Forums > Senate Hall archive > SH:Amending RFRUR
This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments or questions on this topic should be made in a new Senate Hall page rather than here so that this page is preserved as a historic record. For part two, see Forum:SH:Admin demotion loopholes follow-up OOM 224 13:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)
EDIT: Forum:CT:Amending RFRUR and Blocking policy for elected positions is now live! OOM 224 18:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
The Requests for removal of user rights (WP:RFRUR) procedure is rarely used and seldom updated, compared to its counterpart Requests for user rights (WP:RFUR). Most demotions on the Wookieepedia have been due to resignations instead, but we ought to take a look at RFRUR.
Here is a permalink of my proposal and diff link between WP:RFRUR's current iteration and my proposal.
A summary of proposed changes:
- Formalise RFRURs as simply a demotion mechanism and leave the reasoning to voters, rather than opening the page saying that it's a "severe measure against individuals […] who have deliberately worked against Wookieepedia, harmed the community's members or image, and/or abused their powers" (though this part is retained in the new rule #3 on evidence-sharing since it's especially relevant there)—maybe you like the person and you just think they're not fit to hold a certain position anymore for other reasons, maybe it's moreso to do with inactivity etc.
- Restrict the creation of RFRURs to users who fulfill the Voting eligibility policy, and mandate that the vote has to be specific instead of e.g. "Fire every single admin" (plus a new rule that invalid RFRURs will be deleted)—we don't want anons to start votes willy-nilly or a situation in which individuals are judged and voted on collectively.
- Remove the requirement for "substantial proof" to be presented—per the reasoning of my first point.
- Incorporate existing rules on demotion listed on the Administrators and Social Media Team pages, which have been revamped in recent CTs
- Clarify alternative methods of demotion (i.e. resignation, inactivity, blocks)
- New rule: if the person subject to a RFRUR resigns mid-way, then the vote is "nullified and should be archived immediately"—suffice to say, last year's incident was poorly handled.
- No change to the key rules: "The Voting eligibility policy applies"; "At least ten eligible Wookieepedians must contribute a vote"; "Self-votes will not be counted in the vote totals"; "Supporting votes must have a 2/3 supermajority"
What do we think? Anything more to add, or that we're not so sure about? OOM 224 16:13, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Discussion
- 100% pet peeve. But "bureaucratship" and "adminship" are not words, and therefore looks unprofessional and, IMO, should not be used on any official Wookieepedia policy page. They should be changed to "bureaucrat status/admin status" or however else works and is grammatically correct for the sentence it is used in. - JMAS
Hey, it's me! 16:36, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Good point. Tweaked accordingly. OOM 224 16:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- I don't object to the change, but words formed through morphological derivation are still words. Any reputable English dictionary defines the suffix -ship, and we can expect readers to understand how suffixes work. Wookieepedia policies should not shy away from words simply because they're not legal in Scrabble—especially when it streamlines the writing. Asithol (talk) 00:50, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
- Good point. Tweaked accordingly. OOM 224 16:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- "Voters may wish to consider alternative methods of demotion: the user could [...] be blocked." feels kinda weirdly phrased :D . Beside that, seems good. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 18:33, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Needs rewording IMO. Right now it seems to imply that blocking is a substitute for RFRUR, which it isn't and shouldn't be. (Not to mention that I opposed the relevant provision of the blocking policy in the first place.) And saying that voters could consider resignation as alternative sounds awfully like forced resignation to me, which I believe is not the intention here. 01miki10 Open comlink 20:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- Reworded; how about now? The blocking policy issue of automtically revoking user rights was also brought up on Discord and is worth discussing here too, yeah. OOM 224 16:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Seems better now. 01miki10 Open comlink 16:49, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Better indeed, thanks. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 23:24, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Reworded; how about now? The blocking policy issue of automtically revoking user rights was also brought up on Discord and is worth discussing here too, yeah. OOM 224 16:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Needs rewording IMO. Right now it seems to imply that blocking is a substitute for RFRUR, which it isn't and shouldn't be. (Not to mention that I opposed the relevant provision of the blocking policy in the first place.) And saying that voters could consider resignation as alternative sounds awfully like forced resignation to me, which I believe is not the intention here. 01miki10 Open comlink 20:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- While I certainly feel these changes are overall a good idea, I do feel that the complete loosening of the requirement of evidence would be a misstep. That is not to say that I oppose loosening that requirement at least somewhat—the community could definitely know someone is a bad actor even with a lack of saved evidence. But I don’t think the requirement of some evidence should be waived entirely, lest we run the risk of a group of powerusers potentially running a RFRUR against someone for perhaps no reason other than “we don’t like them.” There needs to be at least some indication of action on the accused’s part that is unbefitting of their role. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 01:04, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- It's up to the voters, really. If folks would like to vote one way or another based on evidence alone, then they can do that, but I think that the demand for evidence incentivises the party opening the vote to go overboard with evidence, like digging up a lot of minor or debatable stuff, which kinda takes the focus away from the reasoning either for or against. OOM 224 16:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- I nonetheless maintain that if a RFRUR is allowed to be pushed with no evidence, then we run the risk of one day allowing large groups of editors to perhaps target a specific individual in an applicable position for no reason other than a simple dislike, even if said individual did nothing befitting of their role. I agree that RFRURs as they are can get out of hand by interjecting really minor and often negligible things as "evidence," distracting from the bigger picture, but it's also still vital that said bigger picture still has evidence as well. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- So, correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are saying is that we should disregard a community consensus just to shield elected positions, when said elected positions are meant to represent the community? And if the community consider they don't feel represented by an elected individual, their only recourse would be to wait for said elected positions to commit something bad before it can be actionable by the community? Then, I strongly disagree with your position. No elected position should be under any such privilege that would subtract them from community scrutiny and consensus. In fact, I would go even as far as to say that we should not be delivering indefinite mandate to elected positions (at least the position of admin/checkuser/bureaucrat), and that such positions should be reconducted through reelection after some time. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 08:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is that simply disliking an elected individual is not grounds for their removal and there simply MUST be some indication that they acted in a manner that is not befitting of their position—not to disregard consensus wholesale. If an elected individual is giving clear signs of intent to act against the will of the community or against the interests of the site, then there would certainly be grounds, but if someone brings a RFRUR forward with flat out nothing to prove wrongdoing or intent thereof then of course it shouldn't be entertained. As for limiting the amount of time an individual is mandated to their position, I would say that idea has merit. But I remain firm in my belief that allowing RFRURs without any evidence whatsoever would be sorely misguided and lead to potential abuse of the RFRUR system. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- How and who is going to decide if there is sufficient evidence about misconduct though? It's kinda up to the voters to decide if something is misconduct and whether it'd be better or worse that a person stays in their position, is it not? OOM 224 18:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, my point is that a complete lack of evidence gives room to abuse of the RFRUR system. Like I said, at that point there is then nothing stopping a group of powerusers from ganging up on someone with a RFRUR vote solely because they dislike them, without any consideration of their performance in their role or the actual content of their character. If the individual in question is actively being clearly abusive in their role or is generally just an asshole, then maybe it would have some merit without evidence—but there's also cases where the users' claims could be entirely fabricated. A convincing argument can go a long way and I know for a fact from a particular incident about two years ago that this community is most certainly not immune to being fooled on a large scale. I can't give a very good answer regarding just how much evidence would be an acceptable or necessary amount—only that no evidence whatsoever would be completely unacceptable. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- I get that concern. I'm just not sure how that could be worked in without opening the door for another loophole of admin abuse. Because a requirement of evidence being worked into a RFRUR's validity would need to be accomodated in the new rule 1: "Any user who fulfills the Voting eligibility policy may start a RFRUR, which must specify one specific user and the relevant eligible position(s) they are holding to be considered for removal; a RFRUR attempt that fails to do so is invalid and will be deleted by an administrator." There would be a potential conflict of interest if another admin sees a RFRUR and shuts it down due to an evidence issue. I suppose the rule could be expanded to say that evidence must be specified, but anything further about the nature of the evidence would be difficult to enforce. OOM 224 20:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Amended accordingly OOM 224 10:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
- I get that concern. I'm just not sure how that could be worked in without opening the door for another loophole of admin abuse. Because a requirement of evidence being worked into a RFRUR's validity would need to be accomodated in the new rule 1: "Any user who fulfills the Voting eligibility policy may start a RFRUR, which must specify one specific user and the relevant eligible position(s) they are holding to be considered for removal; a RFRUR attempt that fails to do so is invalid and will be deleted by an administrator." There would be a potential conflict of interest if another admin sees a RFRUR and shuts it down due to an evidence issue. I suppose the rule could be expanded to say that evidence must be specified, but anything further about the nature of the evidence would be difficult to enforce. OOM 224 20:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- Once again, my point is that a complete lack of evidence gives room to abuse of the RFRUR system. Like I said, at that point there is then nothing stopping a group of powerusers from ganging up on someone with a RFRUR vote solely because they dislike them, without any consideration of their performance in their role or the actual content of their character. If the individual in question is actively being clearly abusive in their role or is generally just an asshole, then maybe it would have some merit without evidence—but there's also cases where the users' claims could be entirely fabricated. A convincing argument can go a long way and I know for a fact from a particular incident about two years ago that this community is most certainly not immune to being fooled on a large scale. I can't give a very good answer regarding just how much evidence would be an acceptable or necessary amount—only that no evidence whatsoever would be completely unacceptable. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- How and who is going to decide if there is sufficient evidence about misconduct though? It's kinda up to the voters to decide if something is misconduct and whether it'd be better or worse that a person stays in their position, is it not? OOM 224 18:01, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is that simply disliking an elected individual is not grounds for their removal and there simply MUST be some indication that they acted in a manner that is not befitting of their position—not to disregard consensus wholesale. If an elected individual is giving clear signs of intent to act against the will of the community or against the interests of the site, then there would certainly be grounds, but if someone brings a RFRUR forward with flat out nothing to prove wrongdoing or intent thereof then of course it shouldn't be entertained. As for limiting the amount of time an individual is mandated to their position, I would say that idea has merit. But I remain firm in my belief that allowing RFRURs without any evidence whatsoever would be sorely misguided and lead to potential abuse of the RFRUR system. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- So, correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are saying is that we should disregard a community consensus just to shield elected positions, when said elected positions are meant to represent the community? And if the community consider they don't feel represented by an elected individual, their only recourse would be to wait for said elected positions to commit something bad before it can be actionable by the community? Then, I strongly disagree with your position. No elected position should be under any such privilege that would subtract them from community scrutiny and consensus. In fact, I would go even as far as to say that we should not be delivering indefinite mandate to elected positions (at least the position of admin/checkuser/bureaucrat), and that such positions should be reconducted through reelection after some time. NanoLuukeCloning Facility 08:41, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- I nonetheless maintain that if a RFRUR is allowed to be pushed with no evidence, then we run the risk of one day allowing large groups of editors to perhaps target a specific individual in an applicable position for no reason other than a simple dislike, even if said individual did nothing befitting of their role. I agree that RFRURs as they are can get out of hand by interjecting really minor and often negligible things as "evidence," distracting from the bigger picture, but it's also still vital that said bigger picture still has evidence as well. - Thannus (DFaceG) (he/him) (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- It's up to the voters, really. If folks would like to vote one way or another based on evidence alone, then they can do that, but I think that the demand for evidence incentivises the party opening the vote to go overboard with evidence, like digging up a lot of minor or debatable stuff, which kinda takes the focus away from the reasoning either for or against. OOM 224 16:41, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
- Below the bullet point that starts with "Only administrators can be CheckUsers and bureaucrats," I'd like another item to be added: "If the vote is to remove a Discussions moderator, eligible voters include current Discussions moderators and any user who has made at least 200 posts in the last 6 months prior to the start of the vote." This is a clarification that I was going to include on the policy proposal I just put up about promoting Discussions moderators, but I've moved it here to keep the workflow in one place. Adjust as you see fit. Jedi Sarith LeKit (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Minor, but for "Aside from RFRURs, the alternative methods of demotion are: the user resigning of their own accord, fall short of activity requirements, or, in extreme circumstances, be blocked." it would seemingly read better as "falling short of activity requirements" and "being blocked." Or at least, sounds better when read out loud as a sentence.—spookywillowwtalk 14:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding the removal-by-blocking issue, how would we like an additional vote on changing the relevant clause in the Blocking policy to: "If applicable, blocked users shall have any access to Wookieepedia's social media and Discord server revoked. All blocked users should also have any associated bots blocked and be removed from the leadership and participant listing of any WookieeProjects." This would repeal the restriction on elected user positions, including user rights and review board membership—meaning it's up to the community to vote a blocked user out, keeping in mind that blocks can be either temporary or indefinite—but keep the technical necessities of restricting social media access. The restrictions on bots, Discord server access, and WookieeProjects would likewise remain unaffected. OOM 224 00:32, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
- I realize this is already up for a vote, and I’m pretty supportive of all the changes—so good on you for the work that’s gone into this. That said, I figured I’d bring this up since it’s in the same vein. Has there ever been any discussion about administrative terms? Not necessarily term limits—though I wouldn’t be opposed to them—but I can't help but think of the fact that once someone is voted in, they basically serve indefinitely (as far as I'm aware) unless someone calls them out. And with a supermajority vote required to remove them, that seems like a pretty high bar to clear. It just feels like, over time, that kind of setup could lead to issues. Even with the best intentions, power structures tend to get entrenched, and if the admin team is tight-knit, it could make accountability really difficult. Can the admin team participate in the vote? If so, then at that point, getting a supermajority to force someone out becomes more of a theoretical possibility than a realistic one if all 13 members have each other's back. Artemaeus-Creed (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2025 (UTC)