This is an essay containing a few of my concerns about potential desysopping procedures, it arose from my oppose !votes to various options proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall.
In my view any such system needs:
- A filter to prevent vexatious and trolling attempts, I'd be happy with a requirement for three uninvolved users with a tenure of at least three months and 200 edits to initiate the process.
- Time limits so that once a procedure is initiated it ends ideally within a week and at the most within a month.
- A wider range of possible solutions than a binary choice between desysopping or not.
- Basic requirements for natural justice such as the accused needs to be currently active, needs to know what they are accused of, needs the time and place to defend themselves and prepare their case before !voting commences, and can only be arraigned once for a particular incident.
- Closure to be done by a crat or an arb (except possibly a snow close of vexatious or unsupported complaint)
- Majority decision making. Whilst I think that proposed bans should give users the benefit of the doubt and require a strong consensus; I'm unhappy with proposals that would allow an admin to keep the tools against the wishes of the majority. 25-30% can scupper an RFA, it seems reasonable to me that 50% can remove the tools.
- To be better than Arbcom, and for all its faults I think that Arbcom is pretty good at desysopping when cases are put to it.
This is an essay containing a few of my concerns about potential desysopping procedures, it arose from my oppose !votes to various options proposed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall.
In my view any such system needs:
- A filter to prevent vexatious and trolling attempts, I'd be happy with a requirement for three uninvolved users with a tenure of at least three months and 200 edits to initiate the process.
- Time limits so that once a procedure is initiated it ends ideally within a week and at the most within a month.
- A wider range of possible solutions than a binary choice between desysopping or not.
- Basic requirements for natural justice such as the accused needs to be currently active, needs to know what they are accused of, needs the time and place to defend themselves and prepare their case before !voting commences, and can only be arraigned once for a particular incident.
- Closure to be done by a crat or an arb (except possibly a snow close of vexatious or unsupported complaint)
- Majority decision making. Whilst I think that proposed bans should give users the benefit of the doubt and require a strong consensus; I'm unhappy with proposals that would allow an admin to keep the tools against the wishes of the majority. 25-30% can scupper an RFA, it seems reasonable to me that 50% can remove the tools.
- To be better than Arbcom, and for all its faults I think that Arbcom is pretty good at desysopping when cases are put to it.