Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board

Introduction

It has been suggested in various discussions that an Admin Review Board may be a solution to the handling of complaints about sysop actions and/or behaviour unbecoming of admins.

It has been suggested that the lack of an effective and/or dedicated procedure for addressing admin behaviour is one of the reasons for the assumed failure of WP:RfA to produce sufficient candidates of the right calibre.

It has been suggested that some tasks of the Arbitration Committee could be devolved to a more community-based system. This is one of them.

It has further been suggested on some talk pages that this task could be delegated to the Bureaucrats.

Currently

1. Bureaucrats are empowered to judge consensus and physically create the sysop flag following a candidate's successful pass at WP:RfA.
2. Bureaucrats can remove the sysop flag under certain circumstances, one of these being under instruction from Arbcom following an Arbcom decision to desysop.
3. Although they possess the tool, Bureaucrats are not currently permitted to remove the sysop flag for disciplinary reasons without an Arbcom mandate.

Proposal

This Request for Comment is to test the community's opinion on:

Whether admin related disciplinary issues can be devolved from the Arbitration Committee to the Bureaucrats who among their other tasks could be considered as a Bureaucrats' Admin Review Committee (BARC) to arrive at a consensus for any sanctions to applied on Administrators (Sysops), including blocks, bans, or removal of admin rights, following appropriate requests from the community

Background

• Bureaucrats are a higher 'authority' than administrators.
• Bureaucrats have gained the community's trust and confidence through their election at WP:RfB which requires a higher pass mark than WP:RfA.
• Bureacrats have relatively few powers in addition to their admin tools .
• There are 34 Bureaucrats (as of this proposal).

See also

• Wikipedia:Removing administrator rights
• Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Removal of permissions
• Wikipedia:Blocking policy
• Wikipedia:Banning policy

Notes

1. This Request for Comment is NOT for discussing the mechanics of how this would take place, or for drafting its policy.
2. This Request for Comment is NOT for introducing other alternative methods of admin review.
3. Participants are requested to observe the above, and not turn this RfC into a general discussion about admin sanctions.
4. There is only one section for comments, a threaded discussion. Please avoid breaking out into Support and Oppose comments, instead, because this is designed purely to test the community's opinion, please maintain the spirit of discussion.
5. Please do not create tangential discussions. If you have a different proposal for Community Desysoping, start your own RfC.

If broad consensus is achieved in support of the proposal, other discussions will take place to decide how the Bureaucrats' Admin Review Committee should be constituted, how and where their discussion should take place, and how their decisions would be empowered and enacted, Note again: such discussions are NOT for this present RfC.

This RfC will be open for 30 days, or closed earlier if an overwhelming consensus either way is obvious.

This RfC has been noted on the Village Pump, Central RfC, RfC notifications, and personally in a neutral and identical manner to all users who participated on or edited similar related discussions. 04:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

This proposal will not please everyone, but by now I think we realize that there is no solution that will please everyone. As a community, we tend to be overly afraid of change. However, I think this would be at least a step in the right direction. Crats are trusted for a reason. Mellowed Fillmore (talk) 04:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

My two thoughts: 1) any admin review board that has the support and respect of the community will need to have non-admins. 2) Bureaucrats did not sign up for this when they volunteered to become bureaucrats, and the community did not give them the 'crat right with this in mind. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 04:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't support this. 'Crats review is still not more community-oriented, while it introduces plenty of redundant paperwork and effort. It doesn't solve the problem raised in the body of this request for comment. Gryllida (talk) 04:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I've always been against politicizing the role of bureaucrats, and I'm against conflating the promotion of admins and their review or removal. Let's try the deprecation of RFCU and faster route to ArbCom. And this is but one small part of the 'RFA problem'. Cenarium (talk) 05:03, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

To expand, bureaucrats are indeed one of those parts on Wikipedia that work well, with no significant controversy. Well, I prefer it to stay that way ! If we start giving them additional controversial responsibilities, first there's no reason at all this might work, and there are good reasons that the controversy will spread to their other duties : promoting admins, mainly. We don't need further strains on our promotion mechanism for admins. And this will also create crat burnout and make the position less attractive. If we should have an admin review board, it should be composed of any user, probably 50/50 admin / non-admin, this we can try without risking 'corrupting' the bureaucrat role. (My preferred system is here for anyone who is interested.) Cenarium (talk) 05:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I support the idea that Crats should remove admin bits at the request of the community. I support the idea that, if there is no hard and fast rule for consensus in that matter, it might be worth several 'crats discussing whether consesnus had been achieved. That's all I can support here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 05:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC).

I think the positive point of this is that the Bcrats are a different group than arb com, without significant overlapping membership. They already are trusted to evaluate the borderline RfAs, and they do a generally uncontroversial and reliable job of it. If a group somewhere between arb com and the community is appropriate for these decisions, they seem acceptably in the middle. As a subsidiary point, the number of borderline RfAs is very few, and the rest of their work is pure routine. Perhaps they need some additional responsible work. DGG ( talk ) 05:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with this proposal strongly as crats have part of their reason for existence as determining consensus for adminship - funny as I wrote User:Casliber/Fivecrat in November 2008. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I am strongly in favour of some sort of admin review process, and I think it's fairly desirable that a group other than admins perform this process. I also like the idea that there is some community involvement. As far as measuring consensus to desysop, bureaucrats fit this role, but there involvement should be limited to measuring the consensus only. I hope we can preserve what is generally seen as an effective and noncontroversial role. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• I like the idea of a regularized process through which tool abuse complaints can be heard by a standing body of bureaucrats. Carrite (talk) 05:54, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. 'Crats are already trusted by the community. And a desysoping process between Arbcom and community seems a good idea. Btw as we know, Bcrats doesn't have many tasks (adding bot flags, userrename, closing RfAs etc) apart from admin works. So, an additional task will not trouble them. Jim Carter 07:28, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Although I get why one might not want to discuss any specifics, I think that makes it more likely to torpedo such an attempt, not less. Given that this could cover anything from the wholly unpalatable "Individual bureaucrats can desysop anybody if they think it's a good idea" to the fairly desirable "Let's have a reverse RFA, judged by bureaucrats", it's not supportable. I wouldn't buy "A car that isn't built yet, but will probably have wheels or an engine or something", how could I be expected to support a process that might be a good idea, or might be a complete disaster? WilyD 11:05, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

This RFC is do we want to buy a new car? Why would we want to go through all the time and energy to decide what size engine we want, how many doors, what gas mileage, how many wheels and all the other things that come with a car if we don't even know if we want to buy a car. Once we determine we want to buy a car then we determine what we want in a car and if one is available that meets all the parameters. That is the hard part, this is the easy one. The question is do we want to spend the time and energy to even look into buying a new car? -- GB fan 11:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Even if that's the proper analogy, the point doesn't change. If we're getting a smart car, maybe I can support it. But I can't commit to buying a car if it might turn out to be a M2 Light Tank. Then I'd rather keep my jalopy. Even if I have to glue the side mirror back on. WilyD 13:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

As a non-admin I feel passing down some of the power from ArbCom to Bureaucrats can improve the overall image of The Project. There's a common public perception that admins are infallible and 100% immune from the guidelines everyone else must follow here. Invincibility, essentially, with massive intimidation against anyone who dare stretch their neck out into the cabal even in good faith (myself included). That one needs to go to ArbCom for sanctions just enforces that view further; It intimidates users that might have legitimate complaints to make. It's far from an intuitive process, assuming others are at all aware it exists! RfC/Us becoming more common and treated more like XfDs (though more strictly) in terms of possible further escalation could also be seen as agreeable to the wider public. Making admins look more like "normal" users could also remove some intimidation preventing more RfAs. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 11:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see how this is different from being ArbCom #2. It's an increase in bureaucracy for no good reason. There is no evidence that ArbCom can't handle the current volume of requests. We don't need to provide an additional venue for axe grinding and time wasting. Jehochman ^Talk 12:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Concur with Wily and GB; this is cart before the horse. As part of an overall plan, this might be a nice idea. Might. But, we don't know because we don't know what the bureaucrats would be tasked to do. If the bureaucrats are effectively a second ArbCom only to handle admin misbehavior, then I strongly oppose. We did not elect bureaucrats to their positions with any eye towards their dispute resolution abilities, whereas ArbCom has. If bureaucrats are to determine consensus of the community's voice on a de-adminship, then maybe; they are elected to determine consensus and are vetted to do so. I'm not going to ask my accountant to fix my car anymore than I'm going to ask my mechanic to file my taxes. With all respect to the proposer this is yet another in a long, long, long stream of solutions looking for a problem. SOMEone has got to do the hard work, the research, the digging through all sorts of materials to identify exactly what the problems are before coming up with a solution. Otherwise, you're just shooting in the dark at a moving target. You have absolutely no idea whatsoever whether this 'solution' will solve anything. And this one is even worse; here we're deciding to possibly implement the solution without even knowing what the solution is. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• As someone with a foot in both camps (current arb and crat, planning to give up both), I can't say I see this as the right way to go. Arbcom is elected to make tough decisions, and in my personal opinion is good at removing tools when there is a need to. There should be hurdles before an Arbcom case, to stop frivolous filings, but it's not impossible or in my mind particularly difficult to do. On the other hand, 'crats are there to push sensitive buttons. If they make the wrong decision it can have large repercussions - but the majority of the time their decisions are uncontroversial. They need to be trustworthy, but aren't there to make the tough decisions. That said, I'd trust any of the 'crats to do it. Worm^TT(talk) 15:02, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• As a non-admin, I'm with Cenarium and WTT: the Crats are and should be apolitical button pushers - that's what they're here for, and that's an important role that someone has to fill. I'm confident that they can make tough calls but we should avoid asking them to as much as possible. I'm on the same page as Rich Farmbrough on this - I support the Crats responding to a clear community consensus for desysopping, but no more. If we're going to put admin conduct on trial, it should be through Arbcom - they're the ones we trust with our highest level of authority. Ivanvector (talk) 20:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
• As others have pointed out, this change would make a pleasantly non-political role, political. I support just about any venue to desysop admins. I wish ARBCOM was more effective in that role. I don't want the bureaucrats put into that position. I'd rather see a random-draw of active admins to judge conduct, if we're going to create a new venue. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I like this idea of sortition czar ⨹ 19:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• I strongly support the underlying principle of this, but I'm not sure that limiting membership to 'crats would be a good idea. Doing that would create even more feelings of "elitism", which is the last thing that we need, in my opinion. It is important for all members of the community to have a voice when administrative conduct is involved, so I think it would be better if any editor in good standing could run for a seat on the board. --Biblioworm 23:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add that the existing RfA architecture is a great tool to review sysopping queries. Seems to me it'd do a good job at reviewing a desysopping query too, with the same people closing it as RfAs. Gryllida (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that would be a good idea. The RfA style is too mob-controlled, and there would be no chance of an admin getting a fair hearing in that sort of environment. --Biblioworm 00:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

If we don't take it as only a vote and vote only, it's relatively useful to be fair. There will always be a few people to say that "this claim supported by a dozen of mob folks" is irrelevant (so that desysopping doesn't happen even if it receives wide support). Gryllida (talk) 00:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The devil is always in the details but empowering bureaucrats outside the parameters of ArbCom to desysop is a sound proposal, even overdue. GraniteSand (talk) 00:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

GraniteSand: Agreed! Does this mean you would like a committee for this, though? Or would you find a committee a redundant step, which only seems to be in the right direction but actually isn't? (See more details in the next section). Gryllida (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I think I don't know and tossing around detailed proposals at this point could be counter-productive. Too many of these discussions devolve into everyone shouting out at once their favorite idea and just talking past each other until the only thing that is clear is that people disagree with each other. The one thing this place hates more than the status quo is everyone else's idea for how to change. This is something that should be done one step at a time, in my opinion. Once there's a general consensus that the concept of empowering bureaucrats to desysop outside ArbCom is a good one we can start figuring out what form that takes. GraniteSand (talk) 01:35, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

GraniteSand: I would love to support empowering bureaucrats to desysop outside ArbCom, but if I write that down on this page, someone could interpret it as that we should all go and make an internal committee (option #2). That option is in my view toxic. For this reason, I feel that we should identify this RfC scope properly... Gryllida (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate you not wanting to create a monster but this isn't an unarrestable process and support isn't binding. I just think that systemic changes here work best when they're done incrementally, without "only if's" at every turn. GraniteSand (talk) 14:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• A premise of this proposal is that bureaucrats want this authority now, or that this responsibility should become the duty of bureaucrats in the future. I have no reason to believe this is so. While I might wish that some respectable sub-group, like bureaucrats, would take on a duty like this, and while I agree that the task described ought to be done, I certainly would not want this troublesome work forced into a group which already serves a useful and trusted function. My thought is that if some group with similar respect as "bureaucrats" were developed and wanted to do this, then that should be a separate hat and process. I see no reason to include this in what bureaucrats do, especially not while the process is being designed and trialed. The trial of this process would take years. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with WormTT, I'd trust the 'Crats to do it. They already decide the borderline RfA's and some of them are arbs anyway. WormTT, sorry to hear you're giving up the 'crat and arb hats. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Scope break

As mentioned above, «this could cover anything from the wholly unpalatable "Individual bureaucrats can desysop anybody if they think it's a good idea" to the fairly desirable "Let's have a reverse RFA, judged by bureaucrats"». The discussion above is a mess, where people misinterpret the proposal, in my view, such as these:

• Rich Farmbrough ("discussing whether consesnus had been achieved")
• Cas Liber ("determining consensus")
• Tom (LT) ("measuring consensus to desysop")
• WilyD is the one whose long phrase I quoted in the first paragraph of this section.

I see 3 interpretations here.

1. Individual bureaucrats can desysop anybody if they think it's a good idea ===

   This is something I don't want and I think the original proposal didn't mean, it's just a stretch.

2. Bureaucrats committee can desysop anybody if they think it's a good idea (with internal communication)

   This is something I think this RFC is about: a "committee", similar to arbcom, but dedicated to only desysop queries. I see a bad sysop, I throw my evidence into a black hole, I wait, then I get a reply. No community involvement other than me having an independent body to complain to (which can also be a good thing, better than none or having to go to arbcom!).

3. Let's have a reverse RFA, judged by bureaucrats

   This is something I think the RFC does not mean. Why? Because it means a "committee" - an internal group. It doesn't speak of public desysop queries in it anywhere, either.

Now, let's please agree that we're only doing #2, and go from there. Kudpung, is this ok interpretation of your RFC scope? Gryllida (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• I could support #3 on that list, but certainly not 1 and probably not any variation of 2. This should be a community process. People were selected for this role for their ability to judge consensus (at least with respect to RfA). Not to be a committee that makes independent decisions. Hobit (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

(@Gryllida) Well sort of, I think, that level of structure is something what I had in mind when I wrote User:Casliber/Fivecrat Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I feel about the same. A WP:RFde-A that worked like a mirror universe version of WP:RFA; outline the case for why someone should be desysop'd; bureaucrats judge if there's a consensus (generally meaning ~70% in favour of desysopping), I would !vote for today. But a second, less accountable version of ArbCom for desysopping suffers from both "What's the point in two bodies to do the same thing?" and "It's a bad idea to try to take control away from the community". WilyD 10:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• If I understand correctly, the current methods for desysopping are:

(1) Resignation, usually posted at WP:BN, actioned by a bureaucrat

(2) Request from Arb Comm, usually the result of their own heavy-weighted procedures, for desysopping, actioned by a bureaucrat.

(3) De-facto desysopping by WP:BLOCKing, by any admin, usually with a dramatic crisis discussion at WP:ANI.

I don't think there is any case to alter or remove these. However, a "Bureaucrats' Admin Review Committee (BARC)" could be added as another. *IF* this BARC were to gain credibility and consensus, and if it constituted a well-advertised forum, and if it resulted in a consensus to desysop someone, THEN absolutely yes, an uninvolved bureaucrat would be well qualified to find close/find consensus/affirm the finding of consensus, and to de-sysop.

Regarding this BARC: I don't think it is a good idea that it is composed of bureaucrats, or even controlled by bureaucrats, any more than is RfA. Bureaucrats do not govern, but implement consensus for certain things that have limited access. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Gryllida, for retargeting this discussion. You're right that these things tend to get overwhelmed with everyone suddenly speaking up with the best idea ever and then entrenching themselves behind it, and it's counterproductive. I agree with your analysis of scope that we're talking about #2 - specifically, a new committee composed only of Bureaucrats which makes its own internal decisions on desysopping in response to evidence submitted to it by the community, and as such my response to the RfC is that I am wholly against it, for reasons I think I already stated about not politicizing the Bureaucrats. Crats should not be called on to judge any user's conduct, they should at most judge the community's will and implement its intent. We're not here to talk about alternatives so I'll withhold my many further comments, but someone can ask me separately if they're interested. Ivanvector (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is the proposal is not quite clear. For the "thing I would support" it would have to be read thus
  • following appropriate requests from the community I.E. a community request to perform a specific action
  • for any sanctions ... the sanction can only be one that requires 'Crat permissions, else the community should implement it themselves
  • to arrive at a consensus is a consensus that the community request is valid, i.e. itself consensus driven, or just means "determine the consensus"

This is very (3) like, and I could support something like this. As others have remarked I could not support a (1) and almost certainly not a (2).

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:58, 20 November 2014 (UTC).

• I wholeheartedly support this proposal -- admins should be accountable, and bureaucrats are a trusted body to lead in this endeavor. Go Phightins! 02:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support discussion on point three: "Let's have a reverse RFA, judged by bureaucrats". Oppose anything else. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Silk Tork, and per the listing as "Devolving desysopping to a Bureaucrat managed community system". (And per let's try and move forward.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:59, 22 November 2014 (UTC).
  

• Oppose everything on this page! Reasons: 1) We don't need this, problem of admin abuse is almost non-existent 2) Bcrats are button pushers on purpose, not dispute resolution experts 3) They were not elected for this and thus might be unsuitable for a new role 4) This would be just ArbCom nro. 2, and we don't need more procedures and committees 5) Any reverse-RFA process will just degenerate into a lynch mob where every civility hypocrite, serial tattletale, sockmaster and common troll flock into to throw stones on admins who actually do the unpleasant job of keeping the difficult sycopants and malactors away from the encyclopedia and regular editors 6) Existing ArbCom has not a stellar track record when dealing with de-sysoppings, e.g. User:Kafziel was more or less de-sysopped for showing bad attitude and talking back to his wiki-superiors (=the judging ArbCom members), when the committee was unable to figure out any policy-based counter-arguments to his actual claims about Wikipedia policy. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 15:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose proposal as a whole, as an attempt to fix something that is not broken. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
• COMMENT - I agree with this entirely: Any reverse-RFA process will just degenerate into a lynch mob where every civility hypocrite, serial tattletale, sockmaster and common troll flock into to throw stones on admins who actually do the unpleasant job of keeping the difficult sycopants and malactors away from the encyclopedia and regular editors. I usually give it another name: Anti-admin brigade & peanut gallery.

Any desysoping system that perform better than the all-too-lenient Arbcom must nevertheless exclude the participation of those who are not involved and who come to either throw stones at the people in the stocks, or simply to defend their friends. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Procedural comment: 'Retargeting the discussion'

is precisely why so many RfC fail. All the things people find vague in the proposal are items that have deliberately left open for future discussion. It's a pre-RfC discussion and not a voting process; it's designed to get feedback to see if it's worth going ahead with a firm proposal in the future for a system which by then would be designed right down to the last nut and bolt, leaving the community four options:

1. Accept it
2. Reject it
3. Propose something else (on another RfC of course)
4. Do nothing and leave the status quo.

So for those who need reminding:

This Request for Comment is to test the community's opinion on:

Whether admin related disciplinary issues can be devolved from the Arbitration Committee to the Bureaucrats who among their other tasks could be considered as a Bureaucrats' Admin Review Committee (BARC) to arrive at a consensus for any sanctions to applied on Administrators (Sysops), including blocks, bans, or removal of admin rights, following appropriate requests from the community.

;Notes:

1. This Request for Comment is NOT for discussing the mechanics of how this would take place, or for drafting its policy.
2. This Request for Comment is NOT for introducing other alternative methods of admin review.'
3. Participants are requested to observe the above, and not turn this RfC into a general discussion about admin sanctions.
4. There is only one section for comments, a threaded discussion. Please avoid breaking out into Support and Oppose comments, instead, because this is designed purely to test the community's opinion, please maintain the spirit of discussion.
5. Please do not create tangential discussions. If you have a different proposal for Community Desysoping, start your own RfC.

Someone, who may or may not even support the proposal themselves, has taken the initiative to launch this discussion. Participants please consider staying on track, or if they would already like to expand on the proposer's ideas outside the scope of this RfC, or if they would already like other precisions, please start another RfC on another page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there isn't really a proposal on the table beyond "Let's see if we can draft the Bureaucrats to do...something." It has a snappy acronym – will its BARC be worse than its bite? – but little other substance. Various suggestions I've seen above including a reheat of the perennially-broken "reverse RFA" (where 'crats would mostly just count votes), to a duplicate ArbCom (but without elections, institutional experience, suitable qualifications, or proper accountability—or the ability to deal simultaneously with any other party's misconduct), to a secret 'Crat Star Chamber (the less said about which the better).

Meanwhile, over on WP:BN, the 'crats have been invited to comment on whether they would be interested in participating in...some process...but haven't said anything. This is likely because a) they have no idea what they would be getting into, and have the good sense not to make commitments at this stage, and b) this isn't their first rodeo, and they well know that none of roughly a score of proposals over the last decade has ever been approved by the community—and the 'crats have no interest in hitching their wagons to another sinking ship. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Then read the discussion for the answer it provides. Whether it's worth going ahead with a firm proposal depends strongly on the general nature of the proposal, in a way that means trying to keep the question deliberate vague means the answer will be just as vague. If you ask "Who said that thing?" and refuse to elaborate, you're not going to get a helpful answer. WilyD 17:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

What exactly do you want comments on, then? You asked "whether admin related disciplinary issues (etc.)" but want to hear neither whether users support or oppose the suggestion, nor general discussion about the proposal itself or how such a committee would operate, nor alternatives to the proposal as stated. Do you want to hear that I support having the discussion? We're having it, right now. I would like to participate and not have my comments policed for not conforming to your preferred format, or at the very least I would like to know what your preferred format is. Ivanvector (talk) 18:29, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

As drafted the RfC is too nebulous, and if asked to support discussion going forward on the original proposal I would have to say no. I would however be very interested in a discussion on a reverse RfA with the 'Crats deciding on and carrying out consensus. If that means scrapping this RfC and starting a new one, then let's do that. However, we could use the emerging energy of this existing RfC to develop a discussion in the direction which appears to be headed toward a reverse RfA judged by the 'Crats. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC took place nearly five years ago and had similar suggestions. I seem to recall you participated there too. It was a monumental work, and one of the best prepared RfC I have ever seen, and (technically) it failed on only a narrow margin. There were nevertheless excellent arguments both for and against. Consensus can change however, and over time many things and situations on Wikipedia can and do change. Active participants in meta discussions are a transient pool of people, and those who do stick around can also change their opinions in the light of more recent developments. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:36, 22 November 2014 (UTC)