Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

One of the most frequent comments at RfA reform 2011 regarding the high benchmark at RfA was that it is too hard to remove an incumbent administrator: once elected, it is a job for life. This topic has recently come up again, at both WT:RfA and User talk:Jimbo Wales.

Per the essay on removing administrator rights, there are currently five methods for removing administrator rights. Three of the five (1–3) are under the control of the administrator themselves; 4 and 5 are not:

1. Resignation – any administrator can request the removal of their own rights at any time;
2. Inactivity – if an administrator makes no edits in the space of 12 months, their rights can be removed, though they can be replaced on request at a bureaucrat's discretion;
3. Administrators open to recall – an administrator can set up criteria for their own recall, they agree to resignation if the criteria is met. However, this is unenforceable and relies on the administrator's discretion.
4. Arbitration requests – either by motion or by a full case. Significant requirements before a case is accepted, e.g. other methods of dispute resolution have been attempted.
5. Emergency situations – in an emergency, a bureaucrat, a steward or Jimbo Wales can remove permissions.

The purpose of this RfC is to decide whether some form of community de-adminship process should be created, to discuss a number of concepts associated with community de-adminship, and to provide a place for suggested methods and commentary on those suggested methods. Once this RfC is complete, it should allow further discussion on the most likely methods of community de-adminship, if any.

Proposals

To edit this section, click here.

Primary proposal

The current methods for removal of administrator rights are not sufficient and an additional community-driven method should be implemented.

Support Primary proposal

1. I totally agree and applaud this foolhardy brave initiative, but don't burn yourself out over it, Worm. As you say, there's a reason it's perennial. Bishonen | talk 12:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC).
2. An additional process, if decently constructed to prevent "pitchforking", but which is not "toothless", could be helpful. Though I'm not entirely sold on whether such a process is pragmatically "possible", I definitely think it should be discussed. - jc37 19:29, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Yes. The (virtual) job for life doesn't help to drive a professional ethic among the admins who need to adopt such an ethic the most. And we have little hope of making RfA more reasonable and less risk-averse, which is partly because voters are shy of giving a lifetime role to applicants. Easier in, easier out, I say. Tony (talk) 06:05, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Jc37 and I have discussed an RfC/U system before, to allow temporary removal, as well as possibly other methods of action between "nothing" and "desysop" within that system. Fully support higher accountability with less pitchforks. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 10:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Obviously. Hipocrite (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
6. I concur wholeheartedly and believe this may be were we ought to begin in terms of an RFC. The well-known first step towards solving a problem is acknowledging the problem to be solved. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:16, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
7. What's to oppose? Intothatdarkness 19:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Support ... I tried it once before back in 09, but meh - guess it won't hurt to give it another go. <just not holding my breath> Chedzilla (talk) 22:35, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Completely Support in solidarity with all those who have been mistreated by administrators. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 18:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Support - In principle, yes; provided a workable solution is found which does not disrupt Wikipedia, nor allow bad faith requests. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
11. Support - I personally would like to see a community backed method of removal, which does not require the humiliation of the administrator. Worm^TT(talk) 18:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
12. Support - This proposal would go a long way in changing the negative conversation some editors have about administrators. ```Buster Seven Talk 18:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
13. Support definitely. KTC (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
14. Support, it's always boggled my mind that we didn't have something like this. Specs112 t c 19:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
15. Support - As Jimbo said: "make it easier to become an admin so that more people can share the burden, and easier to lose the bit when there are problems." ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
16. Support in principle. The details are very important and need to be figured out.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
17. I basically support the principle, but I also note that ArbCom is becoming, in my opinion, much better at handling this than it used to be, so the need for an additional method seems less compelling to me than it used to. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
18. We do NOT need arbcom for desysopping.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
19. Support - Oversight = accountability = better behavior. Carrite (talk) 01:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
20. Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
21. Absolute support - This would do much towards making RfA more reasonable, and instilling confidence in the integrity of the adminship process as a whole. Shadowjams (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
22. Support. Admins are, ideally, accountable to the community and there should be a straightforward way to enforce that accountability. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
23. Support Accountability to the community, for anyone in a position of power anywhere at all, sticks caltrops on the path towards unbridled abuse of that power. Pesky (talk) 11:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
24. Support, obviously. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
25. Support, Why not? Although it must be well-designed. —Hahc21 15:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
26. Long overdue.—S Marshall T/C 00:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
27. Support wholeheartedly. We need, beyond question, a formalized path to desysopping in cases wherein it's appropriate, rather than relying only upon voluntary processes like recall and resignation. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
28. Support. Definitely needed; current processes are inadequate. Also per Eluchil404. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
29. Support Community intervention for bad admins = YES teksquisite talk 07:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

    Support - It is about time and long, long overdue. Yaplunpe (talk) 08:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

30. Support... with the caveat that IMHO, the community has always had the implicit ability to remove adminship by consensus, just like it has the ability to add tools by consensus. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
31. open to this - I've tried for four years or more repeating to all and sundry that we have an admin conduct review process with expressly the idea we get easier RfAs and more fluid adminning and deadminning...maybe it's about time I gave up on this and we give something else a go. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
32. Support no brainer, other cliches. Hot Stop 04:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
33. Support - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
34. Support - On principle alone, if the community grants adminships it should also have the power to take it away, and more generally it is unhelpful to rely on ArbCom alone to deal with removal of adminship. CT Cooper · talk 20:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
35. Support - While acknowledging this is a perennial, I support and applaud the attempt to take it on. (I oppose the 'gatekeeper' concept however) Manning (talk) 23:48, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
36. Yes, if it is no big deal to get the tools, then it should it be also no big deal to loose them! mabdul 23:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
37. Support the concept but await more detail. Are we working to solve a problem that doesn't really exist? DocTree (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
38. Support - Its about time I think. Kumioko (talk) 11:13, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
39. Support per common sense... Cavarrone (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
40. Support per Cailil below in the opposes. Returning adminship to no-big-deal status will be a result of a more expedient removal process. Gigs (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
41. I'll support Secret ^account 02:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
42. Weak, qualified support in theory—community empowerment and all that—with grave concerns about putting it into practice. I foresee mobs baying for blood, interminable drama fests, and possibly over time fewer editors willing to endure RfA after what they've seen others endure. (Making people run the gauntlet to get the mop and then run it again every time a difficult decision results in popular outrage seems doubly horrible.) I'd also like to see concrete examples that Arbcom hasn't been up to the job before moving forward with this. Rivertorch (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
43. Support Some type of CAREFUL process is needed in this area. One that can't be hijacked either way by someone's posse or be a simple popularity contest. North8000 (talk) 12:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
44. Support Just make recall mandatory. It's not that hard. Have the community set a reasonable threshold and otherwise work out the details. --BDD (talk) 20:05, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
45. Support, in theory, yes. However, I fear that finding an actual procedure that does not have some flaw that renders it unacceptable will be very difficult, if not impossible. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:26, 19 August 2012 (UTC).
46. Support While I support this idea, the way it has been proposed is not the correct way to change policy, and thus is not binding.Hillabear10 (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
47. Support -- but the devil is in the details. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
48. Support --99of9 (talk) 05:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Primary proposal

1. oppose: The problem is not a bug but a feature. If you want to change the admin for life clique system, you'll have to make it easier to become and to be an admin not harder. The problem of power abuse is solved by sharing power more widely not by enforcing tougher standards for who can get it, or by making it easier to take it away. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Oppose but only because this should be solvable by attitudinal rather than procedural change. Somewhere along the line we suddenly decided that being a sysop is a big deal. It's not it never was. ArbCom made some rulings (that effectively changed policy) on the standard to which sysops are held (ie a "higher standard of behaviour" rather than a "high standard"). RFA has since become almost unworkable. It was always a ridiculous process and we're refusing to fix it. Rogue sysops can be handled by existing DR processes. Agree with Maunus abuse of power can be prevented "by sharing power more widely": to that end it suggest we formulate an actual standard for reasons to oppose at RFA rather than just leaving to negative personal opinions, and a debundling of the sysop bit--Cailil ^talk 15:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose: community-driven procedures in such cases would make more harm with back and forth toggling of user rights. The better way to solve problem would be either "sharing power more widely" (per Maunus) or comprehensive user rights fragmentation (with breaking the admin functionality apart for different kinds of tasks and scopes). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:46, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Existing processes are sufficient. Any true demonstration of consensus for a desysop is unstoppable. Community outrage can appear on any page with equal validity. In practice, the offending admin resigns in the face of the wave. For difficult or urgent cases, this is the purpose of arb com wielding the traditional power of Jimbo. ArbCom just need to show their teeth. For awkward and ambiguous cases, there's RFC/U. RCF/U could benefit from some reform. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose - No evidence has been provided that shows that the current process is not sufficient. Before supporting this proposal, I would like to see evidence of multiple admins who caused significant damage to the project and should have been desysopped by arbcom, but weren't. -Scottywong| confess _ 19:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose -Agree with above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 02:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
7. I'm not a fan of Arbcom at present, they've made some decisions that I regard as wrong and at least one that I consider perverse. But they are elected by the community, they have the power to desysop admins and they've desysoped so many recently that it would be odd if they showed leniency if they had the opportunity to desysop any admin who merited it. So we have one form of community deadminship, just on an indirect rather than Direct Democracy. The history of CDA proposals is that they all founder for one or more of the reasons that I expect this will. We have Arbcom which is community deadminship in an democratic wayand don't need CDA. Any CDA proposal is either vulnerable to degenerating into lynch mobs, or puts in such precautions against lynchmobs that it becomes an alternative to Arbcom, and this place is bureaucratic enough without having two rival Arbcoms. ϢereSpielChequers 09:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose per my comments at Wikipedia talk:Requests for removal of adminship#Potentially toxic environment The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
9. The current process is sufficient. A community-based process could be implemented in addition, if it works around the obvious tendency to mob justice, but there's no urgency to do so. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:05, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
10. Oppose. Since editors can only become sysops by demonstrating their commitment to the project in the first place, it is relatively uncommon to have to desysop, and therefore the current process is sufficient. If it really is a problem, then we need to reconsider our criteria for adminship. Those who are handed the mop are granted access to non-public data and tools that could seriously disrupt the encyclopedia. I feel it would have a negative effect on the community if sysops felt they had to be popular and avoid annoying any editors. It would discourage boldness. If this became a streamlined community process we would see a flood of abusive desysop requests from editors angry about being blocked. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 02:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
11. Per Scotty Wong; in addition, I have concerns about staffing problem areas such as WP:AE and articles under probation. Who will take those on if disgruntled editors who have been sanctioned are allowed to pursue retaliatory de-adminning? I fear the "solution" offered is a solution looking for a problem which does not exist in any serious measure, and the end result will cause more harm to the encyclopedia in the long run than the current system, which is as Scotty points out working. I second his request to show an admin who has been seriously problematic who has not been handled by the current measures. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
12. Oppose. I do not like the current, or rather lack of, deadmin procedure. However, I feel that one of the most important qualities an admin can possess is the ability to be bold. It makes it harder for administrators to express this quality if they are constantly under the thread of being dysysopped by someone who whole a grudge against them and spends their days following said administrator around and gathering ammunition. I do not want a Wikipedia where administrators are forced to double as politicians, vying for the most popularity points to ensure a group of sycophantic yes-men will come to their aid should an attempted ousting come their way. Trusilver 23:36, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Primary proposal Discussion

• Most of the issues from this proposal are addressed one way or another in the current policies. Only the issue of inactivity is unresolved, and there have been millions discussions about it. I don't see new arguments here, and it is quite clear the community is split over this. Pundit|utter 18:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • The issue of complete inactivity was resolved a year or so ago when we started desysoping admins who hadn't edited in 12 months. There are of course some admins who edit but who haven't used the tools in months, but I don't see them as a problem. if anything they are a useful reserve - people who are sometimes around, already have the tools and as the admin shortage starts to bite will find themselves being asked to wield the mop. Hopefully when that happens they'll either help out or hand in the mop. ϢereSpielChequers 00:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
• I marked myself as a supporter of this proposal, but really I would like if all admins had to have their RfA's renewed at least once every two years. While this will be almost one RfA per day, it will add extra scrutiny to the process. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 18:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Can we have some type of statement that a clear consensus in favor of "some solution" wont be used to justify implementing the least objectionable solution if that solution standing alone lacks consensus? In light of the PC close I think its a real concern. Monty₈₄₅ 18:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  Not sure how this could be used to push through any one solution. If we were looking at a trial or any one route, I could see your point, but all this is intended to do is stimulate more discussion on the matter. What's more, if PC taught us anything, it's that saying something will or wont happen in X period of time is very different to it actually happening. I can give you my personal assurance that I wouldn't use it to push something through and I put this RfC together, but I doubt that's very helpful. Worm^TT(talk) 18:36, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• I personally was really starting to lean towards the system we were discussing at WT:RFA. A de-adminship request framed like an RfC/U, takes 3 admins to certify, discussed in the"voting/consensus" hybrid form (like RfA), closed by a bureaucrat (like RfA), reviewed by Arbcom. (We had more detail, but those are the basics.) I think it's straight-forward, has "gatekeepers", deals with "pitchforking", and uses existing processes rather than creating something else out of whole cloth. Maybe I should copy that to here or to some subpage of this? - jc37 18:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  I was hoping you might copy it over to the suggestions page - I was going to ask you, but completely forgot. Should get a few eyes on it. Worm^TT(talk) 18:57, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  Here you go : ) - jc37 19:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• From the department of "history repeats itself": I strongly urge anyone making proposals here, who wasn't around last time, to make a careful study of Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. I think that it's very important to learn the lessons of past experience. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• It occurs to me that while we are talking about implementing/reforming the de-admin process, I think we also need to address what types of behaviours could potentially lead to the process. In other words, how about a Standard of Conduct for admins? It could start with, admins are expected to follow these basic rules of decorum:

1. No profanity.
2. No insults.
3. No obscene language.
4. Maintain neutrality.
5. Assume good faith.

Perhaps this it redundant with numerous wikipedia policies and guidelines, and Administrator Conduct: Accountability, but I find that policy a bit vague as it is now. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

One man's profanity is another man's poetry. The part of this proposal that makes sense is already covered by policy. And furthermore it shouldn't be a requirement for being an admin to be willing to stoically accept verbal abuse and assumptions of bad faith by others with out expressing dissatisfaction or discontentment in kind.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Bugger that. Gabe, I'm not one for obscene language, but I don't agree with trying to censor editors ways of talking. The neutrality, insults and good faith ones, every admin I know tries to do it, whether or not they succeed. Worm^TT(talk) 22:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm merely suggesting that should an editor make a complaint against an admin for obscene language, which policy would they be pointed to to tell them obscene language is acceptable here or not acceptable here. Also, are we censoring a user for asking them to not use language that is actually illegal to use, especially around children? I'm not sure any admin worth their weight in salt would argue for their right to be obscene, would they? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:51, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

My point was that there is no policy regarding obscene language. I think you'll find many of them, including me, would argue for that right - dependent on the situation. If you go through my contributions, you'll find I don't swear - I don't see the point, but I also don't expect that of others. This conversation isn't appropriate here, but please do come to my talk page to talk about it further. I'll drop you some links to past discussions on the matter. Worm^TT(talk) 23:05, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps this discussion should occur elsewhere, however I must ask, if there are really no clear boundries as to how an admin is expected to behave, then why would anyone be de-sysoped anyway? I mean, if an admin can use profanity and obscenities whilst dealing with an editor, then what exactly would be grounds for desysoping? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:38, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

As to swearing, I don't when I'm acting in "an official" capacity, giving an opinion as an uninvolved admin at ANI or at the boards. But I might say "hell yes" on a comrade's talk page. I think it is a matter of context, and I do differentiate those things I do as an admin (which is more than just using the tools) and those as a fellow editor. That is part of the problem as well, as "abuse of admin" seems to be labeled as "use of tools" yet we act as admins with our words as well. It is difficult to differentiate when someone is acting as an admin or as an editor when tools aren't involved, and we don't want to be draconian about limits, as sometimes a colorful word is the right word, as an editor. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:42, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Profanity is hardly an issue. I would personally give admins who agree to refrain from blocking good-faith editors free license to cuss and swear all they want. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I doubt any substantial portion of the community feels that language is the primary problem needing to be solved here, certainly not to the extent that we need to specify both "no profanity" and "no obscene language." (not even sure what the distinction is actually) Sometimes it is in fact an appropriate reaction, see here for more.Beeblebrox (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• The trouble is that you will never get it through. You might well get a majority in favour of change, but that majority will not agree on exactly what that change should be; see RfCs passim. The only way to get it through would be to have a three-stage process. First determine the most popular proposals for change, ending with a list of, say, three possibilities. Second, hold an RfC which puts the question Do we agree that one of these alternatives shall become policy? If the consensus is yes, one of them shall become policy, then proceed to stage three, otherwise the existing policy remains in place. Stage three is the final RfC. It decides which of the three alternatives will become policy. Keeping the existing policy is no longer an option. 146.90.141.14 (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Gatekeeper

To stop frivolous requests for de-adminship, some sort of "gate-keeper" should be a requirement before the request. This might be a set number of editors in good standing, an editor from a new elected "group", a set number of admins or a set number of bureaucrats.

Should this suggestion gain focus, further discussions should take place to decide who or what the gate-keeper should be.

Support Gatekeeper

1. Some kind of filter is essential or the process would be immediately discredited by frivolous or vexatious moves against admins. I note that the foundation is establishing a community-elected ombudsperson (who said English can't be ugly?) to field complaints about the dissemination of US$11.5M among the chapters and other entities. Electing someone to do this job here would be feasible; we elect arbcom, admins, and crats. Come to think of it, why couldn't a crat do this job? Tony (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

   Without commenting for or against anything, the argument has been in the past that bureaucrats were not selected with this function in mind. It was a primary argument against giving bureaucrats the technical ability to de-sysop. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Support requiring a bureaucrat or similar to prevent frivolous or disruptive filings. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Yes, though I would support 3admins to certify and a bureaucrat to close (followed by arbcom review). There are too few active bureaucrats to count on them for certification and then needing one to close. Honestly, admins are a pretty diverse bunch. If you can't find 3 admins to certify a discussion, then the discussion isn't likely to pass anyway. - jc37 18:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Support - again, in principle; we do need something to stop frivolous, vexatious or otherwise bad faith requests. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 18:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Support I do think some sort of gate keeper is required, to stop bad faith requests. What form that gate-keeper should be, I do not know. I would rather it was someone who could impose impartial judgement on the matter though, rather than a set of criteria or a certain number of editors etc. Worm^TT(talk) 18:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Support per JC37. We've discussed this before. We have some different ideas, but agree on most points, including this one. I'm open to different methods as well. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Support - This must not become place for dis-gruntled editors to counter-attack an admin they feel has wronged them. Perhaps a cumulative process of some kind. 3 strikes---->see the gatekeeper. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Support in principle though would really require more details on specific propsal. KTC (talk) 19:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Support Because as soon as you introduce a gatekeeper it ceases to be "community deadminship" and becomes more of a reformed Arbcom. However if this goes in you need some very clear rules as to which cases go here and which to Arbcom. ϢereSpielChequers 19:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

   Support - In principle, however I suggest the gatekeeper/s be non-admin, otherwise we are getting too close to the current situation. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

10. Support - There needs to be some sort of reasonable threshold set to prevent harassment of administrators. Carrite (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
11. Support in principle Yes, there needs to be some kind of gatekeeping function or process in place, but it shouldn't always be the same people. This is where such a system would have an advantage over ArbCom. Anything which is fair, effective, and extremely hard to subvert, would be good. Pesky (talk) 11:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
12. Support. I think a trusted user here would solve a lot of problems people have with the idea of recall. Ironholds (talk) 13:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
13. Support per jc37 and this: We don't want bad faith requests for de-adminship. It is hard to become one, so the fact that is not hard to remove the rights is natural. Anyway a process in case of wuasi-emergencies en such may exist. —Hahc21 15:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
14. Support - largely per jc37 & Carrite. I've suggest below a WP:AE style forum moderated by (certified, & closed by) 'Crats. I think this would help such requests be fair, honest and timely--Cailil ^talk 21:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
15. Support - this with bureaucrats in some capacity - I came up with User:Casliber/Fivecrat in November 2008. How do folks like that one? Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:01, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
16. Support needed to prevent specious requests. Hot Stop 04:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
17. Conditional Support - I support a gatekeeper on the condition that it not be a single person making the decision. My idea is having a certain number of autoconfirmed editors who are not under controversy to certify the request. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
18. Support - While frivolous requests to remove adminship on Commons are not a major problem, they do happen, and so some approval of nominations is appropriate. Not sure who the gatekeeper(s) should be, although it should preferably be more than one person. CT Cooper · talk 20:36, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
19. Conditional Support. Per jc37 above but perhaps constitute a panel of 3 random editors, 2 uninvolved Admins. An accused Admin should not be forced to spend her/his time defending actions until a gatekeeper panel examines the accusations and determines that there is a valid complaint. DocTree (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
20. Conditional Support. Per above, must be more than one person. --Nouniquenames (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
21. Conditional support. It is completely unnecessary to have a "gatekeeper" position, it should just be X number of admins approve the request. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
22. Tepid/conditional support On the "too strong" side, the gatekeeper should only be empowered to stop frivolous/impulsive requests. On the "too weak" side, a very CAREFUL process is needed in this overall area. One that can't be hijacked either way by someone's posse or be a simple popularity contest. This isn't it, and might distract people into thinking that it takes care of the carefulness aspect. North8000 (talk) 12:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Gatekeeper

1. Oppose unless I'm convinced that the gatekeeper has ways to be overriden.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
2. oppose solving power abuse by giving a single person the power to determine when accusing someone of power abuse should obviously be considered a nonsensical idea.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Most Wikipedia processes lack a gatekeeper and yet we are able to easily deal with meritless or vexatious requests (e.g. at AfD or DRV), I don't see a need for specific, and quite high, standards in this case either. Eluchil404 (talk) 09:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Oppose Unnecessary. The other day I saw a frivolous RfA opened. Someone stepped in and shut it down not long after it was opened, and for the short time that it ran, the opposes were nearly unanimous. Frivolous requests to de-admin can be dealt with similarly, and the instigator(s) can be warned or blocked for repeat offenses. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

   It isn't so frivolous if you are the one on "trial", however, and every admin that has ever blocked, has people who have a bone to pick, even the best admins in the world. There are problems with admin retention if you make it too easy to frivolously file a process, I promise. A compromise is required. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

   But my point is there would be no "trial". At the RfA, I particularly enjoyed Jack's comment: "Looking for this RfA to be closed as indef blocked". If someone filed a baseless request to de-admin, it could be closed quickly, with the complaintant getting boomeranged with sanctions. Just my opinion; I am of course certainly interested in compromise. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

6. Oppose - I see no more need for a "gatekeeper" position in desysopping than in any other WP process (AfD, RfA, etc.). It's unneeded. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose - This is not needed, and would only serve to hinder the reform. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose: there should be some limiting factor, but it should not be based on discretion. Something more like an amount of editors with at least N edits each endorsing the process within a period of D days on some special page ("WP:Requests for De-adminship/USERNAME"). — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Oppose - I'm opposing this 'formalized' definition of "gatekeeper". We already effectively have a 'gatekeeper' process in all of our operations (AFD, etc), and I'm unconvinced that frivolous/vexatious cases won't get summarily dismissed in the same manner. If we enact a 'de-adminship' process and it does get derailed through lack of a formal gatekeeper then I'll gladly reconsider, but until then this feels like a solution in search of a problem. Manning (talk) 23:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Strong oppose. Please, no more groups; WP is already too bureaucratic. If such a process were in place, the closing admin would be able to judge whether or not the request was frivolous or not. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 02:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
11. Oppose It is in contradiction with the core values of Wikipedia.Hillabear10 (talk) 13:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

We are a community-based organization. We must operate with a mix of staff members, and of volunteers, working together to achieve our mission. We support community-led collaborative projects, and must respect the work and the ideas of our community. We must listen and take into account our communities in any decisions taken to achieve our mission. [1] Hillabear10 (talk) 14:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Gatekeeper Discussion

I"d want to see more detail first. Far too many folks hold grudges that could throw a gadfly into things. Chedzilla (talk) 22:36, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

This could be applied to almost any de-admin process. Without an idea of which process it was going to work with, its hard to judge whether it would be necessary or how it would need to work. If there was a de-admin committee, it may not be necessary to prescreen, on the other hand, if the process was an involuntary reconfirmation RFA, I would want very strict certification/screening criteria. Monty₈₄₅ 18:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• My experience from Russian Wikipedia several years back was that on several occations (not more that a dozen in five years - with around a hundred admins at any time moment) arbcom would get a case against an admin and decide that (i) there were little or no policy breach by this admin with the use of the admin tools - consequently, there are no formal reasons to desysop; (ii) the admin has done something (without using the tools, just like a regular editor) which gives serious reasons to think that they lost the trust of the community. In these rare cases, the arbcom would send an admin to reconfirm the tools by means of a regular RFA process. Some managed, other did not and lost the tools. That would be a good idea for an arbcom-mediated de-adminship.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• I also don't know how to respond to this, without more details. If there's a gatekeeper, does that stop it from being community-driven? Without a gatekeeper, what about the "mobs with pitchforks" arguments that kept coming up the last time? Couldn't decision-making by ArbCom take care of the problem? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• What happens if we adopt 1.1.1 and 1.2.1, but no other proposal reaches consensus? I presume we can't have a gate keeper with no process to to monitor? Monty₈₄₅ 16:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

  The idea wasn't that we adopt anything, the proposals were intentionally too vague for that. From these discussions, unfortunately will be more discussions, but at least we'll have more direction on them, based on wider views. Worm^TT(talk) 08:13, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with most of the above that this proposal is too vague to have an informed opinion about. We need to prevent runaway abuses, and obvious grudges, but sometimes only one or two individuals will have had serious issues with an admin, and that might justify process. We just need to make sure that it's not so prevalent that people quit paying attention, or that it distracts everyone too much. Shadowjams (talk) 03:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  Vague indeed. I !voted for "conditional support," but I feel that I am of exactly the same opinion as some people in the "oppose" category. I interpreted "set number" as "a number of editors/admins/etc. that see come by the page to endorse it." Some of the opposers are interpreting it as "a number of editors/admins/etc. which are appointed/elected to the position of endorsing requests." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• If this proposal is adopted, I think a gatekeeper a near necessity. But why not add that role to Bureaucrats? I would also suggest that at least three must approve a request before moving forward. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Committee-based

A new committee should be created to decide on de-adminship matters.

Should this suggestion gain focus, further discussions should take place to decide who would be eligible for the committee, how the committee would be selected, how long the committee terms should be for and so on.

Support Committee-based

1. Support ??? ... I could likely go along with something along these lines. Chedzilla (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
2. I think this is the best way to go as it would be the hardest to game. Without getting into minutia that can be sorted out later, the committee should be elected, should be able to decline to consider cases, and should us its own judgement about whether the conduct of the admin justifies removal of the admin bit. The most sever outcome would be removal of the bit, and the they should not be able to restrict running for RFA after removal. Thus the community could always reject the decision. Monty₈₄₅ 18:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Support as I have made a similar proposal before. Wer900 • ^{talk • coordinationconsensus defined} 18:21, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Support I like this idea, though I worry about the smoke and mirrors aspect of it. I would prefer that it was a shiftable role, such as a random group from a pool of volunteers - and that their discussions should be made on-wiki. Worm^TT(talk) 18:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

   Support - Why burden ArbCom with desysoping, a dedicated commitee for this purpose would be more effective. Though I do think increased admin accountability would greatly reduce the need for this in the first place. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:17, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

5. In the spirit of just kicking ideas around, how about having a community-wide election, similar to the ArbCom elections, and having both admins and non-admins on the committee? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Partial support per my recommendation at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 112#Local Ombudsman Committee?. My proposal would be that we split responsibility for issues for user conduct (including admins and functionaries) to a local "Ombudsman Committee" (note: separate from the WMF's ombudsman commission and even taking up the roles of the current Audit Subcommittee), similar to how many other large real-life organizations work. However, this would go past basic administrator conduct and would deal with all misconduct, on the premise that all users here are inherently editors (whereas administrators and any rights after that are stuff that is added on to an editor's responsibilities). --MuZemike 07:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
7. A government (i.e. the supreme body of executive power) is good – I do not see another viable alternative to the direct democracy, which latter unlikely can function with so great population. But the government has to be responsive, for example via periodic elections. A bad government, which obstructs good sysops and adopts bad attitudes, will be deposed. Let ops be responsive to the government, which in turn will be responsive to users. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
8. support sort of' I came up with User:Casliber/Fivecrat in November 2008 - which would mean the convening of the first five 'crats to turn up...Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Support Miniapolis (talk) 01:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Committee-based

1. Strongly oppose anything which involves setting up star chambers or smoke-filled rooms. (And of course it would be setting up another level of bureaucracy.) Such discussions should be open and available to the community-as-a-whole. - jc37 18:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

   What if all deliberations of the committee were required to be conducted on wiki or at least in full public view, with the committee being given no access to private information. To the extent private information was required, a checkuser/oversighter would review the private information, and provide what information they could within the limits of the privacy policy. (The provider of the statement would not be allowed to be on the committee) Monty₈₄₅ 18:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

   The way you describe it, it sounds like it might eventually be used in lieu of final arbcom review. In which case, I even more strongly would oppose this. At the final stage of any desysop procedure we decide upon here, should be an arbitration committee review of some kind. If you think I'm misunderstanding, please clarify. - jc37 18:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

   What I mean is that the initial committee would have restrictions, that isn't to say arbcom couldn't review, or what the appeal process would be. Just that the committee itself would be totally open. Basically the equivalent of an open meetings law with no exception for private info. Monty₈₄₅ 18:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose - And who over-sights this committee? As per above, Star Chambers are not imaginary places envisioned only by the paranoid. ```Buster Seven Talk 19:39, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose whilst I'm not impressed with some of Arbcom's recent decisions, why do we need two different committee's which can desysop admins? Will shift to support if this is amended to "For all its faults we need the arbitration committee as some of their desysoppings make sense. ϢereSpielChequers 19:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
4. It's supposed to be the community who's doing the desysopping.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
5. Simply creates a new problem for editors to whine about - who watches the watchers? The committee is obviously going to be a clique (since they have to be elected presumably by public support just like admins).·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:18, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Oppose - This additional bureaucracy would not be needed if we had mandatory recall ala a reverse RFA or a RFC/U with teeth. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:54, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose Quis custodiet ... Pesky (talk) 11:25, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
9. Weak oppose, though anyone who thinks that star chambers and smoke-filled rooms don't already exist on en-Wiki is only fooling himself. Joefromrandb (talk) 14:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Oppose - If we believe that ArmCom is not sufficient in providing a community de-adminship process, why would any other committee be any better? ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
11. Oppose No more bureaucracy, please. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
12. Oppose - The whole point of needing de-adminship ability is to get away from committees. This needs to be as democratic a process as Wikipedia tolerates... our strange hybrid of that we call consensus. We use consensus to pick admins, we should use it to get rid of them too. We can have checks on run-away abuses of the system, but this needs to be an open process. Shadowjams (talk) 03:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

    Oppose star chambers. No new committees! Let the community (crats, admins and non-admins alike) decide. Yaplunpe (talk) 08:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

13. Oppose: and in a year or so we'll be forming a committee for resolving power abuse by this committee. And in two years or so... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
14. Oppose, we don't need any more bureaucracy, and per Czarkoff. Instaurare (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
15. Oppose, per Czarkoff. mabdul 21:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
16. Oppose - Wouldn't make sense with the existence of ArbCom, and misses the key purpose of community de-adminship. CT Cooper · talk 20:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
17. Oppose - I'll support this only if we also agree to create a supervising committee to oversee Arbcom and this new committee, plus appoint a steering committee, a review board, a disputes tribunal and an ombudsman. And most importantly - who is focusing on our mission statement??? Manning (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
18. Oppose. I oppose a standing committee. I prefer an ad-hoc inquiry panel constituted to deal with each situation. DocTree (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
19. Oppose. If it's community based, it should be (potentially) community wide. --Nouniquenames (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
20. Oppose. Should get input from the entire community. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
21. Strong Oppose. Completely useless, with the tiny number of successful desysops, how could we possibly need a committee just for this? Also per others who have voice concerns over star chambers. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 02:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
22. Oppose. Defeats the idea of a community-based process, undermines the duly elected Arbcom's authority, and adds an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy. Rivertorch (talk) 07:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
23. We already have this. See WP:ARBCOM. KillerChihuahua^?!? 11:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
24. Oppose It is in direct contradiction with Wikipedia's mission statement.Hillabear10 (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Committee-based Discussion

Free for all

Should any of these suggestions gain focus, further discussions should take place to decide what format it should take (for example, modelled on WP:Requests for adminship, WP:Requests for comment/User conduct or something else), with a very large subset of editors being able to input their opinions, or whether there should be restrictions on which editors can comment or !vote, and what those restrictions should be.

Discussion-based

Should community de-adminship be discussion-based?

Support Discussion-based

• Support, as long as safeguards are in place so it doesn't mirror the madness that is RFA. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Discussion-based

Discussion-based Discussion

• I'm not keen on any system that would be impossible for an administrator to put up with. Getting the bit is already considered by many to be a "week of hell", and that's something that a candidate puts themselves forward for. If you were to have a co-ordinated discussion about your negative traits by large numbers of editors, how would you cope? Maybe the admin should lose the bit, but should we be making them want to stop editing too? Worm^TT(talk) 19:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• Well, there would have to be some sort of discussion, because it shouldn't be a vote. What is key is how the discussion would be closed, and by whom. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• I consider that it should be closed by 'crats, just like RFA's. —Hahc21 15:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Adminship is not a right. It's a privilege granted by the community in a discussion, and the community can take it away again. There's discussion above about setting up an elected body, which would presumably be tasked with coaching, mentoring, supervising, and where necessary disciplining our admin corps. Whether or not it's a good idea, it's also a separate issue. The important thing here is that community consensus is what rules Wikipedia. Therefore, a community consensus to desysop should lead to desysopping.

  Who should close such a discussion? I suggest one of the standard approaches we take with difficult or contentious issues, which is to use a triumvirate of uninvolved administrators.—S Marshall T/C 01:32, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

!Vote-based

Should community de-adminship be wholly !vote-based?

Support !Vote-based

Oppose !Vote-based

1. Oppose I don't have confidence that sufficient uninvolved editors would participate to protect against a small minority of upset editors who bother to show up and !vote. Monty₈₄₅ 18:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

   I think a respected admin would have just as many "involved" friends that would offset almost all of the sour grapes !votes. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

   Grudges are, I would say, more likely to result in a long term desire to monitor an admin and participate in any future disciplinary proceeding then positive interactions are. Monty₈₄₅ 16:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

   Perhaps, however that's an assumption of bad faith really. I have often times grown closer to those whom I have had conflict, so long as the conflict was resolved and we came to a place of mutual respect. For nearly every grudge !vote there will be a "buddy" !vote. Anyway, the crats would sort it all out, this isn't a democracy afterall and numerical supremacy should never rule over stronger rationales. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

   I have to agree with Monty though that this system is too easy to game, even by a few dedicated, non-good faith editors. I don't think lack of participation would be an issue, but gamesmanship would be. The current RfA model proposal below handles those issues much better than this would. Shadowjams (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

   Yeah, I agree, the RfA model is looking like the most feasible and sensible option. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose - The hybrid RfA system is better at equalising gamesmanship, and though certainly not perfect in that regard, it is a process we already have in place, and is currently workable if flawed. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Admins are stuck doing much of the dirty work in Wikiworld. Some of what they must do is going to make them unpopular among a group of editors. Until there is evidence to the contrary, I assume good faith on their part. A !vote is likely to be stuffed with those who feel wronged and their meatpuppets and sympathizers. How many editors are active? Versus how many take part in RfA, RfB and RfC? DocTree (talk) 01:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose Miniapolis (talk) 13:34, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

!Vote-based Discussion

• I'm not keen on any system that would be impossible for an administrator to put up with. Getting the bit is already considered by many to be a "week of hell", and that's something that a candidate puts themselves forward for. If you were to have a co-ordinated discussion about your negative traits by large numbers of editors, how would you cope? Maybe the admin should lose the bit, but should we be making them want to stop editing too? A closed vote might sort this issue. Worm^TT(talk) 19:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• Continuing from what I said just above, it probably makes sense to have numbered comments, but I would say "no way!" to just making it a vote. It needs to be a thoughtful process, not a popularity contest. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• I consider that if the de-adminship process would be !vote-based, then, to avoid a pile of users gaming the system, the threshold for the process to be considered successful should be no less that 90% in support of de-adminship, with no less than 100 votes. —Hahc21 15:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hybrid-based

Should community de-adminship be a hybrid of !voting and consensus, just like WP:RFA?

Support Hybrid-based

1. yes the only solution that makes sense. Make it mandatory for admins to be open to recall through RfCU or a process modeled on the rFa itself.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

   All admins should be open to recall, as a mandatory element of the position, not by their own choice. That would seem to be the right direction to move. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Support - If admins are elected by !vote, then why not recalled by !vote as well? If the system is good enough to choose wisely when users are nomed for the bit, then it should be able to provide good judgement when an admin is nomed for recall. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Support - Like RfA in reverse. It's the only suggestion that is logically sound. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Support - Yes, whatever procedure is adopted, gatekeeper requirements and all, this is ultimately the !vote that should matter, and the RfA model is sound. It's also logically consistent with the RfA process itself. Shadowjams (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

   Support - This is long overdue. Yaplunpe (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC) Blocked sock. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

5. Support This model works. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Support: the WP:RFA should be the process. Some limiting factor should be employed as a first step before RfA though. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:33, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
7. Support. Something like <50% = almost certain keep, >80% = almost certain desysop, 50-80% = discretionary. (I dunno, just making up some numbers.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Hybrid-based

1. Oppose. I would prefer a decision based on consensus; an RFA model can encourage a lynch-mob mentality. Miniapolis (talk) 13:38, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Hybrid-based Discussion

• Something along the lines of the current RfA? .. possibly Chedzilla (talk) 22:39, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not keen on any system that would be impossible for an administrator to put up with. Getting the bit is already considered by many to be a "week of hell", and that's something that a candidate puts themselves forward for. If you were to have a co-ordinated discussion about your negative traits by large numbers of editors, how would you cope? Maybe the admin should lose the bit, but should we be making them want to stop editing too? Worm^TT(talk) 19:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  No one with that screwed up a sense of proportion should be an admin in the first place. Or even editing. "Week of hell"!?!?!!??! Oh, the hyperbole... Egg Centric 16:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I would be inclined to want the "jury" to be a panel of admins or just editors chosen by the greater community. A republican style methods. This removes the decision by the mob, but still makes them accountable. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps the jury could be selected randomly from a pool of editors in good standing who have expressed an interest in participating in the system. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't like to think of it as a jury selected ad hoc. Either it's the community, or it's ArbCom or a similar standing body dedicated to the purpose. Separate point: when I've thought about this before, I've been inclined towards a discussion divided, not into "support" and "oppose", but rather into "de-sysop", "other action, but not de-sysop", and "take no action" sections. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
• Why don't we ever have RfCU's about admins? What would happen in an RfCU about an admin there was a wide consensus that he had abused his tools and ought to be desysopped. Wouldn't a bureaucrat act on that? Isn't the solution here just to tll bureaucrats to act on such a consensus and let all admins know that the tools can be revoked by a solid consensus in an rfcu.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • There used to be a sub-category of RfC/U specifically for administrators, although it seems to have been done away with. I think that experience has shown that RfC/U as it currently exists rarely leads to wide consensus. Instead, it leads to two opposing camps that dig in, to preserve their own positions, and refuse to seek a compromise. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    • A number of crats have in the past been asked, and opined that they would not act on an RfC/U because the community has never said they have the authority to do so. Monty₈₄₅ 16:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Automatic removal

Should the role of adminship become a temporary one, rather than "for life".

Should this suggestion gain focus, further discussions should take place to decide the term of administrators, whether this should apply to a subset of administrators, the form of re-confirmation, the best way to manage large numbers of re-confirmations.

Support Automatic removal

Support - Reconfirmation, while perhaps a logistical headache, would solve many of the issues and would likley greatly reduce the need to desysop anyone. If an admin needed to get reconfirmed every two or three years, in a process similar to the current RfA model, they would be more likely to act in an appropriate and cordial manner to all editors. It would be a rubber-stamp for good admins, and another hell-week for poor ones. Also, admins who are feeling a bit burned out might not even bother to reconfirm, further reducing the need to de-admin such users. this would be a logistical nightmare, so I have changed my mind, also per Joe's comments below ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Support, and I don't see why this idea is considered so radical. Adminship should be for a pre-determined length of time (2 or 3 years?). Joefromrandb (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

   Striking my support for this. It's not that I disagree, but as it has zero chance of passing at this time, I'd rather focus my efforts on suggestions that have some traction. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Conditional support: only for admins with no edits in a long period of time (think of 3 years at least). The rationale is simple: the consensus changes, and after some time of disconnection the knowledge of policies, guidelines and specifically good practices expires. Still any "deadmined" editor should have a right to nominate himself at WP:RFA with the first edit after this period of inactivity. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:40, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Automatic removal

1. Oppose Without some sensible way to manage the number of reconfirmations, I can't see how this would be a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Worm^TT(talk) 18:50, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
2. There was a lot of discussion of term limits and/or reconfirmation processes last time. Although the concept is an appealing one, it founders on what to do with admins who did RfA in the past. When one runs the numbers, there would have to be so many processes that it would really, really be impossible. Plus, a lot of effort given to admins who are either inactive (and thus doing no harm) or who are doing good work and whose time and energy would be diverted. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

   Well, I think inactive admins, who do not seek reconfirmation are just de-sysoped, with little to no effort. Active, productive admins who return to RfA would find it largely a rubber-stamp technicality. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

   Even so, the numbers end up being insurmountable. Even limited to "active" admins (definition needed!), there would have to be something like ten processes per week for a couple of years to clear up the backlog. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

3. Strong oppose, and I'm too busy doing actual admin tasks to give a long explanation why. DS (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
4. If you want more admin burnout, more stress induced admin rage, and longer backlogs support this proposal.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:27, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
5. We have a problem with a declining number of Active admins. Adminship or at least the RFA process has become an unattractive option for even the most qualified editors. Term limits would make the problem worse, also they are a solution designed for jobs like US president where only a limited number of people can be in that role, we don't have a shortage of mops we have a shortage of admins. ϢereSpielChequers 10:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
6. Admins should do what policy dictates, and what they think is right, with a considerable amount of leeway to make discretionary calls. While there should be a mechanism to review admins who loose touch with policy or consistently cause problems, we also need to make sure admins are not unduly influenced by the need to keep making !voters happy. Regular relections will undermine that. Monty₈₄₅ 16:00, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
7. Oppose - Seems unnecessarily distracting to the vast majority of admins who should not need to go through a process to deal with the minority who misbehave. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
8. Oppose Arb's serve for 2 years, what if they "expire" in the middle of their term? Too much potential for controversy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not sure I understand, Dennis. Are you suggesting that it would be disruptive for a sitting Arb to have to undergo an RfA? If so, I could certainly see an exception being made in these cases. Although I didn't think adminship was required to be an Arbcom member. I thought it was just a personal requirement of many voters. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

   I'm not aware of any that aren't, even if it isn't required. And exempting an Arb member would be contentious, to say the least. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:23, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

9. Oppose - I have listened to the arguments against made by several respected admins and I believe them to be mostly valid. This would not only be a logistical nightmare, it may also open up admins to the temptation to avoid controversy, which would be a very bad thing. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
10. Oppose "Well, now that you have undergone our week long intensive interview process, you are ready to begin. You do realize that there is no pay, the better you do at the job the more you will het yelled at, and you will be automatically fired in a year even if you did an excellent job, right? " Beeblebrox (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
11. Oppose - logistical nightmare and waste of time better spent elsewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:47, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
12. Oppose. I could be convinced to change my opinion, but only if the definition of "temporary" was a time period greater than 5 years. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
13. Oppose - I've been an admin for over ten years now (FWIW I never went through RFA). I sometimes have to drop out of editing for 2-3 months because of RL commitments, but then I come back and do whatever I can find is useful. I've been doing this for years without complaint. If my admin bit was removed, I'd say nothing, I'd just stop doing admin work, and I don't think I'd be alone. I'm not going to undergo the inconvenience of an RFA for the privilege of doing a thankless job that no-one had any issue with me doing in the first place. A process to remove troublesome admins is one thing, but removing perfectly competent admins (outside of the inactive desysop process we already have) seems to be a real "shoving a fork in our eye" process. Manning (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
14. Oppose per Beeblebrox causa sui (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
15. Oppose. As long as the majority of admins are doing fine, this will just turn out to be a huge waste of time. Nominate someone if you think they should be de-admined. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
16. Oppose. This complete goes against the notion of adminship "not being a big deal." This is the same as saying we should de-autoconfirm editors who become inactive, or delete accounts with no or very few edits (this has been proposed and defeated on several occasions). A sysop doesn't have to prove anything, and they have no obligation to be active, any more than a regular editor does. If an editor has been given the bit, then being inactive doesn't make them any less trusted. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 03:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Automatic removal Discussion

• There's an easier way. Much of the friction between some admins and the rest of the community is the simple accumulation of stuff over time. This could be solved by simply requiring admins to take two months off each year from admin work. Specifically, entire months but not necessarily two consecutive. This would give the admins a break from the bs (good for the spirit and soul) and require other admins to step up if a break month came during an ongoing issue. Due to resource limitations, we'd have to exclude advanced permission admins (arbcom, checkuser, oversight, bureaucrat, others?) but there's rarely any problem with those folks.

  The advantage is that it's automatic and impersonal. While being 100% sure of the good faith of this proposal, I can't but think that any review process would degradate into a mud-slinging mess, because that's The Wikipedia Way Nobody Ent 13:37, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• I suppose you mean something like a three-year tenure, followed by a confirmation process. It's possible, especially now we have so few RfAs, but I do fear clogging up the system with more administrative processes. Tony (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• I tend to think this could get support if it was a simple up or down vote, perhaps without comment except in a separate discussion section, by the entire community (same rules as voting in RfA), and only requiring a simple majority of 51%. It isn't the strongest re-confirmation and a lower bar than RfA, but it would be a start and would at least bring every admin into the spotlight from time to time and serve as a reminder that we all serve at the pleasure of the community. Every two years would be a good term. After a time, the percentages or times could be adjusted, but this would at least get the system into place and would hopefully get support. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © (WER) 12:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• I wouldn't have any objection to some form of reconfirmation process. Re-election to political office is one thing, but for a productive administrator, reconfirmation should be a breeze. Problem is, how do we convince the community that something like this would work? It's a good idea on principle, I think, but it seems every major proposal on this site is met with some sort of vehement opposition (and not just editors' concerns—those are fine—but I mean vehement opposition). I think a solution will come with time, but it'll likely be by necessity and not by preemptive community will. But it's good that we're discussing ideas nonetheless, regardless of their likelihood of coming to fruition.

I've always been of the school that de-adminship reform is absolutely integral to reforming the RFA process. A large demographic of the community have consistently opposed changes to RFA itself, but very few can credibly deny the fact that we really have no easy, drama and bureaucracy-free way to remove the administrative privileges of an editor. And therein lies the solution, I think. By rolling out a proposal to institute some procedure to recall an administrator and convincing the community of its intrinsic value to the project (which will be easier, I think, than convincing the community that RFA is broken), we can make some real, tangible progress. And to those who'll inevitably argue against the value of a more expedient de-adminship procedure, remember that you cannot prove a negative; you can't credibly deny that there'd be value. And we won't know unless we try. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:14, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'd likely oppose this one. Not because I think "for life" is a right - but more due to the attitude that so many admins. have adopted. Iridescent, Floq, Bish, Nev1, (actually the list is huge) - who have walked away out of disgust ... what I think that alludes to is that you'd have some admins. server their time - but refuse to go through another RfA. (I wouldn't). If an experienced admin. hasn't done anything to be desysoped for .. I'd rather not force the hand. I'm afraid you'd end up with a crew of inexperienced, trigger happy, .. hmmm .. best stop right there (because actually I think it's already headed that way). Chedzilla (talk) 22:43, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
• What about a reconfirmation, with the simple majority Dennis Brown suggested, and an additional protection that a reconfirmation with fewer then 50 opposes passes regardless. Assuming 100 participants, the 50 oppose rule wouldn't matter, but if fewer then that show up, the rule would protect against a vocal minority who wants the admin's head. Monty₈₄₅ 18:26, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  Can you imagine 50 users coming together to say they don't like one editor? That's the sort of thing that would put me off editing. Worm^TT(talk) 19:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  I had 34 come and say they didn't like me at RfA, but I got the bit so I got over it. Ok, still licking wounds, so that does raise an interesting point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:29, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  I dunno about others, but I learned awhile back that people often oppose (and support for that matter) requests/proposals for reasons not quite apparent, and/or not quite forthright in their comments. (Or to put it another way, I've learned not everyone is as forthright in expressing their true thoughts as I can tend to be or at least as I try to be : )

  So it's easier to just accept that that will be a part of the process and move on. And if you do, it actually can help quell the hurt of the process too.

  What can frustrate me though is when people out and out lie, and/or use diffs out of context, etc., often to further some agenda. meh. - jc37 19:55, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think of Federal and Supreme Court judges that serve for life and wonder what benefit it brings to their profession. Of course, in RL, one of the personal benefits is an assurred income for life. But how do we as a society benefit? Do we respect them and/or their decisions more. Are they above or outside the pull of politics? Can we transfer the pragmatic and valid reasons to support life terms to evaluate admins @ Wikipedia?```Buster Seven Talk 20:22, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It's hard to draw any direct conclusions as vetting judicial appointees whose entire life history is available is different than screening anonymous editors where litttle is known outside of what can be inferred from editing history. isaacl (talk) 21:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I also think it's hard to compare lifetime tenure in a position that all agree is a big deal (judiciary) with one that people like to say is "no big deal" (adminship). If adminship is really "no big deal," it should be relatively easy to remove or limited by terms, I would think. Intothatdarkness 21:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily support life terms. I just wondered if there was a corollary we cound examine. I think we all realize that it's a bigger deal than it's made out to be. Limiting terms would certainly lessen any sense of lords vs. vassals. ```Buster Seven Talk 22:16, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

The corollary is that by making a lifetime appointment, we hope to isolate judges/admins from ongoing political influence. Someone needs to close controversial RFCs, but if an admin fears a backlash come their next election from those who disagree with the outcome, they may be unwilling to make the tough calls that need to be made. Monty₈₄₅ 23:37, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

That's exactly why I've never made myself open to recall. Part of the reason I went to become an admin was that I saw a lot of hard calls being made by only a few people, and I figured I could help; making myself open to recall would have completely defeated that purpose, because closing things like this will invariably get you on the bad side of a lot of people no matter how good a job you do. I'm still not convinced there's any significant problem for this solution, but I'm very relaxed about user rights in general (I usually give out rollback after 150-200 edits, file mover after 20-30 moves and requests) so I may be way out of sync with the larger community. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• This is very much like a proposal for term limits. In general I think it's a good idea, although there are details that could be tricky. My only concern is the prospect of having admins begin to behave differently towards the end of the term, or to campaign at that time. That and perhaps the wasted time reconfirming obvious admins which would make the process so routine as to be a mere formality which would gloss over the cases where more scrutiny should occur. Shadowjams (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest avoiding the phrase term limits as it causes a lot of confusion. US based editors often read that to mean a hard limit to the number of terms (ex: a term limit of two terms, two years each and then you can never be an admin again), rather then a term of limited duration without a restriction on having subsequent terms, which is how it is usually meant when people propose it in the RFA context. If you mean the latter, a phrase like fixed term lengths would probably be clearer. Monty₈₄₅ 15:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess... most term limits are not capped... that includes both houses of congress as well as most state positions. Practically this is more like "retention votes", which many states do for judges for example. That might be a better analogue. I don't want to get this confused with politics, but it's a close analogy. It's not a big deal what we call it either way. Shadowjams (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

See Term limit. Monty₈₄₅ 17:14, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok fine, "limited term". Shadowjams (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Reiteration

Sorry I wasn't clear. I'm not talking term limits. I'm talking mandatory breaks / rest periods / vacations whatever you want to call it. Every 12 months every admin (except the exceptions listed) take two months where they use no admin privileges. So if they've gone for ten months straight, they take two off, and then can start admining again. No discussions, not votes (without or without the cutsey ! symbol), just a calendar. Same ol' life terms, it's just admins aren't admins all the time, just most of the time. They get chances to rest, and the community gets to hear from different admins. Nobody Ent 22:19, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the proposal may be a great thing for some admins, but for the majority I think it would serve as a nuisance at best, and would disrupt their ability to follow up on things. You block someone and then the next day your break starts and you can't unblock? The long term abuse vandal shows up again, rather then just blocking you need to bring a new admin up to speed on the entire abuse history? Your one of the few admins who works in an important but not very time consuming area, and now there is a crippling backlog? There are many problems with the idea, and I just don't see a strong justification. The best I've seen is that its an attempt to create a one size fits all mandatory mental health program for admins, which is pretty crazy. Monty₈₄₅ 04:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• The "enforced break" idea doesn't solve anything. I would support mandatory reconfirmation RFAs after a much, much longer period, such as 7-10 years. Unlikely to cause big problems because, well, how many admins who got promoted in 2005 are even still here? I just had a look at the inactive list. I had a few "oh no" moments but for the most part it was bots and admins I have never heard of. Probably a lot of them are the type that got promoted back when it was too easy. I have noticed that many admins of that era don't even use the admin tools anyway. When they do it is often in a manner inconsistent with current practice. I think that is a real problem, some admins go by what consensus was on the day their RFA passed and don't bother to keep abreast of current standards for blocking, protection etc. If they got in back in the days of cowboy admins who were free to wheel war and to block based on their imagined meaning of a single edit they are likely to be slightly out of touch with how to use the tools properly in todays climate. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

RTDe: use the existing community–crat partnership

This proposal, for an RTDe (request to de-admin) process, draws on the most popular aspects of the discussion. To summarise the proof-of-concept discussion above:

¶ There's unanimous support for some kind of system.

¶ It's clear that ArbCom alone cannot perform the role—ArbCom is often overstretched, slow, and too distant from the community.

¶ There are strong calls above both for the community to be involved, and for there to be a gatekeeper to forestall vexatious and trivial actions against admins.

¶ Crats have rather little to do on WP aside from closing RFAs¹, and in that task they have become very skilled. Crats tend to keep themselves clean, and appear to avoid CoI issues in their allocation to RFAs; I don't hear complaints. Crats have the highest level of confidence at appointment of any WM volunteer position: 90+% (higher than for stewards).

¶ Other proposals above have either run out of gas or are fogged up with an array of opinions.

This proposal is based on an existing model we are all used to (the RFA), involving the extension of the traditional community–crat partnership so that it operates not just at the start of the pipeline but at both ends. An RTDe is the natural mirror of the RFA. It is in two stages:

1. An editor first applies to a sub-page of the crats' talk page (a ghost-town), briefly stating the history, with diffs, of policy breaches or other behaviour that could be regarded by the community as significant enough to open a formal RTDe. Comments by the admin and involved parties would be permitted, and brief (probably word-limited) comments by uninvolved parties. Uninvolved crats would form a consensus as to whether an RTDe should be opened. In obviously vexatious or trivial cases, a polite push-off by a single crat would be sufficient.
2. An RTDe is opened, along the lines of an RFA, with the original complaint, and supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments by the community. An uninvolved crat closes as for an RFA. Suggest 2/3–3/4 support be the range for serious consideration for de-adminning by the closing crat.

¹Crats have occasional jobs in removing admin rights if self-requested, requested by ArbCom, or through inactivity, and in closing bot applications and RfBs.

Tony (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Support RTDe

• As proposer Tony (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Well thought out. Chedzilla (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support seems logical to me --Nouniquenames (talk) 14:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose RTDe

1. This actually was discussed the last time. Wait til you see the arguments about what the discretionary percentage will be! See here: Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC/Archive 1#5. Need more concrete percentages for de-sysoping, and your head will spin! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Strong oppose. The final step of any de-adminship process should be review by arbcom. - jc37 20:41, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

RTDe Discussion

• One problem I see is the all or none approach, as articulated above and in the past by many others, rather than "neutral", "support" or "oppose" !votes, how about "desysop", "sanction" and "no action", or something similar? ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:26, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Added. Tony (talk) 05:32, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• We would need more crats than we have, as half the crats now aren't active, that is certainly true. Interesting idea, I would have to think more about it to take a firm stand. There is some merit as the standard we hold crats to is consistent with the goals here, calm, rationale decision making and they are the ones that decide consensus for RfA and give the bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:48, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• I would add that I would prefer more than one crat certify the process to begin a RfD if we went this way. Again, we would need more crats, but if 2 or 3 agreed that an RfD was needed, that would likely be strongly supported by the community. I would assume that this would still allow ArbCom to do what it currently does if it wants to desysop, and allow them to overrule the results of the RfD if needed? I would also hold that an RfD should never bar the participant from starting an RfA later, nor be empowered to ban a user (WP:AN is for that) nor block a user (WP:ANI or individual admins do that), and simply limited to the issue of a temporary or permanent bit stripping. I think if we went this route, there might be some merit to allowing a 30/60/90 day stripping of the admin bit as a sanction in some cases where there was gross error but a full desysoping might not be the best solution. IE: more choices than the binary "nothing" or "desysop". This would be "punishment" to a degree and a chance to go relearn some policy, but admins accept a higher level of accountability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:59, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Responses: Dennis, the crats now deal with a tiny dribble of RFAs, but used to deal with a waterfall. Let me guess: a third of applications for RTDe will be headed off with little effort; a third might require a bit of effort by crats to decide; and a third might garner crat consensus without much froth and bubble. Those that the crats do say yes to are only going into a more formal community process ... the crats are not making ultimate decisions by themselves.

I see 19 crats listing "times active", although nine express constraints such as "varies" or "varies considerably". I don't see a problem in the light of the demise of RFA traffic. Perhaps a minimum of three crats' affirmatives might be required to start an RTDe, and where more comment, say, over a one- or two-week period, a consensus (as generally understood: a strong majority) must still form. Tony (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm a crat and I'm only speaking for myself here. I really don't want this job you've described.. First, it creates a cratcom at the crats subpage, which shifts the crats role from judging consensus to judging evidence. This isn't what we're skilled in. Second, no one will ever listen to a crat-consensus or single crat push-off. They'll just start lobbying other crats to join in, go to Arbcom, or keep pestering the single crat who pushed them off. Some requirement that an admin can be subjected to the process once per year and that evidence presented to the crats cannot be re-presented to Arbcom would help allay this second concern. MBisanz ^talk 16:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for de-adminship process

To comment on this proposal, click here.

This bulleted list is now proposed: Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship.

The following, is based upon these discussions.

• Request for de-adminship process to specifically request "removal of adminship"
  • the nomination/request to be framed like an WP:RFC/U
    • which requires at least 3 admins to initially certify (to prevent wasting the community's time and "pitchfork noms")
  • and to limit harrassment, is limited in the number of times:
    • a particular editor may start one concerning any admin (6 months)
    • any editor may start one concerning a particular admin (12 months/1 year)
    • a particular editor may start one concerning a particular admin (24 months/2 years)
      • With it clear that the limitations above also apply to any certifier; and that WP:IAR may apply to all the various time limitations in cases of clearly egregious admin actions (but which do not quite qualify for "emergency de-sysopping"), though in that case requiring additional certification by at least any one bureaucrat (who then obviously would not be a closer of the discussion).
  • is a community-wide discussion
    • which lasts 7+ days (length is at bureaucrat discretion, just like RfA)
    • uses the hybrid consensus/!voting model (just like RfA)
    • is closed by a bureaucrat (just like RfA, using RfA thresh-holds)
• If the request for removal of adminship is successful, the admin has adminship immediately temporarily removed (presumably by the closing bureaucrat), pending review by the arbitration committee.
  • Arbcom has 7 days in which to review the request. (Most common results likely to be to endorse or to overturn the request for de-adminship.)
    • Else, at it's option, to forgo the rest of the process and instead to have a full RfArb case opened (during which, adminship would remain temporarily removed).
  • If Arbcom has not come to a decision by the end of the 7 days, the adminship is temporarily restored.
  • Arbcom then has an additional 30 days to continue discussion. (To allow for full discussion)
  • If Arbcom has not come to a decision by the end of the 30 days, then adminship is considered restored, and the request to remove adminship considered unsuccessful. (pocket veto).
• If the admin in question voluntarily requests adminship be removed at any time during this process, such removal should be deemed to be "under-a-cloud", and fall under the relevant restrictions thereof.
• If adminship is removed through this process, the editor is free to re-request adminship (following the standard RfA process) at any time after this request for removal process has concluded, at their discretion (unless under arbcom restriction to the contrary).
• Nothing in this process should be considered to prevent or constrain Arbcom from taking action if deemed by them necessary. (That, of course, includes the situations of "emergency de-sysop" starting/declining cases, etc.)

The above addresses the suggestions and limitations noted in the discussions, while allowing for the community, the bureaucrats, and arbcom all to be involved. And there are enough steps and safety valves that it's (hopefully) unlikely that "pitchforks noms" will be successful.

With the time limit restrictions, remember that "it doesn't have to be you" to nominate or certify, just like our standard that "it doesn't have to be you" to close an XfD. And they are that lengthy because the process potentially takes a month and a half to fully resolve. (Though the process could be as short as 7 days, if arbcom is quick to come to consensus.)

Short version without the expanded explanations

1. Nomination requiring certification by 3 admins
2. Community-wide discussion in the style of RfA
3. Discussion closed and implemented by a bureaucrat similar to RfA
4. Review by Arbcom

I tried to make this all as concise as possible. If anything in the above is unclear, I would be happy to clarify. - jc37 19:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Support

Oppose

1. Oppose. Process-heavy systems work poorly here. !votes, also, are unpredictable, especially where there are no limits on who can vote. Finally, I don't believe that bureaucrats, as a group, are well suited to referee such a divisive process. In addition, I oppose the underlying idea that we need such a process, at all. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

• After Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC, I gave a lot of thought to whether we should propose something better, and the proposal here is pretty similar to where I would have gone. Basically, I like the idea of ArbCom having the final say, and I think that needs to be a feature of any method that will likely have community support. However, I think that RfC/U is an exercise in going nowhere. It never leads to consensus. There would have to be a process more like RfA in reverse, leading to either a decision to take no action, or a decision to forward the case to ArbCom. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  I agree. The RfC/U part of this is the format for the nomination only. The actual discussion would essentially be "RfA in reverse", as you note. - jc37 22:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Can it be less complex, and explained in fewer words? Please see my proposal at Worm's page, which avoids a lot of the paperwork by using trusted crats. For example, reading it backwards, aren't the last three bullets already a given? I'd make this proposal as simple as possible; it will have a greater chance of success. Tony (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    • Hi. To answer your first point, people simply won't support something like this without the explanatory details which some might say could go without saying. But ignoring the details for a moment, let's say you were wanting to nominate an admin for de-adminship. The process would be: You write up a nomination similar to an RFC/U. Once 3 admins certify it, then a sort of "reverse RfA" (RfD-a) is held. If deemed successful, the closing bureaucrat temporarily removes adminship from the admin. Then arbcom reviews. If over-turned by arbcom, then the adminship is returned, if not, then they would need to go through another RfA to (re-)attain. Or even shorter: Nomination certified by 3 admins -> Community-wide discussion in the style of RfA -> Discussion closed and implemented by a bureaucrat -> Arbcom review. Is that clearer? - jc37 20:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• From a technical perspective, bureaucrats cannot currently remove adminship. Instead, a request must be made at meta:Steward requests. Does this proposal imply that bureaucrats should be given the right to remove the sysop flag? — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • However they remove adminship now. The mechanics isn't important, is it? Tony (talk) 12:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    • My point is that steward requests can sometimes take time to process. If the closing bureaucrat were able to do the honours themselves the "immediate" part of the proposal would be able to be put in place. — This, that, and the other (talk) 02:30, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
      • You may have missed the discussion last year which resulted in bureaucrats being able to remove adminship on en.wiki. And, having the closing bureaucrat do the removing is part of this proposal already. (Though it really doesn't matter who actually "pushes the button" as it were.) - jc37 20:39, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• I'm starting to really like the idea above, about crats, and maybe having at least one of the certifying parties being a crat is a good idea. Again, we need more crats. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Something else that I think is worth considering is not to have the 'crat remove adminship directly after the community discussion, at all. Instead, they would make a closing decision to forward the case to ArbCom, where the actual decision about whether or not to desysop would be made. Then a 'crat could remove the bit, on ArbCom's instructions. I make this suggestion for several reasons. First, my experience from the last time tells me that the community will come out in force to oppose anything that gives a whiff of "pitchforks", so it makes sense to me to give ArbCom, instead of the community at large, the actual decision. Second, I see this as an alternative, possibly more workable, path to request-for-arbitration. It's an alternative to the traditional RfC/U as a prerequisite for RfAr. It could be more attractive than going directly to RfAr, because it allows community discussion first. And it could, in effect, take the place of the evidence and workshop phases of a full arbitration case, allowing the Arbs to resolve the matter by motion most of the time. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure, as technically we are trying to reduce the load at arbcom and limit their action here to one of oversight, not decision makers. They have to have the power to overrule (and continuing power to instate their own) but not sure they need to be involved in this process unless the chose to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:36, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I'm all in favor of reducing ArbCom's workload, and I've been advocating it for quite some time. However, I think there are numerous other places besides de-adminning to do it. De-adminning is actually something that fits their core job description of resolving difficult conflicts. I used to be a big believer in making the community at large the decision maker, just as it is for RfA. But that approach was rejected by the community in the last poll. I don't know, maybe opinion has changed since then. But my past experience was to spend a huge amount of ultimately-wasted time developing the CDA proposal, only to get it slapped down. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Alternative approach

No big deal ethos

Being a sysop was not and should not be a big deal. Getting the bit, losing it and unbundling it shouldn't be either. To that end I suggest:

1. RFA should not treat being a sysop as being a big deal. Those voting at RFA need to have formalized standards for oppose votes (like xfd), repeatedly breaking these standards should result in warnings followed by blocks with a temporary ban from RFA discussions for the most extreme cases.
2. Desysoping should be carried out via modified RFC if there is consensus for one at WP:AN. These RFCs should be closed and moderated by a consensus of 'crats (like WP:AE is by admins).
3. Unbundling the sysop bit should be examined.--Cailil ^talk 15:45, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Support No big deal ethos

• Moral Support It would be great if this could happen, but I doubt we could ever get to that point. The demands of the commentators at RFA are just too high for us to really claim its not a big deal. We are very unlikely to ever return to a time where it wasn't a big deal and an editor with 1-2k edits and no blocks had a reasonable likelihood of success at RFA. Monty₈₄₅ 15:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strong support This is the only way to prevent abuse: if people are treated as if adminship is a big deal then when they become admins they will act like its a big deal. The solution to power abuse is to share the power not make it for the select few. Make everyone an admin on request if they have 2 years of experience and 3000 non automated edits and the block log is clean for the past 1 year.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - This is the most elegant solution available, and as such should be attempted for at least a trial period. If it's easier to de-sysop, then it will be easier to sysop. Also, this is more of an ethos thing than a policy thing, so could be applied with less red tape. For example, is it mere coincidence that we have passed 5 or more RfAs this week, or has this discussion made people at RfA less cynical about giving users the opportunity to help the project? I also like the idea of unbundling the admin bit. If some of the less dangerous tools are made available to non-admins, then this would in theory reduce the amount of work admins currently do in those areas. ~ GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support - As someone who became an admin back when "no big deal" actually applied, I despair at the state we are at today where admins are considered 'higher beings' by some (particularly when it is the admins themselves thinking that). Being an admin is a janitorial task, and the tools are intended only be used in that capacity. Of course some (probably all) admins will make poor decisions in good faith, but that is easily corrected. Dealing with the (rare) admin who acts in bad faith is the purpose of this de-adminship proposal. More admins, and less prestige for the admin role is the answer. I don't support unbundling, that just creates a new type of editor, and will eventually lead to more bureaucracy as we debate how to appoint users to this "mini-admin' role. Manning (talk) 00:27, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• Support It's not just an "ethos", it's objectively true. The fact that you can clean up spam and block people on Wikipedia (in a completely non-binding and always reversible way) isn't really a big deal. Have some perspective. Gigs (talk) 20:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Partial Support. I am strongly in favor of the first point. The others, not as much. --Nouniquenames (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Oppose No big deal ethos

1. Oppose the 3 points, but not the "ethos" under which they're labeled. As said more eloquently by others below, adminship is a big deal, and while the ethos that it shouldn't be is admirable, let's be practical. And RfA had become the mess it is because of that. No amount of hand waving about ethos is changing that. And I'm unconvinced that these three points have much to do with that anyway. There's no reason we should prefer the nebulous RfC process to a separate noticeboard for Rf-deA or using the RfA noticeboard itself, either of which are more visible and centralized than RfC. Nor have the unbinding-the-sysop-bit proposals been very fruitful up to this point (although I don't outright disagree with the premise of unbinding them). Most of all I oppose the notion of formalizing standards for RfA, beyond our general principles of consensus and "don't be a dick". It's the closest thing we have to democracy here, and while the weight of arguments matters, as it should, we don't need more excuses for people to call eachother uncivil at RfA, or to deride eachother's reasons by wikilawyering our way there. We've had a number of troll-esque answers for quite a while and even without standards a few have managed to get themselves into trouble over that alone. That only expands exponentially if we start setting up formalized standards at one of the last places where we only have the vague notion of "make sense, don't be a pest." That's how it should be. Shadowjams (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
2. Oppose - As it turns out, it would seem that the ability to see deleted material is a big deal, according to the foundation. There are other tools which the community has stated again and again are a big deal: Block, Delete, and Protect. And this doesn't even go into some of the other technical tools with which an admin could actually cause real problems - which would not be so easy to undo. (WP:BEANS, of course.) And until I see better evidence that the unbundled rights given out by admins are actually regularly reviewed/supervised by admins on a consistent basis subsequent to being granted, it will be difficult to convince me that unbundling other tools from the administrator user-right group is a good idea. - jc37 21:13, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
3. Oppose as unworkable Point one is a non starter. "We had an RFC that determined that you, the community, will now treat RFA as if it is no big deal. Jimbo said so one time and we have decided he was right and you have to act like you agree. Failure to do so will result in sanctions." This is not how to persuade people to change their attitiude. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
4. Oppose per Beeblebrox. Also, while I don't think adminship should be a big deal, it has to carry some significance to keep the community going. Wikipedia thrives on the currency of egoboo and if experienced and trusted editors don't have some way to publicly show their status we risk losing valuable contributors. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 03:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

No big deal ethos Discussion

• I like the principle – it's pretty hard to disagree with it conceptually. The problem comes from the fact that the tools (bundled) include the abilities to block other users and to delete pages that other users have created. There's no way that isn't, sometimes, going to be a big deal to those other users. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

  It will be much less of a big deal if more users have those abilities.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with Monty. I think the "no big deal" days are over. We can make it less of a big deal by allowing easier removal, but history is history and enwp is likely too big for it ever to truly be "no big deal" again. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

  That makes no sense. Why would the size determine whether it has to be something special? Its only a question of lowering the bar for the requirement, that will make the power hungry look for some other place to exert their influence and the normal guys will keep each other in check with the tools. Its the people who scream admin-abuse everytime an admin uses the tool who are making it a big deal, and they wouldn't be screaming if they had the tools themselves.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

  Just for the same reason why in the 1900s everybody who could somehow afford a car might also get inside and start driving. Driving a car was no big deal. And in the 2010s one requires a driving license, issued after several month instruction and at least two really hard exams (outside the US; US is an exception for a number of reasons).--Ymblanter (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

That analogy makes no sense. Those two things are not similar.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• So we "simply" lower the requirement? Since it is community decided, how do you do that? Lower it to 50%? Block anyone asking a tough question? The requirement is different for every single person voting. There IS no real requirements in policy, except having a registered account, so there is nothing to lower unless you change the entire mindset of everyone voting. Lowering the percentage will only add more controversial candidates, not necessarily more good candidates. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:13, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

"Make everyone an admin on request if they have 2 years of experience and 3000 non automated edits and the block log is clean for the past 1 year"·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• My proposal is not a question of lowering the requirement at all. The actual standard (being trusted) is in policy and has remained the same. Sysops have in fact no more powers than they did 5-6 years ago (other than revdel); deletion and blocking policy have NOT been liberalized in favour of rogue admins.
  The process of RFA has however become a different (and nastier) animal. It needs to be regulated rather than to have its standards reduced. The same with desysoping, it needs regularizing - if we do it ala WP:AE it'll be fair, clear and be dealt with within a reasonable timeframe. The first few times these things are done will be contravertial and slower but if we want to fix the problem we treat the source not selective symptoms, and source is the attitude we have to the role nothing else--Cailil ^talk 18:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The process now is about doing things (participating in admin areas, GA/FA, etc...) to establish trust before running for RFA, rather then just being around for a reasonable period of time and not doing anything to become considered untrustworthy. Monty₈₄₅ 18:08, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Proving that one is not untrustworthy, like proving that one has not broken the law is a backwards standard. The No Big Deal ethos has always been about assuming good faith that if some has made a net positive contribution to the project and respected policy and has a clue (shown by an analysis of contribs and clueful RFA questions) they can be trusted. If they've done wrong those making any such allegations should have to *prove* it not the other way 'round--Cailil ^talk 18:24, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem is typically not with those acting in bad faith (these users are typically handled very efficiently), the problem is with those acting in good faith and making horrible errors.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• I support what Dennis said above; The fact is, that the power of an admin is a big deal, and getting increasingly so as we grow in size and importance. There are very significant good things an admin can do--like delete nonsense of various sorts, or copyvio, or remove people who have shown themselves incapable of cooperation. But these are inherently accompanied by the bad things a admin can do: block useful contributors, or remove rescuable articles. There is no way of having one side without the other. This power now affects the content and participants of one of the most used web sites in the word--and one which is unique, with no practical alternatives. What we included or didn't include in 2001 made very little difference in the general scheme of things--it is very different now. WP has immense power as an information source. People insist on using it as if it were trustworthy. Whether or not we want this responsibility, we have been given it. Frankly, those who think otherwise do not really perceive the importance of what we do here, or the power a single person can hold. Any active admin who thinks what they do unimportant is not recognizing their responsibilities--and, perhaps, not living up to them. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Every action of an admin is reversible, and the more admins there are the better is the chance that they will be reversed, the smaller the admin corps and the higher the requirements the higher is the chance that dmins will refrain from undoing erroneous admin actions due to fear of being desysopped. The answer is more admins.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

This is a common misconception. Every action I do is not reversible. Say you and I are having a content dispute on Ant, and I block you for 24 hours, an abusive act to be sure. You get mad, say "the hell with Wikipedia" and leave forever. DGG then comes and unblocks you, scolds me (maybe even submits me for review under this proposal), but you never see it because you have left. Now we have lost every single edit that you would have made, every contribution to a discussion like this. Gone. Or maybe you come back 6 months later, but with a bad taste in your mouth, less happy and less productive. Both you and Wikipedia have lost something. We can fix pages when an admin goofs, we often can't fix the human cost. Even if I get desysoped, it doesn't change the human element, which is why we need admins to take it a bit more serious, and have consequences for bad faith acts. Sometimes desysoping, or maybe something in between in some circumstances. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know if you meant your last remark to be directed at me DGG but it comes across as if it does. We're all working towards the same goal here (making a damn good encyclopedia and helping improve it) and its not very helpful to start taking pot shots at ppl who make proposals you mightn't agree with--Cailil ^talk 19:52, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

of course it was not directed at you specifically--a number of people have been saying the same thing. And I think you and most of the people who use that phrase do in reality consider what they do important, though I do not understand why they wish to say otherwise. I am concerned about the significant number of admins who do not take their responsibility seriously as shown by their practice, and whom the proposal here for community desysop is intended to remove. I support that proposal. I support it because adminship is a big deal. If it weren't we wouldn't need to be concerned about them. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Fair enough DGG, sorry if I over reacted but I read something else than you intended.
  I think we may be talking at cross purposes. The ethos that being a sysop is not a big deal is wholly different to understanding what sysops do is a big deal. But similarly any editor can make big deal decisions in articles (ie policing or damaging BLPs or FAs) it's a different type of big deal of course. My point is that we've (the community) got confused about the role admins have (the position of admins in the community) and the decisions admins make (which are policy mandated and controlled and when not must result in sanction) and this confusion causes problems with the current systems/processes for RFA & desysoping because they become personal and punishing when they can & should be far less dramatic.
  I do agree that there are admins who treat their status as a big deal and their actions with flipancy that's equally part of the wider problem and is indeed a good reason to regularize the desysoping process--Cailil ^talk 13:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Show me a way to legislate for participants' reasonableness and I'll support. Tony (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

  The method for desysoping I'm suggesting is modeled on ArbCom Enforcement - a discussion based on evidence moderated and evaluated by a consensus of Bureaucrats. Like AE a frivolous/vexatious thread would boomerang. Any formalized system we create will get used (and will at least be attempted for gaming) but I trust the 'Crats to sort this out (like we do at WP:AE)--Cailil ^talk 15:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

My real-life analogy

I tend to think of this in terms of a real-life organisation I'm involved with: Scouting. In the Scouting Movement we have many layers of volunteer positions, with increasing responsibilities: leader, section head, group commissioner, area commissioner, and council commissioner. These might be compared with sysop, bureaucrat, check user and steward. While there is no actual advantage to being at a higher level and only increased demands on one's time for no compensation, you might think someone is crazy to want these positions. Alas, it is all driven by egoboo, the de facto currency of the volunteer world, with Wikipedia being no exception.

As Wikipedia has increasingly become a household word and the de facto destination for hundreds of millions of people around the world seeking information, how could one not feel a sense of pride at being entrusted with more responsibility within the organisation? In fact, I think it would be beneficial to the community if we recognized the efforts of hard-working admins more often through admin-appreciation days and so forth, much the way we show our appreciation for Scouters with plaques, pins and barbecues.

As much as I understand the ideal of the bit being "just a tool" for those who need it in their regular editing deals, this just doesn't seem to hold water if you consider it realistically. —JmaJeremy•Ƭalk•Cont 03:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Pesky's suggestion for a possible process

Primary steps

• Have a RfC/Admin process set up (please, easier than an RfC/U, which I found revoltingly user-unfriendly the only time I did it!)

• Have an "Admin Break" option, which could be either voluntary or compulsory, working a bit like a topic ban, which would prevent admins using admin tools for a set period of time but not result in either permanent desysopping or having to re-run RfA

Process

Stage 1: Initial filer's request is notified on AN to get attention from the entire pool of admins (and others who watch AN)

• It's there as a link for a week, or until stage 2 is achieved, whichever is the earlier. If stage 2 isn't reached within a week, it dies the death

Stage 2: It's certified by a minimum of two admins and one editor-in-good-standing

Stage 3: It then proceeds a bit like an RfC/U, widely advertised (watchlist notice? Maybe?) for a maximum of two weeks

• This should include looking at alternatives to de-sysopping

Stage 4: If it seems clear that there's an apparent consensus (maybe reducing the usual bar to a 60/40 split, or something) for desysopping, compulsory Admin Break for a given period, or other possible sanctions (interaction ban, topic ban, etc.), then THAT goes to ArbCom for review and action

• … at which point ArbCom would have to "take the case" and look at it (no opting out!)
• ... and they could choose, if there seemed to be genuine concerns about anyone else involved in the RfC/Ad, to do further investigations
• … but on the whole it would be handled like a motion, not a full case

Support Pesky's process

1. Me, obviously! Pesky (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
2. I like the general idea. Still the discretion in nomination is more of a problem then of solution to me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Pesky's process

1. Some interesting ideas, but it looks too easy to game, and honestly would continue the seeming toothlessness of RFC/U. The process should be started with one thing in mind: de-adminship, or not. Either the community trusts the individual with the tools entrusted or they don't. And honestly, what is being proposed can technically already be done now through the normal RFC/U process. (Just be prepared to create several stages of behaviour confirming paper trails before getting arbcom to accept.) My understanding is that the want on this page is for a fairly clear streamlined de-adminship process. Not a "varied ways to discipline an editor who is an admin" process. - jc37 20:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

   I was thinking of it more as a starting point for tweaking about. One of the ideas is that the RfC/Ad would have some teeth, as the ArbCom stage is basically little more than rubber-stamping unless they have serious reservations / want to investigate others involved. etc. Personally, I don't go entirely along with the "trust or no trust" thing; Admins are human (honest they are, guv!) and can have a "glitchy area" which maybe they should be required to avoid, without it in any way affecting their efficacy and trustworthiness as admins in all other areas. (Just adding in here something I just said elsewhere: the Real Life parallel is that I know several people who I would trust with my life, but not with my car or my credit card!) I like, particularly, the concepts of less drastic types of action than desysopping. At the moment, it seems a bit like the old days of Transportation in England ... drastic punishment / sanctions / exile used to cover far too big a range of offences, some of which were really petty. Poaching to stay alive, for example ...

   I've tried to make it very similar to the process already suggested, but with a few tweaks here and thereon starting it, and (more importantly, in my view) the concept of looking at a wider range of possible actions to cover the (potentially) very wide range of types of Admin-probnlems that might arise. Pesky (talk) 03:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Oppose as written; it's a good starting place, but I'm not a fan of the format. What I do like is step 1. I also like the basic principle of step 2; all I quibble with there are the numbers (I'd say five editors in good standing, including at least two admins and at least one non-admin). But I'd prefer to replace step 3 with a reverse-RFA (maybe with a larger "discretionary" zone), and have ones in the discretionary zone go to ArbCom instead of being judged by a 'crat. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 18:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments on Pesky's process

• I think this process covers the gatekeeper function without making it easy to subvert. I also think that bad-faith attacks on admins would have a deterrent in that anyone involved in the RfC/Ad would know from the start that they could come under scrutiny from ArbCom at Stage 4. I also think that shortening the RfC from 30 days to two weeks would reduce the amount of time an admin could potentially spend in the pillory, whilst still giving the community enough time to assess and comment. I think having the RfC/Ad on a watchlist notice as standard would bring it to the attention of enough of the community to avoid a one-sided RfC (yes, there's be the usual attackers and defenders cliques, but there should also be enough uninvolved people to get a good idea of what Teh Community, as opposed to Teh Opposing Camps, feel about it). Pesky (talk) 05:44, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Two-step process

The general idea of this proposal is that before the de-adminship process can happen, a certain amount of experienced editors should vote on a special page for this process within certain period of time. (Italicized words should be replaced with formal definitions, should this suggestion gain focus. In any case, all of them, and specifically "experienced editors", should be defined formally, without any room for discretion.)

Instead of developing a new process I suggest re-nominating an admin at WP:RfA with admin rights kept if nomination was successful.

The confirmation RfAs should probably be somehow advertised due to the oppose bias, as the first step builds a team of several (30 in my example) oppose voters. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Support two-step process

1. Obviously. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:05, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
2. That sounds like a workable start, at least; details and tweaks could be discussed later. Nice idea. Pesky (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
3. This. Is. Awesome. Ironholds (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose two-step process

1. It's interesting, but requiring 4000 edits and a year's service sets a dangerous precedent. Other than 4 days & 10 edits there aren't supposed to be any privilidges gained with edit count or time served. Joefromrandb (talk) 17:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

   This dangerous precedent is already set with ArbCom elections, so I didn't invent any special privileges. BTW, these particular values (4000 edits and a year's service) are only given for example; all the values are the matter of subsequent discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

   Personally I'm all for a few thousand non-auto edits and at least six months; time to get a bit clueful, and likely to help avoid socks, meatpuppetry, and pile-on newbies whose friend just got slapped for vandalism ... Pesky (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

   Yeah, we can talk about lowering the number. I would say that practically-speaking there are a lot of privileges gained with edit count or time served; arbcom is one example, adminship itself is another :). Ironholds (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

2. Not to be flip but this looks like a list of 'enemies'. Sysops routinely piss ppl off by *doing the right thing* (as do a lot of non-sysops hence the bogus opposes at RFA based on "negative interactions"), a list of ppl who WP:DONTLIKEIT wont help. Being an admin is not like being a politician it shouldn't be equated with that. We should ONLY strip users of the bit where there is actual misconduct not on the basis of a list of ppl who don't like them.
   I do see where this suggestion is coming from but its just not workable IMHO--Cailil ^talk 20:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

   In fact your opposition is not against this particular suggestion, but against the community process in whole: indeed, once the question is decided by the whole community, the personal affiliation with the editor becomes an important issue. Still, as you noted, this process is prone to the same problem as RfA in general, so your oppose !vote together with some proposal would be more appropriate there.

   Also note, that the number of editors to complete the first step is the bar specifically crafted against WP:IDONTLIKEIT noise; it is supposed to be slightly above the number of editors who currently suffer from "negative interactions" with average admin. If the list of 'enemies' becomes high enough to pass such bar, chances are the situation indeed mandates reevaluation of community trust. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:57, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

   No Czarkoff I don't oppose the community having a say, I oppose this methodology because as DGG points out below it creates a no win situation for the community where no admin is allowed to take appropriate action in difficult areas. It would create a waste of time for sysops enforcing ArbCom decisions or community probations. A recall process should ONLY be opened in the light of evidence of misconduct not an arbitrary number of signatures. Again I see where you're coming from this just isn't the right method--Cailil ^talk 02:44, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

   If no actual misconduct happens, it's not a big deal to pass RfA. Still I see no grounds for the idea that the really large mobs will be running to RfDA under any circumstances with no real misconduct. Specifically if proper experience bar is in place. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

3. Strong Strong Strong Oppose - Not only does this not prevent "pitchforking", but it relies almost entirely upon editcounitis as it's "gatekeeper". And in a Wikipedia where people can make 4000 edits in a day easily due to the rampant usage of automated and semi-automated tools, this just really seems like an incredibly bad idea to me. Oh and also, this would eventually just turn into a de facto yearly (monthly?) reconfirmation process for every admin. Tell me we wouldn't see people adding their names with an edit summary of: "all admins should have to re stand RfA on a regular basis". Just too many ways that this can be gamed. - jc37 21:03, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

   That's why I suggested non-automated edits as being a requirement. (OK, undeleted and non-auto edits ...) Pesky (talk) 03:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

   I'm really not getting either of these arguments. You're saying you'll have 30 people a month who take that approach? And you seem to have missed that it is both a time and edit requirement, not just an edit requirement. Ironholds (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

   "almost entirely". And I'm trying to avoid WP:BEANS. And yes, I think you could find more than 30. Anyone who has spent any time at XfD and/or RfA and/or the subpages of WP:AN has seen such things fairly regularly, I'm fairly sure. And as Cailil notes above, this becomes a "hate list", in a style of the "signature lists" playtime that we've seen in the past. So this is also setting up another outlet for those looking to play "Wikipedia the game". Will we start seeing people adding stars to their userpages to count the number of such "special pages" they have added their username to? - jc37 21:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

   Numbers you talk about are the noise. I believe at any given period of time there is some nearly constant amount of both "rioters" and "personal enemies" of any given admin, and these numbers are probably don't deviate much on per admin basis. The idea of this proposal that the amount of editors to complete the first step is slightly above the average amount of "rioters" and "personal enemies" combined, thus defending community process from those. The number 30 was just a placeholder. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

   no, these numbers vary very much on a per admin basis. first, because of the differential activity of the different admins. Second, because of the type of work. If one does totally uncontroversial work, one will arouse no enmities; if one works where feelings are strong and fairly equally divided, everything one does will arouse opposition, and some of it will be bitter. The only way things might be equal is if it were a popularity contest -- to the extent it is based on the views of the work an admin does, it will reflect the nature of that work. Frequent required reconfirmations will bring it about that only the most reckless admins will deal with the difficult issues. DGG ( talk ) 02:15, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

   Still, it is a matter of picking a number, not a principle. In the end, I see no real world evidence that large numbers of editors loosing particular battle run around calling for stripping the admin bit. The whole problem is hypothetical. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

   Using automated vs non-automated as a gatekeeper is actually quite arbitrary. I've done rc patrolling without any automated tools (other then popups for viewing diffs, which wouldn't be noticeable on review), it doesn't involve any more thought then using huggle or twinkle, its just less efficient. Still, an editor pushing hard could easily run 500 edits a day. There are lots of other high volume, non-automated but legitimate edits someone could undertake, such as assessing un-assessed articles. Meanwhile, for someone who makes a major article contribution in a single edit, 4000 edits is a very high bar to reach. Monty₈₄₅ 04:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

   A year of service is an even harder to reach condition. This system is prone to gaming, but at least it isn't prone to the problem of trust, which seems to be a hotter topic in this scope. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

4. Oppose as it creates a situation where the deck is stacked against the admin in any resulting possible desysop discussion (by starting with a list of involved editors all on one side of the issue). --Nouniquenames (talk) 15:03, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

   This is a non-issue: the offended editors will participate in process anyway. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

5. Oppose — A 4000 edit threshold is way too high, if that's actually what Czarkoff is leaning towards (although he does state above that it is merely an example). My preference is an ad hoc process, where if the community has expressed support for desysopping an administrator at an entirely separate venue (eg. ANI, RfC), they can notify a bureaucrat who can remove the bit as reflected by the wishes of the participants in the discussion. Then again, it's not as if ArbCom is inefficient in dealing with problematic sysops. Kurtis (talk) 06:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

   4000 edits is the bar for ArbCom voting. I indeed favor this number, as it seems to be a line between noobs and experienced editors. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

DIscussion of two-step process

Wikipedia:Request for Admin Sanctions

Rather than rehash it here, this is a live proposal in WP space, based on the same ideas expressed here (and owes a debt to everyone participating here, it is really YOUR ideas). It is a compromise that I think Arbs, Admins and Editors all will find is not perfect, but very workable, flexible and adds zero new bureaucracy. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks awfully familiar : ) - jc37 22:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It is based on many ideas, including yours, Coren's, Worm's, and everyone here. Again, I claim no credit, I just assembled it and boldly pushed it into wikispace so everyone can fine tune it and hopefully it can get put into action. Instigating is what I do. But I think I have enough checks and balances to insure it is fair and can't be used frivolously, and it is very workable from day one, plus changeable to meet consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

And for full disclosure, this is something that was on my mind well before becoming an admin. The key has been figuring out a way to do this without the process being abuse, and in a way that is fair to all parties involved. As we see here, it isn't a simple thing to do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship

• Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship (talk)

Enjoy. - jc37 21:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of RfAS and RRA and debate

I read through both of these proposals (as they are right now... they may change). Hopefully this will be a fair summary of them (if not please correct me). I also hope we keep the comparison discussion here, rather than split between their respective talk pages.

RfAS and RRA are two proposals for an adminship recall process. They outline in detail methods for implementing this process. The two are quite similar. Generally speaking, both require qualified editors to certify a case before it may proceed. This is intended to stop spurious or grudge-induced nominations. The second is a consensus process. In both cases a bureaucrat judges the outcome of this consensus process similar to an RfA. Then, in both cases, arbcom has involvement in validating the community consensus, although the outcome of arbcom inaction differs between the two proposals.

The two differ in some key ways. Most notably:

• In whether inaction by ArbCom defaults to retention (RRA) or to community consensus (RfAS)
• Certification requirements: RfAS - 2 admins + 2 editors regardless of user rights, editors must be > 1 year tenure, and not been blocked by target admin within last 6 months; RRA - 3 admins
• Remedies available: RfAS - No action, sanction (suspension of admin privileges up to 6 months), desysop; RRA - No action, advise, admonish, desysop
• What actions are reviewable: RfAS - all actions, including non administrative actions; RRA - only administrative related actions.Current version of both include only administrative-related actions

From my cursory review, these are the primary distinctions between the two. Yes there are other small procedural differences, such as timeframes. But I believe this captures the most important differences. Please correct me if you disagree or I am wrong.

As for the debate about the merits of these differences, please use the section below this one. Shadowjams (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a note: Dennis's intent was for the "Request for Admin Sanctions" proposal to only cover adminstrative actions. He has since edited the proposal to try to clarify the proposal. isaacl (talk) 05:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Updated it to reflect that. Shadowjams (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would note that there are other differences that are a bit more than procedure, such as a Bureaucrat closing RfAS (WP:RAS) and determining sanctions, including less than desysop, and any Bureaucrat (or ArbCom) having the ability to instantly shut down the process with any valid reason, as well as it being integrated with ArbCom at every level. It allows ArbCom to remain silent about the result for 30 days and the results become de facto validated if they chose to do so for any reason, or change the result in any way within 30 days, even though it is implied they should try to validate in 7 days or extend. There is a lot of focus on checks and balances. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Question about RRA vs RfAS

Initially posted to user talk:jc37

I'm going to dig into both of these in a minute, but I wondered if there was any stark contrast between the two that was intentional, or perhaps subtle, that you had in mind? In other words, are there any distinctions between the two in your mind that are particularly meaningful? (for my benefit and I assume others too). Shadowjams (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

From my discussions with Dennis Brown, it would seem that RFAS is intended to be how it's named: a request for various sanctions, of which de-adminship is one possible, but of which any sanction whatsoever could be proposed by the community. It's a broad process designed to allow for reviewing everything an admin has done, regardless of whether as an editor, or whether using the admin tools. And it seems to be a process to allow for ways to "punish" admins in various ways without removing adminship. ("Suspension", and so on.)

These are only just a few ways in which the two processes differ.

As for RRA, it is specifically focused to deal with actions related to use of the tools of adminship, and directly related responsibilities. The same way that other processes clarify between when an editor who has the admin tools is acting as an editor or acting as an admin. This is specifically per policy and long standing past precedent. I also specifically tried to use the terms used by arbcom, and currently used in RfA. - jc37 04:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I've looked at both and have some thoughts and comparisons. I'm going to post them though at the RfC page under a new heading (same concern Risker mentions). Shadowjams (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You asked for my "main concerns" on your talk page:

The four main concerns I have (without going into various details I have concerns about) are that this proposal appears to be a way to create sanctions for editors who happen to be admins. That is the remit of arbcom. There are reasons arbcom is a committee, and that it does what it does. A free for all community-wide discussion developing who-knows-what sanctions, supposedly over 7 days, when arbcom has difficulties with this while using a series of pages over often a much longer period of time, sounds like a really bad idea. Broadening this to be anything beyond a very specific outcome is just setting up a mess.

The second main concern I have is the idea that there should be some sort of admin "suspension" as one of the suggested sanctions because removing adminship should be avoided in cases where it would normally be appropriate. Besides the obvious concern that this is glorifying adminship in an inappropriate way, this actually would serve to make RfA worse than it is now.

The third main concern I have is that the intent behind some of this appears to be that admins are held to some higher standard, beyond even what we expect of any other experienced editor. Which is not only false, but goes against current policy.

The fourth concern I have is that blocks and bans are dealt to editors, not admins. If someone is inappropriately using the tools, the tools are removed. if the editor is needs to be blocked or banned for the good of the project, then that is dealing with the editor - regardless of what tools they may have. And topic bans apply to whatever tools an editor may have, regardless of whether they are admin tools or rollbacker or whatever. And singling out admins for a process to assess them as editors for topic bans or blocking is an incredibly bad idea. And should stay in the remit of the WP:DR process.

So this is a process that would seem to allow for attacking an admin in a free-for-all (the likes of which we used to see on workshop pages until arbcom cracked down a bit on that), allows for pitchforking (2 admins + any number of experienced editors as gatekeepers won't be enough), and would be a drama-filled extravaganza the likes of which we haven't seen in some time. (There might be some arbcom cases which come close.) And at the same time would seem to attempt to affirm that admins are held to some higher-than-editor standard, simultaneously glorifying adminship and suggesting that having the tools is a big deal (use of the tools is the big deal, if anything), so that suspension of the tools is done to "avoid" having to remove adminship from someone.

Beyond that, there are details which I'm not a fan of. (Not to mention several bureaucrats have said that they don't wish their responsibilities expanded like this.) But these four are so contrary to current policy and common practice, that it makes the rest of my concerns seem lesser in comparison. I attempted to discuss this all with him at first, when I realised the issues and concerns I was trying to explain was inherent in the name of the proposed process: Requests for admin sanctions. The very name is a problem.

As for WP:RRA, there are reasons for every facet of it, most of which were discussed at WT:RFA immediately prior to the starting of this RfC. - jc37 06:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Like I said in our prior discussion, and above, I have some initial opinions about the two proposals, but I hope those haven't filtered into my summary above. I mean for that summary to be as objective as possible. My goal in the summary is simply to point out the main differences between these two proposals, and of course this doesn't preclude future ones, or changes to these. I'll respond with a few particular merit-points below. Shadowjams (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

In response to Jc37's concerns about the crat-role expansion... I find that a valid argument, although I don't think it's fatal to expanding the crat-role. Crats were selected to judge adminship quality, or more generally, consensus about that. I think that crats are uniquely suited for this job, and while expanding their role beyond what we all initially !voted (isn't this convenient fiction of ! getting old?... i digress) for is perhaps a bit of cause for concern, I don't think it's dire. And a crat should be the last one to complain. They don't ever have to choose to exercise this power. That's entirely up to them. If anyone has a complaint about that it's the people who supported them at their RfB.

And to that point, doesn't the RRA proposal use crats in the same way? Shadowjams (talk) 06:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

While I have great respect for the bureaucrats (as I have said repeatedly in the past), they are editors just like the rest of us.

As for RRA - no. RfAS wants the bureaucrats to read the discussion and apply sanctions to the nominated admin. The closer is to figure out what sanctions that may have consensus in the discussion, and are also free to apply any others at their discretion. And all of this is the default, letting arbcom "off the hook" from actually determining anything DR-wise. This is a rather broad expansion of bureaucrat responsibilities. They also individually would have unilateral power to immediately end an RFAS. Needless to say, every admin better cultivate a friendship with a bureaucrat if they haven't already, to stop that RFAS for them : )

With RRA, it's limited to successful and unsuccessful, just like RfA. I did add an additional "advisement" and "admonishment" section (stemmed from many arbcom closes I have read), but that still falls under successful/unsuccessful, merely adding additional notes (advisement or admonishment) should there be consensus to note it. There is no expansion of bureaucrat authority, merely doing what they've been doing all along with RfA.

Please feel free to ask about any part of RRA, there are reasons/rationales for every step of it. - jc37 07:01, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

With respect, I think RRA's treatment of ArbCom isn't all that different on principle than RfAS's is. That's because both are premised on the notion that arbcom can do pretty much whatever it wants. The only distinction of meaning I see between the two with regards to arbcom is the treatment of arbcom's inaction. In one it's arbcom must act, otherwise the community's consensus is not implemented (as determined by a crat) (RRA). In the other arbcom may veto action, but the default action is that consensus followed. [as an aside, this reminds me a bit of the current U.K. discussion about the House of Lords, but digressing]...

Without outright rejecting the idea that all admin powers need to flow from arbcom (although I'd be open to that argument), if the crats are fit to discern opinion and grant adminship, then they're also capable of doing the opposite. I understand your discussion about the discretionary sanctions as opening the door to arbitrary penalties as separate from this discussion. And maybe, I think, that's the gist of your argument against non-binary options to be implemented by crats. If that's the argument I save judgement on that right now. Shadowjams (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

You asked about bureaucrats not arbcom : )

Historically, Arbcom was given the ability to ask for de-sysopping of an admin long ago. It was part of User:Jimbo Wales granting some authority to a community-selected committee. Back then, arbcom would ask a steward to "push the button" to remove the adminship. Now bureaucrats can push that button. (Back then they could only push a button to grant, not remove).

Arbcom is at the top of the community WP:DR process. (Besides JW and the foundation etc.)

Afaik, in practice (and policy) no one else can ask for de-adminship (outside of emergency de-sysop).

So we need to leave the channels open. Arbcom needs to be free to take whatever action as a committee per policy. That said, arbcom has been at times historically rather slow to act. So I added the 7 day/30 day time frame deadlines into the proposal. But at the same time, added a (likely necessary) vest pocket veto to the process. And while this is all going on, the admin who has had the RRA closed as successful has had adminship removed. This is to prevent any issues. If the community has decided they cannot trust the editor, then there may be a question of trusting them with the tools while arbcom reviews everything. But it must be labelled as "temporary" because arbcom can obviously potentially vacate the close result.

All that said, I hope arbcom reviews every RRA. But beyond hoping, I don't believe there is anyway the community can "force" arbcom to review anything. Which is another reason the deadlines and the "pocket" veto review result are necessary. - jc37 07:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

RfAS (WP:RAS)

• RfAS isn't exactly new, as it was on my mind before seeking the bit but wasn't developed until working with people here, as an admin, and seeing it from both sides. It is a common concern at WP:WER, but it more other's work than my own and I only put together what I thought was the best of the best of other people's ideas. The problems with other options has been the binary approach. Admins are good or bad. Sysop or Desysop. This won't work, and it won't get broad enough support, which is why we are still talking about it after years and years of discussions. RfAS is about balance, having plenty of checks and balances, yet not requiring a new level of bureaucracy, and it is lightweight. It is about the community participating in a way that is more than executioner. And having Bureaucrats as part of the process is a natural extension of their existing duties, which is judging the consensus of the community in regards to admins.

• One of the checks is that ArbCom can choose to take no action whatsoever, and simply allow the outcome to stand as a de facto validation, and they have a full 30 days to do so. There may be times when the committee believe that not speaking on the issue is the best solution, and this empowers them. A silent endorsement, similar to the US President leaving a Bill unsigned on his desk 10 days, and it becomes law. Another check is that any bureaucrat can stop the process instantly if there is abuse or improper actions in the certification. Only bureaucrats have that power as individuals, but this is a position of trust that has been earned. Of course, ArbCom can come in and take the case or shut it down at any time, or even change the sanctions after event, giving them more options, total control, yet reducing their workload.

• The primary difference here is that RfAS is about sanctions, not desysoping. Taking away the admin bit is only one option. It insures that the community isn't forced to draw a line in the sand and choose from binary choices. It doesn't force us to name every single possible sanction today, and it recognizes that we are all human and sometimes a break or a change of pace is needed. It treats the admin like a human being. For instance, in mid process, if the admin were to agree to give up the bit for 3 months and take a break as that is the direction the discussion was moving, it is trivial for the 'crat to do this as he has the authority to do it unilaterally, and it doesn't require motions and days of discussion. He can remove the bit, shut down the process, and we can move forward. The process is lightweight.

• RfAS is about solutions, not just judging the "worthiness" of someone. In many situation, "do nothing" or "desysop" are both bad solutions, and the 3rd options is needed. We can't list every possible sanction that will be needed, so we put reasonable limits and rely on the wisdom of the community. RfAS is NOT about "successful" or "unsuccessful" and it is not a reverse RfA. Every outcome is successful because every outcome is the appropriate solution to a problem. Sometimes admonition, sometimes a forced temporary break, or if being in a rut is bringing out the worst in them, a directive to branch into other areas. Or a statement that their actions are perfectly fine. Every situation is different, just like every person is.

• It is about KEEPING admins by dealing with problems before they become so bad that we have to strip the admin bit from someone, at least when we can. The most egregious cases would be handled directly by ArbCom anyway. It is about the community having a voice and being to say "You have some skills, but you can't do some of the things you do". And yes, sometimes it is about removing the admin bit when that is the only or best solution. It has strong and multiple checks to insure that every admin doesn't have to worry about being dragged into a process, which is why the bar to start the process is rather high. It is about fundamental fairness, and it recognizes that here, like in the real world, things are not so black and white, not so binary, and we need the flexibility to adapt to every circumstance if we are to have a system that is fair for everyone, and can actually get acceptance from the community as a whole. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

User:Shadowjams was asking about the main difference between the proposals, I think you've encapsulated it well above. In RfAS, you're apparently attempting to create another arbcom (or perhaps even an all-in-one WP:DR process), but just for assessing admins. I could suppose that you would get a support "vote" from nearly every arbitrator. Assessing experienced editors (like admins) is a constant thing where arbcom has had their feet metaphorically held to the fire, so I would guess they would be happy if the community took that responsibility off their hands. Change the process to including all "experienced editors" and they may throw you a party : )

The intent of RRA is just as it says in the name: To create an RfA-like process to allow the community to discuss the removal of adminship from a particular admin.

I find it telling that you compare removal of adminship to acting as an executioner. I find that analogy to be part of the problem, and not a solution.

Once a removal of tools process is in place, which allows the community to "call the question" (while having the safety valves like gatekeepers, to prevent things like pitchforking), the climate of "fear" at RfA should be lessened. - jc37 14:33, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Jc37, the plan clearly does not try to create another ArbCom, and I'm confident others see that as well. If you want to point to flaws, please do, but inaccurately summarizing it to put it in a negative light is unbecoming and I would expect more of a fellow editor. Perhaps we should just leave it to the community to view and decide for themselves. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:37, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I have zero goal to place any proposal in a "negative light".

I am expressing my understanding of your proposal based upon your comments and how the proposal is written.

You tell me that this is a process to assess the behaviour of an individual (an admin).

You tell me that the process is open to any result, any sanction.

How is that not completely replacing/supplanting an arbcom case?

Not to mention that arbcom can "endorse" without taking any action at all.

I'm happy to discuss. if anything, it should provide you with the opportunity to clarify. If you feel I am misinterpreting you, I guarantee that others will find a myriad number of other ways to misunderstand. It is par for the course in most proposals.

Who knows, you may sell me on the idea. however, I have doubts on that because I don't like the idea of supplanting an arbcom case.

And before you ask, RRA primarily replaces the first steps of RFCU/medcab, and does not propose any sanction besides the up or down question of does the community still trust the candidate with the tools - and I am honestly nervous about the procedure still - any chance of pitchforking will turn adminship into a political post even more than it mildly is now. Adminship is supposed to be about performing tasks - not currying favour. - jc37 15:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It is one more tool, not a replacement. This proposal explicitly states that ArbCom can shut down every single RfAS 1 minute after creation if they chose to, or set aside or change every single decision if they so chose. That alone demonstrates it is not a "separate" ArbCom and does not supplant in any way. Like the existing ArbCom processes, it is not limited to binary choices. It is a lightweight process designed to add to their capability, and allows quicker response time, both for when action is needed (fairness to the community) and when no action is needed (fairness to the admin). It strikes a balance. The goal is to help Arbcom by adding a lightweight and fair process under their guidance, where they can move a case to the traditional venue at the drop of a hat with a simple declaration. By extension, this helps the entire community as it frees up ArbCom to deal with other matters, while allowing instantaneous adoption (or dismissal) of RfAS cases when they see fit.

And of course, I am not a rigid person, and several changes have already occurred since the inception due to excellent suggestions. What I feel strongly about is the basic structure only, and I feel fortunate that others have helped in ironing out some of the details and polishing some of the rough edges. Even a couple of your suggestions have been put into place. We are making stone soup, after all. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:25, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

lol, stone soup indeed : )

As for the first paragraph, I understand that. Just as you say: "Like the existing ArbCom processes, it is not limited to binary choices. " - Just like Arbcom, it is not limited at all in what sanctions are possible. This process effectively duplicates arbcom.

"It is a lightweight process designed to add to their capability, and allows quicker response time, both for when action is needed (fairness to the community) and when no action is needed (fairness to the admin)." - So you want your process to do everything that an arbcom case does, and do it more quickly.

I know you keep saying that this isn't intended to replace an arbcom case. But it effectively will. And you even give arbcom a free pass on dealing with the process at all. As I said before, they should throw you a party : ) - jc37 16:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Incidentally, the two proposals are not mutually exclusive. Technically, they both could easily exist simultaneously.

While well-meant, Shadowjams setting this up as a "debate", a adversarial situation, was probably not the best way to have these discussed.

As you should know from the many discussions you've seen me in, I'm very open to discussion of ideas. RRA directly stemmed from such a discussion at WT:RFA, before all this started, as you know.

The issues that we're running into is that, from having read about and studied these issues literally for years, and having watched the discussions as they develop and seen many of the pitfalls, I have somewhat experienced how the community responds to these things, and so still remember many of their concerns, and what has sunk proposals in the past. That doesn't mean RRA will pass out of proposal stage. Far from it (I still have some concerns about the process). But I see so many pitfalls in the process you are proposing, that I'm not sure if it can be developed to a point that it has any chance of succeeding, regardless of whether I have personal concerns about some of it myself.

That's not me trying to present anything in a negative light, that's me trying to express my thoughts. - jc37 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

And you have the same right to an opinion as anyone else. I wasn't thinking that it was a debate, I expected to give a summary and let others look for themselves without explaining it but felt I had no choice. Note that I haven't said a word about your proposal and left it to stand on it's own merits without comment from me. And I've been here for 6 years as well, not that it particularly matters. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:47, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

read the post at the top, the word "debate" is used (though someone has now struck it). A phrasing (again, while well-meant, I'm sure) I wasn't thrilled with. And nod. I was talking about me and my time here. I thought I said it above, but maybe it was on someone's talk page. Someone said something about me having a "beef" with you. I don't, far from it. I strongly feel that people can discuss something openly and honestly and it never has to become "personal". Or to put it another way, we can delve into the nuts and bolts of a proposal, and it never is a reflection on any of those commenting in the discussion, including whoever may have proposed it. - jc37 16:55, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I said the central "beef" with the proposal... this is part of a healthy debate. And you do have a "beef" with the proposal. Anyway, let's not get hung up on something so trivial. Shadowjams (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

diff. Regardless of what was said, or meant, I think we're all on the same page now that this was/is a collegiate discussion and shouldn't be considered anything else. - jc37 23:10, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

And by the way, I welcome your thoughts on RRA. I understand from your earlier comments that you currently see it as a "binary process". Am I mistaken? Perhaps we can discuss to better understand each other? - jc37 16:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure everyone is tired of our exchanges, perhaps it should be their turn for a bit. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how us discussing is preventing anyone else... But shrugs, if you like. Let me know if you change your mind. - jc37 18:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I put in the word "debate" to separate discussions on the merits from comparisons, although I see you've re-factored that formatting and copied our discussion from our talk pages, so it's a moot point now.

I think characterizing RAS as another arbcom is incorrect for a number of reasons. The only real comparison where the two differ in that regard is that RRA is a strict "yes or no" (in terms of function; there's a symbolic censure option that's without force) whereas RAS allows suspension, and I think JC's concern, it might allow more tailored remedies. My understanding is that is why JC's making the arbcom comparison.

Comparing it to arbcom is misleading. The reason "arbcom" is seen as a slight here is because it suggests a behind closed door system. That's not the case. Shadowjams (talk) 22:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Both Dennis and I have agreed above that this isn't and shouldn't be a debate (so a comparison is unnecessary). The focus of this RfC has always been for anyone to propose and discuss ideas regarding a process for de-adminship. I think he has done that, I think I have done that, and I think many others have done that. Seems to me that the RfC is moving along nicely : ) - jc37 23:15, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well to be frank, I don't care what you and Dennis agreed on. You have two different proposals, both well formed and well thought out, and with subtle but obvious differences. But your proposals deserve some critical observation from the outside. I think it's critical that everybody else, other than you and Dennis have an opportunity to debate those differences. If there's other competing proposals (I hope there are some) I hope they get referenced here too. Shadowjams (talk) 09:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

To be clear, I encourage discussion by the community here. As I indicated above, I don't want to debate with Jc37 myself, as this should be a community discussion and Jc37 and I shouldn't dominate the discussion since we have plans on the table, and should instead answer questions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(de-dent) - I totally agree with what DB said directly above (12:49 comment). Discussion is fine. trying to frame this into some adversarial debate is not. I tried to answer your questions above several times in several different ways, Shadowjams. And I'm happy to respond to further requests for clarification. But this isn't a competition. Indeed, the two proposals are not mutually exclusive. - jc37 13:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

General discussion

• Comment I've always been of the opinion that adminship should be easy to obtain and even easier to lose. Admins should not fear the community. Yes, they might be concerned about individual editors, but they should not be concerned about the whole community. Wikipedia works because the good out number the bad by a significant proportion. A number of admins take the stance "You can have my bit when you pry it from my cold dead hands" and that's contrary to the spirit of cooperation that makes Wikipedia work. When admins view the community as The Enemy^TM, it sets up a conflict which doesn't help the cooperative spirit of building an encyclopedia. The project should function in such a way that it's easy for us to get more than enough admins to do the job—and at the same time—be able to remove admins that are not well suited for the role. 64.40.54.64 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC) NOTE: IPs can't create pages, so if somebody wants to move this to Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept/General discussion then please do. 64.40.54.64 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I am dismayed that, as well as this RFC, we now have two competing proposed policies. Please people, let's keep this discussion centralized in one place. We do a disservice to the community, as well as the concepts, by creating multiple proposals across multiple pages to be considered all at the same time. This division of consideration will almost certainly result in the community failing to get behind any of the proposals. I urge the authors of the proposed policies to withdraw them or bring them to this page to give the community the opportunity to give them serious consideration. Risker (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I would disagree with you Risker. I am a fan of boldness, particularly when it breaks a cycle of endless discussion, and this topic has been talked about for years, with no firm action. I'm happy to take the first tangible step towards a real solution. I think competing ideas are healthy, as it allows the community to see two different methods, live. In the end, the ideas are competing with each other, not against, and it allows for more rapid development. The idea behind RfAS is that must be more than binary options, and in order to be fair to the admins, we have to be open minded and allow for circumstances and the process shouldn't be a harsh "all or nothing" affair.

• A large section of the community has made it clear that there must be more options, that sometimes others sanctions might be needed, that a temporary break from admin'ing should be considered. Jimmmy Wales made this clear with Bwilkins recently, for that matter. The goal isn't to lose admins, it is to recognize the stresses involved, which sometimes mean they need to step away, or be strongly asked to do something different. It is about solutions, not punishment or mob "justice". And having Bureaucrats involved only makes sense, as they have the highest threshold for acceptance, arguably the highest trust and respect in the community, and determining consensus for adminship is already part of the job. And of course, this reduces the load for ArbCom while giving them absolute and complete control over the process. More importantly, WP:RAS is a fair and balanced approach that has strong but reasonable checks and balances against abuses, and is flexible enough to deal with any situation in a sensitive fashion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Like Risker, I'm concerned about multiple discussion pages too. I looked over my watchlist today, and realized that I had to add even more pages to it, in order to follow everything that is going on. It's getting to where it's just too complex to keep track of everything. On the other hand, I see Dennis' point of view, that we need to be bold in considering a variety of options. If we were, now, at the stage where the community were choosing whether or not to implement a new proposal, it would indeed be unworkable. But I accept that we are, now, in the idea-gathering stage. So let me suggest this: someone really needs to put some effort into creating some sort of effective navigation guide, in one place, that links non-confusingly to every page where discussion is going on. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  I'll see what I can do. Worm^TT(talk) 15:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  I've made a navbox - and added it all over the place. Worm^TT(talk) 16:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  That is fine, and moving the parts of the discussion about the whole here is perfectly fine. I still feel that having live proposed policies that can be worked on individually is a benefit, not a detriment. One way or another (or yet another), it is time for something to actually get done. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

  Thanks for the navbox. It's very helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.