Wikipedia talk:Requests for removal of adminship/Straw poll/2013

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Before commenting, please read the proposal thoroughly.
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A summary of the debate may be found at the bottom of the discussion.
Withdrawn - Thank you to everyone who contributed to the discussion. - jc37 18:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC[edit]


Support[edit]

  1. I wanted to oppose this as too British, "vote of no confidence"? Come on, this is 'Merica. In actuality, the biggest problem with adminship removal has been the concern of lynch mob style behavior leading to the removal of adminship. This expertly avoids that by using two gatekeepers, a bureaucrat and ArbCom. Ryan Vesey 17:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The major concern is not that a lynchmob could desysop (I think most people agree that if there's a consensus for desysopping that's what should happen), the concern has to be with lychmobs being able to use the system to cause dispute and stir ill-feeling, which may demoralise and discourage hard-working admins. All it would take is three admins to be pissed with you about something to be subject to this ordeal - and that could happen to you repeatedly, even if there's no chance of a consensus to desysop.--Scott Mac 23:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    With such a strong arbcom presence I don't see how a "lynchmob" concern is even remotely plausible. At worst, this allows the community to sidestep lengthier arbcom procedure. And how a supermajority of, what many people below say is such an incredibly rare process (rare compared to RfA for instance), I find the notion that one could gather enough "lynchmob" votes that could fool a crat, gain a supermajority, gain 3 experienced admins, and bypass arbcom, an overreaction to such a modest, in my opinion severely weakened, proposal. If a process this modest gives you concern, I think any threat to anything other than life-tenure adminship would. Shadowjams (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You obviously didn't bother to read a word I wrote. I've no concern with lynchings happening (this won't desysop anyone that wouldn't have been booted by arbcom anyway), however it will result in lots of mobs with pitchforks trying unsuccessfully to lynch people and adding to the drama. As for your last comment, it is simply an assumption of bad faith to say those who oppose this want life-tenure.--Scott Mac 16:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I read what you wrote scott. If you want to sling AGF accusations then let's start with your first sentence. Anyway, the point is your threshold for any process that threatens administratorship appears to be so high that any new process of meaning would be opposed. Shadowjams (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You are missing the point. The threshold for desysopping in this proposal IS high - and I have no problem with that. Although, in truth it is high that any admin who met it would have to be so bad that arbcom would have desysopped then anyway. My problem is that the threshold to initiate the process (3 disgruntled admins) is so low that lots of episodes would spill over into desysopping actions, which would subsequently fail. However, the result of putting admins needlessly through the process would be discouraging and destructive of collaboration. You need a threshold for initiating the process that screens out most of the cases that are not going to result in any action.--Scott Mac 00:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Not missing any points scott, although I appreciate your well explained answer. I just disagree with you that 3 experienced admins aren't enough of a gatekeeper for an already visible and difficult process. RfA attracts hundreds of experienced viewers... the rare RRA would attract all of them, without a doubt. You're right, this proposal doesn't desysop anyone that couldn't have been dealt with by arbcom before, which I think should give comfort to anyone worried about a runaway process. This is nothing more than an expedited process for arbcom (sort of like a United States magistrate judge), and that anyone would object to it on its basic premise, as opposed to perhaps specific technical details, suggests to me that it's just self-interest... i.e. admins will tend to oppose because they have nothing to gain. Shadowjams (talk) 09:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I'm not sure I've ever come across an admin that really needed to be stripped of his or her privileges, but the thought is disturbing. This proposal seems like a healthy check (or balance, if you will) against such possibilities. Recall is a useful convention, but it seems unlikely to be agreed to by those who really deserve it! --BDD (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Strongest support possible Definitely a step in the right direction. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Support It seems to be a good setup. TBrandley (what's up) 19:42, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Support but only because there aren't better options out there. I'm particularly bothered that Arbcom has any say in the process, and especially that the default position if arbcom doesn't act is to retain. There were better, less watered down proposals, but in the absence of anything, something's better than nothing. Shadowjams (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Support. Not perfect but (much) better than nothing. Can be more easily tweaked once the general principle is agreed than spending too much time fighting over the initial details. Because we've never had a community-based desysop process it is hard to gage the extent of the problems pointed out by the opposers. If it is given a try, perhaps on a trail basis, we can better judge their extent and what steps, if any, are needed to deal with them. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wondering how a trial would work? Would all admins that get desysopped during it be resysopped if it is deemed a failure? AIRcorn (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    When did members of the ArbCom, elected last month by 812 of us, stop being "community-based", or part or representative of the community? Contrary to popular belief, the ArbCom already carries out desysoppings at the behest of the 'community'—generally with less formality, rigidity, and ceremony than this new proposal would demand. A clearly-stated motion request, often following a discussion at WP:AN(/I) or another noticeboard, has 'worked' in the case of Carnildo (July 2012), Encyclopetey (September 2012), Craigy144, and probably others. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:45, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Support. Don't think we need the safety net of Arbcom, but don't see the point in opposing over that as currently the whole desyoping process relies almost exclusively on them. As an added bonus it might mean that more potential admins will be given a chance at RFA as there will be a community based method for removing them if they are not suitable. AIRcorn (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Support: better than nothing; let's give it a spin and see how it goes. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Broadly support - I have plenty of concerns about this process; including the complexity of it, the obvious potential for drama, the nightmare of determining consensus in one of these things, and the conflict with the role of ArbCom. But on balance, I think there's a good argument for some sort of community-based de-adminship process, even if it rarely gets used; and this one is better drafted than most proposals, so I'm supporting on that basis. Robofish (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose[edit]

  1. Oppose - While this is a good start at a proposal, it has some holes that compel me to oppose:
    1. "Once a party has proposed or certified an RRA, that party may not propose or certify another RRA for a period of 12 months." - 12 months seems like an awfully long time. If admins are required to certify an RRA, and admins are (supposedly) trusted, then why the ridiculously long blackout period? If there is an admin that needs to be desysopped, why would we tie our hands in this way? I think this requirement should be reduced or eliminated. I would support a maximum of a 3-month blackout period, but would prefer no blackout period. If there is a consensus that an admin is disruptively starting too many frivolous RRA's, then he/she can be topic-banned from starting or certifying RRA's, although I really would be surprised to see something like that happen to any of our admins.
    2. Since this process is modeled after RfA, consensus determination should also mirror the RfA process. We all know that RfA's with >80% support will almost certainly pass, and RfA's with <70% support will almost certainly fail, and this guidance for bureaucrats is written in to various RfA guidelines. The same guidance should be built in to this process, and in my opinion, the percentages should be the same. An RRA should almost certainly succeed (i.e. result in a desysop) if >80% of participants support the RRA, and it should almost certainly fail (i.e. no desysop) if <70% of participants do not support the RRA. The 70-80% range would remain in the bureaucrat's discretion and/or trigger a crat chat to decide how to proceed. I think we're all aware that admins often have to make difficult decisions that don't make them a lot of friends, especially admins who have been around for a long time and have made a lot of difficult decisions. If an RRA is going to be an opportunity for editors to come out of the woodwork to get revenge on an admin that they dislike, or with whom they disagreed about an important decision, or who have been blocked by that admin, etc... then it's only fair that the threshold for losing adminship is the same as that for gaining adminship. Leaving it to the crat to gauge consensus with no guidance means that we have no idea (or control over) what the results of this new RRA process will be, and that hole is too large for me to be able to support.
    3. The proposal does not define how long an RRA discussion will last. Since it implies that the process will mirror an RfA, I assume it is 7 days, but it should be explicitly defined.
    4. A grace period for new admins would be desirable. New admins make good-faith mistakes and should be quickly forgiven without being publicly embarrassed or forced to make a deposition before congress.
    ‑Scottywong| babble _ 20:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Points 2 and 3 are already covered. I've made it clear several times on the page that this is to be patterned after RfA.
    Point 1 was specifically asked for (some suggested longer times) in previous discussions concerning this at WT:RfA. I'm not strongly tied to it, but I suppose I can see how there would be a concern if there is someone who just goes around nominating people for RRA. - jc37 20:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe I'm looking on the wrong page. I've just double-checked both Wikipedia:Requests for removal of adminship and Wikipedia talk:Requests for removal of adminship and I see no mention of the 70%/80% consensus determination, nor any mention of a 7-day RRA process. If I'm looking at the wrong page, then where is the actual official proposed policy that we're voting on? ‑Scottywong| comment _ 22:16, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, that would be WP:CREEP : )
    Instead, the proposal states: "The discussion is similar to an RfA, including participation requirements, discussion length and format, with certification replacing the nomination sections, and with other cosmetic changes as the community sees fit." and "Determining consensus of an RRA follows the same standards as RfA, except as noted in the following."
    This way, if some standard is changed at RfA, it can be changed for RRA simultaneously. The goal is to keep this as simple and straught-forward as possible. - jc37 22:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I would probably be able to cautiously support this proposal if those parameters (7-day discussion and 70/80% thresholds) were explicitly defined in the policy proposal instead of vaguely implied as they currently are. I feel that the current wording is at risk of being gamed. While I still believe that points 1 and 4 are important, they aren't deal-breakers for me. If you'd allow me, I'd be happy to add a sentence or two to the proposal that continues to link those discussion length and consensus threshold parameters to the current standards at RfA, but also explicitly defines what those standards currently are. ‑Scottywong| squeal _ 23:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It should reflect whatever the standards at rfa are. Whenever the actual policy on this is written, I presume that the section at RFA would be linked to and possibly quoted. - jc37 21:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Oppose per "Determining consensus of an RRA follows the same standards as RfA" - if that's true, prepare to see a lot of admins get removed. Adminship should never be political, and this makes it political. --Rschen7754 21:33, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While you are, of course, welcome to your opinion, my assertion on this is that it's odd that this same community can be trusted to partially or fully ban someone, yet, cannot be trusted to remove some tools or responsibilities? And banning someone doesn't have any of the gatekeeper thresh holds that this does. Which, incidentally, should help prevent your concerns. - jc37 21:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this doesn't. Those who have been blocked by the admin in the past, right or wrong, will pile on to the request. That's why the threshold is 50% at Commons. --Rschen7754 21:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, huh? You're opposing rfa's higher threshholds but supporting the lower 50%? - jc37 21:52, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not what I'm saying; see commons:COM:DESYSOP. --Rschen7754 22:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, just did. It states that the process is just like RfA, except that: "Although the process is not a vote, normal standards for determining consensus in an RfA do not apply. Instead, "majority consensus" should be used, whereby any consensus to demote of higher than about 50% is sufficient to remove the admin." - So it looks easier to desysop at commons than to sysop. (which is confirmed by the initial proposal). What do you think I am missing? - jc37 22:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Requiring a consensus of 20-30% (which is what your proposal would require) is easier to achieve than a consensus of 50%. --Rschen7754 22:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still confused. How do you come to the conclusion of 20-30%? - jc37 22:38, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My oppose still stands; too bureaucratic in the wrong areas and too easily gamed in the wrong areas. --Rschen7754 23:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Huh? Can we not abuse the English language. Consensus means "most people agree". You can't have a "majority consensus", that simply called a "majority". Nor can you have 50% 30% etc. Even 70-80% is barely a consensus, it better called "super-majority", but anything below that can't be called consensus at all.--Scott Mac 23:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Scott, don't we normaly define our highest level of consensus, that for an RfC on fundamental policy,at 66 2/3%? DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Oppose. All these proposals (and we've seen them all before) seem like a good idea until you think about it. While everyone agrees there are bad admins, few agree who they are - and you'll seldom get a consensus to desysop anyone, unless they've behaved so badly that arbcom would desysop them anyway. So, any process won't remove any more bad admins than arbcom does. Meanwhile, you've got the downside of acrimoniousness attempts to desysop which don't get consensus. And the problem that it will be really easy to begin the process, even when it has a zero chance of success. Frankly anytime an admin pisses off any user, he and his two palls can trigger this? Ridiculous - a total admin time-sink. Most of our best admins have several grudge-holding users before they do something to annoy some more! And how difficult would it be to find another three to start the process a second time, even after the first was decidedly defeated. No, no, and a thousand time no. You want a community desysop process? I've got a good idea. The Community should elect a panel of clued people and empower them to weigh up the case, hear all the sides, and make a decision on our behalf....oh, wait, that's Arbcom.--Scott Mac 21:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to clarify, it takes at least three admins to certify. - jc37 22:01, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    1. OK, I did miss that. However, my oppose still stands. This won't desysop anyone that Arbcom wouldn't desysop, and three admins won't be hard to find in most of the Wikipartisan politics stuff. This will be a weapon on wikistrife.--Scott Mac 22:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Oppose per the requirement of certification by three other administrators - I'd rather have at least one other editor endorse, since it's not common for frivolous "admin abuse" accusations to be brought up by two at once for the same admin. I also don't like that arbcom must close it - bureaucrats should be able to handle it.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Oppose for a variety of reasons, not least of which is ArbCom having to be involved. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  6. I like this proposal, but I do not want ArbCom involved. This should be a community-based process, not an ArbCom based one, in my opinion. David1217 What I've done 23:10, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Arbcom is flawed and made some very bad calls last year, but it isn't as completely broken as RFA. So in my view we should be seeking to reform Arbcom and replace RFA, not creating a sort of parallel process to Arbcom that dispensed with some of the safeguards there. This proposal also fails most if not all of User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_reform#Make_it_easier_to_remove_the_mop, in particular it doesn't explain who these "bad admins" are who Arbcom won't act against but who could be harassed targetd via this proposed mechanism. ϢereSpielChequers 10:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I agree with you, but I feel like this is a small step towards more accountable adminship, and resultingly, more admins. My fear (probably reality) is that most admins will oppose this kind of proposal because it threatens their autonomy. I would rather see a modest (and this proposal is the most modest of all of them that was proposed) one succeed, rather than us go on our current path. I've written enough about this, but easier to remove means easier to appoint... if you think we have a problem with lack of good admins (we do... we have a lot of grandfathered admins who would never pass today) we should make it easier to promote people and simultaneously easy to demote them. Shadowjams (talk) 10:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't dispute that there are many of us admins who've been grandfathered in but who wouldn't pass today if we hadn't passed in 2004/2009, however this site relies on the continued activity of some of those admins...... (I include myself amongst those who probably wouldn't pass RFA today if we hadn't run years ago. But I don't count myself amongst the admins we'd lose who we currently rely on as my recent use of the tools is sufficiently rare that the site would barely notice if I and a score of admins who use the tools as rarely as I do were to give up the mop). Arbcom does sometimes get things wrong and desysop admins I'd rather keep, but it very rarely protects admins who merit a desysop. I'm not convinced that having an additional quicker, less fair and more arbitrary way to get rid of admins would make it easier for anyone to become an admin, but it would certainly reduce the supply of good admins as many sane level headed people will not voluntarily put themselves at the mercy of a lynch mob. The main thing that I'm not sure about with community deadminship is whether either the deletionists or the inclusionists would have sufficient strength to desysop the admins they most dislike. I suspect there is a real possibility that we could implement a community deadminship process and after a year or so work out that it pretty much gets rid of the admins that arbcom would have desysopped anyway.
    Clearly you and I have very different perceptions of what it takes to persuade good candidates to run at RFA, my thinking is heavily influenced by my experience as an active nominator in 2010/2011, both in the RFAs that happened and in the conversations I've had with good candidates who are unwilling to run. But my view is that the anomaly that this site is heavily dependent on admins who if they hadn't run before RFA broke would be unlikely to pass today is a condemnation of the RFA process not the deadminship one. ϢereSpielChequers 06:46, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Oppose, largely per Wikipedia talk:Requests for removal of adminship#Not learning from history, but also because...
    How is...
    1. File an WP:RFC/Admin (under a slightly tweaked name and ruleset);
    2. Carry out a community discussion about the admin's conduct;
    3. Demand that a single bureaucrat (who wasn't elected to handle this type of responsibility) declare a provisional decision;
    4. Have the ArbCom review the RfC and implement the outcome by motion, or open a full case if necessary.
    ..a better or faster process than the current system, which is...
    1. File an WP:RFC/Admin (or other open discussion process);
    2. Carry out a community discussion about the admin's conduct;
    3. Have the ArbCom review the RfC and implement the outcome by motion, or open a full case if necessary.
    As I noted (by reference) in my original comment on this proposal a couple of months ago, this suggestion takes bureaucrats – who are generally trusted to accomplish a relatively narrow set of responsibilities efficiently and without a lot of chaos – and puts them into an intensely political role. Despite this proposal's advocates' attempts to minimize these concerns by declaring the process a 'mirror' or 'reverse' RfA, it just ain't so. The current crop of bureaucrats weren't vetted by the community for this new proposed authority, and making them effectively judges instead of just functionaries is apt to seriously distort (if not hopelessly hamstring) any future bureaucratship nominations. Worse, it creates an unnecessary and unhelpful tension between the roles of bureaucrats versus the ArbCom. A single 'crat gets to present a fait accompli to ArbCom, and we end up with a constitutional crisis if the ArbCom rejects the bureaucrat's conclusion.
    As it was the last time around, so it is today. The ArbCom continues to demonstrate the ability to move with reasonable alacrity when presented with a clear community consensus—no bureaucrats required. In July 2012, the ArbCom desysopped Carnildo in four days from request to closure of motion: [1]. In September 2012, the ArbCom desysopped Encyclopetey in eight days from filed request ([2]) to closure of motion: [3]. While I would be the last person to declare the ArbCom perfect, they are the body that we – the Wikipedia community – just spent a month electing to handle desysopping on this project. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Oppose while this process is certainly better thought out than most de-adminship proposals, RFA is a barely-functioning mess at the moment, and I imagine RRA would be even worse. Hut 8.5 19:31, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    One of the intended goals of this is that it should help the current "tone" at RfA. - jc37 21:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it would make any difference. The promotion rate for RfA has declined sharply since 2007, whereas it hasn't really got any harder to desysop people. Whatever is causing the problems at RfA, it isn't the lack of a community desysop process. Hut 8.5 22:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is exactly that. This is about giving the community more of a role in a desysopping discussion. And by giving them that sense of being more "involved", it is likely that people will be less inclined to be as harsh in a RfA, since - for the most part - rfA is for life, so the commenter may feel that this is their "last chance" to voice how they feel. If we have a more community inclusive desysop process, the then that should eliminate (or at least lessen) that sense of "last chance". And thereby, should help with the tone at RfA. (And yes, I'm greatly simplifying, I believe that having such a process will help with RfA in many more ways, and indeed, might actually help change the nonsensical "us vs them" mentality that seems to be growing of late.) - jc37 23:08, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    But if people are opposing RfAs because they feel this is their last chance to voice concerns about the candidate, why weren't they being so harsh 4-5 years ago, when our desysopping procedures were pretty much the same? RfA commenters have certainly got much harsher over the years, but it doesn't seem as though the lack of a community desysopping process is driving that. This proposal could have negative effects on RfA as well. RRAs are likely to be rather unpleasant affairs for the admin concerned, and if admins are commonly subjected to them then it may put people off becoming admins, in much the same way as some people are being put off by the harshness of the RfA process. Hut 8.5 23:31, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Why wasn't the tone as bad previously? This has been discussed by others elsewhere, including WT:RFA etc., but to summarise from memory: In the past, admin actions were theory, and now we have many concrete examples. And so now, as individuals, and as a group, it would seem that the community has grown in concern about it being "no big deal" to entrust people with adminship. I'm not saying that this is right or fair, just that this is an increasingly growing situation.
    And for the reasons you note, and for others (such as lynch mobs etc), there are several "gatekeepers" and other safety valves to prevent such things at RRA. - jc37 23:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I strongly disagree that 50%+1 is enough to desysop an admin, just like I'd disagree if it was proposed to elect one. And I even more strongly disagree with this cumbersome process that would require 4 different stages (admin approval, community voting, bureaucrat closing, arbcom doing whatever they want). The Arbitration committee should have no part in this proposal, and I don't think it's fair to ask our bureaucrats to invest significant efforts into closing these processes when their decisions are meaningless as Arbcom can overrule them any day of the week. A bad process is much, much worse than no process at all. Snowolf How can I help? 09:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Oppose after reading WereSpielChequers's statements above and his essay on RFA reform. Repeating what I said earlier, I don't think RRA would be necessary in addition to ArbCom and everything else. I also suspect it could only be worse than RfA, and while an ArbCom decision would be needed to revoke SysOp tools, a successful nomination and certification would start a process that would almost inevitably lead to resignation and/or retirement. In other words, it would probably be worse than RfA and AN/I combined, which is not all that far off from what it would actually be. Rutebega (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Oppose - Adminship is no big deal, but removal is - the threshold is too low here, we run on consensus, not majority... Arbcom may be a pain I wish on nobody, even the clerks and Arbitrators, but it's a fundamentally fair system, IMO. Streamlining the process to make life easier there risks turning career whiners and ArbCom case makers that are rejected, into legitimate threats to good Admin's standings on nothing but personal grievances. Not an Admin, but I don't want people who've passed muster to rejoin the editor Corps over stupid crap like I foresee becoming front and center under this scheme. All the best, -T.I.M(Contact) 18:34, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral[edit]

  1. I am concerned that there is no grace period for someone who has recently passed an RFA. While I would rather think that experienced admins would not certify a process so soon into an editor gaining the tools, I would rather not have a situation where several experienced admins disagreed with an editor getting the tools and then seize upon a mistake made early on to essentially re-do the RFA to get their way.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 18:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    A grace period does seem prudent. --BDD (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    While I wouldn't strongly oppose that, consider that it takes at least 3 experienced admins to certify an RRA to allow the process to even start. Also, in such a case that it is certified, advise, is still a clear option. - jc37 18:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been enough instances of people revealing problems very soon after a successful RfA that if there is a grace period, it should be a short one, like a month. DGG ( talk ) 02:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Worrying about a grace period is pure navel gazing... first off, someone recently "approved" by the community shouldn't just be turned around and immediately disproved by the network that's much harder to game... in other words, if we trust the RfA process (we shouldn't), if they get approved, and then 3 admins, plus a 50%+ supermajority (probably more like 2/3+) desysop them, considering that most of the desysopers are the same people that !voted in the previous RfA.... maybe the problem is with RfA... to cast it on this process is insane. Shadowjams (talk) 10:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  2. A question. If this needs the approval of the Arbitration Committee to take effect, then why don't we just file a case and let them handle all the issue by themselves? It is supposed that this process is entitled to avoid cases at ArbCom or not? If so, having ArbCom here conflicts with the very sense of the proposal about a community driven process because ArbCom is not the community. — ΛΧΣ21 02:19, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you completely... Arbcom shouldn't be involved in this process at all, and certainly if they are, their inaction should not default to a "retain" against a supermajority of the community (which is what arbcom inaction results in). However, I !voted support because at the very least this lessens the arduous arbcom process and also allows the community (albeit a select and restricted subset) to bring concerns forward easier than before. That's a step forward. But I do find the arbcom involvement a major problem. Shadowjams (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not clear to me why it would be better to trust a single individual – who wasn't vetted by the community to carry out this responsibility – to make these decisions over the ArbCom, which was explicitly tasked with the job, and whose members were thoroughly and openly scrutinized for their views on desysopping, and who are elected to time-limited terms. See also my comment above, where I note recent instances (two in the last six months) where the ArbCom has acted to desysop quickly when presented with a clear community consensus guiding them to do so. The ArbCom is slow to desysop in situations where the community consensus isn't clear, and/or where the case is complicated by the involvement of many parties: situations in which this proposed process wouldn't work – not fairly or efficiently, at least – either. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I think this proposal may well have some changes in its future, and I'm interested to see where it goes, but I won't support it just yet. Despite its many merits (and my hope that it will ultimately succeed), I can't help imagining something like AN/I, and possibly much, much worse. It also concerns me that the proposal will eliminate administrators in a day and age in which RfA itself is horribly broken and few new sysops are being approved. Some have said that this proposal could free up RfA somewhat, but I'm not convinced. And of course, as logical as it might be for this to exist as a corollary to RfA, I'm not sure there's truly a need for it in addition to what already exists. I'll try to keep an eye on the page and may well change my mind, but for now I'll abstain. Changed to Oppose. Rutebega (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, but RFA is broken because of this... it's an all or nothing battle, there's almost zero recourse against bad admins. The admins from the early days are the worst. RFA today is like a federal judge appointment. However the people most involved in these discussions, and the ones that are aware and follow it, are mostly admins. Anything that threatens their autonomy is expected to be met with resistance. It's just human nature. That's why some real moral authority from some admins who understand why the RfA process is ridiculous, gameable, and an impediment to this project, would be highly appreciated. Shadowjams (talk) 10:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think RfA is broken for several reasons, but you definitely have a point. Maybe by some miracle RfA will be improved sometime soon. I doubt it, but if anybody wants to make a proposal... Rutebega (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I've striken my overstatement from above. Shadowjams (talk) 07:30, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_removal_of_adminship/Straw_poll/2013&oldid=1187822395"