Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:58, 16 August 2006

This page in a nutshell: If 31 users in good standing with established time and editing track records (10+ months experience, 2000+ edits each) agree that an admin is due for recall based on their actions or activities (1 filer, 30 certifiers) that admin is then subject to a binding RfA recall vote. Three of the certifiers must be active administrators. No admin is subject to Recall more than once per nine months.

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Proposal notes

Intent

My intent in proposing this policy is simple--to introduce an extremely simple (I tried to make the process as "stupidly basic" as possible) and hard to abuse system of peer review and oversight of people with administrative access. As it presently is, barring extraordinary and public abuse of their priviledges as an admin, it is extremely unlikely for anyone to be de-sysoped--for all intents and purposes, the simple act of passing an RfA is a lifetime appointment with little practical oversight and/or possible repercussions for misbehavior under current systems.

Notice how the certification process works: it's basically just RfC certification, but with an extra requirement on who can certify. The RfA recall vote is literally a forced RfA, where a support vote is an endorsement of desysoping. I have no ill will towards any admin, and this process and tool is for administrators as well as editors. Think about it: you need 1 filer, and 25 certifiers to justify that the community needs to reassess an administrator's standing, and the filer also has to state his reasons, justification, and evidence (to which the admin can reply). Then it goes to general community review a second time, and early closingare specifically forbidden and disallowed from this proposed process--to at all times give the admin being recalled the benefit of the doubt.

Reapplication as an admin

Any previous admin who was removed by the community is free to reapply as an administrator again at their own discretion, per normal application for adminship guidelines and the will of the community.

Sample Timeline, explanation

Just to clarify/expand on how it would work.

• Day 1: A user determines he should file an Admin Recall. He posts the above notice of his complaint with full basis/evidence sections on the admin's personal Talk page, to give the admin 24 hours' notice.
• Day 2: The user files the Admin Recall for certification.
• Days 2-9: Certification window
• Day 9: certification closes. If not met, Recall request closes. If met, within 24 hours the recall vote must be initiated.
• Days 9-30: Recall vote.

Straw poll

In general, details of sufferage etc. still to be worked out. Please indicate if you are an admin or not.

Users who support adoption of this policy/procedure

1. rootology (T) 14:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Non-admin.
2. Herostratus 14:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Admin.
3. badlydrawnjeff talk 14:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC), non-admin.
4. --Robdurbar 17:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC) I don't see why a policy such as this cannot work alongside existing processes such as the admins for recall; its just another method of accountability. Admin
5. Tyrenius 19:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) The community is trusted with the responsibility of appointing admins, so they should be equally entitled to recall. I see no reason not to trust the community with acting responsibly over it, and this proposal is designed to avoid abuse of such a process. Admin
6. BigDT 21:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC) - 31 people with 2000 edits hardly qualifies as a lynch mob. I support this idea, but honestly, I think it errs on the side of being TOO careful. If you find an 80% majority wanting to desysop someone, then there is a problem somewhere along the line. I'd make it 20 to indict and 66% to convict.

   I agree. The question is what percentage of users have to have faith in an admin to make their work viable. If 66% of the community is that unhappy with someone, their continued adminship surely has to be counter-productive. ArbCom is a majority vote, so one might even consider that precedent — if more than 50% of editors no longer wish someone to have those powers, it indicates there has not been an appropriate use of them. Another way of looking at that would be that it needs 75%+ support to be sysopped, but only 51% support to confirm continuation. Tyrenius 21:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

7. Karwynn (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Accountability is never a bad thing. We can work out the details, but eh baseline concept is gold. non-admin

   It might not be a bad concept, but this application of it is terrible, and you're currently supporting the application, not the concept itself. --Rory096 21:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

   Obviously I don't think so, or I wouldn't be supporting it :-) Karwynn (talk) 21:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

8. HResearcher Filed requests must be based on documented abuse (differences) --HResearcher 09:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
9. Johntex\ 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC) Moral support for imperfect, but needed, proposal. I don't yet like all the specifics of this proposal, but I am more and more convinced that some form of community recall is needed. It may be that we should adopt an imperfect proposal and improve it over time through usage. Johntex\ 20:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Users opposed to adoption of this policy/procedure

1. Fan-1967 14:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Non-admin.
2. kingboyk 14:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Admin.
3. Too complex and number-driven. -- nae'blis 14:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (non-admin)
4. Fails the KISS test. Aren't I Obscure? 17:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
5. I much prefer desysopping by ArbCom over desysopping by lynch mob. --Cyde Weys 17:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

   Hrrmmm ... do I even need to indicate that I'm an admin? Doesn't everyone already know that, for good or for bad? --Cyde Weys 17:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

   The usual term is community consensus, rather than lynch mob.Tyrenius 19:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

6. I support accountability, but prefer the much softer more flexible, and community centric Category:Administrators open to recall which is grass roots driven, doesn't have the weight of policy, and has as an option, a discussion of what the issues are after far fewer people speak up. This proposal is too complex and number driven and is too close to ArbCom in heaviness, as ewll as feelig like a lynch mob. what is missing is the idea that reasonable people can ask for discussion and that doesn't necessarily mean a repeat of RfA or a forwarding to ArbCom. ++Lar: t/c 17:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (Admin.)
7. I prefer desysopping by ArbCom. --Siva1979 18:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (Non-admin)
8. opposed. Cyde is right. pschemp | talk 20:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (Admin.)
9. I trust the ArbCom more than RfA; generally if an admin is doing something right, some people will be pissed off. Anyway, the requirements to file and certify a recall are too stringent, which could encourage cabals and people thinking that some people's opinions mean more than others'. By the way, I refuse to specify whether I am an admin or not, as that too makes it seem that some people's opinions are worth more. Admin opinions mean no more than any other editor's; they just have some extra buttons in case policy is being broken. --Rory096 21:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

   THe admin/non-admin thing is just for statistical purposes, this isn't even a real vote. Karwynn (talk) 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

   Even so, it's not relevant to any discussion, so no statistics of it should be kept. It's like keeping statistics of the genders or races of the "voters," it's just not necessary. --Rory096 01:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

   Of course it's useful. Admins have a potential conflict of interest here, wouldn't you suppose. Herostratus 03:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

10. With all these precautions to prevent a desysopping from being a 'lynch mob' as Cyde put it, only make arbcom look simpler to desysop an admin. I think we already have a system in place that can be used for such matters, and this one is unnecessary. Cowman109 22:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (Admin.)
11. Per below. --Sam Blanning 22:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (Admin.)
12. Per Siva1979. Non-admin Mike Christie 23:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
13. This reminds me of the song "hole in the bucket". --SB_Johnny | 23:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC) (Non-admin, I guess.)
14. Firstly: what exactly is a user in good standing? (I don't know if I'm in good standing or not). Secondly, what is preventing a more than capable, but unpopular, admin being recalled for something spurious; like not making enough portal talk edits, or contributing a featured article etc. Thirdly: I think there might be a struggle to get enough qualified people to support a request apart from in the most serious cases (the criteria are quite high, and there is evidence to suggest that vote pages can have a low readership). Fourth, why should a recall RfA last for three weeks? (most RfAs tend to spike in the first couple of days, take a look). Fifth, I won't support a policy with consensus misspelt throughout. I am not necessarily against the idea of a recall policy, but I cannot support until it is both better though out and at least the equall of an ArbCom ruling in terms of fairness. Rje 01:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC) (Admin.)
15. Most definitely. Horrible proposal full of bureaucratic impossibilities and troll implications. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC) (Admin.)
16. Oppose, too much process, with 30+ long term users and admins, might as well just bring it to arbcom. xaosflux (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) — xaosflux 04:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
17. Opppose - too much process for so little result -- Tawker 14:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)`

Users neutral to adoption of this policy/procedure

1. TheronJ 20:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC) I don't have a strong opinion on the underlying policy, but I do note that it will be almost impossible to get 30 votes on anything without vote spamming/advertising, and that seems to be on its way out.

   Yeah, the standards are too high now, thanks to "suggestions" from overly suspicious admins. Honestly, with their mindset, RfAs, AfDs and RfCs would all be scrapped as completely worthless. THe real issue is an aversion to accountability. Karwynn (talk) 20:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

   Yes, that's absolutely how we feel. We're getting close to scrapping the edit function on the encyclopaedia because too many people use it to complain about us. In fact I favour deleting the entire encyclopaedia and replacing Main_Page with a web browser version of Grue's Rouge Admin - The Game. --Sam Blanning 23:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

2. I really want to support this, but the requirements are too stringent. I'd rather see >1000 edits over >1 year, and >20 voters in agreement. My current problems with an admin and the processes to get a decent resolution made me look for this, by the way. --Kickstart70-T-C 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
3. I would like to see a community-based admin recall process (it seems to work in the German Misplaced Pages, which has no ArbCom). As the process here does not present a way in which anybody will ever be desysopped (ArbCom will be faster and easier in all cases I could imagine), the proposal is useless. Kusma (討論) 09:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

   Oh, and I am an admin. Kusma (討論) 09:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting is evil

• Tony Sidaway 19:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC) This isn't going to become policy any time soon, but I thought I'd just point out the obvious.

  Funny, RfA is a vote. rootology (T) 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  No, it's not. It may indicate why you're approaching this from such a numbers-based focus, however. -- nae'blis 20:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  Sheesh, it's just a straw poll, you see them all the time, lighten up. Herostratus 20:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  A typical RfA is formatted as "(24/4/4)", right? And based on an approximate consensus of what? 65%? 75%? The person becomes admin. We can call a spade a spade... and it's just a straw pole as Hero said to gauge support. rootology (T) 20:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  Don't assume that I approve of what RFA has become. --Tony Sidaway 20:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  Out of curiosity, what has it become? Your own RfA was roughly those percentages and yours looks fairly standard compared to today's. rootology (T) 20:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  I do not approve of a voting process for admin bits at all. I would rather they were appointed after discussion of the application, at the discretion of a bureaucrat. This would, I hope, burn off the RFA groupies, Esperanza members and me-too voters. --Tony Sidaway 14:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  Well, if something like that happened than in fairness every existing adminship would have to be reviewed in such a fashion. rootology (T) 14:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  ArbCom, as the existing method of de-sysopping, is a vote. This just extends the franchise, but keeps the same principle. Tyrenius 20:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  That is a severe misrepresentation of the arbitration process. It's a deliberative process. --Tony Sidaway 14:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  It is a deliberative process, which ends with a vote on each deliberation. It would be good to try to incorporate some of the deliberation you have highlighted into the current proposal, using the model of ArbCom. Tyrenius 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  Why go to the effort of duplication? We already have an arbitration committee and it's quite capable of desysopping a bad administrator in a much shorter period than that envisioned in this proposal. --Tony Sidaway 14:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

  Because if 31 users brought a laundry list of things to ArbCom that weren't flaming, violent abuses of admin buttons, and 200+ people said, "You know, this guy really isn't a good guy, and shouldn't be trusted..." ArbCom would clearly remove them? The point isn't duplication and that is a severe misrepresentation of the proposed Recall process. The point is empower the community and the admins' peers to oversee their own end-to-end. rootology (T) 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Holy crap, Tony and I agree on something. -- nae'blis 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• IMO straw polls should only start once the discussion goes stale. Note that Template:Cent displays 'Discussion' and 'Straw polls' as separate stages, one after the other. I'm not sure whether I should move the entry there or not. --Sam Blanning 22:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agreeing against voting. I think debating is better than voting. Anomo 00:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Question on policy vs belief for admins reading this

For those that have commented: are your objections based on the fact that you feel the policy proposal is flawed, and if so, what specific points? Or, is your disagreement with it based on a belief that admins should not be de-powered by the community, and if so, why? rootology (T) 20:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you feel that the proposal is necessary. How have existing processes failed? Fan-1967 03:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

My opposition is based on the idea that there is no need for this proposal, as no one has shown that the current process is flawed. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin, but any system that uses a hard-and-fast number of certifiers while we're experiencing the level of growth of Misplaced Pages currently ongoing is unable to get my support. Sorry. I'm glad you've trimmed a lot of the bureaucracy, but this still isn't scalable or ungameable. -- nae'blis 04:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not an admin either, but I think the problem is that it will create more problems than it will solve. The points are expressed numerous times on this page, but here's an analogy for you: Should police officers be elected by the people they fine for speeding? Fagstein 07:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It will be everyone who is allowed to vote here, not just those upset with the admin. This is like saying, "should local judges be elected by supporters and non-supporters alike?" The answer, of course, is yes.

I also notice that almost no one has answered this question, other than to raise other questions. Could we maybe put new questions in a different header and actually answer this one? I think answering this one will be a big step towards productive discussion, rather than the all-around iciness and suspicion that seems to be going on here. Karwynn (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Total waste of time as currently framed

This is far too strict, biased towards inertia and admin power, and so unlikely to be used a worthwhile amount that it isn't worth wasting time on. My suggestion:

All administratorships run for six months. Three months after a period as an admin has expired a former admin may apply for a futher stint.

That should put an end to administrator arrogance and the development of an invidious oligarchy. This proposal is just windowdressing. Sumahoy 21:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Please keep it civil. Expiring duration adminiships would be a bad idea--can you imagine having to rerun a thousand RfAs every six months? Or 2000+ in a couple of years? This process is only to enable the community to remove adminship from one of their peers that the collective community no longer feels should be an admin. rootology (T) 23:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Been there, done that, didn't work. I tried pushing for that myself! - Mailer Diablo 10:10, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the original poster, the 2000 edit limit severely hinders the proposal's effectiveness. There are times when a harmful admin simply wouldn't affect that many people, but would still deserve desysopping. I think it ought to go back to 5 months, 500 edits. Karwynn (talk) 14:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Recall by peers

This should instead be a process of recalling administrators by their peers. If you can't even pass RFA yourself it doesn't make sense that you should be able to get admins kicked out. Generally fellow admins are much better at knowing which admins are acting badly than the larger editor population does. Admins face lots of problems and situations that the general editor population just doesn't understand, and they might take it out on an admin who didn't do a thing wrong; it was just poorly perceived by the people who were affected by the actions. Other admins will understand this, however. --Cyde Weys 03:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

That sounds dangerously like the argument where I tell a music snob that I don't like (insert shite prog rock band here) and he asks me if I can play as good as them, then says "you shouldn't criticise if you can't do better". Or "how can you consider yourself qualified to support this article's deletion when you know nothing about the subject". I don't think the judgement of a given admin is necessarily more reliable than a given user with the same edit count and length of experience. There are plenty of sensible users who understand Misplaced Pages policy that, for various reasons, don't become admins, including lack of time, being unable (or unwilling) to maintain the necessary standard of civility or simply not wanting to be an admin, and taking or appearing to take an elitist attitude towards adminship should be avoided. It should be repeated at this point that I think any admin recall process is unworkable and unnecessary. By the time we actually did want to recall a fellow admin, one of us would file a request for arbitration. --Sam Blanning 13:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

What an inviation to back-scratching and logrolling, Cyde. Non-admins are not necessarily dolts. Herostratus 16:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, there is already such a provision within the proposal - three of the certifiers must be active administrators. Therefore no admin who has the support of his (or her) peers will be subject to a recall. Cynical 23:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to echo Mr. Blanning's statements: I'm not really taken with this particular proposal, but it bears repeating, again, that adminship should be "no big deal." It's primarily a janitorial assignment, and while I have a great deal of personal respect for the people who take it upon themselves to carry out those tasks, I firmly oppose any attempt to reinterpret it beyond those boundaries. Additionally, I worry that this kind of rhetoric is profoundly counterproductive, leading to the perception that administrators are elitist and "out of touch" with non-administrative editors. Whether or not you personally believe this to be the case, that perception does exist. The fact that we're having this discussion now is testament to that. I see no reason to fan those particular flames. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Policy to hard to file

How can you go from 5 months 500 edits, to 10 months 2000 edits. It makes no sense. It is a big jump. Also i have a probelm with 31 signatures. I wouldn't think one case could be filed with a needed 31 signatures. In fact I would object to 26. I say 15. --Zonerocks 04:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

suggested a better idea of 300 unique days with edits. That's real hard to fake. Anomo 07:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Too hard to track, Anomo. --Zonerocks 07:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it would be easy if you use an automated system to do it. Already that's what people do to count edits. Anomo 12:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• Eek, that is a huge jump. Even a Grognard would not qualify. That is too high a bar in my opinion. Really, is the concern puppets, or what? If it's puppets, is it not so that the admin in question and/or his supporters will be able to root out puppets, just as is done for current RfA's (and AfD's, etc.). If the question is standing, I don't think you need that high of a bar to be considered to be in good standing as a contributing member of the community, at all. If the previous level was considered too low, how about 6 months, 1,000 edits. That still is awfully high but an improvement at least. Herostratus 16:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

15 signatures herostratus. I say 3 months 700 edits, but 16 signatures. --Zonerocks 17:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Why does everyone think 2,000 edits is that hard...? I did 2k+ in about eight months' time, between state tag sorting (about 40%ish) and the rest between main space and mostly Misplaced Pages side... rootology (T) 06:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A telling comment on the current procedure

I think this diff speaks pretty loudly about the current recall procedure. Here we see an administrator laughing in the face of the community over the very idea that an admin could actually be desysopped. What a way to run an organization Herostratus 14:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Way to misinterpret. I was laughing at the suggestion that a particular administrator could be desysopped over that particular action. People who are constantly calling for desysopping when it really doesn't make sense in that circumstance at all serve only to discredit themselves. --Cyde Weys 16:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Uh OK, I gave you two chances earlier to explain that diff, Cyde, at the location of the diff and on your talk page. It doesn't scan the way you explain to me, but if you say. Herostratus 19:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Adminship can be revoked. Just ask Karmafist or Homeontherange or Guanace (twice). --Cyde Weys 19:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes but the point is that it generally can't be revoke just (sic) because an admin has lost the confidence of the community - he or she has to lose the confidence of the Arbcom. Cynical 23:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

The community chooses the members of the Arbcom from the community. Arbcom is part of the community, just with better judgement and experience than most of it.

Anyway, confidence of the community is pretty nebulous. People call for desysopping all the time, they just get ignored, I'm not sure where you could draw the line between "lost confidence of the community" and "storm in a teacup that will be forgotten tomorrow". Indeed, one of the problems that occurs to me with this process is that when someone feels they've been dealt with unjustly by an admin, rather than going to sleep, waking up with some perspective and quietly forgetting it, they'll be encouraged to start stalking the admin, digging through their past edits looking for other previously wronged editors, and going around trying to organise a recall - in effect scratching their own itch until it becomes a gaping sore. That's not good for anyone. --Sam Blanning 23:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, 23 other editors with 500 edits and 4 months service is kinda a way to draw the line between "lost confidence of the community" and "storm in a teacup", n'ese-ce pas? There are situations where "go sleep it off" is not sufficient. Herostratus 06:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

{{subst:Misplaced Pages talk:Admin recall/And}} --Sam Blanning 13:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Which is slow and bureaucratic. Haukur 17:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So replacing it with a month-long recall vote will be faster? Fagstein 18:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be in my ArbCom experience. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not meant to be fast--the idea isn't to steamroll an admin, it's to give the community and the admin's peers to make the determination if he's due to be an admin based on his history after his initial RfA. Certification: is the filing for Recall with merit (one week)? Recall RfA: is he fit to perform as an admin (21 days--to at all times give the admin benefit of the doubt, and to allow people to change their opinions/votes). Plus as mentioned above, with the 80% concensus requirement, it amounts to a supermajority of Wikipedians agreeing that the admin shouldn't be an admin--totally fair. It's meant to be a fair and simple process, with ample time for people to change their minds. rootology (T) 18:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I've had people, even administrators, angrily demanding my desysopping over something that seemed like a big deal to them at the time, but that in the long run, ended up being, at most, a minor problem. For instance, I may have close a certain "rationales for impeachment" AFD in a controversial fashion ... does anyone even remember that? It got sorted out in the long run, and I don't think (or at least I hope) that people still aren't holding a grudge against me for that, but at the time, tempers were very inflamed. I would thus propose some sort of waiting period for this Admin Recall period so that people can have the benefit of 20/20 hindsight and determine if something was truly worth losing adminship over. --Cyde Weys 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That's already built in, inherently. It takes an entire month for the community process to run, and the admin can't be caught flat footed with a "SURPRISE YOU GOT RECALLED!!!" action due to the 24 hour waiting period. Even then, it requires a substantial number of people to agree. Say you closed an AfD on me that I was POSITIVE had to be a keep, but it was borderline--concensus wasn't happening, so you judge delete. I think to myself, "Oh man, that Cyde is a son of a bitch, I'll desysop him!" (hypothetical, not saying your a SOB). So I file (which I can't since I don't even meet my own criteria for another month or so, but I digress). People *can* file a stupid Recall; the same as I can file a bogus RfC that says "Cyde was mean to me," or "Cyde hates ferrets," or "CydeBot totally is like lame". But the difference is that my evidence would consist of "Cyde's dumb machine made fun of my pet ferret Whiskers," and no one would certify it aside from a few stupid trolls, and you'd have a good laugh over it. And then no one could Recall you for nine months. Even if by some insane fate 3+ admins and 27+ others agreed, it'd never vote you out on Recall for being mean to my ferret. And even IF somehow you got railroaded out and desysopped--see how it's getting more and more implausible for a bogus Recall?--your rerunning 5 minutes later for a new RfA would almost certainly pass given your history. rootology (T) 17:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

THe process takes 4 weeks. By then, steam will have blown off long enough for people to be rational and possible reconsider. Karwynn (talk) 17:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being more succint than my small animal-based explanation. rootology (T) 17:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

? Must've missed your reply when I posted mine, whoops. FOr the record, I'd be in support of a "SURPRISE YOU GOT RECALLED!!!" system just for the laughs. But in all seriousness, I don't think short-term grudges will be a problem, given the length of time and the numerous safeguards against recaller abuse. No one takes that stuff seriously, it'll never go through. Frankly, after seeing in a couple of RfCs how quickly fellow admins leap to one another's defense unconditionally even when presented with at least well-thought out, not emotion-driven evidence, the probability that this will be a problem is hovering around zero. 3 admins, 27 users, and a supermajority vote is what they'd have to go through. And how many grudge-bearers and trolls even have the patience for that, now that I think of it? Karwynn (talk) 17:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A lot. And the lamest grudges are usually the longest. Fagstein 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The lamest grudges won't have community support. This isn't some closed, individual incident process, people will flock to them like RfAs and AfDs. Probably moreso, since these I'm guessing will be rare. Karwynn (talk) 18:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Posted to Sam up-page, but for everyone

What if you have a situation where a good sized group of admins and editors all come to the conclusion that "Admin X" is not fit to be an admin anymore, but the scale of evidence isn't something that ArbCom would act on--but they see a trend of let's say continued behavior for a hypothetical situation, based on which they would not have passed this person on the original RfA. What then? It's not the sort of thing that ArbCom would ever remove someone for, but based on their behavior they would in all likelihood have difficulty passing an RfA. What if these admins and editors feel this person based on their actions shouldn't have the tools? They just have to sit on it? Live with it, because they made the decision once to empower this person and now their behavior is completely different than previously? That is what it boils down to. ArbCom will nuke me as a rougue admin if I directly abuse the tools, but that is not the only reason for removing someone. As for the police comment above--does the community decide who is a police officer in their community? Actually, yes, they do. They fund them, they finance them, and there are grievance processes. In any community which was not corrupt in it's support of it's officers, if 31 people were to sign an affadavit expressing extreme concern about the actions of a given officer, WITH recorded evidence of the officer's actions, you can bet your butt that same officer would be hauled in front of a review committee of some sort. That's the problem. The community gets to install admins but then that's it. The man or woman they install a year later, two years later, might not be anything of what they DID approve, and the community and their admin peers need a way to rectify that.

Nothing in this policy requires evidence of abuse, nor is any provision made for dismissing frivolous petitions. And I would certainly hope that police officers where I live would be subject to a vote if people sign a petition against them. Fagstein 18:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the filing clearly has an EVIDENCE section in it. And based on the merits of that, the certification either happens or it doesn't. If it doesn't, Recall closed, see you later. The community and the admin's peers (3+) decides if it's frivilous or not.rootology (T) 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd guess that 99.9% of admins would have NOTHING to worry about with this, and those that work well with their peers (admin or editor) have nothing to worry about. I strongly suspect any disagreement with this proposed process by admins in this talk page--with the exception of Sam's erudite opinions which are based on possible problems for admins who handle one specific subset or two of work--are unfounded and based on a belief that admins will be targetted for removal for being unpopular. THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL attack, but some of the most vociferous anti-recall voices here, Sam excluded, from my tenure here on Misplaced Pages I see generally getting into the nastiest scraps with their peers over a variety of issues. I think anyone viewing this except objectively does the project a disservice. Good admins that work well with others and respect others would have nothing to fear. rootology (T) 14:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the whole point of this policy to remove admins who are unpopular? Fagstein 18:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, the point is to give admins and their peers a form of oversight over each other without having to wait for ArbCom to decide whether or not to take action. ArbCom covers in theory 'anything', this is specifically "part 2" of the RfA. Basically, the point is that if someone presents evidence that someone is not a good admin/fit to admin, the community decides (certification) if that evidence and cause is worthwhile. If the community and the admin's peers agree, then it moves to a long RfA to allow the community to weigh all the evidence and evaluate it. rootology (T) 18:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Karwynn's comment

This proposal is pretty analogous to the part of the blocking policy that deals with editors who have "exhausted the community's patience" and can be banned indefinitely without going to ArbCom. If someone expressed opposition to that, think about it: you don't have to answer here, but what would you honestly think? Probably that the person who did so was a troll who wanted less accountability for himself. So you'll forgive me if I too suspect a little baseless worry. I am NOT saying admins who oppose this are beligerent admins or anything of the sort, just that you seem to be, like rootology said, the ones most often in conflict (nothing inherently wrong with that), and it would seem as though you are pushing against administrator accountability. Misplaced Pages is built up on accountability to the community. The contributions of all editors and the history of all modifications to any page, even in wiki-central namespaces like Wikpedia: and Template:, etc., are available for anyone to view. Proposal is written, actively edited, and enforced by editors, mostly non-admin editors (who "enforce" policy by reporting vandalism, trolling etc.). COntent disputes in articles, the central units of WIkipedia as an encyclopedia, are decided by a group consensus. Normal editors are subject to a community agreement to remove their editor status (by banning them). Is there any reason why administrators should not be subjected to a similar process? The policy seems to me very thorough in guarding against trolling, puppetting, and pettiness. Look at the requirements in the number and status of editors for certification - no way a sockpuppeteer is going to achieve that, nor will a group of 25+ like-minded trolls get that many edits without being banned AND manage to convince 3 administrators to support them. Admins are notified 24 hours in advance, and so cannot be "ambushed" with this. I can see no room for gaming or manipulation here - if you see ways this can be taken advantage of, please name them. 'll ask this again because I am really eager for an answer: Is there any reason why administrators should not be subjected to a community evaluation process? Karwynn (talk) 14:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Karwynn means a binding community review process, as opposed to RfC which is as toothless as you can get (beside it's ability to expose misdeeds). rootology (T) 14:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, RfCs are worthless in cases of admins or admin favorites - my experience is that it just turns into an unproductive troll-scare. A community evaluation with actual potential results is needed. Karwynn (talk) 14:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ad hominems aside, 30 users can't sign a petition to have me banned. Yes, Misplaced Pages is a consensus-oriented organization, but administrators by their very nature will do things to make them unpopular. Closing AfDs, banning users, protecting pages. Admins who are prolific in these things will be punished by recall petitions every nine months, and threats to file them on their Talk pages every day. I think they need extra protection from potential retaliation. Fagstein 18:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A) Which ad hominems?

B) YOu will not get three admins, 27 editors with 2000 edits, and a supermajority vote against you if the recall is based on something invalid like that. Karwynn (talk) 18:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of an addendum that if someone files the complaint they must go forward with certification process after the 24 hour period? That would push it directly into the process and offer the protection window. And at the same time, would stop people from filing frivilous complaints for two reasons: 1) stops stupid filings, by limiting their frequency; 2) stops potential reverse abuse by people getting someone to complain/file vs. them to get protection. All sides covered? rootology (T) 18:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It sounds kind of silly to force people to begin a process. It would also mean that the notice would become part of the process itself, bringing back the "SURPRISE YOU GOT RECALLED" problem. It would probably make it better, but I don't think it would solve all the problems. Fagstein 19:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A new requirement idea

I hear people saying "oh what if willy on wheels does this" and I think the danger is actually of false ones is more of if people don't like each other. SeeWikipedia_talk:Admin_recall#not_vandals_that_can_game_the_system.2C_but_cliques. I don't think 25 admins or long term editors should be able to use this to gang up on someone. So I'm just proposing that a good idea is a requirement on evidence. A lot of the criticism on message boards found with a simple googling isn't a big incident, but small stuff. Just as an example, it would be always assuming bad faith. If an admin always assumes bad faith about people, well it's bad. So why not put into the requirements that a page of evidence needs to be up. It would be a certain required number of evidence of breaking policy, even WP:BITE before this can start. The important thing is, even newbies should be able to provide on one of these, even if they don't meet the criteria to vote. The evidence needs to be able to hang around--staying up forever--until enough gets gathered and someone should review it as enough solid proof before the 25 can vote. Let's say maybe there's 100 evidence of things like assuming bad faith, personal attacks, WP:BITE, etc. before anyone can do that vote. What do you think? Anomo 15:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean a numerical value? I.e., admin has to have x number of policy violations as a condition of filing? There's already an evidence section by the way that has to be completed for filing (really, this is just a VERY streamlined combination of RfC, RFA, and an ArbCom type filing). rootology (T) 15:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This seems like an opening of the floodgates of wikilawyering. The current proposal leaves little or nothing to interpretation. With this addition, there will be little discussion on the merits of the admin and much bickering about what counts as evidence and what doesn't, what is a legitimate policy violation, and it will all spiral, as all things critical of admins seem to do, into a contest to see who can find the meanest way of calling the other side a pack of trolls. I think this is a bad idea. If there is no credible evidence of abuse, it will be very difficult to find people to certify, and even harder to find enough people to get a 60-70% consensus to desysop. In short, meritless recalls will speak for themselves and fail, protecting the "targetted" admin for 9 months in the process. Am I overlooking any of your concerns, Anomo? I just want to make sure I'm not missing anything you're saying. Karwynn (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What Karwynn said. I really tried hard to make this idea of a system 1) as simple as possible; 2) as user-friendly as possible--it's literally just a few steps from end to end, but each step is increasingly difficult to get passage through; 3) as hard to abuse as possible. The initial version was any 25 users plus certifiers, with 3 months/300 edits each. Now its 1 file, 30 users (3 of them admins), with 10 months/2000 edits each. Basically, if you're here 10 months and have 2000 edits odds are you know a thing or ten about wikipedia, and the requirements as laid out make ambush recalls impossible--admin HAS to be notified. He doesn't have to accept or confirm, or he'd just never do that. Then he gets a WEEK to address whether or not there should be a recall RfA. Then he gets THREE weeks in the current revision to display and explain why he should remain, during RfA. Fairness across the board. rootology (T) 15:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Complexity concerns--why? Please read.

People keeping saying the process is too complex as written for a reason to not support it, and I'd like to address your concerns. What is too complex? Short version:

• 31 people (3 of them admins) with at least 10 months experience and 2000 edits (i.e. veterans with assumed knowledge of WP) agree by signing on that the admin should be recalled, over one week.
• Recall RfA--same as an RfA, but to desysop.
• If not Recalled, admin is immune to this process for nine months to discourage frivilous filings.

Thats basically "it". What is too complex? rootology (T) 18:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe some of the users are perplexed by the rules of this proposed policy. Anyway, I don't find anything complex in this. --Siva1979 18:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

My concerns are not over complexity, they're over the chill this would put on administrators who make controversial decisions. Fagstein 18:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps some of them need a chill? --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why? Why should admins worry more about being popular than doing their jobs? Fagstein 19:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thats the thing--admins with the support of their peers even in something like this would have really nothing to worry about it. Especially with the addition of the 3-admin support requirement, it's pretty much you need to be removed by a vast, vast majority of your peers for it to ever come about. The point basically is just to empower the community to fully oversee itself. rootology (T) 19:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see where this "vast, vast majority" comes from. You need 31 users. After that happens, unless at least eight users come to your rescue, you lose your privileges. Fagstein 19:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Admin certifiers

Three admin certifiers isn't nearly enough. It should be something like fifteen. Off the top of my head I can easily think of three whacko admins who I trust less than most regular users who would be incredibly happy to leap onto any such call for admin recall. --Cyde Weys 19:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Would you be able to comfortably support such a process and vouch for it with additional certification criteria similar to this? Remember, my goal really is to introduce a fair other side to the one-way street that RfA is for the community to be able to exercise. rootology (T) 20:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, would 7-10 admins make you comfortable? rootology (T) 20:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep in mind that iff you assume bad faith on the part of the certifiers like this, then it could just as easily be 15 "whacko" admins that could sign. There has to be a reasonable limitation. This policy shouldn't be formulated based on the fact that admins are outright not to be trusted. Also keep in mind that any bogus recall would get the smackdown when it came down to the vote. Karwynn (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

...let's keep it on topic a bit moreso if we can. rootology (T) 20:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, would regular users' "votes" get the same weight in the re-RFA? That doesn't particularly make sense to me. If sixty trolls show up wanting an admin recalled and sixty admins stand up for him saying he's doing the right thing, that's technically only 50%, but we'd be insane to take away the sysop bit at that point. --Cyde Weys 20:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Do we discount trolls, cliques, or cabals from current RfA? The certification process is the measure designed to weed out the crap from the good filings. rootology (T) 20:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course they would, just like on normal RfAs. THe "danger" is the same. If Misplaced Pages policy were formed based on your idea of the threat posed by trolls, we'd never get anything done. Karwynn (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually if we gave trolls no attention just like they deserve we'd get a lot more done. --Cyde Weys 20:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so how do you distinguish between processes that would be taken advantage of by trolls (such as this proposal) and existing processes that seem to do fine (AfD, RfA, RfC, etc.)? Karwynn (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

RFC is extensively used and taken advantage of by trolls. Stop kidding around. --Cyde Weys 20:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde is right, RfC as it's formed is a joke for anything beyond to document legitimate issues historically. But he's right: thats abused. rootology (T) 20:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No one's kidding around, Cyde. FInd a more civil way to express yourself. And what about RfA and AfD then? Karwynn (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Voting is evil. Kelly Martin (talk) 20:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA *is* a vote. :) rootology (T) 20:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If voting is evil, what alternative system do you propose for ArbCom to make decisions? Tyrenius 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Statute of limitations

Another proposed amendment: all of the bad stuff brought up about the admin in the recall reasoning would have to be from the past month. This is to prevent people from trolling through years worth of admin contributions and cherry-picking out all of the "bad". Also, this means that if someone sees a serious admin infringement they will need to get on it right away; if they actually bother to wait more than a month they're either trying to manipulate something or they didn't think it was that important, it which case it shouldn't be eligible for a recall. --Cyde Weys 20:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

What about in a case where an admin (or several) wish to demonstrate that one of their peers has a history of x, y, or z? The thing that might be bad about this--what if some admin were to take an unsuccessful Recall as a license to do x, y, or z ongoing? The principle of this is Good, and I like this idea. How would you word the change? rootology (T) 20:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Huh, I had thought that in a previous draft it was supposed to be about a single issue or type of behavior, not just trolling for anything worth noting (unless it fits in a category of behavior, like issuing bad blocks). -- nae'blis 20:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

A previous version might have had the wording like, "Evidence/basis is for xyz issue, but you can cite additional supplemental evidence". Which is not a bad thing--people do that in RfA now all the time, as in "Such and such did This, which is Bad, and has a history of blah blah..." rootology (T) 20:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That seems rather counterintuitive, as I would think that we would want to avoid making spur-of-the-moment decisions based on isolated incidents, and instead reserve something like this for cases where an administrator might have an extensive history of unacceptable behavior. Kirill Lokshin 20:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Spur of the moment is bad--people can and will say stupid things on talk pages like "I'LL RECALL YOU OVER LOL blah blah," but unless they file its no more meaningful than saying "UR BLOCKZ SUCK". rootology (T) 20:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, RfAR cases about admins and non-admins are about patterns of behavior. Desysopping is a serious step, and should not be based on a month's worth of transgressions. Because, sometimes concerns ARE brought up immediately, but are ignored until a later time. Karwynn (talk) 20:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Stupid processlawyering comment, then: If an admin confines their behavior to small, low-impact "badness" that is spaced out to every 32 days, would they be immune to this process under Cyde's amendment? -- nae'blis 20:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not very likely. Karwynn (talk) 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea that the basis of the dispute has to be for something recent has a kernel of a very good idea there, that can be hammered out to make this whole process fly and be implementable. What would be a bad thing is any sort of "immunity" per se, because that's not the point--people can and are historically judged by their actions. No one should be Recalled for a crap action say in 2005, since they may have been ace since then. Perhaps a modification of: 1 filer, 30 certifiers, 10 of which are admins. Basis of dispute/reason for recall is based on actions in past 90 days (based on diffs/actions). Evidence section may include previous diffs/history to establish patterns, behavior, etc. Keep the nine month time limitation. If someone really, really pushes the admin envelope beyond that, especially after being perhaps unsuccessfully recalled, you can bet then that someone WILL haul them up before ArbCom. rootology (T) 20:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The less conditions the better. Let an admin's whole record be available. The real problem is not an uncharacteristic moment of bad decision-making, but a pattern of long-term abuse which many users have been at the receiving end of (something I trust which does not apply to any of our present admins). Obviously if something from a year previously is cited and nothing of the kind has been repeated, then this is likely to be discounted, just as it would be in a conventional RfA. Let's base things on the existing model, and have some faith in the community's common sense. Tyrenius 21:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

After the Sean Black re-RFA I am seriously lacking faith in the communal common sense. --Cyde Weys 21:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Why, because he was re-sysopped? Tyrenius 05:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

For better or worse, anything below Foundation level is the will of the people though. If his RfA was a bad idea, and there is cause/grounds to show it, this would be a good avenue for that to Recall. rootology (T) 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Sean Black would have gone all the way through the recall process (as the proposal is currently formulated), but wouldn't have been recalled in the end. Something like 14 admins voted oppose, and more than 31 total users voted oppose who had 2000/10months. I think that admin accountability is rather important, and I think that admins should be respectful, but I don't think that recall is the right way to encourage respect/civility by admins. If recall is formulated to address anything beyond specific actions that obviously hurt the encyclopedia, then recall would encourage admins to think about politics on a day-to-day basis, and that wouldn't really be productive for the encyclopedia (janitors should spend their time doing janitorial work, not trying to look good). --Interiot 03:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• Cyde, does it occur to you that the "community's common sense" is what gave you the sysop rights? How can you trust them on the one hand, but not on the other? - brenneman 05:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Statute of Limitation, my revision

Posting here as I asked Cyde on his talk page for input but no answer as of yet...

"This idea has me intrigued. Do you think RECALL would get needed support to become policy if there was such a thing that said "basis of dispute/primary evidence" must be from AFTER the time the policy is implemented? I.e., say you (hypothetically) did something vile and probably worthy of Recall x days, weeks, months, or years ago. What if the policy specifically said under Limitations "Diffs as evidence for basis of dispute must be dated after 10/01/06, the date this policy became effective. Older supplemental material/background material may be older.""

Thoughts? rootology (T) 22:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Recall will work because it will be repealed at the Foundation level. As soon as this goes through you just know someone is going to file it on Tony Sidaway or Kelly Martin or one of the other "cabalists". They may have a warped perception in the community, but there's so much work they do behind the scenes to help the Foundation it's ridiculous. I think, from that point of view, the recall thing would be a failure. There's too much going on that people don't know about and they wouldn't be able to accurately judge whether someone is actually a good admin or not. It'd just turn into a "I don't like you" or a "You're too incivil" kind of thing. --Cyde Weys 22:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

...and you've just revealed a major component of the problem. That "some" admins are "better" than others, at least in the perceptions of the Cabal. I was practically waiting for someone to say such a thing, and your response of this nature to my suggestion of basically giving every admin a free pass vs. the idea of Recall against any past activity is telling--I raised the ante in a fashion of which the policy will basically only apply to anything you do against policy going forward, and your response in turn is that "Oh, Jimbo will crush this, my friends are too special." Thanks for not helping too terribly much, and cementing many people's perceptions that certain admins would never do anything to put their lifetime appointments in the hands of "lessers". rootology (T) 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, look at how many people vote in RfAs. Several have never interacted much with the candidate, but support anyway. If a ridiculous Recall is filed, will it not be voted down? Getting through 5 admins and 25 other certifiers and then getting a supermajority is not going to be an easy process. People will leap to the defense of TOny, Kelly or many other respected admins. This is not a "only trolls can vote" thing - everyone will have their input. As far as your general attitude, I think rootology is right, you seem to be opposed not to this process, but to greater accountability for administrators. Karwynn (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Side comment: Haveing the policy only apply to acts after implementation might not be an bad idea if this was a code of conduct, since this is merely a process for cutting back on abuse, I don't think that owuld be necessary. Karwynn (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: over 50% of the "voters" would need to vote "I do not support this user as an admin". So it wouldn't the 75% thing we have with RFA currently, correct? --Cyde Weys 22:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's spefically an 80%+ concensus. I.e., out of 100 "votes", on the Recall itself, a desysop will not happen unless its 80-20-x or higher. No ifs, ands, or buts. It's not meant to be easy to unseat an admin by any means under this policy, and the certification is totally seperate from the RfA by design, to insulate admins from bogus filings... which I keep going over again and again. So, basically, if all 31 certifiers vote "Recall", all that has to happen to squash the whole thing is 20+ people to vote "keep", over the course of TWENTY ONE days. rootology (T) 23:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look like the numbers have been worked out yet. (I personally would go for 2/3, or 70% to round it off.) Karwynn (talk) 22:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, would you agree that people are more likely to vote "Opose RfA" than "Support recall", making it a little tougher to get sysop revoked once given? Karwynn (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

More

There's a delay of 6 months for filing these and 9 months in between. I think a year statute is fair, although still short I think. Anomo 22:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to call it this, because that's the height of Bad Faith, but my suggestion of effectively giving what some might call "Amnesty" for previous actions as the initial basis of dispute/Recall, plus the time limitations, plus either 5 or more admins signing on to certify the Recall, is basically the height of fair play--to be honest, based on ALL of these conditions, an admin would have a better chance with a Recall RfA than they would dealing with ArbCom if they actually did something wrong. Literally, the whole point is to just give users/editors/admins the ability to undo with cause an RfA they feel should not be appropriate anymore. rootology (T) 23:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I just thought up the ultimate in fairness. There's a sort of requirement like 2000 edits and 10 months for people to file this and these numbers will probably change. Maybe the statute of limitations could match the edit requirement. 10 months and 2000 edits would mean the previous 10 months or 2000 edits (whichever is greater) are however far the statute of limitations extends. Anomo 07:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A limitation on the frequency of filing these and a different limitation on how recent the misbehaviour can be don't go well together. Otherwise surviving a recall becomes a free pass for a period of time. If both limits are to be present, they should be the same - so only for behavior since the last recall discussion would be a reasonable limit. Frankly though, such a statute of limitation is unneeded rules expansion. The community will laugh off old items unless they also represent an ongoign trend in a administrator's behavior. GRBerry 14:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposed change based on Cyde's idea

• 1 filer, 30 certifiers, 10 of which are admins (10 month/2000 edit requirement remains)
• Basis of dispute/reason for recall is based on actions in past 60 or 90 days (based on diffs/time stamps).
• Evidence section may include previous diffs/history to establish patterns, behavior, etc.
• Keep the nine month ime limitation to eliminate harassment.
• 24 hour notice remains, but if unfiled is just so much hot air, and the named admin can just delete it of course. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by rootology (talk • contribs) .

Well, first let's get it accepted, then worry about the details. But (aside from 30 certifiers being maybe a bit high), the ten admins requirement is a red flag. Naturally admins watch each other's backs, that's only human nature. Plus obviously it's not in the interest of any admin to certify. Have you never heard of Omerta or the Blue Wall. They exist for a reason: mutual self-protection. Besides that, admins are a social group, always chattering away on their private IRC channel and what have you. You certify, you're going to be running into the guy at the next admin cookout or whatever. No, if you must keep raising the bar, how about X number of certifiers must have some given higher edit count/longer service than a regular certifier. Not that I'm suggesting that, but if you must. Herostratus 20:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It'll never happen. An admin would have to go completely bonkers for this to be fulfilled, bad enough that an ArbCom case would actually be more likely to close first. That many admins would never certify. Karwynn (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hero, what do you think would be a good and fair threshold in your opinion? Keeping in mind that this policy is intended for admin use as well as regular editors? rootology (T) 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Herostratus, the amount of bad faith above is kind of staggering. You don't think that 1% of admins would be willing to certify on a bona fide recall petition? Cyde above just intimated that 0.3% of admins are whackjobs, which is a different sort of problem, but the point remains...you can't get something approved until at least the basic details are worked out. How many certifiers of each category will be needed is certainly a basic detail, in my world... -- nae'blis 20:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the dark, where's the bad faith? Karwynn (talk) 20:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

There should be no requirement for any admins. The community appoints. If they wish, let the community take away. Experienced users of good standing is all that is required. Tyrenius 21:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The comments about the Blue Wall/Omerta (codes of silence), assumptions about self-serving admin motivations for behavior, and "Naturally admins watch each other's backs, that's only human nature" are what I was referring to, specifically. Anybody who's watched WP:AN/I knows there's vigorous disagreement amongst admins. -- nae'blis 22:00, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

If you can't find 10 admins out of about 400 active admins to endorse an admin recall then maybe the recall isn't supported by the evidence? Any recall of even a semi-active admin is going to easily be able to find thirty users ... if nothing else, thirty users who were previously blocked by that admin or whatever. The reason for admin endorsements is to make sure that it is merited on a level above merely all of the users with grievances coming out to play. --Cyde Weys 21:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

So why ten? Why not three? How are 10 admins any more or less likely to be "whackos"? ANd if the recall has little credible evidence, wouldn't it be voted down anyway? Karwynn (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I do like the idea of admin endorsers--it keeps the idiot ones out of the way. But I think ten is too high, and three too low. Five is better. Because, odds are, if five admins decide on a course of action, the other admins will not counter that in good faith. I.e., if 5 decide/agree on a resolution to somehting on AN or ANI, it will likely stand forever. 5? Agreed? rootology (T) 21:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This starts to differentiate admins as a special class, instead of trusting and empowering the community as a whole. I very much doubt that any recall would find 30 users of good standing (a key qualification in this proposal) in 7 days so easily were it not merited. Just because someone has been blocked does not mean they would wish an admin de-sysopped, if they felt general respect for that admin. Besides which, the final result is dependent on the whole community anyway. I think there is a fear of the unknown here, rather than a real need for fear. Tyrenius 21:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The certification would be listed on both RECALL and RFA for the full week of it's shelf life--you don't think it would get enough attention/traffic? I also specifically put nothing in to say "You can't tell people about this..." the same as there is no such limit for RfC, RfA, RfAr, etc., as that would be biased. rootology (T) 21:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Five is a better number. I'd prefer 3, and 25 certfiers too, and a decrease to required edits (why not 1000?) but oh well. Karwynn (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

2000 edits is a good value and I think 30 as well. Removing an admin shouldn't be as easy as becoming one, and 2k will also weed out a lot of the stupid stuff. rootology (T) 21:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's unfair to make such a short statute of limitations of a month or so if there is going to be a 9 month delay to file. Anomo 23:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Time to name names

If the supporters of this proposal are truly serious about making this into policy, there needs to be a discussion about which admins it would have affected. It's great to talk about this proposal in theory and using generalities, but I think it's time for specifics. This proposal is designed to address admins that the ArbCom won't deal with. Which admins (excluding ones already desysoped by the ArbCom) would have been desysoped by this policy? A previous discussion posed this question, but the answer was essentially sidestepped. Is it possible to name 5 admins who would been desysoped by this policy? Aren't I Obscure? 20:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an excellent question. I would love to hear some honest answers. --Cyde Weys 20:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Most of my support stems from the fact that I've seen a general lack of accountability for administrators, both in practice in attitude. There have been specific cases that have been particularly frustrating for me and, I believe, disruptive to Misplaced Pages. Of course I'm not going to name names, there's no reason for me to insult administrators like that. Karwynn (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

But I'm looking for someone to name names! There's enough generalities on this page to choke a horse, but virtually no specifics about who it would actually affect. I want someone to show the case of a specific admin who would have been desysoped by this policy, but the ArbCom never acted. I'm not looking for an attack on this admin, just a rundown of why he/she should be desysoped and how this policy would suceed where ArbCom failed. Can we start with just one example? Aren't I Obscure? 21:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Look at what I wrote below. As for the RfA side of things that's an unanswerable question--might as well ask what would happen if I ran for RfA in a year. rootology (T) 21:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thing is, we can't say they would have been because we don't know what the votes would've been after 3 weeks. Additionally, you won't be likely to find anyone willing to name names, being as ther is often a fear of massive retaliation from said admin(s), as is my belief for my case(s). Besides, it's the general lack of accountability that drives me personally, not so much individual admins. Karwynn (talk) 21:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

From just very recently, the situation that was just in WP:AN (you know who) could have factored into this. Looking at some cases, this could have been community resolved faster; this one took three months; this one took three months. There was also the Pedophilia Userbox mess. The following links to previous issues all likely would have passed at least the certification phase for a community review were they processed via Recall: , , , at least one, , .

EDIT: Recall with a 5 or 10 admin threshold had the policy existed when these events occurred. As to whether the community would have then desysopped, who can say. But it would have certainly reached RfA in some of these. rootology (T) 21:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are all bad examples because they refer to cases that ArbCom did deal satisfactorily with. We're asking you to name people who you think this proposed policy would've taken care of who haven't yet been taken care of by ArbCom. Also, I dispute that this policy would've taken care of Guanaco ... he was very popular at the time, because he was one of the pro-userboxers. I'd much rather have the ArbCom dealing with these; they look at actual abuse, rather than merely turning it into a popularity contest. --Cyde Weys 22:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, in some cases, the community could have dealt with the situation faster than arbcom. Consider Homeontherange, for example. I honestly don't follow the Israel stuff so I don't know all the ins and outs of the personalities there ... but I've got to think that the community would have long ago supported a de-sysoping there whereas, if I am reading this right, ArbCom has decided to do nothing. BigDT 22:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

For names, go to a forum like wikipediareview or some message board about wikipedia--even usenet and see who they complain about. It will be them. On an unrelated note, I am wondering if administrators could be able to vote anonymously so as to avoid retaliation. If I was an admin and I see an admin who say indef blocks anyone who forgets to sign their name and locks their talk page immediately, I'd want them gone, but I wouldn't want retaliation for it from their friends. Anomo 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Review complains about anyone who hasn't sieg heiled at least twice before they pour their Cheerios in the morning. Anyway, I thought this whole thing was about accountability, but you want the people who sign these petitions to be unaccountable? In my view that isn't consistent. --Sam Blanning 23:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole point of this--I don't know if some admins think I'm going for this--is NOT to crucify people who may or may not be "annoying" to their peers. It's simply to provide admins and users together the ability to undo a previously successful RfA which they feel, with cause, to be no longer appropriate to keep in force. Those Brandt sites are a poor example. rootology (T) 23:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages review is just easiest to find. There are many complainer places, but they're scattered. I don't know whose complaining achieves notability. Here's another Anomo 23:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Offtopic, why do people call rogue admins now rouge (means red) instead of rogue? I understand there was a joke once, but beyond that maybe it's a learned spelling mistake. Anomo 23:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Anomo, who has been indefinitely blocking people for not signing their name? Have you heard of the Arbitration Committee? I think they'd take a dim view of such silliness. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I expect that someone frequently protesting the fact that their MPOV was being suppressed decried all and sundry as 'rouge admins', it stuck in JzG's mind when he wrote WP:ROUGE, and since then it's been the only acceptable spelling. From playing roguelikes a lot I can tell you that it's one of the most frequent misspellings in English. Who and where made it here, I don't know (if WP:ROUGE gave an etymology it would spoil the joke). --Sam Blanning 23:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to state whom I believe would be the first on the chopping block if some form of community recall were made policy: Tony, Cyde, Kelly. All three would fail re-confirmation as well. MONGO and Zoe might be under some threat, but would probably squeak through. Looking over Misplaced Pages:List of administrators I don't see anyone else that would need to worry. - brenneman 23:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Aaron is correct, of course. And the only reason they would be on the chopping block is for annoying certain groups of people, which I don't consider a powerful argument for desysopping. All admin decisions are reversible and it takes a hell of a lot of effort to actually be a bad admin. {{subst:/And}} --Sam Blanning 23:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. An outside view on Kelly's current RfC calling for her desysopping has a grand total of zero endorsements, indicating that people aren't particularly willing to actually put their money where their mouth is. --Sam Blanning 23:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I would not certify KM based on what spawned her RfC2. rootology (T) 23:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that the lack of certification has more to do with the reality of the current dead-minning process than on community consensus. If we think if adminship in terms of giving rather than taking away do we have any real expectation that any of these individuals would pass a request for adminship that happened now? - Aaron Brenneman 23:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, please present any case for desysopping any of the three you have named to the arbitration committee. Your tireless and unceasing low-level personal attacks on administrators, which span almost the entire tenure of your time on Misplaced Pages, have not gone unnoticed. --Tony Sidaway 00:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You say low-level personal attacks, I say healthy scepticism. Let's call the whole thing off until one of you wants to actually take it to a forum where people care. This page is about some paddling skeeball process or something. --Sam Blanning 00:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Err, did I actually do anything wrong there? - Aaron Brenneman 00:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing at all, but you haven't completed the job. File your arbitration case. --Tony Sidaway 11:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Note that Aaron didn't even say he would certify them, just that he thought those three would be first on the block. I'd have to say he's probably right, which is not to say that it would be a correct decision. -- nae'blis 02:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Kelly Martin has some RFC and complaints and I've read through them and can't figure it out. It's more complicated than that whitewater thing. I just can't figure out what Kelly did wrong. Well, basically I hear one name, starting with an S, mentioned here on every single forum with people saying she's the head of the Cabal, worst admin, blah blah. I've not actually seen S do anything myself, but I see complaints like mad. The complaints I see are less than 20 admins actually. Anomo 00:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What about the admins that are inactive or barely active and like this for a year? I generally think these admins should be desysoped. I read once of someone wanting to de-power the inactive bureaucrats. Anomo 00:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure they did that on wikibooks a while back, or maybe they didn't (debates tend to take m-u-c-h longer over there). --SB_Johnny | 00:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

For names, go to a forum like wikipediareview or some message board about wikipedia - if you really believe in wikipediareview, which is harrassing people in real life because of what happens in Misplaced Pages as reliable sources, then that's all that needs to be said about this whole proposal. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ick. Just had a look at that forum... they sure are angry! I wonder if Bobby Boulders monitors that. --SB_Johnny | 11:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Is this trip really necessary, rootology?

This all seems a bit over-the-top... may I say "WP:CREEPY", if for no other reason than I find it an amusing thing to say?

If the goal is to have admins held accountable to community support, why not just throw out the lifetime appointment thing, and just repeat the RfAs once a year, or maybe on a reduced schedule over time (after 1 year, then 2 years later, then 4, etc.). At least this would be a more "neutral" approach, since good admins would be able to use the opportunity to recieve much-deserved wikilove without asking for it (and hence looking desparate), and bad admins could recieve a well-deserved slapping around without some poor schmo having to open an enormously complicated recall request.

What bothers me about this is that it seems to assume bad faith on ArbCom's part, and no matter how many safegaurds you might add by manipulating numbers and voting rules, these recalls are always going to be proposed in the heat of anger... and sometimes an admin is going to make 30 (or 50, or 1,000) wikipedians angry by doing what they're supposed to do as an admin. A user who's having troubles with an admin need only follow the steps in WP:DR. If virtual handshakes can't be virtually exchanged by the time it gets to ArbCom, at least the user will have had time to cool his or her head, get the arguments together, and present the case without using too many exclamation points (implied or otherwise). --SB_Johnny | 23:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with lack of faith in ArbCom, and I went out of the way to NOT make it sound like that--it's literally to give people the ability to fairly undo a previous RfA if the community feels such an action is warranted. As much as your "rolling and extending" votes sound wonderful, based on responses here (and from previously reviewing the annual call of a different method for the community to "undo" adminship if warranted) I highly doubt the admin body politic will ever come together to agree on anything but ArbCom actually "taking" someone's tools away. I'm not saying that's a bad thing; my goal here was to find a way for the community and admins to police themselves effectively and fairly. rootology (T) 23:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the angry-editor-in-a-snit problem is a pretty serious one, I think... I really think the time and effort involved in following WP:DR provides some time for cooling off, getting opinions, etc. Maybe have this be the step after arbcom, if arbcom either refuses to hear the case, or if their decision isn't acceptable to a large number of users and admins. --SB_Johnny | 00:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem I'm beginning to suspect is that the majority of users for whatever reason are unwilling to put a reverse RfA in the hands of the community--which is odd, as they have no problem with RfA itself as it is, and has been for years. rootology (T) 00:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Not odd at all. When you block people for violations they get upset, even when they clearly violated policies. Enforce policy enough and you will have your own hate fan club. Recall smothers the ability of admins to do the work they need to do, even though the people who brak policy don't like it. I'm sorry, but the reverse RFA is already in the hands of the representatives of the community, arbcom. There is no need to let the angry mob of people you blocked decide your fate. If there was so much admin abuse going on, arbcom would have removed a lot more people by now. But they haven't. pschemp | talk 00:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

(Striking part of my previous comment) I think the RfA is in the hands of the community because that's just the easiest way to do it. If the Foundation people had to go looking at every user's contributions to see who would be a good candidate for unpaid work, they'd have no time for anything else. Wikimedia has never been a democracy, and probably won't be in the forseeable future. It uses democratic devices, and has an egalitarian mission, but it's not really a democracy. Even ArbCom is trumpable by Jimbo, and I'm pretty sure this policy could never have teeth unless Jimbo were to declare: "Let it be toothy!" --SB_Johnny | 00:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, I find the idea of administrative terms lengths a lot less problematic than introducing a recall system simply because it does seem rather more fair, less bureaucratic, and because it simultaneously reduces the aura of elitism that is the biggest perceptual problem with the current admin system. I think the problem is the difference between explicit, quantifiable violation of specific policies, and a more general lack of respect and regard for non-administrators that skirts the boundaries of policy. Upon appointment, it's expected that administrators will reflect the most trusted members of the Misplaced Pages community, but there is absolutely nothing in place to ensure that they continue to do so. ArbCom works perfectly well in dealing with concrete violations of established policy, but to suggest that all problems concerning administrators can be boiled down to such relatively clear-cut situations smacks of the sort of bureaucracy that we frown upon. It's not about democracy, or egalitarism, or any other kind of ideology you'd care to name: it's about ensuring that the collaboration that makes Misplaced Pages work isn't buried under the weight of mutually exclusive cliques and suspicion between self-imposed castes of users. Not that I have an easy solution to the problem, mind you, but I've seen enough that I cannot doubt that the problem exists. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that something needs to be done; it's ironic to me that I never found myself questioning the judgement of the community or any administrators until I became an admin myself. Personally, I think that this proposal would be hard to be gamed as others fear (I have just read this whole talk page) and I don't really think a lynch mob or the had-a-bad-day-editor is a serious threat -- if you are an experienced contributor, as this calls for, it would be nigh impossible to get 25-30 such editors to agree to "indict" an admin unless there is something seriously wrong. Thus, I cautiously support this proposal. I agree with all of what SD says above. Grandmasterka 08:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

(unstriking my comment above, because I'm sometimes fickle that way) I still don't think this will fly, but it's worth considering some more. The thing I'm unsure of is where it would fit into the DR scheme in general. Should it happen before mediation? Before an RfC? Before ArbCom? After ArbCom?

If the latter, then what we're really talking about here is a method for petitioning Jimbo or another foundation member, right? If that's the case, then why not scrap all the "CREEPy" rules, and just set up a template and a vote counting technique (the number of votes and/or the number of days that the Admin Recall Petition (ARP) stays open before it's considered submissible should do the trick). Make it clear and brief and have voters disclose their edit counts (with a link to interiot's tool or something similar). Easy, huh? --SB_Johnny | 11:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A modest proposal

What the heck. OK, admins can't be recalled, fine. Why not take the obvious next step. Herostratus 07:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on the responses here and the utter disdain many have for any extra accountability placed on admins, I expect this will likely never come to pass unless the Foundation level decrees it, at which point no one will have a leg to complain on. For what its worth, if I were an admin I would 100% support the idea of community recall. rootology (T) 07:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Don't be such nancies! Grow some stones, keep working on the proposal, and chin up. Part of the problem is that this was (no offence) terribly written and very little {tl|sofixit}} appears to have taken place. I'm going to do some brutal re-writing. - brenneman 07:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks... I'll take another look at it in the morning. rootology (T) 07:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC

Um, hi, excuse me, this section is taken. Get yer own section :/ You're burying my proposed new policy Herostratus

Previously, on Misplaced Pages talk:Admin recall

This is an attempt at summarising the discussion at Archive 2. Please correct any errors I may have made. - brenneman 12:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, since this is all now in both places, it's odd but please do still add to the summary to help avoid repeating arguments ad naseum. - brenneman 14:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

• Some editors said "this is good."
• Several editors like the concept, but opposed the execution.
• Some editors oposed the concept.
• Several editors expressed that it was far too early for a straw poll.

Overall there was nothing like consensus that it should go forward in the form it had at that time.

Objections

• Several editors felt it was open to abuse.
  • Admins make enemies by doing their jobs.
  • Philosophical factionalisation would come into play.
• Some ediotrs felt it was not required.
  • Arbcom can already dead-minn.
  • There isn't a problem with "bad" admins.
• It was pointed out that the initial draft had some basic mistakes regarding existing policy.
  • What b'cats do vs what stewards do.
  • What the Board's function is.

Mechanics

• Lots of discussions about what is the appropiate threshold for "good standing."
  • How many edits: 500, 2000, what about 500 mainspace, etc.
  • Should there be "jury of peers" in: An admin quorum, board, etc.
• Strong feeling that the process was too complex.
• Concerns about the "statute of limitations" being open to abuse by "protective filing."

Re-write

I've hacked and slashed my way though the existing proposal as much as possible without actauly changing anything. Following this and a rest and some food, I'm going to start to summarise the objections/comments from above. I'll also probably merge Dmcdevit/Proposal for desysopping into this, but that's going to be a serious change of intent ans well as language. Lucky this is a wiki, eh? - brenneman 08:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

My personal view is that the 80 percent threshold is very high, and necessarily high, to prevent abusive attempts at removing admins on popularity grounds - and I honestly don't think that, in practice, it would ever be reachable except in cases of egregious admin abuse. But in such cases, I think the ArbCom would act far faster to stop those abuses. Thus, this proposal is, IMO, unnecessary. However, I think something like this might improve the perception of adminstrators and remove an excuse to hate the evil rouge admin cabal. Of course, the problem is that given the high threshold, it would be just as easy to say "this is just a whitewash, it's still impossible to remove the cabal." Damned if you do, damned if you don't? I also believe any adminship review process should be required to cite specific alleged policy violations - not just "I think this admin is doing a poor job," but "This admin uses his blocking tool abusively here and here ." FCYTravis 09:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I actually proposed to even before this to be able to make a list of such abuses and not have the page deleted or the people who ad to it banned. Anomo 09:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a line between alleging abuses in a professional and dispassionate manner and screaming "THIS ADMIN SUX LOSER ROUGE SEE HERE HE BANNINATED ME THE BASTARD ." One is fair comment, the other a lame personal attack. FCYTravis 09:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I meant the professional and dispassionate manner. Anomo 09:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Right - and such discussions are already extant in RFCs, thus I don't see any particular danger of having said pages deleted or contributors banned, as long as the discussions are kept civil. FCYTravis 09:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually that's all covered and I cleared it up by adding these couple lines to Filing section: "Basis of Recall will cite the reasons why the admin is no longer/should no longer be fit to continue on in their duties. Provide a summary. Evidence will be a detailing of links, and diffs detailing the basis of your claim." If this comes to pass we can always just have "closed" certifications and RfAs protected to keep people from messing with them afterwards. rootology (T) 14:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That fails to state that there must be a policy violation - "reasons" aren't enough. Otherwise we're going to have people run through this gauntlet for the henious crime of validly deleting someone's vanicruftspamvertisement page, even if said deletion was entirely within process and based on WP:CSD. This must be about admins who violate policy, not admins who have pissed someone off. FCYTravis 17:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

THose recalls will fail, so no harm done. THe admin in question will also be protected for 9 months. Detrimental to the filer's objectives. Karwynn (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

White-washing

Okay, now I'm really concerned. I and a few other people took the time to bring up some valid concerns and suggestions, and now everything is "archived"? C'mon. This doesn't feel right. I don't think the way this works is that you're allowed to delete all of the comments until you achieve the outcome you desired. That's shady. --Cyde Weys 13:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hrmmm ... inbetween the time that I hit the "+" button and when I hit the "Save page" button it looks like the majority of this page was restored. Thanks. --Cyde Weys 13:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but the histories are still destroyed. NOt only is it all "archived", it's actually moved. YOu have Aaron Brenneman to thank for that, who felt it acceptable to come in to a few-days-old discussion, MOVE rather than archive, and announce that the discussion was too much, taking the added step of summarizing everyone's thoughts into the fragmented sentences that obviously represent everything our simple little minds came up with. THen when I tried to undo it by nominating this page for speedy deletion so as to move the page back, he expressed his disagreement on the page deleted the tag without notice. This is not cool. Karwynn (talk) 13:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Aww, you have got to be kidding me. The page was 178K of repative discussion, and there was a big bloody note saying "please do correct any errors in summarising". Can you really honestly say that the current page lends itself more to cogent discussion than a summarised version? - brenneman 13:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

THat is not your place. If you're not interested in discussion, don't disrupt the discussion for your own stylistic preferences. THe people actively discussing can decide when to move archive. YOu are being disruptive - no doubt unintentionally, but stop anyway, please. Karwynn (talk) 13:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to summarize if you wish, but please don't interrupt a lot of ongoing discussions by doing so. --Cyde Weys 13:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• "Destroying" history by a page move? What? The "ongoing discussions" was mostly the same five things said over and over again. The straw poll was clearly an error, and a large chunk of the discussion was about a version of the proposal that has been changed a great deal. Philosphically ownership of pages extends to ideas too. Taking a long rambling and diffuse argument, interjected with barbs, and distilling it down so that reasonable dialog can continue is a good thing. Or do we love out clever turns of phrase sooooo much that we cannot bear to part with them? - brenneman 13:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

• I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to not have it archived. --Cyde Weys 13:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Look, Aaron, here's what's going to happen: The "basics" are now laid out. NOw the details will all come p, the individualized problems, the rationalization will all come right back out. ANd the discussion wasn't just a bunch of statements - it was interaction to modify the proposal. THat is now gone. YOu haven't cut down on anything. YOu've just set the discussion process back a couple of days. All without a word of discussion to the people participating. Karwynn (talk) 13:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to draw this needless min-drama out any longer, but a few things need saying:

1. Page moves are how you do an archive.
2. History is not destroyed by a page move.
3. Refactoring is a vital part of keeping a hot discussion going.

I'd also like to point out that the most recent addition to this page repeats again one of the points in the summary, in a new thread at the bottom of the page. Is it really that impossible to see that this impedes discussion, that the signal to noise ratio goes up every time this happens? I will refrain from commenting in this thread futher, except to ask how many K does this page need to be before it gets archived?

brenneman 14:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

THe histories to this page are now gone. Any links to them are now broken. DOn't put this "mini-drama" baloney on me. YOu're the one who ignored all the active participants and revamped everything to your liking. YOu archive by cut and paste, NOT BY MOVING. That's like, archive 101. YOu're an admin, so you're obviously not clueless. WHy are you disrupting this process? There was active discussion based on solving disagreements. You disrupted that with this unilateral, thoughtless page move. This is not helping this proposal or its formation. This is counterproductive.

Reversion

Commenting on this thread again, I know. The clean-up I made was reverted. complete with spelling mistakes. Karwynn, you appear a little bit excited and more than a little bit agressive in the editing. I'm a one-revert-per-day boy, and I've now done one on the talk and one on the article in like fifteen minutes... I think that's a first for me. You've expressed several things that betray that you're not terribly familiar with actual practices and the impacts of actions (e.g. your comments regarding archiving) so I'd like to ask, as nicely as possible, that you slow down just a little bit? - brenneman 14:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Afraid not. You're not going to nuke this proposal's discussion down and expect me to just sit back and take it. You have disrupted this discussion and all you can do is ask me to slow down and just accept it. THat's not something I'm willing to do. Karwynn (talk) 14:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You're both SO getting recalled for violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Fagstein 20:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems with this.

While I like the idea of having a way to remove problem administrators, keeping adminship shouldn't be a popularity contest. As an alternative, I think we should base the removal of sysop rights on clear evidence that sysop powers were severely and or repeatedly abused - in other words, without someone breaching our trust, we have no basis to rescend it.

This shouldn't be a form of community punishment for admins that are disliked, so disputes that aren't accompanied by real abuse would need to continue to go through dispute resolution. I don't support any process that leaves desysopping to the opinion of lynchmobs. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 13:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

THe process takes a month, lynchmobbing would die down. BUt if an admin doesn't have the trust of the community, why should they be a sysop? Karwynn (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The thing is, we do have a process for removal of sysop rights based on clear evidence that sysop powers were severely and/or repeatedly abused. It's called ArbCom. If it's not working, than it makes far more sense to fix it than to circumvent it by adding another layer of bureaucracy. On the other hand, ArbCom can, and should, deal in absolutes. Obvious, quanitifiable abuses, like wheel warring, for example. But that's really not the only form of administrative abuse. Continuous incivility towards fellow editors, abusiveness, and controversial actions that may not violate the precise letter of Misplaced Pages policy and practice can be equally damaging to the collaborative spirit of the project. Administrators are supposed to be "known and trusted members of the community." There should be a mechanism for dealing with administrators who have repeatedly violated that trust. ArbCom cannot make that kind of judgment: only the community itself can. Ideally, this process should supplement ArbCom, not replace it: the difference between a recall election and impeachment, if you must draw the inevitable political comparision.

Concerns over "lynchmobs" are a red herring. As Karwynn says, the duration of the process would smooth over any hasty, kneejerk reactions to beneficial but controversial actions, the kind which Mr. Weys (and others) have raised legitimate concerns over. Any complaints which persist, pretty much by their nature, are not the complaints of a lynchmob, but those of a segment of the community with a serious issue over the way a particular administrator has wielded his or her sysop powers. The outlined process is no more succeptable to a lynchmob problem than any other form of consensus gathering on Misplaced Pages: it could happen, but it's not particularly likely. This isn't my favored solution, mind you: I'd prefer a term limit system that applied to all administrators equally. But the system proposed here is better than what we're currently stuck with, which fuels accusations of elitism and cabalism against all administrators and damages the working environment of the project. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a "let's have an alternative to ArbCom" necessarily. This is, in essence, a new concept: if administrators do not have the confidence of the community, they should no longer b administrators. Karwynn (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

But why? Why are we turning administrators into politicians? Fagstein 20:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A previous administrator, karmafist, is a politician. At least I read he runs for office. Anomo 20:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Utterly pointless

This is simply a troll incitement. There will be lots of attempts to recall unpopular admins - and good ones will have to defend themselves against trolls. But, no-one will be desysopped by the process. So the net result is lots of noise and disruption, but no admins removed.

Why do I say that? Well, I've no doubt that it will be possible to get 30 names to trigger the process in a few cases. But it will be impossible to get the required 80% consensus to desysop thereafter, unless the desysopping is so obviously merited - that arbcom would have done it without a though anyway. I suppose some people are supporting this because they think they can use it to bring folk like Cyde or Kelly Martin to book. Well, news for you, it won't work. Admins who are acting in good faith, even if in unpopular ways, will always manage to get at least 20% of the community to support them. As I say, lots of disruption, noise and discussion will result from this..... but nothing at all will be gained. --Doc 13:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not a troll incitement. Admins in good standing and with the support of their administrative peers will have no concerns at all. rootology (T) 14:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the assumption of good faith, Doc. It so happens I'm not planning on using this on anyone, and I'm a big supporter. Admins acting in good faith have nothing to worry about. Karwynn (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not assuming anything. I said 'some people'. My point is that any admin may be harrassed by this, but that no admin (good bad or indifferent) will ever fear desysopping through it (other than miscreants who arbcom would hang anyway). So what is the point? What is the actual gain, for all the grief this would cause? Anyway, it is obvious this will never garner consensus - so it is dead in the water already. --Doc 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There are currently three proposals for community recall going around, it's an issue that comes up all the time, and there is a lot of active discussion going on. I removed the rejected tag, I think it's too ealry to decide that. - brenneman 14:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fine, but it is never going to fly. --Doc 14:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think Doc's right. "To what point and purpose, missy?"

1. If it's supposed to be easier/more reliable in borderline cases than going through ArbCom, then it probably fails that purpose currently. 30 users of significant edits must ratify it, and then it can be defeated by 20% in a wider re-RFA? Take a look at how divided opinion is on the Administrator's Noticeboard, or on any given talk page. This will end up being tyranny of the minority and not what you intend at all, I fear, and will just give those admins a pass for the next 9 months.
2. If it's supposed to be harder than going through ArbCom, then why not file an ArbCom case in the first place and be done with it? -- nae'blis 14:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The goal, then, should be to make it less complicated than ArbCom. Karwynn (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It isn't about simplicity, it is about effectiveness. What is this for? If it is about desysopping really obvious bad admins (which is all the 80$ rule will ever desysop), then it is unneccessary - since anyone who is obviously that problematic will be shot by arbcom long before your process --Doc 14:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Then obviously it's for ones that aren't so obvous. Here's the base premise: Admins who have lost the faith or trust of the community should not be admins anymore. FOr you to call this a troll's incitement is a pretty strong claim. Perhaps you're idea of trolling is too broad. Karwynn (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I mean, this process will often be triggered by trolls - and I know that's not the intent - but it is what will happen. Of course, the trolling applications for recall will not succeed - but they will still occur. Against that negative, I fail to see any possitive. You say, it is for less obviosly bad admins - but you'll never get 80% to desysopp where it isn't cut and dry, and where it is, arbcom will do it faster than this process. --Doc 14:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The support of your peers in all things is paramount. We have community bans for when a group of admins agree that an editor no longer has anything to contribute to Misplaced Pages, which is basically set in stone. This is a similar to that in a regard and a natural extension of RfA. The community and it's peers giveth a few extra buttons, and the community haveth the right to review (which is all the process really enables) whether you should continue to have the problem. Part of the issue also is that adminship is "no big deal", but it is perceived to be this Holy Grail of status. It's not and shouldn't be perceived as such. It's simply the community thinking that person x is worthy for a time to be able to keep tabs on other users--if a supermajority of users decides that is no longer the case, why should it continue to be? rootology (T) 14:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If a supermajority think that an admin should be desysopped, then they are probably right. No argument. But you'll never get a supermajority except where it is so obvious that arbcom will beat you to it. So there is not net gain. And what there will be are loads of failed attempts to get that supermajority, some of which will be pain trolling - that will be very disruptive and to no clear gain. --Doc 14:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Doc's correct that the current way this is being worked on is doomed. Why are we futzing around with the most microcopic levels of detail before there is even general agreement on the principle? Stop playing with the numbers, please. Almost no one is going to say "well, I object if good standing is 2000 edits, but if it's 1785 then I'm in!" - brenneman 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Doc, I think I see what you're saying now. We've discussed this before; it's not in the page history because it got moved out of nowhere. If trolls file, they'll fail. No big deal. THe sad thing is, there is almost no way to prevent trolling, vandalism etc. All systems are vulnerable to trolling. YOu just have to set measures to counter the trolling. Karwynn (talk) 15:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You also need to show that the benefit of the system outweighs the inevitable negative of trolling. I can't see any way that it does. You've got a prnciple of community accoutablity - but no pragmatic outworking. To be honest, your problem is that the 80% rule defeats the purpose. To work this would need 50% - and that will not fly. The only way this will get through is to make it so weak that it won't be worth it. --Doc 15:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Believe me, I know. THe proposal as is is worthless because it will never be successful. But the concept is still there. Trolls should not scare us away from new processes. Karwynn (talk) 15:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is pragmatic. we invent processes to improve things - not because they are noble concepts which won't work.--Doc 15:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

All systems are vulnerable to trolling. YOu just have to set measures to counter the trolling. Not necessarily. But any system which is based on numbers will be more gameable than one that is focused on discussion, rational debate, and thoughtful outcome. Giving specific numbers just makes it not scale with growth, and gives the trolls something to aim at. Ever wonder why RFA gets relatively little trolling? It's NOT a Vote, for one thing, so just dragging in raw numbers doesn't help. -- nae'blis 15:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am in constant edit conflict here. Now do you understand why Aaron wanted to refactor the page? -- nae'blis 15:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, with discussion going on with regard to administrator action, there will be all sorts of branches of trolling. Prima makes a comment. Secunda deems Prima to be a troll, and thoughtlessly removes their comment. Prima puts it back, saying not to remove comments. Secunda removes it again, turns whatever heading they're in into a discussion about Prima being a troll. Whatever "side" is in agreement with Secunda begins cheerleading the removal and jeering at Prima. Surprise! You've just created a new problem. WIth a number system, this will still happen, but Prima's votes will still count. See, that's the thing: trolling doesn't always come from the least respected editors. Karwynn (talk) 15:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Top down

Can we agree to stop adding incredible levels of detial to this proposal for right now? There is no agreement on them, several people have objected because of them, and debate over what colour hat the exchecker must wear while squeezing the testes of the whip are totally obscuring any debate regarding the underlying concept. - brenneman 15:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Detail prevents wikilawyering. We've discussed this before. I'm fine with resuming discussion, but it probably would've been easier to stick to the active headings. Karwynn (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Details are for wikilawyers. You've no agreement in principle. You've no clear aim. You've not defined a problem. You've failed to demonstrate how this would practically improve wikipedia. Untill you address those issues, this whole thing is doomed. Details be damned.--Doc 15:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Read a lttle more, you'll see the aim of this process is crystal clear. Details on what limitations there are will prevent people from squabbling about deleting recall requests, protecting them, blocking protected users, etc. THe details provide less wiggle room, therefore less wikilawyering. If you're here to just shoot down the proposal, you've made your view clear and we don't need to hear it over and over again. Either discuss to improve or state your opinion and be done. Karwynn (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh FFS. If you have any hope of changing policy, as opposed to having a nice accademic discussion about the finer points of a good non-starter, you need to discuss it with critics like me. You need to convince me that there is a problem, that you have a workable solution, and that the net effect will advantage wikipedia. Yes, you can tell me to beat it - and perhaps I will. But if you do, then you really are wasting your time. Now, if you want to be serios, tell me when you think this process would actually work and deal with a problem admin that arbcom can't. Be specific. What is the actual problem? --Doc 15:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I have missed you so. - brenneman 15:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that it hasn't raised the kind of supporting comments it would need at this early stage to have a hope of progressing to acceptance as policy. It could be that this is simply a good idea whose time hasn't yet come, then again it may simply be fundamentally unacceptable to Wikipedians. Only time will tell. Feel free to continue discussing it--I wouldn't want to stop that--but perhaps it might also be productive to look at the many opposing comments and decide whether there is some basic problem that, if removed, would turn that opposition into support. --Tony Sidaway 15:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Some changes have been made by discussion, but several objections boil down to this:

• Administrators might lose sysop priveleges unfairly
• Misplaced Pages is helpless against trolls
• Someone might file a recall against an admin I like
• ArbCom is satisfactory, another process to desysop is not in order

These concerns are inherent to the policy (or any policy with a system of removing de-sysop priveleges) and cannot be fixed. :THe only thing to do is discuss the principle of the objections, and that's getting us nowhere. Karwynn (talk) 15:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not my point. I've no objection to bad admins being desysopped. Of course, the proecess will allow trolling, any process does. But, we usually put with trolling, because the underlying process is useful - not just conceptually virtuous - but actually useful. This process isn't useful, because it will not desysopp anyone who would not be desysopped by arbcom anyway. No net gain. --Doc 15:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, attempting to revive a pseudo-quick poll here: I know that currently Karwynn wants the detials and I think having them is counter-productive. Can we hear from anyone else on the merits of reducing this to bare bones and then building it back up? - Aaron Brenneman 15:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that only a complete reappraisal of this proposal could save it. The principal objections seem to be that it would be operationally redundant with arbitration, it would take longer than arbitration typically takes to desysop, and it would be used by trolls to stir up bad feeling about administrators. I want to see bad admins desysopped perhaps more than many others in this discussion, but since I've seen this happen at arbitration I need to know what's broken about the current system that needs to be fixed. --Tony Sidaway 15:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tony. The ONE thing that a community process would seem to have an advantage over ArbCom is that (if I understand correctly) ArbCom requires all previous steps to be exhausted (RFC, DR, etc) before they will hear a case, and that all steps must apply to the same behavior/instance; thus they rarely if ever deal with chronic cases, rather than acute ones - is that a fair summary from your POV as a clerk? If so, I could see some advantage to a system that somehow managed to thread the needle between being trollbait, and ArbComm (yes, I just made that up). -- nae'blis 16:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If someone's conduct as an administrator is so appalling that he simply must be desysopped in short order, it's quite common for a steward to perform the desysopping pre-emptively--this takes a few minutes or a few hours at most. If the case is misuse of sysop privileges or other cases of unfitness to use the sysop bit, historically the arbitration committee has not demanded prior dispute resolution--at least, not on the same issue. See for instance Cantus vs. Guanaco, Stevertigo, Pedophilia userbox wheel war, and Guanaco, MarkSweep, et al.

On the facts, I don't see any reason to doubt the Arbitration Committee's competence and willingness to act in the case of unfitness to sysop. You don't see any chronic cases of bad sysopping going to arbitration precisely because the arbitration committee acts long before such cases have had a chance to develop. Abuse of the bit sticks out like a sore thumb and is such a blemish on Misplaced Pages that the current Arbitration Committee has typically dealt with such cases in a more timely fashion than other issues. The Pedophilia userbox case, for instance, took considerably less than a week from start to finish, and resulted in two desysoppings and sanctions against several other administrators. --Tony Sidaway 17:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Aha, there was some discussion up-page that intimated otherwise, so I'm glad I asked. Thanks. -- nae'blis 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I say go for it, Aaron and everyone

As initial author of this I support Aaron's idea to strip it down and rebuild. The ultimate goal is simply to empower the community to undo a previously granted RfA, for the express purpose of removing an admin who 1) has lost the support/trust of his peers; 2) is not trusted by his peers; 3) peers are both regular editors and admins. My number-based criteria was simply an attempt to Troll Proof it from the get-go. rootology (T) 20:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"Good standing"

I really don't think this term ought to be used in the policy. It's used on so many policies that a) it's meaning might be ambiguous and b) this policy might help set a precedent for what "good standing" is, something many particularly venomous editors seem to be pushng for (none in this discussion though). THoughts? Karwynn (talk) 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The lead links to the bit in the text that explains exactly what "good standing" means so there is no ambiguity. Change the naming convention if you'd like. But saying things like "particularly venomous editors" doesn't help keep things calm, ok? - brenneman 15:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite calm. There are venomous editors who throw around the idea that if you have such-and-such edits, you're alright, and if you have less, you're a nobody and likely a troll. I also specifically stated that I'm not referring to anyone in this discussion, so if you think I'm referring to you, I'm not. I see no reason to get upset about this. As far as my concern goes, I'm aware that you linked to it. it's the naming I have a problem for the reasons above, and thoughts on those reasons?

Good standing is an established term, though; it's not as though someone just pulled it out of a hat. -- nae'blis 16:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of that. In fact, it's part of my concern. This should be familiar -

It's used on so many policies that a) it's meaning might be ambiguous and b) this policy might help set a precedent for what "good standing" is

If no one's going to comment on this, I assume I won't hear any objections to changing it? Karwynn (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is absolutely not the place to define good standing, so yes I object. However I would support if you want to either make a Glossary edit, or start Misplaced Pages:Good standing/Misplaced Pages:Editors in good standing... -- nae'blis 17:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, enough confusion. We're in agreement (I oppose the setting of precedent for good standing, hence my concern), so I'm changing it back. Karwynn (talk) 17:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to kill the section. Good catch. Karwynn (talk) 17:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Workable policy

OK, so far I've been negative. Here is what I think could work - and might just get support.--Doc 16:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It is very simple:

New policy (or perhaps a restatement):

• Any administrator who is deemed to be damaging the project, or who has overwhelmingly lost the confidence of the community, may be desysopped.

Process:

1. The initial step is a request for comment - to allow an attempt at solutions by community discussion.
2. If this is obviously failing to address the concerns, after 3 days, any administrator may initiate a 'recall petition' on the RfC.
3. Providing that this motion is supported by at least six other administrators, it may be refered to Arbcom.
4. Arbcom shall then consider whether an administrator: 1) still enjoys the confidence of the community, and 2) is still of net benefit to the project.
5. If Arbcom deems the administrator to fail one of these conditions, it may order the desysopping of the administrator, or impose other restrictions or remedies as it sees fit.

That could work quite nicely, but I'm wondering how the ArbCom would determine if the admin in question "still enjoys the confidence of the community"; the obvious methods—straw polls or re-RFAs—would bring us back to the original point, so presumably some other method would be adopted? Kirill Lokshin 16:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

A quick look at the prior RfC, the talk page of the admin, and the numbers endorsing the recall petition should suffice. Polls are evil and often not reflective. Arbcom members are part of the community, so I guess they'll have a pretty good idea.--Doc 16:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's got some merit, although I'd like to hear from at least one ArbCom member about their viewpoint on workload vs. payoff for such a community-started system. I'm also leery of an "admin-only" step, but it's probably too tough to define a single member in good standing without making it trollbait. -- nae'blis 16:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good idea--it's basically an Escalation Function for converting an RfC into a direct ArbCom matter. rootology (T) 20:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

And as RfC is basically a toothless wonder, this would grant additional legitimacy (quite a great deal) to that process as well. rootology (T) 20:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the "lightly" approach of Doc's too, but I'm going to split this into a "working copy" box, with my proposed changes in bold. Anyone who wants to can make an edit in this box keeping the first as our current point of reference. Sound ok? - brenneman 16:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Much better, IMO, but I don't think it will address rootology's initial concern, because it still stops the buck at arbcom, which he (justifiably or no) has doubts about. --SB_Johnny | 16:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to hope that they would certify all but the most outrageous cases. Someone has failed to get the consensus and a b'cat has stamped it, but they'll still say "no way?" I have more faith in them than that. - brenneman 16:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

What's a b'cat? --SB_Johnny | 22:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to do with ArbCom, again--it's to provide a means for the community and the admin's peers to reevaluate directly whether he should continue on as admin based on his actions. rootology (T) 22:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Alternative

Make it even simpler.

1. When a groups of editors in good standing feel an admin should be desysoped, they write a petition on the merits and sign it.
2. The admin in question responds.
3. After that, a week talk page discussion to get the feel of the community.
4. Vote by the ArbCom on the merits.

End of story. (Arbcom has the right to kill frivolous petitions in any stage). This might result in two or three desysoppong events as soon as it becomes implemeted. It is clear, it can nt be highjacked by a group of trolls or so, and it leaves the power with the ArbCom (where I think it should remain).-- Kim van der Linde 16:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Please edit me

• Any administrator who is deemed to be damaging the project, or who has overwhelmingly lost the confidence of the community, may be required to stand for reconfirmation.

Process:

1. The initial step is a request for comment - to allow an attempt at solutions by community discussion.
2. If this is obviously failing to address the concerns, After at least number Z days of discusion, any administrator may initiate a 'recall petition' on the RfC.
3. Providing that this motion is supported by at least arbitrary number X other administrators and arbitrary number Y, a request for reconfirmation will commence.
4. This reconfirmation will have the structure of an existing request for promotion, and consensus will be interpreted by a bureaucrat.
5. Arbcom shall then consider whether an administrator: 1) still enjoys the confidence of the community, and 2) is still of net benefit to the project.
6. If Arbcom deems the administrator to fail one of these conditions, it may certify the outcome and order the desysopping of the administrator, or impose other restrictions or remedies as it sees fit.

No good. ADmins can delete RfCs about other admins without consequence. Karwynn (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Admins can delete any page. There's logs, though. I don't understand this objection, unless you just think all 1000 admins are corrupt. -- nae'blis 16:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I created the category of admins open to recall, are you seriously suggesting that I'd just ignore it if someone deleted a request for comment? I think that I can count on my hand the number of certified request for comment pages that were deleted. - brenneman 16:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

This is my experience:

Prima makes well-put together RfC about an admin complete with diff links.

Secunda brands everyone supporting it a troll and deletes it after a couple of days

Triada brings it up on the DRV. All admins who disagreed with it come to endorse the deletion, based on the fact that they don't agree with the files (I'm not making this up, they say that)

Triada is labelled a harasser, and is told he will be blocked if he ever brings it up again.

Not all admins are corrupt, but none care enough to keep the others in check. RfCs should never be speedy deleted, but they sometimes are. NOne of this was hidden, or conspired. It's just the way things happened. ANd nobody gave a damn. Karwynn (talk) 16:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

(The light finally dawns on me). So this is one of these 'admins can't be trusted' rants? If that's the case - goodbye. --Doc 16:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

NO. DId you even read a word of what I said? Karwynn (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"ADmins can delete RfCs about other admins without consequence". That's a very telling comment about the motivations behind this procedure. If the underlying assumption is that all admins are corrupt and untrustworthy, and massive sets of rules are needed to keep them in check, then there's no point in keeping an eye on this: it's based on a false assumption, and consequently will never amount to anything worthwhile. --Carnildo 19:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, good thing that's not what I think then, as I've said already. And there weren't any consequences. Look what I said: Not all admins are corrupt - NOne of this was hidden, or conspired - no conspiracy theory, no fight the man mentality here. Karwynn (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd ask anyone else commenting here not to mischaracterize my comments, thanks. Karwynn (talk) 19:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

OK you've pointed out one case where an RfC was deleted. However, in this case the RfC apparently (according to the deletion reason) consisted of nothing but flames. Do you have any actual examples of non-frivolous, certified RfCs being deleted by an admin without consequence? If an RfC was part of this desysop process and a rogue admin deleted it, do you really think 1000 other admins would refuse to undelete the page? If an admin can supposedly delete an RfC without consequence, why couldn't they also delete a recall page? Aren't I Obscure? 19:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of this policy idea is NOT any silly assumption that all admins are corrupt monsters--anything but, I think at least 99.9% of you wield a fair and generous mop. Like I've said throughout the idea is simply to empower the community directly in some fashion to very fairly undo what it no longer holds to be a meritous RfA. rootology (T) 20:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There are slightly less than 1000 admins. If you believe that "at least 99.9%" of admins are fair and generous, that leaves 1 (one) admin that might deserve to be desysoped. Do you think that an entirely new process is required to deal with a single subpar sysop? Aren't I Obscure? 21:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No, what I mean is that I'm not trying to craft a policy to "get" admins. The point of this is to give the community the right to decide for themselves directly who whould be an admin if they feel collectively someone is no longer fit for the job. rootology (T) 21:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason I took what you said literally was that it's important to perform a cost-benefit analysis when undertaking such a proposal. In this case, the cost includes the misuse of the process by trolls, ill will caused by recalls and all the bureaucracy involved. The benefit is having an additional mechanism (besides ArbCom) to remove an admin. If there were dozens of rogue admins that weren't being dealt with by the ArbCom, the benefit would be fairly substantial. However, if only .1% of admins deserve to be recalled, the benefit is essentially non-existent. Processes on Misplaced Pages are designed to address a problem and thus far it hasn't been shown that there's a problem to address. No problem to solve means no benefit. As long as the cost outweighs the benefit, this proposal isn't going to fly. Aren't I Obscure? 22:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

COuld you please explain a hypothetical situation where a troll could successfully abuse the system? Karwynn (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I only said they'd misuse the process. I highly doubt they'd suceed, but that's not their goal. This is from our internet troll article: "The ultimate goal of most trolls is to cause a reaction and/or receive attention, whether positive or negative." What better way for a troll to waste everyone's time than to start up a recall. Aren't I Obscure? 22:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So do what's best for trolls: ignore them. A filing needs 30 certifiers, 3 admins. That's 30 trolls, 3 of whom would have to be admins. Ignore trolling recalls completely and they won't get certified, and away they'll go. THere are all sorts of systems for trolls to use - RfA, AfD, RfC, etc. - but s the answer to close them all down and live in constant fear of trolling? Just ignore them and they'll go away. That makes more sense to me than not implementing any more new processes for fear of trolls.Karwynn (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm an extreme case, but my activities in enforcing the basics of the image use policy (all images must indicate their source, and must have a license tag) has resulted in the deletion of images uploaded by around 40,000 users, including several hundred established users. Based on what I've seen on my talk page, people would be bringing up recall petitions once or twice a month, and if someone were willing to take the time, they could easily come up with thirty people to certify, and a thousand to vote against me. Do we really want a system that punishes people for enforcing policy? --Carnildo 23:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Which is one reason this proposal is fatally flawed - it has no requirement that the recall proposal even allege that the admin's actions somehow violated a policy. So yes, theoretically a bunch of people could put you through the whole recall mess because they don't like the fact that you are enforcing policy. FCYTravis 02:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Where/how did you come to this conclusion? The filer has to include the basis of the dispute plus evidence. rootology (T) 02:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

What part of "dispute" requires that a policy have been violated? There are lots of people who would "dispute" legitimate and necessary admin actions that in no way come anywhere close to violating any policy. "I dispute the fact that this admin deleted all the copyrighted, non-fair-use images I uploaded." No admin should have to go through such an ordeal unless there is actual suggestion that he or she has undertaken actions contrary to established policies. FCYTravis 02:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Any active admin has violated a strict reading of policy a few times. Usually it's speedy deletion of material that doesn't meet a specific criteria but nonetheless doesn't have any place on an encyclopedia. The actual reason people are voting to recall doesn't need to bear any resemblance to the evidence given in the petition. --Carnildo 02:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I see it in the same way as sysop rights. A burocrat can add them, only a steward (a level higher) can remove them. Giving the rights is determined by the community, removing them by the ArbCom (a level higher). This is a simple principle of safety. The way forward is to find a earier way to deal with abusive admins, without a ful blown ArbCom case. -- Kim van der Linde 03:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I looked at Internet troll you quoted and the entire introduction was changed by someone without even a talk page (whose sole edit was that article) and an anon IP the same day it was quoted to replace its previous first paragraph that has been there for at going back a year. Anomo 04:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

From this comment and your edit summary "rv new user without even a talk page and anon IP who changed the article purely so someone could quote it" , it appears you're accusing me of changing the article so I could quote it? You can't be serious. Are you really suggesting that I altered an article because I might quote it 20 hours later? That's one way to throw assuming good faith right out the window. To be perfectly clear, I have no idea who edited that article, nor any idea that the line I quoted had only been there for a short time. However, I still find the quote to be a rather accurate description of a troll's goal. Aren't I Obscure? 15:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Some principles

These are the principles as I understand them. Keep in mind this is not stone-hard fact here. It's the principles this policy is bult on. This is really rootology's policy, so he's more correct about this than I am, but here goes:
Sections below moved out.

The problems

1. SOME administrators act abusively (per Misplaced Pages conduct policies), with no accountability (a central part to Misplaced Pages), and/or incompetently. The number/percentage is unspecified. THese behaviors are sometimes the pattern and not isolated cases.
   1. Abusive conduct is detrimental to Misplaced Pages, per reasons outlined in conduct policy.
   2. Lack of accountability is detrimental to Misplaced Pages - consensus and discussion facilitate rational thought and better decisions
   3. Administrative incompetence - lack of knowledge of policy, or foolhardy actions using tools based on a lack of context about a situation or a lack of knowledge of all the circumstances, including rushed decisions - adversely affects blocks, deletions, and protections, inhibitting the ability of Wikipedians to build an encyclopedia.
2. Bad administrative actions, as defined above, causes the community to lose trust/faith/confidence in said administrator.
3. There is currently no system for the community to come together to desysop someone they have no confidence in. - Current dispute resolution steps are in the control of admins for blocks on participants, deletion, and protecton.
   1. There is no current involuntary recall process
   2. Filing an RfC will get it flooded by fellow admins, who in my experience generally proceed to throw trolling accusations around rather than listen to the discussion.
   3. RfCs about admins can be speedy deleted on sight, even if they've run for days. There need not be discussion about this.
      1. Asking for the deletion to be reviewed gets you branded a harasser.
   4. People who complain about admins may be subjected to accusations of harassment or trolling, and are ignored they ask how they are harassing/trolling.
      1. As a result, civility, no-personal-attacks and respect are thrown out the window. Blocks may follow.
   5. There is a "community ban" for removing the status of "editor" (i. e., blocking) in the blocking policy, but no process for community removal of admin status
   6. Arbitration fails to fully desysop poor admins (meaning it gets some, but not all)
      1. ArbCom cases filed by less experienced users are less likely to be accepted
      2. Previous discussion on desysopping is considered incivil and is subject to penalty in Arbitration.
      3. "Failed" complainers are branded as trolls by administrators, decreasing the filing of potential cases.
      4. There are only 6 arbiters - don't have the time
      5. Arbitrators only desysop in cases of severe, severe abuse.
      6. Arbitrators are not intended to gauge the community's view of the admin

Result: If an admin is not trusted by the general community and only by his fellow admins (and sometimes not even then), he remains an admin, despite the fact that an RfA on his/her part would not succeed.

The solution (in theory)

1. Provide a method of allowing a consensus decision to desysop based on lack of faith/trust/confidence in the competence/conduct. Assume good faith in predicting the motives of non-troll users.
2. Provide a system to weed out trolling or frivolous filing
   1. A certain time period and number of edits are required to certify
      1. "Survival" factor - many trolls permabanned before achieving required time/edits
      2. Assumed greater knowledge of Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines
      3. Assumned committed interest to improving Misplaced Pages
   2. Failed Recalls "protect" admin for 9 months
      1. Makes filing in bad faith or for dumb reasons counter-productive for the filer
3. Provide a system to weed out emotionally-charged filing
   1. Needs 30 certifiers
   2. Needs consensus
      1. Unlikely for undeserved recalls, notices displayed at high-profile pages
   3. Takes a month to complete the process
4. Provide greater accountability for administrators - based on the community's trust (this is both a solution and an advantage)
   1. Assume that the community at large has decent judgement

Result: Good-faith consensus-backed desysopping of administrator deemed to be in poor standing

The advantages

1. Removal of poor sysops - less use of tools outside the scope of policy
   1. Removal of abusive administrators
      1. Less abusive blocking means more productive editors
      2. Less abusive deletion means more legit content for Misplaced Pages and greater capacity for discussion in the Misplaced Pages: namespace
      3. Less abusive protection means more productive editing/discussion
      4. In general, this will mean less conflict on some scale
   2. Removal of incompetent administrators
      1. Less poorly judged blocking, even when done in good faith, means more productive editors.
      2. Less poorly judged deletion means more content for us
      3. Less poorly judged protection (not a problem so much, but anyway) means more editing/discussion
2. More administrator accountability
   1. More accountability does not mean stricter polcy/guidelines on use of tools
   2. There is nothing wrong with an admin having second thought based on "Is this in line with Misplaced Pages polcy?"

Result: More expansion/improvement for Misplaced Pages

What this policy is NOT

1. An excuse to desysop
   1. Duh, voting procedure prevents undeserved desysopping
2. A reason to desysop based on an isolated action/ set of actions
   1. If the admin doesn't show a pattern of the bad acts, it will get voted down
   2. This is especially important in cases of perceived incompetence. One or two bad decisions is not enough - it needs to be a pattern to show a lack of improvement to the project
3. A discussion of WHY an admin should be desysopped
   1. It's a discussion of WHETHER to desysop someone - meaning, there are no specific criteria AND there is ample chance to oppose the desysopping
      1. In other words, it's not like initiating the process means a desysopping, it means it's going to be discussed.
4. Any disciplinary action beyond desysopping
   1. In other words, even if desysopped for abuse, admins won't get blocked or whatever (leave that to ArbCom)
   2. Again, this is especially the case for perceived incompetence - the admin may be acting in bad faith, even if his/her judgement is less than helpful
5. ANYTHING other than a process to improve Misplaced Pages and the means by which it is written - the recall process is not to be used if you just don't like someone.

Discussion

So... thoughts? Karwynn (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I moved your signature up here so to keep it together if we start having threaded discussions on the below. I hope you don't mind. - brenneman 16:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. What are your thoughts? Karwynn (talk) 16:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So we're back to "ArbCom doesn't work so let's have non-admins decide". Fagstein 20:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The policy as drafted by me (2nd or 3rd draft in like 5 hours) required admin endorsement of the certification of the recall--the original was 25 "users" with 3 months/300 edits, then it was 30 with 5 months/1000 edits, then I settled on 30 with 10 months, 2000 edits, and 3+ admin certifiers of the 30 to eliminate stupid trolling. The nine month exemption was in it from draft 1. rootology (T) 20:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is going to face an uphill battle, mostly because of the first section: Problems. I think you'll find many editors/admins who will disagree with it, and I'll post my own opinions here to give you an idea of why.

1.1. Abusive conduct I do not agree abusive conduct is, absolutely, harmful to the project. I believe upholding some of the core principles sometimes requires what is, essentially, abusive coduct towards elements which would challenge those principles.

1.2 Lack of accountability Between arbcom, Jimbo and the Foundation/Stewards, I do not agree there is a lack of accountability.

1.3 Administrative incompetance I agree this is a problem. As I feel accountability is adequate, I think the solution to this issue is to strengthen the RfA process.

2. Bad administrative actions This may be true, but I don't feel it's helpful. Unpopular decisions can well have the same effect. And with the number of active editors, there's usually a good number of people who find any action unpopular.

3.1. No involuntary recall process Again, I feel arbcom fills this role. 3.2. RFCs while part of this dispute resolution process, should not be considered part of the admin recall process. 3.2 - 3.6 show a lack of faith in the current system. I doubt anyone could say anything to restore someone's faith, and for this I'm sorry. Even if you manage a consensus on these points, though, I don't think the solution is another layer of policy & process. If the current system is as flawed as you say, adding to it will only increase the flaws as the new policies and processes are "exploited."

Instead, as I said, I'd hope to see existing process refined and fixed, starting with RfA. If arbcom is too small to handle its workload, maybe it can be expanded or divided into an ArbCom for admin disputes, an Arbcom for policy disputes, an Arbcom for content disputes, etc., etc. This proposal, I fear, has little change of life because I feel there will be very many editors and admins who will concur on some if not all of my points in some way or another. --InkSplotch 21:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Notice: WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE COMMUNITY, NOT INDIVIDUALS. That means that saying "well, any good admin action is going to be unpopular among some people" is a waste of time because all that matters is the popularity to the COMMUNITY. Additionally, this is not about popularity, but about confidence in the admin's enhancement of Misplaced Pages's quality.

I agree about RFA, I think people ought to tighten up their RfA standards. And that doens't mean bump up the required edit count, it means saying "Is this guy really exceptional or just another experienced editor?" Additionally, I find it disturbing that you feel that breaking policy is not disruptive/detrimental to WIkipedia (since the principles I put up define abuse as deliberately breaking policy). Three questions: do you mean ANY editor breaking policy is not detrimental, or just admins are not detrimental when they break policy? Second question: Would you support, then, removal of the parts of the policies and guidelines that state that adherence to that particular is beneficial to WIkipedia? And third: Are you saying you don't think that abusive or incompetent decisions made by admins don't cause the community to lose faith here?

Also, I want to clarify: THis is not saying ArbCom don't have good judgement, only that they don't always get to everything because not everything is filed, for the reasons stated in the principles. It's not so much a lack of faith in the committee, more in the system. Karwynn (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you're focused more on the community than individuals, but then, how do you tell? We have an extremely large community, but not that many vocal members the Misplaced Pages space. So I see people try to draw a line, 10, 20, 30, people to certify...maybe admins too...I just don't believe there's a realistic number of editors you can find to make this process reliable enough. I think RfA is flawed enough, and I'm much more concerned about a process to remove admins making mistakes than the existing process to promote admins making mistakes.

To address your questions, and I apologize if the answers aren't as direct as you expect. (1) I don't believe all policies are created equal, or that all are meant to be enforced equally. So if some are broken in the enforcement of others, I'm OK with it. I look at the end results. (2) Not necessarily, although I do feel certain policies might benefit from updates or clarifications. Alas, I'm not able to provide you a list :) (3) No, I'm saying I think proper and competent decisions can cause the community to lose faith simply because they may or may not be understood properly. I don't think admins need the faith of the community to do their jobs. Be elected, yes, but once there they're called on to do some very unpopular, often contentious jobs. I have faith in our current resolution process (Foundation, Stewards and ArbCom) to watch out for the abusive ones. I think the incompetent ones are harder to spot, just because incompetent doesn't always lead to abusive actions, which is why I feel efforts are better spent on RfA.

I think the faith of the community is better placed in themselves to make a better encyclopedia. Focus on that, and while conflicts will arise, conflicts will be quickly resolved and the project will get better faster. --InkSplotch 22:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Respectfully, I don't agree. I've gotten crap from admins when I'm (in intention, at least) NPOV-izing articles and upholding other policies like verifiability, original research etc, or by supporting the keeping of encyclopedic articles that are not to an admin's liking. If I disagree, I'm threatened with blocks and such. It's dangerous to dismiss any inter-editor conflicts as unproductive. But then, how is it decided whose edits stay and whose go? Essentially, by saying I'm to avoid all conflict with administrators, you're saying (or implying) that the non-admin side of a conflict (me) is the wrong side. And once we all accept that, the encyclopedia will benefit. So why not just cut the uselessness then and eliminate all non-admin users? I know that's not what you're suggesting, but that's where (I think) that line of logic takes someone. Point is, it's not always productive to ignore conflict - conflict is inherent to cooperation on some level, and to let a bad edit or something bigger, like the blocking of several productive editors, slide is not productive. Karwynn (talk) 22:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mean to suggest the editor is automatically wrong versus an admin. Just ask yourself, are your actions more or less disruptive than the harm to core principles like verifiability, neutrality, etc. you're trying to prevent? Is it an immediate need? Take it to AN/I, and realize you might ultimatly be wrong. And I mean wrong, which could result in blocks, bans, permanent community bans, or other restrictions. You might learn from this and go on, or the encyclopedia could lose an editor. On the other hand, you could be right, other admins might support you, and you gain respect as someone beneficial to the project. Any damage to the project gets fixed quickly, thanks to the exposure. It may sound callous, and I apologize if it does, but ultimatly Misplaced Pages gains from it all. How much you gain, is in how you conduct yourself. --InkSplotch 22:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Archival

You really shouldn't be archiving discussions which were active just last night. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"RfA is not a vote" "ArbCom is not a vote"

ArbCom results are based on the amount of support each principle gets: 8-1, 9-0, etc. That's a vote according to the dictionary. The debate leading up may not be, but the end result... its number for, number against. Where/how is this not a vote? Please illuminate it for me.

RfA results are based on a concensus based on the number of responses for, against, or abstain. Comments and commentary from reading them seem to indicate that the purpose of said commentary is to sway votes. Where/how is this not a vote? Please illuminate it for me. Also, please give me an example of an actual already run RfA that is not a vote, and why it's not a vote.

I am suspecting that the whole "They are not votes" comments here are simply because people don't/won't acknowledge that in ultimate function they are votes, but I will be happy to be proven wrong with examples and a good explanation of my apparent wrong-headedness. rootology (T) 20:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

RfA isn't supposed to be a vote, but a discussion with Beauracrats having leeway to evaluate consensus amongst respondants. Like deletion debates, individual "votes" are evaluated on their contribution. Someone with few edits, who merely posts "*Confirm" or "*Oppose" would not carry the weight of a more established editor willing to explain their reasoning. The current reality of RfA may or may not approach this idea.

ArbCom is "not a vote" for similar reasons. The arbcom is presumed to deliberate each point, in private, before casting a ballot. It's sort of like the Supreme Court, I supose. I think the ArbCom currently lives up to their idea more closely than RfA, simply because it's such a small (fixed) group that does have private avenues to discuss cases without getting lost in massive discussion pages on Wiki. Again, it's open to interpretation. --InkSplotch 20:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

While there is of necessity a resulting, binding decision that is a vote and is functionally similar, nevertheless discussion precedes that conclusion, and "votes" can be changed and are supported by reasoning. RfA is not simply placing a "Yay" or "Nay" in an unchangeable ballot box. In the case of RfA, a better analogy would be an entire political campaign, including the conversations and considerations that lead up to the election; regardless of the "vote", the non-citizen is not elected and the incompetent is vetted out. In the case of ArbCom, a better analogy would be an entire legal trial, including the courtroom evidence and procedures that lead up to the jury decision; the jury is carefully selected and the result of the decision is based on sufficient evidence and reasoning that proceeds from policy.

Neither of these processes are anything like a CNN online poll or whatever else you may think of as an example of bad voting. These processes admit the specific expression of an opinion, but that opinion is informed by reasonable consideration. It may be erroneous, it may not meet the ideal, but that does not mean labelling it a "vote" is a meaningful explanation of flaws.

Note also that nearly all ArbCom decisions are unanimous: they are applying a clear standard to specific actions in full agreement; in such cases, naming it a "vote" is absolutely meaningless. Similarly, RfAs require a strong supermajority—for every 1 person who opposes, there must be at least 3 who support—and most are nearly unanimous, above 95%. The greater the majority, the less like a typical vote it is; one person has less and less power as a supporting voter whereas an opposing voter has 3 times more power in preventing the conferment. —Centrx→talk • 21:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. How then is a reverse RfA, in which people can change their points/opinions/"votes", inherently flawed compared to a standard RfA? The only numbers based thing for the Recall RfA itself was that consensus should be at least 80%. Is the only disagreement with that side of it then the "binding" wording? If so, easily amenable to be closed by beurocrat review as a normal RfA is, with the extra emphasis that a desysop should not happen UNLESS the support to do so is at LEAST 80%. rootology (T) 21:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, right now many feel RfA is flawed because even with the 3-1 supermajority, it can still be flooded with popular votes. If true (and I'd agree that it is), than a reverse RfA would be vulnerable to the same thing. And on that basis, the more wide-reaching an admin's action might be, the more likely an unpopular vote might remove them for it, even if the action was right. The pedophilia crises would be an excellent example of how many admins on both sides of the issue might have been desyssoped in the heat of things. Even Jimbo probably would not have been safe. --InkSplotch 21:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I can absolutely guarantee that ArbCom deliberations are not mere "votes". Certainly, I think I'm in more of a position to know than anyone. :-)

OTOH, yes, RfA is an absolute hell-hole, and has been for a long time. Why do you think that most of us don't vote there anymore?

James F. (talk) 22:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

So decisions are not made based on the number of support/agree votes each proposed decision gets? A proposed decision could have less than majority support and still be implemented? Karwynn (talk) 22:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

90% of the ArbCom work is done in private where it is only seen by current and former ArbCom members. The "voting" on the on-wiki pages is basically just a formality that informs us of their decision. --Cyde Weys 02:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You can get a feel for the negotiation that goes on if you look at edits to Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Irishpunktom/Proposed decision. The case could not be closed for days because some arbitrators dug in their heels about the remedy directed against an administrator. With the help of more evidence, they eventually won a rethink from one of the other arbitrators, who changed his vote on the desysopping proposal. As a result, that administrator will lose his sysop bit if the case is now closed in its current state (which seems likely).

Also worthy of note is the fact that the arbitration case was not brought against that administrator. He was an involved party whose conduct as an administrator was found lacking. --Tony Sidaway 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Desysoppng trend?

Hmm. Desysopping is being proposed more and more often. Maybe this is an indication of a greater willingness to do so? This policy may not be needed after all. Karwynn (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is to turn Misplaced Pages:Admin recall into a simply explained layman's guide to filing an arbitration case against an admin which one feels has violated policies and deserves to be desysopped, and allow direct consideration of such cases by the Arbitration Committee. Yes, it is rare that admins lose their bit but it is commensurately rare that admins commit egregious abuses of their buttons. Should there come a case in which the ArbCom refuses to desysop a truly abusive admin, then perhaps community consensus will support some form of more direct oversight. But until that time, I feel that this is a solution looking for a problem. FCYTravis 02:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Not really, it has a problem(s), stated in the "SOme principles" heading. THe problem may not be fact, but there still is a perceived one, and this is not "looking" for one. Karwynn (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Moving forward

There is consensus here that:

• The proposal as it stands is not acceptable to the current talk-page participants, and
• That it will fail any wider audience as well.

I see also:

• There has been some cautious approval of the DocMkII version in the grey box above, and
• A large amount of this discussion is repetative and/or relates to the "31/10/2000" version of the proposal

I'm going to replace the main page with this version very soon if there is not substantial screaming. Then I'd like to (again) archive this massive talk page, creating a summary/FAQ at the talk so that we can move on.

brenneman 03:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I like DocMkII, but it *might* be worth switching to Misplaced Pages:Administrator recall or something in order to preserve the history of this page as a rejected format (going by comments and the straw poll). There's no harm in noting that it grew directly out of this proposal, though, as a show of good faith in the original proposal. On the other hand, I could be looking too hard at this. I just don't want people to ignore it out of a misunderstanding for what drastic changes have/will have occurred when said replacement takes place. -- nae'blis 05:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

*sound of crickets* Hmm... it's quiet. *wind blows, tin can rolls down empty street* Too quiet. Why do I feel sometimes like people prefer to argue, and when a proposal is semi-sound they clam up? ^_^ One reason for not creating a new proposal is that "proposal fatigue" sets in. People say things like "Well, the last one failed after two days, so junk this one as well." Instead if we stick in one spot we've got some continuity to show that this was a thoughtful process. - Aaron Brenneman 06:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The gray box? It's basically arbitration with an intermediate step. Why bother with the intermediate step? The Arbitration Committee is perfectly capable of identifying and desysopping poor administrators (it's apparently about to desysop someone right now). --Tony Sidaway 10:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Tony, I think the problem most objectors have with ArbCom being the primary de-admin process is that it indirectly encourages cabalism and a disregard for the community. Admins well-liked by the ArbCom stand very little chance of ever being removed - even if they have lost the trust of nearly the entire community. This is not meant to suggest 'corruption', but merely human nature - complaints against our friends always seem less valid than those agaisnt people we do not know or dislike. That creates an imbalance which leads some admins to be more hostile to the community than they would be if they were still answerable to/part of it. Clearly it is inherently damaging to Misplaced Pages to have the community at war with administrators, and thus I believe we should work to restore a closer connection between the two. See my suggestion below, which (in parallel to the above) you might term 'basically request for adminship with an intermediate step' (intermediate step to weed out the frivolous). --CBD 11:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I think 'DocMkII' is better, but still too 'processy' for my taste. I'd prefer something like;

1. One or more users submit a 'request for admin review' ('RfR') with diffs explaining why. Basically similar to the initial presentation of an RfC or RfAr. No rebuttals, statements of support/opposition, et cetera. Just the reasons for requesting review stated as briefly as possible and primarily with diffs.
2. A Bureaucrat reviews this request one week after it was first posted and judges whether the grounds for reviewing the admin seem sufficient that there is some reasonable chance of the admin being removed. There is no numeric basis for this... one diff from Danny or Jimbo where the admin does something possibly very damaging to the encyclopedia might be found sufficient while a hundred diffs of content disagreement reverts mis-labelled as 'vandalism' by a dozen recently created accounts might be dismissed. Determinant is whether the bureaucrat thinks the listed issues constitute something the community might de-admin over. This step exists solely to weed out/discourage frivolous requests. Obviously bureaucrats connected with incidents in the request and/or the admin should recuse themselves, but we choose bureaucrats precisely to make these kinds of decisions impartially.
3. If review is called for then the admin has a month to prepare a normal 'request for adminship' form with nominators, acceptance, and answers to a standard set of questions which would differ slightly from the current ones ('What admin tasks do you perform' instead of 'would', 'Please explain your views of the conflict(s) leading to this review', et cetera). If no RfA is prepared after a month it is the equivalent of the candidate not accepting the nomination and the user is de-adminned.
4. The RfA runs the normal course in the normal way and is then evaluated by a bureaucrat (preferably a different one than approved the review). I'd prefer to see the same standard of approval required, but given views about 'adminship inherently creating enemies' I suppose it might go as low as 'roughly 50% approval' required to remain an admin. If it did start out at a lower percentage I'd like to see it slowly raised over time so that admins are people who continue to enjoy high community support rather than just those who had it at one point.
5. If the reviewing bureaucrat does not find consensus support for the admin they remove the person's admin status (which became theoretically possible for bureaucrats a few days ago). The person is then free to re-apply at any time - though like other repeat RfA's a waiting period would be recommended.

Throw in some structure where no reviews can be filed until six months after the policy is adopted, that admins can't be reviewed until at least six months after they were promoted/last reviewed (not just review requested, but actually reviewed), and all current admins are notified on their talk page when the policy is adopted and I think that's it. Somewhat similar to DocMkII, but doesn't involve a full RfC, a 'vote' to initiate the review, or the ArbCom. Obviously, in most cases an RfC should be attempted before a 'RfR' is filed and Bureaucrats might take the lack of any effort to resolve the issue into account in evaluating whether to approve the review, but I don't think RfC should be directly tied in. The above is very close to the existing RfA process with the same decision makers (bureaucrats) and a minimum of extra procedure around it due to the special circumstances. --CBD 10:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Looking over this latest suggestion actually helped point out the same problem I see in Aaron's Grey Box proposal that had been niggling at my brain. Your suggestion hinges on a Bureaucrat's approval to move forward. The Grey Box proposal rests on Arbcom's shoulders. I think in either case it's going to make these parties unpopular. What becomes of the Bureaucrat who decides not to forward on an unpopular admin? What happens when Arbcom declines to hear a removal case just based on community vote?

I believe what this page really wants is community oversight over the admin removal process, and while both these proposals seem to offer it, it isn't all-the-way. And while it may go over well at first, I think it will just cause more grief down the road. --InkSplotch 13:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Aaron/all, I made an archive at Misplaced Pages:Administrator_recall/Tenure_Versions for whenever/if we make a major change to work on developing the Grey Box solution. We can just drop a straight copy the "final" version of Tenure if we go away from that to this archival page with the diff structure to that subpage and then link it off the main one. For historical/ongoing comparison purposes etc. Just need to put in the URL of the "final" version afterwards to match the one for the first. rootology (T) 15:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Aaron, why would you wipe out this policy to introduce another one? WHy not just start a new policy proposal? And if you're going to archive, please don't move everything and please don't archive active discussions this time. Karwynn (talk) 16:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Struck out already answered question above. Here's the deal: it may not be the case that everyone wants to abandon this "version", so a new proposal would be better. Besides, why have two choices and not just one? There can easily be cross-links to both proposals and their respective talk pages. Unless there is consensus to completely abandon this, and there's not, it makes no sense to shove one proposal out of the way when you can just as easily make a new page. Besides, rejected proposals are supposed to be kept, not steamrolled. Karwynn (talk) 16:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Just curious what most admin complaints on this policy would be about?

Would they be about assuming bad faith, personal attacks, deletion abuse, banning too much, or something else? I think that most would be about assuming bad faith. I was reminded of something I asked in ebay's forums about buyers. I was told that if you approach things that a problem buyer (e.g. one that causes lots of trouble, never pays, negs you, that type. I almost refered to them as trolls.) is a crazy person then you will never reach a resolution or understanding. Anomo 04:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably all of the above. THey're all applicable policies. It depends on the filer. Karwynn (talk) 16:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Temporary desysopping

The German Misplaced Pages has a recall procedure where an admin's sysop flag is first removed temporarily (it is removed by a stweard and automatically restored by a local bureaucrat) after a recall vote with 2/3 consensus (AFAIK) of editors with more than 200 mainspace edits. This acts as a warning (analog of a short block), and only after this has been done and problems persist, a new RfA can be initiated. Maybe we should also have a method for temporary desysopping. That both sysopping and desysopping are currently quasi-permanent is perhaps not optimal. Kusma (討論) 14:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

"Grey Box" vs. "Tenure" versions - pro/con?

Just to make a standalone section; what criticism can be offered of Doc's Grey Box version (good name for it, by the way; my collective incrementing versions that spawned this can be called the Tenure Versions just for clarification) as compared to the Tenure version? What is better about the Grey Box version than the Tenure Version? If possible I'd be curious for specifics. rootology (T) 14:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The problems with the "Tenure" version are all over this page. No provision for dismissing frivolous complaints, insufficient protection of admins from users who hold a grudge against them, and the chill this puts on admins who perform controversial tasks like AfD closings, speedy deletions, bans and page protections.

The "Grey Box" version is, as Tony says, our standard dispute resolution system with a pointless extra step thrown in which will only increase tensions between users and administrators. Fagstein 16:16, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Oy, I'm getting a headache. The dismissal of frivilous claims is for the admins to not certify/not get 31 total... rootology (T) 16:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

People keep bringing up your same concerns about the "tenure" version, Fagstein, and then they ignore replies. Read some of the talk and you'll see that there are some solutions. Karwynn (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Several points

This proposal seems to treat checkuser and oversight rights as being "admin plus"; they're not. Checkuser and oversight are entirely independent of being an admin (one can actually have checkuser without being an admin, although the odds of that are rather remote). Secondly, checkuser authority is granted by the Foundation, not by the community. The Foundation policy on granting and rescinding checkuser rights does not give the community the power to grant or rescind them in a wiki which has an Arbitration Committee. Therefore, to the extent that this proposal purports to be able to revoke checkuser rights, it conflicts with Foundation policy. A similar argument applies to oversight.

In general, the entire "exceptions" section is grossly misfounded and should be scrapped. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Based on your knowledge of policy, what should an exclusions section look like? I'd certainly think that some people (i.e. Jimbo) should be except from Recall. But thats just me. rootology (T) 15:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I view this entire proposal as misfounded, and as such am not inclined to participate much in its refinement. In my opinion, the current policy (let the ArbCom decide when it is appropriate to revoke adminship) is sufficient; the only alternative I would contemplate is an administrator's council which both grants and revokes adminship based on a deliberative process, taking input from the community but not obliged to even entertain, let alone count, votes. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok, from someone interested in bttering this policy, I'd say exclude stewards, bureaucrats, Jimbo, arbitrators - basically everyone who is now excluded except Checkuser people, per Kelly Martin's comments. Karwynn (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)