Away indefinitely. Filiocht | The kettle's on 07:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC) I've been around since about July 2003, one way or the other, and became an admin around the end of that year. Anyone with an interest in the more obscure corners of 20th century literature may have seen some of my edits.
I have no position on the performance of the existing ArbCom, and nothing I say should be taken as implicit criticism. I run on a simple platform. I would aim to follow the following basic principles:
- Equality of respect: the same standards of behaviour should be extended to and expected of all users. Being an admin gives me no rights that are not also extended to non-admins, I deserve no more leeway than someone who has been here for 3 months. Of course, I exclude the real newcomers, who should never be bitten.
- Wikilove: enough said.
- Assume good faith: ditto.
- Talking is better than blocking, discussing is better than voting. In the last resort, blocking/banning is better than letting one person drain the time, energy and goodwill of the many.
- We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not a playground.
Beyond these, I have no preconceptions and would expect to grow into the role according to the needs of Wikipedia. Filiocht | The kettle's on 14:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Addendum — on the question of de-admining
Above, I say Being an admin gives me no rights that are not also extended to non-admins: so, what is an admin, what is abuse of admin status, and how should it be handled?
As I see it, an admin is a user who has been given access to a set of bits of wiki functionality that other users cannot use. The chief components of this toolkit are the ability to protect, delete and undelete pages and to block users. The deal is that these tools are handed over with the implicit, but clear, understanding that they be used for the benefit of the community and the project, not the individual.
The toolkit also carries with it a heightened responsibility to adhere to such basic tenets as Wikilove, assuming good faith, the carrying out of policy, both written and unwritten, the need for consensus for any actions that may be debatable under policy or require policy. In short, the admin needs to model the behaviours that the community and project require from all users if they are to prosper.
Any admin who uses the toolkit and imagined status to impose their own POV, make a point, bully or intimidate other users, unilaterally breach consensus and/or policy, or generally act the dick are, in my view, abusing their admin role. Note that I am not restricting this to the hypothetical rogue admin who goes on a deletion spree; that one is obvious. I am more concerned with an insidious abuse of "power" to undermine the basic premise We're here to build an encyclopaedia, not a playground.
So, a fair question; how would I see admin abuse being dealt with? This is not the place to work out a complete policy proposal, so the following notes are just an outline of principles and possible procedures.
By extension of the Talking is better than blocking principle, I would argue that de-admining is better than blocking, too. De-admining means that the user retains the most fundamental "right" on Wikipedia: the ability to edit articles. The community and project also benefit from the retention of the skills and knowledge of an experienced editor. I envisage a number of set-length periods that could be applied; say 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, indefinite. For the fixed termination periods, re-admining at the end would be accompanied by a period of mentoring equal in length to the sanction period. Any abuse identified by the mentors during this period would result in an automatic imposition of the next level up sanction.
The process might look something like this:
- Request for comment in which a significant body of opinion is that something is amiss (note that I would not impose consensus at this point because of the potential for vote packing).
- ArbCom investigates questions of fact. Did the abuse happen? When? Where? How often? etc.
- Findings of fact are published to the community. If the finding is that nothing untoward happened, the process closes. Otherwise:
- ArbCom investigates circumstances. These would include the admin's previous record, any provocation by others, any statements by the admin that would indicate a negative attitude towards policy or other users or a clear misunderstanding of admin responsibilities, etc. and decide sanction.
- Nature of sanctions and rationale are communicated to the admin and then published to the community.
- Sanction is imposed.
- Some time before the end of sanction, mentors are agreed and appointed and the community is informed.
Now, this may seem very legalistic and is, of course, open to much debate. However, I feel it only fair that I would spell out my approach to this difficult and contentious, but vitally important, issue in some detail. I would rather avoid a situation in which anyone might vote for me without understanding that I do have somewhat strong views on this question. I should also add that I do not see this process as something that would happen very often, but that its very existence might act to cool down potential flareups and cause all of us admins to consider our actions more carefully.
© MMXXIII Rich X Search. We shall prevail. All rights reserved. Rich X Search