Wikipedia talk:Administrator recall/Archive 3

message: Hmm.  Desysopping is being proposed more and more often.  Maybe this is an indication of a greater willingness to do so?  This policy may not be needed after all.  Karwynn (talk) 22:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps the solution is to turn Wikipedia:Admin recall into a simply explained layman's guide to filing an arbitration case against an admin which one feels has violated policies and deserves to be desysopped, and allow direct consideration of such cases by the Arbitration Committee. Yes, it is rare that admins lose their bit but it is commensurately rare that admins commit egregious abuses of their buttons. Should there come a case in which the ArbCom refuses to desysop a truly abusive admin, then perhaps community consensus will support some form of more direct oversight. But until that time, I feel that this is a solution looking for a problem. FCYTravis 02:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really, it has a problem(s), stated in the "SOme principles" heading.  THe problem may not be fact, but there still is a perceived one, and this is not "looking" for one.  Karwynn (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Desysoppng trend? 

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

text: You got it.  I have too much faith in the hard core trollers, Wikipediareviewers who claim thousands of edits, sockpuppets, et cetera.  My suggestion would be to require a RFCU for every person who votes for the recall to check for sockpuppets, but that would never fly.  User:Zoe|(talk) 01:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just apply the same standards they do for RfAs?  Are there any effective methods at troll-countering there?  Karwynn (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just curious what most admin complaints on this policy would be about? 

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

message: This proposal seems to treat checkuser and oversight rights as being "admin plus"; they're not.  Checkuser and oversight are entirely independent of being an admin (one can actually have checkuser without being an admin, although the odds of that are rather remote).  Secondly, checkuser authority is granted by the Foundation, not by the community.  The Foundation policy on granting and rescinding checkuser rights does not give the community the power to grant or rescind them in a wiki which has an Arbitration Committee.  Therefore, to the extent that this proposal purports to be able to revoke checkuser rights, it conflicts with Foundation policy.  A similar argument applies to oversight.  
In general, the entire "exceptions" section is grossly misfounded and should be scrapped.  Kelly Martin (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on your knowledge of policy, what should an exclusions section look like? I'd certainly think that some people (i.e. Jimbo) should be except from Recall. But thats just me. rootology (T) 15:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I view this entire proposal as misfounded, and as such am not inclined to participate much in its refinement.  In my opinion, the current policy (let the ArbCom decide when it is appropriate to revoke adminship) is sufficient; the only alternative I would contemplate is an administrator's council which both grants and revokes adminship based on a deliberative process, taking input from the community but not obliged to even entertain, let alone count, votes. Kelly Martin (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Why would bureaucrats and arbitrators be excluded? I don't like the idea of "normal" admins versus "higher than admin" (the proposal also mentions "basic" admins). For example, arbitrators are not technically required to be admins. Desysoping an arbitrator would not remove them from the ArbCom. I mention this because one of the major problems I have with this proposal is that it's been built in a Frankenstein manner, grafting on arbitrary rules, exclusions and limitations whenever there's complaints. Aren't I Obscure? 17:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just aiming to exclude anyone who has a say in office decisions/bans. If B'cats and arbitrators don't apply to that, forget them.  THe point here is not to present a challenge to WP:OFFICE.  Karwynn (talk) 17:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no logical reason why you should exclude bureaucrats and arbitrators, but not checkusers.  As I stated above, the community has no authority to revoke checkuser authority anyway, so all you can do is strip the admin flag without stripping the checkuser flag.  Arbitrators can be recalled as admins without affecting their authority as Arbitrators.  There is no process to remove an Arbitrator, other than the Will of Jimbo (all Arbitrators serve at Jimbo's pleasure).  I see no logic to exempting bureaucrats, either, since a b'crat is just someone who has been trusted to make judgment calls on RfA and to handle a couple of relatively uninteresting ministerial functions related to usernames and bot flags.  The checkuser right embodies the highest trust level available on any single project (since the disclosure of information discovered by checkuser is just about the only truly irrevocable act on Wikipedia); for you to suggest that it should be nonexempt when these others are exempt merely indicates that you are really quite clueless as to the manner of governance of Wikipedia and the other projects within the Wikimedia Foundation umbrella.  As to WP:OFFICE, formally that process does not involve anyone other than Foundation staff (which you have failed to exclude); Arbitrators, bureaucrats, checkusers, or have no direct input, and if your goal is to "avoid interference with WP:OFFICE" then you have no reason to exclude anyone other than Foundation Board or staff. (I truly doubt that you understand WP:OFFICE at all, however.) Kelly Martin (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sure rootology will take that into consideration.  You're knowledge of policy would be helpful, though I have to say I don't see what you're getting so belligerent about.  Karwynn (talk) 17:55, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: (edit conflict) Shouldn't removing sysop access and removing checkuser access be separate things?  There's a difference between if someone does a bad job at one task than the other.  Sysop is about handling power and Checkuser is about trust.  I read comments on a forum that one person without checkuser was getting private checkuser data from their friend who had checkuser, not using the requests for checkuser just getting IPs themselves.  It was none of the people who have posted on this talk page, though, just FYI.  Anomo 18:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They already are, read Kelly's comment.  Under the current systems, the two are different processes.  Karwynn (talk) 18:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several points 

message: I note that most of the participants in this discussion weren't here when the Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship page was open for business.  I was, and I was here for the "quickpolls" experiment that followed.  In general, these processes were a haven for anyone who had a grudge against an administrator, regardless of its merits.  Most of the listings were retaliatory.  Since there have always been people involved in Wikipedia who are critical of substantially all admins as a group, a certain baseline level of support was present for any request for de-adminship.
Much of the reason the arbitration committee was formed was to deal with user conduct issues in a way that would not be prone to retaliatory listings and other abuse.  I believe that it is effective.
The Uninvited Co., Inc. 18:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As do I, which is my problem with the current proposal. I do think there is a role for some sort of community reaffirmation of existing administrators, to ensure that they still carry the trust of the project-at-large, but structuring any proposal in such a way that a) it's going to deal exclusively with issues not really appropriate for the arbitration committee, and b) it's not going to run rampant with abuse, is no small order. I'm always receptive to proposals to address these problems, but while I do think a problem exists, on some level, I think most of the solutions I've seen proposed so far are as bad (or worse) in various ways. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  One of the interesting things about the perennial proposal for a de-adminship/adminship renewal/adminship recall process is that the handful of bad admins in the back of everyone's minds during these discussions invariably end up leaving the project after a period of some months anyway.  They usually flame out when they realize they don't have much support in the community for what they're doing, and then they leave.  In a couple of cases such individuals have been stripped of their adminship through existing means, e.g. arbcom, or have voluntarily given up their adminship.  The existing processes are more effective than one might realize, it's just that they're slow.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 21:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem, though, is that there are a few who don't leave, and even in the case of those who do, the damage done before they leave is often irreversible. But you do have a valid point, and while I'd like to see a more efficient process for dealing with problems, speed shouldn't come at the expense of accuracy or fairness. – Sean Daugherty (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A historical perspective 

message: ::::Filing user: (name/signature)
::::Administrator being recalled: (name/link to their User space)
::::Basis of Recall: (description of why the recall is being filed--the verbose section, the "why")
::::Evidence: (evidence--diffs, citations, policy violations, etc.--to the point, the literal evidence of why it should get a pass from ArbCom to go forward)
::::Evidence of attempts at dispute resolution:
::::Administrator response: (response by the admin)
::::Comments by parties
::::Arbitrators opinions on hearing this matter.
: It would take a few seconds to run up a template for requests for community input on an admin (or some other wording).  If we could arrive at the agreement that this would be a good way to proceed, the only thing that needs to be done is to select parameters (the quota the period, and so on).  This would be subject to agreement of the Arbitration Committee.  I don't see a problem with that; they're likely to be flexible and, I think, only too happy to enable community input to deal with problematic administrators. --Tony Sidaway 22:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Like arbcoms, I'd include a bit for "Evidence of attempts at dispute resolution."  --InkSplotch 23:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added. rootology (T) 23:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, basically I see this as an ordinary arbcom application with the exception that the proposer asks for permission to solicit community input on an administrator with a view to desysopping (or perhaps other remedies).  --Tony Sidaway 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now we're getting somewhere. Change the input from strict votes into a discussion (interpreted by ArbCom) and you might even get my support. Fagstein 04:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think "support" should be to support the recall/removal of the admin.  And on another note (sorry to branch off), I think we should notify all arbitrators of this to get their input.  I really like this proposal, but it depends too much on the ArbCOm for them not to be notified.  For one thing, if arbitrators simply won't desysop anyone based on lack of community confidence, this whole proposal is worthless.  Karwynn (talk) 14:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Filing format

message: To keep the filings down to legit levels and dissuade crap, what do you think of a modified 5 month/1000 edit threshold to file?rootology (T) 22:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are no filing criteria on RFAR.  If an application is crap, the arbitrators toss it out. Although Wikipedia policy and practice are only acquired with experience, the arbitration committee is down-to-earth and will not reject a reasonable case simply because the proposer hasn't been around for more than a coupld of days. --Tony Sidaway 22:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works. rootology (T) 23:03, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting lesson to be learned from that, too.  Karwynn (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 
Filing criteria


message: :Sorry to complicate things - but my MK2 was much simpler (until you added back in elements of Mrk1) it didn't involve crats, votes, or quazi RfAs. If was just a request during an RfC, which if certified by a min of six admins, goes to arbcom. Much simpler. --Doc 00:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't see that.  Can't people just look at an RfC and say "hmm, time to go to arbitration"? This is how it's done now.  And you can even miss out the RfC stage.  Of all desysopped admins, I can't off-hand think of a single one that involved a prior RfC.  If there's a problem with an admin, and it's obvious enough to call into question their use of the bit, bring it to arbcom at once.  --Tony Sidaway 00:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  My "MkII" nomenclature was based on Doc's proposal being "MkI." - brenneman {L} 01:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Regarding RfCs before an admin was desysoped: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Stevertigo Aren't I Obscure? 02:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Tony's the best, "current" second.  Taking this to RfC would be unwise.  This sort of thing just turns in to a flamewar when filed "against" a high-profile editor of any kind.  Plus, active RfC's have been deleted.  I think we should keep it to a venue that cannot be removed or subjected to other possible abuse, like described in rootology's original proposal.  Karwynn (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of functional blocks 

message: Placing the Arbitration committee first as the gatekeeper is in effect no change from the current system.  By placing them at the end it maintains a safety valve, put still puts the effective control in the hands of the community. - brenneman {L} 02:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting arbcom at the start ensures that frivolous requests, and cases needing a more subtle investigation, are dealt with appropriately. --Tony Sidaway 02:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: He beat me to it, but yes, putting ArbCom before let's them decide on either the RfA-type process, or a more discrete arbitration case.  --InkSplotch 03:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's a bit of a straw man.  Nothing here would stop arbitration from happening if it emerges that serious misconduct had occured.  --Aaron Brenneman 03:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I didn't intend it as a straw-man.  I would think ArbCom would want first crack at a case before a drawn-out discussion and popular (consensus) vote had taken place.  It's not an option I'd expect they'd exercise often, but if they do I expect it'd be for situations that, as I said, are best handled discretly.  --InkSplotch 03:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bah, that phrase has too many negative connatations.  Red herring?  Anyway, an obvious extension of that logic would require that a normal request for comment pass before the committee, just in case it was something that they wanted to handle "discretly." - brenneman {L} 03:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree.  RfC's do not produce enforcable results. Policies do not change, people do lose their sysop bit, no one is blocked or banned.  I think de-adminning someone is more on par with arbitration than an RfC.  Also, on further reflection, I think it proper to let ArbCom know of such an important issue earlier in the overall process, rather than later.  --InkSplotch 03:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I definitely agree that there needs to be a 'gatekeeper' up front to weed out frivolous requests - though I had previously suggested giving that role to the bureaucrats rather than the ArbCom. I think ArbCom could work if it was on the basis of 'is there any reasonable likelihood of the community de-sysoping this person' rather than 'do we feel this person should be de-sysoped'. I'd object if ArbCom routinely denied requests where it was clear that a sizable portion of the community wanted the person out because to me the only point of this is to restore admin accountability to the community instead of admin accountability to the ArbCom. Other than this ArbCom vs bureaucrats issue Tony's concept seems largely the same as what I proposed (normal RFA with slightly different questions and possibly lower acceptance thresh-hold - though I would like to see that raised over time) and thus is fine with me. --CBD 14:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have it be able to step in either time.  How about, the filing can be reviewed to see if it's pure trollery or if it has some possible merit.  Then, at the end of the process, if the ArbCom feels that the "voting" has not been compromised by trolls/sockpuppets, they approve it?  THe only say they would have is in trolling and sockpuppeting, and they could step in at any time.  Honestly though, this just seems like more work for the ArbCom.  Which is something I thought we were trying to sidestep :-(  Karwynn (talk) 14:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: If Arbcom acts up front, it could become routine for the to reject requests, but it's just a possibility.  If they act at the end, after the voting, I think there is more likly to be cries of "foul!" from the peanut galleries.  I see having them act up front as doing more to preserve community control over the desysoping process.  There would be nothing to stop someone from filing an arb case after the fact to claim an invalid vote.  --InkSplotch 17:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While I still prefer the ultimate idea of the community (users/admins) tossing frivilous rejections by a certification, that doesn't appear to be happening. Given that, I'd prefer that ArbCom go up front, and if 4 ArbComs agree to take on the case, it goes to an RfA that requires roughly 70%-75%+ support for the admin to be deadminned, based on b'cat interpretation, etc.rootology (T) 17:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Same here.  I'd prefer the community having the say-so in frivolousness, but if people refuse to trust those who disagree with them, the policy won't pass.  I think ArbCom is, if anything, trustworthy, so it should still work out.  In fact, it might even be a relief - it could stem the tide of troll name-calling that is bound to happen (speaking of which, I hope you don't mind me stealing your userbox.)  Karwynn (talk) 17:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: It's really about having a gatekeeper.  The Arbitration Committee members can make up their own minds on the basis of what they think is best for Wikipedia.  If they think that community input would benefit the encyclopedia they will support it, if not they won't.  Of course being arbitrators they can't be told how to vote, and they can only be overruled by the Foundation or Jimbo.  This is a good thing.  It's why we can trust them. --Tony Sidaway 18:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbcom first or last 

message: If we're starting to get somewhere again, I'd like to archive the bulk of what came before The Gray BoxTM and perhaps put both DocMkII and Tony's Hybrid in a "two proposals enter, one process leaves" sort of face-off. (Actually, what I hope will happen is we'll get back to basics and pull things of use from both, and come up with something to bring to the community). I think at this point we're confining ourselves too much to the talk page, and most people haven't realized the sea change that's going on behind WP:RECALL. -- nae'blis 01:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a good idea. Archive, then hammer out something to replace whats on the main page now, then report to the Village Pump? rootology (T) 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I support a summary and refactoring, with the caveat that much ofthe top of this page can simply be deleted as it's already in Archive2.  Also, even threads that are active can be archived/summarised as long as everyone understands that's what is going to happen. - brenneman {L} 01:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Active threads may still have active discussion.  WHy would you cut that off?  Karwynn (talk) 14:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you let someone besides Aaron archive it, then? The entire first half of this page, with the exception of the straw poll which should ALSO be archived (as it shows strong opposition to the idea that's being/been revised out of existence), no thread before the "White washing" header has a comment from 16 August or 17 August. Many of the ones below that are also about the old proposal or could be summarized as well, and we'd end up with a much cleaner discussion going forward. Plase assume good faith, Karwynn. If you want, I'll archive the obviously dead threads back into the archive pages (where their edit history still exists) later today. -- nae'blis 14:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who said anything about bad faith?  I'm just saying it was bad judgement to archive active discussions.  I could care less who does it, and I must have been to harsh for you to think I do.  I just don't want active discussion archived by anyone.  That was my only concern.  Archive dead discussion all you want.  Karwynn (talk) 14:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it looked like above the comment about "Why would you cut that off?" shows a misunderstanding between the two of you on what Aaron's intent was (I believe he was being unclear in what he's trying to do). I was just trying to provide a third way... I've got a meeting in a bit, but I'll try to get to the archival soon if no one else does first. -- nae'blis 15:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: And I took out the straw poll (since it applied to the now archived original proposal, at Wikipedia:Admin recall. I'm in the process of setting up the main page to be more reflective of what we've done here. -- nae'blis 18:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Good job!  As to archiving active threads, it helps to understand this if you get the idea that signed comments are "owned" out of the way.  The value in an active discussion is not usually whomever said whatever, but the the ideas that are exchanged.  Also, "archive" doesn't just mean "dump in the obliette," it should also incude a careful and sensitive summary of what's gone before.  If an active thread (meaning one that people are editing) is not adding any extra ideas that it's not such a bad thing to roll it up into a little ball under "FAQ."  That would still be an excellent idea to have in a big box at the top of this page, by the way. - brenneman {L} 02:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive suggestion (done!)

message: I think this should take into account the amount of activity an admin did in the last X period of time.  An admin that was close to inactive should have a lot less leeway than an admin who is very active.  If an admin is on wikipedia working 16 hours a day then they're going to make more mistakes than someone who has just watches 10 or so of their favorite articles.  I also think this proceedure should be able to de-sysop someone for purely being inactive.  I mean really inactive.  You should see WP:PRIMO.  If an admin goes inactive for a long time, then either one of their kids finds the password and goes "oh joy what fun!" or the account gets hacked into by someone.  Also we can relate to what FCYTravis said about some admin work will cause more criticism.  I think if an admin does tons of this they need leeway.  But if an admin does nothing but control their favorite articles, then they need some real scrutiny. Anomo 19:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any given month, perhaps only 10% of all Wikipedia admins are active.  To claim that if an admin goes inactive for a long time, then either one of their kids finds the password and goes "oh joy what fun!" or the account gets hacked into by someone." is to misrepresent the facts. --Tony Sidaway 19:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The second part of this is a non-starter. If you've got evidence that a particular account has been compromised, then bring it up and the situation will be dealt with VERY quickly. Until then, admin bits on inactive accounts aren't likely to be cause for de-sysoping, although any process that is developed could potentially take that into account (which seems to be your first point). Hacking generally requires an emergency response in any case; you don't want to be waiting days or weeks for a result. -- nae'blis 19:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggestion that inactive admins should be desysopped is routinely made, and just as frequently rejected. --Doc 19:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually the percentage is closer to 80% if you include admins who make an edit.  If you only include admins that do at least one admin-specific thing, the percentage is closer to 60%.  The data don't tell much more of a story than that.  There are usually a dozen or so admins that numerically have done most of the blocks, deletes, and protects, but that's in part because they're making a twitch game out of RC instead of taking on tasks that require a good deal more investigation and other legwork.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: We've never had a compromised admin account. If we did, there's a limmited amout of damage it could do before desyopping would occur as an emergency measure. We don't need to generate solutions to non-existing problems. --Doc 21:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active vs. Inactive admins 

message: Where do any of your proposals allow for the admin so targeted to respond to the accusations?  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, my thought was that if the admin can convince arbcom that either there is 'no case to answer', or that he's 'got the message, and will comply in future' then arbcom wouldn't desysop him (or throw him to the lynch mob under the other proposal).--Doc 23:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, where?  User:Zoe|(talk) 23:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume it would be under Statement by admin before the ArbCom under Tony's system, *and* their statement(s) in the Recall RFA in any system. Under the others, I don't think there's any stricture against the admin responding, just like in a normal RFA. Anyone who is going to be "annoyed" by that was probably set on voting against them having the bit, anyway. -- nae'blis 00:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been a set part of every "filing" format since version 1.0, Admin Response, or some variant wording thereof. rootology (T) 05:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  I think this is a case for arbitrator discretion.  Arbitrators are intelligent and can make up their own minds.  The administrator must be notified (as all parties must be notified in any application for arbitration) and is able to respond by writing on the arbitration page, his talk page (if blocked) or in email to an active arbitrator or clerk. The recall vote would of course afford the administrator a further chance to defend his actions as an admin. --Tony Sidaway 00:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: That attitude honestly mystifies me too, but hey. rootology (T) 05:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, please.  Are you people just looking for chances to attack other people?  It was hyperbole, of course.  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Defending one's life

message: * Gatekeeper: B - Have ArbCom review requests and approve a 're-RfA' if appropriate.
* Approval: C - 20% to 25% - Only de-admin if the community overwhelmingly supports it.
So, are we in agreement then that this is most prefered and desired? User files on the ArbCom page, standard 4+ approval to accept, and it becomes a Recall RfA (where if the community overwhelming concensus is to remove, desysop occurs after b'cat review), or at ArbCom discretion it becomes a proper ArbCom review instead? rootology (T) 20:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So, basically, you're proposing the current system, except for the fact that the ArbCom will simply refuse to place people for confirmation votes because of what happened with Stevertigo.  You might as well just drop it; the ArbCom already has the power to desysop people and this proposal adds nothing to that. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh... reading that ArbCom case they decided to let the community decide, and they did. What exactly was bad there? rootology (T) 21:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, the community rebelled - declined to decide - and told arbcom to do its job. --Doc 21:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Uh, where is this? I'm not seeing it from scanning the ArbCom for this or the RfA. All I see is "The community has made it pretty clear that they wish us to deal with the matter. Therefore this case will be reopened." from Teresa, but unless I'm issing the community making it abudantly clear in the RfA, where did this happen? rootology (T) 21:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you're seeing it. Arbcom reopened the case, because the community were not happy that arbcom had sent the matter to RfA. I'm not at all sure that their was any support for a reconfirmation process in that case.--Doc 23:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The actual vote is at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stevertigo1 and speaks for itself.  There was a widespread feeling that the AC was shirking its responsibility to deal with the matter themselves.  That was in the early days of the AC and they weren't as sure of themselves as they are today.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Only nine months ago, actually.  The Arbitration Committee had been running for nearly two years. Other administrators, such as Guanaco, had already been sent for reconfirmation.  The difference was that in the meantime RFA had become a much more rowdy, less reasonable place, and many of us had lost faith in its ability to reflect community consensus. --Tony Sidaway 23:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd be fine with requiring admins to maintain 75% support and I think there's little point in going beneath 50%. Any vote which would be going 70-30 for deadminning someone which would then end with her not being deadminned would probably be seen as silly. Haukur 21:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if you look to the prior discussions, you will find that requiring admins to obtain 75% is unacceptable to many of us. Indeed, you will never get a consensus for that demand. --Doc 23:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: In general, admins end up making enemies in the course of enforcing decisions and also tend to incur the enmity of those users who dislike admins as a group.  A look at any of the RfB results can show how this happens.  The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: So, are we in agreement then that this is most prefered and desired?.  Um, no.  We are not even in agreement that there is a need for a change in process.  User:Zoe|(talk) 22:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, there is no agreement here. --Doc 23:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Ditto. Though I applaud the efforts to compromise on this policy, it's still not better than leaving it to ArbCom as it is now. Fagstein 06:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status now 

message: Should a strong reason for Admin recall not be Admins who violate the Protection Policy ? The policy clearly states Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved; violating such a clear rule like this should, in my opinion, be a reason for Administrator Recall.
This is because page protections are designed to be a "cool-down" period for pages undergoing fierce debate - therefore Admins who do so double the problem and harm Wikipedia as a whole.
Anthony 13:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Egregiously violating the protection policy is a good reason for arbitration.  --Tony Sidaway 13:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree with Tony. Admins also involved in disputes of any sort on a given page shouldn't protect them, nor should pages that are protected be edited in general. rootology (T) 17:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That isn't what our protection policy says.  --Tony Sidaway 17:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was paraphrasing. The policy says, "Admins should not protect pages in which they are involved," and "Administrators should be cautious about editing protected pages and do so in accordance with consensus and any specific guidelines on the subject. In most cases, administrators should first raise the issue on the relevant talk page, unless a case of obvious trolling and/or revert warring, or blatantly unsuitable content." I was oversimplifying. They should (based on this) get someone else to protect if they are involved in a dispute or involved with the page, inlcluding "making substantive edits to the page (fixing vandalism does not count), or expressing opinions about the article on the talk page before the protection." rootology (T) 17:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Administrators are frequently called upon to perform actions concerning users, articles and other pages, and some editors may disagree with their actions.  Thus they become drawn into disputes.  "In which they are involved" should be interpreted very strictly to mean something like "in which they have made recent content edits or expressed strong opinions on content on the talk page". An overbroad interpretation would make it impossible for anyone who has monitored a page to perform any protection action on it. --Tony Sidaway 17:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection Policy 

message: I have removed the following section because it doesn't make any sense.
: Arbitrators or any current/future "higher than administrator" users (currently bureaucrats) may be called in this fashion for administrative recall, but their removal should it reach completion must be approved by Jimbo, or an official action as determined by and seen fit by them. Recall of other administrators, including anyone those with additional privileges/duties such as CheckUser and Oversight, will be as per this policy, and the final RfA decision will be binding with respect to their sysop privileges only.
There are no ranks on Wikipedia.  --Tony Sidaway 17:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know, and I kept fiddling with that section to get it to make sense to me. There are, however, privileges and duties that don't have anything to do directly with the sysop bit, which is what this proposal is about. It's probably worth mentioning somehow that it wouldn't strip ArbCom status, for example. -- nae'blis 18:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ranks above administrator

message: If there is not screaming I'm going to smoosh everything on the main page into one proposal and we can work from that baseline.  
I don't think I'd be too far wrong in that some of the people contributing to this page feel that no amount of tweaking will ever make this workable.  On the other hand, there exists a cadre who believes that it will be acceptable to the larger community.  What's the best way to proceed, attempting to respect objectors while still moving forward towards a viewing by a larger audience?
brenneman {L} 07:03, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From experience of other policy proposals. When you've got as much initial opposition as you've got here, and as much basic disagreement between proponents, then you are dead in the water. New policies only seem to get consensus when, at the outset, most people are saying 'hey, that's great, why didn't we think of that before'. You can proceed to a poll if you want, but I'd say it would be a WP:SNOW. But maybe it's the best way of drawing a line under this. --Doc 08:05, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it would help to "smoosh" these very different proposals into one, but do give it a go if you like.  In my own view, the recent desysopping of dbiv demonstrates that the arbitration committee is willing and able to perform its function in this regard.  --Tony Sidaway 22:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Some of the old CSD-expansion proposals had a "if X is approved, this one is trumped". I'm not sure if that would help achieve parallel proposals here without a smooshihg, which I agree wouldn't be likely to be helpful. -- nae'blis 22:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muddle 

message: All the recall proposals I've seen have the flaw that thery are subject to tyranny of the masses where an admin is unpopular, but has done nothing that is actually wrong.
Removing an administrator should require actual abuse by that administrator, either long term or short term. We do need to look at what constitutes enough abuse to desysop, and probably at guidelines for emergency desysopping at some point, but any recall process that takes opinion into the slightest of consideration is a problem. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 01:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyranny of the masses 

message: WP:RFC, WP:RFAR and unilateral actions by Jimbo and the arbcom already provide methods for dealing with out-of-line admins. Notable offenders are constantly dealt with through these processes. Is there such a backlog at these existing processes of surly, reprobate admins awaiting community censure that a new process and policy, fraught with yet to unidentified risks and uncertainties, is  required? No.
Despite the single proposed safeguard of a "gatekeeper function" and the mentioned but not elucidated prohibitions on "repeated recalls," grudge holders will still find ways to game this system to settle old scores, just as they have every other system here; and a system for which no real and clear need has been established. I see no need for this process, and so reason to support it. FeloniousMonk 04:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, wasn't someone just desysoped for abuse of Wiki policy?  Seems to me the system works.  Of course, I don't hold any grudges against any admins, so I might not be the best judge of this. •Jim62sch• 20:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The one rare case doesn't explain the dozen that slip by. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? Specifically, which dozen would that be? I still have seen no evidence presented that there is a genuine need for this. FeloniousMonk 21:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And tip my hand?  Never.  If it isn't obvious, though, it raises a number of other questions. --badlydrawnjeff talk 21:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Which particular case are we talking about?  I know of at least two very recent desysoppings, so they're not exactly rare. --Tony Sidaway 02:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I must've missed one, then.  So then it does appear that the system is working. (The one I was refering to was the admin who offered to post deleted (oersonal?) info at another websdite -- I forget the admin's name, sorry). •Jim62sch• 09:58, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's the pressing need for this process/policy?