turnedworm wrote:Kumioko wrote:
I think this is literally true and realistically false and here is what I mean by that. The Arbcom makes decisions all the time (many incorrectly IMO) and the community is stuck with them, for better or worse. Regardless of what the rules say, the Arbcom does have a lot of power and often uses it when it benefits them or their POV. Because many of the decisions are controversial, the community, including me, often complains. But the decisions stand and the community doesn't have a choice. The Arbcom was created as an extension of the community and the WMF to do stuff to keep the project moving forward with community assets so the WMF doesn't have to. The community does not have the authority to disband the Arbcom and the WMF is unlikely to do so. So the community can complain all they want and as my case will show, if you complain enough about abuse and corruption, you will be banned to protect the powerful groups/clans of the project (admins, arbcom, certsain wikiprojects, etc).
So to say that the Arbcom's hands are tied is complete hogwash. The Arbcom is there to fix the problems that the community cannot and if the Arbcom were to say, (and this is only one example of many), that they no longer wanted to be the sole handler of Admin desysops, they could. That is also true of other things as well. Of course there are positives and negatives to doing anything, but its pretty obvious that several of the current systems have stopped working effectively and need to change. Regardless of what WTT "wants" to do or thinks is the right course of action is irrelvant because he is only one member of the Arbcom and there are several current members who do want the Arbcom's role to increase because that increases their power and influence over the community, which is what they care about, not the project itself.
Of course the community has the authority to disband Arbcom. A simple vote of no confidence or well attended RfC could do it without problem. The thing is that the community as a whole doesn't want to. Time and time again arbcom gets support both in remedies and generally. As I say, the vast majority of editors just want to know there's "someone" there in case anything goes really wrong.
As for de-sysops - I fully agree that there should be a community process. The majority of recent cases Arbcom have been to do with administrators and a community process would again help move things in the right direction. I believe I was the last person to actually write an RfC on community de-sysopping -
Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept (T-H-L)
The question is how to balance sufficient discussion to make the request valid with ensuring the administrator doesn't feel lynched. In other words, it directly parallels the issues with "community banning".
With respect, but no, a decision to disband the Arbcom can only come from the WMF. That isn't to say that a vote by the community of no confidence couldn't sway the WMF to do so, but the community itself doesn't have that power and the WMF is under no obligation to do so.
Your also right that the general community doesn't have a problem with Arbcom. In fact I would go so far as to say that the general community doesn't
care about the Arbcom (or any of the other drama venues for that matter). As you mentioned there are about 130, 000 editors currently editing and less than 100 actively participate in Arbcom, ANI or the like venues. The vast majority being admins, and a number of those who are attracted to the influence it gives them over the community.
With regard to the Desysop process, it would require a 2 fold solution IMO. First it would require a community venue like RFC where it can be discussed and it would likewise require someone like the Bureaucrats to moderate it and make the final discussion in a crat chat when things get close. Some argue that the community would just desysop them or the admins would fear reprisal for doing their jobs but this is just speculation and hyperbole. If the admin is truly doing their job and putting the project first then they should have nothing to fear. If the admin is one of the group that use their tools as leverage over other editors and treats non admins abusively, and there are a number that do either or both, then they should have the tools removed. If the abusive admins see a few of their peers lose the tools then they will either leave, voluntarily turn in the tools in protest or to prevent them from being removed or get their act together (or of course suffer the repercussions).
With all that said, the RFA process needs to be changed at the same time. I have always argued that the admin tools should be relatively easy to get and relatively easy to take away. Neither should be a gauntlet as they currently are and IMO in order for either an easier RFA process or a community desysop process to work, both need to be done at the same time.
