User talk:Mackensen/Administrative nullification

I haven't thought through the implications substantively yet, so let's start with the name. "Administrative nullification" sounds like either a particular action is being nullified, or else like the administrators are nullifying some other group's work (cf. nullification). I assume that as part of "avoiding undue stigma" you avoided the obvious term "suspension" (plus I guess the admin would still have the tools), but maybe "leave" or "abeyance" or something. Newyorkbrad 12:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the name should be changed for that reason and because of the association with eunuch fetishists. -- Kjkolb 14:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This most obvious concern here would be a possibility, or even encouragement of a wheel war. - Mailer Diablo 12:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Although I didn't specify it, my intention is that an administrator reverting a nullified/suspended/abeyant administrator would be exempt from wheel-warring (much as 3RR doesn't apply to reverting a banned user). Mackensen (talk) 13:43, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I suppose the value of "nullification" as opposed to just suspending admin privileges is that the admin (semi-admin? temporarily defrocked admin?) would still be able to use the tools in blatant cases of vandalism, copyvios, etc. But imagine the situation when a user gets blocked by an admin in this status. The user would appeal for an unblock -- just like now -- but with the added ability to proclaim "and the admin who blocked me is under nullification/whatever, so the block is questionable." Then again, one could argue (let's keep this discussion on a completely generalized and non-personalized basis) that there are a few people who are at that point already in the minds of some users. The question is whether this situation arises often enough to be worth formalizing a policy for. I'm still relatively newish here, so I'm not sure. Newyorkbrad 13:51, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The key here is that the administrator question shouldn't be doing any blocking/protecting/deleting at all when they're subject to nullification. The idea is to redirect their energies to other aspects of the project. The proposal is given teeth with the express hope they won't be needed or used. Mackensen (talk) 14:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure if it would be helpful
I'm not sure if this proposal would be helpful. Those admins that abuse admin tools are usually thoroughly convinced of their righteousness, in my opinion. They believe that their actions, even if prohibited by policy, are justified because they are acting in the best interest of the project. They'll call any violations of policy technical, minor, within the spirit of policy, or say that a different policy or common sense should trump the violated policy. Many times, a lot of the people who are upset would be mollified by an apology, but abusive admins generally do not apologize, especially if confronted. Therefore, I think that only a small number of admins would benefit from a rest/rehabilitation period. Still, if it would help at all it might be worth it due to the damage that admins can do. I think an agreement on the part of the admin not to use the tools would be better than others reverting his or her actions, though. -- Kjkolb 14:48, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * At some level this functions as an intervention. If even one admin benefits from this I would say it has been worthwhile. Simply having the option could do some good. If a dozen administrators sit down with said admin, as it were, and tell them they're out of line and it's time for a break, that ought to tell them something. Mackensen (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * So then the question becomes what process is used to decide who needs to go on ... (still looking for the right word) ... hiatus? Newyorkbrad 14:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a noble effort, but... there are probably cases where a dozen admins would agree admin X needed a "hiatus" and a dozen other admins would say admin X is perfectly fine. This could lead to edit warring over whether nullification was in effect.  In general, this process would only work in cases of truly horrendous admins, and in those cases, ArbCom is already equipped, and seemingly willing to act. Xoloz 15:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Teeth?
Question: what happens if the admin in question continues to use the tools? Obviously they could be reverted (in the technical sense, anyways), but there doesn't seem to be anything enforcement-wise here; would the matter need to go before ArbCom? Or would regular disruption blocks apply? Kirill Lokshin 15:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If this is seen as an informal method of dealing with admins who have gotten into difficulty, then refusing to abide by the rules of nullification could presumably lead to an escalation to a more formal process. If it's seen as a formal method of reining in admins who need a cooling off period, why not just temporarily turn the tools off, as oppose to leaving them there as a constant temptation (and risking debates about whether they were consciously used, e.g. "I just used the revert tool to get rid of that vandalism because it was second nature to do that; I didn't mean to use an admin button when it was supposed to be off-limits"). Newyorkbrad 16:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As much as I hate to try to apply technical solutions to social problems, there's a very simple software change that might help: a blocked admin should be unable to use the admin tools, as well as being unable to edit. I imagine it was more-or-less an accident that this isn't already the case. If this were done, a block would amount to a temporary desysopping, which might help address some of the concerns expressed here. Friday (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that Mackensen's idea is not unreasonable; however, to prevent the seemingly-inevitable wheel warring over the issue (e.g. undoing/redoing the "nullified" admin's actions and/or blocking him) I think a steward should simply flip off his bit for the month - as long as it's understood that he need not pass through RFA afterwards.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  20:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That brings us pretty close to Geogre's proposal (User:Geogre/Demotion), which is fine by me. Mackensen (talk) 20:30, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Radiant's idea makes sense, as we don't want to start wheel wars. I've had a quick look at Geogre's idea too and it seems very harsh - removal of admin rights for 3RR? I know we shouldn't 3RR, but a 24 hour cooling off block at most ought to be enough to deal with all but the worst offenders in that regard. --kingboyk 20:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The actual terms can be negotiated, but at this stage what's important is the concept. Just as important is keeping it simple. Take Radiant's PROD–that's the kind of elegance at which we should aim. Mackensen (talk) 20:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Not quite, because it would also keep them out of the article space. Mackensen (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't have any objection to that, provided the block isn't an autoblock. (My bot has been blocked before, and of course the first thing I had to do was remove an autoblock so I could edit!) --kingboyk 22:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * They aren't able to use any admin tools other than blocking and unblocking - see bugzilla. the wub "?!"  22:18, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The problem with stigmas
There is one thing wrong with the premise of this page. It states that "de-sysoping ... carries considerable social stigma when not voluntary". And yet, adminship should not be a big deal, and we should be willing to forgive people after some time. This perceived stigma is problematic!

However, it's not quite as bad as that. Looking over the RFAs of previously-demoted admins, there are generally a few people with a lasting grudge, but far from enough to sway consensus. Instead, such RFAs have...
 * Failed because of recent bad behavior unrelated to the previous demotion (Aevar, Chacor, Guanaco/2, Jtkiefer, Stevertigo)
 * Failed because they were just a week or two after the demotion (Everyking, Karmafist)
 * Failed because of a serious lack of activity in the months before (Carnildo/2, Guanaco/3, Kils)
 * Succeeded (Guanaco/4, Carnildo/3)

So it seems that people do forgive. Consider - we have good editors who used to be POV warriors. We have admins who used to vandalize things. We have very few long-term users that haven't been blocked for a 3RR breach at some point in their career. If User:Foo is in a dispute with User:Bar and Bar were to state that he is right "since Foo was blocked for POV-pushing half a year ago" we'd ignore that particular ad hominem. We do forgive. Maybe not in a week or a month, but we do. We must forgive, since an Encyclopedia cannot bear a grudge. And that is why there must be no stigma.

 &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not just do this?
I'm a little puzzled by why this should be made a policy or guideline. If someone with Admin powers is showing signs of WikiStress, why can't someone just approach them -- either thru the user's talk page or privately thru email -- & suggest that they take a break from either Admin duties or Wikipedia entirely? The subject will either agree to the break (& hopefully this would indeed solve the problem) or decline the suggestion -- which will then either lead to clear trouble (& a block & de-adminning) or the subject will prove that the break was not needed.

The only difference between this & a guideline or policy is that a policy would include a mechanism to enforce a WikiBreak on an Admin, which might lead to a solution that is worse than the problem (Admins fighting Admins with all of their tools -- oh joy!). -- llywrch 17:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)