Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag

Uncomfortable with this
Not a single current bureaucrat was given the okay at WP:RFB to have this right.

Now I agree there is precedence to grant extra rights to user levels; Specifically that many admins including myself can now add things like rollback which we could not when we got +sysop. However this is a major change and also something that only a tiny few can undo on en.wp (1700 odd admins can re-add a reviewer flag - only 20 odd crats can re-add admin). I'm uncomfortable letting certain, particularly tenured but "don't-use-the-tools" 'crats, being given this ability. I'm also unconvinced that the stewards at meta are so stretched that this ability desperatly needs to be devolved (I do understand the issues regarding local rights logs). However I'm willing to be challenged. Pedro : Chat  19:54, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see your point about the more inactive crats, although to a point it extends to other crat activities as well. People might be equally uncomfortable with an old crat closing a controversial RfA after being inactive for a few years. I don't see the potential for abuse as much of a problem -- any request for desysopping an account will be public anyway and there are plenty of active crats to revert if something goes wrong. (Not to mention stewards if there's an actual emergency.)
 * It could also be argued that local crats are better suited for handling desysop requests within policy. For example, the ~250 inactive admins that got their sysop bit removed without notification -- we'll never know if that would have happened had the request been placed at WP:BN instead of SRP, but I'd say the chances of not being aware of the details of the relevant local policy are lower for local bureaucrats than for stewards.
 * The stewards being "too busy" is not an issue really IMHO. I'm sure the stewards will be happy to continue performing enwiki's desysoppings if the community so desires. SRP requests, especially uncontroversial removals, are actually usually handled very quickly. Jafeluv (talk) 20:36, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with all of Jafeluv's points, and I would add this: Discomfort with change is a common human trait, so my challenge to Pedro would be to ask yourself whether that discomfort has a solid basis. I would give you some particular questions to consider. First, what specifically are you afraid of 'crats doing with this ability, and what is the realistic likelihood of those fears coming to pass? Second, leaving aside the fact that this is a change, if we were designing the bureaucrat role from scratch, is there a positive reason you would want to disallow them from unchecking the admin flag? Don't feel that you need to answer right away since the RfC is theoretically still a draft, though I don't expect it to change in any way that would eliminate your general objections. But I think any objection that expresses a discomfort with change should address those questions. --RL0919 (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's why we have RFCs after all, isn't it? To discuss such changes. But as was pointed out multiple times, the question whether crats should be able to do so is separate from the question when they are allowed to do it. Your example with rollback is a good one: Admins were given the ability to hand out rollback but they still have to follow the applicable policy when doing so. This is no different. But I'm happy to discuss this if and when the RFCs are actually open. Doing so here just fragments the discussion further. Regards  So Why  20:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You say this is a major change. I disagree. This is simply correcting a mistake that was made when bureaucrat right was created. You see, every logged action on Wikipedia is reversible. Delete/undelete, protect/unprotect, flag/unflag etc. The only one that is the exception is the ability to remove the adminship right. Now, just because it was not available when the bureaucrat passed RFB, it obviously does not mean they are incapable of using it. You even give the example of rollback; admins have this ability, because they are admins not bureaucrats. They can reverse this right on a whim; bureaucrats would only be able to desysop on self-request (or possibly by arbcom or emergency, but those details can be figured out). To be honest, if they can be trusted to close RFAs and grant the right, they are trustworthy enough to revoke it on request. As RL0919 mentions, there is no realistic likelihood of abuse here. When was the last abusive bureaucrat? I'm not saying there has never been, or ever will be, but it is unlikely. AD 21:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * In any case, we're giving the ok right now for them to have it. AD 21:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * correcting a mistake that was made when bureaucrat right was created – It was not a mistake.
 * The only one that is the exception is the ability to remove the adminship right. This is not only one exception. Ruslik_ Zero 16:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You're wrong on both counts there. AD 17:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The second exception is removal of bureaucrat rights. Ruslik_ Zero 18:14, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Which amounts to the same thing: bureaucrats cannot remove user rights that they give. AD 18:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of current admins (including Pedro and I) weren't given RevDel for example, one of the most controversial expansions of the admin toolset in recent times, at our RfAs, but there has been little controversy over admins having it (as opposed to individual instances of misuse). It's also worth pointing out that the 'crats who went through RfB a few years ago didn't really have approval, so to speak, to close the kind of RfAs we have in 2011, which are very different to those before ~2008. HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   13:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the revdel analogy is appropriate. Times change and so do policies.  I can't even imagine managing a network of grandfathered users based on the date of receipt for their advanced permissions.  I hope that when someone gets through RfA/RfB we aren't just quizzing them on current policy but judging their ability to learn and understand a changing community. Protonk (talk) 00:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree: administrators have had the ability to remove individual revisions for ages by simply deleting the whole page history and then restoring selected revisions. The revdel userright made this significantly easier (and thus more common), but it was not a completely new ability like this proposal intends to establish.  -- Lear's Fool 02:40, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Several aspects of RevDel are completely new: we can hide log entries now, for example, and we can hide edit summaries without also deleting the accompanying revision. Ucucha 02:45, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What Ucucha said. But also the ease of use of the tool meant scope for deletion was raised potentially.  Where before we might not want to delete and restore a popular talk page or article we can remove individual revisions with ease--the old deletion policy was no longer sufficient to cover this tool even though we could literally delete the same material before.  Or take any number of community changes.  Adding rollback or any of the other userrights meant that admins could grant rights which did not exist before or were previously bundled with the bit.  I would be concerned if the policy being debated were open ended.  It isn't.  There is very little leave for crats to act independently of arbcom or some automatic process. Protonk (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Protonk, your comment above about evaluating RfA/RfB as the sensibility, perceptiveness, and ability to learn rather than just quizzing an editor about current policy is one of the most profound I've seen in a while. I agree 100% that that is what we should do.  I've got to say though, I've seen more than one RfA tank because of say .. a A7 CSD technicality.  Perhaps not directly relevant to the topic at hand, but indirectly I think it's a suggestion that "no big deal" is in fact a bigger deal than we'd like to admit.  I can easily see a "local" who is familiar with not only current policy, but also familiar with the various actors and disputes as well.  In such a case where things escalated into blocks, and then unblocks ... it's just very easy for me to envision a well intensioned crat stepping in and yanking away the admin. bit from someone.  I've seen it said that we don't have enough admins., and/or that we have trouble keeping what we do have.  Now perhaps this entire idea of giving the removal ability will help move us back toward the "no big deal"; but I think it also possible that it could also bring with it some political and perceived power structure views that could down the road ignite a major drama fest.  I hope I'm wrong about it, but I do honestly think it's a possibility. I've seen fine editors leave over blocks.  And I suspect it possible that we could see some fine admins leave over such a thing too. — Ched :  ?  23:34, 12 July 2011 (UTC)


 * At HJ ... are you sure you don't have RevDel? I thought it was just part of the standard admin. pack of tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ched Davis (talk • contribs) 23:37, July 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * What HJ meant was that he and other admins weren't given that tool at their RFAs, i.e. it wasn't among the tools that the community evaluated whether he was capable and trustworthy of using because it was added in later after his RFA. The parenthetical phrase "one of the most controversial expansions of the admin toolset in recent times" may be confusing you; take it out of his statement and it should be clearer. :) jcgoble3 (talk) 00:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Vote
Any chance to open a neutral vote section for this? I am interested, but I cannot decide myself on this subject. I understand that it is an important subject, but I feel that neither voting for or against is the right answer to this issue.--Christophe Krief (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You should be able to raise your concerns in the General Discussion section to get feedback on them. --RL0919 (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I was not willing to start a debate on hierarchy as part of this voting page... I was just looking for an opportunity to vote as I feel. But if you insist for my opinion, I think that on Wikipedia (a civilised and democratic location), power should be given or withdrawn by voting rather than by one man's decision, whatever is rank... For this reason I would vote neutral if I had the opportunity to do so. I am not opposed to the actual proposal for removing administrators' powers, I am opposed to the system that allows individuals to give and/or withdraw power. The gift or withdrawal of power should be a collective decision using a vote like the one subject of this page.--Christophe Krief (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That is a very good point. If admins have to go through an RfA where the community can express their views, the same should apply to the withdrawal of tools. Once again, it is not the B'crats who give the power but the community. The formers' role is merely an accessory. --Phagopsych (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Regardless of the process used to decide that a user should lose adminship, it is hard to imagine a system that does not comprise an individual actually flipping the switch. And that is what bureaucrats will be doing if this proposal passes—flipping a switch if there is a community-sanctioned reason to do so. They will not have the power to remove admins at will; if a bureaucrat decides to remove an admin without a good reason, they quite likely won't stay a bureaucrat for long. Ucucha 01:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Existing Bureaucrat + Steward = New Bureaucrat ????
How difficult is it to grant (existing) bureaucrat rights and (existing) steward rights at the same time? Rather than generally granting these rights in a package (as proposed), the current status certainly leaves more flexibility to whoever grants the rights to decide on a case-by-case basis if the person matches both requirements. The proposal, if passed, will result in less flexibility and a higher risk: if there is just one bureaucrat with the rights as proposed turning berserk (see the Norway massacre), the harm to admins could be quite disastrous. Shenhemu (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Disastrous perhaps, but only for a short period. As has been pointed out before, bureaucrats' existing ability to create additional admins is surely a greater security risk than their ability to remove admins would be. It is certainly technically possible to turn on certain userrights in a more fine-grained way, but in my view it would only complicate matters. Ucucha 01:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Technical question
We have discussed same ability in Ru-Wiki and supported it. Can smb suggest where on Meta or other project we must ask to turn it on? Alex Spade (talk) 14:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll need to file a bug in bugzilla. Ucucha (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)