requests For Adminship/Archive 194

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 Wiki talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC#Motion to close. Shubinator (talk) 22:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

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 Wiki: 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 SoWhy 09:52, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Not quite, there are 8, all from 2005: Wiki: Requests for adminship/BugzPal, Wiki: Requests for adminship/Doidimais Brasil, Wiki: Requests for adminship/Freestylefrappe, Wiki: Requests for adminship/Haham hanuka (2), Wiki: Requests for adminship/maltesedog, Wiki: Requests for adminship/MegamanZero, Wiki: Requests for adminship/SamuraiClinton, Wiki: Requests for adminship/YHoshua... I couldn't find any RfAs since 2005 where it's gone the full distance with 0 supporters. This might be the first one! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:16, 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. Wiki: Unsuccessful adminship candidacies (Chronological)/2005 lists as equivalent withdrawn candidacies by crats but there were and are much fewer crats so it's quite logical that some ran for 7 days that would have been withdrawn by a crat if they had noticed it.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 SoWhy 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 SoWhy 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)

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). ϢereSpielChequers 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 Wiki 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)

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)

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 SoWhy 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. ϢereSpielChequers 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. ϢereSpielChequers 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)

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 Wiki English. 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 SoWhy 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. GedUK  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 SoWhy 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. ϢereSpielChequers 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)
Wiki: 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 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)

I have two questions about voting.

1. 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.
2. 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)

1. Yes. That is detailed on the main project page. Sometimes IPs comment, and their discussions are helpful, but they cannot vote.
2. 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 Wiki English. ♪ 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 SoWhy 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)

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 SoWhy 12:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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 Wiki 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. Timmeh 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)
Wiki: 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... " Timmeh 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 Wiki English. Take for instance the Simple Wiki, 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 Wiki.) –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 Wiki talk:Removing administrator rights/Proposal for example from September 08 but I think there was one later as well because I remember participating. Regards SoWhy 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 Wiki: Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking. Thank you, -- Avi (talk) 15:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)