User:Dmcdevit/Proposal for desysopping
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is a proposal for a community-based procedure for desysopping problem administrators. Dmcdevit has given Matt57 permission to change this proposal as he wants to. If you want to edit it, please move it forward, not backward.
Here are the basic reasons why a system like this is needed:
- Sysops may change their behavior with the community after they get op'd, i.e. its possible that their behavior deteriorates enough to irritate and effect the community negatively, however its not enough to justify for an RfC or an emergency de-op
- Every good legitimate sysop should be able to survive another RfA and pass through it, like they did when they first qualified for it. However, not every OP needs to go through one.
Procedure:
- A stage 1 is completed when at least 4 administrators have filed for a case to request an RfA for another admin
- Only administrators who have been admins more than 2 months can participate in a Stage 1 request
In order to keep the RfA's as few as possible:
- Of all the admins who are qualified for Stage 1, only the one with the most number of votes will go through another RfA. This qualifies for stage 2.
- Another RfA can only be done once every 2 weeks.
- An admin can go through an RfA not more than once every 6 months
- Stage 3: These RfA results are decided just like for a regular RfA (where common community user's can oppose or support an admin). To deal with sock puppets: Needless to say, any user with no significant edits and whose account is not older than 2 weeks is not eligible to 'vote'. Ineligible votes will be deleted.
[edit] Current situation
The current method that has evolved for desysopping problem admins is apparently taking the admin in question through arbitration, or, theoretically, some kind emergency action by Jimbo/a steward/a developer. Even in the latter case, it appears the case would possibly be brought before the Arbitration Committee to have the emergency measures reviewed and confirmed, amended, or rescinded accordingly. We only need to be concerned with the first type, since again, the latter is not an issue of long term abuse but of necessity (or if it is, it ought to be reviewed further). This route is generally trusted by the community; however, there are reasons to want a community-based decision process. First is, of course, community involvement is good. Arbitration is cumbersome and time-consuming, conservative, generally prolongs even the clear-cut cases, and sometimes as a barrier intimidates valid cases from being brought, especially ones of judgment and not necessarily due to an immediate high-level stimulus. Therefore, there ought to be a good way for sensible desysoppings due to bad judgment to happen based on the wishes of the community.
[edit] Proposed process
This is a perennial proposal, and one that has major problems that prevent most editors, admins especially, from getting on board. Principally, there are legitimate concerns that long-term, generally good admins might not pass community review, but not because they aren't valuable admins. Perhaps one has made enemies among a bloc of edit warriors for making decisions that are good for Wikipedia. Surely, many if not most admins have caused dislike by people on the receiving end of their tools, whether rightly or wrongly. Some have even suggested that a large-sized chunk of our admin population might be taken out with a purely RFA-like reaffirmation process. We need a way to give the community a procedure for desysopping, while creating a check for frivolous results. This is essentially the proposed process: first, a complaint is brought in a new dispute resolution forum, an RFC-style discussion led by evidence and then only carried on if the evidence meets a minimum threshold level of certification (after active discussion), where a successful certification is followed by an RFA-style discussion seeking community consensus for reaffirmation taking into account both the evidence and subsequent discussion, once a bureaucrat fails to find consensus for retention of adminship, the Arbitration Committee must consent to the desysopping (as a check against the fear of lynch-mob mentality, or just plain rashness).
[edit] Reasoning
This process will be a more viable method against habitual misusers of adminship, but also those who have demonstrated the community can no longer place its trust in their judgment. Typically, no administrator will be desysopped for actions that don't relate to use of admin tools; thus, even admins who have been found by the Arbitration Committee to be uncivil or to have edit warred or to have been otherwise disruptive, have faced targeted sanctions or warnings, but not removal or adminship. However, when it becomes clear that such administrators, even for habitual incivility or edit warring but still particularly for repeated misuse of adminship tools and demonstrable bad judgment, have lost the trust of the community and would fail a reaffirmation hearing, this process would be useful. If the community decides it is appropriate, this method could conceivably also be adapted to review long-inactive administrators, whose judgment may be called into question by their unfamiliarity with community norms.
- In detail
- Evidence and discussion phase
- One or more users raises their concern at a WP:RFC/ADMIN subpage, detailing the alleged abuse, and providing evidence in the form of diffs and commentary.
- A threaded discussion, in the manner of WP:AN, with sections as necessary, is undertaken by parties and the community to interpret the evidence, decide whether removal of adminship is the correct action, and otherwise provide feedback on the actions of the administrator in question.
- At the end of a fixed period, 7 days is probably a reasonable amount, discussion is closed and the complaint must be certified by a minimum threshold of editors before moving on to the next stage. It is possible that this threshold may include a requirement for one of the certifiers to be an established user, or even an admin, as a preventative measure against groundless reaffirmation hearings. If no long-term user will certify the desysopping, then neither will the community and/or the Arbitration Committee.
- Successful certification will lead to an RFA-style discussion seeking consensus for reaffirmation of adminship.
- The request is to be placed on WP:RFA itself for the standard length and interpreted by a bureaucrat.
- As with normal RFAs, the strict interpretation of results is up to bureaucrat discretion, and different standards may develop between normal RFAs and reaffirmations, as currently exist between RFAs and RFBs.
- A request for reaffirmation that does not lead to consensus for reaffirmation will require the acceptance of the Arbitration Committee before it is ratified.
- This step is intended primarily as double checking measure to ensure that, for whatever reason, valuable administrators are not removed wholesale for trivial reasons. The Arbitration Committee is currently entrusted by the community and Jimbo with the power for such review in arbitration cases, so giving consent to desysopping here is no expansion of power.
- The role of the Arbitration Committee is primarily to be conservative in its dealing with the community's decision. Unless there is strong reason not to, it will generally certify the results of the request for reaffirmation.
- In cases where the Arbitration Committee does not consent to a community-affirmed desysopping, the matter will likely become a full-fledged arbitration, due to community interest in the administrator's misconduct.
- After Arbitration Committee consent, barring an extraordinary veto by Jimbo, a steward will be asked to remove the administrator's status.
