Forum:On adminship and civility

Forums: Yew Grove > On adminship and civility

This page or section is an archive.
Please do not edit the contents of this page.
This thread was archived on 18 June 2013 by Liquidhelium.

I have just closed this thread about AnselaJonla's conduct, in which editors cited examples of her poor behavior, including frequent violations of the user treatment policy. In addition to calling for a temporary block for these UTP violations, some editors supported the desysopping of AnselaJonla based on her conduct. Others opposed this notion on the grounds that her qualification for adminship was based not on her attitude toward others, but the actions she took with her admin tools. The outcome of that thread was consensus for a block, but there was no consensus to desysop purely over her attitude and behavior toward others. Good arguments were made on both sides, and I feel that the issue warrants a dedicated discussion, hence this thread.

This thread seeks to establish official policy on whether or not a user may be stripped of admin rights for UTP violations.

Some facts to consider: At the moment, there is no official policy on this matter. As of this writing, seven administrators have lost their admin tools in the past. Of these, four (Richard1990, Stinkowing, Bonziibob, and Ajraddatz) requested that their tools be removed; however, it is worth noting that Stinkowing was desysopped partially because of a rude outburst on the Yew Grove. Shadowdancer and Puremexican were desysopped for power abuse, and while Dreadnought was desysopped for his conduct, it's worth noting that he was abusing his powers as well. Therefore, there is no precedent for desysopping based solely on conduct.

So that people have something to support or oppose, I'll go ahead and propose the following: Amend RuneScape:Administrators (or an adequate alternative page) to include a section on criteria for desysopping, including abuse of sysop tools as well as gross violations of the user treatment policy. Note that I am personally neutral on this matter.

Discuss. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 23:10, June 16, 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Yes - If someone has broken UTP to an extent that a block has been deemed appropriate, especially if its more than a 'few days to cool off', then to me that implies that we [the community] don't hold the level of trust we used to with that user. If we don't trust them to use the most basic tool, editing, without breaking UTP (or even joining a chat medium) then surely we do not trust them with any of the more destructive tools of an admin, right? @Gaz#7521 00:16, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Breaking of the user treatment policy to the point of warranting a block is when it's also the time to remove the group rights held by the individual. Regardless of how well the group right is used, a poor attitude towards others reveals that trust is nonexistent and the group rights should be removed. On that note, I follow to what Gaz Lloyd has stated above on trusting and loss of trust in itself. Ryan PM 01:16, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Support Per Gazzles and Ryan.User:King kolton9/Signature 02:36, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Sysops are representatives of the wiki. I doubt any of us agree with every single part of wiki policy or whatever the case may be. But we still have to follow it, because of the trust placed in us by the community. The only reason it works is because it's a collaboration where we are all on the same page. I don't think there should be any "exempt" areas for policy violations OR trust violations. I don't think there needs to be a set list for what you can violate to be desysopped. It should be on a case by case basis, without exemptions. As a representative of the wiki (or any organization) you have to represent that organization not yourself. That means you ignore some of your own views and in the case of Ansela you shut your mouth and don't insult everyone. Now I'm not saying everyone doesn't screw up occasionally. But when you screw up, you acknowledge it, apologize, and hopefully move on. That has not happened with Ansela, and that is the problem with her behavior. User:Haloolah123/Sig 03:18, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up - As has been said by others further down on the page: there does not need to be a list of what sysops can violate and remain sysops. Of the 3 cases where we have precedence, 2 were removed by Sannse and the most recent by community consensus. Like I said above, case-by-case basis. Thus I oppose such a modification. If whoever closes this feels compelled to place something in policy, it should read similar to/include the same idea: "Sysop tools may be removed for any reasons where they acted inappropriately, according to community consensus, as established on the Yew Grove". User:Haloolah123/Sig 16:45, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

No - This is stupidly specific. You're jumping off the Ansela thread to set a specific precedent only regarding UTP? It's fine and dandy that you want to make constant violinations of that policy warrant for a block, and I support that, I guess, but don't you think we'd have realized by now that we're unfortunately stupid when we don't have a precedent off of which to base our decisions? From your closure's wording, a sysop can technically retain their tools after a spree of vandalism so long as it didn't actually involve their tools. However, I'll just bite my lip and leave that closure alone.

Ever think that, at the very least, we should have a vague coverall to guide our actions in these, might I add rare?, situations? Something along the lines of this question:

If a sysop's actions are constantly in question, are they really fit to remain a sysop?

By the way: thanks, Fergie. Her original statement was "So it's okay to have an admin that is periodically blocked for breaking UTP?"

Don't get me wrong, it's bad for a sysop to be a terrible person, mk?, but this isn't the way explicate a policy. It's a terrible way, actually. You're trying to establish a specific, albeit of a more a more probable cause than the rest, precedent for the future. Actually, scratch the part about it being more probable, because that's what the problem is: we leave our future selves/contributors at a loss with what to do when that oddball case comes up of an admin scamming users met through the wiki or someother.

Look, I'm not saying I know exactly how to carry this thread out, but I know how not to. This isn't the way to go about these kind of problems. So take a minute, relax, and stop thinking about Ansela. Let's pretend this thread isn't about dealing with her, the thread for that is "closed". Now it's time to deal with future bad sysops (like Cook Me Plox or Suppa chuppa's evil twin brother, Uppas huppac); and no, not just the malicious ones. We can logically deduce that because we have this discussion and that because we've had people desysopped in the past, that not every bad sysop is breaking the same rule. MolMan 03:42, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Supportive comment - I support something. I support that administrators be required to abide by all policies at risk of losing any or all of their user rights, including the right to delete content, block users, the right to determine consensus, the right to edit, the right to speak in Chat, etc. These policies include UTP as much as they include the user block policy. There is no reason that an administrator should not be allowed to break the blocking, deletion and protection policies but are allowed to constantly violate UTP with little risk to a certain subset of their user rights. All user rights should be up for disqualification if the community wishes it. I oppose a specific amendment to the administrator page that only covers the user treatment policy. 222 ^talk 06:16, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Aaron - Referencing admins from who knows how many years ago like Shadowdancer and Puremexican to bolster your proposal is nonsensical and overwhelmingly irrelevant to the wiki of today... but glossing over that: Aaron has summarised exactly what I would have said very neatly, and I too oppose such a foolishly narrow amendment that accounts for so little. Ronan^Talk 07:24, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

I said that first... and mine had more words. MolMan 14:00, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

ἀντιλέγω - Per Thebrains222. Temu jin 09:19, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - Yes, my outburst back then was rude, but it was also because several users were baiting me and I was adjusting to a new medicine and stress in my school life, which make a very bad combination. The users in question (Wejer, Vhoscythe, Dibervill, and a few others) were just trolls who came back to mess with me since I had a very rigid view of how to use my tools "properly" (in fact, I remember hearing that Dibervill, who I remember being 'crat on the French version of the wiki, came back purely to make the proposal to desysop, then left after he succeeded, never to return to this day). Please don't lump me in with the power abusers like Puremexican and Dreadnought. .____. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 14:22, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Ya, they were trolls. It sickened me to reread that thread, but you were actually lumped together with ajr and rich: the group of requested removals. MolMan 14:26, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

I know, don't worry. I was asking not to be "lumped in" with that other group in anyone's mind, based on the fact of my outburst. Meh, it's fine, just paranoia getting me again. https://i.imgur.com/7kyt1iT.gif --WINE OF GOOD HEALTH _{(Actually Stinko)} 14:28, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Support - I think that, even though administrator tools are technically just a couple of rights, a lot of people think administrators represent the wiki in some way, so if admins can't give an example of how to behave, other users would use that as an argument to misbehave too. And they have. RfAs are made to select people who can stay calm and neutral under pressure or conflicts, so if an admin can't handle conflict, or doesn't follow any other policy for that matter, I don't think they should keep their tools.
I agree with 222 and Mol that this should not be about just UTP. It's too specific, and if this would ever happen again, it wouldn't be good to have to talk about this all over just because it's about ignoring content policies consistently at that time. If any policy is made, I think it should be that admins are to follow all policies on the wiki, and if they consistently violate policies, they will be desysoped. JOEYTJE50 TALK pull my finger 16:22, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I see this as a continuation of the Ansela thread, and an unnecessary one at that. I think this issue can easily be dealt with on a case-by-case basis using a proper determination of consensus. *cough* --Liquid^Talk 19:06, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Liquid++;

@Gaz#7521 20:37, June 17, 2013 (UTC);

Support - It would be nice for the sysops to stop leaning on their tools and status to gain an unfair level of breathing space when it come to them being in the wrong. YOUR TOOLS ARE THERE TO BE USED FOR THE GOOD OF THE WIKI, NOT A STATUS TO LEAN ON WHEN YOU KNOW YOU'RE IN THE WRONG. I guarantee you that if the user in question wasn't a sysop, that block would be significantly longer. What ever happened to equality? Rhys ^Talk 19:17, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I don't want to close this cause it's barely been up at all, but I can go ahead and say this: this thread won't accomplish anything because it's not clearly defined, look at all the different things going on, Wart and Gaz and Joey all support...but they're all talking about different things. Ansela's tools have not been removed, we've moved on. We don't need a third thread as far as I know. There doesn't need to be a section on "desysopping" criteria. If a sysop fails to do what is expected (which IS defined) and community consensus highlights that and says it's serious enough for the tools to be removed, then it shall be so-and done through a Yew Grove thread. (Case-by-case). Because it's such a rare event, we don't need a list where someone just flicks through and desysops rogue admins. It doesn't have to be that complicated. Unless there is actually something to be determined here, I suggest we close this thread soon. User:Haloolah123/Sig 19:46, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

We could use this thread to prevent us from being stupid in the future. To tell us to use common sense. The list goes on. MolMan 19:52, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

I don't think we need a thread for that. RS:UCS User:Haloolah123/Sig 19:55, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

There's a reason why this thread exists... Because we seem to be completely incapable of using common sense. Don't you even quote that policy when we've been unable to correctly use it for a number of years.

Rhys ^Talk 20:01, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Well if that is the case, this thread won't help. User:Haloolah123/Sig 20:03, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't even feel it should be a question whether you can abuse a policy and keep your tools. NOTE: difference between abuse and break. You can screw up, people have, you apologize, you don't do it again. She did it repeatedly without remorse or change. And that's why like Liquid said a bit ago...this is like Ansela part 3. Which is why I want to close it, if we're gonna do that, let's make another one, not discuss it under the guise of policy change. User:Haloolah123/Sig 19:55, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, I don't see how this thread is all that much different (the idea at least) than Forum:UTP policy change, which Andorin said "This is common sense. Admins are not above policy. Nobody is. I don't know why this thread is even needed. --Andorin (Talk) (Contribs) 1:27 am, 3 June 2013, Monday (14 days ago) (UTC−5)". So is it needed or not? That confuses me. Because Harle asked the same exact question that Andorin has put before us. User:Haloolah123/Sig 20:03, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Support - Per Gaz. Also, what Rhys said seems to be true, sadly. -- Megadog14^Talk 23:52, June 17, 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion - Just add a sentence to the end of the "It's not a big deal" section of RuneScape:Administrators that says, "Failure to use the tools responsibly or violating the UTP may be considered a breach of trust and can result in the removal of access to said tools". I don't think we need a whole new section detailing each possible offence, but I also think it's prudent to mention that those with admin tools are still subject to the same code of conduct everyone else is. It certainly doesn't hurt to have it there, if only to avoid page after page of arguments over it in the future. -- Ms ZuZu ^Talk 02:10, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Because you aren't logged in. I think if anything the text should go along with that on an RfA, because as has been enumerated many times on this page, it's a case-by-case basis. You can't just make a bunch of set rules, because consensus, circumstances, and yes, how convincing those doing the arguing are. User:Haloolah123/Sig 02:17, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

And that is why I'm against any specific statement of "these are the things that will result in being desysoped", and would rather see a simpler "it could happen" statement that leaves each case to stand or fall on its own. --

Ms ZuZu ^Talk

02:31, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Comment - I don't think you need to call out UTP specifically. However, if an admin would not pass an RfA if an hypothetical RfA was submitted at the time of whatever review, I think that's a better criterion. The criteria for remaining an admin should be at least as stringent as getting there in the first place. Things like abuse of tools would be on top of that. --User:Saftzie/Signature 05:52, June 18, 2013 (UTC)

Closed - This thread is not a useful continuation of the Ansela thread, regardless of whether people acknowledge that it is a continuation. Everyone is in agreement that sysops are bound by the same rules as everyone else and that a breach of said rules is grounds for corrective action. To clear up any confusion: by current policy, sysops can have their tools removed for any reason if the wiki community reaches a consensus that such a removal is warranted. --Liquid^Talk 06:14, June 18, 2013 (UTC)