User talk:Roux/RFA-reform/v1

XFA Proposal

In general

Support

1. This will remove the need to "ensure" 150% at RfA that a new admin will not turn out badly. Stifle's objection (08:22, 8 July 2009) "this makes it unduly easy for admins who take unpopular but correct decisions to be hounded out of office" assumes admins should be given the benfit of the doubt even when they fail to give non-admins the benefit of the doubt. There have been some very ill-judged blocks recently, and the admins responsible should face very severe scrutiny. If "admins who take unpopular but correct decisions" are criticised, at least two questions need to be examined: whether the admin concerned was as diplomatic as the situation required; and whether the policy on which the decision was based actually has the support of the community. Admins tend to be more conservative about policy than the community as a whole, possibly because they don't want to have to unlearn and re-learn. If an effective de-sysop process is what it takes to make them listen, so be it. Those with a sense of self-preservation will learn very quickly, and we can do without most of the rest. --Philcha (talk) 08:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Support, although I don't think point #4 in the procedure section is really needed. The details of "Who may initiate" and "Who may participate" can be negotiated, but in principle I support the idea of a desysopping system based on RfA procedure. Jafeluv (talk) 14:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Qualified support. This may work, but something needs to be in place if it becomes a method to have witch hunts. (Perhaps a trial basis for 6 months?)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Qualified support. I think some form of community-driven de-sysop is a worthwhile goal. To address Stifle's concerns of hounding, though, the constraints need to be tightened. I would suggest something more along the lines of:
   1. Once per incident, defined broadly (e.g. a series of sockpuppet blocks are an incident rather than 10 separate uses of admin rights)
   2. One challenge of an admin per user, period.
   3. X challenges of an admin per year, period. (I suggest 3)
   4. X challenges presented by one user in a year, period. (I suggest 3)

   To clarify my position on #2, which is the biggest deviation: any incident truly worthy of de-sysop will not be a single user waving the flag. If your complaint against an admin is not sustained, that's it. Let someone else lead the complaint next time. #4 is similarly a rate limiter. #3 is a rate limiter that has potential for legitimate gaming: if Devious Admin Evilguy meatpuppets three junk complaints in January and they're promptly dismissed, it appears he's got free reign to be Evil for 11 months. Of course, we already have the fix of last resort: ArbCom. So keep the XFA guidelines ironclad so that the dividing line where we kick it to ArbCom remains clear. — Lomn 15:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

5. This looks like a good idea in general. I do have some problems, outlined below. Timmeh 15:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
6. Mr.Z-man 17:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
7. I think this is a good start to a kinda "re-election" for all admins. Kinda like what bureaucrats have to go through each year (right?), I think admins should have to have the same process. On the year anniversary of receiving their adminship, a "re-election" (for lack of a better term) should begin, contribs looked at, actions dug through, stuff that would happen at a regular AfD, then the !voting as normally would happen. I think this would be good for weeding out the admins who have (maybe) abused their power (see User:A Man In Black or haven't lived up their the obligations (see any admin who is inactive for longer than say a year). This would be a good weeding out process. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

   I had proposed a reconfirmation scheme here (look through the history), but it was soundly rejected. → ROUX ₪ 04:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Again, this makes it unduly easy for admins who take unpopular but correct decisions to be hounded out of office. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

   I disagree; actual abuse needs to be shown in order for this process to go anywhere. → ROUX ₪ 07:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

   Surely, if 'correct' is a decision based upon Wikipedia rules, no amount of 'unpopular' thought could do this? If the people involved in deciding an XFA are incapable of doing it on the basis of rules, would you want them there anyway? Parrot of Doom (talk) 09:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Even with the modifications, I think that this solution would not make it any easier to desysop anyone than the current system (going through ArbCom). The overly detailed criteria for who may be desysopped and who may file an XFA in what manner make it unlikely that the process would be more easily understood or more likely to succeed than taking the ArbCom route, and thus would fall under "instruction creep", in my eyes.--Aervanath (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
3. I can't say it better than Stifle. Pzrmd (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss

(hoping this is the right spot) - I've always rather liked the idea of a simple 'reverse RfA' available at any time for any admin - so if a consensus emerges that an admin. should put down the tools, a crat will flip the switch. Behaviour of vexatious litigants can be part of dispute resolution, and my hope is that this will help move us towards a better churn of admin.s in general. It also has the advantage of being very easy to get wiki-heads around, being modeled on an inversion of a longstanding process. :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

• I think User:EVula/opining/RfA overhaul is a more workable solution than this.--Aervanath (talk) 07:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • The way to have a simple process is to have adminships expire after a term certain. That way those who do not retain the community's confidence can simply not be re-elected; and after some years of this, admins may simply choose to take a break. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What does XFA stand for? Where is it defined? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Who may initiate an XFA

Support

1. Support Limiting it to admin-only functions is a good idea, too. wadester16 07:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Mr.Z-man 17:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
3. Ok. Malinaccier P. (talk) 22:51, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
4. Support. Some threshold is important, but "admin-only" would be too tight. Is not, at 166 words, too detailed. Initiating an XFA should not be trivially easy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Needlessly detailed.--Aervanath (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Who may comment on an XFA

Oppose

1. Oppose 1500 edits as a min seems too high, especially when you only need 200 to initiate an XFA. wadester16 07:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Again, the hard requirements just don't make sense. I would think that we trust our bureaucrats to have good sense in weeding out unhelpful comments. The requirements seem to be bitey and unwelcoming - just what we don't need here. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 07:34, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

   Responding to both of you: the edits (or tenure) requirement is to weed out socks and SPAs that would derail a process like this and/or make it unfair for the person in question. → ROUX ₪ 07:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

   I understand. I'm saying I would probably support if the min were lower. wadester16 07:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

   Where would you set it? Do you think a tenure requirement works? → ROUX ₪ 07:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

   What's wrong with using the same requirements currently used at RfA? Jafeluv (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

   SPAs, people with grudges.. note that we also impose similar limitations for ArbCom elections. → ROUX ₪ 22:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

   ArbCom elections are elections, an RfA is (at least in theory) a discussion, and I thought XfA was supposed to be a discussion as well. If people have grudges they should at least be allowed to speak their opinion. That could be very relevant to the outcome of the XfA. SPAs can be identified with {{spa}} as they are in RfAs. I don't see the problem. I'd trust the bureaucrats to be able to tell whose concerns are valid and whose are motivated by something else. Jafeluv (talk) 09:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

3. Oppose. Creating just another rank in an already hierarchical system doesn't make sense. Excluding votes from those blocked by an admin dilutes the whole point: why imitate "elections" when the opposition is already silenced? Basically, the proposals assumes that the admins are right and the editors need not bother at all. NVO (talk) 07:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

   Ermm.. people who were rightfully blocked (as evidenced by community discussion and/or declined unblock requests) would have an unreasonable axe to grind. If the block were controversial, or unblock were granted prior to the end of the block etc--as it says right in the proposal--of course they could comment. The point is to prevent "OMG HE BLOCKED ME for lots of vandalism HE IS A BAD ADMIN!" That sort of thing, while obviously ignorable, creates more heat than light and would derail the whole process. It's not about creating ranks, it's about actually looking at the issues without being beset by SPAs/socks/vandals/grudges. → ROUX ₪ 07:56, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

   If the so-called "community" of admins preemptively marks blocks and bans "rightful" to silence opposes then what's the point of the process? You'll have a Russian-style election with 101% support for incumbents... but who would really care? NVO (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

   By community I meant the community at large. If you could grant for the sake of discussion that we need a robust desysop process that applies to all admins (and not voluntary, as we've seen that doesn't always work, ahem), how would you avoid the problem of axe-grinding in such a process? → ROUX ₪ 08:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

   The point (I believe) is simply that you don't get a fair discussion by excluding the dissenters - you've gotta let everyone have their say. Now, the process would be smoother if all the socks and SPAs and vandals didn't mess it up, but let them have their say, if they actually have something useful to say. Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 08:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

   How? Real-life societies rely on independent courts. It's the only thing that works, apart from the good kings from fairytales. But you know the rules: Wikipedia is not a democracy, so fair trial is not an option. NVO (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

4. These requirements are far too restrictive. A simple requirement that a user account must be autoconfirmed to comment seems a more reasonable option to me. Timmeh 15:16, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
5. The requirements are too high and the "Never been blocked by" needs some tweaks. Granting unblock from an indefinite block isn't overturning a block? Mr.Z-man 17:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

   Generally no... 'indef' means 'until you get it' not 'forever', right? → ROUX ₪ 17:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

   The wording makes it sound like the reason for undoing doesn't matter if its an indef block or the block is only shortened. An indef block undone or shortened after a short time because it was a bad block or excessive is different from one undone after a ban appeal a year from the incident. Mr.Z-man 19:21, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

   How would you reword, then? → ROUX ₪ 19:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

   I would just replace everything after "except" with "where the block was found to be improper or excessive." Mr.Z-man 06:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

6. Requirements too stringent: --Philcha (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
   • 1500 edits to comment but only 200 to initiate an XFA? If anything 200 to initiate an XFA looks too low. I suggest 500 in both cases. --Philcha (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
   • "Never blocked by the admin who is the subject of the XFA, except ..." has 2 problems:
     • Excludes people who were blocked for so little time that it was not worth contesting the block, e.g. 1-2 days. Such blocks may still have been unjustified and IMO a pattern of unjustified blocks would be grounds for de-sysop. --Philcha (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
     • No limitation on when the blocks occurred. We have current admins who were blocked years ago but have learned the lessons. We should extend the same level of forgiveness to people who wish to comment on an XFA. I suggest "No blocks exceeding 2 days in the last year". --Philcha (talk) 06:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
7. Participation in de-admining should be no more restrictive than participation at RFA (ie virtually unrestricted). Rules of etiquette should be considered before limiting participation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Grounds for initiating an XFA

Support

1. Doubtless there will be minor additions, but it looks like the proposal already includes the major causes. Clarifying the causes does a lot to counter the "because I don't like admin X" scare-scenario that some admins will use as an objection to any proposed de-sysop process. --Philcha (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. These grounds are already what would get an admin desysopped by ArbCom.--Aervanath (talk) 05:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Too bureaucratic. Anyone who has lost the trust of the community should be subject to desysop. Respected admins should not fear this process, but should sit back and enjoy the process of being SNOW supported. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss

• I think it's important that this be a last step and require that editors that may consider initiating an XFA go through at least one other channel first (DR or AN/I, most likely). If everyone gets out their clubs and pitchforks at DR/ANI, then the group is welcome to march on up to XFA. wadester16 07:24, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Excellent idea. How would you reword that bit? → ROUX ₪ 07:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
    • "Keep your pitchforks to yourself until you get rabble-rousing consensus at AN/I". Or: XFA will be a last resort after appropriate dispute resolution is attempted (forum at choice of complainant). Should, after XX period of time at forum, consensus be met that said sysop should be considered for XFA, complainant or other user may nominate sysop for deadminship. Blah, blah, blah. I would suggest less than two or three days at DR forum (I mean, XFA would be a 7-day process, so it needn't be that long; a quick consensus is all that is needed). wadester16 07:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think such hard and fast rules are workable. If it's misjudged article or image deletion, the harm can usually be undone. But I know of at least one really bad block (not at my expense) in the last month where I'd be happy to see the guilty admin de-sysopped on the spot. Otherwise actions like that outrageous block can drive away editors and foster the suspicion that admins are effectively above the law. --Philcha (talk) 21:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Procedure

Support

1. Support I like the idea of certification; my only suggestion would be to include the world "uninvolved" in front of the titles used. wadester16 07:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Mr.Z-man 17:15, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
3. The certification aspect is very good. Also, the fact that it takes over 60 percent of those commenting to even make it possible to remove the admin bit is good. These are good steps to ensure a low number of "frivolous" cases. Malinaccier P. (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. On 4 grounds: --Philcha (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
   • The "management" (Arbcom, Arbcom clerks, MedCom, Bureaucrats) should not have unchecked power to sweep cases under the carpet, because all bureaucracies have an inbuilt tendency to favour the status quo. There should be an alternative qualifying condition, e.g. "The case must be heard in public if the proposed XFA is endorsed by 10 other editors who are themselves qualified to initiate an XFA against the admin concerned." --Philcha (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
   • "(if the admin has) not edited or made any admin actions in that time, the XFA will remain on hold (awaiting a response form the admin) until a reasonable time after they next edit" is a recipe for stalling. I think this needs a lot of discussion as there are many possible scenarios, e.g.: if the admin has previously notified a wikibreak that will end a week or less after the XFA is eligible for public hearing (i.e. after "the management" accept the case or it is endorsed by enough editors); I suggest the time limit should be 72 hours after the published end of the wikibreak; if the admin has notified a longer wikibreak, the time limit should be 10 days (i.e. 3 the standard 3 days plus a notional 1-week wikibreak); if the admin pleads a "real life" emergency at any stage, "the maangement" shoudl appoint an uninvolved admin as a "defender" and give the "defender" 5 days to respond (the standard3, plus 2 for research). --Philcha (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
   • The duration of the XFA debate is too short. Starting with the obvious examples, we need to allow for major troughs in activity, e.g. Christmas and New Year (may have to research what other religious-based holidays should be considered), and probably the summer vacation period (which varies by location, notably between the N and S hemishperes). In addition any delay in public presentation of the case makes it harder for the initiators and endorsers to plan round their own activities and thus to know when they will have to present their "2nd round" arguments (a similar situation is common in GA reviews of articles that have been in the queue for a long time; by the time the review actually starts, "real life" may be causing difficulties for the nominator). At present the indefinite delays in starting a public hearing and the rigid time limit on duration of a hearing gives the incumbent an undue procedural advantage. This needs a lot of discussion. --Philcha (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
   • The decision criteria should not be numerical ("80% support indicating removal of sysop rights, 60% support or below indicating no removal, and a discretionary range in between") as that turns the discussion into a WP:CAVASS contest. Per Wikipedia:Consensus#Community_discussions, quality of evidence and reasoning is much more important than head-counting. Effectively the presiding 'crat shousdl be a trila judge. --Philcha (talk) 07:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

   With all due respect, I don't think you have understood the proposal as presented. It is deliberately designed to be as close to RFA as possible--thus the 'head counting', duration of the debate, and so on--while avoiding too much bureaucracy (as suggested by you in your second point), and ensuring that axe-grinding is kept to a minimum. Allowing any ten users to certify a desysop proposal is an open invitation to "Hey, she blocked you too? Let's get 'er!" We already trust crats to judge consensus, Arbcom and MedCom to judge major problems. That is why members of those groups are the right people to certify whether or not a desysopping has merit. In addition, they are the best people to explain to an aggrieved user why they may not file for a sysop to be removed. → ROUX ₪ 07:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

   I think I understand the proposal as presented, since your response is pretty much as expected. Re the specifics:

   • Head-counting invites pile-ons and WP:CANVASS. Canvassing can work both ways - friends of the aggrieved can pile in, but I've also seen admins close ranks over proposals that challenge existing practice, e.g. to give vandals less lenient treatment. Whover piles on and why, pile-ons are bad. That's why I think the presiding 'crat must act as a trial judge, weighing the evidence and reasoning, not counting heads. --Philcha (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
   • It's bad practice to give any group of officials unchecked power to exclude initiatives that may inconvenience some of them - this is basic political science. My suggestion that the presiding 'crat must act as a trial judge is intended to prevent the kind of pile-on you fear. If some power is not handed back to non-admin editors, RfAs will continue to be increasingly long, contentious and negative - because this will be the only means of controlling the behaviour of admins. --Philcha (talk) 08:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

2. Needless restrictive. If we're going to require that users with position certify an XFA for it go forward, then we might as well leave it to ArbCom in the first place.--Aervanath (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Outcome

Support

1. Support If one can gain back the community's trust after being desysoped, more power to that user. wadester16 07:26, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
2. Looks good. Clear consensus is the most important part. Malinaccier P. (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
3. This is the only part of the proposal that I agree with. If the proposal does fly, then this is the correct outcome.--Aervanath (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Discuss

• I'd prefer that the bureaucrat could desysop the admin themselves once there's consensus to do so. We already trust the crats to +sysop, and I don't think it would be a big change technically to add it to the tools. What's the point in going to the stewards every time? Jafeluv (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  I think that's a WMF-level provision, but in any case, bureaucrats are supported and opposed based on the permission level available at the time of their RFB, and it's not safe to assume they would have passed their RFB had desysop been part of the package at that time. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed. And the Sisyphean task of trying to get that one approved by the community (if even it could be; I didn't know it was a WMF-level thing) made getting this passed seem like a walk in the park by comparison. → ROUX ₪ 09:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

wowsers!

this is a seriously sub-divided talk page! - The proposal page to go with is equally impressive in its structure - kudos to you, roux, for getting a solid template together for discussion and proposal... also really really really good luck with getting a good crowd of interested parties along to work this along towards something concrete :-) I knew you were a wonderful chap at heart :-) Privatemusings (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm impressed. I read through the first proposal and find the premise interesting. I just wanted to post here to wish you the best of luck in getting feedback that actually leads to positive change. Killiondude (talk) 07:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

General discussion/criticism

While I applaud Roux taking the time to put all this together, people commenting here should probably read Wikipedia:PEREN#Administrative first; almost all of these suggestions have been floated before and failed to reach consensus.--Aervanath (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I've read that, and participated in some of the discussions. → ROUX ₪ 07:39, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconding the reading part. I haven't taken part really, but this is truly the first proposal I've seen. The rest has been rambling complaints and arguments, for the most part. That doesn't get us far. wadester16 07:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Kudos to Roux for a nicely presented proposal and the good deal of effort poured into this subpage but I must disagree. This is simply too much work for all people involved. Besides, it gives adminship too big a deal as if it's a knight's title or something. In reality, it's just a few access tools in a volunteer website nothing flashy and all. Besides it gives too much tension on the admins and their detractors. I still remember how tense I was in my RFA years ago and I don't want to experience it over and over again (even though I didn't made a lot of mess)

If you don't mind I'll give my own say on the matter here. If this is in the wrong section then please put them where this would be relevant and I apologize in advance (From a Wikisloth who likes simple stuff): The reason that RfA is broken is that it is overly complicated. The solution is to simplify it and make the editors research.

• Remove the optional questions. This will get rid of those cookie cutter questions and those questions of people with agenda who nobdoy gives a damn but try to advertise here anyway. If you want to know your candidate then pore over his contribs, talk page and block logs on your own and talk about it in the talk page. This should also cut those who simply "per Xs opinion". People who can't be bothered to research should transfer their effort to more productive aspects of the wiki.
• Only the candidate should have the right to answer on the oppose or support concerns. This should deprive those in dire need of attention their soapbox.
• Don't feed the admins. Seriously when somebody talks that admins should be the paragon of virtue or has too much power my mind says "Congratulations, you just showed how inferior you think (you're not ok? this is simply a website so don't fret) that you are." Talk to them as your equal and they'll treat you as their equal (and report them as your equal in WP:RFC if worse comes to worse). No use dragging them in the muck if both of you will get dirty, that's simply a deadly sin. They can't generally use their "powers" against you since this would surely bring more flak than you are already dishing out.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm undecided about the optional questions. Some are just POV-pushing or attention-seeking, but restricting questions to a fixed set would make it too easy to game the system. A few candidates have the guts to treat the optional questions as truly optional and let the community decide whether the lack of answers is significant.

I agree with "Only the candidate should have the right to answer on the oppose or support concerns", to prevent soapboxing.

I disagree with "They can't generally use their "powers" against you since this would surely bring more flak than you are already dishing out". Admins have the power to block, and in the last month or so there have been some serious misuses of that power. Part of admins' role is acting as en.WP's "police" and, like all police, they sometimes get it wrong. Serious or recurring misuses of admin powers should lead to de-sysopping. --Philcha (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

(Bear my ramblings, I'm not ready to yes/no things yet.) I just can't help thinking that the point system would be used negatively -used as an excuse to not discuss anything; people setting levels somewhat higher than 100. There was a proposal to do something not altogether different except emailing a bot-generated score to the person involved. If one could do such a thing, I'd open it up to perhaps the RfA talk. With the score there, then people could make their own decisions. And people would constantly argue over the value of particular things. Terms are fine, except every year would be a truly massive re-election system. That's about 3 every day, give or take. Perhaps you could force such an election - link to XFA or something. I know that's getting a way from what you're proposing. It all seems a bit deprecated if you've got a way to kick them out permanently. XFA is good, maybe the odd tweaking on the exact figures. (You can always propose that separately.) - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 07:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Putting aside that I think this is mistitled since it's a broader look at adminship as a whole rather than just RFA, this makes a good start with "What they cannot agree on is how it is broken, or what to do in order to fix it." which is the normal problem, often it's broken is seen as "Person X who I think should have passed didn't" and vice versa. It's an imperative to understand how it's broken before you can move onto the how to fix it. It all falls down there because it doesn't really address how it's broken, it makes series of assertions of the form "It is probably fair to state..." which is a bit weasly and doesn't actually appear to be backed by anything other than the author's own perceptions. It maybe better to start by removing the solutions and trying to get a general view on what's broken. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That has already been done, and went nowhere. → ROUX ₪ 22:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

As has the rest of this in one way or another Wikipedia:PEREN#Administrative and of course they have gone no where many times. That hasn't stopped you doing it again, perhaps putting proposals out is more exciting? A failure in review to determine what's actually broken may mean that we need to do the exercise again or think of attacking it a different way, or may be indicative of RFA not actually being as broken as thought (or a less broken option than the alternatives). Many of the objections I've seen about RFA do boil down to people thinking that someone should/shouldn't be promoted with the outcome being different to their own strongly held view. Whatever we do to RFA we won't eliminate that. Given that arbcom has desysopped very few admins over the years (though more in the last year or two), perhaps that indicates that what some deem a desysoppable offence is not when arbcom read it when put in a broad reflective context. Perhaps that indicates that it's not as broken as first thought, where is the stream of admins being desysopped which would call for a simpler process? On the other hand it maybe indicative that the standards the community expects from admins is not well enough defined for arbcom to "apply". Perhaps then the problem is one of defining community expectation of administrative standards and practice, rather than a requirement for some other desysop process. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

• First, I really have to applaud roux for the insight, consideration, and effort put into this. I had originally thought I would stop by and !vote, !vote, !vote on various aspects of this - but find it much more complex than I imagined. I think there are some very valid points to be gleaned from this, but I see I'll need to do a little more in-depth reading before casting my stones so to speak. I can see an inherent danger in a point system, in that it doesn't seem to allow for "exceptions", but I do like the positive aspects of it as well. One note on the "revolving door" idea of adminship. While various governmental institutions find "term limitations" to be effective, I don't see the same dangers of long term admins. in this type of project. I do agree that it is far too difficult to have a bit removed from an admin that is abusive with the tools, but I think that is an item better addressed individually, rather than "part of" the RfA process itself. I think that experience in the use of admin tools is a positive, and I think that a continual "re-confirmation" idea would lead to a dwindling number of active admins - and I think that would be a bad thing. — Ched :  ?  04:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

  Interesting that you bring up the term limits analogy. I live in a state with term limits; term limits were originally promoted as a way to get the "fat cat politicians" to serve a couple of terms and then go back to being ordinary citizens, so they remember what it's like. (Hmm... sounds familiar). The real effect is that Jane Doe is elected to the state legislature, then spends her entire term working on the next "step", moving to the state senate. Then one or more of the constitutional offices (ie state controller), then she moves on to the US House of Representatives... you get the idea. The next result is that Jane Doe spends as much total time as a politician, but spends little of it in a role she's familiar with. Not surprisingly, the quality of our government has not improved in the least. Bringing that back to the idea of admin term limits; as we get more admins dropping out, either through mandatory breaks or unwillingness to go through the RfA meat grinder again, we'll have a higher percentage of shiny new right-out-of-the-box admins in the pool. So we need to ask ourselves "is this what we want?". Some will feel that having more right-out-of-the-box admins (hereafter called ROOTBAs) will lead to more admins who remember what it was like not having extra buttons and therefore be more sympathetic to the common, humble editor. Others will be afraid that the ROOTBAs will be too anxious to use the new buttons and go on a power spree. Will a higher percentage of ROOTBAs lead to more chaos because they either make more mistakes, scaring off more noobs, or will more ROOTBAs mean more willingness to change the status quo, hopefully for the better? As with many things involving people, I have a suspicion that there will be a bell curve, with a few ROOTBAs at either end, and a whole bunch piled up in the middle. The question is, where will the middle be.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:18, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Next steps & questions

Okay. So it seems that in general the first three proposals are rejected (point system, term limits, periodic desysopping). Question 1: would anyone mind if I collapse those, and the discussions relating to them?

The fourth proposal--XFA/desysop process--seems to be generally supported, but needs tweaking.

Question 2: is that an accurate assessment?

Question 3: are people interested in ironing out those tweaks in order to find something that can be presented to the community at large in a closer-to-final form? → ROUX ₪ 18:52, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Er.. I've gone and collapsed everything that's been rejected, and amended the XFA proposal to reflect concerns raised here (I think I got them all). What do you think of how it stands now? → ROUX ₪ 20:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the above, I think it is quite clear that the first three proposals didn't pass, so concentrating on the last one is the only way forward for you.--Aervanath (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That seems like an oddly aggressive way to say that. → ROUX ₪ 05:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if it seems that way, it certainly isn't the way it was meant. I can only plead that the answer was written in haste. I should have written more direct (and more civilly worded) answers to your questions, instead of directing it at you personally. I shall now do this:

Answer to question one: No, nobody would mind if you collapsed them (which you've already done); I agree with you that they're rejected.

Answer to question two: I agree with your assessment here: there is a balance in favor of the proposal in general, but multiple valid objections to the individual details.

Answer to question three: I wouldn't really be in favor of ironing out the kinks. I think that once the tweaks were made, the proposal would probably end up being very similar to User:EVula/opining/RfA_overhaul. However, I've been outspoken in my support for EVula's proposal before, so you may want to consider me biased in my answer to this question, and wait for a more neutral editor to swing by and reply.

I hope that this reply seems less aggressive to you, and more in keeping with the respect I have for you as a productive editor who I have collaborated well with in the past. Regards, --Aervanath (talk) 05:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. It seemed rather out of character for you, which is why I, er, restrained my response ;) As for EVula's... I understand where it's coming from, but while in general it's a good idea it can be trivially gamed. If a desysop process is to have any hope of being adopted, the community needs to be assured that it can't be used frivolously. While it's easy to close poorly-thought-out RfAs, closing a desysopping process is far more difficult; the inevitable cries of admin abuse would be deafening, if misguided. And relying on ArbCom means (often) waiting weeks or months for a decision, endless wrangling over wording and so on. What the community gives the community must be able to take away, without relying on ArbCom to take its time to do so. The sheer magnitude of what is required before approaching ArbCom is what prevents many editors--particularly those unfamiliar with the occasionally Byzantine nature of those pages--from attempting to do anything. A simple process--but one that is hard to game or abuse--would go a long way to restoring community trust in the admin corps. Think of it like knowing you can vote your local politician out of office at the next election, except in this case the community gets to call the election. → ROUX ₪ 05:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Roux, thanks for continuing to work on the de-sysop proposal - one of the reasons it attracted so much comment is that you thought through the details so thoroughly. Do you want comments on the revised version in this section or in separate sections / sub-sections of this page? --Philcha (talk) 07:35, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wherever you think is most workable. Probably new sections. → ROUX ₪ 07:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

OK. I've set up a structure below. --Philcha (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

One point

Yes, I'm in favour of XFA, and I think 200 edits is fair: if they have a valid complaint, they can alwasy find someone else on their behalf anyway. You may wish to relist just the one proposal, or rename. But the idea is generally good. - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 19:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd rather not relist the proposal until it's ready to be seriously looked at by the community at large. → ROUX ₪ 20:34, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

• If you asked Wikipedians for a consensus that the sun rises in the east, you'd finish up with wording like: "The sun exhibits an observed tendency to rise in the eastern quarter of the sky, except during winter north of the arctic circle or south of the antarctic circle, and except on planetary bodies with retrograde motion such as Venus. Many Wikipedians believe this will continue for the foreeseable future." It would take four months to agree this, and even then, someone would mark it as an essay.

  This proposal is an excellent idea, and it's coming one day. But implementing it is going to be a bit like eating an elephant... we're probably best advised to break it into manageable chunks, and then work on one at a time. Personally, I'd start by gaining consensus to give bureaucrats the capacity to desysop "in exceptional circumstances", and then add instances of the exceptional circumstances periodically, until there's a major dramafest involving someone who uncontroversially needs to get desysopped. At that point stick the developed proposal somewhere prominent in the AN discussion, sit back, and let the outraged masses strengthen it to draconian proportions as fast as you can say "kneejerk".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Heh. Agreed. But one of the reasons I have proposed this is that we need to change how we do things. Understood that your slightly tongue-in-cheek idea would work, but that's very much adhering to a broken model. I'd like to work with models that aren't. → ROUX ₪ 21:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I quite like the wiki model, and I don't think it's "broken" really (irrespective of the preceding gentle mockery). I don't think changing it is a very good idea, because the wiki model has led to this becoming one of the most successful websites ever.

      I do understand the temptation to try to drive a superhighway through the winding paths and lanes of collegial discussion and local consensus, but frustrating though the wiki model can sometimes be, I think it's best left alone.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

It's more about driving a bulldozer through the piles of the usual suspects who object to everything because Change Is Bad! Ossification Is Good! → ROUX ₪ 07:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)