Wikipedia talk:Requests for de-adminship

message: /Old proposal contains discussion surrounding a de-adminning process suggested in March 2005, which failed to gain support and now resides at Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship/Old proposal. As of March 2005, the Wikipedia:Requests for comment process remains the first step for dealing with abuse of admin powers; see Wikipedia talk:Requests for review of administrative actions for the discussion that led to this process. —Charles P. (Mirv) 05:28, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: Why is Isis' de-sysopping listed in a separate section from the other "involuntary revocations of sysop status"?  --DropDeadGorgias (talk) 18:14, May 17, 2005 (UTC)
: I listed her in a different section because she was banned, not de-sysoped.  Since there are many other users who have been banned for one reason or another, it isn't entirely clear that she belongs here at all.  However, since one could argue that banning a sysop implies de-sysoping them as well, I included her -- mainly in the interest of thoroughness, since my purpose in having a list here is to demonstrate how rare "de-sysopping" actually is. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 20:48, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isis 

message: Can someone please cite a source that justifies this line - "Jimbo Wales has stated that the presence of any process to remove adminship would result in a reduced motivation for all parties to work together to seek consensus.".  -- Netoholic @ 21:12, 2005 May 17 (UTC)
:I've replaced that line, which was still uncited after over a year, with a sourced quote from a recent mailing-list post by Jimbo. Tim Smith 22:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo's statement 

message: This is an interesting idea at face value, but I think there would need to be a massive consensus to get rid of a user...and only admins can vote. If that is the case, then 99% of the voters are respected members of the community who can be trusted to read into the issue at hand. I reccomend something like a 85-90% consensus and a trial run. I don't really believe blackmail will be an issue, because users who use that as blackmail will lose all credibility, and the user getting blackmailed will easily overturn the nomination for de-adminship, earning himself some pseudo-martyr points with the community. I think we should try this proposal out with a high consensus percentage. Let's all remember that Jimbo Wales' opinion on the matter is just that...it's not divine word. He's a computer programmer, not a social psychologist...unless he is one of those, then I'm just an idiot. JHMM13 (T | C)   14:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trial run with consensus 

message: I think the title of this page might be confusing for new readers. They come across the title and expect an actual de-adminship process page. Therefore, I propose moving it to "Wikipedia:De-adminship" or something to that effect. Any thoughts? szyslak (t, c, e) 07:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  Requests for de-adminship is really along the lines of Wikipedia:Admin recall Anomo 08:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which is now superceded by the revised process proposals at Wikipedia:Administrator recall. For what it's worth, I think this page is fine where it's at, there's a LOT of namespace taken up by these ideas, and any one that does finally get approval will become clear. -- nae'blis 21:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The title should change. I was expecting it to be an attempt at an actual process like the requests for adminship. A.Z. 00:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move this page? 

message: Will he be going up here?  He is forever banned but retains his adminship.  Anomo 08:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell,  is not an administrator. He doesn't show up as a sysop in the user list, and the user rights log shows no record of him being sysopped . Perhaps he's an administrator on another project, such as Wikibooks or Wikiquote. szyslak (t, c, e) 11:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought he was sysop.  Hmmm. I know that user rights log isn't kept for very long though, but this is odd.  I guess my memory is bad. Anomo 20:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Survey says...not likely. He was a vigorous entity on talkpages, though. -- nae'blis 21:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it doesn't have all sysops.  For example why is this blank?  Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/ContiE Anomo 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RFA didn't always use individual subpgages for discussions. e.g. Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Stormie doesn't exist either, but you can find my admin nomination here - and as coincidence would have it, User:ContiE is on the same page. —Stormie 21:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Nathanrdotcom|Nathanrdotcom]] 

message: Wikipedia:List_of_administrators#Inactive has too many inactive admins. Do we have any policies to end their adminships?--Jusjih 17:06, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why bother? john k 17:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: eBay. Anomo 18:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ?? Does this mean something? It seems to be a complete non sequitur. john k 22:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess the question is whether someone who is an admin would be willing to sell, and someone else would be willing to buy, the ability to access an account with the admin bit set.  Presumably this business opportunity (such as it is) is open to active admins too... -- ALoan (Talk) 23:13, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While administering many other Wiki sites, some sites desysop admins for long (such as one year) inactivity. Security concerns have been raised should abandoned admin accounts get broken in by unauthorized users to misuse and abuse admins' privileges. Why not bother with those who are inactive for more than one year of inactivity?--Jusjih 14:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think if any kind of unathorized activities started to take place, it would be pretty easily recognized and could be dealt with.  If a long inactive user suddenly reappears and begins doing odd things, we can de-sysop in such circumstances quite easily, I'd imagine.  There's no particular need for a preventative policy - no sysop action is so potentially damaging as to require protecting against it in advance - another admin can always protect/unprotect, block/unblock, or delete/undelete as the situation requires. john k 15:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: See this if you are interested.Voice-of-All 15:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone has hacked into an inactive admin account and starts using it to do dubious things, the problem will become apparent very quickly.  If they return and are not doing dubious things, we should assume good faith.  I don't see what the big deal is. john k 15:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Different Wiki sites have different rules. For example, inactive admins desysoped from Wikimedia Commons require regular voting to be readmitted, but inactive admins desysoped from English Wiktionary just require the request with evidence of recent activity.--Jusjih 16:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I just don't see what the point of bothering with this is.  If you all want to come up with some policy, far be it from me to interfere, but it seems entirely unnecessary to me. john k 19:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many inactive admins 

message: The initial wording, and other instances in the document, need dating: "Throughout the history of the project" means different things when read in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2020, etc. Readers shouldn't be expected to go to the page history to find out when something was written. Carcharoth 14:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wording needs dating 

message: I just came across the summary on this page of my desysopping incident, which was seriously slanted and partially false. This is a pretty high-visibility page, so who knows how many people were influenced in their perceptions of me by that summary? I propose that in the future desysopped users should be notified of and consulted about their summaries to ensure that the wording is agreed upon by all parties. Everyking 04:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing stopping desysopped users who aren't banned from editing the entry. 193.95.165.190 09:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Summaries of desysop cases

message: I have removed the  tag from this page. Although the concept of a "requests for de-adminship" page is historical, the sections on desysopping cases are still being updated. The last one was in July, but I can't think of any cases since then. In that sense, it's still being watched and edited, and is thus not historical. More than a year ago I brought up the idea of moving this page to "Wikipedia:De-adminship", but nothing came of it. Maybe we should give that a try, to mitigate any confusion about its "historical" status. szyslak 17:39, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical? 

message: A new de-adminship scheme seems to come along about once every three months.  These proposals are regularly rejected.  As an aid to anyone who would like to draft the next proposal, I've prepared a list of questions that all new proposals ought to be ready to answer: Wikipedia:De-adminship proposal checklist.  Suggested additions are welcomed on the talk page. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checklist for de-adminship proposals 

message: I have added this to WP:Perennial proposals.  See Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#It_should_be_easier_to_remove_adminship. Editors of this page are requested to re-word it so it sounds better.--Aervanath (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:PEREN]] 

message: Per User talk:Roux/RFA-reform#Moving to projectspace, I have transcluded this proposal here (transclusion so that edits only need to be made once, and to avoid cross-namespace redir.)
I invite commentary from the community as to whether we should adopt this proposal. Obviously I think we should. The general feeling from those who have commented on the talkpage in my userspace is support, with a couple of exceptions. The proposal as it stands is, I think, eminently workable, difficult to game, and is most importantly community-driven in a way that the current desysop options are not. → ROUX ₪ 21:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: (Full disclosure -- I'm an admin).  I don't see a cause for concern that an editor who is ticked that I deleted his page extolling the virtues of pooooooop will get 10 meat puppets and start a de-admin request just to harass me. (Well, they can try, but I'd be surprised if they got far.) The process looks like it could deal with the worst cases. And it looks like it could get some community support. (The best proposal in the world isn't worth much if it never gets implemented. *grin*) It seems like a good first step, and hopefully we'll be prepared to go further if needed.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

text: And I just noticed the WP:FIRED shortcut that comes here. Now I've snorted tea all over my keyboard. Thanks a lot. ;-)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me too (admin disclaimer per Fabrictramp). I'm not personally convinced its necessary, but the proposal's perennial nature suggests plenty of other people think it is. And as formal desysop processes go this seems a reasonable one. Euryalus (talk) 05:22, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New proposal on this page 

message: Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator/Admin Recall and Talk:WikiProject Administrator. I hope this is self-explanatory. Please feel free to amend or comment. No idea if it has legs, but I think its worth a try. Ben MacDui 19:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft RfC 

message: Just read this over, and I think generally the goal is a good idea. The article itself needs some tidying, and I think the first paragraph is a little odd in that it tells me that I likely agree that RFA is broken.
As for my thoughts on the current structure of the procedure, first I believe that the wording needs to be clearer that the user(s) making the complaint should have first attempted legitimate discussion or other recognised WP:DR methods with the admin. Also there should be a time frame for when to raise a grievance (possibly one month from the alleged abuse, unless of course during that month they've been actively in some type of dispute resolution with the admin that ultimately failed).
I'm unclear of what happens once the case is certified and opened. Do we do it RFC or RFA style? I'd hope the latter, as I think once a case is filed and certified we either support removal, oppose removal, or are neutral. Obviously diffs and a brief description by the people bringing the claim, along with a statement by the admin in defence should be allowed, but that should all be done during the certification stage.
Also, would it be prudent to direct the admin against use of admin tools whilst they have a claim open (ie once it's past the point of certification) -- or atleast the tools in relation to where the alleged abuse took place, e.g. deletion, etc? Again, these are just my thoughts on the wording as is. Cheers, NJA  (t/c) 17:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, please see the current talk at Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Draft RfC, and the current draft proposal at Wikipedia:Guide to Community de-adminship. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: After tolling up the votes in the revision proposals, it emerged that 5.4 had the most support, but elements of that support remained unclear, and various comments throughout the polls needed consideration. 
A finalisation poll (intended, if possible, to be one last poll before finalising the CDA proposal) has been run to; 
*gather opinion on the 'consensus margin' (what percentages, if any, have the most support) and
* ascertain whether there is support for a 'two-phase' poll at the eventual RfC (not far off now), where CDA will finally be put to the community.
Matt Lewis (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Community de-Adminship - finalization poll for the CDA proposal 

message: It seems a little hard to believe that in the past 12 months, only 1 Admin has lost their Admin rights. Is this list up-to-date? Because I've certainly come across several disputes in process about misuse of Admin tools. 69.125.134.86 (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to update list? 

message: That vote was ridiculous. It's like asking chickens whether they're OK with a KFC. Synotia (moan) 17:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The vote wasn't limited to admins, not that there are as many admins around these days. If you want to restart the debate and try to get a different result you could open a new RFC on it. But I'd suggest reading the arguments and trying to modify the proposal to accommodate some of the reasons why the last proposal failed. Even if you are minded to ignore arguments by admins, there were plenty of non admins who pointed out flaws in the proposal. Simply dismissing the consensus view as ridiculous might leave some people thinking that you aren't engaging with those arguments, let alone rebutting them. ϢereSpielChequers 21:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adminship term length