Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Resysopping practices/Archive 1
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Let us axe some of these right now. Options 1, 8, 9, and 10 are either non-starters based on general community practice or are too hopelessly vague to even bother discussing. Splitting things up into each of the sections is probably also not worth it; just put all discussion into one general section. NW (Talk) 22:06, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- 10 is a bit vague and could easily be gamed. --Rschen7754 22:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- Feel free to cut any, I just wanted to avoid any personal bias, so I listed every imaginable formuation. I tried the idea of separate discussion sections to avoid the usual closer problem of everyone saying a slightly different thing and no one saying which particular aspects they support or oppose. MBisanz talk 22:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- I don't think that 8, 9 and 10 are so far beyond the pale as to not even warrant discussion. There are certainly a non-negligible number of people who would like to see bureaucrats' own judgement at least as a veto. I don't think they will be very popular options, but they're not entirely without merit, or support. Happy‑melon 16:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Feel free to cut any, I just wanted to avoid any personal bias, so I listed every imaginable formuation. I tried the idea of separate discussion sections to avoid the usual closer problem of everyone saying a slightly different thing and no one saying which particular aspects they support or oppose. MBisanz talk 22:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
- At the core of this is a question of "how much judgement can a Crat use in their duties?" so I don't know if you can really answer that question in a single sentence. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:32, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree there's no easy answer to how much judgment Crats can use, but getting some additional goalposts from the community would be useful. Like with Polarscribe, some people raised his conduct at the time he left and at the time he returned as relevant to the decision. Options 5, 6, and 7 would have provided significant help in evaluating him under their concerns. Or with Inshanee, I think Option 5 would have been determinative. 15:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC) MBisanz talk 15:10, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I feel about 4 or 5, but 6, 7 or 8 (and others) are very likely non-starters with the general public. What none of these addresses is how to deal with disagreements when 2 Crats say "yes" and 2 Crats say "no". It isn't a vote, nor a group decision, but there are times when a group discussion is likely beneficial. What if 3 crats say "no", but you think it is fine to resysop? Do you resysop on your own volition? I think those are the real underlying issues, how we deal with decisions when multiple Crats have voiced opinions and that opinion is split. Some kind of "rule of 3" may be more useful than trying to define the exact criteria. And what if 3 say "yes" and 3 say "no"? Do we default to "yes" or "no"? And if that isn't confusing enough, my understanding of policy is that if an admin has his bit removed for inactivity and comes back to claim it, is he still an admin, just without the bit? Did we just remove the bit, or did we remove his actual admin status? The new policy makes it clear that we are definitely removing his admin status at 3 years, but between 1 and 3, what is he? Answering these questions may make the others less necessary to address, in my opinion. At this stage, I don't have any answers, just these questions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 19:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- I think something that might be useful here is to define what happens when a crat doesn't resysop. That is, if (under whatever of the options Mbisanz puts forth that the community prefers) the crat(s) decline to resysop, what happens? a) the user can't be a sysop, b) the user can appeal to arbcom, c) the user is directed to a reconfirmation RFA (which generally - when they happen - have a slightly lower standard, iirc), d) the user is directed to RFA just like everyone else? I would react differently to something like "Based on their judgment about [whether the admin left under a cloud|whether the admin is competent to regain bits|whether the admin puts their socks on right foot first], crats have the options of unilaterally resysopping the user OR to sending them to a reconfirmation RFA/arbcom review/ANI review/my grandmother's cooking class" than to something like "Crats can determine who gets bits based on their own judgment, whatever that is".
I also have some minor quibbles with the wording of some of options Mbisanz drafted, which occasionally appear a bit push-poll-ish, but we can get to that in a bit. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- The wording on several does seem loaded. Per the last Arb case, it would seem that you can't appeal a Crat decision without showing abuse or some serious breach by the Crat. The other questions are intereesting, especially your use of the word "reconfirmation", which ties into my question above. At 2 years but without the bit, are they still an admin just bitless? Are they a non-admin, but eligible for "speedy re-sysop"? I think we have to answer the question of their status, which will answer other questions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- My drafting may not have been the most artful, so I would humbly ask for help in revising or adding options to better present the information. MBisanz talk 21:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- The wording on several does seem loaded. Per the last Arb case, it would seem that you can't appeal a Crat decision without showing abuse or some serious breach by the Crat. The other questions are intereesting, especially your use of the word "reconfirmation", which ties into my question above. At 2 years but without the bit, are they still an admin just bitless? Are they a non-admin, but eligible for "speedy re-sysop"? I think we have to answer the question of their status, which will answer other questions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Wrong way round?
I can't help but feel that all these options put it the wrong way round. This proposal would seem to create a positive right for former administrators to have their rights returned. That seems very different from granting bureaucrats the discretion to return user rights in the absence of controversial circumstances. I think there is a necessary prior question of what the default option should be - restore rights or fresh RfA. WJBscribe (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- I"m not sure where you see a crat has discretion to return the rights in the absence of controversial circumstances. The crat has the discretion to determine if there were controversial circumstances, but once he has satisfied himself that there were not controversial circumstances and the other criteria are met, I believe the crat cannot refuse the resysopping. Looking at Wikipedia:Administrators#After_voluntary_removal and Wikipedia:Administrators#After_removal_due_to_inactivity and Wikipedia:Crat#Restoration_of_permissions, I don't see any option that gives crats discretion in the absence of controversial circumstances. MBisanz talk 21:05, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Status quo
I don't know if one option is meant to reflect it, but I think this RfC if pursued could do with an option, being the status quo: i.e. bureaucrat discretion to determine whether there are/were controversial circumstances. WJBscribe (talk) 18:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
- I've added an option 12 and tweaked the introductory clause to reflect the current language. MBisanz talk 21:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Option 6 and 7
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but option 6 and 7 seem too subjective to me. To have one reviewing crat unilaterally decide if they think a former admin would have passed(or would current pass) RfA seems like a whole lot of speculation to ask of them. 7 03:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- It's admittedly subjective, but was the best way I could think of to incorporate a crat's review of an admin's behavior subsequent to desysopping and of an admin's activity subsequent to desysopping. MBisanz talk 03:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply. Does this mean the crat would be expected review up to 3 years of contribs and talk page notes and other comments that took place during the time the user was a regular editor? Is that part of what crats do today? (in addition to being subjective it seems like a lot of work). 7 03:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- They don't do it today. Generally crats look at the last couple dozen edits prior to the desysopping or inactivity and any major things that come to mind, like RFAR or RFC. It would be a lot of work, but this is a proposal, so it could be qualified if people think it's too much. MBisanz talk 03:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Understood. I guess I am just thinking along the lines of crats being responsible for interpreting community consensus and thereafter carrying out any necessary actions. If this guideline pushes them too much toward the subjective side then it seems like they'll move away from their consensus-judging role and into a more of a standalone decision making role. For example, you wouldn't want or expect a crat to look back at the last few dozen edits and deem that everything was fine if there had already been a few comments left during the 24hr period indicating that any other user had a problem with the resysopping request. It therefore might make sense to suggest that crats only perform a brief, recent-edit review (and qualify it to the last few dozen and few weeks) if no other users had already commented. If other users (or admin or other crats) had already commented and indicated that everything looked fine then I would think the crat should just implement based on that... or am I being to strict in my definition of their role? 7 04:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- No, you're very close to what my position would be. I'm just trying to leave the door open to all positions by posting a wider array of options than even I would be comfortable with. MBisanz talk 02:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
- Understood. I guess I am just thinking along the lines of crats being responsible for interpreting community consensus and thereafter carrying out any necessary actions. If this guideline pushes them too much toward the subjective side then it seems like they'll move away from their consensus-judging role and into a more of a standalone decision making role. For example, you wouldn't want or expect a crat to look back at the last few dozen edits and deem that everything was fine if there had already been a few comments left during the 24hr period indicating that any other user had a problem with the resysopping request. It therefore might make sense to suggest that crats only perform a brief, recent-edit review (and qualify it to the last few dozen and few weeks) if no other users had already commented. If other users (or admin or other crats) had already commented and indicated that everything looked fine then I would think the crat should just implement based on that... or am I being to strict in my definition of their role? 7 04:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- They don't do it today. Generally crats look at the last couple dozen edits prior to the desysopping or inactivity and any major things that come to mind, like RFAR or RFC. It would be a lot of work, but this is a proposal, so it could be qualified if people think it's too much. MBisanz talk 03:44, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the quick reply. Does this mean the crat would be expected review up to 3 years of contribs and talk page notes and other comments that took place during the time the user was a regular editor? Is that part of what crats do today? (in addition to being subjective it seems like a lot of work). 7 03:41, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
"May"
I'm still seeing a lack of clarity for a number of reasons. One, is the use of "may" in the opening. It makes everything else irrelevant, as it automatically implies they "may not". Maybe I'm missing the point, but this isn't telling us when they should or should not, nor how much discretion is really allowed. I can't help but think this plugs a single hole in a wholly defective dam. It doesn't address the underlying issues of the editor's status between year 1 and 3, and how much leeway is given in either direction when it comes to discretion, and what happens in the event of Crats being split on a decision. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:49, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
- I understand your concern that this RFC will fix only part of a larger, problematic system, but I would encourage you to try and reformat it or add options to it to address that point as I can't think of the right way to describe it and you appear to have some additional proposals in your head on the topic that would benefit from community discussion. MBisanz talk 02:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)