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

I support something

I fully support some sort of review board. I have no objections to the crats determining consensus. I don't know if the crats actually want the task of being the actual "board" - and since I'm headed for bed shortly I won't add any further thoughts - which actually would be more likely something for later once it's been approved. I saw that you pinged Dank on it, and since I haven't kept up with what his admin. reform work, I'm don't know if there's any crossover either. Have you pinged WP:BN yet? .. or are you waiting until this is further along? — Ched :  ?  03:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

At the moment I've only pinged three or four users, one is a crat, one is an arb, they may join in here. I don't really want this draft to become a discussion for a discussion for a discussion to launch a discussion, or to be sabotaged by trolls ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:33, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts

I really like this. I mean, really, really like it. I think it's one of the best suggestions for a community process with regards to admins I've seen since I've been here and I would like to see something similar come to fruition. My main concern though is limiting it to 'crats. That's not what crats were selected for and I do know that some people would not be accepted as a crat if they had said this was their intention. Given that this would be less about actual private data, and more about judgement - would it be possible to make the group up from a mixture of crats, admins, and non admins? We'd have to work out some sort of simple election thing. Of course, if we could get this to pass on just crats, we could always consider rearranging the board in the future. One thing I will suggest is that the RfC is held off for the time being - due to an impending change which will soon come in. I'll divulge this by email. Worm^TT(talk) 09:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• I was about to say that I doubt you will get broad community support for anything that does not include non-admins. As a non-admin, I trust the admins and crats, but I think that, unless non-admins are included on a commission, it will not have credibility to the entire community. Go Phightins! 12:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

An Admin review board comprised of crats, admins, and non admins is something that had already crossed my mind. However, let's not lose focus on the fact that this RfC is only intended to test the community's opinion on a 'crat-only' board. One of the primary reasons why RfCs fail is because they either attempt to address too many things at once, or get submerged in sub-discussions, sub-sub discussions and whatnot until the RfC dies a natural unclosed death. However, to respond to the suggestion, I would envisage a board made up of one third crats, one third admins, and one third non admins. By very virtue of the fact that it is to be an alternative to Arbcom, Arbcom members would be expected to recuse from being on the panel. That said, the current objective is to test the community's feelings, and on the suggestion that are received here, I may well adapt the RfC draft proposition to accommodate them. Thank you all for your feedback so far. Keep it coming! Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

I'll just also add that while the 'crats are soon to lose one of their tools, and as there are 36 of them, apart from bot approvals and (relatively) rare RfA closures, there will be little else for them to do. Some of them may even be pleased to have some extra tasks, others not. The RfC would be naturally be open for anyone to vote on, including the 'crats, and that's where they will be able to have their say; Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the "losing one of their tools" bit was the thing I didn't want to mention on-wiki, I'm glad the foundation has announced it for August. It might be a good idea to specifically refer to this as part of the reason - the crat role is changing, I believe renaming is the largest part of the role - so they will have more time. Worm^TT(talk) 09:22, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

• Lots of merit here. Some thoughts...
  • The Admin Review Board (call it Admin Conduct Board as ARB is too close to ARBCOM) should be crats and have the power to fully review admin bits with AC approval as AC takes too long, is too drama prone, and has become too politicized. This process needs to be faster and more streamlined. AC should not be required. As framed, this does nothing for the victims. Bad blocks should be removed from a block log. People shouldn't be forced to wear an erroneous Wiki Scarlet Letter forever. PumpkinSky talk 19:21, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not intended to do anything for the victims. The board would do that. Such an RfC as this needs to be very carefully crafted and kept on the KISS principle. If it gains traction it would mean a major change in en.Wiki policy. Changes to the block log are an entirely different issue - anyone can start a separate RfC for that at any time.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

It's wiser to get this one through first. We have long needed such a change. AC is more ineffective than ever. PumpkinSky talk 11:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Moderate support. If 'crat-only, tepid support, although I might warm to it. I appreciate the desire not to drift, however, while Worm's first suggestion was a bit of a drift, it mirrored my exact initial reaction. Stronger support if set up as mixture of 'crats, admins and non-admins. Supportive of PumpkinSky's desire for a streamlined process, while recognizing that it is easy to say that, not so easy to implement while protecting all rights.

Would like some clarification of scope. At present, complaints about an admin should be brought first to the admin, and if that fails, to the next steps in DR, with the last step being Arbcom. What is the intended purpose of the board? Every complaint? Every complaint after failing to resolve with admin in question? Complaints of a particular nature? (E.g. civility, failure to respond, bad block). I do read the admonition that this is not about discussing the mechanics or drafting the policy, but you must have some thoughts on whether this is intended to be the first resort, last resort, or something in between. I can wait until getting broad acceptance before fine-tuning, but it would we nice to have broad thoughts on scope.

I would have counseled against mention the 'crat loss of power. It makes it sound like they are losing something, so we are scratching around for a bone to give them. I know that isn't the intention, but it comes across that way. To put it differently, if the loss of the renaming power were to be reversed, would it cause you to drop this idea? My guess is no, so it is merely a distraction.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 02:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have some thoughts on the mechanics of the process, but I will not be discussing them here. I would wait first and see if the RfC favourably accepts the idea in principle. With regards to the crats losing one of their flags, the idea of giving the something else to do is not entirely new, but with only 2 tools left, one could almost argue for disbandment of the crats and the creation of 'Bot approver' and 'RfA Closer'. However, in view of their status and the trust invested in them at their RfBs, they are an important stepping stone between the community and Arbcom. That said, I'm not even saying whether or not I personally favour the solution I'm proposing, but I do feel it's one that the community should be given an opportunity to deliberate upon. I don't actually care either way if they reject or accept it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

What is the essential difference here between ArbCom making the decision and 'Crats making the decision? In both we have a small elected body who do other things being also asked to decide if an admin should be desysopped. I am in favour of returning as much management as possible to the community - this proposal appears to simply shift it from one body to another for no apparent valid gain. Or am I missing something?

I think there is much in favour of a 'Crat deciding consensus in a discussion, but only after the community have held the discussion. I think it would be inappropriate to ask 'Crats to directly decide if an admin has misbehaved. That is not their function. And some may be uncomfortable with that.

If this proposal is along the lines of: A user brings a concern regarding an admin; five other users support that the concern is valid; 'Crats discuss the matter, weigh evidence - in effect do an ArbCom case, then decide the outcome. Then I wouldn't be comfortable with that.

If the proposal is along the lines of: A user brings a concern regarding an admin; five other users support that the concern is valid; the community then discuss the issue, and weigh evidence - in effect do a RfA in reverse, then 'Crats decide the outcome. Then I would be more comfortable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I want to respect Kudpung's desire for a narrow focus - is it worthwhile discussing the concept of a 'crat or 'crat-led group to address admin behavior, while saving the details for a later discussion. Yet, while I waffle between an optimistic - "why not, maybe this will work", and a pessimistic, "we've tried this 37 times before, what makes this different?", I also wonder about the point. While I fully understand I can support discussing a policy, while later rejecting the product of the discussion, if I support discussion, I am implicitly supporting the expenditure of time to engage in the discussion, and I'd like to see a possibility, even if slim, that something could come of it.

We have mechanisms for addressing admin behavior. We have a defined DR process, culminating in a case brought to Arbcom if earlier steps fail. While few, perhaps no one, think the DR process is perfect, if we are to replace some aspect of the DR process with a new process, we ought to present a plausible case that deficiencies in the current practice can be remedied. It is hard to make that case when it is so unclear what steps are to be replaced. Is it, as Silktork suggests in the first version of the proposal, a replacement of the Arbcom function with a new group, or is it more like the second proposal, which might be summarized as, do an RfC and insist that a 'crat close it?

I won't be alone if I observe that filing and completing an Arbcom case is arduous. I won't be alone if I muse that it would be nice to have a more streamlined process. Yet, if I can imagine a workable, streamlined process, why should I also create a new body—why not apply the streamlined process to ArbCom? If this is not possible, we should inquire why. If the community devises a new process for addressing admin conduct issues, why cannot the community impose the process on Arbcom? If the answer is that the community does not have the authority to instruct Arbcom on how to handle cases, why one earth do we think we can decide that we can create a new body, with the new process, and declare that admin behavior is no longer the province of Arbcom?--SPhilbrick(Talk) 14:20, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

@ Silk Tork This is likely the wrong page for me to respond to your post - but in brief, I think that many, MANY people feel that Arbcom (the collective body - this is not an assessment of the individuals) has become largely ineffective, inconsistent, ... I'll stop there. There are problems with editors complaining. There are problems being shown by the administrative corp on 2 levels. Those who feel toothless to fix anything. And those who are embarrassed by the actions of some of our colleagues, and thus don't wish to be known by the company that we keep. (personally I fit into both those groups). — Ched :  ?  11:54, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• What is needed is a committee/council/board/body (by any other name, blah, blah) that can not only swiftly and effectively address admin issues that Arbcom is afraid to do for fear of upsetting the apple cart, but at the same time, be one that can just as effectively nip in the bud all the flippant, vengeful complaints from users who have been justifiably sanctioned. It works both ways.

This idea of mine is just one arrow in my quiver, if it doesn't work with the community, I've got plenty more up my sleeve. It's just a question of progressively offering the community new solutions until one gets a healthy consensus. As I have said before, while I think Arbcom is too soft, too long, too polarised, we also need to avoid witch hunts, lynch mobs, and kagaroo justice. I think that the 'crats, as a buffer between the admins, the non-admins, and Arbcom, with a simplified system, could fulfill that role. Perhaps not all of the 'crats, but as the even tinier corps of arbs has its sub-committees, so could the 'crats. And that's why I would like to test the community's opinion, before offering them a ready-made solution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

A polite request

Reiterating my opening comment on this page: Anyone finding their way here is welcome to comment constructively, but do please bear in mind however, that it's not a definitive draft, and that it's not directly proposing anything either. It's simply an RfC to test the community's opinions if and when such a solution were to be proposed. I'm not even saying that I'm personally in favour of the solution, but there would be no harm in offering it to the community for comment. I'm a great believer in not wasting the community's time on heated discussions if there is not going to be anything to discuss ;)

I'm not even saying whether or not I personally favour such a solution, but I do feel it's one that the community should be given an opportunity to deliberate upon. I don't care either way if they reject or accept it.

Dank bravely tried a series of RfCs on similar lines (garnering opinion) earlier this year, but there were simply far too few respondents to be able to draw any conclusions on RfA reform.

So please do not use this page as a venue for airing any general views on adminship or 'cratship, or desysoping - there are other venues for that, and off-topic comments here will be removed. Thanks. 00:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)

So at this point - how can we help? Or are you not ready for that yet? Feel free to ping me. I have some ideas, but I suspect they are more for something much further along than you are (we are) at this point. As I said though, I definitely DO support something — Ched :  ?  11:47, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, in spite of my post above in response to Silk Tork and others I'm not that far yet. Dennis and Coren were a lot further with their off-the-peg draft, but they have decided to wait on it for a while. What I'm looking for at the moment is just a bit more encouragement and perhaps a few small tweaks to the draft before going live with it. Of course, if after a few days, there is a general consensus here that I'm wasting my time (and everyone else's), I'd be quite happy to archive this user-space project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

More thoughts

See today's fracas at WP:BN. Your proposal does not broach how bad admins get in front of the board. So some thoughts:

1. If 3 (or 4) users in good standing as for a review, the board has to take the case
2. WP:CRAT's lising of "active" crats is a joke, some have done a crat action in years, some hardly ever edit
3. The board should be composed of crats, respected admins, and non admins. The latter two groups elected to 2 year terms.

PumpkinSky talk 20:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I started following the BN before most of the contributors here did. I haven't broached anything at all concerning the mechanics of such a possible solution. My experience of Wikipedia debating (and it didn't begin yesterday) is that RfCs have to be kept as absolutely simple as possible otherwise if there are too many waggons on the train it will run off the tracks. The RfC is purely and simply to see if the 'crats can be involved. We have to start somewhere. If the community doesn't like the idea of a 'crats committee, we can offer them the next step, such as the one you suggest (which I've also pre-empted in my notes somewhere). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. I dunno, the topic of mechanics of how it'll work will undoubtedly come up. Kop kuhn krap. PumpkinSky talk 20:53, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, I could always launch the RfC and then chuck my tools in the bin and clear of for a couple of months... Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:11, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I'll support whatever route you want to try, because things have gotten to the point where we have to do something. The status quo is a total failure. PumpkinSky talk 22:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Version 2

I've reworked it and I'm planning on going ahead with it even if I'm not completely sold on it. I've asked some of you to comment on it before I launch it and I welcome your suggestions. Remember that The community giveth and taketh away in more ways than one though and while they ovewhelmingly supported the RfC they stronly opposed all the suggestions for implementing it. They don't want a select committee, they don't want a new group of super users, they don't want Arbcom to continue to do it, they want community desysopping but they clearly don't want a kangaroo court populated by the pitchfork-wielding peanut gallery à la ANI (which is really just kettles and pots yelling at each other. In short, they want their cake, to eat it, and puke it up again for another day.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I like this idea, and it has as much chance as anything to get approved. Whenever I see anyone drafting a big proposal I always remind them of User:Beeblebrox/The perfect policy proposal. I may have more in-depth comments later, at work at the moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:07, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

How are the four bureaucrats selected? –xeno^talk 19:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

They can surely select themselves. However, it would not need to be any particular Bureacrats, any of them could make up their quorum - if it's ever possible to get four of them under one roof within 12 hours. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so on a fresh request, at least four bureaucrats would be willing to hear the case and then they would become active on it, along with the pre-chosen community members? If the four-bureaucrat portion of the committee is selected anew on each fresh request, do all bureaucrats have an opportunity to vote on whether to accept or decline a case? or only the first four who vote? If all bureaucrats can vote, are their votes proportionally weighed to count for the 4 seats they hold on the committee? –xeno^talk 22:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

In what way do you feel this is different and superior to the existing committee process? –xeno^talk 19:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe I ever said I do. The effort is to propose something to the community that is different from the Arbcom. That's what they asked for. Its obviously a compromise - it's not Arbcom, but it's not the madhouse of ANI. In fact even Arbcom becomes a mad house a lot of the time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

And, BTW, that wasn't feedback. It was questions. I need help here or else I'm just wasting my and everyone else's time. And then the community can continue to wail that nothing ever gets done. Thats the problem, they are all waiting for each other. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to offer my feedback if I've overlooked something, but this seems similar to how requests are handled by the committee but in here there actually seems to be less opportunity for community involvement ("Non involved parties are excluded from discussions"). –xeno^talk 21:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

There is no way to offer a 'community' solution if that solution is to be a free for all like ANIwith everyone and his monkey in the ring. However, more detail in the pramble to the RfC isn't going to get people to understand the proposal better - its not a political campaign with a goal of winning over the electorate - the community can just either take it or leave it and wait for someone to offer a new idea, but they need to read the background and understand what they are being offered and why. The proposed system is not superior, and is not supposed to be. It's different. However, because it's not bogged down in all the bureacratic steps of an Arbcom case it should not take three or four days for the BARC mmbers to decide to accept the case. Their first task is triage, they simply ascertain that the complaint is genuine and not some frivolous or vindictive act (about 4 out of 10 cases at ANI are either boomeranged, in the wrong venue, or simply incomprehensible. The whole case should be able to be wrapped up in seven days. The case is not stifled by tons of comments from totally univolved participants from the peanut gallery. The case is heard by a coalition of 'crats, admins, and editors, and not by a body of arbitrators. The arbs don't take all the 'Vew from user X' into consideration either. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok but also be wary of RFC fatigue.

I think that some bureaucrats would be reluctant to step into the role you've carved out for them this version of the proposal; it's not really what they were selected or signed on for. Also the bureaucrat team is not reviewable, so what if people didn't like the way a particular bureaucrat was handling this role? And if not many bureaucrats warm to the role, it will only be the self-selected ones hearing the cases. –xeno^talk 22:14, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• I'm tight on time and spent it reading the front page, so pardon if these were already addressed: If you wanted, you could say that Crats have a higher approval requirement than Admin OR Arbs. Also, "On the policy that has been reached", should that be "breached" or am I reading it wrong? Who decides consensus? Another non-involved Crat? (my choice). If they fail to reach a consensus (a true "no consensus" split vote), is the case dismissed with or without prejudice? This is not so easy, as dismissing with prejudice is almost like amnesty, and dismissing without raises double jeopardy concerns. Maybe they decide at that time? The only other issue is the 72 hours to respond. I think you have to have a mechanism to request a continuance for as long as the admin doesn't edit on any WMF server, up to 30 days. Real life happens. Next, I think there is a benefit if this group has the ability to push the case to Arb formally, if they get into a case and see it needs more than 10 days of research. You can't have it here and at Arb at the same time, and Arb will always punt if it is here. That said, overall, it is better than anything else I've seen and I would support it. My thoughts are just that, thoughts and making sure we plug the holes, but again, I'm for it.

• And I would say that if the existing Crats were reluctant to do this, I respect that, they didn't run for this, we can't force it on them. Some of us older, experienced admin might consider running for Crat to fill the void if it was needed, so I don't think there will be a shortage. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • I like the proposal, and I also agree with all of what Dennis said above. Go Phightins! 22:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support — Ched :  ?  14:48, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

• I assume that way back in the prehistoric days of Wikipedia when no one dreamed what things would be like 15 years later,that the mandate for 'crats was dreamed up on the spur of the moment by Jimbo .Well, in that time the entire structure of the British Parlianent was radically changed with a lot of Lords loosing their titles in the name of democracy and by te same token, if the community today were to extend the powers of the 'crats by consensus, the only thing the crats could do is either enjoy their new roles or continue to wither away until they are replaced by a more dynamic team. The withering has already stsrted and nothing pleaseth but rare accidents. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• I strongly support this initiative. The community has wanted a community-based process for de-sysopping problematic administrators. This is long overdue. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2015 (UTC)