Wikipedia talk:Emergency deflagging

I rewrote some stuff, please revert me if I did too much. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 20:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Definition

I don't really like the "actions against policy". This leaves too much of a gap. Every admin violates policy at least once, and these do not warrant an emergency desysopping. Jon@talk:~$ 21:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. My idea in starting this was "dire emergencies". Things that are going to harm the project and needs to be stopped urgently. fr33kman 21:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between violating a policy and doing something against policy for the good of the project. I think we trust crats to be able to make the call on the difference between the two. Don't you? Using the word Dire just opens up the door wide open for calling things not dire. Dire is subjective. Already me and freek have disagreed on what dire means. I can see people using the word dire as a way to get around having their bit gone for the 7 days it takes for a chat to happen. The world won't die if a user can't use their tools for 7 days while a chat happens. Stop trying to find ways to let a problem editor get out of a situation. Any good faith editor will have no problem with a crat removing their tools for the length of time it takes for a discussion to take place. -DJSasso (talk) 21:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Leaves too much up to a crat. Crats' enact discussion, they don't create discussion. Crats don't decide alone. The community does. This exceeds the remit. We trust crats to weigh consensus, but we should not act alone. Only in an emergency, should we act alone. Now, deleting a handful of pages against policy, or protecting a handful of pages, does not an emergency make. Blocking a handful of established user, deleting the mainpage, or having an account compromised, these are the stuff of emergencies. Thank you, Jon@talk:~$ 21:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

A crat is just an admin who does a different task. Admins make sure editors don't abuse their editing tools and if they do they temporarily block them and a ban can only happen when the community says so. Crats make sure admins don't abuse their admin tools and if they do they temporarily remove them and a permanent removal can only happen when the community says so. There is no difference, the exact same policies apply to both, just in different situations. Anything damaging to the wiki is a case where a crat should be removing the tools until a discussion can decide if they are permanently gone or not. A crat can't permanently remove them, but they can block an admin from using them just like an admin can block an editor who is abusing their tools. Its no different. Sort of a major point of what the role of a crat is. -DJSasso (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

"Crats make sure admins don't abuse their admin tools..." We are not the admin police and I don't support any policy that makes me admin police. Jon@talk:~$ 21:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

We are not admin police, we are admin period. Admin are stopposed to stop anything that is happening that should not be. No matter who it is. Crats just have more tools at their disposal to do so. -DJSasso (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Since I didn't want to change anything without discussion, or flood the talkpage here with text, I have created a subpage with my concerns here. Again, I totally agree with the spirit of the policy, but I feel the wording is too vague and open for such a serious action. :) Don't mean to make a big deal of this, but I do feel it's important. -Avicennasis @ 03:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Do we need a policy?

No. I don't think anyone in their right mind would fault a crat for IAR removing the admin bit of an admin who just blocked a large amount of good faith users, and refuses to stop, or some other grave administrative action that is ongoing and damaging to the wiki. It is my position that this need not to be codified. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 07:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

This pretty much sums up my position. Crat's are admins like any other, in gaining their role they were given the ability to stop bad faith actions. This is just one of the ways that can happen. And just like with admins blocking someone, any permanent removal like indef bans will have to go through the community. So not much reason to codify it. It only gives rules lawyers more wiggle room to cause more disruption when you have to spell out every last detail. Less red tape = better. -DJSasso (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
You all know what will happen here. Firstly, someone who falls foul of this will moan "where is that written down". It happens all the time on this wiki, so it'll happen in the future. Secondly, what about the future crats? How do they know what can and can not be done in this regard? Will they even know they have the power? Even if you just want to have no more than "crats can use their discretion to remove an admins flags if they feel it is needed in an emergency", we need something. fr33kman 22:07, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Not having it codified will lead to issues, especially as the core group of editors changes. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 22:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! And the core group of editors has changed many times in this projects history. Take a look at the beginning of WP:ST and see how many names you know. :) fr33kman 22:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the last part but don't go into the specifics. We should trust 'crats to understand when a emergency de-sysopping is needed and when it isn't. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If somebody does complain in a situation where the community recognizes the actions as good-faith, I think the rest of us would see it for what it is, which is wiki-lawyering. Kansan (talk) 22:19, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Plus it's important to remember, that most of the world does not use the concept of precident found under common law. For many, if it's not written, it isn't valid. fr33kman 22:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Wait, what? Who in their right mind who fault me if I desysopped an admin for blocking 10% of our userbase without stopping, deleting and redeleting the mainpage, being compromised... because we don't have a rule written down. Jon@talk:~$ 04:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Jon, no one is saying that a unilateral desysopping in that situation would be wrong. We're merely saying that the ability to do something like that should be written on a page somewhere. fr33kman 05:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it not be better to have it codified, if only to inform new editors that such a possibility exists? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 05:04, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Sonia it would be better to have it codified in definite lines. Sometimes common sense can be rather uncommon. :) Sincerely, —Clementina talk 05:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"...to inform new editors that such a possibility exists" I don't have to tell people not to steal. If some admin breaks the wiki in a grave manner, with intent, then well... codified or not, the bit will disappear pending a "what happened" type conversation. Regardless of what is codified, I'll be removing the bit of any admin who damages the wiki in a grave and intentional way. It matters not, what we say here. But with codification, we have potential for rules bickering and showing the beans. Question, does meta have a codified policy for the bit removal in emergencies? Jon@talk:~$ 05:37, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

We're not meta. Just having a place that say "bureaucrats can remove the admin right in an emergency", is not too much to ask. fr33kman 05:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You mention common law above, I counter with the reasonable person standard. Some things, this being one of them, need not be codified. I believe we could possibly have a bit of instruction/policy creep, if you forgive the ugly expression. Thanks, Jon@talk:~$ 05:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

"Reasonable Person" is Western in it's inception. As an international project, we cater to more than just us. fr33kman 05:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Codifying it gives people loop holes to say but that isn't whats written, or that isn't how I interpret it causing more bickering. If its not written down, I doubt anyone would question it. Heck no one has questioned these sorts of actions indeed until your wrote it down. Less "Rules" are better, I am sure there is a policy/quideline somewhere that even says that. The wiki culture is such that they try not to write things into policy or guideline unless they absolutely have to. We haven't nor are we likely to ever get to that point. -DJSasso (talk) 11:32, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

It is true that any slip of wording will create more issue than just not having the page. How about just "A bureaucrat may sometimes have a reason to remove an administrator's flag without asking the community. The community will later decide whether the tools can be given back."? It leaves much of the discretion to the bureaucrat, and goes into less unnecessary detail than what currently exists. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 11:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. A whole other page with a subset of rules and ordinances attached to it will promote wiki-lawyering. Just add a line here like "Bureaucrat's also have the technical ability to remove a sysop flag, although this should only be used for either an sysop's request (like retiring) or if the sysop is causing clearcut damage to the project (like blocking several good-faith editors without explanation.)" -Avicennasis @ 07:09, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. :) A brief mention of it should be enough, and it does please me better than a whole set of rules of why and how, as it all depends on the circumstances. —Clementina talk 07:15, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

How about "Bureaucrats also have the technical ability to remove a sysop flag, although this should only be done per a sysop's request (like retiring) or if the sysop is abusing his powers causing clearcut damage to the project (like blocking several good-faith editors without explanation.)"? Deleting a few hundred stubs per QD A4 is considered to be causing damage to the project (you are deleting numerous articles, after all), but you don't get de-sysopped for that. Chenzw  Talk  08:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree with adding that to WP:Bureaucrat. That's clear and brief enough, but just tweaked for simple English: "Bureaucrats also have the ability to remove a sysop flag, but this should only be done in two cases:

1. If the sysop asks them to (for example, if they retire), or
2. If the sysop is using their powers in a way that clearly damages the project (like blocking several regular users without explanation), and the bureaucrat decides that removing the flag is needed."

I don't see deleting several hundred A4 stubs as clear damage, but I think you've brought up a very good point that damage and abuse are rather subjective. That's why it would be good to clarify that it's up to the crats in the end. {{Sonia|talk|en}} 09:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Sonia, I think he is referring to, say I start deleting several hundred A4, and I'm asked on my talk page to stop, pending discussion, and I don't stop. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 11:47, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

If that is what he means, then I believe that is probably abuse and I would remove it. Unless they were valid A4s. But the situation described sounds like they weren't valid... -DJSasso (talk) 10:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)