Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/2019 Resysop Criteria (2)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Closing[edit]

Cyberpower678: a couple days early isn’t it? Also are you meaning that these check marks are becoming policy or going forward for a final ratification round? –xenotalk 00:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xeno, It's been 30 days since the start of the RfC. That's usually when I begin to close them if I watch them. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno, also what do you mean check marks? I'm not placing any check marks.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno is referring to the checkmarks that were added here (but not by you). Useight (talk) 04:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Xeno: I added them as I thought they'd be useful for understanding the result at a glance. If you (or anyone else) thinks they're unhelpful feel free to revert. Wug·a·po·des​ 07:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what they mean, I think it's helpful to have them so people can checked what's passed quickly --valereee (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I’m fine with the adornments, ease of reference. –xenotalk 18:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
e.g. your closing statement next to Tony B’s statement - You’re saying that is becoming policy? –xenotalk 00:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

undefined:::Xeno, I'm not placing any check marks next to his statement. As far as I can gather there is nothing supporting that these passed statements are heading into a third RfC. Statement 18, which proposes such had no consensus, thus defaulting to the statements having passed in this RfC being written into policy. If you feel I am overlooking something, please let me know. —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:44, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cyberpower678, the latter part of "a bureaucrat should be reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor" is IMO a radical change to the procedure for bureaucrats that I'm not sure should be enforced based on 37 supports. As worded, it's pretty much a question of guessing the future on not nearly enough information. Maxim(talk) 00:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim, I do not feel it is my call to sling that particular statement to a successive RfC. The call for further RfCs had not gotten any consensus, so I feel it would be inappropriate for me to go against that. However, I'm not saying a successive RfC would be out of the question. But at this time, anything that has passed, should be written into policy. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 01:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think that was at all the expectations of those participating here, but I could be wrong. –xenotalk 02:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maxim, as someone who would have to follow this policy, are you asking for further clarification/definition on what is meant by reasonably convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor? Because I think that's reasonable. --valereee (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was advertised as an implementation RfC on the first part. It was explained as such, and advertised widely. If you think that this RfC had too few participants, then the next one would have even less as the more discussion are had the less people care, and the less participation is had. Several things here are clear:
  1. The community wants a stricter resysop policy.
  2. The community supported a first RfC that called for a second (not a third or endless) RfC
  3. Both RfCs were widely advertised.
  4. There are options that have apparent consensus of the participants after wide advertising and two community discussions.

There is no need for further discussion. A closer should close this and be done with it. Anything else is filibustering, and will result in no policy change despite the fact that the community has expressed its desire for one. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I would have liked to see at least the number of participants that show up to an average RfA to show up to an RfC granting bureaucrats new and wide-ranging discretionary power. My expectation was that a bunch of statements were being straw polled to put together a definitive and final proposal, not just throw a bunch of loose and various statements together into a stew pot and eat whatever comes out. Anyhow, I’m sure the bureaucrats will follow direction if these closures are generally regarded as a legitimate consensus outcome. –xenotalk 06:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would have loved to see that participation too but RfAs get a week of watchlist notifications and is a straight up or down vote on a single topic (candidate). This was more complex and wasn't advertised the same way - which doesn't strike me as unusual for a RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was one of the worst policy change RfCs I have seen in a while (jumping straight into voting on proposals without any attempts at consensus building by workshopping the proposals). But let's see if it works nevertheless. What we have now is that the three year rule has been changed to a two year rule, and bureaucrats have discretion when re-sysopping, but no guidance what to base this discretion on. Let's see how that will work. Out of curiosity, are there people who could be resysopped without RfA yesterday that can't be anymore today? Or will they be discretionary cases? —Kusma (t·c) 10:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That might have increased the number of participants. Or it could have lead to even more fatigue (I think we'd have seen more participation if the first RfC had been closed in a more timely manner) and we'd have had even lower participation owing to even more fatigue. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Kusma wrote: Out of curiosity, are there people who could be resysopped without RfA yesterday that can't be anymore today?

    Any previous administrator eligible under the 3-year window but not under the reduced 2-year window. Normally we gave advance warning when we were changing the rules.

    Also, any "less active" administrator requesting resysop will need to find a bureaucrat that is "convinced that the user has returned to activity or intends to return to activity as an editor." (Why an editor? I thought the whole point was they weren't adminning?) or, in doubt, to a consensus-building discussion among bureaucrats as to the suitability of the request. –xenotalk 17:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps leaving a summary of the changes at WP:BN and WP:AN would be nice, also include in WP:ADMINNEWS and of course update relevant pages like WP:ADMIN and WP:CRAT. — xaosflux Talk 12:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I've left notes at AN,BN,VPP requesting it be written into policy. After that we can work on WP:BUR. –xenotalk 17:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    We should updated Template:Inactive admin as well, I'll wordsmith that one if someone would ping me after the other changes I mentioned are finalized. — xaosflux Talk 13:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Xeno, I'm not sure people were as irked by someone who hasn't done admin stuff being resysopped as they were by someone who hasn't done anything being resysopped. This resysop: Sysopped 23 November 2005. Desysopped 1 October 2017 for inactivity. Resysopped 20 July 2019. 2 edits since. 30 edits since 2008. 1700 total global edits just felt like the final straw to some, I think. I would think a 'crat could look at that request and say, "Yeah, I'm not sure I'm convinced. Maybe we should discuss." And crats could decide, "Hey, get yourself back up to speed, do something to show us you do indeed understand current policy and are in fact intending to start editing again, then make your resysop request." That's 'crats being able to exercise some level of discretion. --valereee (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And the former sysop always has an automatic appeal even if declined - they can just ask at WP:RFA. — xaosflux Talk 18:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. Honestly, it would go a long way to proving adminship is no big deal if desysopped-for-inactivity admins were willing to go through it again. I suspect that most of the last two years of admins resysopped after a period of inactivity would pass RfA with a very short period of reasonable activity. Like a month or so, for any that have more than a few thousand global edits. Some, like DES, would have likely passed immediately. I know it's a hassle, but I kind of feel like it's a 'I'll take one for the team' thing. Just do it. It'd help the community to see that. :) --valereee (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Places needing updating[edit]

Official pages which need some level of updating following this RfC:

Project or other less formal pages which need some level of updating following this RfC:

I have made the above list - which everyone should feel free to add to or mark as completed. I felt a little reluctant to edit crat pages and thought that might be better done by some of the crats who are watching this page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question? So I don't think these ad hoc discussions we will have about the resysop requests should be considered "Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussions (i.e. "WP:CRATCHAT"s), which has a specific meaning. The consensus discussion (if there is doubt or disagreement), can just be held at WP:BN, no? –xenotalk 23:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Xeno: yea, I think the spirit of this is that a 'crat-only discussion should take place, the venue and categorization may not be as important. — xaosflux Talk 23:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably just require some sectioning to keep things organized and allow for community comment. –xenotalk 23:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect so - the current list of CRATCHATs does have the footnote referring to the crat discussion about whether to resysop that went on for a while, which is sort of a template for the style that the new ones will be like Nosebagbear (talk) 10:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested improvement[edit]

Please see WT:ADMIN#Suggested rewording of Restoration of adminship

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/2019_Resysop_Criteria_(2)&oldid=1137447151"