Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for binding administrator recall

Introduction
In the past, the Community de-adminship proof of concept RfC established consensus for some community-based method of removing sysop privileges from an administrator in situations where attempts to amicably resolve issues have not been successful. Significant community concern was also demonstrated regarding the need for any de-adminship process to be resistant to frivolous complaints.

The current situation of de-adminship procedures is as follows, with the table taken from WP:BARC.

Background on other Wikipedias
On certain other language Wikipedias, there exists a process for administrator recall. Distinct from WP:RECALL, a voluntary and non-binding de-sysopping method on the English Wikipedia, administrator recall (more accurately translated as administrator re-election) provides a process for de-adminship that applies to all administrators. One example is Adminwiederwahl on the German Wikipedia. The general components of this process are as follows, as explained by at WP:BARC.


 * 1) To initiate the process, a certain number of editors must request recall over a specified period of time. This is described as a quorum.
 * German Wikipedia uses a quorum of 25 editors over a one month period or 50 editors over a six month period.
 * 1) Once a quorum is obtained, the administrator must go through a recall RfA (RRfA) to retain sysop privileges, using the same procedures as WP:RfA.
 * Should the RRfA fail, the administrator's sysop privileges are removed. They may regain them at any time through a successful RfA. Should the RRfA be successful, the administrator retains their sysop privileges.
 * 1) On some other language Wikipedias, there is a "cooldown" time between potential recalls, meaning an administrator cannot be required to go through RRfA more often than once in a certain specified period of time.
 * On the German Wikipedia, this time period is a year.
 * 1) Administrators have a certain period of time (grace period) to respond to a quorum, at which point they can decide whether to go through a RRfA. Failing to agree to and start the RRfA within the grace period after a quorum has been reached results in the removal of sysop tools.
 * The grace period exists to allow sufficient time for an admin to decide whether they wish to go through a RRfA and to provide a guideline on when to remove tools if an admin does not respond. It also ensures the admin is not removed while on a wikibreak, as they have control over when the RRfA is started, within the grace period. This time period is 30 days on the German Wikipedia.
 * 1) Bureaucrats fill the same role in recall as they do in a normal RfA. They determine consensus in borderline cases.

Statistics from German Wikipedia
From 2009 to February 2015, the German Wikipedia has had the following outcomes from recall quorums. Note that different numbers/time periods were used to determine quorum early on, and that there was a large number of recalls in 2009 when this policy first came into effect.


 * 1) Re-elected: 45 (31.7%)
 * 2) Not re-elected: 44 (31.0%)
 * 3) Chose to retire: 33 (23.2%)
 * 4) Automatically de-sysopped (did not respond): 20 (14.1%)
 * Total: 142

For reference, the following stats exclude 2009, which was the first year this was in effect.


 * 1) Re-elected: 33 (44.0%)
 * 2) Not re-elected: 10 (13.3%)
 * 3) Chose to retire: 12 (16.0%)
 * 4) Automatically de-sysopped (did not respond): 20 (26.7%)
 * Total: 75

Proposal for Admin Recall
It is proposed that the community create a system of binding admin recall similar to that of the German Wikipedia. In particular, such a system will include the following features, adapted from above:


 * 1) To initiate the process, a quorum of editors must be established. Editors in the quorum would be expected to act in good faith to resolve any cited issues prior to calling for recall.
 * 2) Once a quorum is obtained, the administrator must go through an RRfA to retain sysop privileges, using the same general procedure as WP:RfA.
 * 3) There will be a "cooldown" time between potential recalls, meaning an administrator cannot be required to go through an RRfA more often than once in a certain specified period of time.
 * 4) Administrators have a grace period to respond to a quorum, during which they can decide whether to go through an RRfA. Failing to agree to and start the RRfA within the grace period after a quorum has been reached results in the removal of sysop tools.
 * 5) Bureaucrats fill the same role in this process as they do in a normal RfA. They would determine consensus in borderline cases as well as discard calls for recall and !votes that are not made in good faith.

The current proposal is intended as a starting point for creating a process for binding admin recall, and omits many of the important details. The following details would be established at a future RfC:


 * 1) How many editors make up a quorum
 * 2) What period of time a quorum must be established in
 * 3) What period of time will be used as a "cooldown" before a recently recalled administrator can be the subject of recall again
 * 4) What grace period is given before sysop tools are removed when the administrator does not agree to an RRfA, either explicitly or through lack of response
 * 5) Burden of proof for support required to maintain admin tools in a recall (i.e. Is the baseline "Admin must prove consensus to keep tools" or "Community must prove consensus to remove tools"?)

Relation to similar RfCs and timetable
At the time of writing, there is a similar RfC pending that seeks to establish a different type of de-adminship procedure. These RfCs are completely independent, and one does not affect the other. '''Please keep in mind that both RfCs are explicitly asking the question "Do you support this?" The comparison being made is the proposal versus our current situation, not the two proposals to each other.''' The comparison of other proposals to admin recall can be handled in a future RfC once all possible options have been finalized, if necessary. This is not a final discussion to approve implementation; it is a discussion to determine whether the idea merits further investigation and could feasibly lead to a process that would have consensus.

The proposed timetable for RfCs is as follows:
 * 1) General approval for proof of concept
 * 2) Seek consensus on details, as described above
 * 3) Final approval (including comparison to similar solutions if necessary)

Voting
Do you support the adoption of this proposed system of binding administrator recall, with final details to be debated in a later RfC and subject to final approval? ~ RobTalk

Support

 * 1) Support as proposer. My hope is that this is a truly community-based proposal that responds to the concerns of editors who have opposed other de-adminship procedures, while also greatly limiting potentials for abuse. ~ RobTalk 05:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) This method tackles all my issues with "mandatory recall". It is a truly community effort, the reconfirmation RfA will show that the community whether still trusts the administrator. The grace period allows the administrator to decide when the reconfirmation RfA happens. Alternatives to Arbcom should exist for desysopping, and since this method already works in de.Wp, it's better than re-inventing the wheel. WormTT(talk) 07:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Support partially, because it's community driven, but with a strong caveat that while drawing the comparison with the German Wikipedia is interesting, the European German language region has an entirely different culture from our Anglo-American ways of thinking and interacting, and to try and compare them is to compare apples with oranges or to end up with a false dichotomy. There is also a further fundamental difference in German systems in that like most other Wikis, they demand users to be stimmberechtigt, i.e.  eligible to vote according to fixed criteria. I do think that to make access easier to an equitable and reasonably punctual process for both plaintifs and admins, desysoping should be significantly relieved from its 100% Arbitration Committee control. I'm not saying that the Committee dispenses poor justice any more than a crat chat at RfA might reach the wrong decision, but unlike RfA which is still littered with dubious voter motives in both sections, I still do not believe that any free-for-all voting system will keep kangaroos, pitchforks, and peanuts at bay here in the English speaking world. Oppose #3  expresses further important caveats and advice on the politics and timing of desysopping RfCs, but not enough to land me in that section.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Support We need a community based system in place that can deal with problematic admins. The basis of the general outline is good and I am sure there will be a lot of fine tuning in the future with RFC's on specifics already planned. AlbinoFerret  15:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Support Overall a solid proposal. If community is competent enough to determine that someone should be trusted with admin tools, then community should be also regarded as competent enough to determine then such trust is no more warranted. Sometimes it feels that there is fear of community desysop process resulting some massive mobs appearing from sidelines and starting to lynch admins. If community is really so horrible then they should not be in business of appointing admins in first place. I don't think it's so bad though, a few "Axe to grind" people should be possible to deal with quorum requirement, and probably success threshold could be also lowered for such reconfirmation RFAs. Such process would bring us closer to widely suggested, but currently completely out of reality view of adminship as NOBIGDEAL/mop/"few extra buttons"/etc.--Staberinde (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Support in general: Seems to be well-tested at de.Wikipedia. If we end up needing a "gatekeeper" we can install one; maybe elements of the BARC proposal could be worked into this – they're remarkably similar in key ways, especially in the "Crats just judge consensus, and the committee is made up of random volunteers" version of BARC. These could effectively be merged, with some tweaks, by having the Crats be the gatekeepers if that's seen as necessary (and I'd be in favor of that; Crats are our most trusted consensus assessors, after all). No process on WP has to be 100% perfect from the first second. I'm not convinced by the "admins will fear to act in controversial disputes" thing, or the German Wikipedia would have fallen apart.  It won't play out that way, because "acted in a controversial dispute" doesn't mean "did something so wrong the community will want to axe them".  It's pretty obvious that "did something so wrong community will want to axe them" is what would actually lead to the axe. Arbcom is too slow, and it too often refuses to act, especially against an AE enforcer. All of Collect's and Arthur Rubin's ideas (under "Neutral" below) would be amenable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Strong support, the community is trusted to create an admin, they should be trusted to uncreate one. GregJackP   Boomer!   21:33, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 8) Support, generally. The community needs a mechanism like this. I don't think the lack of a recall process is the largest factor in our declining willingness to treat adminship as a big deal, but I need some really good reasons to refuse to support a process that will help that. I'm unconvinced by perennial cries that the process will be gamed. Everything on wikipedia can be gamed. RFA can be (and has been) gamed. Arbcom can be (and has been) gamed. What matters is we now have a lifetime appointment mechanism and a community who has expended thousands and thousands of hours in social effort to convince people to not be risk averse toward new applicants. Maybe let's try making new applicants less of a risk? Protonk (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 9) Support: The proposal still has a ways to go but is likely to work quite well even in it's current state. The clarified use of multiple users/editors to reach a "quorum" before starting an RRfA is what has changed my opinion from Neutral to Support. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 10) Support: Needs work but is a good start. BlueSalix (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) I fear that any mandatory recall procedure is too susceptible to political maneuvering. ArbCom, for all its, at times, glacial pace, is not subject to crowd mentality or outside canvassing (which is all but impossible to prevent—we are not the NSA [[file:face-smile.svg|20px]]. This means that when someone is being considered for bit removal, that consideration is deliberate and as much less prone to any partiality or impropriety. Should we have recall system similar to what is described above, I fear that it will be used as a weapon between various groups of highly-antithetical editors or by aggrieved editors against the administrators or bureaucrats who are enforcing Wikipedia policy and guidelines. In my opinion, this will tend to result in three highly undesirable outcomes:
 * 2) The loss of good administrators or bureaucrats due to improper application of the recall
 * 3) The loss of good administrators or bureaucrats due to burn out and exhaustion of undergoing the recall (even if there is a "grace period")
 * 4) The loss of necessary activity by good administrators or bureaucrats for fear of a recall
 * Remember, most administrators or bureaucrats will perform actions that upset someone throughout their tenure, even if they do everything completely properly. Be it the proper deletion of an article, the proper protection of a page, or the proper blocking of an editor. This will cause upsetness, especially against the administrators or bureaucrats who bravely implement ArbCom sanctions, and are in danger of "upsetting" scores of editors. I'd much rather see a streamlined ArbCom process for handling poor admins than something with this potential for abuse. What I would like to see is for administrators or bureaucrats to be held to (reasonable) civility standards. All editors should be civil (and NOTCENSORED is not a reason to use obscenities in conversation, in my opinion) but administrators or bureaucrats should take extra effort to do so, if only because increased their increased responsibility for the project. However, that does not mean that someone who loses their temper should be hauled off to the court of recall. Thank you. -- Avi (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , would you still oppose if there was a minimum number of editors required to support the quorum, say 100+, on top of opposing votes? I.e. 100+ quorum supports + "x" supports - "x" opposes = action. Would that be enough to change your mind? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , yes I would. While that may minimize some of the more egregious gaming that could occur, it is still subject to the vagaries of herd mentality. I prefer a smaller group of people who can take the necessary time to ruminate (to continue the livestock theme 8-) ). If the threshold is placed high enough, it will be all but impossible to implement, and what would we have gained? I understand that bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy, but we do not have hasten the process. -- Avi (talk) 14:27, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I spent some time thinking about this. While I appreciate the effort that went into this, I am too concerned about such an open-for-all recall system generating a chilling effect on administrators working in controversial areas. Or just plainly be misused by people which are in a conflict with the administrators in question, whether in good faith or bad faith - or with an alternate account of the administrator, such as a WMF staffer. One could easily get a sufficient number of recall votes from several controversial decisions that are bound to happen during an administrator's work. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , would you still oppose if there was a minimum number of editors required to support the quorum, say 100+, on top of opposing votes? I.e. 100+ quorum supports + "x" supports - "x" opposes = action. Would that be enough to change your mind? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I also fear the possibility of political maneuvering. There is no gatekeeper here, and very little possibility of one, as you have no one who has a mandate to perform the function and are unlikely to find any group that can attain consensus as such (and that would not be seen as duplicative, basically of ArbCom).
 * Additionally, the admin reform movement is descending to an almost desperate attempt to see what they can throw that will stick, not even waiting for the other (fifteen, I think) proposals to finish sliding down that wall before tossing this, product of a few days' consultation by a limited number of editors.  BARC isn't quite dead yet and off we go on another.  Do your bureaucrats offend you?  Well, then cut them off and see if we can get something vague through (the fact that the proposers won't even commit to whether the admin or the accusers have the burden of proof in a reconfirmation procedure is particularly telling).  Let's reform the criminal justice system in principle, except we won't say whether the state or the defendant has the burden of proof!  At least it will get us to the next stage.  No.  Clear the board, discuss it fully, come up with one proposal, and sink or swim by it for a period of time.  These constant new proposals do no one any good.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I did not plan to respond to votes, but I should note that I independently decided to write this proposal after seeing the German system mentioned at BARC. While I asked a few editors who advocate reform for their opinions, I am not part of any "movement" or cabal. I'm a single editor who thinks this is the best solution, nothing more. If anything motivated me to write this, it was a dislike of BARC, not an attempt to push through reform at any cost. ~ RobTalk 08:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You did post that you were working on it, with link, and appealed for help in your userspace. Nothing wrong with that, but supporters are still throwing one RfC after another at that wall, and I think Stifle's oppose to the BARC proposal sums up my views on this one better than I did (the camel's nose analogy). These endless RfCs do no one any good. If there is to be change, it should be a final settlement that (to some extent) satisfies enough of the community to end this time sink. I just don't see this as that answer.  What works for the German Wikipedia works for the German Wikipedia.  They are no more a guide to us, with a different culture and a far greater throughput, than we are to them.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Strongest possible nuclear attack oppose I posted a reply at Administrators' noticeboard/Archive273. The BARC proposal hasn't even been closed yet, and this is the 16th discussion on RfA reform going on at the same time. Enough is enough. "Time sink" is the appropriate description, used by Wehwalt. You, Rob, arrived here two months ago, well, other editors have seen these discussions going on for years, with no result. I hope my reply at AN deters users from coming here. I suggest you withdraw this. Kraxler (talk) 13:54, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Given the proposal offers no criteria by which a recall can be initiated, this basically leaves it wide open to being gamed by a block of users who want to harass or remove admins they do not like. As with others above, this would only create a chilling effect that pushes admins away from work in controversial areas. Resolute 16:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , would you still oppose if there was a minimum number of editors required to support the quorum, say 100+, on top of opposing votes? I.e. 100+ quorum supports + "x" supports - "x" opposes = action. Would that be enough to change your mind? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Such a large quorum would eliminate the risk of gaming an admin out of the bit - perhaps to the point where this process would become unworkable except for the most extreme cases. Since Arbcom already handles the most extreme cases, that would make this a redundant process.  However, a bloc of editors doesn't need to reach such a threshold to use this process as a means of harassment.  That remains a concern. Resolute 12:58, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose: I'll ask the same question I asked over at WP:BARC; "Before even considering whether this could possibly be a valid process one needs to ask this question: What administrator who was not desysopped would have been desysopped by this process?" If you can't come up with a single example, then it becomes blatantly obvious this process has no purpose." You don't have to name such an admin, but in your own mind if you can't come up with one there's no point to this process. I also share Resolute's concerns. One of the chief problems with any community based desysop process is the extreme potential for chilling effects. Admins crazy enough to work in highly contentious areas would fear working in such areas for fear of reprisals. ArbCom has an evidence process that strongly addresses such concerns. This process does not. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose Those stats are telling. Three times as many admins (as compared to the first year they did this) chose simply to walk away than to even deal with this. Too easy to game on this project. Also, it seems just plain goofy to be even having this discussion while the BARC discussion is ongoing. If you want to get big policy changes done at en.wp, you need to be patient. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:27, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , would you still oppose if there was a minimum number of editors required to support the quorum, say 100+, on top of opposing votes? I.e. 100+ quorum supports + "x" supports - "x" opposes = action. Would that be enough to change your mind? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose Arbcom works reasonably well and has a variety of safeguards against abuse. If we were to replace Arbcom we should do so with something at least as good. We need admins, we need admins who do their job well enough to annoy spammers, trolls and vandals. This system has some advantages over BARC, but it has the disadvantage that would be far too easy for trolls to use it to damage Wikipedia.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  20:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , would you still oppose if there was a minimum number of editors required to support the quorum, say 100+, on top of opposing votes? I.e. 100+ quorum supports + "x" supports - "x" opposes = action. Would that be enough to change your mind? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would still oppose because for all its faults Arbcom would still be a better system. Yes there are scenarios where this change would improve the proposal, but it would also have the drawback of protecting those admins who had a significant following or who were active on IRC. If people want to replace Arbcom they need to design a system that is at least as good as Arbcom.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per Avi. Daniel (talk) 23:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , would you still oppose if there was a minimum number of editors required to support the quorum, say 100+, on top of opposing votes? I.e. 100+ quorum supports + "x" supports - "x" opposes = action. Would that be enough to change your mind? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose and recommend immediate close of this and any other time-wasting chats about a problem in people's minds—if admin X should be desysopped, take them to Arbcom and have the process fail, then start a discussion about how to fix the terrible problem. Johnuniq (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Strong oppose - I understand the want for a community giveth, the community taketh away, but this isn't the way to do this. Just to start with, as noted by others on this page, such a system won't work without "gatekeepers" to prevent pitchforks or wasting the community's time. - jc37 01:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose we need our admins to be able to make tough calls without fear of losing their mops. Otherwise, we will have no admins working in highly controversial areas. I have seen the nastiness of RfA and of the various outcries against admins just making tough but proper calls. I have yet to see a bad admin (like really bad, not just some people don't like him for a few days) who did not get desysopped. What I see here is a proposal to alleviate a problem we don't have by aggravating a problem we do have. Happy Squirrel (talk) 14:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 4) Oppose. The other comments quite clearly cover the reasons for opposition, so there's no need for me to elaborate further. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 23:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 5) Oppose - Isn't this the exact same proposal as the other one ? ... Anywho Opposing per my previous comments which I can't be bothered to copy & paste here. – Davey 2010 Talk 01:17, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 6) Oppose - I agree wholeheartedly with Hammersoft and Avi, and endorse their well-reasoned comments above. Neutralitytalk 02:35, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 7) Oppose for all the same reasons this proposal has been rejected every time it's been made so far. Open to gaming, less drama-laden options already exist, etc. Guy (Help!) 15:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , would you still oppose if there was a minimum number of editors required to support the quorum, say 100+, on top of opposing votes? I.e. 100+ quorum supports + "x" supports - "x" opposes = action. Would that be enough to change your mind? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose quite simply per Kraxler, Avi, and JzG. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 04:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , would you still oppose if there was a minimum number of editors required to support the quorum, say 100+, on top of opposing votes? I.e. 100+ quorum supports + "x" supports - "x" opposes = action. Would that be enough to change your mind? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose This is a perennial proposal and you have not addressed the concerns voiced the last 5 times this sort of thing was opposed. Chillum 05:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose This will be an exaggeration of all the defects of our present RfA procedures, not a correction for them.  DGG ( talk ) 21:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) I support the proposal at BARC, and I tend to be favorably disposed to efforts to find a way for a community-based process. But I agree with what DGG just said, in that the proposed quorum, at least here at the English Wikipedia, would be too vulnerable to being populated by users with grudges or users who are just plain clueless. Perhaps a variation on this proposal that might work better would be to have the quorum made up of other administrators. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , would you still oppose if there was a minimum number of editors required to support the quorum, say 100+, on top of opposing votes? I.e. 100+ quorum supports + "x" supports - "x" opposes = action. The "clueless" editors would likely be a fairly insignificant vote number out of that total. Would that be enough to change your mind? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a step in the right direction, but I would still have a concern that there would be too many procedures that would be started against good administrators, even if the final outcome of those procedures would find in that administrator's favor. Several years ago, I would have answered your question with a firm statement of supporting it, but as of today, I think that having ArbCom do it, or if the BARC proposal were to get consensus, a committee of Crats and trusted editors, are better ways to handle it. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose per the above, particularly Avi. North of Eden (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , would you still oppose if there was a minimum number of editors required to support the quorum, say 100+, on top of opposing votes? I.e. 100+ quorum supports + "x" supports - "x" opposes = action. Would that be enough to change your mind? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose. As with all similar proposals, it has a chilling effect on admins who go and work in controversial areas, and leads to grievances escalating because someone has been courageous enough to take a difficult action. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose per DGG and jc37. RFA has to be fixed before this would work, and it is no where near fixed.  Right idea, ie: higher accountability, but this wouldn't be a good way to achieve it. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 16:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , would you still oppose if there was a minimum number of editors required to support the quorum, say 100+, on top of opposing votes? I.e. 100+ quorum supports + "x" supports - "x" opposes = action. Would that be enough to change your mind? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It is very, very inappropriate to bludgeon an RFC this way. Ask one time in discussion, don't ask half the participants.  It is just annoying and rude.  Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 18:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose &mdash; dewiki apparently has 249 admins. At least 45 of those (so probably something around 18%) have been subjected to this procedure and survived it. I'm not sure how subjecting nearly 1/5th of the admins on enwiki to this would be considered a great idea&mdash;not to mention, if 1/5th of your most trusted volunteers are accused of abuse, unsuccessfully, I have doubts the process is valid in the first place and is instead clearly susceptible to false positives.  I can see why so many people choose to just not bother with it and instead go volunteer elsewhere. At least volunteering at the soup kitchen or local theatre, you'd never have to deal with this sort of assumption-of-bad-faith nonsense.  I mean, sure, serve enough homeless guys soup or deal with enough psychiatric patients, eventually you'll get a sizeable enough quorum who probably will accuse you of being evil/part of some conspiracy/whatever, but at least the average volunteer-driven organization knows better and shields their volunteers from regular judicial proceedings except in the most exceptional cases. -- slakr  \ talk / 16:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that the dewiki does not consider binding recall to be only for cases of abuse. It's simply a manner of reassessing consensus for an editor to have access to admin tools, and nothing more. ~ RobTalk 10:34, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose unless and until someone can give even a single example of a situation where the existing setup failed, and this would work. The people who claim "Arbcom is failing" appear strikingly unable to actually provide an example of a bad admin hauled in front of Arbcom who deserved to be desysopped, but got away. &#8209; iridescent 20:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) Oppose this process has no safeguards beyond the quorum, and that's a very flimsy safeguard. As such it would be easy for people to abuse this process. The overall effect would be to deter admins from making potentially controversial decisions, or from taking actions that might annoy significant numbers of experienced editors, whether the action is right or not. RfA is generally acknowledged to be a seriously flawed process, the last thing we should be doing is looking for new areas to apply it.  Hut 8.5  22:03, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Oppose I think it would be easy to abuse A8v (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , would you still oppose if there was a minimum number of editors required to support the quorum, say 100+, on top of opposing votes? I.e. 100+ quorum supports + "x" supports - "x" opposes = action. Would that be enough to change your mind? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) Sadly oppose & immediate close Although I support, generally, the idea of community based de-sysopping, I find the arguments above against this specific proposal fairly compelling, in particular (1) There are multiple other debates ongoing simultaneously; and (2) The objections to previous RfAs have not been described, analysed or addressed. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) OpposeAs I see it, this looks like a conflict between direct democracy and representative democracy, not a issue of community driven versus non-community driven. We currently have a process that works, and works as asked for in this proposal. 1) Any number of editors may present a case before the ArbCom, or a minimum of two or three, I do not recall by heart, anyway, way less requesters required than proposed here. 2) Anyone can make a statement at ArbCom, that is not much different than making it at RfA 3) ArbCom imposes a "cooldown" if they see fit, by not accepting the case 4) If an admin steps down, typically a case is closed (unless there may be a harsher punishment on the line) 5) Is the real difference: do we have a body of trusted editors that mostly count votes (Bureaucrats, this proposal) or a body of trusted editors that ear everyone and then make their mind, mostly regardless of vote counts (Arbs, current method). I go for representative democracy every day on most cases, and judging people is surely one of them. A note on the quorum formation if we ever get something like that, then editors should have some limited number of nominations for de-adminship (counting only unsuccessful ones...?) and a (harsh) penalty for abusing that right. Responsibility must go both ways. - Nabla (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutral

 * 1) I am unsure that the nicely precise process used in the DeutschWiki would work well with the herd of cats on EnglishWiki ... I would, however, suggest that any admin with no significant use of specific admin tools be flagged as "inactive" rather than allow trivial usage of such tools to reset the game clock. Collect (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, those who hardly use their tools are probably least likely to fall foul of a lynch mob, and removing bits for inactivity generally serves only to keep the stats in order, but that's all for another discussion. I don't think the German system will work well here either but I'm prepared to have it put to the test if there is consensus for it. If it's wrong of course, we'll get lumbered with it for at least a decade before we can get it changed again. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) *At that stage you end up with incessant argument over what is or isn't "significant"... Stifle (talk) 10:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 2) This is a better idea than most of the others that have been proposed, and comes with what's frequently missing - evidence that the process might actually work. However, it doesn't account for the fact that enwiki is more vulnerable to trolls and more tolerant of complaining. It's also just poorly timed - the umpteenth RfC about more rules about admin behavior when there's still no evidence of a need for them. (Desire, yes, but we all want a lot of things we don't actually need and would be worse off having.) Put it in your pocket and wait till the next time drama breaks out over a bad admin decision or a complicated RfA. You might try getting some people to make this or something similar their "recall criteria" as a pilot. Opabinia regalis (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 3) Something like this could work; after all "the community" can site ban an Admin.  However, it is important to WP:ABF in considering any such proposal &mdash; both in the possibility that a gang of users opposed to a core Wikipedia policy might threaten to deAdmin any Admin attempting to enforce it; and, because of the immunity provision, a gang of supporters could form a quorum to start the deAdmin process and then vote to support the Admin.  (With the burden of proof lying with the community, as it would in any proposal that I would consider supporting, this would be fairly simple.)  Specifics for such a proposal to be at all feasible, if not to make it impossible for Admins to do anything controversial:
 * 4) The quorum must be large; I would suggest 250, or twice the number of Supports at the RfA, whichever is larger.
 * 5) There must be a consensus to deAdmin, rather than the Admin having consensus to retain the mop.
 * 6) Immunity is a difficult matter; because of the matter I brought up above, I am not comfortable with the proposal with or without immunity.  Perhaps, in a failed proposal, members of the quorum should be banned from being a member of any deAdmin quorum for another year?  Socks and sockpuppets would have to be banned.
 * — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I am currently worried that the system will be partially abused to discredit Admins in topic discussions, though the idea behind the system is sound. I would suggest that for this process to start that:
 * 2) *A) No currently under-investigation users can start this process on an admin
 * 3) *B) Users currently involved in heated debate with the Admin require at least a second or possibly third referral?
 * As the process stands though, I am probably not quite Neutral and more Very weak Support, but if I could please have some clarification around these points, that would obviously change my opinion into true Support or Oppose due to my current reservations. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC) My opinion has changed due to clarification at Administrators/RfC_for_binding_administrator_recall by Rob. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 04:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I get what you're going for here. Wouldn't these rules just equate to "no action can be brought until it is too stale to act on?" I'm not sure what you mean by "under investigation", but it sounds like this all means "if you are currently being abused by an admin, you have no recourse" as a terrible side effect of the intended result that "if you're being a flaming dick and about to be sanctioned for it you need to STFU". :-) I would suggest that this isn't necessary, because if someone is currently being duly pushed for actual bad deeds and they bring an unclean hands complaint to this committee, they'll be laughed at. It shouldn't be impossible to address admin abuse while it's still ongoing, you'd just have to have a strong case that you were being pilloried without just cause.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In response for A): "under-investigation" = "sock-puppet investigation", "meatpuppet investigation", Incident investigations, and others of that ilk, though this could be mitigated by B), though I believe the proposed committee would have to bear in mind the WP:SOCKs and WP:PUPPETs of the Editor requesting action.
 * In response for B): Some unscrupulous editors may use this as a means of 'discrediting' the Admin because the Admin and Editor are in a feud and the Editor wishes to WP:WIN. By having a second or third referral from other editors, you can at least see that more than one person agrees that the Admin is abusing their powers instead of this being used as a possible WP:PERSONAL attack against a disliked Admin.
 * I am merely asking/proposing that there be checks such as these put into the system to reduce WP:GAMING risks and to avoid wastes of time. I would also like to point you to my original post that asked about this which may explain my proposals in a better way than what I'm currently doing. These aren't to stop people from accessing the proposed system, but to stop system players, though as you say "[if] they bring an unclean hands complaint to this committee, they'll be laughed at" would be the desired response from the committee. I would actually push editors that would typically be blocked by these checks to cite WP:IAR and continue with their request if the situation called for it, though I would then suggest having available evidence placed into their request for action's first post as a "must-do".
 * Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I was about to oppose but think my reasoning is too pedantic to oppose over, and I don't have a fundamental issue with a binding process vaguely similar to this. The term "editor" is used throughout this; I understand this term to mean "anyone who edits Wikipedia", which includes both accounts and IPs. Even if we narrow this to "just accounts", I think it's just too gameable (is that a word?) . Nowhere in the 5 potential issues to quibble over in the future is the definition of "editor" mentioned. I would potentially support something which required a smaller number of users with some level of 'qualification' (e.g. 5 admins) to initiate, but I cannot support X number of editors, regardless of X's value, even if IPs don't count and SPAs are weeded out. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 14:37, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion
My advice on this RfC was personally solicited as was the advice of others who are or will be voting here. Apart from my experience of a great many years in Germany, I also tendered the following more general reflections on the situation that leads to these RfCs because it's not all about timing and the flurry of parallel discussions in various places, but to remind ourselves of the actual reasons why they are taking place. Those who have a vested interest in desysoping procedures  fall very broadly into  two camps: admins who know they are not acting in the best of good faith and are afraid of being turned into a public effigy, and non admins who fear that too little is done to protect them from rogue admins. This breaks down however into: Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Users who claim, for whatever reason, that admins have a thing against prolific content providers.
 * Users who have never been the object of Wikipedia disciplinary measures or warnings who nevertheless make loud and persistent claims that Wikipedia is doomed due to its admin structure.
 * Users who want the bar to RfA kept high to prevent the wrong kind of admins from being elected.
 * Those who want the bar to adminship significantly lowered (possibly to get easier access to the coveted tools or status).
 * Those who want the bar to adminship significantly lowered but at the same time want it therefore easier to desysop rogue or poor performing admins.
 * Those who want a community driven (i.e. an alternative to Arbcom) desysoping process that nevertheless is not driven by trolls and the pitchforks of the peanut gallery.
 * And of course admins who are reluctant to work in the front line trenches for fear of reprisals for just doing their job.
 * Oi. You forgot a third group: Admins who are working away and doing difficult and sometimes unpleasant things and are tired of people going around saying that they're "not acting in the best of good faith and are afraid of being turned into a public effigy." Please stop insinuating that any admin who opposes these sorts of proposals is inherently deficient in their administrator work. It is incredibly demotivating, particularly to some of us who quite literally are volunteering hundreds of hours of our time each month with nary a thanks. And you wonder why nobody wants to run for RFA anymore.  Risker (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Two other obvious ones:
 * Users who been the object of Wikipedia disciplinary measures or warnings, and are just pissy about it and need to STFU, because they were doing wrong and they know it (or should know it).
 * Users who been the object of Wikipedia disciplinary measures or warnings, and it was unwarranted, but they found they had insufficient recourse.
 * Note also that in many cases any given individual will be in multiple classes, even both of the ones I just added, as well as one or more others. Only a few of them are mutually exclusive.
 * — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

To those who wish to continue with community consensus being the primary decision-making mechanism, yes, the consensus process is a time sink. There's just no way for a few hundred interested persons to quickly sort through dozens of options and filter them down to a best approach. To continue with this approach, the community as a whole can either a) avoid spending any time on these matters by accepting all major policies and procedures exactly as they are now, b) be willing to invest time to improve them, or c) empower a working group in each area of interest to develop proposals designed for maximum acceptance which are subsequently ratified. isaacl (talk) 16:45, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No one has identified a problem. What request to Arbcom to desysop an admin has inappropriately failed? Johnuniq (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

At present, administrators constitute a superstratum; they've got to eff up big time for Arbcom to even hear a case. (Arbcom has got a myriad of its own problems, but let's gloss over that for now.) If I were to write such a proposal, it would be for the aim to return power to the community; to increase administrator accountability and lower the barrier to entry, and, in so doing, foster a more equitable community; and to solidify community expectations. On the whole, Germans are a more socially conscious and socially active people than many Westerners, and to the vast majority of Usonians, to whom direct democracy is an altogether foreign concept. I believe that before any de-adminship mechanism is put into practice, that the purpose of it should be made abundantly clear. And for that to happen, the community must develop an identity. Wikipedia is not an anarchy; it is not a democracy; it is not a bureaucracy; it is not a meritocracy. But no community was ever built on nots. If we were to analyse the current practices of Wikipedia, how would we describe it? And if we were to take it into a different direction, where would that be? We ought to step back and take a good look at the complete picture. Alakzi (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed. If ArbCom doesn't see it as a big deal (e.g. a short-term block by an involved admin that expired before you could even wend your way very far into the appeal process), they'll simply ignore you. One thing almost everyone seems to be forgetting in these debates is that there's no reason at all this proposed quorum, or BARC, could not deliver a "verdict" to admonish, to reverse an action, or otherwise mitigate the harm caused by admin indiscretion, and stop short of desyopping.  I have to think this would be the  of the outcomes when an admin wasn't entirely exonerated (an exoneration would be the real majority outcome of most "some admin abused my poor booty" complaints).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  21:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note: I've added this discussion to WP:CENT. Mz7 (talk) 19:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Question Time
Apologies if this seems rude, but no one seems to be answering any questions about the proposal. Thought I might ask a question that is at the core of some of the opposing arguments Dr Crazy 102 (talk)
 * See also in relation: Clarification to SMcCandlish in Section#Neutral

Before I choose which side or part of the fence I fall on, a small question. Would editors currently involved in a dispute with an admin be allowed to start this process, or will the process only be able to be started by editors who are currently neutral towards the given admin but in regards to a dispute between the given admin and editor?

So Admin X and Editor Y are currently disputing article text on Article A. Would Editor Y be able to start this process or would it require Editor Z to step forward and provide some reasoning?

This is an important aspect, and one which I am sure is rife for individual gain against Admins.

Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 00:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My question is about whether editors will abuse this process to gain an advantage in an edit-war or discussion war, or whether there will be checks on who can start this process to avoid systematic abuse.
 * I am less concerned about where the proposal has come from, but about how the proposal will potentially be used. I am aware that ArbCom is slow and only takes the "big cases", though that is less from personal experience and more from constant whingeing about it.
 * Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was responding to Johnuniq; we edit conflicted. Alakzi (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies then, would you mind if I moved your response above my question?. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 01:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Alakzi (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I have edited the comments to be in proper order. My apologies for the rude tone, should have realised there was an edit conflict. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * , could you please provide some clarification about this point? I haven't seen anything about this in the proposal but I am curious as to whether there will be checks such as these? Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There isn't really a "start" to this process. Any editor, including one engaged in a dispute, could add a vote to try to establish a quorum. It would require many other editors to also add a vote to establish quorum before an RRfA was triggered (a number is not included in this proposal, but I imagine upwards of 50). In other words, a quorum isn't established based off of a single complaint. It's established off of enough editors coming forward and saying they'd like the admin's position reviewed by the community. If there is no basis to a complaint provided by a single voter, then 50+ votes won't follow, and quorum won't be established. It is very typical for all admins on the German Wikipedia to have a vote or two (or five) on their recall page at any one time, but a quorum isn't reached without something big happening, usually. ~ RobTalk 02:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I think this may need to be clarified amongst some of the opposition voters who have similar concerns to what I have posted. Might change their vote or make them a bit less dedicated in their stance. Dr Crazy 102 (talk) 03:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * After dealing with accusations of being a sock and someone saying that Wikipedia is "not a student debate club" in reference to my status as a student, I've pretty much decided that putting in time to advocate for this isn't worth it. I don't care to be the target of personal attacks, and this is unlikely to achieve consensus anyway, because there is enough fatigue regarding these proposals that most aren't giving this one the time of day. If you'd like to make that clarification, be my guest. ~ RobTalk 04:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * One of the biggest problems plaguing Wikipedia is the laissez-faire attitude the project takes towards personal attacks. It is a rare thing indeed that anyone is warned (and rarer still, blocked) for making personal attacks. I am sorry, if not shocked, you have become a victim of this attitude on the project. I was once told I was the "most ignorant and disrespectful editor" on Wikipedia. When I reported this, I was told it was not a personal attack. Sadly, your experience is far, far from isolated. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:25, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * This is principally because of three things: 1) Whining about things that are not really attacks; 2) unclear wording in the policies; 3) favoritism-based enforcement. About 85% of Wikipedians seem to think that legitimate criticism of edits and editing patterns or behavior is "uncivil" and a "personal attack", and since we necessarily have to sometimes criticize those things that, and everyone whines and complains about "uncivil personal attacks" every time they don't get their way, they all think that CIVIL and NPA are just "in a perfect alternative universe" rules, and that nothing should be done short of cases where someone's using a lot of racial slurs or the like. If both policies were rewritten to more clearly distinguish between what is and is not OK, behaviorally, this might start to change.  I've given up trying to get anything done about attacks.  Last week, I tried one last time, and took a complaint about such behavior to ANI, that even included evidence of direct threats to WP:HARASS, and two threats to editwar until WP:WINNING, and nothing was done at all other than a mild warning not to do it again, in the forum in question (not even generally, but just on that one page).  No one takes these policies seriously because their wording it too vague to parse in a "this is actionable, this is not actionable" way that is consistently and fairly enforced.  It really comes down to a popularity contest. If you have people who style themselves your enemies, they'll all show up in a dogpile to crucify you as an attacker even if you studiously stick to addressing edits not editor; meanwhile if you have a big wiki-entourage, you can get away with virtually anything, even long strings of personally directed obscenities laced with racist epithets, having nothing at all to do with contributions and only with contributor.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:53, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's true up to a point, there's also the problem that in the past blocks for incivility have resulted in weeks of drama. Any policy that cannot accommodate Giano's refusal to suffer fools gladly, is basically doomed. Guy (Help!) 10:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, start with blocks for clear personal attacks (they're really that hard to define). No excuses.  That would shut down most of the problem.  Might not ever have to go with "blocks for incivility" which is harder to define, unless it's programmatic and undeniable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)