Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/RfC

Late?

"IT IS EXPECTED TO BECOME A LIVE RfC ON OR ABOUT 30th January 2010." Is it late? --Apoc2400 (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is late as the proposal remains under discussion. I will change the date. Ben Mac Dui 14:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Format of the RfC

It appears that this page was copy & paste moved, shortly after I made a number of suggested changes accompanied by detailed explanation ([1],[2],[3],[4],[5]), but immediately after all of my changes were reverted: [6]. This sort of problem is why I was so concerned about the format of the poll, and explicitly raised this matter earlier: Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC#suggested RfC polling page. I hoped that we were on the same figurative page there. I'll try to hit the high points again.

The introduction. I use 'introduction' here to describe the block of text which heads the page. This is the first thing that people will see when they come to the poll. It should be as neutral, unambiguous, and unbaised as we can possibly achieve. It is also something that we should be able achieve a consensus on before the vote goes live — which probably means it needs to be short and to the point. (Just the facts, ma'am.) Since Tryptofish won't let any edits I make stand, I'll give you some text here.

This poll concerns a proposal to implement a new mechanism for removing administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.

You can read the proposed new policy at Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship.

The outcome of this poll will determine whether or not this proposal becomes Wikipedia policy. The polling period begins at time and date and ends time and date plus 30 days.

It's short, it's to the point, it explains the purpose of the page, it provides an unpiped link directly to the proposal being voted on.

The FAQ. The FAQ is written by editors who strongly endorse CDA. That's fine; they should have the opportunity to present their arguments in favor of the process. I see no problem with presenting those arguments in the 'Discussion' section of the poll however and wherever the proposal's proponents feel is suitable. However, the FAQ does not belong in the introduction. That implies a degree of broad acceptance of the FAQ's structure and conclusions which isn't justified. The entire first page of the 'Discussion' will apparently be a presentation of the pro-CDA viewpoint; the introduction should be neutral. When I edited the poll page, I moved the link to the FAQ into the 'See also' right under the 'Background' header. If the proponents prefer to put it somewhere else in the 'Discussion', that's good too.

The nutshell. The nutshell is unnecessary. The introduction is already brief and to the point, and explains clearly what the poll is about; there's no need to add in a two-sentence summary of the preceding four-sentence section. The subsequent content of the 'discussion' section gives the proposal's proponents ample time and space to fully elaborate on what they see as the merits and justification of the proposed process. In any event, the nutshell here adds to confusion instead of removing it. It draws a potentially confusing parallel between the term 'Admin Recall' (which has historically been used on Wikipedia to refer to a series of individually-established, voluntary criteria and processes) and CDA, which is this new, compulsory, proposed process. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Since Tryptofish won't let..." Oh, my. Please see what I said at User talk:Tryptofish#RfC format. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This poll isn't a private document, to be prepared by the proponents of the proposal only. You're attempting to conduct a scrupulously neutral, unbiased, inclusive, open poll of as much of the Wikipedia community as possible. There is a moral obligation that the introduction to this poll – describing its purpose and parameters, nothing more – be as fair, unambiguous, and unslanted as we can possibly make it. You'll notice that I haven't objected to the poll Discussion section opening with as many arguments and justfications as you wish, but the intro text, above the fold, should be utterly above reproach or criticism. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closure. The current text reads "When the debate here is concluded, it will be closed in the usual way.". What does that mean? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs. Ben Mac Dui 10:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended the second sentence per your suggestion. I agree about the nutshell in that it has been largely superceded by the revised introduction. However I don't think it is doing any real harm. I'm not sure about the FAQ - I think it would get lost if placed lower down and the caveat is pretty clear. It is hard to imagine that counter-arguments are not going to be offered prominently on the RfC page itself when the discussion gets going. Ben Mac Dui 11:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My view of 'nutshell' statements and the nutshell template is that they should only be used to provide short, consensus-guided summaries of pages (usually policies and guidelines). In this case, that purpose is served by the introductory material in the header section. I am, however, concerned by both the header and the nutshell wording about the purpose of this page; I'll comment further on that in the next section, since that seems to be where it's going. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I no longer see much purpose for the nutshell. I was retaining it previously only because I had understood MacDui to tell me that he wanted, at that time, to retain the contents of what is now that section of the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity

This discussion could be publicized in the following locations:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator Done Jusdafax 10:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall Done Jusdafax 09:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard Done Jusdafax 01:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard Done Jusdafax 01:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions Done Lyc. cooperi (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CENT Done (Don't know by whom or when)
Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)
Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Done Jusdafax 02:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship Done Jusdafax 02:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Individually to all editors who have participated in the process.(!)
User talk:Jimbo Wales Done Jusdafax 01:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also: To my surprise a notification regarding this RfC has has gone up on the watchlist page! I cannot claim any direct credit for this huge blast of publicity. Jusdafax 09:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was I who did the watchlist notice, the CENT listing, and Village Pump Proposals. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Start/Re-start

I'm having to revert these while writing out an rfc/u. Cannot we sit down and talk about this? It is madness. Matt Lewis (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Madness it is, but as the number of individuals both awake and watching these pages is probably very small, (for reasons I imagine are obvious) and some may actively oppose the whole concept I am not sure how any kind of well developed "consensus" can be contrived unless a whole new cadre of individuals, (with of course a whole new set of suggestions and tweaks) appears. Furthermore adding "needs to be discussed" to items that, in my opinion have been discussed to death and without any positive suggestion, is pretty pointless. However, rather engaging in a childish series of reverts here is my suggestion. I propose that this RfC goes live today, using this version by Tryptofish at 16:30, 6 February 2010, plus the capitalised "Please do not amend during the RFC per this edit or similar. To repeat what I have said several times already, I personally have no interest in further long discussions. It is the consensus of the community regarding the principle that will make the difference, not whether the handful of editors involved can (ever) agree on the precise wording required. Ben Mac Dui 14:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've never understood your "weariness" MAcDui, and these things have not been "discussed to death" imo at all. Changing tack from honing the proposal to floating the idea to the community is not one I agree with. It is neither fish nor foul. I'm simply into discussing more - and people are discussing matters. I'm giving all the time to CDA that I have. People like TenOfUs and Hammersoft, though still highly critical, are engaging more now. Why not stick with it? So often I've seen things prematurely pushed out fail dismally on Wikipedia. Matt Lewis (talk) 14:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to say this briefly. I agree with MacDui. I also think that, no matter how much longer we continue to discuss this, Matt will always have one more issue that just has to be discussed before starting the RfC, and the RfC will never start. But I will refrain from edit warring over this. I am just going to step back and see what happens. I remain confident that the community, as a whole, would like to see this proposal brought forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to point out that you have no evidence for saying that I'm always going to have "one more extra thing". I did try and address a new problem with a new idea recently (more - as promised - later), but all the issues I've personally been working on have been there for a while. Things have been cropping up, no-one can really deny that. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before you go live, I want to know why it is that the link to the FAQ, written by and for the proposal's proponents, shouldn't go with the rest of their arguments in favor of the proposal. Tryptofish had resisted any attempt to move it to the 'Discussion' section, but I'd like to hear from someone else on the matter. The header on this page is for neutral, factual information about the format and specifications of the voting process; it shouldn't be part of the campaigning either direction.

(edit conflict) This is one of the many things that I don't feel strongly about. If you think it would be better positioned after "Closure" and above "Poll" that' is fine by me. Ben Mac Dui 15:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As well, there hasn't been any sound answer to the question of how a decision is made upon closure of this RfC. Ben MacDui referred me above to Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Ending RfCs, but that doesn't actually contain any information about making a decision. (Probably because RfC isn't usually used as a method for carrying out a vote.) That link simply notes the standard timelines for the RfC bot. How is this vote going to be closed? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I'm assuming you mean "what happens when the discussion is closed". The !votes would be counted and as per the previous three stages a short summary arrived at. There are several possible outcomes, the simplest of which are either <50% support or overwhelming support. In the former case the process is closed with no further action. In the latter, the proposal would then go to the 'crats and Jimmy Wales for review. One imagines in such a case they would review it with a view to implementing it, but who can say for sure? If, as is quite probable there is some unclarity in the outcome - a very small majority in favour, an apparent majority in favour of the general principle but with significant numbers only offering support subject to some change to the wording or numbers etc., then it gets more complicated. A discussion would no doubt ensue with those in support arguing for a way to move onto the next stage. In such a circumstance it is clear that the weaker the support the less likely that the review would be favourable. Hope that is helpful. Ben Mac Dui 15:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC) PS This is just a personal opinion but in my view unless there is a clear majority in favour (without caveats) I can't see it being implemented.[reply]

We'll deal with a few things (inc the FAQ), don't worry. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose the idea to start now, not so much due to proposal issues but because the format of this page hasn't really been vetted by a broader community or seen a significant number of eyes, or been widely linked (4 incoming links at this time seems awfully low). Christopher Parham (talk) 15:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher the wording has been on display both here and at WP:CDADR in a slightly earlier form since late November. I have no idea how many people have actually looked at it but it would have been available to all those who participated at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC/Archive 1 and after. What is it in practical terms, that you think needs to be done? Ben Mac Dui 16:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I think Christopher Parham may be concerned about the format of the poll page, rather than the format of the CDA proposal itself — is that correct? The format and structure of the poll were only revisited fairly recently on one of the myriad talk pages. Moreover, there seems to be quite a bit of confusion about the purpose of this poll, even now. Is this meant to be a proper vote on whether or not to accept this policy proposal, or is this just another request for comment that happens to contain a straw poll section?

That is my assumption too, and my comments stand. Ben Mac Dui 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also still the issue of what happens should this proposal manage to garner a middling level of support (45 - 65%) instead of the clear consensus which is usually required to make policy on Wikipedia. Finally, there is the question of what happens after the vote, if the proponents feel that they can generate an 'acceptable' proposal after a failure in the vote. Do we vote again? At this point, there's been more than four months of discussion to generate a document that is substantially identical to the one put forward by Uncle G in early October last year. How much more work is necessary, and how many bites at the apples will be required? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can only agree about the last point. As to the first, if I knew what the result was going to be I would tell you what I think should happen next. As I said above anything less than 50% means the process ends. My view is that anything much less than 65% would make it hard to argue that taking it forward was useful, but there may be all kinds of complications. Re an " 'acceptable' proposal after a failure in the vote" what I mean is if 40% say yes, 40% say yes, but with a change of wording - (say) the closure wording from RfA only, and 20% say no. That is an overwhelming yes but with a caveat that would have to be discussed and worked on. Ben Mac Dui 19:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the major contributors to preparing this proposal (the CDA/Rfc) are in disagreement (as is currently the case), it wouldn't be the best course of action (IMHO) to present the proposal to the community, at this time. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that, actually, and I'm going to try to step back and get out of the way for a while. But there is something more needed, beyond what GoodDay just said: editors who want to see a successful proposal need to step up and make it happen, not simply wait for others to do it for them. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The meta-discussion is about the value of an essentially elitist system of perhaps over-worked but informed and trusted individuals (ArbCom) versus a populist system that could work more quickly and deal with a wider range of issues. These are complex issues but at present the evidence of this process is beginning to suggest that the latter is too deeply mired in what some of my friends might call performative contradiction to be effective. Ben Mac Dui 19:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are not perfoming a CDA, we are still developing it. WP:CONSENSUS is how Wikipedia moves forward, and that will apply for CDA in practice, and also of course for it's development. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat: editors who want to see a successful proposal need to step up and make it happen, not simply wait for others to do it for them. It's not enough to have the same small group re-discussing the same things over and over. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest all of the above be archived, and start the talk page fresh

This talk page, which currently only documents the reverted attempt to start an RfC on Cda in early February 2010, should be archived on the grounds that is both confusing to first time visitors, and obsolete. Start the talk page fresh! It is useful for historical value, however, and an archive link should be available at the top of the page. I hesitate to do so myself, for a number of reasons. Jusdafax 23:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me draw attention to the Discussion section that is on the poll page itself. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No dispute from me to your replacing the content if you feel its still of value, although I do think most of it has been obviated by events (specifically the RFC actually beginning). I do think the publicity checklist should be given some prominence so the boxes get ticked off as soon as possible. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you for that. I felt a little badly about reverting you that way, but things were happening awfully fast. In any case, I would encourage anyone who wishes, to make use of the discussion section on the main page. Prior to starting this, there was a lot of discussion between me and TenOfAllTrades, who felt strongly that the discussion should be formatted that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nitpicking

I've already asked Tryptofish about this. Why are people starting their voting posts with support, oppose & neutral? Your votes are already in their 'Support', 'Oppose' & 'Neutral' sections, thus no need to put it in your posts. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just did it out of habit...it does make it easier to see it in bold if you are quickly scrolling through a large page of votes quickly. And sometimes people use it to add emphasis, like strongly oppose. It's not a problem, surely? ^OohBunnies!...speak 00:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose not, as the numberings are there. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This trend can be observed in almost every !vote ever held on Wikipedia. Good luck in trying to eradicate it! AGK 01:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ombox?

"It's such a well-written page that will get you up to speed" — Someone should re-word the ombox, which doesn't lend much credence to anything being well-written at all. – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 02:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. What an awkward sentence, garbled and foolishly self-congratulatory at the same time. I'd change it myself, but I'm too close to this. Jusdafax 05:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish has removed it, which is surely for the best. — Gavia immer (talk) 05:42, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was utterly ridiculous. --Tryptofish (talk) 05:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit [7] noted on the poll page, under "Expression of concern". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Publicity, another request for archiving the early Feb. material, and bureaucrats

Now that Cda has opened in RfC, I have taken the liberty of notifying various pages, per the 'Publicity' list, for sake of a job well done. (I am co-operating despite strong reservations I have expressed elsewhere.) I have checked off the pages I've notified, but work remains to be completed. I used the most neutral wording I could, though I did mention the original 'Uncle G version' at least twice, on the Jimbo page and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall. Further publicity work is needed including notifying those individual editors who have worked or voted on the Cda or Admin Project. That's a lot of notifications.

Also, I would like once again to ask for archiving of the obsolete and stale material on this page. It is confusing, in my view, to first time visitors, and just isn't needed here. Keep the new stuff and the 'Publicity' section, as was done earlier today. It's just common sense.

Finally, I see at least one (not unexpected) Bureaucrat has come out against Cda in the !vote, and another is neutral. I have said since my very first Cda !vote for what was then 'Option 4' that if the 'crats were to line up against this, that I would have grave doubts indeed about my support, and in fact I have yet to !vote myself. If four or five more 'crats take a hard line on Cda then in my view the effort is toast. A close watch will have to be kept on how they !vote, or don't. Not all 'crats identify themselves as such, as in the case of the one that voted 'neutral'. Jusdafax 07:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jusda, about your second bullet point: During the time that you were not watching the discussion closely, there was an extended discussion between me and TenOfAllTrades, who feels very strongly that there needs to be the discussion section on the poll page itself, above the poll. I have been supporting him on that, in the spirit of fair play. That being the case, I think that it could be a mess to have two discussions, one there and one here. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tally

Is there any reason not to add a tally (manually-updated or automatic) to the top of the the Poll section?--~TPW (trade passing words?) TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft 13:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be a 'request for comment' (at least to some degree). We shouldn't put undue stress on the running vote tally imo. People should be really encouraged to read the actual requested comments before voting (rather than just the pre-written stuff). Matt Lewis (talk) 14:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of pre-written blurb, I've ammended the so-called "FAQ" to include the Criticisms section, which should never have been deleted in the first place. It's less of a manifesto now. I've also made it clear that it wasn't just written by supporters (a problematic fix I'm afraid ever since I changed my opinion on the viability of CDA). Matt Lewis (talk) 14:17, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fair enough - I guess I get thrown when I see voting, no matter what you call it.--~TPW (trade passing words?) TPW is the editor formerly known as otherlleft 20:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expression of concern

Moved from Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC at 00:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:07, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to note that an editor who opposes this proposal has been repeatedly altering the FAQ page. I consider this to be inappropriate, and I am sure that, for example, TenOfAllTrades would not have liked it if supporters were to have altered his comments here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My ears are burning. Why invoke my name here? Matt Lewis isn't my pet, and his actions are not my responsibility. (Indeed, he's been abusive and threatening towards me for months – with your tacit encouragement, Tryptofish – so I'm not even in a position to intervene effectively with him.) Perhaps you should file a request for page protection or use one of the other avenues of dispute resolution open to you? I would suggest to Matt that if there are points he wishes to make, that he can make them on this page under his own name — as everyone else is doing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:00, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he certainly isn't my pet either, so please don't say that stuff implying my complicity. Your concluding point, that he should make his points here like everyone else, is my point as well. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your OTT anger has just never let-up TenofAlltrades - it is constant unrelenting furious anger, and has really got me down at points. You are so bad that if we got this crazy CDA, if you are ever even remotely like this elsewhere on Wikipedia, someone somewhere is sure to start one on you. You have just not stopped your negative condescending and quite bitter comments! So I react badly at times - what in God's name do you expect someone to do? You are the people who made me realise CDA cannot work - not by your aguments, but because you are an admin who behaves like a child. Admin like you at a CDA would be a nightmare. I'm the only person working on CDA who's really listened to and addressed your concerns, and I notice some of my arguments in your above leading sections on CDA too, so I can't be all that bad can I? Matt Lewis (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Leave TenOfAllTrades alone and just get back to your business. Cityscape4 (talk) 05:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no changes made to the Rfc, once the voting has begun (fixing spelling mistakes are the exception). GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be consensus, then, to change the FAQ back to what it was before the changes? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what the FAQ was when the Polling began, but that's how it should be. Things shouldn't be changed during polling. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I think too. The change was the addition of arguments against the proposal, which would be entirely appropriate here, but not there. I'll wait a bit longer for other editors to comment, and if there are no objections, I'd like to change it back. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

About a month ago now, I included much-needed a "What are the Criticisms of CDA?" section into the 'FAQ' page (a page I never supported btw, even when I supported CDA). Tryptofish removed it, and suggested that it was playing into the opponents hands. I said I would replace it before this RfC (often when TenofAllTrades criticised the FAQ's bias, as he did on occasion) but I always said I would concentrate on the proposal first, and all the outstanding issues like the canvassing problems. No one can deny that I've not been working solidly on that, before finally realising that CDA cannot work.

The RfC started without any notice at all (hmm), so I didn't get a chance to put the Criticism section back in beforehand. So I've put back it in now (with a couple of points added). I can't see any problems myself - it doesn't criticise the faults of the proposal, only the criticism that have been raised over CDA as an idea. Tryptofish always knew my intentions for sure - I reminded him in several places over the past month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Lewis (talk • contribs) 20:45, 23 February 2010

Seeing as we are now discussing this here - I'm relatively happy with the solution of open-archiving the 8. Q. What have been the criticisms of CDA as an idea (ie the non-technical criticisms)?) section, as I did support CDA when I contributed to the other parts (and to this one originally, but I won't qibble). What if people have issues with it though? They can put them to Talk I guess - I'll add that to the archive, and you can delete my counter-note at the top of the page (along with your own note of course). I wish we could come to these solutions without all the drama in between. Matt Lewis (talk) 20:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "ombox"

Something else: looking back over the edit history, I find that this edit [8] was made to this page by another editor who opposes the proposal, seemingly as a prank. This kind of thing is very disappointing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prank? If placed by an opposing editor, it seems a bit beyond that. Messing with a high profile RfC in that manner should be looked into further. Jusdafax 20:58, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was trying to word it mildly, but I agree that it is really very unfair. (The person is an administrator, ironically.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't caught the greater irony yet though Tryptofish: it is the behaviour of these wayward admin (CDA is a magnet for them) that will render CDA useless. There are too many loose cannons with little respect for policy (not evil, just loose), and there is no appetite on Wikipedia to call them up on anything but the most serious crimes. They cannot be dealt with by Canvassing rules, or anything really. There is no way the Crats wll want to deal with their behaviour at something as public and important as a CDA. This RfC could poll 70% in support and I still couldn't see them taking up something so potentially damaging to Wikipedia. Not when we have RfC/u/arb too.

I think that this RfC is already a success in terms of the vote. Enough serious Wikipedians have turned up to vote upon a reasonably professional – if very imperfect - proposal (only just mind – it was inches from being not good enough). That means the Admin Recall process that has gathered momentum since last year cannot be fully debunked (despite some attempts, it has clearly survived ridicule), and thus momentum will not be lost for future developments after this RfC is over.

This CDA proposal will prove that enough people seriously want change, and it is becoming clear that the most sensible place for change is where it all begins, at RfA. Instead of 'patching up' the crazy award of unlimited-term Adminship with forms of 'admin recall' like CDA, we should deal with the “job for life” directly (and look at admin review processes too), and then look again at admin recall at a more sensible time in the future. We may find then that the current RfC/u arbcom suffices. I think this RfC will be a crucial step towards moving to the heart of the problem: RfA and what it provides.

It's also good that this RfC lasts a whole month, as it gives people a break before deciding where to go next. Matt Lewis (talk) 00:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Matt. I don't agree with everything you said, but I agree with quite a bit of it. Anyway, my own immediate concern is to draw attention to what that one administrator, an individual and not a representative of any group, did, especially if any users who came here during the few hours that the "ombox" was visible were influenced by it, and might want to understand it better. It had the unfortunate (and, I think, mean-spirited) effect of making it look like supporters of the proposal are illiterate and unintelligent. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked opposing admin 'harej' for an explanation here ('Oppose #21, below) and on their talk page. Jusdafax 06:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: I find myself unsatisfied with harej's interesting attempt to explain this on their talk page, and have asked that the discussion be moved here. I'm afraid I'm at my limit of 'Assume good faith', and request other eyes on this. Jusdafax 23:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented there (User talk:harej). Not to paint all administrators with a single brush, but maybe some opposers might want to be more circumspect about calling the community as a whole a "mob" or such. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would Harej's addition have been a source of complaint if the English had been without reproach? Also, why do you assume that the error would be attributed to the proponents? I would image that many people come to this page to vote assuming the page was set up by neutrals.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's rather obvious if one reads the diff at the top of this thread. I trust that interested editors will read it and assess for yourselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it, thanks. Does Harej have a history of opposition to this proposal? Is there some reason for assuming bad faith on his part? Frankly, if it was an intentional attempt to nail you, it was pretty pathetic. I'm not buying it. Are you trying to be perceived as victims, is that how it is?--Wehwalt (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose number 21. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I said history of opposition, he's allowed to vote as are we all. I would note that had he excluded the word "such", it would be perfectly proper English. The advice is good in any case, people should read the page. So you didn't answer my question, was there a history of opposition on his part? Some basis for bad faith. Personally, I have my senior moments. Doesn't mean I'm out to get people.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't keep track of every editor's history. I'm unaware of a history of opposition and I'm unaware of a history of incivility. I'm aware of [9] followed directly by [10], and now [11]. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I appreciate it. Look, this is a tough time, and this proposal will most likely fail, but it isn't personal and please don't regard it that way. I don't think Harej was out to get you here. I don't know him, we've had no interaction on WP that I know of and I'm not from the "thin blue line" school of adminship. His statement on his talk page was unfortunate, I will grant you. But if he was trying to torpedo the proposal he chose such a silly and unlikely means of accomplishing it (how long would the ombox stay there) that I'm not buying it. You are entitled to your own views of course, but I don't see hostile intent.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you too. I do understand that. But there were comments at the time that the ombox was confusing users coming to this page. Users said that. I think it created a misleading appearance. Whether it influenced any !votes, I don't know. Whether this discussion is going to influence any !votes, I don't know. I just think it should be in the open. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Given that harej's talkpage comment re: this 'ombox issue' gives the 'f.u.' finger to me and wikipedia as a whole, which Wehwalt at least now acknowledges to be "unfortunate", I'm curious...

...what it would take to even give this admin 'harej a slap on the wrist, much less meaningful corrective action?
Indeed, is there even one admin reading this who sees the need to at least tell admin harej that this behaviour is, at best, unacceptable at any time but especially in a high-profile RfC that is regard to taking the buttons away from abusive admins?
And is the deep irony lost on admins that we have a concrete example, right here in this RfC of an abusive admin that this Cda, as awkward as it is, would allow the community to correct regarding harej's type of cavalier disregard of basic civility in the relationship between admin and non-admin?
Further, if Cda was in place as a mechanism, would this type of abuse not be curbed by the mere fact of Cda existing?

I suggest to the entire Wikipedia administrator community that these questions be pondered honestly, even as your ranks turn out to !vote down even this very modest attempt at community reform, which does not even require close to a majority vote to keep the admin buttons. Does not even one admin !voting against this feel a twinge of shame at this time? And don't you think the whole affair hardly reflects well on the admin community?

And to make myself clear: most admins are good people. It is the few, but clearly existing bad apples that are why this RfC is being held. Thanks for your consideration, Jusdafax 01:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you attempted any other steps of dispute resolution? I don't see anything in your contributions to suggest that you have made any good-faith efforts to resolve the problem (snarky comments [12] on Harej's talk page don't count). In other words — you haven't demonstrated that we need CDA (or any variant thereof) if you haven't been able to show that a genuine and honest effort to use existing processes won't work. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that they've dramatically shown us why we should not pass this proposal. I have no doubt that were the option available, Jusdafax and Tryptofish would be trying to attract eight others to a torchlight procession, even without Harej's dropping the f-bomb on his talk page, because of a hideous assumption of bad faith on their part. Not good.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, now who's assuming bad faith? Will you be rebuked by an admin for doing so?' See the problem here? Jusdafax 14:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just said that this was an instance of an abusive admin that CDA would allow the community to correct - it seems a fair presumption that you'd be attempting to initiate one. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt: some olive branch! "Tryptofish would be trying to attract eight others to a torchlight procession"? I'm letting Jusdafax speak for himself and only speaking for myself here, but that is an immense leap of speculation as to what goes on in my mind. I have long insisted during the development of this proposal that it specify rigorous requirements of prior attempts to work things out with the administrator before any CDA nomination would even be contemplated. In no way would what has happened here justify a CDA that I could support. If, hypothetically, Jusdafax and eight other users were to nominate harej for a CDA based solely upon what I am aware of here, I would end up !voting to oppose that CDA. But Wehwalt, your efforts to impugn my integrity because I have drawn attention to things that I think are not playing fair in this RfC tend to confirm the worst fears of some of the supporters of this proposal, that there are a few administrators who will do anything to close ranks and attack anyone who questions one of their own. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is what it is, the fact that one uninvolved editor has joined in to agree at least as far as Jusdafax is concerned speaks volumes. You've done little to establish a separate position from Jusdafax (other than post hoc rationalizations) and your characterization of what certainly aren't as "attacks" brings to mind the image of a soccer player who is quite willing to dish it out, but if he's touched, he's rolling on the ground in apparent agony, hoping the ref will reach into his pocket and bring out a card. Harej could have been an nonadmin, he happens to be an admin. As I've said I don't know him. I'd still feel that your response to him was unfair and unwarranted. Good luck finding a history of me supporting a "thin blue line", I call them as I see them, and I've paid for doing that from time to time. Best,--Wehwalt (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you think that an uninvolved editor speaking specifically to Jusdafax, and not to me, speaks volumes about me? It appears that you are not interested in modifying your description of me as leading a torchlight procession, even in the face of what I said about how I would oppose the use of CDA in such an instance. I think what I've actually said, as opposed to words you try to place in my mouth, is clearly, to an objective observer, very fair. And an objective observer can also judge the "ombox" that concerned me. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Observations re Casliber's comment

Moved from Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC at 19:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(In relation to oppose 34)

Why is the community is reluctant to make such requests [desysops — Coren] to ArbCom? I think it's an interesting observation, and I'd like to understand it better. --Tryptofish(talk) 23:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I were to venture a guess, I would say that ArbCom's traditional willingness to look at the behavior of all parties when a case request is filed is probably a significant factor (since the filing parties are often involved in a direct personal dispute with the admin in question). When the matter is brought by uninvolved members of the community, ArbCom is much more likely to handle the matter by summary motion instead — especially if the facts themselves are not disputed — but that's a fairly recent development in the procedure and the community is only recently warming up to it. — Coren ^(talk) 01:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is very interesting to me, and I'd like to pursue it further. Please understand that I'm not finding fault with ArbCom in any of this, but rather, exploring what I think may be good ideas to come out of this poll. If I understand Casliber correctly, he is talking about situations where there might have been good and valid reasons to bring the administrator in question before ArbCom, and, thus, ArbCom would have been quite happy to act. In contrast, I think Coren is talking about situations where the accusers are either misguided or have an ulterior agenda. I agree, and I think pretty much everyone would agree, with Coren that those are cases where the problem lies with the accusers and not the accused. ArbCom is right to look at that. But Casliber's point seems to be about editors who have acted in good faith and who have legitimate concerns, and yet who seem, somehow, to feel inhibited from approaching ArbCom even if ArbCom would have welcomed that approach. I've taught college courses long enough to know that, when something like that happens, there's a problem with mixed signals. Rather than just blaming this on the community, is this a signal of somewhere that ArbCom could do something better? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a matter of perception. Editors, rightly or undeservedly, felt that bringing any admin behavior to ArbCom would result in an extended ordeal that could very well end up having them sanctioned. Because there were basically no mechanisms for a swift resolution without a protracted "full" arbitration case until fairly recently, that perception ended up being accurate enough to discourage filing — even if it was from an editor acting entirely in good faith.

That, and the common misperception that admins are untouchable in practice because of cabals or cliques, probably did more to protect ill-behaved administrator than any genuine reluctance from the Committee to take the bit away. — Coren ^(talk) 01:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Coren sums it up well - I was going to post something along those lines above. Before I joined the arbitration committee, my impression was that there was a reluctance to review admin conduct (looking back this may have in fact been as much about editor reluctance to notify arbcom as well...). Since then, I have tried to remind the community at large just about as often as I could that the arbitration committee is available to review admin conduct - mainly with the hope that there would be greater fluidity at RfA. My gut feeling is that a few (but not many) editors (based on the greenness of experience and what they bring to RfA) are being given a chance with the mop that might not have been two years ago, but I could be completely wrong about this. Anyway, I have seen large numbers of complaints about admin conduct about where no further action has taken place. Hence I can only surmise this is where the breakdown is occurring. I also believe that the existence of community deadminship will not result in RfA being any easier. Before I joined arbcom, I told all and sundry I'd continue writing articles and participating in community activities - I hate the idea of the committee as shadowy figures who do little else but arbitrate. I get the impression that many of the committee are more visible now (though my lack of involvement in these matters before late 2008 may colour my view....) Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the best points made by Ten is that this proposal basically gives you a free shot at an admin. If he escapes you are no worse of and can try it again at your convenience. If you take an admin to ArbCom, you are going to find yourself under a microscope as well as him. Note also the disadvantages in responding by the admin that have been pointed out in this proposal. They don't apply in an ArbCom case. --Wehwalt (talk) 01:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, I don't buy the argument that a bad-faith nomination at CDA lets the nominators off scott-free. They would be putting themselves in a very public place, and there would be plenty of opportunity for the administrator's defenders to bring them to the appropriate noticeboard. As I read the oppose comments, it actually occurs to me that bad-faith nominators might end up revealing themselves as the trolls or whatever they are, once and for all, if they make the mistake of starting a bad CDA. In fact, you are (unintentionally) underscoring the kind of misperception that Casliber is trying to correct, I think.

Anyway, thank you Casliber and Coren for your insights here. I continue to find this very helpful to discuss. I want to explore this further. For now, let me please ask this: In the second part of my support !vote number 1, just below, I raise the issue of non-"bright-line" misbehavior. Do you feel that ArbCom is becoming able to work with cases like that? --Tryptofish (talk) 02:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be called "revenge" "escalation" and "battlefield mentality" if the admin's friends sought to brink the noms to account elsewhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But if they were right to bring them to account, that would just be name-calling. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, is arbcom able to judge on 'non-brightline' cases? Yes I believe so and I'd say that to me it seemed easier to review and desysop an admin than ban an editor for a significant hsitory of -just-under-the-radar behaviour. In fact, many cases involve examining repeated behaviour over time and judging or grading sanctions often involves looking at past conduct, both before and after warnings etc. in some detail. I can think of several cases rightaway where former conduct has been considered. I'd rather not dredge up specifics here, but I invite folks to review past arbcom cases where an editor may have several findings of fact and often quite a detailed discussion of remedies and alternatives. There is nothing to say that this level of discussion cannot take place in hte process of summarily voting a motion, or alternatively a well-circumscribed case which is a review of admin tools. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is proving to be a very productive line of discussion. (And, of course, I agree, no reason to name names.) So, if it's the case that ArbCom is prepared to deal with non-"bright-line" administrator cases, and, in cases where it is appropriate based on the facts, to remove the sysop tools—to say, in effect, that the individual no longer has the confidence of the community—why then does there seem to be a discrepancy between what ArbCom members (or at least the two members, present or past, in this talk thread) perceive as the situation, and what so many of the community perceive? Why have editors who have had good reason to come to ArbCom decided that they should not, out of fear of scrutiny, when that fear is, apparently, unjustified (for that is what Casliber says he has observed)? I can understand why editors with bad-faith motives would, properly, be dissuaded by scrutiny, but why those with good faith? Is there something about the ways that ArbCom does things, or something about the way it communicates to the community, that could explain that? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The road to Arbcom is such a long and tortuous one, all the "have you tried other steps in dspute resolution" - it really is unrealistic to ask editors to jump through so many hoops to put a case in front of an overworked and inefficiently managed body such as Arbcom. DuncanHill (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've only skimmed through this, but it hits a note with me right now because for the first time ever I feel somewhat interested in actually bringing something up at arbcom. It's really unclear to me how to do so however, or whether or not it would be acceptable/appropriate/useful to do so. There is so much "think about it before filing" stuff in the arbcom instructions that I'm sort of scared to bring the subject up (that and the fact that I'm certain that I'll personally be attacked by the person in question, along with their friends...)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is achieving a balance between "easy to file" and "orderly process" without encouraging vexatious litigation every time an admin does something one merely disagrees with.

The truth of the matter is that an admin who does things right will unfailingly accumulate opponents over time who have felt slighted by proper decision (or at least defensible decisions) that went the "wrong" way from their perspective. This is why while I agree in principle with a community-driven process to reexamine adminship, I doubt it is even possible to create one that does not open a door to simple vindictiveness and retribution.

Let's face a simple fact: many of the people who anxiously await a process like CDA do so with specific admins in mind they want to get rid of because they, at some time in the past, have ruled one way or another against them. Whether they are honestly convinced that having disagreed with their position is proof of malice or incompetence is irrelevant; as long as a process exist where a minuscule minority of "the community" gets to self-select as prosecutors, that process will be abused for POV pushing, vendettas and retribution. As someone wiser and more experienced than me once said, "When someone screams about 'admin abuse', it's most likely true – they're probably abusing admins again." — Coren ^(talk) 15:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...many of the people who anxiously await a process like CDA do so with specific admins in mind they want to get rid of because they, at some time in the past, have ruled one way or another against them..." - really ? Perhaps you have some evidence to back up this blatant stereotyping of the motivations of the supporters of this proposal ? Gandalf61 (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I do; it would be difficult to be a sitting member of ArbCom and not be painfully aware of many of the long-lasting vendettas and persistent disputes simmering (or boiling over) in many places. If you expect me to point fingers or name names, however, you do so in vain. Not only would it be very much inappropriate to do so, it is also entirely besides the point: whoever they may be does not bear upon this discussion in the least — the fact that any self-selected minuscule fraction of editors gets to say what "the community" thinks of an admin and decide whether to punish them in its name is. — Coren ^(talk) 15:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make a rather serious allegation, which you are now unable to provide any evidence for. What a fine example you are. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to name any names. Just tell us many of the 100+ editors who have voted in support of this proposal below want to "get rid of" specific admins. As you say it is a "simple fact" then presumably you must have a good idea of the figure. Is it 50% ? 75% ? 90% ? Gandalf61 (talk) 15:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see six on a quick skim. I doubt it's more than 10% all told, certainly. Many also did not comment either way here — but would nevertheless be available to quickly raises the torches and pitchforks should this (or a similar process) come to pass. — Coren ^(talk) 15:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A process exists where a minuscule minority of "the community" gets to self-select" - isn't that true of RfAd? Any process on wikipedia will be subject to a degree of self-selection, and a minuscule minority were involved in electing Arbs, a minuscule minority participate at AN and ANI, or in RfCUs. To say that a process should not be followed because not enough people would use it invalidates all our procedures. DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To a point. That's actually a fair observation in general and part of the fundamental governance problem on Wikipedia. The difference with arbitrators, at least, is that they are not self-selected and are very diverse. Certainly, no group of arbs were ever convened because they had a conflict against a specific editor which — by definition — the people starting and certifying this process would be. — Coren ^(talk) 15:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think a part of that general problem is that processes are so complicated and off-putting - I had an email discussion with an Arb not long ago in which he agreed that for a particular problem I had in mind, there was no process at all that could be used, because the small-print of those he initially suggested either forbad it or made the process prohibitively restrictive and time-consuming. Processes that were simpler would attract more editors. Unfortunately, processes that are simpler to use and would attract wider participation repel those who fear flaming pitch-forks and the like. DuncanHill (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Coren. I can easily understand where this sort of slanted viewpoint comes from, but you've got to admit that it's a very jaded view which is easily attributable to your own experiences. I don't dismiss that view at all myself, but we tend to deal with the problems of individuals seeking "vengeance" fairly regularly and fairly well (on the whole) on a regular basis already, within processes such as RFC/U and RfA, within Arbcom itself, and even through noticeboards such as AN/I. People are pretty good at recognizing such motivations, largely through personal experiences I suspect, which is why I don't really give that concern much weight. This issue was addressed by the proposal, where it seems to have been decided that Bureaucrats would make decisions on all final outcomes. I've personally thought for while that the mechanisms to handle closing were over-processed and over-wrought, which is what the delay in bringing this to RfA can largely be attributed too I think. Would yourself and others feel more comfortable if this were, for example, simply a step in the path to Arbcom de-admining people based on summary motions? (ie.: placed Arbcom in the oversight role of the process)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That would satisfy me completely. As I (and other arbs) have stated previously, we would be glad to have a process that is more lightweight than an arbitration request where the community can examine the behavior of admins. At its conclusion, the committee can then either rubberstamp the result (if it is clear either way) or possibly remand to an arbitration case if evidence is in dispute or turns out to be too complicated for a simple yes/no vote.

I'd still have some concerns about the exact procedural details of this proposal (I would suggest, perhaps, that the editors necessary to certify the dispute not count in the vote/poll, for instance); but those concerns are workable and are no longer show stoppers in my mind. — Coren ^(talk) 14:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Rockpocket suggested that also, in the "neutral" section, about nominators not voting. I think that is one of a number of good ideas coming out of this RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I think that this is one clear direction forward. An "arbitration light" is what I've envisioned the intent here to be all along, regardless. That Arbcom would welcome such a process is icing on the cake.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How would such a process differ from the one that I outlined in my objection above — community consensus established through RfC, followed by a request for ArbCom motion (or case, if the issue is sufficiently complex)? Why do we need new policy to accomplish this? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By being more focused, mostly. RFC tend to be difficult to sit down and evaluate because of the multiplicity of views; especially in controversial or contentious cases. Note that an RfC would do, and probably suffice in a pinch, but I can see why people feel it's a much less than ideal forum. — Coren ^(talk) 17:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So then is there something to work with here, to have a modified CDA that would send its result to ArbCom, where clear-cut cases might be resolved by motion, while complicated ones would be submitted to full arbitration? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of interlinked issues here, perhaps none of which can be addressed in isolation. To take just one simple example, to prepare an RfC or an ArbCom case against an administrator would require the collection of evidence, which many would see as being "uncollegial" or even an "attack page" if it were done on wikipedia. In contrast, every regular editor has an easily accessible block log, so much easier to make a case. (Don't anyone waste their time telling me that administrators have block logs too; administrators are regularly allowed to get away with things that would have a regular editor blocked.) I am very much coming around to the view that fixed terms for administrators is the only fair and equitable way forward. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more, Malleus. I think the idea of nominators not voting is edging closer to a reasonable proposal, but I don't see any way to keep this process fair without burying it in bureaucracy. I can think of a half-dozen admins who I expect would be on this chopping block fairly quickly because they don't suffer fools gladly, and even though I prize civility and am perpetually amazed by the number of ill-mannered admins, I just think this idea is a case of the pendulum just swinging too far in the other direction. I've had the idea of fixed terms (not term limits, mind you, just the need to give the community another seven days to vouch for your continued adminship every once in awhile) poo-pooed because of its complexity, which I find amazing in light of the phenomenal work going on elsewhere to resolve the unsourced BLP issue. I have to think that fixed terms, though it didn't make it out of committee, would be garnering much more support here than the present idea.--~T P W 06:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the reason that fixed terms "didn't make it out of committee" is that the editors who discussed it then decided that other approaches were better. But I would encourage editors who like the idea to work up a proposal, and put the idea to the test. In the mean time, I'll repeat the question I'm asking here: So then is there something to work with here, to have a modified CDA that would send its result to ArbCom, where clear-cut cases might be resolved by motion, while complicated ones would be submitted to full arbitration? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My curiosity

I'm curious: what percentage of the supporters and what percentage of the opposers are admins? I'm too lazy to do the research myself, but I'd love to know the answer.--Father Goose (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I checked about this time yesterday about 27% of those supporting were admins, and about 52% of those opposing were admins. Surprised? --Malleus Fatuorum 13:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious; how are you ascertaining how many are administrators? By hand? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, the precentages are irrelevant. Only sockpuppets are barred from the polling. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Especially since it doesn't sound like there's consensus even among non-admins. Though no doubt if a majority of non-admins !vote support, it will be trumpeted by the bitter-enders.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the percentages are entirely relevant. Administrators don't have more of a vote than a regular editor, but seeing how administrators as a body have voted on this compared to the regular editor pool is interesting. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Hammersoft: I have a script enabled that shows whether someone's an admin or not when you hover over their sig. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, does it tell you edit count too? :) Where's the script? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does show edit count too. Just add importScript('User:Splarka/sysopdectector.js'); //Admin detector to whatever skin you're using. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious too, but I also think it a mistake to oversimplify how any group of users, whether administrators or "bitter-enders", are motivated. This poll and discussion page will be open for a month. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to see whether there is a relationship between tenure and how people voted and whether that explains any of the relationship between adminship and voting patterns. I suspect that has quite a bit to do with it. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that users with a longer amount of experience might see things differently than inexperienced users do? Yes, that is interesting. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that it's an experience issue so much as a matter of when people were first inculcated in the project's values, given how those values might have changed over time. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that such an assessment shouldn't be used to oversimplify the matter. Mostly I'm curious to find out how many admins have the balls to make themselves directly accountable to the community, for better or worse. All the opposes on the basis of "gaming" or "admins will lose the ability to ~~be rouge~~ handle unpopular tasks" mean nothing to me. There are established ways to deal with gaming and with the barrier to deadminning set so high, I suspect the community at large will be able to distinguish between an admin doing his or her job and one using the tools and privileges to impose their views. If your actions can't withstand community scrutiny, turn in your keys. Being an admin is about being trusted, not about being privileged. IMO.--Father Goose (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was so well said! Thank you for that. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a script on the toolserver [13]. Nakon 18:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nakon! Is that auto-updating? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the script updates on each page load. Nakon 20:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks indeed. It would appear that currently 54% of non-admins !votes support (although that drops to 49% if you include the neutrals in the denominator). -- Bfigura ^(talk) 19:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it admins voting against the proposal, or experience?

These numbers are based on the state of the vote at this point in history.

While some editors have suggested (sometimes thoughtfully, often with derision) that this proposal is being killed by administrators who are afraid of the process, there may be alternative – and more benign! – interpretations of the data. Nakon has put together a neat little script that pulls out the number of contributions of each voter, their dates of registration, and their admin status. While it is true that a majority of administrators are voting against this proposal, that isn't the only group which is doing so. Using Nakon's tool, one also observes that the average opposer has made four thousand more edits than the average supporter. The average opposer has almost exactly 1 year more Wikipedia experience (27 months vs. 15.5 months.)

Of course, averages can be skewed by the 'long tail' distribution of Wikipedia editors. A few high-edit-count Hugglers could easily skew either average a thousand edits one way or the other. The pattern is even starker if one looks at quartiles or medians, however. The median edit count among supporters is 8032; among opposers it is 14626 — more than 80% greater. (The first-quartile boundary, meanwhile, is at 2922 for supporters and 6024 for opposers.)

At the moment,

the raw support percentage (223 voters, disregarding neutrals) for the proposal is 46.2%;
among editors with more than 1000 edits (197 voters), the support for the proposal is 44.2%;
among editors with more than 2000 edits (186 voters), the support for the proposal is 43.5%;
among editors with more than 5000 edits (160 voters), the support for the proposal is 41.3%;
among editors with more than 10000 edits (120 voters), the support for the proposal is 35.8%.

In other words, increasing editing experience correlates quite strongly with opposition to this proposal. Is there an overlap between 'editors with lots of experience' and 'editors with admin privileges'? Certainly — the community is more inclined to trust with the tools experienced editors with a long history of contributions. Does the fact that the community has vetted these experienced editors and found them likely to be trustworthy constitute a reason to disregard or denigrate their opinions on this proposal? That seems nonsensical. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nakon's tool lists the average supporter as having registered on 26 Dec 2006 and the average opposer as 15 Aug 2006, a difference of only 4 1/3 months. The difference in edit count is also not that large; those 4000 edits you speak of are only 21% higher (22542 vs. 18669), and editcountitis suggests that a difference that small is going to tell us nothing about experience. To be honest, the small difference between the two groups is not what I expected -- I'd expect much more inexperience amongst those supporting the proposal, especially given the high admin (=experience) count amongst the opposers. But the two groups are pretty close, experience-wise.

I can't claim to be surprised that far more admins are voting against it than for it. Who would be willing to risk losing the extra power and influence that comes with the tools and status? One has to expect most admins to be motivated by self-interest in this regard. Principles or rationales may come into play as well, but the role of simple self-interest is unavoidable.--Father Goose (talk) 05:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it self-interest on behalf of admins, or self-interest on behalf of non-admins, who are eager for an additional cudgel with which to threaten adminstrators enforcing policy? Perhaps we should only solicit the opinions of individuals not affiliated with Wikipedia whatsoever? =) Christopher Parham (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators enforcing policy have nothing to be concerned about. The ones who ought to be concerned are those who invent their own policies to suit their personal preferences and prejudices, or who behave as if the policies they enforce don't apply to them. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:48, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to see what the same analysis would look like if it were run on all supporters and opposers excluding admins. Would the "experience trend" be even more evident?--Father Goose (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be wary when equating "elapsed time in the project" with "experience". Also, consider the possibility that those who have been at Wikipedia longer are more used to the way things are run, and are therefore more resistant to change. This seems to be the case with most oppose votes that boil down to "ArbCom is good enough." ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 06:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that no metric can reliably indicate experience, although I do feel time-on-project means more than edit counts. I've spent 1000s of hours on the project -- something my edit count doesn't reveal. A lot of experience comes from observing, not from editing -- and a very narrow kind of experience comes from the kind of fast-twitch editing that is required to achieve edit counts well above 10,000.--Father Goose (talk) 06:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to an earlier request, excluding admins voting, >1000 edits 59% support, >2000 58%, >5000 60%, >10000 60%. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the answer to the question "is it admins voting against the proposal, or experience", the answer is admins? ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Speaking as someone who has had only positive experiences with admins (and who notes that none of the administrators he has has any contact with have had the time or the inclination to weigh in here): I'm not surprised in the least. J.M. Archer (talk) 16:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weighted votes by interest group

It's obvious that many admins have voted on this issue, since it directly concerns them. Admins represent 847/116,969, or roughly 1% of active users. Can we now weight the !votes here accordingly? In other words, take Hammersoft's calculated ~59% support from non-admins, multiply that by 99% to get ~59%, and add that to the (?)% support from non-admins, multiplied by 1%. You end up with ~59% support for the proposal. I'm not trying to diminish the value of any admin's vote here, it's just that a MUCH higher percentage of that interest group has voted on this issue, while only a minuscule percentage of the non-admin interest group has chosen to vote. Simply counting the !votes reflects a biased response. I'm not proposing that this RfC be closed by using the weighted votes calculation...I just want to provoke thought (hopefully not drama) on the matter. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 20:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on not provoking drama. I'll say again that I hope we don't get ahead of ourselves in counting !votes before the !voting is over. What does matter here is consensus, and I think BFizz's observation is best taken in that context. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't have said it better myself. My observation wasn't intended to grind figures from !votes, but rather, to illustrate a point. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 02:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point comprehensively missed by these thoughts is that admins are generally a large proportion (often a majority) in any major policy discussion. By definition, admins are experienced and committed editors, interested in more than just content editing. How many of the "active users" is that true for? (And how many of the non-admins it's true for would never pass RFA, being unsuited for it?) Bottom line, admins are not a random sample of active users; and they've all gained adminship with the approval of the community and ultimately retain it at the pleasure of the community (via the elected Arbcom). CDA would not change that, it would just introduce a mob element, and ultimately would fundamentally change the nature of adminship from Janitor/Cop to Elected Politician. Such a change would be highly undesirable. Rd232 ^talk 11:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should remove the "mob element" from all policy discussions, RfAd, etc? Or do you only trust the rest of us when we give you power, not when we say "Enough! Thank you and goodbye"? DuncanHill (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The mob element in WP:Consensus doesn't matter so much for general policy issues, because policy can fluctuate on occasion without long term harm; even high drama basically blows over. That's not true of attempted or actual desysopping, in terms of the effect on the individuals affected, or the example set for others who don't want to go through the same experience. Processes of justice should be grounded on impartiality (WP:INVOLVED ring any bells?), which electoral processes do not offer. If the spirit of WP:INVOLVED could be enforced on all participants in CDA, most of the issues would fade away. It can't, and they don't. Rd232 ^talk 22:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship is said by some to be no big deal (not something I've ever believed). If it truly were no big deal (which I do think would be a good thing), we wouldn't see anything like so many admins objecting to the community having the ability to say "That's it" to them. As for "processes of justice" it is well established that Wikipedia is not fair and doesn't do due process or anything like that (I think it should, and I do honestly believe that those who first formulated the ideas that WP "doesn't do fair" were idiots with no conception of how humans interact in a large community). Special protection for those with the power at the expense of those without it just increases the comtempt that many feel for the admin corps. This proposal strikes me as a welcome move to a fairer Wikipedia - and that will in the medium to long term reduce conflict and drama, and as I said in my support will also increase the trust and respect that admins enjoy. DuncanHill (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, several admins who oppose this plan are against this particular plan, not all plans.
Second, maybe the proponents can try to clear something up for me. Is this a plan to allow the community to get rid of bad admins, or is it aimed at all admins? -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm concerned, only bad ones. Although I do not deny that there are, as always, some users with agendas, I think that answer is obvious. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen from the development of the admin recall process so far, is that it's for admins who have systemically abused their power. For your evidence, please see one of the guiding graphics which has often been used to explain why a CDA might be useful: Five Problems with a Single Solution. Also, from this proposal's FAQ: "The community appoints Administrators through the WP:RfA process. Many feel the community should also be able to recall Administrators that have lost its trust. Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) can and do de-sysop Administrators on a regular basis. However, the procedures are often lengthy and cumbersome, and ArbCom seems to some people less willing to take on cases where there is a perceived loss of community trust, rather than cases that show a specific "bright line" abuse of Administrator tools." --Lyc. cooperi (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one here is saying that admins do not deserve to be able to vote, or that admin votes shouldn't count in policy. However, I think I agree with B Fizz in saying that I think it is prudent, for the purposes of this proposal, to consider that administrators may be faced with a natural conflict of interest when voting on this particular proposal. That doesn't mean their vote should not count; but I think it is important to analyze the votes at the end of the vote period with the number of admin voters in mind. If we find, like at the time of Hammersoft and B Fizz's count, a disproportionately high number of voters are administrators, and that when administrative votes are applied they swing the vote on the proposal from positive to negative, then that is something that, if we are being rational, we should consider. We should consider what that says.

Even if we accept the premises that wikipedia policy should be decided by more active, experienced editors, and administrators are among the most active editors, they could not possibly constitute the majority of, say, the top 20,000 editors, who have all surely contributed much. The admins may have the best, most innocent intentions, at heart, and no instinct of self-preservation or self-interest at all when voting here. That may be true. But I just can't know. There's no way for me, or anyone, to know. That's why conflicts of interest are a problem. Conflicts of Interest are a problem in every community, even a community as rational as the scientific community has to deal with conflicts of interest (a popular example being the funding of pharmaceutical studies and journals by pharmaceutical companies). Likewise, it is important for the credibility of this vote for the decision to be made by a more representative sample of the Wikipedian community. --Lyc. cooperi (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. On the flip side, we have no way of knowing how many support votes are down to editors wanting something they can use as a weapon for revenge and intimidation in relation to their personal battles, regardless of the proposal's merit for Wikipedia as a whole. In other words, if you want to talk about selection bias (many admins !voting here), you might also consider the vast silent majority who aren't asking for an additional process like this. Yes, additional. There's absolutely nothing to stop people implementing the substance of CDA through existing processes right now, via 10 disgruntled editors launching an RFC and on the basis of that RFC making an Arbcom motion request for desysopping. Do that and line up a few unreasonably denied Arbcom desysop motions, and you'd have a stronger case for saying Arbcom isn't enough. PS Arbcom is elected by the community and bases decisions on policy+community evidence, so defining it as not being a "community process" is arbitrary. Rd232 ^talk 10:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the way in which CDA was morphed by a handful of editors from one of many options at the Admin Recall RFC to the only option reminds me of a quote from Yes Minister: "it's a well-known fallacy... something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done!" And illustrates perfectly how a small number of editors can set an agenda - which ought to be a cautionary tale. Rd232 ^talk 10:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, morphed in some mysterious way! Perhaps we now have the angry mob cabal? --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether vs. How

The current watchlist notification states that A poll is being conducted on whether to implement community recall of administrators as a policy. You are invited to join the discussion. However, much opposition to the idea expressed in the discussion is based on how CDA is proposed to be implemented, not whether it should be formally implemented. These seem to be two distinct concepts that should be considered separately, rather than lumping the whether and the how together. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 23:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I maybe don't understand what you mean. Do you mean that we should be discussing alternative versions of the proposal? That's what we've been doing for the last several months. I don't know how we could alter this poll to consider alternatives in a way that editors would find acceptable. On the other hand, are you raising a question of whether this proposal, if implemented, would be enforcible? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. You bring up a valid point that I don't think has been thought of. The simple obviousness of it is blinding. In short, you ask if people should be asked if they want some form of Cda aside from this one... and I'd have to say yes, I agree, and no one thought to ask that simple question. Bravo. As to what to do about it I'm not sure. I'd be tempted to add it as a separate question, but we are a couple days in and I suspect some folks might beef about it. Hmmm. Jusdafax 00:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. If that's the case, at least it's appropriate to look closely at oppose and neutral comments, and compile the mentions of preferred alternatives. I would point out that we already polled last fall on whether to support the status quo, as one of the multiple options from which the original Uncle G version was picked. The status quo was overwhelmingly rejected. The hard part, obviously, is that it's easy to say one is unsatisfied with the status quo but difficult to create a concrete alternative that does not elicit concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us a link to that conversation? ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 21:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes! Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall#Opinions. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 23:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem word is "whether". Maybe change it to:

A poll is being conducted on whether to implement an administrator recall policy. You are invited to join the discussion.

Since it's a vote on a particular policy at this point, rather than a discussion of whether a policy is needed.--SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you asked the question of whether to implement that, you'd get just as muddled a picture as you claim there is. However, instead you'd get people saying "Well, it might be a good idea. But, I'd have to see a proposal first before I could say yea or nay". Chicken or egg, egg or chicken? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As has been noted elsewhere in the discussion, anyone who came in late wasn't really able to participate meaningfully without reading for many hours, and so we didn't help mold this particular option. I think there are probably good ideas for dead-minship (if you put the hyphen there, does it change the meaning?), but this one just isn't it for me. I'd much rather see terms - not limit, but admins having to spend a week having the community decide if they still want them. I don't understand the argument that it would be too difficult to implement. Sure there would be a lot of admins on the list, but if the community doesn't participate we can either have a relist option (as in XfD) or simply close it as support (as in, "supported unless proven unsupported"). You can be darned sure that controversial admins would not be ignored, it would not start "ten in the hole" or only be when somebody screwed up, and ArbCom could continue to get rid of the really bad ones. That's what I would vote for in a heartbeat.--~TPW stands for ^{(trade passing words?)} or _{Transparent Proof of Words} 13:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reconfirmation proposals have been shot down every single time they've been proposed (which is a large, large number of times). There's a rather long laundry list of why this would be a bad idea. Wikipedia:PEREN#Reconfirm_administrators scrapes at the tip of the iceberg. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen comments elsewhere that about 5% of admins are trouble and the majority are fine. If so, reconfirmation is a waste of time, and de-sysop of the problem admins would be more efficient and a clear indicator of what the community regarded as bad behaviour by admins. --Philcha (talk) 06:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who on earth says "95% of admin are fine" though? Those madness-inducing lifetime awards, combined with no taste at all on Wikipedia to tell admin off for anything less than the most serious indiscretions (repeatedly swearing at concerned arbcom members on a case page etc), has lead to 'bully culture' that a lot more that 5% of admin have fallen into. Many of those people sould not be admin, but others could be better if they simply did not have that level of 'power' given to them.

The biggest crime is admin routinely coming to the defence of other admin by slandering the critical editor. It is impossible to criticise an admins behaviour without putting yourself in danger. The reasons for the criticisms are then overshadowed by "what other admin think". Favours due, favours made, emotionalism, POV-assisting, revenge - it's all there. Many are human weaknesses, and admim are more human than your average people in authority, as we know nothing about them when they enter our lives. I'm suspicious of anyone who wants to be a Wikipedia admin, as the rewards (if someone wants to misuse them) are just so great. The way so many admin behave is simply against the spirit of Wikipedia, and is just plain dodgy. There are no clear rules on how admin really should behave. No court of Justice in the developed world would lawfully ignore someone's 'case' if the accused had enough friends, but Wikipedia is primitive and corrupt and does it all the time. If you have anything in your block log it is doubly pointless criticising an admin. And can tarnish your block log far too easily. It's the Dark Ages in 2010. ASSUME GOOD FAITH (crack) ASSUME GOOD FAITH (crack) ASSUME GOOD FAITH (crack) ASSUME GOOD FAITH (crack). Matt Lewis (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest crime? That's the biggest problem? How does CDA solve that problem? Speaking anecdotally, I've been blocked just once. The once happened when User:William M. Connolley blocked me after I had made a request for assistance at the edit warring noticeboard. I was highly upset about his decision to block me, and the block was overturned 16 minutes later. The blocking administrator has since been forcibly de-sysoped for an unrelated incident. That's the only time I've been blocked, or even threatened with a block. Yet, I routinely take administrators to task. The suppositions in your post here depend on our acceptance that the times when administrators come to the aid of administrators against a complaining user are (at least often) cases where the administrators are clearly in the wrong. I don't see evidence of that, and my own experiences fighting against administrators acting poorly tells me it isn't the case. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously I'm talking about cases where admin are in the wrong! I'd hardly be complaining about admin coming to the aid of people who are clearly in the right, would I?

You know I don't support CDA, so why are you asking me why I think CDA solves the problem? Is that your "Certified Idiocy" again? As I've said to you on my talk page and elsewhere, I stopped supporting the idea of CDA because there is no way for it to address the problem of general admin behaviour. Their consistent (and nearly always unchallengeable) poor behaviour will make CDA a nightmare in practice.

OK - if you 'routinely' bring admin to task Hammersoft, what results do you get? Matt Lewis (talk) 22:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He just told you, he got blocked. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that's how you choose to see it, so be it. It's not all of what I said, but each to their own. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless "routinely" = "one time", then that is an incorrect characterization. Please see, "That's the only time I've been blocked, or even threatened with a block". -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Intentions

Moved from Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC at 07:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking ahead slightly, I'd be curious to hear from some people in the oppose camp on what to change to make this more palatable. I'm perfectly willing to admit that I have a somewhat partisan view here, having tossed my hat in the ring on the "Support" side fairly early, but it seems clear to me that a significant portion of the the opposition here is to the current proposal, not the idea itself. I notice that someone has already forked one potential component of this into it's own proposal, but I happen to think that it would be best to keep working on this until most people find it acceptable. Part of the reason that I urged that this RFC be started was to see this exact reaction, so that we could deal with it, so let's try turning the discussion to what changes are needed.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 00:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with and appreciate that. I'd like to add something I also said somewhere lower on the page: if (and I said if) this RfC ends up supporting this proposal, the RfC closure procedure requires review by the Bureaucrats and Jimbo before any implementation might be effected. I would certainly think that issues of this sort would have to be worked out at that stage, and so the kinds of comments Ohms is inviting are exactly what would be helpful. As far as I'm concerned, this RfC is an attempt to make Wikipedia better, not a competition. One thing I think has been pretty clear is that the "example" page needs to have a dedicated space for the administrator's response. I'm pretty sure there are other things about whether the nominators !vote or not, the amount of time for the administrator to respond, and whether there should be appeals to ArbCom. Correct? What else? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that asking "What should be the next proposal?" is jumping the gun just a bit. The assumption that the development of new processes is required has been left unexamined. As I note above (in #Simpler approaches have not been tried) we haven't generally been taking full advantage of the existing policy framework. The ArbCom has not demonstrated a reluctance to desysop (even rapidly, by motion) when presented with a clearly-enunciated request.

I don't believe it would be prudent to proceed with another three or four months of ~~bickering~~ proposal development without a clearer picture of what problem needs to be solved. What specific admin misconduct issues are there that the community cannot deal with now? How do we respond to those problems? At least some of the proponents have taken the view that CDA (or a variant thereof) is necessary purely to act as a threat which can be levelled at any admin. Recent events indicate why putting another arrow in the quiver purely for its own sake isn't a good idea — it discourages discussion and the use of less-formal routes to dispute resolution. It encourages parties to immediately escalate to the nuclear option – or at least, to the threat of it – and chokes off reasonable discourse. It's the opposite of the Wiki way. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, why not ask the question outright?
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those questions were asked outright – clearly and explicitly – during the several months this proposal was under development. The proponents have openly and repeatedly refused to discuss any specific misconduct issues that this proposal (or one like it) might be aimed at resolving. The usual reason given (and this is in their FAQ) is that any discussion of specific cases would lead to 'abusive sidetracks' and distract from the discussion. Unfortunately, this approach ensures that the community never gets to see how or even if the process would be useful. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's some framing there. The proponents have refused to name the names of specific administrators for the reasons stated, certainly. But the proponents have not by any means failed to name the kinds of conduct for which CDA is designed. See, for example, my second comments under my Support #1 !vote below. Now, that said, Ten and others who agree with him have every right to choose not to answer Ohms' question. But there is still noting wrong with Ohms asking it. Perhaps some users who oppose the proposal in its present form would like to suggest revisions to it that they would support in the future. That's entirely constructive and reasonable, for those who might wish to do so. That's what makes this process an RfC, and not simply a poll. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's a number of problems with the entire body of work that went into this. Just one of them is that the RfC was started without any clear statement as to what would constitute acceptance by the community. Are we going to rely on a poll to approve a process that is not poll based but consensus based? This isn't an RfC in any traditional sense. It's a poll, pure and simple. It started out that way and remains that way. There's not much in the way of discussion by the wider community, which is what this RfC should have generated. The blessing this RfC could have been was hamstrung from the beginning. What could have happened was an open discussion about the various aspects of the CdA proposal. For example; "Should a CdA start with ten opposers before certification?" (followed by discussion). From that sort of structure, you could have readily identified what the problem areas are in the current CdA proposal. One kernel of truth that can be ascertained from the polling is that the current CdA proposal, in toto, is fraught with serious problems. But identifying what those problems are is going to be highly problematic. An opportunity was lost here. The community thinks it's voting on approving CdA, and CdA wasn't close to prime time. Now if you try to back up and get some solid discussion going, interest is going to wane. Alternatively, if you try to look at the tea leaves and discern what the serious problems are, then try another poll, the community is going to say "Didn't we just vote on this?".
So where are we? If this thing breaks 50% by 23:59, 22 March 2010 does it then become policy? What if it sits at 49.9%? A large number of people (myself included) will state that such a major change in policy should require a higher percentage, more like 66%. Note the current bureaucrat unchecking fiasco where there's a larger percentage but heavy dispute over whether consensus exists or not. So who gets to decide an acceptable percentage of support exists?
Also not addressed in the setup of this ~~RfC~~ POLL is whether or not to throw out votes based on edit counts or time of service (or both). 6 of the supporters and 10 of the opposers fail to meet the threshold of suffrage laid out by the CdA proposal itself. So, do we count people who wouldn't count in a CDA? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible that I'm nieve here, but my personal view of this Rfc (or poll, if you'd like) is that this RFC is merely step one in what will be a multi-part process towards turning this proposal in to policy. It's a mistake, and in my view a somewhat shallow viewpoint (although, understandable, based on past examples), to think that a proposal this large would be adopted after just one RFC. There's obvious support for some sort of "community de-adminship" process, regardless of whether it takes the form of something like the current proposal, some form of "term limits" (or terms of service at all), or something completely different. For those reasons I'm not personally concerned with nuanced interpretations of individual votes, or even the vote totals (as long as they don't break significantly in either direction. I should probably note that, even though I'm a "supporter", it would trouble me to see the voting here break even towards the support column, with the proposal in it's current state). What we need is a hint towards a direction to move forward in.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This proposal has been through several RfCs already. This is the final vote on this proposal, and your vote of 'support' or 'oppose' determines whether or not this becomes policy. It worries me that there is confusion on this point. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand how you feel I think, but I don't see anything about this RFC as "final", and there's certainly nothing in the RFC that says "If this doesn't pass, nothing like CDA can ever be brought up again". Matt obviously wants it to be final, for his own reasons, and you seem to have legitimate concerns yourself. I've felt for a while that the "construction phase" for this current proposal had continued on way to long, which is why myself and others urged that this RFC take place. At least after this closes we'll have some legitimate widespread concerns to make informed adjustments on, so hopefully we can run another RFC in 30 or 60 days (after this closes) with changes that would make the proposal easier for more people to support.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't support CDA in any form (we need to implement fixed tenure terms and admin reviews, and not paper over the cracks) but frankly TenofallTrades, who the hell do you think you are saying "this RfC is the final word on CDA."? If I was supporting CDA I'd have never have let you take control of the RfC the way you have. Your leading "Flaws" list is embarrassing for the proponent who accepted your request to 'respond' before the designated comments section, and you have managed to prejudice the RfC in terms of being taken seriously - the one thing no fair-minded person wanted to happen. Reactions should come after the 'comments', or why is this an RfC (ie "Request for comment") in the first place? Somehow you have made your drop-down "Flaws" so they are not in the page History too - why did you do that? And come to think of it, how did you do that? Some of your arguments against CDA became irrelevant during the process (like the "Mirror RfA" aspect you begin with - something I spent a lot of time arguing against myself), but you still used them for the overwhelming effect. You've been brutal and uncompromising throughout the CDA proposal (though you seem to have kept a lot back for your 'big moment' here), and it's like it's been some kind of moral issue with you. Mark my words - you (an admin - not an arb or crat - just an admin, from early the days of Wikipedia) will be Reviewed at some point in the future, and cut to a term (like every other admin) if it's the last thing I ever help to do here. I get even angrier than you (if that is genuinely possible) when I think how even one admin can manage to wield so much power. 23:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Lewis (talk • contribs) 23:48, 27 February 2010

I'll make an observation that I hope may be informative to editors who come to this page unfamiliar with the discussions that led to the proposal, and who wonder about some of the complaints about the process under which the proposal was written. In my opinion, but I'm biased, the questions Ohm's Law and I asked here are reasonable ones. However, there are also editors including TenOfAllTrades and Hammersoft who sincerely believe that no proposal of this sort would be a good idea. Often, we end up talking past one another. People on "my" "side" would like to get suggestions for improvement. Some of those who disagree with us believe that improvement of this proposal is beside the point. But that doesn't mean that supporters of the proposal are not trying to listen to the opponents.

Anyway, it seems to me to be too early for anyone to be trying to predict the outcome of the poll here, or to be trying to spin the results. For now, I'd rather see constructive discussion about what's best for Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two things; first, several times now there's been attempts at pigeon holing me as a person hell bent on killing this proposal or anything like it. That simply isn't the case and never has been. I have extremely strong opposition to the way in which this effort has been conducted. It's been highly unprofessional, fraught with cliquishness, poorly thought out and executed, and an utter mess. Which leads to the second point; how are we supposed to interpret the results if we don't even know what the metrics are? You got this ~~RfC~~POLL started but haven't spoken at all about what you think success is, how we're supposed to evaluate it, what happens if its met, or not met, or close, or what have you. It's kind of like you walked into a room of 400 people with an idea and said "Hey everyone, what do you think of this?" and everyone started speaking at the same time. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So let's try to answer just one question, just one, in warming our toes at the fire of accountability. Tryptofish, what do you plan to do about the (currently) 18 (about 8% of total) people who have voted in this poll who failed to meet the suffrage requirements of CDA? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize if I misinterpreted or misrepresented your position on CDA. It's not like I can memorize what every editor has said. Your comments above seemed to be critical.
If I understand your question correctly, you are saying that 18 users have participated in the poll so far who would not qualify to be nominators in a CDA under this proposal. It's not obvious to me that such users should have no right to share their opinions in a discussion about this proposal. As for what I "plan to do", I am taking this RfC, like most things in my life, one day at a time. I suppose that, about a month from now, if the responses here continue to be closely divided between support and oppose, I would tend towards the opinion that it's a bad idea to simply count votes and I would be receptive to discussion of how to proceed with the information obtained from the community in this RfC. It's not like I personally have any sort of magic power to force policies onto the Wikipedia community. That's a long time from now, and I find it premature to be jumping to conclusions. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was premature to launch this RfC, and yes I am critical. Do you think it would be acceptable to include opinions from an 'editor' who is currently indefinitely blocked and has a grand total of 9 edits? It is not obvious to you that the opinions of the 18 who fail the suffrage metric of CDA have no right to share their opinion, but apparently it is obvious they have no right to share their opinion on CDAs themselves? Moving along; the discussion on how to proceed from this RfC should have occurred before this RfC went live. It's as if an experiment were constructed, but you don't know what the question is. The experiment is effectively useless. I think it would be strongly in your interest to close this RfC, take the results back to the drawing board, learn what you can from it, and apply that to CDA. That would be a good first step. Continuing this RfC carries the impression that should it pass (an as yet unstated metric), it will become policy. That's a grave mistake. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been following the block history of every editor here, but I don't think someone who is indefinitely blocked should edit. Does that somehow render the opinions of all 100+ supporters so far invalid? I didn't say that the editors who would not qualify as nominators have no right to speak here; why do you think I did? I don't think the RfC was premature. There have been some editors complaining bitterly that it should have been started a few months ago and others who complain bitterly that it started too soon. And do you understand the difference, in the proposal, between being a nominator, and being able to !vote in the poll that follows? But I'm very glad to hear that you are not hell bent on killing this proposal or anything like it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made no comment regarding any other supports other than the ones who fail suffrage requirements of CDA. Why do you feel their opinions are not valid if they were to speak at CDA but are valid here? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is that what I said? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are people with less than 500 edits and three months service not permitted to nominate? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes! That is because the editors who developed the proposal are convinced that it is very important that nominations for CDA not be made casually, or by editors acting in anger or haste. The 500 edits number was actually discussed at length (link). The concept is that new editors who, in some cases, certainly not in all cases, may present exactly the kind of issues you have just been raising here, should not be in a position to start a CDA if ten more experienced editors do not see the merits in their complaint. Despite all the hyperventilating that has met this proposal, that CDA would result in mobs carrying torches to come after good administrators, the authors of the proposal sure tried hard to make the process difficult to exploit. But that doesn't mean that new editors are persona non grata whose opinions should not count in this RfC. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth not? Apparently, they are capable of mob activity and carrying torches to come after administrators. Certainly an outcome of CDA is for the community to come after administrators. So why do you think the <500/3month crowd is suddenly going to be able to behave themselves here, but not there? Why the difference? (and, by the way, we're up to 19 now) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand what you are asking: are you talking about new editors with fewer than 500 edits, or disruptive editors? And isn't it a bit early to be counting hanging chads? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying there's an apparent dichotomy that users with less than 500 edits and three months of service are not trustworthy enough to nominate at CDA (torch carrying mob, as you describe) but they are trustworthy enough to comment here, and have an impact on whether this proposal goes forward or not. You've failed to address this dichotomy. I keep asking it, and you keep non-answering it. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm non-answering it? No, I'm either not understanding your question, or disagreeing with you. (Anyone seeing what I meant above, about editors talking past one another?) And I never said that users are a "torch carrying mob". I said that some of the editors who oppose this proposal have called users that, not that I agree with them as a generalization. Now to answer your dichotomy: yes I feel that the barriers to starting a CDA need to be sufficiently high that editors with fewer than 500 edits (who, again, in the vast majority of cases are not a torch carrying mob) should not be among the ten nominators. And I've shown you the link to the discussion of that point by other editors, not just by me. Nonetheless I see nothing automatically wrong with editors with fewer than 500 edits participating in this RfC. That does not mean that they, or any other subset of the community, will determine by themselves "whether this proposal goes forward or not". Editors with fewer than 500 edits take part in all kinds of discussions on this website, and there is nothing wrong with that, obviously. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so then why is it not ok for them to nominate? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be dismissive or unresponsive about that, but, truly, I thought I already answered that, very clearly and specifically. Maybe I'm just not understanding something, or not expressing it the right way, so I'll invite other editors to try to answer further if they would like to. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, editors who would like to answer Ohm's Law's original question are still welcome to do so. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

What we need now is an analysis of the oppose votes to suggest how the proposal might be modified to obtain the necessary support, as it's clear the proposal as it stands doesn't have consensus. Everyking (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just off the cuff, I'd say the biggest objection is over the potential for a group to defrock an admin for enforcing policy against them, even if the admin did so rightly. Brainstorming for a second, maybe we could allow editors (and their known allies) who were directly affected by a block/article protection/deletion to comment at or even initiate a CDA, but not vote.

Separately, an admin should have a chance to defend his or her actions before the !voting starts -- perhaps put a one-week delay in before the vote starts (or more, if the admin gives a plausible reason for being unavailable). During that week, the admin and any supporters can engage the complainants and address their concerns, possibly avoiding the need for the CDA -- or at least giving them the opportunity to rebut the claims before the community starts weighing in.--Father Goose (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those sound like good ideas. I'd suggest that editors who were directly affected by the admin's actions should not be allowed to sign the petition calling for a vote—although they could participate in the vote itself. While the proposal currently excludes editors subject to various sanctions, we could also have an exclusion for editors who've been blocked within a recent period of time, perhaps a month or two. Those ideas would tighten up the process to the advantage of admins, so I'd also suggest a modification in the opposite direction: lowering the bar for a successful vote to a simple majority, rather than 65%.

Another idea, which I'm not entirely sure is a good one, but might be worth considering: allow admins facing a vote to resign for a fixed period and then resume adminship later on without a vote. This would hopefully mollify the admin's opponents, while also avoiding the drama associated with a vote, and it would provide the admin a good opportunity to learn from the controversy and return to adminship with a little more wisdom. Everyking (talk) 05:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen quite a few hasty or outright inappropriate blocks, so I wouldn't go by block logs. Even users who have been blocked for legitimate reasons shouldn't be disenfranchised as a result. Blocks are meant to be preventive, not punitive.

Your second idea is called "resigning under a cloud", and is always treated by arbcom as requiring either their approval or the community's to reinstate the admin bit. A failed CDA is a good opportunity for an admin to learn what the community disapproves of, and a successful CDA, even more so. The admin can always reapply for adminship if they demonstrate to the community that they have learned from the experience.--Father Goose (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is "resigning under a cloud", but we're talking about new policy here—it doesn't have to follow all the old rules. The idea would provide a specific exception as part of the CDA process, allowing admins to hand back the tools for a fixed period in order to defuse the controversy and avoid the drama of a confirmation vote. Everyking (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only real drama avoidance would be if the admin gave up the tools indefinitely. I've seen users "retire" while under scrutiny so that an RfC or whatever disappeared, then return to their abuses when the scrutiny was off. Doesn't matter if it's for a fixed period. It's classic gaming behavior, and it is just a source of drama itself.--Father Goose (talk) 07:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A few ideas:

The proposer of a CDA must notify the admin's Talk, and any timers start then.
If the admin can't respond in the standard time (proposed 1 week), the admin must not perform any admin action of the same type in the complaint until the admin has responded.
If the admin does perform any admin action of the same type in the complaint before the admin has responded in the standard time (proposed 1 week), any editor can add a prominent notify to each of the top hear, the header of the "support" section, the "oppose" section and the "comments" / "statements" section saying that the admin has perform this action with first responding to the complaint. All versions of the notice should cite the history of the complaint and the contribs of the admin. AFAIK there is no practical sanction against an admin who delayes responding while continuing the relevant of action. This clause is intended to sway "votes" toward "support" and, if needed, to build a case for desysop at ArbCom. --Philcha (talk) 06:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so keen on the "must not perform actions" idea -- if the admin is acting rightly, they shouldn't be pulled off the line by a harassing complaint, and if they're acting wrongly, additional actions of that sort just add evidence of misbehavior. If the admin is acting very inappropriately, an emergency de-sysopping is needed, and ArbCom does handle that well. CDA is needed to address more subtle (but still definite) misuses of tools and/or authority, where ArbCom has historically been extremely hesitant to act.--Father Goose (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned that a problem admin would just stall for ever. --Philcha (talk) 08:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CDA would go ahead regardless of whether the admin agreed to participate. I just wouldn't want it to go ahead at a time when the admin wasn't available (on a wikibreak or whatever). If the admin says "I'm not ready" but continues editing, the CDA should proceed.--Father Goose (talk) 09:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about abandoning the idea as needless bureaucracy, and go back to the RFC route which there were several variations of in the Admin Recall RFC? Basically all that needs to happen to make that work is to clarify the circumstances under which RFC can lead to an Arbcom desysop motion (present case) or reconfirmation RFA (new thing equivalent to CDA, but using existing processes). Rd232 ^talk 09:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoning which idea? Some of the ideas here might be applicable to an "RFC route".--Father Goose (talk) 09:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that should be abandoned is of having a process specifically for "Community De-Admin"ing, rather than having discussion-focussed Dispute Resolution processes from which desysopping may emerge by WP:Consensus as a proposed outcome. Rd232 ^talk 09:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would welcome more dispute resolution built into whatever CDA/AR process we might ultimately adopt. Though the basic mechanism proposed is the same one we use for determining consensus on any issue where a large number of editors weigh in -- a poll. It's the same mechanism we use to promote admins in the first place.--Father Goose (talk) 10:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I voted oppose in this RfC and haven't been involved in the earlier discussions but what would sway me (and address quite a lot of the other concerns) is something like the following:

The policy must state the actions an admin would need to take in order for them to become eligible to be nominated for "recall"/"de-admining".

These would be specific admin actions and not editorial actions. i.e. blocking/protecting/deleting against policy
Disputes over editorial actions should be dealt with using the methods available for all editors (e.g. mediation, RfC, etc.). Ultimately, if this route takes them to ArbCom, they could be desysopped if consensus is that their editorial actions have tarnished the reputation and trust given to admins.
The nomination must show evidence that policy has been breached x times (e.g. 5) in a given period (e.g. 4-12 weeks) to indicate a perpetual problem rather than good faith or one off errors of judgement.

The nomination must have the support of x other editors (e.g. 10) who will sign the nomination.
The nomination must explictly list the actions that have breached policy
The nominators are not eligible to vote
All !voters must make clear if they have had a previous dispute with the admin and whether that involved editorial issues or use of admin tools.
In determining consensus to de-admin, the crat should give greater weight to opinions of uninvolved admins/editors (i.e. who have never had any previous contact with the admin or nominators).
The ultimate call of the supporters of this current proposal is that the community must have a mechanism to de-admin those who misuse the tools and therefore it should not be unreasonable to expect a "jury" made up of neutral participants to make the call.

→ AA ^(talk) — 10:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank the editors above for, in effect, responding to Ohms' question, and this discussion is very helpful. Although I personally am loath to assume the outcome of this RfC when we are only one week into a four-week discussion, I have also been thinking very actively about these questions. I recognize that some of those who oppose the present proposal will never support any revised version, but I also believe that it is becoming apparent here that there eventually will be consensus for an improved version of the present proposal. I also think this particular part of the discussion should take place in the context of the parallel discussion just above, #Observations re Casliber's comment, about ArbCom.

That said, I'd like to ask some questions of editors who oppose the present version, following up on what has already been said:

I was interested, and actually surprised, when Everyking suggested above lowering the guideline from 65% to 50%+1. Am I correct that this would actually not be popular (it wasn't here)?
Another related point would be to look at how many editors should participate in a CDA in order for it to be considered successful. I think that it is becoming clear that the 10 nominators should only nominate and not !vote. In earlier discussion (link), it was decided that there would have to be a minimum of 50 users supporting the de-sysop motion. (Disallowing the nominators would effectively raise that number to 60.) Should that number be adjusted further upward? Doing so may address the concern that parties with agendas might overtake the process.
I think it has become absolutely clear that there must be a place for the administrator to respond and sufficient time to do so. Noting the issues raised above, would the following be a workable approach? There should be a dedicated space on the CDA page for the administrator's response. The nomination cannot be certified until either one of the following: either (1) the administrator has entered a response there (or stated explicitly that they do not intend to do so), or (2) seven days have elapsed from the time a notice of the CDA was placed on the administrator's user talk.
How about also having a space on the CDA page where the administrator may list all "support" !voters whose !votes the administrator wishes to challenge? The closing Crat would decided whether those challenges are valid.

--Tryptofish (talk) 18:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think implementing the fourth point might prove counterproductive. At heart, a RFA/R ("Requests for administrator recall" is my preferred terminology, see [14]) process that depends on a certain number of participants or a certain percentage of supporters is ultimately a vote. If it is to be a vote, I think we would do better with a flexible vote based upon discussion rather than a inflexible one where every vote is argued and contested. Having the sysop challenge individual votes rather than general arguments shifts the focus away from the substance of the argument to the vote itself (i.e., who made it, how did they word it, and so on). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just thinking out loud here. I'm not sure how one gets away entirely from a poll of some sort, without it simply becoming RfC/U. My thinking is that it is good to give the administrator a way to refute what many opponents have expressed concerns about: editors coming to the CDA-or-whatever-we-call-it with axes to grind. Some people commented just above that anyone who has had prior contact with the administrator should be excluded from the process. I can see all kinds of problems with that. I was thinking that the administrator should, instead, have an opportunity to point out that certain users have agendas, but I'm open to other, more discussion-oriented, ways of accomplishing that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand, and I agree with you on the point of excluding or discounting comments by those who have previously interacted with the admin. A straight RfC/U is my first preference, but I was thinking of a structure similar to RfA (a vote, but at least somewhat discussion-based), where candidates can convey their viewpoints regarding the rationale behind particular votes by responding to questions posed by participants or posting in the "Discussion" section. Of course, at this stage, I too am just thinking out loud. :) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a fifth bullet point to my four just above:

How about changing the closure of the process to being a referral of CDAs that get more than 50% support to ArbCom, instead of having the Bureaucrat determine directly that there will be de-sysoping? (See also Coren's comments in the section about Casliber's comments, above.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Under such a system, there would be no need for CDA or some other new process. Wikipedia:Administrators#Requests for comments on administrator conduct indicates already that administrators who fail to "properly respond to community concerns" raised during a RfC (or other community discussion, I suppose) may have their sysop bit removed by ArbCom. This is, however, my preferred method: conduct an RfC, establish a consensus that the community does not want a particular admin to have the sysop bit, and refer the case to ArbCom with a request to assess and implement the community's will via a summary motion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking is that we are finding in this RfC and poll that a lot of the community feels those existing methods are lacking, and I'm searching for ways we can, in effect, modify RfC/U to make it more efficient and responsive. I think the discussion with Coren under the Casliber thread was heading in that direction before it sort of petered out. Right now, we have RfC/U for general users and for administrators, but I think we may be able to incorporate some of the more well-received components of CDA into a form of RfC that would be able to send its result to ArbCom. My reading, at this time, of the poll results is that this would be what the community is saying here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an analysis to cite on which this opinion is based? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me guess; it's top secret, and you can show me but then you'll have to kill me? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 19:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be careful what you suggest. I might be a certified ax murderer. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you need to re-certify every year? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The approach of "RfC, then ArbCom" has been used many times, but often it has involved a full ArbCom case. Focusing on summary motions intended to implement a community consensus reached at RfC would be something of a new direction (though not a radical change since, after all, even ArbCom is to some extent subject to community consensus), but I agree that there would be more support for a somewhat revised (or more focused?) form of RfC/U for admins. It would address several of the key concerns raised by opposers, and I can't think of any reason that supporters of CDA would oppose it. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed terms of service for Admins

So far there's only been one comment in response to my suggested solution to the lack of consensus of the current proposal: user:B Fizz/Admin for X years. Please look at it and give your feedback, thanks. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 02:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It sounds like a good idea. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I'd give any process a whirl that makes admins directly accountable to the community. Though re-running would in effect make it so that only 20%-30% opposition would be needed to end an admin's tenure. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing, but it is more harsh than the current CDA proposal as a result.--Father Goose (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Different name, same logistical nightmare. It's still a rehash of admin reconfirmation, and as such still impossible to enact because the logistics of it are such that RfA (or whatever page this gets shunted off to) would end up being utterly useless for any purpose, including reconfirmation. Also, this proposal (and others like it) equate beat-cops to Congressmen, a wholly inappropriate comparison. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 04:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeske, did you even read my proposal? It discusses the flaw in the "logistical nightmare" argument, and recommends that we begin test-driving the idea of fixed terms for Admins by first allowing volunteer Admins to opt-into the restriction. As for "equating beat-cops to congressman", I completely disagree. If the Wikipedia community entrusts a fellow Wikipedian with the sysop bit, then that Wikipedian should maintain that trust. There should be an easy, less-controversial way to de-sysop someone than ArbCom. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz

Even of the ones that opt-in, it's still admin reconfirmation. Even assuming only half the admins opt-in (given that the active admin corps is approximately that large) it remains logistically unviable. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 04:45, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, we handle about 100 AfDs a day -- has that become a useless process? How burdensome would evaluating 15 admins per week be to the community? If most of the admins who come up for reconfirmation have "done right" by the community, I doubt glad-handing them back into office will take that much of the community's time.--Father Goose (talk) 04:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that most of the admins who come up for reconfirmation will invariably have a faction that wants them de-opped. That's the same issue I brought up with the proposal that's the focus of this RfC - The focus isn't on deeds that are good for Wikipedia, but politics (hence my beat-cops to Congressmen comment). —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 04:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And so is the ArbCom members. Sole Soul (talk) 12:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but now you've shifted your argument from how impractical it would be to process 15 reconfirmations a week to how the community cannot be relied upon to evaluate admins in an apolitical manner. And that exact same problem comes up at RfA right now.--Father Goose (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy is right; admins are not elected representatives, and as such notions of recall and term limits are way off base; do cops get recalled or term limited? No, there are other processes for dealing with cops who break the rules. In addition, the fact that RFA has this political problem is not an argument for introducing an unnecessary process that has the same issues. PS AFD isn't comparable to RFA for a number of reasons, including DRV. Rd232 ^talk 12:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you want to bring up police misconduct, surely you must have some sense of how many abuses a cop can get away with over the course of a career. I'd say the community's attitude is the same toward "the worst of admins" and our ability to reel them in using existing processes. That about half of the community (or 73%, going by the earlier general poll question) thinks some sort of recall process is needed suggests that we do not have the same confidence as the cops that their current oversight is sufficient.--Father Goose (talk) 18:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A fixed term is a bad idea. The critical point is that the admins who really help the project are those who get involved helping to revert the promotion pushers (spammers, POV merchants, copyright violators, vandals, etc.). These admins gather a cloud of angry stalkers, and a fixed term would give those stalkers (and their sockpuppets) a wonderful get-even opportunity. Even if the stalkers were rebuffed and the admin were re-affirmed, the emotional toil (not to mention the pointless waste of time) would be a win for the opponents of Wikipedia, and would definitely lead to some admins dropping out – the system would cripple the most effective admins. Johnuniq (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My proposed term of two years gives plenty of time for an admin to out-live the spammers, vandals, and so forth. My perception is that such troublesome individuals usually get bored of Wikipedia quickly or are dealt with accordingly.

Please don't misinterpret my quick responses to mean that I am dismissing your points of view; in fact, I very much appreciate that you are shedding light on issues with fixed terms that I hadn't thought of. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 07:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I have done some work in the anti-spam area, and the amount of flack that the admins take there can be amazing. Sure, a particular spammer or reverted vandal is not going to wait for two years to cause trouble, but I have seen three admins take a persistent stream of irritation at their talk pages, and occasionally at ANI, and when their time for re-admin came up there would be at least half a dozen malcontents who would attempt revenge. Johnuniq (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated User:B Fizz/Admin for X years, specifically adding a Recent concerns and my responses section (though the "my responses" part is not done yet). Kindly review that section as well as the Previous objections and my responses section to make sure I'm accurately capturing the concerns raised. Thanks. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 08:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say this is hopeless. The admin group is so large and so powerful, they will not allow anything to pass. The only reason ArbCom cannot have it for life is because there is no 1000 one of them. Sole Soul (talk) 12:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned briefly above, but I think it's worth saying again. Look at how many of the users who oppose CDA are concerned about people ganging up on a good administrator who has made enemies in the course of doing good work. The kind of reconfirmation here would oust such an administrator if only about 30% of the respondents !voted to do so. In contrast, CDA would require at least a 2/3 majority to accomplish the same thing. Thus, reconfirmation would actually be much harsher than CDA. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be. The reconfirmation could be based on consensus to desysop rather consensus to keep the bit. This way, the ones with grievances can not as easily torpedo a reconfirmation. Also, in another discussion, I mentioned that a when a term is up, an admin has a week period where if there is no protest, the bit is automatically renewed, thus saving a lot of time for everyone. MrMurph101 (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, you are describing what is essentially a CDA required for all administrators after a set period of time, minus the nominations. That's still potentially a lot more draconian than the present proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing like a CDA, just that when there's a reconfirmation, the bar is lower so that those with grievances can't derail it as easy. Also, it wouldn't be all admins since there will be a 1 week window where if there are no objections, reconfirmation is automatic as to lower the amount of discussion and limit it to the cases that really need it. MrMurph101 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've again updated User:B Fizz/Admin for X years, responding to concerns and adding the idea of auto-confirmation. Please review and respond to my responses as you feel appropriate (including the new section, Dealing with the idea that "there's not enough admins"). Also, please note that my proposal is not reconfirmation, though elements and ideas from reconfirmation (such as auto-confirm) could be included. My proposal is a paradigm shift from "Admin for life" to "Admin for X years, with the chance for re-election", largely motivated by the idea that an admin is an elected representative. Thanks. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 20:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that really a reconfirmation, with the alternative of resignation? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to think of it that way, then yes. But like I said, I'm trying to promote the concept of "Admin for X years, with the potential of renewability" rather than the concept of "Admin for life, unless routine reconfirmations remove you from office." Under my proposal, resignation is the default. If a user chooses to "re-run" for admin, then they may. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 02:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

Moved from Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC at 00:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reading and replying to some of the above started me thinking about the reasons why I support something along the lines of this proposal. It's possible that a large part of my view comes from an American civics upbringing, because the main issue that leads me to support something such as this proposal is the idea of checks and balances. The fundamental problem that I see is that, like it or not, we (arguably) have two "camps" of people on Wikipedia now: editors and admins. Now, obviously, the overlap in those groups is actually 100% (you can't be an admin without being an editor, really), and I'll be the first to state that it's a bad idea to paint whole groups of people with a single brush. However, while thinking about this specifically from a group dynamics perspective, it's a decidedly good thing to use such classifications. The main reason for the bad feelings surrounding and inherent in this topic, which are easily discerned in many of the replies from both camps throughout these pages, is the simple fact that one group has a certain power dynamic, while the other group doesn't. The easiest solution to something like that is actually to empower some third group or organization (in this case, it'd be the policy behind a process) to oversight one of the other groups. The fact is that Wikipedia is growing up, and something along the lines of this proposal is simply a component of that growth process.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 05:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The ArbCom is a third group – vetted very thoroughly by the community through a month-long inquiry and election process – empowered to oversee adminship. It is by far the most brutal and rigorous examination process that we have for filling any position of trust on Wikipedia. All Wikipedia editors (admins or not) are allowed to vote in ArbCom elections, provided they meet some very minimal standards for project participation. Non-admin editors are free to run as candidates as well, though none have so far been successful. Any Wikipedia editor (admin or not) is permitted to bring a case before the ArbCom.

The fact is that Wikipedia is growing up, and it has matured past the need for shoot-from-the-hip frontier justice and mob-with-torches lynching parties. We have established formal institutions to handle complex, emotional, otherwise intractable disputes through a reasoned, measured, deliberate presentation and evaluation of evidence, governed by elected, impartial representatives of the community. Individual Wikipedia editors – all of them – have the opportunity to indirectly influence the course of Arbitration through participation in the prior dispute resolution leading up to a case (intervention with involved parties, AN/I discussions, RfC, etc.) and to directly affect the course of a case through making their own statements, presenting evidence, and offering suggested remedies and findings of fact.

Now, while the ArbCom is what I would call an established process, that should not be mistaken for an ossified one. The ArbCom has been steadily taking a number of incremental steps to increase both their openness and their accessibility. Recent years have seen cases handled in a more transparent fasion, through open workshop pages and visible Arb voting and discussion of remedies (among other tweaks). More cases are being handled speedily by open motion, rather than through the full rigamarole of a case.

Sometime along the lines of this proposal would be a step backward, not forward. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe that's the intent, for Arbcom to be the third group, but speaking for myself I just don't see it that way. There's certainly nothing apparent in their policy which specifically places them in an administrator oversight capacity. The few times that they've taken it upon themselves to remove administrative privileges from someone seem to be exceptional incidents rather then normal process. To tell you the truth, I don't really see how Arbcom is all that relevant, to be blunt. They only ever do anything for an infinitesimal fraction of issues, and they are hardly effective at resolving those issues anyway. The only meaningful effect that I've ever noticed Arbcom having is as a "super administrator" intimidation threat, but I've never really seen anything come from that.

We do agree that Wikipedia is growing up at least, and that it's time for the "frontier justice" stuff to end. Something along the lines of this proposal, or the ideas which got it started at least, are what Wikipedia needs in order to further that. It's good to hear that Arbcom is apparently making changes (I'll take your word on that). I wouldn't mind making something like this an "arm of arbcom", or "appendix" to it, or whatever, and from what you're saying here it sounds like that might be acceptable to them as well. If Arbcom is supposed to be about admin enforcement then we should use them for that anyway.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 04:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The specific identification of ArbCom's (sole) role in desysopping is in Wikipedia:Administrators#Removal of adminship (desysopping). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 06:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To reply to the comment by User:Ohms law about "checks and balances". Although initially appealing and in the some(?) states minor judges are elected, the USA does not select their senior judges by popular election, and remove then at any time with a plebiscite. This is even more so for the judges selected for the international tribunals such as those currently active in the Hague (wow would that open up a can of worms). The President can be impeached by congress, but there is not a process for the proletariat to de-elect a president. One of the criticisms of the US system is that at a time of national emergency, such as WWII, the fixed term is still a fixed term and elections must be held. Fixed time periods are there in part because it is well known that mid-term elected officials are often very unpopular (those who voted against them + those who did and are disappointed). The United states is a representative democracy based on the principle that the governing classes knows best (if not why have an electoral collage?). Try living is Switzerland for an alternative approach where they really take individual civic responsibility seriously!

The process suggested here combines some of the worst aspects of popular democracy with ~~few~~ non of the checks and balances that robust democracies have. -- PBS (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Records

Please see neutral number 23 for what I think is a particularly interesting idea about having something like a continuously-archived Wikipedia:Administrator review for every administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Call a vote a vote

Moved from Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC at 19:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me this is a straight up-and-down vote. You need a certain number to start a recall and a certain number for the recall to pass. If it was a discussion we wouldn't need those numeric requirements; it could just be framed as a discussion, and state that consensus would dictate the outcome. Call a spade a spade. Don't try to dress this up in WP:CONSENSUS clothing by calling them "!votes" when they're clearly intended to be counted as votes. If voting is always an insurmountable problem, then this proposal shouldn't be acceptable the way it is presently worded. If voting is sometimes okay (and that does seem to be the case) then it shouldn't be a problem to acknowledge it. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DragonHawk. I tried to highlight this in the Intentions section above, but you did it far more succinctly. If an editor has only 490 edits, and gets harshly bitten by an administrator, they can't help nominate a CDA. Their opinion is not worth as much as a person with 510 edits. It is a vote, and some voters are more equal than others. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like some of us are talking past one another. See WP:POLL#Straw poll guidelines for how Wikipedia does and does not use !votes, and see the actual language of the proposal. How, exactly, is the last sentence of that actual language, for example, what you are claiming? The proponents of the proposal are not trying to mislead or mislabel, although the opponents apparently are. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mislead? Mislabel? I don't think so. Wikipedia:Guide_to_Community_de-adminship#The_nominators, first bullet item says (and I quote) "with accounts at least three months old and with at least 500 edits." I'm not making this up. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DragonHawk was asking about vote versus !vote, not what you call "suffrage". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey regarding WP:NOBIGDEAL

I've created a survey regarding WP:NOBIGDEAL, and I invite anyone and everyone to participate. It is found at User:B Fizz/Admin for X years/Survey 1. Thanks. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 17:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is overloaded, but wasn't there a similar survey about the same question pretty recently? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there was, I'd love to read over it. Anybody got a link? ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 21:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Create a permanent admin record for complaints and praises

Moved from Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC at 16:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am neutral to the case. There should be a de-adminship process, and users might be able to nominate, However:

The number of users and edit count should be defined more thoroughly, 500 edits with anti-spam and 50 edits in article creations are not equal. It is time wikipedia should separate or even replace edit count concept with contribution count.
- We should review edit count policies, and strictly separate edit counts for AFD etc. discussions, SPAM related reverts, scripted edits with actual content creation or improvements. There are users with top edit counts who doesn't even create or edit content of even a ten percent of their edit counts.

WP:Canvas is still a vague term and not a well defined policy itself which should be reviewed. There should be an easier way to auto-notice all involved or previously edited users in wikipedia without any user intervention for all kinds of processes about articles and people including AFD, TFD, RFA, other wiki-wide decisions etc.

We should also discuss all RFA process from start to end. Because after a while only privileged users who get along with previous admins becomes nominated and elected in RFAs. Being elected as adminship without any high-number actual content creation to wikipedia should be prohibited. Don't tell me it is, it is sure not by example case.
- Also RFA process should result by number of mistakes a user had, instead number of edit count etc. Simply because many users-admins tend to delete complaints from their user talk instantly and noone bothers checking page history

User involvements are necessary yet open to misuse. Also if de-adminship process not works, admin and his admin-friend group will hold grudge and will try to find a way to punish nominators somehow. Happened before and will sure happen in the future. We still have many blood feuds in wikipedia among many users.
- There should be a permanent admin record and complaint/praise section, where users can vote admins' record or add their negative experiences with them which admins themselves cannot delete and regularly gets reviewed by a team of selected admins for a long term tracking of admin behaviours.
Admins tend to delete talk page complaints, sometimes even the most productive criticism, like rest of some regular users. Permanent admin record should prevent this "remove criticism" and cover up approach.

There should be a higher council and space in wikipedia for wiki-wide cases, where users can state their opinions and inform all wiki-community about the ideas or solutions they provide if users subscribed to that channel. Currently wikipedia processes are no-different than real world government institutions. The voting and debating should me faster and easier.

Updated below debate and create a new section for proposal. Kasaalan (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of permanent admin records

Moved from Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC at 16:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this feedback. I'm especially intrigued by your suggestion about a "permanent record", sort of like a continuously-archived Wikipedia:Administrator review for every administrator. In my opinion, that's an idea that definitely merits further discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: my comment, moved to here, was that I support "further discussion", not that I am supporting some sort of as yet unwritten proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's another non-starter in this best of all possible wikiworlds. Block logs are maintained as permanent record of misdeeds of the plebians, but no similar record is maintained of the misdeeds of "the most trusted members of our community". They walk away unblemished; that's the way it's designed to work. We all know of many administrators who if they weren't in office would have block logs even longer than mine. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a permanent page documenting past issues that were supported by evidence, not something that anyone with an ax to grind can put something on though. You hear all sorts of unsubstantiated spite being tossed around and that is of no real value. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree with that. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a good idea. Entries posted to the permanent record should probably be moderated by some group in order to ensure accuracy and readability of the complaint/praise, without trudging through pages and pages of ranting. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 14:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be properly thought out, I hope you are not planning to try to implement based on this? Call it a straw poll, if that. I can think of a number of objections, but I'd rather give people the opportunity to come up with a full fledged proposal before tossing darts.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be visible to all users. Maybe only admins should access to such data. Yet an admin record is crucial. There are admins who even instantly delete users' criticism about them to keep their record clean. Admin record is way better than community de-adminship process. Kasaalan (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No such thing. Admins lack the power to delete stuff permanently. Any other user can look at what they've deleted from their talk page. And it's not like people don't have memories.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Admins deletion of complaints appear in history, yet admins' talk pages are frequently edited so it remains hidden in history even if you watch the page it is hard to be aware of such actions, so it is not about memory. So do you claim any other user has to track and review 1000s of edits in history to check whether an admin is deleting user complaints or not. What a waste of time. Kasaalan (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, for the same reasons the main proposal wouldn't work: invites drama without any real benefit. Also punishes admins who do necessary work in heated or conflict-filled areas. Hopelessly midguided. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Recipe for drama, and also redundant. Every admin action is already reviewable by other admins, and anyone who suggests that admins are never held accountable hasn't read ANI. (Granted screaming "admin abuse" there is less likely to yield results than a proper arbcom case, but it's still pretty common). -- Bfigura ^(talk) 17:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "real benefit" that Andrew is not seeing is a central location to review an administrator's actions. ANI, talk pages, and a person's memory are all disjoint and none are standardized or unified into an easy-to-review format. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 18:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, at least there should be a track page for formal procedures. Adminship requires another level of neutrality in my opinion, especially controversial cases. Most of the new users aren't aware many of the wiki features or pages. Also most of the tools are 3rd party and not implemented into standard wikipedia features. Kasaalan (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, user talk pages should serve this purpose, containing various conversations as well as notices of AN & ANI discussions, RFCs, and being named as parties to arbitration. If admins are using deletion or protection to remove valid criticism from their talk pages, reports of such should be taken to ANI. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting idea, and kudos to those who thought of it, but it strikes me as an inefficient and problematic approach to the problem of sysops abusing or misusing the tools. Firstly, problem sysops constitute a minority of all sysops, so it is inefficient to implement a program that requires work to be carried out for all ~1,700 of them. Secondly, it is much easier to document negative incidents than positive incidents, since it is the negative incidents that create controversy and the positive incidents that usually pass unnoticed. Without some mechanism to counter this, the records will inevitably become skewed and fail to present a balanced overview of sysops' records. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very good points. On seeing both sides of the issue, I tend to agree that this would be inefficient. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything related to users or privileged users tend to be misused anyway. The issue is which solution leads less abuse. Except swears and insults, especially admins shouldn't delete their talk page criticism anyway. Yet that is not the case, like the rest of the users admins tend to erase records, on the other hand if they do not delete them somehow while rest deleting such complaints it appears even a good admin gets complaints than the rest of worse admins. De-adminship by 10 votes will not work anyway, first it is near impossible to gather 10 votes by independent users at the same time, on the other hand if users are related somehow or has single purpose accounts, whether they camouflage it or not, it is too easy to gather even 100 people to file a de-adminship which will lead POV accusations against admins. If there will be a de-adminship process the vote system should be time independent. Yet remember both hidden vote and open vote like both limited-time and permanent complain systems for de-adminship has their own drawbacks. Kasaalan (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is the assertion that sysops tend to routinely blank criticism from their talk pages rather than archiving it based on concrete evidence or just a personal perception? I follow quite a few user talk pages (of admins and non-admins) and, with the exception of blanking posts that contain incivility or personal attacks, I rarely see the phenomenon that you describe. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have come up with the cases, even though I generally do not watch user pages. But I am not telling this for that admin did this or that, so do not expect me to post examples, yet my example cases are not imaginary but real world ones. And let alone the personal attacks, I have come up with deletion of just criticism. Also if some post contain personal attack or swear, admin should remove only that swear and leave the comments and criticism.

Moreover even if no admin delete such complaints, who may search 1000s of talk pages to find such cases anyway. So create a permanent admin record for complaints and/or praises whether it is just visible to other admin, higher admins or all users. Kasaalan (talk) 12:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've yet to see what useful purpose this would serve. Most admins do not seek other office, so it would not be useful for voters. If we had a reconfirmation process, it might be useful for !voters. But so far as I can see, in the system we now have, such a system would have the sole purpose of gathering people's grievances, justified or no, in one place, without anything to do with them.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improper forum for discussion of permanent admin records

Moved from Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC at 16:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC started to ask a single question. Now, after nearly 300 people have voted, we introduce another motion? No, this isn't the proper forum and anything generated from this should grow into its own future RfC. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A clear consensus has not been reached on this proposal; this one is relevant to the idea of admin accountability, where better to discuss it? ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 14:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't want to see happen is for people to review the above at some point and where there is a large majority one way or another and have people point to this and say "But we had consensus!" literally hundreds of people who might be interested in this discussion have already visited this page and already departed. It's a separate issue, a separate proposal, and it should be discussed on its own. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hammersoft that this must not be treated as an actual motion, but I also think it's entirely reasonable to have discussion of the idea, for the purposes of (1) informing thought about the actual motion on this page, and (2) perhaps working towards another proposal, but one that would have to have its own RfC in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC seems to have failed to gain consensus by any reasonable measure. There's no need to have two similar polls ongoing at the same time. As for the reason to have separate locations: so it's clear what people are actually being asked, and so that everyone doesn't hit tl;dr. Also, I would imagine it's generally a bad idea to "try and inform thought about the actual motion" after 300 people have already !voted. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 17:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bfigura, that's why we !vote and not vote. We are one week into a four-week discussion, and no one knows whether, for example, the discussion will close as "fail" or as "no consensus". Opponents do us all a disservice by trying to call the "vote" before the !vote is over. Discussion is a good thing, unless one just doesn't want the subject discussed at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This RfC wasn't setup as a discussion. It was set up as a vote. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only in your framing of it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From this comment above, there are ~15-20 people (I think it's less actually; counted 12) discussing this proposal. From this comment down, there's nearly 300 people voting. You think this is a discussion? A format like this would have been considerably more helpful. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call this a vote, I explicitly said !vote. However, given that this has largely been treated as a poll (based upon the number of people !voting versus discussing), changing the parameters of a poll after it's started isn't a great idea. (Nor would it be a good idea in a discussion, since many people aren't going to return to see the revised instructions, especially in a page as large as this.) -- Bfigura ^(talk) 18:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are we arguing about here? One user took it upon themselves to set up this part of the discussion section as if it were a poll on a proposal about permanent records, when that proposal hasn't been written yet, and moved some comments by me and others, saying that we liked the idea of discussing the concept further, and formatted those comments as though they were !votes. It then devolved into complaints about, what?, the section here?, this page in its entirety? Let's please just agree that no one is putting forth a formal proposal on permanent records for administrators. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hell if I know at this point. An editor made this section today, 2 March 2010, yet there's a lower series of comments from people in February. I think it's been refactored too much. I suggest pushing it to the talk page or its own nascent RfC. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes I made the section today with an updated proposal, since I was neutral first, yet as the way it is community de-adminship will only create more confusion. I explained why. Kasaalan (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to move forward

To avoid having parallel discussions of the same thing in two different places, I'm moving this to the discussion already in progress: link.--Tryptofish (talk) 17:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin QA wikiproject?

Are there any wikiprojects dedicated to improving the quality of administrative work? A wikiproject could do several things—such as implementing the permanent admin record or a CDA-like process that eventually goes through ArbCom—without needing to gain the entire community's consensus and establishing such practices as "policy", so long as such things are implemented in a way that improves Wikipedia.

If such a group does not exist, would anyone care to help me propose/create it? ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 18:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close the poll?

It looks like there really isn't going to be significant growth or shifts in the outcome of the poll here.

Poll opens: [15].
After 1 day: 139 new votes, 139 votes total.
After 2 days: 55 new votes, 194 votes total.
After 3 days: 38 new votes, 232 votes total.
After 4 days: 23 new votes, 255 votes total.
After 5 days: 22 new votes, 277 votes total.
After 6 days: 15 new votes, 292 votes total.
After 7 days: 13 new votes, 305 votes total.
After 8 days: 6 new votes, 311 votes total.

A glance at the votes (or at Nakon's counter) reveals that the proposal remains mired in the low forties percent support. (While I shan't belabor the point here, I also note that a number of 'support' voters are expressing a simple preference for any process, and have reservations about this particular proposed process.) It is obvious that this proposal isn't going to become policy, so the poll has served its purpose.

Despite the original clock, I think that it's time for this poll to close — or at least to be unlisted from RfC and CENT. The proponents of the proposal may of course feel free to carry on any discussion they wish about new processes, though I hope that they will resist the temptation to rush another proposal before the community in the near future. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. So you are pre-emptively trying to close this process and to argue against "the temptation to rush another proposal before the community in the near future". Nice. My understanding is that the watchlist page listing is set to expire soon. No one is being put upon by seeing a listing at RfC-policy or at CENT. Let users continue to discuss it, unless you just don't trust the community to carry on a discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it isn't being discussed, and what truth could be garnered from a poll such as this is already present in its current form. Why waste the community's patience, time, and effort by continuing? If we should continue, what benefit is there to be gained? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I advocated for delisting this some time ago. I think what information could be gathered from this poll is available now. I seriously doubt any future revelations will come out in it. It may be revealing to look at this graph. While this graph shows RfA and this isn't RfA, it does show that after eight days there's precious little change in outcomes. I've been keeping stats at 3 hour intervals on this poll. Leaving out neutrals (which is to the supporter's favor), the highest support percentage in the last week was 47.3%, which was 24 hours ago. Since then, six new opposes have come in to one support. At this point 20 support votes are needed to get to 50/50. 174 support votes are needed to get to 66.6% support (which is more votes than there are supports). We're never going to reach 2/3rds support, and it's highly unlikely we'll reach 50/50. Even if we do reach 50/50, implementing this with a simple majority as a shift in policy will cause a huge uproar. This proposal had its chance. It's dead. The post-mortem should begin, and all comments (regardless of where on the page or on this talk page) need to be weighed and considered in a dispassionate manner. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the proposal appears to have no chance of succeeding in its present form. I think this should be closed and effort should be concentrated on modifying it to attract more support. Everyking (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing not dispassionate here is the way opponents are trying to shut this down. "Waste the community's patience"? No one is being forced to do anything they don't want to do. Who exactly has said that they are going to "implement this with a simple majority"? There is time to resolve whether this is "fail" or "no consensus". It is highly disrespectful of the over-100 users who have contributed in the "support" section to treat this process the way the three persons above are doing. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you've certainly exhausted my patience. Over and over and over again my efforts here are being treated with disdain. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to help this proposal. Shutting it down now and reviewing all comments dispassionately as a step forward is a way forward. Maybe you don't like it, fine, but don't treat my comments as some sort of malicious attempt on my part to shut this thing down. I am sick to death of you characterizing me and others who disagree with you as some sort of evil plague on this proposal. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't I be saying that to you? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early on, I got called disruptive to CDA discussions for asking a question. It's gone downhill from there. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been multiple instances during this RfC when emotions have run high. Let us acknowledge that and acknowledge any deep-seated disagreements, but let us please avoid focusing on participants. Too much time has already been spent scrutinizing the identity and supposed intentions of individual participants, whereas our real focus should be on concrete arguments, constructive proposals, and the preferences of the community as a whole. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Tryptofish, I'm a supporter of the current proposal. I just don't want to waste time on something that cannot pass—I want to figure out a way to actually accomplish something here. Everyking (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the RfC should be allowed to run for a while longer—at least for a few days more, if not the full 30 days. That participation has declined steadily without much change in the % of support for the proposal is undeniable, but the RfC still seems to be generating some constructive dialogue. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Black Falcon, thank you very much. Of course, you are right. Everyking, sorry about that. I guess that, in fairness to people who have read the original statement about when it will close and are waiting before commenting, I would still insist on letting this stay open until the originally-announced close date. Honestly, doing so does no harm to anyone, nor does it interfere with discussion of what will come next. See the discussion under "Intentions" on the main page, for such discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I will. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I should note that my suggestion was to close the poll, as the decision about whether or not the extant proposal will become policy has been made. The RfC, watchlist, and CENT notices encourage people to vote in a poll which has already achieved a clear outcome. The discussion can continue in whatever reasonable way the participants like, but at this point the poll is just a distraction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ten, I think we all understood what you were suggesting. You obviously have your own strong opinions. Please let others, who do not all share your opinions, be able to express their own. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, I think Ten meant only to clarify his position and not to stifle anyone else's. Ten (I hope you don't mind the shortening of your user name), that is true, but I think that the RfC is not just a venue for discussion (and voting) but still continues to be a source of discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a source of discussion, I don't know where. There's lots of meta discussion to be sure, but discussion about various points of CDA? Precious little of that. Lots of voting of course, but discussion? No, not really. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually referring to meta-level discussion and discussion about alternatives to a CDA-type proposal (e.g., permanent record, fixed terms, though I think neither one is a practical solution). It's true that discussion of CDA itself has mostly died down, but that is to be expected in light of the course of the poll and the steady opposition to some of its finer points and even core principles (e.g., the vote-based system). I think Rd232 also makes a good point: closing the RfC so early will engender feelings (most in good faith, some not) that the initiative was stifled and could hinder efforts to move forward and consider alternatives. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure this proposal can get any deader, but closing it early is only going to cause the most vocal supporters to cry foul. Let it be. Rd232 ^talk 20:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is as clear to me that what Tenofalltrades wants to do is undermine the actual integrity of the proposal (and by extension the preceding work on admin recall), with the ultimate intention of preventing any further changes to the admin system, such as Fixed Terms and Reviews. I don't support CDA, but I won't accept any attempts to close it early - unless it is a clear and obvious consensus from a large majority from all 'sides'. It is far too early for that, if it ever happens. I would be prepared to actually revert another "Lets kill this" poll (Hammersoft), as would others I'm sure, an as act of general bad news. CDA is a stage in a long and essential process that cannot allowed to be so easily perverted. I may have moved my support from CDA, but I'm still very aware of those who will do whatever they can to keep the status quo. Fairness is still a concern, whether we support this particular CDA proposal or not.

My big regret is not dealing with TenofAllTrades idiosyncratic (and weirdly impossible to edit at all) 'comment system' when the RfC started, but unfortunately I had not long decided that CDA was the wrong way to go. An undermined proposal is no good to anyone, although the tidal wave behind the behemoth is something that no serious Wikipedian can now ignore - however much they are told to do so by the fanatical few. The Support vote is always around 15-20 votes behind, and there are a number of 'positives' (ie "I support CDA, but..") in the Oppose and Neutral votes too. Being so fervently against CDA is far far loopier than being fervently into it. One horrible CDA in practice, and it would be unlikely for it to be used again, or even continued with on the first CDA, if it was that disruptive. Real deep-seated anger over CDA must be there for underlying reasons beyond a CDA process itself, it is just illogical otherwise. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And once again I am characterized as an evil demon plague upon CDA, singled out in particular no less. Unreal. Absolutely unreal. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is no surprise that you and TenofallTrades (CDA's two most vocal critics from its inception) are here arguing for the RfC poll to close within days of it opening! Isn't it telling that nobody new (from around 200 people) raised the burning issue of 'early closure' instead? Or has even backed you up when you suggested it? Matt Lewis (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. WP:AGF. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, at least one person so far has supported the suggestion to close early (Everyking, who supports CDA). I confess that I am unaware of much of the background discussion that preceded this RfC, but TenOfAllTrades' suggestion was not an unreasoned attempt to quash discussion of the matter. He (I'm guessing...) supported his argument with clear data showing a steady decline in participation accompanied by very little change in the level of support for this particular proposal. It's your and everyone else's right to be unconvinced, or to suggest that there are factors that Ten overlooked, but there appears to be no cause to jump to an assumption of bad faith. I will repeat my request from above: please let's keep the focus on the arguments and not on the people making them. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from Everking then? I am not 'jumping' to anything regarding TenofAllTrades I asure you - he has been like this since CDA was being worked on. That's why I am so vocal with him - he has unrelentingly tried to quash CDA, no question about it. Someone made him an "Awesome Wikipedian" today (this is his "own day" apparently). I find all the politics pretty sickening, and the only way I can think of doing my bit is by pointing things out when I see them. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let the Poll run its course. GoodDay (talk) 22:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"RfC" != "poll". Last I checked, RfC stands for "Request for Comment". There may not be many more !votes but plenty of talk seems to be ongoing. I say let it continue, though I myself don't have many more comments to add. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 23:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; the activity on the RfC now seems to be shifting from voting to discussing what the community has responded to positively, and what they've rejected. Unless you're in a rush to bury all further discussion of it, there's no justification for closing the RfC earlier than its planned duration.--Father Goose (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The was put up for the Watchlist at one poin't What happened with that? I'm getting increasingly concerned about the fairness of all this now. I would like to see Tenofalltrades 'reponses' ot this RFC to be 'refactored' to under the poll comments (in the comments section), not at the top. He can incorporate general criticism into the "FAQ", as I have done. I didn't cover all of them - more can be put in. I may no longer support CDA, but I'm not prepared to have my time wasted. This has to be a credible RfC, and all the evidence is of TenofAllTrades claiming things have been an unprofessional 'waste of time'. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Credible or not, it's clear that it won't be adopted in its current form. Keeping it on the watchlist-notice won't change that. I think at this point, discussion needs to shift to what changes are needed that would make a CDA process palatable to the community.--Father Goose (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been a credible RfC if it had not been formatted as a poll. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A disproportionate, if not majority of oppose votes were from administrators. If we were to discount votes by admins, then it is possible the proposal may in fact have a majority. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Nakon's script has a breakdown. Non-Admins support the proposal by 54.15%, whereas 78% of admins oppose the proposal. So the majority of editors who do not have a COI support the proposal. Wapondaponda (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? Do you plan on disenfranchising editors from voting on this poll just because they are also administrators? --Hammersoft (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)Discussion section. I will note that the 'Discussion' section was deliberately placed on the page above the voting (and after the introductory material) to encourage poll voters to review the arguments for and against the proposal before jumping straight into a vote. Further, it was hoped that it would encourage them to engage with other editors and discuss those arguments. Finally, it was hoped that it would tend to discourage long, deeply-threaded discussions cluttering the body of the vote by providing a natural outlet for longer conversations. Anyone was – and still is – welcome to add their own comments to that section. What's unfair about that?

I don't know how or when the 'Comments' section arose, but it wasn't part of the original design of the RfC page. At this point, it seems that the 'Discussion' section is for discussion about the proposal being voted on, while the 'Comments' section (at the bottom of the page) has morphed to a discussion of alternative proposals. Refactoring all of the discussion relating to the current proposal down into the post-proposal what-does-the-future-hold comments would seem likely to increase confusion and clutter and disrupt that ongoing to discussion.

Watchlist notice. The reason why the watchlist notice no longer appears is persuant to the discussion at MediaWiki talk:Watchlist-details#Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC. It is quite normal for watchlist notices to appear for a limited time, and a seven-day lifetime for the notice was set prior to the start of the RfC.

RfC and CENT. I suggested pulling these notices (and the now-expired watchlist notice) because they now refer to a part of the discussion which is moot. (The wording of CENT is "Discussion on whether to implement Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship", while the RfC notice opens with "This is a Request for comment (RfC) on a proposal to implement Community de-adminship (CDA) on the English Wikipedia....". The watchlist notice, recently removed, read "A poll is being conducted on whether to implement community recall of administrators as a policy....") I don't think there is any real dispute over the outcome of the poll — the current CDA proposal isn't going to become policy; inviting people to a discussion on 'whether to implement' it is wasting their time. My point above – and here – is that the poll is now a distraction from the current focus of this page: to discuss alternative proposals. Neither notice, on CENT or RfC, represents that reality. If you're going to have a month of requesting comments, then you might want to reconsider and readjust what it is you're inviting people to. This will be my final comment in this thread, since I don't need any more abuse and insinuations of bad faith from Tryptofish and Matt Lewis. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ten, I was admiring your comment until I got to the last part. Anyway, as Ten correctly said, when I placed the request for the watchlist listing, the discussion ended up being to run it for seven days only. And I think that I have treated Ten with a remarkable degree of fairness in supporting the placement of his full-protected criticisms above the poll section, and allowing it there from the opening of the poll even though no supporters of the proposal were given an opportunity to see it before it went up, while the proposal, the FAQ, and everything else was developed on-Wiki in full view of anyone interested. We can go around in circles about whether the CENT notice is causing the sky to fall, or whether the !votes of administrators in this poll should be treated as those of second-class citizens, but I maintain that it would be a lot more productive to, as Father Goose, Black Falcon, GoodDay, and BFizz have said, continue the discussion that is going on, and find ways to create something that will have the support of the community, and serve the community well. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately you offered Ten a 'remarkable degree of fairness' when he hadn't shown you any himself! You can't have been that surprised. You might have thought different if you took some more of the flak I tended to receive on everyone's behalf, perhaps. For what it's worth, when I look at the RfC comments, I can see that if was with you on inception, the polling element would actually be in favour of CDA right now (using your final 'version' of CDA too). I don't want to see CDA passing, but I can actually see how, after a month, it could poll 65-70%. I still don't think the Crats would accept it. I have no qualms in it getting close, as that would be beneficial for everyone except a (relatively) small group of admin, oddbods and wannabees. The closer it is, the closer eventual change will be.

The clever thing about making the RfC last a month (the wisest thing you've done on CDA) is that it can deal with these kind of inevitable lulls. One of the things you need to do now is chase the Watchlist people. Little gets done without fighting spirit on Wikipedia, but you have to fight in the right places (even if it means taking criticism from various 'sides', or getting a little beaten up). It's your job to get the community to hear about this RfC, and to actually want to comment on it. I can think of quite a few people who will surely know about it, but haven't voted. You need to make this something people want to vote for. If I were you I would re-title your FAQ ('Pros and cons of CDA' perhaps?) and move Ten's comments into it. That way - after reading a short neutral paragraph - people can begin with expressing themselves. You can then go to all the canvassing sections and inform them of the new format.

PS. I've found out where Ten's 'Criticisms of CDA' actually exist - they are in his sandbox, and are linked to the RfC via some kind of clever code. Obviously no-one can manipulate his text directly (interject etc - his purpose for doing it this way) - but you can simply copy from within the new Pros and Cons page. If he reverts you I will be there, and others hopefully too. It will take a bit of courage, but you need it in these situations. Ten has been ruling the show here, but he is never full on-policy, so with sufficient 'will' you should be able to fashion a more sensible (and typical) RfC page. Matt Lewis (talk) 18:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PPS. I've just noticed that all the previous participants have not been informed of the RfC on their Talk pages. I thought we had promised we would do this at one point? Matt Lewis (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at VOTE2, no less than 42 (out of 77) voters of have not voted at the RfC. This will probably translate to around 50-60 people we can inform, given the early lists too. I don't think it was me who promised to inform everyone about the RfC, but I did always plan to, so I send them a short message now. Certainly they've not all be watching (or following) the draft page.

I've sent 60 out (people who havent voted yet), and have decided not to go further back than early Jan. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also there are the userboxes, which are no longer linked-to I think: Wikipedia:Community_de-adminship/userboxes. Matt Lewis (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a mostly uninvolved participant, I just want to say that these ad hominem arguments and harassment (on both sides) are really getting old. This page is on my watchlist, and every time it jumps to the top I glance at it only to find one of four or five editors adding to some petty argument. Give it a rest, huh? This is an RfC, not your personal crusade. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing (or not) the rules surrounding adminship (rather than CDA in particular) is clearly a personal crusade for a number of people in here. I admit it (of course) - I want to see fixed terms and some kind of admin review system ooooh - really badly?. I consider myself a 'Wikipedian' (for what it's worth) but I won't ever feel truly comfortable here with the current 'lifetime peerage' situation regarding adminship (or get to a number of unwritten articles I could get up in a day or two - but being drawn to policy and guidelines etc always seem to stop me, and so many others I'm sure). Adminship as it stands grates with my sensibilities, and I can see how needless it is (and how better things would be without it) every day I'm on here. Unprofessional adminship is always at the route of the deep-seated problems I see too: I don't find admin (even the good ones) as particularly successful. Behind the 'pettiness' is too wide a crack. You may be more neutral (philosophical, whatever) about adminship, but it's just the way it is.

On reflection btw, I should have written the above in Tryptofish's talk. Because of the same faces issue, it is easy to forget that the talk is watchlisted by so many. Wikipedia often seems to be as small as it is big to me. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Testing hypotheses

Moved from Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC at 07:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:26, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm trained as a scientist, I tend to think in terms of hypothesis testing. A hypothesis that has been stated again and again on this page is that CDA would bring forth some sub-population of the Wikipedia community that would dominate the CDA process and be opposed to good administrators. To quote from TenOfAllTrades' opus above: "the self-appointed Guardians of the Faith. They have strong (and often negative) opinions about admins collectively and the concept of adminship, and they have found in CDA an opportunity to proclaim on their particular hot-button issues. This group will be the only one which watchlists the CDA page and actively tracks new cases; they will form their own somewhat isolated, somewhat insular community around CDA." Apparently such users would make it impossible for a badly-justified CDA nomination to be defeated by the right-thinking community.

Well, it seems to me that this hypothesis has been tested, over the past week, at this page. If the hypothesis were true, then these Guardians of the Faith would have overwhelmed the poll and given the support section a sweeping majority. Ironic, huh. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This page was advertised in the watchlist notice, CENT, and every major community noticeboard, getting about 300 participants so far. Do you sincerely believe that particular CDAs would get a similar level of advertisement or consequent participation? Christopher Parham (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The version of the proposal that is proposed here requires that each CDA be announced at the Village Pump, the administrator notice board, and the bureaucrat noticeboard. It also requires, at a minimum, that it be supported by 50 editors and 65% of all participants, which means that 77 editors would have had to participate (65% of 77 equals 50). Since whatever may eventually become policy is going to be modified from what is proposed here, all of that can be adjusted. CDAs could be announced on CENT or elsewhere. The 10 nominators likely will not be able to !vote. We could, perhaps, make a minimum of 100 supporters; with 65% (if we don't raise that as well), there would have to be 154 participants at a minimum. These things are all soluble. In no way do they support the "hypothesis". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be unreasonable to expect that every one of these requests would be announced via the watchlist notice, but I think that doing so is the bare minimum necessary to get it noticed fairly and give the opportunity to reasonably forbid all forms of canvassing. I only came here because of the watchlist notice; I am sure that there are a number of editors who mostly prefer to spend their time in the article space and they should have just as much notice as the more community-oriented editors.--~T P W 06:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really suggesting that users who stand in opposition to the "Guardians of the Faith" are the ones who only see watchlist notices? I would think watchlist notices would be more likely to attract the attention of editors who are not tuned in to policy-related notice boards, and who, thus, would be more likely to be unsympathetic to "the establishment". And I'm pointing out that, nonetheless, the pattern of responses here tends to pull the rug out from under the claim that the Wikipedia community turns into a torch-carrying mob at the mention of de-sysoping. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to observe that my opposition is in no way based on the "guardians of the faith" rationale (to me, the fatal flaw of the proposal is that it assumes that it would be easy for a well-meaning person to judge who should not be an admin; I think our experience has shown that it is extraordinary difficult; thus, I think that even if we assume that most participants will be well-meaning--a dangerous assumption--they will still screw up a decent percentage of the time). Many different reasons have been stated in opposition on the page and they should not be summed up this way. Chick Bowen 02:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But Chick, that is not what I said. I didn't say that opponents are all basing their positions on any one argument. I said that one of the prominent arguments is the one that Ten made. And I said the results on this page contradict that argument. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I apologize for misreading your phrase "again and again." At any rate, my point stands, I think: I agree with you that the "Guardians of the Faith" argument has been overstated, but I still think CDA would be disastrous. Chick Bowen 22:13, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Analyzing the results

While I have no particular preference on whether the poll should remain open, it is clear to me that the proposal as it stands does not have community consensus. I do note, however, that a significant number of opposers mention that they would support a de-adminship process, just not this one - and likewise, several supporters note they support the principle, but that certain details are lacking. So I will post here my analysis of why this proposal didn't work out, and a simple counterproposal.

The main thing that appears wrong is simply instruction creep. The proposal is six pages long, most of which deals with exceptions, limits, suffrage, and balancing efforts. Simply put, Wikipedia Does Not Work That Way. Any numerical limit can be gamed, any judgment by vote count is missing the point. Debating whether the cutoff should be 68% or 86% or whatever is really not helping. Per the KISS principle, the only kind of proposal that has a chance is one that works like most other processes in Wikipedia: get people in to discuss the topic, and get a responsible party to close the debate and gauge consensus. That is all we need, and that is how e.g. deletion and adminship requests already work.

This brings us to the main issue: who is eligible to close a de-adminship debate? Realistically, there are only two groups that can judge it for consensus: the bureaucrats, and the ArbCom. In either case, having a group of e.g. five crats or arbs examine it is preferable to having a single person close it. The arbs strike me as the best choice here: if people feel that admins aren't accountable and shouldn't have a lifetime position, then this isn't solved by leaving the decision to 'crats, who have the same term lengths and accountability (or lack thereof) as admins do.

Aside from the above, I note that several opposers mention that they do not support this because it is too lenient; this includes the perennial notion of admin term limits. These people should consider that if a perceivedly lenient proposal doesn't meet consensus, then a sterner variant certainly won't. When it becomes clear that your own ideal will never gain enough support, is it better to do nothing, or to compromise with a step in the right direction?

And, of course, several people claim that this is not needed, or that we already do this. And they may well be right. Traditionally, the best policy comes from merely writing down what we already do, so why not do exactly that? New editors may be unaware of what we already do, and may become upset for an apparent (but not necessarily actual) lack of accountability. If we write it down and have a neat page to point them to, this may be a decent boost to editor morale. We just need to write it down in such a way that it doesn't become a straitjacket. I'll make an attempt in the next section, and leave this section open to comments on my analysis, or different analyses by others. >Radiant< 16:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, in large part I don't think this is analysis. It's opinion. While I agree with much of what you said, it's not analysis. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radiant's KISS proposal

Based on the analysis above, I am formulating this proposal which I believe to be largely based on current practice.

When an RFC about an administrator's conduct has been ongoing for at least a week (subject to existing RFC procedure), any editor may make a request for this admin to resign, at the bottom of the RFC. The request gets a support, oppose and neutral section, that editors can use to express their opinion; and it is advertised on WP:AN and the village pump, and other public news pages as necessary. The rest of the RFC will remain open for further discussion.

The goal here is not to ascertain whether the admin has abused his tools; instead, the question is whether the admin's actions have caused that admin to lose the trust of the community. Per Arbitration precedent, admins displaying systematic bad judgment, severe lack of civility, or an unwillingness to discuss their actions may have their adminship revoked even if no abuse of tools has taken place.

This request is closed after one week. If during this time, at least fifty editors support the resignation and a majority of editors supports the resignation, then the Arbitration Committee will examine the request to see whether consensus supports the resignation. Alternatively, a subcommittee of at least five arbiters, as decided by the ArbCom, may examine it. Generally, the Committee will decide one of three things:

The adminship is not revoked, and no such requests may be made about this admin in RFC for six months. This is the default outcome if public support for the resignation is lacking.
The adminship is revoked, and may be regained only via a new successful WP:RFA. This is the default if the admin voluntarily steps down during the process.
An arbitration case is opened to further examine the behavior of all involved.

The intent is to add this to the RFC and Arbitration policies. Essentially, the only new thing here is that the ArbCom promises to examine a serious de-adminship request. Now I suspect that they would do that anyway; however, this isn't written down anywhere, and seeing how many editors would like some kind of (semi-)formal de-opping process, I think it would be beneficial to write this down.

I believe this addresses most of Ten's points on the main page. For instance, there is at least one week of discussion before any kind of !voting begins; detailed discussion remains at the top of the page; the arbcom can filter out socks and canvassing; there is no numerical threshold; and the admin's rebuttal appears near the top of the RFC. Also, this is only half a page, as opposed to six. Do people think this can fly? And also, can we please discuss this instead of putting it to a binary vote? >Radiant< 16:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much about that. I've been thinking a lot about the same issues over the last several days, and asking questions about things along these lines. I've been trying not to go too far yet down the road of actually making any concrete proposals, but, for what it's worth, I've come to many of the same conclusions as you. Basically, I'm thinking along the lines of an RfC/A (Request for comments/administrator), as a more focused refinement of RfC/U (Request for comments/user), where the process would be more specifically focused on evaluating an administrator with respect to whether a recommendation should be forwarded to ArbCom. I totally agree with you that we need to make a U-turn from arguing about 65% versus 67%, while I think it remains to be seen whether the community will really let anything stay KISS-simple, once one starts letting users comment. Anyway, we always have plenty of time to discuss ideas, and despite all the recent motions to close, I think the CDA proposal has been received much better than earlier related proposals ever were. In fact, the current ratio of about 47% support to 53% oppose is hardly a resounding consensus in favor of the status quo. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not hot about the six month hiatus; that seems eminently gameable to me. I can tell you, however, that the committee (and I expect the community at large) would show very little patience towards vexatious litigants. — Coren ^(talk) 17:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think Coren is right about the six months thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiwide policy polls should be re-voted and rewieved periodically between 1-5 years

Since users began debating whether we close debate or not, a limited debate by limited number of users who can only read a limited part of the long proposals and debates in a limited time for wiki-wide concerns is another form of self insisted oligarchy. Do not offer re-proposals after archival, which will waste double effort. So

Create a process where established users can re-vote and review important wiki-wide policies periodically each 1-5 years by a automatic review process, and make voting and debating processes easier for a much wider participation.

After community de-adminship and BLP voting processes, it is the best approach we can do. Kasaalan (talk) 12:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copied same text to BLP debates. Kasaalan (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving stale discussions from RfC page

I moved two stale discussions (i.e., no comments in at least 5 days) from the main RfC page to this talk page (see #Expression of concern, #Why?). I do not believe that we should move any discussion to an archive subpage as long as the RfC is open (and, once it is closed, there'll be no need to move anything to a subpage), but I think that removing old discussions may make it easier to participate in newer ones.

By the way, I do not intend to move (nor would I support moving) the threads "Comments by some of the editors who prepared the proposal", "Flaws in this process noted by TenOfAllTrades", and "Rebuttal to TenOfAllTrades by Tryptofish", as those are directly-relevant to the CDA proposal being considered and because so many people have referenced TenOfAllTrades' arguments and Tryptofish's rebuttals.

Please revert if you disagree with the change. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you place a separate link for each discussion in a visible place, like a box for all links, I am also fine. Kasaalan (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So far, I've merely been preserving the section headings. I think a box of links might be a viable option once there are more than just a handful (3, so far) of moved discussions. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They had to be moved here for sure, but I'm not sure why they are archived now they are off the main page. They are not strictly history - I don't understand the archival element. Ironically, I don't think that it makes this page that accessible - it makes a lot of the page look out of date.

Also, what difference would it make if TenofAllTrades response was here in the Talk page? (or underneath the polls perhaps)? A link could easily be put in its place if people actually said "per TenofAll above". But the major damage has clearly been done regarding its placement. If it was advertising space it would be sold at the highest premium rate (Microsoft at the 'Superbowl' or something like that). It wasn't a link to a 'FAQ' page - it was basically a negative introduction to the RfC (and a complext link from an involved editors sandbox). I'm still shaking my head over it, given the work I put into trying to make the RfC something that would be taken seriously as an honest representative vote. I no longer favour CDA, but in my eyes it would be polling ahead right now in a differently formatted RfC (though I doubt it could make the high percentage needed to be trialled), and I think that everyone knows that deep down. There would be a lot more useful Neutrals too. What ever anyone claims, the stakes and the pitch have been extremely high. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't I know it! But I want to say something on the positive side: opponents of the proposal ought to realize that they have been treated extremely fairly in this process. No one has tried to railroad the proposal through, despite the unfortunate claims by a few opponents that this was going to happen. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It just about made it there I think. You gave Tenofall way too much though - it wasn't needed at all. But what is done is done. I think the polling element of the RfC will just about be close enough to demand being moved on - ie it will prove that there is a clear consensus for change, if not for the CDA proposal (or this particular proposal - depending on what you want to do). Getting that consensus is an extrememly hard task on Wikipedia, and is the key thing here. It could never be an overwhelming consensus, but I think it will be a clear consensus. Matt Lewis (talk)

I added the archive boxes merely to distinguish those comments that were added while the discussion was on the main page from possible comments added while the discussion was on the talk page. I certainly didn't mean to "close down" the threads, and I hadn't considered that implication. I will remove them now. Thank you for pointing this out. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's true. It is entirely possible that the proposal would have passed (by some measure, or be running with a higher support percentage) if people had been unaware of the flaws in it, or if the criticism had been moved to another page requiring a click-through. In much the same way, I think that many more editors would pass RfA if the questions and discussion were moved to a talk page, and RfA voters only saw the nominators' endorsements above the voting section.

Still, I don't think that either outcome would be good for Wikipedia. In response to suggestions that my comments were somehow unfair, or a surprise, I can only note that every point I raised in this RfC was drawn from comments and questions (many from me) made during CDA's development. We've always encouraged discussion before voting for anything around here, and my comments simply represent my own summary of the unresolved issues with the CDA proposal. It's not an honest RfC if you only allow comments from supporters at the top of the page. It's not an honest referendum if you only allow one side the opportunity to speak 'above the fold'.

Finally, I don't understand Matt's (repeated) suggestions that there is something wrong with my decision to transclude my comment. There's no reason for other editors to modify my signed remarks, and I was aiming to minimize the amount of wikicode clutter in the discussion section. (Frankly, I believed that transcluding the comment helped to make the discussion more accessible. I was well aware that my remarks were substantial, and I used both transclusion and collapse boxes to keep my footprint to the minimum necessary to make my points.) If Matt Lewis – or anyone else – was wondering how it worked, he could have just asked. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct that you composed the material off-Wiki, and then copied it into user-space, and from there to this page, at the time the RfC opened? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, nobody is suggesting that we hide criticisms of the proposal. My point was that if the 'FAQ' page was instead a fairly-written 'Pros and cons' page (ie a place for the benefits and the criticisms) then the Support vote would be ahead to some degree. And the Neutral vote would be up too. The Oppose vote is ahead because a highly partisan "Flaws" attack was unfairly advertised at the start, just before the Support vote (at very least they should have been next to the Oppose vote) - they basically lead the whole show, making this a really bizarre RfC. If advertising didn't matter no one would use it - it's why we have canvassing rules on Wikipedia. The daft FAQ page was neither fish nor foul, but you Flaws introduction was full on, and misleading too - the 'Reverse RfA' matter was something I spent a lot of energy effectively removing from the proposal, and I don't remember any support from you - I found it completely unexpected that you started your Flaws with it to such a strong degree. It will all have to be factored in. Matt Lewis (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not randomly invite Wikipedians to give their opinion?

As noted by some here, there is an issue with Admins voting against this proposal. Also there may be people who were banned for a long time in the past who are voting for the proposal. The Admins are dominating the no vote, while they only form a small part of the Wiki-community. Therefore, the vote is not representative of the community.

I think that one can get around this problem by randomly sampling Wikipedians from the database of all Wikipedians and asking them to give their opinion. Perhaps some conditions should be added, like a minimum number of contributions. Count Iblis (talk) 16:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussions on Wikipedia are decided by editors who are eligible to participate (i.e., not blocked or banned) and have enough interest in the topic to participate. We can control the former, but not the latter (i.e., we can't force anyone to become interested or uninterested in an issue). Sysops comprise a relatively small part of the community, but they form a significantly larger part of the active community and an even larger part of the portion of the active community that has a significant interest in the internal workings of the project.

While I believe that your suggestion is well-intentioned, I believe that it would involve inappropriate canvassing:

Under certain conditions it is acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, but messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion compromise the consensus building process ... .

I can think of no reason to expect that random notifications will "improve the quality of a discussion" (i.e., new perspectives, new ideas) which already has more than 350 experienced participants. Notifying editors with the goal of countering perceived overrepresentation of one group in the "no vote" would qualify, in my opinion, as "influenc[ing] the outcome". Also:

Friendly notices should ideally be posted in the smallest number of places that will attract the attention of a wide range of editors who will be able to help resolve the dispute.

This discussion has been advertised in several key locations, including a watchlist notice visible to all editors, but random notifications of individual users would necessarily involve posting in a large number of places that, individually, attract the attention of a small number of editors. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do we feel about renewing the watchlist page listing for the last few days of the RfC? Something like "The poll on whether to implement community recall of administrators will close on March 22. You are invited to join the discussion." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about the issue of participation, I thought that it might be useful to continue TenOfAllTrades' analysis above:

After 9 days: 4 new votes, 315 total votes
After 10 days: 18 new votes, 333 total votes
After 11 days: 17 new votes, 350 total votes
After 12 days: 2 new votes, 352 total votes
After 13 days: 3 new votes, 355 total votes

With the exception of a temporary surge in participation due to Matt Lewis' and Hammersoft's notification of approximately 100 contributors to the draft page who still had not participated in the RfC, the level of participation seems to have stabilized at 2–4 new comments per day. In addition, the level of support for the proposal has remained stable at 42–44%. I would not object to reactivating the watchlist notice in the last 48 or 72 hours of the poll, but I'm not sure whether it would have much impact. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm not sure it would change things much either, but I felt it appropriate to ask in light of the start of this thread. Of course, something we have no way of measuring is whether the drop-off in the rate of participation is due to some extent to the fact that the watchlist notice ended. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It may have had an effect, but the trend of declining participation was already evident by the time it was removed on March 2 (i.e., after 8 days). Still, I would support reactivating the notice two or three days before the RfC closes. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, what does the 42–44% level of support become if the administrator !votes are excluded (i.e. the !voters who have a vested interest in the outcome)? I would like to see the non-administrator for–against tally published alongside the gross tally at the end of this process. HWV258. 23:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And how about all the non-administrators who have been blocked? A review by me of the first 37 non-administrators to vote support and the same for the opposes shows people who have been blocked have an almost 50% greater chance of voting in support of this. Pretty obvious conflict of interest. We should also calculate all those who are not administrators who have failed an RfA. We should also calculate all those who have been involved in an RfC against an administrator. Can't have any conflict of interests here, no no, that would be very bad for the project now wouldn't it? Only the most saintly and virgin pure may vote here. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, why not seek comment from Wikipedians who have been around quite a while, and have given the impression that they are reasonably level-headed and sensible? Oh, wait, most of them are admins, and most of the admins are them. :-( Hesperian 00:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Or, we could stop taking pot shots at those with whom we disagree, and see how best to get input from as many members of the community as possible. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And one way to ensure we get input from as many members of the community as possible is to active defend against attempts to deprecate the views of one component of that membership. Hesperian 00:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who is to say who is "level-headed and sensible"? Oh wait; that's what we are trying to decide. BTW, no one suggested not "seeking comment" from all; rather, I would like the community to know both !vote outcomes. HWV258. 00:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Both" as in the overall outcome, and the outcome if admins are excluded? Are you also going to publish the results if we exclude Wikipedians whose user names start with an H? No? You're specifically singling out admins for exclusion? On the grounds that their views should be deprecated? Yeah, that's what I thought. Hesperian 00:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Are you also going to publish the results if we exclude Wikipedians whose user names start with an H"—what? This RfC has nothing to do with Wikipedians whose names start with "H"; however it has a great deal to do with Wikipedians who are admins. Get it? HWV258. 00:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get it. It's just as I said. Hesperian 00:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Oh, wait, most of them are admins, and most of the admins are them"—do you have any evidence for this pseudo-statistical claim? HWV258. 01:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked the first ten and the most recent ten editors who added "oppose" comments. Of those twenty, eleven are administrators (four in the first ten, and seven in the most recent ten). I know I can't necessarily extrapolate on that basis, but it is tempting to consider the 175 "opposes" as closer to 79 (nine-twentieths of 175). (Walk carefully away from the audience; turn; run screaming from the room as the self-detonating howls of outrage begin.) HWV258. 01:23, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you by any chance look at the first ten and last ten of the supporters and see how many had been in contact with an administrator, had participated in an RFA, had commented on AN or ANI regarding an admin, been blocked by an admin, had an article deleted by an admin, or was an admin? No, I thought not. You're bending the statistics to make the consensus look like how you want it to, but this website doesn't work like that; instead consensus is created by the community and is judged the way the majority of the community wants it to be judged, not by one person with an agenda. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what you are saying is that the results of this RfC are pretty much meaningless due to the fact that comments on both sides can be based on prejudice? HWV258. 02:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I think what Coffee is saying is: You're seeing only what you want to see, and not what's really there. That, or: When people disagree with you, don't assume (unless you're omniscient, in which you don't need to assume) that it's because they're evil, liars, or stupid. They may be one or all of those things, but don't assume it. Comment on the substance of the arguments, not on what you assume to be the intentions of the people making them. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right—and what is substantive in this particular corner of the argument is whether it is appropriate for administrators to comment on a process that changes the way administrators are disciplined? HWV258. 03:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is as much of a vested interest in that situation as there is with non-admins commenting on a process that changes the way that they can discipline administrators. The fact is that this process will seriously affect only administrators who misuse or abuse the admin tools to extent that they lose the trust of a significant portion of the community. Unless you believe that most admins fall into this category, there is no justification for trying to diminish the validity of participation by admins as a whole, just as there is no justification for trying to diminish the validity of participation by non-admins on similar grounds. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who on Earth said anything about "diminish the validity of participation by admins as a whole"? This is turning out to be a sensitive nerve that causes editors to jump to conclusions. My suggested reorganisation only seeks to allow the reader to find out which of the comments come from administrators (since COI issues have been raised, and the RfC concerns the way administrators are handled). All this negativity and defensive behaviour is unnecessary. Here's another suggestion for the admins around here: how about saying "sure, bring it on—we've got nothing to hide" (especially the ones who have "given the impression that they are reasonably level-headed and sensible"). HWV258. 23:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should admins also be forced to wear a scarlet letter at all times while discussing this proposal as well? It's been noted repeatedly that there is another group with a blatant COI and significant representation in this poll, yet you seem to focus your efforts at diminishing the value of only one group's comments and !votes. I am left to question why that would be. Reso lute 00:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Badge of shame"? Could you (incorrectly) add more drama to the debate if you tried? For the nth time: I did not seek to diminish anyone's comments; rather I would like the comments to be reorganised. As it stands, it is impossible to tell (whilst reading) which comments come from people who have a vested interest in the outcome of the RfC. I have answered your question very clearly (and often): The COI arises because administrators are commenting on a proposal to alter the way in which administrators are disciplined. Geez, it really is a simple concept. Please understand that I have the best interests of WP at heart in making sure that we have transparent procedures and fair outcomes. HWV258. 00:51, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Separate but equal", eh? Yeah, that's always worked out well in reality... And I note that you, yet again, chose to simply ignore the argument that another group with an obvious COI exists. As such, you have failed to address my questions as to why you are only interested in highlighting only a certain group. Reso lute 01:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry you think I've ignored it, so I'll have another go. The 'other group" (as you put it) does not have a COI because the results of the RfC are not aimed at them. Their arguments (right or wrong) can be handled in the rough-and-tumble of debate (and that is precisely what is happening). That sort of debate happens in all RfCs (and I've seen a few). The reason the admin "group" has to be a special case is that it is impossible to know whether an attempt at weight-of-numbers (under the guise of repeated "reasonable" comments) is occurring. As an example, if I have a beef with an admin (which I don't), sure I can come here and try to ply some pressure; but the point is that I speak for myself. On the other hand, admins can add weight as a group. Don't worry about things: at the end of this exercise, some of us will simply go through and reorganise comments and counts (in a different place obviously), and then we will be able to better analyse the results. HWV258. 01:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The results of the RfC are too aimed at "the other group". For every controversial administrator who fears this proposal, there is someone with a long block log who would love the opportunity to take down an admin or two. Anybody who votes here on the basis of how they personally might participate in one of these in the future, has a conflict of interest. This is true regardless of whether they anticipate being the target or the instigator. The most effective way to eliminate conflicts of interest votes would be to disenfranchise contributors with blocks in their log. This would remove about 90 votes, including all of the most controversial and error-prone administrators, and all of non-administrators with huge chips on their shoulders. Once they are removed, the results are... largely unchanged: 111 supports, 129 opposes, for a support rate of 46%. Hesperian 02:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The point being that the person with a block log who uses the suggested process to "take down an admin" is not guaranteed to succeed just because they start the process. There must be community support for the removal of admin privileges, and that cannot stem from just one disgruntled editor. That is the backstop that means it isn't fair to sum-up the stats as you have. Please don't mix up the "COI" of individuals who may wish to fire trivial unsucceedable claims under the scheme, with the COI of those who don't wish the scheme to start in the first place. That is a very important point that is being ignored by some. (So that would then be closer to 158 "support" and 129 "opposes" (for a support rate of 55%)—interesting.) HWV258. 02:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that an utterly benign administrator like Grant65, who hasn't issued a block or protected a page since 2007, and hasn't deleted or restored a page since 2008, has a greater conflict of interest in this proposal than, say, Malleus Fatuorum, simply because Malleus wouldn't be able to desysop anyone on his own if the proposal got up? Hesperian 03:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to comment on individual cases. The point of course is when a system is exposed to such blatant COI issues, every person who stands to benefit falls under suspicion. That's why it should never have been allowed to progress to this state. HWV258. 04:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not going to comment on individual cases." I must remember that one next time I want to slither out of the grip of a compelling counter-example. So we've come across to "every person who stands to benefit", now; that's a step in the right direction. Hesperian 05:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You must step back and answer the original point—not get bogged down with what might happen down the track. HWV258. 05:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you actually following this conversation? I ask because your more recent comments have been incoherent. If an explanation exists for the non sequitur above, be so kind as to furnish me with it. Hesperian 05:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to say it is utterly mindboggling that you don't understand the potential for people who have ended up on the wrong side of an administrative action using CDA as a means of retribution or harrassment against said administrator(s), but really, your arguments thus far leave me unsurprised that you feel this way. I think your own biases are patently obvious at this point, especially as you continually attempt to game the system by pushing aside the input of members of this community. Please spare everyone your hypocrisy in trying to argue everyone else's flaws when your own are so obvious to everyone but yourself. Reso lute 03:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What a ridiculous thing to say. You can play the man and not the ball all you want, but my "biases" are (and always have been) that I want WP to be seen to be doing the right thing. It's only the tiny number of vocal admins around here that can't/won't see that asking admins to !vote on a system that curbs their own power is a COI that beggars belief. It's not "mindboggling" at all, and we've covered the issue that individuals with grudges will obviously not get far with frivolous actions. Please try to understand that the potential for individuals to manipulate the system is an entirely different issue to COI issues stopping the system from even getting up to the line. Lastly, please remain civil. I have not attacked anyone, but you are now straying into accusations (bias, flaws). It would be nice if you could address the issues raised, rather than attempting to tear me down. HWV258. 04:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"individuals with grudges will obviously not get far with frivolous actions." This is pretty much the main point of contention in this discussion, so you aren't going to get far simply asserting it as fact over and over again.

You seem to be following a pattern of repeatedly conflating the current discussion with what might happen if the system gets up, and then, when people respond to your comments, reminding them not to do what you just did. It has been asserted several times that if some controversial admins have a conflict of interest in this vote, then equally some controversial non-admins also have a conflict of interest in this vote. It is you who keeps responding to this point with irrelevant comments about how much relative influence they will have if the vote gets up, so please don't start lecturing others about maintaing the distinction when you can't maintain it yourself. Hesperian 05:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already covered. We are getting nowhere now. HWV258. 05:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You just don't get it. If there are people who have been wrongly blocked and feel they should have had redress against the administrator who blocked them, we want their input here. If there are people who have been blocked and are glad, in hindsight, that they were unable to overreact and seek a community de-sysop, we want their input here. If there are administrators who have performed bad blocks and consider themselves fortunate to have had the opportunity to learn from them, we want their input here. If there are administrators who have performed proper but unpopular blocks and are grateful that administration is not a popularity contest, we want their input here. If there are administrators who have never performed an inappropriate or unpopular block, and wish a few of the administrators who have would get kicked out so as to stop giving administrators a bad name, we want their input here. All perspectives are wanted. The only way to get a handle on community opinion is to consult the whole community. You can get any result you want if you're selective about who to include and who to exclude, but the result will not be a reflection of community opinion. Hesperian 01:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't have said it better myself. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And if there are power-hungry administrators who don't wish to have their control issues addressed by this proposal—we want their input here (of course wrapped up in whatever level of reasonableness suits their purpose). Who's to know? The point being of course that non-administrators can cope with, and debate the issues you mention. Interesting that administrators have a grossly disproportionate level of representation here—and in the "oppose" section! HWV258. 02:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not at all interesting. It would be interesting if you could infer the reason behind it. But you can't. It might be because most admins are desperate to cling to power, or it might be because most admins appreciate that they make at least one enemy every time they act against disruption, or it might be sheer coincidence. Hesperian 02:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"It might be because most admins are desperate to cling to power..."—hmmm. On this admission alone, I'm curious if anyone else feels it is now not appropriate to allow administrators to contribute to this RfC? You have just managed to cast doubt on every single "oppose" !vote made by an administrator. It is no longer possible to determine why an administrator opposes this RfC. Whereas it is possible to determine more about the motives of non-administrators who !vote "support" (e.g. those that have not been blocked by an admin, or had an article deleted, etc.—like me). HWV258. 02:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, it is evident that you're only capable of reading and assimilating comments that can be construed as supporting your point of view. Do let me know if you ever gain the ability to read comments that challenge your point of view. Bye. Hesperian 03:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious to know if your viewpoints are representative of those pushing this process. Certainly your attitude of assuming bad faith and bias presents a strong indication of just who is likely to use a system such as this. Likewise, this leads me to further question its value to this community.Reso lute 02:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um yes, I have been given special powers at WP and can therefore speak representatively of all others. Why make rhetorical comments like the above?

My attitude is not assuming bad faith; rather it's opening up the floor for discussion of what could be a fundamentally flawed process. It's interesting that all those that have jumped to a conclusion of my posts—are administrators themselves.

HWV258. 02:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that such is the case. Most of the participants in this RfC have chosen to focus on the substance of various arguments and proposals (that, or quitely voted) and have not voiced assumptions about the intentions, preferences, beliefs, and values of people about whom they know virtually nothing. Of course, except for the requirements formalized in the CDA process, there is no way to control who uses it and for what reason. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I agree. I've been passively watching this proposal long enough to know it is a good faith attempt. HVW258 did call correctly that my comments along those lines were rhetorical. Reso lute 03:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look: I just rattled the cage because I (personally, obviously) feel the process is flawed. If there is little support for my stance, then so be it. I think we all have the right (duty?) to raise such things if they are of concern. HWV258. 03:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely need to know admin versus non-admin votes. There's an inherent conflict of interest for admins in this vote; I'm not suggesting admin votes be discounted, but in interpreting "consensus", the views of both categories should be distinguished. Tony (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because some admins would be brought down by this, all admins have a conflict of interest. Because some non-admins would love to bring down an admin with this, all non-admins.... Hesperian 04:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...all admins have a conflict of interest"—no, but as has already been determined, the conflict-of-interest aspect indicates why it is impossible to determine the motives of any one administrator in this issue. So why are they !voting? It's basic stuff (in a democracy), and something that the arbitrators are particular careful about when they comment/vote/recuse.

This is something that is going to do WP's public perception no good whatsoever (e.g. "Hey, look at this Philbert—they had a vote as to whether admins should be accountable to the masses at WP, and it was voted down by the administrators!" "The hell you say Norbert!").

In my example above, I'm not certain it is correct to say it is only "79", but I do know that (as sure as God made little green administrators) it shouldn't be "175".

HWV258. 05:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So because "it is impossible to determine the motives of any one administrator in this issue" (by the way, this is not limited to admins only) you are prepared to assume the worst of all of them? What about assuming good faith in the absence of evidence of bad faith? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you equate the existence of a COI with bad faith??? --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has demonstrated that a significant vested interest exists for most sysops. The CDA process, after all, does not have the purpose of removing the sysop bit from all existing admins, but rather of removing it from only those sysops who show a pattern of abusing or misusing the tools and who, thereby, lose the trust of the community. If we are considering only a vested interest in theory rather than in practice, then we should also recognize the fact that, in theory, everyone else may have a vested interest as well (see Coffee's comment of "01:50, 8 March 2010 (UTC)" and my comment of "07:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)"). In addition, following the implications of the argument that we ought to discount participation by all sysops because this RfC is about a mechanism for sanctioning sysops, one would arrive at the absurd, but logical, conclusion that in discussions of Wikipedia:Blocking policy we ought to discount participation by all editors who have been or may, in theory, be blocked in the future (that including sysops, of course) because that policy is about mechanisms for sanctioning editors.

The "bad faith" comes into play when one chooses to assume, in the absence of any clear supporting evidence, that those sysops participating in this RfC are basing their decisions on a desire to avoid accountability rather than because they actually believe that this proposal is problematic or inferior to other alternatives. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 08:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noting the existence of a COI does not ABF. --Michael C. Price ^talk 08:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where in lies the COI, admin can be blocked(they are expected to honour such blocks), they can be de-mopped by ARBCOM, or a crat if at anytime there are conserns over the use of the mop, CDA is only another process who's end result is nothing that cant already occur through existing processes. While admins as group can be readily identified with pointed fingers, what cant be seen is the COI from axe weilding grudge holding editors that want to extract revenge or self interest groups that want to shape/control Wikipedia content in accordance with that of their spiritual/political leaders. Of course we could just assume good faith in the opinions expressed or we can switch the drama to max overload create an equation that sets the for value each opinion based on a criteria that covers all potential COI. Gnan garra 14:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Noting the existence of a COI does not ABF". Judging the merit of a !vote based exclusively on the existence of a

icon on an editors user page most certainly is an assumption of bad faith. What's most interesting about HWV258's comments is that while he will happily point out that 11 people out of the first ten and last ten people to oppose this proposal are administrators, he evidently does not feel it useful to note that many of these !voters offered well reasoned explanations for their opposition. Nor does he feel the need to respond to any of these concerns, all of which have been noted repeatedly throughout. I suppose "rattling the cages" is far, far easier than actually working to convince people of the merits of this proposal. Reso lute 14:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hesperian's comments are confusing:

His/her comments could be interpreted as "all admins stick other, and all non-admins stick other".
Hesperian is an admin, so his/her comments may be ironically - e.g. Hesperian does not think "... all admins have a conflict of interest" but is satirising the comments of some opponent.

Back to the original of a random poll, it's a standard technique in politics and marketing. Polls can for example:

measure more inclusively and accurately the sub-groups within the "public".
suggest whether a issue / product / etc. is (not) of interest to members of the "public".
test whether issues / products / etc. would be interest to members of the "public" but have not been developed because people more involved have been more interested in other issues / products / etc. --Philcha (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And, how would you come up with a defensible "representative sample" for this? Two words, "Literary Digest".--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales could randomly select a few thousand Wikipedians using some random generator. Answers can be recorded together with number of contributions. You can then study the results as a function of some cut off N for minimal number of contributions. If above some small N, the poll results do not depend strongly on N and the majority does not sway from one to the other outcome, you got a solid result. Count Iblis (talk) 16:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I could come up with a defensible "representative sample" better than "Literary Digest". If we can get advice from statisticians on WP, we could produce a more reliable and information one. Some simple ideas:

Estimate number of respondents required. There are formulae that relate the number of responses in the numerous option in each question to the estimate number of respondents required.
Number of questionnaires sent = Estimate number of respondents required / response rate from previous polls. --Philcha (talk) 16:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it a good idea? Because this poll is losing? It would lose anyway, even if not a single admin had voted.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easy to state; please explain how you have reached that conclusion. HWV258. 20:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not randomly invite Wikipedians to give their opinion? (section break 1)

Sigh. I'd like to nominate this talk thread for some kind of record for spending a lot of energy accomplishing nothing useful. And to answer a question that may have been asked rhetorically above, whether views lumping all administrators into some kind of evil monolith "are representative of those pushing this process", my answer is, um, no. Blech! --Tryptofish (talk) 17:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see the "support" and "oppose" sections split into the following four:

Support (comments by administrators)
Support (comments by non-administrators)
Oppose (comments by administrators)
Oppose (comments by non-administrators)

The above doesn't purport to change a single comment; rather, it aims to move the comments. This is an administrative function, and I'm happy to do it if no one else wants the task. The split is necessary as this RfC pertains to administrators and as things stand there is a COI. Regardless of the RfC's outcome, this split will be useful for future analysis. HWV258. 20:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, please don't change any of the format mid-process. You can easily find the same information using the script by Nakon that is linked under "comments" near the bottom of the poll section. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. And if you apply that, even among non-admins, this is below sixty percent. Well south of passing.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spin again? Above fifty percent, well north of dismissing out of hand. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, Tryptofish, who is dismissing it out of hand? Although it is a proposal which, unless there is a dramatic pickup, won't reach fifty percent of those expressing a preference.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could see this RFC as a probe into whether or not this proposal is interesting enough to have more debate on. For that you only need more than, say, 30% support (as tat means that there is not a huge consensus against the proposal, so it is not a waste of time debating it more). Count Iblis (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are well beyond the point where anyone can seriously dispute the fact that there is significant interest in this topic and that more productive discussion is needed. I think that Wehwalt's comment applied only to approving this particular admin recall process. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Now, suppose that there will be no consensus about any proposal, could one start an ArbCom process to let the Arbitrators decide on community de-adminship and on how to implement that? ArbCom is the Wiki-analogue of a Constitutional Court. In cases where issues cannot be resolved by politicians (the analogue of deciding by community consensus), e.g. in case of Abortion in the US, the Supreme Court will eventually step in. Count Iblis (talk) 00:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Just as ArbCom is not the analog of Congress (and let's stipulate that I'm stretching the analogy here, so we don't need to have a discussion about it), I do not think that they would want to create policy. As I see it, what will come next is discussion about changing the proposal here to be responsive to the criticisms that have arisen during the RfC, and I am personally very interested in what arbitrators and clerks think about that, particularly as it relates to the thread growing out of Casliber's comment. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry Tryptofish, but it is not up to you to (bluntly and immediately) say "no". The point about the reorganisation (which should have been done from the beginning) is that it is important that people know the basis for the comments that come out of this process (it is after all a RfC). Enough people have raised the COI problem for us to now take steps to help us determine if there is an issue. The reorganisation makes no difference to the numbers or comments; so why are you so against it? As others have pointed out: the number of updates have diminished to negligible levels, so there is no risk of confusing people who want to comment. This is purely an administrative function that makes things easier for people to analyse the results, and to determine if/where COI problems might exist). I don't need your permission to do this, and can certainly repeat the information in a new section or off a talk page somewhere. HWV258. 21:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lets talk about potential COI a very quick look at your edit history shows Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Shells (folk band) (2nd nomination) in which you express an dislike of of the actions of admins ...We are seeing an ugly side of the policing of WP. This is precisely the sort of thing that drives people away...[16], as you presume that because a person is an admin they have a COI, then you should also declare your own WP:COI an have you opinion sectioned out. Gnan garra 00:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's absolutely ridiculous (and a horrible extension of an argument). I didn't express a dislike of the action because they were an admin; I expressed a dislike because I was dealing with deletionists. You will also notice that I accepted the decision with no further comment. You post is nothing but a poor attempt to shift focus away from the ridiculous situation here: there is a massive COI in asking administrators to comment on an RfC that deals with the way administrators can be disciplined. There is no dignity left in this "debate" thanks to posts such as yours. HWV258. 00:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why its ridiculous you have a clear stated dislike of Wikipedia policing, CDA will give you the opportunity to extract some revenge against those that judge the consensus. Where as you say all admins have a COI without evidence supporting your claim, admins dont benefit from having another process only those who dont have sufficient reason to start an RFC or and ARBCOM will benefit from this process. You want a "community" process yet want to exclude parts of the "community" from formulating the process such action clearly demonstrate that the CDA process is being driven for reason that arent in the interest of the community. Gnan garra 01:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply pejorative exaggeration. Please look through my history and see that I work very well within the WP framework. I have not (as you incorrectly state) "a clear stated dislike of Wikipedia policing"; that is a very broad accusation. Rather I have a problem with some very stubborn deletionists who are determined to tear down parts of WP. That is a different issue, and I've learned to live with it. Please understand that my concerns are not based on whether the deletionist is an admin. Thanks for understanding that point (I hope). I respect the actions of admins and the time spent and dedication they have to WP. I didn't state "all admins have a COI". The simple point is that any admin commenting here can have a COI, and since this RfC is specifically targetting the way admins are disciplined, there is an issue that should be addressed. As a result, I believe administrator comments should be categorised accordingly so that readers of the RfC can make an informed decision. HWV258. 01:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see your toning down your rhetoric, pointing out that an editor has sysop tools because one or two may have a COI(which I still dont see how) is not telling the reality of the story, in fact its closer to shooting the dog when it barks at an intruder. There are many editors who have failed WP:RFA, many more who didnt agree with a XFD decision(eg[17]) who could be hold grudges against admins, likewise the many editors who have been blocked. There are social/political groups that frequently try to alter Wikipedia policies and those rewriting history according to Garth, in this discussion those are the COI's that need to be highlighted as the potential harm to Wikipedia stems from there. All(well 99%, there's always doubt) admins are working to improve and protect Wikipedia that is not the case for all, or even the vast majority of editors. Gnan garra 02:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But for Heaven's sake, the vast majority of admins will continue that good work untroubled when a proposal such as this finally gets up (and it is inevitable in a democracy such as WP). I keep trying to point out that the COI comes not from the little issues that will arise from the workings of such a proposal; rather, it comes from the determined effort of the administrators around here to stop the proposal in the first place. The fact that a couple of admins on this talk page persist in misunderstanding my intentions (and then extrapolating those intentions to be what they never were) is very troubling. I'm still waiting for the confirmation from the admins in this neck of the woods that they truly believe that !voting by admins on a proposal to curb admin's powers isn't a COI. For future reference, how about a clear statement along those lines? The best defence I have seen so far is to ignore that point, but to do the old debating trick of turning the argument around to try and attack the other side (um, ah, there must be COI on the other side as well). Even if you can demonstrate some level of COI on the "other side", that doesn't confer the right for a group with vested interest to use numbers to reject a proposal that will directly effect them. I stand by my proposal that admin comments should be separated into distinct "support" and "oppose" sections. In case anyone is wondering, I promise here and now that I will never initiate an action against an administrator if this (or something similar) is implemented. In my experience, talking to people is enough to come to an understanding (I hope that remains the case here). I will tell you something for free though—if I were an admin, I would welcome something like this with open arms. The ability to "survive" in a completely accountable environment would be: liberating. HWV258. 05:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course its not COI, community consensus can only achieve by the community participating. If the proposal is good it'll get consensus because the vast majority will support it, if the proposal needs to eliminate sections of the community to get passed then there is a problem with the proposal not the community. Gnan garra 06:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Circular argument (you cannot demonstrate that opposition !votes weren't placed there by editors who don't want their privileges diminished). This is the same principle that drives arbitrators to recuse from time to time (something that administrators should have done in this case). The (admittedly pejorative) administrators' point-of-view placed near the top of page should have been enough for the non-administrator community to fairly decide this issue. This has turned out to be a shameful episode in WP's story. HWV258. 07:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, truly a shameful episode. People will look back on this in years to come, as the crucial poll that should have been rejected by half the community, and instead was rejected by the whole community. Shock horror. Hesperian 08:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot demonstrate that opposition !votes weren't placed there by editors who don't want their privileges diminished - The principle is "assume good faith in the absence of evidence of bad faith", not "demonstrate that there is no bad faith" (and before someone asks me again about why I equate a supposed COI with "bad faith": it would be in bad faith for an administrator to oppose a proposal merely in order to preserve his or her sysop bit, without regard for whether the proposal will improve or hurt Wikipedia). As for the "shameful episode" comment ... well, that is nothing other than an appeal to emotion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 09:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am happy to oblige by providing that confirmation: I believe that for most admins, who have no reason to expect that a successful CDA will be initiated against them, there is no conflict of interest (defined as "an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor) involved in voicing an opinion on a proposal intended to implement a particular mechanism of admin recall.

Why? A couple of reasons. First, CDA is not a proposal to "curb admins' powers". It is a proposal to implement a particular mechanism of admin recall which, if it operates properly, will affect only a small minority of admins. Someone who has no reason to expect that he or she will be affected by a process has no reason to have a conflict of interest regarding that process. Second, community-based recall of admins is not a new concept. As various participants have noted during this RfC, there already is a community-based recall process: an RfC—open to everyone, of course, with no discrimination based on user access level or on assumptions of perceived or potential biases or conflicts of interest—to determine whether an admin still has the trust of the community, followed by a request to ArbCom to review and implement the community consensus. Opposition to this particular CDA proposal does not necessarily translate to opposition to the principle of community-based recall of admins in general.

Now, there may be a vested interest here (again, it does not apply only to admins), but note: "This does not mean that such editors' arguments should be dismissed as arising from a conflict of interest. ... Discuss the issue, not the editor; and never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is." -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I actually said "no, please...". You don't have consensus to do that, and editors made their comments without knowing that they might be refactored without their consent. My advice: set up a separate page or talk page, with the material refactored however you wish. It is fundamentally unfair for one editor to change the "rules of the game" this far along in the process. By the way, can someone remind me how much I'm getting paid to do this? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, and it is interesting, as of this time the numbers according to Nakon's script are 55.46% support from non-administrators, 40% support from administrators open to recall, and 20.37% support from administrators not open to recall. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish, I think one should be careful about drawing inferences from the "open to recall" percentages. I suspect that quite a large number of admins who are not in the category, myself included (I have not placed myself in the category simply because I have not yet posted my specific criteria), would voluntarily give up the sysop bit or stand for re-confirmation if asked to do so by several users whom they respect and consider to be neutral. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. I was just reporting the numbers as they are shown on the script page, my hope being that it might satisfy the desire to refactor the poll page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the points HWV has made. To my way of thinking, the results should have shown the category of user from the beginning. Conflict of interest appears to be just as much an issue here as in the discharge of admins' day-to-day duties. Tony (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting out user types is a massive assumption of bad faith. Not only that, it's useless as a way to judge consensus on the question. It's just turning this into a pointed stick to poke at admins. This coming from an admin who was once in favor of this idea but after reading some of this discussion is firmly against. This is going no where and your basically wasting your time. RxS (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As of today, Nakon's script has 55.9% of Non-admins supporting the proposal and about 77% of admins against the proposal. There is a perception that this proposal would simply be used by editors with a grudge seeking retribution against administrators. I tend to view this as more of a preventive measure. If administrators are aware that the community can take action against them if they use their administrative privileges poorly, I believe they will give much more thought about how and when to use their tools. If an administrator consults with others, gives warnings, and displays impartiality in disputes, then only an unreasonable editor can hold a grudge if found on the wrong side of administrative actions. In summary, we shouldn't only look at the issue of grudges, but also whether this proposal will help improve the quality administrative decisions. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the point that you are trying to make, but I want to point out that the outcome of this RfC will not affect whether "the community can take action against [sysops who] use their administrative privileges poorly", but simply whether we will use the particular process of CDA. An untried mechanism exists for community-based recall of sysops: RfC to determine whether a sysop has abused or misused the tools, followed by a referral to ArbCom to review and implement the community consensus via a summary motion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, however the motivation for the CDA has been based on the belief that existing systems are not sufficiently community based. The CDA process is meant to allow for more community input and is meant to be more streamlined than any of the existing systems. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right that it was motivated by that belief, but it may not necessarily involve either "more community input" or be "more streamlined". A RfC is open to participation from everyone, just like a CDA would be, but CDA involves more steps and more procedure. In fact, because actual CDAs would be voting-oriented rather than discussion-oriented (only one issue, de-sysopping, is being considered, and participants can choose only to support, oppose, or remain neutral), having a RfC or other community discussion is one of the prerequisites for a CDA. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not put a permanent wikiguideline-vote tab as a user tool with a rss-like feed

Why not put a permanent wikiguideline-vote/debate tab as a user tool with a rss-like feed and ranking system according to the importance, for more and easier participation in community wide discussions and re-vote/re-debate core policies every 1-5 years. Most of the debaters didn't even read even a quarter of the discussions or proposals fully. We will either make changes easier, faster and better way, or manual, time-consuming and non-productive way. Kasaalan (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Observation

I went through and noted a couple of blocked accounts and sockpuppet accounts, the interesting things are that most opinions come from high edit long term accounts. There is also a noticable number of old accounts with very few edits, and a small number of accounts established Jan/Feb of 2010 that besides a couple of vandalism reverts, user page edits and commenting here they have no significant contributions elsewhere. As I read the poll(current position) this one is unlikely to be last one on this matter, when future ones occur serious consideration should be given to a suffrage requirement. Gnan garra 17:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, I did a count yesterday because I suspected that there would be much more blocked users among the supporters than there are under the opposers. So I started with the supporters. Of the 148 voters 39 had been blocked at least once - that's about 26%. Then I started with the opposers. When I reached 50 blockless opposers, I counted 23 with at least one block. That's about 31%. So I stopped counting at that point, as apparently my suspicion was significantly wrong. DVdm (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might be more revealing to count those with a block, say, in the past year.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That thought crossed my mind when I was already over half way - and bored/tired of copy/pasting :-) DVdm (talk) 22:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having been previously block is a fraction of the issues, having articles deleted and xfd closures would make up a greater number of those with issues even if a person has been blocked they still have an opinion. I only looked for currently indef blocked, it was the number of old small edit count accounts that caught my attention, eg one was an account created in 2006 with only 60 edits over years. Gnan garra 01:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My hypothesis about this is that people who are not responsive to the community's wishes are both more likely to have been blocked at some point and also more likely to be against community accountability for admins.--Father Goose (talk) 05:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My hypothesis is that people who ignore the outcome of the last sixteen or seventeen proposals for additional de-adminship processes are the ones who are 'not responsive to the community's wishes'.

Additionally, I'm offended (but, regrettably, no longer surprised) by the implication that opposition to bad policy – or even what I believe in good faith to be bad policy – somehow constitutes blanket opposition to 'community accountability for admins'. Admins are currently accountable to the community. Any member of the community can raise concerns about admins' actions anywhere across the full gamut of Wikipedia dispute resolution, from AN/I through RfC to Arbitration. Frankly, anyone who whinges that "It's too much work to gather diffs and present a clear, coherent Arbitration case — we need something easier" shouldn't be using this proposed process either — I would hope that CDA isn't meant to be used in the absence of compelling arguments supported by clear evidence. Any editor that was going to start a CDA with less preparation than they would employ for filing an Arbitration case would have been abusing the process anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid admin look out for AN/I's and the 'gamut' to turn the screw on editors that have fallen foul of them in some way (it is rarely relevant how), using the same method you see all over Wikipedia: mud and favour. But if an editor says he has the right to take an admin to task and he is labelled as a 'troll', and a mark is placed against his for others to take up and blacken (similar to the accumulative block system, but via mud packing).

Don't bother saying that this comment fails "AGF" - I simply don't have any faith in the current system, and that is my 'human right'. Year by recent year adminship is getting worse and worse. It is meaningless to compare admin now with those of the first couple of years of Wikipedia and claim things have improved – those early days are history now, and it is time Wikipedia grew up and met the modern age. The reality is that things are reaching the point where adminship has precious little to do with the ethos of Wikipedia. The time has come for fundamental change: not a bandage like CDA, but fixed terms and workable review systems. Matt Lewis (talk) 19:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Simple Proposal

Moved from Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC at 07:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any Established Editor can start proceedings against an Admin as follows:

Find three Admins who agree that the behavior of an Admin warrants removal.
A panel of three Crats decide if the situation is serious enough to proceed.
All editors are allowed to voice their concerns in a CdA.
A different panel of three Crats determines consensus and takes the appropriate action.

Ret.Prof (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the helpful spirit in which you offer this, while I also (not surprisingly) have issues with another proposal showing up on this RfC page, so I regard this as a discussion-starter as opposed to a proposal for consideration. OK? Now please indulge me in a round of "oh, you think it's that easy, do you?". What defines "Established Editor"? Must that editor try other means of dispute resolution first? What if that person asks 100 Admins, 97 of whom say "you have no valid case" and 3 of whom support going forward? How does the accused Admin defend themself? How does each panel of three Crats make their decisions? Do they have to be unanimous? Can they discount comments or !votes from the CDA? Under existing policies, what kinds of actions can Crats take, anyway? My point: it's easy to look at the proposal here and think to oneself, oh, I could make that so much simpler, but it's difficult to get other people looking at it to agree with you. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:03, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A point well made! - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding it. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A stat regarding all these calls for discounting admin votes

Quite a number of voters on the RfC have been calling for administrator votes to be discounted, as they supposedly bear a strong conflict of interest (COI).

As of now, 122 administrators have voted support/oppose. 63 editors who are not administrators but have been blocked before have voted supoort/oppose. Here are the results. Note that I haven't taken the time to analyze individual blocks to see if blocked editors were blocked in error.

Category	Support	Oppose
Administrators	30 (24.6%)	92 (75.4%)
Non-admins who have been blocked	44 (69.8%)	19 (30.2%)

As an aside, I find it interesting that these categories of contributors to Wikipedia to be almost mirror images of each other.

As for my opinion; I think there's been a call for admin votes to be removed in part because of the script that Nakon put together which shows administrator votes separate from non-administrator votes [18]. I.e., it's easy to see. What has not been so easy to see up until now is potential bias among editors who have been blocked. There's also plenty of other ways in which to categorize editors; non-admins with a failed RfA. Non-admins who have lost deletion debates on articles they have created. All editors who have been named in an RfArb. The list goes on and on. It would be highly time consuming to come up with numbers for all of these categories. But, I think we should be very careful in eliminating any category of voter on this RfC. There's plenty of reason for all sorts of sub-groups of the project to have bias and/or COI in regards to this proposal --Hammersoft (talk) 16:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. No category of voter will be eliminated. That has never been done before, and we won't be starting now. I think anybody who suggests such a thing is violating WP:AGF. Jehochman ^Brrr 16:33, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just add non-admins who haven't blocked too for a better review. Kasaalan (talk) 17:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That can be deduced from the numbers I provided above. Another way of looking at this too is that the RfC is hopelessly polluted by comments from people in the two groups noted in this section. 186 votes of 336, fully 55% of the voters, have voted. These 186 most likely have had a significant effect on the more virgin-pure voters; just look at all the votes related to TenOfAllTrades' comments. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the assumption that the numbers provided by Hammersoft and Nakon's tool are both accurate (and excluding neutral votes per above), the figures for non-admins who haven't been blocked are: 83 support (55.7%) and 66 oppose (44.3%). Please be wary, however, of assuming that any of these results are significant without more detailed analysis. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say, for the record, that I agree with Hammersoft's conclusions (hey, it had to happen eventually!), and I also want to thank Jehochman and Black Falcon for the very sensible observations they made here. The discussion on this talk page about discounting subpopulations of the responses has been an incredibly unproductive waste of time and energy. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, I have found this discussion very useful and thank everyone who has participated. The possibility that admin votes will be discounted is quite unlikely, but it is the principle that we need to look at. There are many conflicts of interest, indeed everyone votes to some degree with their self interests at heart. However, the fact that over 3/4 of admins oppose the proposal should at least be of some concern. I think we all want a process where power or privileges are not abused in a way that is detrimental to the project. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, in general terms, admins don't want CDA, non-admin editors who have been blocked do, and the rest of Wikipedians don't really know for sure either way. Sounds like CDA is headed in the right direction, but needs some sort of re-vamping to make it acceptable to admins and appealing to the average editor. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 18:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not an admin and I have a clean block record (and I intend to keep it that way), but I'm real sure what I think. And, of course, none of these groups is monolithic, which is always important to keep in mind. (I've said this before: I'm very impressed with those administrators who !voted support.) Anyway, I totally agree with you that the next step is going to be one of re-vamping, and I'm pretty optimistic about it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several reasons why editors get blocked, but blocks alone don't tell much about an editor's history. There are many editors who have made valuable contributions to the project who have been blocked at one time. The longer one has been on wikipedia, the more likely one would have had a block. Individuals who edit controversial articles are also the ones most likely to get blocked, but one of Wikipedia's successes is that controversial material is allowed and debated. Some credit is due to editors who risk their editing privileges according to WP:BEBOLD because they do actually help improve the quality of articles. Having a clean record may also mean that editors simply avoid difficult to edit or controversial articles. Finally some individuals have been unfairly or unnecessarily blocked. I therefore think it is somewhat unfair to make generalizations about blocks. Wapondaponda (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, yes, every bit as unfair as it is to make generalizations about administrators. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) In my individual case, it is definitely not a matter of my avoiding difficult content areas. I've been in some pretty nasty articles, and I haven't exactly been shy in this RfC and the policy drafting that led to it. I think the real take-home message of your observation is that we can gain insight into comments at this RfC by looking at where the commenters "came from", but at the same time, it is a big mistake to treat any part of the community, whether administrators or editors, whether administrators open to recall or not open, whether users who have been blocked or never blocked, whether long-time users or new ones, and so on and on, as being more or less worthy of having their !votes counted, or as being part of a too-simply characterized !voting block. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just for giggles, I took a look at all the voters with respect to whether they had failed an RfA. 20 of the voters have a failed RfA in the last three years. Of those, 7 are now admins. Of the 13 non-admins, they voted 9-4 in favor, and of the 7 admins 3-4 opposed. The numbers probably aren't large enough to be statistically significant. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From another perspective, you could ignore COI on the grounds that everyone could have some COI and if the whole Wiki-Community would vote then it really does not matter (the set of the COIs is also a part of the Wiki community). However, you would then still need to make corrections if a small minority with a particular COI dominates the voting results, simply by showing up for the vote in a completely disproportionate way. I think that is the real problem with the Admin vote. Count Iblis (talk) 23:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What an odd idea. Tell me, under your scheme, if I am a non-admin who has never been blocked, how can I best influence this poll: by posting my one and only !vote, or by vandalising pages until someone blocks me, and thus inflating the weighting of the votes of the non-admins-who-have-been-blocked bloc? Hesperian 23:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Struck votes

I've removed three votes from the poll today, 1 support and 2 oppose [19][20]. One of the supports and one of the opposes both came from the same sock master/puppet. One of the opposes came from an accidental duplicate vote, which I merged, and then notified the person making the votes. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest taking a close look at any voter with a red link talk page. No that we can draw any conclusions from such voters, even if there were a fair number on one side, it could be done to discredit the other side.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the second of those two opposes turned out not to be a sock of the support user, but a sock of someone else who was trolling me. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Yearly Potential Review

One of the most volatile parts of this proposal is probably the on-demand nature of it. In light of ideas like fixed terms and a permanent admin record, may I suggest a hybrid approach to CDA?

The hybrid approach is Admin Yearly Potential Review. Each admin is assigned one day of the year on which the review process could begin. Each day of the year has a special page with sections for each admin assigned to it. Throughout the year, complaints regarding that admin can be posted to the page. The admin can also use the page to respond to said complaints throughout the year. If the "complainer" changes his mind, or feels that the admin has remedied the situation, then he can note on the page that he withdraws his complaint. If significant complaints are not withdrawn, then on the admin's appointed day (or within a few days of it?), a formal review process could begin.

There's still a lot of blanks to be filled in for this idea, but what do you think? Before you shoot the idea down, please use your brain a little and see if you can fill in the blanks in a way that would make it acceptable. Or, if you're really good at formal proofs, then go ahead and prove that there is no combination of filling in the blanks that would possibly be acceptable. "Blanks" include:

Who initiates the review process?
Who removes the sysop bit? (ArbCom, beaurocrats?)
What constitutes "significant complaints"?
What can be done to minimize drama in this sort of process?
What can be done to minimize overhead (extra work) in this sort of process?
Should praise be recorded on the same page?

Supplementary ideas that could also be considered, but shouldn't be considered part of the core idea:

Within a month of his appointed day, require that the admin assert (on his special review page) that he has recently re-read certain policy pages regarding admin behavior and responsibilities.
The creation of these special pages and assigning admins to a particular day could be entirely automated to reduce the extra work.
Those who file complaints (and/or praise) are not allowed to participate in the !voting process for that admin, if there is one.

...but what do you think? ~BF izz 19:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's an interesting idea, a sort of hybrid between CDA and #Create a permanent admin record for complaints and praises, discussed above. As such, it may well attract all of the criticisms associated with both of those, but I'm interested to see what others will say. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It also throws in the concept of Admin reconfirmation, or semi-obligatory WP:Administrator review. None of these proposals can gain consensus on their own, but I'm hoping that a watered-down version of all of them meshed together might be able to resolve the issues of each.

CDA is on-demand, which is what I view as its greatest weakness, due to the drama and overhead that on-demand can create. Systematic admin confirmation's greatest weakness is that it is said to be unfeasible. Both weaknesses are addressed with "Yearly Potential Review". But the weakness of Permanent Admin Record, the overhead associated with tracking all admins, does not yet have a remedy. Constraints on what is recorded, and how, may be a solution. Or perhaps a template that you put with a comment on an admin's talk page to automatically copy it to the perm record. There are some benefits to on-demand CDA, but hopefully situations that require on-demand action can be handled by ArbCom via current process. In my mind, CDA is really intended to deal with those not-so-blatantly-and-publicly-controversial admins whose actions should still be reviewed. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 21:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My initial thought about this proposal is that it has the same problem(s) of the "permanent admin record" idea: inefficiency: i.e., why track 1,700 users when the goal is to weed out perhaps 17 (1%) or 85 (5%)? Also, and again on the point of efficiency, a selective on-demand system might be more efficient than a non-selective semi-automated one. However, realizing that this is still a nascent idea (and as per your request), here are some thoughts about the "blanks":

Who initiates the review process? - Leave it to editors' discretion: if no one is willing to initiate a review, there is no need to go through one for the sake of procedure alone. Nomination requirements (e.g., a certain # of nominators, minimum experience thresholds, etc) could be applied.
Who removes the sysop bit? (ArbCom, beaurocrats?) - I have no real preference, but I know others might.
What constitutes "significant complaints"? - Complaints supported by clear evidence (i.e., diffs) and alleging one or more of the following: (1) deliberate misuse of admin tools (i.e., "admin abuse"); (2) a sustained pattern of unintentional misuse of admin tools; and (3) repeated violation of core Wikipedia policies and behavior guidelines, such as those concerning copyright, neutral point of view, and civility (including personal attacks).
What can be done to minimize drama in this sort of process? - Umm, diazepam? (Sorry, couldn't resist. :) I think we would need to have a clearer idea of the exact mechanisms of the process in order to work on minimizing drama.)
What can be done to minimize overhead (extra work) in this sort of process? - No "procedural" reviews, for one thing (see above). In general, I think there will necessarily be a significant amount of overhead, but some specific measures could be taken once some more details are worked out.
Should praise be recorded on the same page? - Ideally, yes, in order to avoid a constant stream of negativity and a skewed picture of an admin's behavior, though this will add to the overhead.

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent observations, Black Falcon. Your definition of "significant complaints" is especially superb. Allow me to elaborate on a few comments:

why track 1,700 users when the goal is to weed out perhaps 17 (1%) or 85 (5%)? - I would hope that this process would also help good admins be better admins, so in my mind the goal is broader than weeding out bad ones.
No "procedural" reviews...there will necessarily be a significant amount of overhead - Sadly, yes. While procedural reviews are out of the question, I do think there could be a procedural assessment to determine if a review is in order. A group of impartial volunteers could glance at the current day's admin record page each day and see if any "significant complaints" are unresolved.
if no one is willing to initiate a review, there is no need to go through one for the sake of procedure alone - the reason I ask the question "who should initiate the reviews" is to also contemplate "who should not initiate the reviews". I'm hoping that by allowing the aforementioned volunteers to initiate review (and possibly disallowing those who log complaints) that we can get fewer rage-initiated reviews. Of course this whole concept needs a lot more exploration and thought, but that's the gist of my thinking so far.
[praise should be included on the page]...to avoid a constant stream of negativity and a skewed picture of an admin's behavior - I see where you're coming from, but if it is well understood that these pages are for complaints only, then it would also be understood that the page is not intended to be a complete view of an admin's behavior. I'm not opposed to including praise, but I just want to weigh the options. Despite my inclination to keep the page as complaint-and-response-only, I don't think that including praise would be too much overhead, since the overhead (referring to Wikipedian time spent praising an admin on this type of page) is amortized over the year.

...but what do you think? ~BF izz 20:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make good points, especially about the advantages of procedure-driven (as opposed to emotion-driven) assessment, and thinking of this proposal as a sort of continuous "administrator review" addresses some of my concerns. It does, however, raise two others.

First, we already have various formal and informal processes designed to help sysops to improve, including Wikipedia:Administrator review, community discussion, and talk page discussion. While I recognize the possibility of using AYPR as a way to encourage improvement rather than a way to merely weed out problem admins, will the added overhead of an additional process that covers 1,700+ users justify the possible gains? In other words, would it be more efficient to have one large, general process to handle admin reviews/records and community-based admin recall, or two separate smaller and more specialized processes?

Second, a centralized process for continuous review of other editors (and this applies to everyone, not just admins) in order to help them to improve will work in practice only if the criticism that is offered is constructive and not just critical. There is a fine line between being motivated to improve one's behavior in response to constructive criticism and becoming stressed and disillusioned because of a steady stream of negative opinions and centralized criticism of every controversial or questionable action. Short of removing comments which fail to provide constructive criticism (a practice that not only requires regular monitoring of an extra 365 pages, but itself is a potential source of drama), I don't see how we could ensure that constructive criticism is the norm rather than the exception.

-- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be more efficient to have one large, general process to handle admin reviews/records and community-based admin recall, or two separate smaller and more specialized processes? - I would tend to believe the latter. If AYPR ever takes off, I imagine that it would simply escalate to the current ArbCom process when the admins-of-the-day have questionable records. Some intermediate review process may or may not be introduced (my original intent was to introduce a review process, but that probably won't fly with the community just now). ...I don't see how we could ensure that constructive criticism is the norm - a very valid concern. But I think that if we carefully formulate some simple rules about what AYPR is and how to participate in it, that we could ensure a positive experience, the same way that we've formed an excellent encyclopedia despite allowing anyone to edit the articles. One solution to the 365 extra pages to watchlist (I guess leap years would have a day w/o admin review) is built in: if each day has one page for the ~5 admins assigned to it, then those 5 admins are probably all watching that page, and can help each other out. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 06:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A comment from Jimbo in March of 2009 regarding rights removal

Moved from Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC at 18:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Read here. Just thought I'd share. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges. That discussion is about a proposal concerning accounts that haven't used tools in a period of time. CDA is explicitly not for inactive accounts. Citing it here strikes me as desperate. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm just so absolutely ridiculously desperate to quash this RfC that I'll do anything, anything to shut it down. Give it a rest. Quoting from Jimbo in the cite above, "My general observation about rights removals in other wikipedias is that they have too often been used as a part of silly power games. No one has ever put forward what I think amounts to a persuasive reason for rights removals, and a lot of reasons are clearly just an effort to remove an "old guard" for power reasons." That's directly relevant. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And quoted out of context. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forehead, meet desk. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually the way you make me feel. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you mean to say the way you make me feel? :) --Hammersoft (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I think Jimbo's comment is relevant, but I also don't think that Jimbo's commentary is the word of god either. Ultimately, his concerns about why people would use (and abuse) such a process have been repeated by many others. His is just another voice in the crowd, and should be viewed as such. Reso lute 18:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck passing such a proposal against his opposition.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, how silly. Let's look at that out-of-context quote posted by Hammersoft just above. Does not ArbCom perform "rights removals"? Shall we conclude that Jimbo is now on record as condemning ArbCom? --Tryptofish (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom was originally setup as a body to handle tasks previously handled by him. He still has a strong say in who does and does not serve in that capacity. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, you can infer that he was not referring to ArbCom, but that he was referring to CDA? Actually, he was referring only to a proposal about inactive administrators, but you are picking and choosing what other proposals his comment can be extrapolated to. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're just rehashing what's been said above. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Tryptofish. Shrug. Ask him, then. User talk:Jimbo Wales.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm --Tryptofish (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Jimbo is foolish enough to overrule a policy change with significant consensus support. That said, this proposal lacks that support, so it is only a hypothetical argument at this time. I would also note that the comment does not state an opposition to a CDA-type process, only an observation of what it leads to. As I said, just a voice in the crowd, and entirely too much time is being spent discussing what is implied from an off-hand comment made on a different, albeit related, topic. Reso lute 18:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each admin would choose a recall procedure

I haven't followed this closely, but it seems like most of the opposition concerns specifics, not whether there should be some method of community de-adminship.

One way to ensure that each admin can be recalled, while doing much to allay concerns about specifics, would be to leave the process open to each admin. Any admin who does not declare a process would fall under Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall/Sample process. Any requests for adminship would indicate their specified process.

Granted that some admins could declare a ridiculously difficult process. But this would still move things in the right direction. Maurreen (talk) 18:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to look at that sample process, which would be the default under such a plan. If six editors who meet criteria slightly lower than those set for the ten nominators under CDA sign a request, the administrator would have to go to a new RfA, where about 70% support would be required to be re-confirmed. As such, it's actually a lot harsher in practice than CDA would be, unless the administrator chooses to declare their own process, which could effectively be unassailable tenure. So, the rare bad administrators could make themselves untouchable, while any good administrator who doesn't get around to declaring a process would be far, far more vulnerable to attack than they would have been under CDA. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point. Another option would be to find the current most-difficult declared process and establish that on its own page as the standard. The idea still needs some work, I realize. Maurreen (talk) 19:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is where these things become so difficult to work out. By the time one does that, one is very nearly back at CDA, except that CDA requires consensus to remove, whereas reconfirmation actually requires consensus to stay on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of having applicants announce which method of recall they will subject themselves to would certainly put pressure on them to choose a method that the community accepts, otherwise they might fail their RfA. Current admins, however, get sort of a free ride. I agree though, the concept is a step in the right direction. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 05:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at that through the back door, B Fizz. The question is often asked at RFA, "Will you be open to administrator recall?" Candidates answer in varying way. If "No" was an unacceptable answer to the community, given the requirement under most circumstances for roughly 70 percent support, the "problem" would have "solved" itself already. That admins are making it through the process without opening themselves up to recall indicates that it is not a deal breaker for the community.

Perhaps a better way of going about all of this is to agree on what "admin recall" means, and then push to make such a choice binding (I've seen people back out). As time goes by, you will eventually have most active admins (as older admins lose interest) open to recall. Of course you'd have to make it stick by enough !voters at RfA being unwilling to make a "no" choice acceptable, which might be hard.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment you'll find that question is out of fashion at RFA, and there are editors who've promised to oppose if someone does make a commitment at their RFA to sign up to recall, as they deem such commitments meaningless. As for a system based on just new admins, at current rates of successful RFAs it is going to be many years before the existing admin cadre is significantly refreshed with new admins. Ϣere SpielChequers 17:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are people's concerns about the current process?

Rather than yet another CDA proposal or worse yet another debate about fixed terms for admins, why don't we try and find out what people's concerns are about the current processes for handling admin mistakes?

At present it is unclear to me what people's concerns are about the current system, clearly there are those who think that it has failed, but I'd be interested in knowing at what stage or stages it is thought to have failed and in what way. For example:

Do people know how to complain about an admin's actions?
Do editors need reassurance that complaints against an admin will be treated courteously, fairly and without reprisal?
Is there anything else about the process of complaining to admins about their actions that people think is flawed?
Do editors think that the RFC process needs overhaul and if so in what way?
Do editors think that Arbcom and its role in desysopping is flawed, and if so in what ways?
Do editors think that too few, too many, or simply the wrong admins have been desysopped of late and if so, without naming names, what level of desysopping would they have thought was merited in recent months?
Do editors think that the current system has failed in some other way, and if so how?
Do editors think that the current system works in practice, but is flawed in theory and should therefore be replaced even if it has up till now been getting roughly the right results?

Achieving consensus to replace or augment the current process with a new one is clearly not going to be easy. But if we can find out what people's concerns are about the current process it should be easier to either reform the current process or to write a new process that is better than the current one. It would also be much easier to persuade me, and I suspect many others who oppose this particular CDA proposal, if people explained what the problem(s) are that they think need fixing. Ϣere SpielChequers 14:46, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking this very good and constructive question. Here is my individual take on it.

Generally, I would say that it is simple enough to find this out, although it may be less so for the newest users, and less so for "how", as opposed to "where".
Yes, I think that this is one of the significant issues. I'll go into this point in a somewhat lengthy way that also has relevance to some of my other answers below. When I was a newbie editor, I had a very bad experience that has informed my activism on CDA. Not naming names, of course, but a well-established administrator who has repeatedly been before ArbCom but is still here decided wrongly that I was a sock of someone else and went on a campaign of personal attacks against me. I researched the existing pathways of dispute resolution and came to the conclusion that this person and their Wiki-friends would make life difficult for me if I pursued a public complaint, and I decided that I didn't want to subject myself to the drama. (In fact, when Casliber mentioned, above, some users who should have followed through with ArbCom but didn't, I could very well be one of them.) So that is my answer to this question: especially for inexperienced editors, there is the appearance, if not the reality, that making a complaint against a "powerful" administrator, no matter how well-justified, will backfire and result in harm to the accuser. Now having said that, I'll go on to say that I would tend to feel differently if it first happened to me today. I now have enough self-confidence that I would make a complaint, but I also now consider myself to be more self-assured than many new users (and in fact many long-time ones too). What I ended up doing at the time (and I'm revealing this on-Wiki for the first time now) is send a confidential e-mail to ArbCom, confidentially stating my real-life name and the IP address of my computer, and asking for help. ArbCom actually turned out to be very nice to me, and two arbitrators placed comments on the administrator's talk page, advising them to follow policy. The administrator in question basically ignored the two comments, and continued to make personal attacks on me (and others) for many months more. In an ironic twist, this administrator and I recently reconciled, and we now have a friendly relationship. Go figure.
In a way, I think what I just said above helps answer that question, but I think the great majority of administrators are people who can be approached individually on their talk pages and can work out this sort of thing. The problem is that there are a very few administrators who behave as I described above.
RfC/U: It's too unfocused as to what it will lead to. It can end up having some of the same issues that people complain about with respect to WP:WQA, that people say tut, tut, yes that's really not right, and then nothing happens. RfC/U for general user conduct is vague as to its outcomes, and RfC/U for administrators tends to be specifically for misuse of administrator tools, as opposed to bad behavior by an administrator (note that the person I describe above never made a bad block or other misuse of tools against me). I've been convinced by this RfC that what needs to happen with CDA is to change it into an improved variation on RfC/U that is specifically directed to the question of whether an administrator still has the trust of the community.
ArbCom: I think it's improving, a kind of work in progress. I looked back at old ArbCom cases about the person with whom I had a bad experience, and I noticed some committee members, some still sitting, making arguments of the sort that even though the person had a history of behaving badly, the person also was a very good content contributor, and so a cost-benefit analysis argued for not being too harsh, an argument sometimes described as the "FA free pass". That also, at the time, made me disinclined to go publicly to ArbCom. On the other hand, I think it is clear that ArbCom has been evolving rapidly in recent months, and for the better. Continuing what I just said about what I've learned here about how CDA should change, I think it may very well be a good idea to have the result of a modified CDA/RfC be referred to ArbCom for the actual decision of what to do.
I'm encouraged by the trends in recent months. I still think there are some people who ought to be de-sysopped but haven't been before ArbCom, and I'm a little uncomfortable about some recent re-sysoppings that seemed to me to be quicker and more generous than community consensus would have been.
As I've been trying to articulate throughout this discussion over the past weeks, I think there is a problem with non-"bright-line" misbehavior that does not involve misuse of administrative tools: incivility and arrogance on the part of a very small number of administrators. One of the endlessly-discussed-but-never-settled aspects of "no big deal" is whether or not administrators should be regarded as representatives of the editing community, a sort of public face of Wikipedia. To the extent that new editors, as they come on board, get exposed to administrators as representatives of what is "right" or "wrong" with respect to editing conduct, I would say that administrators do have a responsibility to behave professionally, and to retain the trust of the community that was given to them at RfA.
Yes! There is something fundamentally flawed in saying that the community can give the tools at RfA, but once given, the community cannot declare that they should be taken back. In my experience at Wikipedia, far many more administrators have been helpful to me than have been problems, but I'm deeply disappointed that, in this RfC, so many administrators have expressed a lack of faith in the community, as if they (some of them) see the community as this hostile population that is holding administrators at bay, and against whom administrators must be protected. I guess I, in turn, could ask a question back: Do administrators feel that the wider community does not understand them?

Again, thank you for asking this very helpful question. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To #7, I don't think this process is useful for addressing that problem. It's fundamentally not an administrative problem, and in the story you present I don't think the sysop bit is what made your experience unpleasant. I agree with you that we should hold administrators and established editors to professional standards but there's no demonstrated consensus for this, nor any wide agreement on what this means in practice. The relevant guidelines, as currently written, have little relationship to the standards actually enforced. Rather than starting from the enforcement end with CDA, it would be more useful to attempt to codify the standards you'd like to see applied. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As for what happened to me, it actually was administratively-related in that the person repeatedly implied that they were going to take administrative actions against me, although they never actually carried out those threats. It's possible for administrators to use the position of being an administrator to project the image of power, "no big deal" notwithstanding. As for codifying standards of conduct, do we really need to codify anything more about civility? I think everything in what happened to me can be interpreted as violating guidelines or policies that we already have. The problem is that such interpretation can be subjective, and thus, gameable, and many of us lack confidence that existing methods of enforcement will actually enforce them. I can easily picture a discussion like the one that has taken place here over the past few weeks being carried out about somehow fixing up WP:CIVIL and becoming a huge time-waster, and I'd rather go to fixing the mechanism, rather than debating theory. We don't, after all, argue about standards not being on the books with respect to RfA. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a start to codify the standards:

Every admin is required to follow conduct and content policies at least as strictly as he/she require non-admins to follow these policies.
All other admins are required to enforce conduct and content policies at least as strictly on admins as on non-admins. --Philcha (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that administrators are editors, this is already codified. Honestly, this concern is not based around an administrator vs. regular user double standard, but rather one of well known editor vs lesser known editor, and is typical of any online community I've been a part of. The all-stars typically receive a lot more leeway than the regulars, who get more than the newer members. While there certainly are loose parallels of admins = all-stars and regular editors being regulars/newbies, it is not a precise match and I do not believe it is beneficial to argue a need for CDA along these lines. I know several non-admins who would be given a lot more rope to hang themselves with than I would, for instance. This issue is a broader one of how the community polices itself, irregardless of its member's status. Reso lute 22:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that your belief is very evidently unfounded. Administrators on a daily basis say things that would have me blocked in the blinking of an eye. How else do you explain a block for using the word "sycophantic", when repeated accusations of "troll" go unchallenged? And then the block is used as a "rap sheet" to justify further blocks ... the present system stinks, but you don't fully appreciate that until you get on the wrong side of it. When you do, you may begin to understand the concerns of regular editors. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, there are loose parallels between my "All-Stars" and admins. However, in your example, any number of highly regarded non-admins could be your opponent and still win out based on their reputation. All I am saying is that the use of such a broad brush smears some admins who are not the issue while simultaneously allowing some non-admins to escape notice. Reso lute 22:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until administrators start listening instead of preaching and imposing a standard of behaviour they themselves very often fall short of, the fracture and distrust between admins and non-admins will continue to widen. No signs of anyone listening here though. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think your second and eighth points raise interesting questions, Trypto. I believe your second point touches on a major flaw of the CDA proposal: A "powerful administrator" becomes powerful by gaining a significant number of compatriots who will support that editor. In a vote-based removal process such as this, that power will win out. Likewise, to your eighth point, it isn't the community as a whole that concerns me, but the mobs within the community. Consider as an example, that one of the well known ANI all-stars took an action against a member of the Eastern European Mailing List (prior to being broken up somewhat by ArbCom). The EEML could easily have gained the appropriate number of votes to launch a CDA process, and would have been met with the All-Star's defenders. Mob vs. mob, unnecessary drama, and ultimately, the status quo likely to prevail with only an increase in tensions between the two. Or, lets take example number two: Assume that I am the one that took those actions against the EEML. I am by no means an All-Star outside of my primary project area. Even if my actions are completely justified, if I go up against a large mob, I would be forced to rely on the altruism of otherwise uninvolved members to survive the process. And even if I do, this process becomes a tool of harrassment that serves as a disincentive to interfere in a controversial area of the project.

Now, I expect that your rebuttal would involve the thought that this process would not/should not be used for a one-off incident, but rather after an ongoing pattern of quesitonable actions. If that is a consideration, then I would ask what the difference is between this this proposal and the existing process? In both cases, the admin in question would have to lose support before they are seriously threatened, and would have to show a pattern of inappropriate behaviour. Ultimately, the difference comes down to who is the judge: the mob, or ArbCom. I am no supporter of ArbCom, but of the two, I have a little more trust in them to rule based on policy rather than emotion. Reso lute 22:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's actually a lot that you say that I have come, over the course of this discussion, to agree with. As I noted briefly in my answer #5, I'm increasingly persuaded that it may be best to devise an improved procedure in which ArbCom does, in fact, make the final determination. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In Tryptofish's answer 2 above, it is apparent that an admin jumped to an incorrect conclusion and behaved inappropriately. However, there will always be imperfections and unfortunate circumstances, so I do not see how CDA would fundamentally improve the situation. The admin in question is sure to have seen something that led to the wrong conclusion (probably the coincidental arrival of a new editor with interests that just happened to overlap those of some abusive sockmaster). The way to handle that is not to start a discussion on a de-sysop of the admin; instead, there should be a way to alert new users about how to ask questions concerning admin actions — a method with low drama. There are quite a few admins who do a lot of good work reverting nonsense and spam, and their talk pages are littered with complaints from people who object to having their nonsense and spam reverted. Rather than a CDA mechanism, I think an extension of WQA specifically for questions regarding admin actions would be helpful (issues should be phrased as a question like "why did X do Y?", rather than a complaint). If a pattern emerges where established editors see that questions regarding a particular admin show long-term problems (rather than just a couple of isolated mistakes), those editors may choose to take the matter further, starting by asking the admin to explain their actions. Johnuniq (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(multiple edit conflicts) I find it interesting how WereSpiel began by asking supporters of the proposal to explain what concerns we have about the current process, I replied in that spirit, and the response to my reply has been, in part, opponents of the proposal explaining why they do not feel supporters have reasonable concerns.
To Johnuniq: you really do not understand what happened (not your fault, as you only know what I said). The person in question was in no way someone who simply misunderstood something and then made things right as soon as the facts were brought to their attention. I never said that CDA should have been the first resort in what happened to me. WQA? CDA does require pursuing milder remedies before any CDA can be started. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:39, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Tryptofish's "I never said that CDA should have been the first resort" (22:39, 15 March 2010). The principles I suggested (21:08, 15 March 2010) should first be used either in specific cases or where there's a pattern of poor behaviour by one or more admins.

Do User:Resolute (22:30, 15 March 2010) and Johnuniq (22:39, 15 March 2010) agree that admins are sometimes more lenient with themselves or will other admins than will non-admins? Do they sometimes favour some POV in the interpretation of policies? --Philcha (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, that is a fact of not just Wikipedia but of the communal nature of mankind itself. Outside of significantly obvious circumstances, I think it is typical of people in a given group to generally be supportive of others in the same group. And not just admins. Disruptive editors frequently reinforce other disruptive editors based only on their perception of being persecuted rather than the fact that they were disruptive. Again, however, I disagree with making this an admin vs. non-admin issue. Popular non-admins - often resulting from epic content or maintenance contributions - will gain similar leeway. Reso lute 17:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I agree that the individual facts that you state here are, indeed, true, taken one-by-one, I'm not entirely satisfied with how you add them together. Although I draw a clear line between administrators as a group, who on the whole do excellent work and have been very helpful to me, and the small minority of administrators who are problems but not typical of the population as a whole, I still do not accept that the problems can be excused by just saying it's human nature, nor do I think that the power balance is equal between administrators and non-administrators. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll bite

OK, as one of those who's been on all four sides (non-admin, admin, complainer and complainee) I'll have a go:

Do people know how to complain about an admin's actions?
Probably not, but it's easy enough to find out.
Do editors need reassurance that complaints against an admin will be treated courteously, fairly and without reprisal?
They don't just need reassurance, they need the facts to change as it's clearly not the case. Go to ANI at any time and you can see good-faith complainants either being met by a torrent of abuse from the usual suspects, or being some equivalent of a pat on the head and told to go away. The proportion of legitimate complaints (that is, complaints which seem legitimate to the person complaining, not necessarily those which ought to be upheld by Wikipedia policy) which are treated fairly is shockingly small when you actually count it up. "Without reprisal" is a hollow joke; it's long been the case that complaining about the conduct of certain people just leads to their friends watchlisting your talkpage looking for a pretext to block you.
Is there anything else about the process of complaining to admins about their actions that people think is flawed?
It's far too arbitrary, with no clear indication of what to expect, and as the outcomes are totally dependent on who happens to answer, there's not even the vaguest form of precedent to give one an idea of what to expect.
Do editors think that the RFC process needs overhaul and if so in what way?
The RFC process is effectively meaningless, as one can ignore it without consequence and the usual suspects have all worked this out. The only purpose it now serves is as a rationing mechanism to limit the number of cases reaching Arbcom.
Do editors think that Arbcom and its role in desysopping is flawed, and if so in what ways?
It's extremely flawed – that "Arbitrary Committee" nickname is for a reason – and has a tendency to give continual second chances to some spectacularly obnoxious people whilst throwing the book at others. However, it's all we have.
Do editors think that too few, too many, or simply the wrong admins have been desysopped of late and if so, without naming names, what level of desysopping would they have thought was merited in recent months?
Far too few. I'd guesstimate that 10% of active admins have performed at least one action in the last three months which should be considered seriously abusive, with new admins generally well-behaved and the ratio rising exponentially the longer the admin has been "in service".
Do editors think that the current system has failed in some other way, and if so how?
Obviously. Arbcom moves at a glacial pace, desysops people for relatively minor offences (that often have no relationship to the use of admin tools), while letting off numerous cases of serious abuse with "words of advice". Since Elonka, AOR has been exposed as the farce it always was, to the extent that I consider RFA candidates saying they'll join AOR to be a prima facie sign of bad judgement, and I'm certainly not alone in that.
Do editors think that the current system works in practice, but is flawed in theory and should therefore be replaced even if it has up till now been getting roughly the right results?
Moot point; the current system patently doesn't work in practice. In the entire history of Wikipedia there has only been one recall request that actually resulted in the admin voluntarily resigning. That was four years ago. (Oh, there have been a couple of "jump before you're pushed" instances of admins taking the revolver and glass of whisky when faced with an Arbcom case they were obviously going to lose, but I don't count those.) – iride scent 20:36, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wasn't thinking of admins open to recall as even part of the current system, I was actually thinking of Arbcom. Though I see your view of that institution is also fairly jaundiced. However, Arbcom is elected, so either they reflect the electorate or their successors will and if the community wants them to be harsher on existing admins, or on a particular type of offence then I would suggest that people either stand for Arbcom on that basis or support candidates who share their views. I suspect that CDA is dead due to a combination of most admins not knowing if they were in the ten percent being targeted, most admins suspecting that they wouldn't pass RFA in its current form and concern that CDA would exacerbate the problem of our declining number of active admins. However both responses to my question have raised concern as to "Do editors need reassurance that complaints against an admin will be treated courteously, fairly and without reprisal?". Any system of calling admins to account is liable rely on other editors being willing to start the process by complaining to an admin about one of their actions, can anyone suggest an alternate to that or a way of reassuring or protecting such complainers? And as an aside to Iridescent, with these admins who you've seen doing something abusive, what sort of responses have you had when you've complained on their talkpages? Ϣere SpielChequers 13:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

In a very short while, I'm going to close this proposal as "failed", but I first want to say thank you to WereSpeilChequers for opening up this discussion thread in a very helpful and illuminating way. Based on your (Were) reply just above, I'd like to make a few comments and ask some follow-up questions.

You say, correctly, that there is an issue of editors needing assurance that their complaints will be treated fairly. At the same time, I think one of the take-home lessons of this poll has been that editors making complaints will, sometimes, include those who make bad-faith complaints, and it may well be impossible to get community consensus for any policy that does not include sanctions for that. So, how do we, on the one hand, reassure good-faith complainants that the community will be on their side, while, on the other hand, reassure good-faith administrators that those who harass them in bad faith will not only not get away with it, but be held responsible? I'm wrestling with that question, and I don't yet know the answer.
I also find very illuminating what you say about most admins not knowing if they were in the small minority being "targeted." To me, that rings true from many of the oppose comments. I tried asking about it just below, and the reaction from two admins was to smack the question down (one comparing me to Rush Limbaugh for asking it!). I'm afraid that any proposal such as this one strikes a raw nerve, and yet does so unnecessarily, in that much of the apparent anxiety is misplaced. I don't know what to do about it, other than to get it out in the open and ask everyone to take a serious look in the mirror. Much has been made about how the !voting patterns differed between admins and non-admins, and this observation seems to speak to why the !voting patterns differed, at least in part. At the same time, I personally have been very impressed with the large number of admins who supported the proposal, and the large number who, while either opposing or being neutral, indicated a serious willingness to engage with how to fix what may need to be fixed, as opposed to just digging in their heels to oppose any change. I'm afraid we will always have some who will distrust any change, just as we will always have bad-faith editors who are out to get good administrators, but I continue to believe that most of the community is neither of those.

I'd be happy to continue this kind of discussion even after the poll closes. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth remembering that RFA is very different to when most admins were appointed. Expectations for edit count and tenure have both dramatically increased, and we may have become less tolerant of old mistakes. The community has become more partisan, with people being opposed for supporting particular policies, as minorities who want to change policy have found that opposing at RFA is a great way to soapbox. I made it through RFA a little over a year ago and standards then were way higher than in 2004/5, but if I hadn't stood then I doubt that I'd get through now, and I'm not unusual in that. I suspect that underlies the concerns of a lot of admins about CDA, it looks like part of an agenda to make adminship a big deal with admins as a tiny minority of Wikipedians - on the one hand expected to be a small elite of ambassadors for and leaders of the community and on the other hand needed in large numbers to do some basic janatorial duties. I'm one of those who holds to a very different view of adminship, where it is simply a few extra buttons that all civil cluefull editors should be able to get if they stay here long enough to learn the ropes. The old model of adminship was able to work because it meant that there were plenty of admins to share the work, I'm not convinced that the emerging "very big deal" model is viable. We now have 18% fewer active admins than we had at peak, and the number of successful RFAs is declining and this month & quarter we have appointed the fewest new admins since records began. I had thought that CDA was largely a distraction from what I see as a emerging crisis in our site governance, but I'm increasingly coming to the view that the CDA debate is part of the problem. We are now down to 842 "active admins", RFA is not producing anywhere near enough new admins to maintain those numbers. Most of our admins started editing before 2006, and most of our active admins have been admins for longer than three years. We currently rely on the hundreds of admins appointed before 2008 to do the bulk of our blocking and deleting. At some point the number of admins will fall to the point where I'm not sure I'd want to continue to be one of them. Ϣere SpielChequers 08:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are very valid points, and, I suspect, a more honest answer to the question I ask just below than are the other answers that were given. What I come back to is from my own experience, that a very few, atypical, administrators, but interestingly ones who came through RfA quite a few years ago, actually use the authority of being an administrator (to be distinguished from using administrator tools), to be unfair to editors. I see in your information about RfA a rising standard of expectations among the broader community, a standard of professionalism expected for administrators and all higher functionaries that is also evident in recent ArbCom elections. As someone who has been on Wikipedia about 1.5 years, I feel that way myself, and I think it's a good thing, a reflection of the fact that Wikipedia is trying to become something more than a club for people making an inaccurate and joked-about encyclopedia. On the other hand, another widely-noted trend is that the number of new editors is also declining, and there is a serious question as to whether some of the old hands might be driving some of them away. Nostalgia is a bad formula for policy, especially here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Innuendo, innuendo. Given the small number of admins, it is very doubtful that they could have enough contacts to make very much difference in the number of editors. Saying "there is a serious question" does not create a serious question, it is merely a rhetorical tool. There are plenty of unpleasant editors; most of them are non-admins, just by sheer numbers. They are quite capable of driving off people. I suspect that if you are going to propose something like this, you'll do better with specific evidence of a problem. You say you are a scientist, if I recall correctly. How far does a proposal get in your community without empirical evidence?--Wehwalt (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Boring, boring. Scientists generally steer clear of comparing those with whom they disagree to Rush Limbaugh. Do lawyers? --Tryptofish (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out similarities between arguments is not the same as pointing out similarities between people. As for the rest of it, I guess you have no evidence. No body, no case.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Innuendo, innuendo. Grow up. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to win friends and influence people ... but I had pretty much understood the lay of the land from the ombox thing. Anyway, going to leave the corpse of Old Dobbin entirely to you, suggest you be merciful, he pulled a carriage for many years and deserves better of you.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:27, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that reminds me, you never apologized to me for what you said about me regarding the ombox thing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No equine corpse is safe from you, methinks ...--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)--Wehwalt (talk) 18:34, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see: I'm a horse-molester now. Well, anyway, what I said earlier about most of the community expecting more from administrators. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm astonished by this childish exchange, and I want to distance myself from by an "internet mile". The fact of the matter Tryptofish is that you have been at best naive and at worst dishonest in this CDA endeavour. Malleus Fatuorum 19:57, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[21]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rumours of a decline in editor numbers are hotly disputed (I tend to take comfort in the gaps between every ten million edits, the latest of which was the quickest since last May). But we do have a problem with new editors being driven away, both in controversial pages and at NPP. I doubt that many are surprised to find that every subject that is contentious in real life is contentious here, so while I think our various nationalistic and religious edit wars are an ongoing problem, I don't think they the biggest threat to the pedia. I am much more worried about the way we treat new article writers. If there was one thing to be learned from wp:NEWT it was that new contributors of the most uncontentious but notable subjects sometimes get treated quite badly. Overhasty tagging and template bombing isn't usually done by admins, but there are mistakes made at speedy deletion, and as the number of admins continues to decline I think we'll become more dependent on the occasional speed merchant who can clear a >200 backlog at CAT:SPEEDY. I doubt that one can do that without sometimes deleting some of the incorrectly tagged articles, so I fear that fewer admins will lead to fewer rescues and probably more mistakes at speedy deletion. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:11, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for getting back to the matter at hand. Obviously, whatever we do or do not end up doing about community review of administrators, it won't entirely solve the many issues affecting new users, and of course, I didn't mean to imply that it would. Anyway, there were some very useful questions asked higher up in this thread, about the actual matter at hand, and I would welcome getting back to those. I'll put in a plug for a question that I asked: "So, how do we, on the one hand, reassure good-faith complainants that the community will be on their side, while, on the other hand, reassure good-faith administrators that those who harass them in bad faith will not only not get away with it, but be held responsible?" --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't. Seriously, if someone had invented a way to do that we wouldn't need Arbcom. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean we don't solve the problem I asked about? ArbCom may very likely be part of the answer, but is it the entire answer? Is no one here capable of helping to invent a way? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am, having a fair bit of experience in process development, but you never like what I have to say. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's the way that you say it. I'm listening. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My every attempt has been treated with disdain and ridicule, regardless of how I say things. I'm supposed to believe that things have suddenly changed? Sorry. After a few billion times, I eventually drop AGF. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:33, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, Malleus Fatuorum, Hammersoft... --Tryptofish (talk) 23:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do administrators feel that the wider community does not understand them?

In passing I asked this question in the thread above, but I think it's one that is constructive to ask more directly: Do administrators feel that the wider community does not understand them? Maybe answers to this question will help us to come to a better understanding of how to make the system work better. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, as an administrator, I don't believe this is an issue. Generally the goals of project participants are well enough aligned that people have a good understanding of each other's motives. And at any rate, admins are such a large group of the active user base that it is hard for the broader community not to understand the particular challenges and frustrations that go with the bit. I do think that the users who most actively engage with seriously combative situations and thorny issues (whether admins or not) face some challenges that other users may not appreciate, but not related to the tools themselves. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to respond to two things that you said. First, I think you are correct about how users who do not edit in certain thorny areas may not appreciate the challenges faced by those who do, but that suggests a corollary question: could many users who do not see a problem with a few bad administrators perhaps not see it because they personally have only encountered good administrators? Second, assuming other administrators share your perception that most of the community understands administrators well enough, then why is there reason to be worried that a small portion of the community, who do not understand, would dominate a process like CDA? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Christopher. It isn't an issue. It runs perilously close to an attempt, in fact, to again make admins look like they are motivated here principally by emotion (not understood, worried, afraid, etc.) which has been too often claimed in this discussion. That's a technique with which Rush Limbaugh has raked in the cash for twenty years (Dems: hopping mad. Me: Man of reason lol). If it is that way, you might as well pack up your bags and go home. Personally, I think admins would be open to a well designed process with a lot more safeguards than we've seen here, or an incremental approach (as I proposed slightly above, making the choice of an admin candidate to be open to recall binding, and let the old admins choose to join in if they want, you'll eventually have very few admins who are not open to recall as people move on to other things. But to throw in emotional words probably isn't productive. Admins are neither afraid, worried, nor feel they are misunderstood. They are interested and await a process worthy of a positive !vote.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, did you just accuse me of being like Rush Limbaugh? I'm asking a serious question. I'm asking why so many of those who opposed feel that a process based on letting the community decide would be so dangerous. The only one trying to paint anyone unfavorably is you. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, then. Since it appears that administrators are a polite group who are not falling into emotionality, and are waiting thoughtfully for a process worthy of a positive !vote, and since administrators are also confident that the community as a whole does have a responsible view of administrators' role, and so those community members who would be trying to gang up on administrators in a community-based process would be such a small fraction of the community as a whole, please explain to me why a community-based process would put good administrators at such risk? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Usually the community is responsible and thoughtful (administrators and non-admins both) and sometimes its angry, offended, vengeful, etc. (administrators and non-admins both). In that regard it is like any population of human beings. This proposal empowers us in our angry or vengeful state, because when will people be angry or offended? - precisely when an admin's done something to land them at CDA. BTW, the arbitration committee is elected and thus quite community based - it's just not driven by snap polling. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, fair enough. I would still argue, though, that either it is unlikely that an administrator would do something to make the majority of the entire community angry, or, if they did, then there must be a real problem going on. And it's misleading to characterize CDA as "snap polling", in part because it cannot be started on a snap impulse, but only after a track record of prior attempts at resolution. But I would agree with you that it is necessary to make any process a thoughtful one that is insulated from the passions of the moment. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To your second to last point, the proposal doesn't actually specify what it means by pursuing dispute resolution, nor does it require the certifier to evaluate whether sufficient prior steps have been undertaken. There's nothing to actually prevent the time from incident to vote initiation from being an hour or less (certainly dispute resolution can be attempted and failed in an hour). Christopher Parham (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That's a helpful suggestion to point out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Do administrators feel that the wider community does not understand them?" One big but rather rough divide between admins and non admins is that the two groups tend to come from very different wiki generations. Over 90% of admins have been editing here for more than three years, I don't know the figures for non-admins but I'm pretty sure that those who've been here that long are quite a bit rarer, especially if you ignore project specialists who stick to their pet bits of mainspace. I think it would be surprising if that hadn't lead to a cultural divide between the admin cadre and the wider community, and the gap between the two will widen as more new editors join.

As to "why a community-based process would put good administrators at such risk?" Well firstly that treats arbcom as not a community based process, secondly you have supporters of CDA who want to use it to desysop unspecified "bad" admins who are presumably not bad enough for Arbcom to see fit to desysop them. Thirdly one way CDA is going to be different from Arbcom is that it will be more like RFA; I suspect that a large proportion of admins and indeed a large proportion of those members of the community who've experienced it regard RFA as a deeply flawed system, at best a capricious hazing system prone to the occasional batshit insane phase. If you want to reform things why go for a system that seems to be working fairly well, with the intent to make it look more like a system currently perceived as broken? Wouldn't it be more logical to try and reform or replace a system that is clearly not working, and possibly take inspiration from systems that work well? Ϣere SpielChequers 21:08, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you are quite right about the generational divide. Given that it is inevitable that the future trend will be for the gap to widen, it seems to me to be an important issue. It can't be wished away. You are also right that it is inaccurate to portray ArbCom as not community-based; for me, this has been an important lesson of this entire RfC. But I don't see the distinction you make at the end as being so clear-cut. I don't perceive RfA and similar processes as deeply flawed—after all, editing is a community-based process that goes through its own batshit insane moments, but seems to me to work out in the end far better than I would have predicted before seeing it in action. And I don't see the status quo as working as well as I'd like it to—and I think another take-home lesson of this RfC is that nearly half the respondents have concerns about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Without trying to be snotty or pedantic, may i ask why the poll/discussion has been closed early? Admittedly, only a few hours, but it is those few hours before the time that was clearly posted as the closing time. I'm probably not alone in that i came to see this discussion quite late in the process, and needed quite a bit of time to read and digest. But i come home from work today, and come here to throw in my (non-balance changing) vote, and can't. Why not? Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 19:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well, sorry. Please feel free to comment. Only the poll is closed, not the discussion. It didn't seem to me that anything was changing, and the last few days had some problems with incivil comments about some administrators, so I figured a few hours would not make a difference. As I said, only the poll is closed, not the discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, thanks; i guess, if i'd thought for a moment, i would have realised that discussion still continues. After all, this is WP, where discussion rules. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 21:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is going to be an issue for people, an excuse for the defeat of the proposal, then I would say reopen it for a day or two. I do not want to see it next to the plaques on the wall that say "Too many admins voted" "The community really wants this" etc etc.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see those plaques anywhere? It's not an issue. Grow up. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:13, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that supporters of CDA, rather than occupying themselves with plaque-making, will instead attempt to address the issues raised against the current CDA proposal and revamp the proposal such that even a majority of admins would support it. There's been a lot of valuable (and a lot of not-so-valuable) discussion here; it would be foolish to only look at the outcome of this RfC as a !vote. ...but what do you think? ~BF izz 17:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly right. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that rather than revamp CDA and trot it out again in a few months, people will go back to the blackboard and try to address the underlying issues that have been raised here. Any system of addressing mistakes and problematic behaviour by admins or indeed other editors should start with discussing those concerns with the person who you think has made a mistake. Arbcom isn't perfect, but replacing it because it hasn't acted in cases that haven't been made would be a tad harsh. I don't know how we can get more people discuss concerns at an early stage, and we need to avoid repeating the mistakes of wp:Esperanza, but whilst I don't see a consensus for CDA, I do think we have a consensus to address the concerns that prompted it. Ϣere SpielChequers 16:25, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I actually agree with both BFizz and WereSpielChequers, and it's a matter of what constitutes "revamp". Simply making a few cosmetic changes would be a grave misreading of the lessons that should have been learned here. I also don't think anything based on periodic reconfirmations will prove workable, although I strongly encourage editors who believe in such approaches to prove me wrong. Broadly speaking, I think that it is particularly important to really hear what Coren and Casliber said above, and find ways to improve the efficiency of the path from RfC/U to ArbCom, without throwing either of those out the window. Again speaking broadly, I'm thinking about an improved form of RfC/U that addresses the concerns that prompted CDA, but leaves the ultimate decision-making to ArbCom instead of to the community, a much more incremental change than what CDA would have been. But I'm still asking, as I did repeatedly above, how we, on the one hand, increase confidence among members of the community, who have good-faith complaints, that their complaints will be heard fairly and not lead to retaliation, while, at the same time, how we reassure good-faith administrators that there will not be witch-hunts, and that any attempted witch-hunters will be dealt with harshly. That's a tough balance to get right. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:44, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]