A list of links relating to the deflagging of sysop accounts edit
What edit
The role of the administrator is governed by Wikipedia:Administrator.
How edit
Links to processes by which the flags may currently be removed from administrators;
- Wikipedia:RFC/ADMIN#Use of administrator privileges - This has no power to decide that the admin privileges should be removed, but only to conclude whether a complaint was valid and upheld.
- Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration - Should a request be accepted a Steward may be requested to remove the sysop flags - for a definite or indefinite period as decided, pending appeal or submission to a Wikipedia:Request for adminship - after a majority of arbitrators agree, following a lengthy process examining an administrators actions and interactions.
- Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall A voluntary process by which an administrator may contact a Steward to have their flags revoked once certain criteria have been reached to start the process and a case is found to have been made and the administrator keeps their word.
- Other; an admin at any time may request removal of the flags by contacting a Steward, without prejudice for a request for their return, for any reason.
- Paid use of administrators' tools - Accepting pay for the use of administrators' tools is a betrayal of the community's trust and is grounds for summary removal of these privileges, to be reinstated only upon appeal to the Arbitration Committee.
Which edit
Links upon comments or otherwise tried to define the role and responsibilities of adminship;
Wikipedia:Administrator Code of Conduct A failed proposed policy.
Wikipedia:Admin accountability poll The genesis for the above attempted policy.
User:R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine)/Constitution#Article V: Administrators Part of a proposed Wikipedia constitution.
Why edit
Links that speak of the need to be able to remove the flags from adminstrators as easily (or not) as is/was to bestow them;
User:EVula/opining/RfA overhaul#The problem
User:Roux/RFA-reform (Third paragraph)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator
Where edit
Links to where current or recent comments or proposals regarding administators duties and responsibilities, the means by which admin conduct may be reviewed by third parties, and the means by which sysops may be deadminned outside of the current processes.
User:Tony1/AdminReview
User:Roux/RFA-reform
User:EVula/opining/RfA overhaul
Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator/Admin RFC draft
A plea for the start of the creation of a policy and process for the desysopping of administrators edit
Adminship should not be Big Deal, but it increasingly seems that it is. Very recently it has been shown that editors and former admins have misused undisclosed alternate accounts to gain adminship where it was considered the previous account may have had difficulty succeeding. At the same time, WP:RfA is considered a very adversarial arena, a stressful experience, and figures indicate that there are less Requests than in the recent past, where the scrutiny of applicants past contributions is thorough and mistakes, poor (re)actions, and bias' as contributors are often used in efforts to cause the Request to fail. Seemingly gone is the old standard of general trustworthiness, and the interests of the project at heart. It appears that the status of adminship is such that some will use inappropriate methods to gain the mop, while others will use every means possible to deny others that supposed influence.
Partly, I believe, the reason is that adminship once gained is very difficult to be removed. Admins who do not get taken to ArbCom are almost impossible to be desysopped without their express permission - and emergency desyops by Steward and currently by Jimbo (who has also commented that he no longer will exercise that option) are invariably passed to ArbCom for ratification. In these cases it is only sustained or extraordinary abuse of the flags and position that will lead to a removal of the privileges. Since it is so difficult currently to deadmin a sysop those participating in RfA try to ensure that succesful requests will not result in (perceived, i.e. acting against the interests of the supporter/opposer) abusive admins being successful.
A process which makes the review, commenting, further actioning and where judged necessary desysopping (for longer, shorter, indefinite or permanent) of admins "easier" and more accessible to the community at large will, I argue, lessen the pressure at RfA to only pass the appropriate candidate and thus encourage more Requests for candidates whose past may be less optimal than it is felt is should be. Further, admins who act now without regard to the sensibilities and opinions of certain sections of the community will need to consider if their practices need reviewing, if their use of the buttons are for the good of the community generally, and if they are prepared to discuss their interpretation of policy within a process which may result in their flags being removed. Editors who feel that systemic bias, as represented by the actions of admins generally or in particular, constrains their contributions will be able to initiate and participate in the review of sysop actions to determine whether it is that part at the community or themselves that is unable to find a consensus. In short, the regard toward the role, responsibilities, and status of administrators should be greatly enhanced as soon as the community recognises that the position of sysop is something both relatively easy to obtain and to be removed.
Finally, I would argue that ArbCom may be nearing saturation point in respect of its responsibilities; the community is very large, yet the committee cannot be expected to grow in size while remaining responsive and flexible in its approach. The ArbCom has recently taken to forming subcommittees to deal with some aspects of the role, and to otherwise streamlining its processes. To have removed, except perhaps as a resort of last appeal, the need to deal with Requests for arbitration#Administrator desysopping and to review evidence of the very serious misuse of tools (and to determine what is abuse and what is simply unpopular) would free them to concentrate better on other aspects of their responsibilities.
A suggested framework edit
I would recommend the adoption of the process detailed at User:Tony1/AdminReview for the purpose by which the community can initiate a review of an action by an administrator. This review can initially decide whether there is a case for a fuller review, and if so require a response from the admin concerned. This and the review request can be considered (and subsequent comments, if required) and then one of three findings given; no abuse, no further action but comment, admonishment and/or suggestions of better practice for future as required, and further action required.
I would then suggest a process based around the proposals advanced by User:Roux/RFA-reform or being developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator, which is where other instances of referral - such as from ArbCom, WP:RfC#Adminship or WP:ANI - may also be directed. I would hope that the principle of "RfA in reverse", where evidence of untrustworthiness, acting in ignorance of policy, or misuse of the tools is supported or opposed, and the success (i.e. the need for deadminning) is determined by a 'Crat, would be the preferred method. I feel that desysopping is a process that should have as much community participation as is the gaining of the tools.
I think that covers it. I am aware that I am one amongst many who have recently come to the conclusion that this issue needs to be addressed. I am also aware that other proposals are taking shape (and I have participated in some of them also) - but this is mine. I recognise that as my own perspective of the concerns and possible means of resolving them, that it is unlikely to have universal or even majority approval, and in putting this forward I am simply attempting help build momentum for the adoption of a policy and process for the removing of sysop status from admins who no longer hold the confidence of the community. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Required Reading