User talk:Amarkov/desysop

Here ya go.
It needs to be prettified, of course, and some of the specifics may need changing. I think we need something like this so that an admin can be recalled if for some reason the community doesn't trust them anymore, instead of only making it possible if they've done something Arbcom will sanction. -Amarkov moo! 20:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

An example
Take a look at Requests for comment/Jeffrey O. Gustafson 2. With due respect to Mr. Gustafson - his contributions have been very positive overall - he has worn out the patience of many users by protecting his own talk page and refusing to answer some questions. I'm not saying whether he should be desysopped or not. I'm just saying that there isn't a way to desysop him without ArbCom. It always helps when discussing general proposals to point to a specific example and demonstrate how it would work in practice. Shalom Hello 03:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we need this?
Are there so many admins that need to be desysoped that we need a second place for people to go for it? What is wrong with the present arbcom system? Until ( 1 == 2 )  04:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Arbitration is a very stressful process that requires lots of work to even get to. So some people probably see misuse of admin tools, and just ignore it, because dealing with it would be far too stressful for the benefit. I know I do that. If it weren't necessary to go all the way to Arbcom for anything to happen, people might not do that so much. -Amarkov moo! 05:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It should be hard to desysop someone. Until ( 1 == 2 )  05:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Hard =/= stressful. Yes, it should be hard to desysop someone, because any good admin is likely to pick up some people who won't like him. But making it hard by demanding Arbcom looks a lot like "you want to complain about this admin? Okay, but first you must pass the TRIAL OF DEATH!" -Amarkov moo! 05:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not convinced. arbcom is thorough, but not cruel. -- Until ( 1 == 2 )  05:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * 'You want to complain about this admin' =/= 'this admin needs to be desysopped quickly and easily'. I have presented evidence in ArbCom cases before, and the process is rather painless&mdash;but you have to be prepared to do the legwork of finding diffs and building a case.  Frankly, I would expect any non-ArbCom process that expected to be taken seriously to demand the same effort.
 * Before someone gets his or her admin bit pulled, several conditions must generally be met.
 * The admin must have misused his admin buttons: (un)blocking, (un)protecting, and/or (un)deletion. In rare cases, a desysopping may take place if the admin has committed particularly flagrant violations of other policies (abusive sockpuppetry, persistent personal attacks or gross incivility, etc.).
 * Polite requests to their talk page must have failed.
 * Broader community discussion must conclude that the actions were a violation of policy or common sense. (By 'common sense' I mean that a reasonable person would tend to understand that the actions taken were likely to be harmful.)  This means WP:AN or AN/I at a minimum, and may demand an RfC.
 * The actions must be particularly egregious or must be ongoing (or likely to continue). In general, we forgive occasional errors unless extremely poor judgement has been demonstrated.  Admins who acknowledge their errors and take steps to correct them (or to avoid them in the future) tend to retain their bits; if the process reaches the ArbCom stage, such reasonable admins may also receive a parole of some sort.
 * ArbCom isn't hard at all if someone is prepared to assemble evidence to meet the conditions I've listed above. If one can't assemble such evidence, then contemplating desysopping (by ArbCom or by other means) may not be appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well said, I could not have put it better myself. Until  ( 1 == 2 )  22:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It is more the fact that ArbComm will usually (but not always) refuse to hear a case until there have been at least a couple RFCs and a few ANI threads. The hoops to get in front of ArbComm are the issue Amarkov is describing.  GRBerry 16:42, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

It is good that you need to discuss the matter with the admin and the community before resorting to de-sysoping. I don't see why anyone would seek desysoping without first trying to discuss the matter. These "hoops" could also be seen as "checks and balances". Until ( 1 == 2 )  16:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Query
At the moment this page isn't really proposing anything much. In concrete terms, how do you suggest that this should work? Is it a vote, and if so, by what margin? If not a vote, who decides the outcome, and based on what? What is the suffrage for commenting? How will this not turn into a grudgefest whenever an admin does something impopular? What prevents an impopular admin from being nominated time and again until it sticks?  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)