Improving the desysopping process

[Alex Shih]

I have been skimming through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ng_process, and I was wondering after two years, if the political landscape has changed on English Wikipedia. Do you folks think it's time to re-visit some variations of this proposal? Forgive if this has been brought up before repeatedly.

[MjolnirPants]

I have been skimming through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ng_process, and I was wondering after two years, if the political landscape has changed on English Wikipedia. Do you folks think it's time to re-visit some variations of this proposal? Forgive if this has been brought up before repeatedly.

If the community can made an admin, the community ought to be able to un-make one. That's just common sense. The notion that if the community trusts someone, they should be given tools, but then those tools can only be taken away if a certain, small, select group of editors with a bunch of common characteristics (been editing for a long time, willingness to engage in drama, willingness to try to gain more 'power', already have the tools themselves, etc) decide not to trust them is silly.

There are a number of admins untrusted by the community who maintain the bit just because they used to be good editors years ago, and made a good impression on a few people. That's problematic.

[mynameisnotdave]

I can see both advantages and disadvantages of it. I'd be prepared to give it a try.

[MjolnirPants]

I can see both advantages and disadvantages of it. I'd be prepared to give it a try.

Not disagreeing, just noting that this applies to the current RfA process, as well. There would be some advantages to certain trusted members appointing admins, or having a long list of "qualifications" such that anyone who meets them gets the bit.

[Alex Shih]

Only Arbcom can desysop, yet Arbcom cannot do anything without community consensus. But attempts to gather that community consensus will usually be closed as out of process, as desysop attempts are generally sent to filing a case request at Arbcom. And then the case will more often be declined as premature, because not enough prior discussions have taken place. There is something intrinsically not right about this never ending loop.

[Kumioko]

I have been skimming through https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... ng_process, and I was wondering after two years, if the political landscape has changed on English Wikipedia. Do you folks think it's time to re-visit some variations of this proposal? Forgive if this has been brought up before repeatedly.

I don't know if the landscape has changed but I completely believe that the process needs to change. If the community has the authority and trust to give someone the tools or to ban them from the project then the community should also have the authority and trust to remove the tools if the individual has lost the trust of the community.

There is always a lot of hyperbole about admins getting desysopped over doing their job but IMO those concerns don't have any merit because we have never tried, they are literally just hyperbole. What I would suggest is that the community has the authority to have the discussion and vote on whether an admin or functionary has lost the communities trust, then, arbcom can act on it and choose to either go with the communities wish or not, if they feel it's unwarranted. That would maintain some semblance of the current process and allow the admins to maintain their current unlevel playing field while still allowing the community to at least have the discussion instead of using the excuse of it being out of process to protect a problematic admin a they did with the discussion about Fram. Even if the discussions do not succeed, they will help to show patterns of abusive or problematic behavior if and when Arbcom decides to do their job.

Here is the thing though, as I, John Carter and others have witnessed, any admin can indef any editor for any reason without a discussion. So it is unfair and biased to say that the community, as a whole, cannot even have a discussion about whether an admin still has their trust.

I would also add that if the community can vote to ban an individual, including admins, from the project. As a way to push the issue, the community could indef ban an admin (which they currently have the ability to do) and that would essentially require them to be desysopped. Someone could then, as a workaround, go back and submit an unban request post desysop. So using that scenario, it doesn't make sense why the community cannot also just desysop the admin instead of ban them.

[orangepi]

I do think a "recall"-based system would be an improvement, but I don't think anything is going to pass.

I'd personally support requiring re-confirmations (every 7 years, perhaps?), and an "admin emeritus" status for admins who don't try to get re-confirmed. Some of the problems of devolving admin rights (in particular the ability to view deleted content) aren't an issue because only people who were previously admins would have those privileges.

[mynameisnotdave]

I do think a "recall"-based system would be an improvement, but I don't think anything is going to pass.

I'd personally support requiring re-confirmations (every 7 years, perhaps?), and an "admin emeritus" status for admins who don't try to get re-confirmed. Some of the problems of devolving admin rights (in particular the ability to view deleted content) aren't an issue because only people who were previously admins would have those privileges.

Mr. Power. I awaited your registration.

[Kumioko]

I do think a "recall"-based system would be an improvement, but I don't think anything is going to pass.

I'd personally support requiring re-confirmations (every 7 years, perhaps?), and an "admin emeritus" status for admins who don't try to get re-confirmed. Some of the problems of devolving admin rights (in particular the ability to view deleted content) aren't an issue because only people who were previously admins would have those privileges.

I would also like to see an end to the admin for life situation but I would say more like 5 years. Of course neither is going to pass though. Most of the admins would never pass a modern RFA and they know that so they aren't about to agree to that.

[mynameisnotdave]

Edited my post title to reflect this slight off-topicness, but I'm always interested in how we can vote less on hypotheticals at an RfA.

Just an idea, but what if one were able to approach the 'crats, say 'I'm interested in adminship', they look at your suitability, then if you are good enough then you go on a trial period where you learn the ropes while closely supervised. At the end of the trial period -- RfA time, with some basis on how you did during that trial period.

[orangepi]

Edited my post title to reflect this slight off-topicness, but I'm always interested in how we can vote less on hypotheticals at an RfA.

Just an idea, but what if one were able to approach the 'crats, say 'I'm interested in adminship', they look at your suitability, then if you are good enough then you go on a trial period where you learn the ropes while closely supervised. At the end of the trial period -- RfA time, with some basis on how you did during that trial period.

A complete non-starter. Crats would want to "assess community consensus" first, which is an RfA. Also, the WMF *requires* that people that have access to deleted content pass an RfA-like process.

[Poetlister]

Edited my post title to reflect this slight off-topicness, but I'm always interested in how we can vote less on hypotheticals at an RfA.

Just an idea, but what if one were able to approach the 'crats, say 'I'm interested in adminship', they look at your suitability, then if you are good enough then you go on a trial period where you learn the ropes while closely supervised. At the end of the trial period -- RfA time, with some basis on how you did during that trial period.

A complete non-starter. Crats would want to "assess community consensus" first, which is an RfA. Also, the WMF *requires* that people that have access to deleted content pass an RfA-like process.

Such a procedure already exists on Wikiversity, but presumably the WMF doesn't care about Wikiversity.

[orangepi]

Edited my post title to reflect this slight off-topicness, but I'm always interested in how we can vote less on hypotheticals at an RfA.

Just an idea, but what if one were able to approach the 'crats, say 'I'm interested in adminship', they look at your suitability, then if you are good enough then you go on a trial period where you learn the ropes while closely supervised. At the end of the trial period -- RfA time, with some basis on how you did during that trial period.

A complete non-starter. Crats would want to "assess community consensus" first, which is an RfA. Also, the WMF *requires* that people that have access to deleted content pass an RfA-like process.

Such a procedure already exists on Wikiversity, but presumably the WMF doesn't care about Wikiversity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?ti ... =545773892 is the diff I was thinking of, but in a later discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia ... RfA_reform , the WMF does say "another possibility being discussed was having bureaucrats vote on these appointees. This would satisfy the community overview requirements."

I still think it has no chance of happening even if the WMF is okay with it.

[Bezdomni]

I would suggest that it *might* be an improvement to the desysopping process if when desysopped admins return to Wikipedia to astroturf yet again in areas they are topic-banned from that this trolling should not be encouraged by banning users who call out the obviously strange behavior.

But that probably doesn't surprise you. I'm still dumbfounded by BURob telling me I would have to let en-wiki go back to promulgating fake news about me (bogus charges) in order to appeal my two blocks at the request of prosecutor Cirt (Sagecandor). Did you personally sign off on that too, Alex? Were you even aware of this remarkable email he sent me?

[Randy from Boise]

I don't think rogue administrators are a particularly big problem and I think ArbCom does a tolerably good job doing what it needs to do.

I would favor making RFAs for a fixed term rather than for life. Five years, seven years, something like that.

RfB

[Kumioko]

I don't think rogue administrators are a particularly big problem and I think ArbCom does a tolerably good job doing what it needs to do.

I would favor making RFAs for a fixed term rather than for life. Five years, seven years, something like that.

RfB

Well I will have to disagree with you on that one. I could name 10 off the top of my head, a couple of which were or are on the Arbcom.

[Poetlister]

It depends on what you mean by "a big problem". If you're someone who hasn't had major difficulties, which is probably a goodly proportion of editors, then you certainly won't perceive a problem. Looking globally, and seeing how much damage is caused in total by these people, may offer a different perspective.

[MjolnirPants]

I don't think rogue administrators are a particularly big problem and I think ArbCom does a tolerably good job doing what it needs to do.

I generally agree, but with the caveat that even good admins are not immune from temporary rogueitis. Everyone has bad days. Everyone.

[Beeblebrox]

I think this falls int the subset of policy issues that calls for a tightly controlled, restrictive process in order to come to a decision.

Some of you may recall the several years it took to come to a decision on whether or not we should use pending changes. Every discussion we had kept getting derailed and we never made a yes/no decision. I finally opened an RFC with controls in place, where each participant had to choose between one of three mutually-exclusive positions and where counter-proposals were not permitted. There three proposals were basically yes, no, and status quo. A team of three previously uninvolved admins was recruited to supervise the process before it was even opened. While more work was needed before we had a real policy on the matter, this succeeded in answering that one question.

I would suggest that a similar type of process would be required to answer this question. No fully fleshed-out policies or procedures. No endless adding of alternate positions and proposals. We tried those approaches in the past and they were train wrecks. This kind of process should only be used in cases like this, where previous efforts were hopelessly muddled (I recall an attempt to come up with a process several years ago that ended with something like 17 competing proposals for a process and a policy. Shockingly, no consensus was achieved)

As always I will also shamelessly plug my essay on this subject: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Beeb ... y_proposal

[Casliber]

Only Arbcom can desysop, yet Arbcom cannot do anything without community consensus. But attempts to gather that community consensus will usually be closed as out of process, as desysop attempts are generally sent to filing a case request at Arbcom. And then the case will more often be declined as premature, because not enough prior discussions have taken place. There is something intrinsically not right about this never ending loop.

Alex you're confusing the two roles...but then it looks like lots of people do. Reviewing admin tool use is separate to conflict resolution. We supposedly have arbcom doing this and the community not..or the other way round. Either way works fine as long as there is consensus for one or the other. A simple way would be for a community-wide vote with two options:

(1) Arbcom is the place for review of admin tool use. The committee will accept requests and review on this basis (i.e. not a port of last resort). Discussions elsewhere should be diverted to the committee.

or

(2) The community can discuss tool use and suitability for an admin to remain so. If there is a clear consensus that an admin is unsuitable to be one, then at the conclusion of the discussion, the admin can be desysopped.


and vote away......................

[Poetlister]

It's partly how you see the role of bureaucrats. It has always seemed to me that their responsibility should not end when an RfA has closed. If a crat sees an admin behaving badly, then the crat should intervene. If you accept that argument, then in extremis the crat, or maybe two crats, should be able to trigger an anti-RfA, which is roughly Cas's second option.

[The Garbage Scow]

The desysop process has been something sorely needed for at least 10 years, but the long history of attempts to pass it into policy (and pushback by le admin corps) are worth a look.

[Kumioko]

There is no one thing that will fix the situation because there is no one problem causing it.

- One way to change the desysop process is for people to stop making excuses for why bad admins shouldn't be removed.
- Admins need to accept accountability for their actions. Right now, the only accountability is to the Arbcom who sets the bar so high to remove an admin that it's rarely done out of frustration because people don't have the endurance
- Make being an admin about helping the project, not gaining power. When you have people like BURob do almost nothing to improve the project get elevated to admin, functionary and Arbcom in a year and a half, yet tell people with tens of thousands of edits they can't be trusted, you are going to drive people away and against the admins.

Once the community and the other admins start holding the bad ones to account, the culture will change. The current situation didn't get there overnight and change won't happen overnight most likely either. What will be required is for things to get so bad, that things aren't getting done at all. When that happens, then the community and or the WMF will do what needs to be done.

[Alex Shih]

Only Arbcom can desysop, yet Arbcom cannot do anything without community consensus. But attempts to gather that community consensus will usually be closed as out of process, as desysop attempts are generally sent to filing a case request at Arbcom. And then the case will more often be declined as premature, because not enough prior discussions have taken place. There is something intrinsically not right about this never ending loop.

Alex you're confusing the two roles...but then it looks like lots of people do. Reviewing admin tool use is separate to conflict resolution. We supposedly have arbcom doing this and the community not..or the other way round. Either way works fine as long as there is consensus for one or the other. A simple way would be for a community-wide vote with two options:

(1) Arbcom is the place for review of admin tool use. The committee will accept requests and review on this basis (i.e. not a port of last resort). Discussions elsewhere should be diverted to the committee.

or

(2) The community can discuss tool use and suitability for an admin to remain so. If there is a clear consensus that an admin is unsuitable to be one, then at the conclusion of the discussion, the admin can be desysopped.


and vote away......................

Thanks Cas, I think I will remain to be confused. (2) sounds like the ideal option, I wonder if something can be proposed along the lines of "desysop discussions at AN should remain open for 7 days; if there is consensus, then the next step would be arbcom review and vote by motion"... Ideals.

[Kumioko]

I can pretty much guarantee whatever the correct thing to do is the Wikipedia community will vote against it!

[Bezdomni]

When you ask an Arb a simple, direct question in a thread they start at Wikipediocracy...
you tend to get ignored ...

Thanks Cas, I think I will remain to be confused.

Why? Because MobCar.

[Beeblebrox]

It's partly how you see the role of bureaucrats. It has always seemed to me that their responsibility should not end when an RfA has closed. If a crat sees an admin behaving badly, then the crat should intervene. If you accept that argument, then in extremis the crat, or maybe two crats, should be able to trigger an anti-RfA, which is roughly Cas's second option.

That won’t fly because of the nature of the ‘crat role. ‘Crats are supposed to be very boring. They are not super-admins or in charge of anyone. They are only supposed to act when there is a clear rule telling them to do so. ArbCom, on the other hand, can do all sorts of crazy crap, which is why this landed in their lap. I would support a carefully constructed community-based process for removing the bits, but not if it requires superadmins to do the nominating.

[Kumioko]

It's partly how you see the role of bureaucrats. It has always seemed to me that their responsibility should not end when an RfA has closed. If a crat sees an admin behaving badly, then the crat should intervene. If you accept that argument, then in extremis the crat, or maybe two crats, should be able to trigger an anti-RfA, which is roughly Cas's second option.

That won’t fly because of the nature of the ‘crat role. ‘Crats are supposed to be very boring. They are not super-admins or in charge of anyone. They are only supposed to act when there is a clear rule telling them to do so. ArbCom, on the other hand, can do all sorts of crazy crap, which is why this landed in their lap. I would support a carefully constructed community-based process for removing the bits, but not if it requires superadmins to do the nominating.

I would argue that if the admins see one of their own breaking the rules, then the have an obligation to act just like they would with any other editor. The fact that they don't is merely the Wikipedia culture of allowing the people in charge of the blocking to do what they want.

[Poetlister]

I would argue that if the admins see one of their own breaking the rules, then the have an obligation to act just like they would with any other editor. The fact that they don't is merely the Wikipedia culture of allowing the people in charge of the blocking to do what they want.

Admins still have all the responsibilities of admins after becoming bureaucrats. Further, they have extra moral responsibility precisely because of the greater confidence the community has demonstrated in them by an RfB on top of an RfA. If crats need rules before they act, then maybe such rules should be created.

[Casliber]

Only Arbcom can desysop, yet Arbcom cannot do anything without community consensus. But attempts to gather that community consensus will usually be closed as out of process, as desysop attempts are generally sent to filing a case request at Arbcom. And then the case will more often be declined as premature, because not enough prior discussions have taken place. There is something intrinsically not right about this never ending loop.

Alex you're confusing the two roles...but then it looks like lots of people do. Reviewing admin tool use is separate to conflict resolution. We supposedly have arbcom doing this and the community not..or the other way round. Either way works fine as long as there is consensus for one or the other. A simple way would be for a community-wide vote with two options:

(1) Arbcom is the place for review of admin tool use. The committee will accept requests and review on this basis (i.e. not a port of last resort). Discussions elsewhere should be diverted to the committee.

or

(2) The community can discuss tool use and suitability for an admin to remain so. If there is a clear consensus that an admin is unsuitable to be one, then at the conclusion of the discussion, the admin can be desysopped.


and vote away......................

Thanks Cas, I think I will remain to be confused. (2) sounds like the ideal option, I wonder if something can be proposed along the lines of "desysop discussions at AN should remain open for 7 days; if there is consensus, then the next step would be arbcom review and vote by motion"... Ideals.

To confuse you even more. I came up with a crat-huddle idea called Fivecrat in 2008......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Casliber/Fivecrat

[Alex Shih]

Interesting. It always puzzles me how bureaucratship has devolved into a state of lacking any purpose (particularly after renaming became global user right in 2014; probably not a coincidence that only 3 nominations (2 in 2017) for RfB since 2014). I like the idea of balance/check of power, which can only promote more accountability. Although I think if the community was ever to re-visit the role of bureaucrats, there should probably be prerequisite to review whether or not many of these members are still in touch with the current community.

As a partial response to Kumioko, I tend to agree; however, the civility standard that's required of "admins" or other advanced user rights can be restricting. For users in such position, I suppose the general standard (or perhaps, the only acceptable standard) when seeing another admin (sometimes blatantly) not following the rules is to simply make a polite request along the lines "Please don't do it again?". But then there are user exemptions, and only a hand of editors would opt to escalate. I guess in these situations it comes down to Wikipedia having no firm rules; rules are meant to be applied with "flexibility", which on occasion is extremely unfair, and I suppose that's one source of frustration for many banned users.

[Kumioko]

Interesting. It always puzzles me how bureaucratship has devolved into a state of lacking any purpose (particularly after renaming became global user right in 2014; probably not a coincidence that only 3 nominations (2 in 2017) for RfB since 2014). I like the idea of balance/check of power, which can only promote more accountability. Although I think if the community was ever to re-visit the role of bureaucrats, there should probably be prerequisite to review whether or not many of these members are still in touch with the current community.

As a partial response to Kumioko, I tend to agree; however, the civility standard that's required of "admins" or other advanced user rights can be restricting. For users in such position, I suppose the general standard (or perhaps, the only acceptable standard) when seeing another admin (sometimes blatantly) not following the rules is to simply make a polite request along the lines "Please don't do it again?". But then there are user exemptions, and only a hand of editors would opt to escalate. I guess in these situations it comes down to Wikipedia having no firm rules; rules are meant to be applied with "flexibility", which on occasion is extremely unfair, and I suppose that's one source of frustration for many banned users.

The idea that Wikipedia has no firm rules is as outdated as the idea admission is no big deal. Editi g bulky blocked editors is a pretty firm rule for example. When even positive edits.are reverted on sight and notable articles deleted, that's a pretty firm rule.

None of that changes the us and them mentality displayed by manly admins though and if the desysop process is going to change, then admins need to be accountable when the blatantly violate the rules. They si.ply shouldn't be allowed to troll, intimidate, insult, make personal attacks, bait into conflict, manipulate policy to win arguments, etc. And arbcom is the worst at many of those btw.

[Beeblebrox]

From what I’ve been told by some old-timers who were actually around when the role was invented, it was named as it was specifically to make it sound as boring as possible, to avoid seeming like a position of great power and glory.

I ran once and was rejected basically for being too interesting for the job. I’ve never felt better about being rejected for anything.

[Kumioko]

From what I’ve been told by some old-timers who were actually around when the role was invented, it was named as it was specifically to make it sound as boring as possible, to avoid seeming like a position of great power and glory.

I ran once and was rejected basically for being too interesting for the job. I’ve never felt better about being rejected for anything.

That's one way to put it. I seem to recall a slightly different narrative, one of civility issues and controversy. Not a great thing when a Wikipedia admin is determined to be controversial and with civility issues.

BTW, I believe Beeblebrox has me on their enemies list so they cannot see my comment.

[Bezdomni]

Garsh Br'er Beeblebrox, you mean you couldn't get onto the Politburo for life on account of how interesting you are?

Maybe they figured you'd get people started investigating when you got round to deleting all the commerical flight routes destinations on Wikipedia or something.

[Alex Shih]

From what I’ve been told by some old-timers who were actually around when the role was invented, it was named as it was specifically to make it sound as boring as possible, to avoid seeming like a position of great power and glory.

I ran once and was rejected basically for being too interesting for the job. I’ve never felt better about being rejected for anything.

(ec) Coincidentally I was just reading that RfB archive today. It is true though, if the only crat tasks are to rubber stamp RfA and bot approvals, it is indeed quite boring. I wish there can be reforms to the crat system, starting with term limits (heck, the term bureaucrats sounds like public officials, it would only make sense that way). A well-functioning bureaucrat team (ability to review admin actions) and a ArbCom team balancing each other out sounds really ideal.

[Poetlister]

the us and them mentality displayed by manly admins

If that's a typo, it's a superb one!

[Kumioko]

the us and them mentality displayed by manly admins

If that's a typo, it's a superb one!

Rofl, yeah it was. Every time I try to comment using my phone it goes all screwy. I tried to go back and change it but couldn't.

[SarekOfVulcan]

I did the math a while ago on fixed-length admin terms. I forget what all my assumptions were, but even assuming only 50% ran again, that was still something like 5 RFAs running at all times.

I think I'd support the BARC as proposed, but I'd need to read through all the opposes to be sure. There were a couple of arguments made that I couldn't easily discount.

[Poetlister]

I did the math a while ago on fixed-length admin terms. I forget what all my assumptions were, but even assuming only 50% ran again, that was still something like 5 RFAs running at all times.

That sounds great. Endless opportunities for editors who like to take part in drama or just watch it. And it will give the bureaucrats something to do.

[Kumioko]

I did the math a while ago on fixed-length admin terms. I forget what all my assumptions were, but even assuming only 50% ran again, that was still something like 5 RFAs running at all times.

That sounds great. Endless opportunities for editors who like to take part in drama or just watch it. And it will give the bureaucrats something to do.

Also, a lot of the current admins won't pass a modern RFA. They either haven't done enough or have histories and patterns of abuse and the community wouldn't allow them back.

[el84]

In what seems like ages, our favourite admin TonyBallioni has started an RfC on a community Desysop Policy.

[Charliebware]

The community could vote (vote not !vote) to require an admin to have a new RfA.

[rhindle]

This is obviously needed but the problem is those with grievances(and their buddies/fan club) against an admin could always exploit this. It just needs a mechanism to address that and it should be fine. It doesn't mean their voices shouldn't count but it must be know who has had past involvement w/ said admin or is known to associate with the issue. Beeblebrox is the lone opposer atm and seems to have similar concerns if I'm not mistaken.

[Charliebware]

This is obviously needed but the problem is those with grievances(and their buddies/fan club) against an admin could always exploit this. It just needs a mechanism to address that and it should be fine. It doesn't mean their voices shouldn't count but it must be know who has had past involvement w/ said admin or is known to associate with the issue. Beeblebrox is the lone opposer atm and seems to have similar concerns if I'm not mistaken.

Isn't the mechanism just for other editors to provide diffs in their !RfA votes to argue against other !votes?

[Beeblebrox]

I like the concept but as I said there I'm worried about the details. He clearly put a lot of thought into this, but I still feel the bar is a bit low for initiating the process, leaving it open a vehicle for harassment.

(I'm assuming good faith as hard as I can about the timing, given that arbcom got a request to look into Rexxs' suitability as a n admin a few hours before this opened.)

[Charliebware]

In what seems like ages, our favourite admin TonyBallioni has started an RfC on a community Desysop Policy.

I somehow missed this when I made my initial comment. I am impressed. In response to Beeblebrox, I think the bar should be relatively low. This is not a ban, a block, or a sanction. This is simply putting an administrator back in the position of a regular editor like most people until they can pass an RfA again.

However, the bar is not particularly low. The requirement is consensus at a community discussion that an administrator behaved inappropriately. That is a standard bar for action.

[Ryuichi]

I like the concept but as I said there I'm worried about the details. He clearly put a lot of thought into this, but I still feel the bar is a bit low for initiating the process, leaving it open a vehicle for harassment.

I'm worried that there's entirely too many details. "Any user who is extended confirmed and has made at least 25 edits in the last 6 months may file a request for desysop under the following conditions" is overly specific - it doesn't need two filters on the user.

I'm inclined to agree with Brox on the low bar for initiating, but have a contrasting concern on the high bar (60%) for actual desysopping. Will someone tell me that's not a figure arrived at by plucking it from some US governmental process?

[Bezdomni]

I like the concept but as I said there I'm worried about the details. He clearly put a lot of thought into this, but I still feel the bar is a bit low for initiating the process, leaving it open a vehicle for harassment.

(I'm assuming good faith as hard as I can about the timing, given that arbcom got a request to look into RexxS (T-C-L)' suitability as an admin a few hours before this opened.)

ed. added link

lol. Unless I've misunderstood, this proposal gives admins two weeks after 48 hours + bureaucratic ponderations and wizened oversight to prepare to begin their defense of their superpowers, unlike ordinary wiikers who can be flash-banned from the projects indefinitely within 72 hours of an initial filing.

(now, it used to be 24h, and still can be if the bannee so desires)

So who should be the test case, if not KinxxS?

• MastCell (T-C-L) JimboTalk discussions (7000 views or not) are rarely closed with admin-troutings
• Seraphimblade (T-C-L) was IMO justifiably and !IMO unanimously criticized at AN for a bull-y block back in December, but none of that was written in the close
• ?

[Osborne]

However, the bar is not particularly low. The requirement is consensus at a community discussion that an administrator behaved inappropriately. That is a standard bar for action.

The bar is very cleverly chosen. The representation of admins at WP:ANI is particularly high, any "consensus" is heavily biased towards admins. Top-ranking admins like TB, Bbb, El_C and friends are obvious untouchables. Just how many times were reports about TB closed immediately as "frivolous"? Note that he specifically mentions "providing protections against frivolous filings".

This proposal can only remove low-ranking admins who aren't favored by the top and even in that case the timelines are very strict for the community (2 days for a vote of 10 endorsements, including 3 admins...) and very relaxed for the admin (2 weeks to respond). When was a blocked user given 2 weeks to respond to accusations? A few hours are more typical.

This proposal is just a red herring to claim "there is a community desysop process". This isn't one. Time after time Tony has proven he supports abusive admins who harm the community. This proposal is like if Mitch McConnell proposed a new impeachment procedure. It's clear his intent is not to help the community get rid of harmful admins, this proposal has more potential to be used as a tool to kick admins unfavored by the core group. Is that TB's intent? Maybe not. We'll see how eager he'll be to nominate admins who have a different POV once it passes. He was very quick to get RHaworth desysopped when he challenged his long-time friend Bbb23's bad CU block, so that's a reason to be concerned.