explaining why debundling ViewDeleted is a legal, bureaucratic, and PR nightmare; one of the key things that OTRS people are able to use when calming down someone complaining about defamation is "only trusted admins can now see that revision, not the general public." I fail to see how someone who gains adminship by merely writing 10 FAs (merely in the sense that there is no other qualification e.g. community trust, not that writing FAs is in any way trivial) can be said to be 'trusted by the community.' → ROUX   ₪  00:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how there are many, many ways you can go right now and find caches of deleted revisions, Godwin's concerns expressed in them are already null and void. Regardless, his concern is only "vastly increase the frequency and volume of legal complaints". Having an addition 20-40 people that fit the criteria would be different than allowing the millions in that proposal. There sheer claim that the two situations are even close to being similar is so preposterous that it is hard to assume that you mentioned Godwin as anything besides a bluff while grasping for straws. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Against my better judgement, I am responding to you. There is no need to grasp at straws over a proposal that for multiple reasons had no chance of going anywhere. Your continued accusations are sickening, but given that you have apparently been handed a free pass by the entire admin corps, they are unsurprising. → ROUX   ₪  00:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If this proposal has no chance of passing, why have you filled this talk page with so much unprovoked hatred against many users who weren't even part of the page at the time? Ottava Rima (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Another question along the lines of "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Thank you, Ottava, very kind of you to live up to expectations. → ROUX   ₪  01:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have been looking at imposing civility blocks had I been online at the time of the above ripostes )-: But since there is nothing now to prevent, it's moot. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Roux, you made a serious tactical error by naming specific editors in "Application of this would make XXXXX, YYYYY (who just had all special permissions removed for engaging in paid editing and sockpuppetry), and ZZZZZZ admins. In what universe would that be a good idea?" As a result you've spent 10 times as much space and time on defending your mistake than you did on presenting your quite sensible reasons for rejecting the proposal (those who have forgotten what these were, as I did, can text-search for "05:30, 6 July 2009"). The best outcome would be for you to apologise for gratuitous uncomplimentary remarks about specific editors who at that point had not shown up anywhere on this Talk page. If that's too much pride for you to swallow, please drop the subject.
 * Then perhaps we can spend the time better by looking at your User:Roux/RFA-reform, which IMO rightly focusses on the fact that RfA is non-admins' only chance at present to reduce the risk of having trouble wth unsuitable admins. --Philcha (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Stifle, "civility blocks" on whom? --Philcha (talk) 10:43, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Philcha, you're not getting an apology, because nothing was ungratuitous or unsupported by facts. I suggest you also note that I hadn't posted at this page in 6.5 hours, and had clearly been active in that time, so I'm not sure what point is being served by stirring it up again. See also Ironholds' responses to you; they say exactly the same thing. → ROUX   ₪  10:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no need for an apology to me, because so far you haven't maligned me.
 * "nothing was ungratuitous"??? I think you'll find that means all your comments were gratuitous. Even I don't think you went that far.
 * However there was no call for your comments on certain editors, as they had not commented at this page. You picked on specific editors as examples of strong content producers who, in your opinion, were not fit to be admins. That's dangerously close to a personal attack.
 * And you continue to waste time on this, further distracting attention from the helpful parts of your initial comments. --Philcha (talk) 11:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To Philcha: Either or both of Ottava Rima and Roux. Now quit being incivil, folks. Stifle (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Stifle, so you advocate punishing the victim of a personal attack for complaining about it. If you genuinely want to reduce conflict on WP, you need come down hard on aggressors and cut victims some slack. UK soccer fans know what happens if aggressors and victims are treated equally - it leads to "getting your retaliation in first". In this case the acts of aggression (Ironholds 05:21, 6 July 2009; Roux 05:30, 6 July 2009). You did not "come to the rescue" until 08:39, 8 July 2009. Are victims of personal attacks supposed to suffer in silence until you deign to appear two days later? --Philcha (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm assuming that you include attacks against me such as 'manipulating what other people say' and 'making stuff up', yes? Beyond that, really.. the horse is actively decomposing. Equine necro-sadism is probably an unwise thing to keep pursuing. → ROUX   ₪  20:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What Stifle is doing is advocating an inability to adhere to policy. He already demonstrated his lack of understanding that all proposed policies are RfCs by definition, and then he showed an inability to acknowledge that admin are not supposed to use admin powers in areas that they are disputing, which he clearly had entered into it after I challenged him on his breaking of policy. As such, his threat to block me if given a chance not only went against ANI consensus, it also violates policy. It seems obvious that Stifle is giving fuel for a desysopping. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * About time there was a bit more honesty around here, and a more even-handed application of the absurd civility policy. That really ought not to be too much to ask, but it clearly is. Had I made the personal remarks that Roux and Ironholds did I would have been blocked for a month. Check out my last block if you don't believe me. The hypocrisy here stinks, and it disgusts me. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Honesty is what I used... but I'm guessing that's not what you mean. If you hate it here so much, the 'log out' button is at the top-right corner of your screen. → ROUX   ₪  19:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the ignore crap like yours button I'm looking for. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I'm the one being rude... right. Just wanted to be clear there. →  AN UNSAVOURY CHARACTER   ₪  20:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * To a question back at the top, by "appointment of reviewers" I mean "the process by which users are appointed as featured article director and delegates". Stifle (talk) 08:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

sitting and waiting a bit.....
I wonder if either of you chaps (Ottava and Roux) have visited liverpool? here's a dollop of british silliness which I'm reminded of at the mo! What colour sticker the proposal has doesn't really bother me, and I'm just waiting for things to calm down a bit before I work on it a bit - I've got a few ideas :-) Privatemusings (talk) 02:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Waiting for what, exactly? → ROUX   ₪  03:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Godot, of course! and you? Privatemusings (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Funny, but unresponsive. What are you waiting for, here? The proposal is soundly rejected, and I certainly don't see anyone who commented either here or at AN changing their minds. So..? → ROUX   ₪  03:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * then you needn't worry yourself that the wiki's about to fall over with this becoming policy! phew! Privatemusings (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC) ps. you know sometimes it's a wonderful thing to change your mind, I have no idea if others here may or may not, but it's always a good idea to be open :-)
 * Are you actually going to answer the question? It's quite a reasonable one. → ROUX   ₪  03:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I have done! I'm getting worried that you're winding yourself up a bit, dude - it's really ok to turn the temperature down a bit (have a cup of tea, go for a wander, that sort of thing) - a better sort of vibe to discuss ideas in an atmosphere of mutual respect and cuddly care would be wonderful. I did notice that you mentioned some sort of de-admin procedure would be a good thing - given that the 'umbrella' topic for discussion here is finding different ways to approach admin.ship (and therefore de-adminship) in general, hows about sharing a few ideas on that front? I'm sure you've a few goodies up your sleeve - we could work this up into something (probably after a move?) which could be taken to the wider community..... up for a bit of work? :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, ummm.. no you really have not answered the question. This proposal will never pass, so what are you waiting for? The place to discuss alternate ways to adminship is WT:RFA or WP:VPP. → ROUX   ₪  04:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ah, but the place to suggest this particular proposal is right here, no? - I'm hoping that matters might 'calm down, calm down' (see the youtube link above) and that that will make it all a bit easier. Does it annoy you that people may wish to discuss something you think is a bad idea? Privatemusings (talk) 04:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It annoys me when people won't forthrightly answer a simple question, yes. Do you honestly think that anyone's opinion is going to change? Of course you hope they will, but that is not what I'm asking. → ROUX   ₪  04:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * if by 'anyone' you mean the folk who've commented so far, then I think the folk who have expressed a strong opinion do indeed seem rather tied to it. It does also seem to me however that quite a few folk haven't actually nailed their colours to the mast as firmly as you may perceive? Either ways, the function of a proposal isn't to gain acceptance or rejection within hours / days (or even weeks) - but rather to stimulate thought and discussion. My feeling is that content contributors are actually the kings of the wiki, and for many many reasons should be empowered absolutely as much as possible to steer the culture, and practices around here. I suspect that there's quite a bit of support for that seed of an idea - although not, at this stage, for this particular proposal's way of expressing it. Now I think that's a shame, but I've also got a few more ideas to develop around the ideas of 'paths to adminship' (and de-adminship), and personally speaking it helps me to move forward through this proposal process. If you're up for other ways of moving things forward then no worries, and I don't begrudge you your opinion that I'm wasting my time one bit - I certainly wouldn't want you to waste yours :-) Privatemusings (talk) 04:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)