User talk:Friday/Admin abuse

While I agree with you that admins should be held accountable, an easy de-adminship process is just not the way to go. Please see WP:RFDA and its subpages for discussion on why this is a bad idea (basically, if it's easy, any vandal or troll can take revenge on an admin by proposing deadminship). Radiant_>|< 10:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to read and respond. Yeah, I've read that and I've seen the objections. However, I still think making de-adminship nearly impossible is not the best way to go. Surely some middle ground is possible. We depend on bureaucrats to process RFA's, so why would we not think they're capable of detecting spurious requests for de-adminship?

Also, if there were some kind of review process as I've described, maybe any Request for De-adminship that was not backed up by a reasonable log of contested actions (and failure to resolve the disputes satisfactorily) would simply not be taken seriously. The revenge requests would be pretty easy to spot, IMO, and other editors would come to the defense of the accused.

If the Arbcom is the only real way to de-admin someone (as appears to be the case right now), this doesn't do much to prevent the appearance of a caste system. This problem is made worse by the current environment of low community confidence in the Arbcom. Friday (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• That is true. However, before discussing an RFDA mechanism, I would appreciate it if you could show me evidence of recent admin abuse, because as yet I am unaware of it being a significant problem. I'm afraid that Silverback's allegations of abuse are based on a misunderstanding of wikicedure. You may do this privately over e-mail if you prefer. Radiant_>|< 23:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

• Honestly, off the top of my head I can only think of 3 or so admins who's behavior is (IMO) so inappropriate that their adminship should be reviewed. I'll think about how much I want to say about that (and where) over the next couple days. Friday (talk) 00:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

More ramblings

An admin who's been the target of an RFC or RFAr is sometimes worth looking at. In some cases, RFCs are so frivolous that they don't get certified, or the vast majority of the community chimes in, in support of the admin in question. RFC's like that are not a concern to me, but there are some admins who've been RFCd and very legitimate concerns about their behavior have been presented. RFAr's are generally more of a concern, as they don't get accepted so easily.

Currently, there's a bit posted on WP:AN/I about a block war. I'm not familiar with the folks involved, but this is certainly behavior unbecoming an admin. One such incident, is, of course, not that big a deal. But, the same thing could happen again in a few months, and we have only people's memories and AN/I archives to clue us in.

I think what concerns me most is how people react to criticism. Anyone can make a mistake or have poor judgement in a certain case. Ignoring criticism is a Very Bad Thing, though. I'm not saying an admin should undo anything they've done just because someone asks them to, but they should at least take the request seriously (unless it's obvious trolling.) Friday 17:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

• These aren't examples, these are rather vague general lines. If you have concrete examples of admin abuse, I'd be happy to hear of them. However, I don't have the time to search through the RFC and RFAr archives because you suggest there may be something worth looking at in there. Like I said on the village pump, I will not stand for admin abuse, but neither will I stand for unsubstantiated allegations.
• Regarding the ANI Block War matter, note that Wiglaf said "I deeply apologize for any mishandling of this case, and I have learnt something for the future."
• Radiant_>|< 11:48, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. The block war turned out to not be a big deal. Anyone can make a mistake, and if people react properly to criticism, it's no big deal. There are still a few people who look (to me) like their behavior is regularly inappropriate, but maybe there's little harm being done. Some of the people who I think are problems do appear to be well respected (at least by some people), so maybe my perception is skewed. Anyway, I'll probably be on a semi-wiki-break for a while, so if I still think there's a problem in the future, I may think more about what to do about it then.

And, maybe having a new place to air dirty laundry is unhelpful. You're right, AN/I can be (and sometimes is) used for this. Maybe all that's needed is to encourage a culture of admins keeping each other in check. Some of them already do this. I'll think about it more. Maybe I'll decide that things I currently think are problems really aren't a very big deal. Friday (talk) 14:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Comment from Mishke

agree,i beleive that the must for responsible use of admin use needs to be pushed hard against admins,with severely higher penaltys for admins for bad actions than what an editor would get for the same proposed bad action,admins are spost to set the example,being plice men and all. --конфета металл 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Lol Jfucgd cidbc xidb Myworld2009 (talk) 07:04, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

You might be interested in this

Since you seem interested in this sort of stuff see my last comment here User talk:74.140.244.90.

You can find the referenced comment on the Paris Hilton Talk page in the history since it was deleted. Judge for yourself the threat made against me over my perfectly approriate comment (a different editor has made basically the same comment since mine was deleted no one's threatening him.) If no one care that's fine because I don't care either: I'm leaving. Goodluck