Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Removal of advanced permissions (proposed)

Emergency Steward Desysop

Resolved

One major flaw that I see in this proposal is overbureacracy. I remember stewards being able to enact some judgment (scandalous) in desysopping users who deleted the main page and then started blocking Jimbo and the Cabal members, for example. The way I read this, with this new policy, stewards would have to wait for three arbitrators to decide that the account has been desysopped, something that the hundreds of users who happen to be online would notice and be able to report to the Stewards IRC channel or Meta Permissions Page far more quickly than three different members of the ArbCom would. NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe a steward always has the ability to within their discretion without ArbCom's permission or even notification, but arbcom will undergo the listed proccess before directing a steward to act - I could be wrong though--Tznkai (talk) 04:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the procedures here are for the Committee, not for the stewards (who have their own). Kirill ^[pf] 04:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if I could only think... NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 04:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary removal

I feel that this section isn't well defined. What exactly separates temporary removals from emergency removals? What is a satisfactory explanation - what if the committee isn't satisfied, do they vote again - do they file their own case and pursue permanent removal as described - and who determines the times scale under: "The Committee will then consider the appropriate course of action and set a time-scale for further discussion" Are you going to have a vote to determine how long you until the next vote? By "inconsistent with the level of trust required" do we mean "likely to abuse for personal gain" or "conduct unbecoming community norms for administrators?"

Some fleshing out could be done here.--Tznkai (talk) 04:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Permanent removal

As a result of an investigation carried out off-wiki for security/privacy reasons, in which case the removal will follow a procedure similar to that for temporary removal. The bolded portion is simply not good enough. Similar can mean "procedures at least as stringent as temp sysop"; "procedures containing all the elements of temp sysop but in not necessarily in the same order"; "procedures based on temp sysop but the committee votes on a case by case basis which steps can be left out and/or left out of the public record"; "procedures based on temp sysop but the committee member taking lead on the case can decide which steps to leave out and/or leave out of the public record"; etc. (I can get more creative if anyone doesn't find a reading of "similar" they dislike on the short list) --BirgitteSB 04:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this necessary?

I mean, have we really had a problem with emergency removal before? Every time it happens its generally handled well and handled quickly, not that it comes up very often. Having a whole policy for it, especially such a bureaucratic one, seems rather excessive. Mr.Z-man 04:53, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems likely to me that a) the committee realizes it has very little or no space left anymore to do something surprising and have the community support them on faith b) the committee has a history of badly predicting what the community will find surprising c) bureaucracy is surefire way to make certain a process does not surprise anyone. (Bureaucracy still doesn't help with people being surprised by results)--BirgitteSB 05:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To an extent; but keep in mind that this is intended primarily as a procedure that arbitrators must follow. We've had a number of situations in the past where emergency action by some subset of the Committee has led to misunderstandings and disputes over authorization and such; the idea is to prevent that by having a formal rule authorizing such action under certain specific circumstances. Kirill ^[pf] 05:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do internal bylaws of the committee require community approval? — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe they have, traditionally; that doesn't mean we aren't interested in feedback, however. Kirill ^[pf] 05:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Emergency removal endorse/rescind

The full Committee will review, as expeditiously as is practical, all emergency removals of permissions and either endorse or rescind the action. This should needs better wording. "Endorse emergency removal" and "rescind emergency removal" should not be presented as mutually exclusive items. Or you mean something else here, "endorsing emergency removal" is not clearly equivalent to "permanent removal".--BirgitteSB 04:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

To be perfectly honest, and with respect to the ArbCom, I'm not sure where I stand on this proposal. Were there a "broadly neutral" section, that's where I would be at the moment. At this point, I think we need to have some sort of directory on what we should do for emergency situations. I have no reason to believe that the Arbitration Committee's involvement in such a situation would make things worse, as I trust pretty much every single one of its members (no exceptions). The "official" status of the arbitration committee could ideally serve as a voice of guidance in such circumstances. However, the position of ArbCom in this sort of thing is a double-edged blade. While I trust the ArbCom and believe we need some sort of official dispute resolution reinforcement power, we also need to continue to support the community as a source of dispute resolution, before the ArbCom. One of the key issues we face with the committee is that it has a reputation for acting as too much of a political force in Wikipedia - if this proposal were to pass, it would only empower this notion, which would be detrimental to the encyclopedia. Also, if that were the official way for involuntarily desysopping rogue admins, it could take way too long and would be far too cumbersome a process to rely on.

I feel that, while I have no qualms whatsoever about the Arbitration Committee being entrusted with the power to desysop administrators, I do not want the ArbCom to be the only process in doing so. I believe the best way to deal with emergency situations is simply for anybody to contact a stewart to remove the user's advanced access level - possibly having the ArbCom simply confirm it subsequently.

Thoughts? Master&Expert (Talk) 05:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The process for obvious abuse in an emergency should be something like this:

Someone goes to #wikimedia-stewards, types !steward, explains problem
Steward desysops user
User is blocked locally
Thread started on WP:AN or WP:ANI
ArbCom votes and decides to make the desysop officially permanent
????
Profit!

Which, coincidentally, is how it generally works now without an official policy defining it. Mr.Z-man 05:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I don't see much need for change - though I don't mind ArbCom being involved in the desysop of a rogue administrator (in fact they should be involved in community affairs), I just don't want a cumbersome process for getting things like this done. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:10, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree if a steward, without backup authority from arbcom, can't see it is clear emergency for desysoping it should be treated as a temp desysop.--BirgitteSB 05:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the stewards are willing to desysop on that basis, that's fine; I rather suspect they'll act on an individual request only in the most obvious of cases. In any case, the procedures aren't meant to govern community/steward interaction, but only ArbCom/steward interaction; in other words, the intent is to formalize the method the Committee will use to request desysoppings under various circumstances, without necessarily implying that other methods (not involving the Committee taking initial action) are no longer available. Kirill ^[pf] 05:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then you need a new name for it I think. Stewards are willing to desysop in an emergency. If Stewards are not willing to desysop it is something short an emergency. "Expedient Desysop" ? I predict that not changing something substantial in in this section will be a deal breaker.--BirgitteSB 05:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for permanent desysop

One thing we have not included in very much detail are any criteria for permanent desysop. I hope to see community feedback on (a) whether there should be certain bright-line desysopping situations and (b) what criteria should result in permanent desysop. Risker (talk) 05:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer to see more bright-line criteria, and they should reflect the expectation that admins should not push the envelope. Perhaps an escalating sequence of desysop times would be easier for people to agree one - a 1-month break, then a 6-month break, then permanent. I think that a standard of 1-month off is better than a standard of simply giving an admonition. — Carl (CBM · talk) 05:23, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logically, a permanent desysop would involve either a) egregious abuse of community trust with no apology/agreement not to do it again, or b) Chronic misuse (or frequent albeit minor abuse) of the tools after having a sufficient number of chances to rectify the situation. The former should be done ASAP; the latter should have both community and ArbCom imput. Master&Expert (Talk) 05:25, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think bright lines are worse than useless when it comes to evaluating people. And they don't work [when applied to people] in an environment where judges don't have real external authority--BirgitteSB 05:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The predictable can of worms

I would like to hear the arbiters' opinion about community-initiated removal of advanced permissions, even if (as I frankly expect) that opinion is a firm "no".

I'm aware that periodically reconfirming all admins is wildly impractical, but should bureaucrat / checkuser / oversight permissions be granted for life, as they are now? If some editor with BC/CU/OS rights loses the trust of the community, should that user retain the advanced permission? If some BC/CU/OS editor doesn't use those tools for a long time, and then suddenly uses them just once, doesn't that make the action seem unnecessarily controversial (as it could have been handled by the "regular" BC/CU/OS people)? Since BC/CU/OS removal is only rarely discussed seriously (to my knowledge), it wouldn't hurt to look at it from every angle, including this one. >Radiant< 11:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]