Talk:Requests for comment/Minimum voting requirements

Numbers and percentages

Please forgive me, but this is an attempt to extend a systems that has run it's course. Electing people on any Wikimedia project based on number of edits and percentage of votes has failed, and in no way helps the healthy development of those projects.

Anybody that is willing to run for election and/or be elected should make it's real identity known.

Elected user should possess a wide range of qualities and qualifications, that would make them a real asset to the project has to reduce to the possible extent the risk of becoming a immediate liability, and a major obstacle to civility, growth and development both in the short and medium range.

Human qualities and project quality must take precedence over quantity and number of edits.

No minors should be eligible for any position whatsoever.

Technical tasks should be carried by those technically qualified, but under the direct supervision of editors with much more broader qualifications.

No one should have more that one position at any given time.

Separation of powers, main activities and responsibilities are a must on any project.

Everybody should be elected for a limited term, with suitable but also limited reelection rules.

Projects without enough editors to fill all necessary positions, should be smaller partners of a larger project or recruit enough people on other projects to fill all open positions

This surely is a very incomplete and poorly organized list. I'm sure that there are people more qualified than myself who could present a well structured and coherent system that Wikimedia projects urgently need to put in place if they really aspire to become what they are supposed to be.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 02:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Make a section on the content page with your suggestions and allow others to comment on it as they would. You will, of course, need to address how projects will be able to maintain sufficient numbers of volunteers to perform such activities when the current number of volunteers is insufficient and you intend to require public identification, access to a single role at a time and limit the number of terms they may have. Further, you would need to make an argument about how this new policy should apply to all projects and convince the majority of users that this is both doable and in their own best interests.

While there are some clear government-derived concepts which would benefit Wikimedia Foundation projects, such limitations may well put into positions of authority people willing and able to abuse it sooner than if you had those volunteers who slog through the work on a daily basis. The limitations on terms would remove people who have been doing the same menial yet access-needed jobs for years, either leaving such jobs unfinished and languishing for no reason or replace such hardworking folk (and I've met a few... they're rare, but they exist) with autocratic dictatorial types who hurry to click the little "block" button whenever possible.

Don't misunderstand, I'm sure your heart is in the right place, but we have the same issues here that offline volunteers have: Too many people wanting to be associated with it and far too few willing to do the needed work. Kylu 02:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Kylu,

Thank you so much for your comment. You might not have meant it, but you did start on the wrong foot. You're not supposed to tell anybody here what to make or do. A suggestion would be nice, but that is not the best way to word it. Otherwise you might get an answer like: "You want a section made? Make it yourself". I thought I had made it perfectly clear that what I wrote was "a very incomplete and poorly organized list". That I was "sure that there are people more qualified than myself who could present a well structured and coherent system that Wikimedia projects urgently need to put in place if they really aspire to become what they are supposed to be". Doing what you told me to do is absolutely out of the question. I didn't volunteer to do any such thing. I only made a comment and didn't order anybody to do anything. So I don't and never will have any of the "needs" you list, no matter how clever they are. I also do not intend anything. I simply gave my opinion. If you disagree, there are better ways to express your dissenting opinion.

Concerning new Wikimedia policies, I hope that I will never propose, subscribe or support by any means anything that is in the best interest of the majority of the users. I don't think that's aligned with the Wikimedia Foundation Vision, Mission, Values, and Strategy. On everything that is done here, it's the readers best interests that are at the top of the pyramid. On the numbers pyramid, they are the ones at the bottom, far exceeding the number of users. Ting Chen is at the bottom of the first pyramid, and conversely at the top of the second.

Your statement concerning possible negative consequences of the application of government-derived concepts to Wikimedia Foundation projects, may reflect your opinion, but is contradicted by the organization of any society or community in the civilized world. What you'll find well documented is how some of "those volunteers who slog through the work on a daily basis" have "put into positions of authority people willing and able to abuse it." At this point, it might be appropriate for you to review the story behind Apelles saying: "Let the shoemaker venture no further."

I respect your opinion concerning term limitations, but you see, I'm a Republican and a Democrat. Life long ruling is akin to Absolutism and/or Dictatorship. Even modern monarchies have a government with term limitations and there is no record of that removing "people who have been doing the same menial yet access-needed jobs for years, either leaving such jobs unfinished and languishing for no reason or replace such hardworking folk (and I've met a few... they're rare, but they exist) with autocratic dictatorial types who hurry to click the little "block" button whenever possible". You might never have lived under an autocratic regime, but I did until some years past my adulthood, and I can assure you it isn't pretty. On the other hand (or end) Proletarian Government is a spent ideal, which quite unfortunately led to some of the most dreadful consequences. In this case dreadful is quite an euphemism.

Thanks for your compliment as far as the place of my heart. I wish I could retribute, but I'm afraid you lack the knowledge and/or experience to correct anything on any of Appeles paintings. Your closing statement, reinforces my opinion and my unrequested advice to you. If you were right there would be no functioning ONG, voluntary, non-profit, and/or not-for-profit organizations, and as you can learn, using those "little gray cells" in your brain, there are. Everywhere.

One last thing. Isn't it time you update your user page and do something about your talk page? Both say a lot about you, nothing coming any close to the beauty of that sunset.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 00:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are strongly confusing or misconstruing administrators with governmental power. The origin for your fears and of the the questionable parallels you draw hails from the fact that the regimes you mention had guns, armies, and the power to impose the death penalty at will; and to amass material wealth in return. On the other hand, no-one is able to institute draconic, perilous measures on wikipedia; and no-one is benefiting materially.

The most worrisome part of your stance is the last point; you are proposing that certain communities should be stripped of their autonomy to be left at the mercy of bigger brothers (I hope your education is sufficient enough to recognize this phrase). This will result into exactly the abuses you wish to avoid, and is therefore completely unacceptable. Seb az86556 00:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Here I am trying to take care of Kylu's education and somebody else pops up. Even taking into consideration that you are a user "able to contribute with a basic level of BS" (you spelled it out, I won't) help me out here. What is my last point? I'm sure is not the beauty of the sunset, so I really don't know which one it is. Would you be so kind as to point it out to me? Thank you so very much.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 01:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to interrupt your mission to educate one individual; if that is indeed your mission, consider doing so via a medium that is not public. Your last point was: Projects without enough editors to fill all necessary positions, should be smaller partners of a larger project or recruit enough people on other projects to fill all open positions. Seb az86556 03:42, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You have my apologies for using an imperative to give a suggestion rather than wording it specifically, but in response to your "If you want a section made, make it yourself": I created the content page, so I have made the sections there myself. Also, the insulting finishing statement regarding "little gray cells" and your wish that I update my user and talkpages are unnecessary. Were I an evil, autocratic type, I imagine that I would've already clicked that "block" button you mentioned for such. Hopefully you'll try to give me the benefit of the doubt in the future. Best. Kylu 03:57, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It already started on the "wrong foot". First line: "based on number of edits"
The elections are not made according to the number of the edits; it's just a minimum requirement. It doesn't mean that when user X achieve a certain number of edits he will be considered able to do anything. It's just the minimum to be analyzed. The community decides; not the number.

The qualities extra Wikipedia may have not any representation here, since we have our own rules. The user has to show that he knows how Wikipedia works and that requires time here and editing. I could give a few examples of users who have some kind of qualities out of this project, but cannot live together in a community, or uses to insult other users, or doesn't even know the basics, such as signing theirs messages.

What is called here "well documented" refers to the project where the user Vapmachado was banned for several reasons (insult, meat puppetry, posting personal info). Now he finds the place where he can complain about it (with a little bit of propaganda) and pretend to care about a better way of election.--Teles ^{(talk / pt-wiki talk)} -- 04:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Seb, Thanks for the explanation. After reading everything from top, I figured out what you were referring too, although that still was not my last point. There's a whole paragraph after that. No harm done. I'll answer you later.

Kylu, So you're the author of this page. Well, congratulations. I haven't been so lucky. More on that later.

Thank you so much for apologizing. I wrote that "You might not have meant it." Now I know you didn't mean it. I did give you the benefit of the doubt and used the chance to give you some totally free and unsolicited advice. I never follow my own advice. That's why I have so many to give away for free. Let's see if you gave me the benefit of the doubt...

Slow down. No need to feel insulted. I'm sorry you're not familiar with the expression. It's from the TV series Poirot, and when detective Poirot talks about putting his "little gray cells" to work he means great intellectual thinking. Still don't believe me? Google "Poirot little gray cells." It's on Wikipedia too. Sorry to have mislead you.

What do you mean by my wish that you updated your pages? I didn't and don't wish you to do anything. I only asked a question. Do you have an answer? Either it is time or it isn't, according to you, the user. Sorry if my question bothered you. I do have a tendency to ask a lot a questions. Nice way to learn stuff you know? (That is not a question, just a figure of speech.)

I'll write more to all of you guys. It might take a week or more, but I'll keep in touch. Just didn't want any of you upset for no reason.

Sincerely,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 04:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I started the content page in order to try to set some minimum guidelines to reduce disputes regarding promotions and demotions. The latest sections "Removal of administrators against their will" was created specifically to address those who are corrupt and abusive, and hopefully to remove their ability to abuse people possibly even before it becomes a problem with that person. I don't think that "Isn't it time you update your user page and do something about your talk page?" is really intended as a way for you to "learn stuff", though if it is I'd love to hear your explanation: I haven't suggested that your signature (which extends six character lines) is overly long and that you should trim it for instance, so why would my userpage be an issue? I haven't actually decided if I'm going to be back or not really, as there are sadly far too many unsavory types who visit Meta at times for my tastes: Various vandals, trolls, abusive people from various projects all seems to want to congregate here and poll stewards (such as myself) in order to persuade us to give them rights, remove the rights of their enemies, and otherwise sneak abusiveness into our processes. While this, of course, requires a certain measure of vigilance, we also attempt to ensure that our vigilance doesn't become heavy-handed and suppress those who have legitimate claims or simply misunderstand the processes here. Unfortunately, on Wikipedia as in my culture, people have developed a certain sense of entitlement which has trained them that if they complain enough or mention that they have a lawyer, the opposition will simply roll over and give them what they want. These factors together have given significant overlap between the behaviors of people who are consciously abusing the system but in a subtle manner and those who are not intentionally abusive but simply misguided. As far as Poirot, I have no television, so hopefully you'll forgive me for not being a fan nor familiar with the show. I have not exhausted my latest bibliophilic acquisitions, so I have some significant reading to do before even considering wasting hard-earned money on another entertainment device. Lastly, while I do appreciate the work that you've put in, both here and in your professional life as an educator, I might suggest that it would be seen as somewhat less condescending if you were to attempt to limit your professorial style to those who have either paid or asked you for such an approach: In English, it sounds neither professional or friendly. Hope you enjoy the week off. Kylu 11:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Also, I posted a section with your suggestions, please see diff. I have attempted to do this accurately, but some of the social issues (Electing someone on technical merits for technical positions, for instance) are directives to the electors which I don't think fit well either as a ruleset or directly in the context of the page. Feel free to correct the section wording. Kylu 15:40, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Kylu, I would appreciate if you honor this request to remove all material attributed to me[1] from the page Requests for comment/Minimum voting requirements. Thank you so very much.

Best regards,

Virgilio A. P. Machado

Vapmachado 20:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, but I need a little clarification: Do you want the material removed or just the attribution? They're valid points, though I suspect they won't be terribly popular. Unfortunately, on pages like the content page here, it's usually expected that pertinent points will be brought up on the content page, so I'd fear that your ideas and concepts here would be ignored if the material itself were removed. Kylu 20:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The request is "to remove all material attributed to me[2]" Vapmachado 20:24, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. For future reference, when you're citing a diff, you don't need to include the title parameter, as the software will recreate it for you. Up to you either way though. Also, there's a {{diff}} template you can use, though I never remember to do so... ah well. Kylu 20:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

If you're only here to keep us busy with your private musings, I suggest you don't write anything at all. thanks. Seb az86556 20:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Minors

Why exclude minors from running? Has anyone been able to present any convincing arguments for why not? Tisane 20:41, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

no, not really :P Seb az86556 20:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Without forming or expressing an opinion one way or another, I did find a couple pertinent pages on en:, en:Wikipedia:Ageism and en:Wikipedia:Age and adminship. There's also some potential issues at en:Wikipedia:Admin functions that should only be done by admins who are legally adults. Hope something there helps in your discussion! Kylu 22:15, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

well... I'm pretty sure most people in this exchange already know about these exception. thanks Kyulu. Seb az86556 23:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal votes for sysops

Is there any documentation/summary on local practices? «Removal requires a greater vote than the minimum to elect an administrator, both in percentage and minimum duration» is quite surprising to me. Usually (at least, on Italian and AFAIK English projects) votes for removal are votes of (no) confidence, then some majority is needed to retain tools, not to lose them (and actually it's the same if they're considered votes for removal: in that case a qualified minority is needed). Am I missing something? --Nemo 09:45, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems you guys are doing "re-election upon request" -- is that right? If so, interesting approach. Seb az86556 20:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Conclusions?

Dear all. I'd love if we could be drafting some conclusions from this important RfC. Those sections where the consensus is not clear can be closed later or in batches but for sections with clearcut consensus I think that we should be closing them with some conclusions and writting them in a policy page (Minimum voting requirements policy?). Regards, -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 18:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Do you see any consensus somewhere? Seb az86556 01:19, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Feedback on draft

Minimum requirements to elect permanent Administrators

"There must be a minimum of two admins locally at all times for oversight.", is that "admins" refers to permanent admins or temporary admins? If permanent-temp doesn't matter, then it's okay. And if it says permanent, then it's not okay in my view, because one temp can serve the community for years by extending his right, so that needs to be counted too. And I completely disagree with "Candidates for permanent adminship must be elected by a minimum of 10-15 votes over a minimum of 2 weeks." We should measure on supports (both number of votes and percentage), not overall all votes. For example, a candidate can have 8 supports, but no oppose or neutral votes. In that case he'll not be eligible for permanent adminship which is not worthy. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 06:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

It matters not to me the combination, just as most of the time there are two admins. Remember global sysops and stewards will still be able to oversight local admin actions in case they need help or whatever. fr33kman 06:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As to the number of supports, if a project doesn't have more than 8 users (and trust me canvassing will occur on an RFA) then it's not active enough for admins locally. At least not yet. Remember, the job of global sysops and stewards is to put ourselves out of work by getting other wikis to do their own adminy stuff. Just as long as we do it carefully and safely for the projects. fr33kman 06:31, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• Completely opposed to these harsh measures. You are killing local governance. 10–15? This is way over the top. Seriously. Seb az86556 06:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the draft. just one point, two weeks for a crat election even for a small wiki is a long time. Matanya 08:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Why should anyone not affected by this get a say in this? Explain that to me. Seb az86556 08:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's long, surprisingly for small wikis it can be short, because there are user who are editing, but they are not very aware/interested to take part in a discussion. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 08:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

• "1 year - User posts an election lasting one week. If local consensus supports with 5+ supports at 80% or more, temp admin granted for one year."—though this is in the temporary adminship section, but this is fair enough for permanent adminship. I think, we should be easy with giving the trustworthy users a permanent flag, and getting busy with taking the rights from inactive administrators, because one works, and other one simply do nothing. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 08:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
  • • Well that's the way I read it when asked to close the RfC. My own view would be that small wikis change populations after a while usually. I agree it's a fine line between permanent and temp admin but it has to be a line somewhere. I'll use angwiki as my example again because it's the smallest wiki I know that has a community of dedicated editors; just 3-4-5 of them mostly. They had a situation where they had totally inactive permanent admins who had obviously left the project and had been tried to reach. I supported a user that wanted to become admin and had filed an RFA on angwiki TWO YEARS ago that passed but was never closed or acted upon. Normally I'd say a wiki that small should have 3 month rolling admin, but that'd be daft. I think 1 year (which it would not normally qualify for) is better, but in light of the revious situation with perm admins, temps are better. It gives angwiki a sense of autonomy, which is right, and it encouraqes stewards and others to look into it at least once a year. fr33kman 17:50, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
  • That sounds a lot more realistic 5 votes for permanent seems OK. Anything over that is nuts. Seb az86556 08:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• As outlined in the section below, it is not on us to decide, at what time a project can have a local administrator (either temporary or permanent). Locally elected people who have the support of their community are better (for the resp. wiki). In this case, stewards will have less to do. As to the time an election should run: that should probably be on the local wiki to decide. --Eptalon 10:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• 10-15 votes over 2 weeks and +80% support for being elected a permanent administrator is IMHO a way to high requirement. I've always worked with the 5-7 votes over 1 week and 75% or more in support. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 18:48, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with Dferg above. PeterSymonds 12:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
• Agreed with Dferg. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 08:20, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
• I personally don't like any of these set rules, since they force us to look at all requests uniformly and not take into account the differing circumstances of each request. Why not have a system in which we judge these requests on a case-by-case basis, rather than committing ourselves to any set rules which, on occasion, could prevent a user from having access to these tools for no reason other than they only have 13 votes. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

What should do in case of inactivity of permanent administrators?

We should not remove the flag only if "they go rogue, become abusive.", that should apply in case of temporary administrators too. Actually that statement doesn't make sense to me, because if they are inactive, then how can they become rogue or abusive? Most of them don't make even any edits, so no chance to become abusive at all. I think we should remove them, after we found them inactive for a certain period of time. A year will do. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 08:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think these flags should be seen for what they are: a user given the flag is able to help the wiki in a certain way. Once the users becomes inactive (no actions that require the flag), the flag should be removed fairly quickly; 6 months, perhaps even less (3-4) of inactivity. When they come back, they can re-apply for the flag...--Eptalon 10:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

"one week"

I added "without active administrators". No rushing in without announcement where people are actually present. Seb az86556 08:43, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As outlined below, we shouldn't decide on the time, even though one week is probably meaningful: certain people have real lives, and can only edit their wiki certain days of the week...--Eptalon 10:38, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

No, this was some extra thrown in for people who do not get elected, do not notify the wiki, and are unknown to anyone there. They should indeed be restricted. Seb az86556 11:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments/Proposal regarding the election of admins/bureaucrats

I write down here what I think, and what I have already tried to express in IRC: It is not on us to judge whether the election of a bureaucrat is meaningful. It is important that whoever gets elected has the support of the respective community. I will therefore propose a different solution, where a project can pick one of three options below:

1. 70% of the "active, named users" of a wiki vote, and the overall support for a candidate is at least 70%
2. 70% support for a candidate, with at least 15 valid votes from editors active in that wiki
3. The wiki in question agrees on a guideline how to elect administrators/bureaucrats (and overrules the items above)

What should be clear: A candidate is not allowed to vote for him/herself, but they can accept/reject the nomination. As to duration of the vote: there is no use in us fixing a minimum runtime; esp. not for wikis of like 5-15 active users. It is also not on us to question the election of a local bureaucrat. A 10-people-wiki will need a crat 3-4 times a year. If they do not have a crat, this function falls on stewards to perform; this is always worse that have a local user do it. As to the min. 2 crats requirement: We can push this through, but it will make little sense in small wikis. The question whether to elect a crat for a limited time, after which he/she needs to be confirmed, or to permanently elect a crat (and run a no-confidence survey in case of need) should also be up to the local wiki.--Eptalon 09:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

As to administrators: basically the same rules should apply, but with a lower support percentage: 65% quorum, 65% support; no change to the min 15 votes...--Eptalon 09:36, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

In view of the fact that in some projects adminship is not presently a social requirement for other privileges such as CheckUser or bureaucrat, I personally don't think the requirements for electing bureaucrats should be higher than the ones for administrators. Regards, Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 19:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Could those wikis affected by this please be notified, or is this a discussion among the wolves deciding what's for dinner without telling the sheep? Seb az86556 08:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe this is in progress. I've reopened the RfC so there is more chance for them to comment. Best, PeterSymonds 16:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

What should be the duration of temporary adminship?

It is not related to voting requirements exactly, but when users come to meta for a temporary adminiship, what should be the duration of their adminship? Since I see no policy on this, the stewards are considering the duration by their own judgement, which varies person to person. But I think, there should be a policy so we can treat everyone in the same way.

If we consider 5/6 votes for a permanent adminship, and if a candidate get 3/4 local votes, should we grant him a temporary adminship of 6 months or 1 year at first time? I would say no. As we don't consider permanent for lacking of 1 vote, there is no point to grant the temp adminship for 1 year at first. I think all first temporary adminships in any wikis should start with duration of 3 months. And in next extension it can be 6 months, and in 3rd or 4th (and so on) it can be 1 year. That is applicable if a wiki is new or with no active community to run that wiki, and the candidate is interested to do regular admin tasks. But if it is for a special reason, I think 3 months of temp is enough, as we can extend in further need. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 07:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think that the first temp adminship term should always be 3 months. It should depend on the number of votes. Ruslik 16:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Why it should depend on the number of votes? I think, the reason of not granting permanent adminship or long temporary adminship will not be very useful if we grant this on based on votes. We can easily extend it to 6 months in second extension. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 10:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

If the user is granted adminship temporary for the first time I tend not to grant at first more than 3 months. It's a personal choice because of what I saw years ago from other stewards. I think 3 months for the first temp. adminship is OK. -- Dferg ^{☎ talk} 16:43, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dferg here. — [ Tanvir | Talk ] 10:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think any temporary permission should depend on the number of votes. 3 months for the first temporary adminship is the most usual choice in all wikis, and I think it could be adopted as a rule. Regards. Ruy Pugliesi^◥ 14:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dferg as well - if you're starting out with 6 months or a year, it is hardly "temporary" adminship. I thought that the whole point of the temporary part was so that there was no risk of that admin doing something that the community didn't like, and them then needing to wait for a whole year before they could do anything about it. Besides, if you can trust them enough on their first request to allow them access to the tools for a year, why not just make it infinite time? I hope that I make sense, I'm rather tired at the moment. Ajraddatz (Talk) 20:54, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is my comment from Talk:Steward requests/Permissions/Minimum voting requirements: --Millosh 15:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Established wikis

No changes. Established wikis are those with, let's say, at least three active permanent admins. --Millosh 15:14, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Small wikis

Without active permanent admins.

• First time editor can ask for 3 months of temporary adminship. Requirements: local notice, without opposition or with simple majority.
• Second time editor can ask for 6 months of temporary adminship. Requirements the same.
• After the second time: Editor can ask for 12 months with yearly confirmations on Meta. Discussion should be open for everyone with stewards in ElectCom to decide about arguments. It is likely that it should be held during the period of stewards' reconfirmations. (BTW, do global sysops have reconfirmations? If so, when?) --Millosh

And thanks to Dferg for pointing to this discussion and rules for global sysops. --Millosh 15:51, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Starting the vote?

I would like to ask if we can start the vote for this proposal.--Jusjih 08:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

These is too many disagreement even among stewards. If was proposed in the current form, it will likely fail. I suggest splitting it and starting a separate RFC for bureaucrats. Ruslik 18:23, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Community needs to progress this matter in whole or in parts; or allow stewards to act

At this point in time, the community has given no proper guidance or ability for stewards to step in where a 'crat has disappeared and the community is in itself inactive. This is a problem that has existed due to some communities getting 'crats too early. If the community is unable to come up with the framework, then maybe the stewards should set an interim framework in which they can act to resolve some of the existing situations where renames are not done, and bots are sitting with renames.

In the absence of the community approval, I would suggest that stewards can step in and act as bureacrats where the 'crat has been inactive for (x) months, and is not responding to a ping; the ability to de'crat can happen independently. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

For outsiders, the problem is more frequent than you may imagine. We're often approached by users that are frustrated, having contacted local bureaucrats (talk, email, etc...) and are inactive or don't reply. Then they come here and ask us for help. Sometimes those bureaucrats are inactive for years and then it simply looks obvious that the user will not return in the near future. Other cases are not that simple and require discussion and often ends with the user having to wait more time to have a rename or a botbit switched. This is caused because in the past rights were given out lightly. In some cases without any kind of discussion. If we had a clear rule that we may go ahead and perform bureaucrat tasks on wiki we wouldn't face such problems. Our policy does mention that we abstain to promote users when b/c are avalaible, but, as usual; inactivity is not defined. Bad policies and bad practices always causes problems. — MA (audiencia) 16:03, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Activity levels of advanced administrative rights holders

A followup/workaround is being discussed. --Nemo 08:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)