User:Tyrol5/De-adminship reform: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 14:45, 10 August 2011

This is an essay on the process of revoking adminship.

It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.

On Wikipedia, administrators (a.k.a. sysops) are users with the technical ability to perform tasks that aid in the maintenance of the project. This essay/list of possible reforms and proposals pertains to the process by which a user's access to administrative tools is to be revoked, or de-adminship, after the abuse thereof. Below is a list of issues that need to be addressed at some point during reform of the process of obtaining adminship, or RFA, and possible solutions to them.^[1] Anyone is welcome to add to this list, and discussion can be carried out on the talk page.

Problems that need to be addressed

1. A possible reason for harsh treatment/strict nature at RFA: filing a request for comment or a case with the Arbitration Committee is too time-consuming and/or stressful. The problem is there is no easy way to remove the administrative tools when an editor or editors believe that an administrator is misusing them.

2. Filing a request for arbitration is too time consuming/drama-filled. It's not worth the time or the effort to pursue arbitration with all of the stress/drama/subjectivity involved. There needs to be a process in which the issues can be addressed objectively with the admin in question.

3. Jimmy Wales, the founder of the Wikipedia project, said himself that "becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*".^[2] If becoming an administrator is *not a big deal*, then why should un-becoming one be?

Possible solutions to the problems

1. Implement a process that requires administrators to (temporarily) relinquish their tools after a certain number of experienced editors in good standing (preferably a mix of admins and non-admins) have verbalized a belief that the admin in question has misused them. This way, the community/those editors could deliberate as to whether the admin ought to retain the tools or not.

2. Require admins to relinquish the tools after a certain number of uninvolved editors in good standing petition them to do so (at least until the community determines whether or not the tools should be retained). There needs to be a way to dispel the theory that there is some sort of 'control conspiracy' or 'power cabal' among administrators and make it known that they should be approached/criticized/reprimanded in the same manner as any other editor.

3. It shouldn't. Quite simply and honestly put, Wikipedia's regulations regarding the behavior of admins should be amended to include a no tolerance policy pertaining to abuse of administrative tools including (but not limited to): gaining advantages in disputes where the admin in question might have a conflict of interest (i.e. protecting pages where they have participated in edit wars or blocking users with whom they have warred with). From there, the community can decide whether or not the tools should be permanently revoked. If rollback rights are removed after violation of WP:3RR or autopatrolled rights removed after copyright violation, why should administrators get special treatment?

Notes

^ Solutions correspond with the like-numbered problem and vice versa.
^ Feb. 2003 comment by Jimmy Wales pertaining to admins.

[1] Solutions correspond with the like-numbered problem and vice versa.

[2] Feb. 2003 comment by Jimmy Wales pertaining to admins.

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 . Implement a process that requires administrators to (temporarily) relinquish their tools after a certain number of experienced editors in good standing (preferably a mix of admins and non-admins) have verbalized a belief that the admin in question has misused them. This way, the community/those editors could deliberate as to whether the admin ought to retain the tools or not.
-. ''Require'' admins to relinquish the tools after a certain number of ''uninvolved'' editors in good standing petition them to do so (at least until the community determines whether or not the tools should be retained). There needs to be a way to dispel the theory that there really is no 'control conspiracy' or 'power [[WP:CABAL|cabal]]' among administrators and they should be approached/criticized/reprimanded in the same manner as any other editor.
+. ''Require'' admins to relinquish the tools after a certain number of ''uninvolved'' editors in good standing petition them to do so (at least until the community determines whether or not the tools should be retained). There needs to be a way to dispel the theory that there is some sort of 'control conspiracy' or 'power [[WP:CABAL|cabal]]' among administrators and make it known that they should be approached/criticized/reprimanded in the same manner as any other editor.
 . It shouldn't. Quite simply and honestly put, Wikipedia's regulations regarding the behavior of admins should be amended to include a ''no tolerance'' policy pertaining to abuse of administrative tools including (but not limited to): gaining advantages in disputes where the admin in question might [[WP:INVOLVED|have a conflict of interest]] (i.e. [[WP:PP|protecting]] pages where they have participated in [[WP:EW|edit wars]] or blocking users with whom they have warred with). From there, the community can decide whether or not the tools should be permanently revoked. If [[WP:ROLLBACK|rollback rights]] are removed after violation of [[WP:3RR]] or [[WP:AUTOPATROLLED|autopatrolled rights]] removed after [[WP:COPYVIO|copyright violation]], why should administrators get special treatment?