Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 194

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 190

←

Archive 192

→

Motion to close de-adminship process proposal

A 'Community De-Adminship' process proposal has been under consideration and development for some time.

A motion has been raised to declare the proposal discussion closed and retire the proposal. A vote on the motion is underway on the proposal's discussion page. Participation is welcomed, encouraged, and requested at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC#Motion to close. Shubinator (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

RfA History question

Has there ever been, to anyone's knowledge, an RfA that has ran for the full week without getting ANY support !votes at all? If not, I think this RfA stands a good chance of doing that. ArcAngel (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of any in recent times, since they are usually SNOW closed before (you can check Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological) yourself of course). The candidate can choose (as they seem to have done here) to want it to be open for a full week but the crats are the "guardians" (so to speak) of RFA and a request like that which clearly cannot succeed can be SNOWed even against the candidate's wishes by a crat, which I think it should. Regards So Why 09:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, SNOW closes by other users than crats were not standard practice in 2005 since WP:SNOW itself was only created in December 2005. Wikipedia:Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)/2005 lists as equivalent withdrawn candidacies by crats but there were and are much fewer crats so it's quite logical that some ran for 7 days that would have been withdrawn by a crat if they had noticed it. Regards So Why 15:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It will be supported, I can more or less guarantee that. GARDEN 15:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

And Garden was right. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 16:46, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Unbelievable. That is, without a doubt, the most stupefying !vote I have ever seen on an RfA in my time here on EN. ArcAngel (talk) 18:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

FatMan is not exactly known as a real serious guy, he's just having a little joke. For all intents and purposes there are still no supporters. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

RfB just got a little harder ... "What would be the pros and cons of closing WGB's RFA over his objections?" - Dank (push to talk) 18:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's a hard question to answer in an RFB. The whole point of WP:SNOW is to avoid going through a process when it's crystal clear what the result will be and it was crystal clear in this case (and thus biblio15 has closed it now for that very reason). The only pro in not closing it early is that it respects the candidate's wishes but a candidate's wishes alone cannot be something that prevents a crat to close an RFA early. Regards So Why 19:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I asked at WP:BN for a crat snow-close, and it was done quite quickly, so it doesn't seem there was much question of the correct course of action. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Hiberniantears/AdministratorCommunityFeedback

Those who know me realize that I don't care for admin recall. This should not be confused with my desire to encourage the individual growth of all users, as editors, admins, or anything else. To that end, I have created in my user space User:Hiberniantears/AdministratorCommunityFeedback in order to solicit the views of the community on my performance as an admin. Participate if you wish, ignore me if you want. Anything and everything is most welcome. Hiberniantears (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The silence is painful folks. Trying to come up with something constructive, and all I get is the silent treatment... Come on, pull it together. Hiberniantears (talk) 06:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The issue is, for good or for ill, that the project has grown so much that many of us do not really have a good idea about each others' work if we don't orbit similar topics or administrative areas. I will try and review your body of work, Hiberniantears, sometime this week, and give you feedback (work and other responsibilities permitting). -- Avi (talk) 07:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Also some of us are currently away from our highspeed internet connections and normal PCs due to the holiday season (I'm currently only able to log on via PCs that use Microsoft). Ϣere SpielChequers 12:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you only want feedback from other admins, or can other editors leave their views too? I'd also agree with WereSpielChequers' comments - it's a holiday, and many of us are spending time with our families! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Feedback from everyone, and I'm thinking that I'll keep this open ended. Hiberniantears (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe post a note at WP:ADREV? — Ched : ? 15:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I posted a note at WikiProject Administrator as well. I even asked User:LessHeard vanU post a note over at Wikipedia Review. I'm casting a wide net, but really just intend to keep the page available as a general feedback line specific to my admin work. Maybe a year or so down the road it will have aggregated enough feedback to be a useful tool for self-improvement. I'm not interested in feedback on my editing. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Harej running for BAG

This is due notification that I have been nominated to become a member of the Bot Approvals Group. My nomination is here. @harej 05:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

!Voting in RfAs

It seems that a crowd mentality often evolves during these RfAs, and that people's !votes may be biased by the residing momentum built up by previous !votes. In order to prevent this, why don't we !vote in secret? I'm not sure how it would be organised. One idea might be to send !votes, via email, to a bureaucrat or bureaucrats. They could judge the consensus and then act upon it. After the !voting process is over the !votes would be made public. There needs to be some transparency in the process to avoid corruption. Are there places on the Wiki that only bureaucrats and the like can access? I don't know. Any way, it just an idea. What do you think? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 23:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

See WP:PEREN#Adminship for links which may cover that proposal; in any case it's unlikely to occur, even if it's not exactly covered on that page. If it did occur, there would still be discussions, and all the mud would be slung in the discussion area, with the !voting still happening. If, however, consensus for such a change could be achieved, there is a method to do it: SecurePoll. Frank | talk 23:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

RFA is a discussion. !voting in secret would remove the discussion, i.e. make adminship a vote. Regards So Why 23:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of the virtue of RfA is that it is a public discussion - and if someone makes a 'oppose' !vote for a petty reason, then often someone will make a 'support' vote to counter that! Yes, it is possible for a 'stampede' effect to happen - but that can happen in favour of the candidate as well as against them. I would strongly object to a secret ballot for RfAs, as it would make it a straight forward vote, as opposed to the discussion we currently have.

I think you need to bear in mind that the closing 'crat will look at the arguments, and try to work out consensus: if a lot of the opposes or supports are "per xyz" with no further details, they should discount the strength of these !votes. It is possible for there to be (numerically) 60% support and 40% oppose, but with a consensus of support - if most of the supporters gave clear (and different) rationales for their support, but the opposers all opposed for one criteria only, then the consensus could well be support rather than the numerical oppose.

Finally, even with the secret polling that has taken place, there has been much discussion about whether this was a correct way to proceed - and many editors would say that these should have been held along similar lines to how Rfxs occur - with oppose/support/neutral !votes and discussion.

Time will tell whether secret polling happens on Rfx in future... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If votes are "biased" by momentum from previous votes, then apparently some of their rationales where convincing to others. That's exactly the point of an RFA discussion.--Atlan (talk) 23:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes and no. If this were an ideal world then you'd be right. But some people don't read every single comment, and are influenced by the sheer volume of numbers. Are you telling me that you would read each and every comment made in an RfA with over 100 !votes? ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 00:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I tend to ignore most discussion and form an opinion based on the edits of the candidate. More often than not I'll post questions to a candidate and the responses to those questions will weigh into my decision. There are times where I will agree with certain statements made (whether support, oppose, or neutral), but I almost never allow someone else's !vote to influence mine. ArcAngel (talk) 00:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dr Dec, are you telling us that you would check each and every edit made by a candidate with over 50,000 edits? Badger Drink (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

ArcAngel: you do and that's good; that's exactly how it should be done. But I can guarantee that there is a significant minority of people that !vote solely on the ground of what has been writen by other users in their !votes. Again, as I said to Atlan, in an ideal world - where everyone goes through the candidate's edit history fastidiously - then there would be no need to even think of anonymous !voting. What is true is that the RfA procedure is not fit for purpose. (You only have to watch an RfA evolve; it's like a bear pit sometimes.) This was just an idea off the top of my head to fix a problem. It's a difficult one though since the ones that are likely to reply are those that take RfA seriously and are those that have done their homework on the candidate. For those people there is no need for this proposal. ~~ Dr Dec (Talk) ~~ 17:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessing a candidate takes time, but even when there are over 100 participants I find it rarely takes long to work out why an RFA support level is rapidly changing. Look for the diff supported arguments and who people are opposing per.... There are many thing wrong with the RFA system. But IMHO moving it from a discussion to a straight vote is one of the few perennially proposed changes that would actually make the system worse rather than better. Ϣere SpielChequers 18:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that !voting based on who votes for who shows a lack of doing ones homework. However !voting based on the facts presented by another !voter is perfectly acceptable. If I come to an RFA of a user with thousands of edits, and someone has already brought out in the oppose section a pattern of recent personal attacks backed by diffs, or a number of recent CSD taggings that show a clear lack of understanding of deletion policy, why should I spend the time clicking through thousands of additional edits. My oppose would be based on the user's edits even though another editor did the legwork--Cube lurker (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I lot of the confusion/weight/pile-on effect I think comes the length of added discussion on the average Oppose opinion versus the Supports. A lot of perfectly legitimate questions about a !vote either way are asked, but it seems most users are immediately defensive about their opinion and seem more eager to blare on about something often semi-relevant to the RfA (at best) versus just state their logic or admit a possible misunderstanding. If a certain opinion is more hotly contested, other users are more likely to look into why, and usually that means digging through every last detail in the "Oppose" section and not reading a word of any of the "Supports". The text space taken up it by itself very intimidating, and that one diff of 10,000 dug up as slander becomes more important and weighted than gushing comments on the other 9,999. Use of WP:WEIGHT seems to never come up at RfA despite a lot of talking points where it may well should (again, applicable to any of Support/Neutral/Oppose that are given without reason or are 100% factually false. cont.

Supports often don't need much further explanation since the entire nomination gives that case already, where any oppose !vote is subject to much more detailed questioning. The following discussion, if reasonable, can give the perceived weight of that one oppose statement overpowers a score of supports. Is looking specifically at diffs posted without more research okay? I'd say yes, specifically on civility or BLP issues, but for more subjective interpretation of actions it's absurd to think that someone will link 50 diffs that contradict the one possible anomaly. Passion means more weight, right?! A lot easier to gush forth passion from a one-off questionable edit than research even a few counter-examples. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Looking at who people are opposing per is often a quick way to find the argument or evidence that has changed the debate. There are some active RFA !voters whose judgement I would trust to give a clean bill of health to an aspect of a candidate's editing, but I don't vote oppose without reviewing the proffered evidence. As for the length of debate after an oppose, aside from the times when people respond to the discussion by amending or clarifying their position, I think that the fact that there is discussion can reduce the weight of a !vote, especially if the refutations are clear and pertinent. Ϣere SpielChequers 10:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not possible to look at every edit of a candidate- at least not one with a snowball's chance. Such candidates have several thousand edits- sometimes tens of thousands like Ronhjones- everyone that bothers to look through diffs either a)spot-checks, b)suffers from recentism and checks the most recent, c)checks by namespace, d) remembers some diff that struck them and goes looking for it or e)some variation or combination of those four. One especially bad diff can torpedo an RfA very quickly, and allowing discussion over opposes saves duplication of work in such cases. Discussion also can save a candidacy, is a diff that looks bad on first glance is actually appropriate. One advantage of the "discussion that looks like a vote" over a straight vote with a discussion attached is that people actually have to glance at the discussion- if only to find where to put there 'vote'. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that discussion can cut either way is one of its most important aspects. People change in every direction, occasionally even going back and forth. Seeing weakly argued comments on either side can actually send people to the other side (e.g., too many "why not" comments in support, or a "she doesn't do it my way" idiosyncratic oppose). And the candidate can improve or hurt their own chances during the discussion. A candidate can inflate the opposition by getting snippy and defensive during the discussion, or defuse it by giving clueful and considerate responses. This dynamic can sometimes produce odd results -- occasionally a candidate may get more support from a well-done apology for past mistakes than they would have gotten with a clean record -- but in an environment where candidates may be little-known to some of the RFA !voters going in, discussion is essential to the process. --RL0919 (talk) 16:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I would have to agree with Brad about the difference issue. Sometimes when looking back, people don't notice any wrongdoing partly because the candidate has walken on glass the past few thousand edits, and anything potentially imflamatory has been covered up by nice things. This is both good and bad, but it is also a sign of the times. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again there are admin acting improperly here

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

There is already a very long thread at WP:ANI on this matter, users who wish to comment further should do so there. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Extended content

This is getting ridiculous how they refuse to even allow people to apply for this. They are NOT following the guidelines and with that being the case the pages needs to be edited a lot. I think it is about time these wiki pages start being edited to properly reflect how the admin actually makes decisions. I will take this on myself personally and will begin to properly edit these pages.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what do you hope to accomplish with your RfA. You know full well what the outcome will be. It's causing more disruption than it should. Stop walking the razor's edge. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to be an admin. Why can I not be one? That's all I want to accomplish is to become an admin. This is all. I am not trying to "disrupt" anything. I am not doing anything wrong and I am not bothering anyone. I am a very good editor and I would like to contribute and help more and I would like the chance to become an admin. So I have applied. I have followed all site rules and done nothing wrong. However, I keep getting insults hurled at me and threatened with punishment. I have looked and nowhere on the site does it say you can be insulted or punished for applying. Also the site pages and guidelines are full of errors, extremely misleading and also do not match with the actual site process. That means this site has a huge problem with how the wiki pages are edited. They need to be properly edited to properly reflect the actual site process. I am fully capable of doing this and I will be starting a new site project on this. The pages will be edited properly to show how the actual process is and if it needs to be included that you can be banned for just applying then it will be. Users need to know they can be banned simply for applying since that actually can happen apparently. It is not fair, it is actually extremely UNFAIR to punish editors for applying without it being properly explained on the project pages that this can happen to them. This site needs to be A LOT more civil and A LOT more fair on these issues than it currently is.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

People have expectations of administrators. You don't meet the expectations. You therefore cannot be an administrator. It's just like applying for a job. If you don't have what the boss wants, you don't get the job. --Rs chen 7754 07:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Try operating with some civility yourself, Wiki Greek Basketball. I know, because I lost adminship a year ago out of incivility. I checked over your record of contributions and as recently as a week ago, you were hurling insults at everyone and you got blocked for it. I won't be getting my admin privileges back -- not a year after the incident, not EVER -- so you shouldn't get admin privileges now, or ever. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 07:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec x2)If you want things on the site to change, I suggest taking your own advice and being more civil. Starting a new RfA less than two weeks after the first one failed miserably is completely disruptive and a waste of other editors' time. All of your complaining about how unfair the site is, or how unfairly you're being treated is likely to garner nothing except contempt and annoyance from other editors (see all the oppose opinions in both your RfAs for examples of this). The RfA process is working properly regardless of whether you like the outcome of that process. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Wiki Greek Basketball, I suggest you drop the stick now. Many editors have tried to explain to you in different forums, but you have just attacked and refused to listen. At best, I suggest you initiate an editor review for yourself and act on the constructive feedback you receive. -SpacemanSpiff 07:38, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably best if you drop the stick and walk away, and then go back to article work. You've showed that you cannot help but to be disruptive in Wikipedia's internal areas, so unless you want to end up banned, it's best you stop now. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 07:40, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning that disruption is cause for a ban. Personally, I see your recent history as not altogether unlike trolling. -- Pak aran 07:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As I stated, it is a fact that the site pages are not properly edited to reflect the actual process of becoming an admin. Therefore they need to be corrected. A new site project needs to be started to fix this. I will lead this project and go through all the proper channels to do so. The site pages will be corrected to show the true site process. For example, that applying is considered "pointy", "disruptive", etc. and that you can be banned simply for applying. That applying is considered "uncivil" and that you can be banned for this. It MUST be explained thoroughly and properly on the site pages so that editors understand this BEFORE they apply and that they have all the proper warnings ahead of time. And if other members do not like that, this is there personal issue of breaking site rules on etiquette.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop acting stupid, no one said applying for RFA was uncivil, it's your comments that were/are uncivil, and that's what got you blocked. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 08:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I will start the new project and fix all the problems. You can either help or not. But your personal insults should stop.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And stop yours. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I have made no personal insults. Coffee is the one that constantly and consistently does that.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Then keep it that way. This is the first step to actually be constructive on here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(od) I have no opinion on this matter one way or the other, but could you guess please use an edit summary for this section when adding comments to it? This is like third time I've come here to investigate a so called problem with improper behavior and found only a disgruntled user. It would make the RC patrolling this morning a little easier. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 08:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've started an ANI thread on WGB's pattern of behavior [1] for those interested. -- Pak aran 08:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So once again you get insulted, there is improper handling of the process as compared to how it is stated in the pages on the site and then if you complain about it or say you will correct it (as it should have been done long ago) you get reported for abuse. This site needs some serious revisions on its policies and practices to say the least.Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 09:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you seem to be trying to prove that through your actions. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 13:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to manually archive this entire thread as I fail to see any bearing on the Request for Adminship process. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Just a mop and bucket

It's been a long time since I was seriously active, but as an moderately old-school user and admin I have to say that the modern RfA process is completely insane. 12 questions? Follow-ups? Minutae on policies? And many of these questions look like they're just part of the paperwork, with no thought or care whatsoever — there's even boilerplate acceptable answers. Many of the other ones aren't relevant at all to the topic at hand. Seriously, folks, it's just a mop and a bucket. The famous Jimbo quote appears to be completely forgotten.

Of course, maybe I'm missing something from my absence, but please keep this in mind, people. Remember what the point of this whole thing is: to get reasonably qualified and careful people some extra tools. RfA isn't there to grill people and it's totally unreasonable to expect them to know even half of the policies on Wikipedia. And I thought it was getting bad in my time.

Obviously this doesn't affect me at all, but I still do care about this project and maybe a few of you will take a second look at where this is going. Kyle Barbour 01:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of RfA. (I do envy you old wikipedians, I sure would have liked to run for RfA in 2003...) (X! · talk) · @235 · 04:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the best post ever made on this project. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

... except the title is wrong. It should be Just a mop and a bucket and a big stick. Wikipedia went wrong when it confused maintenance with control. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

We have a cheatsheet for RfA now? Oh dear... —Dark 06:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed a great post, and gives me perspective on an era of Wikipedia I regret missing. Jusdafax 07:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Malleus: The only problem with this idea is that you're totally wrong. It's not "control". Admins do not have more authority. Blocks are totally reversible, easily challenged, and usually very quickly resolved if incorrect. Protections are exactly the same. Nothing an admin can do is irreversible: the closest thing to a counterexample is fixing cut and paste moves, which is extremely difficult, but not impossible to reverse. But that is not exactly a hot spot for rogue admins or whatever, the admins you're worried about don't care about that kind of stuff.

Don't get me wrong — I'm not getting on your case. There are serious offenders, but serious offenders can and have been desysopped. If you're really concerned about abuse, support community recall proposals and drive them forward. I think they're a good thing. But don't make RfA insane and prevent 99% of the potentially awesome admins from getting the mop and bucket, which, as I've said, completely lacks any flamethrowing capacity, just because you're concerned about one or two power maniacs who would likely be desysopped in a year anyway. Kyle Barbour 13:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you must be inhabiting an alternate universe, one in which being an administrator is "no big deal". --Malleus Fatuorum 13:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read what I said? I just tried to talk to you about why being an admin is not a big deal. You haven't explained why you don't agree, however. What I can say is the the director of this project also happens to live in the same universe I do, so it's one that's probably worth paying a little attention to. Kyle Barbour 13:55, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I did read it, yes. I don't have a big hammer to shut up those who're saying things I don't like though, so reflect on that. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

This is needlessly antagonistic. Kyle Barbour 02:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think Malleus means that adminship is a big deal in reality while you explained why it shouldn't be. Let's face it, in theory, as you say, adminship is no big deal and everyone with a good track record should get it without problems but in practice it has become a big deal. For example, admins should not have more authority but in reality they do. People see that it's only a small group and how hard it is to join that group and they will automatically assume that this group thus consists of "better" users. Regards So Why 14:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right, that's pretty much what I meant. What I'd forgotten though is that nothing said here makes the slightest difference to anything. Waste of time even discussing it. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Many admins are very experienced and have done a lot of work, and yes, they resultingly get more respect and attention and should. And, to prove the point, there are other editors who also have that seniority that aren't or weren't admins because they didn't want to be and they also got that respect and attention (not people who have been around since forever and are difficult to work with, but great editors who just didn't want to do admin work). You've got to discriminate between respect gained from work, demonstrated intelligence and integrity, and so on, from authority just because they're an admin. I don't see much of the latter and never have. Case in point: I'm an admin, what authority do I have? Can I block random people and delete random pages if I wanted to? Of course not. The perception of authority is a perception and nothing more. Just stop making RfA crazy. It's in the hands of the people who participate. Kyle Barbour 02:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Malleus is correct, there is a reason we humorously call it the "mop-and-flamethrower™"; whether the mop should be separated from the flamethrower is a completely separate question. -- Avi (talk) 07:27, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Per last July:

Admin WITH clue
Admin WITHOUT clue

-- Avi (talk) 07:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I only went through RfA this year, and I don't remember mine being anywhere near as interegatory as the current version. This is a very good post I think, thanks to Kyle Barber for highlighting it again. Ged UK 08:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason it became like this is that many !voters have directly or indirectly experienced what can happen if someone unsuitable passed an RFA too "easily" and then had to be desysopped using a quite complicated process and as such they now try to be more careful when trying to determine whether a candidate is suitable for this "job". But if you think RFA has become crazy, just take a look at the recent RFBs. Jimbo called cratship a "dull technical position" and we have managed to make it sound like some kind of a demigod-position. Rising standards can be a good thing when they try to prevent unsuitable candidates from getting into a position where they can do serious damage (large scale deletions, blocking people they don't like, protecting pages because of WP:OWN etc.) but there is a fine line between standards that benefit the project and those that harm it by preventing otherwise capable candidates from passing RFA (for, as Kyle says it, adminship-unrelated reasons). Regards So Why 11:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If the rising standards is to prevent the wrong folks from getting the tools to minimize the risk of them making large scale deletions, blocking people they don't like, protecting pages because of WP:OWN etc. then the tougher standards are wonderful. However, this can be determined by looking at the nominee's contributions to the encyclopedia and interactions with other editors. My answer to the what's-the difference-between-a-block-and-a-ban question caused an uproar. I had never been blocked, no one ever considered blocking me, I never considered blocking anyone else, and I didn't know there was a distinction, big deal. I'm not here to whine about my failed RfA, but to agree with Kyle Barbour that the recent trend is out of control. J04n(talk page) 11:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, RfB is crazy and was even in my time. However, the problem with what you're saying about rising standards is that none of the things you say cause "serious damage" actually cause serious damage. Look, when I first came on Wikipedia I got really pissed off about someone deleting a whole bunch of pages without due process (if you're reading through that, my username used to be Blackcap). Guess what? They were all restored and everything was fine, even without the RfC. If you just calm down and hash it out like reasonable human beings then it's all going to be O.K.

So mass deletions aren't really a problem, because they're totally resolvable. The things that are actually serious problems are AfD, because it's permanent, newbie-biting, and mean; edit wars and people being dicks, because they make people leave; the lack of established editorial standards, because they lead to deletionist/inclusionist wars and so on; and the insane ever-burgeoning bureaucratic nightmare of rules, rather than people just being kind and understanding and writing articles based on what should be clearly established editorial standards and the policy trifecta. And guess what? None of those things have anything to do with adminship. So again, adminship shouldn't be a big deal, isn't a big deal, and people's attitudes about it being that way have to change. Kyle Barbour 13:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sadly I fear that incorrect deletions are a problem as not every newbie comes back if their initial experience here is negative. However much of the damage is done by incorrect speedy deletion tags before an admin gets involved. I also agree that adminship is becoming a big deal - if only out of scarcity. Barely half our 1700 admins are still active, the days when we had a thousand active admins are now well over a year ago, and those admins we have are mostly very very experienced editors, as few of our admins have accounts created in the last three years. I fear this is creating a widening gulf between admins and other users, as many of our editors see adminship as simply not an option for them. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm planning on running soon, but I feel a ton of aprehension about what could go wrong. I'm a positive person, but I feel people who feel less positive about an RFA are likely to leave. The whole thing of RFA though is not as bad as it could be as it only consists of 15 or so questions, and then people just pile on to others. In response to the RFB problem, I feel that people are really elevating them to a god-like status. When you look at it, there is a pyramid of hiearchy here, and the bureaucrats occupy an ever smaller slice of the top. I can see why people are arguing against lowering the standards, but maybe we should conduct a straw poll or something to see what those in the community feel about this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfB bar –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I remember asking about that a month or so ago and getting that. I also talked about re-running it, and that too was shot down. Oh well, thanks Julian. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

So long as "janitors" have the power to block other editors, your position is not only incredible but also dishonest. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Malleus, at least mostly. This whole "just a janitor", "just a mop and bucket" description is just unrealistic. It's true that quite a bit of administrative work really is just cleanup, probably even the vast majority of admin actions carried out in any given day, stuff like blocking obvious vandals and deleting articles like "FUCK HEIMSTERN!!!". But there's always that other side: the controversial actions like blocks of established contributors (can anyone seriously claim the recent block of Giano, for example, was a custodial action?) and deletions of borderline cases, both in terms of CSD and XFD. Not to mention the ArbCom's discretionary sanctions, which allow administrators to levy sanctions in certain disputed content areas. And there's no way to ensure that an administrator candidate will only carry out non-controversial actions if granted the tools.

Essentially what I'm saying is that it's time to leave behind the concept that adminship is "no big deal" or "just a mop and bucket". Quite honestly, that's tripe. At one time it probably was more valid. It's not anymore. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

This misses the point, but whatever. It's your Wikipedia, make it what you want it to be. Kyle Barbour 03:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

You're being very hostile, which doesn't make sense since no one's attacking you. Your accusation that I'm lying also makes no sense and simply isn't true. If you're actually interested in having a reasonable conversation about this based on mutual respect, let me know and we can do that. Until then, however, I don't see how we can talk about this. Kyle Barbour 03:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

If you haven't been active much for the last while, you may have missed noticing that Malleus is habitually hardline and often, dare I say, a little brusque on this page. This is not Malleus being hostile, this is Malleus being polite. ;) MF and others here do have a certain point though, adminship is a big deal. Not because it should be a big deal, but it has become that way. The words and actions of admins gain importance beyond what they should really have in the eyes of the general editorship, you will often see talk page discussions where people say "admin So-and-So agrees with me", even in areas where the admin bit is not relevant. Partly this is because admins as a group have more editing and policy experience on average, but indeed a large component is that admins have the power to block. Less experienced editors use this implied threat against each other in disputes, and defer to admin opinions even in content areas where a more experienced non-admin would say "I don't give a damn if they're an admin". And admins who aren't bad enough to get turfed can still cause a lot of problems, even if their actions are reversible. I fully agree that adminship is no big deal - and yet I would also say that it is a big deal, like it or not.

A long list of RFA questions shouldn't be that big of a problem of itself. An admin candidate really should be able to read a few policy pages and understand them quickly enough to give a decent synopsis on any particular point. Where the problems comes in is where we see !opposes based on "failed to close parenthesis in answer to Q#12, sub-part b)ii", rather than an overall evaluation. But proper vetting and forming an overall impression is a lot harder than jumping on one particular point, so we end up with this incredible detail just to make sure nothing is getting missed. Fixing the RFA problem is harder than spotting the problem though. Franamax (talk) 07:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I perfectly agree. On most 2.0 websites that have different contribution powers (such as blogs, forums, etc), the words of the admins do have more power than the vox populi. Wikipedia is the exception. Admins: How many times have you been asked to have a user blocked because of a tiny content disagreement? I have, and quite a lot. These people assume that Wikipedia admins are like forum admins. They assume that we can make arbitrary blocks as we wish, because we are the all powerful admins. They do not think that we have a binding set of policies that will get us into a load of trouble if blocked. The experienced user will not make this mistake, as they're more used it it. Additionally, go find someone editing Wikipedia anonymously in real life. Go up to them and say, "Hi, I'm an admin". 9 times out of 10, they'll say something to the extent of "you're one of those evil admins? Don't block me...." There seems to be an inherent fear of admins. It's a shame, really, because many people stay away from Wikipedia because they're afraid the "evil admins" will delete their article. (Don't get me wrong, we do quite a lot... ;)) Many of those people have valid contributions that we've just lost. What more, there are valid adminship candidates who refuse to run for RfA because they're afraid that they'll be seen as another "evil admin".

It may not seem like a huge deal to us admins. However, the vast majority of the people who are aware of Wikipedia's existence either look up to us admins, or have a deep hatred for us. (X! · talk) · @725 · 16:23, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Well the problem with people's articles being deleted by "evil admins", has more to do with the CSD process than anything. Now, adminship might be "not a big deal", but it's not adminship that really matters, it's tenure. I think the title "admin" might at least give some newbies clarity that there is a structure on this site, but in all reality it's whether or not you can use common sense, and whether the community trusts you to act per that common sense. As long as you aren't using the tools, the term "adminship" has nothing to do with your actions, you're just a trusted editor with time on this site. Adminship isn't a big deal, and it should never be looked at like it is, but being a trusted editor is. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 16:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you guys are probably hated because the average person comes in here without a whole lot of policy knowledge, create a page, see it deleted, and hate the administrators who deleted it. I think if they understood, they wouldn't hate you guys, but I think that is the newby experience here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep. But we, as individual admins, can help fix that, fortunately, by explaining what's going on to them and trying to get rid of the "everyone new is a vandal" attitude. Kyle Barbour 02:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

This is brilliant, totally true. I think we'd agree, then that the "admin" problem isn't really an "admin" problem as much as a perception problem. People need to segregate the +sysop flag from editing, and realize that admin's aren't (by and large) interested in harassing people, and I think that once that perception problem is solved RfA will be too. In fact, I don't think RfA can be fixed without that happening. Kyle Barbour 02:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait! WTF? Some of you got a bucket too? But yes. I agree with the original statement in this thread. Perspective was lost long ago when the kooks fixated on the "power" of adminship and turned this into something more serious than an FBI background check. Due diligence is a good thing (i.e. is a candidate who they claim to be), but putting every candidate through a templated public ringer for no good reason just takes it too far. If anything, the current level of scrutiny is just meant to test whether or not an RfA regular who runs for RfA has any common sense. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but sometimes people take it too far when they started putting joke questions on WikiGreekBasketball's recent RFA. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WGB was asked to withdraw, I actually untranscluded and closed his RFA, and explained on his talk page that it had no chance of passing, and he insisted on re-opening it. Why it was a bad idea was explained to him in a calm, clear, and respectful manner, and he responded with remarkable vitriol. Treating it as the joke it was from that point forward was perfectly ok in my book, as it was an absolute farce. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

True, I too closed it and saw the consquences. Oh well, I guess the past is the past and nothing can be done about it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I find Kyle's comments quite interesting and spot on. We've made RFA more than it should be. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

We certainly have. That said, perhaps people would be more willing to get back to "is this person trustworthy" if we had an easy to follow process for admins who abuse their tools because admins have tenure once they've passed an RfA. HJMitchell You rang? 23:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should go to a hybrid between the old and new ways. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

For me, I've always tried to operate on a "do I trust this person" standard. There are two components to that trust - the first is "do I think this person means well," which is almost always a pass, absent some bizarreness which may pop up - there have been some interesting ones. The second is "do I trust that this person has the skills, the seriousness, and the temperament to do a good job?" On that one, I admit to judging what's thrust in front of me. If there is interest, expressed or implied, to work on CSD/XfD, I look more closely at their deletion work. If they have antivandal experience, I look at their newpage and RC patrolling. If they want to work in DyK/ITN, I leave that to the other editors who know that, and usually default support. I also support to counteract what I consider to be opposing rationales that I don't want to gain currency - one of the most odious being things like "not old enough." In general, I act on the principle that demonstrated seriousness and competence in one admin subarea or so is sufficient for adminship, in the absence of serious negatives. That said, Malleus has a huge point, which drives a gaping hole through my logic: I have not noticed any admin candidates declaring that they want to join the Sword and the Shield of Wikipedia to police and block their fellow editors for uncivil behavior, edit warring, and engage in Battle High and Low across the Plains of ANI, AE, RFAR, and many more acronyms that we without bits have learned to fear in the dark. Yet these admins do exist - Wikipedia would not function as it currently does without them, and they easily form the most controversial aspect of admin activity. I think, so long as effective admin tenure-of-office persists, and future police admins do not declare themselves in candidacy, a high level of skepticism in treating admin candidates is not entirely irrational. I just prefer not to do it -- whether that makes me a credulous fool, or an optimist, is currently a matter of speculation and argument, rather than settled fact. Ray^Talk 23:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the reason that candidates don't go in saying, "I want to patrol this site with an iron fist and block all those who disturb the project," is because they will likely get opposes along the lines of, "Too eager," or, "We don't need another block-happy administrator." I think that administrators gradually go over to blocking as they gain more experience, since they don't want to mess things up. I'm all for declaring my intentions, as I did in my first few RFAs, but I have learned to just shut up and go along with the flow, as speaking your mind can be dangerous. This is quite unfortunate, as we are getting administrators who are probably getting the tools without the rest of the site hearing their true intentions. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. Or on the other hand they could simply be being dishonest. There's a great deal of that here. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That's probably part of it, as we have had some pretty dysfunctional administrators here. Either way, I do wish that there would be a greater transparency with potential administrators, and this would hopefully lessen the meatgrinding at the RFAs. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Having just gotten tenure, I can safely admit that there are problems with how adminship is handled. One "big picture" issue is that adminship combines disparate permissions/authorities into one package. In my RFA, I expressed no intention to be involved in blocking users, nor did anyone ask me any questions about it. I didn't even get the canned questions about blocks vs. bans and cooldown blocks, which surprised me. But the nature of the 'sysop' permissions group is that I now have that capability. Deleting pages, page protection, blocking users, etc. -- these are essentially unrelated capabilities. But if you get one, you get them all. For page deletions, you also get permissions across all namespaces, even though very few users have depth of experience in the full range of namespaces. Similarly, the block permission includes users, IPs and IP ranges, even though candidates are rarely asked about their technical knowledge of IP addresses. One possible cure for RFA paranoia (and its evil twin, the Admin Who Should Not Be) would be to divide up these permissions to a greater degree, so that editors who seem trustworthy in one area could be given more tools for that particular area, rather than a full toolbox. (Yes, I know that something like this is on WP:PERENNIAL. So is having a community de-adminship process, which is also a good idea. Some perennial suggestions are good ones.) --RL0919 (talk) 01:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The ironic thing about dividing the tools: People don't want them because it creates more bureaucracy, yet we're already in about as deep a bureaucracy as we can be. (X! · talk) · @108 · 01:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with just running under the general RFA, asking for certain tools, and being granted those tools. It would likely work in theory, but that is just fantasy until we try it out. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

"we're already in about as deep a bureaucracy as we can be" - ORLY?. Anyway, as to RL0919's point, yes adminship does confer some permissions requiring high-level tech skills few possess and which RFA doesn't tend to discuss. The point is that we trust admins to evaluate their own abilities and experience reasonably, and ask for help if necessary, etc. The main thing to evaluate, I think, is the potential admin's (self)critical thinking. Rd232 ^talk 01:51, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

You may trust administrators, but I certainly don't. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The whole purpose of having the user right sysop is that it is assigned to people the community trusts. Not every person will trust every sysop, and a few may not trust any. This has no effect on the validity of the principle. Rd232 ^talk 00:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

What community? The few that bother to take any interest in RfA? There's no trust. --Malleus Fatuorum 06:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If being an administrator is just being given a mop and bucket how does one describe bureaucrats? Also what is fundamentally wrong with seeking to put on a lot of hats? Isn't that called ambition? Some places actually encourage it.... Considering there isn't much chance a bureaucrat will become a tyrant that will enslave Wikipedians—Jimbo has already done that—what's the problem? Lambanog (talk) 06:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming in late in the game for commenting - for which I apologize - but all this was kicked over a year and a half ago with the well-publicized RfA review. A couple hundred editors responded to the review's questionnaire; nothing ever came of it. In my own responses, I opined that the system was broken and would remain broken as long as it was in the community's hands, with abuses such as the "optional" questions that were nothing of the sort. Voters show neither hesitation or shame in Opposing any candidate unfamiliar with a particular area or admin task, even if a candidate pledges openly along the lines of "I'm not really familiar with fair-use image rules, so that's an admin task I'm not going to do." Admitting the same has been the kiss of death for many RfAs. Then there's the startling fact that RfA is completely a popularity contest: no matter the candidate's qualifications or lack thereof, a Support vote of 75% is the breakpoint past which no candidate fails to gain the mop, and below which no candidate succeeds to get it. I was nominated once, withdrew from the process, and have steadfastly refused to be renominated under the existing process ... no matter how many edits I have, no matter my experience as sysop of a major university forum system, it ain't happening. RGTraynor 20:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Threads like this are pointless because the poeple who lose perspective of what adminship really is, or who vote "Oppose: per not knowing the difference between a block and a ban" don't read this page and will still vote "Oppose: per not knowing the difference between a block and a ban" once this thread is archived.

And nothing will change until some form of Adminship revocation process has passed, or that bureaucrats decide to flat out strike insane/weaksauce votes as they are being made. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 19:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That's certainly a large part of the problem. Why is RfA one of the very few areas of Wikipedia that's nothing but a straight vote? I was shocked when in researching RfAs from mid-2007 to mid-2008, every single candidate who hit 75% and did not withdraw was promoted (a total of 331), while only three candidates out of several hundred were passed with a threshold lower than 75%. In almost every other part of Wikipedia admins and bureaucrats can rule for policy over vox populi. In RfA, it never, ever, ever happens; there's never been a case where a bureaucrat has said "Half these Oppose votes are pure nonsense." I can chime in on every RfA with "Oppose per above," and my vote counts exactly the same as anyone who actually proffers a reason. This is why a lot of skilled, talented, experienced folks want no part of the process. RGTraynor 21:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Voting

I have two questions about voting.

Do all voters have to be logged in? I have seen many RfA debates and I have never seen any voter that is an IP address. Also, most of the voters are sysops, oversight, CheckUsers, rollbackers, crats, and autoreviewers.
Why does everyone, not just for RfA, but for AfD, FAC, and many other things write '!vote' instead of just 'vote'?

--The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 00:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That is detailed on the main project page. Sometimes IPs comment, and their discussions are helpful, but they cannot vote.
See the section here. It's a comp sci joke.

~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, almost all the voters are sysops, oversight, CheckUsers, rollbackers, crats, and autoreviewers. Is this just because usually only those who have experience vote, or do you have to be one of those groups? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (Talk • Contribs) 01:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to be, these types of users are just more likely to have familiarity and interest in this area of the project than editors who may focus on the article space or are relatively new to the site. Input from members of the community that aren't in those groups is welcome. Camw (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just going a little further-- There are very few places where discussion is truly restricted to admins or other special permissions compared to the thousands of places where discussion is frequent, and any restrictions are labeled. Go ahead and be bold! I'd highly suggest reading through a lot of archived requests, both successful and unsuccessful, to pick up on a lot of matters that might be of large community concern you hadn't realized count be in the past. There are ever-so-many beautiful tourist areas for non-admins that like some good debate and policy research instead of article expansion and research, so do your homework and try either. If keen on discussion here, perhaps you could write down what your theoretical !vote would be with your rationale behind it for, say, 2-4 (or more) RfAs. If you feel your statements are on par or better in quality and substance, go for it. The "!" from !vote, as Armory noted, is a programming joke, but it's also completely appropriate since no support/oppose comment is ever a hard up-or-down vote on Wikipedia. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Question: You say there are "very few places" where discussion is limited to admins only. What would those be? I've never heard of any page that is restricted to admin comments only. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, you have a point. I can think of a very short list limited to 'crats, extremely narrow or external discussion of things like bots operators and developers, and the few minor spots limited for CU, SPI and ArbCom clerks, but none for just sysop level vs standard editors... Unless you want to include any fully protected pages or being able to view deleted articles and histories for reference and research. There are also the off cases where discussion from non-admins is essentially ignored or is shunned. Technically correct? I admit, I think you've got me beat. In spirit there are plenty of places it could be limited but common sense could avoid it anyway. Or, if not limited the input by non-admins holds a lot lower weight. I just know I've seen a handful spots saying "for administrator discussion below", but I'll also also admit I think much has been in essays, unofficial projects or requests by other users in the short-term. I'd also argue that any discussion section geared toward "final decisions" or "conclusions" likely could be more limited. At least I stay away from those spots, especially if blocks are discussed since I haven't been 'okay'd' by the community to offer a trusted opinion on something that serious. Related would be things needing a seconding by another admin.

It's a strange line. There are also users who can get upset if a non-admin does more admin-looking acts even if it's entirely non-binding and reversible such as a normal template addition or removal... then the whole matter of weight if in a discussion with more famed users, etc etc. Honestly, I've been meaning to write an essay on these ideas in general since I'm trying to write up some basic do's and don't on "Brooms", being an admin clerk of sorts that can take care of a number of generic actions, give advice to all, collect evidence and such while waiting for admin views expressed at incident boards. The only thing I really do not know about at all is how deleted articles and contributions are viewed as I can only dream of a convenience like that. Credit is due though, since you got my really wracking my brain on this. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 07:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The only place I can think of is certain sections on Arbitration pages. Since all the arbitrators are admins, it's de facto admins-only. :) (X! · talk) · @594 · 13:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Much in the same way being a Wikipedian is restricted to mammals. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 16:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, how fun. I never knew that page existed, much less that I was classed as Meteorological. Jonathunder (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The only time anything RfA-related is restricted to a single user group are the bureaucrat chats for contentious RfAs (or RfBs), where discussion is limited to bureaucrats. Other than that, the process is largely open to anyone and everyone. EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And in those cases, all users may participate on the discussion's talk page. :-) Regards So Why 18:56, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so are there any areas where people can limit things with enforcement as being admin-only? Not that I agree with this. I replied here first because at a recent ANI I'd run into this, with the diff adding it[2]. Even after noting that it was going to highly limit the amount of input since there are approximately zero admins remaining that have been 100% avoiding that topic that would still be daring to do so it didn't change. Unsurprisingly, talk there was small compared to the rest of that whole gigantic discussion. Being flat-out told by another non-admin that anything I wrote would be refactored as a meaningless opinion was discouraging, especially after lengthy efforts to be fair in a number of posts in that thread until then.

Anyway, I didn't mean in RfAs there are any limitations and was suggesting to the OP that they're on the right track :) ...I actually love this about Wikipedia, as the primary assumption is AGF for anyone bold enough to participate, which is contrary to basically anywhere else on the internet. Besides, it would kind of be impossible to demonstrate any track record on appearing suitable for adminship in an RfA without this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datheisen (talk • contribs) 01:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/ToxicWasteGrounds

Found this malformed RfA floating about, created by a user who has nominated himself for Admin in only his 6th ever edit. Not sure what the procedure is here...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I would probably contact ToxicWasteGrounds, explaining how unlikely better not say impossible it is that they would be granted adminship, and see if they want to withdraw the request before it is transcluded. If they insist they want to go ahead with it, then explain how to do so. If they are willing to withdraw, close the RfA as "withdrawn by candidate before transclusion". That's what I would do, were I an admin. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 13:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Just G6 it if they decide not to go thru with it. –xeno^talk 13:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

For reference, a similar case was brought recently, although subsequently G6d. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 14:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"Official" stance: until it's transcluded it doesn't matter. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Is that the "official" stance by someone "not in a position of authority"? Tan | 39 17:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that a question was added, even though it's not been transcluded - is this allowed (I know that !voting can't start until it's been transcluded). If so, I've got a couple of questions I could quite easily add about deletions and the like... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have placed a not now message on the editor's talk page. I don't see anything in the guide that specifically forbids the addition of questions before transclusion, though. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 19:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

And it just got closed a couple of minutes ago. Useight (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Note the not superfluous use of quotation marks. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I've gone ahead and closed it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:19, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

If this RfA was never transcluded, why has it been marked as unsuccessful? Currently it looks like the candidate has had an unsuccessful RfA despite the fact it never even went live, and it will end up being held against them in a future RfA, regardless of the editor's future improvement. I don't really understand the fuss over an inactive RfA anyway. Acalamari 19:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the closure and the vote. Until it goes live or the editor requests its deletion, it can just be left well-enough alone. –xeno^talk 19:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Complete and total agreement. Seriously, one of my biggest complaints about Wikipedia is that people think that because they can edit anything that they should. Just because a page exists somewhere doesn't mean that anything needs to be done with it. Let sleeping dogs lie... and by "sleeping dogs" I mean "obvious newbie errors" and by "lie" I mean "collect wiki-dust". That's just my personal opinion, though (and, since the question was asked earlier, I'll note that my opinion is as an editor, not as a bureaucrat). EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that your opinion as a bureaucrat would have any addition weight. Seriously, I don't mean to be a dick about this, but cut out the thinly veiled badge-polishing. Tan | 39 23:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? If a 'crat posted an actual official position, speaking as a bureaucrat, maybe or maybe not on behalf of all the crats - that would have weight indeed, all hell might break loose in fact. Why is disclaiming one's affiliation to a role badge-polishing? How else does one make clear they are speaking as an ordinary editor? Franamax (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

To Franamax - if a 'crat posted his/her opinion on a matter, speaking as a bureaucrat, that has no extra weight whatsoever. Bureaucrats are not in any sort of position to "post... an actual official position". Your understanding of their authority is sadly mistaken. To EVula - again, I didn't mean to be a dick, more like an at-the-bar "cmon, man". I do think you were bringing up your extra button frivolously, but I suppose it doesn't much matter. Tan | 39 04:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you should read my words once more before deciding I'm sadly mistaken. I didn't say that an "official 'crat position" would carry weight in the outcome of this discussion, I said that an official 'crat position would carry weight if such a position were taken, largely because it would generate resistance from other editors. And I said it in context of my hopefully mistaken belief that you might somehow prefer EVula to comment here without disclaiming any role beyond just plain 'ol editor like anyone else. Lots of people read this page, they deserve to know in which role a functionary is speaking. And functionaries deserve the chance to speak in their role as editors without being accused of medal-polishing too IMO. Franamax (talk) 04:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I did read your words. Even your sentences, if you can believe it. There is no such thing as an "official 'crat position". A nonexistent thing cannot carry any weight. You will notice on my talk page that EVula agrees with me. Tan | 39 05:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I will endeavour in future to write in such a way that you can also read my meaning. Try to focus on ideas, not people. Franamax (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

"If a 'crat posted an actual official position" But there is no official 'crat positions. "Read my words, I said that an official 'crat position would carry weight if such a position were taken". Well, it's hard for anything to carry weight that doesn't exist. "Whatever, next time please read my mind and ignore what I actually type." Good talk, Russ. Tan | 39 05:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it "focusing on people" to state that your argument was totally pointless? The crats have aboslutely no authority on making "official positions" on things, therefore as Tan said, something that doesn't exist, doesn't carry any weight. --— Coffee // have a cup // ark // 15:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for relentlessly pounding on facts of which I was previously well aware. Next week's lesson will be on the use of dramatic contrast as a discussion device. I understand this may be a challenge for you, so please study up. Franamax (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

That's your interpretation, but that's certainly not my intent. EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

(jumping to way higher) It was me on the question, I thought "aha! my chance!" about adding it; I saw the page pop on my watchlist... knew it was still in prep phases but to be honest I figured that's how additional questions always appear within about 2 minutes of the RfA starting. Sorry if it broke the transclusion process. Extremely weird things have been happening lately for candidates and theoretically doesn't it have to be opened for at least a moment before closed? Lord only knows what oddity could be next. A new sock of some sort? Accidentally nominated the sock instead of self? Who knows. It's been that weird *Shrugs* If all done in good faith, they can't say they were completely ignored this way before the proper closing at least. Again, my apologies. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 01:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Toxic has agreed to its deletion, [3]. I'd do it myself but apparently I'm a sockpuppet--Jac16888 ^Talk 12:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Done Regards So Why 12:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Unchecking RfC

Per the discussion above at #Unchecking the box I have opened Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking for the community's input. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 08:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking forward, the role of 'crats

I'd just like to advertise my thoughts regarding my recent request for bureaucratship and its associated 'cratchat. Overall, the process worked as it should. But I get the feeling, once again, that the community is still unsure as to what the role of bureaucrats is and what it should be going forward, and I think this is one of the reasons why it is so difficult to achieve consensus at RfB. I like to think of bureaucratship as a minor technical role that can be described as access to three extra buttons. It's clear, though, that others believe the 'crat team should be leaders of sorts, and should be comprised of only Wikipedia's most experienced and trusted contributors.

Obviously, the role differs from project to project. At Meta-Wiki, for example, bureaucrats are generally appointed with little fanfare after having served six months as an admin. On the other hand, at Commons, they are expected to be "capable of leading where necessary and of guiding (but not imposing their will on) policy discussions and other major community issues. They also have to be able to deal sensitively with confidential information (occasionally disclosed to the bureaucrats as a group), and to be able to judge what is and is not appropriate to discuss publicly on wiki."

I think that after having a fairly successful year of promotions during 2009, having had appointed four additional 'crats, we now have a sufficient collection of data to go by in terms of plotting and charting how we want RfB to work, and as such I think it might be time to initiate another RfB bar discussion. However, before we do so, I feel we need to decide what we want the role to be: an insignificant technical responsibility or a position of community leadership.

Personally, I'm of the belief the standards for RfB are vastly too high, and to be honest I can't recall ever opposing an RfB. Speaking as a long-term sysop on en.wiki and an admin and bureaucrat on several other Wikimedia projects, I can say that the block and delete functions are far more contentious, controversial, and difficult to use than the RenameUser button. And I know that many folks agree with me in that respect. A problematic admin can do far more damage than a problematic bureaucrat, as bureaucrats don't have any bearing on the editorial community.

This has been my opinion since I was promoted to adminship, so it has nothing to do with my RfB in particular. It simply inspired me to express my thoughts and ask for other opinions. Make of this rant what you will. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree that the waves in the Sea of Adminship are far rougher then the waves in the Sea of Cratship. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've expressed similar thoughts a few times. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. If admins can do damage, the people who appoint those admins can do even more damage. Thus the selection of 'crats should be held to a very high standard indeed. Mr. Language Person (talk) 17:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The people who select the admins are the people who vote for them, not the bureaucrats. Julian is of course quite right; there's hardly a job at all for bureacrats, and they certainly aren't leaders in any recognisable sense. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The problem with that logic is that in the discretion range, it is ultimately up to the bureaucrat to determine whether or not that user will become an admin. On an unrelated note, Julian, I agree that delete and block is a lot more contentious than Renameuser is. However, it's the Special:Userrights that makes the job a Big Deal^TM. I seem to recall a thread a couple of months ago that was created after Ryulong was desysopped, 2 years after his RfA was closed controversially. That was a lot more drama (both after the RfA and desysopping) than most deletes or blocks ever get. This is why the bureaucrat position is so controversial. This is also why we can't have a bot close RfXs. (X! · talk) · @810 · 18:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I can think of about two or three requests for adminship where the end result was particularly controversial. In 99% (76% of statistics are false, mind) of cases no judgment is required whatsoever to determine the outcome of an RfX. Yet every day we have out of process deletions at WP:DRV, bad civility blocks at ANI, and rogue admins at RfAR. Which brings me back to the question of why the RfB standards are so much higher than those for adminship. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Julian in that we're going to need a serious community discussion on whether or not we should officially lower the discretionary range for RfBs. A significant portion of the community seems to be in favor of looser standards for RfBs. Tim meh 18:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I assumed that the purpose of any fresh community discussion would be to determine if a lower bar was now considered appropriate (by the community). From the preceding comment it appears that a “significant portion of the community” has already determined that to be the case. If so, where is the evidence? Leaky Caldron 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/RfB bar. (FYI, not the first time its linked on this page, and it comes up in every discussion on this topic). Worth noting, though, that even with the lowered threshold Julian's RfB is still on the edge, with either up or down remaining a fair call. Nathan^T 18:42, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd read it. It's 22 months old. I thought from Timmeh's remark that some new evidence of the community's desire to change the existing process had emerged. Leaky Caldron 19:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That long already? Wow. As far as I know, there hasn't been anything since then. Discussion has been struck up a few times, but nothing has really come of any of them. I was surprised it did even then, Wikinertia being what it is. Nathan^T 19:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

My claim isn't really based on any hard evidence. It's pretty much just based on my observations of multiple editors voicing a dissatisfaction with the high RfB threshold, both in individual posts and in whole threads on this page. The trend also seems to be moving toward greater support for lowering the bar, especially in recent months. It's just what I make of it though; that's why I said "seems to be... " Tim meh 20:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to try to avoid conflating some editors being noisy on a subject with a clear community consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What is there clear consensus on, and amongst whom is there consensus? Regarding the RfB bar poll, I agree that in 22 months, a lot has changed. For example, in today's RfB, I can't imagine the 86% WP:Requests for bureaucratship/Riana failing. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but the RfB Bar was written in response to Riana's RFB. You can see that almost the entire discussion was anchored to what was happening at her simultaneous RFB. Pompously, I'll quote myself at the RFB Bar: "If we can have a pool of bureaucrats to whom nobody objects and who can attend to the small number of pages for which they are responsible, why would we benefit by adding bureaucrats to whom more people object? It would allow more people to collect a bcrat trophy, but would do nothing whatsoever to help the project." This is a question I do not believe has been satisfactorily answered. --JayHenry (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

What JayHenry said above, and you arguing over the bar because it directly effects you Julian is, frankly, causing me a lot of ill will in respect of you. Honest mate, it's all no big deal and the desperation I see from you in being a "bureaucrat" is,well, unsettling. Pedro : Chat 23:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said above, my post above is in no way a plead to get myself appointed. I enjoy writing an encyclopedia, and I know that the readers couldn't care less whether or not the author of the content is a bureaucrat or not. That's why I don't view userrights as much of a big deal on Wikimedia. I simply feel in response to my RfB, which was entirely fair, that we need to discuss the role of bureaucratship. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment Do we need to be highly selective in in electing bureaucrats ? IMO, no. However, the RfB workload is small enough, that a relatively few editors suffice for the task and we can be pretty selective. Next, organizational behaviour and group psychology come into play, and set us along a vicious path: We can be selective. → We are selective. → We rationalize and start imagining that the high standards are required for the job → We raise the standards even higher, and voters, candidates start thinking of this dull responsibility as a trophy or feather in the cap. I don't have a solution to break out of this chain, but I think it is useful for us to recognize the phenomenon. For example, I often see proposals on this page to split the administrative functions and elect distinct corps of editors to speedy delete article, protect articles, close AFDs, block users etc. Our experience with RfB's (and, ArbCom) should show that this would be a very bad idea, since, suddenly we will start setting insane standards for editors to be selected to these specialized roles, and start imagining that protecting a page requires 2 years of experience, 3000 edits at RFPP etc. Increased bureaucracy and specialization inevitable starts justifying itself, and arguing for its own indispensability (the position of Arbcom Clerks is a fine example). I hope we don't miss out on this larger picture, while discussing the finer points of how to select bureaucrats. Abecedare (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Well, this didn't happen with rollback, and I see no reason an easy-come-easy-go page protect feature would be any different. The key insight is that page protector would be a lesser role than our current form of adminship and the easy-come-easy-go complements laxer standards. I would expect devolution of the tools to do the opposite of what you expect. --JayHenry (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't clearer: Of course, opening the permission to a larger group of editors is not problematic (for example, if we allow any autoconfirmed user to move pages over existing titles, or allow any admin to grant/revoke such a right). The problem I am alluding to arises when we make certain function even more exclusive. Abecedare (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
The proposals I have seen on this page regarding devolution propose doing the opposite of that. --JayHenry (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Then, I would support such procedures! Sorry, if my memory was faulty; I wasn't trying to argue against a strawman above. I hope my larger point is clearer though: making certain functions exclusive and building up complicated processes to elect editors to such roles, only serves to fluff up the importance of such functions more than they deserve. I am all for easy-come/easy-go granting of tools (except checkuser, which has privacy implications). Abecedare (talk) 00:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. In fast, personally I think it's a bit silly that RenameUser is not available to admins. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree, but doesn't this argument break down a bit when aimed at RfA? The sysop workload, unlike that of 'crats, is large enough that we shouldn't have a high bar since we need them, yet the requirements have significantly increased regardless, presumably since the tools are relatively significant. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
My analysis is certainly not a one-solutions-fits-all universal explanation! What I find incongruous is the high standards we apply at RfBs contrasted with the limited role and chance of abuse, for such a position. The RfA situation is admittedly more complicated because (1) we need many more admins than bureaucrats, (2) the admin tools (especially blocks and speedy deletions) are more powerful and more open to being abused than the limited role of bureaucrats, (3) we have had a some history of admin tools being misused, and (4) admin tools are very hard to take back (this is true for bureaucrats too, but I can't think of any situation where this was an issue; Nichalp was de-crated, but for unrelated cause). Abecedare (talk) 00:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
It seems a lot of people agree we need more bureaucrats, or that the bar should be lowered so that RfB is easier to pass. There is merit to this position, but I'd like to offer a counter-argument. The bureaucrat body is most effective when we have enough bureaucrats to keep the renaming and bot flagging backlogs in check, but not so many that the collective is indecisive in its judgment-centred functions. For example, if we had perhaps ten more active bureaucrats, bureaucrat discussions for RfXs would be noisy and uncoordinated, and would take much longer to go somewhere. In my view, we've presently achieved the correct balance between technical efficiency and social efficiency; too many more bureaucrats right now would be undesirable. The need, of course, fluctuates with the activity level of the current cohort. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I support lowering the standard, but this is perhaps one of the strongest arguments I've seen for keeping them where they are at. I would, personally, rather see higher individual criteria, but a lower bar. 85-90% is a high bar to pass, especially if somebody is willing to be controversial and take stands in certain places.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 02:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, that's certainly important to consider. However, by my reckoning, we have about six or seven truly active 'crats, which is astoundingly low for the size of the English Wikipedia. Take for instance the Simple Wikipedia, which has 10 bureaucrats, most of whom edit regularly, and there have been no issues with overcrowding over there. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For contentiousness, let's wait for a crat to encratify his friend after an RfB at 70. Same goes for sysopping to a lesser extent. This will start to happen if the threshold is lowered too much. Reversing admin actions/decisions is easy. That's not the case for crats. And crat tasks are much more complex and consequential even ignoring ease of reversibility. Importantly too, there's their future role. There a huge power vacuum on wiki. Atm it's being filled by an expansionary ArbCom, but in the future more and more power may go to crats. People will argue that they too are elected and trustworthy ... and indeed that's what's been happening on the various admin removal RfCs. It's really not that hard even now for a non-controversial user with lots of IRC friends to stack the kind of votes needed to win RfB, without really having done anything or being known to anyone, esp. as current crats seem to be demanding more and more of opposes. And as there's no real need to get more crats, there's no need to lower the bar. It has worked so far ... let's not eff it up now. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 06:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As I see it most people can't get through RfB at all, let alone through IRC scheming. Perhaps you could point out one such case? –Juliancolton | ^Talk 06:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I confess to being a triffle disappointed that your response to your recent unsuccessful RfB appears to be to argue for a change in how the system works to make it easier for RfBs to succeed, rather than working to convince those who opposed you that you would in fact make a good bureaucrat. WJBscribe (talk) 12:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that this was not directed to me, but in defense of JC, I have no problems admitting that my failed RfB from over a year ago has affected how I view both RfA and RfB. It does not take much to get 15% of the community worked up to oppose a solid candidate and the responsibilities of a 'crat are much less likely to break wikipedia than those of an admin. The only tool that a 'crat has that really matters is the ability to change permissions---and that is so closely regulated, that I seriously doubt it'll ever be abused. Heck, even if you said that the 'crat is responsible for the actions of a questionable pass, which we don't, I doubt if anybody could point out a 'crat who consistently passed marginal RfA's (or obvious failures) wherein the new admin went on to abuse the system. There are only a handful of RfA's that were passed in the "crat discretion range" that ended up in the "I told you so" category. (Yes, there have been RfA's that were mistakes, but those were community blunders, not individual 'crats going off the reservation.) So, we have set an extremely high barrier for a job which in all honesty, doesn't require it. The barrier is so high that frankly only an idiot would consider throwing their hat into the ring. I had 4 or 5 people contact me last spring about what I thought of their running for 'crat. All of them indicated that they were going to run between May and August. Nine months later, only two of them (Mbiz and SoWhy) have actually run and based upon the comments from some of the others I would be surprised to see them run--and think it would be a mistake for them to do so. I think people are starting to see quality people, who want to serve the project fully, get burnt and leave it. This is particularly true when it comes to the realization that anybody who takes a stand on any issue or makes a single "mistake" might as well NEVER consider running. Minority opinions will easily find 10-15% opposers against voices who spearhead initiatives they don't like, especially if the initiative failed. Since it is so easy to find 10-15% who will oppose over trivial things, this becomes a barrier for people: "What have *I* done that will doom me? What cabal have I unknowingly offended?"---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see my response to Pedro above, thanks. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Deacon, though I kinda agree with your eventual point (that things have worked out reasonably well so far), I have to say that a lot of that seemed like incoherent paranoia. Seriously, there's just so much of what you said ("encratify his friend after an RfB at 70"? really?) that makes me cock my head to the side and go "wha?" EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearing throat

While everyone is busy preening about this page on how the crat workload is so low that we don't need to change it (and everyone else is talking about how the bar is too high and we need to change it,) could some people please remember that RFA is 1/3rd of the crats' job. The other 2/3rds, renames and bots, are far more vital cmtcrats tasks than RFA, given the infrequent nature of RFA. At any given time there is usually 2-3 RFAs, 20-something renames, and over a dozen active bot requests. So RFA is easy for the foreseeable future and renames are rather simple to review and approve.

But, the Bot Approvals Group only has 9 members (compared to 20 some active crats) and is critically strained to process the requests up to the crats for flagging. I've nominated almost all of the recent additions to BAG over the last year and have been trying to process the requests as quickly as I can, but we do need help over at WP:BRFA. We even have banned sockpuppets slipping bots through the process since few people with experience look at bot requests to notice patterns.

When I got out of the ER this week, as soon as I could sit up, I was busy reviewing bots since I know they perform most of the heavy lifting around here and it is important to get them reviewed in order to keep the dozens of wikiprojects, processes, and systems running. So rather than continue to pontificate over how many crats can fit in the head of a pin, could we please try looking around for more people who might like to join BAG or at least commenting at a couple bot requests so I can know if the task is a good idea? Thanks. MBisanz ^talk 00:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I have almost no RfA closes to my name, but have made hundreds of edits to WP:CHU. --Dweller (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree as well; my RfX closures are very few and far between, but I've been a lot more active on CHU (though not so much as of late). EVula // talk // ☯ // 13:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you, MBisanz. At the current rate, there is 1-3 RfAs to close every week. Since only a single crat can close an RfX, many crats don't even get a chance to close one. CHU, on the other hand, has dozens of requests that need completing every week, and BAG has plenty of bots that need approval. You do see CHU and BRFA with a few outstanding requests quite often, and that is what we need more crats for, not RfA. (X! · talk) · @594 · 13:15, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Unchecking the box

OK, here is something that may be pertinent for discussion. Currently, only ArbCom can cause a desysopping, and only stewards (or Jimbo) can unflip the bit. There is serious discussion about a community-based desysopping procedure which would likely increase the number of desysops. Even if that is not implemented, should 'crats be allowed to uncheck the admin or crat flag after whatever decision is rendered by the appropriate parties? This has been raised in the past, and my take in the past was that this is not necessarily what the community elects 'crats for. However, in light of the current discussion on community based sysop bit removal if the form of an RfDA (request for De-Adminship) which indicates a willingness on the part of the community to trust the 'crats judgment, when necessary, to measure their (the community's consensus) with regards to the desysop, does that indicate a willingness on the part of the community to allow the crats to actually perform the unchecking of the box too? -- Avi (talk) 03:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I always assumed it was a mere historical accident that crats had the ability to grant a role but not revoke it. Then, over time, the accident turned into an expectation (or so I've supposed). Regardless of how this situation arose, it's clearly weird, and I've never heard a good reason given for it. It makes no sense for the turning-off-the-bit to require a substantially different hoop-jumping process than was needed to turn it on. The entire rest of wikipedia does not work like this. Blocking/unblocking, protect/unprotecting.. these things go together. It only makes sense. Friday (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The chief argument I've heard for keeping that status quo is the concept of a rogue bureaucrat, where we could suddenly find ourselves stripped of any admins. Personally, I find the idea to be just this side of ludicrous (ie: it is technically possible, but it's far more possible that we could have a rogue steward, given their much larger numbers, and they could do considerably more damage, yet nobody seems concerned about that). I'd like to have flags removed locally (by 'crats) if only so that all relevant flag actions occur on one project, rather than jumping back and forth between enwiki and meta. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh... we have more 'crats than stewards, actually. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... for whatever reason, I thought we had more stewards than we do. Looks like we've got 33 stewards to 34 enwiki 'crats, though, so the argument is still valid (or, rather, the argument about the argument being invalid is still valid... wait, what?) EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the argument about rogue crats/stewards is particularly valid. Any admin with an active bot coud reconfigure it to indef anyone with priviledges. The only thing a rogue crat could do in addition would be to promote an army of admins. Even so, a couple of clicks with Rollback/Huggle by Jimbo would fix things pretty quickly. The only positions that really require impeccable records are CU and Oversight, as the potential for abuse there is huge. I think combining an easy-come-easy-go philosophy with lowered standards would probably go a long ways towards clearing up some of the log jams, while still providing an adequate level of protection. The likelihood of 'crats going rogue in such a manner is pretty small, given the time investment it takes to get there in the first place. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, many projects already allow bureaucrats to remove sysop flags (like Simple Wikipedia.) –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

EVula, it's much more dangerous if we have a rogue developer. If people start hacking at the servers with an axe (either virtually or in real life), that's not gonna be easily fixed. —Dark 04:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

If it was a real life axe, there is a 51% chance that they will hit one of the 213 apaches or a 12% chance that they will hit one of the 50 squids, so the results shouldn't be TOO devastating... (X! · talk) · @540 · 11:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope our developers are competent enough to tell the servers apart from the squids. But then again, maybe not... —Dark 12:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do we have Teuthida specimens lying around? :/ –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

So, would an RfC about allowing the crats to uncheck admin/crat be an appropriate step? -- Avi (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be a good idea but didn't we already have a larger discussion on that question? I found Wikipedia talk:Removing administrator rights/Proposal for example from September 08 but I think there was one later as well because I remember participating. Regards So Why 21:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The proposal sounds reasonable, so long as there's an analogous process for dealing with crats who abuse the box. Not saying it's likely, but the ability to desysop does carry some weight, and it would be nice to know there's a community failsafe should it be abused. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The ability to desysop is hardly significant when weighed against the ability to grant it. If we trust (the vast majority, anyway) our bureaucrats to follow consensus when promoting administrators, we should be able to trust them to take the bit away. —Dark 11:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Even now, if a 'crat abused his or her privilege by deliberately checking the box without a valid RfX, I'd contact a ArbCom and perhaps even a steward directly, pell-mell for an emergency desysop/decratting, and I am certain it would happen quickly. I expect the same for a deliberately abusive desysop/decratting on the part of a rogue 'crat, so I am not worried about the failsafes. The same ones that protect against making a bunch of sysops protect against removing them. -- Avi (talk) 23:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with 'crats being able to flip the bits both ways. Has a 'crat ever made an admin without consensus in an RfA? I'm not aware of one, and I think it's very unlikely that the opposite would occur, either. If 'crats did receive the ability to flip the bits either way, and one went bananas and decided to flip the bits one way or the other without the corresponding discussion and consensus, I'm 100% positive the other 'crats would deal quickly with the issue. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The bureaucrats' role is small enough that adding this additional responsibility won't be much of an issue in my opinion. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that's what it really boils down to. Anyone smart enough to get the 'crat bit is smart enough to keep things un-fucked and not try to rock the boat. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 03:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"Has a crat ever sysopped without consensus in RfA?" Actually yes, several times; all by mistake, and all rapidly reverted. Eg Shanel ([4][5]), Carbonite ([6][7]), Rogerthat ([8][9]). However, this actually supports the suggestion that crats should be able to desysop: it is very anti-wiki for users to be able to do something they cannot undo; if the crats had been able to immediately undo their errors, these users would have been admins for minutes rather than hours or days. Happy‑melon 12:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget when OverlordQ was made a crat by accident... ([10][11]) (X! · talk) · @721 · 16:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I made someone a steward by accident once. :) Fortunately they didn't go rouge (or rogue) ... Although some projects allow this, I think for this project I'm not in favor. Going to Meta to ask and having to show that the request is within process seems a good check. I could be convinced otherwise but that's my thinking. ++Lar: t/c 16:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking. Thank you, -- Avi (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

SoxBot reports the Floquenbeam Expired...

Resolved

– Sorted out by Soap

Does anyone know why? It's only been showing on the page for a couple of hours.... -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a minor error when the RfA was first transcluded, and although it was quickly fixed, SoxBot hasn't updated its frontpage yet. I'll go fix it now. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 18:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting that out, Soap! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And thank you for not mentioning that the "minor error" was because I can't read directions. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot Approvals Group Nommination

Hey Wikipedians, I am here to advertise my nomination to be on the Bot Approvals Group. Take a look if you have some time. Tim1357 (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

RFa Disclouse questions

Are you required to disclose that you had a prior RFA?
Are you required to disclose that you had a prior account in Wikipedia while running for adminship?
What is period for a right to return to fresh start for those doing so for Privacy reasons and those for vandalism or other reasons for leaving Wikipedia under a cloud for those returning in the shorter term.
The Longer Period is fine as even a Kid with a vandalism only account may return as Productive user after 5-10 years.The conflicts normally which were there would disappear in a longer period.We believe in Assume Good Faith and we are not doing Background check and hence feel that a issue will not reoccur in the longer period .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If disclosing a previous RFA for the same account is not required, it should be. The prior account thing is another story. If there was no overlap and the account was retired while not "under a cloud" then it shouldn't matter, the user is asking that the account the currently used be judged on it's merits. However, despite the fact that it isn't a requirement and the user questions are theoretically "optional," these sorts of questions are going to keep getting asked, and since not answering a supposedly optional question will make some people oppose, they'll probably keep getting answered. Thank that charming snake-in-the-grass PastorTheo for that. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Hiding a previous RFA would potentially backfire -- in the likely event that it was uncovered and revealed by someone scrutinizing the candidate, that reason alone may get enough opposers to sink the current RFA. Useight (talk) 22:12, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The process tends to weed out less-than-honest applicants. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I was reading Pharaoh of the Wizards' questions wrong, but I thought he was asking different things than were answered. I'll answer the questions the editor was maybe actually asking:

I think its a moot question; most RfA's are pretty significant affairs, and leave a hefty paper trail that anyone can follow. I don't believe it's actually spelled out as a requirement, but most folk would consider it a lie of omission, and that would create enough omg-distraction drama™ to sink an RfA.
This is not specifically spelled out in policies or guidelines. It depends a great deal on the candidate's prior account history (vandalism, blocks, etc.) as well as why they left. Many departing users utilize the behavioral guideline, Right to Vanish to close out an account, and while it isn't spelled out, its intended that users choosing to do so are expected to never edit the wikipedia again. However, this directly contradicts an actual policy called CleanStart. If a user left an account in good stead, has no overlapping edits in controversial articles and stops using the prior account, they can set up a new account. That one should notify ArbCom, notifying them via secure email of the connection between the new and old account, is a matter being heavily discussed at this time. My personal opinion is that the entire matter can be sidestepped during RfA by noting that you had a prior account in good stead and left it to make a CLEANSTART, have notified ArbCom of such, and have an Arb in the know confirm that the prior account was left in good stead. Again, none of that is required, but it simply seems smart to CYA.
There is no required "pause" between the old and new account. They simply should not overlap (commenting in the same article as two different editors,etc.) CLEANSTART means precisely that: you don't edit the same articles you did under the old account. Period. And it deserves restating that CLEANSTART is policy, whereas the right to vanish is simply a behavioral guideline. I know of at least one situation where a user was outed on their previous account and invoked RtV, completely unaware of CLEANSTART. RTV was used against them at a later point, since they didn't so much 'vanish' as they made a fresh start. Your mileage may vary.
I am not sure of policy regarding the fourth situation, but I feel that a large part of maturity is accepting ownership up for your past mistakes and to have hopefully learned from them. In the example you provide, yeah - you should still mention it, if for no other reason to contrast who you were then and who you are now. That's the sort of maturity we should be expecting from our admins. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:11, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Inactive admins

Yes to cleaning out inactives, btw. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think a diplomatic way to handle inactive admin accounts would be for admin rights to lapse on any account that hasn't logged in for ~~12 months~~ 48 months, provided you combine that with admin rights restorable by crats with a guideline of a couple of weeks resumed activity. Ideally I'd like that combined with some sort of refresher material available so that returning admins can get back up to speed. You'd also need to email the accounts involved well before this started. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with all of that but the date before the admin rights lapse with inactive accounts. Six months is long enough; if you aren't editing, you are likely not coming back. a year is simply too long to wait to remove the mop, and far too long to be out of practice that a few weeks of 'refresher material' is going to catch them up. Does anyone have any numbers on the admins who've been inactive two, four, six and twelve months? It might be easier to decide this is we know what numbers we are dealing with. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Before deciding that all 6 or 12 month wiki breaks are permanent I think you'd need quite a bit of research. Its not as if going on wiki-break for one's finals year or the first 6 months of a new job or new relationship is either unreasonable or to be penalised. Also we are still in the first decade of the pedia, we need many more years before we will know how many of our inactives return at later stages in their lives. As for numbers, 161 have been inactive for more than 12 months, 235 for 6 months and 345 for three months. Also I would dispute the idea that a few weeks return and some refresher info is insufficient, trust and clue don't degrade that easily. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course, if we only do 4 each week to avoid an RfA logjam, by January 2011 we'd finally be getting up to admins who last edited in May, 2009. Personally, I'm comfortable with 12 months on inactive admins if we also have the 3 year term. Or a shorter period, with auto-re-approval that doesn't restart the 3 year clock.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the idea of an inactive admin's bit getting auto reapproved mean that it doesn't matter how long they're inactive for? I thought the idea was more for housecleaning than anything. If an admin is inactive for 6 months or a year or whatever, they can still ask a crat for their bit back and have it autoapproved, right? Throwaway85 (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that they should. Six months is not a huge amount of time. Perhaps a crat could do a quick look, see renewed activity, and if there are problems, send it to a crat chat. Thanks for the comment on my ArbCom nomination, I'm content that I got more than half those expressing a preference and the margin between me and the lowest elected person was wide enough that it would be hard to lay it to any one thing. Besides, this way I get to devote my time to racking up FA's rather than all the crap that goes on there. Getting back to the inactive admins, I would say the main benefit is that we get accurate stats on how many admins we have, really. No other real positives, I haven't seen Rip von Admin wake up and start sowing chaos ...--Wehwalt (talk) 19:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Re Throaway's point about autoapproving. Not necessarily, in fact I think that may be the contentious part of this. Arguments for desysopping longterm inactives include:

Security risks, especially as PCs get recycled etc
In the long run unless we do this after ten or twenty years absence we will have a whole load of deceased admins
Inactivity may mean admins become unfamiliar with policies and practices here.
More accurate stats on admin numbers

Those who support for the first two reasons only will I suspect support auto re-adminning on return. Those who support for the third reason are liable to want some sort of refresh process or RFA for returning admins. Having done a little more research, and established that we have had admins return from three and four year breaks without as far as I'm aware any drama I would modify my support to "Auto-retirement after four years inactivity across Wikimedia, with readminning on request, but a reminder that as with all admins using unfamiliar aspects of the mop - please tread cautiously and reaquaint yourself with current policy" Ϣere SpielChequers 19:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

How about demopped after six months, autorestored after 2 weeks resumed editing? Throwaway85 (talk) 20:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The numbers are not, I think, the big issue. Tend to think Were is right. There are those who want the thing set up to get some admin scalps, which forcing people who have done no wrong (either on term limits or inactivity) to undergo auto-da-RfA would certainly accomplish. I continue to insist that any process seeking to have an administrator removed give the burden of consensus to those advocating desysoping for that admin. However, desysoping after a period of time and warning, so long as the editor can get the bits back on request absent red flags, is not unreasonable.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Furthermore, I think it should be just as difficult to lose the bit as it is to gain it. I think a 70% threshold for an RfDA would be reasonable, with 60-70% falling to crat discretion. I think that's high enough to make reactionary desysops unlikely, and low enough to stop some hypothetically disruptive admin from rallying his friends to block an RfDA. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well folks, here's your inevitable "What problem does this solution propose to fix" question. Really, though, I am not seeing much (if any) benefit to removing the bit from inactive accounts and imposing an arbitrary "be active for this long" bar to getting the bit back. To my knowledge there are no inactive admin accounts causing us grief; nor am I aware of any situations where an admin came back rusty from an extended wikibreak and caused havoc. So I'll ask the question : What problem does this solution propose to fix? Shereth 20:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the only benefit that been proposed for clearing out inactive admins is to get a better idea of how many admins we have, and where we need more. As for inactive admins coming back and causing disruption, there's always the Cremepuff incident, although I hate to bring that up, as I think he got a bit of a bum rap. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The Cremepuff incident was a little different as it was intentional disruptive behavior, not mis-weilding the mop due to being out of practice. In any event, the workload required to constantly remove the bit from inative admins and restore it to those coming back (we'd need some kind of mechanism to identify inactive accounts, create a de-sysop request to send to a steward, then the policed period of new contributions post-reactivation) is quite high in relation to the workload caused by the rare instance of trouble from inactive admins. Sure, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, but when we're wasting so many ounces on so many preventions that are unecessary we've become pennywise and pound foolish. Shereth 20:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This should be an uncontentious issue, but the RfA community is too reactionary. There are reasons to desysop inactive admin accounts – although they apply to a minority of cases that does not mean we shouldn't take precautions; you don't dispense with flood defences because it doesn't look rainy outside. Turning the argument round, what are the reasons to allow inactive admins to keep the tools? Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've gotta agree with Shereth on this one. This seems very much like a solution to a problem that, for the most part, doesn't exist. If someone can point out multiple incidences where lapsed desysopping would have prevented problems, please do so. I have a feeling, though, that the time that it would take to maintain such a system would be far, far greater than any measurable results said system would produce. Simply put, inactivity desysopping doesn't solve any problem that we currently have. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm merely looking at it from a cost versus beneift perspective. The cost in terms of "extra work" generated by the routine de-sysopping of inactive accounts is minute in comparison to the cost in terms of "extra work" generated by cleaning up after a bad apple, yet it is my belief that the bad apples are rare enough that the compounded "extra work" generated by the routine de-sysopping would, in the long run, prove to be greater, therefore the cost generated by this proposal outweighs the benefit. There is no specific reason to allow inactive accounts to retain the tools, except for the fact that doing otherwise generates an unecessary workload. Shereth 20:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing ow it would be so time consuming. There's a list of inactive admins maintained by bot (it works on 2 months without an edit); this could be tweaked slightly to generate a list of admins who haven't edited in a six months, or year, or whatever, thereby taking a lot of the effort out of it. Nev1 (talk) 21:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I can see two problems which this would "fix": firstly, it would allow the number of admins to more accurately reflect the number who would probably actually do something! WP:ADMIN says there are 1708 admins - but that is all of them. 161 of them have not been active in the last 12 months - that's almost 10%; secondly, a point I've made before: if I put in a request to be an admin, but didn't need the bit, I'd be told that I shouldn't be an admin. The admins who are away for 12 months+ don't need the bit.

What I would support would be a proposal that said that if you do not edit (note that I do not say "do not perform admin actions") in 12 months, you lose the bit - but when you come back, you can ask for it to be given back, and you'll get it. In this way, we'd have a more accurate figure for admins (i.e. those who are still editing) - but an admin wouldn't permanently lose their bit, just while they aren't about. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 21:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The first "problem", specifically the accurate reporting of our admin corps, is a trivial one. If we have a mechanism to identify "inactive" admins and report them for de-sysopping, there is no reason to continue the process beyond merely identifying them and regurtiating a number of inactive vs. active admins. The second "problem" is contentious, in that the rationale "doesn't need the bit" is not universally accepted and should not be codified into any kind of official process like this. Shereth 21:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

We currently have 25 admins who have not edited here since 2005 (including one who has died and his account has therefore been blocked) and a further 24 who have not edited since 2006. 12 months ago there were 55 who hadn't edit since 2006 but I think one account was desysopped - which implies that 5 have returned last year after gaps of more than two years. So the above 4 year desysop proposal would automatically retire 25 accounts now and another 24 in the next 12 months if they continue to be inactive. Longer term these numbers will grow, but I doubt if there will be many returns per month. This is all on the basis of inactivity on EN wiki - it is entirely possible that some of these are active on other projects and I would prefer that this was implemented on the basis of the SUL account being inactive across the whole of Wikimedia. I for one would have no objection to a long quiescent EN:wiki admin returning from wiktionary or wikicommons to block someone on a multi project vandalism spree.As for why - the only reason I find truly compelling is that I think it impolite to leave dead people's accounts open for ever. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That would either necessitate a lot of additional manual work, or contacting the devs and asking them to code for it. The second option seems preferable, but I'm not sure they'd go for it. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(un-indent). I'm not sure desysopping inactive accounts is needed (except when we can verify that an admin passed away). Are there any examples of inactive admin accounts coming back and vandalizing the site with their tools (ie mass deletions, blockings, etc.)? I think it's more likely an active account would get hacked into. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 21:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Can you guarantee that inactive admins accounts can't become compromised? If not, surely it's better to err on the side of caution and remove the tools from inactive accounts? Nev1 (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There have been 2 admin accounts that have been compromised, to my knowledge. User:RickK and User:Zoe's accounts were compromised some time after they had retired. As far as I know, the cracker didn't use the tools, they just simply posted on the Administrators' noticeboard. [12] The Thing _{Editor Review} 21:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, those passwords were guessed, not cracked. –xeno^talk 21:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well still, either way, they were compromised. The Thing _{Editor Review} 21:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

@DC: "Hacking" accounts never really happens. It's usually due to people using the same passwords as their email address, and using stupidly easy questions for their "lost password" thing. Perhaps a simple "How to not be dumb with your passwords" page for admins to review would accomplish the same thing with less work. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I made this same point last year when there was a discussion of purging inactive crats. If they aren't using the tools, obviously they aren't misusing them either, so what is the point of adding more processes and rules to remove their admin rights? And I totally don't get the objection to dead admins retaining the tools, I think it's based on the mistaken idea that being an admin is some great honor and there are hordes of hackers trying to crack open old admin accounts. If a police officer dies, do you think the chief shows up at the widow's house and demands the dead officer's badge and uniform? Of course not. It's not only pointless to remove the bit from deceased admins, it's downright disrespectful. Actual hacked accounts are extremely rare and can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- - You said that the idea that "being an admin is some great honor" is mistaken, in that case so is suggesting that removing the tools from an inactive account is disrespectful. Nev1 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I'm tempted to agree, although I do realize the housekeeping value of getting rid of inactive/deceased admins. The thing about accounts being compromised is yes, it can happen to anyone, but if the account is active then the owner is likely to realize there's something wrong and take appropriate action, whereas an inactive account would have to cause mass disruption to be picked up on. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  - If a police officer died, his widow gets to keep his badge/uniform. But they'd take away the gun. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 00:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the obvious housekeeping value, it is also one of honesty; yes, we have 1708 admins, but how many of them are actually doing work? If in the odd event that some admin who's been gone for years and years comes back, we can give them their bit back, after they get up to speed. I think the cut-off between actives and inactives should be right around 6 months. There is no real extra process needed for this. We simply de-list them (after proper notification), and let the inactive admin take the next step. If they remain away, then no big deal; they're gone, Jim. If they express an interest in remaining active, then let them. Being an admin is not a badge; if you don't do the work, you shouldn't get the title. It's a slap in the face for a guy who does squat on the wiki for six months to be able to group himself with those folk who use the bit every day.

It should be stressed that this isn't a contentious de-sysopping; it is house-cleaning. If you are inactive and passed RfA 3 or more years ago, you have to reconfirm (not a new admin RfA). If you are inactive and have been an admin for less than 3 years, you are reinstated. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

An excellent idea, despite the fact that it has been killed every time it is proposed. But just a quick show of hands, who would be willing to work on a draft RfC for "desysoping due to inactivity"? -FASTILY ^(TALK)

Meh, this comes up every few months or so, and I'm not sure what problem it's trying to solve, or how it plans to go about it. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem though, is everyone on the opposition just says it's a solution to them in search of a problem, why do it. I say to them, why not? I have never heard anything compelling from the opposition on why not to do it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 05:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The extra work argument seems rather compelling. That is, of course, unless we can automate the process. Is there such thing as a bot with the crat bit? Throwaway85 (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Crats can't desysop. It needs to be done by stewards. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 06:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an RfC about that open now, DC

-- Avi (talk) 06:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Back on topic, while currently it does not "hurt" to have retirees keep the bit, there is some sense about a sunset clause, as over a period of a number of years, while the core rules may not change, enough may have changed that a brief refresher to the current policies and guidelines may not be a bad idea for someone out that long. So while "removal" may be a bad term, a "hiatus" until the return an re-familiarization (a week or two?) may be a good idea. -- Avi (talk) 06:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Almost any solution will create problems of its own - the only question is whether those problems are bigger or smaller than the ones they attempt to solve. If you don't even have a problem that needs solving, all you're doing then, is creating more problems with no benefit. That's a pretty good reason not to do it. In the interests of full disclosure, I'm an inactive admin, just starting to get back into the swing of things. If I had to go through RfA again, I wouldn't. It's not pleasant. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

How long were you inactive? More than three years? For someone who was, wouldn't a a two-week or so period where s/he would not use the bit (outside of obvious vandalism and such) until s/he gets a bit more comfortable with how guidelines and policies may have shifted in his/her absence be reasonable? -- Avi (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, that's reasonable and it's what I'm doing. I also think it's reasonable to go to the dentist once a year for a check-up, but I don't think we should make a law absolutely requiring it. There seems to be an obsession with some to make rules that cover every possible situation, but this practice is not only infeasible, but counter-productive. Unless there's a specific problem that needs to be remedied, I don't see the need to create more process. -Chunky Rice (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The creation of a new process for its own sake is a form of instruction creep. Unless it either fixes an existing problem or proves to be a net benefit to the system, there is no compelling reason to enact any new process or policy. As no one has come forward with a problem that this proposes to solve, and I remain unconvinced that it is a net benefit to the project, I will retain the opinion that it is something that should not be done. Shereth 22:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Desysopping after extended inactivity is has the simple benefit that it adds to the general tidiness of the wiki and the accuracy of the administrator count. It would be hypocritical of me to suggest any sort of remedial period as opposed to receiving the bit back upon request, as I am actual proof that admins do in fact, go away and come back after long periods of time.--Tznkai (talk) 22:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest, then, that on the WP:ADMIN page, the part that says how many admins there are be amended so that it says 'The English Wikipedia has 1,709 administrators as of January 12, 2010, of which 1,473 were active within the last 6 months? This would satisfy some of the commenters above - reflecting the true sense of how many of our admins are actually active. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember someone once saying that becoming (ergo being) an administrator is "no big deal", so I guess I am stymied by the resistance to removing someone who isn't doing the job of administrator from the list of administrators.

What is the substantial problem with honestly stating how many admins we actually have? I'm sorry, but I have not heard how an absent (and Tznkai's example being among the exceptions) and nonproductive admin should be grouped with those who do the work. In sort, it's disingenuous to say we have 1700+ admins in the Project when only a little more than half are doing all the work. This isn't a process, as far as I can see; it's an email to notify the absentee admins that their bit is about to lapse. This in itself is a good thing, as those admins who mean to return will do so. This is followed by removing the bit from those who are inactive and not planning on returning. Those who return after the fact can be given the bit back - they would still have to be reconfirmed if they have served for over three years, though - no one gets to sidestep reconfirmation - that's what makes it fair. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple answer - admin tools are editing tools. I helped clean up after a non-admin page move recently. We had to move 26 archives and several other subpages manually. All could be done at once with admin tools. Or if you've made in typo in a category name. Or if you've tried to fix a cut-and-paste page move. Maybe you started an article in a sandbox, and then when you're ready to move the page to mainspace you realise that you really don't want all that old crap in the article's history, so you need to do a history de-merge. Or maybe you're trying to do a page move, but can't because someone randomly typed something into the redirect. Or maybe... Quite simply, admin tools are as much editing tools as anything. So if you're an active editor, especially if you do a lot of page creation, or set up WikiProjects, or edit templates, or... it's a real nuisance to have to ask someone to do the job for you. It hinders the editing process. And, as you know, encyclopaedia creation should come first. Making article creation more difficult for productive editors doesn't further the aim of the project.

Now you could say that deletion tools could be separated from blocking tools. But when it comes down to it, trust matters most for page deletion/undeletion. Because you can do a lot more damage with those tool than with blocking tools. Guettarda (talk) 03:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I am hearing you tell me that the admin tools are editing tools, Guettarda, and I get that. However, the processes you describe are being done by active editors, not inactive ones who - as the name suggest, are inactive within the wiki-en. Someone pointed out earlier that if an editor stated that they were only going to edit for x amount of time and then stop, they would never have initially passed RfA. All reasons aside, we have hundreds of admins who aren't doing anything, and haven't done anything for months. Or years. The trust in being given the mop is that you are actually going to do the work, and not consider it a god-given right that can never be taken away. Being an admin must mean something, or it means nothing but a title and a perceived elevation above the ranks of the regular editor. Being an administer is not a lifetime appointment and it certainly shouldn't apply to those who - for whatever reason - aren't here doing the job they were elected to do. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

RFA isn't "election to do a job". It's a discussion to see whether the community trusts you not to misuse the tools. Adminship is not a job. We wouldn't take away rollback status or autoconfirmed status simply because someone is inactive. Guettarda (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

True, but admins tools are far more extensive than those of rollback or regular users. As admin activity is far more scrutinized internally and externally, it's far more reasonable to present clearer numbers of those who who evaluate that activity. To say that 10% of admins work in AN is a lot more honest when you are describing the percentage of admins actually doing the heavy lifting. And not to hammer away at the logic being offered, would we have offered adminship to anyone who told us they were going to edit for x amount of time and then absent themselves? We both know the answer to that; even in a non-contentious RfA, it would still present a SNOWBALL situation. Being elected to admin is not a lifetime appointment, and shouldn't be. You get it for being trusted to do certain tasks. If you aren't doing those tasks, or doing them to the best of your ability, you shouldn't be able to be called such. It doesn't seem to get much simpler than that. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, sorry. If you are granted the tools, you have no obligation to use them. I probably take an administrative action about once a month, if that. Having the tools in the hands of trusted users is a net positive for the project. Not all "inactive admins" will remain that way, and there are few instances of problems from inactive admins becoming active (again, discounting the Cremepuff case, which had to do with a kid's maturity level). The harms complained of seem insubstantial, if that. And I don't agree, if someone asked for the bits and said, "by the way, next year I will be off for six months because I'm (whatever the reason is)", I don't think it would make a difference in the RfA.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Where was it ever said it was not a lifetime appointment? Assuming a person became an admin at age 20 and made a deletion everyday through the age of 70 when they died of natural causes and never acted in bad behavior, that is the description of lifetime appointment that I cannot see an objection to. MBisanz ^talk 07:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(←dent) Wehwalt, I am sorry, but you are missing the point; it doesn't matter that admins might come back. It only matters that they aren't editing now. Some won't, as they are dead. We have a responsibility, when noting the administrators in our wikipedia - which strives to be concise and accurate in every other way, choose to exaggerate about the numbers of administrators active in the Wikipedia. You state that you use the admin tools"about once a month"; I am guessing you probably do some editing during that time, right? Well, we are talking about admins who left the building 6 months ago and haven't made a single edit. We can expect that from regular users, but admins chose to have a greater responsibility. Most choose to accept it by working in the wiki and, like you, use their admin tools as needed. The admins we think shouldn't have the bit are those who - for whatever reason (death, job, family, Hee Haw 6-month marathon, etc.) - aren't here doing the job that at least more than half are doing.
And again, I don't think anyone was suggesting that we just up and remove the bit. We notify them and give them the opportunity to come back and edit and (if necessary) use their admin tools, lightening the load for the ones already here. The ones who don't come back aren't coming back. At least not now. When and if they do, they can reapply for administrator. I am not sure I see the problem with this, unless the prevailing opinion is that, short of an Act of God, ArbCom or a steward, admins should enjoy a lifetime membership to the admin club.I'm guessing that most don't see that as fair or healthy for the wiki.
MBisanz, just because there isn't a sign in the Men's bathroom to 'not eat the big white mints' doesn't mean you should go eating the urinal cakes. That's a fairly old debating tactic, wherein someone claims that its okay to do something because no one has said they cannot. It's a bad faith argument, designed to bog down discussion. We are actively discussing why the perception of a lifetime position based on a single election should possibly change, and that all admins should be reconfirmed as being qualified and responsive to suggestions about improving their skills and to address potential problem spots. Having qualified, responsive admins is to be considered a Good Thing for the wiki-en.
Now, I think there is HUGE and patently false premise floating about that we are throwing the admins out of the wiki. We aren't. However if they are going to be listed as being admins here, they need to actually be here, and occasionally use the admin tools. We are talking about taking the bit from people who havent edited a single stroke in six months. Admins chose to be more active participants. If they aren't active, they forego the bit. If the inactives come back and edit, then they can have their bit and be reconfirmed like every other admin. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I find the matter of removing inactive admins illogical. Why? The answer would seem to be to promote more admins. Lambanog (talk) 12:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree to the idea of appointing more admins, if we could get back to the idea that there is no shortage of mops and that most longterm editors should be admins then the whole election for life argument falls. There are arguments for making our figure of active admins more accurate, though I can't think of many things that I'd give less priority to, but removing the mop from longterm inactives would have no short term effect on our number of active admins, and the longterm effect of losing us a few returnees from long wikibreaks doesn't seem positive. I still think that there is some length of gap where a refresher or period of re-acclimatisation would be beneficial; But on further reflection I'm not convinced that a year or so is a long enough gap to require a formal process for this - I think we should presume that admins returning from long breaks still have the common sense which got them through RFA and will tread carefully until they are back up to speed. WT RFA is not the easiest place to achieve changes and I suspect this could take many years before we implement it; But I would support some sort of refresher training or return period before restoring the bit to admins who have been inactive for several years. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Your arguments in the two sections of this page seem to be confusing the proposals that inactive admins should be desysopped and that all admins should undergo re-confirmation elections. The concept of objecting to or supporting lifetime appointments doesn't really have a place in the inactivity debate, since inactivity is not related to lifetime appointments. Also, where does it say that if someone is to be listed as an admin they must be here? That is an argument you are making, but it isn't a pre-ordained fact. MBisanz ^talk 15:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Arcayne wants admins easily desysoped and their terms limited. To that end, he is searching for the thin edge of the wedge. He is posting dozens of times; with the same time and effort he could have brought an article at least to GA. He looks for the argument that will get at least some admins desysoped, which will in his view establish the principle and make Step B easier. However, there is one extremely misleading word in several of his posts. That word is "we". I'm not terribly worried he'll be successful.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why on earth would you be "worried" by Arcayne's proposals? Are the tools really that dear to you? Nev1 (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know, I am one of the admins he has indicated he thinks should be desysopped, hence my interest in his proposals to define the criteria for desysopping. MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, I am also aware of that false faith debating tactic, too. Wehwalt and MBisanz - making it about (and attacking) me. It quite simply isn't. It isn't about you, either. If necessary, tattoo that across your mind: the proposal does not seek as it s goadl the removal of ANY admin - how many times must it be said? What I think of your individual talents or shortcomings as admins is immaterial here, as we are talking about a wiki-wide alteration, not one targeted towards a specific admin which would indeed be wasteful. In short, its a tad arrogant for you to assume its all about you. It would seem clear that you are overly concerned about standing a reconfirmation. Perhaps, we should test out the proposal on an admin. Who would care to volunteer?

Mayhap your answers could easily be found by not expecting us to repeat ourselves over and over and actually taking the time to read the proposal. As far as that relates to this section, removing inactive admins who aren't contributing seems wise. There have been arguments about what we do with inactives who return, but aside from the one or two who return after 6-12 months, can anyone indicate that a significant percentage returns? I think that providing that information is going to be key in effectively countering removing inactives. The face of the argument here is that inactives aren't participating; we should therefore not be including them. IF that means we have a little house-cleaning to do to remove the clutter, then so be it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Already re-passed an election after becoming an admin, Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/MBisanz, and I can speak from the experience that even if an admin is not concerned with critical commentary, it is still a stressful occurrence with the detailed questions, needs for responses, etc, to the extent that I would not support making it a general rule for all admins and instead suggest pursuing something similar to EVula's RFDA proposal. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Aw, poor lickle diddums. Doing the honest thing would be too stressful. --Malleus Fatuorum 04:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Probably also worth pointing out that I already have one of the broadest recall criteria of any admin, so the desire of myself not to subject others to additional stress is not a cover for avoiding the stress myself. MBisanz ^talk 04:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I was called every name in the book during my recent unsuccessful ArbCom candidacy, I am apparently both pro-Nazi and pro-Israel, which is a pretty neat trick. I did still get a majority of those expressing a preference, which contented me. But I feel no need to subject myself to the tender mercies of Arcayne's unwanted and unneeded voting. Still not seeing a need for what Arcayne wants. Still a solution in need of a problem. Inactive admins are not a problem and dead ones less so.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As was pointed out earlier, could you please confine your commentary as to this sectiontopc: that of removing the mop from inactive admins? If you really wish to address the topic re-confirmation, a conveniently placed subsection exists, with large friendly letters: "Arbitrary break 3". You should feel free to address your concerns about reconfirmation of admins there. If you wish to move your posts there, I would be happy to address your concerns, though i think you will find that myself or others have already addressed them a number of times. Either way, being snippy isn't going to benefit anyone; some admins feel like this proposal is trying to rake them over a cheese grater, and it really, really isn't. There is no room or reason for unfriendly language. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not about "the one or two who return after 6-12 months", or rather it is about the one or two a month who return after 6-12 months. As I pointed out early in this thread "we have had admins return from three and four year breaks without as far as I'm aware any drama." What I should add to that, is that I found out about those returning admins by just analysing a quarter's data. Those numbers for very long breaks are too low to safely extrapolate from, but during that same period we were getting one or two admins a month coming back from inactivity of over 6 months. I see no benefit in doing something that might make those admins feel unwelcome. As an off wiki example, my driving licence didn't lapse simply because the only driving I did in 2009 was in December. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That example isn't really on point, Chequers; you will note that your license has an expiration date, which needs periodic renewal. After a longer period of inactivity, you are usually required to submit to a written exam as well as a driving test. Our admins currently have no expiration date, meaning that admins stay on the rolls until well after they are dead or otherwise departed from the wiki-en. As there are limited, largely ineffective controls on helping admins who are encountering issues until well after they go off the rails. The point is that, once a editor becomes an admin, we simply cross our fingers after a little bit of training, hope for the best and essentially forget about them. This is why we end up with a long list (nearly half of all admins) who aren't actually here anymore. Some inactives do come back, but no one has produced numbers to indicate that this is anything more than a trickle. For those that do come back, I think that they are mature enough (one of those things we usually look for in admins) to understand that they have to ask for the bit after an extended absence. They know they've been away and understand that their admin-ship had probably lapsed. Thin-skinned admins who freak out and get depressed at losing the bit after being away for 6 months are usually pretty bad choices for admins in the first place.

The last reason is - as mentioned before - inactive accounts are more susceptible to tampering, etc. Now, this isn't a common occurrence with either regular editors or admins, but because the toolkit that an admin can bring to bear is more extensive than that of a regular user, it would seem wise to keep these accounts in a protected status. If it helps folk understand that removing the bit from inactive admins is not a punishment, call it a protected status. Either way, when (and if) the admin comes back, they can get the bit back. If they never do, we've effectively protected the account's potential to be used as a platform for damage by minimizing what it can do. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, aren't UK drivers licences good for 25 years or something? The purpose in short term (four or five year) licence renewals is not to take bad drivers off the road, it is to gain revenue and keep ID photos up to date.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You recall incorrectly. 50 years from passing the test assuming no DR10, over point total or medical or otherwise disqualification. What that has to do with the above I don't care but let's at least get something right on WT:RFA :) Pedro : Chat 21:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea, but Arcayne brought it up, and I'm glad I picked the "under". And I did say "25 years or something", hedge, hedge.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The worst bit is you made me look at my drivers licence to check this out and therefore 25 / 50 years - heck close enough - the expiry date seems worringly near :) Pedro : Chat 21:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, then! We will now consider Arcayne's proposal to remove the bits after fifty years of inactivity, absent Editing while Intoxicated.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you do them often enough, speeding and jumping red lights are other ways to lose your license. - Pointillist (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to remove the bit from someone who has done nothing wrong with the tools. Being inactive is not a crime, nor should it result in the loss of the bit. No admin is even required to use their tools.Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:07, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, I started off thinking temporary desysops due to inactivity might be a good thing, siply from a housecleaning perspective, but now I'm not sure if the (marginal) gain would offset the necessary work. Furthermore, the arguments I've read regarding there being no requirement to use the tools are convincing. I think the nail in the proposal's coffin, however, is the claim that this is a solution in search of a problem. Can anyone honestly list a case where an admin's inacticity proved a source of disruption upon return? Remember, policy is in place to reflect the accepted practices of the community, not to change those practices. Furthermore, we are specifically encouraged not to anticipate problems. While this suggestion isn't particularly beany, it's still an attempt to premptively solve a problem that does not yet exist. Should there be a rash of disruption caused by returning admins, then the proposition would warrant a review. For now, however, I simply don't see the need. Throwaway85 (talk) 01:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

No, being inactive is not a crime. However, an admin is at least partially elected based on work that they said they will do - it pretty much one of the primary questions each candidate is asked. Here, we have almost half of our admin corps AWOL with nary a word as to why. Common sense tells us that someone who hasn;t shown up for work for 6 months - with a very few notable exceptions (still waiting on how many have actually ever come back, btw) - they aren't planning on coming back. We strive for honesty here - we block people for failing to be honest, and yet we apparently are condoning a lie that hyper-inflates our actual admin numbers, counting people who don't do the job they were elected to do. Common sense tells us that people who do not do the job they were elected to do should not be counted among those who actually do the work. So, the problem of dishonesty does indeed exist, for those who don't want the inactives removed also want to keep the dead admins as well.

I'll offer an alternative to simply de-sysoping the inactive admins. Let's at least send an email to the over 800 inactives we do have, and re-address this issue in 30 days. If the vast majority of them respond that they intend to come back and act as admins, there isn't a need to remove the mop. However, those who do not get back to us in 30 days should lose the bit, as they probably aren't coming back, and are dead weight. That would seem to provide the necessary proof to the argument. I don't have access to every inactive admin's email address, but I am sure that someone can find that list and send a mass email to each of them, asking if they intend to return in their elected capacity of admin. If no one wants to exert even that effort at notification, I'll volunteer to do it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not just send emails to all "inactive" admins who have enabled "email this user" and explain who you are, what you are doing, and give them a chance to tell you exactly what they think of you and your proposal?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do I keep having to ask you to back off the aggressive tone, Wehwalt? You act as if I am attacking you. I am not. Please assume good faith and try to find some civility, please. You're an admin - act like one, please. I don't want to have to remind you of that which you should already know.

Folk have submitted that the inactives come back all the time. I am suggesting that - instead of simply de-sysoping them as dead weight - we ask them if they plan to return, and wait 30 days for them get back to us (and again, I am offering to shoulder that load). That seems an appropriate amount of time Those that don't get back to us are either uninterested or incapable of returning. I have no idea what to about admins w/out email capability, but don;t think we should do this piecemeal.

This alternative accomplishes two tasks: first, it tells us fairly clearly who is interested in returning and who is not. Secondly, it might inspire the inactive user/admins to return sooner rather than later, their interest in the Project reignited. Everyone wins. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

A little late, but my 2 cents. Desysop of inactive admins is something that we will have to do eventually. 10 years from now, who will argue that we should have 25,000 inactive sysop accounts, most of which haven't logged in in years? The liability keeps growing the longer that we put this off. Do we wait for the first eBay auction or do we put a reasonable policy in place before that point? Gigs (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, Arcayne. Why not email inactive admins and ask them to give up the bits? Instead you seem to be referring I don't know what. Perhaps a gentler way of doing this would be to have admin actions by an admin who has been inactive for six months flagged in some way in the admin log for the first two weeks he's back. That would cover both the comprimised account and the Rip van Winkle scenarios.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies; I was unaware that the outstanding question wasn't answered. I think that you are perceiving my intent incorrectly here. I would love if all 1707 admins were 'hi ho hi ho'; practicality (and the long list of inactive admins) suggest this is a fanciful notion. My alternative is that we write an ask them if they are interested in continuing to act as admins in the wiki-en. Those that get back to us answering in the positive are good. Those that don't - I submit - aren't planning to either respond or come back. Those we can remove with some sense of finality. This isn't about "punishing" those who aren't here; it's championing the title of those who are here, actively doing the work. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Accepted, and apology offered in like spirit, both here and at the other thread. Still, it strikes me that flagging the revisions and admin actions of a newly returned admin for two weeks (or give, say, a checkuser the power to quietly extend that) would be a better way of doing it. It doesn't solve your point about having an accurate number of admins, but it was proposed somewhere that we break out the number of six month inactives seperately. We could even refer to the number of "active admins" that we have.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I read that when it was proposed, but I think that actually consume more admin resources than removing the bit from those who simply don;t respond to the email "ping". After all, most active admins are pretty heavy users of the wiki, and that would mean a lot of revisions and admin actions. I am less concerned with Rip Van Admin coming back to take a baseball bat to the whipper-snappers; sure it could happen, but it is pretty unlikely. For me, the question hinges on an accurate head count and the perceived dishonesty of over-recording our admins. Wehwalt had mentioned the idea of a Wiki adminship popping up on Ebay; I had frankly never considered that, and that stark possibility should put the fear of jeebus into every single one of us. How the idea relates to the proposal above is that the number of reconfirmation RfA's are a lot easier to plan for if we have an accurate head count of who's on post and who's AWOL (to wax military).

Like I said, I don't mind crafting a letter to the inactive admins. I'm willing to work with Wehwalt and others to make sure that the resulting email is one that encourages them to come back and lets them know of the proposal currently here is discussion. I am not trying to pull a "fast one". I am not out to "get" admins. Like I said before, if all the inactives come back, that would be fun on a bun. If some decide not to after 30 days, we can discuss where to go from there. The question about removing the bit from inactive admins seems to hinge on alienating and preventing them from coming back. Well, that, and all the "work" involved in accomplishing the task, but I've already said I'll do the lion's share of the work (though some guidance might be useful). I can hand off the email letter to some admin with checkuser capability to let the ones who aren't email-capable through their profiles; maybe they have ways to contact them. How's that sound? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind if you do that. I don't believe I suggested an eBay thing, first I saw of it was in one of your comments. Incidentally, now that we are not at daggers drawn, ahem, it is Wehwalt. By the way, my concern with Rip is not that he'd use a baseball bat, but that he would be seriously unclear on policy. Although frankly, I don't think an admin from 2006 or 7 would have much bother catching up.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just gone back and corrected these misspellings, Wehwalt. Again, my apologies. How do we now go about finding a consensus regarding sending out a form email to each of the 800+ (sigh) inactive admins to see if they plan on returning as admins to the Project? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that would be a fine first step. Spam the inactives. I bet 200-400 of them will just say "turn the bit off" without any arguments. That alone would get some of the benefits without any of the controversy. I'm not sure how to get consensus to spam them, but these threads are getting pretty damn long at this point. At least break this into a new section for discussion at a minimum. Gigs (talk) 13:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion break: spam the inactives

Further discussion on this has moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Inactive admin email. Gigs (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion moved

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As per Gigs' suggestion, I am creating a new section for discussion as to what the mass email to the inactive admins should say. Fire away. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

How about:

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 194/Inactive admin email

I've altered the formatting, as there were some problems with the font style you chose to use. I've subbed boxed text and indenting to serve as a substitute. I've made no other alterations, and I hope the substitution was acceptable, Throwaway. As for my comments, I'll wait to get some more feedback before commenting. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:06, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I suppose using talk page formatting might have made sense... Didn't know you could indent inside a blockquote, which is what I originally used. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:27, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Using email subject line replies has a problem with visibility and record keeping. It would be best if they could log in and sign a list one way or another. I'll leave the wording for that up to you all. I'm striking "in the near future" because some might object to that considering the above discussion about there being no obligation to edit. About regranting, a steward isn't required, so I'm changing that to crat. Gigs (talk) 03:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC) Also changing draft email to transclusion so we can edit it more easily with a history. Gigs (talk) 03:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. The whole idea behind the subject line reply is that I assumed this would be a bot-run affair, but I see your point about transparency. How about we create a page where admins who wish to voluntarily give up the bit (for this or any other reason) can simply sign their name and a steward can remove the bit? The steward would obviously have to verify that it was in fact the user in question who signed. I'm thinking WP:ADMIN/Voluntary desysop for the list, maybe with a shortcut of WP:VDSYSOP? Throwaway85 (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we even need to do that much, Throwaway; those that say they are coming back, we give them, say, a month to show us that they have resumed editing. Those that don't get back to us we simply send to the stewards for removal. No signatures to verify, no lengthy communications - no muss, no fuss. Don't know about you, but once I've decided to stop doing something, I pretty much don't want to have a lengthy discussion about it. Those that want to return and just needed a 'kick in the pants' will have gotten it, and resume editing. Most of those who aren't interested in returning won't respond. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've tweaked the email in accordance with my comments. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be forgetting the "voluntary" part of voluntary desysopping. Throwaway85 (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. The alteration to the letter lets the admin know that if they do not wish to participatre any longer, they need not reply or can reply with the subject: voluntary de-sysop. As I noted before, people not interested in editing anymore are not likely to write and tell us all about it. I propose we respect their wishes and allow them to simply agree by not replying. Those that intend to return are going to write anyway, and those will be the ones we will focus our attention on. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So? The intent is not to threaten desysopping unless they become active again, the intent is to ask them if they would be willing to relinquish the tools for the above reasons. Once again, there is no requirement to use the tools. Inactive admins are doing nothing wrong. We're asking them if they'd like to help out, not delivering an ultimatum. At least that was my understanding. If that's not the case, then I withdraw my support. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is saying that the inactives are doing anything wrong - I am not sure where you are arriving at the idea that I think such. It isn't an ultimatum. If they want to be involved, they'll respond. If they don't want to, there shouldn't be an additional layer to force them to respond. My understanding is that this should be painless. Removing the bit from admins aren't coming back is simple housekeeping. As they are gone, they don't consider it such, anyway. And lastly, the email isn't intended as either a threat or an ultimatum; if they want to come back, they can. If they cannot return immediately, they will tell us so. If they have no interest whatsoever in returning, we let them go with a minimum of fuss. Those who do not write back lose the bit after 30 days of no response. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

}I'd be more comfortable with the original intent. The default to removal seems like punishment. I know that's not how you perceive it, but that's how it comes across to me. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I can appreciate that you might think that, but we are trying to simply assess who's coming back and who is not. I cannot see how letting them know that if they aren't coming back, they need not reply is punishment; they aren't coming back and so therefore don't care. Those that are returning will write back, even if only to say that they have work or family issues and will be returning in a month or so. They are expressing intent to return, and that seems enough to me (unless they won't be on the wiki for another 6-12 months; that's a separate conversation, tho'). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 09:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What about those people who have changed their email account, but they still wish to retain their admin bits? There are a few of those people, and I don't know how that could be accounted for. I'm in opposition of this proposal unless the default to desysop is removed. (X! · talk) · @532 · 11:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for joining in, X! :)

Fraankly, I don't know what to do about the admins who've changed their email address. Hopefully, that constitutes a very small number, and we can - in the alternative - leave a message in the usertalk, asking them to contact whoever we designate to sort through these. I wanted to make clear to you, X, that the removal of the bit is only for those who don't reply. In the case of an admin leaving and coming back later, coming back and saying 'hey, I was off-planet and didn't get the email', whatever - the bit isn't gone forever. I don't believe anyone (including myself) believes that. Any deactivated admin comes back and asks for teir bit, they get it back as if it never left. There would be no stigma attached; it is a housekeeping measure, not a punitive one. I hope that makes the intent of the idea (and email) very clear. If they respond in the affirmative (coming back), they hold onto the bit. They don't respond, they lose the bit, but can get it back when they come back. The default must be to de-sysop, since those who have permanently left the Project won't be responding, and we shouldn't wait beyond 30 days for a response that likely isn't coming.

And as an aside, aren't admins supposed to maintain a reliable email address? That would seem to create a boatload of problems. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 12:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There are maybe 12 editors commenting through this whole multi-thread, so signing an email "The Wikipedia Community" hardly seems appropriate. Echoing Wehwalt somewhere in the wasteland above, why don't you guys just do it? Arcayne or Throwaway, send out 50 or so emails on your own behalf to a subset of the inactive admins. Measure the results. How many ignore (or don't receive) the mail, how many respond, how many say "yeah, remove my bit please"? Nothing prevents you from acting on your own to get some hard numbers here. I'd suggest you do that before seeking a community determination on what to do about this hypothetical problem. Franamax (talk) 12:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that's presumptuous to sign it on behalf of the community. Regarding X's concern, we can send it out without any "default to desysop" and decide what we want to do with the unresponsive admins later (most likely nothing, I don't see consensus forming there). Gigs (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you correctly: you want me to send out 50 emails to 50 inactive admins, wait 30 days and then decide that you are likely going to do nothing? Really? Sorry, that dog won't hunt. The reason why this is being discussed here is to agree to an alternative to simply removing the bit from inactive admins. The letter is sent out by the Wikipedia Community, because the Community wants information upon which to make a decision. This alternative idea was to remove the bit only from the admins who do not/cannot reply, like our dead admins. Please point out how having dead admins on our rolls helps the Project, instead of being a potential PR nightmare. I mean, having almost half our admin corps nowhere near the wiki and fighting like hell to preserve their admin status is bad enough. Do you really want it out there that some admins fought like hell to keep dead admins on the rolls? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

There was a recent discussion on ANI involving an admin who had died over a year ago, the consensus was against desysopping the account of the dead user. MBisanz ^talk 15:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You should feel free to post a link to that AN/I discussion, MBisanz. I'd very much like to see the particulars of that complaint. Why on earth would someone keep a dead admin on the rolls? If true, that's pretty close to the dumbest decision I've ever heard in Wikipedia (and that's saying something). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive205#Adminstrator_who_passed_away.. MBisanz ^talk 16:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, MBisanz. Looking over that conversation, it looks like the consensus was to de-sysop the account. As the deceased's name is no longer listed as an admin, I think we can safely assume that the admin tools were removed. There you go - precedent. :)- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, looking at the userrights interface and toolserver he is still an admin. MBisanz ^talk 16:49, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not the intent but this comes across as an attempted end-run around the previous discussion. A suggestion to automatically de-sysop inactive admins is not gaining consensus; an attempt to write a letter signed as "the community" and that purports to remove the bit from unresponsive admins, in light of the unsuccessful nature of the previous proposal, is unseemly. As stated above, if you want to start spamming inactives to try and gauge their intentions, you may do so as individual editors and without the "no reply = desysop" clause. Heck, you can even ask them if they want to have the bit turned off, but none of this presumption that lack of reply is the same thing as consent. However this strikes me as a re-hash of the previous proposal - de-sysoping the inactives - for which I see no point. Shereth 15:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry Shereth, but no one has yet to respond with a single solid reason as to why we should actively lie about our admin numbers, leave those accounts open to fraud and theft and reward abandonment of their admin responsibilities. No one has pointed out where the measurable value from these dead or unlikely to return admins comes from. Simply because you do not see a point to it doesn't translate as a lack of consensus.

I'll also point out that your characterization that this is an "end-run" around the previous discussion is a rather poor characterization. The main reason objection to the suggestion of deleting our inactives was that they might take offense to being de-sysop'd - this despite the numerous times it was pointed out that these housecleaning/security removals of the bit could be easily returned when (and if) the absent admin ever returned.

Also argued was that inactive admins might be away for only a short time, attending to real world matters. This auto-removal of the bit would only take place if the 6-month inactive admins didn't respond after 30 days - a total of seven months without a single peep from the inactive.

Lastly, it was argued that it was simply too much work to find out who the truly inactive were. At this point, I volunteered to do the work, so long as something came of it, once we were able to prove that there were unresponsive inactives.

The point of the alternative was to provide some numbers of our inactive admins. Those who do not plan to return are quite likely not going to respond to the inquiry. The dead admins can't respond. Those that plan to return, or plan to return eventually, will respond. That group keeps the bit. We are shedding dead weight (considering the number of dead admins on the rolls, that also applies in the literal sense of the term) and being honest with ourselves as to how many admins we actually have working the wiki-en. We are also giving credit by recognizing the efforts of those admins who are actually here doing the work. 1709 guys doing a job is no great shakes. 800 doing the same job is far more commendable. And honest. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

And it has been stated that if we're worried about being "honest" about our admin counts, we can just state we have "X active admin accounts" rather than "Y admin accounts". No need for pushing through new policies with regards to admin activity levels, no need for spamming accounts, no need to removehe bit. I don't buy the "honesty" argument as being very persuasive to the case. As for the rest - "leave those accounts open to fraud and theft" - I'm sorry, but this just comes across as a lot of paranoid hand-wringing over nothing. Please point to the rash of "fraud and theft" that is prompting this discussion of a radical change in our policy. This still sounds like a solution in search of a problem. Finally, are you really going to start talking about "abandonment of admin responsibility"? Really? Surely you haven't forgotten that everybody here is volunteering our time and efforts - it is inane to start making demands of a volunteer's time or how active they choose to be (or not be). You claim that there have been no cogent arguments for retaining inactive admin accounts, and that may be your interpretation; it has been my observation that there have been no compelling arguments for "shedding the dead weight". Also, for what it's worth, you appear to have misunderstood me - I never stated that this was an "end-run" but that it has the appearance of one. There's a difference there. Shereth 16:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Your exact wording was that it "comes across" as an end-run. It's an evaluative statement, not a speculative one, therefore imparting an entirely different intent.

Also, I will again point out constantly updating a page showing active admin accounts is pretty wasteful, especially when a one-time action clears the deck of admins who aren't here anymore. No one has been able to provide anything approaching a comprehensive list of inactive admins who returned to the fold after an extensive absence. Seeing as we aren't talking about removing the bit forever, but rather removing the bit to protect the encyclopedia as well as provide accurate numbers of admins to the public - just imagine how much fun the press would have upon learning that we were aware that half our admins were inactive for over 6 months, and we kept touting our 1700+ admin corps. It would be a PR fiasco, and one that can easily be avoided.

Just last week, an inactive admin account was hijacked by a permabanned user to conduct breaching experiments in BLP (now the subject of an Arb complaint against the facilitator). The argument that such account hijacking never occur is rendered somewhat moot. As inactive accounts are less monitored by the editor, the likelihood of undetected hijacking skyrockets.

And forgive me, but no one is telling an admin how active they have to be, Shereth; we are simply expecting them to show up. They were elected because they were trusted to use the tools to better the encyclopedia. How can an admin do that if they have left the project? No one is "demanding" anything; I am simply positing that those inactives who would not respond to a simple email inquiry aren't planning on returning. And since when is being honest a non-persuasive argument? I;m sorry, but pragmatism takes a back seat to honesty every time here.

Lastly, I will point out yet again that these de-sysops are not of the same sort as those given to admins who cock up. The bits for inactives can be reclaimed simply by showing up. The targeted email was going to determine who would and would not show up. For convenience sake, those who didn't respond would lose the bit. That's actually a bit of convenience there. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Stating that the automatic de-sysop can be undone by a simple request upon an editor's return alleviates some of the concerns that I have, but seems inconsistent with some of the previous arguments being made. If the impetus is the security of the 'pedia, the problem is that all a potential hijacker has to do is kindly ask a b'crat for the bit to be returned (whilst in the guise of a hijacked account), and viola - hijacked admin account. Anyone sophisticated enough to identify an inactive admin account and subsequently gain control of it will not be deterred by the extra step of identifying former sysop accounts and requesting the restoration of the permissions. You also point out (correctly) that we select admin candidates who are "trusted to use the tools to better the encyclopedia". Revoking the bit based upon inactivity potentially sends the message "you are no longer trusted" - is this a message we want to be sending? Your proposal presupposes that someone who fails to respond to your email will not return, but even that has little basis in fact. We do not know why an editor chooses to be inactive, and we do not know why they choose not to respond to an email (frankly, if I were on an extended hiatus from editing Wikipedia, I'd probably only skim such an email at best). I'm also not seeing the same PR nightmare that you are with regards to "honesty". We simply are not being dishonest - never do we say that we have ~1,700 active administrators. It is trivial to create an automated process for udpating the number of active administrators, and equally trivial to make a point of "advertising" this number. So, yes, claiming "honesty" is not a persuasive argument when there is no dishonesty taking place. Shereth 17:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that we already have guidelines on how to deal with deceased users (just discovered this, whilst looking over some info provided in a noticeboard discussion from last December). WP:DWG (arising from an unequivocal consensus after extensive discussion) states that sysop rights should be removed from deceased admins. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that account was not desysopped, it is still an admin. See [13]. MBisanz ^talk 16:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Check out List of Administrators; the user's name isn't there. Ergo, the person is not an admin. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

That list is a manual list, please refer to the automatically generated list by the software at [14]. MBisanz ^talk 17:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Odd, the consensus of the discussion was to de-sysop. I wonder why a crat didn't follow through. Oh, that's right - you are a crat, MBisanz. Why didn't you follow through on the request to de-sysop? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Crats can't desysop, only stewards can and they follow the local policy of the wiki, and our local policy for admins does not recognize community desysops or desysops for inactivity/death. MBisanz ^talk 17:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Deceased admins should be de-sysoped on the grounds that the account should be treated as compromised. A deceased's computer is likely to pass into the hands of another, and there is a strong possibility that passwords are stored on it which would allow access to admin tools. Better to prevent misuse of admin tools than to fix the mess created by such use. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Despite guidelines to do precisely that? All the more reason to take care of this now. I'm sorry, but if you aren't here to to do the work, or are in face dead, you can't rightly claim the title any longer. It's simply dishonest. As well, it's crazy stupid to leave an account exposed for reasons of sentimentality or fear. That's simply irresponsible. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone wake me up when this solution finds a problem. And don't sign on behalf of "The Community" and don't expect a "default to desysop" to fly. –xeno^talk 17:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed to death, no pun intended, several times. Last time I recall is this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive205#Adminstrator_who_passed_away which has some instructive links and arguments. But basically, yes they should be removed, not because of security issues, and it seems unlikely to happen.--Tznkai (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, Tznkai, it is probably an unlikely event, but it can happen, as evidenced by the MZMcbride ArbCom occurring at this time. A permabanned user snuck in using a hacked inactive user's account. You can probably guess how long it took to undo the damage done by the hijacked account - time that might have been saved by simply preventing the tools from being available to the account. While unlikely to happen, it can and does happen. If an inactive isn't using it, its a security breach waiting to occur. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What damage was caused by the account? –xeno^talk 18:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You might want to read up on that at ArbCom; I don't want this discussion to go too far afield. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:45, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Xeno, you list things that we shouldn't say. How about some ideas as to how we do sign it? Me sending it by myself doesn't provide any incentive for any admin - inactive or otherwise - to respond. Hell, I have a hard enough time just getting the active ones to respond half the time. As well, is your resistance to "default to desysop" or is it to desysoping at all? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

My objection is that this email is begging the question - I don't see that consensus has developed to desysop inactive admins so the email purporting that the default will be desysop is patently false... Nor can a bureaucrat "close" (?) the adminship. –xeno^talk 18:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I can see what you are saying. I am seeing the same people objecting to anything that threatens an admin's rights, but I am seeing more new people on the other side of the argument. The email is in response to the objections and arguments that the inactive admins are chomping at the bit to come back would feel terribly offended if we removed the bit because they were absent for half a year. The email would test the validity of that argument. My working theory is that not that many are going to respond. Let's say that theory proves out. What then? I ask because I want to keep the discussion from getting ever longer without coming to a working solution. So, tell me what the email should say, Xeno. Please be as specific as you can, Convince me that not getting a reply from an inactive admin is not just cause to remove the bit, remove the security risk and present an accurate accounting of our admins. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is to go ahead, you will need to show the stewards a local policy that allows inactive admins to be desysopped without their consent. Without such a policy being in place, a steward cannot remove an admin's rights due to inactivity. WJBscribe (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So, you are saying that there is no current policy or guideline to remove an inactive editor based on the email, right? I kinda thought that that's what we were discussing here - a new policy to deal with this. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, then I have misunderstood. I thought the emails were intended to be an alternative to a policy providing for the desysopping of inactive admins. WJBscribe (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Now that you are here, though, WJBscribe, how does policy get enacted? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:33, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The usual way is to create a page setting out the policy you want adopted, e.g. Wikipedia:Removal of Inactive Administrators. The proposed new policy is then advertised widely, e.g. at WP:AN, the village pump, WP:CENT etc. People then weigh in and discuss the proposed policy. Sometimes a poll is used to demonstrate the level of support the proposed policy has. Once people are agreed that the policy should be adopted, they label it as a policy. WJBscribe (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What security risk? There's more of a security risk from active admins, devs have confirmed this. They've also run a brute-force attack looking for weak passwords on all administrator accounts. I don't think the email is necessary, because I don't think there's a problem here. WP:LOAA is provides an accurate accounting of our admins. –xeno^talk 18:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(←outdent) Well, then, your objection to the wording of the email isn't at all what you are concerned about - you object to the entire idea of even sending out an email. You object to the entire idea of removing the inactives - including dead admins - at all. I appreciate that you noted the "devs" (sorry, unfamiliar with that term, but it doesn't really matter). but we aren't talking about active admins here. If there's a breach, the active admin is going to notice that something is wrong long, long before an inactive admin (esp. one gone for over 6 months) will. It's like someone breaking into a house where the people are simply at work as opposed to a house where the folk are wintering in Paris (...wait, that's the premise of Home Alone). As I noted earlier, we were breaches by an inactive admin just last week, so - unlikely as it is, "devs" aside - it does occur. Who wants to play Russian Roulette with over 800 inactive accounts where a notable portion of them cannot ever let us know something is amiss due to their being dead? This is not only housekeeping. This is not only about honestly giving our numbers. This is just basic common sense, ladies and germs. This is something that is going to up and bite us over and over again. Do we wait until the first admin account is sold off at ebay before we react? It has already been proven to be a problem in the hear and now. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Arcayne, when I suggested going forward with the email, it was with the implicit assumption that if they didn't respond, we would do nothing. Lets just clean out the ones that respond and voluntarily give up the bit, as that improve the security situation without being controversial. To those who say this isn't a security problem, I strongly disagree. You don't leave privileged accounts laying around after people quit or no longer need them. That's very basic security best practice. It's not a serious or pressing security issue that justifies any extreme action, but it's worth pursuing. Gigs (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you talking about the Cool3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) account? While the full facts of that aren't available, I don't think there was any "hacking" or "cracking" that was made possible due to the inactivity of the admin account. Also - what damage was caused by it?

I am not necessarily objecting to the idea of removing inactive admins, but I do object to your position that consensus has developed here for the same. It hasn't. I only see a handful of people supporting it, versus the many who have opposed it here, and every time this perennial proposal has been made.

If you want to send some emails on your own recognizance, go ahead, but don't say that it's coming from the "community" and don't pretend that consensus exists to "default to desysop".

And yes, I do want a problem to present itself before we craft a solution. –xeno^talk 19:37, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi-arbitrary break

I have edited the draft email in order to better match consensus. Gigs (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've made some additional tweaks. [15] Most importantly, stewards will not accept a request from the originator of this email, so they should be directed to m:SRP. –xeno^talk 19:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted your tweaks, Xeno. No offense, but the point has been made numerous times before that if an admin isn't interested in editing anymore, we don't want to make them jump through any more hoops than we have to. We don't want to make it difficult for them to leave if they wish. A simple subject line reply will do just fine. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it won't. A steward will not take your word that an admin emailed you asking for the bit to be turned off. They'll want some kind of on-wiki action from the user in question. Preferrably on meta, but on en.wp would be acceptable. –xeno^talk 20:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(ex X3) I'll ask again, Xeno: what should the letter say? Why on earth would an admin - esp. an inactive admin - respond to an inquiry from me (a non-admin) at all? Half the time, I cannot even get an active admin to get back to me, busy as they are. And the fact that this is a "perennial request" pretty much means it is a problem, and isn;t going to go away until a solution is found. I'm sorry, but I just don't get why you think dead admins are as valuable and important as active live ones; I'd prefer to honor the ones who are actually here than the ones who have either died or gone on to other things. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I already told you what I thnk the letter should say by editing it directly - but you reverted me. heh... –xeno^talk 20:18, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Gigs, I'll drop the auto-desysop for now, even though I know we are going to have to revisit their non-response yet again in the near future. I have dibs on 'I told you so.' - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I largely agree with Xeno's changes that you reverted as well. One problem is that inactives probably won't know what a global account is or have an account on meta... Xeno can't we do a local page here just for this? Gigs (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd have been inclined to support Xeno's edit, as well. I find it unlikely that Stewards will accept a forwarded email for the purposes of removing the sysop bit. Shereth 20:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the stewards tend to be rather particular that it must be communicated directly to them, either via private communication from the admin or via m:SRP, I can't see them bending the rules they apply to all 700+ wikis just for us. MBisanz ^talk 20:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I largely agree with Xeno's changes that you reverted as well. One problem is that inactives probably won't know what a global account is or have an account on meta... Xeno can't we do a local page here just for this? Gigs (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I too prefer the revisions that Xeno and Gigs have made. My intent in propsing the draft was never that there would be a default to desysop unless the editor responds--an admin Dead man switch, if you will. The problem of inactive admins is not nearly so great that it requires such a measure, and this is by far the wrong place to claim some sort of consensus has arrisen supporting it. My preferred method of enacting this would be

To make desysopping voluntary
To start an RfC to determine if there is community support
To make a bot that handles the emailing automatically, and sends future emails as admins pass whatever activity cutoff we decide upon

Arcayne, if you'd like to get something done here, may I strongly suggest you drop the personal crusade angle? It isn't helping, and is only further dividing people. As far as the stewards are concerned, that's why we need to put the link in the email, as I don't see anything getting adopted as policyThrowaway85 (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as its on en.wp the steward will probably act on it, but an edit to m:SRP is the best way to go about it. –xeno^talk 20:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

So long as the bot (if it is to be one) posts the reply somewhere in their userspace, or stewards have access to the raw emails (not forwarded, etc), then I could see that happening. Desysopping based on some editor's say-so seems unlikely. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Stewards will want an edit on en.wp or meta. Period. –xeno^talk 20:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there an en.wp equivalent to the meta link you posted? Also, if the global sysops deally goes through, as seems likely, then wouldn't they have to go to meta anyways? Throwaway85 (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Global sysops is a red herring. We don't have an en.wiki equivalent for m:SRP, but the admin in question could edit their talk page and say something to the effect of "Please remove my administrator privileges effective immediately", and then someone could point a steward at m:SRP to that difflink. Though, it would be more efficient for the admin in question to post directly to m:SRP =) –xeno^talk 20:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. If they don't have meta accounts, then that's fine. The goal shouldn't be to desysop every inactive admin or get them back editing, but rather to offer the opportunity to inactive admins to relinquish their bit and help us out on the housecleaning front. It's totally up to them whether they do so. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure need a formal RfC for what will be a relatively uncontroversial action, but it might be nice to break this conversation and the draft email off onto its own page because we are veering pretty far offtopic for this page and it looks like we do have resolve to actually get something accomplished here rather than just talk, and we just need some space to hammer out the details. Gigs (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The RfC was so that we could legitimately sign it as "the community". What about making a bot for it? I sure don't feel like sending 800 emails manually. Anyways, shall we move things to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Inactive admin email?

Yeah if we want to sign it as the community and have a bot doing this on an ongoing basis then I agree we should do an RfC... probably just a simple talk page one though. I'm going to move this conversation over to the talk page there and leave a pointer on WT:RfA Gigs (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Further discussion on this has moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Inactive admin email. Gigs (talk) 21:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)