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

[Malleus]

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.

I think the results of the voting show that there is a substantial groundswell of dissatisfaction with the status quo, whether the proposal passes or not, and that's not a problem that can be swept away by claiming that there's no problem.

Even though I've voted in favour of the proposal, I'd probably be at least as happy with a fixed two-year term for administrators. Seems to me the reminder that if they want to carry on in their role their behaviour will be scrutinised periodically is at least as good a check on the under-the-radar administrator abuse and incompetence that has become one of wikipedia's hallmarks.

[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.

I think the results of the voting show that there is a substantial groundswell of dissatisfaction with the status quo, whether the proposal passes or not, and that's not a problem that can be swept away by claiming that there's no problem.

Even though I've voted in favour of the proposal, I'd probably be at least as happy with a fixed two-year term for administrators. Seems to me the reminder that if they want to carry on in their role their behaviour will be scrutinised periodically is at least as good a check on the under-the-radar administrator abuse and incompetence that has become one of wikipedia's hallmarks.

Saying there widespread dissatisfaction isn't enough here.

One has to:
1) Define the objective reason for the dissatisfaction (preferably with evidence)
2) Show how the proposed change will solve the problem
3) Analyse any likely downsides of the proposed change and show that they are not greater than the problem they are trying to solve.

I think it has been asked several times before: can anyone give one or two examples from the history of bad admins, where the existence of CDA would have enabled the community to deal with the admin, where the current processes (arbcom) obviously failed. I've seen no answer to that.

Everyone agrees that there are bad admins, but no-one much agrees who they are, except for the obvious ones that arbcom deal with anyway.

[Eva Destruction]

I think it has been asked several times before: can anyone give one or two examples from the history of bad admins, where the existence of CDA would have enabled the community to deal with the admin, where the current processes (arbcom) obviously failed. I've seen no answer to that.

Elonka

[Milton Roe]

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

{{fact}}

Yep. Arbcom is busy. We can't expect Arbcom to deal with every necessary desysop any more than we can expect to take care of every malfeasant judge or abusive cop in the land, via the mechanism of a Supreme Court Ruling.

With even 1300 admins, that's too many to be looked after by one little appeals and Internal Affairs dept consisting of a less than a dozen volunteers.

[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}}

Yep. Arbcom is busy. We can't expect Arbcom to deal with every necessary desysop any more than we can expect to take care of every malfeasant judge or abusive cop in the land, via the mechanism of a Supreme Court Ruling.

With even 1300 admins, that's too many to be looked after by one little appeals and Internal Affairs dept consisting of a less than a dozen volunteers.

Actually, doesn't like like it. The number of arbcom cases is falling and the number being dealt with by motion is rising. Again, assertions without evidence.

[Kurt M. Weber]

I still believe my proposal from about two years ago is better than anything else presented.

[Somey]

I still believe my proposal from about two years ago is better than anything else presented.

You should fix it to say "made a servant" instead of "made an servant," then - people might figure out that it used to refer to them as "administrators," and think that at one point the idea might have actually had an infinitesimal chance of being adopted!

It might actually work, too, except that people would just go even further out of their way to characterize their enemies as "SPAs" and "sock puppets" than they do now.

[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}}

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.

I think the results of the voting show that there is a substantial groundswell of dissatisfaction with the status quo, whether the proposal passes or not, and that's not a problem that can be swept away by claiming that there's no problem.

Even though I've voted in favour of the proposal, I'd probably be at least as happy with a fixed two-year term for administrators. Seems to me the reminder that if they want to carry on in their role their behaviour will be scrutinised periodically is at least as good a check on the under-the-radar administrator abuse and incompetence that has become one of wikipedia's hallmarks.

If you're so sure that almost any admin would pass the bar, then what's to be afraid of?

[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.

I think the results of the voting show that there is a substantial groundswell of dissatisfaction with the status quo, whether the proposal passes or not, and that's not a problem that can be swept away by claiming that there's no problem.

Even though I've voted in favour of the proposal, I'd probably be at least as happy with a fixed two-year term for administrators. Seems to me the reminder that if they want to carry on in their role their behaviour will be scrutinised periodically is at least as good a check on the under-the-radar administrator abuse and incompetence that has become one of wikipedia's hallmarks.

If you're so sure that almost any admin would pass the bar, then what's to be afraid of?

I dunno. Completely wasting everyone's time?

[Kelly Martin]

I dunno. Completely wasting everyone's time?

If they had something better to do, they wouldn't be on Wikipedia.