Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy

Jumping the gun?

I have to think that perhaps this policy proposal may be jumping the gun a bit. Shouldn't we be focusing on the technical ability to see it it's even going to be granted first? I'm not saying that this isn't a good first draft, because I think it is; however, I'm thinking "cart before the horse" here. — Ched : ? 22:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal is intended to run in parallel with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag, as referenced at the top of the page. --RL0919 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I had similar thoughts but it was pointed out to me at WP:VPR that such parallel discussions are not without precedent and it allows us to keep the discussion on policy separate from the discussion of the technical ability. If we don't, history teaches us that it will be brought up at the "first" RFC, no matter how often you tell people not to and they will want to discuss those questions. Using this approach, they can, just on the sister-RFC. Regards So Why 22:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@RL0919 (edit conflict) Yes, I'm obviously aware of that. I'm questioning the timing of it. It comes across as instituting a policy before it's even been determined if the ability has the full support of the community. — Ched : ? 22:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The intention is that both RfCs have to gain consensus (at least in part, since this one has several components) for the change to be implemented. If that isn't clear from the wording of the RfCs, then the text should be clarified. --RL0919 (talk) 22:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RL, that does clarify the intended desire a bit for me. I'll certainly give it some thought. — Ched : ? 10:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that the page is fine and ready to go, and have endorsed accordingly. Jus da fax 12:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I also already commented on the other RfC, but maybe that was too soon. Perhaps it would be better to have the endorse/oppose sections closed until the RfC officially goes live? Jafeluv (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All situations

In the section All situations the sentence here:

Bureaucrats are allowed to remove the "administrator" userright from users from user accounts:

from my perspective seems to be a bit awkward. Perhaps it's in a redundant sense. I understand, and it is a simple concept. Perhaps I'm just being too picky on it? Just IMHO. — Ched : ? 13:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like stray words left behind after a copyedit. I think the whole point of soliciting input before it going live was so others could tweak it directly, so I would say - have at it. –xeno^talk 13:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Closing "All situations" section in favor of discussing each point separately

Currently the "All situations" section is running well below consensus (about 50/50) and is underperforming the sections for individual points, mostly because the original wording of point 4 (emergencies) was controversial. In the individual discussion sections that has been WP:SNOW closed and replaced with a new alternative. I suggested updating the wording in "All situations" to match, and Xeno replied suggesting that we just discuss the individual points. That seems reasonable. He also suggested closing "All situations" and distributing any "support" comments to the individual sections. (All the opposes cite #4 as the sticking point, so presumably there's no need to distribute them.) I'm inclined to agree. Are there any objections to doing this, or alternatives others prefer? --RL0919 (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with closing it, although I would not redistribute the !votes. Let's just archive it and the closing editor should judge them accordingly when they close the RFC. Regards So Why 18:09, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I object to auto-distributing the votes -- just close it with an apology and notify everyone to revote, as was done in the dash discussion recently.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. There's only 11 supports, so it will not be a huge problem to notify them. Probably a good idea to notify the opposers too, just to be on the safe side. –xeno^talk 18:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - should be closed and everyone notified. Ben Mac Dui 18:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the section, if someone could make neutral notifications to the 21 affected, that would be good. –xeno^talk 19:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified 10 of the 21; the others had already opined on other sections individually. –xeno^talk 16:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we move the closed sections to the bottom of the RfC, so that new visitors see the active discussions first? --RL0919 (talk) 19:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that might be confusing, but there may be a case to collapse them after a day or two. –xeno^talk 19:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which I've done. –xeno^talk 14:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive bureaucrats

Moved from project page

We really need to do something about inactive crat accounts.... Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agreed — Ched : ? 21:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, me too. If inactive admin accounts are a security risk, then inactive bureaucrat accounts are a security disaster waiting to happen. --causa sui (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree, but one of the complaints about past proposals around this topic was having too many different issues covered in one RfC. So we're taking this one in small chunks. A separate RfC around inactive bureaucrat accounts (maybe after these to avoid overload) is a good idea. --RL0919 (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trust me, you will not be raising too many issues if you include this one here. We don't need 10 million RfCs when I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that the person who can give admin permissions should not be compromised (seeing they can give admin permissions to any random vandal too). Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It simply does not fit here. This is not about who should be a crat and under which circumstances they should stay being a crat. The last discussion on crat removal of bits was mixed with so many different discussions that it was hard to follow what it was about. That's why we decided to keep it simply and strictly on topic. That said, I would support a separate proposal like that. If there are not many issues to be raised, then it will be simple and over soon and since Wikipedia is not paper, there is no reason why we should have to mix two completely different proposals when we can simply create it separately. Regards So Why 22:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think a seperate RFC is appropriate, so try Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Remove_Bureaucrat_bit_from_inactive_accounts for size --Errant ^(chat!) 23:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, ErrantX. Jus da fax 00:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Format

I'd like to commend whoever put this RFC together. It is exemplary in clearly communicating the proposal, as well as allowing for support, opposition, and discussion. Jujutacular ^talk 03:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom Requests

Would it make more sense to have a member of the committee carry out the de-sysop, rather then pass the buck along to a crat? It just seems strange to deputize all crats to do it, when it could just be done in the official capacity by an arb with the crat right. Monty ₈₄₅ 05:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there happens to be an arb who is also a 'crat, then that would be possible, although some may prefer that arbs remain more "judicial" and not carry out the desysop themselves. --RL0919 (talk) 05:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently exactly one ArbCom member who's also a 'crat, Xeno. Should Xeno either become inactive, stop being a member, or be recused from a specific case, before some other 'crat joins ArbCom (or some ArbCom member passes an RFB), there would be no ArbCom members who would be able to do it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:44, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would leave the procedural aspect of any non-emergency desysop request initiated by the committee to another bureaucrat. –xeno^talk 12:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thank god

This is such a good idea, i think when you have admin's they can become 'power crazy' not the best word but its out there. You need a system (like the bots) that just remove the stuff that is wrong by a lot. the rest can be done with edits by other wiki users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imlovintit (talk • contribs) 00:45, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tag

30 minutes? Really?--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:16, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the wording of Template:Rfc. I agree that it seems a little strange once the RfC is already listed, but there's nothing we can do about it for just one RfC; the template would have to be changed for all RfCs. I'd suggest taking it up at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. --RL0919 (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created a couple of tests to alter the language once the RfCs are listed, and started a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Within 30 minutes language on template. --RL0919 (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]