No they're not. Just within the last month or thereabouts, the English Wikipedia ArbCom desysopped three administrators. One for poor tool use and communication, one for simple misuse and aggressive communication afterward, and one for socking. Admins are by no means "immune to sanctions"; if anything, they're watched more closely than others.
On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 4:36 PM Isaac Olatunde reachout2isaac@gmail.com wrote:
Sadly, people with advanced permissions (admin, checkuser etc) on Wikimedia projects are almost immune to sanctions. You could imagine a behavior that would normally lead to a site ban for people with no permission will only result in a desysop for an administrator. Worst of it is Wikimedia Commons where there has to be two different RfC/votes to get an admin desysoped.
Isaac
On Fri, Jun 14, 2019, 1:46 PM camelia boban <camelia.boban@gmail.com wrote:
I quote David and Isaac. Harassment is a serious thing and hounding another user is out of any
wiki
behavior. Before asking why WMF has banned an admin (and if Fram was not an admin, all these discussions would not have been done), we need to ask ourselves why we (other users) have allowed such an attitude without intervening to stop it.
Camelia
-- *Camelia Boban*
*| Java EE Developer |*
*Affiliations Committee - **Wikimedia *Foundation Coordinator - Diversity Working Group for Wikimedia Strategy 2030 Chair & co-founder - WikiDonne User Group *| WikiDonne Project ideator*
*Diversity Space @ Wikimania 2019 Co-Lead* WMIT - WMSE - WMCH - WMAR Member
M. +39 3383385545 camelia.boban@gmail.com *Aissa Technologies* http://aissatechnologies.eu/* | *Twitter https://twitter.com/cameliaboban *|* *LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/camelia-boban-31319122* *Wikipedia https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Camelia.boban **| **WikiDonne UG https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiDonne* | *WikiDonne Project https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progetto:WikiDonne *
Il giorno ven 14 giu 2019 alle ore 14:32 Mister Thrapostibongles < thrapostibongles@gmail.com> ha scritto:
Fæ
[...] the pre-existing understanding that the WMF do not replace
existing and perfectly adequate community agreed procedures for banning bad behaviour on our projects.
Unfortunately, there is ample evidence that the existing English
Wikipedia
community processes are not "perfectly adequate" for that purpose.
If the English Wikipedia's policies are not fit for purpose, or implementation of policy is incompetent, we need a much bigger discussion
Indeed. Unfortunately the tone of the discussion here and at
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_...
suggests that the requisite discussion is now less, not more, likely to happen
or
be
productive.
Thrapostibongles _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe