User:Shirik/Forced adminship
 | This page is intended as humor. It is not, has never been, nor will ever be, a Wikipedia policy or guideline. Rather, it illustrates standards or conduct that are generally not accepted by the Wikipedia community. |
 | This page in a nutshell: Editors can be forced into adminship if consensus is established by the community. The administrator cannot revoke their own adminship. |
It is well-known that administrators are not authority figures in any way.[1] They are merely editors with a few extra tools at their disposal. Wikipedia, as a whole, benefits from having as many administrators as possible, to eliminate backlogs and improve quality efficiently.
For one reason or another, however, there are editors that simply choose not to be administrators ever. These editors are highly qualified, trusted individuals that simply do not want to be burdened by the tools or just prefer to avoid drama in general. However, there is nothing forcing administrators to use the tools. In fact, many times, the sign of a good administrator is restraint from using tools in situations in which they are involved. For that reason, these justifications for avoiding adminship are invalid.
Procedures for hesitant individuals
[edit]Upon identification of an individual whom should be an administrator, but refuses to be, the identifier should first demand that the user place a request at RFA. If this is refused, the identifier should open an RFA with a strikethrough on the line indicating the candidate's acceptance. In its place, a note should be added that this is a request for forced adminship. The standard RFA procedure applies.[2]
A bureaucrat's duty is to implement consensus. If after 7 days it is determined (at the bureaucrat's discretion) that consensus of the individuals participating in the forced RFA is that the user should become an administrator, that administrator status should be applied. The following points should be noted:
- A bureaucrat's duty is to implement consensus. For this reason, a bureaucrat is not allowed to override any consensus derived from the forced RFA.
- A steward's duty is to implement consensus on the local wiki. For this reason, no steward is allowed to remove any conferred admin status without first establishing consensus to remove that bit, even in the presence of a self-request for removal.
- ARBCOM's duty is for dispute resolution. If a forced RFA identifies consensus for promotion, it is inappropriate for ARBCOM to override that consensus.
- Administrators cannot remove administrative status, so it is irrelevant what the newly appointed administrator thinks of the bit.
References
[edit]- ^ Wales, Jimbo. "Sysop Status". English Wikipedia Mailing List.
- ^ See here for authoritative and reliable description