User talk:Friday/bcrat

Good idea

I think giving the bureaucrats the ability to desysop (the technically ability too) would be a very good idea, though I be surprised if it would be allowed for a bureaucrat to unilaterally undo their own promotions.

At the very least, however, perhaps RfCs could be changed that, if there's consensus to desysop the admin in question during the RfC (and I am talking about good-faith reasons for desysopping during the RfC, not "I hate this admin, he deleted my image/page/thoughts on pencil types subpage"), bureaucrats would be able to desysop right there and then rather than having everyone mess around waiting for an ArbCom case which (1). someone would have to file and, (2). there's no guarantee of ArbCom even accepting the case.

Out of curiosity Friday, if bureaucrats could desysop via RfCs, would you say there was consensus to desysop Archtransit during his? (Prior to the sockpuppetry findings.) I'll have to read that RfC again, but from what I rememeber, many people wanted him to resign, and they had legitimate, good-faith concerns about why they wanted him to lose his adminship.

What do you think of this idea? It's probably been suggested before somewhere, and there are likely other good desysopping processes, but it's worth mentioning. Acalamari 22:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bit like trying to get turkeys to vote for Thanksgiving isn't it? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose a crat-chat would be good, before pulling the bit. (This should happen rarely, so a bit of extra discussion first is not a problem.) And yeah, we have to be willing to trust crats to distinguish frivolous complaints from legitimate ones, but I can't imagine this would be a problem. I thought it was clear with Archtransit that there were legitimate concerns about his behavior, before the sockpuppeting issue became known. His response to the complaints was not helpful. So, if I'd been in a position to make that choice, yes, I would have advocated desysopping him a bit sooner than it actually happened. Mistakes are allowed, but dismissive or nonsensical responses to valid concerns are a big red flag in my opinion.

I don't think it's as hopeless as Malleus appears to. Sure, there are some power-hungry admins (a notion which makes me giggle, but they do exist) who would oppose any challenge to our current tenure-like system. But, I think most admins, like most editors, are reasonable people. Reasonable people should realize that no person is infallible. A mistake, once recognized, should be corrected. I think most people agree with this; the main devil is in the details. People never seem to be able to agree on those. But, I can't imagine it'd be hard for most people to swallow a new policy that simply says "Crats can undo a sysop promotion, any time (say) 3 of them agree that the bit should be removed." Friday (talk) 23:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm merely snooping and wiki-trailing my way here. An honest question to whomever wishes to answer: What do you think is the probability/possibility that Archtransit would have been desysopped had he not been sockpuppeting? Keeping in mind that all the grief (ANI, AN, RFC) occurred before it was ever realized that he was in fact SP-ing. Just curious. I currently hold the firm belief that AT would, this very day, have admin tools if not for the "arbcom SP evidence". Thoughts? Keeper ǀ 76 23:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your comment about no one being infallible is why I think the RfC-desysopping process or your "3 bureaucrat rule" (just a working name) would be more likely to get approved than a reverse-RfA. The main arguments against a reverse-RfA system is the fact that many people are concerned about those turning into bloodbaths when grudge-people show up to "get back" at the admin for every last mistake, judging by how certain RfAs turn into battlegrounds. While RfCs can become messy, I've observed that they're not as bloody as RfAs (though I haven't participated in many RfCs, so my perception of them may be incorrect).

While I think that both our ideas would get rid of bad admins while at the same time making sure that good admins aren't desysopped out of vengeance, I can forsee the main reasons against the two would be (1). some people will always oppose the two processes on the basis that "only ArbCom can desysop"; (2). regardless of how many failsafes a desysopping process has, some people will oppose the processes for "good admins may get desysopped"; (3). some may consider them "creepy"; and (4). I can think of some users who oppose the bureaucrats, and may think that giving bureaucrats strong discretion over desysopping admins will give them more power.

Of course, in the event something like the RfC-desysopping was implemented, I hope the bureaucrats would not just ignore frivolous complaints against an admin, but also frivolous reasons to support having a desysopping candidate keeping the tools (for example, supporting the admin keeping tools because the participant opposes the process). Acalamari 23:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hiya, I will butt in. Archtransit blocked me, which was the crystalizing event that lead to close scrutiny of his actions, eventual deadminning and banning. My own recall criteria is based on an admin conduct RFC where there is a consensus that I should resign. I think implementing a similar process for all admins makes sense. Who wants to be an admin if the community consensus is that they cannot be trusted? We do not need any such admins. Jehochman ^Talk 17:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)