Abbreviations

RfC: Request for Comment

BARC: Bureaucrats' Administrator Review Committee



[...] We know that for two years now, the number of people being made admins is too low. And yet we have valid concerns that admins are overstressed, and that they don't always live up to what we hope in terms of thoughtful, kind, and welcoming conduct. I think that solutions lie precisely in these directions: 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.

In August 2012, the Community de-adminship proof of concept concluded with a clear consensus for the motion:

A second, less firm consensus suggested that some form of gatekeeper should be put in place to stop frivolous complaints.[2] This will be included by sharing the task with a group of trusted users, who are generally regarded as level-headed (Bureaucrats).

Benefits

Current situation

Bureaucrats

Sources

Note: Please do not introduce other alternative methods of admin review. If you wish to suggest significant changes or to propose a significantly different system, start your own separate RfC

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Overall, views on this are contrasting, even on the same side of the discussion. Because of this, I'm going to start by summarising some of the main points raised.



The main supports seem to be that this is a simpler, faster process than ArbCom and that it makes admins more accountable, and is likely to lead to more being promoted due to an easier way to pull thee bit later on if they don't live up to people's expectations of behaviour or promises. However, the supports also pointed out this could be used to stop unlimited terms for admins, integrate the community more and the only real way of testing this would be to try it out.

On the oppose side, the main arguments centred around the fact crat's were not elected for this role, so their dispute resolution skills may not be up to what is needed, it is still open to abuse from outside groups to rid us of certain admins they disagree with, and the lack of examples participants could think of where this was, or could not be, dealt with through ArbCom just as well. Concerns about the time-scales being too tight and inflexible was also a issue commonly raised.

Overall, I feel there is no consensus to implement this proposal at this time. While there is a general consensus to implement some sort of solution, the number and range of opposes means I'm not comfortable that a consensus has been reached to approve this one at this time. Mdann52 (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Note: Full Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' Administrator Review Committee/Procedures will be debated in a second phase to this discussion if consensus is reached to accept this proposal in principle.

A new group, the Bureaucrats' Administrator Review Committee (BARC) will be created, comprising bureaucrats and other editors from the community. The purpose of the group will be to accept/decline and subsequently adjudicate requests from the community for the removal of an administrator's sysop user-right. The group's deliberations should be public and separate from general community discussion. The process should be considered a formal, binding process, driven by the community but not as open a forum as the "Administrator's noticeboard".

The committee should act on behalf of the community and will comprise any five bureaucrats from the pool of active bureaucrats, on a case-by-case basis, alongside five other static community members. The community members should be appointed annually by the bureaucrats, with community consultation. There is no requirement for the community members to be administrators.

The committee will vote to decide:

Whether to accept case (i.e. a legitimate case exists and if it does, whether it should be referred to the Arbitration Committee). Whether a temporary injunction is required for the duration of the case. Whether removal of the administrator user-right is appropriate.

Bureaucrats are authorised, on consensus being reached, to remove the administrator userright.

In the event of a hung committee, the case will be referred to the Arbitration Committee. If the case involves private or off-wiki information, it will be referred to the Arbitration Committee.

An open case will be referred to by a non-descriptive numerical value. The main case page will be open to committee members and those directly involved in the case. Outside views will be kept on the associated talk page. Once deliberation has begun, the deliberation page may be only edited by the committee. Complaints about patterns of inappropriate behaviour must be brought by at least two editors. All cases must be substantiated by diffs. Temporary injunctions are possible, i.e. the use of admin tools may be procedurally forbidden or physically removed while the case is being heard.

Timeline



↓ Complaint ↓ BARC decision to open case ↓ BARC deliberations ↓ Final decision 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Timeline in days

From the point the complaint is lodged, the administrator(s) in question are to be notified on their talk page and by email. They have 72 hours to respond. This period is designed to allow the situation to cool, therefore cases should never be opened in less than 24 hours. Emergency desysop procedures should still be handled by the Arbitration Committee.

After 72 hours, the committee will decide whether the case should be heard or referred to the Arbitration Committee, with or without the administrator's comment. They also decide at this point if a temporary injunction is required.

If a case is opened, it remains open for 7 days, where discussion by involved parties happens on the case page and non involved parties on the case talk page.

At the end of the 7-day period, the case page will be closed and the committee will deliberate on a sub page for up to 24 hours. The outcome of the deliberations will be posted to the involved party's talk pages and at the Bureaucrat's and Administrator's noticeboards.

Appeals

Appeals will be heard by the Arbitration Committee as a Request for Arbitration. The Arbitration Committee may decline the request, issue a motion or hold a full case request, according to their own procedures.

Voting [ edit ]

Should this proposal be adopted in principle, with its detailed procedures to be debated at a later date? 06:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Support [ edit ]

Oppose [ edit ]

Neutral [ edit ]

Neutral. I am having trouble dealing with the current combination of the claims that this is just an RfC to see if we want to have a community desysoping process with the details to be worked out in a second RfC and detailed descriptions about what the desysoping process will look like, so I am going to withhold my !vote until I see a specific proposal in the second stage. I am going to make a prediction: I predict that we will not be able to reach a consensus on those details, based on the failure of all previous attempts to resolve this problem. If that happens, I am going to write up a recommendation to Arbcom that they carefully study what various parts of the community have said here and consider how they can meet the needs that we have identified. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC) That recommendation sounds like a good idea Guy and if this fails at stage two I'd support your suggestion-- Cailil talk 18:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC) There have been successful precedents for this set-up, e.g. breaking the impasse in the "not truth" was done via a multi-step RFC. By getting prior approval to start drafting a more detailed proposal, you invite the community to get constructively involved in the drafting of those more detailed proposals, so they get more ownership of that entire process. A necessarily imperfect proposal that cannot be made better which on careful analysis would be a lot better than not adapting it, would get the benefit of the doubt and be adopted, while if such a proposal were put forward in an RFC out of the blue, it would have no chance of passing. Count Iblis (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Neutral. I can't vote for something when it's not clear what I'm voting for. I support it in principle but I'd really need more information. I wouldn't want to see some sort of popularity contest where a admin is removed because they simply pissed off a group of editors in fulfilling their role and I wouldn't want to see a admin remain because they made alot of friends. Removal should be limited to abuse. We should take alot of care in developing any system. -Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 04:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC) I don't really have an opinion one or the other on this. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan ! 21:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Neutral I am sympathetic to this proposal, but as long as we have bureacrats like Cprompt (less than 1700 edits, less than 30 of those in the last five years, less than 1900 in all projects together, no admin actions ever), I'm afraid that I cannot support this proposal. --Randykitty (talk) 16:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC) But like good physicians, who must first do no harm, and good lawyers, who avoid litigation in behalf of clients, the hallmark of a good admin is to avoid using the admin powers except as a last resort, and to use persuasion first. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 13:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC) Cprompt was appointed an admin and later a crat before December 2004, so while they don't have any logged admin actions it is a big jump to say that absence from a log of all actions since Dec 2004 means no admin actions. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 14:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC) So it is fair to say no Admin actions since the end of 2004? Doug Weller (talk) 16:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC) I agree with iridescent's stated oppose rationale in full (but I make no comment on the 'gender gap'-type issue mentioned later) . I think it would be inappropriate to expand the crat role to go beyond enacting consensus in de-adminship discussions (or beyond judging consensus if that's found to be needed in the process). Additionally, desysop due to inactivity should also be extended to a scenario where an admin takes no admin actions for between 1 and 3 years even if they are otherwise active. I really don't see why they should retain tools after not using them for that period of time. That said, I don't formally oppose as many of the other elements of this proposal may be workable, and too much time has been spent on shooting down the easy part (phase 1 proposals); given that phase 2 is what will make this process fly, float, or sink, it would be better if we moved beyond this point rather than sticking to it. On a side note though, the name for the process should really only be proposed in a final RfC, as it ought to very much depend on the details of any process which is found to have consensus. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:31, 1 August 2015 (UTC) I am rather unfortunately on the fence about this one. I feel that the need to lower the bar for adminship is very pressing, and this is one way to do it. With all due respect to ARBCOM, I do not think it is sufficient; the nature of the process is liable to discourage reports, and several recent ARBCOM rulings have been overdue, which suggests to me (despite my huge respect for them) that they are over-worked. The argument that 'crats are not elected for this does not hold water in my view. We need trusted editors here, else this becomes a kangaroo court. The Arbs are over-worked. We could elect Arbcom-lite, but I think this does the job even better. However, I have reservations serious enough to put me here. I do not expect every detail to be fleshed out, but one that needs detail before I can support is how consensus will be determined. I would also want to see something about how the community members are chosen. Finally, I think we need a safeguard to protect admins who happen not to be active during the week that their case is under review. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC) If the community wants this they can have it, but WTT should think back to when he was on the committee. It seems that you are setting yourself up for the same failures as the committee; posting an ambitious timeline and then hitting the reality that trying to engage in a decent discussion via ReplyAll and talk pages is nearly impossible to do in less than two weeks. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 04:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC) Neutral; moving from weakly supporting. The real problem isn't the lack of any desysop process that doesn't take fifty days; it's the lack of order. Order makes a huge difference - almost everyone has been to a formal or informal meeting where everyone talks at once and no progress is made. ArbCom is responsible for handling admin misconduct because it is more orderly and involves less lynching than a discussion at ANI or other venues populated by the crowd. Although this process introduces order to the handling of admin misconduct, we really need to a) introduce order to the community, b) deal with ArbCom's lack of speed, or c) find a way to streamline ArbCom. Esquivalience t 22:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion [ edit ]

Assuming this process can be accepted in principle, there are a number of procedures that would be up for debate in a second phase of this RfC. In my head that would be things like final timescales, potential situations where this process could not be used, recusals and quora, what threshold would be a "legitimate" case, appointment processes and so on. The important thing here is to look at the big picture - a lightweight, transparent, community based desysop process. Worm TT ( talk ) 06:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

( ) 06:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC) A concern I have is that the appointment of the community members of the committee by bureaucrats rather than community election would, in that sense, make it less of a community body than the Arbitration Committee. Also, I'm wondering exactly how, in each case, bureaucrats will be selected. I'm also concerned that the power of this committee is not well-defined: is it answerable to arbcom? What happens if the community is displeased with one or more committee members? On a somewhat related note, does the Arbitration Committee intend to consider this a "dispute resolution method of last resort" like it currently does for AN/I? If yes, then if an administrator has engaged in conduct that not only warrants desysopping but site blocks or bans, does this mean that the Arbitration Committee and BARC will have to run simultaneous cases? Finally, a bit of bikeshedding, but why exactly five each of bureaucrats and non-bureaucrats?--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I'd expect that it would effectively be a community election and we can debate how best to do that. My thoughts that something like secure poll or even formal election would lead to election fatigue. It's all about the balance. The rest of the questions are good, certainly. Worm TT ( talk ) 07:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Answering in no particular order... The 5:5 was my idea. I wanted to ensure there was a proper community involvement, size is based on my experience on arbcom, also to give the community a strong say. It's up for debate in the next phase. As is how the bureaucrats are selected on a the case by case basis, I just imagined first come first served. Terms are 1 year, therefore displeasure should only last a finite time. I'd expect Arbcom to take this as a "dispute resolution" with respect to admins, but it's really up to them. Finally "answerable to arbcom"... I don't see why it would be - any more than say, MedCom is. If an Arbcom case is being opened, I'd expect that to be a reason that this is rejected. Worm TT ( talk ) 07:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I see no need for any committee. Let the 'crats judge consensus as they do for RfA. For the "gate" stage, weeding out frivolous/vexatious de-sysop requests, if it's not clearly frivolous/vexatious (or incompetent) it should be allowed to run. Frivolous/vexatious litigants will get a chunk of WP:BOOMERANG, to discourage them. All the best: Rich Farmbrough , 01:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC).



of a community body than the Arbitration Committee. Also, I'm wondering exactly how, in each case, bureaucrats will be selected. I'm also concerned that the power of this committee is not well-defined: is it answerable to arbcom? What happens if the community is displeased with one or more committee members? On a somewhat related note, does the Arbitration Committee intend to consider this a "dispute resolution method of last resort" like it currently does for AN/I? If yes, then if an administrator has engaged in conduct that not only warrants desysopping but site blocks or bans, does this mean that the Arbitration Committee and BARC will have to run simultaneous cases? Finally, a bit of bikeshedding, but why exactly five each of bureaucrats and non-bureaucrats?--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC) "Bureaucrats are authorised, upon consensus being reached, to physically enact the removal of tools." This sentence is a bit awkward ("physically"??) especially as Bureaucrats cannot actually remove an admin flag. They need to submit a request to stewards at meta. --99of9 (talk) 07:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Yes they can remove the administrator user right. -- ceradon ( talk • contribs ) 07:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, we can. I have done many times for inactive admins. I thought I tidied the sentence, I'll drop the word "physically". Worm TT ( talk ) 07:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Well I learn something every day around here! On Commons we cannot (I'm a crat there). Strange that we have different settings. Thanks for the grammar fix. --99of9 (talk) 08:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Same on Wikidata, where I am a crat. Really big projects usually can decide via RfC whether local crats can remove the flag. I would say for Commons stewards would do the job pretty efficiently.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

There is great value in having a lightweight, efficient yet robust community de-adminship process. In detailed discussions, I think we need to address the time scale (allowing lengthier deliberations would be better) and appointment process in particular, and make sure the process is wikilaywer-proof. However this is an excellent proposal; I would urge everyone not to nitpick too much at this stage since there will be a follow up RfC. BethNaught (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The committee should be at least 51% non-admin, non-bureaucrats. GregJackP Boomer! I tend to agree with your sentiment here, although I would only go so far as to say that the non-bureaucrat contingent should have, say, at least 2 seats reserved for non-admins. In any case I don't think this concern is fatal to the proposal (you see that I have supported it above) but I just think this point needs to be made. — This, that the other (talk) Probably best for discussion in the next phase, but I am concerned with the difficulty in finding a significant number of non-admin, non-bureaucrat users with sufficient trust from the community to perform this role and who are also willing to do so. Worm TT ( talk ) 11:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The proposal says that the committee should be "comprised of any 5 bureaucrats from the pool of active bureaucrats on a per case basis alongside 5 other static community members. The community members on the committee should be appointed annually by the bureaucrats, with community consultation." If I'm reading this right, and please correct me if this isn't what you meant, but does this mean that any 5 bureaucrats will be appointed to a case, but the same 5 community members will be part of every case? S am W alton (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, that's what I was aiming for. Worm TT ( talk ) 07:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC) When you say "community members" are you limiting that to non-admin editors? If not, it should be IMO. GregJackP Boomer! Worm That Turned: — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 03:04, 31 July 2015 (UTC) Hi Godsy, that was one of the things I really wanted discussion on. The original proposal talked of "secure poll elections", and other annual elections - I was aiming for a very simple straightforward suggestion, that would reduce the risk of election fatigue. I envisioned community members who would be interested in such a role putting themselves forward, then a period of community discussion, then the bureaucrats choosing 5 based upon the discussion (and any other criteria, eg a minimum number of admins/non-admins). As before, it's about getting the balance between giving the community a voice and making sure the whole process isn't a net negative. Worm TT ( talk ) 08:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

am alton (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Will there also be a community Bureaucrats' Administrator Review Committee member removal process? —Xezbeth (talk) 07:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Plerase see the introduction. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Interested in knowing what would count as "consensus for removal" here - it looks a bit "free for all" to me right now. The possibility of any community-driven deadminship process being abused/misused for petty grievances or outright bad faith requests is a major reason why previous proposals have failed. Some concerns about whether assessing tool misuse is a radical new job that is at odds with the normal bureaucrat responsibilities. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC) My thoughts were that it would effectively be a vote of those on the committee, but a vote with visible comments, so that they can effect other votes. Similar to how Arbcom does it's "proposed decisions". Worm TT ( talk ) 09:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding appeals to arbcom, what would be the grounds for the appeal to be successful? Are arbcom there to simply judge whether consensus was reached correctly, or a full case from scratch like it is now, or somewhere in between - "yeah a mistake (or two) were made and there's legitimate complaint, but we think a telling off would suffice, so we'll overturn a desysop decision"? -- KTC (talk) 08:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC) That's a good question. I would expect Arbcom to overturn based on additional information, possibly private. Perhaps if there was evidence that the case wasn't fair, for whatever reason. I'd be surprised if Arbcom would overturn a a case that was handled reasonably. Worm TT ( talk ) 09:08, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"An open case will be referred to by a non-descriptive numerical value." Why? If each case concerns only one administrator, then surely it would make more sense to name it according to the same scheme as RFA, for example "ExampleAdmin" for a first case, or "ExampleAdmin 2" for a second case, rather than just a simple number. — This, that the other (talk) It's one of the most stupid arguments that we seemed to have on almost every case on Arbcom. The non-descriptive numerical value stops any future accusations of "scarlet letters", or marks against persons real name, allows for better vanishing and privacy. The fact is, this is never going to be a pleasant process and little things like that will make it slightly less unpleasant. Worm TT ( talk ) 10:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) We elect our bureaucrats on an open, transparent process where we subject them to a greater inquisition and hold them to a far higher level of integrity than the Arbitration Committee candidates. In actual theory , if not in practice and policy, a group of Bureaucrats should be able to trump the Arbcom, and not vice versa. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Indeed. Only one arbitrator since 2009 has managed to top 85% support, and that wasn't me ;) Worm TT ( talk ) 11:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC) My RfB in 2007 enjoyed 98% support, with only 3 people opposing. In the 2008 ArbCom elections, I had 67% support, with 127 people opposing, at the time I withdrew (i.e. only just enough to be appointed to the committee had that been the final result). It is regrettably a fallacy to think that the high percentage support required to pass RfB would be reflected were a bureaucrat to seek the community's endorsement to fulfil a different tole. WJBscribe (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

We elect our bureaucrats on an open, transparent process where we subject them to a greater inquisition and hold them to a far higher level of integrity than the Arbitration Committee candidates. In actual , if not in practice and policy, a group of Bureaucrats should be able to trump the Arbcom, and not vice versa. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC) so what do we do when this doesn't increase the numbers passing RFA?©Geni (talk) 10:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Increasing numbers passing at RfA isn't the sole purpose to this proposal, just one hopeful benefit. Whether or not the numbers are increased, future arguments that RfA should be difficult to pass as it's hard to remove the userright should be reduced. WormTT(talk) 11:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC) The main purpose of this proposal is to demonstrate that while adminship is for life (at least for the time being), its tenure in the face of a streamlined desysoping process is one that admins will hopefully treat with more respect. Once the new committee has shown that it does what it says on the tin, the community will introduce more homogenised and hopefully less stringent criteria on which they base their votes at RfA. At the moment we have RfA participants demanding FA, 20,000 edits, a raft of DYK, and 100s of AfD which along with the need for some of them to deliberatekty turn RfA into a drama is what is keeping otherwise perfectly qualified candiates away. That said, it's nevertheless unlikely that over the next five years RfA will be back to dozens per month rather than the two dozen per year at present. I started drafting this proposal three years ago, given a chance over the next three we can them come back to your question if necessary. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Doing this to fix RFA is pointless. RFA needs to be solved at RFA not with desysoping rules. Thinking that this will work is crystal ball gazing.

That said I'm not against this in principle. But there are a few problems with the proposal. One thing that needs to be clear is that there *are* times when a sysop needs to be stern and the process must outline that there's a difference between a sysop chewing out someone who deserves it and them abusing their "position" and being a jerk. On top of this a few thoughts on reading this:

Crats should be allowed only suspend sysops bits on consensus but must refer to ArbCom for approval of that decision (not for an RFAR). In all likelihood this will only happen in a few select circumstances so adding that layer of check and balance wont hurt anyone. It has to be editors in "good standing" who can file this kind of complaint and moreover I'm not sure that two is an appropriate number, this is an overturn of community consensus, two people is very low for that. However I am conflicted about this, because one person should theoretically be enough if the evidence is strong enough. Also maybe there should be clear sanctions for clearly disruptive complaints (like there are at WP:AE)? Like RFAR other avenues of dispute resolution must have been attempted and ignored by the sysop before going here. We can't have a situation where disgruntled sockmaster goes straight to BARC. I know no action would be taken but it's a waste of time. And as we all grow-up we don't have the infinite time that some people seem to have to dedicate to pointless disputes. So in short can't support as currently worded but not against it in principle-- Cailil talk 12:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This would be a big change in the bureaucrat role - something not envisaged when we originally were RfB candidates. If this proposal were to pass, I think I would feel the need to seek reconfirmation from the community. I don't know how other bureaucrats feel about this. WJBscribe (talk) 14:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

So for clarity, you don't feel that a consensus at this RfC (which by all projections is going to be much better attended in the end then a typical RfB) is not, in-itself, a mandate that you (as Bureaucrats) have the trust of the community for this role. Put another way, if we're going to trust 'crats, why wouldn't you think that doesn't include you? Regards, Crazynas t 15:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Do we keep statistics on the percentage of oppose comments by admins, compared with the percentage of support comments by admins? We should.- MrX 15:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

My question is: what standards will BARC use to determine whether to desysop an administrator? I ask because, in my opinion, the main problem with our current procedures is that they ony allow us to desysop administrators who have been misconducting themselves, while nothing can be done about admins who the community no longer trust to have the tools. If BARC is going to use the same standards used by ArbCom, then I don't really see any reason to have it, but various reasons not to: a. the community members are not elected by the community, unlike arbitrators; b. 'crats were never appointed to evaluate the conduct of administrators; c. in my opinion, this process gives far too little time to administrators to defend themselves and for the community/BARC to discuss the issue; and, d. having had experience with ArbCom cases, I can foretell that the deadlines indicated will turn out to be nothing but wishful thinking. Yes, ArbCom cases last far too long, but part of the reason they do is to give the opportunity to everyone, who wants to have a say, to express their opinion (not to mention that sifting through evidence to prepare a draft decision is a time-consuming effort) and discussion of difficult cases often takes days especially because editors live in different time zones. If, on the other hand, it's anticipated that BARC will be desysopping administrators who have lost the trust of the community, then I don't see why we can't have a community discussion closed by a 'crat or a panel of 'crats evaluating consensus (which would be my preference). Salvio Let's talk about it! 15:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It is part of our job to make decisions that are going to be unpopular with some people, if you do your job in a neutral fashion you will eventually annoy a lot of people. One of my big concerns with these sorts of proposals is that desysoping will move from being based on actual misconduct and instead be allowed to be achieved through sufficient sour grapes. Chillum 15:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Well, all admins were appointed because, at the time, the community trusted them; as far as I'm concerned, that trust should continue to be present for an admin to keep his tools, so that if he ever lost it, for whatever reason, there should be a process for the community to yank his tools. Admins should serve at the community's pleasure, in my opinion. I agree that there needs to be a way to prevent admins from being defrocked simply because a groups of editors didn't like that they were upholding this site's policies, but I don't think that strong enough an argument to say that the community should not be able to desysop admins. Salvio Let's talk about it! 16:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC) This is one reason that Crat involvement makes sense, as Crats have generally been expected to, and have traditionally lived up to, the idea of being calm and apolitical. The same requirements for previous Crat duties apply here, so I'm not against reconfirm but don't think it is absolutely required as they've already passed an average 85% acceptance to become Crat to start with. I can't see that the threshold for removing the admin bit would be different here than at Arb, misuse of tools or gross misconduct that removes the trust. Complicated long term patterns of behavior still belong at Arb, as do emergencies, so this is handling pretty clear cases in about 1/6th of the time, AND instilling faith that an admin can be removed by the community in two places, paving the way for the brass ring: easier to become admin, easier to lose admin. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC) So, basically, BARC would desysop in the same cases ArbCom desysop now, except it would not deal with long-term patterns of behavior and emergencies. Coupled with the problems I have mentioned above, what would the advantage(s) be? That this process would be quicker? The same result can be obtained changing the rules at ArbCom. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC) It probably could, in theory, but ArbCom won't let the community change ArbCom's rules. So, there's that. Then there's the assumption that (if Dennis is right) the criteria would be about the same, and (your part) the two bodies would come to the same conclusion all the time; this seems highly dubious to me. That's based on direct experience as well as observation of ArbCom's lack of willingness to even look at issues brought to it, much less respond to clarification requests, etc. At least with the membership the committee had in the timeframe I'm thinking of, the stubbornness and self-satisfied sense of infallibility were palpable, as was the desire to not be seen to be contradicting an AE "enforcer" admin in any way. Iblis's point below, that ArbCom's membership reduction the point where its workload is maxed means the community has to do something to fill the gap, is also salient. SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ ᴥ ⱷʌ≼ ⱷ҅ If BARC end up applying the same standards ArbCom do, then it stands to reason that they'll end up desysopping admins in roughly the same cases ArbCom currently do. There may be differences, of course, because, for instance, the determination of what qualifies as a pattern of misuse is not entirely objective, but I don't foresee there'll be many differences. Concerning your other point that ArbCom is unwiling to look at issues brought before it, well, I disagree with that. I remember the issue you had with one particular AE enforcer and, well, your complaint first led to a compromise solution (one which I proposed and which you accepted by saying [t]hat will completely resolve this issue, without any further question, in the most equitable way). And, in addition to that, it was one of the reasons that led ArbCom to start a review of their own rules concerning discretionary sanctions and, in the end, we ended up amending and clarifying the relevant policy, after a lengthy consultation with all interested parties. Don't get me wrong, as I've said, I think that the current system could and should be improved. The problem is that, however you look at it, this proposal does not constitute an improvement. Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC) But that settlement was not honored. It also took about a year to get heard at all, after numerous run-arounds and refusals, a non-admin third party stepping in and bringing the case for us, and one of the Arbs trying to act as prosecutor the whole time instead of judge. Seriously broken. I've never approached ArbCom or AE again as far as I can recall, other than to ask for clarification about the extent of ARBAA2's application. [Trim – took this matter to user talk.] Re: The proposal being not an improvement – Most places I've lived have multiple court systems and law enforcement agencies, by way of analogy, and it seems to work out okay. ArbCom is swamped. An experiment by which the community hands some workload to another, specific-task body seems reasonable to try. Maybe it will fail. If it does, oh well, at least we tried, and will probably learn something constructive. I also expressed concerns about the 'Crat appointments (which you raised below), and it already looks like the plan is shifting away from that. SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ ᴥ ⱷʌ≼ ⱷ҅

┌─────────────────────────┘

The improvement is that it is community driven. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:13, 27 July 2015 (UTC).

You are quite wrong there. BARC would be even less community driven than ArbCom. Arbitrators, at least, are elected by the community for a 2-year term (or a 1-year term, in certain cases). BARC would be composed of five crats volunteering on a case-by-case basis and by five community members appointed by the crats. It honestly boggles my mind that this process is described as more community driven than ArbCom... Salvio Let's talk about it! 01:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC) The BARC involvement is primarily to judge consensus. The make-up of BARC and even if it's needed at all can be refined. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC).

The BARC involvement is primarily to judge consensus of the members of the committee. The proposal states that [t]he committee will vote to decide [... w]hether removal of the administrator user-right is appropriate. Nowhere does the proposal mention consensus of anyone other than the members of the committee. Salvio Let's talk about it! 14:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

When Jimbo started Wikipedia, there was no ArbCom, there were no special BLP rules, and RFA amounted to little more than asking Jimbo if you could have access to the tools. This system gradually evolved due to the current system. So, what is more important is to ask whether the proposed new system is flexible enough to adapt to fine tune itself in response to community feedback to become better. Now, the ArbCom system doesn't work well in this respect, i.m.o. a strategic mistake was made some years ago when the decision was made to make it smaller. You now have a chronically overworked system. Instead, if ArbCom had been expanded and only a fraction of the Arbs would be assigned to a case (so, even active Arbs would not vote on a case unless they were working in that particular case), then you would have had a far more flexible system that would be able to handle also the Admin related issues better. The larger picture is that precisely because ArbCom's limit is reached, the community feedback then leads to a new system for the Admin related issues. Count Iblis (talk) 17:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Serious question here: How is this, in any way, different that ArbCom?! So, basically, we'll have ArbCom for "abuse of the tools" cases, and this BARC for "this Admin is a git to the no0bs, and has gots to go!!" From what I understand, though, ArbCom can actually take the latter cases (it's just that such cases almost never get to ArbCom's desk directly...). But this process looks to me to be almost as bureaucratic as ArbCom. So, really, what's the advantage here? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Since some of my concerns parallel IJBall's above, I outlined on the talk page a table comparing this process to the existing ArbCom procedures. Does it look lightweight or community driven? Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This is another humbug move aimed at papering over the core issues to do with governance at Wikipedia. One of the core issues is the length of time for which administrators are appointed. To date they have all been appointed for life. As a result the divide between admins and non-admins is steadily widening, and some of our more grandiose administrators are increasingly behaving as though they are some form of royalty. Admins should be appointed for a finite period, say three years, and then expected to work at the front line like everyone else for at least a reasonable period before having another stint as an administrator. I'm surprised at you Worm, putting your imprimatur on a move that seems designed merely to further distract attention from the real issues. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that finite Admin terms (as well as minimum activity levels for keeping the bit) needs to be part of the solution. Well that, or "unbundling the tools" for specialized activities such as "Vandal fighter", "article mover", "AfD supervisor", etc. which would essentially render the current "Admin" position moot or leave it at a reduced role like 'Crats currently are (which I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion is the real solution). Or both. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Absolutely. But the terms under which admins operate is now wholly under the control of the admins themselves, and a move towards an equitable system is no longer possible. Discussions like this are futile. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC) The irony is, Epipelagic, that this proposal was drafted specifically to offer a solution based on the demands expressed in the hundreds of very negative comments that you and others have been making for years about the quality of admins, the perceived lack of control over them, and other attempts to find admin candidates of a calibre you might accept, and strangely, efforts to retain the participation of users who might feel abused by admin actions.

If it is your ultimate desire to see a Wikipedia without any form of governance whatsoever, well, I'm afraid that is most unlkely to happen. Contrary to the statement you make above therefore, one would have expected you to welcome the BARC proposal with open arms. Unless they are breaching acceptable bounds of behaviour, our most prolific content providers also have nothing to fear from admins, ANI, Arbcom, or ultimately BARC or a future iteration of it. Indeed, they should also highly appreciate having a better class of sysops around to defend their interests. If you have a personal grievance, perhaps you could let the community know how often you have been the object of unfair santions applied by admins, otherwise what you are claiming here appears to be simply another in a long series of criticisms in the manner of your custom.

In the absence of you cogently explaining therefore, what you feel the real issues to be without the peculation, and in the absence of making some concrete suggestions as to what it is you would really like to see, your argument is probably not particularly effective. Organised critique and suggestions for alternatives (such as for example this proposal) are far more welcome and productive than the heckling from the sidelines, and even if they don't always reach a consensus, please have some respect for the fact that some editors are working hard in the background to address these issues for you, and try stepping back from making innuendos aimed at named individual admins and/or bureaucrats who are making these efforts on your behalf - they don' deserve it.. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

The irony is, Kudpung, that the only redress you have ever proposed are attempts to mask the underlying diseased state of the admin system by patching it with band-aids. You always counter criticism with the pretence that you are "working hard in the background to address these issues" when in fact you do not address the core issues at all, but only symptoms that might detract from admin power. I have never seen you acknowledge even one of the core issues (several of which are mentioned in the three posts that immediately precede your post above, but I doubt you even noticed they were there). These issues and possible solutions have been spelt out for you with utmost clarity on many occasions. It is disingenuous for you to suggest that they be set out yet again when you know very well that your somewhat abusive practice is to then wp:deny them any recognition apart from claiming they are "heckling from the sidelines". No amount of these Alice in Wonderland pretences that you are making these efforts on my behalf alters in any way the real issues underlying the admin system, and this latest band-aid will not make the real problems go away. As for your absurd claim that I have the "ultimate desire to see a Wikipedia without any form of governance whatsoever", the truth is diametrically opposite. I have consistently argued for some sort of order to be brought into the governance itself, which currently has no guiding constitution or mission statement, and is characterised by loose cannon actions against content builders. Admins are are largely given free reign to act at their individual whim. Unless it has happened recently (I no longer monitor the absurdities of this supposed "governance") no admin in the history of Wikipedia has been desopped for insulting behaviour towards content builders. It is largely an administrative anarchy, an anarchy for which you are one of the most prominent enablers. I do acknowledge however that the battle (if there ever was one) for an equitable admin system and a fair deal for content builders has been well and truly lost. The admins and their entourages now wholly control the terms under which they operate, so further discussion is futile. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC) The precise purpose of this is to put control of admin removal fairly and squarely in community hands.

Admins should not be expected to do "just admin stuff" or even mostly "admin stuff". I certainly didn't.

A fixed term like 3 or 5 years is not a wholly bad idea, and it might even get support if it were proposed in an RFC.

I don't think admins have "entourages" - but I may be wrong. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:21, 27 July 2015 (UTC).



Issues like this have never operated "fairly and squarely in community hands" in the past, and I don't believe it is going to start happening now. This is, after all, just a modified version of what already happens, or doesn't happen. We could try it an see. Maybe it will surprise and develop into a "fair and square" process. But see Salvio's comment above. Either way, it does not address the fundamental flaws in the admin system, and as such becomes yet another Kudpung attempt to prop up the existing system in such a manner that the core issues can continue to be ignored.

No one suggested admins were expected to do "just admin stuff".

Finite terms have been proposed in RfCs before, and have been shot down by admins and their entourages. This also always happens when any of the other core issues are presented in RfCs.

I was using "entourage" as a loose term for admin wannabes and habitutees of the admin notice boards. You perhaps fit into that group yourself. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

We could deal with a lot of issues by imposing fixed terms for admins (say, three years) and splitting arbcom into two panels to speed the outcomes of cases etc. Not sure why we need more complicated solutions when simpler ones haven't been tried. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC) Not to change the subject, but fixed terms for administrators are a bad idea, especially given the level of admin-work backlogs we have now. And for different reasons, splitting ArbCom into panels for its case work is something I always opposed also, for reasons we can discuss on another page if desired. I can't agree that either of these is a simpler solution to whatever problems we have, nor in fact a solution at all. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC) The vast majority of our admins were appointed more than three years ago, so fixed terms loses you a large proportion of your admins, possibly the majority. Some might well stand for a further term and I believe most of the highly active ones would pass if they ran again. But we'd lose hundreds of admins who do useful work but are insufficiently active to pass RFA. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 21:48, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This is not the place for discussing these issues (there never is a proper place), but with rational reform Wikipedia would gain far more than it would lose. The admin tools, apart from the ability to block established content builders, need unbundling and allocating to experienced users who are willing to use them. It would then be easy to address issues to do with backlogs. The now over-privileged admins (often mere school boys in the not so distant past) have appropriated nearly everything for themselves. They are often users who do not have enough experience building significant content to be able to empathise with content building. They are also often users with no mediation skills. Yet acting alone alone as individuals they may at whim and without redress insult and block experienced content builders. There is just one central barrier that stands in the way of rational reform. That is the group voting patterns of the admins themselves and the admin wannabes. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC) The discipline of established content builders is another matter. That needs examining afresh, and is an issue that needs decoupling from the current admin system. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC) I fear that whilst we all would agree that reforms should be rational, our chance of agreeing which proposals are rational is no better than the chance of agreeing which proposals to implement. While I baulk somewhat at your denigration of the younger members of the admin cadre, the youngest that I know of are in their early twenties, I would agree with you that blocking the regulars should be split from blocking the vandals and spammers. One option to do that would be to create a "vandal fighter" userright whose block button simply didn't work on any account with more than 100 edits. I would hope that those who worry about protecting content creators would be happy to have such a tool handed out to those who protect the wiki from vandalism. Another option would be to upbundle blocking the regulars to the crats. Technically this wouldn't be giving the crats any extra power, just removing it from other admins. I doubt there is appetite for either reform to succeed, but I'd vote for either. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 21:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC) I presume that when you say there is no "appetite for reform" you mean that the voting patterns will continue to block reforms. Yes, that applies to any reform that could be perceived as detracting from what has become the de facto mission of the admin system, which is admin domination of non-admins. The admin system now controls its own terms of reference, but behaves in an anarchical manner toward content builders. As Christopher Hitchens commented, "The essence of tyranny is not iron law. It is capricious law." --Epipelagic (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2015 (UTC) May I please suggest that you stop your eternal bullshitting about "evil admins vs good content builders" at least until you come up with statistics how many admins are content builders. As an admin with 70% edits in the article space I find this offensive. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:27, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Alas I do not understand you Ymblanter. This discussion is about a dysfunctional admin system which unnecessarily discourages content builders who are not admins. Are you saying it is okay for the admin system to function the way it does because you and other admins also do content building? Why are you talking about "evil admins" and "good content builders"? Some admins repeatedly introduced this divisive red herring in the past as an attempt to distract and derail discussion about the actual issues. Please try to discern the fundamental distinction between the manner in which the admin system operates as a system, and the many and diverse individuals that operate the system. --Epipelagic (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

(←) Well, the discussion is more about RfA and an addition to the current ArbCom system. As for the "evil admins vs good content builders", a number of complaints/issues about administrators are framed around disputes involving content creators and administrators. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this RFC may pass, but the details will never reach consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm gravely concerned that any result from this RfC will be used as justification for something. The RfC was very unclear as to what, exactly, we were voting on. Quite a few people voted support with caveats, and others voted oppose for the same reason. We're not clear on what this proposal is. Yet, we're voting it into action...or are we not? Even that isn't clear, and some voters seem to think we're voting on an actual proposal while others seem to think we're voting on a step in the process to get to a proposal. Nobody bothered to go to the Bureaucrats to seek their input on whether they would even want the mantle, and similarly nobody approached ArbCom about devolution of their responsibilities either. The whole thing is clear as mud. To use it as justification of anything would be a travesty. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC) It is unclear to me as well what this RFC would justify if a consensus was found. So many of the supports have qualifications, many point out the unclear nature of the proposal. The words used to frame this debate were "Should this proposal be adopted in principle, with its detailed procedures to be debated at a later date?". Frankly I think the devil is in the details and that we probably should have figured what we were going to do prior to deciding if it is a good idea or not. Chillum 23:16, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems to me to be an endeavour to create a lynch-mob forum like WP:CSN for admins and will further reduce the number of admins willing to take difficult decisions. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a grave concern I have as well. It would be interesting to poll the administrators to see what impact such a system would have on their williness to engage in administrative tasks in contentious areas. This is an area of unintended consequences. Such a system could have the effect of dramatically undermining our ability to handle contentious debates. We might end up with a cadre of admins that are effectively milque-toast; willing to block obvious vandalism only accounts, but past that, not so much. If the German Wikipedia is any guide, we could end up losing more than 100 active administrators from our current pool of 577. That, of course, assuming the bureaucracy for this "lightweight" <cough> system is able to get off the ground. People advocating for this system had better be careful what they ask for; they just might get it. Oh what tangled webs we weave when we add bureaucracy. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

A few points [ edit ]

If we're turning bureacrats into the admin watchdogs, I can understand that. Given that the user-right has of late has seemed to change focus that somewhat makes sense. But no, please no, to a "committee of any kind. No "yearly durations" etc. Besides that, what's the point of having 5 community members input if they're appointed by the bureaucrats anyway? And what if one or more need to recuse for various reasons?

This should be done the same way we choose closers for contentious discussions. Ask for volunteers on a case-by-case basis.

Also, this should reflect the current processes done by arbcom. For example, bureaucrats should be able to advise or admonish as well - giving other options than just "mop or no mop" helps take this more into "preventative, not punitive".

All that aside, I'd rather see this as a "reverse RfA". If bureaucrats are ready to accept this responsibility (in the past when I polled them, they were dead set against it), then I would re-write WP:RRA to remove the arbcom section, and replace with a sort of policy defined "crat chat".

But the community - not representatives thereof - needs to be able to be directly involved. The bureaucrats are already our representatives, let's not add another layer as well, please. - jc37 13:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I would think that if the committee of Crats and Editors decided the problem was singular but didn't want to deysop, they could issue an admonishment in the final ruling. You don't need to formally declare that "right" in the policy, that is a matter of procedure. We already can admonish at ANI, for example. Your previous community desysop proposal only allowed for desysop, mine allowed for other actions, we learned that the community was really only interested in the desysop portion back during that period. And it would be ANY 5 Crats, so they could recuse as could the community members. That doesn't need codifying, as existing policy (and in particular WP:COMMONSENSE and the spirit behind WP:INVOLVED) applies. I would also note that complicated cases would still be pushed to Arb. This fills the space between "emergency" and "highly complicated". It simply adds a community driven option. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This is so far away from what crats were selected for it makes me wonder why they were even chosen. It would make for more sense for arbitrary members of the community to be selected than it would to use them. This seems like you just picked an existing group of people and taped this task to the side. Chillum 15:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Consensus can change according to the needs of Wikipedia to evolve and modernise itself, and if it goes in favour of adding this task to the Bureacrats remit, no one can force the bureaucrats to carry it out. There may well be however, a new flux of Bureacrats who would readily accept the extended role. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

One consideration is that the Crats no longer do renames, so their tasks are greatly reduced, making them less relevant here. Because their approval requirement is higher than admin OR arbs, there is already built in trust. Because they already determine consensus on admins, they have the familiarity. We obviously trust them with the tools to add/remove, they are the only ones that have them, not even Arbs can do that without that bit. Because only half the panel is Crats, they don't have control. Crats are the logical choice, and none are forced to participate, just as no admin is forced to close AFDs or use page protection, or even block. Personally, I would like to see non-admin make up most or all of the balance of the panels. In short, I just see it as the best idea out there, and I've been working the idea with others (independent of Kudpung) for a few years. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC) There's a huge difference in what we've asked bureaucrats to do and what we are proposing for them to do. Bureaucrats are elected to grant adminship to editors on determination of consensus at WP:RFA. That skill set does not involve dispute resolution, evidence analysis, or mediation. Yet, this proposal effectively asks them to take on these additional roles without the community ever having a chance to vet them for those purposes. Asking them to get involved in dispute resolution is asking your mechanic to be your dentist. Sure, both work with tools. Sure, both work with high tech stuff. Sure, both have specialized training. But, "trust" isn't enough to qualify someone for something. Just because we trust someone doesn't mean that person has the skill set they need. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Has anyone asked the bureaucrats if they are willing to serve in this capacity? Similarly, has anyone asked ArbCom if they are willing to go along with this? --Hammersoft (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Speaking strictly for me and not for ArbCom, if the community approved this proposal, my feeling is that ArbCom would be bound by it. There is precedent for something like this, after all. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Hammersoft: Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC) That's different than asking the bureaucrats if they would want to do it. And, it's cart before the horse again. This should have been asked of bureaucrats first, before making the proposal. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC) My understanding is that this is fixable. Crats not willing to do it will not do it, and we can also take this job into account when electing new crats.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Without re-electing all the bureaucrats, it isn't fixable. We also have precious few active bureaucrats (as in, doing things bureaucrat). And, the last bureaucrat elected to the position was elected 1.5 years ago. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC) We do not need ALL crats to agree, we need SOME of them to agree. And if there is demand for new crats I am sure there will be more candidates. The general perception now is that we have sufficient manpower there.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC) This proposal requires five bureaucrats to sit the panel. There might not be five bureaucrats active and willing to do this. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, I agree that this might be a problem, but I think this is a sortable problem. First, I see some crats who supported the proposal. Second, on stage two we can decide that all newly elected bureaucrats will have sitting on the panel as one of their tasks, and delay the implementation until a required amount have been elected. To me, this is approximately the same issue as if what happens if we do not have enough number of successful arbcom candidates.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Unless I'm missing something, we've had only one bureaucrat vote in support. Further, not one bureaucrat currently holding the position has been elected bureaucrat based on their abilities vis-a-vis dispute resolution. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, you are right, there is only one at the moment. Let us see what happens.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────┘I suspect that the proposers have greatly underestimated the additional workload, and stress, they're asking the crats to take on here. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That, forgive me for saying so, is one of the most sweeping and inappropriate statements I have ever heard from an active fellow admin on Wikipedia - because of the unbelievable presumtion of having 'underestimated' (one of the major contributors to this proposal is a bureacrat), and because there just happens to be a current RfC about the actual low level of perticipation in Wikipedia as a whole on the part of the majority of those having the Bureacrat flag. I'm really sorry about this Nick, but in view of your other comments on this RfC, even if I have been repeating myself, it finally needed to be said. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:28 am, Today (UTC+7) Sorry, but I think that you have greatly underestimated the likely workload and level of stress the proposed process would involve given that it's basically a simplified alternate version of ArbCom, which from my conversations with arbs is often a pretty labour intensive and draining place to work. I'm not sure why you're so defensive about my comment, and I'm sure that this proposal is a good faith attempt to solve what's a frequently-identified problem. I don't intend to be rude, but I don't see how this is an inappropriate opinion for me to voice, and I really doubt that it's one of the worst things you've ever seen an admin say (if so, why are we talking about new processes to handle problems with admins?). You are moving into hectoring people who disagree with you, which isn't helping the discussion of this proposal. Nick-D (talk) 04:31, 25 July 2015 (UTC) I concur, re: tone. Kudpung, that was a really hyperbolic overreaction, and it doesn't help the proposal. Adding new information, arguments, questions, sure, but "you're wrong and how dare you disagree" messages aren't productive. SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ ᴥ ⱷʌ≼ ⱷ҅

I think it might be difficult to wrangle five bureaucrats who are willing to be highly available to sit on an ad-hoc committee for ten days and agree it's not the role we were selected for. And though it should not be seen as an endorsement of the proposal, I've made a #Suggestion: Preserve the role of the bureaucrat below. –xenotalk 18:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)





Suggestion: Preserve the role of the bureaucrat [ edit ]

Inspired after reading through Jc37 and others comments #A few points above, with certain aspects from the un-presented changes I recently made to this (potentially flawed) community de-adminship model, I agree that bureaucrats were put in place, primarily, to judge consensus and not users. My view on the appropriate role of the bureaucrat in a "bureaucrats' administrator review committee", if the community desires and enacts such a process, would be that they:

1) oversee a monthly or quarterly selection - based on community comment and consensus - of eligible community members (including administrators or bureaucrats) who would be put into

2) a pool of users willing and available to serve on ad-hoc committees that would be formed anew in each fresh request by randomly selecting 12 eligible editors, (with alternates randomly selected ahead of time in case of recusal or unavailability),

3) determine whether there is community consensus that the complaint merits the convening of a committee and if so, forms a fresh committee [fulfill community desire for "Gatekeeping"]

3) with uninvolved bureaucrats acting as a facilitators to maintain decorum, assist the committee with procedural questions, etc. (but not standing in judgment),

4) the committee reviews and works through the request as suggested in the proposal above

5) [However the timeframes should be longer! And the administrator in question should be able to schedule the request - within reason. Even the Arbitration Committee gives the administrator or user in question some time (in consideration of the fact that real life trumps volunteer life) to respond to the concerns before they move forwarded] and finally,

and finally, 6) participate in a bureaucrat chat to determine the consensus formed by the committee (no one bureaucrat making the decision; bureaucrats are judging the consensus of the committee and not the user in question),

7) close the bureaucrat chat (if the consensus formed in the bureaucrat chat is not obvious, a bureaucrat who did not participate in the chat) and enact the consensus decision.

Alternatively, if the "fresh committee" on each new request is too radical a change, the bureaucrats should simply oversee the process to select the year's committee (individual bureaucrats could stand to serve on the the committee, of course) and then only act as facilitators and with a bureaucrat chat on conclusion to determine the consensus formed by the committee in any given request. In this alternate form, the committee would decide whether the complaint moved into the review stage. –xenotalk 18:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC) Disclosure: Current bureaucrat; this suggestion should not be taken as an endorsement of the proposal

Given that the one oppose argument that's held weight with me is that crats were chosen to judge consensus not to judge admins I really like the idea of crats being the ones to judge consensus...es? for forming committees and cases rather than the ones to actually form half the committee. I'd like to suggest that the 5:5 crat/user split be something re-discussed in the next phase of this proposal; it's evidently the main point of contention here. Sam Walton (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC) +1 SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ ᴥ ⱷʌ≼ ⱷ҅

I'm still at "just say no" to committees. (This should be a "committee of the whole" just like RfA is.)

But setting that aside for a moment, another way to phrase what you seem to be proposing: A group of volunteers to approve opening discussion on the complaint/issue. Then those same volunteers discuss the issue. Then a "crat chat" to determine if those same volunteers come to consensus.

Sounds a little too potentially "in crowd" and can lead to "groupthink" amongst other things, I think. committees just lend themselves to problems here. (That, and in looking at it this way, it does appear to look like an attempt to re-create arbcom, as others have noted above.)

This, of course, leaves off "arbcom review", though of course at any time someone could potentially petition arbcom for a motion or a full case (and yes, it should not be so difficult to petition arbcom for a motion - you have to ask for a case and if they decide they don't need whole case, then they may do a motion. I think that's backwards as to how it should work, but that's off topic here : )

Anyway, based upon many discussions, I think most agree that the steps to a desysop process is:

A.) One or more editors propose discussing. (those concerned)

B.) One or more editors "approve/endorse" that discussion on desysopping may be appropriate. ("gatekeepers" to prevent wasting community's time - usually a certain number of admins)

C.) Discussion by editors (to try to come to consensus)

D.) Consensus determined by one or more editors (usually one or more bureaucrats)

E.) Consensus determination oversight or review by other editors (usually arbcom - though this can potentially be active or passive)

Now who those editors are at each step varies by proposal. I think the most "neutral" is 3 admins as gatekeepers (some want more, some want less); community-of-the-whole discusses (no smoke filled rooms or star chambers) - and they have at least the options available that arbcom has in such discussions: advise, admonish, support, oppose, neutral; bureaucrats close (and nod to keeping "decorum"); and arbcom reviews as appropriate.

ymmv, of course : ) - jc37 11:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

This makes pretty much sense to me. If we could take this to stage two and then determine the details it would be great.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC) In this form, it wouldn't be so much a committee, but a jury (either random or static). You wrote "ask for volunteers on a case-by-case basis"; I think it would just be too chaotic to source volunteers in the thick of a request so those eligible to serve would be pre-vetted ahead of time by the community and then randomly chosen to hear the request. The way you lay it out ("committee of the whole") sounds very similar to the proposal I prepared using EVula's model as a base. –xenotalk 11:51, 26 July 2015 (UTC) In any of the proposals I've seen, those discussing desysopping an admin can very well be described as a "jury". That said, let's stay away from courtroom terms and try to stay with terms in our consensus model. Again, preventative, not punitive.

"...those eligible to serve would be pre-vetted ahead of time by the community" (My comments referred to closers, so I'm presuming that's what you're speaking of here : ) - I would define that "pre-vetted" group as "bureacrats". If you want to come up with some random lottery for bureaucrat closers, I'm happy to look at it. It could be used for RfA too, if wanted, I would guess. But otherwise, I'm fine with the current system of how we ask for closers of contentious discussion. That seems to work well enough. And I'd like to think that there will be very few desysop discussions needed, so another reason to not want/need a standing group just waiting by.

As for evula's proposal and your mod of it, nod, those, plus most every other proposal I've seen look roughly like this, the argument usually stems from the details - too much of this, too little of that. I picked as middle as I could and still follow current policy in writing up WP:RRA, but I suppose it would be simple enough to remove the arbcom factor and just "vaguewave" to their oversight review, if that's a concern. - jc37 17:02, 26 July 2015 (UTC) We are back to some of the oldest flaws in these various alternatives to Arbcom. If on the one hand we have a spontaneously forming unelected committee we have a highly gameable situation at best a lynch mob at worst a raid by 4chan or worse. On the other hand if we elect a committee it begs the question how does this differ from Arbcom and how do we decide which applies? Ϣere Spiel Chequers 19:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC) Limit the election to normal editors, not admins. You can require that they resign if they get the bit while serving. The problem is that admins are the ones supposedly policing the action of admins - and there is no recourse for the normal editor. GregJackP Boomer!

Lynch mobs vs power to the people is one of the main reasons these never happen. the lynch mob side has to accept a process that has the potential to be gamed at the very least (due to the very real concern about socking, meat puppetry, and off site canvassing) while the "power to the lowly editors" group doesn't want to allow any admins involved in any step of the process.

Thanks for so clearly illustrating that point : )

at the end of the day, the admins feel that (among other things), to stop adminship from becoming too political, to allow them to use the mop appropriately even on tough calls, there has to be a buffer from "pitchforks". Hence why "at least" 3 admins would need to endorse starting the discussion (other editors would be welcome to as well, of course). If the "power to the people" side doesn't allow for that, we'll never see one of these gain consensus... And from my experience, admins are a VERY diverse bunch. If you can't find 3 admins to support starting such a discussion, you likely have no grounds to begin with. - jc37 22:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC) While pitchforks are a concern, we deal with these at AfD all the time, by annotating !votes from users with few or no previous edits, for example. If there were concerns that editors who had been correctly reprimanded or blocked were extracting vengeance, it should be easy to document. When all is said and done, if RfDesys is as well visited as RfA you would need a lot of abusive editors to maliciously swing the result. Having said that I do recall abusive RfCU's that, while they achieved nothing, sowed the weeds and tares of future disruption. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC).



I think that's all entirely reasonable, xeno, except I wouldn't, probably, want to see a "grand jury" phase and a second selection of "jurors"; I think this would be as processy/bureaucratic and time-consuming as "full metal RFARB". In response to a later comment, I for one have no objection at all to admins being in the pool that can serve on the committees; admins are editors, too. Barring them from the committees would worsen the "us vs. them" stratification. They should not be able to make up a large percentage of any committee though (there's probably a way to figure out what the admin-to-non-admin ratio is among currently active editors that month, and have the membership commensurate in proportion, rounded normally, but permitting a minimum of 1 admin). Not seeing any evidence of the mob-will-bolt theory; what I see above is a lot of support from random editors, and opposes mostly from Arbs and admins. I don't buy the logic in the "oppose because it's a committee" stance, when sticking with the status quo is sticking with ... a committee, and one that has proven (in my view and experience) ineffective at dealing with the issue (not because of the individuals that presently compose it, but by the way it's organized and chartered, and behaves as an entity). The alternative to some kind of committee is just the mob-rule of another ANI-like free-for-all noticeboard (or maybe just ANI itself). I'm skeptical of the "give the accused admin all they time they say they need" reasoning. Admins generally don't extend this courtesy to whomever they're going to block or otherwise sanction (which is great if they're blocking a troll or vandal or disruptive SPA, but not so great if they're about to make a spectacular WP:INVOLVED screwup). ANI doesn't extend that courtesy to anyone else, either, and will happily convict someone in their absence. ArbCom seems to be so "take your time" about it (but only toward admins, so far as I've noticed), largely just because it's slow and processy by nature. But, some more time might be reasonable. It doesn't serve our interests to set up [another] railroading process, for anyone. Railroading of non-admins doesn't mean "doing it back" will be productive! Anyway, kudos to xeno for correctly nailing down the formerly nebulous concern so many had, and what to do about it. This is a solid "make it better" side proposal. SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ ᴥ ⱷʌ≼ ⱷ҅

I wasn't planning to vote, but I'm now considering voting oppose. The BARC core bothers me. I think our activity requirements for both bureaucrats and Admins needs to be much tighter, and I'd like to see enthusiastic support from the bureaucrats before we go ahead. It's not that I don't trust the bureaucrats, but if they are to have a role in deciding if someone should lose their Admin tools I'd like an assurance that their understanding of the context of such decisions is current. Similarly I think that Admins who have edited only rarely are quite likely not going to have an up-to-date understanding of our policies. A handful of edits a year is simply not enough. My concern is that if this passes it will have such a head of steam that these problems won't be addressed. It's a shame, because I like the idea, but I think it's too flawed. Doug Weller (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing question [ edit ]

can someone please explain how [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Kudpung&namespace=3&tagfilter=&year=2015&month=-1 this isn't canvassing? Spartaz Humbug! 21:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I guess canvassing is invitation of users who are expected to have a favorable opinion on the proposal. I am not sure about all users, but I am pretty sure Kudpung could not have any idea how I could vote and what arguments I could bring. I think this is just an attempt to enhance participation.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It really depends on how the list of users was generated. Chillum 21:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

All I know is that I wasn't on it... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC) I got pinged. I think it's because I commented in the 2012 discussion that this is partially based on. Gigs (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Kudpung: how was the list of users generated? Chillum 00:43, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS has been violated; poll is tainted [ edit ]

Some users above in the "A few points" section were curious how Kudpung generated the list of messages that were sent out to various users (see this, messages with "Community desysoping RfC"). There appear to be two sources;

There are a few exceptions; Jimbo Wales, Lingzhi, Second Quantization, Useight. Those four do not appear from either of the above two sources. Jimbo is self explanatory. Lingzhi is on the list because they requested to be notified [2] and had a hand in copy editing the proposal [3]. I do not have an explanation for the other two, other than Useight which might be because he is a bureaucrat, though not all bureaucrats were messaged.

There is a serious problem here with both source locations:

Quoting the header of Wikipedia:RfA_reform_(continued)#Participants; "Joining here assumes you are already firmly in favour of reform". Of the people listed there, 15 were not contacted via the mass message. Of those 15, 11 are inactive. Only one of the 28 that were contacted are inactive. I.e., a significant portion of the messages sent were sent based on the user's having a predisposition to voting "firmly in favour of reform". Yes, I know de-adminship is not RfA, but they are inextricably tied together. This is not a neutral pool. The second group contains supporters and opposers from the noted source. This seems fair, but isn't. That group voted 48 to 12 in favor of "an additional community-driven method" to de-sysop. Thus, that pool of people who were notified is 80% tilted in favor of a mechanism for the community to desysop. This, too, is hardly a neutral pool.

And how have the people who have been contacted voted? Of the 81 that were contacted, 27 have voted. Not surprisingly, 24 of the 27 have voted support, with 2 oppose and 1 neutral. 4 others from the contact list have commented but not voted. 23 of the "Yes" votes came in within the first 24 hours of this RfC going live, flooding the RfC with support votes. This flooding further taints the fairness of the process.

I want to note, for the record, I do not ascribe malice towards Kudpung in his selection of people for his mass mailing. I've found no evidence to suggest he was intentionally trying to stack the vote. There is nothing in the order of messages, or in the gap between messages and posting at WP:CENT (~3/4ths of messages were sent before posting there, the last 1/4th after), or in the timing of the notification placed at WT:RFA to suggest that he was intentionally doing something to subvert the process here. Rather, I believe this was an innocent mistake, and he believed he was following the letter of WP:CANVAS. Nevertheless, the outcome is the same regardless of intent; the poll is tainted.

Summary: This process, if it were allowed to be approved, would dramatically change the fabric of how business is conducted here. To allow for this change to happen when the poll is so tainted would be highly inappropriate. We need a consensus building process that is neutral from the get go, and this isn't it. I recommend shutting down this poll, allow a cooling off period of at least a few months, and come back to the table via notification only and simultaneously to WP:CENT, WP:BN, WP:AN, WT:RFA and WT:AC/N. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:55, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

As usual, so many bureaucratic hurdles get put in front of proposals, making any and all such proposals impossible to get through. This intransigence is getting so tiresome. RGloucester — ☎ 22:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

— ☎ 22:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC) So notify the users that you think should have been notified and let's move forward. In fact, why hasn't someone already posted a site-wide notice?- MrX

For the second group, WP:CANVASS specifically lists "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" as a valid group to notify of a discussion. The pool doesn't have to be neutral to comply with policy; it has to be no more non-neutral than the total site's population. If 80% supported reform in the last RfC, that represents a consensus, not a non-neutral pool (assuming that canvassing was not a concern there). The first group is more problematic. Inviting users who are in favor of reform to a proposal for reform could cause unintentional vote-stacking. A site-wide notice on this issue is probably wise regardless of any unintended canvassing, and it would address the concerns. ~ RobTalk 00:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. The poll has already been polluted. If you come to a vote where the big majority is voting to support, your tendency is going to be with the winning side, not the losing. This poll's done. This isn't bureaucratic intransigence RGloucester. It's the reality of when a poll gets polluted by (even if unintentional) canvassing. This should not have happened. Fixing it isn't possible, and there's no pressing emergency that says we have to go with this, no pressing emergency says we can't shelve this for a few months and do it right the next time. Or, would you rather have a process with a permanent asterisk next to it? --Hammersoft (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2015 (UTC) The number of users that were members of the first group, were not members of the second group, were notified, and voted is likely small enough that this has no significant effect on the poll. I can check those numbers if you'd like me to. ~ RobTalk 01:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Rob, the vast majority of people who will be directly affected by this have not been notified directly. It seems absurd that it is acceptable to notify people who've previously shown themselves to be in favour of a proposal, without requiring that the individuals who are directly affected be notified. That is just...so wrong. Risker (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It is obvious what should have been done: a Mass Message to all administrators and bureaucrats, as well as posting on various noticeboards. After all, the 'crats are getting the work and the admins are getting the policy imposed on them. The overwhelming majority of people who will be affected by this proposal have not been informed of it. Risker (talk) 01:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

You definitely have legitimate concerns that not enough people have been informed. The solution is a neutral post to WP:AN, which I certainly would be in support of. I'm running the numbers on how many people in the first group actually voted in support or against this RfC, to see how that potentially non-neutral group affected things. ~ RobTalk 02:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC) No, this is far to significant to just be posted on a noticeboard that the vast majority of administrators do not watch, with good reason. Since this affects them directly and personally (that is, it can be used to change their personal status on Wikipedia), they need to be notified personally and directly by a post to their talk page. Noticeboards do not cut it when you are developing something that targets a specific group of easily identifiable people. Risker (talk) 02:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Among the entire first group (minus those who also contributed in the previous RfC), five editors have supported this RfC so far. I did not check which of them received a notification, so five is a maximum as far as how the inclusion of the first group affected this process. That clearly does not affect the overall results of the votes, and it's not large enough to influence future voters one way or another. Make of that what you will; I've stated my thoughts on whether the second group was an appropriate pool to notify above. ~ RobTalk 02:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Rob, where are you getting your numbers from, and why are they so radically different from those that Hammersoft has posted at the top of this section? Risker (talk) 02:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC) His numbers include both pools he listed taken together, mine only included those who are in the first pool AND not in the second. As I mentioned above, I disagree that notifying the members of a previous related discussion is canvassing, so I was interested in the numbers after you remove the notifications that seemed appropriate to me. My numbers represent those that were not involved in the previous RfC, but were listed on the RFA reform page. After manually finding that list of users, I used the edit history on this page to see who supported. ~ RobTalk 02:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Regarding notice - Kudpung posted this discussion for listing on Template:Centralized discussion at 04:23 (UTC) on 24 July 2015 [4]. That notice is currently transcluded on over 3,000 user talk pages and Wikipedia discussion forums, including all subpages of the WP:Administrators noticeboard and WP:Village Pump: [5]. While I would encourage any one of the discussion participants to utilize the Wikipedia Mass Messaging Service to notify (neutrally, of course) all active administrators (which I believe includes all bureaucrats) and all active registered editors, saying that Kudpung has not made good-faith efforts to notify the larger community of this pending proposal is factually incorrect. I did not receive a personalized notice of this RfC, but saw it listed as one of the "centralized discussion" in the transcluded infobox on another editor's user page. If someone is going to take it upon themselves to notify all active admins via MMS, I strongly encourage you to notify all active editors; this proposal concerns the entire Wikipedia community, not just 600 or so "active" administrators and bureaucrats. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC) All sysops should be informed of this discussion, as it will directly affect their bits. Would someone be willing to contact the admins that would be affected by this discussion? Nakon 03:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)] All users should be be informed. It involves everyone.- MrX 04:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, but it directly affects sysops. Someone needs to contact all sysops via registered email or talk page so they are made aware of this discussion. Nakon 04:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Actually, it will only affect the tiny minority of sysops who are every brought before the committee. There is a centralized discussion notice posted on AN and ANI, both of which are both admin notice boards. Also, there's already disproportionately high representation from the admin corp on this page.- MrX 11:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it will affect every administrator, as this will have an effect on how they conduct their business. This issue has been raised before, in multiple proposals. It would be interesting to see a poll conducted with respondents being administrators to the question of whether this process would have a negative effect on their administrative functions. How many administrators would be afraid to tread where things get nasty, knowing that it would only take a couple of miscreants to drag them before the drumhead? --Hammersoft (talk) 12:52, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It's my understanding that this is just an rfc to see if we should have another rfc etc. If that's the case then the breathless tone of this thread is a bit overblown.• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, sir. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Yes, it is clearly tainted. However, there is no harm provided that this RfC is repeated before an RfC on any specific proposal is started. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I think repeating this precise rfc is a bit mindless wikilawyering. This one has no material consequences. I am expressing my thoughts politely• Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 04:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC) I'd debate that: there is an absence of important and relevant factual information in this document, which I think has been deliberately left out. For example...how hard is it really to get bad admins desysopped using the current process? The record shows that Arbcom has used multiple methods of desysopping people, ranging from out-of-the-blue desysops for identified socking, through persuading people to give up their tools voluntarily, through removing the tools either through a motion or a case, or desysop until a case is answered within a given time. It is actually not difficult to have a problem admin separated from his or her tools when there is evidence of inappropriate use, or evidence of violation of significant policies (e.g., desysopping because of repeated copyvios or BLP violations). Where is that stated anywhere in the proposal? More importantly, it also completely glosses over the fact that more than half of the 'crats are barely active at all on this project (there are quite a few who seem to stop by long enough to get their annual edit in and then disappear again), that more than half of all 'crats got the bit in 2004 and many have not used their crat hat in years, and that there has only ever been one 'crat who had his bit removed by Arbcom? The only way to separate a 'crat from his bit is to somehow hope that he misses his annual edit. Notice how that isn't mentioned in the proposal either. Risker (talk) 05:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Well, perhaps not this specific RfC; but (although I !voted "oppose"), this RfC only supports ONE RfC on a specific proposal; if it fails (after being properly adverised), it does not justify any more RfCs without further discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Risker, can I ask, what "factual" evidence would you like to see for "how hard is to get bad admins desysopped using current processes?" I'm afraid all I have is anecdotal evidence, but there is a significant portion of the community who believes it should be difficult to pass RfA because it is difficult to remove the sysop right, that was a strong finding from RFA2011. The perception that it is hard is as important as the actual difficulty. Now, since the "current methods" are "start an arbcom case" and an arbcom case has its own issues, I would say the current methods *are* insufficient, and that is covered in the RfA. You are right, however, that there are separate issues with bureaucratship, I am likely to focus on that in the future. Worm TT ( talk ) 07:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)



Sorry, WTT, but four-year-old data doesn't cut it; we're talking 2015. The fact that people who refuse to even bother pointing to aberrant administrator behaviour when and where it occurs have been spending the last several years ranting about how dangerous it is to elect RFA candidates who are in any way imperfect tells me that we've been spending the last several years under a miasma of self-delusion. It is NOT hard to get bad admins desysopped; you should know, you helped do it. A few months ago, I took an admin to arbcom. Desysopped. Right now, they're voting on a desysop. "People think it's hard" means that people need to be educated, not terrified. The extremism at RFA has driven away good editors and practically dried up good candidates. You and the cadre of bureaucrats could have changed this behaviour by refusing to consider opposes based on grocery lists of candidate expectations, but you chose to accept them at face value. (Incidentally, it is impossible for a candidate to meet everyone's personal criteria because their standards conflict.) Bottom line, people perceive all kinds of things; we do not need to reinforce false perceptions, and instead should be working to correct them. Risker (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC) I've never denied that Arbcom is effective at desysopping bad admins. I also expect little work for this committee that will get past the first stage - because, simply, I don't believe there are that many admins who need to lose their tools. It is about perception, I agree, and this proposal is there to tackle the perception. On the flipside, I don't agree that it is easy to start an Arbcom case, nor to push it through over the months it takes. I do not agree that Arbcom is a "community" process, I sat in that bubble for 2 years, I saw the worst that Wikipedia had to offer, I saw myself become jaded and my activity drop off - I couldn't relate to the community in the same way during that time. Now, how can someone who's sat on multiple terms get a decent temperature check? I know I've seen long term arbitrators arguing that the community should "Respect ma authoritah". Arbcom does the best it can and I don't have any issue with how it does it - but alternatives should exist. WormTT(talk) 07:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Indeed, this proposal doesn't just "gloss over" the relative inactivity of the current bureaucrats as a group; one of the proposers explicitly says this current proposal has nothing to do with bureaucrat activity issues. I also note that Risker says "separate a 'crat from his bit", about which others here would know better than I would, but see below. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Sorry, but if the group that is going to be granted power through a process like this is significantly deficient in its make-up, it is most certainly a key point that should be raised. The quote you provide actually proves that 'crat inactivity is being glossed over. And yes, all current bureaucrats are male; the last time I remember a woman editor running for RFB was back in 2008. Risker (talk) 22:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC) My clumsily-written point there was that "glossing over" isn't strong enough of a description. (See this thread for updated gender distribution; it appears there are two people who do not identify as male, though neither is very active.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Looking at Wikipedia:Bureaucrats#Current bureaucrats, to the best of my knowledge every current 'crat is male. Make of that what you will. – iridescent 17:05, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment : Just noting here that I can't answer the questions about notifications as I don't know the answers and Kudpung is unavailable at the moment (I've spoken to him offline, he won't be around for a few more days - zero access to internet). Worm TT ( talk ) 07:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC) No comment as to whether this proposal breached canvassing or not, but I hope some of its supporters see the humour in one of the authors of a proposal to deny all admins the right to say they "won't be around for a few more days - zero access to internet" saying he "won't be around for a few more days - zero access to internet"? Ϣere Spiel Chequers 10:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Actually, I raised that point, that we have to be able to allow a delay, in a comment for the previous version. My understanding is that this would be handled in the Procedures, not the Policy. We have had a number of people game the system quite recently by using the "I'm away from internet" at Arb, admin and not, so handling it on a case by case basis (ie: a procedure) does make the most sense. I would also note that the COMMUNITY would have a hand in the Procedures for this, unlike Arb. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC) I think you mean allegedly game the system there. The difficulty of not allowing legitimate delays is that you would be left with an unfair system that is easily gameable by trolls to harass admins. The difficulty of allowing some participants to delay cases and not others is that you don't have a practical way to tell the difference between the real and fake reasons for delay. Arbcom handles this by having reasonable time built into the process and from what I've seen a fairly tolerant attitude to accept any delay that they can't readily disprove. You could of course replicate those proven and robust parts of the Arbcom process, except the net result is that pretty much any seriously contested case requires a month or more and the main gain from BARC was that it was going to be quick. So you are back to the core flaw of BARC, you can be quicker than Arbcom, or you can be as fair as Arbcom, but unless you go back to the drawing board you can't be both. Ϣere Spiel Chequers 17:54, 28 July 2015 (UTC) I stand corrected, "allegedly" would be the correct qualifier. There are some options that might be available via the community that Arb won't touch, such as temporarily desysopping in the event of an extended delay. This assumes strong evidence, but BARC is going to kick out anything that ISN'T strong or anything complicated The current Arb case where there is a possibility of desysop could have been handled by BARC as it was fairly cut and dry evidence and the issue was simply interpretation of events: no one disputed the events themselves. Arb is currently doing ok with it, although it has become rather verbose. Most of what Arb handles never sees the light of day, actually, so they are busier than they look. That is one advantage here. BARC shouldn't be that busy, and I expect most cases to be clearly uncalled for (just as they are at Arb) and to get dismissed within 1-3 days, removing the cloud over the admin's head faster as well. The key is having BARC bump up anything complicated to Arb ASAP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:37, 29 July 2015 (UTC) Yet there was still an extension of the workshop phase, so someone could finish compiling a very thorough timeline of events, and the proposed decision was almost delayed by several days and seems to have been posted on time only by significant investment of last-minute effort. And no matter how much everyone wants Arbcom cas