User:Useight/RFA Subjects/De-adminship

de-adminship (Archive 2)

Since when do requests for de-adminship have to be approved by community consensus? It is the editor's choice whether they want to become an admin -- we don't force them into it -- and it is the editor's choice if they want to resign. As far as I'm concerned, resignations can be handled by private communication with a developer, followed by a public announcement. If, after the announcement, the community convinces the editor to change their mind, sysop status should be restored without the need for further community involvement (i.e. no need to ask here again). -- Tim Starling 02:36, Sep 18, 2003 (UTC)

You're right on the first point. I edited the page appropriately.

On balance, I'd say that normally the community should be involved on restoration, but that's just a preference. Martin 10:28, 18 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Good enough for me. -- Tim Starling 03:39, Sep 20, 2003 (UTC)

originally added under the desysopping section:

Requests and nominations for de-adminship:

If you're requesting your own de-adminship, you can do so private communication with a developer, should you wish to do so. If you're requesting de-adminship of someone else, you can do so here, but please first try to discuss the issue directly with the admin in question.

This would be "off-topic" as User:MyRedDice has pointed out elsewhere. This is a page for straightforward request(s) to be a Sysop and does not conform to any Wikipedia policy. This is not the place to discuss Problem User Sysops. NightCrawler 22:58, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't believe that it is off-topic. Martin 23:39, 14 Nov 2003 (UTC)

User:tannin (Archive 7)

I am annoyed with this admin, based on my experience with them. Also, there are others (admins and no) who I feel have been less than academic in their response to citations and issues variously contentious to their POV. I do not, however, want anyone De-admin'ed, banned, or otherwise excessively mistreated in response to that, and furthermore, I find the likelihood of any such excesses to be... excessively unlikely ;). What I would like to know is how to legitimately complain about relatively minor issues such as I have had (if you don't know what I am referring to, I suppose you could ask me). The mediation/arbitration process seems rather excessive (besides, its not even really functioning yet) and speaking to Jimbo seems to be a last case scenario, far beyond the measure of intensity this circumstance requires. There is mention, however, of a "clarification" or "request"? Whats that all about? Your thoughts, if you please? (p.s. if this is the wrong place for this, let me know, but it seemed appropriate to me for a few reasons, not the least of which the short lived de'admin requests which I've seen here.) Jack 01:14, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why do you want to complain if it's a minor issue? Have a little tolerance. Just because someone is annoying doesn't mean you have to search for an ear to whinge into. -- Tim Starling 01:37, Jan 25, 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, nothing. How can on effectively "discipline" someone who donates their time and effort? In the very worst case, you have to ask them to go away, but that's really a big step, and (for all the talk) its something we do very rarely. The way the software is now, there are only two "grains" of user power (user and sysop), so we can optionally move someone from the former to the latter (a big step too, as we have too few people in the latter case, and too much unpleasant work for the sysops to do). Frankly, I think "conflicts between users" and "problem users" are pointless - they just end up as endless bickering matches, into which no sensible wikipedian ever sticks his head. Arbitration and mediation are just politically-correct ways of saying "decisions about banning" and "knock two stupid heads together". And my understanding of Jimbo's philosphy (and of quite a lot of wikipedians) is that conflict and chaos have worked to whittle a pretty impressive encyclopedia, and will (presumably) do so in the future. I'm absolutely not suggesting or encouraging you to leave (really!) but this is the fundamental difference between wikipedia and h2g2&everything2 - they're much more "process oriented", and we're just a big cloud of people yelling at one another. I suppose the fact (it is a fact, I think) that wikipedia is so much larger and more popular than either of the other two bears out Jimbo's philosphy (as I've horribly misprepresented it above). The unpleasant result of this is that attrition is comparatively high, particularly in the more controversial subject areas. This is, in essence, a tough place. -- Finlay McWalter 01:48, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree 100%. And don't worry, I'm not planning on going anywhere. I was just hoping there would/could be some ear eager for the whining ;) People who know me IRL often comment on my steady stream of complaints. Indeed, one of the reasons (IMO) I get hasselled so little IRL is that I get so upset over petty things (lack of tea, for example), that nobody wants to see how I'd handle something seriously upsetting ;) Anyways, I agree w both of you, and my complaints are fairly minor, and I don't want any real discipline to occur (as far as the admins go) in result of them. I was hoping there was some sort of "official scolding" that could occur, but from the sounds of it thats not really available. Alas... Jack 18:28, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)

Don't the admins have a Lieutenant, or some sort of boss, between them and Jimbo? Somebody who scolds, but doesn't fire? Just wondering... if not, there should be! Jack 18:30, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)

Abuse of the de-sysop area (Archive 8)

Lir, if you don't stop listing legitimate sysops for imagined (or trivial-at-best) slights, I'm going to protect this page, and do what Theresa tried earlier and move all your comments to the user-conflicts page. --→Raul654 22:59, Jan 30, 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing trivial about banning me. These three individuals are working together to prevent my participation on the wikipedia; they are doing this by abusing their powers. Lirath Q. Pynnor 23:20, 30 Jan 2004 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Lir on this point—he at the very least has a right to lodge a complaint against Hephaestos. I'm not saying I agree with that complaint, but it's not prima facie a ridiculous one: Hephaestos has blocked Lir twice in the past two days despite there being no consensus that he be banned, or decision by either Jimbo or the newly-constituted arbitration committee. The blocking was undone by other sysops (Tim Starling once, and Angela once) relatively quickly, which indicates that at least some other sysops agree with Lir that it was unjustified. --Delirium 01:43, Jan 31, 2004 (UTC)

I also agree that this is a situation that needs to be aired. It needs to be discussed, decided, and rectified, one way or the other. - Hephaestos 01:46, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Requests for De-adminship due to inactivity (Archive 23)

I've moved this from the project page as no consensus was reached. However, this should have been a straw poll (at most) from the beginning. We have no standards whatsoever for de-adminship (except maybe at RfC or RfAr) and there is no real way to determine when a consensus has been reached. I suppose we should have a structure for determine under exactly what circumstances adminship should be removed, but that's for another discussion.

I'll also note that, even if the vote on de-adminship were unanimous, we would still have to cite some policy to one of the Stewards (probably Angela) in order to have the de-admining accomplished. Bureaucrats are not empowered to de-admin. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 17:44, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As suggested below by Kim Bruning, if inactivity of admins is really thought to be a concern, I suggest that administrator status is automatically suspended as a technical matter after 3 months of inactivity as a protection against password guessing, i.e. admin status is removed temporarily (preferably in software, so no-one needs to deal with it manually) and reinstated immediately on request.

If suspension of admin status is not thought to be sufficient for longer-term inactivity then I suggest again what I suggested below: that admin status is removed permanently (meaning that a proper WP:RFA re-application would be necessary to be re-adminned) for admins who:

have been inactive for at least 12 months;
have not responded to a preliminary warning that has been on their user talk page for at least 1 month; and
do not request reinstatement within 3 months of being de-admined.

The idea would be to have sufficient warnings and safeguards that it would not be necessary to have a vote to de-admin someone on this basis. We would need a page, something like Wikipedia:Pending de-adminship to record who was where in the process. On the other hand, I'm not entirely sure what the problem is meant to be: this could be m:instruction creep ... -- ALoan (Talk) 18:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship (Archive 25)

I'd like to ask for any feedback on the process I've outlined on this page. I understand that this is a controversial issue, but I also see that we have no consensus-based way of removing sysop status. Indeed, it seems that the only method that has been done in the past is via the dispute resolution process. Certainly, gaining adminship should be "no big deal", and removing it should be, but it should not be impossible.

I am concerned that as certain admins come to understand that there is no easy way of removing their access, those which have a disposition toward conflict and policy violation do not have a "compensating control". The process I've outlined mirrors very closely the process for gaining adminship, requiring a consensus for support of the request. I've also proposed a petition system (requiring at least ten signers) to prevent gross abuse of the de-adminship process. I welcome comments and suggestions on the talk page. -- Netoholic @ 19:00, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

There is no "requests for de-adminship" process, so this is all irrelevant. You want to create such a link, then there must first be community approval of such a process, which there currently is none. Bumm13 04:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sure there is. It's documented in the above link. Please visit it's talk page to follow-up this conversation. Remember, WP:RFA wasn't a process that was ever "ratified" by the community... the community "ratifies" it after each successfull nomination. -- Netoholic @ 04:24, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

RFDA link (Archive 25)

I must be missing something here. WP:RFDA is not a functioning process, since there is no community consensus that it should be used. WP:RFA is a functioning process. Therefore, if there is a link to RFDA on this page (which I don't think there should be until it gains consensus), it should at least be marked as a 'proposed policy' or something to that effect - otherwise it's misleading. — Dan | Talk 04:25, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. This seems self-evident. What purpose is achieved by this? Snowspinner 04:28, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Please bring this conversation to the RFDA talk page. In short, neither RFA or RFDA are "policy" and concensus is proven with each individual nomination. RFDA doesn't seem to have any major problems with the design, and is simply awaiting its first nomination. Getting that is hard to do if people don't allow links to it. -- Netoholic @ 04:29, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

RFA, on the other hand, is an accepted part of Wikipedia's function. RFDA, on the other hand, is a giant flashing sign that says "TROLLS LOOK HERE," and has been identified as such by many people. Snowspinner 04:32, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Have any bureaucrats indicated that they will remove admin status from an editor if a vote on RFDA calls for it? —Stormie 04:49, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Only a steward or a developer can remove admin status. A bureaucrat can add, but not remove admin permissions. Carbonite | Talk 04:55, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, OK, thanks. So, rephrasing my question: have any stewards or developers indicated that they will remove admin status from an editor if a vote on RFDA calls for it? —Stormie 06:58, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Can we please move this thread to the relevant talk page ? -- Netoholic @ 07:26, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

This is the relevant talk page for discussing the addition of a link to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. —Stormie 10:07, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

You have it exactly right, Dan. Netoholic appears to be trying to turn his proposed policy into an active process by some rather disingenuous arguments and actions, while determinedly avoiding putting his proposed policy to any sort of vote to see if it has consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:17, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Don't ascribe motivations to me. The page has been up for a week, and linked from this very talk page. After two days of no additional comments, I've linked it from the main pages of related ones. I have started a straw poll on the talk page, but this does not need "ratification". We need a de-admin process, and this one seems to have a lot of support, having addressed concerns over abuse. It can change over time, like WP:RFA, which itself didn't need a vote to get started. -- Netoholic @ 07:26, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

I haven't ascribed motivations, I've described actions; I don't speculate as to why you are doing these things, but I can certainly see that you are doing them. It is your view that we need a de-admin process; to find out if the Wikipedia community agrees, you'll need to put it to a vote. And any new process certainly does need "ratification". Jayjg ^(talk) 07:44, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

hello, people? I find this a bit bizarre. Either we link to the page, clearly stating it is a proposal, but one of interest to people visiting this page, or we don't link to it at all. But I don't see the point of putting the link in <nowiki>-tags, making wikisyntax show up and forcing people who want to see the proposal to copy-paste the link. Let's just state what it is, and link to it, maybe somewhere apart from the links to accepted procedure. dab (ᛏ) 09:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the <nowiki>-fied version is silly, this isn't some external spam link that we're trying to disable during a VFD discussion! I think that the link should not be there at all, although I'll refrain from removing it for the moment to allow this discussion to proceed a bit further. —Stormie 10:07, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, this is ridiculous, I'm making the link inline and clearly marking it as a proposal undergoing consideration. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:22, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good to me. —Stormie 20:42, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Lucky 6.9 (Archive 28)

Ed, I see you've removed Lucky's vote saying no consensus, but he had reached 78 per cent or thereabouts, or have I miscounted? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:10, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

What especially concerns me is that Ed was a voter. I would have preferred to see of of the other bureaucrats decide this one, even if it is the same decision or not. Dmcdevit·t 00:13, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Er, never mind. It looks like he reverted himself. Dmcdevit·t 00:14, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, according to my calculations, the final vote was 72-20-4. This falls below the 80% threshold that some feel is an absolute standard. RFA, however, is a consensus-driven page (or that is my long-held and often-stated position). A candidacy that received 78% support but which didn't have a well-articulated and clear opposition might squeak through. It's my judgment as a bureaucrat (and I welcome any alternative opinions here from all users, bureaucrats and not) that there are legitimate objections to Lucky that would make it folly to call the outcome of this nomination "consensus". It simply didn't emerge. I personally have great respect for Lucky, and had no objections to his candidacy (I toyed with voting in support, in fact), so I hope my decision will therefore be less controversial. I'm posting this here to be perfectly transparent (or as close as I can come) to why I made this decision. Now I await being raked over the coals.... Jwrosenzweig 01:09, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just seen a note regarding extending the vote -- an option I should have considered more carefully before removing the section. If anyone feels extending the vote for several more days would substantially change the result, please do repost it with a note about the extension. Jwrosenzweig 01:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to see it extended. It seems wrong for someone to get 72 votes and yet fail to be promoted by such a narrow margin, when plenty of people are elected with fewer votes than that. If it were extended and he still failed to get the extra votes, then at least it would be seen to be as fair as possible. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I think this would be a good idea in general, but I'm not sure how many more votes could be expected (aside from one, being mine). There are already 96 opinions expressed. siafu 01:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi James, I hope when you said anyone could post it back, you didn't mean any bureaucrat. I've reposted, but if I was wrong to do that, feel free to revert me. Assuming you don't mind that it's back up, how many days extension do you feel would be appropriate? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:35, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Well, now I've complicated things: I deleted Lucky's user and talk pages at his request. The CSD criteria allow that, if there is no need to keep them. I'm not sure what to do now. Joyous (talk) 01:37, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I restored the userpage. Bishonen | talk 01:44, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why the talk page wouldn't play. :-( Bishonen | talk 01:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I got it. Dmcdevit·t 02:08, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

No one is going to rake you over the coals, Jwrosenzweig. :) The real issue here isn't with the final outcome, as decided by an impartial bureaucrat making a call, it's with a bureaucrat who made such an overwhelmingly opposing presense duing the vote, who then feels that he gets to decide consensus when the vote falls into that grey 70 to 80 percent area. Let's look at Ed Poor's behavior through this vote:

Places his vote at the top of the oppose list, (is Ed's vote more important than others?)
In the same diff above, makes mention of the fact that he is a bureaucrat. Why was that nessesary? Was he thinking right there that he could overturn community consensus in favor of his own opinion and get away with it, (as he did with the VFD thing?)
Makes an incredibly bad faith comment at the top of Lucky's nom, (Note that "voting" alone will not determine the outcome.). No one else's nomination gets such a "friendly reminder" that Wikipedia is not a democracy. It was inappropriate.
What did this mean? I'm going to veto your application.
Changed his vote to neutral, without explanation. That's his right, of course, but given how strongly he had opposed in the first place...it's odd. Was he thinking right there that would allow him to be the impartial bureaucrat who would get to determe consensus?

Look, I'm not sure where I'm going with all of this, but it seems to me that it won't create too much instruction creep to suggest that a bureaucrat who votes, (even if he later becomes neutral), shouldn't be the one trying to make the call in those 70% to 80% determinations. I know that Ed later reveresed himself, but really, it showed very bad judgement on his part in the first place. Func( t, c ) 01:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds like common sense to me. Presumably we place bureaucrat privileges in a select few users hands for just this kind of judgment call. Based on Ed's recent jugment calls, I'm seriously doubting the trust we've placed in him. Dmcdevit·t 01:49, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

So am I. Do we have a de-bureaucrat procedure? If not, why not? Bishonen | talk 02:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we do, and it's probably because it's the first time it's ever been considered. There is currently an arbitrationcase against him I think. Dmcdevit·t 02:08, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Why? Is the executive washroom too crowded? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

How do you mean, why, Cecropia? Don't you think that having no confidence in Ed Poor's judgment as a bureaucrat is a good reason to want to de-bureaucrat him? But I suppose a de-adminship proposal would do it. I don't have any confidence in him as an admin either. Bishonen | talk 02:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not going to get embroiled in the instant argument. Maybe we should have a clear de-bureaucrat procedure; ditto a de-adminship procedure. Perhaps it would be a good idea for bureaucrats to stand for "re-election" or "affirmation" periodically. But we would need some kind of guideline of universal application, rather than react to an ad hoc situation. If anyone wants to start a discussion, I'll certainly want to read the arguments and put in my 2 cents. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:25, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Cecropia, I don't see any need for periodic re-anything. Reacting ad hoc is entirely appropriate. A situation has arisen, namely, that Ed Poor's judgement has come into question by a great many people who are left baffled by his behavior. Over at Wikipedia_talk:Bureaucrats#desysop_ability, I see that Ed Poor made a unilateral descision back in Feb or March to desysop 4 admins, using developer powers that he had inappropriately held. No RFC, no ArbCom...just went and did it, as though he thinks he is either God or Jimbo. There is a fine line between WP:IAR and WP:POINT, and Ed doesn't seem to know the difference. I am having a hard time finding any good decisions that Ed Poor has made in his recent activities on Wikipedia. I hate to seem so confrontational here, and I myself have had no real interaction with Ed, but these lone and controversial actions of his do not seem to show any respect for the rest of Wikipedia community. Func( t, c ) 02:52, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

To remake my point, there is no procedure. Without a procedure what are we supposed to do? Hold a straw poll on a single bureaucrat? What would be consensus to keep? What to remove? Then what? If the vote went against Ed (by what objective criteria?) what do we do? Send him the black spot? Mount an RfC? Mount an ArbCom? Gather villagers together with burning torches? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 03:19, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Abuse of admin/bureacrat powers is the jurisidction of the arbcom - this also covers people who repeatedly make bad judgement calls, as per the Guanaco case. That's where you report it. →Raul654 03:36, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I like the last one. :) We would ask a developer to de-b-crat/sysop him. Father Howabout1 ^{Talk to me!} 03:28, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

A thought. Who is best placed to judge someone's performance as a bureaucrat? The other bureaucrats. If a de-bureaucratting procedure is to be put in place, might I suggest a similar process to rfac might be an option, with anyone entitled to their two cents, followed by a vote by bureaucrats alone, the result of which could be to keep a bureaucrat, reduce his/her "rank' to admin, or go further and remove admin powers as well. Or would that be just too much to the "secret cabal" conspiracy theorists? Grutness...wha? 03:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, am I right in thinking non-admins can vote in RfA's, and you are just proposing a bureaucrat only election in that particular case? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 07:17, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone (or certainly any registered user) can vote in RfA - I'm talking about a bureaucrat-only vote when there is a request for comment on the behaviour of a bureaucrat. My fault - I put rfa when I meant rfc above! Grutness...wha? 07:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

So maybe I'm still too new....how does that compare to RfC? Are only admins supposed to vote on those? Ëvilphoenix ^Burn! 15:09, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Anyone can comment on RFCs - but therein lies the difference. RFA's a direct vote. Any registered user can yay or nay someone for adminship. A request for comment consists of a group of comments by users, followed by (forgive me, I don't know the precise process) some form of voting/arbitration process by a select group of arbiters. I was suggesting a similar process in cases where a bureaucrat oversteps his or her bounds - a process where anyone is allowed to comment on what's happened, followed by a vote by the other bureaucrats on what should happen to them. Grutness...wha? 10:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

RFC has no voting or arbiters; it's just comments. Maurreen (talk) 06:52, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Inactive admins (Archive 29)

Would it be a good idea to de-sysop the inactive admins? As it may be a minor security risk if someone worked out their password, it inflates the real number of admins, and if they did return they would not be up-to-date on policy etc. so probably wouldn't be good admins anyway. Also, some seem to have very low edit counts and i doubt would be accepted as admins anyway.

Maybe we could de-sysop users who dont make any edits for 12 months or something? just a thought. Martin 08:56, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea to me.-gadfium 09:11, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

We've talked about that before and I don't recall any major opposition, but it still never got done. I think it makes sense also and 12mo with no edits is more than reasonable. We can discuss what other standards we may accept, such as what about 1 edit in 12 mos or 5 edits. Now is as good a time as any to make a decision on it. - Taxman ^Talk 09:23, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

5 edits in 12 months sounds good, it could be something for our new bureaucrats to do. Martin 11:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be exactly zero edits in some period of time. If someone is inactive then it means he/she is not doing any edits at all, at least that's how I understand it. Grue 12:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucrats can't de-sysop. Only m:stewards can. As to the number of edits, I'd say 0 with a requirement that the admin is emailed first to check if they have any reason not to be de-sysoped. Note that, extenuating circumstances given, they can be immediately re-sysoped by a bureaucrat if they so request. [[smoddy]] 12:53, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

What if there are only non-productive edits (i.e. fiddling with the layout of the admin's user page)? -- BD2412 ^talk 16:52, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Previous discussion on this subject may be found here. I favor a suggestion put forward last November (I believe by Kim Bruning): that the software automatically remove the sysop flag after an account is unused for a certain period of time. If a returning user desires to be a sysop again, he may simply ask a bureaucrat to restore the flag. There's no need for inactive users to go through the RFA process a second time - we already know they're trusted by the community; it would be redundant. — Dan | Talk 18:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, in the mean time we could ask a steward to do the job, there aren't that many inactive >1 year admins so it wouldnt take long. Martin 18:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I proposed this once before and still support it. Adminship need not be granted for a lifetime. Dormant accounts do pose a security risk since if they suddenly became active we would have absolutely no way to find out whether it was the original owner or not. Site policy has evolved considerably and is continuing to do so. Admins who have been gone for a while, particularly those who weren't that active to begin with, may be unfamiliar with how things work here today. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 14:56, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, also it seems odd bureaucrats can't de-admin users, is this for technical reasons? if not then it would seem logical that bureaucrats are given the means to de-admin people seeing as they are able make users admins in the first place. Martin 15:29, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

No, it's for policy reasons. "De-adminning" is rare and so there was not seen to be any reason to make it available to bureaucrats. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:40, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Note: User:KRS voluntary renounced her adminship last September as she had other non-wiki commitments. =Nichalp «Talk»= 15:11, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I got this response from Angela, bascially stating that we need wider support to do this, especially since there was opposition last time. Personally I think some of the opposition was ill thought out, but so maybe was the way the proposal was worded/started. So there needs to be a specific, but flexible proposal put together and then publicize it a few places. Then we need to ask at meta requests for permissions to get a non involved steward to do the permissions changes. Do we think it needs to be more than here and WP:AN? I also apologize I won't likely be able to put the proposal together. - Taxman ^Talk 18:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Inactive admins part 2 (Archive 30)

We never finalised previous discussion on inactive admins, and I found this from the commons website;

== Inactive admins ==

As with the policy for administrator access on Meta, inactive administrators may have their access removed. According to this policy, any sysop inactive on Commons for a full year will be desysoped. "Inactive" means no edits in the past 6 months and fewer than 50 edits in the last year. Inactive administrators may re-apply through the regular way.

Shall we conduct a straw poll to see if we can form a consensus on having this as policy here as well? Note: i know we all hate polls, but we have had more than one discussion on this, and this is a quick and painless way to finally do something about it.

I'll start a poll on the admins notice board soon unless anyone can think of somewhere better to have it. Martin 14:02, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Please not on the AN. That page is usually half an MB in size, and a poll will push it even further. A wikipedia namespace would be better. See also WP:CS =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, not AN. Wikipedia talk:Administrators, or a subpage of this page, would probably be more appropriate. [[Sam Korn]] 15:19, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Good point I have made it at Wikipedia:Desysopsing inactive admins. See you all there. Martin 15:23, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It's been moved to Wikipedia:Inactive administrators (2005). --Blackcap | talk 01:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Meh, this is a solution in search of a problem. Where can I vote for the desysoping of active admins who are a pain in the butt? ;-) Func( t, c, @, ) 17:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a simple preventative measure, which is policy on commons. Martin 17:30, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

btw, in life you'll learn that "pain in the butts" are people who resist change for no reason other than it is change. Martin 17:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Martin, I was just making a joke, unrelated to the merits of the above proposed poll. Func( t, c, @, ) 17:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. Martin 18:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Inactive admins (Archive 36)

I looked at the list of current admins for the second or third time today and had a thought: given a sufficient period of total inactivity, should admin powers be removed? Not as a punitive thing, of course. Simply because after, say, a year or 18 months, policy and procedures may have changed and if a person did come back they'd actually be unfamiliar with a number of things. Think, for instance, of image copyright tags. Marskell 13:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

That's a perennial question. Meta simply requires all admins to be confirmed once a year (by fiat if nobody objects, by re-vote if necessary), that would be a simple solution to your problem - if they were inactive for too long, they would simply not be confirmed. R adiant _>|< 13:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Can you point to an instance when an admin's lengthy absence followed by his/her return has led to any major issues (such as an RfC / RfA)? I think it's a solution in search of a problem. It's been proposed many times in the past but it never led to anything. I think the users who have been promoted to exercise judgement and read up on new and updated policies before using admin powers. — David Remahl 13:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No sir, I can point to no such thing—it just seems a perfectly logical bit of housekeeping a project of this sort should undertake. From meta: "Any sysop inactive on meta for a full year will be desysoped. "Inactive" means no edits in the past 6 months and less than 50 edits in the last year. They may re-apply through the regular way." Seems sensible. Marskell 13:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Yet another rule that every admin is expected to be aware of...Lets spare the rule-making for the cases where it has actually been demonstrated necessary. — David Remahl 13:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No, every bureaucrat. It'd be a simple enough chore really. Marskell 15:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Silsor (Archive 38)

Hmmm, looks like Silsor is not requesting Admin review at all. He's requesting honorable discharge basically. Something we'll likely see more of in future.

RFA is the page best suited for now, though I agree we might want to set up a separate page if this becomes common.

Anyway, please state your support if you think Silsor has done a good enough job as admin, or oppose if you think he needs to stay on longer to prove he's good enough.

And do leave the RfA up, I'm curious as to the outcome! It can't do much harm to have it there anyway. :-)

Kim Bruning 08:16, 3 November 2005 (UTC) (Note also that the deadminship request submitted by Curps was denied )

No, the page best suited for it is on the talk page of a steward or at m:Requests for permissions. The request was denied because Silsor didn't make it himself. Wikipedia:Requests for adminship is to request adminship, not to request de-adminship. This request is just a poll; regardless of the outcome, nothing will take place except Silsor can see people's opinion of him and his request. If he wishes to have his adminship removed, he will still have to ask a steward or on meta, just as he could have done first without wasting people's time. That a strong majority of people commenting/voting on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/silsor are protesting the listing should be a sign that the listing is inappropriate. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:50, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Kim, I'm glad you reposted this RfA (RfDA?), but disagree with your interpretation. Drawing on my military background, what Silsor is requesting is not an honourable discharge, but to be stripped of his rank. He can get an honourable discharge much easier by moving his name from the Active to the Inactive section of WP:LA. Or better yet, create a new section on that page called Editors who stopped acting as admin. Again using the military metaphor, I voted "Oppose" as any court martial would when judging an officer in good standing. I don't expect Silsor to do any more than he is prepared to; this is a voluntary service, after all. But Silsor has rightfully earned his sysop rank, and I will not support stripping him of it—even at his own request—without due cause. Owen× ☎ 11:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I know I'm often thought of a bureacratic process monkey, but why is everyone so bloody serious? A little breaching experiment now and then, performed by someone with such obvious good standing, can only serve to keep us from ossifying.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 11:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If we set a precedent of abusing standing process for purposes other than for which they are intended, where do we stop? Should we use AfD for undeletions? Should we use ArbCom to heap praise on somebody? Should we use RfCs in reverse? This is an abuse of Wikipedia processes. RfA is ill-suited to handle such a request, was not designed to handle a request, and regardless of the result will not result in the action that Silsor wants. He's been directed to the appropriate place to handle his request. He should go there. If a brand new user took the Mel Gibson article to AfD to get an idea of how much the people liked the article, he would be roundly criticized for the action and it would be rapidly undone. Why is this any different? --Durin 13:13, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

RFA is and should be "bloody serious" (aside from the sometimes-funny support votes). WP:POINT still applies, even when the supposed point leaves most, including me, scratching their heads. IIRC, Aaron, you weren't too happy when Uncle Ed did a little "breaching experiment" by deleting VfD. What makes that bad and this okay? android 79 13:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know this admin, but this looks like vanity, pure and simple: and timewasting vanity at that. If an admin wants desysoped, he requests it at meta, he gets it - end of story. What this admin seems to want is a dramatic exit, with lots of people saying wonderful things about him. Well, someone give him a damn carriage clock - and organise a whip-round! It is about a childish as editors who say they are leaving the project, in order to get everyone to say 'no don't do that, we all really love you......' --Doc (?) 13:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

If we approach this another way:
1. Has silsor demonstrated that (prior to this) he was overly dramatic?
2. Has silsor demonstrated (prior to this) eggregious poor judgement?
3. Does silsor know what the processes are if all he wanted was to be dead-minned?

As I understand it, that's "No, no, and yes". So he makes his point, or gets his lovefest, or corrupts the database, or introduces crypto-anthrax into the Erotic spanking article or whatever. He's happy, and in three weeks this will barely be a blip on the collective horizon. We'll have all forgotten. Chant WP:IAR thirty times, examine the real level of harm done by this, and move on. The possible damage is limited mostly to silsor's reputation, slippery slope arguments aside. Most importantly - Nothing is to be gained by further exhorting him to stop. He's found enough supporters/hangers-on/codependant personality types/whatever to let him have this unfold the way he wants. Unless you want to have open wheel wars over this total non-issue? People do crazy things, stupid things, even pointless things, and sometimes all that we do if we try to figure out why is make ourselves crazy.
brenneman ^(t)^(c) 13:39, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I may be a little bit slow on the uptake, but to this moment I haven't really understood what he really wants. It smells of WP:Point, it has a slight tinge of vanity, with something on top which I can't really fathom. Lectonar 13:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Erotic spanking is censored where I'm at, but I must ask: what the hell is crypto-anthrax? ;). Marskell 13:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Aaron, I agree. To qualify as WP:POINT, an action has to involve a disruption. It takes maybe five seconds to read silsor's nomination and skip it, if you think it's pointless, futile, or a waste of time. We are engulfed in counting votes, tallying edits, and endlessly debating whether someone or other deserves to be admin; I find it refreshing to see this RfDA shake things up a bit, make us examine both our processes and our view of what is essentially a multi-class hierarchical society, as much as we hate to admit so. Silsor is questioning our beliefs in this dogma, but is doing so in a fascinating, thought-provoking way. Silsor didn't just go ahead and delete WP:RfA or open an RfC against all the admins whom he believes are tarnishing our image; his methods are much more subtle, and—I believe—more productive.

I think giving the RfA system a good shake once or twice a year is a good thing. It is, indeed, a constructive way to illustrate a point. Owen× ☎ 14:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

You see "fascinating" and "thought-provoking"; I see confusing and pointless. As it stands, I'm still unsure what silsor's point was in the first place, as he has remained pretty enigmatic throughout this whole... thing, whatever you want to call it. Whatever problems silsor sees with adminship could have been discussed thoughtfully on this talk page, but instead we get disruption and acrimony, intended or not. Make a statement with words, not with actions. android 79 14:58, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

In the absence of a detectable 'point' to this so-called 'disruption of WP:POINT', one arrives at the logical conclusion that there is no point trying to be proven, and that no harm is being done here. Talrias (t | e | c) 15:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, there's the unecessary conflict. If nobody can figure out precisely why the non-RFA was posted in the first place–I know I still can't figure it out–silsor's insistence on reposting it without a clear explanation of what he's looking for and why it belongs here is disruptive. There's also the bandwidth being wasted, which I object to as a matter of principle. This non-request will stay up for a week, then...what? Be closed as no consensus? Since nobody seems to understand exactly what Silsor is hoping to get out of this process, we can't give it to him anyway. If he wanted general comments on adminship versus non-adminship, he could use RFC or the Village Pump. He's a good editor and a sound admin, but this non-RFA just doesn't make any sense; it's disruptive for him to ignore all the other sensible editors who are telling him that.

This obviously isn't an urgent matter. He'd have been better off not repeatedly restoring his non-RFA to the main page until he could clearly spell out what he wanted to find out. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I've had the list of reasons for my RFD listed at the bottom of it for two days. You are of course welcome to continue wondering and speculating about what I want but it's really recommended reading. silsor 23:01, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The number of comments here expressing confusion would seem to suggest that some of us are particularly obtuse; we still don't understand what you're hoping to accomplish. If you're interested in knowing what we think of you having yourself desysopped, put a note on your user page, file an RFC, or post a question on the Pump. I suspect that the bulk of the reaction to your specific request would fall somewhere between "That's too bad; he's done a good job as an admin and I don't see why he needs to give up the tools if he's not leaving" to "Meh; this won't have a significant effect one way or the other".

If you're interested in more general comments or discussion about the adminship/deadminship processes here, once again an RFC or Pump notice would be the way to go; a note at AN and even a box at the top of RFA wouldn't be amiss.

This third route that you've chosen has left a lot of people scratching their heads. You've couched your non-RFA as a request for permission that we're not required to give (or capable of giving, for that matter). We've already told you how to achieve the goal you've purportedly set out to accomplish. Once again, I ask you to state plainly what you want. What topics do you want to discuss? What do you think is wrong that needs fixing? Do you have any goals here? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I second TenOfAllTrades. I support de-adminning, and I surely don't mind voluntary votes of confidence, although for both of those I have questions of the appropriate forum. Here, I'm still confused. I don't mind the RfA, I just can't see how it can mean anything. There are many different interpretations of what it's for, and many people like me, going, "eh?," so the thing is really useless. If Silsor wants it, fine... as long as he's actually de-adminned at the end of it, because I'm worried that he's unwell. Xoloz 18:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'll tell you what I don't understand, and that's why we're all still talking about this. The best thing that we could do is simply shu
brenneman^(t)^(c) 00:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
- I second the mo
  Owen× ☎ 00:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The proper page for such requests is meta:Requests for permissions. I have moved Silsor's request there. A vote is not necessary. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Antecedents not being checked (Archive 42)

I'm sort of stuck with this situation. Once someone is adminned, there's simply no way to deadmin them in practice (hey, I just tried). Even RFAr won't work, because -obviously- the candidate in question has never abused admin privileges, simply hasn't had the time. *sigh*

With so many nominations on Requests for Adminship these days, sometimes people don't know all of a candidates' antecedents, and often don't bother to look.

Any suggestions on how to change that? Kim Bruning 20:30, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

There are ways to deadmin people.Geni 09:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm sort of resigned about Hamster Sandwich. I'd like to work on setting up some antecent checking patrol so that we don't let people slip by with some parts of their history unchecked in future. Kim Bruning 05:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I like that. You know why not? Because you don't have any examples of someone with an "antecedent" that disqualified them from adminship. What you've got is Hamster Sandwich, who didn't do anything wrong and got RfAr'd because he didn't respond well when you tried to desysop him. (Can you blame him?) So what I hear you saying, at this point, is that you want to scrutinize peoples' edit histories for comments you find politically unacceptable. I know it doesn't say it anywhere in policy, but I think we can all agree that Wikipedia is not the House Committee on Unamerican Activities. -- SCZenz 07:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually I've had this issue a couple of times before on RfA actually, usually working to my disadvantage. I've had to work my rear end off figuring out how to resolve problems with a candidates' edit history more than once. Once , a candidate had a black mark almost a year old, and I ended up tracking down and having to mollify a guy who had since become a foundation officer(!), just to give her a fighting chance at adminship. Those were the days!

Sooo... Why should we make things any easier on you young 'uns? ;-) Kim Bruning 07:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I've voted now several times on RfAs where a person had done something wrong in the past and wanted to move on from it. Some voters apparantly believe that anything a person has done in their past without showing 150% remorse (e.g. literally handing their lives over to those who they have offended) should be permanently held against them if they ever seek a position higher than that of editor (or have the position sought for them). Truthfully? If they're sorry I give them the benefit of the doubt. Isn't that what "acting in good faith" is about? --Vortex 16:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

What kind of a mark is so black as to disqualify someone from adminship, when all their recent edits are good? I just plain don't understand. I only have one example to go on, and in that example the "black mark" was an opinion you didn't like, a misunderstanding involving proper use of buzzwords related to consensus, and an editor taking an RFA too personally and leaving the project. If somebody's nominated for adminship, and nobody can remember any "black marks", it probably means they're rare enough that the nominee won't abuse the tools. So please, answer the question at the top of this paragraph, and I'll reconsider my views. -- SCZenz 08:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Rl's departure wasn't about an editor taking it too personally, it was an editor wittnessing how broken Wikipedia has become of late first hands and walking away from the steaming pile. We failed to admin a fine user and reasonably well supported user because a political minority was able to block vote in his failure when he did not cow to their party line. We have reached a point where good users are caught in the crossfire between warring political factions on the project. I am gravely concerned that if this sort of thing is allowed to continue we will rapidly reach a point where the only people willing to continue participating are the people who are perpetuating this nonsense by being more interested in on wiki politics than enhancing the encyclopedia. I can't say that HS's mark from participating in that mob is alone black enough, even though it reeks of the politics over productivity which I fear causes and will cause so many problems... but I can say his reaction to the concerns is enough of a concern itself. --Gmaxwell 14:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad that we've moved on from the witchhunt against RI. Oh wait, it has now turned into a witchhunt against Hamster Sandwich. Guess we can't learn from other's mistakes. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

(Response to Gmaxwell, after edit conflict) Frankly, your response, and Kim's response, to the injustice against Rl has been to try to catch other editors in the same crossfire. Telling people to stop participating in the project is way, way out of line; it's very different from Rl exercizing his right to "fork or leave" because he didn't like how things were going here. -- SCZenz 17:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposed policy regarding inactive administrators (Archive 44)

Please see Wikipedia:Inactive administrators (2005) and indicate whether you support this proposal on the talk page. Thank you. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

A modest proposal (Archive 44)

I have a thought in regards to the recent conversations about adminship, suitability of admins, and the ease (or lack thereof) of de-adminship. Aircraft pilots must pass what's known as a biannual flight review. Every two years, no matter how much or how little they fly, a pilot must go for a quick test flight with an instructor who verifies that they still know enough to fly safely and haven't picked up bad habits that'll get them killed. Perhaps Wikipedia should consider adopting a similar methodology for gauging adminship on a continuing basis, but without adding to the RfA backlog.

Proposal:A machine generated list of admins who have been 'unchecked' for 6 months or some other arbitrary length would be be maintained, and a group of volunteers would do a quick review of the past X edits. I imagine the process being something that doesn't take more than 5 minutes or so per person, and also includes a quick scan of their user_talk to look for anything worrisome. If they see anything of concern, there would be a more indepth study, possibly with an RFC involved, but I expect that would be a very rare event. For this to work, nobody could be excluded. No matter how long someone has been with the project, everyone would have the quick review done on them.

Expected results: If there are admins who have become jaded and no longer exercise their powers with the attention to process, good will, and accuracy that is expected, then they will be given an opportunity to work things out with their peers.

With the flight reviews, every pilot (from the senior 747 captain to the occasional Cessna renter) has added incentive to stay current on policy (FAA regulations), keep their skills fresh, and gets an opportunity to receive feedback on their skills. With a little attention and not a lot of work, this could do a lot to smooth feathers and help keep the quality of Wikipedia up. Thoughts? Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, this sort of thing was proposed before (as an annual review) and rejected because this process would result in many admins losing access. The very nature of some admin activities means that admins can rub some editors the wrong way (because of blocks for 3RR and incivility, among others). I agree that the process for de-adminning is too difficult, but this makes de-adminning too easy. --D e ath phoenix 20:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I meant to add that the reviewers would be admins themselves who could differentiate users who were 'rubbed the wrong way' with admins who failed to excercise their skills properly and in accordance with policy. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

(ec) All editors are under review all the time, already. I don't see that making a formal review process would really accomplish much. At any rate, if such a review were to have any teeth, it would still require some way of revoking adminship from those who abuse it, right? If we had a way of revoking sysop rights, I think the application of it would take care of itself, without need for a scheduled review. Friday (talk) 20:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi Friday, great point, but one thing this would improve on is that currently, someone needs to complain before an admin is reviewed, and usually the person who complains ends up coming across as a crank. If the process is impersonal and by the numbers and everyone is reviewed on a scheduled basis, then you don't have to rely on a perfect storm of A: A user who was done 'wrong' who is also B: Eloquent. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Support with the following riders - admin inactivity itself should not be a reason for concern; apart from edits, the deletion, protection and block logs should be viewed; actions like indefinite blocks should be placed under careful scrutiny; Incivility, Personal attacks and newbie biting should be viewed more unfavorably than lapses in process; and finally, this should be re-named a radical proposal - sureshot way to elicit more participation in the discussion. --Gurubrahma 06:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Desysoping (Archive 47)

This is not related to requests for adminship, but is something which is probably going to be of interest to most people visiting this page. As written at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Love and Sunshine on a rainy day, Jimbo desysoped an administrator for a night, presumably for indefinitely blocking three administrators. Background is in the section before that. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:25, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been following it incredulously (but silently) during the Superbowl. Not sure if this is because admins are tired/moody/grouchy from the whole Userbox Wars (I know I sure am, but my actions WRT this have been rather limited) or simply because Jimbo and ArbCom are more likely to desysop people now, but if the latter is true, it might actually mean that RfA reform isn't as much of a problem as before: I'd still like to ask the optional questions (though only one or two), but while we're discussing its merits, I have decided to hold off on asking for now. If ArbCom is more likely to desysop people (such as Freestylefrappe, if his RfAr holds out), they're showing that adminship is "no big deal" on the other side of the equation, and IMO, we don't need to implement the more drastic measures in reforming RFA (clarify: although it wouldn't hurt... much). --D e ath phoenix 13:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Hello D e ath phoenix : ) This is a very good point. Additionally, instead of making the Rfa process more difficult for everyone, we should do more to help editor become good administrators. I'm going to go through Rfa after I finish a checklist I developed for myself. Good self-evaluation should be the first step. Also, mentoring instead of sponsorship, especially for editors with problems in their past. --FloNight 13:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Very good points. The proposed "RfA reform" seems to focus primarily on introducing complicated new rules, as if they could predict in advance who will be a bad apple and who won't. As wisely noticed in the comments above, the focus should be on working with new admins, and desysoping people who just don't get the adminship. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I guessed that the Superbowl massacre would be discussed here. Perhaps this should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Requests for de-adminship. As for RfA, I'm happy with the current RfA process, but I am also sure the new proposals will work fine too. NoSeptember ^talk 16:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems we have 5 desysopings for a night, [2].That may be a more effective way of dealing with admins pushing things too far than any reforms discussed in this page and related. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Desyssoping mechanisms (Archive 58)

There's been some talk on this page in the last week or two about the need for a system for removing people from the adminship. Earlier, someone suggested that all adminships have a sunset clause that requires admins to be reconsidered once per year. This was widely opposed as unworkable (given that there are 800+ admins) and undesireable, since it would mean that admins have to think more about politics than policy.

I'm sure I'm not the only one, however, who's seen admins who have behaved very badly and who, if the community had known how they were going to act, would never have passed the RfA process. I'm also sure that I'm not the only one who thinks that there should be some mechanism by which the community, whose consensus bestowed sysoppery, might take it away. (There is, to my mind, a strange assymetry to our system in that it is community concensus that creates admins, but only ArbCom that can undo this).

What I see as a potential mechanism (which I'd like to hear your thoughts on) would be a two-stage process. First, a petition-like stage which would require that if a certain number of wikipedians-of-good standing (say 25? 50? some proportion of admin's RFA vote? recent admin vote?) sign on as requesting a review, the admin in question would be submitted to a new RfA process (or perhaps a RfA-like process). Perhaps an ArbCom/Jimbo approval to follow? Anyway, tell me what you think. Bucketsofg✐ 13:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's up to once a week, I see. Kim Bruning 13:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we need a page containing links to all the proposal pages and archived talk pages where we've discussed these things. We can use a Wikilink to such a page to respond to these now-weekly proposals. --Deathphoenix ʕ 13:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Bucketsofg. I suggested this same type of system on the admin accountability proposal page. joturn e r 13:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Should have known that something similar had been suggested. Given the number who are against having a community-based mechanism in the discussion you link, my guess is that any change is a dead letter. Bucketsofg✐ 13:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much. If an admin's actions are bad enough to warrant desysopping, take it to the ArbCom. I haven't seen any indication that they're overloaded with desysopping requests—so until there's an indication that they can't handle it, they seem to be the logical route. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Ditto. Johnleemk | Talk 14:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Also, many of the accusations of rouge admin performance are based on the fact that there is disagreement over some fundamental policies of Wikipedia, and how those policies should be enforced, and how fast such enforcement should be (fast gives the appearance of being recklessly out of process). It is important to have people who understand the finer points of policy and process to make the desysop decisions, to distinguish between real rouge performance and the mere appearance of rogueness, and ArbCom fits the bill nicely. NoSeptember ^talk 14:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Were any actions taken based on the feedback, Jo ? "Someone should have the authority to temporarily de-admin problematic admins", for instance, was voted 40-18. Tintin (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimbo has that authority, as does Danny of the WP:OFFICE. Stewards have the technical ability, though they exercise it rarely and only in clear-cut cases (obviously insane or compromised account). The recent examples I can think of ended up before ArbCom for review anyway. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom has that authority as well, and I imagine they could pass an injunction fairly quickly if truly needed. Christopher Parham (talk) 15:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

In an emergency, where there is question of an admins actions, the developers will desysop; they will, in some cases, do so more quickly than stewards will. There are plenty of mechanisms to have someone desysopped (including several of us who have home and mobile phone numbers of stewards and developers) if they really need to be; the fact of the matter is, there are very few cases where someone should be desysopped without an arbitration case or direct-intervention from Jimbo. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 15:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

And this is when we ask how many developers and stewards you have been caught stalking :), seriously though I agree with Essjay that there are plenty of fallbacks in place and adding a new one would cause more problems that it would solve. Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 19:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm swear not stalking..."DANNY! MARRY ME! PLEEEEEEEEASE!" </stalker> Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

"That's hot!" Ok... seriously, is there actually a problem here about not being able to get hold of devs or stewards? ++Lar: t/c 01:48, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems like this emergency desysopping has only been used on Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason before. So there's no big deal if we don't have a formal quick desysopping process. Kimchi.sg 04:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Jimbo desysopped several (ungefahr 5?) people recently during the pedophile controversy. So there have been more than just Ævar. -lethe ^{talk +} 06:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

He did, indeed, in fact, his only actions as a steward have been to desysop people in his capacity as "the safety valve." However, they weren't really security-related desysoppings (Avar's was, irreversible image deletions were taking place, and there was no response to requests to explain), but rather, desysoppings to stop a wheel war from sucking in more people. There wasn't any reason to thing any permanent damage would be done to the project (permanent damage meaning things like permanent loss of images, or irreversible page history merges, or DOS consequences from deleting huge pages, etc.); the real danger was that we could lose valuable contributors due to the heated actions that were being taken. So, "social" security concerns, not "technical" security concerns. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 00:57, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

new angle

I agree with all that's been said so far, but I had a different idea: we should have a mechanism to desysop admins that have gone on the record in saying that they are leaving Wikipedia and they do not intend to return. I mean, if the person has decided to kick the bucket once and for all, there seems to be no purpose in keeping the flag for that account, which may also end up compromised sometime in the future. Recently, Carbonite announced that he was leaving, and requested to be desysopped, but Radiant also left and the account still has sysop status. I would think some time would be allowed to pass, so that it can be confirmed that the user wasn't just blowing off steam and had no intention to actually leave the project — say, after a couple of months without editing following the statement that s/he was leaving? Redux 02:00, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

A couple of months is a tad too short. Ta bu shi da yu announced he wanted to leave last year, but came back after 2 months or so. Kimchi.sg 04:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Emergency desysopping was used in the case of the Great Pedophile Userbox Wheel War (or GPUWW). Basically, a few of us arbcomers who were around notified Jimbo that an emergency was brewing, and based on the recommendations we gave him, he desysopped them until we could address it in a case. Raul654 05:04, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The original post by Bucketsofg was not about such emergencies but about those are invicil and who if they stood for an RfA now, would be soundly defeated. Tintin (talk) 05:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Normally, a user who makes a personal choice to leave, and actually does leaves, doesn't come back any time soon — leave it to Ta bu shi da yu to subvert that rule ;). If there are more common cases of users who state for the record that they are leaving for good and return after a couple of months or so, then we could wait a longer period, naturally (although it is also possible that the account be desysopped for security reasons and, if the user ever returns, s/he could request to be resysopped upon his or her return). I believe Raul was referring to Carbonite's situation. If I recall correctly, Carbonite declined an offer to be resysopped, saying that he had actually requested to be desysopped already, that he was leaving and had no intention of changing his mind. Carbonite's been inactive since February 11 (or so), but there's no issue there because the account has had the admin flag removed. To return to my other example, Radiant has been inactive since February 7, that is, over three months (closer to four months by now). Since the user left a very clear statement that he was leaving, retaining the admin status for the account seems pointless at best. Any accounts with admin access in a similar situation should be desysopped, but we don't have a system in place to make this happen — and it's not just admins: Optim left Wikipedia in March of 2004 with a clear statement that he was leaving for good. It took us nearly two years to remove his Bureaucrat access, and the account still holds admin access, despite being inactive for 2 years and 2 months (at the time of this post). Redux 05:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Zoe gone for a year before returning? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 06:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I see no need to remove access for any position held by inactive users except those that could be misused covertly or unreversably if they fell in the wrong hands (namely, developers and checkusers). There is no real risk with admins or bureaucrats. Creating a new policy for a non-issue seems unnecessary. NoSeptember ^talk 13:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

But did Zoe go on the record to say something like I'm leaving for good? Because that's the instance I'm talking about. I don't know: it's been said time and again that, although almost every admin activity can be reverted, misuse of the tools consistently can cause a lot of trouble around. In this case, it would be about a possible compromise in the account that has been abandoned by the [ex?]user. And in any case, it would serve us to keep things in check: an admin is a trusted user who has the tools in order to do maintenance work, even if just occasionaly. A user who has left for good, and left a clear statement to that effect, is not going to be using the tools, and it's not as if desysopping an account is a laborous opperation that requires rebooting the servers. It's particularly simple when it comes to applying objective criteria (user declared that s/he was leaving for good / user did leave — not edited anymore) to someone who's not even interested in the project (let alone Adminship) anymore. Quite simply, it doesn't hurt anyone, it keeps the admin community "up to date" and it may even prevent occasional/eventual problems. Remembering: we could make it so that the [extremely] rare departed users who end up returning can request resysopping of their accounts (subject to some kind of community approval, maybe RfA-like) upon their return. Redux 15:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

They can say whatever they want, but unless they specifically request to be desysopped, why should we act as if they had? When was the last time an inactive admin went on a destructive spree? And if it happened, wouldn't we just take care of it promptly like any other problem admin? NoSeptember ^talk 15:24, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that when an Administrator, who is supposed to be a dedicated user, declares of his or her own will, for reasons that are his or her own, the s/he is leaving Wikipedia, and then actually leaves, that would pretty much mean that they forfeit any kind of privilege (not the best word, but it's late where I am...) that they had had bestowed upon them as dedicated users, which they are not anymore, by choice. Redux 01:46, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm...I left for a month at the end of last year...Should I be included in your list of undedicated users? Essjay (Talk • Connect) 02:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

And, what if someone was forced to leave for 6 months because of, say, health problems that they didn't want to share with the whole world? Just let sleeping dogs lie. If they come back, great! If they don't, they aren't hurting anyone. If they come back to hurt someone, they can then be blocked and ArbCommed. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Guys, again, I'm referring exclusively to users who go on the record saying that they are leaving for good for reasons that are their own (most say they're "outraged" by something, or just that they've "lost interest"). This does not apply to users who take extended wikibreaks or users that vanish misteriously (the latter because we could never be sure of what happened). Redux 02:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but often people decide to come back, and then what? Make them go through the RfA process again? Who is is hurting to leave these users be? I just don't see much of a point. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Stupid computer... something went awry and submitted the page without my wanting to. My first missed edit summary in like 7 or 8 months! Argh! Harumph! Oh well, the new streak starts now. --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know of users who have left on the terms I've just mentioned that decided to come back. And the proposal includes a waiting period designed to make sure that the disgruntled Admin wasn't just blowing off steam in the wake of a very unpleasant episode. Consider this rhetorical question: would you support the RfA of a user who had gone on the record saying that they no longer care for the project (and meant it)? This is why the proposal would apply only to this particular situation. Hey, let's desysop Mark for forgetting the edit summary! ;) Redux 03:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if they really meant it, and they aren't coming back, what is so egregious as to desysop them? If they really meant it, they aren't coming back to cause trouble, so rather than create some new policy or procedure, why not just move them to the "Inactive Administrators" list and forget about them? Why do they need to be desysoped? Is their tool retention injurious to anyone? And I would understand about the missing summary thing :-( Addendum: And for the record, I didn't "forget" it, some combination of keys and clicks caused it to submit before I had finished writing it... I had written "ore", but wanted to write "More" and somehting got messed up. I know it doesn't matter to anyone, but I was so proud, and it was some freak thing (i.e. not "forgetting") --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's not that it's injurious. It's a point of order. After all, Adminship is not an entitlement, and this should not apply just to users who are not yet admins but want to be. It serves no purpose for the community to have an admin who has said in so many words that s/he doesn't want to be involved with the project anymore. In the odd case that the user should return after a long period (exceeding the waiting period in the proposal), s/he would (should?) have to go through some kind of process to regain admin access (maybe an abbreviated RfA?). It's only fair: if one leaves saying one doesn't cares about the project anymore, then it would be expected that some kind of evidence be provided that the user has gone back on this entirely before Adminship can be restored. Plus, an account with admin access that's been abandoned, left unattended, it's a liability. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But some day.... Redux 03:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"I don't know of users who have left on the terms I've just mentioned that decided to come back." Hello Redux, nice to meet you, my name is Essjay. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 03:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Did you state for the record (on a wikipedia page — possibly your user page — and not IRC or something) that you were leaving for good and you didn't want to have anything to do with the project anymore? And if you did, you came back a month later, which would be well within the "observation period" before anyone would have suggested that you be desysopped on these terms had this proposal been in effect at the time. That is: nothing would have happened. Redux 03:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Quite a few people can attest to the fact that I did. I had no intention of returning, and wouldn't have if it hadn't been for about four very close friends I've made here who spent a month having email conversations with me, and my partner, who spent a month trying to convince me that it was worthwhile to do (the same partner who's vote in my RfB was described as "worthless").

My point in this is to point out what people tend to forget: Be very careful what you say, because you don't know who you're talking about when you make a blanket statement. Your comment about admins who leave being undedicated did include me, because it was a blanket statement directed at everyone who fits the criteria stated (desire to permanently leave, coupled with the corresponding action), and it did hurt me, because I don't think I or a lot of the others who fit in the same group you painted with a single brush deserve to be described as "undedicated." I'm not angry, I'm not going to scream and yell, but I am hurt by it; I don't think that was your intent at all, it was an unfortunate consequence of a very broad blanket statement.

My hope was that you would recognize the hint given, specifically, that you were treading into territory where you were very likly to unknowingly hurt and/or offend a lot of people who do a lot of work to keep this site running. It's fine to put forth a proposal, it's fine to support desysopping people, and it's great that you've put a lot of thought into it and made consideration for special cases. The comments in question left the realm of the proposal, however, to make a blanket claim: Any admin who decides to leave the project, and does so, is not a dedicated user. That covers a lot of people, and it hurts.

Just to clarify: It has nothing to do with whether or not the proposal would have applied in my or anyone else's case; it is about the fact that we were included in the group labeled "undedicated users." Essjay (Talk • Connect) 04:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm very sorry if I've hurt anyone's feelings, that was certainly not my intention. I'm always very careful with how a word my remarks, exactly because this method of communication makes misunderstandings very easy to happen. Since I seem to have fallen short this time, I would like to clarify a couple of things: 1) From the very beginning, the idea included a waiting period to make sure that the user would follow through with the decision to leave Wikipedia. Everyone and anyone is entitled to venting steam, obviously, and in the process we can do and/or say things that we wish we hadn't once we cool off, or at least we reconsider what we've said, and it no longer represents our views. It would be preposterous to suggest that someone should be desysopped immediately after posting a note saying that they were leaving, simply because there's no way to make sure that this is a final decision — and obviously, such a decision is not usually made in a completely serene state of mind; most users do it in the aftermath of a very unpleasant situation; 2) Let me clarify something, I did not mean that anyone who has ever left Wikipedia is an "undedicated user". A user who leaves, but decides to return, doesn't become less dedicated because s/he once thought of leaving, or left for a while. It's not like we're getting paid here. And as for the user that left and didn't return, this doesn't cancel the user's past as a valued member of this community. I never saw this proposal as any kind of judgement on the character of anyone who's left. However, and logically, a user who is gone cannot be a dedicated user while s/he is gone — and if they're never returning... Doesn't mean that they weren't, or that they couldn't be again. The comment in question, and all of my comments in this thread, is referring to users who left of their own will and, this is central, stayed gone: taking the already-used example of Optim: he was a great user, and very dedicated; but when I refer to him, I must say that he was a dedicated user, not that he is, since he's gone,and for over two years now. The proposal is to desysop users who are gone and are extremely unlikely to return, but if they happened to return, they would be entitled to seek resysopping of their accounts, naturally. And the idea that they'd need to go through a revalidation process (RfA-like?) is just a suggestion at this point. Maybe no revalidation would be necessary. The user could simply post at the Bureaucrats' noticeboard and link to his successful RfA and the user rights log showing his sysopping following it (proof that he was an admin). And again, this would all be in the odd possibility that the user did return — remembering: this is not about a user who said s/he was leaving but didn't, or returned relatively soon after, this would be users who declared they were leaving and didn't return for an impressive amount of time (six months? a year?).
Once again, I apologize for any offense or discomfort that any comment of mine might have caused. Sorry, this got a little long :P Redux 06:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any real risk of abuse of old admin accounts, and the costs appear to outweight the benefits IMO. A desysoped admin would still have to rerequest the mop (even if only at the 'crats noticeboard), and this can take time. An admin willing to take up the slack immediately should be able to, and there's no real proof that old admin accounts have gone berserk. (Though this will undoubtedly happen eventually, the chances of it are very remote.) Johnleemk | Talk 08:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think this idea of desysopping people who say they they may leave the project will yield any benefits. I am amazed to see how often suggestions involving all kind of rules attempting to fix what ain't broken show up on this page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest leaving aside the "clear statement" that someone is not returning which I find problematic, and bump the whole thing up to year. Simply, if an admin doesn't edit for twelve months, they get desysopped. And not as a punitive thing but rather to reflect that changes in policy need to be absorbed if such a person came back. An admin returning today after twelve months would think AfD is still VfD, not have a clue about WP:PROD, be unaware of changes to CSD criteria (and the debates behind them), and also know nothing about semi-protect. Perfectly reasonable to say "edit for a month or two and then re-apply if you want". Marskell 08:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Those are minor issues which don't merit desysoping. AfD had a name change, but that's as far as the changes went. (I stopped closing VfDs/AfDs for 1.5 years, and when I came back adjusting to the situation was a snap.) PROD is self-explanatory, and an admin who didn't get it would have the good sense not to muck with it. The CSD criteria may be a bit problematic, but most admins would have the good sense to provide a reason for speedying articles to prevent confusion amongst those unaware of the CSDs. (And besides, what harm would an admin unaware of the new CSDs do? At worst, she'd avoid speedying articles we're allowed to.) And semi-protection? The interface is self-explanatory. A returning admin would just go "Cool, new features!" (The interface doesn't call it "semi-protect", btw - it gives a self-explanatory title listing classes of users which will be banned from editing the page.) None of these changes are fundamental enough to make it worth forcing an admin to go through RfA again. If most admins use common sense and act with the encyclopaedia's interests at heart (WP:IAR/WP:SNOW), things will be fine. Johnleemk | Talk 09:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe that, with a waiting period anywhere between six months and a year before desysopping a "departed" admin, the cases of returning Admins (desysopped) would be quite rare. I would also say that this proposal has nothing to do with "trying to fix what is not broken". It's not broken, but nor is it perfect. I don't believe anyone here claims that it is. The purpose is to try to improve the system, and we need not wait until it's on the verge of collapse before we make any kind of change in the status quo.
I maintain that the only people affected by this would be admins who went on the record saying that they were leaving and did not edit anymore, i.e. they left for good (verified by not editing for an impressive amount of time). I wouldn't support desysopping a user who has just stopped editing without any kind of explanation, because, as others have already brought up, there could be any reason for that (sickness, overwhelming "real life" obligations, etc). It's quite different from a user who leaves with a statement like "yes, I'm leaving for good because I've lost all faith in the project". Once we verify that the user is indeed gone, this becomes an extreme case where maintaining Adminship for the account has no purpose. Desysopping in this situation is not complicated or laborous. The criteria are objective and the procedure, not really complicated. Still, it could be a useful step to leave a warning message in the user's talk page, something like "this account is about to be desysopped due to (...)", so that there would still be one last chance in the unlikely case that the user was considering returning.
Again, I'd like to make it clear that the proposal is not to simply desysop inactive users. Only those who left with a declaration that they were indeed leaving for good for whatever reason and, most importantly, stayed gone. Redux 15:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"We need not wait until it's on the verge of collapse before we make any kind of change in the status quo". In short, Wikipedia is in grave motal danger, and only rules, and yet more rules, are the only thing which can save her. :)

I believe it is rules, rather than anything else are the greatest problem, they may simply suffocate this project. You may be right, a time may come when a rogue admin or compromised admin account may inflict irreversible damage to Wikipedia, such as deleting a huge amount of pictures which were not cached by the server. But that's unlikely. I think we are fine the way we are, and attempts at "perfection" usually make things worse, not better. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I really don't believe that not treating adminship like an entitlement would be instruction creep — as a further note: our article on instruction creep is at Meta; on Meta, an admin can be desysopped simply for being inactive for a relatively short period of time; The page on Meta administrators also states that sysop-hood is not a lifetime status. By no measure is that regarded as instruction creep (or else there's a grave double standard at work over there, something which I don't believe anyone would claim). It is a question of policy. As I said in a response to Mark earlier, even if nothing bad is about to happen, there's still a question of logic and organization. This proposal seemed — to me, obviously — rather reasonable because it would concern only an extreme case. I still have other great arguments, but since there seems to be no interest in actually implementing the proposal (except for my own :P), I believe this can be dropped. Redux 05:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see taking admin accounts away from these inactive users as something to pursue. The only real effect I figure it would have is it might deter them from coming back, and we don't want that. I'm much more interested in the idea of having policy enforcement by the community regarding active admins. Everyking 10:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I see my name mentioned here. :) Yes, I was gone for more than a year. I took a long break, got a life (so much for that), and poked around again on Wikipedia, noticing that the person who had made life a living hell for me around here was no longer participating as frequently. I felt the time was right to come back. I don't see why somebody who has had the community's support to become an admin loses that support if they take a break for a while. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to de-admin someone after a few months of inactivity. There is a small security risk in having an empty empowered account lying around unmonitored. Once an admin comes back, it gives them a chance to get back into the groove of any new quarks that are going on. That person should have plenty of community support and it shouldn’t be a big deal making the request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supercoop (talk • contribs)

No, no. It wasn't meant to desysop people who take a break. Only users who declare that they are leaving for good and do indeed leave — as verified by extended absense, for months, or a year, but the user would have had to have made an inequivocal declaration that s/he was leaving for good, with no intention to return for whatever reason. Breaks and "misterious disappearances" were not covered by this proposal. Just to clarify, since the proposal is not going anywhere anyway. Redux 19:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

True - I was trying to address the concerns in the entire thread. An admin that leaves is certainly inviting hackers to brute force that users account. However, I would go further and say that after two months of being inactive, that Admin is removed from the admin list. If that users returns within a year or two then automatically re-admin that person. After a year or two, too many things can change and that would require getting back into the groove and going through a new RfA. (make sure I sign it this time) --Supercoop 20:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I know this discussion has wanned, but perhaps there could be some middle ground. What if instead of desysopping anyone, the accounts were just blocked (hear me out) with a note placed on their talk page to the effect of "your dormant admin account may have been a liablility, and was therefore blocked. If you would like to be reinstated place {{adminunblock}} (or whatever) on your talk page and it will be dealt with." That way we don't have an admin come back and just start deleting things, etc. The actual process could be changed up a bit, but perhaps the idea is valid. Comments? --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 17:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm in favour of not removing sysop rights unless some transgression has occurred. Is there an actual case where this rule would have been useful? Or is this just a rule for the sake of it? Stephen B Streater 17:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

A standard block has no effect on an administrator. The only way to shut off their sysop powers is to remove those powers. Ingoolemo ^talk 17:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

So are there any cases where this would have been used? Stephen B Streater 17:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You mean if there are cases of admins that have been inactive for an impressive amount of time? Several, if not many. But as Ingoolemo said, technically, a standard block is not effective on an administrator. Redux 17:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No - I mean cases where an absent admin has returned to wreak havoc. Stephen B Streater 18:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

D'oh. I was confusing what the devs had put in place. Didn't the devs a while back put a feature in so that admins who were blocked couldn't use rollback? Well, I guess I thought that meant they couldn't perform other admin functions as well. But of course. My mistake. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, ok. I can't remember any instance, but the underlying purpose would be prevention, not punishment. Besides, as I see it, the real danger would be that an account that has been abandoned is an account that could be hacked. That is to say, a different individual behind the wheel. Someone who never earned adminship having instant access to the tools. I mean, if my account was hacked tomorrow, I'd notice immediately, since I log in at least once a day. I would take steps to resolving the situation, but a person who's left completely would not be here to inform us that it is not him or her opperating the account. Once more, I must bring back the notion that the original proposal I presented would affect only accounts whose owners had made an inequivocal declaration that they were leaving with no intention to return, and did indeed leave (impressive absence, i.e. no editing for a long time). I believe it would be reasonable to assume that an account in that situation has been left completely unatended. And, from the logical point of view, there's the lack of purpose in maintaining admin access for an abandoned account. Redux 18:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit this is convincing. I would like a simple re-admin procedure for former admins to reflect their previous contributions and likely helpful future contributions. Stephen B Streater 18:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Admin recall has landed (Archive 58)

See Category:Administrators open to recall. Haukur 11:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

If I were to understand this correctly, we are asking every admin to add themselves to the list on "moral" grounds saying that not adding oneself to the list would qualify them as rogue admin and hence they would be seen as bad-faith admins (implied, and not directly stated). -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

That's exactly how I view the proposal. I refused to be emotionally or morally blackmailed into adding my name to a list like that. I'm quite sure that the creators of the idea will point out that it wasn't meant to put that kind of pressure on admins, but in reality it does and I won't be part of it. A lot more than 6 people made me an admin, and it will take a lot more than that for me to accept de-adminning (other than Jimbo or arbcom of course.)pschemp | talk 13:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it WOULD take a lot more than 6 people to deadmin you. The 6 people are more like, at least the way I take it, a signal that there is desire to look into it, not the number needed to deadmin you. Further, since our default here is no consensus == no change, (and again, the way I would do myself) I'd do an RfC and if it wasn't a clear consensus that I'd screwed up, no change. Please don't look at this as blackmail, either, because (again, in my view) that's not what it is intended to be. It's intended to be saying that you consider yourself not above being held accountable. ++Lar: t/c 13:29, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

And those who don't immediately jump to place this cat on their userpages, therefore, do consider themselves above being held accountable. I know that's not what you meant, but that's exactly how it sounds.

I don't object to being held accountable for my actions. I don't even object to losing sysophood — who knows, it might be enough of a kick in the pants to get me back to editing more regularly, which is why we're all here in the first place, right? But I'm not about to put something on my userpage saying I've joined yet another clique, and I'm not about to watch the inevitable insinuations that those who don't are bad Wikipedians. This is an idea that really needed a lot more thought. Thoughts like "I know! How about we scrap this idea?" fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 13:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Bingos. This is as bad as putting a userbox on my user page that declares my religion. Instead its, hey, I'm a believer in the Accountable Admin religion, and the insinuation is that because you have not publically declared, that you are not. I do realize that the intent of the creation of the category was not to guilt people into joining, but it already reeks of that, and in practice, that is what will happen. That result can't be escaped because we are human. Its not anyone else's business exactly how I feel accountable to the project, but the unintended consequence of this proposal is that it puts pressure on people to state that. There is no reason to create yet another thing to split and divide wikipedians. pschemp | talk 17:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit curious, why do you feel it is no-one's business how you feel accountable to the project? Haukur 23:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Because I am already accountable to the project in the same way all admins are when given the position for the community. There is no need to go around publicly declaring what already is. pschemp | talk 18:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough but it's not a matter of declaring yourself accountable, it's a matter of saying that you're not necessarily going to force people to drag you to ArbComm before you're willing to listen to what they have to say. (in a more formal way than just reading what they say on your talk page...) If it's a fad, if it's a bad idea, no one else will do it and those of us that did will remove ourselves from the category, and that will be that. ++Lar: t/c 23:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think recall itself is a good thing, unless it's tied to abuse of admin powers. It wouldn't be good for it to be a popularity contest—I'm pretty sure I wouldn't survive this, just because I've got a sufficient number of people who don't like me, even though no one accuses me of abusing admin powers. Everyking 13:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I personally would not object to having my name put on that list, but I agree with Ambuj that those who would object may be looked down upon, which doesn't really seem right. --tomf688 (talk - email) 13:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

We pay admins to be unpopular. We don't want them to be chucked out just because of that. It's breaking the rules which should lead to re-evaluation - and Arbitration can fix that already. Also, a lot of admins had more than 6 oppose votes when they were elected - before they had a chance to make tough decisions. Stephen B Streater 13:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The idea (as far as I'm concerned, anyway) is to have a broad framework for individual admins to customize according to their lights. So if you will stand for confirmation if you get X people who accuse you of abusing admin tools then go ahead and do that. Haukur 14:32, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Huh? Lights? Please clarify.pschemp | talk 17:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Lights==preferences or tastes. Mine are at the top of my user talk page, and I suggest people take a look. If this initiative stratifies things then it's not good I guess. But, Stephen, it will take a lot more than 6 people to actually remove someone in this process if they style after how I styled it. ++Lar: t/c 17:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should also make a category for those who do not want to add themselves to the recall category, but do not feel comfortable either with the implied against-recall notion when they do not, so that they can make clear they are not a rouge admin either? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 17:45, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Lar, are you going to publish your criteria for "good standing" in advance? I think that if you are happy to "stand trial" for a perceived dereliction of duty, you would also be happy to alter your behaviour once the consensus was established. A new RfA will bring up every skeleton or slightly misjudged decision, and aggrieved parties will all come to vote - it would be a much tougher challenge than the first go. Perhaps a big majority should be required to remove an Admin. But I'm happy that you see yourself as accountable. Stephen B Streater 18:07, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm not sure I'd publish them in advance actually, haven't decided, the in advance suggests gaming the system though. 500 edits is bandied about on the talk page. Remember that ArbComm still is a check on this, if an admin were asked to do this after pledging to, the 6 people asking were "reasonable" people, and the admin refused, that would seem to weigh against them in a subsequent arbcomm, wouldn't it... I have to go soon, have a flight to catch, so may not get back to this for a while. But here's the thing.. the process now for censuring admins seems to be very step function... nothing at all, then elephant gun. This is trying to introduce another step. Unlike a straight RfC which we have seen admins ignore, this (maybe because the person said in advance they'd heed it so the community would hold them to it), would carry more weight. If 6 serious people did turn up and say I'd been a total wanker, and here is why, I'd have to take that seriously whether I published criteria in advance for what "serious" meant, or not, and if it were 6 people whose main contributions were carrying out disruptions first suggested on WR and harassing good editors, I'd ignore them, again whether they fit published criteria or not. Maybe it's a bad idea but at least it's being talked about. As for KimvdLinde's suggestion of another category, sure, why not? What would you call it though? It would need a careful name so that it captured the discomfort with this idea without casting aspersions on either this idea or on NOT doing it. Sorry if that was a bit of a ramble, but again, the idea at least at first is to just say, hey, I'm willing to be accountable, I am willing to listen and you don't have to do an ArbComm to get my attention. If it caught on and 90% of all admins did it, that would presumably tell you something about the other 10%... but the something it would tell you is "they don't want to do that" not "they are all bad admins"... because in my view, people who don't want to do it are NOT bad people. They just choose not to do it. Heck, one of my noms speaks out about it above, and, IMHO at least, she's a great admin. ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, every admin is accountable. Regardless. You get privileges to assist the community, if you turn out not to be worthy of them you should loose them. It is frankly not up to the admins themselves to say whether they are accountable, they just are. Consequently, I think the category is redundant. Just my $0.02 Eurocents. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:59, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, Kim has summarised my feelings exactly. We are already accountable, and there are already mechanisms in place to deal with those who abuse their position. What's the point of adding another? It makes much more sense to make the current process more efficient, rather than add an entirely new one. pschemp | talk 18:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I would oppose this because it seems to be an idea arrived at without community consensus and is plain absurd. Many admins get elected with more than 6 opposers. If everytime they just play the appoint-disappoint game, we would deviate from the reason we exist — To create an encyclopedia. A more saner (though still not acceptable as devoid of community consensus) option would be to start the process when there are 8 opposers, 5 of whom supported the admin concerned in the admin's RfA. This means that only when does a candidate "breaks" the trust of those who already trust him, should such a process be started. If they can't get such 5 people, try Request for Comments/Arbitration. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

A noble idea, accountability is very important, but this just isn't the way to go about it. More community involvement in sanctioning errant admin behaviour is needed. The community approves admin requests after all, so should be able to un-approve, but this is not it (don't ask me what is). And while we're not on the topic of RfA colours, can I change mine to "light cactus", kind of two shades removed from #E4EBE4 :-) --Cactus.man ✍ 17:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, more community involvement is required. This is a way, it is thought, to foster that... Suggest changes in it if you like, because straight RfC doesn't seem to work very well... turns into a witchhunt with no real change in the person, because the person is totally on the defensive... it's sprung on them as it were. Heck, I dunno... ++Lar: t/c 19:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure how much better this idea is than the original one, especially for older admins like myself. I was promoted with less than two dozen votes, and only half of those who supported me are regularly active anymore. Therefore it would be a much bigger deal, at least percentage wise, if five of those were to question my actions than if someone who was promoted with 150 support votes was questioned by five of theirs. Due to the nature of Adminship I still remain unconvinced that ArbCom is not the way to go if someone misbehaves too badly. That being said, I am sure I would resign my position if I got a lot of angry messages on my talk page; I would have thought, however, that it would be the nature of the complaints, rather than the volume, that would convince me to resign or reapply. Rje 18:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been here as long as many of you, but I didn't think this was how we make new proposals. I thought we outlined the idea, discussed it and tried to reach a concensus on it. We don't collect lists of names. I still don't get what's wrong with ArbCom - if they aren't strict enough, then we should have a discussion about that, not try and create yet another idea for removing rogue admins. --Tango 19:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think perhaps people are somewhat right that there is a little pressure to place yourself in this category, but, looking at it as a binary view, I guess you are either open to being recalled or you aren't. The exact method of being recalled can get discussed, expounded and moved forward however you want, but at the end of the day, you're either openb to being recalled or you're not. I thought about adding myself to this or not over a copuile of days, and then realised that's the nub of the issue; that if the community feel I don't deserve to be an admin anymore, I'm not going to be one. I'm not going to force people to add themselves to this category, but I think people should examine why they don't. To me, not adding myself ultimately meant I was prepared to fight tooth and nail for my admin powers, which I have always argued are no big deal. If they are no big deal, I must be prepared to lose them, and to lose them with grace. If I have become the sort of admin who believes they have a right to be one, then I don't think I'm the sort of admin Wikipedia needs. That was my thinking on the matter, anyway. It's granted by the community, and should remain in the grant of the community. As to questions of how policy is formed, this is certainly one way to create a policy, and if anyone is concerned at the lack of consensus or prior discussion, I suggest they look at Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll. Hiding Talk 20:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't really expect this kind of heated response. This wasn't meant to be a huge deal, it's just a little voluntary effort to increase the accountability of participating admins. We're not saying ArbCom isn't doing their job and this category is by no means intended to replace it. But the ArbCom is intended as a last resort - what we're saying is that we'll take complaints seriously before they reach the ArbCom level. Many people have expressed frustration in the past regarding admin accountability (see Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll for example) and this is one experiment to move us forward on that issue. I personally think the "admins should be unpopular" idea is a bit mistaken. Admins might be unpopular among trolls and vandals, certainly, but they shouldn't be unpopular among fellow Wikipedians and the great majority aren't. Haukur 23:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, as a non-admin, I really like this idea, and while I don't think any less of people who wouldn't want to sign up to this (for wahtever reason), it does reaffirm my trust in the ones who do. (Full disclosure: I currently know of no admins I'd like to recall).

Here's the truth, as I see it: the statement that "adminship is not a big deal" is currently wishful thinking (at best). Everything I have seen so far points to the fact that many people very much want to become admins, that adminship is, like it or not, an important status symbol. I don't think this is healthy, but it's the way things are right now.

I also suspect that this idea would be much more popular with non-admins in general; we're probably looking at a case of selection bias here, since this discussion page is, I believe, mostly read by admins. --Ashenai 16:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Work in progress

Oi vey. I must say, I didn't expect objections to be quite this heated, not to be from this quarter. There's no denying that I hoped this would catch on to the degree that some form of it it eventually became policy. Not because of "guilting" or "shaming." My number-one favorite wikipedian has gently declined, and I certainly don't think any less of him. I'd optimistically thought that for the vast majority of administrators would sign on without too much hesitation, and that it would become (in some form) just "what we did."

In the current conception, there are three barriers to re-setting the bit: six signatures, the personal choice to re-run, and the re-RfA itself.
- Despite what we seem to be saying, that first hurdle is a big one. I ruffle feathers on an almost daily basis: Closing AfDs as other than votes, slashing and burning dubious links, culling fair use images, etc etc. I haven't yet managed to get and keep six people mad at the same time.
- Going with the presumption that I'd not back out, I'm confident that I'd get the required numbers at RfA again. Admittedly the big problem I had last time hasn't gotten any better, but I think I've also demonstrated that I can be trusted.
We make policy on the fly all the time. Sometimes it goes nowhere, sometimes it takes awhile to take off, sometimes it kicks us in the pants and makes us say, "Gee, we actually want to do the opposite of that."
- If you don't like the category, change it. Add some caveats, make some notes, nominate it on CfD. That's what we do here, we work things out.
- Even better, drop by the talk page. Say why you don't like it, and try to have an open mind about what those who do like it have to say.
However appropiate or not anyone may think this implimentation is, surely it can't have escaped notice that the "appointed for life" aspect of adminship is one of the things that is a non-stop topic. I think the word commonly used is "perineum."
- Who is it going to be used on, really? I know most (800+) admins will never have to worry as they are niether abusive with the tools nor rude enough to have burning coals of resentment somewhere.
- Everyking *nod of head in his direction* has been mentioned several times as a possible first "victim." To be frank, I just don't think he's got that level of ill-will that he'd even get the six sigs.
- Let's not be shy, let's actually say whom we think would get screwed over if this became policy. At least then we'd be talking about something concrete.

brenneman ^{L} 07:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Silly thing, that's what this recall is. Another fad. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed something strange (Archive 68)

In the user rights log:

19:45, 8 August 2006 Raul654 (Talk | contribs | block) changed User:Doc glasgow's rights from (none) to sysop

As far as I remember Doc glasgow voluntarily gave up adminship after his vandalism spree. Now he gets his bit back without any RfA, which I'm sure he'd have failed. Any ideas how that happened? Grue 18:01, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Doc gave up his adminship in good standing, and so was entitled to request it back without an RfA. And so he did. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

In good standing? He gave up his adminship after a flurry of vandalism! Grue 18:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

He was pissed off, and wanted to go out with a bang, I'm sure many of us have felt like that, it really was actually quite funny. Martin 18:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Vandalism spree"? Oh FFS. If you're going to misrepresent things that badly ... Cyde Weys 18:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

If someone voluntarily gives up adminship, they should get it back upon request. If people were to start using voluntary desysopping as a means of getting out of trouble, there'd be grounds for concern, but as it is, I don't see why we'd worry about this. Friday (talk) 18:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Whether he is stable enough to continue as administrator, is another matter. However, I default to good faith: it is similar to requesting being blocked to cool down while influenced by conflicting emotions, or to take a break to study. -- ReyBrujo 19:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Whether he's "stable" enough? What does that mean? I find it kind of funny that nobody even notices he got adminship back for over a month because he hasn't done anything wrong. And now, a month later, it somehow becomes an issue? I don't think so. --Cyde Weys 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Syops should be good moel Wikipedians. Redirecting DRV into Tony Sidaway's user talk page is something I don't consider model. Hbdragon88 06:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

No view on this case, but out of curiosity, where do I find the "user rights log"? Newyorkbrad 19:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Here. -- ReyBrujo 19:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Go to the user's contributions, and click on log. Michael 19:55, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you. (Interestingly, the log seems to list only upgrades, not downgrades.) Newyorkbrad 19:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That's because desysopping can only be done by stewards, and thus is shown on the meta rights log. --Cyde Weys 20:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

That isn't quite true but no matter.Geni 00:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Who else can desysop? Developers, sure, by editing the database, but that doesn't happen. What are you referring to? — Dan | talk 11:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

this.Geni 12:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that's possible anymore. Ral315 (talk) 03:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

If you feel he shouldn't be an admin, then do exactly what you would have done if he hadn't stepped down - take him to arbcom and let them deal with it. --Tango 12:30, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Documenting current removal process (Archive 71)

See [3], trying to document the current means by which adminship can be revoked. Please feel free to edit this to more accurately reflect and describe reality. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 09:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why this is really necessary in the front matter, as this is the page for approving new ones, not removing old ones. That information is at WP:ADMIN#Administrator abuse. --Rory096 23:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Tried giving it a mention more discreetly. it needs to be there, because it has an effect of the decisionmaking process. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 03:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if it'll fit in the quick mention, but people do need to be aware that the ArbCom has no compunction about deadminning if really needed - David Gerard 09:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I think increasing the awareness of this is needed here... esp. because people are using the "we can't get rid of them if they suck" rationale for opposing. - Stephanie Daugherty (Triona) - Talk - Comment - 10:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Vote of No Confidence (Archive 74)

If we choose admins, how come we cannot choose to rein in unruly admins? You never know how an admin is going to act until he/she is actually an admin. I think there should be a process whereby admins can be desysopped by *us*. Juppiter 22:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea, as a last resort, It would have to be after an RfC though, also what would be the consensus % to be desysopped, 80 like the RfA?

†he Bread 22:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

No, no, no.. leave the desysopping up to individual's free will or the ArbCom unless you want sockpuppet invasions by the hundreds trying to get admins desysopped, close calls like the Carnildo incident on RFA, or the other one-hundred possible controversies coming out of this. semper fi — Moe 00:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Woah, didn't think of that

†he Bread 01:10, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I agree with The Bread that it should be used as a last resort. But the option should exist in cases where admins are unruly and wildly unpopular, but not necessarily breaking rules. And the ArbCom can become corrupt as well. (-Juppiter, not logged in)

If ArbCom can become corrupt, and its members do have strong support in the advisory election, I don't see how a vote in which anyone at all can participate, both the people who voted for the "corrupt" Arbcom and random people with sockpuppets and agendas, would not be corrupt as well. —Centrx→talk • 04:51, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What exactly is the problem with an admin being unpopular? Building an encyclopedia != popularity contest. Unruly admins are dealt with when they've actually done something worth dealing with; just because they've ruffled a few feathers isn't anything to be concerned over. EVula 05:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Been there, done that...Didn't work. Only ArbCom at the moment. - Mailer Diablo 04:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

This thing has been run into the ground countless times, in the archives here and in multiple failed policy proposals. Grand master ka 06:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

We do have this. --Wolf530 (talk) 16:42, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no confidence in a scheme like this. Seriously. --Lord Deskana (talk) 16:50, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I think we should have a scheme for community-based desysopping, but the idea is currently dead due to too many failed proposals. Kusma (討論) 17:01, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose the question is whether or not ArbCom is enough, or there needs to be a more editor-centric process. --Wolf530 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Bad admin behavior happen rarely enough that I would think there is no need for extra mechanisms to deal with that beyond the ArbCom. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I see no need to throw another solution at a problem I don't really see. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 03:44, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The main problem is that it is too easy for a bad-faith editor to use half-truths and misrepresentation to round up a group of people to criticize an admin. This proposal is not good for wikimorale. >Radiant< 10:26, 8 November 2006 (UTC)