Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bureaucrat removal of adminship policy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Requests for comment

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peter (talk | contribs) at 19:48, 8 July 2011 (→‎Emergencies (alternative): good). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Rfcid

If there is consensus that bureaucrats should be granted the technical ability to remove the administrator permission from user accounts at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag, the use of that ability needs to be governed by a policy specifying in which cases bureaucrats should be allowed to do so.

Currently there are four different scenarios in which stewards are authorized to remove the administrator permission from user accounts:

  1. If the user is deemed inactive per Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators;
  2. Following an official request from the Arbitration Committee;
  3. Following a self-request for removal by the administrator;
  4. In an emergency when an administrator account appears to be compromised or otherwise uses the tools to disrupt Wikipedia.

This discussion was started to determine which of those cases should be handled by bureaucrats on this project directly instead of requesting the stewards to do it.

Note: The implementation of this proposal is dependent on bureaucrats having the technical ability to remove the administrator permission. If Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag fails to achieve consensus, the policy proposed in this RfC is moot.

RFC started: 20:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposals

If multiple proposals for separate situations gain consensus (e.g. for self-requests and inactive accounts) but the proposal for all situations does not, only the proposals with consensus in their favor will be added to the policy. In this case, !votes in favor of the "all situations" proposal will be counted as !votes in favor of all four separate proposals, unless the !voting user clearly specifies that they only support a policy that includes the complete "all situations" proposal or who specified that they disagree that their !vote is counted this way.

All situations

Snow closed in lieu of discussing each situation individually below
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Bureaucrats will be expanded by adding the following section
==Removal of adminship==
Bureaucrats may remove the "administrator" user right from an editor's account under the following circumstances:
  1. If the user is deemed inactive per Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators;
  2. Following an official request from the Arbitration Committee;
  3. Following a self-request for removal by the administrator;
  4. In an emergency when an administrator account appears to be compromised or an editor has been using the administrative tools to disrupt Wikipedia.
If a bureaucrat removes the "administrator" user right from any user, they are required to notify the user in question immediately, including an explanation why the user right was removed and how they may re-gain it. Notification is not required if the user was already notified of the removal or they requested the removal themselves.
Users who endorse this proposal
  1. No problems giving Bureaucrats, among the most trusted of our community, the complete bundle from 1-4. As for those expressing concerns about number 4, in the unlikely even that a 'crat abuses this power, ArbCom stands ready to remedy such actions.Jusdafax 08:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Assuming the poll to grant Bureaucrats the technical ability to desysop passes, I would be OK with it being used in all these situations, as they're all uncontroversial cases. The last one could be the most problematic, but I think we can trust our 'crats to only use such a power in circumstances where it is clearly required (and backed by consensus) and not to just start desysopping admins willy-nilly. Robofish (talk) 15:03, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. AD 17:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Seems good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. 1-3 are uncontroversial cases, where crats would be able to do on this project what stewards do at meta, so that the logs are kept at one wiki and there is no reason why those should be handled at meta by stewards. Crats were selected because we trust them to act correctly and they have had to pass higher bars than stewards have. I agree about the concerns regarding #4 (I didn't link to WP:DE when I wrote the RFC draft) but I would support it provided that the policy strictly specifies which kind of disruption is meant (e.g. an admin using their tools to severely damage the project in a manner that cannot easily be repaired (mass-deleting articles, removing critical MediaWiki pages etc.)). We can discuss this in the discussion section though. Regards SoWhy 20:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No problems with it. demize (t · c) 20:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. 4 is no problem as a crat taking to wide of an approach will not be a crat for long. Agathoclea (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Support one, two, three; four is too vague, especially, "... editor has been using the administrative tools to disrupt Wikipedia". /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Support. I can live with alternate wording of four if there is a consensus for that. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. It's a pity that #4 doesn't go far enough, but progress is progress.—S Marshall T/C 08:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Users who oppose this proposal
  1. Dubious about #4 (see below); no problem with the others. MastCell Talk 20:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Share concerns of MastCell r.e. #4, I support the general idea of making de-sysoping easier, but that is way too ambiguous for an initial policy. --Errant (chat!) 20:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. I also agree with MastCell about number 4. I also wonder if it might be worth adding the option for a community-consensus desysop, similar to the way that community bans work. MacMedtalkstalk 20:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Agree with the editors above: the situation described in #4 should be handled by ArbCom, and come to the bureaucrat via #2. I specificially do support #1. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Yep, #4 is too broadly defined for one person to make that determination alone, whoever it is and however trusted and reasonable he or she might be. If an administrator is using tools disruptively they should be blocked pending review by Arbcom. --causa sui (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Probably better to discuss the points individually. Number 4 is the controversial part here. Jafeluv (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. On account of #4. Standard procedure is to block disruptive accounts, admin accounts would be included in that standard procedure. If the disruptive admin unblocks himself, he's only digging his own grave, and such an unblock wouldn't stick anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. "Disruption" as described by #4 is far too vague. —mc10 (t/c) 03:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. No I can't support this.... although I may support other sections. 1) RFB did not given the current crats the mandate for such a role 2) Reinforces perception that 'crats are in someway higher up the greasy pole (IMHO) 3) "Disruption" far to broad. Pedro :  Chat  07:15, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. The second part of #4 is too broad and vague. The first part is unnecessary: it can be handled by ArbCom or in a true emergency by stewards. Ruslik_Zero 08:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Discussion

Inactive admins

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats will be expanded by adding the following section
==Removal of adminship==
Bureaucrats may remove the "administrator" user right from an editor's account if the editor is deemed inactive per Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators
If a bureaucrat removes the "administrator" user right from any user, they are required to notify the user in question immediately, including an explanation why the user right was removed and how they may re-gain it.
Users who endorse this proposal
  1. Yes; if the technical right is granted then this isn't even really worth voting on - we already agreed by consensus that inactive admins should be de-sysoped, to my mind the two RFC's then make it a de-facto policy :) --Errant (chat!) 20:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Why not? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Sensible and in line with existing policy. Ucucha 21:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. I think this is a no-brainer, we already approved of this more-or-less, and if we say crats can technically do this, this should be a non-controversial use of the tool. -- Atama頭 21:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. This should be uncontroversial now that the policy has been adopted. Jafeluv (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Saves the stewards some time and lets us keep the entries in a local log rather than a remote one on meta. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This is a case where using local resources will help us make sure local policy is followed. After the initial passage of the new policy for this, a steward who wasn't familiar with the details desysopped a number of inactive admins based on a premature request on Meta. If this had been requested on WP:BN, the mistake probably would have been avoided. I support all four points (with the alternative for #4 below), but supporting here as a fallback in case they don't all achieve consensus. --RL0919 (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. This is consistent with the new policy. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. As noted, this policy is alreay enacted. Jusdafax 00:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Obvious. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Obvious. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Support. --Rschen7754 03:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Obviously. —mc10 (t/c) 03:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. jorgenev 04:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Yes to this one as I supported the linked policy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Mos. def. Ironholds (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, makes sense to allow bcrats to do this instead of just stewards. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Obvious. Ben MacDui 18:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Support per above. Regards SoWhy 19:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  21. Most certainly, especially considering that we recently passed a desysopping procedure for inactive administrators. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Users who oppose this proposal
Discussion

Arbitration Committee requests

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats will be expanded by adding the following section
==Removal of adminship==
Bureaucrats may remove the "administrator" user right as a result an official request from the Arbitration Committee.
If a bureaucrat removes the "administrator" user right from any user, they are required to notify the user in question immediately, including an explanation why the user right was removed and how they may re-gain it. Notification is not required if the user was already notified of the removal.
Users who endorse this proposal
  1. Yes- Stewards will do, simply, what Arbcom requests anyway. This cuts out some overhead without actually changing who decides on the de-sysop --Errant (chat!) 20:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. More the merrier. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Yeah, once Arbcom has decided that a user should be desysopped, it doesn't much matter who does it. --causa sui (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. I don't see the problem with this, it just means we don't have to go to a steward for the request. -- Atama頭 21:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Per ErrantX. Jafeluv (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Saves the stewards some time and lets us keep the entries in a local log rather than a remote one on meta. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. Local support for our local Committee's decisions. I support all four points (with the alternative for #4 below), but supporting here as a fallback in case they don't all achieve consensus. --RL0919 (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Makes sense. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. Rschen7754 00:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. I have no issues with 'crats having this power... not explained, however, is if the power to de-admin is taken from stewards, as in my view these actions should all be on one log. One or the other. Jusdafax 00:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Stewards generally don't perform actions when local users are available to perform them, so apart from emergency situations all desysoppings covered by the crat policy would be performed by local crats if the policy is accepted. Jafeluv (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. As there is usually a crat on ArbCom, I support this in principle but would like to know whether it matters if the desysopping crat is part of ArbCom. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. I'd personally rather not have the desysoping 'crat be on ArbCom, as there needs to be some sort of separation there. This makes sense. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Agree; we don't need meta stewards to enforce ArbCom decisions. —mc10 (t/c) 03:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. jorgenev 04:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Since this is already the main path to the controversial desysop I support this policy proposal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Certainly. Ironholds (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Completely uncontroversial. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Ben MacDui 18:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per above. Regards SoWhy 19:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. No reason not to, as otherwise the stewards will do it, achieving the same effect. (However, this has the important benefit of keeping all logs here.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Users who oppose this proposal
Discussion
  • I support this in principle, but don't see why it should be the bureaucrat's job to communicate Arbcom's decision. It makes more sense to me to have Arbcom handle that notification. Ucucha 21:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's why it says they can skip notification if the user was already notified. I expect in most of these situations the user will already have an explanation from ArbCom before the 'crat gets to the desysopping. --RL0919 (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Self-requests

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats will be expanded by adding the following section
==Removal of adminship==
Bureaucrats may remove the "administrator" user right from an editor's account if self-requested by the administrator.
Users who endorse this proposal
  1. Yes; however we should agree on re-sysoping procedures for admins who have the bit removed in this way. I know we have some general approaches anyway, but lets be firm about it. --Errant (chat!) 20:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Why not. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. As with #1. I don't see why we need additional discussion on re-sysopping, since that process is already in place and I don't see why this proposal would seriously affect it. Ucucha 21:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. This should be the least controversial removal of adminship. -- Atama頭 21:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. Uncontroversial IMHO. Jafeluv (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. Saves the stewards some time and lets us keep the entries in a local log rather than a remote one on meta. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. No reason why not. --causa sui (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. This is the most obvious case to permit. I support all four points (with the alternative for #4 below), but supporting here as a fallback in case they don't all achieve consensus. --RL0919 (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. No reason not to support this one. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Rschen7754 00:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. The most obvious. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. Obviously. —mc10 (t/c) 03:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. jorgenev 04:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Sounds very reasonable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Seems fair enough. Ironholds (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. Support, this keeps requests on Wikipedia where they belong. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. Support Ben MacDui 18:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. Support, uncontroversial and logical change. Jusdafax 19:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  19. Support per above. No brainer. Regards SoWhy 19:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  20. Agree with SoWhy, this is definitely a no-brainer. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Users who oppose this proposal
  1. I support this in principle, but language on re-sysoping needs to be put in here specifically. People asking for temporary removal while they spend six months touring Antarctica need to be treated differently from people asking for removal as part of permanent retirement (and then want it back after four years, and both of those need to be treated differently from people asking for removal while there is ongoing allegations of misconduct or ArbCom proceedings related to them taking place. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The process for re-sysopping after voluntary relinquishment (and procedural removal for inactivity) is outlined at WP:RESYSOP; and any desired changes to that procedure should be discussed on the talk page there, or at WP:BN - not here. (And the section already has verbiage that addresses situations where rights were relinquished while there were ongoing allegations of misconduct or arbitration proceedings). –xenotalk 14:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion

Emergencies

Snow closed in lieu of #Emergencies (alternative)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Wikipedia:Bureaucrats will be expanded by adding the following section
==Removal of adminship==
Bureaucrats may remove the "administrator" user right from a user's account only in an emergency when an administrator account appears to be compromised or an editor has been using the administrative tools to disrupt Wikipedia.
If a bureaucrat removes the "administrator" user right from any user, they are required to notify the user in question immediately, including an explanation why the user right was removed and how they may re-gain it.
Users who endorse this proposal
  1. Potentially vital defensive measure for the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 08:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Users who oppose this proposal
  1. I'm not comfortable with the wording about "disruption", because that term includes a large gray area. I don't think the community has clearly expressed confidence in bureaucrats' ability to make this judgement - certainly I can't say I'm sure I trust all of the current crop of 'crats to make it. They were elected to judge consensus in RfA's, handle renames, and flag bots. All of those tasks require much less interpretive judgment than deciding whether an admin is using the tools "disruptively". If this power is extended to the current crop of bureaucrats, I think they should be willing to stand for confirmation to ensure that they have the trust to use it. Such trust was definitely not implicit in any !votes I've ever cast at RfB. I don't really have a problem with the other criteria for removing adminship, since they are much narrower. MastCell Talk 20:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Clarification required on "disrupt". If the proposer means disruptive editing as described in the linked WP:DE, then I firmly oppose. If proposer means "Admin A has deleted MediaWiki:Mainpage and is trying to get Admin B to delete Main page," then that's a different story, and I would be willing to go along with that. NW (Talk) 20:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. No. I support the idea of allowing the community to de-sysop admins, and I think this whole thing is a great step in that direction. But this is too vague and discretionary - in exceptional circumstances we should allow crats to de-sysop admins. But in the interim we have Arbcom to discuss and ask for such things. MastCell has a sensible concern over the use of the word "disruption"; in this context it is clearly intended to mean "an admin randomly deleting pages willy nilly, or blocking every editor he can find" etc, but could be construed in a very minor way as well. The wording needs tightening and careful discussion. --Errant (chat!) 20:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. No, I don't think we want unilateral desysopping for something as vague as WP:DE. Unless, perhaps, it is understood to be temporary? As in, if an arbcom case to revoke adminship is not opened immediately or does not succeed, the bit should be restored by default? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 20:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. No way, per my comment above. We have blocking for this. If an administrator is using sysop tools disruptively, block the admin pending review from Arbcom. It is not okay for any one person, however trusted, to solely make the decision to desysop an admin. --causa sui (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. In a real emergency desysopping should be allowed by anyone with the technical ability IMHO, and the policy should reflect that. However, the wording could definitely be improved to state that it's only allowed in urgent cases where the disruption is obvious and happening currently. It should also be obligatory to notify ArbCom, who would then pass a notion to confirm the desysopping. In short, individual crats should be allowed to use their judgment in emergency cases, but the final decision should not be theirs. Jafeluv (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I also believe "disruption" and "emergency" are much too ill-defined; I'd probably support if a clear definition was offered, and if only genuine emergencies (meaning absolutely time-critical obvious disruption with a wide scope). Even then, it's fair to ask why this is necessary at all. Admins can already be blocked, and irregularly (and successfully) are, and in extremis stewards can already emergency de-admin (which is needed on EN only extraordinarily rarely). For us to add another layer of policy wonkery I'd want to see multiple clear past cases where the existing capacity of block and steward-desysop have proved to be significantly deficient. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. As several people have said, this is too sweeping. I think Xeno's wording below is fine; we shouldn't be preventing anyone with the technical ability to do so from desysopping an admin who is deleting the Main Page, blocking Jimbo, and full-protecting the sandbox. Ucucha 21:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. I'm not comfortable with a crat unilaterally deciding that tools were used disruptively. It's one thing if an account was compromised, but this is too broad. Can a crat remove the tools with a case where an admin was borderline involved? -- Atama頭 21:33, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. This is a nice idea in principle but it may be too dangerous to implement practically. Certainly this present wording is too vague. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Per above, "disrupt" is much too vague. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. "Disruption" as stated in this proposal is far too vague. —mc10 (t/c) 03:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. Standard procedure is to block disruptive accounts, admin accounts would be included in that standard procedure. If the disruptive admin unblocks himself, he's only digging his own grave, and such an unblock wouldn't stick anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. Too broad and vague. Ruslik_Zero 08:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. Yea .. I'm really having a hard time getting behind this. I don't want to be a gadfly to the wheels of progress, but here's the rub: Having the ability is the entire point. IAR is sooo easy to invoke, and there's just way too many "gray areas" in WP. There's a few crats that I'd likely trust with my very life (WJBscribe is a good example), but many of those names on the list of crats are unknown to me. Considering how much drama occurs on a daily basis on just "admin blocks", makes me wonder if this entire idea might not be fodder for huge drama time sinks. I'm just glad we'll have a bit of time to talk this all out. — Ched :  ?  15:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Discussion
  • For those opposing based on the "disruption" language, I thought it was clear (but maybe it isn't), that this is only for emergency situations. Most forms of disruptive editing or even abuse of admin tools are not emergencies. Similarly, the disruption is clearly qualified as "using the administrative tools". Regular vandalism wouldn't count. This would be for situations like what NuclearWarfare mentioned. --RL0919 (talk) 20:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest re-wording it to "in an emergency when an administrator account appears to be compromised or is rapidly using administrative tools in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" - or something along those lines. –xenotalk 21:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And don't link to wp:DE, since that is not what you're talking about. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Xeno. In fact, point 4 should be truncated to "In an emergency when an administrator account appears to be compromised" (e.g. clear and obvious vandalism). This should be reflected in a new proposal, before the first one gets shot down needlessly. AD 21:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that the link to WP:DE is a distraction, and I'm mostly fine with Xeno's wording suggestion. I'd leave out "deliberate", because incompetence is just as dangerous as malice if someone is doing something majorly disruptive such as deleting vital pages. I'd also be OK with the truncation suggested by Aiken drum. --RL0919 (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Most definitely agree with Xeno's wording as better; although I'm far from supporting any of this yet. — Ched :  ?  21:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    nthing this. The way xeno put it is much more narrow in scope, as it should be. Nobody should be unilaterally desysoping admins except when the account is compromised and/or on a rampage of incontrovertible vandalism. "Disruption" includes a much too wide range of behavior. --causa sui (talk) 21:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you look at this log you will see how blocking will not work in the case of an admin gone ape. Agathoclea (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • My nightmare scenario, and I think the only case I can figure out where blocking+stewards isn't sufficient, is if a wrongdoer got hold of one or several admin accounts and ran bots on them which kept unblocking themselves and their cohorts while performing hard-to-fix mass vandalism automatically. Blocks wouldn't be effective (because they'd unblock themselves and one another) and in the time it takes to rustle up a steward they've done a bunch of very public vandalism. This proposal doesn't help that scenario (as there's still a lag to find a crat), and adds the (small, sure) risk that if a crat account is compromised they can mass desysop the entire admin corp and set about their crimes. Again a steward is needed to fix it, and it's lots of work to unpick. Instead I suggest a purely technical solution (one that doesn't require any judgement or discussion about what is disruption or what constitutes an emergency. It's simply this: if Admin A blocks Admin B, for 24 hours after that block both A and B are automatically deprived of all admin functions - even if the block is reversed. As a block of an admin is a fairly rare occurrence, and a serious one, I suggest there be no mechanism to curtail that 24 hour period. This way even a dozen compromised accounts would quickly ablate their admin-ity and get blocked by the surviving admins, leaving a comfortable 24 hours to steward desysop and tidy up the mess. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I agree. The fact that admins can unblock themselves is the real cause of the trouble here. If that were disabled, then any administrator could handle a rampaging admin account simply by blocking, and we wouldn't have to do anything so drastic that it requires such careful review and prior consideration. --causa sui (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with coding it simply as "blocked admins can't unblock themselves" is that in the above scenario ("The Wikipocalypse"), where the attacker controls two admin accounts (and hasn't someone already been found to have achieved that) the two accounts can unblock one another (at automated rates). Hence my "blocking admins is ablative" idea. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this has been roundly rejected, further pile-on is probably unnecessary so I've wrapped it up with a pointer to the below alternative. Something similar should probably be done to the "All" request that includes this formulation - maybe just get rid of the "All" altogether and copy ask the supporting votes to instead consider the individual proposals, which can then be merged if and when consensus permits. –xenotalk 15:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC) amended. 19:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Emergencies (alternative)

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats will be expanded by adding the following section
==Removal of adminship==
Bureaucrats may temporarily remove the "administrator" user right from a user's account in an emergency when an administrator account appears to be compromised.
Any emergency removal of administrator rights must be referred to the Arbitration Committee for further decision. The bureaucrat performing the emergency removal must notify the user in question to contact the Arbitration Committee to re-gain administrator rights.
Users who endorse this proposal
  1. causa sui (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. I think we've addressed the major concerns with the earlier version. --RL0919 (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Per below. Jafeluv (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Much more sensible than the above. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  5. ...with the knowledge that there will be hell to pay if this is abused. I can support this one. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  6. With this wording, especially the "temporary", I can support. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  7. with the loss of the word "only" this gets my support.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Good idea, I can support that. It lacks the requirement of the user actually disrupting Wikipedia but it compensates it by making it temporary and letting ArbCom decide immediately. Regards SoWhy 11:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  9. If there isn't support for the first version of emergency desysopping above (and it appears there isn't), I'll support this as an alternative. Robofish (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  10. Clearer versionthan the above (which i understood to have the same intent) Agathoclea (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  11. Having "more cooks in the kitchen", as Jafeluv says, is good for when there's an emergency. This wording is specific enough that there's minimal risk to implementing it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  12. No particular reason to oppose this, and in an emergency, I could seriously regret doing so. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  13. This addresses my concerns with the previous version of this proposal, and I think that it is good for a crat to have the ability to act in an emergency. The "rogue admin" who can unblock himself is a bogeyman that we worry about for a good reason, and this is better than having to go to a steward as our only option. -- Atama頭 18:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  14. This is much better wording than the previous example. MacMedtalkstalk 18:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  15. A better version indeed. Ben MacDui 18:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  16. I'm fine with this one. Jusdafax 19:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  17. This is much better than the one above. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  18. I think this is a good idea. Peter 19:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
Users who oppose this proposal
  1. This is unnecessary. Normal emergencies are handled by the ArbCom, which can request removal under #2. In rare super-emergencies, when there is no time to contact the Arbcom, this is best left to stewards as they have more experience in such situations. In addition, if a global account is compromised, the sysop (any other) permissions will have to be removed on other projects as well and the account will likely be locked. These actions can be done only by stewards. I also want to remind you of what happens when there are too many cooks in the kitchen. Ruslik_Zero 09:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    In actual emergency situations I'd say the more cooks in the kitchen the better. Jafeluv (talk) 11:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Ahhh .. but perhaps Too many cooks, spoil the soup? .. :) — Ched :  ?  15:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion
  • I added this section to generate an alternative wording for this point, since the "disruption" wording is clearly controversial. I've collapsed the support/oppose sections for now because I'd prefer to see some input on the wording first. I based the initial wording on Aiken drum's suggestion of truncating it down to just the first part and omitting any mention of "disruption". If folks think this wording is good, feel free to remove the collapse templates. If not, make or suggest changes and we can remove the collapse after we hash out a reasonable alternative. --RL0919 (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As above, I still think that a crat should have to notify ArbCom after performing an emergency desysop, and that the committee should confirm such a removal by motion. The final decision shouldn't rest on an individual crats judgment, although they should definitely be allowed to act in emergency situations. Remember that bureaucratship is not supposed to be a decision-maker role but a boring technical one Jafeluv (talk) 21:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Reasonable enough. What if we added "The Arbitration Committee must be informed of any emergency removal of administrator rights" to the wording? --RL0919 (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Not informed - "refered to for further decision" Agathoclea (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, and I don't think we should just have the "crat is required to notify the user how they may regain adminship" part, the answer to that should be outlined here also. Is it that arbcom will decide? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 22:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. Any "emergency" removal of sysop bits should always be temporary and pending review by the full Arbitration Committee. --causa sui (talk) 22:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Reworded above to account for the points made in the discussion. Further feedback is appreciated. --RL0919 (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This wording is fine with me. Jafeluv (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, good enough. I've boldly removed the collapse templates so we can start !voting. --causa sui (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General discussion

Yeah, me too. If inactive admin accounts are a security risk, then inactive bureaucrat accounts are a security disaster waiting to happen. --causa sui (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but one of the complaints about past proposals around this topic was having too many different issues covered in one RfC. So we're taking this one in small chunks. A separate RfC around inactive bureaucrat accounts (maybe after these to avoid overload) is a good idea. --RL0919 (talk) 21:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, you will not be raising too many issues if you include this one here. We don't need 10 million RfCs when I'm pretty sure everyone agrees that the person who can give admin permissions should not be compromised (seeing they can give admin permissions to any random vandal too). Ncmvocalist (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It simply does not fit here. This is not about who should be a crat and under which circumstances they should stay being a crat. The last discussion on crat removal of bits was mixed with so many different discussions that it was hard to follow what it was about. That's why we decided to keep it simply and strictly on topic. That said, I would support a separate proposal like that. If there are not many issues to be raised, then it will be simple and over soon and since Wikipedia is not paper, there is no reason why we should have to mix two completely different proposals when we can simply create it separately. Regards SoWhy 22:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a seperate RFC is appropriate, so try Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Remove_Bureaucrat_bit_from_inactive_accounts for size --Errant (chat!) 23:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good job, ErrantX. Jusdafax 00:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what the hangup with all of this is (both the admin and now crat removal). Adminship and bureaucratship being lifelong appointments seems crazy, to me. Holding account privileges ought to be a privilege. I hear the excuses being raised to retain the current practices, but... those arguing that things shouldn't change just aren't convincing to me. That, and fracturing these questions among a thousand different RFC's certainly doesn't help anything.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 18:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with bundling everything into one RfC is that it creates confusions and uncertainties. People will oppose an entire proposal because they dislike one element. Or they will make comments that can be interpreted as only supporting parts of a proposal, leaving the closer uncertain about what they do or don't support. This can result in a "no consensus" result for the proposal even though most of the participants actually favored the general idea. Breaking out the different elements takes up more time and more pixels of discussion, but it gives cleaner results. --RL0919 (talk) 19:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Bureaucrat_removal_of_adminship_policy&oldid=438464390"