Misplaced Pages

:History of de-adminship proposals: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 04:22, 16 September 2009 editShubinator (talk | contribs)Administrators15,793 editsm →Removed by Arbitration Committee ruling: three → four← Previous edit Latest revision as of 14:17, 15 December 2024 edit undoHex (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators25,316 edits →Proposed processes: Add Misplaced Pages:Administrative action reviewTag: 2017 wikitext editor 
(128 intermediate revisions by 78 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{short description|Misplaced Pages information page}}
{{Shortcut|WP:RFDA|WP:FIRED}}
{{redirect|WP:RFDA|Redirects for discussion archives|Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log}}
{{User:Roux/RFA-reform}}
{{For|the current procedure to recall administrators|Misplaced Pages:Administrator recall}}
{{information page|WP:RFDA|WP:DES|WP:DESYS|WP:FIRED}}
{{nutshell|A community-based process for removing adminship has been a ], before the current process was adopted in 2024.}}
] status may be revoked (a '''desysopping''' or '''de-adminning''') by the ], either pursuant to a case or under its ]. The community may not directly remove admin status, but may ] an administrator, compelling them to undergo reconfirmation if they wish to remain an admin. In addition, ] will voluntarily stand for reconfirmation ].


A few rarer means of desysop exist as well: The community may desysop an admin ], but as of 2024 has yet to do so. Desysop powers are also vested in ] (last use ]), ] (last for-cause use ]), and, ], ]. Historically, ].
== Past history ==
Throughout the history of the project, there has been a convention that adminship may be removed only in cases of clear abuse. Users have proposed a variety of processes to ensure that admins have the continued support of the community, but none have gained widespread acceptance. Some administrators will voluntarily stand for reconfirmation under certain circumstances; see ].


Through 2003, there had been only one case where adminship was revoked. Since 2004, the ] has dealt with cases involving abuse of adminship, both through review of de-adminships imposed in emergencies and through removal of adminship as a remedy in an arbitration proceeding. Through 2003, there had been only one case where adminship was revoked. Since 2004, the Arbitration Committee has dealt with cases involving abuse of adminship, both through review of de-adminships imposed in emergencies and through removal of adminship as a remedy in an arbitration proceeding.


Throughout the history of the project, there has been a convention that adminship may be removed involuntarily only in cases of clear abuse. Users have proposed a variety of processes to ensure that admins have the continued support of the community, but none gained widespread acceptance until recall in 2024.
There have also been cases where users have voluntarily relinquished adminship, and there have been cases where adminship has been suspended temporarily to enforce a cooling-off period in conflicts between admins. Throughout the history of the project, some purportedly voluntary de-adminships have taken place in the presence of a growing consensus that adminship may not be appropriate for the affected user. The arbitration committee has ] that users voluntarily resigning their adminship in such a circumstance may not automatically request it back and must go through the regular processes.


Many users have voluntarily relinquished adminship, and historically there were cases where adminship was suspended temporarily to enforce a cooling-off period in conflicts between admins. Some nominally voluntary de-adminships have taken place in the presence of a growing consensus that adminship may not be appropriate for the affected user. The Arbitration Committee has ] that users voluntarily resigning their adminship in such a circumstance may not automatically request it back and must go through the regular processes, or are subject to ] discretion, depending on the timing of the resignation.
Unless otherwise mentioned, users are free to reapply at ] at any time. Those users desysopped by the Arbitration Committee may also appeal to that Committee.


With very rare, explicitly noted exceptions, users are free to reapply at ] at any time. Some desysops by the Arbitration Committee have also included a right of appeal to the Committee. ] there was also a right of appeal to Jimbo Wales.
== Cases ==
<!-- Note: When updating the numbers in the next sentence, the number of users should count Guanaco only once, and count the administrators whose adminship was temporarily removed by Jimbo and later restored after Arbitration cases. -->
As of 14 September 2009 there are 47 cases, involving 58 users, where ] has been removed involuntarily and indefinitely for more than a trivial length of time. This does not include removal of adminship for a defined period.


For information about how de-adminship is handled on other projects, see ]. For a list of past desysops, see ]. For a list of restorations of adminship, see ].
=== Removed using '']'' decision-making: ===
# ] was ] in February 2003 after making ] against another contributor. She had previously been an administrator, and became the first administrator to be banned from the project. The ban was solely due to legal threats and was unrelated to her use of administrator-specific features of the wiki. The ban was issued by ] and implemented manually by developers, since at that time there was no user interface available either for blocking logged-in users or for removing adminship.
# ] had his admin status ] by ] in May 2003 after <span class="plainlinks"></span> and ]. The removal was a result of his involvement in a campaign by the user ] to censor sexually explicit content on Misplaced Pages. Uwe Kils subsequently stated that he <span class="plainlinks"></span>, and so adminship was never restored.
# ] lost adminship in March 2004 as a result of ] on a protected page with multiple other admins, and then deleting accusations against him on relevant project pages. During the dispute resolution process, he was temporarily desysopped following a poll, had admin privileges briefly restored, then had them removed permanently after the dispute flared up again. ] and the ] both reviewed the action and declined to reverse it. 168... then left the project.
# ] had his admin status removed as an emergency measure by ] in May 2005, after he had deleted a number of images along with his user pages. As he had given no explanation for the deletions and appeared to have discontinued making useful contributions, the intervention was taken to prevent him going on an image deletion rampage, since at the time deleted images could not be recovered (<span class="plainlinks"></span> was offered later). Subsequently, a new ] in October 2005 failed to reach a consensus to restore his admin status.
# ], and ] and three other admins had their admin status temporarily removed by Jimbo Wales on February 6, 2006, after a ]. The arbitration committee was directed to make the ] in the case, which was that Carnildo and Karmafist were to remain desysopped while the three others (], ], ]) were allowed to regain their admin status automatically. Karmafist was blocked indefinitely from Misplaced Pages on August 30, 2006 after violating rulings of a subsequent ] (<span class="plainlinks"></span>) and was later to be considered community-banned. Carnildo was resysopped on September 5, 2006 (]).
# ] had his admin status removed as an emergency measure by Steward ] in December 2006, due to suspicions of a compromised account. A few days later, Husnock indicated he would not challenge this decision, and the Arbitration Committee later confirmed the desysopping (see ]).
# ], ], and ] were temporarily desysopped by Jimbo Wales on February 23, 2007. These desysoppings and related issues were reviewed by the Arbitration Committee in the ] case. Freakofnurture's admin status was restored by a motion of the Arbitration Committee. Geni's admin status was restored on January 22, 2009 (]).
# ] had his admin status removed as an emergency measure by Steward ] in April 2007, due to a spree of disruptive deletions and blocks. He may not re-apply without approval from the Arbitration Committee <span class="plainlinks"></span>. (He was since banned and discovered to be a sock of ].)
# ], ], ], ], and ] were emergency desysopped in May 2007 due to having their accounts compromised. They were all resysopped after regaining control of their accounts.
# ] was desysopped in June 2007 after deletions of ] and ]. He had long been inactive, see ]. (His account was also blocked for being "compromised", <span class="plainlinks"></span>.)
# ] had his admin status removed at the request of arbitrator ] in August 2007 <span class="plainlinks"></span>, due to a failure to explain a disruptive block in June 2007.
# ] was ] in October 2007 by ] for undoing a ban made by Jimbo. Zscout370 was resysopped a day later when things calmed down.
# ] had his admin status removed as an emergency measure by Steward ] in December 2007, due to the deletion of the ]. The account had been compromised by his sister. Eye of the Mind was unblocked later on, but has not yet been resysopped.
# ] was in January 2008 as his account was believed to be compromised. He was resysopped once it was ascertained that he had regained control of it.
#] was desysopped by mutual agreement with the Arbitration Committee on May 15, 2008 following a series of incidents of incivility. See <span class="plainlinks"></span> and <span class="plainlinks"></span>. He is not permitted to reapply for adminship without leave of the Arbitration Committee.
#Two retired administrators, ] (inactive since 2007) and ] (inactive since 2005), were desysopped in July 2008 by a steward <span class="plainlinks"></span> their passwords were easy to crack.
#] was <span class="plainlinks"></span> by ] on July 26, 2008 for ], and for posting inappropriate remarks to an offsite blog following the incident.
#] was <span class="plainlinks"></span> by ] on November 17, 2008 for incivility amid suspicions of a compromised account. He was resysopped later following an apology.
#] was <span class="plainlinks"></span> on January 3, 2009 for suspected sock-puppetry, pending an <span class="plainlinks"></span>
#] was on April 5, 2009 for safety after some erratic postings to ] . After an ArbCom motion, he may regain his adminship at any time by request to a bureaucrat.


== Current methods of requesting de-adminship ==
===Removed by Arbitration Committee ruling===
# ] lost adminship in December 2004 as a result of an ] requiring him to ] for adminship. The stated rationale for the ruling was an ongoing pattern of controversial use of page protection and unblocks. Guanaco's first three re-applications failed, but his ] was successful. He was later desysopped (see below), and cannot currently re-apply for adminship. He remains an admin on ].
# ] lost adminship in November 2005 as a result of an ]. Initially, the Arbcom ruled that he would be subjected to the same re-application process as Guanaco, but after widespread objections (] vote 17/29/7/49, <span class="plainlinks"></span>) to this ruling, the ] voted again, this time to remove admin status and leave the possibility of renomination open for the future. Stevertigo ] on December 22, 2005, and was turned down on a vote of 16-37-5.
# ] lost adminship in December 2005 as a result of an ]. Ed Poor had previously been a bureaucrat, and had resigned those powers in September 2005 in response to ] involving him. He also had shell access until ].
# ] lost adminship on February 12, 2006 as a result of an ]. He later applied unsuccessfully for adminship as ] without revealing his previous identity. He has since been banned.
# ] was desysopped again on April 12, 2006 after being granted adminship for a second time, as a result of a new ]. The ruling also denies him the right to reapply for adminship.
# ] (now ]) was desysopped on June 10, 2006 after the arbitration committee ]. The ruling denies him the right to reapply by RFA without leave of the ArbCom. He has since retired in September 2007.
# ] (later renamed to ]) was desysopped on August 21, 2006 by an ], although he had resigned a few hours earlier. He has since returned to editing as ], under which name he gained admin rights and was elected to ArbCom.
# ] was desysopped on September 3, 2006 after the arbitration committee found what it described as evidence of ]. This desysopping was considered controversial by some. Everyking is permitted to reapply for adminship through RfA, but four attempts to do so in ], ], ], and ] were all unsuccessful.
# ] was desysopped on October 19, 2006 due to the repeated ] and related admin actions. However, he had stated that he had quit the project on September 10, and has not edited since.
# ] and ] were desysopped on December 16, 2006 for misuse of administrative tools and other reasons by ].
#] was ] by the Arbitration Committee for incivility and blocking users with whom he was engaged in a dispute, on April 5, 2007. He was later resysopped per the <span class="plainlinks"></span>.
# ] lost his privileges by ] for high-speed blocking by automated process on May 3, 2007.
# ] was desysopped on May 30, 2007 after the arbitration committee found ] of sockpuppet abuse.
#] was ] on July 11, 2007 after the arbitration committee said his actions were "sub-optimal, combined with the fact that he has failed to recognise the suboptimality of his actions".
#] was ] on November 8, 2007 for wheel warring and other poor judgment in performing administrative actions. He may not reapply by means of RFA without leave from the committee.
#A user who has exercised a ] was provisionally ] on February 13, 2008 for six months. He may reapply to the committee after that time, but given the choice to vanish, it is unlikely that this will happen.
#] was ] on February 19, 2008 after the arbitration committee was dissatisfied with responses to its questions on several disruptive sockpuppets he was found to have used and due to ]. He was community banned the same day, and has since been determined to be a sockpuppet of community-banned user ].
#] was ] on May 16, 2008 for using administrative tools in disputes in which he was involved, and inappropriate blocking.
#] was ] on September 24, 2008 for inappropriately using administrative tools when involved, having been admonished in ] ] to avoid doing so.
#] was ] on May 24, 2009 for misuse of admin tools, failing to respond to community concerns, and inappropriate off-wiki behaviour.
#] was on 1 August 2008 for running an inappropriate sock account.
#] was on 4 August 2009 for disruptive and inappropriate conduct involving his administrative duties, although he resigned shortly beforehand.
#] was ] on 13 September 2009 for using admin tools whilst involved.
#] was on 14 September 2009 after the ArbCom determined him to be a reincarnation of an indefinitely-banned user.


* Voluntary self-revocation of adminship can be requested at ]. Bureaucrats also procedurally remove adminship for ] (see below) and ].
===Removed for lack of response to Arbitration case===
* A petition of 25 users at ] may compel a reconfirmation RfA or ] candidacy within 30 days. If the admin fails reconfirmation, or fails to start the request in a timely manner, they will be desysopped.
# ] left Misplaced Pages in March 2005 while an ] was underway. Although the case was characterized as a "spurious arbitration on relatively flimsy evidence" <span class="plainlinks"></span> in a preliminary review, the Arbitration Committee decided that his admin status would be removed unless he returned to address the case against him. 172 returned to editing later in the year, but the case had been closed due to inactivity.
* Some admins have added their names to ], stating their intent that if a certain quantity of users ask for them to be recalled, the administrator may choose to resign voluntarily, or to engage in a discussion of such resignation. However, requests have been sporadic, and it is unclear that an administrator who made themselves open to recall is bound to that promise. A list of such requests and their outcomes can be found at ].
# ] failed to respond to concerns about the use of multiple accounts and was desysopped in May 2007 by ]. Furthermore, Henrygb was banned until he explained his actions.
* An admin who is indefinitely community sitebanned ].
#] was ] on November 29, 2007 for abusive sockpuppetry used to ], as well as failing to explain his actions. He may not reapply for administrator rights until he explains his actions to the Arbitration Committee. Furthermore, Eyrian was banned until he offers an explanation.
* Otherwise, adminship may only be involuntarily removed from an active administrator by the ]; see ] for details.
#] was <span class="plainlinks"></span> on July 19, 2008 for failing to respond to concerns about his blocking of users without contacting them or leaving them a message.
#] was <span class="plainlinks"></span> on February 3, 2009 for sockpuppetry and failure to respond to ArbCom enquiries.
#] was on June 13, 2009 for using an undisclosed account for paid editing and failing to respond to Arbitration Committee enquiries about same. His bureaucrat and oversight flags were also withdrawn, making him the first user to involuntarily lose a bureaucrat flag.


===Inactive admins===
In general, users who have had their admin status removed are permitted to reapply for it through the ]. Such reapplications rarely succeed, however (see ]).
There have also been a number of policy proposals to revoke adminship from user accounts of people who no longer participate in the project, for example ] and ]. These early proposals lacked widespread support, but an RfC running through June 2011 at ] decided on removal of adminship after a year of total inactivity, recoverable at any time upon request. In December 2012, the requirement to undergo a renewal RfA ] on former admins who have been inactive for more than three years. A set of proposals to increase the minimum activity requirements ] in December 2015. In March 2018, the standard of inactivity requiring a new RfA ] to include disuse of admin tools for five years, and in April 2022 a further condition of making at least 100 edits in five years ], to be effective from January 2023 and resulting in an unusually large number of de-admins in that month.


== Former processes == == Former processes ==


As noted in the cases above, revocation of adminship was previously handled: Revocation of adminship was previously handled:


# On the mailing list. # On the mailing list.
# On the ]. # On the ].
# At ''']''' # At ''']'''
# ].


== Proposed processes == == Proposed processes ==
Several proposals for alternative or expanded desysopping protocols have been considered by the community. In general, none have achieved a consensus to enact. A substantial number of proposals for alternative or expanded desysopping protocols have been considered by the community.
*''']''' – October 2024; '''consensus to implement ]'''
*''' - May 2009
*''']''' - December 2021; consensus was found for a process to "determine whether an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy", while deferring any action taken as a result to existing processes.
*'''] - January 2009
*''']''' – March 2021; While not strictly a de-adminship proposal, the proposal provided a process by which an administrator might be removed after ten years. Did not achieve consensus.
*'''] - October 2008
*''']''' - December 2007 *''']''' – February 2021
*''']''' - October 2007 *''']''' – October 2019
*''']''' - October 2007 *''']''' – August 2015
*''']''' - September 2007 *''']''' – July 2015.
*''']''' – November 2014; proposal to appoint administrators and to remove rights
*''']''' - a short lived proposal in September 2006 that five admins could demand another admin be forced to go through a new ] to keep their status. After a lot of criticism on its talk page, it was made historical within three weeks.
*''']''' - August 2006 *''']''' – November 2014
*''']''' – September 2012
* ''']''' - a complex proposal was struck down in August 2006, but resulted in a different proposal at ] which includes the ArbCom as a check on abuses.
* ''']''' - swiftly struck down in May 2006 as a rehashing of previous proposals. *''']''' - July 2012
* ''']''' - a proposal made in June 2005 *''']''' – February 2010
*'''''' – May 2009
* ''']''' - a March 2005 proposal which closely emulated the ] process, and which was rejected by a margin of over 2 to 1.
*''']''' – January 2009
* ''']''' - a series of proposals from September 2004, each voted on and rejected by a margin of about 2 to 1
*''']''' – October 2008
* ''']''' - an April 2004 proposal for self-initiated periodic review of admin status that generated little interest or discussion
*''']''' – December 2007
* ''']''' - during its short run in 2004, quickpolls were used to address admin disputes. Many of these were retaliatory listings.
*''']''' – October 2007
* ''']''' - occasionally, requests for revocation of adminship are made here but all have either been removed out of hand or voted down. An example of historical interest is at ], and a more recent one is at ].
*''']''' – October 2007
* There have also been a number of policy proposals to revoke adminship from user accounts of people who no longer participate in the project, for example ] and ]. These proposals have lacked widespread support.
*''']''' – September 2007

*''']''' – a short lived proposal in September 2006 that five admins could demand another admin be forced to go through a new ] to keep their status. After a lot of criticism on its talk page, it was made historical within three weeks.
== Current methods of requesting de-adminship ==
*''']''' – August 2006

* ] – a complex proposal was struck down in August 2006, but resulted in a different proposal at ] which includes the ArbCom as a check on abuses.
* Voluntary self-revocation of adminship can be requested at ].
* ''']''' – swiftly struck down in May 2006 as a rehashing of previous proposals.
* A small fraction of admins have added their names to ], stating their intent that if a certain quantity of users ask for them to be recalled, the administrator may choose to resign voluntarily, or to engage in a discussion of such resignation. There have been several such recall proposals initiated by users, but in only one case did the administrator voluntarily give up adminship.
* ''']''' – a proposal made in June 2005
* Requests to revoke another user's adminship may also be made using the ].
* ''']''' – a March 2005 proposal which closely emulated the ] process, and which was rejected by a margin of over 2 to 1.
* ''']''' – a series of proposals from September 2004, each voted on and rejected by a margin of about 2 to 1
* ''']''' – an April 2004 proposal for self-initiated periodic review of admin status that generated little interest or discussion
* ''']''' – during its short run in 2004, quickpolls were used to address admin disputes. Many of these were retaliatory listings.
* ''']''' – occasionally, requests for revocation of adminship have been made here, but all have either been removed out of hand or voted down. Examples of historical interest are at ] and ]


== See also == == See also ==
*] for processes
*June 2006 <span class="plainlinks"></span> by ] *June 2006 <span class="plainlinks"></span> by ]
*] *]
*] - Historical
*] *]
*] - Historical *] for processes
*]
*]
*]
*] - Information about the group of Wikimedians who implement removal of access
*]


] ]
] ]
]

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 14:17, 15 December 2024

Misplaced Pages information page "WP:RFDA" redirects here. For Redirects for discussion archives, see Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log. For the current procedure to recall administrators, see Misplaced Pages:Administrator recall. Misplaced Pages information page
This is an information page.
It is not an encyclopedic article, nor one of Misplaced Pages's policies or guidelines; rather, its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Misplaced Pages's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect differing levels of consensus and vetting.		Shortcuts
This page in a nutshell: A community-based process for removing adminship has been a perennial proposal, before the current process was adopted in 2024.

Administrator status may be revoked (a desysopping or de-adminning) by the Arbitration Committee, either pursuant to a case or under its expedited procedures. The community may not directly remove admin status, but may recall an administrator, compelling them to undergo reconfirmation if they wish to remain an admin. In addition, some administrators will voluntarily stand for reconfirmation under certain circumstances.

A few rarer means of desysop exist as well: The community may desysop an admin as a de jure consequence of a siteban, but as of 2024 has yet to do so. Desysop powers are also vested in the Wikimedia Foundation office (last use 2019), MediaWiki developers (last for-cause use 2005), and, in emergency cases, Wikimedia stewards. Historically, Jimbo Wales had this power as well.

Through 2003, there had been only one case where adminship was revoked. Since 2004, the Arbitration Committee has dealt with cases involving abuse of adminship, both through review of de-adminships imposed in emergencies and through removal of adminship as a remedy in an arbitration proceeding.

Throughout the history of the project, there has been a convention that adminship may be removed involuntarily only in cases of clear abuse. Users have proposed a variety of processes to ensure that admins have the continued support of the community, but none gained widespread acceptance until recall in 2024.

Many users have voluntarily relinquished adminship, and historically there were cases where adminship was suspended temporarily to enforce a cooling-off period in conflicts between admins. Some nominally voluntary de-adminships have taken place in the presence of a growing consensus that adminship may not be appropriate for the affected user. The Arbitration Committee has taken the view that users voluntarily resigning their adminship in such a circumstance may not automatically request it back and must go through the regular processes, or are subject to bureaucrat discretion, depending on the timing of the resignation.

With very rare, explicitly noted exceptions, users are free to reapply at WP:RFA at any time. Some desysops by the Arbitration Committee have also included a right of appeal to the Committee. Prior to May 2023 there was also a right of appeal to Jimbo Wales.

For information about how de-adminship is handled on other projects, see Misplaced Pages:Adminship in other languages. For a list of past desysops, see Misplaced Pages:Former administrators. For a list of restorations of adminship, see Misplaced Pages:List of resysopped users.

Current methods of requesting de-adminship

Inactive admins

There have also been a number of policy proposals to revoke adminship from user accounts of people who no longer participate in the project, for example Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Inactive1 and Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Inactive2. These early proposals lacked widespread support, but an RfC running through June 2011 at Misplaced Pages:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins decided on removal of adminship after a year of total inactivity, recoverable at any time upon request. In December 2012, the requirement to undergo a renewal RfA was imposed on former admins who have been inactive for more than three years. A set of proposals to increase the minimum activity requirements was rejected in December 2015. In March 2018, the standard of inactivity requiring a new RfA was modified to include disuse of admin tools for five years, and in April 2022 a further condition of making at least 100 edits in five years was approved, to be effective from January 2023 and resulting in an unusually large number of de-admins in that month.

Former processes

Revocation of adminship was previously handled:

  1. On the mailing list.
  2. On the village pump.
  3. At Misplaced Pages:Requests for review of administrative actions
  4. By Jimbo Wales.

Proposed processes

A substantial number of proposals for alternative or expanded desysopping protocols have been considered by the community.

See also

Categories: