This page in a nutshell: Under what circumstances should arbcom remove advanced user rights from a functionary? |
In a recent arbitration case, a proposed remedy was to remove checkuser and oversight permissions from a user on the basis of other proposed findings that suggested he was guilty of "repeated and extensive edit-warring". In that discussion, one arbitrator commented "I have been thinking about this, especially given Wikipedia:Functionary's appearance, which tells me we're really moving into uncharted territory. As such, it is (possibly) not a given that the proposal is in line with community wishes (although likely). Maybe this is worth a separate RfC and is more apt for the community to decide than us." [1]
The purpose of this RfC is NOT to comment on the user issues involved in that case, but to seek the community's views as to:
I repeat, this is not a userconduct RfC, but is rather to seek the community's views on what action arbcom should take, if any, when a functionary is held by them to have significantly transgressed editing norms.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 17:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Functionaries are human too, and need to be allowed to make mistakes. They tend to have high numbers of edits, and so will at times be involved in disputes where they don't handle themselves as well they might. Dismissing experienced and diligent functionaries because they make mistakes unrelated to their tools, or when are oft-times provoked, is unhelpful to the project.
However, there are sufficient nasty accusations that will inevitably be levelled at prominent people, that we need to know that when they are scrutinised they do enjoy the confidence of the community, and are among our best most level headed users, who understand neutrality, verifiability and proper editing. Thus where a functionary seriously or repeatedly falls below the standard of an experienced editor to the level that arbcom feels blocks, bans or editing restrictions are required, I do believe their continued possession of functionary tools becomes untenable.
An even simpler, and more straightforward take on this. These positions are positions of widespread community trust. Trust is not permanent, nor eternal, nor are any of these positions 'rewards' intended to be kept for a lifetime.
Why: A Functionary that is not trusted by his peers--his peers, being all editors--cannot be trusted with the tools, position, or authority. Trust is earned, but must be retained with high standards of ongoing behavior in all your actions. Stray from the righteous path too many times, and removal should be as easy as obtaining them was to begin with. Will mistakes happen? Sure. Is the Functionary repeatedly being criticiized, investigated, and pulled before Arbitration, Dispute Resolution, or the soon-to-launch Audit group for their use of Checkuser/Oversight?
How: It's time for them to be made to step down. Earning the trust to get access to the higher level tools is one thing; you have to work to keep that trust. The simplest way to accomplish this is that if a Functionary repeatedly goes astray, then the community can bring them before WP:RFAR. If this happens, for this specific purpose, the Committee is required to either reject the request with reasoning why, or else 1) do a deciding public motion or 2) open a public case to review the removal of access, rights, and title. The cases must be public so each sitting AC member has to account. Private data can be private evidence, but the 'voting' and outcome must to be on the record.
Who: Any Functionary, up to and including sitting and former AC members, and Jimmy Wales (who is a Functiorary due to the fact we allow him to have some extra-special tools on en.wikipedia.org). None of us are above our own laws.
I don't see why this is complex. It should work as follows:
Step 1: Did the person in question abuse the power they have?
Step 2: If yes, remove them, and take further action as neccesary. If no, it's all good.
The only criteria is "erosion of trust". Functionaries are typically long standing editors of good repute, often already administrators. Until recently functionaries did not have to undergo peer review to have the particular flags enabled, and therefore might not be considered as requiring the fairly stringent processes to be deflagged as is the current situation with sysops. Should there be any indication that the level of trust expected of a functionary be deprecated - in any form - that a deflagging is appropriate. Should subsequent events indicate that such mistrust was misplaced or manipulated then the flags may be restored - in any other case the former functionary may apply for return of the flags by the processes now existing. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Does the community agree that "Editors, such as arbitrators and operators of the CheckUser and Oversight tools, who hold positions of public trust or privileged access within the project are expected—more so than even other administrators—to serve as examples of good conduct for their fellow editors, to uphold the high trust placed in them by the community, and to avoid engaging in conduct unbecoming their positions."?
You need to work out what a functionary is first. Stifle ( talk) 09:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a distinction between a breach of faith with the Wikipedia community, and simply being outside the mainstream as a Wikipedia editor.
Breaches of faith come in two kinds: the first is simply sufficiently outrageous behavior that we can't trust them anymore (such as, say, engaging in blatant vandalism, outing another editor, etc). Here, we know what to do: remove all the tools and block them as soon as we can.
The second is more subtle: using the tools they have been granted in a manner contrary to their purpose. An admin who blocks people they've engaged in content disputes with, a bureaucrat who moves usernames without following the proper procedures, a Checkuser who regularly scans people who argue with them, etc. Somebody who can't be trusted to use particular tools for their intended purposes, even if they believe they are acting in the better interests of Wikipedia, should have their access to those tools revoked ( WP:IAR exceptions noted, when ArbCom agrees).
However, many a Wikipedian with enhanced privileges may be outside the mainstream, and content disputes on Wikipedia are not always friendly discussions. We may have (these are all hypotheticals -- I don't have any users in mind) rollbackers who may hold what the rest of us consider terrifically strong points of view on highly controversial political subjects and engage in frequent edit-wars (often just short of, if not over, 3RR), admins who are sufficiently inclusionist that they don't believe in notability criteria and use AfD as a frequent battleground for their views, abuse filter editors who are often in blissful ignorance of the finer points of copyright policy, and oversighters who may occasionally be just a bit bitey of newcomers. So long as their holding these opinions don't lead them to misuse the rights they have been given, and they demonstrate a good ability to separate their personal positions as editors and their responsibilities as holders of privileges, we shouldn't revoke their access.
I think that Wikipedia benefits strongly from having a lively and intelligent group of highly involved people, and it is both unfair, and damaging to the greater good, to subject people who've invested a lot in Wikipedia to an all-inclusive litmus test just to hold any extra technical privileges. Ray Talk 03:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that the simple solution is that since ArbCom appoints functionaries, they should have the right to remove that position, either ad hoc or as part of a larger case on any matter. How they should seek consensus on the matter should be left for ArbCom to decide.-- Ipatrol ( talk) 23:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Techncially speaking, ArbCom is answerable to Jimbo Wales. The ArbCom elections are just the way Jimbo decides. I basically propose the same thing; Arbcom can appoint or impeach functionaries by its own judgement and may hold elections at their descretion to help come to a decision as it chooses.-- Ipatrol ( talk) 01:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly! I'm saying we don't need to change anything!-- Ipatrol ( talk) 02:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
This page in a nutshell: Under what circumstances should arbcom remove advanced user rights from a functionary? |
In a recent arbitration case, a proposed remedy was to remove checkuser and oversight permissions from a user on the basis of other proposed findings that suggested he was guilty of "repeated and extensive edit-warring". In that discussion, one arbitrator commented "I have been thinking about this, especially given Wikipedia:Functionary's appearance, which tells me we're really moving into uncharted territory. As such, it is (possibly) not a given that the proposal is in line with community wishes (although likely). Maybe this is worth a separate RfC and is more apt for the community to decide than us." [1]
The purpose of this RfC is NOT to comment on the user issues involved in that case, but to seek the community's views as to:
I repeat, this is not a userconduct RfC, but is rather to seek the community's views on what action arbcom should take, if any, when a functionary is held by them to have significantly transgressed editing norms.-- Scott Mac (Doc) 17:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Functionaries are human too, and need to be allowed to make mistakes. They tend to have high numbers of edits, and so will at times be involved in disputes where they don't handle themselves as well they might. Dismissing experienced and diligent functionaries because they make mistakes unrelated to their tools, or when are oft-times provoked, is unhelpful to the project.
However, there are sufficient nasty accusations that will inevitably be levelled at prominent people, that we need to know that when they are scrutinised they do enjoy the confidence of the community, and are among our best most level headed users, who understand neutrality, verifiability and proper editing. Thus where a functionary seriously or repeatedly falls below the standard of an experienced editor to the level that arbcom feels blocks, bans or editing restrictions are required, I do believe their continued possession of functionary tools becomes untenable.
An even simpler, and more straightforward take on this. These positions are positions of widespread community trust. Trust is not permanent, nor eternal, nor are any of these positions 'rewards' intended to be kept for a lifetime.
Why: A Functionary that is not trusted by his peers--his peers, being all editors--cannot be trusted with the tools, position, or authority. Trust is earned, but must be retained with high standards of ongoing behavior in all your actions. Stray from the righteous path too many times, and removal should be as easy as obtaining them was to begin with. Will mistakes happen? Sure. Is the Functionary repeatedly being criticiized, investigated, and pulled before Arbitration, Dispute Resolution, or the soon-to-launch Audit group for their use of Checkuser/Oversight?
How: It's time for them to be made to step down. Earning the trust to get access to the higher level tools is one thing; you have to work to keep that trust. The simplest way to accomplish this is that if a Functionary repeatedly goes astray, then the community can bring them before WP:RFAR. If this happens, for this specific purpose, the Committee is required to either reject the request with reasoning why, or else 1) do a deciding public motion or 2) open a public case to review the removal of access, rights, and title. The cases must be public so each sitting AC member has to account. Private data can be private evidence, but the 'voting' and outcome must to be on the record.
Who: Any Functionary, up to and including sitting and former AC members, and Jimmy Wales (who is a Functiorary due to the fact we allow him to have some extra-special tools on en.wikipedia.org). None of us are above our own laws.
I don't see why this is complex. It should work as follows:
Step 1: Did the person in question abuse the power they have?
Step 2: If yes, remove them, and take further action as neccesary. If no, it's all good.
The only criteria is "erosion of trust". Functionaries are typically long standing editors of good repute, often already administrators. Until recently functionaries did not have to undergo peer review to have the particular flags enabled, and therefore might not be considered as requiring the fairly stringent processes to be deflagged as is the current situation with sysops. Should there be any indication that the level of trust expected of a functionary be deprecated - in any form - that a deflagging is appropriate. Should subsequent events indicate that such mistrust was misplaced or manipulated then the flags may be restored - in any other case the former functionary may apply for return of the flags by the processes now existing. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 21:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Does the community agree that "Editors, such as arbitrators and operators of the CheckUser and Oversight tools, who hold positions of public trust or privileged access within the project are expected—more so than even other administrators—to serve as examples of good conduct for their fellow editors, to uphold the high trust placed in them by the community, and to avoid engaging in conduct unbecoming their positions."?
You need to work out what a functionary is first. Stifle ( talk) 09:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a distinction between a breach of faith with the Wikipedia community, and simply being outside the mainstream as a Wikipedia editor.
Breaches of faith come in two kinds: the first is simply sufficiently outrageous behavior that we can't trust them anymore (such as, say, engaging in blatant vandalism, outing another editor, etc). Here, we know what to do: remove all the tools and block them as soon as we can.
The second is more subtle: using the tools they have been granted in a manner contrary to their purpose. An admin who blocks people they've engaged in content disputes with, a bureaucrat who moves usernames without following the proper procedures, a Checkuser who regularly scans people who argue with them, etc. Somebody who can't be trusted to use particular tools for their intended purposes, even if they believe they are acting in the better interests of Wikipedia, should have their access to those tools revoked ( WP:IAR exceptions noted, when ArbCom agrees).
However, many a Wikipedian with enhanced privileges may be outside the mainstream, and content disputes on Wikipedia are not always friendly discussions. We may have (these are all hypotheticals -- I don't have any users in mind) rollbackers who may hold what the rest of us consider terrifically strong points of view on highly controversial political subjects and engage in frequent edit-wars (often just short of, if not over, 3RR), admins who are sufficiently inclusionist that they don't believe in notability criteria and use AfD as a frequent battleground for their views, abuse filter editors who are often in blissful ignorance of the finer points of copyright policy, and oversighters who may occasionally be just a bit bitey of newcomers. So long as their holding these opinions don't lead them to misuse the rights they have been given, and they demonstrate a good ability to separate their personal positions as editors and their responsibilities as holders of privileges, we shouldn't revoke their access.
I think that Wikipedia benefits strongly from having a lively and intelligent group of highly involved people, and it is both unfair, and damaging to the greater good, to subject people who've invested a lot in Wikipedia to an all-inclusive litmus test just to hold any extra technical privileges. Ray Talk 03:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that the simple solution is that since ArbCom appoints functionaries, they should have the right to remove that position, either ad hoc or as part of a larger case on any matter. How they should seek consensus on the matter should be left for ArbCom to decide.-- Ipatrol ( talk) 23:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Techncially speaking, ArbCom is answerable to Jimbo Wales. The ArbCom elections are just the way Jimbo decides. I basically propose the same thing; Arbcom can appoint or impeach functionaries by its own judgement and may hold elections at their descretion to help come to a decision as it chooses.-- Ipatrol ( talk) 01:56, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Exactly! I'm saying we don't need to change anything!-- Ipatrol ( talk) 02:18, 18 May 2009 (UTC)