Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for BARC - a community desysopping process

Abbreviations
RfC: Request for Comment
BARC: Bureaucrats' Administrator Review Committee

Introduction

[...] 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.

Jimbo Wales (2012)

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

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

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

Benefits

• The lack of an effective, dedicated procedure for addressing admin behaviour is one of the reasons for the perceived failure of WP:RfA to produce sufficient candidates of the right calibre. A community-based system should help to alleviate that perception.
• Devolving simpler cases to a more community-based system would reduce the workload on the Arbitration Committee.
• A transparent system would help strengthen accountability of administrators.

Current situation

Current methods to remove adminship
Process	Does not require fresh request for adminship	Requires fresh request for adminship
Voluntary removal	For most reasons that the administrator chooses to resign their userright	If the administrator chooses to remove the userright "under a cloud", i.e. whilst their actions are under scrutiny, perhaps during an arbitration case or elsewhere. If the administrator has agreed to removal due to a successful "recall"
Inactivity	If the administrator has been completely inactive for between 1 and 3 years	If the administrator has been completely inactive for more than 3 years
For cause	N/A	If the administrator has the user-right removed. Arbcom can do this with a case, or without in certain circumstances.
Other	Technically, the stewards or bureaucrats have the ability to remove the tools in an emergency. Also, Jimbo Wales could theoretically also remove administrator access at his discretion. These situations would likely have subsequent repercussions.

Bureaucrats

1. Bureaucrats are empowered to judge consensus and add the sysop flag following a candidate's successful pass at WP:RfA.
2. Bureaucrats have the technical ability to remove the sysop flag but not the community mandate to do it except in situations outlined in the above table.
3. Bureaucrats have demonstrated a very high level of community trust, by passing an RfB, which requires an 85% level of support, despite the small number of additional tools.
4. There are 33 Bureaucrats (as of this proposal).

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

Proposal for lightweight desysop process (BARC)

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:

1. Whether to accept case (i.e. a legitimate case exists and if it does, whether it should be referred to the Arbitration Committee).
2. Whether a temporary injunction is required for the duration of the case.
3. 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

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

1. As joint-proposer. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
2. As joint-proposer. I've been advocating for a more community based desysop process for a while now, but my time on Arbcom only made my resolve stronger. Arbcom does deal with problematic administrators, but the process is cumbersome and daunting for all participants, often humiliating for all participants too. The thing I really liked about this process was that was lightweight and streamlined - designed to be as pain free as possible, for every participant, especially the subject. Clear timelines, reduced bureaucracy, a structured but transparent forum - these sorts of things are key to a process like this working. Worm^TT(talk) 06:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
3. I think I'm among the oldest admins still active, even if my efforts are sadly sporadic nowadays. I was a bit leery of this proposal at first, but having studied it, it seems to be taking a worthwhile step towards breaking down the "us and them" combative mentality which has arisen (going back to at least 2003). No doubt the committee will receive a number of baseless complaints, but I think that hassle will be worth it for the greater community trust it will hopefully engender. Manning (talk) 07:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
4. Yes, strongly. Recall is a dead loss and always has been, and should be done away with as openly misleading. Devolving stuff from arbcom is good and increasing bureaucrats' role in this way I think is worthwhile. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
5. In priciple. BethNaught (talk) 07:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
6. Strong support. There is no real way for the community to take the mop away from an admin, and we do not need our admins to be appointed for life. The only real way now for an admin to be removed is ArbCom - you can't trust them to remain open to recall once the issue is brought up to them. Too many have backed away from it at that point, and regular editors need some way of holding admins accountable. GregJackP Boomer! 07:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
7. Strongly support. As noted by User:Ihardlythinkso "...the process (removing an administrator) is so overladen with bureaucracy... Not only is it slow, but tunnel-visioned, by its very nature. Jimbo Wales was right when he said the solution is to make adminship easier to get, and easier to lose. What we have today is a painfully slow and inept system that is overall impractical to address the problem appropriately, thus the problems fester and multiply and linger in view of the seldom-and-difficult-to-use process to cleanse the WP body of undesirable admins. They win. Jimbo was right. The structure is inadequate to deal with the reality. The structure needs to be changed." Memills (talk) 07:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
8. Support, per Worm above. Cavarrone 07:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
9. Strong support. Arbcom is the only current avenue for desysoping. As we all know, those proceedings can be grueling, overbearing, humiliating and highly stressful time sinks of a process for everyone involved. At the other extreme is recall, a widely varying process that most administrators don't partake in, and anyone who does can opt-out of at anytime they choose. While a good idea, recall is simply not, in practice, an effective system for desysoping. Another, easier means to desysop problematic administrators would definitely benefit the community and the project, but I don't think desysoping should be easy. I bristle at the very thought of a community-driven sideshow to desysop someone. I was very surprised at the striking simplicity and reasonability of this proposal. There doesn't seem to be a risk of major drama, nor arbitrary witch hunts. I have nothing against Arbcom, but there's no denying the resentment, distrust and controversy can surround the committee. Crats generally don't seem to have that problem as they are probably the most trusted, competent, and least controversial members of the community—I will point out that the Arbs generally don't even get the amount of support that a crat needs to get appointed. I think this concept is about as good as it's going to get as far as desysoping goes. It would be a lighter, faster, easier, less painful process than Arbcom, and with more qualified and trusted people placed in charge of it. I support this proposal unreservedly. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 07:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
10. Strong support. The current system is grossly inadequate. Bureaucrats are appointed through a very high bar for trust (higher than stewards, even); and in my view their role has always been too narrowly conceived. Since crats exercise judgement in closing RFAs, it is natural and logical that they should play a role further down the pipeline. I see that Stage 1 involves filtering out the frivolous complaints: nicely designed. Tony (talk) 07:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
11. Strong support in principle, but I would want to make sure that when the procedures are hardened out, they would make this process be fully fluid and truly community-based.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
12. Strong support. Per Worm, and also: It's a necessary counterweight to admins being appointed without definite (renewable) terms. Ijon (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
13. I was just invited to comment. Had never heard of BARC before. I don't think it will help a great deal, but I don't see how it can hurt, and it looks worth a try. In principle, the community should resolve common issues, and ArbCom should be the last resort. I find it hard to believe that more Wikipedians will choose to run an RfA because there is a community desysopping procedure. It might cause people to be more relaxed about welcoming new admins. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
14. Support, worth trying it out. Almost anything would be better than the current situation. Graham87 08:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
15. Good admins have nothing to fear. Those learning their trade have nothing to fear, since admission of an honest mistake is a valid defence. Admins who are less than satisfactory and who transgress will get a wakeup call that may return them to the path of righteousness. Genuinely bad admins will be weeded out in a few months as this system, progresses. This has my unqualified support. I am not now, and do not ever intend to be, an admin. Fiddle Faddle 08:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
16. Support, sounds like a good idea of a quick process for simple cases. The complex cases should still be carried by Arbcom Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
17. We doubtless need something; ideally, while this committee will probably be heavily used at first, its format, structure, and remit will ensure that over a fairly short period it will settle into being a part of the community used occasionally (much as Arbcomm, which, if i recall correctly, seemed to have far more cases on at a time ten years ago). Thanks are due Kudpung and WTT for their thoughts and suggestion. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 08:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
18. Support. This is a very well thought-out proposal; it has enough procedure to prevent its frivolous use, yet is not overly complicated. It also makes better use of our existing, highly-trusted bureaucrat group, whose role is currently limited to the menial task of promoting and demoting administrators and bots. In addition, I agree with just about all comments made before me. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
19. Support - I've authored my own proposals, helped on others and have been looking for a solution since I became an admin. Of all of them, this has the best blend of safety, equity, speed and flexibility. This will help increase the number of admin and reduce the impression that admin are guaranteed to be admin for life. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 09:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
20. In principle, although I'm somewhat sceptical of the ability of any panel of users to consistently decide cases in the timeframe proposed. I think it's worth a try though to see how it shakes out. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC).
21. Support This is a well thought out and much needed proposal. Sam Walton (talk) 10:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
22. Support, nothing here to complain about, really. The proposers have done their due diligence on this, though I should note that there should be a means to remove and replace a member of the committee who steps out of bounds in some way (i.e. participating in a case they are involved in instead of recusing). This is especially needed if admins will serve on the committee, since it would make no sense for an admin who was dragged before the committee to remain on it if he was. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 10:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
23. Support, we need something like this. It would probably slightly reduce my likelihood of opposing some of the RFAs that are marginal in my mind. I share Jasper Deng's caveat that "I would want to make sure that when the procedures are hardened out, they would make this process be fully fluid and truly community-based," and his remarks in the Discussion section. I think we should give this a try. --Stfg (talk) 10:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
24. Support: a well thought out proposal by two users I have a great deal of respect for. Process seems very simple but not lacking any substantial details and I certainly agree with the principle of promoting more admins but making it easier to demote. Everyone seems to agree that RfA is incredibly flawed and perhaps it's because the !voters don't have enough information—no-one can actually work out how a user will act when they have the mop until they have it, and most !votes (whether support or oppose) seem to be quite superficial. The solution would be to just have an easier removal system, so there's more of a feeling that people are granted adminship temporarily, or until they start causing problems. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 10:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
25. Support per noms. Widr (talk) 10:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
26. Support They say the devil is in the details, and I don't know if the detailed procedures will find consensus, but let's go forward and try -- the outline looks fine. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
27. It's ludicrous that desysoppings have to go through Arbcom.—S Marshall T/C 11:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
28. Support Clearly a well thought out idea, that looks like it will work. Brustopher (talk) 11:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
29. Support Yes, there are some sub-standard decisions made by people not up to scratch, and with ANI worse than useless as a venue for coming to clear cut decisions once the peanut gallery clouds the issue, there has to be a better way. - SchroCat (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
30. I support, and the proposal is well thought-out and balanced. Though I have to comment, if it's lightweight... then that really says something about how cumbersome the current system is (=desysop by arbcom). Well, I knew that. As for recall, as an example, I've had a quite frustrating experience of trying to use recall against an admin who had made certain promises in their RFA, who would surely never have reached sufficient support without those promises, and who chose to renege on/wikilawyer them when they were invoked. Talk about a timesink, and they're still an admin. Yes, recall is a joke. Bishonen | talk 12:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC).
31. Support - It is long overdue that there should exist a community-based and community-initiated process for addressing long-term behavioral issues of administrators that "fly below the radar" of ARBCOM. The process should be relatively quick, it should be tempered with reasonable due process and protection from the ANI "pitchforks" mentality, the deliberative decision-making body should include non-administrators, and there should be an appeals process. Kudpung and Worm That Turned's proposal satisfies those criteria, and the details may be tweaked in the future, as necessary, based on actual experience. This is a necessary step forward. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
32. Support, well thought out process, some additional details can be ironed out in the next phase, but the basis of this proposal is sound, and it is needed. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

    Support: this process seems very well thought out - while a number of more specific details will need to be worked out, as a framework, this proposal seems effective. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC) Changed to weak support: many of the opposes bring up good points, such as the fact that this proposal wouldn't have much more community input than ArbCom. However, I still support this stage of the RfC, as long as the second stage will make way for some major improvements. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 12:36, 28 July 2015 (UTC) Moved to Oppose after careful consideration. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

    (Moved to Oppose) Support conditionally, as I'd need to see detailed procedures before fully supporting. In particular, I would want to see community-oriented procedures to appoint the five non-bureaucrat members (as giving 33 bureaucrats full control over a de-sysop process by choosing who votes is not community oriented) and what thresholds of successful/unsuccessful complaint you plan to set. I'd also be very interested in a restriction that only admins can bring complaints. If a legitimate complaint exists, any editor acting in good faith could find a sysop that would be willing to open a case for procedural reasons if nothing else. If a legitimate complaint does not exist, this would help limit the drama. ~ Rob^Talk 13:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

33. Support Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
34. Strong Support in principle; a system needs to be put in place, and this one seems well thought out and not overburdensome. This deserves serious consideration. Scr★pIron^IV 13:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
35. Support Largely per Dennis Brown. I do note some thoughtful concerns in the opposition of Nick-D, but I think the concern about frivolous complaints (which I share) can be fixed in the procedures phase, where I would recommend that multiple editors have to sign on to a complaint before it would be considered.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
36. Enthusiastic Support. A community-driven desysopping process is sorely needed, and this is a great step in the right direction. The integrity of the en-wiki bureaucrats (when they don their bureacruat fezzes, anyway) is neigh unimpeachable. Yes, the proposed process is a little bit complicated, but not nearly as burdensome as Arbcom. If this actually results in a more "easy come, easy go" view of adminship on RFA, all the better. HiDrNick! 13:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
37. Support Long overdue. Arbcom can't deal with this effectively. Intothatdarkness 13:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
38. Strong support per Worm, Dennis Brown, SchroCat, and many others. We're lacking an effective forum to bring complaints about substandard admins (nether ANI nor ArbCom are effective for this) and this is looks to be a well-thought-out proposal to create one; it's worth a try. I am somewhat less concerned about the process than I am about what the criteria would be for demotion, however I trust that both will form part of this discussion and/or be decided by the community, so it is not a major concern for me. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
39. Support - Arbcom does a good job handling de-sysops once a case is accepted. However, Arbcom is a bit of a juggernaut and takes entirely too long to prosecute cases. The DangerousPanda case was one of the swifter cases, but still took 56 days. The arguments for crats serving on the committee are compelling. My only mild reservation is the provision for allowing crats to appoint five editors from the community at large. I think there should be an popular election process, and I think the number of admin seats should be proportional to the number of active admins in the active editor population.- MrX 14:56, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

    The DangerousPanda case was one of the swifter cases, but still took 56 days, only because DangerousPanda said that he was busy and could not participate in the case, so the deadlines were extended to accommodate his needs. Two other cases I drafted where no such problem was present were handled much more quickly: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds, 1 month and 1 day; Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Nightscream, 1 month and 3 days. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

40. (edit conflict) Support. There are technically possible ways to remove the tools as of now, and I have argued that due to the availability of such processes the community should not make RfA so difficult, but I understand that the community desires a process which, although orderly and reasonably protected from frivolous complaints, is still somewhat community-based, unlike ArbCom. I would only suggest though, that panel members have more time than 24 hours to deliberate a case. --Biblioworm 15:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
41. Support - Well thought out and supported, especially "lightweight, efficient yet robust community de-adminship process" per BethNaught in discussion. Also..."a more efficient and more streamlined system to address sysop issues". Buster Seven Talk 15:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
42. Support - This is good enough. There's no perfect solution. If we keep rejecting proposals because they aren't perfect, then we'll never accomplish anything. Gigs (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
43. Support - A well thought - out and presented proposal. More community - based and timely. To echo a support comment above, good mops have nothing to concern them with this proposal. However I take on board Nick D's 2nd reservation, regarding the potential competency of the non admin element. That may need some refinement. But this measure still devolves power, which imo is a net plus. Irondome (talk) 15:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

    — Ched :  ?  16:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

44. Support . Better than the status quo, under which admins, including incompetents and bad actors, remain in their posts for life. Coretheapple (talk) 16:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
45. Support. If a proposal along these lines is implemented, it will allow for far better management of the problems. ArbCom is overworked, they don't have much room to manage problems that are not very serious by ArbCom standards, but which to many in the community are a problem. They then end up not accepting the case, so problems are not dealt with. A new committee could intervene in such cases and come up with a remedy that doesn't necessarily have to be a desysopping. The bottom line is that ArbCom hasn't got the flexibility to adapt to deal with problems the community thinks should be solved, while a new committee specifically set up to deal with Admin related issues will likely be able to evolve over time due to community feedback and become better and better at fixing Admin related problems. Count Iblis (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
46. Support - Something like this has been badly needed for a long time. BMK (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
47. Support It's about time something like this was implemented. This will increase the amount of successful RfAs as well as removing long term admins behaving with poor conduct while misusing the tools. Winner 42 Talk to me! 16:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
48. Support Based on Worm that turned 's comments throughout this page. KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 16:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
49. 'Support - Easier removal of tools of abusive Administrators will lessen the stakes and hopefully soften the tone of the RFA process. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
50. Support - For multiple reasons. I believe this process is the best alternative to what we currently have in place. The recall process is broken, not all admins participate in it and it would still ultimately require the admin to voluntarily give up their admin privileges. It would lessen Arbcom's workload and the current method is a time sink and I believe they're overworked as is. It would expand the Bureaucrat role with new responsibility which I think has seen a diminishing role over time, and they are probably one of the most trusted groups here due to the high standards required by the community at RfB. Just my two cents. —  dainomite   17:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
51. Support - Makes good sense. Long overdue. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
52. Support - in my capacity as an administrator and editor. This is not a statement of support from the WMF, and I speak only in my private capacity... -Philippe (talk) 17:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

    Support. I don't see a major problem because there's an appeals process. If, by some reason, this ends up not working, it can always be repealed. Let's at least give this a try because this is probably the closest we've ever gotten to a solution to what just about everyone says is a huge problem. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

53. Support Great idea. Get the ball rolling, the sooner, the better. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
54. Support The community makes admins, so they should also be able to unmake them. I'm surprised this isn't already on the books. RO^(talk) 17:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
55. Support in principle, but at least three important issues need to be figured out, possibly at the second stage: (i) who and how may submit proposals and how to avoid the witchhunt: (ii) how the committee is formed; (ii bis) what to do with the fact that the crats were not elected for this role - should they agree, be reconfirmed, or only new crats will be eligible or smth.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
56. Support in principle. What constitutes a "legitimate case" would need to be defined, at least broadly, before this is fully adopted. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
57. Support – Something is better than nothing, at this point. So many reform attempts have failed, so I can do nothing else than support this proposal in good faith. (see WP:ASC) RGloucester — ☎ 18:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
58. Support – The community doesn't need to be dependent on ArbCom for desysops and the explanation that we don't need a community process because "ArbCom does it when necessary" ignores the community aspect of Wikipedia. The claims of "witch hunts" have been used to shut these proposals down for years and I'm sick of seeing that too. The community should nad must have a process for desysopping administrators who have lost their trust. Kindzmarauli (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
59. Support Sure, it's not perfect, and it's not finished down to the last detail, but as a framework to be developed into something the community has repeatedly expressed a strong desire for, it's the best proposal I've seen. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
60. Support I like the "gate". I'd rather see community consensus, and a tie over consensus, should be no consensus. But it would be better than not having a process. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC).
    
61. Support This is a smart way to go about this otherwise difficult issue. New England Cop (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
62. Marginal support - Bureaucrats already have the power to de-sysop an admin. In any other real-life situation, it's not unusual that a person established in an existing position gets a new responsibility thrust upon them. They would now have the responsibility to exercise that power. However, I have doubts about the "committee of five" proposed here and about the way they are selected, likewise for the "static community members." Also, can we please dispense with the creation of more acronyms. The 1990s are calling and they want their newspeak back. --Unready (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
63. Support Nothing wrong with this proposal. It's long overdue, as DirtLawyer and others have noted. petrarchan47คุก 22:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
64. Support Long overdue. We don't need more admins, we need more QUALITY admins. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 00:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
65. Support - While the proposed process here seems a lil quick (less than 2 weeks in total duration), Wikipedia for sure needs a process to remove problem administrators. I'm certainly willing to try this kind of a process out. Guy1890 (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
66. Support - Enthusiastically the 'lightweight process' but only partially the slightly overly bureaucratic (heh) committee approach. It seems that the same effect could be archived (with) less the requirement for consistency if it was handled more like a traditional close (perhaps only five). That could consist of a volunteers consisting of (at least) one bureaucrat (the group of whom would of course have an implicit veto on the desysop... since you can never require someone to use their tools). Anyhow, I feel that is something that can be handled in the workshop/round II/details phase. Regards, Crazynas ^t 02:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
67. Support as a major improvement to the status quo. Quite frankly I would support a reverse RfA style community desysoping procedure despite the obvious problems but this is at least better than having to go through a full ArbCom case for a reasonably clear cut case of admin abuse. The time limits are perhaps a little strict and it might be nice to have a way to tweak the policy without going through a full RfC again. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
68. Support; this seems like it could actually work! Provides a way to remove a bad admin without the process and bureaucracy of ArbCom, while keeping it impossible for a group of disgruntled editors to band together and remove an admin who has done nothing wrong. Admin accountability is important, and if an admin no longer the confidence of the bureaucrats, they should be removed. I recognized some of the opposers' comments about bureaucrats' not being elected for this role, but from what I have seen of them, the active ones such as Worm That Turned, Acalamari, and Xeno are some of the most level-headed editors we have here, and I would trust them with this role. StringTheory11 (t • c) 02:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
69. Support in principle. And per Coretheapple's, Jimbo's, Casliber's, Rich Farmbrough's, etc's comments.--Elvey^(t•c) 03:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
70. Support The proposal needs some work but we should seek a consensus that this is firstly needed, and then secondly how to properly implement it. Mkdw^talk 04:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
71. Support, and I don't even need to add caveats; enough eyes are on this issue site-wide that any kinks will iron out. This looks like the first sensible administration reform proposition in a long time, and could go a long way to returning WP to the originally envisioned "adminship is no big deal" system instead of our current stratified wikisociety. The productivity benefits of a lot more admins would be enormous. I'm not swayed by the "all kinds of trolls will become admins" stuff; the whole point is any bad-acting admin will be easier to get rid of. The "gatekeeping" 'Crat-and-community board should prevent this from becoming an ANI / AE type of "witchhunt by whoever is in a bad mood that day" process). I'm also not at all convinced by the "just make a new streamlined ArbCom process for this" counter-arguments. ArbCom has proven itself stubbornly resistant to any community-requested changes in how it goes about anything. If ArbCom could and would fix itself on matters like this, it would have done so years ago. And it's not even ArbCom members (that I've seen so far) saying "no, we'll do this", it's misc. editors saying it theoretically could. Too little, too late.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

    PS: Actually, one caveat: I agree with jc37's suggestion in the Discussion section that fleshing out the committee with volunteers, like unto RfC closers, would be better than the 'crats appointing the non-'crat committee members. I trust that such possibilities will remain open for discussion, either before implementation, or as a solution if the currently planned way doesn't work as well as we'd like.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

72. Support - long overdue. Atsme^📞📧 11:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
73. Support Vast improvement over current method, and possibly the best solution I've seen to one of our long-running problems. Conifer (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
74. Support High time to give a sound proposal a chance to replace the highfalutin, time dragging, over-engineered Arbcom process. Time will tell, but only if it is given a chance. Leaky Caldron 18:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
75. Support This proposal changes the rules, in an area crying out for rules change. Making Admin rights 'no big deal' returns a balance sorely lacking now. If this passes and is successfully implemented, turn your attention to RfA, and change the 'minimums' to become an admin.→StaniStani 19:35, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
76. Support. I was the punching bag main author of an earlier proposal for community desysopping, and this page revives a lot of memories. But seriously, I think that this proposal, overall, is well thought-out, and that moving the proposal forward to the second stage of discussion would be beneficial for Wikipedia. I think that having the Crats play a significant role will address the concern expressed about earlier proposals, that the process would be too vulnerable to groups of disgruntled editors. Although I have come to believe that ArbCom has gotten good at dealing with these problems (in ways that it wasn't effective several years ago), I think that having a second venue would lessen the load on ArbCom (which is excessive in ways that the Crat load is not), and would be appreciated by the community. I would, however, caution that the present version does not allow enough controls for situations where the administrator being evaluated is away from Wikipedia during the process, or where that admin needs more opportunities to present evidence in defense. The timeline seems a bit too quick to me. I also think that both Salvio and Xeno make numerous excellent suggestions in the discussion sections below, and I recommend that what they say be given full consideration in developing the next draft. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
77. Support. Structured accountability is a good thing. North of Eden (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
78. Support A useful proposal so far as it goes, to make adminship less of a big deal and not a lifetime appointment when it becomes clear that the admin has not lived up to the rosy picture painted in the RFA . The devil's in the details, so the second RFC where more details emerge will be of great interest and importance. Edison (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
79. There are a couple of aspects of this proposal that I don't think are optimal, or that I don't particularly like. But if everyone opposes every proposal that doesn't 100% match their idea of perfection, nothing will ever happen. This is good enough. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
80. Support per Edison. Has its weaknesses but is a good point of departure for the next RfC on the execution. A mechanism is required so that adminiship is not a big deal. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
81. Support. I agree with the people who've said that it's better to have something than nothing. Currently, there's nothing the community can do about admins who are incompetent without being actively malicious. This is much better than surveying a lynch mob at ANI or waiting months for Arbcom to render a decision. Complex cases can still be referred to Arbcom. I also like some of the arguments made here in the support section, especially about turning adminship back into "no big deal". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

    Arbcom has proven more than capable of desysopping admins who are allegedly incompetent but totally unmalicious. This is not a matter of having something rather than nothing, the question here is are we prepared to give hyper active editors an advantage over people with off wiki lives and interests by having a process that lets those who are full time 7 days a week editors drive out admins they dislike? ϢereSpielChequers 09:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

82. Support It seems that only Arbcom removes admin rights. It is time that the community have their say. If an admin is not active for three years or more or have misused the tools then the desysopped admin should reapply again at WP:RFA --EurovisionNim (talk to me)(see my edits) 11:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

    Mildly, Arbcom are elected by the community. And under the current system, admins who are not active for a year already have the tools removed. -- Euryalus (talk) 21:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

83. I'm curious to see how this works. If an administrator has clearly lost the confidence of the community, then it'll be easier than going through the hassle of sending it to ArbCom over and over again. Kurtis ^(talk) 21:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
84. Support Necessary, reasonable, and well-throughout process. --I am One of Many (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
85. Support a necessary process if admins are to be elected indefinitely. As stated above, the devil will be in the details. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
86. Support this stage of the proposal, in order to keep alive the definition process, which detail I hope to see come next. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
87. Support, per reasoning stated above. I think it's a good idea. Epic Genius (talk) 18:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
88. Strong support Swarm summed up my reasoning well in his comment above. I like the idea of a transparent means of redirecting some potential casework from ArbCom, and directing simple requests for de-adminship to a more efficient process with, hopefully, much less drama; that, to me, is preferable to grueling ArbCom proceedings. It makes sense to involve bureaucrats, chosen by virtue of their perceived level-headedness and experience in assessing consensus, in such a process—and I also like the idea of involving members of the community. The proposal, as it stands, is clear and concise—a terrific starting point for the next stage of discussion. Tyrol5 [Talk] 22:08, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
89. Support per clarification that I'd misread and the Arbcom appeal process is there. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
90. Support this stage of the process. Details need to be worked out, but that is explicitly not the point of this RfC. I see the need for a process that sits above the maelstrom that is AN/I and below the level needed for arbcom. Something that has the power to desysop but can also (and ideally would normally) result in lesser sanctions (admonishment, advice, restrictions) that would form part of the dispute resolution process. Thryduulf (talk) 09:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
91. Support in principle. Clearly needs further discussion as to the details, but a good starting point. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
92. Support in the hope that this will make the barrier at RfA lower. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
93. Support it's a good start. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
94. Support based on the narrative presented by the proposers and my not being convinced by the opposition. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
95. Support I would prefer to see adminship being for a fixed period, renewable by RfA, to destress the whole thing, but this is better than the status quo. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 21:12, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
96. In general. I'll refrain from spelling out my exact thoughts, as those can come in RfC number two. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 00:32, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
97. Support - This might be the thing we need the most at this time. GamerPro64 00:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

    (Moved to Oppose) Mz7 (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC) After re-reading the proposal, the supporting and opposing arguments, and reflecting on them, I feel I need to reconsider. Striking support for now. Mz7 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC) Support - Like others, I support the idea of having a separate committee that's more light in gravity compared to Arbcom. Adminship, while it gives you more tools and responsibilities, is not (or, I suppose, should not be) a position of "status"—they are fellow editors who have been trusted with an added toolset. It is to the benefit of the encyclopedia if being an administrator is no longer a "big deal", and it starts with making it easier to respectfully lose the tools while keeping one's dignity in the process—this is currently attempted by the voluntary "recall" system, which I feel is not adequate. This proposal in principle does away with the "free-for-all" mentality at ANI, and the long and laborious process of arbitration that is sometimes unnecessary for simpler cases. Per my comments below, I also like how Arbcom is still the final avenue of dispute resolution, the existence of this proposed committee notwithstanding. That being said, while it's a start, I'm somewhat swayed by some of those opposing, namely the concerns over the role of bureaucrats, but I would like to see this proposal move forward into the "hashing out the details" stage to attempt to address some of the opposing concerns before shooting this down outright. Mz7 (talk) 17:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

98. Support Happy with this initial concept to move de-adminiship procedures from ArbCom and try to create a more accessible and easier process to suspend adminship when behavior has been problematic. Looking forward to diving into the nitty gritty. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 22:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
99. Support - I think something like this would help things run more smoothly and stop us being reliant on ArbCom for so much. I'm sure there is scope to improve the proposal, but we won't really find out until we try it. If issues arise, we can always tweak things using using the usual consensus approach. Yaris678 (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
100. Support - I've been watching this discussion and am now certain that I am in support of this proposal. Good reservations have been raised by nearly every participant, irrespective of their expressed level of support. The sum of these good points convince me that this proposal is fit to proceed towards implementation, and that it is considerably worthwhile to the project; even past due.--John Cline (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
101. Support: This is a well-thought out proposal that relies on many existing internal structures, and does not seek to reinvent the wheel. Although there are some kinks that will surely be worked out in the future, right now I see it as the best path forward as we move towards admin accountability, something I think most admins favor. I am sympathetic to arguments that this will lead to witch hunts against administrators who take controversial action or who work in contentious areas -- many of whom I hold in the highest regard and for whom I have great respect -- I trust our bureaucrats to be an effective gatekeeper. Consequently, I offer my support to this proposal, and commend Kudpung and Worm That Turned for moving it along. Go Phightins! 03:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
102. Support —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:49, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
103. Support. I am all for this. –Fredddie™ 21:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
104. Support - Maybe it's just me but I've been sick and tired of the whole "admins versus the rest" perception for years and years. Anyone who's read about the Milgram experiment and the Stanford prison experiment might conclude as I have that, unchecked, admins will tend naturally towards being assholes (and yes I've been there and done that - albeit my worst period was about 20 years ago) unless they continually remind themselves they serve the community, not lead it. Recruiting a more diverse range of admins is one way of doing it, having a formal means of ensuring admins will keep their ego in check is another. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:33, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
105. Support The lack of a desysop procedure that the community finds effective is a signficant issue for the encyclopedia, and I believe this proposal puts us on a path to doing better. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
106. Support: Though I limited faith in this proposal, I'll go over the falls with my fellow support !voters. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
107. Support At least this will break through the inertia. At the very least it will be a place where all those who spout off about admin abuse will have to "put up or shut up". Crying 'Admin Abuse!' is just like crying 'SOCK!'. There needs to be a place where evidence can be presented and the issue handled and where false/abusive reports can be sanctioned. Jbh^Talk 23:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

     Those who spout off about unspecified admin abuse already have arbcom if they have a valid genuine case to make against an admin. Arbcom is elected by the community and one of the things they do is warn, desysop and even ban admins. This is about setting up an alternative to Arbcom for those who don't want the Arbcom system of having to show evidence including attempt at prior resolution and then give the accused admin and others time to rebut that. ϢereSpielChequers 06:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

     Yes, but issues that may not be ripe for ArbCom may still be major problems. As far as prior attempts at resolution I think that the community has proven that they can not handle bad behavior by admins. ArbCom is great at handling bright-line rule violations but that is not the only kind of problem that exists. I have seen many senior editors go off the rails and they get handled by our system, either by a blocking admin, AN/ANI or finally ArbCom. I have seen one admin block another (whether properly or not> and it resulted in an ArbCom case and a desysop. I bet we do not see any more admins blocking other admins for anything for a very long time. The amount of damage that can be done to the project before ArbCom accepts a case can be immense and few people want to deal with participating even if they have a genuine complaint.

     As to the potential for gaming and false accusations:

     • While there are likely to be bad reports either malicious or simply because the reporting editor is wrong the process can be designed to handle that. The Committee, I hope, will not be made up of stupid people. In either case there will be a record of the complaint and its resolution which can a) establish a pattern of false reports, which can be sanctioned and b) establish a pattern of 'just under the bar' complaints which can indicate a problem.
     • Instead of just spouting off an editor who has a complaint has a place to go. This gives two benefits: It can reduce festering bitterness. Often people just want to be heard and are less likely to spin off the rails if they have recourse they can believe in. ANI is not that place; By treating accusations admin abuse claims like SOCK claims (ie file a complaint with proof or drop it) it gives admins protection against editors bad-mouthing them.
     • The complaints of 'the Bureaucrats were not elected for this' is the weakest complaint against this proposal. If this proposal is ever implemented there will likely have been mare community discussion and participation to pass it than in all of the RfBs combined and their authority flows from this process not their RfB.

     If we must have something other than ArbCom to deal with admin misbehavior, and I believe we do, then the Bureaucrats, our most trusted users, are who to build the process around. We need to do something to break down the us vs them attitude which has grown up here. Right now there is a very strong 'class system' where admins are perceived as being nearly untouchable. ANI is broken, for this and just about everything else, and ArbCom is a ponderous beast. All solutions are going to be less than perfect but perfection is not the goal here. Jbh^Talk 11:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

108. Support while not sure if this is the ideal solution, it definitely seems like a step in right direction compared to the current situation.--Staberinde (talk) 15:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
109. Support. Long overdue. Clearly, this is a draft proposal, but IMO the suggested committee involves both community participation and necessary authority. The details may be hammered out later, when the proposal passes in its principle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Staszek Lem (talk • contribs) 16:02, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
110. Support the principle of this, but that does not mean I would automatically support any devils in the details proposed at phase two. Moriori (talk) 23:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
111. Most admins are great. This is not for them. Red Slash 04:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
112. Support, while this may not be the ideal solution. It's much better than what we have now. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk 15:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
113. Support This, unlike many "fix RFA" proposals, seems to have been thought out, and I feel the drafters know what they are doing. KonveyorBelt 19:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
114. Support in principle. It's not perfect by any means, but we need a community desysopping process that, most importantly, prevents pettiness and politics from getting rid of an otherwise good admin. The details would have to be very carefully ironed out, but at its core it's very difficult not to support. Arbcom only deals with the particularly problematic admin actions when they arise, but that means those who consistently misuse the tools or are a problem at a smaller level can roam free. Wizardman 22:54, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
115. Support. I think the proposal is solid; I read through the opposes and I still think there's a need for the suggested committee. APerson (talk!) 03:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Yet another go-round the same loop. ArbCom will desysop if there is evidence of misuse of tools, this is simply an invitation to witch-hunts. We have seen many examples where offsite groups have mounted co-ordinated attempts to rid themselves of admins they don't like. The number of instances where this is likely to be invoked other than through grudges, seems to me to be extremely small. Guy (Help!) 08:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   Surely this is better than the current situation? ArbCom cases are long and drawn out, here cases should last a maximum of 11 days or if there is little basis for a complaint only 3. I'd hope that we would elect committees with enough sense to spot a frivolous report when presented to them. Sam Walton (talk) 08:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   Arbcom does desysop, after months of discussion. Many who have been desysopped by Arbcom go on to leave the project, so we lose an editor as well as an admin. Perhaps if some of those cases had gone through this instead, they wouldn't have felt the need to leave. Worm^TT(talk) 09:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   This proposal is specifically designed with the very purpose in mind of avoiding the traditional witch hunts and kangaroo courts that ANI is, and RFC/U used to be until we got it deprecated. The community will be able to have its say on the case talk page, but there's no guarantee, any more than at Arbcom, that their rattliing of sabres will be heard. One must not make the error of assuming that this system will only treat cases of misuse of the tools; it will hopefully do something which Arbcom does 'not' do so very well: hear cases of long term patterns of behaviour unbecoming of admins that often manage to stay just under the radar but nevertheless does quite a bit of damage. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   That's one of the principal draws for me. I was threatened with sanctions at WP:AE because I dared to present some evidence that was "too told" according to rules that did not exist except in the minds of ArbCom's enforcers at AE, a brotherhood who would virtually never listen to a complaint about an admin's behavior anyway. Unless things have radically changed lately. I almost never bother any more with AE, ANI, or AN, and have little faith in these processes, after repeated, blatant administrative misconduct in them. I look forward to a means of thwarting any further WP:TAGTEAM abuse of the kind that's driven me into leaving the project for months at a time, several times just over the last year alone (and once for most of a whole year). I estimate it's cost the project over 1,000 hours of my contributions. How many admin ego-preenings is that worth, I wonder? More to the point, how many other editors, with skins thinner than mine, and less patience for jackassery, are just gone forever because of this kind of stuff? ArbCom's unwillingness to act except upon immediately-manifest problems, with very little evidence allowed, just doesn't cut it.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

2. Bureaucrats act based on community discussion. Not based on their own discussion (like Arbcom) - even taking into account the five community spots. This would basically just create another arbcom-lite. If you want to do that, just create a process for a cut-down desysop case with a panel of 3 active sitting arbiters with rigid submission rules. Much simpler to set up and administer - I or anyone else who works in refining process-flows (I believe at least one admin offered to do this recently) could get a draft in a day or two. Arbcom's case problem is that all types of cases are mostly handle d the same - when better up-front organisation would cut down the time needed massively. I would however support any proposal that allows crats to desysop based on clear community discussion - there is no functional reason why AN could not handle a discussion on if an administrator's actions deserve them losing their admin status. The recent 'block while involved' misuse of tools by Kww shows that. The only reason that case has gone to arbcom is that there is not a process in place for removing tools by community discussion. Give the crats the ability to desysop yes - but we already have one time-consuming and ineffective body, lets not turn the part of wikipedia's bureaucratic processess that actually works well into another. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   To be honest, I would prefer 10 user's selected at random like jury service (although of course, it would have to be opt-in) to be a better option... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   In this system, the Bureaucrats are not just gatekeepers, they are part of the deliberating committee. Knowing that what we see of Arbcom's work is only the tip of the iceberg, I felt that to respond to the community's perennial calls for a more efficient and more streamlined system to address sysop issues, devolving it from Arbcom but keeping it under the aegis and participation of our most respected members,would be the logical step. It's either that or increase the number of Arbcom members so that they can form a sub committee for the purpose. That would not however address the communiy's claims that Arbcom as a body is not proficient to resolve sysop problems. At the same time, the effort is to deliberately avoid am ANI type structure at all costs. It's even much harder to maintain decorum and common sense at ANI than it is at RfA.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   Well I would prefer streamlining arbcom and increasing members than involving the bcrats as part of the deliberating committee. I want them to flick the switch, not get stuck in a discussion about if it should be on or off. The majority of the community's problems with desysops are about the process required, not that it is arbcom doing it. Arbcom are proficient at desysopping, given the current process to work with. Give them a better process and most problems would disappear. Personally I *still* think a decision to remove admin rights needs more community involvement, not less - which is what happens when issues are escalated to arbcom or (as above) to a new arbcom-lite. Which is why I would also support giving the crats the ability to remove admin rights given a clear consensus to do so. (It isnt inconceivable to do both) Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   It's certainly one suggestion for improvement and if you were to propose it, I'd give it significant thought. However, I'd probably oppose because I'd like to see Arbcom's powers devolved, having sat on it for 2 years, I am of the opinion that it is far too powerful a committee and handles a lot of stuff which would be better handled elsewhere. That's why I'm throwing my weight behind this suggestion. I will, however, challenge one point - "The majority of the community's problems with desysops are about the process required, not that it is arbcom doing it". Having spoken to a large number of people on this, there is a sentiment that Arbcom are not always up to the task due to its structure as well as it's processes. Many people have a low opinion of the committee generally, it's even mentioned in the archive of this proposal's talk page. On top of that, there is a concept that if you go into an Arbcom case, all parties generally come out worse off. The amount of work to raise an Arbcom is significant. There's all sorts of reasons that Arbcom is a less than optimal solution and a lightweight community alternative should be considered. Worm^TT(talk) 12:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   Not everyone agrees ArbCom is proficient at desysopping or even admonishing admins, and redressing the problems caused by admins who cross the line. The "proficient" assessment seems to be based on nothing but the fact that they've sometimes done it. ArbCom seems much better at dumping badly needed icewater on PoV-warrior flamefests (when they stick to disputes over encyclopedia content, instead of mistaking heated policy debate as a content dispute and interfering with the community's internal self-governance).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

   How would the 10-editor jury really differ from this plan, in a meaningful way, other than that in this one some of the jurors are 'crats? Bureaucrats are also editors, after all. The use of 'crats in it, from my view, is the assurance that this not just "ANI2". It's a hybrid between a court-modelled system like ArbCom and pure-jury system like ANI. Seems worth trying.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

3. While well meaning, I think that this proposal contains three serious flaws: 1) While I have a very high regard for the bureaucrats, they weren't selected for this role on their ability to investigate complaints against admins, as this has historically been the role of ArbCom - where it is a major issue considered by participants in their annual elections. Empowering the current bureaucrats with a role which has historically only been granted to popularly elected arbs and which they don't necessarily have the skills or desire to perform seems unduly risky. 2) The notion of the bureaucrats then picking (with undefined "community consultations") "five other static community members" to join them in passing judgement is even more problematic. These editors won't have passed through any formal community processes to give them a mandate to judge the conduct of people who have passed through a RfA process, and this process runs counter to how Wikipedia has historically handled selecting editors for significant positions of responsibility. 3) There doesn't seem to be any kind of process to prevent or even discourage frivolous complaints (which, for all its many faults, the labour required to lodge a RfArb does). There's a real risk that this will turn into an offshoot of ANI where grumpy editors file complaints against admins, thus creating yet more drama for few gains. I'd also prefer establishing a sub-committee of ArbCom to handle this kind of thing if the current processes aren't working given that its members are elected to handle serious complaints against admins and doing so would avoid creating another governance body. Nick-D (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   I believe that if anyone possesses the required skill set, our Bureaucrats have demonstrated, in so far as they are or have been active, more than sufficient level of tact, diplomacy, and wisdom. I am not sure that every one of our past and present Arbcom members can rise to that compliment or even have passed the stringencies of RfB.

   While it may not have been within the original remit for Bureaucrats to deal with or be involved in such matters, consensus can change, and over the years Wikipedians have demonstrated in many cases that they are able to rise to the challenge of successfully modernising and modifying our policies and procedures as the encyclopedia evolves. Most members of our pool of Bureaucrats have been with us for a very, very long time - indeed, many of them have fallen into quasi inactivity. If we wish to retain the very notion of Bureaucrats, like the anticipated increase in the flow of RfA perhps this current initiative will help build a larger team of Bureaucrats.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   I think that NickD and the other opposers raise some good points. I agree that it has weaknesses, such as reliance on "bureaucrats" and their appointees, who may not be up to the job or make poor calls. But right now the utter absence of a process needs to be rectified by something, and this is as good as any. Coretheapple (talk) 16:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   Something needs to be done; this is something; this needs to be done... Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   My read is "Something needs to be done, and this something appears to be good enough, so this should be done for now." Doesn't imply either lack of evaluation, or denial of possible better solutions at some point, just that continuing to do nothing is not acceptable when an incremental possible improvement can be tested. Perfection is not required, and neither is absence of resistance or alternative ideas; otherwise ArbCom wouldn't exist, either, and neither would WP itself.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

   Yes that's putting it well. I've found that some admins simply want nothing to be done that changes the status quo, and that one can present them with a judicial mechanism worthy of Oliver Wendell Holmes and they'd be opposed to it. Yes something needs to be done; this is imperfect, and yes a handful of admins will be screaming bloody murder, but tough. The current system needs to change. Coretheapple (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

4. Preliminary stance. I'd like to see the procedures involved - particulary with the idea of strongly restricting frivolous complaints. Also #2 of what Nick-D said, while I don't distrust the current Bureaucrat roster at all that looks a bit too in-groupey to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 13:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
5. Emphatic Oppose Another half-baked proposal. (1) We're to approve this and then figure out how it's supposed to work (see note here)? Oh hell no. Either put your cards on the table and tell us how this is going to work or don't propose the process for approval. (2) There's no outline for how "other editors of the community" will be appointed to this board except some vague process involving the community. (3) This proposal suffers from the fatal problem some other proposals have failed from: Bureaucrats have not been elected to review admin conduct, as that has been an ArbCom function...one for which we vet and elect ArbCom. Nobody has ever reviewed a bureaucrat for their suitability in reviewing admin conduct and conflict resolution. (4) This proposal puts the cart before the horse. We can keep throwing processes at the wall for years (and in fact we have). But, until we first come up with the problems we are trying to solve, every proposal is a total shot in the dark as is this one. (5) To call this a "lightweight" process is absurd. There's some vague procedure for how the five bureaucrats are to be appointed, there's what will no doubt be a nightmarish procedure for members of the community to be appointed to it, voting mechanisms which will no doubt involve clerks like we have at ArbCom, and some process for placing injunctions. To call all of this lightweight is akin to calling the RMS Queen Mary 2 a rowboat. (6) Before even considering whether this could possibly be a valid process one needs to ask this question: "What administrator who was not desysopped would have been desysopped by this process?" If you can't come up with a single example, then it becomes blatantly obvious this process has no purpose. In summary We already have a seriously broken process. We don't need another one. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   No process this big would ever get through a Wikipedia RfC process fully baked and I think you're naive to think otherwise. What we've spent our time doing is finding the balance of putting enough flesh on the bones that people can picture what the final solution will look like, but allowing for change to allow the community to find the right solution. Once the general solution is in place, we can firm up the different areas. Finally, as to the word "lightweight", compare it to the current options, a multiple month RfArb case, including four phases, hundreds of words of evidence, a committee which needs 2 months of elections and Jimbo to appoint. That's pretty much it. This process is designed to last a specific short period, with a group that is fairly simple to create, that's why I call it lightweight. Worm^TT(talk) 14:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but passing something and then figuring out the way to implement it isn't the way to do this. I'm not going to support anything for which I don't know how it's supposed to work. "Hey! I've got this great idea! I'll tell you what it is after you approve it!" Hell no. And while it might be lightweight compared to ArbCom, it is _far_ from being lightweight. This process is nothing more than ArbCom Lite. And, I ask again, "What administrator who was not desysopped would have been desysopped by this process?" --Hammersoft (talk) 14:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   I'm sorry, but all major policy proposals begin with a framework first. That's the way truly collaborative projects evolve and not by dismissing them outright before fully understanding what is involved and what the stakeholders have asked to be debated by the community. This is in fact the third in this series of debates - the previous two having received the consensus on which this one is built. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC).

   • Yeah, but now you're shifting into a process area as opposed to an abstract concept area. We can agree there needs to be something, but now you're proposing something without actually telling us what it is beyond some vague constructs. This is not how it works. When you get to the process stage, you need to flesh this out. How are you going to decide on the five bureaucrats? What if there aren't five bureaucrats willing to stand? Perhaps you don't know, but only 7 of the 33 bureaucrats have performed a rights action of any kind in the last three months. More than half of the bureaucrats have not performed a rights action in the last year. You're asking me not to dismiss the proposal before fully understanding it. Fine. I won't dismiss it. But I sure as hell am not going to vote FOR it before fully understanding it, and you've not given us anywhere near enough information to understand it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   • That's an interesting statistic. Did you include global renames in the "rights action"? How many "rights actions" were done in total - there's not a lot for 'crats to do at the moment, half a dozen RfAs and less bots approved, plus tidying up after inactive admins. Worm^TT(talk) 16:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   If we agree that there aren't enough bureaucrat actions to go around, we can instead consider general activity, as I did here. Only about half the current bureaucrats appear to have taken 10 or more admin actions in the past year, or made 10 or more edits in the past 30 days. In my opinion that would make a case that runs to completion in a week and a half and requires the active participation of five bureaucrats throughout, for the purpose of evaluating administrative practice, a rather impractical proposition. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

   If there aren't enough active 'crats right now isn't the solution obvious? Get more later.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

   I suspect the reason we don't have many RfBs is that there isn't much for bureaucrats to do at the moment. I'm sure we'd start getting a load more if there was this for them to do. In fact that's a good argument against some of the oppose votes here; some have argued that we didn't elect our current crats to do this, but if most of those crats aren't likely to be involved in this then there's no issue - we'll be electing new ones knowing that BARC is something they might be involved in. Sam Walton (talk) 10:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

   Don't answer "What administrator who was not desysopped would have been desysopped by this process?" Doing so would at very least be a WP:CIVIL issue and maybe a WP:NPA one, so any admin named in response to the question could take you to ArbCom for aspersion casting if you named them in answer to this question, and they would automatically win: The terms of the question require that it be an admin who already survived a desysopping procedure; i.e., the evidence you could present in defense of the aspersion has already been seen and rejected by ArbCom. The question is circular reasoning, and a trick-question trap. (In effect; I cast no aspersion about the intent!)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

   SMcCandlish's judgement, above, 'don't answer that', is an example of the deftness that a 'crat-based process should exemplify. What I am thinking of is an analogy with an ocean wave. A request is like a wave; the motive power of some wave is supplied by others, who are not the deciders.

   Instead, the motive power comes from something like the noticeboard inputs, in which the deciders can characterize the input efforts as helpful, material, or not. Then the 'crat's proven prowess at assessments (characterizing the flow of some thread in an intelligent manner) can be directed toward some decision. For example, tag teams could be easily detected, from previous noticeboard complaints. Screeds could be treated the same way, by characterizing the input appropriately, and folding it up under a label. Constant complainers could be detected and characterized in the same way. In other words, the 'crats could ride the wave of noticeboard emotion/evidence, like a surfboard, and steer that surfboard: the outcome of the decision, independently of the direction of the wave.

   This implies that a fixed number of 'crats is not a necessity, just as long as there is a sufficient number of them to ensure a stable assessment. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 23:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

6. How is it better to have a group of bureaucrats adjudicating desysops rather than arbitrators? I don't see how this would make any difference. Arbcom generally seems to do a good job deciding who should have the bit revoked in any case, so I don't see any point in setting up an additional committee. Gatoclass (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   In my experience people disagree with arbcom when they get an answer they don't like. Under the new system if you can't make your case with evidence, you can always go to a venue that is a lot closer to a public vote. Chillum 14:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   The first sentence seems like it boils down to "people disagree with what they disagree with", so I'm not sure what the point is. If you mean to imply that Wikipedians will not accept that with which they don't agree (or something like that - will circumvent anything that doesn't go their way, etc.), I wouldn't agree categorically. We're human, so there's some element of that (thus the WP:GAMING page), of course. But we operate all the time with decisions outside our individual control and preferred outcome. There are no policies (even the individual line-item policies that collectively make up a policy page) that have unanimous support, and probably no single editor supports every such policy point, but most of us abide by all of them (that we can remember), just like a football player plays by the rules of the league, not by what he wishes the rules were.

   "A venue that is a lot closer to a public vote" sounds suspiciously like RFA, admin recall, and community consensus generally, to a greater or lesser degree. I know you mean to make a GAMING / WP:FORUMSHOPPING point here, but I have to submit this sense you get could really be misinterpretation of signals that ArbCom is not as compatible with WP community values, processes, and expectations as it should be. I can't speak for everyone, just myself and those who've told me they quit the project over it, but some of our direct experience with ArbCom is that it will not act to restrain or even question the decision of a bad-acting admin unless it thinks the result will be popular among admins and make ArbCom look good. I've been ignoring ArbCom for a while, so maybe its membership has changed enough that it has reformed somewhat in this regard. But a lot of the damage is already done, the faith already lost. At any rate, I'm highly skeptical that BARC would entertain many desysopping requests that ArbCom had rejected, or vice versa, much less come to different conclusions, so I don't see where the 'SHOPPING concern comes from. This is a proposal for a process that will get on with it, and be more transparent, with a minimal amount of bureaucracy (which is amusing, given that it involves the bureaucrats).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

   The answer to your question is in the proposal. It's been clearly outlined why this proposal is being made. Whilst it may be true that cases that are brought before Arbcom are generally successfully concluded by Arbcom, we need to look at the bigger picture, understand the hundreds of comments around the site over the years that claim that inappropriate behaviour by admins too often escapes sanction alltogether, and then take the initiative to offer the commuity a proposal that addresses their concerns. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   Well you say the new committee will be used to handle "simpler cases", but surely the simpler cases can already be readily handled by arbcom. This looks to me like a system designed not to handle simpler cases, but more complex cases involving trying to establish a problematic pattern of behaviour rather than more black and white issues like, say, misuse of tools. So it's not likely to be a "lite" process at all. Secondly, this is not going to make a lick of difference to the number of successful RfAs in my view, but it may well lead to fewer people bothering to stand in the first place. And nobody has asked the bureaucrats if they want to do this. On the other hand, Arbcom arguably has enough to do without having to deal with this kind of problem, and a committee comprised at least in part of non-admins might help alleviate the "us-versus-them" mentality that exacerbates the admin/non-admin divide. Still, the proposal as presented is very vague, and certainly I have misgivings that it will be employed to harass administrators if adequate safeguards are not included. I think you are taking on a much bigger project than you imagine, and if this passes I don't envy the users who are going to have to figure out the fine details. Gatoclass (talk) 01:20, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

   I agree that using Crats to make decisions is bad, but using them to judge consensus is not. This proposal does a bit of both. The decisions are at the "gate" stage. I would like to see that simplified into binary decision which weeds out "clearly frivolous/vexatious" abuse. At the close, it's just a matter of judging consensus. The community should probably give some guidance in general about that. Referring "ties" to arbcom, I would abandon - no-consensus is no-consensus. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:01, 27 July 2015 (UTC).
   

   Agreed, and we know how the tie-breaker would go anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:46, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

7. Oppose Our current system is based on evidence, this system sounds like an invitation for a witch hunt every few days. This system looks more like an ANI discussion, well an ANI discussion can already block/ban etc an admin but it does not. This system seems vague and lacking in detail. Crats were never selected with the ability to make these choices in mind, they were selected for other reasons. I don't see what the current system offers that arbcom does not other than a reduced burden of evidence replaced with sentiment.

   I am amazed at how quickly the first 40 supports arrived here after this was opened to the public at large. May I ask what exactly you are all supporting because it seems to me that all of the meat of the proposal is yet to be established. What has been presented here is so lacking in detail that any number of systems could be spawned from it. This would establish crats as one of the most powerful authorities on Wikipedia and we have not even made it clear what form that authority will take other than leaving most of it up to them. Has anyone asked the crats if they even want this job? Chillum 14:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   For my part, I'm supporting a leaner alternative to dealing with desysop cases, that has greater community input but isn't an ANI-style free-for-all. Like everyone else, I see that some key details haven't been fleshed out yet. But this has been a cautious, step-wise process with open involvement the whole way, so there is no reason to suspect that it would suddenly be hijacked into StupidLand at the end. (If it is, we'll just scrap it.) I'm not supporting some Obama-campaign-style promise of "Change". You and several other opposers seem to think that no one has given any thought to this, and are just voting for "something different". Maybe someone is, but I don't think most of us are. Proposals for any kind of reformative alterations regarding the admin system usually die very rapidly. This one has earned buy-in. I say that as someone watching this evolve, not helping craft it; I have no vested interest more than any other J. Random Editor, albeit I'm one dissatisfied with ArbCom's handling of some things, historically at least (but a big thumbs up for ArbCom on doing what its real "job" is, as in cases like WP:ARBAA2).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  08:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

   This proposal is no more or less community based than arbcom is. With arbcom the community has a discussion and then a committee decides what happens, under this proposal the community has a discussion and a committee decides what happens. Chillum 17:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

8. Oppose. Definately not, we shouldn't be voting on anything until the proposal has been firmly thrashed out and discussed. Feels like votes for lynching all over again. If this proceeds. I think crats would all need to be reconfirmed to confirm that the community trusts them to desysop users. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   If we did that, then we would likely have another problem to deal with: we would not have any crats remaining, since all or almost all of them would likely be demoted. --Biblioworm 15:16, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

   Exactly, because this is not what they were selected for. The whole choice to use crats in my opinion is killing what otherwise would be a step in the right direction. Chillum 15:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

9. Oppose we really don't need a "ArbCom2" to have another level of bureaucracy. What's wrong with the present system? That has not been demonstrated. Why yet another governing body? Why does there have to be 5 bureaucrats, and what happens if there are not 5 standing that are worth voting for? The reason for a lack of administrators is that RfA is terribly broken, and this does nothing to fix this; in fact it could put people off trying, especially if there becomes a mob mentality after the latest block of Eric Corbett. Will encourage grudges and pushes for desysops for unpopular actions that may well need to be done. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
10. Hmm, being in this column puts me in some rather questionable company, doesn't it? Kudos to Kudpung for taking the time to come up with ideas, and I support the concept of some kind of misconduct committee separate from Arbcom—or a more general RFC committee with the powers to issue binding closures to RFCs, coupled with a revival of WP:RFC/U. I definitely don't support giving powers of this nature to the 'crats; this would be taking powers away from people who can be voted out, and giving them instead to people who are appointed for life. Wikipedia's governance structure is dysfunctional and corrupt as it is; the last thing it needs is its own House of Lords added to the mix. – iridescent 15:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

    Excellent point about ArbCom vs. Bureaucrats in the former being able to be voted out and the latter not. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

11. Oppose - For many of the reasons already stated - no need for an ArbCom2, bureaucrats have not been elected to do this. Also, more time should be allotted, given that this process is theoretically meant to deal with situations that are less urgent than an ArbCom case. It;s kind of silly that an admin can go on vacation for a week, come back and find that ArbCom2 is already most of the way through the process of desopping them without them having an opportunity to participate. Rlendog (talk) 16:48, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
12. Oppose Basically per Rlendog and others. Bureaucrats were not selected for their abilities to investigate and judge. You do realize that if this goes through, RfBs will take on immense drama and be very hard to pass--Wehwalt (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

    The controversial closure of the Liz RfA makes me even less inclined to trust the crats on this one. Indeed, I would look favorably on proposals to rein in their current roles. I also clarify that I oppose the proposal as a whole, not merely the crat role. ArbCom has shown themselves adequate to the need for any summary desysopings, perhaps even to excess (I think they are a little too prone to allow one mistake to have years of hard work go down the drain). I oppose both the proposal as a whole as unneeded, and the "judges" for the reasons stated above.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:58, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

13. Oppose Appreciate the concerns of the two primary drafters of this but I'm not seeing a problem with our admin corps that means another panel is needed to avoid arbcom. How many admins have fouled up enough we need a streamlined desysop process? Speaking from personal experience, one need not even have evidence submitted against them at arbcom to lose their admin tools.-MONGO 17:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
14. Oppose Concur with the reservations noted here, especially that of Chillum. Gamaliel (talk) 18:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
15. Oppose (moved from Support). I believe I've misunderstood this RfC. It reads like a general endorsement of the idea that we should build a method to desysop, and that this barebones system could act as a foundation for future discussions. These discussions have started to take shape as if we're actually approving a process that is not fully created yet, and I'm not at all okay with that. In particular, there seems to be nothing in this process whatsoever that protects good admins from harassment through this process. Allowing any two editors, with no requirements, to launch an ArbCom-lite inquiry is not wise. Providing admins with only 72 hours to respond to a complaint is not sufficient and easily gamed; just wait for an admin to go on vacation, and they'll be unable to respond to a complaint before discussion and possibly deliberations start. I appreciate the sentiment behind this RfC and support a consensus-based desysop process, but the proposed process is a recipe for the persistent harassment and eventual burnout of admins. If this RfC is intended as an actual approval of a process, it needs to be much more fleshed out before anyone should support it. ~ Rob^Talk 18:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
16. Oppose: Too uneven a standard, too subject to personalities and the vagaries of who joins a particular discussion, the time of day it starts and myriad other factors. Deysopping needs an even set of standards that are as objectively applied as possible, not mob rule. --Drmargi (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
17. Emphatic oppose Hammersoft and iridescent have this right. While I appreciate that the proposers are trying to find a way to navigate a long-standing contentious issue, I think this is trying to solve too many problems at once and as a result is internally inconsistent with its stated aims. It's intended to be "lightweight" but introduces a vast amount of new process and organization to choose the committee. The bureaucrats were not chosen for this task and are not as directly accountable to the community as arbitrators are, yet this is presented as a more community-forward process than Arbcom. It's designed to be "Arbcom lite" - presumably for issues that are less serious or urgent than those that would trigger a case request - yet it's also significantly faster. (As long as we're introducing new obligations to existing user groups, shall all admins commit to never going out of town or having real-life obligations that prevent pursuing a volunteer hobby for more than eleven days?)

    Most critically, this proposal falls victim to a common problem with "Big Ideas" here and elsewhere: there is no evidence provided that a) a problem actually exists, b) this proposal would be a useful and effective way to solve the problem, and c) it would not simply displace the problem somewhere else. The fact that people frequently complain about admin abuse and cite that possibility in their RfA opposes is not evidence that a "lightweight deadminship" process is needed; it's only evidence that this is a socially acceptable direction in which to vent some steam. Without an answer to Hammersoft's question 6, at minimum, there's nothing to be done here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

18. Oppose as currently worded. As per my comment below I can't support this wording, however I'm not against the idea of a community recall process and I have some suggestions. All that said, thinking that this will solve RFA is crazy. This process either stands on its own two feet as a recall mechanism or not. RFA fixes should be about RFA not recall. Also Salvio is making some very pertinent points. If the BARC is using the same standard as ArbCom what is the point--Cailil ^talk 21:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
19. Oppose. We need more admins, which means, partially, that we need more people willing to step up to the plate; to that end, adminship needs to be less stressful (as this proposal says.) The idea that being constantly subject to a rapid-fire desysoping process could make it less stressful is silly; this would make everything an admin does feel more politicized, and would make people less willing to step into the role. I don't agree with the idea that it could make RFA less stressful (by making granting adminship less of a final decision); at this point the culture of RFA is well-entrenched, and beyond that, the reluctance to promote an admin comes more, in my opinion, from a vicious cycle where having few admins increases the impact each admin has. This wouldn't make the people who are reluctant to promote anything but a perfect admin back down; they would just oppose everyone who is anything less than perfect in RFA, then immediately turn around and try to pull down any admin who is less than perfect using this process -- effectively turning the stress of RFA into something admins are subject to constantly and making people less willing to subject themselves to it. Beyond that, the core issue is that (as others have said above), aside from the lack of admins and the difficulty of getting anyone to put themselves forward at RFA, there's no evidence that this is trying to solve an issue that actually exists -- those admins who do abuse their position actually end up desysoped by RFAr very quickly, and while that can take a while, RFAr is not shy about removing people immediately pending a final decision if they continue to cause problems. If this is just about making adminship less stressful or attract more people to RFA, its ability to achieve those goals doesn't seem, to me, to be remotely credible. --Aquillion (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

    I agree completely, and would add that there's a real risk that the proposed arrangements here will grind down experienced and competent admins and cause them to stop using the tools. Nick-D (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

    You keep making this claim but the only admins who need to be afraid of this dedicated admin review committee are those who know themselves to be flying just below the radar or those who are using their admin status in order to pursue indadmissible goals and are naïve enough to think they won't be caught out sooner or later, and those who might wish to become admins in order to exploit adminship for purposes that policy does not condone. Although it is not directly the aim of BARC, it might well in fact lead to a lowering of the bar to adminship - this is what the comuunity has been demanding for a very long time, and if it involves Bureaucrats and keeps the peanut gallery out f the process, then it is hard to envisage any other system that would. Bureaucrats are held to the highest standards of integrity on the English Wikipedia and having their flag removed for cause is exceedingly rare while the Arbitration Commitee has had many crises even including leaks of its mailing list and members being disqualified or resigning under a cloud. All this can be documented but it is not the immediate purpose of this debate - anyone doubting it however is free to do their own reseach, which might in fact be preferable to dismissing a proposal likethis out of hand. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

    Actually, I don't think that I've "made this claim" before, and given that you keep making the same points yourself here it's not a great criticism to make of other people... The problem is that this process will make it too easy for disgruntled editors to make complaints against admins they think have wronged them, with those admins then needing to defend themselves to a formal body which would be a significant escalation from the current AN/ANI processes. I think that I'm a good admin (seven years and counting with only one or two decisions overturned), but I can see myself being hauled in front of this body a few times a year by people who are upset that I imposed some kind of sanction which affected them and either want to get back at me or try to vindicate their conduct. If this process worked well, I'd be given the thumbs up each time but it would add to the burden of being an admin and make me more reluctant to use the tools. If the process was problematic (which is quite likely given the problems I outlined above) then it would be a mess. Nick-D (talk) 02:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

    Mildly, one reason why bureaucrats as a body have less controversies than Arbcom is because bureaucrats have fewer controversial tasks. if the community assigns additional controversial tasks to bureaucrats, it is likely to see a proportionate increase in what might be perceived as bureaucrat-related controversies. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

    those who know themselves to be flying just below the radar, those who are using their admin status in order to pursue indadmissible goals... I think comments like these highlight a critical issue here. They imply the existence of a class of admins who are aware that their administrative practice is inappropriate in some way but continue to behave as they wish because they can get away with it. The proposal is a way to ferret these people out, get the bad apples out of the barrel before they spoil the bunch. But looking at any of the recent Arbcom cases related to use of admin tools does not really uphold that model: even the two current ones are both examples of good-faith differences of opinion, wherever you stand on how much scope there is to enact those differences and how best to respond when confronted with disagreement. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

    I find your RfA vicious cycle scenario implausible mostly, and suspect that the predictions of Kudpung, et al., are correct. But let's say you're right: The "RfA cabal" becomes even more resistant to new admins being admitted, and then go on a pogrom of persecution of "imperfect" admins (and BARC for whatever reason goes along with it), compounding the admin crisis to a critical mass. So what? All that would do is force WP to matriculate to next stage in the organizational lifecycle (one that is long overdue, frankly), and totally reform how the site is administered. (I was an adult when the Berlin Wall suddenly came down, and the USSR just sort of stopped one day, so such changes neither frighten nor surprise me.) I think the odds of this happening are very low (as a result of this plan, I mean; it's inevitable in the longer run that we'll have to shift to a competence-based meritocracy, like the free software community, instead of a system based on a popularity contest revolving around a faith-and-politics-based notion of total "trust").

    The present arrangement discourages competent, experienced editors, infused with the Wikipedia community's values, from seeking adminship for many reasons, but "RfA is unfriendly" is hardly chief among them. The entire thing is a drama factory, and it is one because it's almost impossible to take the tools back unless an admin's transgressions are extreme not just unbecoming, so every aspect of the system grossly overreacts to compensate. I don't buy this whole "reluctance to use the tools because admins are afraid of being desysopped because of frivolous complaints" theory. If the complaints are frivolous, they should fail. If they don't, then the system is broken, so we'd need to fix it, not be very, very quiet and let it remain broken. If someone constantly fears being desysopped, that's a double-bad sign, since it indicates a concern principally for loss of power, and a self-assessment that one has been crossing the line and will get caught more easily.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

    Anyone who is serving as an admin (and who is spending time doing admin tasks) obviously wants to do that. Casting aspersions on them because they fear being drawn into the contentious, likely viciously-political system that this proposal would establish strikes me as silly. This proposal basically lets admins be thrown into a rapid-fire RFArb scenario at the drop of a hat, possibly with no previous attempts to resolve the situation and no build-up whatsoever. No sane person wants to be pulled into situations like that. I think it's quite reasonable to assume that after the first few rancorous BARC crusades get called against admins, the number of people willing to take any sort of significant activity as an admin (or to put themselves forward in the first place) will collapse. Beyond that, the thrust of my comment is that the only part of the current system that anyone has concretely identified as broken, as far as I can tell, is that nomination involves an often-hostile, intensely-politicized bureaucratic process that is driving away potential admins. The solution to that is... to add another such process? That makes no sense. My own opinion (as I've said before) is that the best-case scenario is to have as many admins as possible; it is the lack of admins (especially ones willing to step into controversial situations) that causes adminship to be seen as such a big deal (because one admin can have an outsized impact), which in turn makes people even more reluctant to appoint admins and leaves us with even fewer people willing to do those tasks. We need to find ways to encourage more admins; if RFA was nearly a rubber-stamp that accepted every established editor who doesn't seem likely to totally fly off the handle or use their position to push a POV, Wikipedia as a whole would work much better (and I think it would fit closer to what you describe as your desired goal, too.) With so many admins, there would be little risk of any one of them doing significant damage (remembering that truly egregious violations can and have been handled by RFArb very quickly in the past.) This proposal is moving in exactly the wrong direction -- making adminship more hidebound, more political, more of a big deal; making admins more of an elect few (by constantly weeding them out and inserting the opinions of Bureaucrats into the process far more directly.) Every part of it is awful; it would exacerbate all of the problems it is supposedly intended to resolve. --Aquillion (talk) 01:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

    I do not know. I have been several times in a situation when users at good standing were unhappy with my administrative actions and started mud-throwing explaining how unworthy I am as an admin. I would rather have been dragged to a BARC-like process and be completely acquitted than to look at this mud throwing. It is really very demotivating.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

20. Oppose, this system would pull admins away from higher-drama areas like AE and AFD because of the fear of being desysopped due to a dispute regarding the outcome of their decisions. Admins need to be held accountable, but this system is ripe for abuse by anyone that may feel slighted by an admin's closure of a discussion. Arbcom is more than capable of handling egregious administrator abuse, as evidenced by their record on desysoppings. The procedure may be slower, but it's done deliberately and without the influence of a "witch hunt". Nakon 01:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
21. The current bureaucrats were elected to assess consensus at RfA, not investigate and decide on whether to desysop administrators for cause. I would suggest that, for this process to be completely above-board and legitimate, it would require a reconfirmation of all bureaucrats to ensure the community is happy for them to perform this role, that wasn't in their mandate when they were elected. I prefer the more deliberative process that comes with ArbCom proceedings, and do not like the sound of this 'lite' process that I can see devolving into a request for lynching. While the argument "one can just appeal to ArbCom" is true, the result of this 'lite' process would be hugely prejudicial, which is unfair. Being an administrator is a big deal, whether the community wants to acknowledge it or not, and this potential lynching process without the diligence that an RfAr has sitting in the back of their mind will likely steer administrators away from taking action in controversial areas. I cannot see that as a good thing. Daniel (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
22. Oppose – The intentions here are good, but this is the wrong solution: redundant to ArbCom (with no real benefit to the redundancies save for the promise that the "wait times" would be reduced from 1 month to two weeks), and seems designed as a "make works" project for Bureacrats (who, instead, should probably be allowed to slide completely into history). As is discussed elsewhere, the RfA process is broken, but this isn't the solution – the likely solution is to sub-divide and specialize the various Admin tasks (i.e. "unbundle the bit") into more specialized usergroups (probably with fixed terms) rendering the "Admin" a very small and specialized group like Bureacrats are now. I will note that I don't join some of the other opposes in their belief that the current proposal will lead to "witch hunts" – a significant portion of the current problem with the position of Admin is this desire to insulate them from direct community accountability. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

    That's one of the big problems with this RFC. "Direct community accountability" is not possible to quantify and will always be the loudest "group of people" who show up to a dispute. This dispute could be organized on- or off-wiki and railroad an otherwise good admin just because they decided rightfully against some high-profile editor, or some contentious subject (gamergate, politics, etc.). The politics that would be involved in the "dispute" phase are enough for me to oppose this RFC.

    Please don't get me wrong, I definitely agree that Admins need to be responsible. However, there are zero protections in place in this proposal for an admin that may make an unpopular decision and be hounded by off-wiki participants that may have "aged" accounts here. Arbcom is more than equipped to handle these disputes, and has shown that they are more than willing to do so should an issue arise to the level that would warrant bit removal. Nakon 05:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

    Wouldn't you just have to look at their contribs to see they were meatpuppets? If three editors show up to rail on someone at once, but have all been inactive for a year ...  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:04, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

    Nobody is disputing the fact that once a case is brought, Arbcom will do its job. The problem is getting an issue to the door of the committee in the first place. Many editors are intimidated by the extraordinary bureaucracy surrounding Arbcom, even I get lost in it. Many editors feel intimidated by admins - in my early days on Wikipedia I was badly bullied by a pair of team-tagging teenage admins. I didn't have the foggiest idea how to deal with it and I still wouldn't if I hadn't made it my business to find out how such people get elected to adminship. They were finally desysoped some years later anyway, or slunk off into retirement, but it shouldn't have taken that long and I'd rather not thnk about how many other editors they had lost for us. BARC would have taken the case and it would have been settled in ten days. BARC is specifically designed to avoid the railroading of the kind that goes on among the sabre-rattling egos of the loudest groups of high-profile editors who show up, and the Arbcom slownes of a court of common law. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

    If the problem is getting an issue to the door of the committee in the first place, then it would be more productive to try and solve that particular aspect, rather than creating another bureaucratic process which covers fewer cases, affords fewer protections to administrators dragged before it and is less democratic than ArbCom. Not to mention that you're asking people to vote on a proposal which is so half-baked that it doesn't even spell out what standards will be employed by BARC to determine whether to desysop an administrator, which, in my opinion, is among the most important things to flesh out before submitting a proposal to the community. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 10:40, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

23. Oppose There's really no need for this extra bureaucracy to carry out the desysop function. The real solution is simple: a community discussion takes place at AN/I, after which an uninvolved administrator can determine the consensus, close the thread, and ask a crat to carry out the desysop if required. Rcsprinter¹²³ (shout) @ 17:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

    That is, in fact, pretty much exactly the way I think the process should go. (Though maybe just requiring a uninvolved Crat, as opposed to Admin, to close and potentially carry out the desysop.) But we don't need a second "panel" solution – we already have ArbCom for that. And I don't buy the notion that a "cabal" could successfully fool the community at AN/I to desysop on nothing more than a "grudge" – the AN/I crowd isn't that dumb or gullible. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

    Yes, that sounds like a good, simple solution. Does anyone know how many de-sysyops have actually occurred on ANI in, let's say, the past five years? - MrX 18:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

24. Oppose. We do not need the second arbcom. Ruslik_Zero 18:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
25. Oppose This doesn't seem to be lightweight as it seems too similar to arbcom. There would be some kind of election process to pick the non-bureaucrat members and then the deliberations of the 10-man committee seem likely to be similar to those of arbcom with the taking of evidence, clerks, &c. A truly lightweight process would be for a bureaucrat to desysop an admin if there were good cause. That's the way that ordinary editors get treated by admins, who block them as an individual action. Per WP:SAUCE, admins should be subject to the same rough justice. Andrew D. (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
26. Oppose. Aside from the obvious issue that Arbcom as a group of people elected for fixed terms are more of a community based way to desysop admins. This misses two fundamentals, it doesn't create any extra offences that could lead to admins being desysoped who would not have been dealt with by arbcom, and it telescopes the time process to the exclusion of people who have more to their lives than Wikipedia. In some cases this might enable people to use this to attack an admin who has just done a controversial block. But other times the speed and intensity of the process would favour a hyper active admin over a less active editor who would get a fairer hearing from arbcom. ϢereSpielChequers 23:39, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
27. Oppose. There is a good idea in here struggling to get out, but it is encapsulated in a shell and will suffocate and die there. The problem is that there is no community in this "community" process - there is an association of five seemingly self-selected bureaucrats who seem to have a mandate to stack the committee with their friends. There is no "bill of rights" here, for example shielding admins from consideration of their activities and statements in environments that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. And the effect of this process is multiplied by a fear factor - humiliate one admin, and ten others will toe whatever line the bureaucrats are trying to lay down. So I definitely cannot support it in this form. I *would*, however, support the selection of a random jury from the total pool of edits (i.e. weighted for frequent contributors), with bureaucrats acting in an advisory capacity, and I could tolerate a veto process if enough crowned heads of whatever variety get together to deny de-adminning the person under discussion. I'm more concerned about their ability to drum out who they want than to give clemency. Wnt (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
28. Oppose. I see no attempt to protect admins who make controversial decisions. I'm not sure how to do this.... There are also some specific problems that need to be dealt with:
    1. If this is to be considered a "community" process, the panels must be chosen by the community, not by bureaucrats. (The suggestion of having the panel chosen at random, by number of edits, has some merit, although the panel also has to consist of uninvolved editors.)
    2. The timeline is much too fast; both to give the scapegoat admin time to respond, and to give the panel time to discuss.

    If those matters were dealt with, it would be a parellel Arbcom, which would be unnecessary, but not actively harmful to Wikipedia. 09:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)— Arthur Rubin (talk)

29. I do not like the change of the traditional bureaucrat role inherent in this proposal. If they have a role in this process (other than judging consensus), they will inject their own opinions. We did not elect bureaucrats for politics. I am open for a community-based de-adminship system, but this suggestion will be at best a parallel and less legitimate Arbcom. —Kusma (t·c) 14:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
30. Oppose. I'd be OK with bureaucrats judging consensus in de-adminship discussions (effectively reverse RfAs) as on Commons. But I do not think we should start sitting in judgment over administators. WJBscribe (talk) 10:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
31. Oppose My decade of experience in Wikipedia leads me to believe that the formality of an Arbcom case is a feature, not a bug. Wikipedia is not the same as it was 10 years ago; the project is much bigger and much more fractured into groups of editors. This leads to an increase in in the potential of interpersonal and intergroup friction which can result in actions taken to reduce the effectiveness of others by ad hominem or other "political" attacks. I fear that having an easier desysopping route will cause more harm by ennobling trolling and political activism than the good it may engender through easier removal of admins who truly need to take a break. So whereas I may have supported this 10 years ago, there really wasn't a need for it 10 years ago. Now, I fear its (clearly unintended) harm more than the good it may cause. I commend and thank the proposers for taking the time and energy to address the issues of RfA, even though I feel that this particular iteration has the potential for more long-term harm than good. -- Avi (talk) 15:19, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
32. Oppose I cant see this is really that big an issue that cant be handled by our current process. MilborneOne (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
33. Oppose The creation of more authority and discretion with bureaucrats is counterproductive. A decade ago, administrators were literally thought to be just people with tools and thus adminship was never a huge deal (hell, they let me into the club). Over time, as people thought that adminship meant greater rights and prestige (namely as if administrator have some super-authority on content disputes), this meant greater discretion and therefore greater vetting to be required and the admin corps have declined in its acceptance of new admins and the pressure brought upon the current admins. Granting greater and greater discretion to the bureaucrats will only create the same cycle and will only lead to less and less bureaucrats than before. The type of misuses of tools at issue (say an inappropriate block, wrong page protection, a wrong close to delete or keep something) are all things that can and do get reversed. It will when a pattern of these kinds of actions emerges that the tools themselves can and should be removed and given the complexity of that kind of thing (namely you're arguing that a series of actions, each of which has discretion, are all abusively enough in total to warrant tool removal) that requires ArbCom. The truth is people do not care about the misuse of tools but are clamoring for a quicker way to removal of the 'title' of administrator from individuals and that's not something the prior bureaucrats came in on and like the administrators who came in earlier, they are suddenly going to scrutinized for things no one, especially them, expected to be scrutinized for: we will burn out the current ones faster and then create massive blocks against new ones, further creating a two (or three--tier) system that is more and more top heavy on fewer and fewer people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
34. Oppose for several reasons: First, it's WP:Instruction creep; Second, there is usually no hurry to desysop anybody, let ArbCom take their time. On the other side, admin Dreadstar was desysopped by motion two days into an ArbCom case. Nothing forbids ArbCom to act that swiftly again; and Third, this is indeed a proceeding that invites the WP:BATTLEFIELD warriors to witch hunts of all sorts. Any even slightly controversial admin action will be followed by a complaint lodged with this BARC, it will become a major time sink, and people will not only thinking twice but a hundred times to run at RfA, fearing that they will be hauled over the coals and desysopped for every minor innocent mistake. Kraxler (talk) 16:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
35. I don't think a process and drama heavy ArbCom-on-a-budget (yes, it will be all of those things, regardless of intent) is really the solution to the perceived problem. Also it's not clear why the 2012 'Community de-adminship proof of concept' is being used as the backbone for this proposal when A new committee should be created to decide on de-adminship matters was rejected on that same page. This seems disingenuous. – Steel 17:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
36. Oppose — While I'm normally all for lynch mobs and their committees, Arbcom is more than capable of issuing injunctions and obtaining a steward in an emergency when it comes to, well, emergencies. Having a committee just for desysopping people is sort of like having a committee just for "Unamerican Activities:" eventually, the people most likely to be elected, selected, or worse, volunteer for it will inevitably be those assuming there's already a fire (i.e., those looking to desysop people as the obvious answer) to whatever problem comes across the table, as history has repeatedly shown us in things not related to Wikipedia. The self-selecting and internally-selecting nature of the committee is even more ominous and will likely result in more hyper-polarization of views and procedural outcomes. It would be like the aforementioned Unamerican Activities committee self-selecting half of the members of its own committee "with input from the community." --slakr^\ talk / 07:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

    Also, as an addendum (lest it not be said I'm simply opposing without suggesting improvements), I'd suggest two possible alternatives for future discussion should this fail: 1., Just force the same procedure and/or timeline upon the already-elected ArbCom members (if slowness is currently a problem), as they've already been elected with this power in mind, and there's really nothing preventing them from simply having a process other than RFARB for handling these one-offs; or, 2., Give bureaucrats the ability to desysop based on their own consensus when it follows clear community consensus on the same timeframe. Obviously appeals to arbcom on #2 would be applicable, but when both the community (who isn't just interested in desysopping) and the bureaucrats (who aren't just interested in desysopping) all agree, you can probably anticipate Arbcom (which isn't just interested in desysopping) will too. :P Point is, as I stated above and as should be obvious, my main objection is the idea of a committee that will inherently be comprised of members out for blood. --slakr^\ talk / 09:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

37. I fail to see how a desysop process grounded on 33 people appointed for life, with all but six of whom appointed more than five years ago, can be credibly billed as a community-based process, compared to a committee of 15 that are all elected within the past two years and serve fixed terms. T. Canens (talk) 12:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

    Well then I guess administrators will be subject to judgment by people who are appointed for life, if this goes through as written. How that grieves me. We're here because admins are lifetime appointees. Coretheapple (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

    Core, I support this proposal strongly in this conceptual phase, and I am trying to avoid commenting here at great length despite comments from some "oppose" !voters who have clearly not read the proposal in its entirety. That said, I think the "BARC" concept can be improved upon in the next phases of discussion. First and foremost, I would suggest that the selection of the non-bureaucrat members of the panel needs to be open and transparent (by whatever method of choosing), those non-bureaucrat panel members should be experienced and respected editors, and a significant portion of the panel needs to be composed of non-bureaucrat, non-administrator editors who fit the prior description. The protection afforded to accused administrators is two-fold: (1) all cases will be screened by the bureaucrat members (who are, after all, also administrators who understand the standards of conduct), and cases will be rejected outright if they are frivolous; and (2) whatever the number of panelists for a given case (7 with 4 bureaucrat members, or 9 with 5 bureaucrat members), the bureaucrat members should always remain a simple majority on any panel for a given case. That would preserve the "apolitical" majority, while also providing for a direct community voice via experience and respected members who are neither bureaucrats nor administrators. These issues can and should be addressed during this process. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:34, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

    Well that's why I said "as written." It can be an all-elected panel for all I care, or all bureaucrats. The main thing is to move the proposal ahead to the next stage. I think that is where there is likely to be a good deal of complexity and very possibly no consensus on execution, so admins alarmed by the prospect of the status quo changing can rest easy. Coretheapple (talk) 15:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

38. I've been trying hard to avoid commenting on this, but I, like many people here, am concerned that this isn't a job for the bureaucrats. First, they're here to judge consensus and the community has not appointed them to do everything else (see instances where bureaucrats have successful RfBs but fail to gain support in ArbCom elections). Secondly, the activity of the 33 bureaucrats is not necessarily great, this has been all find and good for the time being when they've essentially only had to deal with (un)flagging admins and bots, but this would have to be a much more dedicated group for this to work. A thirdly, I agree that this would make RfAs better, but it would make RfBs much, much worse. It would be near impossible to get fresh blood in the (already pretty old) crat pool. Besides that element I think the proposal is good and needed, we just need to work a lot of the bureaucrat influence out. Kharkiv07 (T) 14:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
39. Oppose We have ArbCom for desysopping emergencies, and we don't need yet-another-committee. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
40. Oppose - Arbcom do the job just fine, Plus to be fair Bureaucrats have enough to do let alone doing all of this too. –Davey2010^Talk 20:26, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
41. Oppose Thanks to those who worked on this proposal, but why is there no mention of how BARC would respond to pointy and clueless complaints? What about serial complainers who tie up the time and energy of admins attempting to handle WP:AE or WP:ANI? Are throw-away accounts welcome in a BARC case? Do the nominators have examples of current admins who should be desysopped? What is the problem BARC seeks to address? The problem with supporting someone running for admin is that it may turn out that the candidate has poor judgment, or is a closet supporter of FRINGE or other POV topics. How would BARC help with that? Can a new admin be desysopped for aiding those who promote nonsense? Can a new admin be desysopped if they mechanically follow rules without thought for what benefits the encyclopedia? The only admins I have noticed that should have been desysopped were handled by Arbcom, yet I frequently see clueless enthusiasts at ANI who add unhelpful commentary to disputes, then react poorly when an admin gives them accurate advice. Such enthusiasts would love a light-weight method of punishing admins, and pretty soon we'd be seeing vacuous comments like "admin X has been brought to BARC too often—where there's smoke there's fire!". Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
42. Opppose I've already commented about my concerns, but after reading Randykitty's comment about User:Cprompt who has never made any Admin actions and hardly ever edited, I feel I should oppose. I see that he was made an Administrator the day he made his very first edit, and I can find no evidence how that happened. He's said he'd like to be more active[1] but frankly I think he should resign his bit. There's no way he'd succeed in an RfA today with his lack of experience, and reading up on the role of bureaucrat as he's suggested is not really enough IMHO. Sorry Cpromp, but I really feel that all Admins who were appointed by email (or however you were appointed) should be desysopped and asked to go through RfA. If you really are interested, get some more editing experience, work on the sort of areas in which Admins are active, etc, then RfA. What I'd like to see before we go further is an agreed differentiation about the sorts of cases that a group like this would deal with and those which are suitable for ArbCom. I'd like to see that including removing both Admin rights and Crat rights from those who don't have the sort of experience needed to get through an RfA, not simply "x edits in y years". I think this has been a very useful discussion so far and if it does fail I'd like to think it would be the basis for more work on developing a system to deal with situations not appropriate for ArbCom as it's obvious that ArbCom is not appropriate for every scenario. Doug Weller (talk) 08:57, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

    While your comments regarding Cprompt may have merit, and regardless on whether that is relevant to the discussion at hand, I want to note as a matter of fact that it is obviously incorrect that Cprompt "was made an Administrator the day he made his very first edit". 31 October 2002 != Apr 3 2003. (RFB: 01 Mar 2004.) -- KTC (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

    Apologies, I don't know where I got that. Finally found how he was made Admin - he just asked Ed Poor and that was enough.Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cprompt Doug Weller (talk) 13:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

    And an incredible 8 (eight) editors !voted on his RfB... --Randykitty (talk) 13:38, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

    More to the point, the RFB process was already in place at that time. Remember there was a time (now denoted the good old days) when two votes sufficed, to accept admins. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 14:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

43. Opppose I agree with everything iridescent said. It seems to me most big gripes about admins come from editors who have been thwarted somehow as to outlook on editorial content, where the editor, admin, neither or both, may have been breaching policy, I've seen all the mixes. If the admin hadn't done what such an editor thinks "got in the way" of their own goal(s), no matter what the admin has done, the editor might not speak up about the admin at all. This slant on editorial content is understandably systemic and bleeds over to RfA where a nom's contrib histories are searched thoroughly by a few, for the nom's takes on editorial topics. If these aren't liked, carefully "civil" character attacks and smears, often misleading, sometimes straightforwardly wrong, might be posted about the nom, a means by which an RfA can be kept from reaching the high bar needed for consensus: It doesn't take all that many editors to scuttle an RfA fairly or otherwise, hence the wariness of some editors to put themselves through that for the bit. So, along with shifting "drama" to the 'crats, for which they didn't sign up, I'm afraid this would only open two new outlets to forum-shopping, both a newly-minted "BARC" and RfB (and if not RfB, I'd be even more worried). As others have said above, I think this is Arbcom's thankless gig and I'd say that body has come a very long way in the last decade. Likewise, given I agree with Jimmy's long-ago post that handing out the bit, the "mop," should be no big deal, the only thing I can think of to fairly get more admins on en.WP is, lower the bar in RfA to say, 50-55% support and leave de-sysopping to Arbcom (please see also Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep also noted by someone above). Gwen Gale (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
44. Oppose The first reason is the problem does not exist: there does not seem to be any shortage of admins. The discussions at RfA, though sometimes they reveal flaws the candidate is unaware of, are not the virulent abusive bullying of earlier years. The second is that one arb com is bad enough; we do not need two. (I've deliberately worded it this way.) In prior years, before I joined arb com myself, I thought its procedures extraordinarily convoluted. I'm on arb com now, and my closer experience has fully confirmed this view (despite the fact that we are taking some minor efforts to speed things along). There is much too great difficulty in bringing cases, obvious cases still tend to be declined for procedural reasons. What I have learned on the committee is that much the same is true for the non-public work of arbcom (which is in reality the bulk of our business): the emphasis is on procedure, not substance. My earlier view that arb com cases dealing ostensibly on behavior are actually about content is confirmed also--it is not possible to judge actions without knowing what they are about. As mentioned above, the relatively simple recent case leading to desyop was not actually that simple--that actions were inappropriate was clear, but the degree of inappropriateness was much harder to resolve, and that would be much the same for any other group of people. It is, unfortunately, not easy for a committee constituted like arb com to make its procedures less convoluted; I expect progress, but not rapid progress. One thing I am sure will not help is to make an additional committee to do a part of the job. This will inevitably lead to additional levels of complicated interaction, and additional pages of formal steps to follow. What we need at WP is fewer formal procedures , not more; the two parts of this are having fewer committees, and then making the procedures of the ones we do need to be less cumbersome. DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
45. What DGG writes, above, appears persuasive. I can't readily imagine a situation in which the Arbitration Committee wouldn't desysop an admin for actual misconduct, but a community-driven process would. The disadvantages of yet another process include an even greater complexity of our already hopelessly intransparent governance and yet more opportunities for drama.  Sandstein  09:35, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
46. If ever there are a solution in search of a problem, this is it. The Arbitration Committee exists and performs its job well. In emergencies either the arbitrators or other functionaries can act within minutes (far quicker than any community discussion). The problem Wikipedia now faces is not misbehaving administrators, for the most part, but a diminishing supply of active, engaged administrators, and a process of demoralisation and intimidation of those few experienced and skilful administrators who remain engaged. This proposal would not resolve either of those increasingly pressing problems. --TS 16:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
47. Strictly inferior to current ArbCom process. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

    To expand on this, I believe the ArbCom is ready, willing, and able to deal with misconduct by sysops. This process is expressed as "lightweight" and marketed as closing within 11 days. So does this mean sysops are never allowed to take a vacation or wikibreak for more than a week and a half? A case could be tried, convicted, and executed whilst someone is away.

    Secondly, this feels like a camel's nose. What we are voting on [yada yada it's consensus, no it's not] is so unclear that it is difficult to conceive of it not being deliberately so, with the reason being that the mechanics of such a process are so controversial as to never get accepted. Therefore, splitting into sub-questions may get each one passed one by one, where the overall proposal in one go would not be. In effect, either a proposal ends up getting accepted which people would not have supported if it were put up in full from the start, or (more likely in practice) the initial proposal passes and the community wastes arbitrarily large amounts of time arguing over the details, before coming to no consensus and leaving the whole thing up in the air (see WP:PCRFC, WP:RfA Review, etc.). Stifle (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

    Finally, as mentioned above, I cannot conceive of a situation where ArbCom would not desysop someone for misconduct where it would be desirable to do so. Stifle (talk) 08:24, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

48. Following on #Suggestion: Preserve the role of the bureaucrat: this is not the task for which bureaucrats were selected. I also share WJBscribe's concern on the talk page; that this could 'erode our neutrality' or at least the perception of same (bureaucrats collectively sit on a committee that decides to remove administrative rights, and are then the same collective that presides over any potential re-granting). As a bureaucrat, I will exercise diligently any role the community sees fit to assign me; but if this moves forward, I will work in the successive stages of this proposal to see that bureaucrats are properly assigned to the role of judging the consensus formed by the committee (which would be composed of users selected by the community; irrespective of userright: bureaucrat, administrator, or neither) instead of a default composition of 50% bureaucrats just because we're largely seen to be level-headed. –xeno^talk 14:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
49. Agree with DGG. This is inferior to the current process. Neutrality^talk 23:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
50. Per Chillum. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
51. I've sat and read comments from ever so many people, and there are so many issues which combine to make the proposal difficult to support. I'm also rather concerned about the recent arbitration case about arbitration enforcement - we still don't have a fairly watertight set of standards administrators should adhere to and we're still finding some bits where we need to clarify and refine our expectations, that's something that should have been done first and it's something which the Arbitration process can deal with at the same time. That makes this whole proposal sub-optimal, premature and for me, unsupportable in its current guise. Nick (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
52. Per DGG, Nakon, Salvio and IJBall. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
53. There are so many things wrong with this proposal that I hardly know where to start. First, the proposal is misnamed: the community has almost nothing to do with this proposed process, so it's hardly a community-based desysopping. Second, the 'crats still can't figure out how to rid themselves of colleagues who haven't done anything much more than a handful of edits a year, and as a group more than half of them are so inactive that it is nearly impossible for the community to assess their ability to make these decisions. The community has had no opportunity to even "vote" for a significant number of the people who currently hold 'crat permissions; they were appointed without even running, and 14 of them have been 'crats since 2004. (Yes, you read that right - almost half of our 'crats have held this permission for more than 10 years; there are several whom I've never seen closing RFAs. renaming or flagging bots, and I've been around for a long time.) Third, the idea that any administrator must be available at the beck and call of whomever chooses to try to desysop them, regardless of having a life outside of Wikipedia, is ridiculous; the timelines proposed are so terribly out of whack for the seriousness of the issue that I am flabbergasted that they've even been proposed. People carefully select the date and time that they post their RFAs, often waiting weeks (even months) until they're available and the time appears to be right; those same people would then be forced to go through the desysop procedure without advance notice or ability to plan for it. Fourth, there are no criteria for desysop mentioned anywhere. Fifth, there's no evidence at all that the current system is failing to desysop problem admins. That some people can't be bothered with Arbcom or they have this notion that it's difficult to get a desysop through Arbcom is not an excuse. That calls for education, not for catering to those who are ill-informed; we shouldn't be giving them crutches any more than we should have an article about how the earth is flat. (Seriously, folks. Two desysops in the last quarter. That's almost as many desysops as there were successful RFAs.) And, finally.... I give you this 'crat chat, where a significant number of the bureaucrats participating seem to be perfectly willing to accept negative statements about the candidate without any diffs or other corroborating evidence. It's bad enough at RFA. It would be figuratively fatal to any administrator who had the misfortune to be "judged" by the same standards. At least Arbcom requires evidence. Risker (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
54. Oppose as written Originally I supported this, and in fact, I still do support a community driven solution that would aid the project in making adminship less of a "big deal". While I am still supportive of 'Crats (or at least some of them) determining "consensus" - given the recent developments at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Liz/Bureaucrat discussion and some of the subsequent discussion there, I do not feel that I am comfortable with this proposal as written. I feel that (as written) it over-reaches the parameters which Bureaucrats are elected. I do thank Kudpung and Dave for their efforts however, and hope that comments made here are a catalyst for a future proposal that I will be able to support. — Ched :  ?  07:46, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
55. Reluctant oppose. Originally I supported this proposal: the community should have some way of removing the sysop bit which they have granted without appealing to ArbCom. However, after continuing to read through the opposes, I began to see a number of very well-thought through objections to this proposal as it now stands, most notably that this isn't nearly as community based as it suggests. At its root it is essentially ArbCom Lite. The Bureaucrats, who have been elected based on their ability to judge consensus, are being given full discretion to remove the bit or not as they see fit without necessarily consulting the wishes of the community. I do believe that it is an excellent idea to have 'crats or other trusted users serve as gatekeepers to the process to prevent "witch hunts"; however, to allow them to serve as gatekeepers and make the final decision regardless of what the consensus might be makes this process redundant to ArbCom. That, in addition to the answer to my query on the talk page, make me unable to support this proposal as it stands, since if it is implemented but fails to receive major reforms in the second stage of the RfC, I believe that it will merely provide yet another broken and redundant policy. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 13:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
56. Oppose after much thought. While I do support a non-voluntary community recall process (in additional to arbcom), a committee where half the members are elected for life (for a different original purpose) cannot be said to be more community driven than a committee where all members are elected on at most two-years term. Risker and Ched's concerns arising from Liz's crat discussion are also important to note. Unrelatedly, even if we agree that RFA is broken, and of course not everyone does, it does not necessarily follow that this proposal will help address any issue at RFA. -- KTC (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
57. I really wanted to support this, but I'm not seeing it. I really wanted to support this because no, our current system doesn't work well. ArbCom doesn't do anything well. In this respect I think several opposers here are completely wrong. Alas, this solution does not fix the problem. The biggest fault is that it doesn't really put desysopping in the hands of the community at all. The bureaucrats were not only not chosen for this role, but many of them weren't even chosen by the current community at all. A good community desysopping process would be a wonderful thing and once it's found, should indeed be implemented and used instead of ArbCom. I don't know if one will ever be found, though. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
58. Strong oppose Adding even more layers of impossible-to-figure-out bureaucracy, and demanding immediate responses, will increase the disadvantage that people who are part-time volunteers experience when attempting to interact with site administration. If people feel there is a need for a "Committee on Administrator Appointments and Conduct," by all means create one! Don't make the rest of us waste our time wading through a bunch of insider acronyms like "BARC" and "RfA crat chat" to see if somebody someplace on the site can help deal with our concerns. Creating groups who are clearly identified, and using plain language is important. There needs to be conflict resolution that is simple enough to be usable for part-time volunteers, not just for full-time Wikipedia insiders. --Djembayz (talk) 13:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
59. Oppose I find it quite strange to be on this 'side' given some of those involved. However I can't support this proposal as written primarily because of the fact that the current crats weren't selected to perform this role, I don't see a reason to take this role from ArbCom (who in recent years are doing pretty well at this, including being very willing to accept cases about admins), and as the current issues surrounding the crat chat for Liz's RfA. And for everything else I mostly agree with Risker, Ched (especially including thanks to Kudpund and Dave), Cailil and Salvio. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
60. Oppose - any community-based desysop procedure needs to account for the following: should the process be started against any admin who hasm through legitimate use of his/her status, created enemies - and this would tend to include any admin who handles the difficult cases - would probably have a big pile-up of these enemies voting to desysop him/her, while the other users would tend to be more careful about forming any opinion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
61. Oppose - per Risker. KnightLago (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
62. Oppose Historically there was community sentiment that it should be very hard to desysop admins, but in recent years arbcom has been much less hesitant, so desysoppings happen when they need to (maybe a little too often even). Yes arbcom is bureaucratic but BARC would be a parallel bureaucracy and we don't need that. Hammersoft's question of when BARC would desysop someone Arbcom wouldn't (or vice versa) absolutely has to be answered, for this proposal to have any credibility. We should be aiming for less bureaucracy rather than more. 173.228.123.193 (talk) 05:30, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
63. Oppose - for the simple reason that the Bureaucrats were not elected (or in some legacy 'crats, appointed!) to do this work. You want to talk about starting over by stripping all the 'crat flags and electing a new group of 'crats, I am willing to discuss that. Highly unlikely, of course. Many of you are aware of how long I have advocated for community de-adminship, all the way back to WP:CDA. Since that one, I have concluded we have to leave the Bureaucrats out of any CDA proposal. Any second stage of this current proposal should start with that. Bottom line on this proposal: in my view, a huge time sink with nothing accomplished at the end. Jusdafax 22:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
64. Oppose. Too many issues are raised regarding the involvement of the Bureaucrats, from the fact that they were not originally elected to do this type of work, to the concerns raised on Liz's RFA. And Risker makes a good point about the problem with the proposed timelines: it will be easy for someone to game the system by picking a specific week during the year when the admin in question is on holiday or not normally active on Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
65. Oppose. I am persuaded by Risker (talk · contribs), pretty much point for point. There was a time when ArbComm didn't police admins effectively, but that hasn't been true for a long time now. Also, I don't feel that there is consensus for our Crat corps to fulfill this role. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
66. Oppose per Avi and Risker. The community is aware that the tools granted in RfAs are not easily removed. If there is misconduct on the part of an administrator that warrants the revocation of those user rights granted, the arbitration committee can remove the rights. This has been done swiftly in the past when admin conduct is egregious. Quite simply a most basic reason for my opposition: A committee of 5 bureaucrats and 5 other community members, selected through means not quite yet determined, doesn't satisfy what I'd personally consider a good process to desysop. I especially feel this way because bureaucrats were not elected to fill this role, some were not even elected.—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 09:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
67. oppose First, this looks very much like getting a way "let's ask daddy because mummy said no". Second, how is this "community driven"? Crats are no more community than Arbs and anyone from the community can present a case to ArbCom just as they would to this Barc, and just about anyone can run to belong to ArbCom; I do not like it when people misrepresent their proposals.... Third, I know from personal experience that if the case is simple, the ArbCom makes a quick decision; and if the case is not simple, then why the hurry? Let's take the time to present evidence, discuss, and ponder about it. One ideia I would support, if not already implemented, is that the ArbCom should be able to do a quick temporary preventive desysop in risky situations. - Nabla (talk) 00:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
68. Oppose Per the very reasonable concerns raised by Risker in Oppose #53. Most specifically, her points #2, 3, 5 and 6 (final) mirror my own views on the proposal.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
69. Oppose I'm echoing the same concerns that Avi and Risker have raised. I would like to add that the timeline proposed appears a bit unrealistic. It's important to remember that everyone here is a volunteer and real life commitments often take precedence. It's quite a short timeframe if you were away for holiday, had visitors in town, health concerns to address, etc. Even worse, trying to get 10 individuals in a global project to come to a consensus within 24 hours is extremely unlikely to occur without running the risk of ostracizing those from certain timezones or discouraging dissenting opinions. I might even argue that the tight timeframe encourages the committee members to be predisposed to a decision without hearing the evidence presented for the full duration of the case. Mike V • Talk 05:57, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
70. Unconvinced that adding another level of bureaucracy is the solution. The decision to remove adminship needs to based on strong evidence of misuse, and consistent across time. Anything less has the potential to harm a real person who is being accused of wrong doing. Also, concerned that 'crats who were not elected for this type of role are the correct people to be involved with a process that is already too heavily weighted toward voting someone's tools away. Instead we need people who are the most experienced with reviewing policy disputes, and have a good understanding of whether policy is violated. Also, the timeframe is much too fast for a long brewing issue of the type that would be best served by a community process. My experience with community desysop comes from smaller wikis without arbcom like this discussion of Wikiquote. In no way did I think that they were better than our current system. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
71. Oppose. In my experience ArbCom does desysop when a good clear case is put before it. Mounting a good clear case can be arduous, but I would expect that in any system designed to remove adminship. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
72. One one hand on basis of the 'crats being in a body elected for other functions, or in a good minority, not elected at all. On the other, largely per Risker in the details. What we need is a way for the community to remove admins where a consensus exists they should no longer be admins. What we don't is a second Arbcom. Where @Risker: errs is simple: There have been three Arbcom desysops within the last three months, the process has been working, especially as recent Arbcoms have shown more willingness to do desysops for "conduct unbecoming an administrator" rather than just doing them for smoking gun abuse of the tools. It isn't nearly as hard to convince Arbcom to desysop as it was three or four years ago. We already have a committee, and while it should retain authority to dsysop, I want to see something that lets the community, rather than a committee, desysop. Courcelles (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
73. The last thing Wikipedia needs is more bureaucracy. I have always been a supporter of a community-led desysopping process similar to that of the Spanish Wikipedia. This isn't it. → Call me Hahc21 05:16, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
74. (Moved from Support) Oppose — In the current system, desysopping is automatically considered part of a dispute that is unresolvable by the community, one which only a formal arbitration process can resolve. Should there be this automatic assumption? Does the community have the ability to resolve a conduct dispute that necessitates desysopping? Should having administrator access be a big enough deal that it matters? I think this is the crux of the matter. A very strong point has been made that this proposal for a committee of bureaucrats and appointed editors is not really "community-oriented". It is, in many ways, very similar to ArbCom. The introduction calls it a "gatekeeper" to stop "frivolous requests", but the reality it seems is that the proposal continues to perpetuate the understanding that the community does not have the ability to call for itself whether an administrator should be desysopped—does not have its own ability to sort between frivolous requests and substantive requests—and instead have to appoint/delegate people to decide for them. If this principle is true, then the system we have is fine; it's actually what the arbitration process was designed for. If it isn't, then we need a more truly community-based mechanism—such as this suggestion at the 2012 RfC which led to this proposal—one that doesn't bank on an appointed committee. Mz7 (talk) 20:01, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
75. Oppose per Risker. More bureaucracy, moar dramah, significant lack of a clear benefit to the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
76. Oppose per Risker and DGG. Throwawayhack (talk) 19:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
77. I don't like the "five other users" aspect of the BARC proposal -- it's just one more bauble for the hat collectors to collect -- and bureaucrats are unaccountable for their actions, so this would really just create more pointless drama. Townlake (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

1. 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)

2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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. ϢereSpielChequers 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)

5. 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)
6. 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)
7. 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)
8. 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

• 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)
• 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).
  

• "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! 07:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  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 and the other (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  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? Sam Walton (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! 16:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  @Worm That Turned: Regarding "appointed annually by the bureaucrats" and "with community consultation". What would this entail? The bureaucrats nominating users they deem appropriate and asking for community input or confirmation?—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)

• 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 and the other (talk) 09:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  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)

• 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. Worm^TT(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:

1. 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.
2. 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)?
3. 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_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

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_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  16:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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)

• @IJBall: take a look at my rationale in the support section. I wrote my observations on why I think this is better than Arbcom. But it's really pretty simple in that it's a streamlined, simpler, lightweight process in comparison, and the people placed in charge of it are implicitly more trusted and less controversial in the eyes of the community. I definitely don't think this would be as bureaucratic as Arbcom, or at least the idea is that it wouldn't be. Swarm ^{we ♥ our hive} 05:16, 25 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. ϢereSpielChequers 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. ϢereSpielChequers 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

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: WJBscribe and Worm That Turned have commented already. There is also a notice on the bureaucrat's noticeboard. 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_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

• 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. –xeno^talk 18:25, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion: Preserve the role of the bureaucrat

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,
• 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. –xeno^talk 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_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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. –xeno^talk 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? ϢereSpielChequers 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! 20:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

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_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

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

• 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

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;

1. Wikipedia:RfA reform (continued)#Participants task force members working on RfA reform.
2. Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept#Proposals

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:

1. 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.
2. 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)
• 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. ~ Rob^Talk 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. ~ Rob^Talk 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. ~ Rob^Talk 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. ~ Rob^Talk 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. ~ Rob^Talk 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. Worm^TT(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"? ϢereSpielChequers 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. ϢereSpielChequers 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 cases to be about user behavior, they're often fundamentally about structural flaws and unresolved community social pathologies. It's hard to see how stripping them down even further to "should person X be desysopped due to action Y" would be an improvement. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
            • Others do see an improvement, so perhaps the issue is a lack of imagination. There are many other ways this could be accomplished, I've worked on a few myself including authoring a full proposal at WP:RAS. The issue isn't whether the community should have the ability to desysop, there seems to be a lot of people that agree, the real question is how. The current proposal is built on the shoulders of many that came before it, and represents the best idea to date. No system is perfect, Arb and ANI are excellent examples that prove this. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 14:37, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
• The main thing I'm concerned about here is that the initial proposal seems very vulnerable to corruption from the top. If there are three bureaucrats who have gotten together some kind of a plan to do what they want with Wikipedia, whether it be banning some kind of content or renting it out to a reputation management firm, they will have little trouble getting on the committee of five, and then directing it to do whatever they will, including choosing 'community' members of their choice. They can then ban any admin who doesn't toe their line. So my main concern here is that we have to have a way to fix this vulnerability, and not be told that the first vote settled that part the moment it was piled up. If we have a genuine chance to fix these details and a full, fair vote on the final text, then I wouldn't worry as much about this step. Wnt (talk) 10:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
  • To the above I would add that whenever someone says something like "we have to have a way to fix this vulnerability" there is an inevitable response claiming that the vulnerability in question is unlikely. That's not how you secure a system. You don't wait until something happens then react. Instead you anticipate potential problems and do your best to design a system that is not vulnerable. As Wnt correctly points out, there is money to be made by subverting Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Although I do have some other serious reservations about this proposal, I don't think this particular concern raises a likely scenario nor, perhaps more importantly, one to which any other proposed process wouldn't be equally subject. If needed, the prospect of a poor or ill-motivated decision's being appealed to the Arbitration Committee or the community as a whole could provide a needed safety valve. (If this sub-discussion is to continue, it should probably be given its own section, as it doesn't seem related to the concern about notifications.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

(Outdent for suggestion about the 'taint') I have a suggestion - just wipe the !votes, make a more general announcement, and start over. I don't mind if my !vote is cancelled. I'll repeat it later, if I still feel the same. After a pool of people has voted, notify the original !voters to come back and make their marks.→StaniStani 22:45, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• Why doesn't somebody post a notice of the kind that appears at the top of everybody's watchlist? That way, we can dispose of this issue once and for all. Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

What if ...

Note: I suggest moving this to the Talk page. (Once there, I intend to comment...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm supporting this because I see it offering at least steps toward a solution to real problems with our current governance, and they do not appear to come at any real costs; if the process the proposal would create turns into a waste of time, we just scrap it.

The current adminship system and everything surrounding it has become a virtual "reality TV" show, a culture of narcissistic personality and drummed up tension, where ArbCom is a big, invasive production that drags on like an entire season of high-emotion but pointless gladiatorial combat. It's the Wiki Hunger Games. If even a fraction of the following came about (without some terrible cost, of course) it would be a massive improvement:

• What if people just WP:DGAF about it much any more?
• What if all you needed to do at RfA was be sure that the candidate knew the basics, wasn't a flaming jackass, and wasn't some PoV nut, without vetting them for sainthood, because they'd be easy to unseat if they turned out to be douchebags?
• What if people unsuited to the tools weren't drawn to it so much, because it was highly unlikely to be a long-term appointment if you weren't genuinely competent and balanced?
• What if it, by adminship returning to a janitorial role instead of Member of the Imperial Senate role, a more forgiving attitude developed, and people desysopped once for a bonehead move could, 6 months or a year later, get the tools back and do better, reducing both the current "reluctance to use the tools" factor, and treatment of adminship as a once-in-a-lifetime power opportunity?
• What if this worked well and convinced everyone that the entire "absolute trust" model had been silly all along, so more tools were unbundled the way template-editor has been?
• What if we again had an admin bloom and all these crushing backlogs were cleared up, so editor community approval levels of and real trust in the admin pool went up, because it was no longer a dwindling number of beleaguered unsung heroes bobbing in stagnant water with a not-dwindling number of bad apples, but instead a quickly winnowed pool of lots of competent, project-minded Wikipedians?
• What if it became such a non-big deal that it was business as usual for most serious editors to become admins, and to just be admins for a while to do that kind of work, then not be admins and focus on content for a year, then be admins again, etc., editing in practical roles as need be, instead of trying to become wizards and win the hi score in a social roleplaying game?
• What if WP's reputation as a bureaucratic morass dissipated, and we had another editor bloom?
• And a dozen more "what if?" shifts away from the current dysfunction.

Editors like me run screaming away from adminship because it's devolved into a perceptually high-stakes struggle for social capital and ladder climbing, a construct of stratified class instead of work to get done. The present fact that it's really, really difficult to take the tools back from bad-acting admins unless their transgressions are tremendous has resulted in a psychodrama circus. Every RfA is imbued with ten times the signifcance is should have for the voters, while for candidates it's like being accepted for knighthood or not, instead of just trusted with a mop. The resulting difficulty of ever getting tools back if you lose them has produced an adversarial divide, and an admins-for-admins brotherhood against lowly editor concern. It's turned ArbCom into a ritualized combat media event instead of a simple what-the-evidence-shows process. And led to histrionic types realizing they can use this to their advantage to increase the stress levels of admins who won't let them get away with things. And inured ArbCom and the community to admin abuses that are real and should be addressed, as if desysopping is just too cruel and unusual a punishment to consider.

It all strongly discourages most editors from wanting to be admins, while it attracts too many people who see adminship as a form of personal validation, or who thrive on being in charge and passing judgement. There's always been an element of that, but it seems to dominate now. We're also accepting new admins who are questionably competent but seem spotless (mostly just because they haven't been around long enough to have stepped on any toes), while rejecting candidates who really do know what they are doing – the ones who've been around long enough, been active enough, and been willing to involve themselves in controversy enough to have made some mistakes to learn from, and to have detractors as well as fans because debate and compromise instead of capitulation piss some people off. It's so stupid and self-defeating: The community, at RfA, quite literally disqualifies them because of their qualifications, then pulls its collective hair out at the lack of good admins, and the lack of admins at all, and the lack of their willingness to do the hard stuff. Cf. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

Even a few incremental shifts away from this nonsense, toward a competence- not politics-based community self-administration environment, with rational expectations, would be wonderful.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

RFA and especially the drama side of RFA is not going to be affected by BARC, except of course if it is implemented as proposed and potential candidates shy away from RFA. Those in the RFA crowd who don't want "civility police" strictly enforcing civility policy against certain vested contributors will continue to try to stop certain types of admins being appointed; Those of us who don't want admins who are going to be heavyhanded with the deletion button will still oppose candidates who make deletion tagging errors, etc etc. Of course whether you regard all that as competence based or politics based depends on whether you agree with the particular competencies that various parts of the RFA crowd want to see. The reason why RFA is so contentious is precisely because it is about an assortment of work to be done. Any candidate who isn't clear exactly what they would do with the mop gets short shrift at RFA, whether because people think they are simply hat collecting or going for social capital and ladder climbing; If your answer to question one doesn't contain a use you would make of the tools and a rationale as to how your experience qualifies you to do so then your RFA is as good as doomed. ϢereSpielChequers 19:54, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

And what if it doesn't or the exact opposite happens? Nobody really ever asks that question when it comes to things that'll be de facto irreversible. Once this thing happens, we're stuck with it forever, as there's neither a sunset clause nor a metric by which the promises it makes—all of the golden towers you've built into those shiny, glistening bullet points—will be measured. Just look at a bunch of the support votes that fantasize about how revolutionary this will be—how unrealistically better things will become. Those bullet points look pretty. They really do look pretty. Now, what happens if none of them come true? What happens if the opposite starts happening or demonstrable harm occurs? How much statistical significance will we need before the process is proven wrong, or will statistics simply not matter, because we feel it's right in our gut? History is full of that, I might add, and once made, a committee will fight tooth and nail to avoid being unmade. Such is the way of things. By the way, I particularly love the fable that it'll magically make RFA easier. That one really seems to be salient with a lot of people... you know, as if all the arguments of fears/paranoia of WP:BITE trumping the removability of user rights will just fade away once this committee exists... as if RFA will suddenly become much more experimental, risqué, and altogether open to novelty. --slakr^\ talk / 18:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I share your concern that things might not get better, magically or otherwise. It would seem simple enough to propose at the next stage of development that an RFC to review the de-sysopping procedure be commenced one year after the procedure is implemented. Also support the idea of not having a committee in the process.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC).

Timeline

I understand that the plan here is to make a "go or no-go" decision on the overall concept and then, if the decision is "go," to work out the details in a phase two. But I feel compelled to point out right now that an expectation to complete deliberations within 24 hours, among a group of 10 people who may be from different time zones around the world, is simply not possible. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

A fair point, but not necessarily true. Requests for de-sysop might very well be clear cut "consensus to de-sysop" or "no-consensus to de-sysop" (I hope there would not be "Not yet" conclusions") the vast majority of the time. Moreover if it works how RfA works then the decision can be extended if necessary, in the event that something needs to be looked at more carefully. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:30, 27 July 2015 (UTC).

If the administrator's conduct is at the "he deleted the main page and replaced it with a picture of himself kicking a puppy" level, then you are right; six votes, a majority, will come in within the 24 hours, and that will be the end of it. But in a more complex case, in which the committee actually needs to deliberate rather than just vote, a 24-hour deadline is not realistic and the result will either be artificially truncated discussion, routinely ignored deadlines, or both.

Unlike some other issues with the proposed process, this particular concern is easily resolved: simply change the target length for deliberations to a maximum of three days instead of one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The length of all WP:CRATCHATs is documented at Wikipedia:Bureaucrat discussion#Previous bureaucrat discussions. The shortest was 3 hours, and the longest was 134 hours. I work out the average duration to be about 37.5 hours. That's actually pretty good given the issues NYB points out above, but it seems to me that BARC deliberation are likely to be more complex and therefore need longer. WJBscribe (talk) 16:47, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Especially having been on both sides of a CRATCCHAT, I concur with both NYB and WJB on this matter. If this proposal gains acceptance, I'd feel that the potential time allowed should be a week. Even three days is probably not enough time to review more complicated cases, especially as all of us are volunteers and have real life responsibilities that call on us constantly. Of course, simpler cases can be adjudicated more quickly. -- Avi (talk) 17:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is, how often is a clamoring to remove the tools due to a single action by an administrator? And I'm first presuming we're discussing on a single administrator basis (a group of admins being accused of something is just exponentially more complicated). Even ANI posts are rarely based on a single action. You would need an administrative action that is benign enough to have not been reported and discussed somewhere (or again, it's group of people working together to cover something up). Absent the witch-hunting, it's almost always going to be "look over this administrator's actions over weeks or months, each action will be looked at as discretionary but it couldn't have been so blatantly obvious that someone didn't bring it first" which I cannot imagine being conducted in even a week. This is basically ArbCom-lite on a individual basis, or maybe closer to reinstating the conduct RfC process for administrators only. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Remember this is the eleventh day of the process, anything simple enough to be resolvable in a 24 hour chat would have been dealt with by motion and archived now if it had gone to Arbcom. More importantly, this depends on the participants knowing eleven days earlier that they would be free today for this discussion, and working through the implications, which are a bit awkward if one person was going to be around for the first 12 hours of the day and another for the final 6 hours. We are a global site and have developed procedures accordingly, if you insist on a 24 hour period then in effect you discard all that globalism stuff and you require the committee to be available for a discussion when it is evening in the US. ϢereSpielChequers 11:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I've made my opinion on this clear enough, so I'm going to keep my nose out of the discussions about who closes this and how. But the talk page discussion about closing this RfC is relevant reading for those concerned about the speed with which complex discussions can realistically be closed. Comment refactored to remove quote from talk page discussion; not meant to imply cross-talk between candidate closers and opinions on the substance of the RfC. The irony, I hope, remains obvious. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Gender gaps and bureaucrats

I believe it is the case that we have no current bureaucrats who publicly self-identify as female. (I would welcome being proven wrong.*) Although it's better if holders of advanced permissions are roughly representative of the editing community, we probably all agree that the traditional bureaucrat tasks have little to do with gender. *Update: one current crat appears to identify as female and one identifies as androgynous; both are in the lower half of current crats by activity level.

However, under the terms of this proposal (excluding Xeno's suggested modification), we have bureaucrats being asked to make judgments about user behavior. Several recent Arbcom cases have been heavily influenced by matters related to gender and to the demographics of Wikipedia. It is undoubtedly the case that what kind of behavior gets interpreted as problematic is influenced by gender dynamics. There is a reasonable argument that the current makeup of Arbcom - one self-identified woman out of fifteen - creates some blind spots. Is it really a good idea to create another behavior review committee that is (almost?) entirely male?

Yes, the response could be "some women should run for bureaucrat then". But if 85-90% support is necessary for the right to do mostly very uncontroversial tasks, surely it's obvious this would be harder to reach if this proposal were enacted. Opabinia regalis (talk) 16:55, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

This makes no sense for one obvious reason. You are talking about them self identifying, if they didn't say who they were you wouldn't know. That's actually how it should be. You're just an editor, your gender is irrelevant to your behavior. Saying 'Kill all ______' is bad no matter what gender you are. Your words are already gender neutral so stop trying to bring your own gender into it. You're just another editor, and editors are by fact just a few letters and numbers on a server. Only 'you' can attach more to it than that and as far as I'm concerned you're the problem trying to bring gender up as an issue at all. You have no idea what my gender is, you can try to guess and you will never know if you are right or wrong. I'm merely just another number presented to you from a server. This entire argument is stupid on that basis. Gender is 100% irrelevant to quality of editing, only the edits matter, you are the problem for thinking otherwise.165.171.240.45 (talk) 05:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

If memory serves, Secretlondon identifies as female. I guess one fix for this issue would be that if the proposal of tightening activity limits for bureaucrats causes a sharp reduction in the bureaucrat corps, one could try to track down suitable new RfB candidates. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:03, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Secretlondon has made 2 wikipedia-space edits in the past two years, and to all practical purposes is inactive as regards the admin side of Wikipedia. – iridescent 17:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I've made good articles in the last two years, hardly inactive. Secretlondon (talk) 22:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I self-identify as androgynous, though I am also quite inactive presently. Useight's Public Sock (talk) 19:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, to become a 'crat, you have to run to be a 'crat. Can you come up with stats regarding how many females ("cis" or otherwise) who have run to be a 'crat? And to make a blanket statement that just "because someone is male means they can't see things from a female point of view" seems to me to be rather biased as well. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree that saying a man can't see a woman's point of view (as it applies here) is a bit sexist itself, ironically. We strive for gender equity, but first and foremost, we simply want equity in all things. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I know that women have a higher success rate when running for admin, for example, so there is clearly not a bias against women getting the bits, just a shortage of them requesting them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Then perhaps that should be the focus. If females make up a smaller percentage of the overall population, wanting them to have a higher representative percentage (50%, for example) of all 'crats is unfair and not actually equal. If they represent only 25% (just pulling number out of a hat) of all editors or all admins, are we talking about getting things to where there are an equal number of female and male 'crats, or a percentage equal to the percentage they represent in the overall population? The difficulty comes in actually identifying them (since not everyone is forthcoming with that information), and then getting them to actually run through the gauntlet. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Those are complex issues best discussed in another venue, but for purposes of judging the wisdom of creating a new behavior review committee, it's enough to say that both women complainants and women admins might reasonably want to feel represented. It's also relevant that Wikipedia's editor demographics do attract media attention on occasion, and going out of our way to set up a totally new process for regulating behavior that fails to engage with this problem is not going to look smart from the outside. Especially given how vulnerable the proposal as constructed could be to coordinated trolling and harassment.

As for higher RfA success rates, you might have accounted for this already, but my first thought is that the data is skewed by the notnow cases being overwhelmingly young men. But I have no trouble believing that women who successfully navigate a predominantly male social environment to the point of being qualified for an RfA are more likely to pass than similarly qualified men. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:40, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

By all means, lobby for more women to run an RfB. I know of some who I think would be good candidates, I can approach them privately. Do keep in mind, though, that the more bureaucrats there are, the more difficult it is for any one of them to maintain the same quota of activity . -- Avi (talk) 01:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

This section is more than a little bit sexist. It's sad that this kind of crap has infected Wikipedia as well. Gigs (talk) 05:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Your comments are rather sexist. Having a frank discussion of this issue is hardly sexist, and I don't see anyone here stating anything sexist, other than you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

"If females make up a smaller percentage of the overall population, wanting them to have a higher representative percentage (50%, for example) of all 'crats is unfair and not actually equal."—Not a useful way of seeing it. Best we work out how female representation among crats can be increased. Mentoring and induction would be great; an informal process would have advantages, so all we need is for a few crats, admins, and other editors to get together to organise a medium-term strategy. Tony (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

How is that not useful? The best way to increase the percentage is to have them run, so go find some and encourage them to do so. I have yet to see any RfA or RfB where a vote was cast for or against someone simply because of their gender. Gender is simply not a concern when it comes to that. People here (for the most part) tend to vote based on the actual experience the editor has had, and how they interact with others. Regardless of all that, I doubt anywhere near half of the editors here have actually identified their gender publicly. It's not an issue for most people here. We simply don't care what an editor's gender is as it really has no effect on whether they would be a good admin or 'crat. True equality will only be reached when people don't even take that into consideration, and focus instead on the editor's actual qualifications. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 20:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I cannot think why *anyone* would run for RfB at this time, male or female. There is not enough work now to justify running, given how bloated the corps of bureaucrats is right now. (In fact, there hasn`t been for a long time, but we won`t go there.) Anyone running now will only give the impression that they`re running for the opportunity to participate in desysop discussions via the process described on this page. I personally can only think of 3 or 4 women administrators who would be qualified, and I doubt any of them are interested or available. Many women administrators have taken on movement-level roles instead of project-specific ones. Risker (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Risker: Creating a new, all-male group to review the conduct of site administrators, on a site that is getting public attention for its poor treatment of women, is really quite remarkable. I assume David Morrison and Prince Harry will be among the members ... :) --Djembayz (talk) 15:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Are you implying that we should not have this process for desysopping because most people who will be doing the judging are men? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 00:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The style of genitals we carry between our legs is in no way related to the topic at hand. No more than our religion, or our skin colour. This is a scholarly project done by people at keyboards and monitors, there is no point in dragging gender into this discussion. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. If you choose to identify as male, female, republican, white, Hispanic, Mormon, dog, cat, unicorn etc that is fine but it should not be be a factor in decision making. Chillum 15:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Every process and policy should take into consideration that Wikipedia English lacks diversity and we need to correct that issue in order to reduce systemic bias in content. So, I disagree that it is incorrect to bring out the lack of gender diversity in the group of people who will automatically be a part of this new process. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 18:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I find that bias is more likely to be introduced than removed in attempting to right the great wrongs of society in our little microcosm. Chillum 21:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for labeling people who are participating in this talk page discussion and are interested in ending systemic bias from lack of diversity as tendentious editors. That's a very welcoming way to encourage more people who are concerned about gender imbalance to participate in discussions such as this one. :-( Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. I labelled nobody. Frankly I think your response is engaging in straw man tactics. I was merely pointing out that Wikipedia is not the place to correct the failings of society. We should judge people based on their contributions, not what demographic they may be in which may or may not need our help to make things fair. Chillum 00:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You know Stephen Colbert's "I don't see color, I see people" shtick? This is that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I swear to god when I edit Wikipedia I don't see genitals gender. Chillum 00:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

You don't? Well, maybe you should try Commons ;)

You're kind of missing the point by thinking about the problem in terms of who "needs help to make things fair". The point is that people of different groups have different lived experiences that unavoidably manifest on Wikipedia just like they do everywhere else. No matter how objective anyone thinks they're being, it's impossible to not have your own experiences and social context influence your thinking - so the confident assurances from men above that they're certain they can see things from a woman's perspective are honest, but inevitably inexact. If the project aims to be inclusive, participants in its internal governance should reflect a diverse range of experiences and backgrounds. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Appeals and authority

I lean towards supporting this, but with all things I would like to see how the total picture fits together in some key ways first. One of these ways is, what's the appeal process from decisions under this?

With Community decisions, appeals to Arbcom are possible. With AE decisions, appeal to arbcom or community. With this "quicker faster" process, would we / should we have desysops appealable to Arbcom?

If the answer is no, then we've set up two parallel structures overlapping in authority and without a good deciding factor, other than perhaps Jimbo or the Foundation, who are loath to involve themselves.

I would lean towards appeals to Arbcom from here, and calling this a suspension of admin bits rather than removal. Arbcom could then reinstate if they chose otherwise.

Several potential alternatives, but I'd like discussion on this point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

• According to the proposal, 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. I think the ability to appeal to Arbcom is a good idea, for much of the reasons you articulated. This whole process was intended to be a "lightweight" desysop process, intended to handle simple issues. Arbcom is still, for lack of better words, "higher ranked" in authority to the proposed BARC. It is still the final avenue of dispute resolution—as it should be. Mz7 (talk) 15:22, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Missed that somehow. Somehow I connected it with the section below not the proposal itself, my bad misreading it. Thanks! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, it's not "your bad" at all. You missed that because it is impossible to wade through this much text efficiently, and participants haven't been provided an organization chart to make the proposed changes clear. I put in a few more comments about delegation authority above; I'll move them below, into this section. --Djembayz (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Being clear and specific when delegating authority and specifying a group's mandate

• If the current system isn't working, why not consider forming some sort of clearly identified "Committee on Administrator Appointments and Conduct", or possibly two committees, "Committee on Administrator Appointments" and "Committee on Administrator Conduct" to deal with it? It's fine to call them "groups" of some sort if the term committee doesn't seem appropriate, but whatever you call these groups of people, please use really clear, simple language that says

1. who they are,
2. what they do,
3. and how they're selected.

Is there some reason everything here has to have incomprehensible acronyms, and unclear, shifting delegation of authority? The term "Bureaucrat" in the name of the proposed group, combined with the acronym, doesn't inspire much confidence. Unless you're a full-timer here, you have no idea who the "Bureaucrats" are or what they do, and will quite possibly view the term itself as negative. Could it be simply "Administrator Review Commitee" instead? --Djembayz (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Is there an organization chart available to users that shows existing structures for appointment and recall of administrators? --Djembayz (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
• Do others have thoughts on how to be clear and specific when specifying a group's mandate, and delegating authority? Any links to where this has already been discussed elsewhere on the site? --Djembayz (talk) 13:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Article info tool

There is a temporary xTool for systematically listing the contributors to this RfC: http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/wikihistory/wh.php?page_title=Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC_for_BARC_-_a_community_desysoping_process It's a temporary fix by Cyberpower678 for X!'s xTools Page History --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 22:33, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

A different approach - from German-language Wikipedia

I'm active mainly in German-language Wikipedia (where I'm an admin), so I feel I'm not knowledgeable enough with regard to English-language Wikipedia's specific issues surrounding adminship, thus I'm not voting here - but I would like to point out German WP's well-established desysopping process. It's called Adminwiederwahl ("Admin re-election") and was introduced in 2009 in addition to Wikipedia:Administratoren/Probleme. The "Probleme" page is meant only for cases of misuse/abuse of admin rights and was widely seen as working unsatisfactorily, as an admin may have lost the trust of the community without actually abusing their rights. So, the "Adminwiederwahl" was introduced. It works that way: An admin has to stand for re-election if it's demanded by either 25 users over the course of a month, or 50 users in six months. It's not an automatic desysopping: If the admin decides to stand for re-election, they might be re-elected by the same criteria as usual admin elections. However, if they don't agree, they're desysopped 30 days later. The process doesn't insinuate any wrongdoing by the admin, just a community wish to review their adminship (at least in theory; in practice, most people are of course requesting re-election if they'd like to see admin rights removed, and do have complaints to make). Without delving further into English Wikipedia's traditions, it seems to me that a similar approach might work here as well. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

RfA needs to lose its reputation before such a thing can work here, first. Also, are there safeguards agains pointy or retaliatory requests? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:03, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

There are no formal safeguards, but the numbers chosen seem to work well for German Wikipedia's community size. Many admins may have a handful of pointy/retaliatory re-election votes on their Adminwiederwahl page, but speaking from our six years of experience, the 25/50 votes limit is only reached if there are real concerns. But if these are not deeply rooted in the community, the admin may still be re-elected by a very clear margin. I'm not always and thoroughly happy with the system, e.g. there was a wave of re-election requests for not very active admins purely because of their perceived "inactivity". Still, I think it's not a bad system. By the way, if an admin isn't active at all for more than a year in German-language WP (meaning, not a single admin action and not a single edit), they're automatically desysopped. They can, of course, stand for election again when they come back. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Addition: I nearly forgot, of course there's a quite important safeguard: After an admin election or successful re-election, the admin's Adminwiederwahl page is blocked for a year, except if the admin decides to voluntarily open the page for votes. So, perpetual re-elections are avoided. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:31, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

On wp:fr, there are the same thing (fr:Wikipédia:Contestation du statut d'administrateur) since 2012, but we just need 6 users in six months ( xD ) for initiate the vote. On 3 years, there was 11 votes for contest the sysop with 7 desysoppings and 4 success re-election for maybe 50 procedures initiates (there are about 100/120 admins on wp:fr). You have the summary of all them on fr:Wikipédia:Contestation du statut d'administrateur/Archives. I do a RfD on the subject (for minors points essentially) recently (see fr:Wikipédia:Prise de décision/Réforme de la procédure de contestation), and the community don't really change the procedure. This procedure concern conflict and inactivity adminship, but inactive admin aren't very concern/contest. --Nouill (talk) 05:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I quite like this idea, much more so than the proposal here. It avoids a term for admins, which would result in unneeded bureaucracy in the case of an admin that is clearly doing their job well, but still provides a process by which admins who have lost the community's trust to be removed. With some changes to fit English Wikipedia's community size, this could work. Say, if any 25 active users (defined as account older than 3 months, edit count over 500) request a recall/re-election within a 30 day period, the admin must choose to stand for RfA again or relinquish their sysop tools. This looks like a truly community-based solution to the problem, and the higher threshold for complaints to be initiated (more than one user) more adequately prevents harassment of admins through this system. I would strongly support this idea. ~ Rob^Talk 05:47, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I prefer this as well, with the proviso that it be proportional to our fellow projects. So, since frwiki has about 1/10 as many admins, our required minimum should be 10x higher (at least 60 in six months); since dewiki has about 250 admins (1/5), it should be 5x higher (125 in one month or 250 in six months). I'd probably suggest staying closer to the frwiki ratio of about 50-75 with a shorter timespan of three months. Both of these projects have a somewhat higher active editor to admin ratio as compared to enwiki, but both also have much higher restrictions on notability (which results in fewer deletion debates) and much, much lower rates of vandalism requiring blocking, so they also have less need for admins. I think the dewiki approach of "one kick at the can per year" is essential. Risker (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Come on Risker, you know perfectly well the top range of people who participate in admin-related discussions wont come near that. 250 people calling for a desysop in 6 months? Lucky if 100 people can be interested enough to vote at RFA these days. An admin would have to kill a kitten to get that sort of interest. Looking at participation ratios to population, if anything ENwiki would need lower numbers... Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

100 people are actually common lately in RfA. Granted, 100 supports or opposes to a given motion are less common but not impossible. Anyhow, after seeing how the dewiki "recall" was used during the Media Viewer debacle, I think that process is too open to abusive/retaliatory motions. enwiki has issues with long-running conflicts and editors with axes to grind, so I'd only endorse such a recall if it has strict rules about who can bring up a motion and when, and which arguments are allowed and which not. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:13, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: You say that after seeing how the dewiki "recall" was used during the Media Viewer debacle, I think that process is too open to abusive/retaliatory motions - I can see nothing abusive/retaliatory in that specific case. Details might have been lost in translation, so to summarize what happened there: In the community vote de:Wikipedia:Meinungsbilder/Medienbetrachter, it was decided that the Media Viewer should be opt-in only. The community did not decide to deactivate it entirely, the vision was an opt-in solution (activate the Media Viewer individually if you want it). Probably because this wasn't easy to implement, admin DaB. instead deactivated it wholly (with no option to activate) - that wasn't what the community voted for. It's well known that following this action, the Media Viewer's activation was enforced by the WMF using a newly created "superprotect" right, which enraged de-Wikipedia's community - but the views on DaB.'s action were also not entirely positive. Many objected to him implementing a total deactivation of the Media Viewer in spite of the community's "opt-in" decision. So, the 25 votes for mandatory re-election were quickly gathered, indeed. But isn't that exactly what the process is for? It was a divisive, controversial admin action that caused part of the community losing their trust in him. His re-election wasn't successful and he lost admin privs, but still had the support of many - it was an orderly, fair re-election process, I don't see anything abusive in it. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: Um, actually, it was Jan's recall that I have issues with - that one came off as retaliatory. Sorry, should have specified that. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:25, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Ah, thank you. I only thought of DaB., because his case was the only one in connection with the Media Viewer affair where an actual (unsuccessful) re-election process took place. Jan lost his admin privs after not standing for re-election, but yes: it was a problematic case. Jan edited the configuration page using his WMF account, but it was his regular user/admin account that was "punished" for it. He didn't stand for re-election after recall (thus was desysopped after 30 days), so the community didn't have a chance to really give their opinion on him retaining admin privs. Although, to complicate this case even more, apparently he didn't then have the "right to vote" (Stimmberechtigung) which is a prerequisite in German-Wikipedia to stand for admin election, see de:Wikipedia:Stimmberechtigung, due to low activity. So, he would have first had to regain his Stimmberechtigung by becoming more active... This is, I have to admit, a distinct flaw of de-Wikipedia's process, and I have said it there as well: If a low-activity admin is recalled, and they don't have the "right to vote" due to this low activity, they can't even stand for re-election if they wanted, and lose the privs. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Oi. I said 50-75 within 3 months, please read past the first sentence. Jo-Jo does have a point, of course, and it's pretty much the point that has always been made about "community" desysops - they go after people who do things, and do nothing about the people who do very little or avoid doing anything hard, potentially controversial, or unpleasant. I still feel badly for Jan over that desysop, after never once having a complaint about his actual admin actions as a community member. Risker (talk) 08:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

On wp:fr we had decided that number by the median with a vote (on that page). The procedure was created after 2 big RfD (fr:Wikipédia:Prise de décision/Administrateur/Contestation du statut and mostly fr:Wikipédia:Prise de décision/Administrateur/Modalités de la contestation), each aspect of the procedure has a vote (Example : we ask if we need to have a solid reason to contest, if the arbcom will be implicate, if the recall vote will have the same rule of the election, etc... with condorset or median method/vote.) --Nouill (talk) 09:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@Risker: Regarding since dewiki has about 250 admins (1/5), it should be 5x higher (125 in one month or 250 in six months): It seems that de-wiki, for whatever reason, has a higher number of participants in requests for adminship than English Wikipedia, which is a bit surprising, given the large size of en-wiki's community. If we look at some of the last candidates in German Wikipedia, the results are e.g. 205:13, 235:47, 29:162 oder even 283:63... rarely less than two hundred participants in total, often more than three hundred. If it's true that only 100 people participating in an English Wikipedia's RfA is even seen as not too bad, then I really think there's something wrong with the process here... given the size of this project, I'd say it should be 500 or so. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: By the way, the higher number of participants in German-language Wikipedia's RfA process is even more striking given the "Stimmberechtigung" prerequisite I mentioned in the discussion above: Not anyone can vote in admin elections; only users who fulfil certain formal requirements (active for more than two months, at least 200 edits in article namespace, at least 50 of these edits in the last 12 months...) Gestumblindi (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I would like to see such a requirement here. I remember when I first stumbled across RFA I tried to work out what the unwritten rule was for being entitled to !vote, and left it for a while until I was more confident I would be accepted. There are many drawbacks of not codifying our criteria not least we bite those who come here too early in their wiki careers, and we seem like a clique with undisclosed membership criteria. I suspect that if we adopted those rules from DE we would gain more voters than we lose - surely we can't have many RFA !voters now with fewer than 200 mainspace edits and an account less than two months old? ϢereSpielChequers 07:04, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

What I remember from the Russian Wikipedia (the details might have changed in the meanwhile, I did not follow) was that RfA (and ArbCom) voters should have passed two qualifications: (i) the total number of edits greater than smth (I think it was 100, but I am not sure); (ii) the user must be reasonably active during the RfA period (must have edited in a month preceding the RfA and must have had a number of edits, like 50, in 6 month preceding the RfA). Accepting pending changes counts as a vote, but if it makes a difference, the eligibility must be confirmed by a bureaucrat.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree this might work, with the numbers obviously to be fine-tuned.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I also think this might work -it seems to work on dr: and fr: - though there may be differences in how the communuities function. I think this is a more practicable system than the original proposal. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:52, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I've written a mock-up of it at User:BU Rob13/RfC for Administrator Re-election. Any thoughts would be appreciated, and feel free to edit if you'd like to make improvements to the proposal. Do you think this should be an option available in an RfC? ~ Rob^Talk 10:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Closers

Please see the same-named section on the talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 12:00, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

BARC only has support among non-admins

I ran through all the supports and opposes with an eye towards what category each voter is in. As of now:

Category	Support	Oppose	% Support
Editor	75	23	76.5%
Administrator	32	38	45.7%
Bureaucrat	1	3	25.0%
Arbitrator	1	2	33.0%
Totals	109	66	62.3%

*Note; one oppose vote from an IP was discounted in these totals
--Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

If you broaden out the fourth category to include both former and current Arbs, I think you get 5:8 (For: Worm; Cas Liber; Beeblebrox; Floquenbeam; Thryduulf. Against: Iridescent; T. Canens; Doug Weller; DGG; Xeno; Neutrality; Risker; FloNight). WJBscribe (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It would actually be 5:9, I oppose as well. KnightLago (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hammer, I'm not sure what conclusions you have drawn from the data above, but it appears you are attempting to campaign against the BARC proposal by suggesting that "three out of four groups of Wikipedians oppose the BARC proposal." If so, it represents a highly problematic and cherry-picked and potentially misleading data set. First and most obviously, four bureaucrats and three current and past arbitrators do not represent a statistically significant sample of those groups, nor are they likely to be representative of the population of Wikipedians as a whole -- an intuitive proposition amply supported by the 21% difference in support between editors at large and current administrators. Nor is that difference particularly surprising: administrators are the group that is proposed to be subject to a new regulatory/disciplinary process, and naturally some percentage of them oppose the proposal for that reason alone. Personally, I think it is a credit to administrators generally that almost half of them see the need for this process or one similar to it. This paragraph was revised to account for concerns raised elsewhere by Hammersoft. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The obvious question I have for you is this: why do over three quarters of ordinary editors -- the overwhelming majority of whom are neither rookies nor problematic contributors -- strongly believe that such a new process is necessary and/or desirable? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Overwhelming majority? Do you have some analysis of the experience of the editors on which to base this conclusion? Other than that, my only response is this; my statement is true. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, Hammer, I have had personal interaction with 81 of the 109 current supporters, and I know several others from their participation in RfAs, RfCs, AfDs, TfDs, and other talk pages. They also include 32 administrators who are among our most active. So, yes, I do have a strong basis for making that assertion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Until the RfC has run its 30 days and the consesus assessed by an uninvolved editor, I don't see how the table contributes anything objective to the matter under discussion. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Of course not. I wasn't attempting an objective analysis, but rather noting the high level of difference between respective populations. Such assessment has been done before, and it started interesting conversations. Sorry you don't like it. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say 'I don't like it'. I inferred that it does not contribute to the debate. It's interesting though although I do however find the L2 header somewhat misleading but it was certainly effective as a watchlist catch.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• Your point being? You click "new section" and it automatically generates an L2 heading, and plenty of other people have started L2 headings here. Since this was not appropriate for any of those sections, an L2 heading is entirely appropriate. There's no attempt to mislead. I do think it contributes to the debate, as the subsequent discussion below shows. That was my intent. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

My point being that not only is BARC only has support among non-admins a misleading eye catcher, it's just not true. If you're going to help an RfC whether by supporting or opposing, please stick to the facts. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I did stick to the facts. Sorry you disagree with them, but disagreeing doesn't change the reality. I spoke the truth. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:15, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I think this data is quite interesting. I think that the authors of this attempt can pause for a moment and take a little pride that their proposal has such strong support amongst administrators; I believe it's quite a bit higher than we've seen in the past. The red flag to me is that there is little support from the people who would have overall responsibility for the success of this proposal: the bureaucrats. It is never a good idea to place expectations on groups that are not particularly interested in taking on those challenges, and usually dooms the proposal to failure even if it is "approved". Risker (talk) 18:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Just to clarify, I believe the "lack of interest" is not due to apathy or laziness, but that the bureaucrats who answered feel that there is more harm than good in this proposal. -- Avi (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    • Heh, I suppose I'm using the "alternate" definition of "interest". I'm also pretty sure our bureaucrats aren't interested in running out into the traffic or jumping off cliffs without safety equipment, either. :-) For that matter, neither are most of our admins. Risker (talk) 18:47, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
      • But we do attempt to dig a new Chunnel wearing nothing but cargo shorts and SCUBA gear and armed with 4 boxes of toothpicks and a backscratcher. -- Avi (talk) 18:50, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The way I read this chart is that this proposal has overwhelming support among editors who do not have a conflict of interest. Coretheapple (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• One could just as easily read it the other way; the editors have a conflict of interest too, just from the other side the table. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Coretheapple, to play devil's advocate, one could also make the following claim, that "this proposal has overwhelming support among editors who do not have any personal experience with how administrators are treated" or, if one is willing to be cynical about editors as well, "this proposal has overwhelming support among editors who may harbour resentment or disappointment at their lack of access to the administrative toolkit." No one is implying anything of the sort, but it does show that trying to assign or assume cause for the correlation is neither easy nor clear. Rhetorically speaking, I believe your statement is an example of the fallacy of the single cause. -- Avi (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
    • But "personal experience with how adminstrators are treated" is exactly what makes it a conflict of interest. By the way, I agree with the remark below that block history is pertinent. If the non-admins supporting this proposal are predominantly SPAs, or have been subjected to administrative actions, then yes it could skew the results. But if they are predominantly experienced (1000+ edits) editors with clear records, then I think that needs to be taken into consideration too. Coretheapple (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
• I would say 75+% support by non-admins is very significant, they are, after all, the ones who have the complaints to make. There is, at the very least, a perceived lack of recourse for normal editors when they feel an Admin has over-stepped or behaved badly. With the system we have now an Admin must, metaphorically, kill puppies and sacrifice to the Elder Gods before they are finally brought to ArbCom. Lesser misbehavior, that would lead to sanction of a non-admin is seldom addressed and this leads to a feeling of alienation for those who perceive they have been mistreated. It also leads to a deepening cynicism among those who witness those dramas from the sidelines (My personal opinion is if an Admin behaves badly enough that a regular editor would get a decent length block they should loose the bit. With trust comes responsibility and accountability - but that will never happen so here we are.). This is an outgrowth of the same culture that makes it nearly impossible to sanction 'Content Creators' and 'Experienced Editors'.

  We, as a community, simply do not understand that little problems turn into big problems if they are not addressed. In this case the huge barrier opening an ArbCom case is to a regular editor (many of whom do not even know about ArbCom much less how to go about presenting material to ArbCom to avoid a procedural decline) has led to a decline in respect for admins which makes their work even harder. Sooner or later we are going to collapse under the weight of out own anarchy. Jbh^Talk 00:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• Facepalm Well, if we're going to be assuming bad faith and making separate classes of people, maybe we should add block history as a criterion, too. Off hand, it looks like at least 3 people in the supports are currently blocked or have been blocked in the past, so surely they're "just troublemakers." Of course, one might also simultaneously argue that they should get immunity as well, because admins are clearly evil incarnate and most if not all 38+ of them voting oppose must clearly be doing so because they're actively abusing their tools and know this committee will, unlike arbcom, stop them...or something? I mean, never mind the valid points and honest opinions raised by people—those must be lies and deception. No, guys, it's pretty clear the people supporting this must obviously just be rightful targets of admin actions and/or those who happen to be admins and happen to oppose this must obviously be doing it because they're guilty. Of something. Surely the committee will flush it out. --slakr^\ talk / 03:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that Jbhunley and others bring up an important point. My own opinion is that we need to either re-emphasize—or re-center if necessary—how admins are treated vis-a-vis regular interactions. There should be no "special" treatment, expressed or implied, for an admin if he or she violates Wiki principles. They should get the same AGF that everyoine gets, and be subject to the same protective measures as everyone, be it warnings, blocks, topic bans, or the like. Just because someone is an admin should not afford them the ability to be rude or obscene, or afford them extra "weight" in content discussion. That being said, admins should be trusted when it comes to their maintenance work, unless it can be shown to be abused or grossly negligent. However, unlike what Jbhunley said above, I do not think that an admin who loses his or her temper should lose the bits as well; people are human. They should be treated like other editors. Bit loss should follow from bit abuse, or behavior egregious enough to warrant a communal loss of trust, as codified by an RFAR. -- Avi (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree, Avraham, and that is what piqued my interest in this subject, the case of a very, very long-time admin who came up before ANI for adding unsourced material to BLPs. It was the broad consensus of opinion that that was not sufficient to desysop, that competency was beside the point, that there was no abuse of tools. So it was about to die out, and then it emerged that the admin was socking at the ANI, that one of his "defenders" there was him. So he lost his tools. That was considered adequate "punishment." Any mere mortal gets blocked for socking or even something far less, like 3RR. He didn't acknowledge the socking or even express regret. But he gets a pass. A clear double standard. It's the kind of thing that makes editors get cynical about admins as a kind of private, self-protecting club. Coretheapple (talk) 12:08, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I've taken Autopatroller rights off non admins for creating unsourced BLPs, but as for blocks I hope most admins would differentiate between unsourced but sourceable or unsourced and probably wrong. We really need to differentiate between goodfaith editors who don't cite their sources and badfaith editors who are deliberately adding falsehoods. On the broader point as to whether admins should be judged to a stricter or laxer standard then other editors, I suggest you ask that question in the next Arbcom elections and let the result influence your vote. My impression of Arbcom is that they are not always consistent, but quite capable of being much harsher on a current or former admin. ϢereSpielChequers 13:39, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

As Risker put it above, I think its good that this proposal got as many admins supporting as it did. Its also interesting that the number of people who voted so far is a tiny number of the total admins or even editors who have edited just in the last few days. I saw an RFA recently that had more than 250 voters in a weeks time. There are also at least 2 additional possibilities for resolution that haven't really been mentioned as far as I can tell for how the community can take the administrator access away from someone. They could vote to ban them from the site, which is extreme but would effectively remove the access and then set the expiration for the ban itself to 1 day but state they must do a new RFA upon return from their ban. The other thing that could be done is to topic ban them from doing anything that requires the use of the admin tools. Of course some things are more apparent like blocks and protections than others such as reading deleted material, but this would also have the effect of desysopping them functionally even if not technically. My assumption is that if either were done a few times then it would be apparent how silly it is for the community to have to work around the problem in the first place and a fix would be implemented. I think fears and arguments about how the community would start removing the tools arbitrarily from every admin if they were allowed too has no merit and shows a complete lack of trust in this community and in the bureaucrats. Certainly if this were the case and a desysop was obviously manipulated it would be stopped, or no action would be taken upon its completion. Or would it? If I do have it wrong then that means there are far larger problems that need to be addressed than just a desysop process and I would hope that is not the case. RingofSauron (talk) 14:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

You are right, it is a very good thing, good news, that so many admins are willing to agree to a mechanism like this. I don't know much about statistics, but if this is a representative sampling, then the 75% figure would indicate overwhelming support among the vast majority of users, since the vast majority of users are not admins. Along with that is considerable and surprising support among admins, even though this proposal is not in their best interests. Yes there is definitely not a lot of support among bureaucrats, as this does create work for them. Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• @RingofSauron: My perspective on this is very similar to your own. Personally, I believe one of the silliest and most insubstantial reasons for opposing this proposal for addressing problematic conduct by administrators is the assertion that the proposal would somehow result in more bad-faith, harassing, trivial, and otherwise misguided desysoppings of good administrators. Does anyone really believe that a process in which 50% or more of the members of the decision-making panel are serving administrators (bureaucrats are administrators, right?) is somehow going to go rogue and start removing the tools from blameless administrators? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree and IMO the high editor approval can be looked at 2 ways. On one hand, it could be argued that its just a bunch of editors who have something against the admins and want to establish a "committee". On the other hand it could also be viewed that the editors view the current situation as unfair and disproportionately favors admins and that there should in fact be an easier way to remove the admin access from some that doesn't cause a significant drain on site resources for prolonged periods of time. I see both sides of the argument and I assume the truth lies somewhere in the middle. The show of support in this proposal in general, to me, shows that there is a general agreement that the current situation is not preferred and something, even if not the perfect situation, should be done to change it. I think its important to really read the comments on this though and not just the votes. Many of the opposers state that they agree there is a problem and it needs to be addressed but they disagree in some aspect of the proposal. Some are not workable into the current proposal but some are and should be considered IMO. If taken into consideration many of those comments would lead to a better solution IMO that will garner even more support over all. I'm sure this isn't an original thought but if the community can elect an admin, then why wouldn't they be trusted enough to also demote one? RingofSauron (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Not only do I believe that it would be used that way, Dirtlawyer1, but I am certain it will directly impact the ability to attract more administrator candidates. Why bother requesting permissions that quite literally anyone can present cases against you for any reason, as often as they like, whenever they like, and you just have to lie there and take it? That is the framework that is being discussed here, after all. Bottom line, I know we need a lot more working administrators, people who are actually doing the work of administrators; I see it every day in the areas where I focus. And I do not want to see anything approved that has a much greater chance of reducing the number of administrators doing admin tasks, or reducing the number of people willing to stand at RFA, for reasons that are based on erroneous information and poorly thought-through notions of "fairness". So big deal, only Arbcom could take away the admin bit. There was nothing that prevented the community from adding other sanctions; in fact, there have been several cases where arbcom has desysopped people and informed the community, which has then decided on blocking or banning after the case. Arbcom taking away the bits doesn't prevent other community-based sanctions from being applied. In some cases, the community sanctions (e.g., blocking) will have already occurred before Arbcom does its thing. That the community couldn't get its act together to decide to block someone for socking during an ANI discussion (seriously? I must have missed that one) is, frankly, a symptom that the community isn't able to get its act together, and is an even better reason for not handing over desysops to the community....or worse yet, this "let's pretend this is community desysop but we all know it's just going to be a three-ring-circus with the only community involvement really being the complainant" proposal. Risker (talk) 19:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Risker: I know you feel that way, and, in fact, you were one of the four or five discussion participants I had in mind when I wrote my comments immediately above. Several of your comments on this talk page have approached "Chicken-Little-the-sky-is-falling" proportions. Your comments in these threads do not seem to be constructive criticism of the proposal I read, but rather an imagined parade of horribles calculated to derail any further consideration of any administrator review proposal outside the existing ARBCOM process that you believe to be entirely adequate. To clarify your position, I will re-ask my question above, this time asked directly of you:

1. Do you (Risker) believe that an administrator review process in which 50% or more of the members of the decision-making panel are serving administrators is somehow going to go rogue and start removing the tools from blameless administrators?

To which I will add the following questions for you to answer:

2. Do you (Risker) believe that in an administrator review process, in which 50% or more of the members of the decision-making panel are serving administrators, such panel will vote to accept complaints that are frivolous, trivial, based entirely on grudges, or otherwise completely without merit?

3. Where do you (Risker) believe you can find five active administrators and/or bureaucrats who want to desysop their fellow administrators for reasons that are frivolous, trivial, based entirely on grudges, or otherwise completely without merit?

4. Do you (Risker) really believe that five of your fellow non-administrator editors, randomly chosen, but experienced -- say three years with a minimum of 15,000 edits -- are incapable of understanding whether a complaint is frivolous, trivial, based entirely on grudges, or otherwise completely without merit?

5. Have you (Risker) actually read the entire proposal?

Frankly, I think any reasonable alternative that removes such complaints from the existing auto-da-fe discussion atmosphere of ANI would be preferable, and would do a better job of balancing the merits of a complaint with compassion, understanding, and respect for the parties. Administratorship is not and never was intended to be some form of perpetually granted license or property right. It was intended to be a set of tools granted by the community, in trust, to be used for the benefit of the community. If you (Risker) believe that administratorship is a lifetime privilege that should not be removed for anything short of intentionally crashing the main page, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. And, as RingofSauron suggested above, if the community cannot be trusted to remove the tools when appropriate, how can you trust the community to grant (or not grant) the tools when appropriate? As one of the former de facto leaders of the community, perhaps it's time that you start showing a little faith in that community. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I also find it a little extreme to argue that editors would be running around submitting every admin to this "committee". My assessment is based on the following perceptions I have already. Stated above, the Arbcom can already remove the tools from an admin, presumably they do that now on occasion. Are they being bombarded by requests? And are they acting on them? Also, if this "committee" is made up of Bureaus and other trusted individuals would they act on arbitrary or meritless requests? I would certainly hope not. Very briefly looking at the last week of ANI discussions (according to the TOC there) some admins have been submitted there and those submissions were shut down fairly quickly. My guess is any meritless submissions to this committee (and indeed perhaps some with merit) would likewise be shot down). What I do think this will do is to make any currently problematic admins pause for a moment and think about their actions. Might this proposal stop a few from submitting an RFA? Perhaps, it may also lead to a few resignations, but are those really the admins we want if they fear retaliation? My gut feeling tells me they are not. RingofSauron (talk) 20:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

As I reread Riskers comments I actually have some concerns about the attitude displayed there. Not only is there an attitude of complete non trust in the communities actions, s/he actually seems to believe that although the community can be trusted to grant administrator access the community cannot be trusted to remove it. I find this notion very troubling. I am also a little alarmed at the statement "I know we need a lot more working administrators, people who are actually doing the work of administrators; I see it every day in the areas where I focus. And I do not want to see anything approved that has a much greater chance of reducing the number of administrators doing admin tasks". Yeah, same applies to editors as well. Lots of backlogs, lots of edits needing to be done, not enough editors in general to do the work. Likewise if we implement some controls and assume some good faith on the part of the community, maybe more editors would edit, more would join and more would stay. Statements like that are, IMO, very counter to establishing and maintaining a trusting and collegial environment. RingofSauron (talk) 20:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@RingofSauron: Contrary to what Risker suggested above, I believe the biggest impediment to attracting new administrator candidates is not that they might be removed at some later date, but the often unpleasant, personalized atmosphere of the RfA process, where some editors still feel free to make comments that might get them blocked for making personal attacks on any other Wikipedia discussion page. Reducing that degree of personalization at RfA should be first and foremost on the mind of anyone who wants to increase the number of good administrator candidates. We need to learn to disagree without being disagreeable, and to evaluate without being personal or hypercritical, and when other participants cross those lines, we need to be willing to pull them back (gently, if possible). Bottom line: it's not the hypothetical loss of tools in the future that deters candidates; it's the very real prospect of seeing the candidate's good work mischaracterized, good intentions misconstrued, good character impugned, and occasional mistakes grotesquely exaggerated. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with you there, Dirtlawyer1, and would have stood behind those comments 100% up until this got posted. However, now that there's been all this kerfuffle about how we "need" to have a way to desysop admins (we already have one, it works well, but that's apparently a very unpopular observation on this page), and this discussion and its variations have been widely advertised, we've probably dissuaded a whole new bunch of potential administrators from running. Risker (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec)Dirtlawyer1, they don't have to remove a single tool from a single person. This entire proposal serves only to create a new area in which problem users can create drama. Even if every single application is turned down, that doesn't mean that administrators aren't bitten every time a complaint is made, that they don't have to defend themselves every time either. That is my entire point. Simply providing a venue at which frivolous complaints are practically encouraged to be made (note that there's no penalty at all or even a contemplation of one for making a frivolous complaint) is enough; they don't have to be accepted, they just have to be made. This proposal does nothing to change administrator behaviour for the positive, and creates negative reinforcement for carrying out difficult tasks that involve potentially "litigious" editors. The fact that nobody's been able to come up with a single example of administrator behaviour that this process would address that is not already addressed through the current process is pretty much all that needs to be said here. Now here's a question for you: what about if the complaint is about arbitration enforcement? Does it go to Arbcom or here? (If you don't know the answer to that question, then you've probably not really thought about the whole thing.) RingofSauron, I've put up with a very significant amount of abuse and have seen many, many attempts at retaliation on this project. I was an arbitrator for five years, but I know that even being named as "a party" in an Arbcom request that didn't get accepted has had a negative effect on a lot of users and administrators, and even more so if the case was accepted, regardless if the outcome was to completely "vindicate" the editor/administrator. We've lost a lot of productive people, people who were doing good work for the project, because of getting sucked into "dispute resolution". I see this as a whole new way to negatively impact the community. Arbcom has its purposes, but it is unpleasant; this will have the identical impact (except that there will be extremely little opportunity to mount any kind of defense). This proposal is possibly even more bureaucratic than Arbcom's, less flexible, less likely to result in a satisfactory outcome. Risker (talk) 20:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC) ADDENDUM TO RESPOND TO RING OF SAURON'S ADDITIONAL COMMENT: I do not see this as a community process at all. If it was a community driven process, I'd give it serious consideration, as I have noted above. Risker (talk) 20:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I noticed earlier that you had been a member of Arbcom and I can imagine that job was quite negative. I also recognize that this project has probably lost many good editors and admins over the years for various reasons. Its not unknown to me that Wikipedia is less than a positive environment. I would like to see that changed and I do not see that changing if there isn't trust in the community to be able to do things like this. Its like telling a company that they can hire someone, but they can't fire them unless they take them to court. If that were the case, businesses wouldn't risk hiring anyone and if they did they would be so conservative in doing it, that they would have a hard time filling positions...just like RFA. I have absolutely no doubt there will be frivolous complaints just like there is at ANI, Arbcom and certainly other venues. It doesn't mean a process isn't needed. As I stated above, the community can already Ban an admin from the project or from using the tools (topic). Is that preferred from allowing them to remove the admin access? It makes no sense to me how the community can be trusted to grant them access, to ban them from the site completely or to topic ban them from using the tools but cannot simply take them away if abused. I also find it a little troubling that virtually all the opposes come from admins who have a vested interest in making sure this doesn't happen. Which isn't to say that they are bad, its human nature and really not surprising, but still concerning. In regards to your question, I would say that a question regarding arb enforcement should go to Arbcom. My question to you is, if the community has a problem with an Arb or a decision of the Arbcom, where does that complaint go to? Perhaps that is the answer? Maybe it needs to go to whatever next level is above the Arbcom for a third party review. For what its worth I would also prefer a community led desysop process, but that has apparently failed multiple times in the past when submitted, so it seems reasonable for me that this intermediate stop is a move in the right direction from nothing at all. RingofSauron (talk) 20:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

(Noting I added another diff above) RingofSauron, the point is that nobody has shown why *this particular* very bureaucratic, cumbersome, inflexible, and non-community process is what is needed. At least in the examples I've suggested above, there really is *community* action. This is just, frankly, ANI with bigger guns, except that most of the community really is excluded from it. It's not community-driven. It's complainer-driven. There's a difference. As to the community having a problem with Arbcom, they get to vote people out every single year - and they often do. More impressively, a huge number of arbitrators have been elected for multiple terms. There are also lots of examples of the community simply ignoring Arbcom; the majority of the time when Arbcom has asked "the community" to review things and come up with ideas, it's been ignored, for example. Risker (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Risker: You say that you would support a genuinely "community-based" administrator review process -- say, a hypothetical review panel composed of five current administrators and five editors-at-large (with minimum experience of three years, 15,000 edits, and no block history), with the consensus outcome to be determined by our existing bureaucrats? Would that be "community-based" enough for you? I would also be grateful if you would answer the 5 questions I asked above -- simple "yes" and "no" answers would suffice. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:01, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not a community-based administrator review process. I would support a community-based one, such as the ones I have described in my last post, and in the sections about how they do it on other projects, above. I'm looking for at least 50 editors to be saying "this guy's a problem admin". I'm not going to answer those questions, I know leading questions when I see them. Risker (talk) 21:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@Risker: I'm an attorney in real life, and those are not "leading questions" within any commonly understood meaning of the term. I was simply trying to understand whether you were serious or not about having a genuinely "community-based" administrator review process. If you believe that it should require 50 editors filing complaints about a given administrator, each of which includes credible prima facie assertions of misconduct, incompetence or another form of unsuitability before taking action, we're never going to agree on anything. Your suggested threshold for community action is preposterous, impossibly high and consequently meaningless, and I would never support a candidate for the Arbitration Committee or any other conduct review panel who believed in such a threshold. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh come on Dirtlawyer1, they are pretty loaded questions! It's "have you stopped beating your wife" territory. I'm not sure why those questions are quite so aggressively targeted at one editor, but if you take a step back would you really expect anyone to answer them? WJBscribe (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

@WJBscribe: "Leading?" No. "Loaded?" If by "loaded," you mean uncomfortable questions you may not want to answer because they require you to directly answer that (a) you don't trust uninvolved administrators/bureaucrats to make correct decisions in an admin conduct review case, or uninvolved non-administrators to make correct decisions in an admin conduct review case; and (b) you haven't actually read the proposal under discussion, then yes, it's loaded. Nevertheless, given Risker's statements above, those questions are entirely fair attempts to clarify her position because it's evident that she does not trust anyone to review administrator conduct, except maybe ARBCOM. Add that to her desired threshold of fifty (50!) editor complaints before she would accept a "community-based" admin review process, and it becomes self-evident that this is not a serious discussion about trying to find common ground. Ask yourself this: what would the consequences be if a company required 50 written complaints of sexual harassment about a mid-level manager before undertaking an investigation . . . It's not a suggestion to be taken seriously, WJB. Not at all. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

(ec) I wouldn't recommend using sexual harassment as your example. Let's pick something less charged, say an employee fiddling their expenses. We have a process for that - it's called ArbCom. They "fire" admins for the equivalent misconduct relatively frequently, and only one editor need raise the underlying issue. If we must use this sort of business analogy (I'm not convinced it's helpful) - a parallel for community desysopping might be how many employees should it take voicing general concerns about the temperament or work ethic of a colleague without allegations of misconduct for management to consider reassigning people to difference teams? I suspect that will depend a lot on the size of the team. And of course, here everyone is a volunteer. WJBscribe (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

WJB, pick any example of misconduct you want. We should not have to wait until it becomes a firing offense

You've clearly not read the section I've pointed you to several times. I did not say 50 complaints. Please do not put words in my mouth. And, let's just say that if you and I were sitting across from each other at a deposition, my lawyer wouldn't be letting me answer those questions. Further, this isn't a company, "sexual harassment" is regularly and effectively dealt with at the community level on a regular basis, and you've again put words in my mouth about the standard I am seeking. Risker (talk) 22:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Risker, this is not a company, this is not a deposition, and there are no potential legal consequences for you or anyone else if you answer questions honestly and directly. As for your alternative(s), was that (1) the one where you floated the idea of a community vote with no fewer than 250 participants, (2) the one that would require a minimum of 100 affirmative votes to remove the bit, or (3) a range of 50 to 75 affirmative votes to remove the bit? In any of those three alternatives, it sounds a lot like a reverse RfA process to desysop, which has been repeatedly floated and rejected by most administrators. Frankly, I think a review committee composed of at least 50% bureaucrats/administrators is much more likely to treat an administrator whose conduct has been questioned with fairness and dignity than a reverse RfA "anything goes" environment. All of these suggestions sound like impossible standards, except perhaps the last -- but do you really want to subject yourself to a reverse RfA? Based on comments here and elsewhere, that sounds like something you're determined to avoid at all costs, and I believe it's something much more likely to facilitate the score-settling, etc., atmosphere you fear. A conduct review committee of five administrators and/or bureaucrats, and five editors-at-large, sounds like a much more dignified and respectful venue than the reverse RfAs you suggested above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I made my suggestion pretty clear: 50-75 community member supporting a re-RFA over he course of 3 months. I mentioned that if we were to look at proportionality compared to dewiki and frwiki, it would need to be much higher; they have a lot fewer admins per active community member on both of those projects (at least in part because they have much lower rates of vandalism and sockpuppetry, which are both endemic and rampant on enwiki). I do not believe that is a too-easy threshold to reach, nor do I believe it's a too-hard one to reach. If, instead of the multitude of proposals that are being put forward right now, someone ran this with fine-tuning six months from now, I think it has a reasonable chance of success, and it also has the advantage of being genuinely community-based. I do not think that 'crats should have anything to do with dispute resolution processes that are intended to lead to desysop; they were not vetted for that, they have worked very hard over the years to avoid any dispute resolution activities while wearing the 'crat hat, there are far too few genuinely active 'crats (there may be lots on the list, but half may not even cross the threshold into "active editor" status anymore and haven't for years), and we don't need another elected body to do what an already elected body does. Ironically, desysops are one of the few things Arbcom actually does pretty well. Now, I would genuinely appreciate it if you'd stop mischaracterizing my position. You have been wrong every time you have tried to parse it. Risker (talk) 01:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

And I would appreciate it greatly if you would answer one simple question: do you really believe that any form of reverse RfA, such as you have proposed, would be better for the community, result in fewer hard feelings, treat the parties with greater respect, do a better job of preserving the dignity of the affected administrator, or address long-term conduct problems in a more timely manner? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• This is why we can't have nice things. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• @Floquenbeam: Please explain "why we can't have nice things." Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Because people don't appear to be capable of having calm, rational conversations, without hyperbole and personalization. The sideshow going on here, and the inevitable sideshows that will continue in the coming days means that the 15% chance that something could happen here will be reduced to about 3%. You (among other people), by the way you are participating, are making it less likely that some good will come of this. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, Floquenbeam, but I disagree. Several oppose !voters are aggressively campaigning against this proposal in its conceptual phase because they don't want any alternative process for addressing administrator conduct problems. I'm sorry that you cannot see that, perhaps because you are friendly with them. As a result of my earlier questioning, I have been accused of "second-generation sexual discrimination," which is complete nonsense and pretty darn "personal". If you, as an administrator, believe that such tactics of false accusation are appropriate (NPA, anyone?), I can only throw up my hands and retire from the discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC) I have stricken a portion of my own comment above. The conversation in which such accusation was made elsewhere has moved on, hopefully to a more productive line of discourse, and my rehashing it here can only hinder moving to more constructive discourse. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• "because they don't want any alternative process"? I can't speak for others, but if you are including me in that you are way, way off base. What I don't want is a process that is generated using the 'throw it at the wall and see if it sticks' model. Over and over and over again we see this; someone comes up with an idea, thinks it is phenomenal and likely without fault (or if faulty, only minor faults), throws it out there as a solution to what ails us...and it falls apart. There are crucial questions that needed to be asked before this proposal was put forward. You don't design a car by starting with a design for the tow truck. There are plenty of unintended consequences that could (and, let's be honest, most likely will) come from this precisely because the pre-work has not been done. Of course, now we are in the failure stage, and the finger pointing has begun. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hammer, I have tried to be gentle with you in this and related threads, but your attempts at spinning this proposal as a "failure" are just that: "spin." Any proposal for change that receives 60+% support in the face of determined opposition such as your own may be on to something. Yes, there are valid points that you and others have raised in the discussion of this proposal, but this was a conceptual proposal, not a finished product. More than SIXTY PERCENT of discussion participants have found this to be a reasonable starting point for further discussion, improvement and potentially for later implementation, but only after at least one further RfC to revise and refine it. The "crucial questions" that you want asked are being asked, and many of them will lead to improvements of the proposal in the next round. And that is exactly how and what should happen in a collegial editing environment. Regards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• If you are anything but gentle, you'll be in violation of policies here so I wouldn't expect anything different from you. Further, I know you to be a rational person so I'm sure you won't be anything but gentle. The point is the questions should have been asked first. Having a train wreck, while instructive, is not a conducive process to building a solid foundation to something. As to the 61 percent being held up as a belle weather; this is what I've feared, and have spoken to elsewhere. The supports are laced with all sorts of equivocal comments that point in a multitude of directions. There is significant, non-trivial (despite the accusations of some of the supporters) opposition to the proposal. At a recent RfA, there was a fair bit of discussion about the possibility of consensus not existing when that RfA had 88 more support votes than this proposal does and only two more opposes, net 12% better than this proposal. This proposal wouldn't even begin to pass as an RfA yet we're going to conclude it has somehow passed as a means to reform RfA? Sorry, no. It's time to go back to the drawing board and put the cart back behind the horse. Take this trainwreck, figure out where opposition is and why, address the concerns in a more thoroughly thought out proposal, and come back when that work is done. And thank you, yes, I am determined. I do not want to see Wikipedia fundamentally undermined by processes that have not been well thought out. Being opposed to something doesn't make me a sinner. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hammer, RfA consensus is subject to very specific percentage requirements -- 80+% is invariably treated as a consensus to promote, 70 to 79% is treated as being within the bureaucrats' discretionary range to determine consensus, and below 70% is almost always treated as a failure to promote. No such specific percentage requirements apply to RfCs, and I believe you know this already. Comparisons with the percentage of editors supporting or opposing recent RfAs are irrelevant. XfDs, RMs, RfCs and other consensus outcomes are determined every day with lower percentages. Here we are simply looking for enough support to continue this discussion beyond the conceptual proposal, which is really a mechanism for gauging community support generally. From that standpoint, there is nothing really binding here, so suggesting that the supporters cannot propose a second more refined RfC on point because this conceptual RfC did not achieve some arbitrary level of support of 70 or 80 percent misunderstands what we are doing here. If you really want to derail this, you may have to !vote twice.

And for the record, Hammer, I see no "trainwreck" here. I see a mostly productive discussion about a conceptual proposal for an alternative process for administrator conduct review (please note I'm not calling it an "alternative desysopping procedure"), in which a majority of expressed support for an alternative to ANI and ARBCOM. One of the basic premises here is that both ARBCOM and ANI have demonstrated their inadequacy in dealing with lower level administrator conduct issues, especially long-term problematic behaviors that may percolate below the level of single offenses that lead to ARBCOM desysopping or other harsh, but rare ANI remedies. Ironically, the determined opposition and valid criticisms of this conceptual proposal may lead to a much stronger proposal in the the next round of discussion. Regards. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:50, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• The basic premise has not been proven to be a systematic failure such that we need a systematic change. If we look hard enough, we can maybe find an example. But, I've asked what administrator would lose their admin privs through this system that has not lost it through other extant systems. I've been told that anyone answering that will be conducting a personal attack. Ok, so I guess we're left with being allowed to propose a system and even put it into place without even beginning to prove there's a need for it. I've even seen a proponent of this system saying we need it just to keep up appearances that we have something like this. Wow. I mean wow! I have no need to derail this process. It has derailed itself. If you doubt me, go ahead and attempt to implement this new bureaucracy and see what happens. You ain't seen nothin' yet :) Here, we're just talking. If this is implemented, the results will be catastrophic. Yep, an opinion, but a well informed one on my part. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Hammer, a "systematic failure" is not required before we engage in change. Anything that may constitute a "systematic improvement" certainly should be considered. I'm unwilling to name names of current administrators who may be sliding under the radar, and truthfully, I do not have any particular administrators in mind now. If you would like to discuss this on a user talk page, I am quite willing to name several former administrators who engaged in problematic behavior for years before finally being desysopped by ARBCOM. One of the reasons that I support a new forum for administrator conduct review is that I believe problematic behavior should be addressed before it rises to the level of a clear case for desysopping; by doing so, we may save an otherwise productive administrator, and curb less-than-ideal conduct. A review panel should have the option of validating, warning, admonishing or desysopping an administrator for challenged conduct (and/or patterns of conduct), and, at the conclusion of that review, the parties should feel they were treated respectfully, their concerns were heard and fairly considered, and a determination made in a manner consistent with our policies, guidelines, and standards for administrator conduct. ANI regularly fails to treat its participants with respect, many ANI outcomes could be best characterized as "rough justice," and has not demonstrated the ability to deal with long-term administrator problems. ARBCOM rarely deals with long-term conduct problems unless there is a precipitating event that rises to the level of desysopping, or unless the complained-of administrator behavior is conflated with other actionable issues that ARBCOM wishes to decide. Are those "systematic failures?" We can argue that point, and we can also argue about the definition of "failure" and the plausible spectrum of its meaning, so how about we just call such institutional issues "systematic inadequacies" that leave a known category of problems unaddressed? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:49, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• With respect, "I support a new forum for administrator conduct review is that I believe problematic behavior should be addressed before it rises to the level of a clear case for desysopping" is nonsensical. We're to put in place a new system to desysop people so as to address their behavior before they need to be desysopped? BARC wouldn't be the forum for addressing their behavior. BARC would be a means to desysop them after there's a serious enough issue to desysop them. As to this forum leaving people feeling they were treated fairly? Not a chance in hell. Witness ArbCom. You'd be hard pressed to name a single person who has been sanctioned by ArbCom who said "Yep, I was treated fairly". As to the desire to come up with a systematic improvement without there being a systematic failure; maybe we differ on the term 'failure', but you don't fix something if it isn't broken. You have to identify what is wrong in order to improve it. That, clearly, has not been done in this case. There's just vague assertions that this will improve things, but it does not address what is actually wrong and how this process would fix what is wrong. That's what I mean about cart before the horse. If you try to fix something without knowing what is broken, you are just as likely to break it as improve it. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

semi-arbitrary break

It's now 45 admins opposing and 35 admins supporting. Three non-admin supporters are currently blocked - one at his/her own request - and no opposers are blocked. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know how many supporting and opposing non-admins have been blocked in the past. ~ Rob^Talk 02:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

At your service: 27 (25 non-admins) of 111 supporters (about a quarter) and 17 of 70 opposers (about a quarter) have been blocked for more than a few minutes, not accidentally, not self-blocking or self-requested blocks. Roughly (I only counted once). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:20, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Wow, that's the same percentage (plus or minus a few tenths). That's quite surprising. I would expect that among those who had been blocked, a larger percentage would support this. ~ Rob^Talk 06:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It's too late now, but it would have been useful to request a disclosure of editors commenting, saying initially whether they are admins and if they have been blocked. Coretheapple (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Rob, I think you expected that among those who support, more would have been blocked ;) Among the group of all editors who have ever been blocked, even those still currently active, both 17 and 27 are negligible numbers and the difference between them is insignificant. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

It is definitely interesting to see how views of different editor castes vary. Only conclusion that can be reliably drawn, is that significant divide exists between normal editors and higher-ups. Anything beyond that, about specific motivations, are just assumptions that anyone can draw according to their personal preference.--Staberinde (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A more detailed analysis would be interesting, but unfortunately this RfC probably doesn't provide the right kind of data for it. Many supporters do not quite support this proposal, and many opposers (myself included) do not oppose community-driven desysopping per se, but oppose BARC. I wonder what the percentage of admins is who are generally in favour of a community-based desysop procedure (personally, I am not convinced we really need one, but I am not opposed to creating one). —Kusma (t·c) 11:46, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: subject of this secton: LOL! Every proposal that ever suggests restraining admins in any way is almost entirely supported by non-admins. Similarly, cops always oppose measures by the public or the legislature to restrain or watchdog police activities. Human nature, not news.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:16, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Another interpretation is that administrators in general are among the most experienced and accomplished users on the site, and thus can see the flaws in this process that might not be apparent to less accomplished and experienced editors. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

If the distinction you were trying to draw here were true, there would have to be a) strict requirements for adminship, like several years and tens of thousands of edits, and b) a natural tendency for all editors to become admins after a long while. Neither of these are the case. Many of the most frequent supporters of various adminship reform/watchdogging proposals have more experience than the average admin, and a large number of editors (whether they participate in these discussion or not) have no interest in become admins. Most who try for it too early never try again. Adminship is awarded largely on the basis of not having pissed off very many people, and being able to do some homework cramming before the RFA to get the CSD and other details right when people ask questions, plus a little participation at ANI, AFD, etc., being careful to avoid any borderline cases so your success vs. failure ratio in these debates is high. That's really all there is to it. Of course some admins are among the most experienced and "accomplished" [in whatever way you mean] users on the site", but this is also true of an even larger number of non-admins.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"Accomplished" as in achieving wikt:accomplishments. Well passing RfA is based very much upon the goodwill of the community, and meeting certain expectations. So passing RfA does require a lot of work to be done for the project, but also that work being thought by the community as constructive. So I would expect admins to, on average, have a higher level of both of these criteria, than the average non-admin. I am of course talking in generalities, but I feel there is a statistically large enough sample of editors partaking here for this to be significant. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish I concur and said something very similar above yesterday.

Anthonyhcole One suggestion, I would suggest that we look at how many of the admins have been blocked along with the editors. That may also illuminate if there are some potentially problematic admins who are blocking this. Not trying to assume bad faith BTW, just saying the same logic being applied to editors in the comment above in support of it also applied to the admins opposing it.

I would also add that regardless of the actual outcome of this RFC its not likely to be implemented. Especially given that there is such a small difference in the percent that support it, detractors are likely to say that "its not a vote" even if it does result in a consensus for implementing it. I also don't really by the whole "admins are more experienced argument above". That is certainly true but there are also a huge number of experienced "editors" who have been on this site just as long and in some cases longer than the admins. So to say that these editors don't know what they are talking about simply because they can't block anyone, doesn't really seem accurate. RingofSauron (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

As an admin who supports; I think that we should be sensitive to both admin and non-admin feedback that it can take forever and be hard to understand what's going on and to participate in admin sanction processes, even those that do result in a desysop. I don't know that this process would have ended up working right, but I do appreciate the people who are asking for some additional and more visible and accessible options. I think that assuming good faith of both sides of this is a good thing. There are some anti-admin people who want another knob to turn to attack admins who support, but it's largely experienced editors who presumably have good reasons (most of who articulated them). The normal users and admins who oppose also have good reasons. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

As an admin who opposed this, I'd suggest that those who are unhappy with the current system of Arbcom it would be really interesting to see what changes you would make to ARBCOM. What if any additional offenses would you like ARBCOM to desysop admins for? ϢereSpielChequers 16:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• Not being nice. Ok, I joke, but it's semi-serious. ArbCom already desysops for misusing the tools. Maybe not as fast as some people would like, but it's already covered. So, any new process would have to be either (a) faster to desysop someone for misusing the tools, or (b) because an administrator isn't well liked. In the former case, such a system will fail because of the lack of a complete evidentiary process, and in the latter...that's just wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I apologize if this seems stupid, but why would we as a community treat an administrator, that we elected to the position, to be treated any differently than an established editor? It seems to me that if the community can give them the tools then it should be trustworthy enough to remove the tools. Also, if the Bureaucrats have to then take action on removing the access from the admin, are we not showing bad faith towards the bureaucrats by not seeing through bullshit nominations? Additionally, it really doesn't reflect well on the process or the community if the Arbcom has to handle this class of editor but the community can treat someone who has been here for a month, a year or ten years, who isn't an admin, but has some extended history of positive contributions on their own, without elevating it to the legal body. What justifies the mentality that because the community trusts the person to be an admin, that they would all of a sudden then say "Whoa wait, this admin needs to have their tools taken away!" and again, how does that differ from the community blocking or banning a non admin editor? I think those are important questions we should be asking. Because as a community that's attempting to build an encyclopedia, "editor lives matter too" (to steal a term). So we should not treat one class of editor any different than any other when deciding if they should or should not have access to privileged information and tools. RingofSauron (talk) 17:35, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• RingofSauron, if we treated admins like any other user then we would not need a special process to deal with them. Admins can be blocked, topic banned, interaction banned, or just outright banned by the community. The community has always had the power to do these things, they just need to reach a consensus to do so. Chillum 17:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• And have. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

• "It's a dirty job, but someone has to do it". I'm sure you've heard the phrase. Except, on Wikipedia it is "It's a dirty job, and no one has to do it". There lies the answer to your question. We have areas of Wikipedia where angels fear to tread. We have administrators volunteer to tread in such areas, and we arm them with abilities, a sense of trust, and sometimes additional sanctions available from ArbCom. Install a system like this, and that is stripped away. What do you suppose the result of that might be? At the German Wikipedia, we have evidence of what the result might be; 57% of the admin corps dragged before a desysop process, with 43% of that group just quitting being an admin without even attempting to defend themselves. Translate the numbers to the English Wikipedia, and we could see ~180 of 580 active admins be forced out of their volunteer duties. What do you suppose the impact of that might be? We are already at record (at least as far back as 2008) lows of active admins. In concept, a desysop procedure makes absolute sense. But, when you get into the details...if you don't have a system like ArbCom in place to handle such debates, you might as well pull the plug on a significant portion of your administrator community, as the German Wikipedia has done. The impact here would fundamentally undermine the ability of this project to maintain itself. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the clarification. I still don't see why we need a special process although I do agree that some will be drug to ANI or otherwise baselessly. If the admin doesn't even bother to defend themselves and just quits that's unfortunate, but I don't have much sympathy. They quit, that's their right. Editors can do the same when they get drug to ANI or somewhere else, they can choose to fight the accusation or quit, almost certainly some choose one path or the other. I am not familiar with the German Wikipedia but I assume that at least some of those admins later got access to the tools restored. I also assume that the German Wikipedia has continued on without these admins and their access since you aren't speaking of the German Wikipedia that "was" but the one that "is". Again though, I also have to look at our Bureaucrat corps. If desysop were to pass and was obviously baseless, even if it passed (and I doubt that it would if it was baseless) I doubt the burueau's would just take action without discussing it first. They could and should have final say on the merits of a desysop but I would hope that they would view them fairly. So again this, to me at least, goes back to whether we trust our Bureaucrats to make the right decision. RingofSauron (talk) 19:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

One reason why we sometimes need a separate process is that access to deleted edits and personal information are often involved in alleged cases of admin abuse. However it is a good point the drama boards are not a great way to treat established members of the community, My response to that is that it might be a good idea to upbundle "block regular" to crats and ARBCOM. >99% of blocks are totally uncontentious and can be left to the admins, but the tiny proportion of blocks that involve editors with over a thousand edits include the vast majority of contentious blocks and unblocks. If contentious incidents involving a block of someone with more than a thousand edits had to go to ARBCOM then ARBCOM might need a better workflow such as forming panels, or even increasing the number of Arbs (crats could do the uncontentious incidents such as compromised accounts). If regular admins, those who are neither crats nor Arbs, were unable to block experienced editors then I would hope some of the heat would go out of RFA and some of the tension on this site would be reduced. ϢereSpielChequers 11:10, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Coaxing ArbCom into a more efficient space has proved impossible. So the new arbs usually burn out or lose interest by February–March, and there's no energy for reform of work processes. Happens like clockwork every year. Tony (talk) 12:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

WereSpielChequers that kind of makes sense but I still really haven't seen any convincing reason why the community can be trusted to promote admins but not demote them. I agree that there will be some BS nominations but again, I assume the Bureaus will separate the wheat from the chaff. From what I have determined about the Arbcom I don't know if I would support kicking it up to them although it would reduce the number of nominations because its such an arduous process. It also seems like they have too much on their plate now, I don't think they could handle more work than they have now. It seems to me that if admins are regularly making problematic blocks of "regulars", as you state above, and its warranted to upbundle block regular to some other group then perhaps there is a problem there that needs to be addressed as well. If some decisions are so contentious that it would bring admins under fire then perhaps those particular areas need to be addressed as a quorum. No one admin can just do it, maybe it needs to have a 3 out of 5 vote or something upon request. That way no one admin is "to blame" for a decision. Of course its probably easy to find 3 or 4 that would agree to anything so it wouldn't change the outcome, it would just reduce the liability of any one admin taking the heat alone for a contentious issue. RingofSauron (talk) 18:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi RingofSauron, when I said that "the tiny proportion of blocks that involve editors with over a thousand edits include the vast majority of contentious blocks and unblocks." I wasn't trying to give the impression that the contentious ones are common enough to be considered regular, nor does contentious necessarily mean problematic. Some people do seem to believe that certain editors are so valuable that they should be above certain rules, others enjoy provoking people who are known to have short fuses. Dealing with such situations is often contentious, if we had no shortage of admins and no concerns about collusion then you could go for some sort of multi key approach for blocks of regulars, but I'm not sure that would help. What I think would help would be to confine the decision to a small group of highly trusted admins, the crats. The contentious blocks would probably still happen and probably still be argued about. But hopefully some of the "oppose, insufficient content edits to be trusted with the power to block content contributors" arguments would move from RFA to RFB. ϢereSpielChequers 19:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement on that they bureaus should have final say, I just don't think its fair to say that the community can't be trusted to fairly decided if a person no longer has their trust and should no longer have admin access. Perhaps that was true at some point in the past, but I just don't see that occurring. In the discussions I have seen, invalid submissions are generally quickly closed and I just don't think it would be any different here. I can't say that an admin will never get the short end of the stick but I think that would be so stupendously rare that its not worth using it as an argument against it. Especially with the final say being from the bureaus who have to carry out the actual task. Does the community ever block/ban/or remove some access from an editor inappropriately that would cause concern to allowing them to do it to an admin? I admit that's a loaded question, because if the answer is no, then there is no reason not to allow them to do it and if the answer to that question is yes they do, then it also shows that admins are being protected on a scale other than the one being applied to editors. Just my thoughts anyway. RingofSauron (talk) 19:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I was talking about upbundling the block button, I'm still opposed to replacing/supplementing our current, community elected ARBCOm with a less community based system for desysopping admins, especially if it lacked the safeguards of the ARBCOM system. As for admins being protected on a scale different to other editors, remember ARBcom doesn't just desysop admins, it also handles lots of appeals and various cases where the community cannot otherwise resolve a dispute, and yes there have been admins desysopped by ARBCOM for inappropriate use of the tools against other editors. ϢereSpielChequers 20:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I guess I just have a problem with making it significantly harder to remove the admin access, that is far more damaging, than it is to block or remove access to a tool (like Rollback as an example) if abused. If a regular editor doesn't need to get sent to the Arbcom regardless of how long they have been here or how many edits they have done, but any admin regardless of activity or tenure does, just because the community said at some point they are trusted, I just have a problem with that. The reason I circled around to that topic is because if upbundling is needed for established editors, then that to me is a problem that needs to be addressed because that means we do have a system that has been designed to favor and protect the admin simply because they have access to more things. Again, I have a problem with that and most people should. Its like granting them the Wiki version of diplomatic immunity. RingofSauron (talk) 20:44, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting making it harder to desysop admins, and ARBcom does handle various things involving non admins as well as admins. As for upbundling of blocking established editors, I'd put it the other way round. We have a number of !voters at RFA who are opposing candidates for lack of content contributions because they don't want people to be able to block content contributors if they aren't that themselves. Upbundling that to the crats wouldn't be protecting admins but taking a power away from us, and if it protected anyone it would be the established editors, admin or not. ϢereSpielChequers 21:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

You say no one is making it harder, that's true, but no one is making it easier either. I have seen several people on here mention that these submissions are a perennial topic, but that tells me that the community perceives this issue to be a serious one and therefore continues submitting suggestions to change it. I also notice that there are at least a dozen topics related to admin reform and it seems to be a constant topic of discussion with apparently no changes ever being adopted. Now, I hate to seem like a pessimist here and I know that a lot of admins support various proposals, but it seems like there is a group of individuals (admins and non-admins) that simply block every suggested proposal because they like the current systems inequalities. If something is submitted consistently every single year by different people and sometimes more than once a year, then that is proof that there is a problem that needs to be corrected. At that point its not just a couple people trying to change a system they don't like. You also mention that the Arbcom handles some issues, but then I see multiple people, admins and editors (including comments from a couple arbs themselves) that feel like the Arbcom process doesn't really work effectively or at least needs to be supplemented with something else. As I said before, if an editor who has been here for 5 years and has 50, 000 edits can be blocked from editing by any admin, then the same should be true of removing the admin tools from an admin who has been here the same amount of time who no longer has the trust of the community. And lets not forget this proposal doesn't even give it to the whole community but to the bureaus to decide. So its still not a great solution IMO, but it does give some limited supplemental abilities to the bureaucrats to help make things easier for the Arbcom and it gives the community more of a sense that the problem with some admins is being taken seriously. Which, if the community feels as though admins are being held responsible, then its likely they would be much more accepting to taking a chance in voting Support on an RFA. So in a sense, supporting a proposal like this is also better for the admins as a group. It helps to get rid if the problematic ones and restores the communities trust in the group which will then restore their faith in the RFA process and maybe more than one a month will get access to the admin toolset. RingofSauron (talk) 19:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes I have a problem with the position that if something is a "perennial proposal" that makes it sort of a crackpot or unworthy idea, or otherwise worth shrugging off. I think that's illogical thinking. What it means is that there is a widespread perception, independently made by unrelated editors, that a problem exists that needs to be corrected. The very fact that "perennial proposal" is a form of denigration is a good example of how stodgy, dyed-in-the-wool and hostile to change Wikipedia has become. I don't agree with all the proposals listed at WP:PERENNIAL but they do indicate good-faith concerns by editors on a number of topics. In fact, there are a number of very good suggestions under the "administrators" segment there, including "It should be easier to remove adminship." Perennial proposals should be an idea bank, not the city dump. But since admins are, by definition, more attuned to the way this place is run, yes they have been able to make this idea "perennial" every time it comes up. Coretheapple (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

That's a great point you make about Wikipedia being hostile to change. I think that is an excellent perception. Its human nature though, if you are in a position of power and someone presents an idea that would diminish that, your going to fight it. True or not, there is a very clear perception by a large chunk of the community that feels that the current admin system doesn't work (for many reasons). There is a perception that its too hard to remove the tools from an admin if they abuse them, there is little desire to change that and that has the effect of causing very few RFA's and a lot of people voting against many of the ones that do apply for minor things. At this point its really not a question of is change necessary but what that change will be and how long will it take to get it. The admins already cannot keep pace with the problems and they are burning out. RingofSauron (talk) 19:18, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

(EC) @CoretheApple I fully agree that if a proposal has been classified as perennial that means there are some who support it as well as some that oppose it. And as someone who has helped get one change that was previously a perennial suggestion, I don't consider that all WP:PERENNIALs are crackpot or unworthy. But I would suggest to anyone who wants to revive a perennial suggestion that they don't just look at the arguments for their proposal, but they look at the past objections and try to resolve them. If you want to get consensus for change you really should be able to start your proposal "I know this is a perennial proposal, but I have read the previous discussions and have modified the proposal in x, y and z ways to meet past objections". If you don't do that you risk getting a kneejerk response from people who remember the previous debates. Take for example the desysopping of admins, there have been a string of proposals in the past, many of which asserted that ARBCOM was slow and or insufficiently community based. There have been various arguments against particular reform proposals, including people concerned about loss of the safeguards inherent in the ARBCOM system and asking what sort of admins would this proposal desysop who would not be desysoped by ARBCOM. This current proposal is getting many of the usual sorts of objections, as well as people pointing out that its inflexible structure would make it much slower at desysoping admins than ARBCOM often is, and that BARC would be less community based than ARBCOM because many of the crats were elected over a decade ago and none were elected for this role. By contrast the proposal to desysop admins who had been inactive for two years, and the subsequent proposal to require admins returning after three years inactivity to rerun RFA before getting back the tools, were both very clear as to what sorts of admins they would apply to and that ARBCOM wasn't acting in such cases. ϢereSpielChequers 19:25, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

The impression I get (to cut to the chase) is that only proposals on de-adminiship satisfactory to admins are going to prevail. That is a recipe for stasis. Coretheapple (talk) 19:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with Coretheapple and this proposal is going to fail just like those that came before it and after reading through several of the other submissions, nothing is going to pass. Every possible change that could improve the system has been submitted multiple times and all were denied on the grounds of people waiting for a better (or at this point the perfect) proposal. Well that's just not going to happen the current system is clearly failing and its unlikely that any change is going to accepted by the admins as long as they stand some chance at losing the tools due to even the most obvious abuse without multiple layers of security/bureaucracy in place to prevent it. At this point we may as well close this discussion. There just aren't enough people in it willing to make a change in an attempt to improve this project so I see no compelling reason to continue to discuss it. RingofSauron (talk) 20:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think the reason why all these proposals fail is because they share similar problems and there are never convincing solutions to them. Maybe a proposal addressing the concerns voiced about previous suggestions will gain consensus. Also, I would not write off this proposal just yet;it is not a complete proposal and the further elaboration may convince some opponents and neutrals to support. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:53, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the second part of Jo-Jo's comment. It's certainly not dead yet, especially when you consider that so many of the opposes are not all that different than some of the supports. Coretheapple (talk) 14:16, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.