Community de-adminship RfC enters voting, Canvassed with a Wikipedia banner Options

[GlassBeadGame]

I think every active administrator should have to stand for reconfirmation once per year, on a staggered basis. The reconfirmation RFAs would have a lower threshold, given that an active administrator makes a few enemies, but would still be required to get 50%+1 to be reconfirmed. I can think of numerous current admins that wouldn't even be able to meet THAT low standard. Also, every administrator account that goes inactive for more than a month should be auto-deadminned.

It's a waste of everyone's time to hold reconfirmation votes for the great majority of uncontroversial admins. However, it would be reasonable to expect that any admin in a reconfirmation vote be able to obtain at least a simple majority.

Similarly, it's a lot of unnecessary trouble to desysop every admin account that goes dormant for a month. There is some risk associated with dormant accounts, but it's a relatively low risk. Desysopping accounts that have been dormant for over a year would be reasonable. Proposals like that have come up in the past, but as far as I know they've never been implemented.

You wouldn't pass if yours was held today despite your assertion that you are "uncontroversial." You got many votes from people as part of some kind of low grade opposition to the status quo. Now you are just another useless, and especially clueless, admin, a Wikipedian ass-kisser.

[SDJ]

I think every active administrator should have to stand for reconfirmation once per year, on a staggered basis. The reconfirmation RFAs would have a lower threshold, given that an active administrator makes a few enemies, but would still be required to get 50%+1 to be reconfirmed. I can think of numerous current admins that wouldn't even be able to meet THAT low standard. Also, every administrator account that goes inactive for more than a month should be auto-deadminned.

It's a waste of everyone's time to hold reconfirmation votes for the great majority of uncontroversial admins. However, it would be reasonable to expect that any admin in a reconfirmation vote be able to obtain at least a simple majority.

Similarly, it's a lot of unnecessary trouble to desysop every admin account that goes dormant for a month. There is some risk associated with dormant accounts, but it's a relatively low risk. Desysopping accounts that have been dormant for over a year would be reasonable. Proposals like that have come up in the past, but as far as I know they've never been implemented.

You wouldn't pass if yours was held today despite your assertion that you are "uncontroversial." You got many votes from people as part of some kind of low grade opposition to the status quo. Now you are just another useless, and especially clueless, admin, a Wikipedian ass-kisser.

I'd have to agree. There's no way I'd vote for EK again. I think he knows he got one over on people and that if CDA passes, that would be remedied.

[taiwopanfob]

Similarly, it's a lot of unnecessary trouble to desysop every admin account that goes dormant for a month.

If 99% of all admins who are dormant for a month never return, then you remove the bit at one month. Whatever the cutoff is -- I'm sure there is a query that can answer this question -- the removal of the bit would be automatic, and done at login.

[everyking]

I think every active administrator should have to stand for reconfirmation once per year, on a staggered basis. The reconfirmation RFAs would have a lower threshold, given that an active administrator makes a few enemies, but would still be required to get 50%+1 to be reconfirmed. I can think of numerous current admins that wouldn't even be able to meet THAT low standard. Also, every administrator account that goes inactive for more than a month should be auto-deadminned.

It's a waste of everyone's time to hold reconfirmation votes for the great majority of uncontroversial admins. However, it would be reasonable to expect that any admin in a reconfirmation vote be able to obtain at least a simple majority.

Similarly, it's a lot of unnecessary trouble to desysop every admin account that goes dormant for a month. There is some risk associated with dormant accounts, but it's a relatively low risk. Desysopping accounts that have been dormant for over a year would be reasonable. Proposals like that have come up in the past, but as far as I know they've never been implemented.

You wouldn't pass if yours was held today despite your assertion that you are "uncontroversial." You got many votes from people as part of some kind of low grade opposition to the status quo. Now you are just another useless, and especially clueless, admin, a Wikipedian ass-kisser.

I'd have to agree. There's no way I'd vote for EK again. I think he knows he got one over on people and that if CDA passes, that would be remedied.

Well golly, I should change my vote, huh?

[GlassBeadGame]

Well golly, I should change my vote, huh?

Spoken like a true non-responsive and arrogant admin.

[Eva Destruction]

I'd have to agree. There's no way I'd vote for EK again. I think he knows he got one over on people and that if CDA passes, that would be remedied.

Ditto. I don't regret supporting him at the time based on the information we had, but if there were any way to retract support after the fact, this is a case where I'd do so.

This post has been edited by Eva Destruction: Sun 28th February 2010, 4:42pm

[SB_Johnny]

Oppose #87:

However those flaws could be easily remedied, rather more serious is the issue of gaming. Wikipedia Review already has way more influence on this site than I think is healthy, and they aren't the worst out there. I know this may sound paranoid, but we do need to be aware that there are sites out there that want to take us down, whether for the lulz or because our neutrality offends their world view; This proposal simply makes us and especially any admin willing to use the tools in contentious areas, way too vulnerable. I think this scheme could be less gameable if we required nominators to verify their identities with the office, but once we get to that stage, we seriously have to ask what is so wrong with Arbcom? ϢereSpielChequers 23:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominators need to identify with the office to nominate an anonymous admin?

[Eva Destruction]

Nobody seems to have mentioned this little attempt at sabotage by the Old Guard, or the interesting response by Harej (T-C-L-K-R-D) when questioned about it.

[Jon Awbrey]

Oh, the irony.

Who Lives By The Mob,
Dies By The Mob ‡

‡ some exceptions apply …

[The Joy]

I'd have to agree. There's no way I'd vote for EK again. I think he knows he got one over on people and that if CDA passes, that would be remedied.

Ditto. I don't regret supporting him at the time based on the information we had, but if there were any way to retract support after the fact, this is a case where I'd do so.

Voting support for everyking is like voting to invade Iraq in 2003!

[Abd]

Believe it or not, written on an iPhone. Long.

Well, I would have voted in support of the proposal, but it's clear how the numbers are going to go down. I don't really see the major issues with gaming that some of the opposers bring up... 3mo/500edits x 10 would be a lot for even dedicated vendettists.

Then you haven't worked in areas where no matter what decision you make, you will be attacked by all and sundry (nationalist areas, fringe areas, etcetera).

You're right, I haven't. But that's the perils of working in those areas, and greater accountability across the board is a good thing regardless. I put trust into the greater community to shut down POV pushing and revenge "hits".

Increasingly, there is no "greater community." It's burning out, becoming chaotic, fragmented, decisions being made by small numbers of highly involved editors who have learned how to preserve their power. Until they cross another faction with more clout.

But how can the greater community shut down the POV pushing, bullying and immaturity when it comes from admin?

Wrong question. The answer to admin abuse is the same as for any abuse. These are very old issues, but WP, in its enthusiasm for adhocracy, somehow imagined that it would avoid the Iron law of oligarchy. It was not recognized that the ability of the community to attend to structural and overall behavioral issues would break down as the scale increased. Classic solutions exist, and also innovative ones. However, by the time enough attention arrived from those with the knowledge and experience to build large-scale consensus structures, the oligarchy was so thoroughly entrenched that it was impossible to dislodge it. Even harmless experiments that would have changed no policies would be interdicted, shut down, sometimes salted. Esperanza. Salted. AMA. Salted. WP:PRX. "Failed." Attempted deletion.

PRX was just a proposal for a file format for "proxy" assignments. It did not establish voting, and proxy assignments were just a statement of trust and connection. No powers were to be conferred.

But such assignments could be used to estimate a broader consensus from a small-scale discussion. And the same device could be used to elect a thoroughly representative Assembly that could then create coherent decision-making process. No, the oligarchy correctly sensed that PRX was a threat. Hence my conclusion: off-wiki process would be necessary if WP is to realize the original vision, which attracted so many, then burned them. No on-wiki changes would be necessary, because, if organized the community has the power, not the oligarchy.

And so attempts to coherently organize off-wiki must be attacked as well. That's harder, but ArbComm sure has tried. EML.

It's general admin 'bad behaviour' that will make CDA impossible in practice. They live outside canvassing rules, and have few clear behavioural restrictions. The are pretty-much unregulated in anything but the most extreme behaviour. Call one up and you get a gang of his 'friends' picking at you personally (and very loosely, with no concern for AGF) for unrelated incidents. It's the macho and direct way they work - because they can. Which developed-world law would allow such prejudice in court?

I found that ArbComm clerks -- and thus ArbComm itself would tolerate even extreme disruption on it's own pages. If ArbComm cannot control it's own process, it cannot be effective in handling disputes. Its decisions will be chaotic and unreliable.

Bad admin bullying editors and decent admin (or just in-fighting with each other) will create problems that will out-last the CDA. You practically have to get buggered by an admin for him to into any any trouble on Wikipedia.

Actually, I demonstrated that an abusive admin had to actually block, during a case, the editor who had filed the case, in order for ArbComm to notice that there was a real problem. ArbComm ultimately desysopped him. The community decided that the kind of ban I'd protested was improper. And, for my trouble, probably due to the pile-in of involved editors and admins screaming fir my head, I was site-banned for three months. My basic crime had been confronting the abusive admins. Usually as a neutral editor. And now I'm under an MYOB ban, so badly defined that there have been many AE filings, so far no blocks from them, only one block from a very much involved admin. I'd criticized him on a talk page of an editor. That criticism was the excuse for the block. Blatant.

I'm now before AE because I became aware of harassment of a COI editor. Long story. But I am allowed under my ban to participate in discussions if I am an "originating party." What's that?

The original intention seems fairly clear. ArbComm, foolishly or not, didn't want me meddling in other editor's disputes. But they didn't want to totally disable me, so they allowed me to participate as an originating party. The substance seems to me to be to prevent me from noticing a report on ANI, for example, or, probably more to the point, from adding comments to an RFC, where I'd been devastatingly effective against admin abuse. But they would still allow me to file an RfC, perhaps. Or to file an ANI report.

So I was about to file an ANI report about harassment. The substantial content issues were being resolved, but one editor persisted in tossing gas on the file. I was involved with the article, and an apparently vindictive AfD was being threatened. There was edit warring involving me. (with one revert, I do not edit war). But the other editor filed first, and references to me were indirect. Instead the filing was about the target.

From the intention of the sanction, I could file. If I was sufficiently involved that I could file, then why could I not respond over the same issue. Mathsci helpfully pointed out at ANI that I was under a ban. So the editor filed an AE report. Sandstein noticed that the report was a pile of irrelevancies, but extracted what he considered a violation. Apparently he thought it was all acceptable except for my response at ANI. So he is clearly interpreting the ban as purely technical, "originating party" isn't about substance, it's about who filed the report and the editors the one filing chooses to name.

And, of course, the usual suspects jump into the AE report. Sandstein is asking for comment from other admins but they aren't commenting. I'd asked for neutral comment at ANI and it's missing. Just the usual.

As I'd promised Sandstein, and as had been suggested before, I filed an RfAr/clarification to ask ArbComm to clarify the restriction. Mathsci posted to that, describing himself as an "uninvolved" party. I wonder, does he think that the arbitrators won't read the subject arbitration? Possibly. WP trains editors to believe that they can lie through their teeth and nobody notices no matter how blatant it is.

It's the structure, not Mathsci, not JzG, who has stirred up more shit over this incident, he thinks it's his chance to get back. He's claiming this was all about him, part of my plot to get him. It was about rescuing an article and a COI editor. COI editors might as well be called experts. They should be contained and restrained, but blocking them tosses out the baby with the bathwater. Blocking experts was JzG's forte. And even though he dropped the bit (claiming that I was responsible even though I was site-banned T the time), he's still ae to pull it off, he got Pcarbonn banned at AN, never mentioning the truth: Pcarbonn was respecting COI rules. The offense was POV pushing. Against JzG's POV. And Arbcomm had, in fact, found him involved on the topic, that's why he was admonished.

Again, the problem is not JzG. The problem is lack of coherent decision-making structure. The system creates JzG, or empowers him. And it actually destroys consensus, long term. "Consensus" becomes the opinion of those left behind, after everyone else has been banned or drops out from frustration at having to make the same argument over and over, only to see the shouting of a mob overcome all deeper discussion. I look around for the editors who used to make cogent comments. They are gone. This is completely predictable.

There are no day to day controls at all. This general unaccountability makes the godless half of them behave as badly most human beings would, let alone people we know nothing about who are rewarded with an arsenal of POV-pushing weapons on an 'encyclopedia of everything'.

Put good people in a deficient structure, it will bring out the worst in them. Put bad people in in good structure, it will bring out the best. Some times that isn't enough. Nevertheless the first response when someone is disruptive should not be banning or harsh words. It should be an attempt to secure cooperation. In the current situation I was dealing with, the first response was an off-wiki threat of retaliation. Basically, if you don't stop editing as IP (probably a simple failure to log-in, a single edit, but there may have been more), it's AfD time. The editing was of categories, but the editor is COI. And the target of the threat is obvious. But it's notable. Highly unlikely to be deleted. (JzG has been lying about the history, the article was explicitly found notable at DRV, and was not moved back to mainspace by the COI editor.)

I warned the COI editor about his recent edits. He was responsive. He's now been taken to AN by JzG. With no further offenses. It's about retaliation.

I do know how to fix it. But I'm far from being able to fix it by myself. It would take a handful of editors (some of whom could be banned editors, who could be very helpful. I could easily be banned at any time.

[Malleus]

Nobody seems to have mentioned this little attempt at sabotage by the Old Guard, or the interesting response by Harej (T-C-L-K-R-D) when questioned about it.

Extraordinary what passes for civility when you're an administrator as opposed to a pleb.

[everyking]

I'd have to agree. There's no way I'd vote for EK again. I think he knows he got one over on people and that if CDA passes, that would be remedied.

Ditto. I don't regret supporting him at the time based on the information we had, but if there were any way to retract support after the fact, this is a case where I'd do so.

No backsies!

Can you identify which admin actions I've taken that have caused you to lose confidence in me? Because if your change of heart is based on nothing more than off the cuff opinions expressed on an external forum, it doesn't concern me.

By the way, if anyone wants to take another shot at me and still hasn't voted to support the proposal, I urge you to do so. I care far more about getting this proposal passed than I do about my own adminship.

This post has been edited by everyking: Mon 1st March 2010, 3:33am

[CharlotteWebb]

Can you identify which admin actions I've taken that have caused you to lose confidence in me? Because if your change of heart is based on nothing more than off the cuff opinions expressed on an external forum, it doesn't concern me.

It should concern you because neither of the above would be more relevant or less relevant than the other, in the majority vote system which you advocate.

In fact "I just don't like you" would be an equally valid reason, as would "I don't really have a reason".

[Doc glasgow]

Can you identify which admin actions I've taken that have caused you to lose confidence in me? Because if your change of heart is based on nothing more than off the cuff opinions expressed on an external forum, it doesn't concern me.

It should concern you because neither of the above would be more relevant or less relevant than the other, in the majority vote system which you advocate.

In fact "I just don't like you" would be an equally valid reason, as would "I don't really have a reason".

It would be interesting to add a poll here

1)Everyking should be desysopped because:
**He doesn't hate pedophiles enough
**I just don't like him
**I don't really have a reason

2)Everyking should remain a sysop because:
**He's a swell guy
**Wikipedia will die faster with him on board
**I am Everyking

[GlassBeadGame]

Can you identify which admin actions I've taken that have caused you to lose confidence in me? Because if your change of heart is based on nothing more than off the cuff opinions expressed on an external forum, it doesn't concern me.

It should concern you because neither of the above would be more relevant or less relevant than the other, in the majority vote system which you advocate.

In fact "I just don't like you" would be an equally valid reason, as would "I don't really have a reason".

It would be interesting to add a poll here

1)Everyking should be desysopped because:
**He doesn't hate pedophiles enough
**I just don't like him
**I don't really have a reason

2)Everyking should remain a sysop because:
**He's a swell guy
**Wikipedia will die faster with him on board
**I am Everyking

This made me laugh out loud. It is perfectly crafted to mock the matter.

[everyking]

Can you identify which admin actions I've taken that have caused you to lose confidence in me? Because if your change of heart is based on nothing more than off the cuff opinions expressed on an external forum, it doesn't concern me.

It should concern you because neither of the above would be more relevant or less relevant than the other, in the majority vote system which you advocate.

In fact "I just don't like you" would be an equally valid reason, as would "I don't really have a reason".

Well, yes, but that's OK. People are already free to vote for spurious reasons in an RfA, and they regularly do so--just look at my last RfA, or the one before that, or the one before that. Nevertheless, people manage to get through--even now, when a 70% majority is required and standards are ridiculously high due to the absence of a desysopping system. This feeble little proposal would require that admins receive only 35% of the vote.

This post has been edited by everyking: Mon 1st March 2010, 8:30pm

[Doc glasgow]

Can you identify which admin actions I've taken that have caused you to lose confidence in me? Because if your change of heart is based on nothing more than off the cuff opinions expressed on an external forum, it doesn't concern me.

It should concern you because neither of the above would be more relevant or less relevant than the other, in the majority vote system which you advocate.

In fact "I just don't like you" would be an equally valid reason, as would "I don't really have a reason".

Well, yes, but that's OK. People are already free to vote for spurious reasons in an RfA, and they regularly do so--just look at my last RfA, or the one before that, or the one before that. Nevertheless, people manage to get through--even now, when a 70% majority is required and standards are ridiculously high due to the absence of a desysopping system. This feeble little proposal would require that admins receive only 35% of the vote.

And that's why I opposed it.

The only admins who would fail to get 35% of a vote would be so awful that arbcom would have already desysopped them.

Everyking, even I would certainly scrape that threshold. But I'd have to waste my time (and the community's) fighting off multiple CDAs because the trigger threshold for the process is so bloody low.

I'd support this if the trigger threshold and the desysop threshold were more closely related.

This post has been edited by Doc glasgow: Mon 1st March 2010, 9:09pm

[SB_Johnny]

The only admins who would fail to get 35% of a vote would be so awful that arbcom would have already desysopped them.

{{fact}}

[Doc glasgow]

The only admins who would fail to get 35% of a vote would be so awful that arbcom would have already desysopped them.

{{fact}}

No, generally the onus is on those arguing that there's a nee to change to produce evidence showing that the change they are proposing will deliver the goods.

This they singularly failed to do.