Wikipedia talk:Requests for de-adminship/Old proposal

message: 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:
#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.
#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.
#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).
#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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title: Easy to abuse?

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Thryduulf's comments on AllyUnion's proposed questions

message: #I just want to note that I am very much in support of this. BLANKFAZE | (что??) 04:32, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: #Raul, Mav, and others have said all there is to say about this. Snowspinner 05:34, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
#No, thank you.  RickK 07:36, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)
#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)
#What Mav and Raul said. Jayjg (talk) 07:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oppose 

message: # 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)
thread_title:  Neutral 

message: 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)
thread_title:  New, improved idea