User:Bovlb/Self-limiting administrators
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This page in a nutshell: This is a voluntary code of conduct for the administrative team to work together efficiently, collectively and harmoniously. Subscribing admins are bound by two rules:
|
[edit] Motivation
The vast majority of admin actions go unchallenged, either because they are appreciated, or because they aren't even noticed. Admins are human, which means they are fallible. It's inevitable that some errors will be made. Unfortunately, the path to rectifying those errors sometimes causes a lot of collateral damage to Wikipedia.
By both social practice and policy, admins are very reluctant to reverse another admin's actions, especially without allowing time for response and discussion. This not only incurs a delay for inconvenienced editors, but can also lead to increased drama. A common sequence of events is for a public debate to start (e.g. on the Administrators' Noticeboard) that accumulates a lot of heated claims before the admin in question has a chance to respond, and which then provokes a defensive response, before spiralling out of control, spawning RFCs and RFARs in all directions.
This code of conduct attempts to reduce the overhead of reversing a bad administrative decision, while retaining a framework within which controversial decisions can still be defended. It also attempts to replace ego with consensus, by broadening ownership of administrative actions.
[edit] Details
[edit] What does membership mean for other admins?
By adopting this code, the adherent is declaring that any admin may reverse his administrative actions for any reason and without prior consultation. The reversing admin is, of course, fully responsible for the reversal action and is expected to be able to justify it in the normal way. Informing the adherent of the reversal is strongly encouraged (although not required), but should not cause any delay in rectifying errors.
Swift reversion may short-circuit existing processes (e.g. Deletion Review), and should be treated in the same way as if the adherent had self-reversed.
[edit] What is an administrative action?
In the context of this code of conduct, an administrative action is one that only administrators can perform, e.g. deletion/undeletion, blocking/unblocking, protecting/unprotecting, editing of protected pages. It does not include things that administrators merely do more easily (e.g. rollback) or with "colour of authority" (e.g. user warnings, or actions taken as a member of some committee). Closure of XFDs (whether keep or delete) is included, but this provision should be exploited with especial caution, inasmuch as it is exceedingly rare for XFD closers to reverse themselves.
Those with permissions above admin (e.g. developers, bureaucrats, stewards) are welcome to adhere. The code is silent on whether super-admin actions (e.g. setting permission bits, oversight) are covered.
[edit] What is a reversal of an administrative action?
In the context of this code of conduct, a reversal of an administrative action must also be an administrative action. For example, recreating a deleted page from scratch does not count (and thus the page can be re-deleted), but undeleting it does.
Reversing an administrative action is itself an administrative action that may be covered by this code if the reversing admin is also an adherent. This code of conduct is not viral; non-adherent admins are not required to adhere to this code of conduct in order to exploit it by reversing the action of an adherent,
[edit] But what if the reversal is wrong?
If the adherent concludes that the reversal was incorrect, and the original action should therefore be repeated, there are a number of options available, including:
- Discuss with the reversing admin and reach a mutual decision.
- Ask an uninvolved admin to reinstate the original action (either one-on-one, or by posting to an appropriate forum).
- Decide that it's not that important, and let it go.
The adherent undertakes not to do either of the following:
- Repeat the original action (except when responding to new circumstances).
- Criticise the reversing admin specifically for the act of reversing another admin (although the action itself is fair game for criticism).
An example of new circumstances would be to reblock a user on the basis of actions performed since an unblock. In such a case, the block length would not, by default, escalate.
If an action is reversed repeatedly (whether by the original reverser or not) the adherent should discourage any specific third-party admin from reinstating the action more than once. Hence, it is possible for an action to flip-flop repeatedly, but only by bringing in an ever-increasing group of admins. This code does not impose any additional bar on canvassing.
[edit] How do I sign up?
Admins can indicate their adherence to this code of conduct either by using the <placeholder> userbox, or by otherwise joining the <placeholder> category. Membership is voluntary, and can be repudiated at any time (but this should be done prior to violation). It is appropriate either to request or undertake membership as part of the Request for Administration process.
[edit] How does this affect non-administrators?
Non-administrators can neither make nor reverse administrative actions, so they cannot adhere to this code of conduct directly. They can, however, encourage admins to follow it, and report potential violations by members.
A non-administrator seeking the reversal of an administrative action by an adherent may find it useful to draw attention to the admin's membership when seeking action from other admins (e.g. in an unblock request). Adherents may wish to mention it in block notices (e.g. by using the <placeholder> template).
[edit] What if an adherent violates this code?
Any editor can report potential violations on the <placeholder> forum for discussion. This code has no provision for enforcement, but membership is a commitment to the community and violation is therefore evidence of bad faith, and may be considered in other proceedings.
Adherence is unilateral. Violation by one adherent does not authorise violation by other adherents.
Admin sock-puppetry (if such a thing exists) would be a violation, but admin meat-puppetry would not. This code places no bar on freedom of association or permissible forms of communication.
Membership is voluntary. It is inappropriate to criticise a non-member for not complying with this code of conduct.
[edit] Does this lower the bar for admin action?
Adherence to this code does not (except with respect to other adherents, as described above) authorise or encourage the adherent to take any action that would not otherwise be permissible. Widespread adherence may, however, encourage the community to grant admins greater latitude (e.g. in speedy deletion).
