User:Durin/Admin watch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is far from complete; it is purely conceptual at this point in time. If you have happened across this page in your wikitravels, you may feel free to make contributions to this document.
Contents |
[edit] Admin Watch
Over time, I have become increasingly aware of problems that administrators have created by their actions. There are established policies which need to be followed, guidelines which need to be considered, and precedents that should be brought into play. Not all admins are careful in their consideration of these issues. This would not be a problem if there was anybody watching the watchers, as it were. While there are opportunities for recourse if an administrator goes astray, the process is not easy. I believe this leaves users who have been the subject of action by an admin with a negative image of Wikipedia. This is just one aspect of administrator behavior that can result in negative outcomes.
Administrators become administrators as the result of voting on WP:RFA. Anybody who passes this vote can become an administrator. When the RFA is complete and concensus has been achieved to grant the nominee administrator powers, a bureaucrat grants these powers. However, once granted, it takes a steward to remove admin rights. It is uncommon for an administrator to lose their priviledges.
Admins frequent a number of areas in Wikipedia that require admin attention. One of these is Special:Recentchanges. While it is possible for people to readily check the activities of all admins or a given admin by using Special:Log, there is no structure in place that encourages people to do the same with administrator's recent changes. Admins are generally presumed to act in proper ways. However, this is not always the case.
I have observed a number of users complaining about admin behavior as a whole (example). While frequently these complaints are baseless as they are based on an improper understanding of policy, there are enough complaints that we should be concerned and take some coordinated effort to respond to such complaints.
A coordinated effort also provides an opportunity to help train admins in the proper methods for handling various responsibilities. After an admin nominee passes RfA, we give them the tools and suggest they read the admin's reading list and the how-to guide. Certainly these materials cover a great amount of territory, but there is no feedback loop for admins on their actions other than casual interactions.
It should be noted that this is not a police force. Any admin who comes under review of this process should not in any way take offense; this is an effort to improve behavior. It's a positive feedback loop. You can even request to have your actions reviewed under this effort.
[edit] Who can help in this project
Anybody can help out in this effort. However, ideally I would like people who contribute to this effort to:
- Be an admin themselves (this is not a case of the watchers watching themselves, but more that an admin most likely knows more about admin appropriate behavior than a non-admin).
- Not have had an arbitration brought against them (in good faith).
- Be level-headed, calm, and collect in the face of stress. Questioning the behavior of an admin could potentially lead to very stressful discussions.
- Be diplomatic; making recommendations to some admins on their behavior can be construed as accusations. Contributors to this effort need to be careful in their wordings and suggestions.
[edit] Areas to watch
- Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia accounts and block log
- Does the block adhere to policy? If not, why not? Does the user have any history of positive edits? If so, bans need to be carefully reviewed. In reviewing quickly, accounts that have do not have user pages (thus red linked in the block log) were probably blocked within policy. Also, IPs should generally (except proxies) not be banned. Blocking policy states that at most a static IP should be banned for a month, and non-static for 24 hours.
- Why was the page protected? Rarely, an admin protects a page they are in a revert war on. In such cases there is more appropriate action.
[edit] Taking corrective action
If you find an admin action that you feel is questionably based, you can bring it to the attention of the admin in question. In so doing, please follow these guidelines:
- Be polite. You could potentially be misinterpreted as attacking their credibility, worthiness, etc. Tread softly.
- Cite the actions in question, by showing log entries (where applicable).
- Cite policies that you feel were violated.
- Show why you think those policies were violated.
- Do not take action to undo what the admin has done. Instead, attempt to convince the admin to correct their own actions. In this manner, the admin may learn from the effort and not make similar errors in the future. This is a very important step; it helps train admins to operate more effectively and within the bounds of policy. Also, if you have made an error in your determination of what the admin did, it gives the admin an opportunity to explain your error or at least give solid rationale behind their actions.
