The following proposal has been discussed and is now marked as resolved. The page has been protected and now serves as an archive. Do not edit this page.
Date Resolved: October 3, 2015
Due to issues regarding another administrator blocking another administrator, which has happened in the past (recently, a few months ago, and back in November 2014, among other times), we need to settle this once and for all. Administrators are expected to follow all the rules. If they don't, blocking them is not the correct route. If an administrator is breaking the rules or is in dispute with another administrator, it will be discussed through proper format rather than a block that may be deemed controversial. If an administrator is breaking the rules, we have a serious problem and that administrator may need to be suspended or demoted. Additionally, as administrators can unblock themselves, it is very pointless to block them. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 14:54, September 21, 2015 (UTC)
The proposal is to add this to the blocking policy:
G. Blocking administrators
1. Blocking another administrator is strictly prohibited, as administrators are expected to follow all the rules.
2. All administrators are supposed to resolve disputes with each other through discussion and not blocking.
3. Any administrator who blocks another administrator will be suspended from all roles (administrator, assistant, rollback, chat moderator, thread moderator) for thirty (30) days without warning.
4. After the thirty (30) day suspension, a majority of bureaucrats must support whether or not that administrator can continue as administrator or demoted to assistant.
5. Any exception to the rules, including an appeal from the suspended administrator, will be implemented by a vote of a majority of bureaucrats.
This discussion will end on Monday, September 28, 2015 at 11:00 a.m., eastern time. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 14:54, September 21, 2015 (UTC)
Support - Well personally I think that an admin should be suspended, not blocked, since they can easily unblock themselves. Unless of course, there was a rule saying that any admin tempted to unblock themselves will immediately have their rights revoked. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 07:50, September 22, 2015 (UTC)
@ Muzzarino - Technically bureaucrats can deal with bad admins. They don't need to contact wikia staff. The only problem is if the bad admin is also a bureaucrat. ― C.Syde (talk | contribs) 03:39, September 25, 2015 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - This is not a good idea. Admins are expected to follow the rules, which is exactly why they should be blocked when they break them. If an admin vandalises a page, then a blocker should not just talk to the admin and make sure that the admin follows the rules. It would be completely unfair to both not block admins and to be punished for doing so because it is telling normal users, "If you can manage to become an admin, all the actions you preform won't have any consequences." 120dTalkContribs 120d 15:40, September 21, 2015 (UTC)
If an administrator is breaking the rules, we have a more serious problem. Blocking is just silly when such an occurance is more severe and should be dealt with more severely. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 15:52, September 21, 2015 (UTC)
While I used an extreme example, there might be times when an admin breaks a smaller rule like not adding image to galleries. The admin should not be under investigation because of it. I feel like people take blocks way too seriously. 120dTalkContribs 120d 16:10, September 21, 2015 (UTC)
Your point doesn't make sense, 120d. If an admin didn't add an image to a gallery, they are 1) not breaking a rule, 2) even if it is a rule it's not blockworthy, and 3) why would an admin block another admin for something so small that they could work out the disagreement and make less drama from it? The blocking tool is meant as a last resort. — AMK152 (Wall • Contrib) 19:54, September 21, 2015 (UTC)