Following up on Forum:SH:Amending RFRUR and Forum:CT:Amending RFRUR and Blocking policy for elected positions, let's address remaining loopholes and ideas. Current Blocking policy rules allow for user rights to be automatically revoked upon a user being blocked. This would be a problem in the event of a rogue admin banning other admins. We've also got concerns about how a majority of admins could overrule others and force another admin out. According to administrative autonomy rules, only a majority consensus among admins could overturn the unilateral decision of one admin, including in the area of blocks. Then there's also the issue of a global block issued by Fandom staff.
Assuming that we keep the rule that adminship is auto-revoked upon being blocked, one idea is that we put a local safeguard in place specifically for rogue admins:
- If an administrator is blocked by another administrator, then, pursuant to administrative autonomy, the Wookieepedia administration shall vote on whether or not to overturn the block as soon as possible. The blocking administrator must not continue to issue blocks against other administrators while the vote is ongoing; otherwise, any more blocks by the blocking administrator are automatically considered invalid, and that user shall be blocked for violating this policy.
If there are two admins abusing their power who ought to be blocked, then we could just have another admin issue the block without falling foul of this potential rule. Alternatively, we could put into policy that only bureaucrats may block another administrator, though this could give disproportionate power to BCs. Another idea that's surfaced every now and then is to implement some kind of re-election or term limit system, though a regular re-election system could incentivise admins to spend their time campaigning to keep their position and turn things into a popularity contest instead of just doing what they're elected to do.
Of course, we also could try to repeal the auto-revoke rule again (i.e. if blocked, do not revoke adminship) but this time with certain safeguards, such as:
- If a user is issued a permanent global block by Fandom staff prohibiting them from contributing across the Fandom platform, then they shall have any authorities and permissions on Wookieepedia revoked.
—and—
- A RFRUR shall be immediately opened for an administrator if they are blocked by another administrator. In this case, regardless of the block length, the blocked administrator shall have their user rights suspended and remain blocked for the vote's duration; if the RFRUR fails, then the administrator should have their user rights restored and be unblocked immediately.
The first point is pretty straightforward, I think, though whether or not to specify "permanent" I guess is debatable. The second point could be a bit messy because of the rogue admin hypothetical again (forcing another admin to go through a two-week RFRUR), but maybe the first idea at the top of the page could mitigate this. Discuss away. OOM 224 12:45, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Discussion
- Though unlikely to happen, or, figuratively unlikely, it's genuinely crazy that (until amended), one admin could get away with banning literally every single admin but themselves, even if they're in the middle of getting RFRUR'd, and seize power for literally just themselves. Whatever method we take to make that impossible works for me, but letting it remain this way will eventually come back to bite. If two admins (god forbid) absolutely had to be blocked within the same 48h period, there's no reason that one admin would ever have to issue both. So the top clause solves that by firmly making any bans past the first immediately invalid. Then, even if the rogue admin bans every single admin anyway, the bureaucrats can just unblock themselves from the massban because they're clearly invalid bans, then ban the rogue admin.—spookywillowwtalk 22:39, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
- Personally, I like the idea of the require RFRUR if an admin is blocked, with the temporary removal of powers, as this puts the decision firmly in the hands of the community, thus removing the possibility of a rogue admin seizing control. It also keeps power decentralized away from BCs, and as a BC, I think this is the best path to avoid abuse. Master Fredcerique
(talk) (he/him) 06:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC) - Agreed with above Lewisr (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, so (if we keep the auto-revoke rule) our voting options could be: 1) whether to add to Wookieepedia:Administrators#Administrative abuse the rule "If an administrator is blocked by another administrator, then, pursuant to administrative autonomy, the Wookieepedia administration shall vote on whether or not to overturn the block as soon as possible. The blocking administrator must not continue to issue blocks against other administrators while the vote is ongoing; otherwise, any more blocks by the blocking administrator are automatically considered invalid, and that user shall be blocked for violating this policy." and 2) whether to add to the same section the rule "If the administration decides not to overturn the block with immediate effect, then a RFRUR must be immediately opened for the blocked administrator. Regardless of the block length, the blocked administrator shall have their user rights suspended and remain blocked for the vote's duration; if the RFRUR fails, then the administrator should have their user rights restored and be unblocked immediately." The first to prevent rogue admins from forcing every other admin to an RFRUR (forcing their rights to be suspended for two weeks regardless of the RFRUR outcome), and the second to put the decision in the hands of the community. OOM 224 11:11, 15 April 2025 (UTC)
