Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Archive 3

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See also

WP:RFDA. I would suggest a merger; my proposal provides much more concrete areas of alleged abuse, in order to prevent frivolous 'cases'. → ROUX ₪ 07:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• I can see that you haven't clicked on all of the little links at the top of Wikipedia:Community de-adminship yet. ☺ Or noticed that there are gatekeepers on community-initiated requests here, much the same ones as there already are on community-initiated requests that are sent to the Arbitration Committee indeed. This isn't meant to be either highly surprising or a process with lots of new details and facets that we get to argue the colour of the bicycle shed over before putting into action. Uncle G (talk) 07:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm astonished you can see such a thing, since it is completely inaccurate. In the broad strokes, the proposed processes are markedly similar. The advantage to requiring specific abuses to be cited means that there are two safeguards protecting from frivolous requests. And there's no bicycle sheds there; the list of abuses is the list of things that only admins can do. There is also a section for 'other' to handle the few cases not covered by admin rights such as the recent Law/Jennavecia/GlassCobra mess. While a robust desysopping process is required, a few things must be taken into account:
    1. Many admins will be against it on general principles; there is a widespread belief that adminship is permanent
    2. Many will oppose if they feel frivolous requests, particularly requests based on incidents unrelated to use of admin tools, can be gamed through
    3. Adminship really only should be removed for abuse of the admin position (thus the requirement to note specific abuses) or gross behaviour that in the military would be 'conduct unbecoming' (covered under 'other,' and to be subsumed by the Admin Code of Conduct if it ever gets off the ground).
  • It is a guaranteed torpedo for this process to not be specific, therefore. Moreover, the requirement of specificity also reduces the potential for sickening levels of drama--though of course I have no fear that Wikipedians will rise to the challenge. If User:Random User has to point out a specific incident of abuse, and which specific facet of admin duties was abused, they will therefore be required to be factual, without a bunch of overheated rhetoric gumming up the works and raising the general temperature. In short, User:Random User will have to say "User:Random Admin edited the protected page Random Article without consensus from the talk page." Facts, not nebulous emotions, will set the tone and help get admins on board with this proposal. → ROUX ₪ 08:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I disagree. There are issues when there are general patterns of misbehavior or other issues. Forcing the matter to be connected to specific instances as this seems to only would allow the desysoping in the most egregious cases. JoshuaZ (talk) 13:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
      • That would be what 'other' covers, which as mentioned above will be replaced by 'violating admin code of conduct' if/when that gets off the ground. → ROUX ₪ 17:36, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
        • That's a good point. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
          • Thank you. In an ideal world, I'd like to see the bar set fairly low for desysopping, with a symmetrical lowering of the bar at RFA--actually return to the idea of NBD. By which I mean adminship should be treated similar to rollback; abuse the tool(s), lose 'em. Come back in a while and get 'em again. I know how unlikely that is, but it's an ideal. Aim high, accept less. → ROUX ₪ 02:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
            • Given prior discussion about giving out the ability to see deleted revisions it seems that making RfA anywhere near as easy as rollback would be problematic at many levels (including the fact that Godwin basically said there would be legal problems). Still, even a return to the level of where it was 2 or 3 years ago would probably be a good thing. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
              • Not granted quite as easily as rollback, but removed as easily, or close to. I wasn't clear. → ROUX ₪ 03:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support in principle, oppose the overly complicated implementation. I'd support something like this: "All administrators are subject to a reconfirmation of their administrator status through the request for adminship (RFA) process if 100 editors who are eligible to vote in RFAs request it, but not more often than once per 12 months. The request for a reconfirmation RFA is to be made on the talk page of the most recent successful RFA and remains open for signature indefinitely until 100 signatures are reached, at which point a bureaucrat will open the RFA.  Sandstein  17:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Question regarding closure. Is the idea that this process will use the 70-80% threshold from rfa? If so, which way do you intend it to be read? At rfa both of the following are true 1) if 80% or more vote in favour, the candidate is usually given the bit. 2) if 30% or more don't want the candidate to be an admin, he is usually not given the bit. Translating that to this process could give either of the following:

1. A candidate will normally be desysopped if at least 100 votes are cast and 80% or more have voted for desysop.
2. A candidate will normally be desysopped if at least 100 votes are cast and 30% or more have voted for desysop.

MoreThings (talk) 19:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Found a bug

Frivolous, failed de-admin nominations prevent an admin from being examined except in "exceptional circumstances" as defined by crats and arbcom. The goal here is a good one-- you can't constantly harass someone by nominating them constantly.

But as written, a failed nominations causes CDA to revert back to the status quo (arbcom decides) for a year. But I think this would create an unnecessary pressure to desysop. "This is the community's only shot at dealing with this issue", we might hear. People might be reluctant to !vote for continued adminship if they know the issue can't be revisited by CDA if the problems recur.

Instead of the "once per year except in exceptional circumstances", what about "ten new nominators each time". That is, if you can't find at least ten new people to agree that this user needs to be evaluated, then he doesn't.

(strictly speaking, I don't know if "ten" nominators will work. May need to be increased for CDA to get a consensus, but that's neither here nor there. If there are x nominators required, I'd suggest x new nominators)

This could be combined with a shorter time limit-- 3 months is the shortest I would imagine. Anything less and it's probably more of an arbcom or emergency-desysopping matter. --Alecmconroy (talk) 09:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

it should stay as is.The point of this would be to give an additional route besides arbcom. Arb com would still be there. In fact, the mention of exceptional circumstances should be removed from here--in the case of exceptional circumstances, it is arb com who should do it. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The 100 User Participation bug

I think this basic framework is the one that is going to get picked, so I'm being bold and trying to tweak a tad, but striking changes to preserve the original "polled" version. If it's bad, feel free to revert and I'll move to a subpage.

Initially the text request at least 100 users to express opinions. But this means that if there are, let's say, 66 votes supporting desysop and 33 votes opposed to desysopping, expressing your opposition would actually cause a quorum to be reached, and therefore cause the desysopping.

In general, this could lead to a reluctance to express opposition to a proposed de-admin. Thus, the current wording makes desysop slightly more likely than it otherwise would be, since before a quorum was reached, some oppose-!voters might be less likely to express their opinion.

The actual solution is to direct the crat's to close processes with less than 100 participants by adding imaginary "oppose" votes until 100 !votes were reached and then closing accordingly. So, if a crat would normally need to see n supports out of 100 total, the crat needs to see a minimum of n supports.

But since that involves crat discretion and math, I just wrote "50 support votes" and called it good.

But, maybe it should be a different value. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Added note re: proposal status

I have taken the liberty of adding a note in the lede regarding the status as a proposal, as Option 4 at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. This will eliminate any possible confusion for readers coming to this page. Jusdafax 02:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Bold edit

I added "and paroles without the permission of the arbitration committee" to the nomination section where it says those under arbcom sanction cannot nominate. As arbcom is the one who imposed the penalty, arbcom should have the authority to waive part or all of the penalty, including the penalty of being ineligible to nominate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Removed, moving to draft discussion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

additional appeal route

not meant as a comment about the merits of the overall proposal, but an additional appeal route should be provided, to arb com. This will, among other things, assure some consistency in standards. DGG ( talk ) 03:34, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Getting page ready

At this point, it looks to me like Wikipedia:Community de-adminship is a page that is no longer needed for anything, and the Guide page should take its place when the RfC is ready to go live. I also want to note, again, that we need to make sure we have a watchlist page announcement. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem with the idea although it may cause inconsistencies elsewhere with the wording and/or links.

With regard to actually completing this process, we don't seem to be making any headway on the "needs to be discussed" front.

For the first "may not be subject to Arbitration enforcement" - I made a suggestion above. Any alternatives?

For the second and third: "Tip for editors who are not eligible to make nominations:" "nominations by editors during an active arbitration process" -what's to discuss?

For the "following terms and restrictions" section - I will need to look into recent history to find out what's going on here but I think this needs to go?

"Anyone may participate in the discussion." What's to discuss? Ben MacDui 12:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC) PS What's a "watchlist page announcement?"

As noted here (and above in discussion with Tryptofish), aside from a few suggestions (particularly on "Nominators Not subject to ArbCom or other restrictions" and "Blocked editors as nominators") , I don't have much else say on those things marked for discussion. NJA (t/c) 13:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the "Nominators Not subject" subject is an issue as I've noted above. The latter is marked as "done". Ben MacDui 15:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I largely agree with MacDui's analysis here. I'm not sure any more what the suggestion MacDui made about Arb enforcement, so maybe we need a link or something. And I'm not really sure what else to edit without further input from other editors. I doubt that we can be ready to "go live" in the next day or so, and I think we need to discuss the things still "to be discussed". But, as I say, I basically agree with MacDui here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I could barely find it myself in the midst of it all. "may not be subject to Arbitration enforcement editing restrictions" - "needs to be discussed". I agree it should be retained and I have a caveat. This is not an issue in which (to the best of my knowledge) any of those who have been consistently active have much expertise. Even if I don't agree with them, when folks like NYbrad and Elonka turn up suggesting issues relating to this statement be cleared up I sense a need for caution, yet attempting to become proficient in this complex area of Wikipedia is not practical in the short term. How about this as an alternative?

The RfC states at the end that "If the RfC ends in consensus to implement, such implementation will then be subject to review by the Bureaucrats". It would be possible to add a short Q in the FAQ asking why this is necessary along with an answer that this in particular is an area where we might specifically ask the 'crats to discuss and if necessary amend the wording.

Who exactly is it you are waiting for re the other issues? You, I and NJA all seem to be agreed that there is nothing to discuss. Ben MacDui 21:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I still don't understand: are you simply suggesting a change to the FAQ? Assuming we have consensus to:

• Restore the part about inactive accounts under "what the process is not"
• Delete the first three (needs to be discussed) labels under "the nominators"
• And delete what comes after that (following terms and restrictions) under "the nominators"
• Also delete the (needs to be discussed) label before "anyone may participate" under "discussion and poll", since I'm quite sure we already fixed that one

I'd be quite happy to do that. Have we really agreed?

I believe so. Ben MacDui 22:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Still need to fix the thing NJA, Matt, and I discuss at the bottom of "after the recent edits", above. I feel strongly about that one!

• Don't know what this is off-hand

• We may still need to figure out NJA's issue about wikibreaks. I don't know.

• Instruction creep in my view.

• Have we settled the "stale signatures" issue?

• I think so

• Have we settled NJA's concern about clarity on dispute resolution?
• Have we settled NJA's concern about clarity on speedy closes?
• There is still a very active discussion about 80% versus 85% at the other talk page, and I think there will be trouble if you or I unilaterally declare the discussion closed.

• Someone has to. What are the criteria for satisfying everyone who might have a view that you have in mind?

• We should agree on the wording of the notice to watchlist pages.

• Surely a simple sentence would suffice. Does it matter if there are three different versions?

• We should agree on the formatting of the RfC page.

• I am not aware of anything that needs to be changed.

See the other talk page about those last two.

How soon can we do that, responsibly?

By understanding that this process has no end point until one is declared.

--Tryptofish (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Replies by Ben MacDui 22:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

PS In short I can think of no real reason not to proceed now. The last 24 hours have shown progress rather than the previous 48 hours of chaos (I'm speaking glibly time frame-wise), but what are the odds of that continuing for a few days? As you know we will next have the chance to correspond at roughly the same time of day as one another on Wednesday evening. Good luck between now and then. Ben MacDui 22:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you've only addressed some, not all, of the points I raised. There's a difference between not being aware, and having actually settled an issue. I'm not sure how you mean "no real reason not to proceed now" followed by "Good luck between now and then." I assume/hope it means we'll get things clarified between now and then, and then proceed. I'm going to proceed on that assumption, and I hope that's OK. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

See now the bottom of this talk. I hope that suffices. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And things really are shaping up very well. The Wiki process (pipe link to sausage-making) looks ugly, but the sky is not falling. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Re. "Well, you've only addressed some, not all, of the points". This means I either don't know what they are as the nature of the issues isn't obvious at a first glance, or that I don't think the issue is especially important. I am happy for this process to continue for a while longer: genuine improvements are possible, but equally I think its a fantasy that an "ideal proposal" can be fashioned. We have had a Manual of Style for years, that does not prevent people "clarifying" its meaning on a daily basis. Ben MacDui 10:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have specifically replied replied re the "Speedy close" issue. I don't see what the problem is re "dispute resolution" - or perhaps more accurately I would expect a clueful Bureaucrat to be able to deal with anyone attempting to avoid the spirit of the idea by arguing that there might, conceivably, be some ambiguity. If these discussions are ongoing (and I don't think they need be) it might help to have separate sub-sections.

Just to be clear re "I assume/hope it means we'll get things clarified between now and then, and then proceed". Yup. Ben MacDui 11:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Since it is getting difficult to follow this thread, I will break out individual questions below. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• This page isn't even close to being ready. But, every time I've interjected here I've been treated like shit. So, I'll reserve my comments. You want a bloodbath when you go live, don't let me stop you. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hammersoft, with all due respect this isn't very helpful. If you have constructive suggestions, please list them. If not, all you have to do is state your opposition when the RfC goes live. Ben MacDui 18:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hammersoft, It takes two to tango - and it's been me who's been dancing with people, so you can't blame the general "you", as it isn't accurate or fair.

Wouldn't it be better for everyone if you listed your misgivings here before the RFC? By all means let them all out at the RFC too. I've not let any critical concern I've personally seen go by unconsidered and unaddressed (with the text being changed for it too), but the big problem I've had is that I'm just not hearing detailed criticism or constructive suggestions, more just generalised and angry remarks on the manner of the progress (eg "railroading"). But railroading from what? But all the same, I try and prevent any railroading attitudes all of the time. At this stage, complaining alone is never going to halt something that is this advanced. CDA is simply going to the RFC, but I for one am insisting we do whatever we can to get it right. You can still be part of that too.

People did actually address your "Combined Community de-Bureaucrat" suggestion, and I explained why I lacked a little AGF with you (ie your previous "Cute" section combined with your "Certified Idiot" user page, but that is the risk you take when having a user page like that). A few of us saw 'CDB' as perhaps not without merit, but an entirely different matter to CDA (with good reasons on how it could prejudice the outcome if it was included), and nobody else came in to support you on it.

I've just looked through all the CDA archives but I can't find any detailed criticism of CDA from you (other than the relatively-recent de-Bureaucrat matter) even when you've been asked to provide it. What are the "massive gaps" your referred to in December? Can you list them now? Matt Lewis (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Matt, it is very hard for me to understand how the above reply might be helpful to the success of this project. If you want to expand on your critiques of other editors I urge you to do so elsewhere. Ben MacDui 21:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it is useful to point out that the critics like Hammersoft have not just been completely ignored, and that they are more unhappy with this CDA being the final proposal (ie they would rather stay discussing options), than they have been disabused by us of offering anything better. A number of people are saying they are being (or have been) ignored. I do think the consensus for this CDA has been exaggerated, and that things have gone too quickly too, but I don't think it could have gone in any other actual direction, and I find these accusations of this "group of us" not listening to people seriously unfair. The archives show lots of debate, with no people actually being ignored. CDA has just been moved along at too fast a rate, that's all (esp since the Motion to Close) - but it has slowed down enough to rectify that now I think (and hope).

I genuinely want to know if people have actually spotted important things too. Matt Lewis (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• If you genuinely want to know, then stop treating people who have disagreements with this proposal like crap. Everytime I've come here, I've been told various versions of "get lost". You've managed to ostracize a lot of people who came here to comment, and created a nice tight little discussion group that has little in the way of outside view. That would work fine if,...IF..., the tight little group was producing something very solid. That hasn't happened here. So yes, I am going to reserve comment until the bloodbath begins. Consider this fair warning that you haven't done your homework, haven't considered all aspects of this, and are headed for a brick wall. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

When you don't provide balance, expect criticism. It's as simple as that. I can be critical too, but I don't treat anyone "like crap". I try to focus my comments on considered detail. I never just interject ambiguous scorn, and I think that people have to be prepared for criticism if they do that. It should be obvious that I am not part of any 'group', and have actually been ctiticised from various angles for trying to open-wide this proposal. I spent time looking through the archives to see what is 'bugging you', and discovered that at no point have you ever detailed it - beyond, perhaps, ships that have long since sailed, like the relative smallness of the original consensus for CDA, and the fact it was embarked-on ahead of the other options for this particular Admin Recall attempt. Nor did I spot any clear evidence of people treating you unfairly.

To be so negative or angry and gain people's respect, you simply have to properly explain yourself. Do you think we would be speaking like this if I wasn't so completely in the dark over what you actually want to see, and what you specifically dislike? By all means let it at the RFC, I've given up on waiting for it here. Matt Lewis (talk) 13:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sir, I direct you to Wikipedia_talk:Community_de-adminship/Draft_RfC#Railroaded. I am not alone in my sentiment. Further, my very first post in regards to this proposal did layout a very serious issue with this proposal, and one that remains unanswered [1], and was further amplified here. You're probably going to cite Wikipedia:Community_de-adminship/FAQ#7._Q:_Is_CDA_is_trying_to_resolve_any_existing_problems.3F as response, but it isn't a valid response;

• "Many feel the community should also be able to recall Administrators that have lost its trust." Cite? That many people feel a particular way isn't evidence. "Many" is highly subjective. I could just as well cite many more disagree [2].
• "ArbCom seems to some people less willing to take on cases where there is a perceived loss of community trust" Cite? What's your basis for this?
• RfC is supposedly broken in the case of administrator abuse and this solves it? How? Evidence RfC is broken? If it's broken, why hasn't it been removed from the dispute resolution process? Why hasn't there been any discussion on how to fix RfC to fix this supposed problem (if indeed it even exists).
• CDA's existence might make administrators behave better? What evidence do you have to suggest that? Does this 'problem' deserve a massive bureaucracy to solve it?
• It's been suggested this will reduce cynicism? You serious? You install this process, and admin cynicism of the editor pool will skyrocket.
• You think it will have a beneficial impact on RfA passing rates. Cite?

So this proposal will fix ArbCom, RfC, RfA and will improve morale all in one fell swoop. Absolutely amazing!

In short, there's no evidence to support any of these claims that any of these things are in fact problems. I can and will speculate that if you introduce this process, the numbers of people willing to stand for RfA will plummet. Being an administrator is a shitty job. It's not like you're improving things. In the vast majority of cases, you're blocking people, deleting their stuff, protecting an article from them editing, telling them they're violating policy. Administrators aren't anybody's heroes. You put this process in place, and a lot of administrators making tough calls that have to be made are going to be de-adminned, or turn in their bits. Maybe you should think about that speculative consequence. Or perhaps I should start a poll of administrators to find out how many of them would turn in their bits if this process becomes reality. I sure as hell don't want to be an administrator precisely because of all the crap that gets flung at them. Why volunteer to routinely have shit thrown at you all the time? And what will this process produce? More shit thrown at administrators. Gee, what fun.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. I haven't gotten into the impact of this undermining arbcom, opinions of bureaucrats, stewards, suffrage, how this fits into DR, and more. This thing is an ungodly mess.

Or, am I being disruptive again because I'm asking questions? I guess you define telling a user he's being disruptive for asking questions as being a nice welcome and anything but hostile? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So it's mostly about that darned FAQ. The FAQ lists people's opinions. If some people hold those opinions, what can you do about it? It one point it did better answer the question of "what does CDA improve?", and I personally added a "Criticisms of CDA" section too. I'll put it back in at some point, as you could have done yourself (or even added to it?). The FAQ I admit has been rather jealously guarded and is still somewhat more of a manifesto than an actual "FAQ". I saw the idea as problematic from the outset, but it is just a FAQ and is not the actual proposal. I'd try to focus more on the proposal issues, as I've been doing.

The problem with your opinions on the various 'destructive effects' of CDA are simply that - opinions. You cannot prove them. I happen to think that just the presence of CDA will be very beneficial to Wikipedia throughout, but I can't prove that either. Surely we can only trial CDA and see what happens. We cannot disband the whole proposal just because you personally hold that "Hell No!" opinion (your above-linked section before the Motion to Close).

The point in the FAQ which dealt with most of your questions above, went something like this: CDA does not actually have to improve anything to be a valid process, and does not preclude any other similar process from happening. All the arguments on both 'improvement' and 'harm' are subjective and theoretical - we won't know for sure until we try it. Your arguments against CDA demand that people prove things they don't have to (and are logically unable to), before they can be allowed to propose it. Where is the evidence for your above misgivings being "just the tip of the iceberg", and a forthcoming "bloodbath"? I could just as easily ask you to prove those comments too. Matt Lewis (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously Hammer doesn't agree with the opinions listed in the FAQ. Hammer, I don't agree with those opinions either. What I do think is important (and agree with) is the drafting of the actual process guidance, which is what we're trying to do here. Please save the comments for the RfC if you don't have anything specific to add to improve the draft RfC. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 18:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• And see here I'm being told to shutup again. Look, the process is broken at the beginning step. This proposal devolves from a premise that hasn't been determined to be true. You're operating from a fictitious foundation. Matt, you're claiming my opinions are just that; opinions. Guess what? The faq is entirely speculative too. It's just opinions. My opinions are no less valid than the opinions expressed in the FAQ. And no, the only option isn't to trial CDA and what happens. You're developing a process without identifying what the true problems are. How can you reasonably expect this process will solve something if you don't know what that something is? This is all bassackwards. I'm not a fan for creating bureaucracy just for the sake of creating bureaucracy. Creating this process well, just because, isn't a valid reason. You are the people who want this process to move forward. You're the ones who have to show it's grounded in a real foundation, not speculation. You've made a claim that this will cure some of what ails ArbCom, RfA, RfC and more. Fine. Prove it. You haven't done that. You haven't even proven these supposed failings of ArbCom, RfA and RfC are even true. Until you've done the basic homework necessary to get this process focused on the right solution, you're just taking shots in the dark. That's why it will be a bloodbath. You don't want this to go up in flames, I'm telling you how to prevent it from going up in flames. But, instead of being treated as someone trying to help you, I'm treated like crap, once again, and told to shut up until the RfC. I'm trying to HELP you. Unreal. Absolutely unreal. I guess I'm being disruptive again because I'm trying to help, asking questions. When can I expect to be blocked for being so brash, so over-the-top bold as to ask a question? And you wonder why I'm angry???????????????????????? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Community_de-adminship/Example#Nomination

In trying to understand want is being discussed what that actual curent propostion is I looked at Wikipedia:Community_de-adminship/Example#Nomination and read specifically The Arbitration Committee has passed a motion (link) to refer the de-adminship yet from what I reading this is proposed to be process outside of the Arbitration Committee as such it appears redundent to have an arbcom motion as part of the process, additionally such a motion would have an undue influence on the result.

This page was last edited on the 9th January and the discussion/proposal appears to have moved well past such a position can those driving this process clearly indicate that status of all subpages so as avoid false information being presented as part of the proposal. Gnangarra 01:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me clear that up. It's not a mistake, and as far as I know, that example page is current. There are two ways a nomination can be made to CDA: by ten editors from the community, or by ArbCom. Please see: Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship#Nomination. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

An ARBCOM motion isnt reflected in the discussions I've been reading in the RFC all of which indicate that CDA is a process commenced by 10 editors. By having the example as being a motion from ARBCOM it creates a false premise on what the process is really about, further to this I'd support any challenge to the community consensus because of such an example when the discussion has been about creating a process that doenst require ARBCOM who can already de-sysop an editor if they have cause. Gnangarra 13:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by "I'd support any challenge to the community consensus because of such an example". Which consensus? Ben MacDui 13:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I dont envisage a smooth implimentation, examples of process and documentation should be reflective of the intended process before a final vote is put to the community. ARBCOM is going to be a minor source of nominations but significantly ARBCOM has a level of respect and expectation in the community which should not be used to promote proposals that are not part of ARBCOM. Because of such use I can see reasons for disputing that the CDA vote truely reflective of community concensus and that to go with that an appeal to the Foundation to stop CDA would have my support. Gnangarra 03:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please let me offer this information in the hopes that it will help. If you look here, you will see the very first draft of this proposal, in its original form as written by Uncle G. As you scroll down, you will see that the two options for starting a nomination, either by the community or by ArbCom, have been there from the very start. This was the language that was reviewed by the community in the first of these many polls (Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall), and it has been there all along. My understanding has been that this aspect of the proposal has never, previously, been controversial. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, this language does not do anything to affect ArbCom's power to do what they already do, nor does it give them any power to "interfere" with the community's wishes. It merely gives them the option, should they choose to use it, of referring a case to the community instead of deciding it themselves; the decision would still stay with the community. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not arguing the language of the proposal or the methods but the choice of examples. The problem with the example is that it isnt reflective of the purpose of the CDA it should be base on the community nomination process and not an arbcom motion which will be a minor source of nominations. Gnangarra 03:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The example page shows both types of nominations under "select one", not just the arbcom form. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The form could use some love. It says select one, but there's no obvious differentiation/sectioning between the two options. I agree with Gnan, in that ArbCom shouldn't be highlighted to such an extent on the form. If anything, give ArbCom a completely separate form, thus allowing the typical/main form geared solely for nominations by the Community, which is what the main goal here is anyhow. NJA (t/c) 18:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I gave it a little love, and overall I think it's about as clear as it could be. Further thoughts, aside from comment on my proposed addition? NJA (t/c) 18:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The changes work for me. For the proposed addition, I'd change "they've" to "they have". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Guide_to_Community_de-adminship#Canvassing

Parties to the CDA process may legitimately contact other editors to request specific input, but must at all times do so otherwise in strict accordance with WP:CANVASS

The wording of this section isnt clear, I have trouble with the way in which it gives permission for editors to seek specific input. I can contact an editor and say; I've commenced a CDA on user:xxx can you please provide details of the time user:xxx blocked your account. While writing in neutral language its clear the targeted users will have a grievence about the block and will be likely join the CDA or vote! support during the process which is contary to WP:CANVASS position on vote stacking. I suggest that clearer simpler wording be used;

Parties to the CDA process may contact other editors but must do so in accordance to WP:CANVASS

This way there isn't ambiguarity between this policy and WP:CANVASS. There should be sanctions for canvassing associated with the process that can include termination of the process and blocks of the editors involved with templates specific to this process so that repeat and/or malicious nominaters are able to be clearly identified during future processes. Gnangarra 02:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the administrator who is being nominated may need to contact editors to help them. In previous discussion, there seemed to be consensus that they need to have an "exemption" from CANVASS to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This is, unfortunately, one of the insuperable flaws of this process. Regardless of wordsmithing, there is an inherent conflict between the need for canvassing (to ensure thorough and equitable presentation of evidence and contextual information) and the desire for a pristine and neutral voter pool. Both the nominators and the admin under scrutiny will often need to request the participation of outside parties to present information, evidence, context, or even third-party opinion. It would be silly for us to pretend that these requests will not occur, whether on-wiki (honestly and openly, or couched in mock-neutral terms) or off-wiki (by email, IRC, or Wikipedia Review). It is equally impossible for us to put that toothpaste back in the tube — once informed, these involved parties will show up to defend 'their side' and to vote. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS specifically allows for Neutrally worded notifications sent to a few editors are considered "friendly notices" if they appear intended to improve rather than to influence a discussion....and ....To avoid disrupting the consensus building process on Wikipedia, editors should keep the number of notifications small, keep the message text neutral, and not preselect recipients according to their established opinions. which covers asking for information, evidence, context. The current wording is so convoluted its creating one of the insuperable flaws of this process. If the intent of the wording is to give exemption from WP:CANVASS then the wording should be; Parties to the CDA process are not required to adhere to the conditions of WP:CANVASS. Gnangarra 14:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My point regarding this 'insuperable flaw' is that there is an unavoidable contradiction between inviting involved parties to give testimony, and then immediately following up with a numbers-driven vote; this is problematic regardless of WP:CANVASS or any other policy. Consider the following example. Suppose that Bob thinks admin Alice should be desysopped. Bob sends out messages to twenty people he think are upset with Alice and invites them to join him in constructing a nomination. That's a reasonable thing to do — Bob figures conservatively that three-quarters of the people that he asks (fifteen of twenty) will want to help with the nomination, but of those five or six will be on vacation, busy writing featured articles, etc., which leaves nine or ten co-authors for the nomination.

Unfortunately, once the nomination gets its required votes, there's now a pool of twenty people who all have reason to dislike Alice and who all have been specifically invited to participate. They just have to slap their four tildes on the voting page with endorse, per nomination, and the CDA is off to a twenty-to-nothing start. Can Alice attempt to balance this with invitations of her own? Well, maybe. The proposal isn't exactly clear. Alice isn't required to submit a rebuttal or defence (and the proposal doesn't require that she be given any opportunity to do so); in any case, Alice's supporters can't vote against the nomination. She ought to be able to invite participation of involved parties to comment on the nomination's evidence during the CDA vote, but that's a race against the clock, and tempers are going to be running high. It's a dog's breakfast, really. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Earlier discussion of this point is here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"but must at all times do so otherwise in strict accordance " - I'd suggest "but must do so in strict accordance ". This I think removes the contradiction. If CDA is implemented most admins are likely to keep it on their watchlist, and those that don't are probably watching other places where the subject will come up. As Matt has pointed out it is possibly easier to engage Admins in these kind of things than the community at large. A useful post RfC exercise might be to add something to the FAQ that attempts to show what is and is not allowed by CANVASS. Ben MacDui 21:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is one of those questions that has, by my count, been asked now four times in this talk page. As I've also said previously, the problem is that the administrator who is being nominated may need to contact editors to help them. In previous discussion, there seemed to be consensus that they need to have an "exemption" from CANVASS to do so. In that earlier discussion here, Avi was particularly concerned that simply requiring everyone to obey CANVASS (which, by the way, would also be in effect by default if we were to say nothing) would penalize administrators trying to defend themselves. I think that CANVASS, without some sort of exemption, does not allow someone to contact another person in order to elicit a particular comment at CDA, but the community seemed to want it to be possible to do that. I realize that the wording is awkward, and dissatisfaction with that awkwardness is not going to go away, so I'll make a bold attempt to fix the wording without changing the meaning. See what you think. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been thinking this matter over, as imo getting it right is crucial for an actual CDA case to run smoothly. I don't personally think we can call the various mini polls complete consensuses, certainly not in relation to where we are at now. We certainly need to take the many considered comments in them into account, but also re-think this fully afresh. (and for the 'active admin' and 'sanctions' matters too btw).

I think the fears about CDA causing mayhem are most likely to be realised in the signature-collection stage now, ie getting the 10 editors together. It's a dangerous area before the CDA process has been properly activated - we must make it clear that a CDA process effectively starts as soon as someone either places a signature down, or asks someone else to be involved in a CDA case. I would not allow any canvassing at all until the 10 signatures are in. It is not canvassing to ask someone to who has an issue with an admin to sign the form when it is done as a direct request, ie not as a general advert. After that, the next stage of CDA could be under general canvassing rules, for all parties involved, including the admin) for whom Wikipedia is better geared to help: admin can easily find each other, and their talk pages are often heavily watched).

I don't think there is any real need for the word "strictly" next to canvassing, imo - keep it flexible, as canvassing usually is. Until someone really crosses the line – but what happens then? Nothing usually. The proposal could say that Bureaucrats will not take canvassing abuse lightly, but what is the point? In my view, after the 10 legitimate signatures are made, people can (and will need to) draw upon support. After a flurry, it could dry up anyway, and the debate will be the key. It is at the pre-debate stage where we need to stop the shenanigans – we can do this by making the signature collecting process a strictly NO-canvass, request-only stage. Email/IRC etc makes the canvassing issue flawed anyway, so saying "no" to it is more 'conclusive' than saying yes.

I suggest something like:

During the collection of the 10 signatures, no canvassing is allowed. Signatures can only be requested directly via the user's Talk page, and must include a valid reason why the person contacted might agree to the CDA.

During the signature collecting phase, any nomination-related discussion between;

1) those who have already signed, and

2) those involved in current discussion related to the 'before nomination' phase,

can only be made on their talk pages.

Signatures that have come from direct canvassing will be struck out, unless the person signing also meets (2) above. Canvassing abuse will be dealt with according to Wikipedia's canvassing rules.

During the Discussion phase (when the 10 signatures have been accepted), all parties must fully adhere to Wikipedia's canvassing rules.

Generally in the proposal, we need to be clear, watertight and unambiguous, while being as flexible as possible too, as CDA can be tightened later and probably will be. The key is to do this without attracting criticism, and it often comes down to the prose - or the way the various information is presented (bullets can have real advantages at times over prose). I think that including anything that isn't essential, or could be misconstrued (things like the Tips comment) will not help CDA as an actual proposal. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted "strict" for the reasons you rightly note. Some of the rest may be instruction creep, and already contained within CANVASS, so I'd wait to hear from other editors before acting. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've underlined an earlier point in my comment above, on when CDA actually starts. I think it fair to say that WP:canvass alone isn't quite enough for CDA (where the canvass matter is so crucial), and it needs some extra detail on the matter. I also needs to be clear about when a CDA process effectively starts - which has to be as soon as a signature is down, or when two people discuss it imo. That way, any watching people (likely admin) can quickly inform them of WP:CDA#canvassing (or WP:CDA/C or WP:CDACANVASS perhaps). Matt Lewis (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Starting over

Working on the belief that a process founded in solving an existing problem is considerably more likely to be accepted by the community than a process created without such a foundation, I'm starting this thread here. To all the prior contributors here who worked so hard to develop this process to the point that it has, understand your efforts are appreciated. But also understand that you do not own this process any more than anyone else does, and I see an opportunity here to do this in a different way, one which I feel has considerably better chance of changing the existing status quo.

The original process development began as a consequence of it being the only one gaining a simple majority of acceptance at poll in November of 2009. The stated purpose of that poll included the quote "suggests that some process for recalling admins who do not meet expected standards is overdue.", and provided as evidentiary basis for that conclusion that the list of former administrators was lengthening. To conclude from this evidentiary basis that we need a process to get rid of more administrators seems problematic at best. The stated purpose also claimed that ArbCom is reluctant take on the issue of de-adminning, but provided no evidentiary basis for this conclusion. Further, it went on to claim that de-adminship would help administrators understand what is expected of them, again without evidentiary basis.

Failing presentation of firm evidentiary basis of the purpose as noted in the prior paragraph, I'd like to open a discussion regarding first and foremost what problems exist within the project that could potentially be affected (whether for better or worse) by community based de-adminship, and what evidence is that speculation based upon? It is important that both sides of that question be answered. Speculation is just that; speculation. Without some basis in evidence, the process we're going to develop is guaranteed to have as much chance of success as shots in the dark.

I define success here as identifying one or more problems on the project related to the possibility of de-adminship, doing research to determine if the problem is real, analyzing the output of that research, and developing and refining a process that solves that problem without incurring other serious problems. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's remember, not all the former administrators were fired by Arbcom. Some merely resigned their post for various reasons. GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest looking at Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/FAQ numbers 7 & 10. Ben MacDui 21:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I responded way above to the points raised by 7. All the points are speculative, not grounded in research/evidence. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While the plural of anecdote is not data, I nevertheless offer these two points, followed by a bit of interpretive comment.

• As of this minute, there are only two open ArbCom cases in any stage of proceedings: [3]. Additionally, only one case request is on the main RfArb page (likely to be referred to the BASC), and there is one request to amend a previous case: [4].
• Less than one week ago the ArbCom summarily desysopped Craigy144 by motion upon request of the community. The ArbCom was presented with evidence that Craigy144 had failed to adhere to community policies and standards, and that there was a consensus (developed primarily on AN/I: [5]) that his conduct was not compatible with adminship. The entire process, from first report on AN/I to closure of ArbCom motion and desysopping, took ten days.

Particularly noteworthy in the Craigy144 case is that the misconduct for which he was desysopped had nothing whatsoever to do with his use of his admin toolset. He simply overstepped the bounds of policy and community standards, and failed to remedy his conduct after – or even respond to – repeated warnings. On the basis of that behaviour, and coupled with a clearly-expressed community consensus (regardless of venue) the ArbCom responded expeditiously.

Moreover, the new ArbCom appears – at least for now – to have a much better handle on managing its timelines and responsibilities. Their ability to handle cases and amendments by motion (instead of with the rigamarole of full-on multistage Arbitration) is relatively new to the ArbCom, but they seem to have worked out most of the kinks there and are now using these time-saving tools to great advantage. This evidence would seem to take the wind out of Q7. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Poll page

I can' seen any sign of a discussion about the RfC page, nor any audit of how the proposed Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft Poll Page is different from Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC, or why it is a talk page. I'm certainly not going to proof read it to find any. I've reverted to the original (which has been on the main CDA navbox for three weeks) i.e. Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. Ben MacDui 14:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No! I will explain. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)