This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

(Poll moved from Wikipedia talk:Removal of adminship).

We have discussed the issue of a community desysopping process (both at the RfC and at Wikipedia talk:Removal of adminship), and numerous arguments have been made and considered on both sides. This straw poll is intended to determine a rough consensus among editors on the question of whether we should have a community-based desysopping policy. Please note that this is not a poll on endorsing the current wording of the proposed policy; it's a poll on whether a community desysopping policy of this type is needed in principle. Sign your name in the appropriate section underneath, with a full rationale explaining your opinion. Walton ^One 21:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes

• I believe that it's time to make admins accountable to the community for their actions. ArbCom is not enough, as it only desysops those guilty of specific instances of serious wrongdoing. Those who are routinely incivil and uncommunicative generally get away with it. Please, trust the community to remove admins (just as we already trust the community to select admins). Walton ^One 21:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• A separate and community-driven process to remove adminship is direly needed. Relying on ArbCom for this task is insufficient, and in consideration of the growing number of admins and desysoppings, may in the future place an undue burden on that institution. Having a system which has created by consensus between users and admins fairly sets the terms on which action may be taken, and ensures that all admins are given due process. VanTucky ^Talk 21:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that there needs to be a process in place specifically for cases where admin tools are being abused. The main "criteria" stressed at RfA is "Can the candidate be trusted with the tools?" We select admins that we believe will not abuse these privileges, but there are cases where abuse does occur consistently from some users. In these instances, having a process to deal with this would be beneficial. As stated above, we trust the community to vote on RfAs and 'crats to determine the outcome, so why not trust them to do the opposite? "It's no big deal" to have the tools, so is always said in RfA. But it appears that to a lot of admins, losing the tools is a huge deal. Lara ❤ Love 21:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes to the concept of a community driven process as a way to make admins accountable to the community for conduct and behavior that falls short of that requiring arbcom intervention. I personally have faith in the community to make the right call and not be swayed by trolling or a small disaffected mob.-- Kubigula ( talk) 22:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• If adminship is truly no big deal, the removal of it shouldn't be either. ArbCom precedings can take months, a quicker process through which community members can voice concern is needed. Critics say this will cause lynch mobs to form against good admins. This is a valid concern, but the closers of these discussions (bureaucrats) should be able to legitimate concerns from illegitimate ones. SashaCall ^{( Sign!)}/_{( Talk!)} 22:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• If the community can appoint admins it should be able to de-appoint them as well (as long as I am personally exempted from this policy)! Kaldari 22:12, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• I think my opinion is reflected in the most recent proposal. Mr. Z-man 22:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Power to the people! -- Ag ü eybaná 22:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Community consensus to trust a user's knowledge, judgement, and good faith is what it takes to be given admin access. In cases where that trust of the community has faded due to relatively minor things which may well let an RfA fail while at the same time may never amount to sufficient grounds for an RfAr, withdrawing access the tools per lack of ongoing community consensus to trust that user with the tools ought to be possible — mirroring the way the tools are granted in the first place. Otherwise, we could abandon RfA right here. The ArbCom doesn't determine community trust, the community does. If someone believes that some kind of community-consensus- driven process to determine and express ongoing trust (or a lack thereof) is not a good idea, how do you justify RfA? — Moreover, any admin should be able to successfully repeat an RfA at any given time. And nobody is irreplaceable, remember? — Dorftrot tel⁠ 22:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• This, and that one more straw poll will force me to end my life in a gruesome fashion (probably massive head explosion from banging on keyboard). bibliomaniac 1 5 23:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• I agree fully with both WaltonOne and Dorftrot - something like this is direly needed by the Wikipedia community. People change over time, and if the community doesn't trust that person after a while with the tools, then it should be up to the community to remove them, because an admin continuing in their role, however noble their actions, with the community against them, will just cause conflict. The community is fickle, but it is also what drives Wikipedia and keeps it alive, and it must be heard in some definitive way, like RfAs, for Requests for De-sysopping. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 01:24, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, per no big deal. ➪ HiDrNick! 01:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Definitely. Tintin 01:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. Granting adminship is the responsibility of the community, so should removing it be. Removal of admin rights, in simple cases of "no longer has the trust of the community", is not properly a task for the ArbCom. That said, I do fully agree with Amarkov below. I find most of the proposals so far overly complicated, and would support a simple "reverse RfA" process: an admin may be nominated for desysopping by any established user, and will be desysopped if, after seven days, a consensus appears to exists for doing so, the required threshold being comparable to that required for a normal RfA to succeed (i.e. approx. 75% supermajority in practice). The consensus requirement ought to be sufficient to prevent it from being abused any more than RfA currently is. (Incidentally, such a system was approved in the Finnish Wikipedia last year, and does not seem to suffer from abuse: there have been two nominations so far, both in the first month since the policy was approved, neither successful.) — Ilmari Karonen ( talk) 02:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes It would seem self evident to me that if the community can agree to "promote" through consensus at RfA then the same community should have the option to "demote" through consensus via another avenue. Pedro :  Chat  07:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. Sysops should be participating to wikipedia. If they are unactive, their adminship should be removed (by security). Poppy 08:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes - • The Giant Puffin • 12:35, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. It makes sense that if the community can promote that the community can de-sysop. The current process -- if you can call it that -- isn't transparant and is quite arbitrary. Majoreditor 13:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely, giving more power to the community is a good thing. See also [1] for some more reasons. Melsaran ( talk) 16:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes I doubt it will be used often, but I think that, overall, it will be a good thing. нмŵוτн τ 16:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Absolutely Sometimes we lose trust in our admins-- Phoenix 15 ( Talk) 17:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, per Walton and LaraLove. shoy 17:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it's the perfect way to bring things back into the spirit of Wikipedia. There's no reason admins should not be held more directly answerable to the community than they are at present. I believe a measure such as that proposed needs to be used exceedingly sparingly if at all, but it needs to exist. Rob T Firefly 18:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes -- current sysop system is a mess. See also what User:Pedro said above. -- T- rex 19:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Agree that there needs to be a way the community can ensure that admins are responsilbe to the community. I hope this will enable us to be able to promote more admins through RFA as there will be an easier way to hold them to account than Arbcom can. Fundamentally I believe that having the admin tool should not be a big deal and a safeguarded system to remove the tools will help ensure this remains so. Davewild 20:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• YesJust saying that adminship is "no big deal" does not stop some admins from believing (and acting) the opposite. Perhaps this proposed system will act as a pyschological reminder to admins that they should always use their tools in a responsible (and humble?) manner. Ivygohnair 21:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes - administrators should be accountable to the people that promoted them. -- Beloved Freak 23:04, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes - but only for really serious complaints. A desysoping process should not be gamable by minor complaints. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{Articles touched by my noodly appendage} 14:06, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Aye. - Mailer Diablo 20:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, of course. It seems that admins are not being held accountable in public by the community but are only being acquited by elite WikiFriends of theirs. Laleena 18:28, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes - adminship shouldn't be a big deal. -- maclean 20:42, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes — This will allow us to nip problematic administrators in the bud before they do too much damage. By the time an admin nowadays is brought to ArbCom, they've already left a swath of chaos and/or destruction in their wake. - Jéské^{( v^_^v)} 21:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes - ArbCom is not broken, but I think there is room for a community de-sysop system. Been an admin is supposed to be "no big deal", and it is fair that if people need the support of the community to become admins, it is fair that they need the support of the community to remain admins in event of series complaints on use of the tools. There will be problems with abuse of a de-sysop system yes, but not anything that can't be worked around by careful setting up of such a new process. Camaron1 | Chris 21:35, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes - Definitely. So people can give adminship to every editor who has a reasonable amount of experience, knowing it can be taken away just as easily as it has been given. We won't need to require from candidates to adminship that they be perfect anymore. A.Z. 22:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• If there is strong evidence of tools misuse, there is nothing wrong in having such process. -- ReyBrujo 22:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. RfC/Admin is useless, as there is no enforcement at RfC in general, and an admin merely has to remain defiant to prevent anything resembling a sanction from being imposed. Defiance on the part of abusive admins is quite easy to sustain, as there is a large class of admins who will support fellow admins against almost any user complaints. The only time an admin seems to get in trouble is for wheel-warring, where admins, and not just ordinary users, have a legitimate complaint against the admin. Argyriou (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• With some reservations. I'd be somewhat afraid of such a process becoming "Requests for admin lynching" to be honest. Ideally, Arbcom should be able to handle all issues of admin abuse, and in theory abuse of admin abilities is the only logical reason to demote an administrator. I can see some possible examples where an admin may not do anything abusive per se but does do things in a manner consistently contrary to consensus, or otherwise through a showing of poor judgement, that may warrant such a discussion. I also really like the idea of "more power to the community." However, care needs to be taken so that the unfortunate administrator who closes a contentious AfD debate doesn't fall victim to an angry cadre of editors who happened to dislike their decision and demand their head on a plate. ɑʀк ʏɑɴ 22:46, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. While I realize there is always some potential for abuse of any system, this is a reform LONG needed. Safeguards can be devised to prevent unwarranted requests. Having a method by which the community can express legitimate grievances with administrative abuse, with the possibility of real, timely sanction, is essential to the community's continued trust in the admin corps. The standards at RfA will relax considerably if adminship is no longer so difficult to revoke in the case of meanness. This is one motive behind the category "admins open to recall", of which I am a longtime member. Xoloz 13:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. Adminship is considered to be 'no big deal', so, logically, revoking it when there is consensus to do so should be 'no big deal', to. The cumbersome ArbCom process doesn't meet this requirement, so a new procedure is needed. I propose a RfR (request for Revocation) process that should work under the same rules as RfA. Gray62 14:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. Administrators are granted their powers by community support, and should keep them only for as long as they maintain that support. ArbCom, an appointed body which itself consists entirely of administrators, cannot substitute for the wider community. It's true that in the course of their duties, admins sometimes upset people. But if an admin upsets so many people that a substantial number of users in good standing question their adminship, something is wrong. Accountability requires not merely that admins earn the trust of the community, but that they keep it. A community-based recall process to see that they do so is long overdue. Tim Smith 18:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. I consider this proposal a useful check and balance to the existing system. If there is a community-based process for authorizing Admins, there ought to be a parallel process to do the opposite. End of story. Captmondo 18:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. While I am not sure what the actual impact on RfA would be (apart from making obsolete the question whether the candidate would consider joining the category "admins open to recall" ) nor whether RFA standards should be relaxed or not, it is the logical complement to a community-based process that hands out the tools practically indefinitely. It also matters little whether ArbCom should be considered broken or not with respect to the cases handled as we're mostly talking about cases that either in reality or at least in common percepetion do not arrive there, or not in time. Tikiwont 10:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• Resounding Yes Absolute power corrups absolutely, and there have been many admins who may have been decent editors who went berzerko once they were granted admin privileges. A formal process to remove these poweres will allow the community to have an opportunity to cull the herd when they've strayed too far off the path. The current process requires an admin to act so egregiously that they must be removed. Alansohn 05:43, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. The current system is a recipe for admin senescence. The longer they hold mostly unchallenged power, the more likely they will fail to use that power responsibly.-- Nydas ^(Talk) 20:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, more for my personal idea of adminship than anything concrete. Wizardman 04:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• yes Admins should be held accountable for their actions by the people who grant them admin tools. It also helps admins be more careful about their actions since the community can desysop them if the community does not approve of it. -- Hdt83 ^Chat 05:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

• Emphatic Yes Admins too often are much too uncivil and use their admin status to intimidate. There must be a way for the community to deadmin them without having to go through the ArbCom process. Bstone 07:13, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes per all above. Epbr123 08:42, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes Not having this process leaves room for corruption and in fighting. I wouldn't be opposed to a Wikipedian Republic, but maybe that can come later. :p -- Zombiema7 13:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes Adminship is no big deal. This isn't stressed enough. Being Sysopped is no big deal and being Desysopped is no big deal. While I agree with the others who oppose this that administrators should not do their work walking on egg shells in fear of being desysopped, I think that with the proper criteria for the desysop process, it can be made so that only true community consensus will cause their sysop abilities to be removed. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

• Yes. Before this poll is archived I'd like to go on record as fully supporting the notion that if a person is able to be elected into a role, then they should also be able to be voted out. SilkTork * SilkyTalk 21:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No

• No demonstration has been provided that the current systems does not meet the needs existing. Simply asserting it over and over will not convince me, when I ask for evidence that arbcom is failing in this area I just get more assertions. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Simply asserting "there is no problem" over and over is equally unsatisfactory. Friday (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Well what you are talking about is called Negative proof. I assure you that if I was going to propose something based on a claim, that I would provide proof for that claim instead of asking people to prove me wrong. Present a problem, then I will consider a solution, not until then. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[:::You're essentially asking for other users to violate WP:NPA, and to me that appears a bit pointy. Also, it's getting old. Sorry if I'm totally mistaken here, but what else could you mean with "proof" besides someone pointing to a specific example? If you can't see the problem, chances are you are part of the problem. — Dorftrot tel⁠ 23:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Many have tried and failed, and this proposal is not the best one. If we are going to do this, we should use the best possible options. GDonato ( talk) 21:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not about the specific proposal, but about whether we need a new community desysopping process at all. I'll move this discussion to WT:RFA to clarify, per the discussion below. Walton ^One 21:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • In that case, generally yes, if the proposal is good enough. GDonato ( talk) 21:59, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• I don't mind the idea, but I don't think I like the current suggested implementation. - jc37 21:50, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • See my comments above - this poll is about the idea, not the suggested implementation. Walton ^One 21:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • I did, I didn't just mean that specific design, but the "general" design suggested on the related talk page. I think this should sit in the hands of the arbitration committee (Though, as I noted elsewhere, I wouldn't mind if it was a separate request page than RfAr.) - jc37 22:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Sigh... no. "Abusive" admins are dealt with by arbcom well enough. Admins who are sometimes uncivil and use naughty words might not be particularly pleasant to work with, but then again, what has that got to do with pressing a few buttons? Not a lot, especially if it's simply routine work. We have regular editors who are uncivil and unresponsive and they "get away with it" - admins should be no different. When someone is abusing their tools they will go to arbcom. Otherwise, it is not an adminship issue. – Aillema 21:57, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You seem to underestimate the possibilities and realities of gaming the system. — Dorftrot tel⁠ 00:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Somebody could game the system with this proposed process by not even caring about the guidelines for it. O ₂ ( 息 • 吹) 20:31, 11 October 2007 (GMT)
• No. It ain't broke, don't try to fix it. Corvus cornix 22:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Cart-horse situation. Define problem to be solved before presenting solution. What's the problem? - Jehochman ^Talk 22:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • The point is not to fix a current problem. With a process in place to remove adminship, it would encourage adminship to be granted more easily. With adminship being granted to many more editors, there's a greater potential for abuse. This is to address that concern. Lara ❤ Love 22:08, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Pass more admins because it is easier to de-admin them? I would prefer to be careful on both ends thanks you. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Why do you believe that it should be easier to create admins? Corvus cornix 22:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Oh, yessir, you're welcome. Anyway, the point is that we need more admins and the requirements keep getting more and more strict. The more admins, the less work for each. But the community, which you so vigorously distrust, is reluctant to grant adminship to many. However, were there a process in place that held admins accountable for their behavior and actions, not only would it encourage the promotion of more admins, it might curb that hateful attitudes of current admins. Lara ❤ Love 22:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
        • So then, your argument is, "Some Admins are bad", so let's make it easier to create bad admins". Corvus cornix 22:29, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
          • And make it easier to desysop them again, so with time we're left with a bigger sample to choose from. The good ones are kept, the less good ones may be kicked. Sounds clever to me. — Dorftrot tel⁠ 22:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Corvus cornix, ignorant comments are unproductive. Considering it's obvious that my argument is not, in fact, "let's make it easier to create bad admins," maybe it would be wise not to quote it as if it were. My point, as I already stated above, is that we need more admins. The workload to admin ratio is unbalanced. There is too much work per admin with the current numbers. Backlogs, not enough admins to work them. I'm running out of ways to put it. The collective community standards for RfA candidates is becoming more and more strict. Again, as I stated above, if there were a process in place to hold admins accountable for their actions, the community would be more inclined to promote more admins because they would know that if an admin abused their powers, there's a process that specifically addresses such issues. So it has absolutely nothing to do with "creating bad admins", and absolutely everything to do with creating more admins, while pulling the tools from any that feel the need to abuse them. Is it making sense now? :) Lara ❤ Love 23:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
            • Do you have the slightest idea as to what WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF mean? Or are you only concerned with the opinions of people who agree with you? Corvus cornix 02:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
              • I've replied on your talk page to avoid derailing this discussion. Lara ❤ Love 15:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• All of this talk of a new desysopping procedure strikes me as rather odd. Plenty of people here say that there are abusive admins that get away with misusing the tools and are incivil. However, when asked to give examples of people that would need to have the tools removed and would not be removed my ArbCom, the supporters of reform refuse to give names saying that they don't want to offend anyone, don't want to be incivil, don't want to make personal attacks, etc. I would think that should such a more lenient procedure of removing adminship come to be, there would be plenty more incivility calling for a user to be desysopped in actuality rather than simply naming a few names right now as possible candidates. It seems to me that many here are saying, "We want reform, but we refuse to give reasons where it would be needed." I have to see some actual evidence that desysopping reform is needed before agreeing to it. Captain panda 01:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll name names... Ryulong. (See User talk:AnonEMouse and the RfA RfC for some of the evidence I brought up.) This isn't a personal attack on him - he's a very hardworking and valuable editor - but he's much too trigger-happy with the admin tools. Walton ^One 08:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah yes. Ryulong. He had a very close (and controversial) RfA. In addition, his use of the tools has been questioned in the past. However, it should be noted that he really hasn't been wrong very often, just a bit quick to block. Most of the blocks noted in his RfC ended up being proven as the correct decision anyways. As for the incident with User:Walter Humala that you noted earlier, it can be easily said that Walter hardly had the best of histories. [2] However, I will admit that Ryulong is definitely a good example of an admin that has had a questionable history of use of the tools that would probably not have them removed by ArbCom. Though you raise a good point, I think that I am still going to say that we still don't need another way to remove adminship. Captain panda 01:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• No, gameable among other things. Mercury 02:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• I would like to be able to do my mopwork without additional time-consuming wikidrama, thanks. If I am way out of line, community consensus or, failing that, ArbCom will stop me just fine. Sandstein 05:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Seeing some of the comments, it seems like "chances are that we will choose bad admins a lot, so we need to desysop a lot too". If we're just careful with the ones we choose, I don't think there's going to be a problem. A simple abuse could be handled at arbcom or WP:BN. -- Hirohisat ^紅葉 05:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Per my comments in the FUBAR section above. Daniel 05:39, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Desysopping is not like adminship and never will be. On most cases, there is no rush in desysopping an user; arbcom deals with most and will sanction removal of administrative tools before a case if necessary. Desysopping a user, as opposed to sysopping, is a big deal and should be dealt with care, not with abandon as the current process in CSN is... -- D_arkF_alls ^talk 05:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If you oppose this idea, why is your user page in category Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Samohyl Jan 18:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I added that category about 2 months ago, when I was much in hope for a desysopping process. It has now been removed. -- D_arkF_alls ^talk 10:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

• The idea isn't *terrible* but it'll introduce all the same problems with RfA to desysopping. Arbcom does a suitable job of desysopping, I think. Crystallina 15:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• ArbCom seems to handle this fine for now. JoshuaZ 15:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• No, too easy to misuse and intimidate admins - particularly admins who have the cajones to do difficult things, to get into long-standing controversial debates, without angering some group or another and often for the betterment of WP all sides. Think in terms of stuff that routinely comes up on admin notice boards: Armenia/Turkey disputes, Israel/Palestine disputes, Scientology disputes, and numerous others - each with their constituency. Knowing that a possible good faith mistake, or even a correct action that is likely to upset one of those constintuencies will result in the inquisition to maintain your admin rights would no doubt affect some admins to steer clear of those issues and let them be wild-west and WP suffers as a result. We want to be admins to help the project, if the project wants to remove admins who upset people the admin crew will either be cowed into inaction or be a revolving door. Neither is good. Nor is the proposal. Carlossuarez46 17:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Definitely not; ArbCom and CSN handle it well, and the status quo isn't broke. This proposal may just create more drama than there is already, which certainly isn't needed. The problems with RFA are bad enough, and this one could just make it worse by desysopping good admins who just might not agree with a biased user or group of users. O ₂ ( 息 • 吹) 20:31, 11 October 2007 (GMT)
• No, for several reasons. First of all, RFA is a tight process, which means few people become admins, and those few usually do quite well. Having a desysopping process could lead to either RFA slacking off and more admins being made, or RFA not slacking and wikipedia running dry because the few admins that got by would eventually be desysopped (what I think would really happen). ArbCom is doing well: slow but steady, and besides, there are very few admins that need to be desysopped (again, because RFA is efficient). If we had a desysopping process, just about every admin there is would be nominated for desysopping within a few months; we admins make mistakes on occasion, and will keep making them, that may not warrant desysopping in the current system, but could in that which is being proposed. Those mistakes are what prove we aren't bots: if you want perfect admins, go program a few hundred of them, I'm sure we wouldn't have any backlog problems then... good luck with keeping wikipedia in one piece though. One last point, all the admins helping in mediations or involved in controversial topics would be in constant danger of desysopping, and may decide to shy away from their work due to that. This suggestion is definitely a bad idea. · AndonicO ^Talk 21:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• No. I have stated elsewhere that ArbCom currently handles problem admins perfectly well. I also feel this system would be used for attacking admins.-- Alabamaboy 23:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• No. I am still to see any convincing evidence that this is needed; in the absemce of evidence to the contrary, this is a solution to a problem that does not exist. Neil  ム 09:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• Seems like a solution looking for a problem. 193.95.165.190 11:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Account created 4 days ago. Lara ❤ Love 12:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • It's actually a solution foreseeing a problem. Lara ❤ Love 12:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Nothing wrong with IPs contributing. Stifle ( talk) 19:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
    • Then lets wait for the problem to actually show up ;). I still don't see any good examples other then Ryulong who was more or less proven right at his RFC over most of his controversial actions, and he does not seem to be causing any more problems... otherwise folks would have taken him to the arbitration committee. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 14:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I think you may have missed the point. We put such a process in place, users are subsequently less strict on RfA candidates allowing for more users to be promoted. With more admins being passed, the chance for misuse increases and, thus, the need for such a process. Lara ❤ Love 04:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• No, per Carlossuarez46. I've seen admins involved in certain controversial disputes, and get desysopped by ArbCom because they made mistakes when placed under intense pressure. (Such as becoming incivil due to losing patience). The inclusion of such a process would make it too easy for admins to lose the tools just because of much smaller mistakes committed during the heat of the moment. Also, it is already reasonably easy to be promoted under the current system, provided that you know how to behave. I've noticed that most non-SNOW noms this past month fail due to the candidate's due to incivility, immaturity, misunderstanding policies. These are all major concerns. Although technically, all actions can be reverted, but the feelings of the affected user may not. For example, a bad admin action on a newbie can cause to what would be a good editor to leave, and the damage is already permanent. This is why I feel this suggestion is like "mending the stable door after the horse has bolted".-- Alasdair 22:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• No - Any such proposal, if adopted, will cause administrators to refrain from dealing with any problem which could be remotely controversial. BLP violations, OTRS complaints, non-free images... all these issues often put admins in the position of having to be "the bad guy" and enforce policy. This process simply will create enemies, no matter how tactfully an admin handles the situation. If admins who take on these challenges are forced to deal with repeated frivolous attempts to remove their sysop access, many will simply give up. Furthermore, there's still no evidence that ArbCom has failed to adequately deal with out-of-bounds administrators. FCYTravis 06:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
• No Don't break what isn't fixed. Despite some of the claims of 'cliques' and 'unaccountability' I see absolutely no evidence that ArbCom are not dealing with the rare obvious breaches of trust by sysops. Asking for examples of "admins .. being acquitted by elite WikiFriends of theirs" (that quote taken from a Yes vote above) usuallly don't get a reply. Also, we have already had RFCs and RFARs - almost always failed - that are/were basically groups of disgruntled editors trying to get admins de-sysopped where that admin didn't "conform" to their POVs. These give an example of what such a system would be like. Such a system is far, far too open to gaming by the disruptive and by interest groups. ELIMINATORJR 18:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• No As per the above. Clio the Muse 22:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• No Unrealistic proposal that aims to fix something that's not a problem in the first place. Look, did anyone here actually read Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ryulong? There are way more people in support of Ryulong than there are people who think further action was needed. So in what universe would a Requests for Desysop/Ryulong even have been successful? -- JayHenry 01:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• Have to agree that this is a solution looking for a problem. We're at risk of it becoming quickpolls all over again. No need for it. Stifle ( talk) 19:50, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
• No This would be a natural for abuse by vandals and trolls. It would give them a venue in which they could 1) try to get rid of our heroes who defend Wikipedia against them, and 2) keep admins endlessly occupied defending themselves until they get sick of it and quit. It also introduces the possibility that a handful of people could get rid of a perfectly good admin. Admins are Wikipedia's last line of defense. It should not be easy to disrupt them. Admins are subject to being blocked. That's good enough protection. The Transhumanist    01:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• No Per many of the points above. Trolls that admins have dealt will flock to a Request of Deadminship page. Admins will fear touching on troll-infested areas of Wikipedia, such as NPOV disputes. Gizza ^{Discuss ©} 02:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• No. There is still no demonstrated need for this type of process. I would support a one time review for new admins if that change in the process would increase the number of editors being granted admin rights. Vegaswikian 19:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
• This is reluctant opposition, because I recognize that it is a good thing for admins to be accountable for their actions. However, the net result here would be that the amount of admin work being done would go down. How long do we want controversial AfDs to stay open? (They are already the ones that generally end up in the backlog.) How much do we want admins to shy away from mediation attempts and necessary blocks? Dekimasu よ! 03:57, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• The proposed system has all the same problems as the existing RfA. As it stands the desysopping process is one of the best-functioning processes we have, let's not mess it up. Christopher Parham (talk) 11:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
• No, per the "judge for life" concept. If an admin is constantly looking over his shoulder, afraid of someone potentially attempting to form a "consensus" for his removal, admin actions will become tentative, which is not good. K. Scott Bailey 18:08, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Until the Arbcom shows that it is unable to deal with problem admins, I have to say no. -- Kbdank71 16:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
• No, mostly because I'm afraid that if a similar idea passes no admin will want to cover anymore the highly controversial articles, zones that already are skipped by most admins.-- Aldux 22:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Neutral

• Neutral I don't want to (!)vote on this anymore. I just want to make my opinion known. The community enforced recall would only allow serious grievances, but serious grievances are why we have ArbCom. Minor problems could be handled at WP:RFC/ADMIN. This process seems unnecessary. But I certainly wouldn't be against some way of giving more power to the community to generate consensus. I do think that maybe we should have the actual process be handled by the admins, with the rest of the community just airing their grievances. J-ſtan ^Talk _Contribs 22:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Somewhat neutral. I want to see some reform, however I think the proposals still contain the same flaws currently displayed at RfA. It's better to fix the current system before trying to change it. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 22:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I'd have to see what is finally decided as the method and process of desysopping. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 01:29, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral - No specific procedure has been decided upon, and my opinion depends on the method of desysopping and how difficult it would be for a sockpuppeteer who wants revenge on an admin to game the system. I do, however, think that the wider community should have more say in the process, as J-Stan said. Neranei (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I want to see a actual procedure before I support anything. It's like signing up for car insurance when you don't know the plan. -- Eye of the minD 03:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral I'm not fundamentally against such a policy (although I haven't seen a proposal to my liking yet, and can't really think of one either), but I don't see the need for it. If there are problems (real or perceived), there are venues to discuss a desysopping (see e.g. the Alkivar ArbCom case now), and emergency desyssopings happen already anyway (as they should). On the other hand, a new venue for desysoppings could well be a good location for loads of wikidrama, trolling, time wasting, ... And while some good candidates are not promoted due to too strict standards, in general RfA seems to me not broken either, so the "easier desysopping = more admins" argument doesn't persuade me either. Fram 14:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral. I have no real problems with the way things are handled now. That said, I have no objection to a Community-based system as long as its not too bureaucratic and has reasonable safeguards to avoid frivolous complaints. I haven't been inspired by any of the proposals thus far however... WjB scribe 15:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• I of course can't make any comment on preventing an excess of bureaucracy, but in terms of "frivolous complaints", it has been generally agreed among the supporters of this plan that there must be a way for whomever arbitrates the decision (probably the crats) to reject trivial proposals and hot-headed lynch mobs early on. This would probably be enacted in a very similar way to the accept/reject apparatus of ArbCom. The idea basically is, the crats will balance out in any unreasonableness or frivolity stemming from the community. I for one would say that in the RFA process at least, the bureaucrats have shown the solid ability to be fair arbiters of a dispute. VanTucky ^Talk 18:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• Neutral. Nothing against in it principle, but as with most things, the devil is in the detail. Depending on how it is implemented it could be a good, or a very bad idea in practice. Rockpocke t 22:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
• Reluctant Neutral While I highly applaud administrator openness and transparency, it seems to me that a process like this would do nothing more than allow disgruntled POV warriors who are dissatisfied with an admin that's dealt with their situation to air grievances, causing harm to the community, but more importantly, to the admin him or herself, who we cannot forget is a person with feelings and emotions. On top of that, this would also create even more bureaucracy, which Wikipedia has more than enough of as it stands. I also see Lara and others' point that we need more admins, plain and simple. However, I don't think that having a process to de-op admins would solve the problem; instead, we need a change at RfA. I'm not saying that people should lose standards entirely, of course, I'm merely saying that it might help to not be quite so nitpicky. I've seen many RfAs be opposed and end up not being successful over one edit. Glass Cobra 19:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

"Voting is evil"

• I also think that unless there is an actual proposition on the table that this poll is not going to achieve much. Nor do I think this venue will produce a consensus based on the community, something like this needs a more centralized location or its results will be biased. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• What it will do is prevent any user from making claims about the general attitude of Wikipedians to this idea without evidence. VanTucky ^Talk 21:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• In response to Until's second point, I'm going to list it at WP:CENT and the Community portal to get broader input. Walton ^One 21:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• I have also let people know on the en-wiki's IRC channel. VanTucky ^Talk 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

It needs a centralized, non-partisan location, not a location advocating one side of the debate. I suggest Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) or WT:RfA. It will do little to add it to WP:CENT, the fact this that this page is not on topic as the poll is not about the proposition. Its location will lead to a bias, or just as bad the appearance of bias. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't object to it being moved to WT:RFA. Feel free to move it. Walton ^One 21:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I still think this will accomplish little since no specific proposal has ever been accepted, but I am glad it is in a neutral venue. But really it is a little bit like asking people if they want less taxes, when you don't have a plan on how to do it. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

• Mistakes happen. Almost all mistakes are Wikipedia are reversible. Granting adminship to a poor candidate is a not easily reversible mistake. I think many people are far too attached to "the way things have always been" to actually consider something new here. Friday (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a "Yes" vote. SashaCall ^{( Sign!)}/_{( Talk!)} 22:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
    • You'd think that. But I refuse to vote on general principle. Voting is what got us in our current hole. Voting cannot get us out. Friday (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Thanks for clarifying. SashaCall ^{( Sign!)}/_{( Talk!)} 22:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
• I can't say without seeing an actual proposal. A good community desysopping process is a very good idea, but if it's either implemented badly, or is just as difficult as Arbcom, it will only be harmful. - Amarkov moo! 02:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
• Since when do you need the support of a straw poll to start a proposal? If you want this go write a proposal and make it better than the various existing failed attempts – Gurch 12:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• It is simple, if you cannot reach a consensus for the idea you want, you just start a poll. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

And if you want to deny a proposal the possibility to eventually grow up, you just start bombarding it before it can be discussed and refined. — Dorftrot tel⁠ 18:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Before it can be discussed? Did you click on that link? This has been discussed over and over again. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Then why do you jump on it like you do? — Dorftrot tel⁠ 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

• If you're going to start a straw poll at least be honest about it. Don't claim it is an attempt to determine consensus (rough, or otherwise) - it's a vote, it's to determine how many people feel each way, nothing more, nothing less. Consensus is not determined by voting. -- Tango 14:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
• There obviously isn't consensus that such a process is needed. -- Tony Sidaway 14:53, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical

What if we were to start it the other way around? Instead of seeking approval to instate an entirely new process, we could simply start an innocuous discussion about a specific user's suitability as an admin. Maybe someone (not myself though...better an admin) should simply propose a place and a user to be discussed and make it known here. I.e., at least here, since RfA as a process is being canvassing by nature since it's an established centralised forum. Whatever the result, nothing would have to happen as a consequence, but everyone and particularly b'crats may take a look at it and determine whether it's nothing but clueless bashing of someone who simply made unpopular decisions, or whether there is some merits to the concerns. Needless to say, everyone commenting to the negative might be accused of violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF, but we would then have one proper example, not only concerning a potential case, but a full-blown discussion to evaluate the possible drawbacks and benefits of such a community-driven downvoting process. Anyone? — Dorftrot tel⁠ 07:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There's some precedent for such a thing in Kelly Martin's 3rd User RFC, although RFC's are controversial as anything other than consensus-building mechanisms. Still, as consensus is exactly what needs to be gauged...-- chaser - t 08:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's the problem, why we're stuck in this paralysis: Half the people around here think it's pointless discussing a new removing-the-bit process without a specific case in mind. The other half thinks that inventing a new process using a specific case is the wrong way to go. Both camps have legitimate points. This has been brought up before, see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard/Archive_5#Would_a_crat_be_willing_to_be_the_.22trusted_user.22_in_a_reverse_RFA.3F and probably other places too. If the crats got together and decided to be more activist, they could solve this problem. I don't see how anyone else can do much about it. I'm beginning to wonder at this point if the crats don't particularly want to have the power to overrule their own decisions, or whether they just dislike the thought of the potentially large amount of indignant whining such an action could cause. I would like crats to feel personally responsible for those they promote and take an active hand in correcting those who go off track. Including un-promoting them if necessary. Friday (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

At this point I think that I'd like to question the technical limitations of this desysopping matter. How would this be done? Are we going to give our bureaucrats the access to remove adminship? Are we ready to trust them with that? I feel that giving the buttons is a very different and vastly less complex matter than taking them back. Currently, steward is the only permission that is able to revoke the class. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 14:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If they're going to have the de facto power, they might as well have a button to push themselves. But, I see this as a minor implementation detail. Unless a steward would refuse a crat's request to change someone's permissions, it doesn't much matter if they have the button themselves. I think I remember someone saying this was an easily ability to grant, technically. Friday (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, on further thought, and my consideration of how simple it is likely to be to actually impart that ability technically, I think that the technical side of things might be a far simpler matter than the matter of "closing" one of these "RFDs". As I articulated above, I think that closing a request for desysopping would, almost every time that one would need to be closed, would prove very complex in terms of finding consensus in tight cases, and would, probably 95% of the time, cause controversy, or at least a stir. I am imagining the reaction of the more involved community in general when a tight RFA is closed, and then I am imagining the reaction of the more involved community in general when a tight RFD, which seems to me to be an inevitably more complex and pressured matter by default, is closed. Personally, I would have some deep concerns relating to the latter scenario. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 14:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous Dissident: see mw:Extension:Desysop. Melsaran ( talk) 15:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the link. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 15:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep It Simple principle

Existing processes are sufficient if people choose to use them and apply common sense. If an admin goes off track, first try the initial dispute resolution processes. If those fail, open a user conduct RFC. If the RFC shows that the admin is unsuitable to continue using sysop powers:

1. Ask the admin to resign, per common sense.
2. If the admin refuses to resign, in an urgent and unambiguous case, the RFC results can be shown to a steward. Stewards have the power to remove the sysop bit (bureaucrats don't). The frequency of successful RFC's against admins is very small. For those handful of cases, a direct appeal to User:Jimbo or another steward won't be a burden.
3. If a steward refuses to act based on the RFC, the matter can be referred to Arbcom via the standard request for arbitration process. Arbcom can then make a decision.

The above process allows broad community input and is already available without creating any additional bureaucracy. Perhaps this just needs to be documented so people understand the options they already have. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, except people dispute whether this is already possible or not. #2 is the entire questionable part. I've suggested before that it looks like the stewards would do this, only to be met with a chorus of "No! Only arbcom can do it!" If something along these lines is to be attempted, some buy-in and cooperation from the crats would help make it go. If Joe Random User shows the RFC to a steward and asks for a permission change, I don't know what the steward would do. If a crat does this, I'll bet dollars to donuts the steward would do as requested. Friday (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course we can ask the stewards. They have the ability remove a sysop bit. In obvious cases, I expect they will do so, regardless of what any silly rule says. We don't need run things through pointless processes. I expect that a steward would only send a case to Arbcom if there was a bona fide dispute that needed further investigation. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Also I suspect that anyone who tried 1 and 2 would be met with howls of disagreement and accusations of harassing the admin in question. There's an unfortunately common attitude of "How DARE anyone question an admin's suitability for the tools! He's obviously a good and trusted person, because he's an admin!" Friday (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I know of several instances where 1., ask admin to resign, has worked. For 2., appeal to a steward, there have been cases of emergency de-sysoppings, so I believe this is also a viable option. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in the current system if an admin feels pressured to do so they can resign, and if it is urgently needed a steward can emergency desysop. If it is not an emergency there is an evidenced based proceedings called arbcom. Good system, I like it. Lets keep it. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In cases where "this person should not have the sysop tools" has come up in RFCs, I'm pretty sure I remember several people saying "Don't say such things; RFC has no ability to do that." There's quite a large body of people who insist than only Arbcom can remove the bit. This doesn't mean they're right, but that's how lots of people see it. Friday (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC is about trying to work things out before resorting to the blunt force of desysoping. Only in cases of real emergencies should a steward act immediately. I think the common note here is that people want to skip this attempt at dispute resolution. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Who wants to skip dispute resolution? Where we've had problem admins, dispute resolution has typically failed repeatedly with them. Desysopping is a blunt tool only for those who won't listen to reason. Friday (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well the only thing arbcom requires is an attempt at dispute resolution and some "evidence" they abused their position. If you have both of those them arbcom should hold no barrier. If their behavior is not related to their tools then handle it like any other user. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Friday, why not propose the clarification I've suggested and see if the community approves them? If it does, that will answer your concerns about people thinking that Arbcom is the only path available. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What? What's to propose? It either can already be done, or it can't already be done. Friday (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hypothetical looks good, however

I would just like to point out that while several people think the hypothetical idea of such a system is a good idea, in practice the community has rejected such ideas when they are actually formed:

• Wikipedia:Admin_recall
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_de-adminship
• Wikipedia:Adminship renewal
• Wikipedia:Removal of adminship
• Wikipedia:Temporary Deadminship
• Wikipedia:Fully Uncompelled Binding Administrator Recall

All rejected by the community. And there are more I did not list. I think this poll is pointless until there is an actual idea on the table. Of course if you ask people if they would like something nice they will show interest, but the fact is this "something nice" have never existed in a form the community will accept. This is all just blowing bubbles in the water until there is an idea the community will accept to actually discuss. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

One other issue of some importance... we are running out of names for de-admining proposals. Perhaps we will have to start numbering them soon. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

...I just hope that we don't have to. Personally, I'd like to find some kind of consensus on this sometime soon. These proposals as a collective are turning into something of a verbal circus. -- Anonymous Dissident ^Talk 16:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Three little words here Until: Consensus. Can. Change. VanTucky ^Talk18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. But apparently that doesn't apply to RfA, or at least there seems to be no consensus that it does or should. Which is indeed kind of weird. — Dorftrot tel⁠ 20:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

When consensus changes come tell me. But this is simply generalizing to appeal to a larger audience. No actual proposal is on the table, the results of this poll will not reflect an actual decision. This whole giant thing dominating this talk page is just academic hypothesizing. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Put up or shut up

Show an absolute need for a community desysopping process or shut the hell up about it. Name administrators who you believe need to be desysopped, show a process which can't be gamed but would likely result in their desysopping, show a reason why Arbcom can't deal with it and then we might be getting somewhere. At the moment I've been shown no good reason why any community desysopping proposal should be accepted and there have certainly been no proposals which aren't obviously or discreetly gameable. I've not even seen any examples of behaviour so horrid an administrator needs to be desysopped. Finally, we need to get rid of this silly idea that unpopular administrators are bad administrators, there's any number of administrators out there deleting material, enforcing copyright policies and blocking users who are probably quite unpopular but getting rid of copyright violations, edit warriors and the like does not make the administrator a poor quality administrator. Nick 15:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I am just glad the we judge consensus based on the arguments made, and the response to those arguments instead of counting votes. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Here we see why this is so difficult: People go out of their way to derail discussion on this topic. If you don't like it, don't read it. Friday (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why not just provide the reasoning and evidence behind your proposal that is being asked for? If anything the failure to respond to these requests is derailing your discussion. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's the "reasoning and evidence". Please read my comments about Ryulong at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Request_by_Neil. This provides a good example of an admin who is a good editor, acting in good faith, who has never done any one thing bad enough to be desysopped under the current system; but who nonetheless is uncommunicative, trigger-happy with blocks (hence driving away User:Walter Humala, as noted there), and is not generally suited to be an admin. This isn't an attack on him; as I said, he's acting in good faith. But this is an example of why we need a community desysopping process, so that we can desysop admins who may not have done anything "terrible" but whose use of the tools is inappropriate on a day-to-day basis. The blocking tool is a very dangerous power; an unjustified block can drive an editor away, and editors are our most important resource. As such, admins need to be held accountable by the community for their use of the blocking tools - that's why this process is needed. Walton ^One 16:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a general perception that Arbcom only acts in "extreme" cases. I believe this is generally true. Also we should see why people are understandably reluctant to discuss many specifics; then, the discussion would degenerate into a discussion of the merits of the specific case(s) rather than staying focused on "should there be another way to remove the bit?" We're damned if we do, damned if we don't. Friday (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that the whole point of asking for specific examples? — Dorftrot tel⁠ 17:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

But Ryulong responded to criticisms and has improved his judgement, I know because I have been watching since the RfC. This is a great example of where a community de-sysoping process may lead to losing an admin when don't need to. In other words, the dispute resolution methods worked. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:08, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

But he's done damage already. User:Walter Humala was a good-faith user who was moving in the direction of becoming a great contributor. Then Ryulong MfD'd his userspace (admittedly this didn't involve misuse of admin tools, but was very BITEy and not appropriate in an admin IMO), and subsequently blocked him on more than one occasion for alleged "disruption" when the infractions in question were very minor, and would not have been considered blockable by most admins. As a result of this, Walter evidently became disillusioned with the site, and hasn't edited since April 2nd. ArbCom would never desysop on the basis of something like this, but even one incident like that should, IMO, be grounds for a community discussion on whether to revoke someone's sysop status. Walton ^One 17:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Like blocks, de-admining should be preventative, not punitive. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. For preventative purposes, he should have been desysopped (or, at least, the question should have been put to the community) right after the Walter Humala incident, to prevent him doing any more damage of the same sort. He may have reformed himself now (hence why I'm not proposing a desysopping petition against him) but there are many other admins of the same sort. We need to trust the community to decide on these matters. Walton ^One 18:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

What admin tools did he use that allegedly drove Walter Humala away? How would not being an admin have prevented that from happening? Corvus cornix 18:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Frankly it is that sort of trigger happy attitude that would rob us of good admins if this sort of thing were put into place. Why is it that regular editors can makes mistakes until AGF seems like a joke, but any time an admin fucks up they cry bloody murder? Yes, there are admins that break policy. Call them on it, keep calling them on it every time they do it. If nothing happens drop me a note and I will call them on it with you. They is nothing stopping us from handling these problems within the current system, we just need to do it. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Mistakes are one thing. If someone makes an innocent mistake, by no means should we immediately desysop them so that they can't make more mistakes. But in this case, it was quite clear that he didn't just make a judgement error; he deeply believed that users who don't make enough mainspace contributions should be sanctioned, and did not care about what others thought. Or at least, he believed that anyone who disagreed with him lacked common sense. But we can't even think of desysopping him until there's a pattern of abuse? - Amarkov moo! 05:28, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

But de-sysoping should not be the goal, the goal should be the remedy the behavior. Under the current system we have an admin that has listened to the community concerns, or at least is now. Errors in judgment are not just clicking the wrong button, but often they can be a more fundamental error. Under the proposed system he probably would have been de-sysoped and we would be short an admin. Under the current system if the bad behavior resumes we can do something about it in arbcom. 1 != 2 15:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that in the case of the admin discussed here, the Rfc has helped turn a project damaging admin to a fine one. What happens though, if in a similar case, an admin doesnt' improve? keeps on driving away contributors, irritiating thick skinned users, and basically not making the internet suck less? But the actions are still not severe enough for arbcomm? do we let the project damage continue? or do we try to prevent damage? Much like arbcomm, I feel that any Community deadmin should have "required" other steps in dispute resolution as one of the triggers to use. -- Rocksanddirt 23:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep making RFC's. Eventually he/she'd change. Besides, there isn't an admin who fits your description, so why have a desysopping process? Frankly, I don't think this idea holds water... the only name I've heard so far is "Ruylong", and he's reformed. · AndonicO ^Talk 14:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If the admin doesn't repent, and it's the last straw, file an Arbcom case against him, since the Arbcom is supposed to be the final resort in resolving disruptive behaviour, disputes and such.-- Alasdair 18:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

1. User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington. Simply does not have the temperament to judge consensus or lack thereof when it differs from his personal view.
2. Any admin who has deliberately wheel-warred.
3. User:Davidcannon (there's always an example like this on WP/ANI)
4. Krimpet has skated awfully close to the line. Discussion at AN/I has been unanimously against the block. Would he have gotten away with it if it weren't MONGO? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Argyriou ( talk • contribs) 20:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What are you saying? That the community wished these people desysoped and arbcom did not manage it? Because unless that is what has happened I don't see the relevance. 1 != 2 20:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. My post is in response to the question of "Name administrators who you believe need to be desysopped". I didn't answer the rest of the questions, but I can suggest a process which would be difficult to game, and would result in deadminning of at least the more abusive admins: run RfDA like RfA - nomination is required, case must be stated, and there must be a consensus defined the same way as at RfA - 80% of users who aren't new accounts supporting results in automatic desysopping, while 70% to 80% requires judgement of the arguments by the 'crats, and less than 70% is insufficient consensus to desysop. (I might eliminate, or move to 70/60, the range of 'crat discretion.) Argyriou (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Walk before you run

The idea of dramatic demotion seems too contentious at this point to attain consensus. Before tossing defendants in the wood chipper, how about a suspension? Think of it as an extended time-out that strips the subject of the additonal access, but restores the access after a predetermined time period.

If the subject makes a regular showing in the penalty box, then they shall be scheduled an appointment with the Sword of Damocles, courtesy of the community. -- Aarktica 16:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

this has possibilities. Rlevse 17:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, sounds like Wikipedia:Temporary Deadminship, which was rejected, although that was a while back. Perhaps a variant could gain acceptance. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't think how this becomes any more doable by being temporary. Besides, all removals of the bit are potentially temporary- they last until it's given back. Friday (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

You make a valid point. However, I think it is unlikely that this issue will be resolved — until the community determines what conduct should lead to revocation of the additional access. -- Aarktica 00:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Actual specific suggestion

People keep wanting a more specific plan they can sink their teeth into.. well, OK, here goes. This has been suggested before with a small amount of interest. Crats are increasingly willing to use their own judgment in addition to looking at community consensus. This is a Good Thing; we chose them for their judgment. The crats could hand out the admin tools to those who seek them fairly liberally (probably subject to community objection, but nothing resembling current RFA). Then, when there's questionable use of the tools, the crats can decide whether they wish to unpromote. Crats judge consensus on adminship; consensus can change. Put two and two together and the answer seems pretty clear. Friday (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So to sum up the idea, instead of RfA 'crats just give out the bit when they think they should, and if there is a problem they just take it away? That seems to involve the community less, instead of more. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If the crats want to use some process that appears to involve community input, they can, same as now. But, yes I don't see that this is very workable without a willingness to rely a bit more on crat discretion. What I think we mostly agree cannot work is anything involving "If X editors say you lose the bit, you lose the bit." There has to be a reasonable objection to the use of the tools to consider taking them away. How can we demand reason from the "community"? We can't, but I hope we can expect it from the crats. Friday (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Why would 'crats be more trustworthy than admins? or arbcom? or the community? They are all humans. It seems that this just moves the trust issues around. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, many people (how many is apparently up for debate) think arbcom is too reluctant to remove the bit. Many people think the community is too fickle to remove the bit. We've already got these crats hanging around, doing half the job. It just makes sense that the people who promote should be able to unpromote when they believe a mistake was made. It's like we're currently assuming the crats are infallible by not letting them undo what they've done. Friday (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's silly to not just ask the crats directly. Any crats who care to comment: would you want the ability to unpromote? Would you see it as being occasionally useful? If the crats wouldn't mind having it, and we trust the crats.. what more is there to debate? Friday (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the first step: Find out if the crats would even go along with that. Corvus cornix 18:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it may have merit, but I do not support the idea. I also think it is unlikely to gain support in its current form. You can always make a proposal page and see what happens. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think anything presented as a formal proposal can go anywhere right now. My best hope is that the crats just decide amongst themselves to change how they do things. Friday (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, would vociferusly object to any crats who just arbitrarily start desysopping people. They do not have the crat bit granted to them to do that, and I would hope if they did, the stewards would remove the crat bit forthwith. Corvus cornix 18:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think you can rest easy, since, as far as I know, Beaurocrats don't even have that ability anyway. - Chunky Rice 18:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

'Crats work for the community, they can't just "decide" to start desysoping people, even if they did I doubt the devs would give them the ability just because they decided to. There would need to be something presented as a formal proposal that goes somewhere. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with 1 == 2, we don't want a rogue B'crat on our hands. The current systems works. -- Eye of the minD 21:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The folks who invented prod did not go around demanding that people show that AFD doesn't work. They merely suggested that a new, lightweight way to delete may be useful in addition to current methods. I believe that a new, lightweight way to remove the bit may be useful in addition to the current ways. I'm not interested in debating whether the current ways are "broken" or not- it's not relevant. Friday (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ya, there were many many articles that needed deleting without much discussion, so they invented prod. Where is this backlog of admins needing de-sysoping? Another interesting thing about prod was that the community actually reached a consensus to adopt it. ( (1 == 2) ? ( ('Stop') : ('Go')) 05:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The arguments of the opposers

...can be summed up like this:

• If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
  • Indeed, it ain't broke, but this suggestion is an improvement and gives more power to the community. If I correct a grammatical error on an article, would you revert it because "the article is readable, i.e. not broken, so you shouldn't improve upon it"? No, of course not, making a well-thought-out improvement is always good.
• It is gamable and can lead to frivolous complaints.
  • Everything's gamable, but that shouldn't be a reason not to improve upon our processes. I think we can trust our bureaucrats to distinguish the frivolous complaints from the legitimate ones, and that the benefit outweighs the drawback of this proposal.
• It encourages us to promote more bad administrators because we can also demote them more easily.
  • We never know who will be a bad administrator, but we will inevitably grant the mop to people who are ultimately unsuited to be an admin, so having an easy way to take the tools away is a good thing. Currently, participants at RFA are reluctant in supporting a candidate, because it is extremely difficult to take the tools away from someone who doesn't handle them responsibly but doesn't engage in blatant abuse either. If desysopping becomes easier, then RFA will become less of a big deal, and participants may be more inclined to give a candidate the benefit of the doubt because if they turn out to be unsuitable for the mop after all, they can be desysopped. We need more admins.
• Admins should be able to do their job without any additional wikidrama.
  • So, would you want to abolish RFC and RFAR as well, then? Admins should be accountable to the community and responsible for their actions. They should be prepared to face the consequences of questionable use of sysop tools, and ready to explain their actions.
• The community makes bad decisions, leave it to the ArbCom.
  • You may think that the community makes bad decisions, but it is the community that decides things on Wikipedia, whether you agree with them or not. If the community is able to give certain editors their confidence and to grant them admin tools, they should also be able to reconsider and to revoke those tools. That's only logical. ArbCom is the last step in the dispute resolution process, when the community has tried and failed to resolve the issue. If the community can come to a consensus on whether to desysop the admin or not, then they should be given the opportunity to do so.

Melsaran ( talk) 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid your second point It encourages us to promote more bad adminstrators because we can also demote them more easily. is completely incompatible with Wikipedia, bad administrators can permanently frighten off good users, we should be exceptionally careful about who we promote, given the damage a bad administrator can inflict on good users, even during the time their desysopping request is being discussed by the community. Nick 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, of course we should be careful, that's why we have RFA; however, some people asserted that a community desysopping process encourages the community to endorse more RFA candidates, and therefore automatically leads to more bad admins, and used that as an argument against a desysopping process. Note that I didn't say that such a process would encourage us to promote more bad administrators; that's a concern that some opposers have raised above. I've attempted to clarify my comment. Melsaran ( talk) 22:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I can't imagine anyone has any intention of supporting someone they consider a bad candidate; let the straw man lie. What this lets us do is support candidates that we know less about, knowing that mistakes can be undone. Friday (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Lara ❤ Love 05:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Doing and then undoing is absurd!

There's another recurring theme in the opposers- "What? You want us to give someone adminship but then it might get taken away again sometime if they do a bad job? That's crazy! We should just make sure we get it right the first time!" Let me tell you what I thought about Wikipedia a few short years ago: "What? An encyclopedia that anyone can edit? Someone can just come along and change an article willy-nilly! That's crazy!" The joy of Wikipedia is that perfection isn't required. Mistakes can be undone. Have a little faith, people. Remember, all of Wikipedia only works in practice. In theory it's completely absurd. Friday (talk) 23:21, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll get shouted at again, but the one thing that can't be undone on Wikipedia is an editor leaving because they have suffered at the hands of a bad administrator. Trying our utmost to prevent the promotion of people likely to upset good editors is something we must try to get right as often as possible. Personally, I've no real problem promoting a user who is polite and courteous but lacks in experience in other areas, and if community desysopping were to help get more of those sorts of users through, it wouldn't be too bad. What I really don't want to see happening is users being promoted easily, but being desysopped because they lack experience and made serious errors due to that inexperience. I don't think it's great to take our best admin candidates, promote them way too early, end up with them being desysopped, and finding we're not seeing a growth in knowledgable administrators with experience. Nick 23:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Mistakes are allowed. Growing pains are to be expected. Anyone who says "oops, I screwed up- I'll be more careful" should get the benefit of the doubt, certainly. Now, if someone says that 10 times and continues to make the same error, it's another story; cases of incurable bad judgment do occasionally come up. Friday (talk) 23:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone gets adminship taken away, that's bad. I mean, it shouldn't be a big deal, but if you're losing your tools that means you've done something wrong that makes people not trust you. And that means that other people are now annoyed. Depending on the circumstances, the bad things that are getting you desysopped may have driven someone away. And we can't just undo that. Promoting a candidate who might make minor mistakes is fine. Promoting a candidate that we're not reasonably sure won't make major mistakes can only hurt us. - Amarkov moo! 23:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

If I had a restaurant and one of my waiters abused a customer, I'd want to be able to say "I'm very sorry, customer. This behavior is not allowed; the waiter in question has been let go." The damage cannot always be undone but we might hope to mitigate it. Friday (talk) 23:46, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course. But as the customer, I would expect that you make an effort not to hire waiters who you think might do such things, instead of relying on my forgiveness when a waiter does do something bad. - Amarkov moo! 23:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And we may be getting ahead of ourselves by trying to guess just how liberally we might want to give away the tools, once we had a reasonably lightweight way of removing if needed. I can speak only for myself, but if I already have reason to believe someone will misbehave, you won't see me supporting, even if it can be undone. Friday (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Those who think that adminship is no big deal and the bit should be handed out willy-nilly would not just take anybody off the street and say, "okay, you're now a waiter in my restaurant". You would want to talk to them first, discuss it with your partners, determine whether they're compatible with the mission statement of your company, and then hire them. Corvus cornix 18:19, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Friday, the process we have now allows for instant dismissal. No community process can ever act quickly enough to deal with serious abuse by admins in the manner equivalent to "This behavior is not allowed; the waiter in question has been let go." -- Tony Sidaway 15:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, just commented on that general issue here. The true emergencies don't need to be considered; they're already taken care of. Wikipedia almost always acts on a much slower timeframe than a dinner. Friday (talk) 15:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it's going a little extreme on how liberal RfA would become. The RfA statistics show a steady increase in the requirements to gain the bit. Edit count, time registered, participation in various areas, etc. The requirements keep getting stricter. Were such a process in place, this would probably be remedied. I don't remember the exact numbers or time frame, but there was a discussion a few weeks ago that showed the edit count requirement being like 12,000 by next summer if the current trend continued. That's ridiculous.

This sort of process could allow RfA to return to standards closer to what they were a year or more ago. As has been stated by many opposers, there haven't been a lot of cases of an admin needing to be desysoped for their behavior. So to return to a trend that doesn't hold such high standards for RfA candidates would appear to be a positive thing. I would guess, from what I've read, that many current, long-time admins would have failed RfA when they went through it had the standards been what they are now. So keep that in mind, along with the fact that we need more admins. Lara ❤ Love 05:19, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Is ArbCom broken?

This is a proposal to replace ArbCom (partially, at least). If ArbCom needs to be replaced, it must be broken (or at least non-ideal) in some way. What way is that? Can someone give an example of an ArbCom decision on whether or not to desysop for which there is widespread agreement that it was incorrect? If ArbCom have made a mistake, then we should try and fix what caused it, but we need to determine what the mistake was before we can do that. -- Tango 14:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't say the current process (ArbCom) is broken; rather, we say that we should have an additional process, namely community desysopping, which gives more power to the community and has several benefits (as outlined above). Please see my comment at #The arguments of the opposers. Purely as a sidenote, I could provide some examples: Geni was desysopped against community consensus, Jeffrey O. Gustafson wasn't desysopped while the community consensus was to desysop him. Melsaran ( talk) 14:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

A lighter weight removing-the-bit process is not a replacement for Arbcom in any way at all! It's the WP:PROD to Arbcom's WP:AFD. Notice that we use both prod and afd these days. Friday (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Afd is the community process. PROD is an individual saying he thinks something should be deleted, and it goes ahead if absolutely nobody objects. If you want to see a lightweight process for desysopping in action, look what happens when admins go seriously off the rails: instant desysopping, possibly restored if the arbitration committee decides to restore. That's what we have now. -- Tony Sidaway 14:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

There are also presumably people somewhere who unplug the servers when they catch fire. We don't generally need to consider emergencies when suggesting improvements to processes. The emergencies get taken care of quickly, with or without a process. Not sure quite how the case was made differently then, but at one time you seemed willing to consider this sort of idea. (This stuck out in my memory because you and I came shockingly close to agreeing on something.) Friday (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

If you believe an admin should be desysopped, add the {{PRODesysop}} template to that admin's user page. If there are no objections after five days, the user will be desysopped. If the template is removed, it should not be replaced. If the issues leading to the PRODesysop have not been addressed to your satisfaction, seek Arbitration. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I could go for that. Then, except in the most egregious cases, I could remove that tag from just about every page it's been placed on. Corvus cornix 18:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The prod/afd comparison was just an example. What Friday meant is that the existing processes don't have to be absolutely broken to propose a new process in addition to the current process. ArbCom isn't broken, but having a community desysopping procedure as well would be good. Likewise, AFD wasn't broken, but we still implemented PROD. Melsaran ( talk) 15:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem with ArbCom seems to be that it's an insider process. This makes it more difficult for the community to desaysop an admin than to promote an editor. And this is contrary to the idea of 'adminship is no big deal'. Well, if we take this seriously, revoking adminship shouldn't be a big deal, either. However, there should be consensus, a single opi ion posted somewhere where others might not see it shouldn'gt be enough. Why not simply copy the RfA procedure for a new RfR (Request for Revocation) process? Critics can present their case, the admin can present his defense, the community can weigh in. Only if there is consensus, the tools will be revoked. This would ensure that there have to be compelling reasons, supported by a beroad majority, to remove adminship. Nothing a good admin has to be afraid of, but certainly a much more reassuring safeguard for the community. How about that? Gray62 17:57, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Could this proposal really be about unpopular admins rather than "abusive" admins?

I suppose I'd better get this out in the open. Please notice that I'm raising this as a possibility that we should consider, even if we move on to reject it.

I can give you lots and lots of examples of admins losing their bits temporarily or permanently when their abusive activities cause serious problems. Moreover some recent arbitration cases have even put some or all admins on notice of summary desysopping (the Hkelkar_2 and Badlydrawnjeff cases come to mind)

In the circumstances, and in the absence of much real evidence of longstanding abuse going unchecked, I'd like to suggest that we at least consider that the persistent calls by an appreciable part of the community, for a say in desysopping, may concern not abusive behavior, but unpopular behavior.

Just as not all abusive behavior is unpopular, not all unpopular behavior is abusive. For instance, although necessary if we are to maintain a free encyclopedia, the removal of non-free images has caused much anguish across a wide part of the community. The administrators who take on this burdensome and painstaking task quickly become unpopular despite their care and dedication, and this may well be unavoidable.

So if there's a chance that the reason this proposal keeps cropping up is not because many administrators are abusive (and they most certainly are not, in any appreciable numbers), but rather because some of our best and most dedicated administrators take on necessary but largely thankless work, then we should examine this possibility, and determine if it's happening, and to what extent. Doing so may illuminate the apparent discrepancy between the number of calls for some kind of "community" desysopping process and the actual extent of the problem. -- Tony Sidaway 15:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Certainly this is one of the known obvious pitfalls to any consideration of removing-the-bit. This is exactly why IMO we must look to the crats to use their (gasp!) discretion. Frivolous calls for desysopping will be disregarded, no matter how many trolls or children line up to demand otherwise. I don't think it's an insurmountable problem; we already deal with it at RFA. If a bunch of editors line up and say "oppose- he tagged my vanity article for speedy deletion" their opinions will be given the weight they deserve. If it's a vote, we have the problem you've described. It cannot be a vote. Friday (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Never underestimate the power of tact. The animosity engendered by such unpopular actions could be assuaged in many instances if administrators took on a more amicable disposition. Yes, the work done may be unappealing to many, but I think the analogy of the third rail is appropriate here; failing to exercise caution when working on such issues could prove disastrous. -- Aarktica 15:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Let me also point out that many of our more skilled admins find ways to do unpopular work without stirring up angry mobs. If the way you go about your work results in too much drama, you're probably doing it wrong. If you've made other editors angry, this doesn't automatically mean you're right or wrong. Good judgment is needed. Friday (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I generally agree, but at the same time, it's still possible for a good admin to piss people off in the course of doing their job. Just sayin'. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:39, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think any desysopping process, and any requests invoking such, will (or at least should) be taken very seriously by bureaucrats. Deskana pointed out heris stand against "lynch mobs". I think it might work. J-ſtan ^Talk _Contribs 15:47, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. I've been called a Nazi for removing spam; I imagine pretty much anyone who's active gets that. If established, generally reasonable editors are concerned about your behavior, this hopefully counts for a lot more than drive-by insults. The fact that invalid criticism is common should never cause us to disregard valid criticism. Friday (talk) 15:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Just an aside J-stan, but User:Deskana is male ........! :) Pedro :  Chat  15:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Deskana :) J-ſtan ^Talk _Contribs 15:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I sure know that if you go around removing fair use images from peoples userpages(as the need to be) you get a rather large mob after you for no good reason. 1 != 2 15:55, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I thought fair use meant that they shouldn't be deleted. J-ſtan ^Talk _Contribs 15:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

When we chose the 'crats, by showing our trust at the RFBs, we were showing how much we trusted them to handle a few things like renames, and sysoping. Never have they as individuals shown they they have the trust of the community to handle desysoping as well. Frankly the only people who were elected by the community with the idea of de-sysoping people in mind is arbcom. 1 != 2 16:03, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In my view, it's inherently silly to trust people to do something but not undo it. Mistakes are part of Wikipedia- we depend on being able to fix them as easily as they're made. Crats judge consensus for adminship. Consensus can change. Put two and two together. Friday (talk) 16:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(Off-topic rambling begins here.) Indeed, that's why it is inherently silly to trust non-admins to create an article but not to delete it. Everything should be reversible, that's a fundamental concept in the nature of a wiki. Anyone can remove content from any article, but we aren't going to say "hey, giving everyone the ability to remove content is stupid because it may lead to frivolous removals of content, so let's disable that". We are able to distinguish the frivolous removals of content from the legitimate ones, and so we should be able to distinguish the frivolous requests for desysopping from the legitimate ones. (Off-topic rambling ends here.) Melsaran ( talk) 16:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That just means all the current 'crats will have to run through RfB again. Oh what fun that will be! :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

This brings me back to the point: there really don't seem to be that many administrators about whom it can be said that their use of their admin bits gives serious cause for concern. There are those who, as Friday suggests, use their bits with more tact than others. All power to those administrators, but this is no reason to desysop those who are doing an essential job, for which we frankly do not have enough volunteers, in a manner that ruffles the feathers of the freeloaders who dump material that doesn't belong to them on Wikipedia.

If Deskana has announced that he'll stand against so-called "lynch mobs", that's good news. I wouldn't expect any less from the bureaucrats.

Friday suggests that disregarding criticism may be a significant failing here. That may be so. That is why we have a dispute resolution process, which (may I remind us all here) is our established, community-driven process for dealing with such problems whether they turn up in editors or system administrators. -- Tony Sidaway 16:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

"In the circumstances, and in the absence of much real evidence of longstanding abuse going unchecked, I'd like to suggest that we at least consider that the persistent calls by an appreciable part of the community, for a say in desysopping, may concern not abusive behavior, but unpopular behavior." Excuse me pls, but where do I find WP:good faith in this statement? What you're essentially saying here, Tony, is that consensus can't be trusted in reachoing reasinable solutions, do I understand you right? Gray62 18:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've said nothing that assumes bad faith--rather the reverse. I haven't suggested that the community cannot come up with reasonable solutions. In fact I've stated that the community already has reasonable mechanisms and that more are not necessary. I've no idea how you managed to precis my statements as "consensus can't be trusted in reachoing reasinable solutions,", which is the opposite of what I said. -- Tony Sidaway 18:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Blended idea

(not blended in the sense that I'm blended... not right now, at least)

Idea (semi-stolen from Meta). We have current RfAs the way they are. At the 1 year mark, we have a reconfirmation vote (read that as "!!vote" if you will...). If everyone votes to keep them as an admin, they're kept. If not, they're gone, and they can regain the sysop bit by running through RfA again.

Just a quick (not very fleshed out) idea for the sake of throwing around ideas. Thoughts? EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

(sheesh, I lost everything I wrote here, stupid browser!) Please not. This creates unnecessary bureaucracy and falls under m:instruction creep. If we want to desysop a particular admin, we should hold a reconfirmation procedure for that admin only. It is unnecessary to "reconfirm" admins who don't need to be reconfirmed. On nl.wiki, we also have a yearly reconfirmation, and usually every admin survives it because if the community wants to have an admin desysopped, they already have the ability to do so, and don't have to wait until the reconfirmation round. Melsaran ( talk) 16:20, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Strong oppose. Besides the fact that there are over 1000 admins and the revote process would be a deadly time drag, it would turn the revote process into a popularity contest. You think RfA is bad now? Corvus cornix 18:24, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Been there, done that. - Mailer Diablo 11:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

*shrug* Like I said, it was just a quick thought. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting statistics

In the poll above (if my count is correct, I did it by hand), 9 administrators and 19 users voted "Yes", while 15 administrators and 5 users voted "No". I am not blaming anyone, I just think that power corrupts and humans excel at rationalizing it. Samohyl Jan 18:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Although I am an administrator, I don't believe I have anything to fear from a community desysopping process; nor does any other administrator who is doing their job properly. There is no reason to oppose this. Yes, admins who do a lot of fair use work etc. sometimes become unpopular; however, there are enough experienced, sensible users to ensure that a community desysopping process would not develop into a cesspool, and that no admin would end up being desysopped for enforcing policy. Some admins are getting worried about nothing, IMO. Walton ^One 08:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

As an administrator who voted No, I too would expect to be de-sysopped if I did something that deserved it. My concerns are twofold though, (a) gaming of a community desysopping system, and (b) relaxation of RfA criteria if such a scheme was in place. The second is of major concern and I'll rationalize it as follows.

At the moment, we generally sysop on the basis of a few major criteria

• Experience
• Knowledge of policy
• Civility & user interaction
• Previous editing behaviour (no blocks, edit-warring etc.)

IF we are to relax RfA standards, which one of those are we to be more lenient on? IMHO requiring lesser standards on any of the latter three criteria would be asking for trouble, which only leaves experience - and that leaves us more open to the sysopping of sockpuppets, something which has already happened even with the more stringent RfAs. It's OK to say "well, with the new system we could de-sysop quickly", but in reality the new system is not going to be immediate and in the meantime more damage could be done. I believe a relaxation of RfA standards would cause more admin abuse, not less. ELIMINATORJR 18:23, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll second that. I've been watching RFA for a time, and noticed many non-SNOW failures come from problems as listed by you.

• Experience: Cobi
• Knowledge of policy: Siva1959, R
• Civility and user interaction: Elonka, Agueybana, Betacommand (resysopping), Cobi, Dihydrogen Monoxide
• Previous editing behaviour: Elonka, Dihydrogen Monoxide

The current system is actually more lenient than before, it used to be 80% support, now it's 75%. It may not seem a lot, but it also means the Support to Oppose ration required has dropped from 4:1 to 3:1. If more users get their act together for a number of months, plan for the future. They'd have a much higher chance of success in the future.-- Alasdair 19:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I (indirectly) noted above that I don't want to hear any rationalizations, because there are many. I think that since admins are voted for by community, they should be demoted by community too, it's simply symmetric. I even think that admins should have the integrity to refrain from voting on such matters at all, but I have understanding for fallibility of humans :). To your concerns - first, the poll was about if possibility to demote admin is needed, not about relaxing the requirements for RfA. The relaxation of requirements is predicted by some (including me) as a reaction of community to such policy (admin demoting by community), not directly implied or required by such policy. It's not actually clear if the community would react such way. Second, even if they would, it would be a step towards the WP:FAITH policy. Third, more people on Wikipedia implies nothing - ratios of people who favor someone and who dislike someone (for whatever reason) may remain the same. Samohyl Jan 07:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! If a community desysopping process will act as an additional reminder to adminstrators that they should avoid abuses, then we should be all for it! I don't see how this process can be abused, as the community at large will reject frivolous nominations Ivygohnair 09:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Frivolous nominations still do damage even if they ultimately are rejected. They entail a drain of time and energy that could be more usefully spent. Raymond Arritt 14:21, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this is a problem we already have. We already get frivolous complaints about users in other forums. We already have to be reasonable about distinguishing groundless complaints from legitimate ones. Friday (talk) 14:46, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

If frivolous complaints are an acknowledged problem, it hardly seems constructive to open the door to more of them. Raymond Arritt 14:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think there would be more? I just think they may show up in yet one additional place. I see no reason to think the overall volume of them would go up. My guess is the number of stupid complaints scales with the overall number of users, not the number of pages upon which the stupid complaints could be put. Friday (talk) 17:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive

I think it is time to archive this thread. It has not yielded a consensus, and is unlikely to in the form it is presented. It is dominating this discussion page and frankly is too long for here. Any actual ideas still being debated could be started fresh here after the archive. Thoughts? 1 != 2 16:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thoughts on what? You archived it in the same edit you propose archiving it. Lara ❤ Love 17:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops, that was in error, I have restored it. I would like to get others thoughts before archiving it. 1 != 2 15:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. It's time to archive it. I am also against starting any new discussions about this. No more proposals (on this page at least). J-ſtan ^Talk _Contribs 22:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of archiving, too. -- Tony Sidaway 23:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. 1 != 2 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)