Wikipedia talk:Requests for de-adminship/Old proposal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arbitration?[edit]

Presumably this process would be an alternative to the existing RFC process for "Use of administrator privileges".

I think it's probably a good first draft. For ten editors to certify a request for de-adminship, there would have to be substantial agreement that the admin was not using his powers correctly.

However if this were the case, wouldn't they be better off calling for arbitration? --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:24, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration seems to only want to take cases of gross abuse of privileges. Even when they do, they are quite hesitant to step in an remove access. The problem I see it is that we probably have admins around who do not have consensus support for retaining status, yet aren't so brazen as to meet the high level of abuse needed by ArbCom. I don't see this process as a replacement for RFC or RFAr. I think it would be a useful community tool to discourage things from getting that far. Like I said, this should not be so out of reach as to be impossible, as it is now.
I might add that abuse of privilege isn't the only use for this process. WP:RFA nominees generally have to be good editors who work well with others. Those qualities are sometimes lost when someone becomes an admin, and that can't be arbitrated. Also, this would be a fine mechanism for removing status of admins who've been missing for a long time. -- Netoholic @ 19:32, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
RFA taking only gross abuse of privileges seems reasonable. Admins make errors, they're human, so a graded response seems reasonable. Having arbcom scrutinize the application seems best, because it completely obviates the troll problem. and prevents these things turning into acrimonious debates. Arbcom has its faults but it's our best guard against this encyclopedia turning into a ruritanian microstate. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
it's an insanely clumsy way of removing admin status from admins who have been away for a while. The flaw is that whether you like it or not there are certain admin actions that while they may have the support of the community tend to piss of the indivdual involved. If I continue to block people uned the 3RR then sooner or latter I am going to annoy ten people. Now we know already that people who are pissed of about something are more likely to vote than those who are not as such in the long run inforcing the 3RR would be risky for an admin who wanted to keep thier status. The same is true to a degree of all admin actions. If you don't like the way arbcom is acting try running yourself next time or try getting people you like to runGeni 21:10, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Ten people would be required to just get past the petition, but the admin still would retain their access unless 80% agree on removal. I think all that together really makes this a solid way of showing consensus. If you are doing good work on enforcing 3RR (and I think you really do), you will have no problem with this. I've been blocked once for 3RR. It was a mistake, and I deserved it, and I would never fault that blocking admin because he handled things perfectly. -- Netoholic @ 21:30, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
You are not going to get 80% in favour of removing admin privaledges unless the admin in question was grossly abusing their powers. And if they are doing that, then the AC will deal with them. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:08, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If you've been doing good admin work, you shouldn't have any trouble finding half a dozen people to vote in your favor, in which case the complainant would need to find 50 established editors in good standing to get you de-admined -- and unless they've got a valid complaint, any effort to round up votes is likely to result in giving you more votes of support. --Carnildo 22:22, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I tend to support the idea behind this policy. Administrators, after all, are supposed to be "...well known and generally trusted member[s] of the community" (says Wikipedia:Administrators), so if the community has lost its faith in an administrator, their priviledges should be removed regardless of whether or not they have been abused. The loss itself should be a sufficient indication that the community no longer trusts a certain administrator and should act as a signal for the administrator to change their ways such that they might regain the trust of the community and therefore administrator status.
Not all loss of faith in adminsitrators can be covered by arbitration cases, after all. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:36, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
It does seem somewhat asymmetric that someone can be denied sysophood on grounds like "copy-edits in line with the MoS, which I greatly dislike", and "has made two mildly peevish remarks in as many months", but once granted it, is highly unlikely to have it removed, even if found to have made any number of "insufficiently serious" breaches of protocol, or indeed policy. On the other hand, I'm wary of the fact that the proposer currently seems to be engaged in disputes with a sysop or two, which isn't necessarily an ideally disinterested position to be in while making such a proposal. I also have reservations about creating parallel tracks, or as mentioned below, creating a procedure not very likely to result in action, but able to absorb a lot of time filing and responding to such requests.
Is there scope for a procedure that rather than end-arounding the arbcom, feeds into its deliberations? For example a similar mechanism as a "petition", leaving the AC with the final decision? Alai 02:28, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reasonable[edit]

I would say that given the high thresholds for removal, this is reasonable.

I'd like to suggest that the criteria for petition might be worded a bit more strongly. There is nothing here right now to address the usual concerns about sockpuppets, brand new accounts, etc.

Jmabel | Talk 20:07, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)


I would support such a procedure. Adminship is granted by the community, it should also be revoked by the community. The "petition" stage is a thoughtful device to prevent admins being pelted with frivoulous requests. However, since some admins as vandal/troll-fighters are exposed to some hostility by resourceful but malicious people, I would suggest additional safeguards, such as:
  • after a failed RfDA, at least two months must have passed before the same admin may be relisted. (ok, I see you have that)
  • the default outcome of the vote (lacking consensus) is that the subject keeps his/her adminship. a clear consensus (roughly 80%) is required to remove adminship.
  • sockpuppet votes are not counted. This is difficult to assess, and I would ask for a minimal number of edits (some 500?) before a user is allowed to vote. I do not think that good-faith new users with fewer than a few hundred edits would feel called to de-admin somebody anyway, so this seems like a decent measure to prevent sock-armies.
dab (ᛏ) 20:32, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree generally. My motivation was to mirror, as closely as possible, the RFA process. I think a one-month spread is sufficient for waiting between petitions/votes. You're right about the "default outcome" being "retain current status" - is this too unclear on the page? Regarding sock puppetry, RFA doesn't make any special note, do you think that's needed here, or is it understood? I'm not sure about a 500-edit minimum; since admins are the "face of Wikipedia" some new users may have reasonable opinions. Like RFA, it is up to the bureaucrat/steward to interpret. -- Netoholic @ 20:40, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
I think it best that it is explicitly stated that sockpuppets are not allowed to vote, and that new editors must have made a "recognisable good-faith contribution" (or would "contributions" be better phrasing? I don't mean a single or handfull of edits, but to take everything a users has contributed as one entity) to the Wikipedia. These terms should not be defined any further than that - a couple of hundred minor corrections should not automatically be treated as inferior or superior to a handful of weighty content additions). Thryduulf 21:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This just looks like another way for Netoholic to cause more trouble - no doubt with Neutrality in mind. Best to leave it well alone, jguk 20:45, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I don't agree. We should look at the proposal, not at who is submitting it. It must be watertight anyway, since regardless of Netoholic's intentions, people will try to use it for mischief. But I do think that the community should be able to de-admin for gross misbehaviour, by broad consensus, without appealing to the arbcom, since the community has elected both admins and arbcom in the first place. dab (ᛏ) 20:53, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
(cross-posted) If my experiences can help fill in a gap in "grand scheme", I am only to happy to help. I'd be lying if I said I couldn't think of a few potential candidates... but then, that's how the RFA process started, too. -- Netoholic @ 20:59, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
Are you playing mind games with us? The acronym DEADMIN can be read as DE-ADMIN or DEAD ADMIN is that what you intend to do to the "bad" admins? I just thought that was funny. BrokenSegue 21:12, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh, LOL. No, it wasn't intentional, but I see it now. I couldn't use "RFD" because that was taken... maybe something like "RFDa"? -- Netoholic @ 21:19, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)
I'd say that anyone should be able to initiate a petition, but that it should still require the signatures of a number of established editors to be moved to the voting stage. --Carnildo 21:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is going to be a disaster, just like quickpolls where. And I agree with jguk - this whole proposal is an attempt to open the doors wide to trolls from a known problem user. →Raul654 21:06, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)

No, Mark, it's not. I am not a "troll supporter", though I sadly am often forced to agree with their observations (not their actions, mind you). I disagree with the behavior of certain admins, and am not afraid to be vocal about it. I really do think the community needs something like this. If it means that the aggressive admins become less aggressive, how is that bad? If it makes promoting someone to adminship more common, knowing there is a way to undo that decision, how is Wikipedia not better off? We need to make it less scary to promote admins, and also less scary to address the bad ones. -- Netoholic @ 21:35, 2005 Mar 14 (UTC)

I'd like to see stringent criteria, such as a minimum of 500 edits in the article namespace, for those who sign the petition in the first place. I'd be willing to reduce the necessary number of signatories of the petition below ten. For the actual vote, the criteria for voting should be the same as for VFD, ie no anonymous votes, suspected sockpuppets disregarded.-gadfium 00:38, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with imposing criteria on petitioners, but then I agree with Tony Sidaway that the petition idea could just as well be implemented within the context of the existing arbitration process. If ten respected users were to ask the Arbitration Committee to desysop somebody, I'm certain the case would be taken very seriously. Nor is it necessary to show "gross abuse" - Guanaco lost his adminship because of cumulative controversy over his actions, not just because he made a mistake counting Cantus's reverts. The procedure-heavy system described here sounds like instruction creep to me. Why not just use requests for comment and if people's concerns there are strong enough, see who's willing to support a request for arbitration? --Michael Snow 01:12, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
To be honest, all of the present systems you've mentioned haven't worked together very well to address this page's function, nor do they truly give a consensus-driven mechanism for the community to decide who its admins should be. ArbCom can still address conflicts and policy violations, and assign penalties for them, but adminship status is ultimately a community decision. The Arbitrators said as much in Guanaco's case. -- Netoholic @ 01:34, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)
The mechanism for a community consensus to decide who should be an admin is requests for adminship. Outside of conflicts and policy violations, are you proposing additional grounds for removing adminship? Otherwise, everything that would be covered belongs in the dispute resolution system, and admin status can be dealt with there as well. I agree that the arbitrators did well to refer the question of Guanaco's adminship to the community for a decision, but I think letting the arbitrators decide when the facts warrant such a referral is reasonable. Better, in my opinion, than creating a formula for initiating deadminship votes that people will quickly learn how to game. --Michael Snow 05:01, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Raul and Michael 100%. --mav 03:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
if we don't need arbitrators to de-feature articles, why do we need arbitrators to de-admin users? The proposed procedure will make it very difficult to get through with a request, and it will only work in very obvious cases. I predict it will take quite some time before the first successful RfDA. The point of this will be to remind admins that they are not above the law, as a sort of deterrence, more than a tool that will actually be used. Oh, sure, there will be a couple of requests right away, but paint me surprised if they even get past the petition stage, no harm done. dab (ᛏ) 07:04, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The proposed procedure will make it very difficult to get through with a request, and it will only work in very obvious cases. - and of course, we're suppose to take your word on this, because you have no idea any more than the rest of us do. Now that you've made your prediction, let me reiterate mine - this proposal is very reminiscent of quickpolls, and those were an unmitigated disaster. It is a proposal full of potential abuses, and is designed to address a non-existant problem (de-adminship is *VERY, VERY* rare, and it is supposed to be that way. In the long time I have been here, it has happened only twice). This proposal has no hope of solving any problems, but will definitely cause them. →Raul654 08:21, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)
um, yeah, that's my prediction. I don't really see the potential for abuse, in spite of your reiteration. It is very different from a quickpoll, hell it needs a petition before the vote even starts. If I found myself the subject of an RfDA, and 80% of people wanted me gone, I'd lay down my adminship without further ado, within the minute. this procedure is aimed at the future. De-admining has been very very rare so far, but then how long has it been that admins number in the hundreds? How long is it since admins started to indulge in "blocking wars"? The process to de-feature articles is more recent than the process to feature articles, and it was introduced simply because it became desireable at some point. I agree that there is no urgent need for this at the moment, but I do feel that admins' behaviour is often not as far beyond reproach as it used to be, or as it should be, and I am afraid that some admins consider their privileges inviolable; the mere existence of this procedure may help them to recover a more reasonable attitude. dab (ᛏ) 09:32, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The RFA process is intended to determine whether a non-administrator has the trust of the community in order to be made an admin. 80% of the people voting represents a consensus that the person can be trusted with the admin powers. Should not the administrator be required to maintain the trust of the community? Why shouldn't an admin proposed for being de-admined not be required to obtain 80% support again to continue? The main reason that I can think of is that this gives too much weight to people who may have recently had cause to complain about perfectly reasonable actions by an admin. Requiring them to maintain the trust of 80% of the community might paralyze the admins (or else pressure them to escalate their actions into permanent or long-term blocks so as to rid themselves of people apt to oppose them in a de-sysop measure). Each "no" vote equals four "yes" votes when 80% "consensus to continue" must be achieved, and that gives too much weight to a disenchanted minority. Still requiring an 80% consensus to remove a sysop essentially entrenches the sysops, since has been pointed out, it is almost impossible to achieve that even with an extremely controversial admin. We just should not have admins who are "extremely controversial". I would propose, therefore, that if an admin cannot maintain the trust of a majority of the community (i.e. 50%) he should have his admin powers removed. --BM 20:18, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The standard receiving for adminship is the trust of the community. If that trust is lost, adminship should be too. However, those who have been blocked or otherwise sanctioned by the admin should probably not be allowed to vote. The standard should be whether those unaffected by alleged abuses have lost trust, just as those involved in a case cannot sit on a jury. With that in mind, something like a 2/3 vote among those satisfying a reasonable time/edits standard should be sufficient to de-admin. Michael Ward 00:37, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What would "or otherwise sanctioned" consist of? "Editor in good standing" is easy to determine: not banned, not a sockpuppet or anon, and not under any ArbCom order. "Established editor" is too: x hundred edits. "Blocked by the admin" is easy to determine. But "otherwise sanctioned" is open to a wide range of interpretations. --Carnildo 00:59, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, maybe just blocks. But I was actually thinking about the great pie fight (WP:LAME) & the associated arbcom case. Anyway, it's intended to address the issue raised by Geni. Michael Ward 03:03, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
While banned users, sock puppets, and anons cannot vote, keep in mind that WP:RFA allows those who have been "blocked or otherwise sanctioned" and those under ArbCom order to vote on the promotion of a candidate. We can't disallow voters just because of their history, nor can we disallow those with less than x hundred edits. As for those that were "blocked by the admin", we have to allow their votes. If, for example, an adminstrator has a history of questionable blocks, are you saying we should not allow those impacted to vote? No, the same users who can vote to promote an admin should be allowed to vote to demote. Who is going to be the one to point to another editor and say "you can't vote"? I trust that all things will balance out in the long run, just as they do with WP:RFA. -- Netoholic @ 01:22, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

the problem from the other direction[edit]

We know that admins that mess up are able to maintain at least 50% support without any real problems for example Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Guanaco. Judging by his talk page User:172 would also be able to keep his adminship under there proposed system (although we do not not in that case what arbcom will do yetGeni 09:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree. I can't imagine a case where an administrator would have less than 20% support without having misbehaved so thoroughly as to have been deadminned by the arbcom already. On the other hand, with a one-month waiting period between requests and a one-week voting period, I can easily see plenty of admins spending one week out of five on this page for the forseeable future. —Korath (Talk) 11:21, Mar 15, 2005 (UTC)

The percentage cut-off (80%) was taken right from RFA. I would not be opposed to reducing both cut-offs in the future, once it shown that we have a process which can handle the more controversial admins. I suspect the only reason the current RFA bar is set so high is due to the fact that reversals are so rare and hard to acquire. -- Netoholic @ 17:18, 2005 Mar 15 (UTC)

Easy to abuse?[edit]

In my opinion, given the way this proposal is currently structured, I think that it would be very easy to abuse. I see it highly likely that it would be regularly used by some of the Wikipedia's more problematic editors to harass administrators who were just doing routine work and not abusing their powers. Any administrator who regularly handles page protections, for example, often gets grief from both sides of the dispute from the protected page, and would likely get RFDA's filed against them.

I am especially concerned by User:Netoholic's statement: "I might add that abuse of privilege isn't the only use for this process." My position is that de-adminship should only be done for abuse of administrative privileges (also see point #2 below).

Here are my proposals to avoid some of the problems that I see:

  1. This procedure should only be used after an WP:RFC has been filed for the particular administrator and where, after a reasonable amount of time (1 week?), the comments from a fair number of people (>6 ?) in the RFC appear to show consensus for action on that administrator.
  2. This procedure should only be used to handle an administrator's abuse of their administrative privileges. Everything else can and should be handled through the other Wikipedia dispute procedures.
  3. There should be a third step in the process: If a clear consensus has been shown, then the information should be passed on to the Arbitration Committee who would made a final decision, which could include restricted use of some administrator privileges, a temporary ban on the use of administrator privileges, or a removal of administrator privileges (or even additional sanctions if they feel the case should have been a RFAR).
  4. If it appears that there are Wikipedia editors who are abusing this procedure, the Arbitration Committee can also issue sanctions against those individuals. BlankVerse ∅ 06:42, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • All of the processes you've laid out exist already, and this process would be easily redundant the way that you explained it. Essentially, you've turned this into a polling system which has absolutely no teeth. Grunt said it best above - "if the community has lost its faith in an administrator, their privileges should be removed regardless of whether or not they have been abused". This is about trust, and whether an admin is continuing to put the "best face forward" for Wikipedia. Think about this -- what are the top reasons current RFA nominations fail? It isn't(usually) because a nominee has broken some policy. Sometimes, its because they haven't edited enough, they haven't helped with maintenance, have been away for a while, doesn't leave edit summaries, doesn't have anything on their user page... all have been said to be valid reasons for opposing a nominee. Well, if an admin started showing that they weren't involved in the project enough, maybe started getting sloppy with their editing, or heck, even made some bad choices, the sum total could lead to a consensus that the Wikipedia community no longer believes in that admin. -- Netoholic @ 07:45, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
    • Then you need to suggest some other way(s) of preventing abuse of this procedure, because as it currently stands you've made it way to easy to file an RFDA. That means that the procedure is definitely going to be abused and be used as a method of harassing administrators. Even if few or no administrators eventually get removed using this procedure (especially since the most egregious cases are still going to end up at WP:RFAR), too many admins are still going to end up wasting plenty of time that would be better spent watching after vandalism (e.g. Willy on Wheels), etc. And even if they aren't removed, some of them will end up deciding that helping the Wikipedia just isn't worth the hassle (which is what many of the people who will file an RFDA will probably hope for).
    • Furthermore, I still don't see why this additional m:Instruction creep is necessary. Perhaps you can provide some examples (either in the abstract, or specific cases, since you've said that you had particular administrators in mind when you wrote this procedure) where an administrator would probably not get sanctioned by the ArbComm, but would still need to be removed as an administrator. BlankVerse ∅ 09:13, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've already proposed all the "anti-abuse" mechanisms that I think are warranted, without adding too much instruction creep. The petition stage means that someone has to get ten users together who agree. That's not so easy unless there is a real problem. The thing to think about is this... even if an admin isn't ultimately voted out here, I think that the feedback they get would be very helpful. I think RFA does that as well, because failed nominees there get the feedback. The presence of this process here also will have a positive impact. I don't see any cause for appealing to fear over this.

You also asked about specific examples. I think that, because some people are using my disputes as an argument against this process, I'll hold off. I personally don't plan to open any requests myself right away, because I don't want that to distract from what can be a very positive thing. In general terms, I would say those admins that perform their tasks without professionalism are the most endangered. There is no reason an admin has to be a jerk in the course of their activities. I'd also say that any admin who uses their abilities (or status) to help them win editing/content disputes is probably going to see themselves here. -- Netoholic @ 15:25, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)

"anti-abuse" mechanisms?: That is definitely the weakest part of your proposal. I can easily see four or five disgruntled Wikipedia editors who will vote for every proposed RFDA if this proposal passes. A quick troll (as in fishing) through an admin's Talk page should easily allow for recruiting the other half dozen votes necessary to pass to the second part of this procedure. That means that with such a low number necessary to pass to the petition step, that every nomination for an active administrator will qualify. But as discussed above in " the problem from the other direction", it will be very hard, if not impossible, to reach the 80% vote for de-adminship (and NO!, I don't think that the definition of 70-80% consensus should be changed, and especially not to something as low as as 50% like User:BM suggested). That means that this procedure can only be used as a method of harassing administrators. The only admins that probably won't be nominated for RFDA's are those who haven't been doing their jobs, but those are the ones that should be removed as administrators. IMHO, I think that even 20 users to qualify the Petition stage is too low a number for the petition step, and it should be at least 25-30 users. BlankVerse ∅ 10:40, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vacations, etc[edit]

What if a case is made against an Administrator when he or she is away? Shouldn't some type of similiar line of questioning be presented? -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:58, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Valid question. For RFA's, the nominee has to sign in and accept the nomination. I don't have a specific solution in mind, but then I also wouldn't want to see an admin suddenly "go on vacation" to avoid a de-admin petition/vote. I think the best we could do is insist that the requestor notify the admin on their talk page that a petition is open (ala RFAr). Any better ideas? -- Netoholic @ 08:08, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
How about "The poll doesn't close until 7 days after the admin returns from vacation; any edit made from the admin's account is considered a return from vacation"? --Carnildo 08:24, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That would leave requests on the page longer than the 7 normal days, which would make maintenance tricky. I'd say that we don't need the admin here for the petition phase, so maybe we can play it by ear if this comes up, and maybe ask the petitioners to delay voting until the admin's return (seems a reasonable courtesy). This shouldn't come up too often. Keep in mind, though, this process might be appropriate for removing sysop flags from those who've left the project and won't be coming back. -- Netoholic @ 16:23, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
The petition phase doesn't need to be in the presence of the Admin concerned, although they should be notified there is a petition in progress. The second phase shouldn't start until it is clear that the admin is present, probably defined as having made edits to wp after having been informed on their talk page that a petition has been successful. If the admin makes a request to defer the action for a specified length of time then this should be honoured, e.g. if they say that they're going on holiday in a days time and ask for it to be deferred unitl they get back on (date). If it becomes clear through their edits that they aren't actually away, then the process should start regardless of their request. Thryduulf 16:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
If flags are to be removed for those who have left, I think it should automatically happen after e.g. 3 months with no edits. If they do return they can request adminship again, pointing out that they did have it and lost it only through abscence not abuse. I don't think this process should be used for that, to remove any misunderstanding (intentional or otherwise) that any removal of adminship by RFDA indicates that they were abusing it. Thryduulf 16:55, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think both of Thryduulf's suggestions are good ones and should be adopted. PedanticallySpeaking 18:49, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)

Strong oppose[edit]

I'm strongly opposed to all voting on wikipedia, and this is no exception.

Admins that do a lot of work will also create some opposition. Even a godlike being that makes only 1 mistake in 100 descisions will rack up quite a number of people who have scores to settle with them over time, and that's not counting people who actively do bans and such and risk direct emnity. (Especially if that 1 in 100 ban was a true and terrible mistake.) This looks like quickpolls all over. :-/

Kim Bruning 13:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Kim, honestly, this is nothing like quickpolls and I wish people would stop making that false analogy. This is based on the well-accepted mechanism of WP:RFA. If an admin has "racked up" enough emnity to convince 80% of people (something we usually call consensus) that they no longer deserve to be an admin, how can we say they should still be one? If an admin is very active in applying blocks, bans, etc. - and doing so appropriately - there is no chance that this process will remove them. -- Netoholic @ 14:52, 2005 Mar 16 (UTC)
I agree. It's probably rather worse than quickpolls :-P. I'd expect a rapid turnover in admins were this to be implemented (as per the motivation above). Note that WP:RFA is only grudgingly accepted as the solution that sucks least.
I'd like to reiterate that only a Practically Perfect Person would likely be able to do admin tasks Practically Perfectly, but -for some strange reason- we haven't been able to get her as an admin.
Having said that, it's nice to see someone at least look at this situation and try to come up with something! :-) Kim Bruning 09:06, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I would think that to say we'd have a "rapid turnover" doesn't fit with how I and others see this starting off. The first few requests will probably not result in de-adminship. I am hesistant to say they will "fail", since at least the admin will have gotten some feedback. We don't need admins to be Perfect, just to get the job done while keeping the communities support. Some behaviors may need to change, but I think this can only be for the good. -- Netoholic @ 16:16, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
Well, as you've proabably managed to make out from what I'm saying, I disagree with your vision on how this policy will turn out in practice. Like they say: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions". I truely believe you mean well, but frankensteins monster also seemed like a good idea at the time :-) Kim Bruning 17:17, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
As Boris Karloff used to say: "You can't get the parts, these days." --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:28, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kim's assessment. There has been a "requests for de-adminship" page before, discontinued over a year ago. The problem was that certain users would use the page to list any admin who did something which which they did not agree. Since adminship and its opposite is a serious matter, these requests mandated some sort of response, and took a lot of energy.

But there is a broader problem. Admins are, as a rule, loathe to do anything to upset other users. To be an admin in everyone's good graces, you have to be (a) visible and (b) uncontroversial. This has already gone too far, and the result is that we have made pariahs of admins who make an effort to be involved in important but inherently controversial matters. In setting up a means for removing adminship by consensus, such people will be penalized even more.

Finally, removing by consensus adminship that was once granted is enough of a personal affront that substantially all users thus treated will leave the project.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:20, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you really saying that this is the one area of Wikipedia where consensus would be unwelcome because an individual might take it personally? Assuming we can have safeguards from over-zealous requests, I don't see how any admin should continue to have that status if we can demonstrate consensus that it should be taken away. -- Netoholic @ 19:24, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

Line of questioning for nominators and admin[edit]

I believe that a line of questions should be given to the nominators and the administrator in question.

This is to follow in line with the same nomination process that is given at RFA. This furthers the prevent of abuse by requiring the nominators from vote stacking and quick polling. By answering these questions, it prevents anyone from giving a quick detail equivalent of "I hate this person. Die Die Die."

Questions for the nominators:

  1. In your own words, why do you feel that your nomination to de-admin is necessary?
  2. Would the de-admin of the administrator in question be beneficial to the project?
  3. How do you feel that the administrator in question has no longer held the trust of the Wikipedia community?
    • In order to better assist in understanding your support for the de-adminship of this particular administrator, please state whether you have had an issue with this particular administrator in the past.
    • In order to help the community to make a decision, please cite a few examples where you believe the administrator in question has abused their sysop powers and tell us why you believe it was an abuse of sysop powers.

Questions for the administrator in question:

  1. In your own words, why do you feel it is necessary for you to keep your sysop status?
  2. What sysop chores have you been helping with since your adminship?
  3. What sysop chores would you stop helping with if you lose your sysop status?
  4. Since your adminship, have you been in any conflicts over editing or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
  5. What do you believe caused this nomination of your de-adminship to occur?
  6. Why do you believe you have lost the faith of the community to hold your sysop status?
  7. What assurances can you give to the community in order to restore the faith of the community to hold your sysop status?

-- AllyUnion (talk) 13:39, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I expect a lot of those questions will be asked during a RFDa, which is why I wanted to make sure all the conversation go to the talk page. I'd rather not bake those specific questions into the process (just to reduce instruction overload), but if someone added similar questions to the talk page discussion, it might make sense.
I have one problem though... I've tried to take some of the ego out of the process, namely by giving only a very few things for the requestor to do. I know some people are timid, or perhaps aren't very articulate, and really wanted this to not be too confrontational. Sometimes, even, the initiator (maybe that's a better word than requestor) isn't the one that's had the most problems with the admin. By asking a series of questions like that, you're really putting the requestor "on the spot" to have to speak for everyone else. We don't do that for RFA (the nominator usually stays out of it). I'd rather we address all questions to the administrator in question, rather than making a straw man out of the initiator. -- Netoholic @ 14:38, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
Most of the questions to the administrator you're proposing here are all so-called loaded questions, so you'll have to take a good look and try to see how you can fix them.
The questions to admins also presume a lot of things about admin activity that simply aren't true or required of admins at this point in time, so that de-facto you'd change the way admin policy works. That's ok, but you'll have to formulate that elsewhere and get a consensus on that first.
The question list for nominators is really more something that should be decided by the arbitration committee as opposed to by majority vote, so *none* of those reasons are going to be such a great idea to ask here.
finally:
  • "please state whether you have had an issue with this particular administrator in the past". This is redundant, because the nominator will always have an issue with the administrator, that's why they'd want them to be de-adminned.
So you've been doing some good thinking, but this portion will need a bit more work. :-) Kim Bruning 14:46, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thryduulf's comments on AllyUnion's proposed questions[edit]

Questions for the nominators 2. "Would the de-admin of the administrator in question be beneficial to the project?" I think this question is pointless as I cannot see any petitioner answering anything other than "yes".

4.1 "In order to better assist in understanding your support for the de-adminship of this particular administrator, please state whether you have had an issue with this particular administrator in the past." I think that in order to get a better response it would be better phrased as:

  • Please give a brief summary of any disputes you have had with this administrator in the past, inlcuding when it took place. If you have had no disputes, please state this.

4.2 "In order to help the community to make a decision, please cite a few examples where you believe the administrator in question has abused their sysop powers and tell us why you believe it was an abuse of sysop powers." I'd change this to

  • Please cite a few examples where you believe that the administrator in question has abused their administative powers. Please clearly state which powers you beleive have been abused in each instance. Make sure you give at least one example for each power you feel has been abused. Thryduulf 14:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Questions for the administrators I'd replace/reorder these to

  1. Please give a brief summary of any disputes you have had with this nominator in the past, inlcuding when it took place, that are not listed above or where you disagree with the summary. If you have had no disputes, or do not wish to add or disagree with any of the above list, please state this.
  2. Since your adminship, have you been in any conflicts over editing or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and will deal with it in the future?
  3. What do you believe caused this nomination of your de-adminship to occur?
  4. Why do you believe you have lost the faith of the community to hold your sysop status?
  5. What sysop chores have you been helping with since your adminship?
  6. What assurances can you give to the community in order to restore the faith of the community to hold your sysop status?

3 "What sysop chores would you stop helping with if you lose your sysop status?" This is pointless, as if they lose their sysop status they cannot by definition help with any sysop chores. Thryduulf 14:58, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ah, not it's not, for two reasons. One, it would be nice to know that they are currently doing that someone else will have to take over. Two, many admins do stuff that doesn't need admin access, but might stop doing that too if they were censured (e.g. I archive WP:AN, but would stop doing so if I weren't an admin any more). Noel (talk) 19:12, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Oh like you mean "things I'll stop doing because I can't stand upto all the mudslinging like a man!" ? ^^;; Kim Bruning 21:03, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The previous questions asks what they are currently doing, we would still know that. I see what you mean about archiving tasks, technically they are not "sysop" tasks as originally phrased if they do not require sysop status. The "admin" phrasing is more ambiguous, and if included we ought to make it clear what we relate to unless someone can come up with better terminology. Thryduulf 22:09, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All very interesting, but...[edit]

This still looks like instruction creep to me. It's a doddle to call a RfC on an admin, and if you get, say, ten users signing on to a motion that arbcom should investigate this admin's conduct, amounting to a rough consensus of those who comment on the matter, it's a dead cert for an arbcom case.

Conversely, if you build this apparatus specifically to unseat administrators by vote, don't be surprised if administrators on the whole tend to make "no" votes as a matter of principle. Administrators should have the confidence of the editors, but that doesn't mean they won't be very unpopular from time to time, and the temptation to get rid of an otherwise worthy administrator because of his stance on this or that issue may well be brought into play by this kind of mechanism. I can think of several administrators who would probably come close to losing a "beauty contest" like this but could not be fairly described as poor admins. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 15:27, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is no more a "beauty contest" than WP:RFA - we probably miss out on appointing people who would make good admins, due to politics, unpopularity, etc. I think you have to accept that in any promotion process. With RFDa, I do expect (though hope to avoid) that initially, people will vote to oppose de-adminships as a matter of principle, rather than on merit. I think that once we have this process part of the normal activities here, those people will see this can be a good tool to ensure our admin ranks have wide support of the community. I really hope also that this will devolve some power back to the community, and that this will eventually get rid of notions that there is an admin cabal since the control rests so close.
You mentioned also RFC/Arbcom. The problem is that you assume a de-adminship must only be the result of repeated abusive behavior. Long periods of inactivity, general discourtesy, and repeated minor concerns across multiple areas cannot be RFC'd, let alone Arbitrated, yet could all be factors in a decision about whether the admin still has the support of the community. -- Netoholic @ 16:06, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)
Eh? It's just a Mop And Bucket! "Support of the community" makes it sound like we're talking about The President or something ^^;; Are you sure you're not posting this on the wrong wiki or something? Kim Bruning 17:11, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Err, there's a reason we have WP:RFA. If it was really just a Mop and Bucket, we wouldn't need a huge and debated policy about how to hand it out. ugen64 05:34, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Inactivity is a valid point, and it's not clear to me that having large numbers of admins who don't perform 'admin tasks' makes any sense. That seems to be drifting towards treating purely as a "merit badge". But who says discourtesy isn't handled with the present procedures? A recent RFA vote went down in flames following citation of a couple of mind-bogglingly mild examples of candidate grumpiness, so I'd certainly hope that RFCs and Arb. on such matters would be taken seriously. The 'repeated minor concerns' I'd want to see drawn out in rather more detail. Alai 08:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is a proposal, and nothing more.[edit]

I don't understand how the above discussion can be construed as anything other than an obvious lack of consensus, and I think some sort of notice is required which labels the page as a proposal, and nothing more. This page has no endorsement from anyone with the technical wherewithal to bring about a removal of sysop privileges, and therefore cannot have any practical results; to avoid confusion, it should be so labeled. — Dan | Talk 04:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Petititions and votes should not be restricted. That is un-wiki. We do not need endorsement of anyone technical. At this point, nothing can come out of thie but discussion UNTIL we get a request which meets the 80% standard. When we show that to a steward, I don't know how they can say consensus wasn't met. -- Netoholic @ 05:42, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Another idea[edit]

Although this has echoes of Quickpolls: would it appease some of you to have, say, a 30 day trial (or possibly shorter, as it shouldn't take that long to measure the effectiveness) period? I strongly doubt that anyone will actually receive 80% consensus for de-adminship, but if the policy fails especially badly, then we can dump it and be done with it. ugen64 05:22, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would not time-limit it. We need this process, however it is designed. I think the current wording is enough to limit trolls, and I think it will work well. Tweaks can always be made, so limiting to 30 days isn't necessary. I would like this to be opened up. I just don't see the harm in forging ahead. -- Netoholic @ 05:39, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
Oh, I don't either, but it'll get more support if we time-limit it. ugen64 05:41, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
And who is/how are we going to figure out if it was a success at the end of that time or not? If this process doesn't work, we fix it. If it still doesn't get used... well... then that would show our admins aren't a problem and that is a good thing. -- Netoholic @ 05:44, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
Good point. ugen64 05:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

When will this proposed policy be put to a vote?[edit]

When will this proposed policy be put to a vote? Jayjg (talk) 06:20, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Like I said above... why vote? If something doesn't work, we fix it. Each specific nomination will be its own vote. WP:RFA wasn't "ratified", and it is un-wiki to prevent a petition from forming. This page just gives a suggested process and a central location for such discussions. -- Netoholic @ 06:34, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
Policy requires a vote to be implemented. There is no process for de-adminning besides ArbCom; if you want to create a new one, you'll need to get community support. Jayjg (talk) 06:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It depends on the interpretation of policy. I don't see this as requiring any more "ratification" than WP:RFA, WP:FAC, etc. ever needed. What I don't want is for this page to be "locked in" to the current written procedures, because we may need to change them. -- Netoholic @ 07:13, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
It's not locked into anything, since it's just a personal page you're working on. If it ever becomes an actual process (after a real vote, of course), then the issue will be more serious. Jayjg (talk) 07:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think that's disingenuous, Netoholic. If this page is intended merely as a "holding pen for petitions with no force of policy", then it needs to be reworded a great deal. And you ought to refrain from linking to it from policy pages without qualification. In fact, you ought to do that in any event. Alai 07:02, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
No, it is not disingenuous, it is sad fact. A steward (Angela) was the one that shut the page down my adding a notice to the top. I wish I could say that if a vote garnered 80% in favor of de-adminship that the stewards would abide by the consensus demonstrated. Certainly, it seems there is a group of people that have no desire to see this procedure active. -- Netoholic @ 07:13, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
Shut it down? But there was no basis for having purported to have "started it up" in the first place. Alai 07:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nor any "consensus demonstrated" for anything here. Jayjg (talk) 07:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Answer to the original question is apparently is "about six months ago". Wondering just how many links from policy pages Netoholic had unilaterally added, I came across this: Wikipedia:Administrators/Administrator Accountability Policy. Alai 07:33, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Netoholic's Law - As a wiki discussion grows longer, the probability of an accusation by one user of another acting unilaterally approaches one. I've made thousands of "unilateral" edits, so have you.
As to your point, the AAP seems to have proposed something like this, but tied in with a number of other changes. I don't see any other connection, since this concept (and links) have been around for a long time. All I see is that some process is needed here. If you have improvements to suggest, please do. -- Netoholic @ 07:58, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Straw poll[edit]

Support[edit]

  1. I just want to note that I am very much in support of this. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Okay, I'll put a constructive reason here that has nothing to do with Maraschino cherries. This proposed policy, like so many others, would be a work in progress - an organic policy, so to speak (like the rest of the wiki). If 10 petitions is too lax, then we raise it to 20 petitions. If sockpuppet usage is rampant, we create a minimum number of edits. If users are constantly being harassed, we put a strict time limit for de-adminship requests. So on and so forth. We have no idea if this exact policy, with its detailed guidelines, will fail miserably (cf. Quickpolls) or if it will lead to all admins (not just the "bad admins" or whatever) being more careful with their privileges. And yes, I am an admin. ugen64 20:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) Oh, screw it. I give up. ugen64 05:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  3. I also support this proposal, but I think the threshold should be lower than 80%. Rhobite 05:02, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  4. I agree in principle as well. 119 05:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. We need this process. This is as good of a start as I've seen, being based on the WP:RFA process, with some protection from abuse. It is not set in stone, and we can fix it as we go. I think it should "open for business" as soon as possible. -- Netoholic @ 07:18, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
  6. Support the concept; could probably use some tweaking. --Carnildo 07:47, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  7. I support this concept, I'm not convinced the wording is quite correct yet though. You can only get Admin status when the community feels you deserve it, so there should be a mechanism to remove it if the community feels you no longer hold their trust. Thryduulf 09:36, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. I support in principle, but the details need to be worked out better. dab (ᛏ) 09:54, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. Agree with dab. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 15:21, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
  10. Support --Mrfixter 16:24, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. support, ARBCom is like a slap on the wrist. Everyking's continual working around his decision is proof that something like this needs to be done.  ALKIVAR™ 11:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Everyking has been put before the arbcom again, and I think the ruling will be harsher this time. I suspect Everyking to be a model of how the arbcom does work to restrain problem admins. Snowspinner 17:02, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  12. Support - users must have the right of recall. I hope it rarely needs to be used. Warofdreams 15:44, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  13. I strongly support the concept, so long as it mirrors RFA. I'm pretty sure that this can't get out of control if petitioners have valid arguments and sockpuppets are fenced out. --Merovingian (t) (c) (w) 05:44, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  14. Support the general idea, and maybe the details. --SPUI (talk) 14:16, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  15. Strong support.-PlasmaDragon 20:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  16. Strong support - "dispute resolution" and "arbitration" by sysops simply don't address the problem. Pwqn 18:05, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. Support. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Kaldari 22:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  18. Support - If admins don't have the support of the community then they shouldn't be admins.--GD 01:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  19. Support in principle (details might need need tweaking). — mark ✎ 11:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  20. Support as a minor step to deflect alledged claims of a cabal of admins (most members of which are voting oppose). Given that it only takes 20% to stop an RfA, and adminship is "no big deal", I think there is even a case for lowering the threshold here to 20%, so that a group of self-protecting admins cannot block de-adminship. --Audiovideo 01:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  21. Support, admins should be responsible for their actions. Grue 13:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  22. We need this policy. --Bart133 (t) 22:53, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  23. Oops, missed this one. Well I support the idea and want that noted, even if it is now dead. Dan100 09:32, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Oppose[edit]

  1. Raul, Mav, and others have said all there is to say about this. Snowspinner 05:34, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  2. No, thank you. RickK 07:36, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  3. I think it's pretty clear that this is a fundemenatally flawed proposal (designed to solve a nonexistent problem) that will in turn create far worse issues. →Raul654 07:43, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  4. What Mav and Raul said. Jayjg (talk) 07:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  5. I oppose, and wonder how many votes Netoholic, Rhobite, and Blankfaze are going to make it look like they have, without specifically numbered votes here, and their multiple comments above? --John Owens (talk) 10:02, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
    You forgot me. ugen64 21:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  6. This has been tried before. It didn't work then, and the page was redirected to WP:RFC, which proved to be a more useful part of the dispute resolution process than voting for de-adminship. I don't think the recent changes to the proposed procedure are enough to make this any different from the last time this was tried, and the whole thing seems too similar to quickpolls, which have also failed in the past. Angela. 10:11, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  7. Oppose (I've already signalled my opposition above, but as John Owens suggests, my clear comment above might not be counted as an oppose by some people) jguk 10:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  8. Oppose arbcom can handle this better and probably quicker.Geni 10:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. Absolutely agree with User:Raul654. I will be very surpised if most of the 400 admins don't rush over here to vote this down. BlankVerse ∅ 10:50, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    First, I doubt 201 admins would rush over here and oppose this :). Second, I count five admins (including one ArbCom member) in support. It simply seems like the community is divided - it's not admins vs. trolls.
    Also note that 1/3rd of that "support" is qualified support of the concept, but not necessarily support of the this particular proposal as it is currently written. BlankVerse ∅ 03:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  10. Oppose. Seems like a solution in search of a problem. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  11. Oppose, I find it ironic that I'm opposing in poll form here ;-) . My motivations are stated in discussion above. Kim Bruning 14:03, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. There just aren't enough rogue admins for this to be useful. Vacuum c 14:52, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
    It's funny how half of the opposition deals with how this could be abused, and the other half deals with how it is not strong enough... ugen64 21:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. This proposed policy as it stands will be too open to abuse by problem editors. If an admin abuses their power then it should be ArbCom that deals with them. Rje 15:35, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  14. If an admin is so doubted by the community, I have no doubts that the ArbCom would take up the case. The existing procedure is quite good enough, thank you very much. Smoddy (tgec) 18:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. Neutralitytalk 19:06, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  16. Format is bad enough to reject outright. I still don't believe the proponents have demonstrated a need for this to be implemented outside of the existing dispute resolution process. Learn how to use the tools you have, don't reinvent them in forms that nobody knows how to use properly. --Michael Snow 19:09, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  17. Oppose, de-adminship, like all serious sanctions against established editors, is the domain of the Arbitration Committee, and I think it should remain that way. —Stormie 20:44, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
  18. Thoughtful oppose. I have spent some time deliberating the merits of this, and while I can certainly see why many people would be in favor of it, I think that such a petition/vote would be too fraught with popularity politics to be truly fair. In addition, I do not think that the case has been adequately made that ArbCom is insuffient, and that the solution is to include an additional layer of bureaucracy. – ClockworkSoul 13:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  19. Oppose (I suppose a "thoughtless" oppose since I haven't characterized it as thoughtful, heh) - This is a problem in that I do believe we need a means of recalling Admins without resorting to ArbCom rulings (i.e., the community needs its OWN voice, not just the voice of those speaking for us). However, I'm not sure that this is the way. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 17:19, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
  20. Oppose. The result of this will be admins who are too timid to act, or who must waste time on a regular basis justifying themselves in a hostile forum. -- Cyrius|✎ 18:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  21. Oppose. I would like to see evidence that the current dispute resolution system has major problems that the new system would address. I don't support adding more bureaucracy without a very good reason. It also concerns me that the main proponent seems to have an axe to grind with at least one admin. Carbonite | Talk 19:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Agree. Netoholic is just trying to defame Neutrality and Snowspinner (who are pushing a request for arbitration against him.) Vacuum c 15:08, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  22. Oppose. No need for new policy while the present system still works. I would like to see strong evidence that present policy is incapable of resolving these disputes. New policies only add more redtape to wiki and should be avoided unless present mechanisms really break down. kaal 23:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  23. Oppose. john k 05:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  24. Oppose I guess. In principle I agree with the idea that there should be a clearer mechanism to de-Admin a user. I've seen admins behaving badly with block wars and the like. And I've also seen the ArbCom respond disappointingly. On the other hand, the arguments against this particular proposal are quite strong too. I'm a little on the fence, but ultimately I guess de-Admin'ing is not yet a common enough problem to require a new procedure. -- Solipsist 08:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  25. Oppose. I'm undecided as to whether we need a separate mechanism, but even if we do, this is not it. The high percentage of votes required and lax repetition rate will drive administrators off of Wikipedia entirely long before it succeeds in stripping adminship from any of them. —Korath (Talk) 15:39, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  26. Oppose. It's not clear why this proposal is needed. Gdr 16:49, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)
  27. Oppose. Wikipedia is not democracy. You may vote for articles, but a person is a too serious matter to be voted by a vast minority of editors. Mikkalai 17:11, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    Just out of curiosity, are you also opposed to the current WP:RFA system? --Carnildo 19:13, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  28. Oppose, for now. In future (probably distant, when rogue admins are numerous and obnoxious) this proposal may be of use; at this point of time ArbCom seems to be sufficient.—Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 18:38, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
  29. Oppose. This won't work, see above. Oh, and polls are evil, of course :) -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  30. Oppose. Don't fix what ain't broken.(Don't complicate things.)--Jondel 03:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  31. Oppose. Arwel 03:57, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  32. A procedure like this can only be justified if administrator abuse is a significant problem. It is not. The only purpose this policy can serve is providing revenge for problem users who are disciplined by admins. →Iñgōlemo← talk 04:11, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
  33. Gah. No. I'm not giving a mandate to trolls to harrass any admin who dares to do the painful stuff (3RR blocks, etc.). Ambi 05:36, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  34. Oppose, removing admin powers is a big deal. As such the AC needs to deal with it. Theresa Knott (ask the rotten) 08:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  35. Oppose. -- RM 14:25, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
  36. Oppose. See comments. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  37. Oppose. Wave of vandalism is much important problem to take care of. Pavel Vozenilek 18:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  38. Solution in search of a problem, and likely to attract politicking and frivolous claims. Adminship isn't that big a deal anyway, and in the few cases where an admin misuses their technical abilities, the damage is reversible. Isomorphic 21:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  39. It's all been said already. older ≠ wiser 00:37, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  40. Oppose. Brilliant idea. Would never work. Why not have one year tenure for the admin role, and then be subject to a revote. Noisy | Talk 21:30, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Probably because keeping 80% in favor of retaining adminship is harder than finding 80% supporting removal of it. Also, why should we have to wait a full year? -- Netoholic @ 21:45, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
  41. Oppose. Not only is this policy far too easy to vandalise with no way to fairly prevent the vandalism (thus a major loophole which a Wikipedia policy shouldn't have). Also, admins could be targeted just for things such as reverting articles fairly, and upsetting that user. The arbitration committee is a much better way to run de-adminship. Hedley 22:41, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC) (talk)
  42. Oppose. Leave this problem to ArbCom. Anything truly bad enough to get 80% in favor of revoking administrative rights is likely to be enough to convince the ArbCom to revoke administrative rights as well, without making some silly pretense of voting. Kelly Martin 22:50, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  43. Strongly oppose. Wikipedia is not an experiment in democracy. --iMb~Meow 01:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  44. Solution in search of a problem, likely to attract frivolous claims and harassment, redundant, etc. Andre (talk) 02:16, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
  45. Oppose, RFA is the appropriate place to take such a request. I regard the initial petition filed under this page as being in bad-faith since this proposal is not yet policy, nor likely to become policy judging by this straw poll.-gadfium 03:10, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  46. Oppose, I don't want to lose my power. Raise the bar for adminship. Dmn / Դմն 17:19, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • comment: Unless you abusing your powers there should be no question of you losing them. Thryduulf 18:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  47. Oppose, Netoholic is just trying to push this policy for his personal interest, see him trying to apply this policy on Snowspinner, even as the majority is opposed to the policy. gcbirzantalk 22:18, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  48. Oppose violet/riga (t) 23:03, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Neutral[edit]

  1. There have been few cases of admins abusing their powers, or breaching the trust of the community, so far. The only cases that come to mind, in which a substantial segment of the community expressed concern, are those of Everyking, 172, and Guanaco. All three went to Arbcom. I agree that this is a solution in search of a problem, but I'm disturbed by some of the opposition by my fellow admins. If 80% of voters agree on a desysopping, and Arbcom hasn't acted in a related case, then something has gone seriously wrong. Neutral so long as the Arbitration Committee agrees that admins must retain the trust of the community. Mackensen (talk) 19:47, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  2. Either lower the bar for adminship, or send them straight to arbcom. If the former was put into action, I'd support this proposal as well. -- grm_wnr Esc 22:06, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • I think it should mirror RfA's procedure. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 05:07, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I think rather than being weighted towards the status quo, both processes should be weighted towards the conservative decision: If there is a serious question about someone's use of admin powers, their adminship should be removed, at least temporarily. Rhobite 05:33, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Agree. I hope one day we can reduce both thresholds, once people see that granting adminship isn't so scary when you can remove it again. -- Netoholic @ 05:34, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)
        • But what about contrary-wise? Would people be willing to re-admin after someone was deadmined? That sounds pretty 'scary' to me. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:58, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Question – Forgive my ignorance, but I'm genuinely interested in background information: how often has Wikipedia been worse off for not having a process by which admins may be stripped of power, and what would the proposed process accomplish that ArbCom cannot? – ClockworkSoul 05:45, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Adminship is "no big deal," so why is removing it a big deal? ugen64 21:14, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • The system is working perfectly at the moment, as far as I can tell. Rather than questioning my happiness with the status quo, how about you expand your own support for this proposal beyond "Super duper strong support with a Maraschino cherry on top"? --Stormie 07:18, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • Can't help but comment on this. If the system works perfectly, stick with it!When things get complicated it gets very very hard to revert or fix. Don't complicate. Don't fix what isn't broken.--Jondel 04:26, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • I cannot agree with Alkivar that arbcom has been "like a slap on the wrist" for Everyking. He has been very effectively reined in from his previous domination of articles related to Ashlee Simpson, and his subsequent behavior is currently being considered in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking 2, to which you're welcome to provide evidence. If the evidence merits it, Everyking could well find himself banned from editing material related to Ashlee Simpson for a long time. On the question of whether he should be stripped of his administrator status, that would depend on whether he has abused it. I've not yet seen any evidence that he has. Throughout all of his misbehavior, as far as I'm aware, Everyking's actions have never extended to using his sysop powers inappropriately. Not once. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point; people seem to regularly confuse "edits by an admin that I don't like" with "abuse of admin powers". As for Everyking, aside from his unfortunate inability to edit Ashlee Simpson related articles/topics in a reasonable way, he seems an excellent editor and admin. Jayjg (talk) 18:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Edits "that I don't like" is a perfectly reasonable and accepted reason why someone would not receive support for during a WP:RFA. Other reasons like unable to work well with others, failure to help with maintenance tasks, etc. are also fine reasons. Why then, when someone is promoted to admin level, do those reasons lose their meaning? Admins currently have no incentive to continue to uphold the reasons they were given that status. I think we can all think of admins which have lost their way, yet don't overtly abuse their specific admin abilities. This is one of the strongest arguments for putting a de-admin process in place. With de-adminship a real possibility, admins will have to continue to act in accordance with community standards. Keep in mind, admins are "held to higher standards, because they are perceived by many, particularly new, users as the official face of Wikipedia". It is important that we have some reasonable compensating control. -- Netoholic @ 18:38, 2005 Mar 21 (UTC)
  • The primary criterion for nominating an admin is whether or not the community believes the additional admin powers will be put to good use. "Edits that I don't like" are often used by voters in determining whether or not they believe the admin will use his/her new powers well, but they should only be used as indicators of potential abuse of admin powers, not the reason why admin powers are granted/not granted in the first place. An admin who has "lost their way", but still uses their admin powers responsibly, should be dealt with using the same mechanisms that are used to help any other editor "find their way" again. Admin powers are not a "reward" for edits you like, nor should they be removed as a "punishment" for edits you don't like. Jayjg (talk) 18:58, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • "Edits I don't like", "He's a deletionist", etc. These are just some of the loose reasons that I expect to be used for RFDAs if this current version passes, especially since no evidence is required. It is just going to end up as one more blunt weapon to be wielded in arguments and edit wars. Especially since I don't think that it has any effective preventative measures against abuse, I can also see it regularly being used as retaliation against admins who file WP:RFCs and WP:RFARs. BlankVerse ∅ 03:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Unsurprisingly, 75% of oppose voters (but only 46.7% of support voters) are sysops. If you want to drain the swamp, don't ask the frogs. NoPuzzleStranger 02:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Yes, I am having trouble attracting non-admins to this discussion. Certainly, the pages where this has been posted to seem to only be on the watchlists of those who've been here a long time - admins mostly). Any suggestions are appreciated. -- Netoholic @ 03:23, 2005 Mar 23 (UTC)
      • Since admins are among the most active people on the Wikipedia it is unsurprising that they are the most likely to vote on any proposal (just check any other votes). Since this particular proposal affects them directly, I am not surprised that you are seeing plenty of votes from them (both pro and con). BlankVerse ∅ 03:33, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To those who support the concept in principle (119, dab, Grunt, SPUI, Thryduulf): I would like to see some of your suggestions on improving this proposal. Better yet, Be Bold and go ahead and edit it to make it better. BlankVerse ∅ 03:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the ultimate problem with this proposal is the way that normal ordinary people who like their admins aren't going to be those voting here- the people who come to such a page are those with an axe to grind. That hardly makes for a fair environment in which to discuss these matters. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 04:11, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is much better handled by the arbcom. RFA can work as it does because requesting sysop status is a much less heated affair; requests for removal of rights usually come when tempers are hot and are better deliberated at length. Removing the extra buttons isn't a big deal, no, but accusing people of abusing their positions is; polls are a terrible way to handle it. Also, I can see valuable contributors leaving the wiki over being placed up for de-adminship too many times for dealing with trolls and POV-pushers—and more people would leave in disgust than would be helped by stripping power from a few "rogue admins" who are somehow abusing their powers but not blatantly enough for the arbcom to handle it (and I can't think of any).

Generally I'm opposed to solutions in search of a problem; I'm worried that if the "solution" exists, people will go out of their way to find "problems" where none exist. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 15:59, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly! There's an unwritten rule in systems programming: Don't fix what ain't broke.Else, things get more complicated and hard to revert. Besides like Fennec says, its a venue for people with an axe to grind, complicating everything. Let RFAs and RFCs handle it. If this isn't enough , only then should we consider a Request for De-adminship.--Jondel 05:13, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Regarding Snowspinner[edit]

I am of the view that a number of people have complained about Snowspinner, both as far as his general demeanor and actions as an administrator. I am of the opinion that his status of adminstrator has lead to an unappropriately hostile environment. Perhaps if he was made once again to be a normal editor, he might reevaluate what Wikipedia means to him. Right now, I think he has lost touch with the true goals of this project.

As such, I have opened a petition (Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Snowspinner) seeking a re-vote on his status. I do this not out of disrespect for those voting above, but because I see absolutely no reason why people can be prevented from forming a petition seeking some outcome. I am unsure what will become of this; I suppose that will depend on truly how many people also wish to see his status re-evaluated as I do. As such, this is not following the WP:RFDA procedure as currently written... but is only a petition at this stage. -- Netoholic @ 21:59, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)

Perhaps I was dreaming, but it seems to me you said on IRC the other day that you wouldn't be initiating any RFDAs at first so as to seem impartial. — Dan | Talk 22:38, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
This is not an RFDA. Anyone above can see that consensus is not to do voting. There have been no complaints about the petition portion, and that is what I'm doing. It may be this petition ends up doing nothing, except gather a list of those people who hold this view in common. -- Netoholic @ 00:34, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
If it is not an RFDA, it should not be a subpage of Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship, but rather of Wikipedia:Requests for comment, which is intended for the very purpose you stated: gathering a list of people who share your opinion. — Dan | Talk 02:22, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My reading of the straw poll suggests that we're very, very far from reaching consensus in favor of your new and very interesting policy proposal. To propose to use the mechanism at this point seems unwise. Please reconsider. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Indeed; the over two-to-one vote against the proposed policy here indicates that the proposal has been voted down. Jayjg (talk) 23:01, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The straw poll indicates there is not consensus to use the process at the present time. This page is still active, and should continue to be improved over time until consensus agrees this is needed. -- Netoholic @ 02:34, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
So... do you propose to ignore a consensus that this is not needed? -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 03:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm just saying that this page is not going away. I am relieved to have seen that at least one-third of respondents like this proposal. That number certainly suggest this is not some wildly outrageous idea, but is one that has a good-ish amount of support. There will likely be some work to address as many concerns as possible to allow some form of this process to come into general use. In the next day or two I'm going to archive all this discussion, and the straw poll, just so that we can end this chapter. Those interested in working on this can continue to work on it. I'd really like us to see the petition process come together in some form, as I've done with Snowspinner. While there isn't support for holding actual votes for de-adminship, petitions can still be a useful tool. -- Netoholic @ 07:14, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)
I think you are losing touch with reality, a little bit here. I did vote for this proposal, because I don't see the harm. But without rfda being accepted policy (which will not happen anytime soon, by all appearances), how is this different from an RfC? If your opinion of Snowspinner does not have enough support to make for a condemning RfC, you will have to regard the issue as your personal feud. Spreading it over more namespace will not change that, and you are just dealing the rfda proposal the fatal blow with this. dab (ᛏ) 11:31, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re:Success of proposal[edit]

I know the straw poll wasn't an official vote, but it's pretty obvious on that basis that this proposal will not survive an official vote. →Iñgōlemo← talk 22:12, 2005 Mar 25 (UTC)


Revert to June 2004 version[edit]

I have reverted the page to the June, 2004 version, which is a redirect to WP:RFC. The reason for the revert is that the June, 2004 version was arrived at based on consensus after considerable discussion, which is archived at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_review_of_admin_actions. The changes made since then have been unilateral and have, in retrospect, lacked community support. I suggest that the page be permitted to stand as a redirect to RFC.

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 04:24, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. Any change to the policy was distinctly lacking consensus. Snowspinner 04:38, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
Since the page is now a redirect to RFC, I've adjusted a few links that pointed to the page. The links now point to this talk page. Carbonite | Talk 04:48, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is a work in progress. To turn it into a redirect is premature, since 1/3 of respondents here see value in it, or something like it. Mark it as a failed proposal or somesuch, but leave it as is so people can be encouraged to work on it. -- Netoholic @ 05:05, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)

Since Netoholic cannot seem to accept that his proposal failed, and has been edit warring with the people trying to restore the redirect, I've gone ahead and protected it. →Raul654 05:12, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Nice tactic. Oppose it, then bury it.
Why then are there plently of policies which are clearly marked "failed" or "not accepted" (Wikipedia:Administrators/Administrator Accountability Policy, Category:Wikipedia rejected policies)? -- Netoholic @ 05:25, 2005 Mar 26 (UTC)
I can think of a number of differences and I'll bet you can, too. Those policies weren't created by overwriting existing policy pages. They generally had at least some community support, which this lacks. And no one, least of all their initial authors, attempted to utilize the policies while they were in the middle of being voted down. Finally, I think it's clear from the vote that there is little point in "working on" your proposed policy because the community does not believe it needs tweaking. Instead, the community believes that the existing processes for dealing with adminship issues are quite sufficient. I might add that Jimbo, in a mailing list post some time ago, was quite clear in opposing any "de-adminship" process of any kind. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 13:13, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New, improved idea[edit]

I just came across this page, after posting this policy idea yesterday: WP:RECALL. It seems somewhat similar but vastly expanded and more abuse-proof to what was offered here. Please review at your leisure, and thanks. rootology (T) 18:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_de-adminship/Old_proposal&oldid=1088881405"