Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions

This is not the page to nominate yourself or another editor to be an administrator. To do so, please follow these instructions.

Current time: 04:26:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Purge this page

Is that there is a reasonable chance that we will not see significant reform to RfA, despite the best efforts of a large number of contributors.

I therefore ask – as vaguely as I can so as not to be opposed for proposing a specific too hastily – whether the community might now or in future seriously consider setting a date for the end of the current system? —WFC— 15:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a sensible suggestion. We have a number of suggested RfA changes, ranging from slight tweaks, to complete overhauls, to parallel processes. Your fear may well become a reality but picking a date to end a fully-functional process is not the answer Jebus989^✰ 16:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right now you may be correct, hence my decision to include the phrase "or in future". —WFC— 16:36, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I must have missed that. Well then, certainly at some stage in the future we will begin to most seriously consider the possibility of discussing the commencement of deliberations regarding a potential endpoint. I trust that your fears are quelled Jebus989^✰ 17:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Optimists think that we are not yet in the phase of degeneration.

However, it is safe to say that the present system will end when the sun expands in a billion years.  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 16:46, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are making progress with the RFC on allowing Bureaucrats to dessysop, and under what circumstances. This will make losing the mop easier, and so make it less risky to select new people. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah Keifer needs to browse WP:RFA2011 which seems to have more momentum every day... CHange is slow, but it will happen - there is simply no justification for the current system that as of today is nearly unique in the large Wikimedia projects as not having recall and tenure requirements, and allowing free-for-all RfA funfests. Hell, Wikiversity has a two step process. It seems to me the problems with change have more to do with inertia than unwillingness, and bickering over the details rather than moving forward boldly... --Cerejota (talk) 13:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By nature, Wikipedia is about as bold as a bowl of muesli. I don't mean that as a criticism of the project as a whole, but it's certainly a weakness in this instance. —WFC— 18:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision#Cirt desysopped. It appears that ArbCom has decided that administrators now can be de-sysopped for conduct other than actual misuse of administrator tools. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel that proposed decision reflects a material change from the current policy outlined at Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator conduct (perm) ? –xeno^talk 19:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC) (this probably belongs at Wikipedia talk:Administrators) realize now why it is here [3][reply]

(edit conflict) Admins are expected to uphold a high standard of conduct and if they constantly fail this standard to a point when it becomes disruptive, then the sanction can include removal of adminship. But that's not a new standard or anything. ArbCom remedies are for specific cases and bound to be based on the user in question. Also, and I think that's the most important point, ArbCom didn't even decide to desysop Cirt! At this time the remedy is still in voting and by the current numbers, it will fail because a support of 2 is required (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt and Jayen466/Proposed decision#Implementation notes). I thus fail to see what you are trying to tell us with this comment. Regards SoWhy 19:36, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of order, that implementation table needs updating. See the majority table at the top of the proposed decision. –xeno^talk 19:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where I'm coming from in making this comment is WP:CDARFC. To SoWhy, I could easily be confused about this, but I think that Xeno is right and the proposal passed. To Xeno, no, I don't think it represents a change in our policy on administrator conduct. I think it represents a change in how the DR process deals with the criteria for removing administrator powers. In other words, we have long had a policy that administrators should conduct themselves in a professional manner. We just didn't hold them to it when it comes to revoking tenure. The attitude has been: if there is no misuse of the tools, we don't de-admin. During the CDA debate, I was told, over and over again, that we would have mobs with pitchforks if admins could be removed without evidence of misuse of tools. I do understand that ArbCom is not a courtroom and stare decisis doesn't apply, but I'm pretty sure this is the first time on the English Wikipedia that an administrator has been removed when there was zero evidence of misuse of tools, but there was, in effect, a judgment that community trust was lost. In that sense, this is Wiki-historic. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The remedy is currently passing (not passed). –xeno^talk 20:17, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's why you're where you are and I'm where I am. :-) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:19, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm a hopelessly bureaucratic process wonk? =) –xeno^talk 20:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my comments on the proposed decision. I have voted against the proposed desysopping in this case, but I cannot agree that in principle, the Arbitration Committee cannot or should not ever desysop an adminstrator for misconduct that did not involve the misuse of administrator tools. And in fact, if one thinks about the matter for a few minutes, no one should really take that position, at least given the absence of any other mechanism for involuntary desysopping. To take an admittedly extreme case to make the point, if an administrator commits blatant vandalism on a hundred articles, we are going to revoke his or her adminship, even if the vandalism is committed using nothing more advanced than the "edit" button. So it is not a matter of the Committee's not having authority or reason to desysop for misconduct "as an editor," but a matter of line-drawing and degree. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of that. In a way, I think the five arbitrators, including you, who voted against the proposal got it "right" in terms of where the lines have been drawn in the past, and the six arbitrators who voted for it got it "right" in terms of where the community is now. It doesn't mean that ArbCom is going to de-admin every time, now. But it does mean that admins, and RfA participants, should realize that the possibility is on the table. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the historical point, I don't believe it's true that the Committee has never desysopped for conduct that didn't involve misuse of administrator tools, although I do believe that such decisions have been rare. Two that come to mind for me are the desysoppings of Henrygb (though that case is more than four years old and predates my time on the Committee) and of Geogre (though I dissented strongly in that case and would not want to see it used as a precedent). Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I probably wrote proposed decisions desysopping users for violating non-administrative conduct. It's something that should be happening per your above note. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 20:46, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really true, that a reason other than tool abuse has never been the reason for adminship? Like perhaps deadminned for advocating a hate group or child molestation? PumpkinSky talk 22:18, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brad mentioned two past cases (before my time), that I guess would fit that description (at least in terms of severity, but I don't know the specifics), more or less. However, in this case, here is the sole "Finding of fact" that would form the basis for the desysopping remedy: "According to statements in Evidence, and by his own admission, Cirt has, against policy, placed "undue negative weight in topics on new religious movements and political BLPs" and followed poor sourcing practices." By the logic of how ArbCom makes decisions, that, and only that, would be the basis of the decision in this case. I think that is new. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I think I see your point. I can see losing the bit for "conduct not befitting an admin", esp if long term, but I'm not sure if Cirt's case would rise to that level. PumpkinSky talk 22:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I find expecially problematic here is that the problems are not relevant to his use of tools and they are irrelevant in any other way, because Cirt admitted that there were some probems in the past and he a priori agreed to ArbCom imposing some remedies to make sure these issues won't repeat themselves. And he was very productive with using the Admin tools. There are many more admins who have a far worse record on far more relevant issues than Cirt has. Count Iblis (talk) 22:51, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Up until the last vote came in, I would have bet just about anything that the de-sysop would not pass. This is why I think this is such a significant change. It is very much a statement that administrators are going to be held to a higher standard than in the past. Perhaps "no big deal" is also passing into history. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could be lower standards. This decision was not made on the basis of a proper job evaluation. The whole case was based on Cirt being unpopular to a group of editors based on his editing in some controversial topic areas. An Admin who doesn't do his/her Admin work as good as Cirt did, but who doesn't have a cabal following him/her isn't going to face charges. At RFA people are nominated who we can only guess how good they will function, but later we are going to remove people based on irrelevant factors? This will lead to degeneration by unnatural selection. Count Iblis (talk) 00:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GlassCobra's desysop by the ArbCom had nothing to do with his use of admin tools. Graham87 02:51, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those were not technical tools, but were admin "tools": admins are required to intervene against all behavioral issues that threaten the wiki (regular editors are not) - that is different than evaluating editor behavior. Am sorry if I sound legalistic, but its ArbCom we dealing with - being legalistic is the house rules. :)--Cerejota (talk) 02:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, admins are not required' to do anything - we're volunteers, just like (almost) everybody else. Admins are, however, required not to do certain things, as are regular editors. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't voted on this particular desysop (given that I was recused entirely vis a vis Cirt), but I'm on the record as supporting the general principle that an administrator that has misbehaved is necessarily at risk of loosing their tools because – whether that was the original intent or not – they are the public face of "wikipedia-as-a-project".

The other editors expect administrators to help protect the project and to enforce our policies; this creates the (entirely legitimate) expectation that they will follow those policies themselves. An administrator that engages in behaviour that wouldn't be tolerated from any other editor without consequences destroys the confidence that the project is fair and that non-administrators' contributions are exactly as valuable as everybody else's. Because of that, administrators must be held to a higher standard.

Certainly, nobody needs to fear losing the bit over the occasional error we are all bound to make, but patterns of concerning behaviour will eventually erode the community's trust. — Coren ^(talk) 15:55, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this means that there is momentum and possibility for that perennial proposal for de-adminship, RfC/A-then-ask-ArbCom? Or am I wrong?--Cerejota (talk) 23:14, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't require a policy change; it's an option that's always been on the table. As a policy matter, the final decision will rest with ArbCom (as a safety valve and opportunity for sober reflection after a heated RfC, if nothing else). As a practical matter, I suspect it would be rare indeed for an RfC to generate an unambiguous consensus to desysop, so the ArbCom's evaluation of the evidence and circumstances will be required anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:38, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this could in theory be done, but I have seen some really awful cases of admins being total dicks-pointy-nasties-meatpuppeters and getting topic banned, getting sanctioned up their ass, getting CU/Crat removed, and still are admins because they didn't misuse THOSE tools. Even if the above doesn't result in de-adminship, this is the first time a simple majority (AFAIK) goes for desysop when tools are not involved.--Cerejota (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Circumstances that would have prejudiced those admins' promotions ought to be grounds for their demotion. Malleus Fatuorum 04:25, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given my past experiences with CDA (which I know that both TenOfAllTrades and Malleus Fatuorum remember well), I followed the arbitration case with a keen interest in exactly the question that Cerejota asks above. As I said earlier, I was genuinely surprised by the decision that the Arbs apparently have made. But it sure looks like they made it (albeit by a single-vote margin). In fact, the talk page of the proposed decision now has a thread in which Cirt requests reconsideration of the decision, and (as of this time) at least one Arb has responded very clearly with a statement that the decision was, in fact, a matter of loss of trust.

Today, I believe that TenOfAllTrades is correct that we already have a process in place in which one can have an RfC/U followed by arbitration. Ever since the CDA proposal failed, I have become convinced that it was a mistake to propose a process in which the final decision about de-sysopping would rest with the community, and that instead ArbCom should make any final decision. What I have wondered about is whether we might need a new policy in which the existing RfC/U processes would be supplemented by something (to be determined) that would be designed to be more efficient in giving ArbCom the information that it would need. Seeing how inconclusive the RfC/U on Cirt had been, and seeing how closely divided the Arbs have been, I still wonder whether we might be able to do it more effectively. Had the result been 5–6 instead of 6–5, I would probably be working right now on such a proposal.

But that didn't happen. In a single case, the Arbs have, narrowly and messily, put down a marker that they are ready, at least sometimes, to determine that an administrator who has not misused the tools, and who hasn't done something so blatant as to sockpuppet or mislead the community about other accounts, can be removed for loss of community trust. In this case, the loss of community trust is attributed to a pattern, over time, of bad sourcing and editing with respect to BLPs, and suggests that conduct leading to a topic ban can be sufficient reason to de-sysop. My motivation for CDA was that there are a few administrators (a small minority, not typical of the rest), most of whom went through RfA in the "good old days" when, in my opinion, standards were too lax, who engage in bad editing practices and use their administrator "status" to gain an improper upper hand, without actually misusing tools. For what I think is the first time, ArbCom has indicated that they may, in the future, be prepared to de-sysop in cases such as those.

So, for now, I see no reason to propose any kind of new de-admin procedure. TenOfAllTrades told me many times that ArbCom is capable of doing what is needed. I'm a lot more sold on that argument now than I was a day ago. I'm sure that in the months ahead there will eventually be other arbitration cases in which some of the parties will be administrators who edit badly. We'll see what ArbCom does. If they continue as they did this time, I'll be on the side of those who say we don't need any new procedures. If they backtrack or prove to be inconsistent from case to case, I think the community will watch that closely, and perhaps be ready to find better ways to provide input to the Committee. And I suspect that administrators will watch their own behaviors a bit more carefully going forward.

In the mean time, I'll feel more comfortable about supporting RfA candidates, knowing that "tenure" is now a little less etched in stone. I'm sure some RfA participants will disagree with me, but my hope is that RfA can now be a less harsh, more friendly process. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think a new policy is needed, but perhaps a new ammendment or even a guideline might be in order to explain to the community a possible process of de-adminship. Wikipedia:RFC/U#Use_of_administrator_privileges is obscure and non-sensical, and clarity is needed - and I think ArbCOm is saying: if we get cases, we will look at them on the merits and make the hard choices. So a guideline could have support. --Cerejota (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Do you mean revising the instructions for RfC/U? That might be worth discussing (there). But anything that would actually change the process, the procedures, seems to me to be premature, pending how ArbCom does in the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also look at this Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Cirt_and_Jayen466/Proposed_decision#Removal_of_Administrator_privileges_if_problems_recur has that happened before with such a vote margin? Notice how de-sysop is for violating editing sanctions, not tool use...--Cerejota (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that won't be enacted so long as the de-sysop passes. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but look at the vote margin - It seems that even those voting against straight up desysop are not philosophically opposed to it, just feel that one more length of rope must be given. Feel me? If I were ArbCom, I would have probably voted - in this case - to not desysop but give the rope, however, I have zero opposition to ArbCom removing tools. Hell, I would make it a bureaucrat discretion, like blocking users - but I know thats too radical for most :)--Cerejota (talk) 18:42, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean now: that there are Arbs who voted against the de-sysop who would nonetheless de-sysop if, in effect, it happens again. Myself, I recommended against de-sysopping in the Workshop, and am still unconvinced that the evidence really supported it, but I accept that the decision will be final soon and that's that. Look at that: six of the Arbs are more radical than I am! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tryptofish: "...an administrator who has not misused the tools, and who hasn't done something so blatant as to sockpuppet or mislead the community about other accounts, can be removed for loss of community trust".

I don't think it is as simple as that. This "loss of community trust" is a nebulous criterium that can be invoked by some cabal do get Admins removed who they strongly disagree with on POV grounds. The fact that an RFC against Will Beback will start soon doesn't bode well. We really must make sure that any de-admining process will only look at relevant criteria in an objective way. Count Iblis (talk) 18:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I argued against it. And you've described quite well a lot of the objections that were raised against CDA, which is another reason I'm not in favor of proposing anything like it right now. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with there being a "de-admining process will only look at relevant criteria in an objective way" in theory, but I have a few comments on that:

1. How realistic it is? - Given that in human history there has never been a 100% transparent and unproblematic and cabal-less desicion making process, this objection strikes me as obstructionist: essentially saying the status quo of Supreme Court Justice level tenure is OK. I think that is a valid position if put in the open, but if it is obscured behind a claim that the only alternative is a utopic process that is free of subjectivity, well the argument is invalid.
2. Much more relevant, is that there is a complete and absolute difference between how adminship is achieved, than how adminship is removed. If desysop were to require a "process will only look at relevant criteria in an objective way", then it follows that the process of selection should equally be a "process will only look at relevant criteria in an objective way". What a lot of the active non-admin long-time users see in the process is a self-serving position in which adminship is a popularity contest, but removal is next to impossible. It follows that if an admin behaves in the same way they did before RfA, that any removal process that is equally a popularity contest would have a different result. Only admins who use their adminship to intimidate other editors have anything to fear. It strikes me as a load of horse and bovine manure that we need a different set of criteria for getting The Mop and another to lose it. However, I also recognize social reality, so I do not advocate such a radical position. What I do advocate is that the admin selection process not be a popularity contest, that way, the process of removal wouldn't be so different. Many editors and not too few admins, hold the entirely reasonable suspicion that opposition to criteria-based adminship has to do with a certain cabal of editors and admins who have grown comfortable in their position as RfA gatekeepers, and who do not want to give up this social power.

Again, the issue that really needs reform is getting adminship, de-adminship is secondary.--Cerejota (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

People commenting here would do well to realize that having adminship is much more than simply having a set of tools. It is a position of power which affords editors a certain amount of added social capital. IMO Cerejota's comment in the section above is one I agree with for that reason particularly, but it isn't just a matter of how you become an admin but what you become when you get the bit vis-a-vis the community and the other editors within it. In other words "abuse of tools" is not, and should not be the only thing you can do to mess things up for yourself as an admin. General abuse of the community's trust should be enough to get you canned, and there is no way to measure that through "objective criteria."Griswaldo (talk) 11:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that in the case of Cirt, he abused his social capital specifically when he dragged opponents to various noticeboards to have them flogged. I presented evidence about that in both his RfC and in the arbitration case. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also think that just "having the tools" can sometimes have a "chilling effect". Back in 2006 I saw a PRODDED article and considered removing the PROD. However, I noticed that the editor who added the prod was an "administrator" and wondered if he would get mad and block me if I did. Of course if he did so it would be a big no no but I didn't know that. (I removed the PROD and he sent it to AFD) Still I wonder how many times an editor didn't revert an edit because it was made by an "administrator" or didn't make a bold edit to an article written by an "administrator"? This is the reason I try to as much as possible "downplay" my role on my user and talk pages. (it's hard to do that on my talk page when almost every post is about an article I deleted but I do follow a no stinkin badges policy on my userpage) If an admin is misbehaving or generally acting like a dick, even if such dickery doesn't involve the use of his tools, the community should be able to decide if said "dick" should continue to have a position of responsibility. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As per Ron Ritzman. I've been editing here for a while, but IIRC it was many years before I realised that Administrators were not the top dogs around here. I suspect that new and casual editors would not know about WP:Arbitrators, Wikipedia:Bureaucrats, Stewards, and Trustees. I am still coming to grips with how all these officers interact. Is there a Wikipedia Organisational Chart? (Preview says no! I might create the article and see if it survives :-) --Surturz (talk) 16:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ron, precisely. This is a "position of responsibility," and as such it requires acting responsibly. People might also consider that jobs are lost all time in the real world for actions that do not relate to the specific functions a person may perform when at work, in their capacity as an employee. This is particularly the case when such people are caught breaking laws, or other social rules. I think Wikipedia can sometimes be so insulated from the manner in which society at large functions that people forget to consider similar situations outside of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a social space, a community comprised of human beings. It is not a board game with a rules brochure that supersedes basic social conventions.Griswaldo (talk) 16:34, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could not agree more. To me, the extra tools an admin has is only a small part of the job. Although being an admin is no big deal, admins do tend to command some level of respect. Admins are given the 'position' (for want of a better word) because they are valued and trusted community members. This means that they must retain this trust - if they are consistently uncivil to other users, break Wikipedia guidelines or the like, then they lose the trust. In addition, admins do tend to be looked upon as people who can be turned to for advice or help. Thus, their editing and participation in the community needs to be exemplary. I would expect no admin to abuse the tools they have; they must also be outstanding editors and community members. ItsZippy ^{(talk • Contributions)} 16:41, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I like the idea of a Wikipedia Organizational Chart :) It's a good idea. I've been editing for about 5 1/2 years, am an admin, and am not entirely sure what all the different offices do. There sure are a lot of roles...rollbacker, admin, oversight, trustee, steward, bureacrat, checkuser...I'm sure there are more. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:45, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad I'm not the only one! Somebody tagged it for speedy about twenty seconds after I created it, so I requested G7 and have moved the content to User:Surturz/Wikipedia Organisational Chart. I must have missed the memo where new articles now need to spring from the aether as fully formed encyclopedia articles. I'd love some help. --Surturz (talk) 16:56, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, thanks to Bob the Wikipedian the administrator's userbox now has a "noannounce" option that makes it say "this user don't need no stinkin badges". If the "nocat" option is also used then it can also be used by non-admins if any "rollbackers" or "account creators" want to make it clear that they "don't need no stinkin badges". --Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Griswaldo:"...there is no way to measure that through "objective criteria.""

If we make important descisions based on subjective feelings, we will tend to discriminate against good editors/admins who hold unpopular views on some issues. That's the lesson we can learn from thousands of years of history, so there is no reason to believe that on Wikipedia things would magically work differently.

In fact, it is well known that on online social media, people are far less restrained to launch personal attacks than in real life interactions. Minor differences of opinion become major disputes far sooner than in real life.

My experience here on Wikipedia and other online media confirms this. Sticking to the "Griswaldo doctrine" would i.m.o. destroy Wikipedia within a decade. We have to realize that we always have the tendency to move in this wrong direction, so we must make an effort to resist this. So, instead of letting vague community perceptions dominate, we should always WP:AGF about everyone. Only if there is very strong proof that you really can't trust someone to have some function here, should we restrict such a person.

If we move in the wrong direction then over time that will affect the pool of editors ad admins, who will then cause us to move even faster in the wrong direction, ultimately causing Wikipedia to completely degenerate beyond repair. Count Iblis (talk) 17:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]