Wiktionary:Votes/2019-09/Replacing de-sysop votes with confirmation votes

The status quo: De-sysop votes require a supermajority to remove an admin's powers. This means that if 50% of voters had opposed me gaining admin powers back in 2012, I wouldn't have received them, but if 50% of voters were to oppose me keeping those powers in 2019, I would still get to keep them.

The proposal: Confirmation votes will be used instead of de-sysop votes, and will function just like the votes for new admins. If the vote passes, the editor continues to be an admin; if it does not, the editor loses their admin powers.

The rationale: Admins should not be given carte blanche, and this vote would increase accountability. With a more effective voting policy, we could rely less on bureaucrats to keep order and have the community pass judgement instead.

Schedule:

• Vote starts: 00:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• Vote ends: 23:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
• Vote created: —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:54, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion:

• Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2019/September#Replacing de-sysop votes with confirmation votes
• Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2015-06/User:JohnC5 for admin
• Wiktionary:Votes/sy-2012-09/User:Vahagn Petrosyan for de-sysop#Decision
• Wiktionary talk:Votes/2019-09/Replacing de-sysop votes with confirmation votes

1. Support Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 21:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Support Numberguy6 (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Support —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:12, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Support ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 10:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
5. Support: if half of the community doesn't think a person should be an administrator, they should not be an administrator. - TheDaveRoss 12:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
6. Support. I really don't think we should have to wait till 2/3 of the community no longer wants someone to be a sysop before we can de-sysop them. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:58, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

   Query: @TheDaveRoss, Andrew Sheedy, the participants in a vote are not necessarily representative of the community as a whole. This current vote (replacing de-sysop votes with confirmation votes) includes no description of or requirements for a quorum. If this passes, we could theoretically have a vote with only two participants, one vote in support and one in opposition, and the vote would conclude as a "pass". Such a vote cannot be indicative of the will of the community, unless our editor population winds up severely depleted.

   Do either of you (or anyone else) have any proposals for how to correct for this lack of any quorum definition? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:23, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

   It works either by a set amount of needed participants, or by a minimum amount of time a vote has to take place, so one does not deadmin by a vote that runs half a day. Probably combined: Must run x days / weeks at least, must have y participants, or if not (for the rare case the community dies out and there are only a dozensome people who work here or visit vote pages) then can pass without y participants if z weeks is reached. Applicable for admin and deadmin votes. Fay Freak (talk) 01:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

   I think the level of participation is sufficient that I'm not concerned about the possibility of only a couple people participating in a vote. If that becomes an issue, the de-sysoping policies can be revisited. Theoretically, we could de-sysop someone with three people with the current rules, so I don't think we'd be creating any new problems if this vote passes. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

   The general voting policy already stipulates that votes should last a month, only suggesting a shorter duration for bot votes. Re quorum, I am not concerned. If there is a de-sysop vote in which only two people participate that tells me that there isn't a reasonable amount of support for the person at issue just as much as a 50-50 vote with dozens of voters would. - TheDaveRoss 12:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

7. Support — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:20, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Support, although a quorum would be nice; but I do think Andrew Sheedy above is right that its absence isn’t likely to be an issue. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 23:37, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
9. Support Nardog (talk) 19:29, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
10. Support: I'm not sure about the title though, and I'm not sure whether the admin concerned can vote for (defend) themself. Anyway I have no admin powers to lose. DonnanZ (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

    Looking at Victar's Oppose vote below, he has the same problem with the title. I feel "Vote of Confidence" would be a better name. DonnanZ (talk) 10:07, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

    I raised this at Wiktionary talk:Votes/2019-09/Replacing de-sysop votes with confirmation votes#Confirmation vote or vote of confidence on September 8th, but no-one said they preferred "vote of confidence". I feel the choice of the term, while not entirely immaterial, is less important, and does not harm the purpose or the mechanics of the proposal. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

    As for "whether the admin concerned can vote for (defend) themself": the proposal does not prohibit that, and I think it almost does not matter; the fundamental accountability is established either way. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

    I can't recall seeing any admin candidates voting for themselves, although some have nominated themselves. DonnanZ (talk) 19:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

11. Support: I second TheDaveRoss.--So9q (talk) 07:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
12. Support per nom. I was pondering whether this would make admins too weak, but experience does not suggest as much: the two desysop votes that took place in the English Wiktionary whose passing I was most interested in ended up with over 2/3 support for the admins, and thus would not result in desysopping even with 2/3-confirmation rule. From elsewhere, the Czech Wikipedia had a similar principle since 2007 and is doing fine. The proposal is a good fundamental principle that, as experience shows, does not make admins too vulnerable. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:07, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
13. Support I don't think this threshold would actually be a problem, as others have proposed. Also, knowing that no super-majority is needed for desysopping would allow people to be more lenient with nominees for adminship. It's common to see good editors failing their nominations, and I'd bet that's because most people feel like electing someone is irreversible. – Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 23:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

1. Oppose — Zack. — 11:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
2. Oppose I am for lowering the threshold of de-sysop votes to 50%, but am against the renaming of de-sysop votes to "confirmation votes", as I feel the name is misleading to the purpose of the vote. Since I can't vote for one aspect of this vote and not the other, I am forced to vote oppose. --{{victar|talk}} 17:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
3. Oppose This is designed to nudge admins into "correct" behaviour by the constant threat of de-sysopping. 50% is very easy to reach, especially since the voting threshold is so low and there is no limit on how many times a vote can be proposed. Having been under the constant monitoring of PC police for slip-ups I am telling you this is an unfair and unpleasant situation. A person with a weaker temperament would have left the project. --Vahag (talk) 07:15, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
4. Oppose It does not increase accountability, if people vote for various improper reasons. You want to lower the threshold because you do not trust in a supermajority having enough sense, but this argument can just be reversed, for if many people are always wrong, then a smaller amount of the many is easily wrong, and this threshold can be leveraged deliberately: The lower the threshold, the easier a takeover. Fay Freak (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

   "It does not increase accountability, if people vote for various improper reasons". A weird argument, really. Let's abolish votes altogether, then? Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

   In the current setup, a superminority (say 34%) can ensure someone keeps their admin flag, regardless whether the superminority has sense, and regardless of how poor arguments they supplied. That seems to render the above invalid; the check on power proposed is lead by the distrust of superminorities. Both minorities and majorities can be wrong; votes cannot resolves the problem of poverty of argument, but nothing better is known to mankind, and, luckily enough, English Wiktionary votes are votes-cum-discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

5. Oppose In broad agreement with @Fay Freak here. As a rejoinder to @Allahverdi Verdizade's comment, I've seen a few votes over the years where the voters weren't necessarily savvy to how the outcome would impact different parts of the community that the voters themselves weren't part of, and things were ... awkward, as a result. Also, with no definition of what constitutes a quorum, we could theoretically have a vote where only two people participated -- one for, one against -- and the subject admin would be de-sysopped. This does not seem ethically just, if votes are truly meant to seek the will of the community. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

   Since January 2018, there have been 14 votes of this kind, including one for de-sysoping a user, and one for debureaucrating. One vote is still ongoing. Average participation is 15,7 votes cast per vote. The highest number of votes cast in a single vote equals to 21 and the lowest to 10 (in two recent votes where nobody knew the nominees and it was quite obvious they wouldn't be approved anyway, so no-one cared to cast a vote.) Thus, your hypothetical situation where a de-sysoping is achieved by two voters remains highly hypothetical. Allahverdi Verdizade (talk) 11:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

   @Eirikr: Votes appear in the watchlist of anyone editing, and therefore a quorum problem appears unlikely. The empirical evidence found on wiki suggests no quorum problem, as pointed out by Allahverdi above. Sure, voters may be wrong, including the 34% of voters that can keep someone in power. The 34% of voters do not even need to be wrong; they may merely protect their own group interest, that is, lack of accountablity. That is to say, from what we know, there is the phenomenon of group loyalty in which a human protects another human on account of being a member of the same priviledged group. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

   It took me months to find the watchlist, and I have been a heavy editor. Fay Freak (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

   That may be true for some users. In any case, anyone who uses watchlist regularly will see the running votes there. Anyone who does not use the watch feature may still regularly check WT:VOTE to see what's going on. In any case, Allahverdi pointed out there is no actual quorum problem. And if there were one, it would equally apply to ensysopping. Any quorum problem is perfectly orthogonal to the proposal of this vote. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:51, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

6. Oppose The rationale of this vote is to increase the accountability of administrators. While this intention is a noble one, I haven't actually seen any evidence that lack of admin accountability is a real, significant problem on Wiktionary. As a result, this seems to me to be a solution in search of a problem. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

   I don't want to wait for a problem we won't be able to address. I've tried avoiding discussing specific people, because I don't want to make this about whether or not we agree any given admin's actions are forgivable or not. But what I can say is that I don't think I've ever been an abusive admin, but I personally think it's a good thing for the community to have a greater say in whether I keep my rights. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

   It rather seems to me to be a source of unrest. Compare the Brexit: 52% vote for Leaving, then it is again 48% and one cannot abide by one’s decision because muh democracy and one finds a magical majority relevant, although it is roughly half/half all the time. Hence for a vote to decide certain things one needs a more clear tendency: A classic is absolute majority to make it more likely that there at least will be a majority over time. Fay Freak (talk) 15:27, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

   I'm impressed how often you're getting politics into Wiktionary discussions lately :D Equinox ◑ 15:37, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

7. Oppose though fairly weakly. Equinox ◑ 12:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
8. Oppose —Aryaman^{A (मुझसे बात करें • योगदान)} 20:12, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
9. Oppose - I don't see the point. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:04, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
10. Oppose for renaming confusion per Victar above.--Jusjih (talk) 21:17, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
11. Oppose, this is just so confusing. Is it like substituting an impeachment process with a snap election? The point with a de-sysop vote is IMO to send a message that someone has done something disagreeable and taking the necessary measurers to control the damages. Substituting that with a confirmation vote is taking an indirect road to the same destination. I agree that the intention is a noble one, but I just have a hard time seeing how this makes it any easier around here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 11:38, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

    Exactly, I dislike that it disguises the severity of a de-sysop vote. I really wish Meta didn't lump two votes into one. --{{victar|talk}} 16:51, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

12. Oppose — Saltmarsh. 06:55, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

1. Abstain—whilst Supporting the concept as it has worked well in English Wikisource. I think that you need to work on your procedure a little more. How will it work? Is this an annual thing, or a vote of confidence as expressed above. Having a regular process to look at who is administering, and being active is useful. Having it discussed and processed by the community rather than automated procedures is also good. What it is meant to be doing here, and does the process have defences against abuse? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

   @billinghurst: You voted "support" in the "abstain" section, did you mean to abstain or support? - TheDaveRoss 14:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

   Yes. Trying to be encouraging to the concept though not seeing the clarity on the practice to say the confirmations are understood. I have amended the prior comment to be less confusing. I lean in favour of the proposal as a means for a non-huge wiki to manage administrators as more of a community approach. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

   FYI, we already have an automatic inactivity-based desysopping policy: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2017-03/Desysopping for inactivity. The proposal of this vote is super unbureaucratic; it proposes no frequency of reviews or confirmation, no regular process to administer and take care of, no unnecessary votes every year to confirm perfectly unproblematic admins, or the like. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

No consensus - 13-12-1. It seems this might have barely passed if some language changed, perhaps worth further discussion and another vote down the road. - TheDaveRoss 12:41, 15 October 2019 (UTC)