→Comparison to Arbcom: add. Re-sign |
|||
Line 229: | Line 229: | ||
::This is interesting. Looks like we would need to elect more bureaucrats before BARC can operate properly, something which I imagine would be a knock on effect of this proposal anyway. [[User:Samwalton9|'''S'''am '''W'''alton]] ([[User talk:Samwalton9|talk]]) 09:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC) |
::This is interesting. Looks like we would need to elect more bureaucrats before BARC can operate properly, something which I imagine would be a knock on effect of this proposal anyway. [[User:Samwalton9|'''S'''am '''W'''alton]] ([[User talk:Samwalton9|talk]]) 09:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
:My edit count is inflated due to renames and the automated page moves that accompany them. I'd be interested to see a table that discounted those edits. –[[User:xeno|<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b>]][[user talk:xeno|<sup style="color:#000">talk</sup>]] 11:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC) |
:My edit count is inflated due to renames and the automated page moves that accompany them. I'd be interested to see a table that discounted those edits. –[[User:xeno|<b style="font-family:verdana;color:#000">xeno</b>]][[user talk:xeno|<sup style="color:#000">talk</sup>]] 11:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC) |
||
::Let {{U|Opabinia regalis}} be fully aware that this current proposal has nothing to do with bureaucrat activity issues. It's about affording a new layer of protection for admins against the baring of the teeth of the peanut gallery and anti-admin brigade while at the same time offering an easier access for intimidated users to an equitable process. I can't really imagine any reasonable admin rejecting such a system, and the side effect is that a more interesting mandate and more to do might attract more candidates for RfB. Discussions about bureaucrat activity are currently taking place in other venues including suggestions by the bureaucrats that they should deprecate themselves. Fortunately they cannot do that unaided by a strong community consensus, but if they were to succeed in disbanding the Bureacrats as a group, I would be truly sorry to see some of them go. [[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 14:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:09, 25 July 2015
- /Archive (discussions leading to the final draft of this RfC)
Final draft finished
OK, so after a lot of work and superb advice we have come up with a proposal that instead of simply testing the community's opinion for the 'nth time, it offers us a complete solution that we can take or reject. It should appeal to those who suggest that it is too difficult to address the problem of errant admins and by the same token, lead to an amelioration of the RfA process by lowering the bar. Many thanks to everyone who provided feedback and helped us put this together. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- As it sits, I think it is very workable. I like doing the procedures separately as well, keeps from bogging down the concept with details. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
One point
Hello all,
It's said on the proposal page that the members of BARC would be able to refer the case to ArbCom. Ostensibly, the two committees would both be handling user conduct issues, and obviously BARC would have a smaller remit than ArbCom. But I really want some comments on when it would be necessary to turn a case over to ArbCom. Thoughts? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 19:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- My priority was to ensure this was a lightweight process, and anything heavy could be passed to Arbcom. So, intractable issues, which involve admins but also large swathes of the rest of the community (such as civility enforcement for example). Also, as this is a public process, privacy issues - off wiki information, anything like that. Basically, I want the door open to pass it on. This isn't a "buck stops here" process, like Arbcom. WormTT(talk) 21:20, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- The question is not one whose answer is in the system proposal. It's precisely one that would be addressed by the committee on a case-by-case basis. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
- That seems more a question for the procedures discussion, not the policy discussion. Here, we are simply setting up the authority, not how they will do it. That might take some learning curve and yes, a case by case basis regardless. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'd recommend that issues where a sysop's editorial behaviour is in question (e.g for NPOV violations) should be within Arbcom remit - a desysop does not remedy editing issues, only administrative ones. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Jo-Jo Eumerus, some recent issues concerning editing that have led to a global ban could have been adequately handled by the BARC. BARC is an admin-specific tribunal and would be empowereed to resolve most issues except those that reach stalemate or need hearing in camera due to privacy concerns.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:04, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Queries
"Bureaucrats are authorised, on consensus being reached, to physically enact the removal of tools."
But further up it's billed as a "vote".
Could this be clarified? A vote is presumably 50% plus one. Consensus is something much more. Tony (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I'd like that to be a firm question for the procedures phase of the RfC. However, my personal thoughts is that it should be a vote with visible comments, similar to arbcom's proposed decision page. That would mean that votes can change, and increase transparency. I'd also want 60% agreement that the tools should be removed, otherwise it should be referred to arbcom. Still, that's all for the next phase. WormTT(talk) 09:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am very sympathetic to the concept of "stage one, decide whether we want to do this, stage two, work out the details" but I think that there are a bunch of people who will answer "should we do this? It depends on the details." --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- And at the same time, if we do it the other way "Here is a fully fledged solution" everyone who is unhappy with a small part will veto the entire solution. This way those who are interested in specific issues can debate those specific issues without derailing the entire solution. WormTT(talk) 16:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- To be clear, you see this RfC as addressing the question "Is this process, as advanced, worth fleshing out in a future RfC?", correct? That would mean a vote to support is not a vote to enact this process immediately and figure out how it works later, or even to enact this process at all if the finer details cannot be agreed to in a later RfC. Please correct me if I'm wrong, since I may need to reconsider my vote if that is the case. ~ RobTalk 16:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- And at the same time, if we do it the other way "Here is a fully fledged solution" everyone who is unhappy with a small part will veto the entire solution. This way those who are interested in specific issues can debate those specific issues without derailing the entire solution. WormTT(talk) 16:25, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I am very sympathetic to the concept of "stage one, decide whether we want to do this, stage two, work out the details" but I think that there are a bunch of people who will answer "should we do this? It depends on the details." --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Limiting complaints to admins only
One of the main issues with opening up a process by which anyone can advance a complaint is that anyone can advance a complaint. I think everyone will agree that a completely open process has the potential to create unnecessary drama over routine matters. It's a waste of everyone's time if two vandals (or worse, a vandal and their sock) bring a complaint about an admin doing routine work at WP:AIV. It seems that this process would work much more smoothly if it required two admins to advance a complaint for it to be considered. If editors had legitimate complaints regarding a sysop, they would just need to convince two admins that their concerns are substantial enough to be worth procedurally advancing. If the support of any two admins cannot be found, the complaint certainly has no merit. I don't see any drawback to this, while I see the potential to seriously limit unnecessary drama. ~ RobTalk 16:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Another possibility would be to apply WP:INVOLVED to such complaints, i.e to forbid nominations by users who are in a dispute with the admin in question or were affected by administrator actions by the admin in question. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Good god, no. Consider a "twelve months activity and 500 edits" threshold if you want some kind of bar to keep out the sockpuppets, but the last thing Wikipedia needs is something that gives admins even more super-user powers. – iridescent 16:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I fail to see how creating a process for desysoping gives admins more power, even if that process requires an admin to advance a complaint. I don't know too much about desysoping via ArbCom in the past, but from what I've seen, those efforts generally include admins advancing the complaints anyway. ~ RobTalk 17:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Huh? Every editor has exactly the same rights at Arbcom. Admins are probably marginally overrepresented because they're both more likely to spot controversial actions, and more likely to make controversial actions that can't be resolved by the community, but there's certainly no bar of any kind. Looking at the 10 most recent Arbcom desysoppings at Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason/for cause, five of the cases were brought by non-admins and five by admins. – iridescent 17:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- I fail to see how creating a process for desysoping gives admins more power, even if that process requires an admin to advance a complaint. I don't know too much about desysoping via ArbCom in the past, but from what I've seen, those efforts generally include admins advancing the complaints anyway. ~ RobTalk 17:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Absolutely not, no. It seems to me that part of the reason for this proposed process is to provide a simpler means for anyone to gain assistance when they believe they see admin abuse (and I've seen what I would consider admin abuse in my own time here). Making it so that admins could only be reported by their own kind would achieve exactly the opposite and would entrench the "them and us" attitude that is so easy to see around this place. And as iridescent says above, it would make it more restrictive than the current Arb Com system rather than more open to the community of editors. Mr Potto (talk) 17:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Bad idea because of the them-and-us flavour, and unnecessary because the proposed system already begins with the BARC deciding whether or not to accept a case. It surely doesn't need yet another level of gatekeeper. That's not janitorship, it's governance. And it might defeat one of the purposes: I for one would be more rather than less likely to oppose at an RfA if I thought a candidate was likely to play gatekeeper in that sort of way. --Stfg (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Maybe making sysop be the requirement is a bad idea, but there needs to be some type of requirement. At the minimum, a six month activity and 100 edit requirement would limit socks or disruptive editors from putting forward the names of admins that have done nothing wrong. The ability not to accept a case, which occurs after a response from the admin who is the subject of a complaint, is not a sufficient step to prevent drama and prevent good admins being harassed with bad faith or meritless complaints. If an admin who routinely handles AIV or CSD nominations had to officially respond to a complaint in an ArbCom-lite process every time someone didn't like Wikipedia policies, they would quickly burn out. A process to remove bad admins must also protect good admins from harassment. Otherwise, we're going to replace one problem with a new problem. ~ RobTalk 18:27, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Meritless complaints at ANI seem to get dismissed pretty quickly, often without bothering the person complained about, and I'd expect the the BARC people to be able to see through meritless complaints easily enough and deal with them. Mr Potto (talk) 18:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Aren't Arbcom part of "the community"? And how would this "Arbcom2" a.k.a. BARC be "more community"?
My understanding that ArbCom is part of the Wikipedia community. After all they're all volunteer editors, voted in by volunteer editors. Basically "the community" is sometimes used for shorthand for "non-ArbCom editors", but really it's a misnomer and not accurate, as ArbCom are all bona fide community members.
My question is how would this BARC be more a part of the community then ArbCom? I would argue it will be less so, as five of its members would have to be bureaucrats; in other words there is more restrictions on community membership than with ArbCom. ArbCom members are all administrators, but non-admin ArbCom members could be elected, except this doesn't seem to happen in practice. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Aren't bureaucrats part of the community too? Mr Potto (talk) 18:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes but a more restricted subset. With ArbCom anyone can get elected. With BARC very few are eligible for 5 of the posts. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Comparison to Arbcom
Here is a table comparing the procedures and committee membership of this proposal to those already established for ArbCom. Feel free to edit if I've missed anything.
Lightweight Community De-adminship | Arbitration Committee | ||
---|---|---|---|
Cases | Who brings a case? |
|
|
How are cases accepted? |
|
| |
How long does it take? |
|
| |
On what basis are admins to be desysoped? |
|
| |
Membership | Who is on the committee? |
|
|
How is the committee selected? |
|
| |
Who is eligible to join? |
|
| |
How are problematic members removed? |
|
|
I am unable to see, comparing these two proposals, how the present one can be described or advertised as more "community" based than ArbCom. Opabinia regalis (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- The reality is this isn't a community desysoping process but a bureaucrat desysoping process. Of course it is marketed as a community process to fool people into accepting it. While it is a much less democratic and community driven process than ArbCom. But 10/10 for marketing. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, and I think that's my problem with it. The fact is, a true "community"-based desysopsing process is going to have to be some process that comes out of ANI/is related to ANI. I don't see how the current proposal gets a true "community desysopsing" – this proposal seems quite the opposite (and seems fully redundant with ArbCom to boot). (Note: I still haven't voted "oppose" yet, though I am currently leaning in that direction for sure...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:53, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
- Seconded. In theory this seems like a godsend to the flow of RfA candidates and voter satisfaction, but in practice, it's just giving lynch mobs and mad congeries a way to pursue their vigilantism against admins that they don't like. Esquivalience t 01:45, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Accepted your offer to edit the table, and made a couple of minor changes. First, any user can bring an arbcom case, and I'm not aware that we have ever discussed their "standing" when considering case requests. Certainly not in the last six months, anyway. Second, some cases are certainly delayed by the availability of some Arbcom members; others are delayed by the volume of evidence (for example the recent Lightbreather case which had substantial private evidence from several parties, engagement with the WMF and several lengthy private debates before it could be resolved). I suspect this would delay BARC outcomes too, the timetable notwithstanding. If certainly should delay them - If would be disappointing if evidence was rushed through just to get the deadline done. And agree with you on which one is more "community based," though BARC still does propose a reasonable degree of community involvement. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:48, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Bureaucrat activity levels
Some information on current bureaucrat activity levels. Let's agree that there's not really enough specifically bureaucrat work to go around, and just look at general participation levels. Specifically, since this is an admin-review process, it would be useful to know how engaged the crats are in routine admin tasks, as well as how frequently they edit overall.
Result: only half the current bureaucrats have taken 10 or more admin actions in the past year, or made 10 or more edits in the last month. Yet the "community driven desysop" proposal requires five of them to caucus at a time within a week and a half? Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
Bureaucrat | Admin Actions (1yr) | Edits (30d) | Edits (1yr) |
---|---|---|---|
28bytes | 218 | 4 | 632 |
Acalamari | 537 | 473 | 4669 |
Addshore | 31 | 11 | 142 |
Andrevan | 2 | 71 | 454 |
Avraham | 15 | 136 | 690 |
Bcorr | 10 | 0 | 274 |
Bibliomaniac15 | 12 | 0 | 82 |
Brion VIBBER | 0 | 1 | 16 |
Cecropia | 0 | 1 | 28 |
Cimon Avaro | 0 | 1 | 7 |
Cprompt | 0 | 1 | 3 |
Deskana | 2 | 6 | 86 |
Dweller | 138 | 360 | 2600 |
EVula | 3 | 11 | 124 |
Ilyanep | 0 | 0 | 1 |
Infrogmation | 16 | 19 | 150 |
Jrosenzweig | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Kingturtle | 9 | 10 | 202 |
Maxim | 71 | 9 | 311 |
MBisanz | 413 | 205 | 3053 |
Nihonjoe | 268 | 122 | 3099 |
Pakaran | 1 | 3 | 21 |
Raul654 | 0 | 0 | 12 |
Secretlondon | 0 | 1 | 93 |
Stan Shebs | 3 | 0 | 5 |
UninvitedCompany | 0 | 4 | 15 |
Useight* | 1 | 17 | 26 |
Warofdreams | 1 | 259 | 465 |
Wizardman | 1036 | 53 | 16117 |
WJBscribe | 49 | 93 | 531 |
Worm That Turned | 191 | 107 | 1664 |
X! | 0 | 2 | 53 |
Xeno | 217 | 564 | 5610 |
- *Edit count for Useight's Public Sock
- This is interesting. Looks like we would need to elect more bureaucrats before BARC can operate properly, something which I imagine would be a knock on effect of this proposal anyway. Sam Walton (talk) 09:54, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- My edit count is inflated due to renames and the automated page moves that accompany them. I'd be interested to see a table that discounted those edits. –xenotalk 11:30, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
- Let Opabinia regalis be fully aware that this current proposal has nothing to do with bureaucrat activity issues. It's about affording a new layer of protection for admins against the baring of the teeth of the peanut gallery and anti-admin brigade while at the same time offering an easier access for intimidated users to an equitable process. I can't really imagine any reasonable admin rejecting such a system, and the side effect is that a more interesting mandate and more to do might attract more candidates for RfB. Discussions about bureaucrat activity are currently taking place in other venues including suggestions by the bureaucrats that they should deprecate themselves. Fortunately they cannot do that unaided by a strong community consensus, but if they were to succeed in disbanding the Bureacrats as a group, I would be truly sorry to see some of them go. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2015 (UTC)