User:AmandaNP/Desysop motion analysis

This page is to serve as a comparison between level 1 & 2 procedures and the current ones proposed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions.

Former vs. Proposed

Former Text	Proposed text
When an account with advanced permissions appears to be harming the project, the Committee may authorize expedient removal of these permissions via the procedures below. If the account in question has multiple sets of advanced permissions, removal will generally apply to all of them. The use of these procedures by the Committee is not intended to constrain the authority of the Wikimedia Stewards to undertake emergency removal of permissions on their own discretion, pursuant to the relevant policies governing Steward actions.	When an account with administrator, bureaucrat, CheckUser and/or oversight permission(s) seriously or repeatedly engages in conduct apparently harmful to the project or seriously or repeatedly engages in behavior contrary to the expectations of advanced permission holders, the Committee may authorize removal of these permissions. If the account in question has multiple such permissions, removal will generally apply to all of them. Nothing in these procedures prevents the Committee from using the full range of imposing sanctions at its disposal, including topic bans and such as restrictions on certain uses of the permissions.
My Comments/Notes on changes:   The number of advanced permissions that are involved are theoretically reduced, while in practice these were the only ones that ArbCom had jurisdiction on in the first place A broad review of what the policy is supposed to cover is added, specifically when advanced permission accounts seriously or repeatedly: engages in conduct apparently harmful to the project engages in behavior contrary to the expectations of advanced permission holders Steward emergency actions are removed from here and put in interim removals only.   New text that specifies that this procedure is not limiting on other forms of sanctions. Honestly, I feel it muddies the policy even more by bringing up irrelevant topics and includes mention of restriction of advanced permissions. While the second one may have some use in this policy, particularly in situations where the committee could do damage control vs. just desysop, there is no further mention of it. But then again, i'm not sure there are circumstances where we'd have that in the first place. That, and its complicating policy more whereas a simple motion could just be passed. We should leave the summary to be a summary, not an all-situation-handler.
Level I procedures may be used if (a) an account appears to be obviously compromised, or is intentionally and actively using advanced permissions to cause harm in a rapid or apparently planned fashion, or (b) multiple accounts are actively wheel-warring. The procedure for removal of permissions is as follows:	1.1.2 Interim removal in emergencies If an account with any of the permissions listed above (a) appears to be obviously compromised, (b) is intentionally and actively using advanced permissions to cause harm in a rapid or apparently planned fashion, or (c) multiple accounts are actively wheel-warring and blocks have not worked, any of the following processes may be used to remove the permission(s).
My Comments/Notes on changes: Literally all cosmetic changes
An arbitrator, on becoming aware of the situation, will send a message to arbcom-l (a) stating the name of the account, (b) briefly describing the issue, providing examples of inappropriate conduct, (c) recommending removal of permissions, and (d) specifying why removal should occur under Level I procedures. Any available arbitrators will respond using whatever communication medium is available, and will update the thread on arbcom-l to keep the remainder of the Committee informed. A request for removal of advanced permissions may be made when three or more arbitrators agree that a situation warranting the use of Level I procedures exists, and that removal of permissions is required, with no dissenting opinions from other arbitrators. Once removal has been approved, an arbitrator will (a) directly request removal from a bureaucrat, or steward if necessary, (b) make a formal statement on the bureaucrat noticeboard or Meta-Wiki permissions page as appropriate, to confirm that the request is based on the authority of the Committee, and (c) post a notice to the Committee's noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, and the user's talk page, including a brief explanation of the reason for removal and the names of the arbitrators who authorized it.	Bureaucrat action In an emergency, English Wikipedia bureaucrats may temporarily remove the administrator permission without the authorisation of the Committee. If a bureaucrat determines that an interim emergency removal of the administrator permission is required, they must: If a compromised account is suspected, contact the stewards so that the account can be globally locked. Note, as the reason when removing the permission on the user rights management page, the reason for removal and include a link to this procedure; Leave a message on the user's talk page and the Bureaucrats' noticeboard indicating the reason for removal (including evidence if appropriate), link to this procedure, and ask the user to contact the Arbitration Committee; File a new case request and include in their statement the username of the account in question and detailed information describing the reason for the interim removal. If the interim removal was based entirely on private information, this step will be skipped and the bureaucrat will email the Committee. Committee action If a compromised account is suspected, contact the stewards so that the account can be globally locked. An arbitrator, on becoming aware of the situation, will send a message to arbcom-l (a) stating the name of the account, (b) briefly describing the issue and providing examples of inappropriate conduct, (c) recommending removal of permissions, and (c) specifying why interim emergency removal is required. A request for removal of permissions may be made once a four net majority is reached is approved once at least three arbitrators have indicated their support and no arbitrators have opposed emergency removal. Once removal has been approved, an arbitrator will (a) directly request removal from a bureaucrat or steward as appropriate, (b) make a formal statement on the bureaucrats' noticeboard or Meta-Wiki permissions page as appropriate, to confirm that the request is based on the authority of the Committee, and (c) post a notice to the Committee's noticeboard and the user's talk page, including a brief explanation of the reason for removal and the names of the arbitrators who authorised voted on it. Steward action These procedures do not constrain the authority of the Wikimedia Stewards to undertake emergency removal of permissions of their own volition (including the administrator permission), pursuant to the global rights policy and other relevant policies governing Steward actions.
My Comments/Notes on changes: I'm going to start with Committee action as it's the only one that previously existed. The possibility of vote-by-proxy is theoretically removed (previous point 2 no longer exists). Honestly, i'm not sure that is something I agree with. There are circumstances where in emergency situations people are notified using off-list means to get the motion dealt with quickly. In theory, an arb would now have to present their vote on Arb-l, though there is nothing really stopping an arb for commenting on behalf of another arbitrator. It's more the spirit of this that I liked having in before than the new wording. While I don't agree directly, my concerns are very theoretical, and practical implemenation is not directly mandated. There is now an increase by one vote (3 to 4) of the number of arbitrators required to enact Level 1 type removals In the old text, it used to be that the request would fail when there is one oppose. This would then require a full majority motion. Now it's a matter of net votes. The bar is lowered from a single oppose to 28% (of 14) arbitrators. Example: 3 votes to support come in, vote 4 is an oppose. This would fail under the previous provisions. Under the new provisions, vote number 5 if it were to support would now allow the proposal to pass Example 2: 3 votes to support come in, vote 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 are opposes oppose. Under the new provisions, if the remainder of 5 people on the committee voted support, the proposal would pass, satisfying majority...but if there are really that many opposes, should we even be at that point in an emergency situation, or should in not be discussed?... Example 3: 3 votes to support come in, vote 4 & 5 are opposes, but then 3 arbs support. It passes net 4, but fails majority. I think a discussion of greater length should be held Example 4: With 15 arbs, 7-3 would pass without majority. The point is that there really needs to be a full discussion about things if there are opposes. That means someone does not think it's an emergency. If we are really worried about it, we could make the old procedure to become 2 people opposing, but anything more than that absolutely needs discussion. This just adds a loophole for more controversial circumstances to occur, where discussion and dispute resolution should be occurring. Once the removal is approved, under the old policy, there was heavier weight put on using local entities vs global entities, now, they are to be deferred as appropriate. Under the new provisions, the user would not know if there were any opposers and their names. These really should be included.  Oppose Individual bureaucrats are given a NEW ability (not preexisting in policy, but existed in theory) to remove advanced permissions, but are most likely then forced to file an ArbCom case, dragging the matter up for a lot of people to comment on. What I think is done here is done to prevent abuse and then force the committee to decide whether the removal was appropriate or if the Crat acted incorrectly. This could open up the chance that if it's bad enough, decrating could occur. I'm not comfortable forcing the committee to review the incident. If someone on arbcom views it as bad enough, they can get up and file a case request and be marked recused. 1 arb recused won't kill us. Or better yet the community takes it up. This limits the 'crats current (unwritten) scope to remove permissions to just 3 sets of items, and I haven't looked/thought about possible cases we might be missing. I have yet to find a reason to object to this.   The stewards here are given a "you can do this" card, but directs them to do so under a poorly worded policy page or "other global policy"...I'm no expert in global policy, but i'm pretty sure a global lock is about all that the can do. I don't like the idea of this brushing stewards out of this, as Arbs and Crats aren't always around at convenient times, and maybe should be put under the same authority as crats. That and what about if there is aggressive abuse of admin tools on 2 or more other projects, where it's not compromised, are we going to cut them out of the ability to remove someone then also? There are just way too many circumstances not covered to cut them out at this point. As other people have mentioned, compromised accounts just need to be bounced to the stewards directly. We are here to protect Wikimedia projects in general, not play local politics to see who takes responsibility for this stuff. I'm not sure how to take the fact that we trust a single crat with a desysop, but not a single arbitrator.... Crats are put through RfB which the community then entrusts the Crat to handle properly. Arbs aren't given that option directly, even though they can change it, but there is no reason to change that here.
	Review and return of permission(s) The full Arbitration Committee will review the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances and determine any further action to be taken. This action includes reinstating the permission(s), making the interim removal permanent for one or more of the user's permissions or applying further sanctions as necessary. Removal is protective, intended to prevent harm to the encyclopedia while investigations take place, and the permissions will normally be reinstated once a satisfactory explanation is provided or the issues are satisfactorily resolved. If requested by the advanced permission holder, or if the Committee wishes, normal arbitration proceedings (such as a full case) may will be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances.
My Comments/Notes on changes: This is completely new. Previously there wasn't a requirement to review a removal of permissions even though it would at least be talked about. This also puts into principle that permissions should be restored or confirmed to be removed permanently
Level II procedures may be used if (a) the account's behaviour is inconsistent with the level of trust required for its associated advanced permissions, and (b) no satisfactory explanation is forthcoming. The procedure for removal of permissions is as follows:	1.1.1 Permanent removal Criteria This procedure may only be used when there is overwhelming evidence of egregiously unacceptable conduct (listed below), which that makes the examination of patterns of conduct superfluous. Examples of the unacceptable conduct to which this procedure applies include, but is not limited to: "Bad faith" adminship, for example abusive sock puppetry, or using advanced tools when obviously involved Serious or repeated breaches in basic policies (such as outing); Serious or repeated inappropriate use of advanced tools. This includes wheel warring or breaches of policies core to the permission, such as the deletion, blocking or protection,oversight or CheckUser policies
My Comments/Notes on changes: This completely Weasel words the previous text which held an a lot more relevant meaning behind it. In the first sentence alone there are three words that are very open to interpretation, and are not predefined standards either by previous cases or situations. I get the attempt to list possible situations, but it will only result in someone saying "this is not a 'normal' removal per WP:ARBsomethingpage". This part really wasn't broken before it was changed, imo. Lastly, only Administrative conduct of the expectations of advanced permission holders is put into the examples of what can be used for a desysop here to encourage use of a full case to deal with other potential abuses as more sanctions may be required.
The initiating arbitrator will (a) leave a message on the account's talk page, asking the account to contact arbcom-l, and (b) send a similar message to the account by Wikipedia e-mail, if enabled. The initiating arbitrator will then send a message to arbcom-l (a) stating the name of the account, (b) briefly describing the issue, providing examples of inappropriate conduct, and (c) recommending removal of permissions. The Committee will then schedule deliberations on the matter. A request for removal of advanced permissions may be made once a motion to do so has been endorsed by a majority of active arbitrators. Once removal has been approved, an arbitrator will post a notice, including the text of the motion and the names of arbitrators endorsing it, to the bureaucrat noticeboard or Meta-Wiki permissions page as appropriate, the Committee's noticeboard, the administrators' noticeboard, and the user's talk page.	Procedure Prior to Before removing permissions under this procedure, the permission holder is normally to should almost always be given an opportunity to explain their actions. This would usually be through contact on their talk page, via by email with the Committee or discussion/a reply on one of the Committee's public Wikipedia pages. If a satisfactory explanation is not provided and the situation not resolved within a reasonable period of time an arbitrator may propose a motion to remove the permission(s). The motion shall be proposed at the most appropriate location, such as in response to a clarification request, a standalone motion or in private if required. If a majority of active, non-recused arbitrators support it, the motion shall be enacted by posting a request to remove the permission(s) at the bureaucrats' noticeboard (an arbitrator or clerk may remove the permission themselves) or the Meta-Wiki permissions page. The text of the motion is also to be posted to the user's talk page and the Committee's noticeboard. If requested by the permission holder, or if at least three arbitrators support it, normal arbitration proceedings (such as a full case) will be opened to examine the removal of permissions and any surrounding circumstances. The motion to remove the permission(s) will specify how they can be reinstated. Generally, the user will need to reapply for the permission in the normal way, that is, by a new request for adminship or bureaucrat or appointment as a CheckUser/Oversighter by the Committee.
My Comments/Notes on changes: Permission holders may not be given a chance now to explain their actions. The only reason I feel there would be not to do this is a privacy/harassment/outing issue. Even then it's not always certain. The spirit of this section of the policy should stress that not giving someone a chance to explain the situation is 1 in a million thing, not "normally". This removes the bureaucratic process and unclear wording of old text #3, which is definitely a good thing. We don't schedule deliberations...  Oppose An individual arbitrator can now initiate this procedure without contacting other arbs in any form. Honestly, the committee should review the case first, decide to contact as a whole, and then initiate it as the old #1 indicates. Not start drama that the committee will decline to act on. It's not an emergency situation. This codifies the fact that a satisfactory explanation is required to be forthcoming.   Meta is left in as a consideration on motion passing, where this can indeed be left locally as it's not urgent. This would also keep the logs in a proper central location on enwiki, instead of having to dig through meta to find the relevant log.  Oppose A review mechanism is added that "normal arbitration proceedings" (why not just say a case?) will be opened to examine the removal. This is at the request of the user involved OR 3 arbs...that's quite a low standard for accepting a case, given what would normally be accepted coming through ARC. There is a proposed new requirement to force the reinstatement path into the motion. AN is cut out of the notification of the desysop.