Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 106

Demons MFD attempt
Just one comment on what just transpired. As a non-admin who would like to have the mop some day, I'd be more comfortable seeing that conversation in RfC. If I had made a comment one way or the other, I can just see my next RfA going down in flames because a group of voters/commenters decides to oppose me based on what I thought there. Indicative of the problems with the process... Hiberniantears 16:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I certainly believe an RfC would be a good idea, any objections to me opening it up again and forming an RfC with it?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  16:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You have my support! Hiberniantears 16:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't see a problem with it, though before anyone suggests RfA reform, it probably wouldn't hurt to read this: Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Reform. It's inactive, but it gives a decent idea of how various proposals were received in the past. Chaz Beckett 16:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Discussion is fine, but I can't believe ^demon, an admin, put up an MFD for our RFA process without another one being in place.Rlevse 16:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, there has to be some process in place for adminship. Proposing changes or new processes are fine, but simply scrapping the current one won't work. Chaz Beckett 16:51, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't followed RFA for a while. Have things got markedly worse or better since a few months ago? Or are things about the same? Carcharoth 17:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Nope, it's just that people are always trying to fix something not broken-;) Rlevse 17:03, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, RfA is frequented with regulars who don't get the concerns demon has raised. I too remain unconvinced that the RfA process is broken. I think it works moderately well. What shouldn't be presumed is that everyone who passes RfA will make a good admin. There should be a lot more "you are getting admin stuff wrong" self-policing within the admin community, and similar criticism from non-admins should be listened to as well. Carcharoth 19:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Ryan, we can now move this here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Hiberniantears 17:02, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Should it be listed under user RfC's as we have seperate page for the whole RfC?  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  17:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a link to the MFD so I can follow this? the_undertow talk  23:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well I move the MfD and changed it around a bit to form the RfC, a archived version of the MfD can be found here.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  23:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks dood. the_undertow talk  02:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The really sad thing is that when a user put up an MfD for the MfD process (a process which is almost as broken as RfA), he was blocked for a day for supposed WP:POINT violations. Just shows the double standards applied around here to the élite and the mass of ordinary users. WaltonOne 10:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether a block was deserved or not, but it does sound rather POINTy to nominate MfD for deletion. Getting rid of a process without having some sort of a replacement is almost always going to fail and usually creates needless drama. Chaz Beckett 11:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I totally agree; what I was saying is that if one person was blocked per WP:POINT for nominating the MfD process for deletion (without, as you say, putting a replacement process in place), then logically anyone who does the same to the RfA process, without putting a replacement process in place, should also be blocked, regardless of his or her status within the community. This is in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fairness, which are as relevand on Wikipedia as elsewhere. WaltonOne 13:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It depends on the history of each user. If the user who nominated MfD for deletion was doing the same for other pages, that could be seen as wider disruption. Also, if the user failed to explain the reasons, that would count against them. ^demon explained his reasons clearly. Finally, if the block was unjustified, there should have been an apology and retraction in an unblock summary, though if it was a short block the block might have expired before there was a chance to do that. Regardless, the hope is that if the block was not justified, then people can be persuaded of this by pointing to discussion at the time. Equally, if ^demon's actions were considered disruptive, it should be possible to point to discussion about that, rather than relying on a block log to tell you these things. A block log never tells the whole story, and shouldn't be relied upon for snap judgements of a user (though sometimes it is, sadly). Equally, a clean block log shouldn't be automatically thought of as good. Weigh up all the evidence and see how it relates to other evidence. Carcharoth 12:11, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, but Walter Humala did explain his reasons for nominating MfD for deletion, and he hadn't disrupted the process before. Ryulong blocked him for no reason that I could discern. I'm not necessarily saying that ^demon should be blocked (that would be overkill, just as it was for Walter Humala), but I'm saying that the rules should apply fairly and equally to all users, even those who are experienced admins with wide community support. WaltonOne 16:59, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then that would probably be evidence to raise in an RFC to say that Ryulong is a trigger-happy admin who will block before talking (I'm not saying he is, but that could be one way of describing such behaviour). I have asked elsewhere whether the controversial RfAs resulted in admins being promoted who have caused disruption. One of the most difficult thing to measure is whether trigger-happy admins who blocking too hastily are actively driving away new contributors who are just experimenting. Similarly, those admins who delete pages that have been created a few minutes ago may similarly disillusion new contributors. Ultimately the only way to change such things is to actively ask such questions at RfAs and be critical of such actions. On the other hand, if an admin promoted under similarly controversial circumstances (Danny) has not been questioned at all (I haven't seen anything, but then I might have missed things), then that could be evidence that the promotion, although possibly against community consensus, was in fact not detrimental in the long-run. Quite possibly neither were. Equally, there may be admins who passed with flying colours, but are insiduously acting against Wikipedia's best interests while not appearing on the radar (eg. by influencing POV edit wars with veiled block threats). The solution is not to try and fix RfA to avoid such admins passing, but to question admin actions you are unhappy with and voice your concerns if you see long-term negative trends going unchecked. If admins (and editors) realise that in the long-run (and not just in the short-term) they will be called to account, then that can only be good. This should (and may already) be the case, but if not, then everyone should work to achieve a culture of openness and accountability. Carcharoth 22:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey
Hey All, I Have Been A Member For Sometime But Never Really Talked To Anyone! Can Someone Tell Me, How Do i Request Adminship Here?

If You Know, Please, Tell Me Either By Email Through Here, Or VIA MSN And If You Wont That, Then You Are Going To Have To Email Me Through Here :)

Thankyou 22kálla

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 22kálla (talk • contribs) 12:58, 5 October 2007


 * You need to gain more experience with Wikipedia before applying to become an admin. I suggest that you seek assistance through the adoption programme; your adopter will help you in getting to know Wikipedia and how it works. In a couple of months, with a substantially greater amount of experience, you may be ready to apply for adminship. WaltonOne 13:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Any experience at all" is the first thing that's needed. 22kálla, are you really aware of what you're asking for, or what this site is? No offence meant. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   13:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * 22kálla, I do not see any contributions at all from you under the username you quote. Have you contributed using an anonymous IP? To answer your question, you go to WP:RfA and follow the on-page instructions. But in order to succeed in your application you would need to show, by your contributions, approximately three or more months of solid experience and upwards of 2,000 edits, reasonably spread over the whole wikipedia project. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 13:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I havent Been nomibnated!
My requst for adminship has ended but I haven't been talked to by a Bureaucrat yet! Im very cross indeed! Can you contact a Bureaucrat and tell them that I have not been talked by them yet. Requests for adminship/Beko120 Beko120 17:21, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Read the Guide to requests for adminship and follow the instructions there to send it live. I would strongly advise against doing it at this stage; as you have less than 50 edits, it has no chance of passing, and popups are nothing to do with adminship. —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  17:26, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It also appears you never transcluded your RFA into the RFA page, which is why no one knew of it nor voted on it. This alone shows you're not ready for admin as you didn't follow the directions.Rlevse 17:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For information, Beko120 was blocked for 72 hours shortly after leaving this message. BencherliteTalk 22:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I closed this nomination. — M o e   ε  18:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Desysopping proposal
After some of the discussion on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, I've decided to try my hand at creating another desysopping proposal. Please read it over (a read of the RFC might help too) and discuss it on the talk page. Mr.  Z- man  01:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Voting Icons
Out of curiosity, are people allowed to do things like this? What's our official stance on RfA voting icons and the like? Thanks. GlassCobra (Review) 17:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They're not prohibited, although many find them redundant and annoying. Removing them is unnecessary, though.  Melsaran  (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. I think I'll go restore it, then. Thanks for the quick reply. GlassCobra (Review) 17:59, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please do no such thing. I have thoroughly answered your question at my talk page. We do not use these icons. Will (aka  Wimt  ) 18:15, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the last time that this was discussed. Consensus was that these were to be removed when used. --After Midnight 0001 18:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Even though consensus can change, the status quo with sans-icon comments shall stand, since the community-at-large dislikes them (subsequent TFDs and discussions bolster that), and that this is not a multilingual project, unlike Commons and Meta.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 23:53, 07 October 2007 (GMT)
 * I don't like them, as we can see here. I remove them when I see them. They're unnecessary. Bandwidth isn't an issue and all, but why bother having them at all? --Deskana (talk) 00:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't midn them that much. I suppose they further make clear someone's position. They are used much over at Meta.... -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 00:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care if they are used or not. What I don't like is that some are saying "this came up before and we don't use them so we're not entertaining it again". Consensus can change stifling a discussion is not right.Rlevse 00:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict)…and that is because it's multilingual there, where some users do not understand English that well.  O 2 (息 • 吹) 00:18, 08 October 2007 (GMT)
 * Well, I suppose. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 00:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How much "further clear" can someone be than posting under the correct "support" or "oppose" section of the RFA? --After Midnight 0001 01:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, really. I actually don't think separate support, negative... sections are truly necessary since it's a discussion. I suppose it makes closing the requests much easier... But still; the current layout works fine. *Cremepuff  222*  01:20, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * (outdent)I don't use them, but would never think of removing them from someone else's comment, just as I wouldn't refactor a Super-de-duper Support in to a Support. — xaosflux  Talk  03:11, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * They're used at multilingual projects such as Meta or Commons because everyone can understand them. There's no need for them to be used here; they only reinforce the incorrect presumption that requests are votes. --bainer (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As has been pointed out already, those templates are only useful in mixed-language environments. The English Wikipedia isn't one of them. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 06:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * From my perspective, it seems the consensus hasn't changed. And neither has my opinion: they are not necessary because we don't have [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|18px]] A favor/Di accordo/D'accord/Да issues here. Tito xd (?!? - cool stuff) 06:40, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

If you like the way they look, you can use User:ais523/votesymbols.js to add them to RfAs, AfDs, etc. to your own view, and so avoid inflicting them on everyone else. (This solution - allowing users who like them to see them whilst not annoying everyone else - seems to me to be about right.) --ais523 09:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that's a pretty good way of skirting this issue. It's a win/win. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 15:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems a pretty nice solution. Nice coding, ais532. :) *Cremepuff  222*  21:18, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Summary idea
I just thought of an idea of when closing adminships that failed. Maybe there should be a summary from all the comments of what is good and bad and why they failed. Or would this be too much like WP:ER? Simply south 12:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think I see where you're coming from, but again this is basically asking the 'crats to 1) do more work and 2) justify their decision. Other than a tiny tiny number of cases consensus is normally clear. I don't think a candidate needs to be further beaten up by a closing 'crat summary identifying their failings as seen by others. If RfA is a discussion then a candidate who fails RfA should review all the input, both support, oppose and neutral, to help themselves in either their editing and/or any future RfA. Succinct closing statements may be nice, but time consuming and less valuable than a review of the input. Of course this assumes positive input from the opposers, but IMHO generally it is. Pedro : Chat  12:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * What would be the point? I haven't gone through an RfA, but I've read, and I'm sure it'd be the same for me, RfA candidates generally watch it constantly and read everything posted. It's not a matter of transcluding and coming back a week later to check the outcome. So who would the summary be for?  Lara  ❤  Love  12:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, as with XfDs etc, if whoever closes it does so for a reason that's not obvious they generally leave a reason anyway. I can see a (faint) use in that if someone's running a second time it would be easier to see why their first one failed, but you're relying on the summariser to get it right in that case. —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  13:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Most people give a decent summary when they post a comment / vote on the RfA, and often list necessary improvements as it is anyway.  Lra drama 13:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW, as part of my (ultimately successful, but then very much on the bubble) RfA, I did my own summary of take-aways. Perhaps we can add something like this to the RfA template to encourage this sort of thing. Encouraging failed candidates to reflect on what was said would likely help them to be successful at the next one, no? Ronnotel 13:52, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, the crat should post his or her reason for making the decision if it can't be determined by first reading the request. It should be pretty easy to figure out why the nom was rejected by simply reading the request. *Cremepuff  222*  14:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Community enforced administrator recall‎
From the current RfC it is clear that the community would like a way to remove admin status themselves without the need for the aribtration. I have therefore created Community enforced administrator recall‎ which gives an option for admins to be recalled by the community but in a way that would ensure they don't get recalled over minor problems. Have a read through it, but basically any user with over 500 edits and 3 months service can request recall of an admin, a week long dicussion then begins into the users actions, during this time at least 5 users must endorse the need for recall. At this point a 7 day vote opens and if there is 75% support of recall a crat closes the request and posts on meta for the user to be desysopped, if it is below 75% then the user is not desysopped and no-one can request recall of the user for a period of 3 months. The requests are transcluded onto Requests for community enforced administrator recall where all discussion occurs. I've created a very basic template (Template:Community enforced administrator recall) for what could be used to create a recall nomination. I strongly believe that this will put more power the the community to decide its own fate with respect to who it's admins are, but without removing admin status willy nilly.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  16:16, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I totally disagree that the community wants a way to remove admin status without the need for arbitration. The discussion at Removal_of_adminship has not produced a consensus and I'm not even sure what RfC you are refering to. If you mean the one at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia:Requests for adminship, I see no consensus there (a mess of opinions, yes, but no consensus). It sometimes seems like the same group of people whine on and on that there is a problem with not being able to remove problem admins, or a problem with the admin selection process. However, I find it interesting that most editors and admins do not take part in these discussions, probably because most editors and admins do not see a problem. In short, Community enforced administrator recall‎ is a solution in search of a problem. ArbCom already handles these problems perfectly well.--Alabamaboy 16:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * All I see at that RFC is a lack of consensus. The enforced admin recall idea has failed to get consensus numerous times. Alabamaboy has worded my thoughts in regard to "it not being a problem" and "same old folks" very well. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 16:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship suggests quite a stong consensus for a community recall process. some desysoppings could easily be handled by the community and ArbCom should be a last resort.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  16:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Ya, did you notice that other "views" have as much consensus saying it is not broken? There is also plenty of opposition to Friday's view, the format simply encourages "support" votes, and has no place for opposing in a nice little counted list. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 16:32, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The other views are concentrating on the RfA proces itself and don't really mention a removal process. Many of the views tend to suggest that if the community could remove admin status then then the RfA process may run smoother.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  16:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This page indicates a lack of consensus for this type of change: Wikipedia talk:Removal of adminship. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 16:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Ryan, I still fail to see any consensus at the link you provided to Friday's view, which is only one small part of an overall discussion on that page. You appear to be cherry picking the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship to find support for this recall idea. Like Until(1 == 2) said, there are numerous people on that page who oppose this recall idea or say there is no problem or, most important, didn't even take part in that discussion but commented instead at Removal_of_adminship. In fact, the consensus appears to be to keep the current system, not to create a new guideline or policy for recall.--Alabamaboy 16:39, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Alabamaboy makes good points, plus the proposed standard is too easy: "over 500 edits and 3 months service can request recall of an admin, a week long dicussion then begins into the users actions, during this time at least 5 users must endorse the need for recall." When I had 500 edits, I still knew nothing about wiki, much less what an admin was to do. The proposed makes it easy for a lynch mob to form. I could even possibly see giving admins more weight in the removal process than non-admins. Rlevse 16:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. 500 and three months is way to lenient. Admins should have more say, because they can better judge the actions being taken. J- ſtan TalkContribs 16:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Rlevse makes a good point. I'll add in that the current program seems to work. The ArbCom is a good place to start if you wat to see a desysopping. Also, the best admins are not always the well liked ones. M er cury   16:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with Mercury that the total number of de-sysoppings is small enough that Arbcom can handle them without creating additional bureaucracy. I am concerned about cliques where half a dozen to a dozen established editors predictably vote together.  If an admin attempts to set policy-based limits on clique members--for instance, warnings about POV pushing--the clique could retaliate by dragging the poor admin into a week long stress-fest.  The proposed process seems easy to abuse.  I have confidence in Arbcom because cases there are not started without a solid basis.  - Jehochman  Talk 17:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

While I was initially opposed to the entire idea, I'm not willing to write this off as hopeless. As long as a grown-up (the bureaucrat) is in charge of the process and has explicit instructions to adjust for collective action, it is possible to make the process fair. See my contribution to the proposal. Ronnotel 17:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

We do not need a consensus that "RFA is broken" in order to consider ideas on how to improve the process. Friday (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

If not broke, why fix? M er cury   17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * "Broken" is too loaded a term. It's divisive and not useful to moving forward.  Wikipedia already depends on people being able to make small incremental improvements.  We do it with articles; no reason not to do it with processes too.  In fact I think you'll see this happens with processes all the time.  Insisting that people must demonstrate broken-ness in order to suggest something new is disruptive and unhelpful. Friday (talk) 17:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then let us be blunt: Nothing is broken. ArbCom works fine in handling this issue, aside from the process occasionally being a bit slow as Newyorkbrad says below. And since the process works as it should, there is no need for anything like this process.--Alabamaboy 18:07, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It might be a religious issue, but having some new recall procedure only makes sense if you don't believe arbcom has been doing an adequate job of this. Arbcom generally wants some pretty serious misbehavior to pull someone's bit.  Many people see the usefulness of some way short of arbcom to re-evaluate who is or isn't suited to the tools.  Friday (talk) 18:11, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It must be a religious issue, it keeps rising from the dead. (( 1 == 2 ) ? ((' Stop ') : (' Go ')) 18:18, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This may indicate that we need a better answer than "We can't do that! We've never done it before!" Friday (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I do not support expansion of the administrator recall process because many (I do not say all) prior recall attempts have been trollish or meritless in nature, even when commenced by users who met any reasonable edit-count or similar requirements, and there is little reason to believe that the process would not be misused again in the future. To the extent that arbitration is not seen as a viable means of removing or otherwise addressing administrators whose conduct is problematic, I think this is a function of the fact that arbitration cases often last too long and the process is overly complicated. That perception, if shared, warrants finding a way to streamline the arbitration process, not creating a new admin recall process which would have problems of its own. Newyorkbrad 17:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Newyorkbrad has hit the nail on the head here. - Crockspot 20:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

(after ec) I'm not sure that I agree that many of the serious prior recall attempts have been meritless. In fact I'd say one advantage of the voluntary system is that most of the attempts have not been meritless, because of the way the system is structured, and that the majority of meritless ones were rebuffed quickly and painlessly. (Some considerable thought went into it way back when to make it work that way) A mandatory system, even if apparently exactly identical, is much easier to game. Which is why I am against a mandatory system that applies selectively. ArbCom works. Now, if on the other hand what was proposed was a reconfirmation discussion once a year or whatever, which every admin had to go through, that would be different. ++Lar: t/c 20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

In looking for examples of cases where a non-arbcom de-adminship process may have been useful, we should not restrict ourselves to looking for bad admins who've not yet been desysopped by arbcom. In some cases, those who were de-adminned by arbcom might have done lost the bit sooner if there were some other way to do this. If you accept that these people were harming the project through poor use of the tools, then you will agree that the damage might have been stopped sooner if something like this were in place. One could also argue that the existence of some new means of bit removal might encourage sysops to behave themselves better, but there's probably no real evidence to be had, for or against this. In my mind, the biggest advantage of an easier bit-removal process is that it lets us be liberal in handing out the tools in the first place. What problem are we trying to solve? People are reluctant to hand out the tools because of the difficulty in removing them from those who misuse them. Friday (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * As much as I'm reluctant to name specific examples, perhaps it's useful here. Betacommand comes to mind.  He started showing bad judgment in use of the tools pretty much immediately.  Many people tried to get him back on track.  In the end, it took months and months of bad judgment and an Arbcom proceeding to get him to change his tune.  Arbcom doesn't scale particularly well.  We need to look for a solution that does scale.  Friday (talk) 20:58, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If the argument is that we need a process that is both quicker and more reliable than Arbcom, I don't see a community process as offering that. I think it can quite likely offer either benefit alone depending on how structured, but I don't see it offering both. To ensure a fair and reliable outcome, I expect significant restrictions, quorums, waiting periods and the like, would need to be imposed to prevent a group from gaming the system to retaliate against admins who may incur displeasure in the course of doing their jobs. I expect that in order to successfully avoid system-gaming, these restrictions would probably have to have enough teeth that they would tend to slow down the process and frustrate anyone who wants a method for achieving a desysopping quickly. Best, --Shirahadasha 23:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The Old Boy Network extant among certain admins will keep those in the clique with the tools in the face of an ArbCom which rarely removes admins who misuse their privileges. There needs to be a police action that can rapidly remove admin privileges.--Fahrenheit451 04:18, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Some members of the "community" have done spectacularly stupid things like voting with reasoning of "He's a good person; give him the bit" in RFAs involving former admins whose behavior was so bad that Arbcom desysoped them for good reason. So you'll forgive me if I trust "the community" about as far as I can throw them.  Let the crats do it; they were chosen for their judgment.  Friday (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Arbitration Committee (as you've indicated) already deals with problem administrators. Having bureaucrats also do so doesn't seem to offer anything.  Of course if the argument is that urgent desysopping is sometimes needed, that is already taken care of by the stewards (and I've no objection in principle to the bureaucrats on English Wikipedia also having steward powers). --Tony Sidaway 14:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the arbcom occasionally does this. Often after months and months of bad judgment and drama-causing foolishness, as pointed out above.  We rely on social pressure to help get editors and admins to undo their mistakes.  Why should we not have the benefit of social pressure on the crats to fix their mistakes?   I'm not saying I want this to be the only tool at our disposal; I just think it should be one of them. Friday (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Where is this great horde of administrators who have been desysopped "after months and months of bad judgment and drama-causing foolishness, as pointed out above"?


 * In trying to address that question myself, I've looked at recently desysopped editors:
 * User:Rama's Arrow (Hkelkar_2 case)
 * User:Geni and User:Yanksox (Daniel Brandt case)
 * User:Husnock (Husnock case)
 * The most surprising thing I found here was how far I had to go back to find that many desysoppings--you'd think we had dozens and dozens of admins who needed desysopping, but this evidently isn't the case.


 * It's certainly true that Geni had a history of bad administrator actions, which was noted by the arbitration committee at the time, but I'm really not convinced that he would have failed to pass a popularity contest. I suspect that any process like that currently proposed  would have been likely to permit Geni to keep his bit, for entirely the wrong reasons.  --Tony Sidaway 15:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Absence of a hoard is not a good reason to ignore a handful. Friday (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * In response to Ryan Postlethwaite's statement that Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship suggests quite a stong consensus for a community recall process" I'd suggest that 56 supporting out of those who have taken the trouble to edit that RFC hardly amounts to consensus, although clearly there is substantial support. --Tony Sidaway 14:28, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Tony, you say that the community would have supported Geni as an admin "for entirely the wrong reasons". It doesn't matter whether you or anyone thinks they are the wrong reasons. Wikipedia is controlled by the community, and the community should be able to make important decisions, whether you agree with them or not. If the community wants to desysop someone, then let them be desysopped. If the community wants someone to keep the bit, then let them keep the bit. Simple as that. Saying "let's not give the community more power because the community decides things "for entirely the wrong reasons" and we know better than they do" implies an attitude of elitism.  Melsaran  (talk) 15:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Setting limits on disruptive users is challenging enough without the threat of getting dragged into a long process by frivolous claims. Administrators are volunteers.  If we expose administrators to being pilloried every time a clique of five users is unhappy with their action, I predict serious harm to Wikipedia. Going through RFA once is enough.  The current arrangement with Arbcom seems to work and Arbcom members are selected by the community. - Jehochman  Talk 16:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I am against this on the grounds that desysopping should be a big deal. This new system is unnecessary because if something truly is a big deal, it should go to Arbcom. If someone is offended by an admin action, just remember that they are human and they make mistakes. It shouldn't ruin your life. J- ſtan TalkContribs 16:27, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Admining chart


As part of this analysis I made a plot of all logged user rights events, which consist nearly entirely of making new sysops. Dragons flight 01:14, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * NoSeptember might be interested in these numbers to update his statistical admin project. - Mailer Diablo 08:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Soumaysch
Can someone close this down please - I'm busy in RL right at this moment, haven't completed a full RFA close before, and haven't time to check that I do it correctly - and I don't want to upset the 'crats! The reasons for my actions will be clear if anyone checks the history of the user..... Pedro : Chat  10:42, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I deleted it. --Deskana (talk) 10:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, well, that was an easier route. Thanks Deskana. Pedro : Chat  10:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you have to make it this public? — Dorftrottel⁠ 07:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh? Anyone looking at the history of the RFA page will see the transclusion and removal of the RfA. Only admins can see the deleted page. And I hardly intended to make it "public" but I hardly intended not to either. What's the harm / problem here ? Pedro : Chat  07:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was kidding. I think that blankings and deletions of wikispace pages are getting a bit out of hand lately, and IIRC I gave Soumyash my support, so I'm naturally interested in what might have happened. However, since I don't need to know, I ironically commented to the contrary because I might never have noticed without this thread here. — Dorftrottel⁠ 07:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The point of course is that User:Soumyasch is not the same as User:Soumaysch. Whoever created the latter being very knowledgable of wiki in that they created the account, transcluded the genuine user page and talk, and then created an RfA with well thought out answers properly wikilinked. Just another troll at the end of the day though. Pedro :  Chat  08:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh. That... kind of explains it. Thanks. — Dorftrottel⁠ 16:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)