User:Gigs/Administrative covenant

The problem

Being an administrator has become a big deal. The relative permanence of adminship has turned it into a kind of tenure. Adminship can be revoked by the ArbCom, but that is a long process that requires serious misconduct. While ArbCom does handle serious cases, it doesn't handle cases where the community no longer believes that a certain administrator is a net benefit to the encyclopedia. Requests for adminship has become a stressful process for many.

Proposals for involuntary removal of administrator status (also called the sysop bit) have met with heavy resistance. There is rough consensus that a change is needed, but there is a lot of disagreement on how to accomplish it.

A solution

It is important to note that this isn't the solution. This process is in addition to the normal processes of discussion, Mediation, ArbCom, or any other proposals for consensus-based removal of adminship that become adopted. The process works as follows:

• Editors irrevocably add their names to the covenant rolls
• Normal RfC/U process (which can change based on consensus)
• Bureaucrat determines consensus or lack thereof
• If consensus to remove, steward removes sysop bit based on prior request to remove the bit in the case of consensus as agreed to.

How this differs from Administrators open to recall

Administrators open to recall (AOTR) is a similar voluntary process for the removal of the sysop bit. It has several problems. There are no set standards for recall, each administrator sets their own standards, which can be arbitrarily high and can be changed at any time. Administrators can and have promised to be open to recall, and then withdrawn the promise or changed the standards when under fire. The administrative covenant is really forever, unlike certain metastable allotropes of carbon. Once your name is added to the administrative covenant rolls, it may not be removed. Removal of names from the covenant rolls can be reverted by any editor, and is considered disruptive behavior. It is a permanent promise to abide by the process that the covenant describes. By signing the covenant, you are asking a steward to desysop you based on the results of this process, even if you vehemently disagree with the results. Since letting your account become compromised is already grounds for immediate removal of administrative permissions, forged signatures or claims of forgery should not be a problem.

How this differs from the many other proposals for community based recall

A fully voluntary enrollment process allows those who disagree strongly to simply not participate. If a process for community-based involuntary removal of administrator permissions does succeed at some point, it can co-exist with this process. This process doesn't require much up-front consensus. If it gains community traction, there will be increasing social pressure to participate.