|1) Forum:RFAs - Require RFA for new admins?|
|2) Forum:Retroactive RFAs - Require RFA for existing admins?|
|3) Forum:Inactive admins - Process for inactive admins|
It is likely that part 1 of the RFA thread series will pass, which has raised a number of discussions regarding how we should handle the admins who did not previously pass any RFAs. Please note that I am avoiding the term "grandfathering" because I do not want to cause ambiguity over which process users would be exempt from.
Should we require that existing admins retroactively hold RFAs?
This is slightly more nuanced, because we did previously have 4 or 5 RFAs, and some admins (with or without RFA) were removed for inactivity without any documentation or official process. I would like to keep this discussion as separate as possible from the discussion of inactive admins.
- The extreme option here is that we require all existing admins to immediately hold a new RFA, including those who previously passed one. This could potentially be condensed into one mega-thread, similar to how RSW held the first batch of nominations for The Wikian title.
- The next option is to require existing admins who did not pass an RFA to immediately hold one, the distinction here being that anyone who previously passed an RFA would not need to hold another. Since this would still affect the majority of our admins, the mega-thread could be utilized. There is one caveat in this case, because it is not clear if Brok Enwing's RFA would be considered valid.
- The opposite extreme is all existing admins can remain admins without an RFA because there have been no issues with those users having the tools. There are, however, some past cases of tools being removed for conduct or other reasons. It is hard to track the reasoning of these due to the lack of on-site documentation.
For completeness in your consideration, here is a list of all users who have been admins on OSRSW at any point. There are several distinct cases:
|User:Jr Mime||2013 February|
|User:Iiii I I I||2013 February|
|User:Shaun Dreclin||2013 April|
|User:Scuzzy Beta||2014 October|
|User:Mage Hybrid||2015 February|
|User:Cook Me Plox||2015 March|
|User:Gaz Lloyd||2016 October|
|User:AnselaJonla||only for original import from rsw|
|User:IsobelJ||temporary for fork|
|User:Salix of Prifddinas||temporary for fork|
|User:Habblet||removed by Temu||2015 September|
|User:Hairr||removed by Temu||2015 September|
|User:Wedsa5||removed by Temu||2015 September|
|User:Touhou FTW||removed by Temu||2015 September|
|User:Littlegandhi1199||removed by Temu||2015 September|
|User:Icejunito||removed by Spine for inactivity||2017 August|
|User:Neitiznot||removed by Spine for inactivity||2017 August|
|User:Looler||removed by Spine for inactivity||2017 August|
|User:Haidro||removed by Spine||2018 September|
|User:Ajraddatz (C886553)||removed by spine||2018 September|
|User:HeirApparently||removed by Scuzzy for inactivity||2018 November|
|User:The Mol Man||removed by Spine||2016 July|
|User:Ozank (KnazO, Ozank Cx, Ozuzanna, 18.104.22.168 address)||self removed||2018 October|
|User:Shockstorm||self removed||2019 January|
|User:Noodle Princess||RFA||removed by Spine||2017 August|
|User:Brok Enwings||RFA?||self removed||2018 November|
Support B - The 4 existing RFAs should still be valid, because we haven't had any thread calling for the removal of any of these users' rights. This is the most direct application of our policies, because the only thing that would cause our past RFAs to be invalid is an explicit discussion that that user is no longer eligible to hold admin tools.
Additionally, I don't think Brok's RFA can be considered valid, since it doesn't follow the policies of being open for 1-2 weeks for users to have time to give feedback. This follows from the goal of having RFAs at all, which is to show community approval and not just the opinion of the bureaucrat.
Comment - On Wikidata back in the day, we only had temporary admins to start and then ran a big confirmation process to turn them all into permanent admins. That sounds like option B, and that worked pretty well over there. One big vote and get it all over with. I would support either that (B) or C, but I think A is overkill. Adragon111 (talk) 00:10, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Support A - With a proper rehaul of RfA's I think it's only fair that everyone should have to pass one.00:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- For the 4 users who have already passed proper RFAs, why should they be required to redo them? The actual process hasn't changed between then and now. Riblet15 (talk) 01:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Honestly, I don't think the RfA's were taken nearly as seriously as they will be now. Not to mention Temu and Shoy requests only had 3 comments each... This is not a proper representation of the current community whatsoever. 02:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Support C - I don't think it's neccesary. We can start requiring RfAs moving forward, but it seems a bit much to make the majority of the current admins do it. —Shaun Dreclintalk 02:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Question - If we did have one big mega-thread for all the old RfAs, would all the current admins have to answer the usual RfA questions? Mostly asking because I'm interested in all the different answers, and I wasn't sure becuase that Wikian mega-thread you linked seemed pretty barebones (just names and approvals, pretty much) BigDiesel2m (talk) 03:11, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- Answer - I'm putting together that thread now so we have it for the future. While there is no dedicated "Questions for the community" section in my first revision, I would expect that they would have to answer the questions brought up to them in the dedicated Discussion section. -- 03:38, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- I think there should be at least one question each person has to answer, something like "what have you done as an admin up to this point?". I would like whatever discussion we have to be something we can use as reference in all later discussions about the people who have the admin tools. I also think it should be an opt-in application for each admin, that is to say we don't include people in the list by default until they first answer whatever questions there are. Riblet15 (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Support A/B - Ideally I'd want A, as the decisions made by the (very small) community years ago is not exactly representative of the community today. -- 04:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Support B --Iiii I I I 07:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Support A - Per Kelsey, not only do those old rfa not not reflect the current editing community, many changes including changes to policies over the last few years have occurred. Besides given the nature of A i.e. a mega thread this is not an unreasonable request acting as a stamp of approval going forward. iN008talk 07:41, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Support B, mostly - The "community" is always a changing entity, and I don't really think communities from before have made "mistakes" or whatever in their discussions. We still follow consensus and policies determined by older communities without much teeth gnashing (i.e. we're not re-litigating every FIMG nomination every few years, et cetera), and I don't really see why the distinction should be there for a small subset of discussions. That being said, it would be nice if administrators had the backing of the community. I am okay with the administrators from the very early days of the wiki retaining their rights, but after the RfA process was started then everyone who was sysopped afterwards without discussion should pass some discussion regarding their tools. --LiquidTalk 16:47, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
Support A with amendment — users who have confirmed or implied they suffer from behavioural disorders should be scrutinized moreso than normal users. We have had a lot of incidents lately of aforementioned admins making outbursts, and clearly their mentality should have been taken into far greater consideration when they were made admin initially, possibly vetting them in the first place if this had been the case. 22.214.171.124 18:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
- This is a disgraceful idea and one I will just disregard. -- 00:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
- What the fuck? 00:49, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment - I thought about this some more and it really would be to our benefit to encourage at least some discussion in each RFA. One of the implied goals is to prove to those on RSW that osw also gives out the admin tools responsibly. Since a mega-thread might encourage barebones voting instead, I would prefer separate threads for each RFA. Riblet15 (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Comment/Notice of Intent - My idea for the current plan is as follows:
All current admins listed on RS:A are reached out to, and asked if they want their RfA submitted with everyone elses. They can of course, choose to decline if they'd prefer to do it themselves or not at all. I will then submit these RfAs in a batch when this thread closes, assuming it has reached that consensus. -- 01:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Closure - Option B will be utilised, which is requiring admins who have been sysopped without an RfA in 2) in the list above to be nominated for an RfA. Their sysop rights will remain during this process, and will stay or be removed depending on community census of their RfAs. As per Forum:Inactive admins, past admins whose rights were removed will also be required to be nominated through the RfA process. -- SpineTalk 03:56, 4 February 2019 (UTC)