Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 107

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

message: *No demonstration has been provided that the current systems does not meet the needs existing. Simply asserting it over and over will not convince me, when I ask for evidence that arbcom is failing in this area I just get more assertions. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Simply asserting "there is no problem" over and over is equally unsatisfactory.  Friday (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Well what you are talking about is called Negative proof. I assure you that if I was going to propose something based on a claim, that I would provide proof for that claim instead of asking people to prove me wrong. Present a problem, then I will consider a solution, not until then. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 22:02, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If you oppose this idea, why is your user page in category Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall? Samohyl Jan 18:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I added that category about 2 months ago, when I was much in hope for a desysopping process. It has now been removed. --DarkFalls talk 10:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: No

message: *Neutral I don't want to (!)vote on this anymore. I just want to make my opinion known. The community enforced recall would only allow serious grievances, but serious grievances are why we have ArbCom. Minor problems could be handled at WP:RFC/ADMIN. This process seems unnecessary. But I certainly wouldn't be against some way of giving more power to the community to generate consensus. I do think that maybe we should have the actual process be handled by the admins, with the rest of the community just airing their grievances. J-ſtanTalkContribs 22:36, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I of course can't make any comment on preventing an excess of bureaucracy, but in terms of "frivolous complaints", it has been generally agreed among the supporters of this plan that there must be a way for whomever arbitrates the decision (probably the crats) to reject trivial proposals and hot-headed lynch mobs early on. This would probably be enacted in a very similar way to the accept/reject apparatus of ArbCom. The idea basically is, the crats will balance out in any unreasonableness or frivolity stemming from the community. I for one would say that in the RFA process at least, the bureaucrats have shown the solid ability to be fair arbiters of a dispute. VanTucky Talk 18:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: *I also think that unless there is an actual proposition on the table that this poll is not going to achieve much. Nor do I think this venue will produce a consensus based on the community, something like this needs a more centralized location or its results will be biased. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 21:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *What it will do is prevent any user from making claims about the general attitude of Wikipedians to this idea without evidence. VanTucky Talk 21:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *In response to Until's second point, I'm going to list it at WP:CENT and the Community portal to get broader input. WaltonOne 21:38, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I have also let people know on the en-wiki's IRC channel. VanTucky Talk 21:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

text: *I don't object to it being moved to WT:RFA. Feel free to move it. WaltonOne 21:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

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

text: *It is simple, if you cannot reach a consensus for the idea you want, you just start a poll. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you want to deny a proposal the possibility to eventually grow up, you just start bombarding it before it can be discussed and refined. — Dorftrottel⁠ 18:58, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Before it can be discussed? Did you click on that link? This has been discussed over and over again. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:00, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why do you jump on it like you do? — Dorftrottel⁠ 20:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: "Voting is evil"

message: What if we were to start it the other way around? Instead of seeking approval to instate an entirely new process, we could simply start an innocuous discussion about a specific user's suitability as an admin. Maybe someone (not myself though...better an admin) should simply propose a place and a user to be discussed and make it known here. I.e., at least here, since RfA as a process is being canvassing by nature since it's an established centralised forum. Whatever the result, nothing would have to happen as a consequence, but everyone and particularly b'crats may take a look at it and determine whether it's nothing but clueless bashing of someone who simply made unpopular decisions, or whether there is some merits to the concerns. Needless to say, everyone commenting to the negative might be accused of violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:AGF, but we would then have one proper example, not only concerning a potential case, but a full-blown discussion to evaluate the possible drawbacks and benefits of such a community-driven downvoting process. Anyone? — Dorftrottel⁠ 07:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's some precedent for such a thing in Kelly Martin's 3rd User RFC, although RFC's are controversial as anything other than consensus-building mechanisms. Still, as consensus is exactly what needs to be gauged...--chaser - t 08:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's the problem, why we're stuck in this paralysis: Half the people around here think it's pointless discussing a new removing-the-bit process without a specific case in mind.  The other half thinks that inventing a new process using a specific case is the wrong way to go.  Both camps have legitimate points.  This has been brought up before, see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats%27_noticeboard/Archive_5#Would_a_crat_be_willing_to_be_the_.22trusted_user.22_in_a_reverse_RFA.3F and probably other places too.  If the crats got together and decided to be more activist, they could solve this problem.  I don't see how anyone else can do much about it.  I'm beginning to wonder at this point if the crats don't particularly want to have the power to overrule their own decisions, or whether they just dislike the thought of the potentially large amount of indignant whining such an action could cause.  I would like crats to feel personally responsible for those they promote and take an active hand in correcting those who go off track.  Including un-promoting them if necessary. Friday (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At this point I think that I'd like to question the technical limitations of this desysopping matter. How would this be done? Are we going to give our bureaucrats the access to remove adminship? Are we ready to trust them with that? I feel that giving the buttons is a very different and vastly less complex matter than taking them back. Currently, steward is the only permission that is able to revoke the class. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:37, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If they're going to have the de facto power, they might as well have a button to push themselves.   But, I see this as a minor implementation detail.  Unless a steward would refuse a crat's request to change someone's permissions, it doesn't much matter if they have the button themselves.  I think I remember someone saying this was an easily ability to grant, technically.  Friday (talk) 14:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, on further thought, and my consideration of how simple it is likely to be to actually impart that ability technically, I think that the technical side of things might be a far simpler matter than the matter of "closing" one of these "RFDs". As I articulated above, I think that closing a request for desysopping would, almost every time that one would need to be closed, would prove very complex in terms of finding consensus in tight cases, and would, probably 95% of the time, cause controversy, or at least a stir. I am imagining the reaction of the more involved community in general when a tight RFA is closed, and then I am imagining the reaction of the more involved community in general when a tight RFD, which seems to me to be an inevitably more complex and pressured matter by default, is closed. Personally, I would have some deep concerns relating to the latter scenario. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 14:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Anonymous Dissident: see mw:Extension:Desysop. Melsaran (talk) 15:11, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, thanks for the link. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 15:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hypothetical 

message: Existing processes are sufficient if people choose to use them and apply common sense.  If an admin goes off track, first try the initial dispute resolution processes.  If those fail, open a user conduct RFC.  If the RFC shows that the admin is unsuitable to continue using sysop powers:
# Ask the admin to resign, per common sense.
# If the admin refuses to resign, in an urgent and unambiguous case, the RFC results can be shown to a steward.  Stewards have the power to remove the sysop bit (bureaucrats don't).  The frequency of successful RFC's against admins is very small. For those handful of cases, a direct appeal to User:Jimbo or another steward won't be a burden.
# If a steward refuses to act based on the RFC, the matter can be referred to Arbcom via the standard request for arbitration process.  Arbcom can then make a decision.
The above process allows broad community input and is already available without creating any additional bureaucracy.  Perhaps this just needs to be documented so people understand the options they already have.  - Jehochman  Talk 14:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, except people dispute whether this is already possible or not.  #2 is the entire questionable part.  I've suggested before that it looks like the stewards would do this, only to be met with a chorus of "No! Only arbcom can do it!"  If something along these lines is to be attempted, some buy-in and cooperation from the crats would help make it go.  If Joe Random User shows the RFC to a steward and asks for a permission change, I don't know what the steward would do.  If a crat does this, I'll bet dollars to donuts the steward would do as requested.  Friday (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course we can ask the stewards.  They have the ability remove a sysop bit. In obvious cases, I expect they will do so, regardless of what any silly rule says. We don't need run things through pointless processes. I expect that a steward would only send a case to Arbcom if there was a bona fide dispute that needed further investigation. - Jehochman  Talk 15:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Also I suspect that anyone who tried 1 and 2 would be met with howls of disagreement and accusations of harassing the admin in question.  There's an unfortunately common attitude of "How DARE anyone question an admin's suitability for the tools! He's obviously a good and trusted person, because he's an admin!"   Friday (talk) 15:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know of several instances where 1., ask admin to resign, has worked.  For 2., appeal to a steward, there have been cases of emergency de-sysoppings, so I believe this is also a viable option. - Jehochman  Talk 15:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, in the current system if an admin feels pressured to do so they can resign, and if it is urgently needed a steward can emergency desysop. If it is not an emergency there is an evidenced based proceedings called arbcom. Good system, I like it. Lets keep it. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:17, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In cases where "this person should not have the sysop tools" has come up in RFCs, I'm pretty sure I remember several people saying "Don't say such things; RFC has no ability to do that."  There's quite a large body of people who insist than only Arbcom can remove the bit.  This doesn't mean they're right, but that's how lots of people see it.  Friday (talk) 15:22, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: RFC is about trying to work things out before resorting to the blunt force of desysoping. Only in cases of real emergencies should a steward act immediately. I think the common note here is that people want to skip this attempt at dispute resolution. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Who wants to skip dispute resolution?  Where we've had problem admins, dispute resolution has typically failed repeatedly with them.  Desysopping is a blunt tool only for those who won't listen to reason. Friday (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well the only thing arbcom requires is an attempt at dispute resolution and some "evidence" they abused their position. If you have both of those them arbcom should hold no barrier. If their behavior is not related to their tools then handle it like any other user. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:30, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Friday, why not propose the clarification I've suggested and see if the community approves them?  If it does, that will answer your concerns about people thinking that Arbcom is the only path available.   - Jehochman  Talk 15:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What?  What's to propose?  It either can already be done, or it can't already be done.  Friday (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Keep It Simple principle

message: I would just like to point out that while several people think the hypothetical idea of such a system is a good idea, in practice the community has rejected such ideas when they are actually formed:
*Wikipedia:Admin_recall
*Wikipedia:Requests_for_de-adminship
*Wikipedia:Adminship renewal
*Wikipedia:Removal of adminship
*Wikipedia:Temporary Deadminship
*Wikipedia:Fully Uncompelled Binding Administrator Recall
All rejected by the community. And there are more I did not list. I think this poll is pointless until there is an actual idea on the table. Of course if you ask people if they would like something nice they will show interest, but the fact is this "something nice" have never existed in a form the community will accept. This is all just blowing bubbles in the water until there is an idea the community will accept to actually discuss. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...I just hope that we don't have to. Personally, I'd like to find some kind of consensus on this sometime soon. These proposals as a collective are turning into something of a verbal circus. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Three little words here Until: Consensus. Can. Change. VanTucky Talk18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. But apparently that doesn't apply to RfA, or at least there seems to be no consensus that it does or should. Which is indeed kind of weird. — Dorftrottel⁠ 20:59, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

message: The idea of dramatic demotion seems too contentious at this point to attain consensus. Before tossing defendants in the wood chipper, how about a suspension? Think of it as an extended time-out that strips the subject of the additonal access, but restores the access after a predetermined time period.
If the subject makes a regular showing in the penalty box, then they shall be scheduled an appointment with the Sword of Damocles, courtesy of the community. --Aarktica 16:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: this has possibilities.Rlevse 17:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, sounds like Wikipedia:Temporary Deadminship, which was rejected, although that was a while back. Perhaps a variant could gain acceptance. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:14, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't think how this becomes any more doable by being temporary.  Besides, all removals of the bit are potentially temporary- they last until it's given back.  Friday (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  You make a valid point. However, I think it is unlikely that this issue will be resolved — until the community determines what conduct should lead to revocation of the additional access. --Aarktica 00:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walk before you run 

message: People keep wanting a more specific plan they can sink their teeth into.. well, OK, here goes.  This has been suggested before with a small amount of interest.  Crats are increasingly willing to use their own judgment in addition to looking at community consensus.  This is a Good Thing; we chose them for their judgment.  The crats could hand out the admin tools to those who seek them fairly liberally (probably subject to community objection, but nothing resembling current RFA).  Then, when there's questionable use of the tools, the crats can decide whether they wish to unpromote.  Crats judge consensus on adminship; consensus can change.  Put two and two together and the answer seems pretty clear.  Friday (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So to sum up the idea, instead of RfA 'crats just give out the bit when they think they should, and if there is a problem they just take it away? That seems to involve the community less, instead of more. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If the crats want to use some process that appears to involve community input, they can, same as now.  But, yes I don't see that this is very workable without a willingness to rely a bit more on crat discretion.  What I think we mostly agree cannot work is anything involving "If X editors say you lose the bit, you lose the bit."  There has to be a reasonable objection to the use of the tools to consider taking them away.  How can we demand reason from the "community"?  We can't, but I hope we can expect it from the crats.  Friday (talk) 18:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Why would 'crats be more trustworthy than admins? or arbcom? or the community? They are all humans. It seems that this just moves the trust issues around. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, many people (how many is apparently up for debate) think arbcom is too reluctant to remove the bit.  Many people think the community is too fickle to remove the bit.  We've already got these crats hanging around, doing half the job.  It just makes sense that the people who promote should be able to unpromote when they believe a mistake was made.  It's like we're currently assuming the crats are infallible by not letting them undo what they've done.  Friday (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Maybe it's silly to not just ask the crats directly.  Any crats who care to comment: would you want the ability to unpromote?  Would you see it as being occasionally useful?  If the crats wouldn't mind having it, and we trust the crats.. what more is there to debate? Friday (talk) 18:43, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's the first step:  Find out if the crats would even go along with that.  Corvus cornix 18:15, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, it may have merit, but I do not support the idea. I also think it is unlikely to gain support in its current form. You can always make a proposal page and see what happens. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 18:44, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anything presented as a formal proposal can go anywhere right now.  My best hope is that the crats just decide amongst themselves to change how they do things.  Friday (talk) 18:54, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I, for one, would vociferusly object to any crats who just arbitrarily start desysopping people.  They do not have the crat bit granted to them to do that, and I would hope if they did, the stewards would remove the crat bit forthwith.  Corvus cornix 18:16, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you can rest easy, since, as far as I know, Beaurocrats don't even have that ability anyway. -Chunky Rice 18:22, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 'Crats work for the community, they can't just "decide" to start desysoping people, even if they did I doubt the devs would give them the ability just because they decided to. There would need to be something presented as a formal proposal that goes somewhere. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 19:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I agree with 1 == 2, we don't want a rogue B'crat on our hands. The current systems works. --Eye of the minD 21:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The folks who invented prod did not go around demanding that people show that AFD doesn't work.  They merely suggested that a new, lightweight way to delete may be useful in addition to current methods.  I believe that a new, lightweight way to remove the bit may be useful in addition to the current ways.  I'm not interested in debating whether the current ways are "broken" or not- it's not relevant.  Friday (talk) 21:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

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

message: ...can be summed up like this:
*If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
**Indeed, it ain't broke, but this suggestion is an improvement and gives more power to the community. If I correct a grammatical error on an article, would you revert it because "the article is readable, i.e. not broken, so you shouldn't improve upon it"? No, of course not, making a well-thought-out improvement is always good.
*It is gamable and can lead to frivolous complaints.
**Everything's gamable, but that shouldn't be a reason not to improve upon our processes. I think we can trust our bureaucrats to distinguish the frivolous complaints from the legitimate ones, and that the benefit outweighs the drawback of this proposal.
*It encourages us to promote more bad administrators because we can also demote them more easily.
**We never know who will be a bad administrator, but we will inevitably grant the mop to people who are ultimately unsuited to be an admin, so having an easy way to take the tools away is a good thing. Currently, participants at RFA are reluctant in supporting a candidate, because it is extremely difficult to take the tools away from someone who doesn't handle them responsibly but doesn't engage in blatant abuse either. If desysopping becomes easier, then RFA will become less of a big deal, and participants may be more inclined to give a candidate the benefit of the doubt because if they turn out to be unsuitable for the mop after all, they can be desysopped. We need more admins.
*Admins should be able to do their job without any additional wikidrama.
**So, would you want to abolish RFC and RFAR as well, then? Admins should be accountable to the community and responsible for their actions. They should be prepared to face the consequences of questionable use of sysop tools, and ready to explain their actions.
*The community makes bad decisions, leave it to the ArbCom.
**You may think that the community makes bad decisions, but it is the community that decides things on Wikipedia, whether you agree with them or not. If the community is able to give certain editors their confidence and to grant them admin tools, they should also be able to reconsider and to revoke those tools. That's only logical. ArbCom is the last step in the dispute resolution process, when the community has tried and failed to resolve the issue. If the community can come to a consensus on whether to desysop the admin or not, then they should be given the opportunity to do so.
Melsaran (talk) 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm afraid your second point It encourages us to promote more bad adminstrators because we can also demote them more easily. is completely incompatible with Wikipedia, bad administrators can permanently frighten off good users, we should be exceptionally careful about who we promote, given the damage a bad administrator can inflict on good users, even during the time their desysopping request is being discussed by the community. Nick 22:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course we should be careful, that's why we have RFA; however, some people asserted that a community desysopping process encourages the community to endorse more RFA candidates, and therefore automatically leads to more bad admins, and used that as an argument against a desysopping process. Note that I didn't say that such a process would encourage us to promote more bad administrators; that's a concern that some opposers have raised above. I've attempted to clarify my comment. Melsaran (talk) 22:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't imagine anyone has any intention of supporting someone they consider a bad candidate; let the straw man lie.  What this lets us do is support candidates that we know less about, knowing that mistakes can be undone.  Friday (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. Lara❤Love 05:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The arguments of the opposers

message: This is a proposal to replace ArbCom (partially, at least). If ArbCom needs to be replaced, it must be broken (or at least non-ideal) in some way. What way is that? Can someone give an example of an ArbCom decision on whether or not to desysop for which there is widespread agreement that it was incorrect? If ArbCom have made a mistake, then we should try and fix what caused it, but we need to determine what the mistake was before we can do that. --Tango 14:25, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't say the current process (ArbCom) is broken; rather, we say that we should have an additional process, namely community desysopping, which gives more power to the community and has several benefits (as outlined above). Please see my comment at #The arguments of the opposers. Purely as a sidenote, I could provide some examples: Geni was desysopped against community consensus, Jeffrey O. Gustafson wasn't desysopped while the community consensus was to desysop him. Melsaran (talk) 14:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: A lighter weight removing-the-bit process is not a replacement for Arbcom in any way at all!  It's the WP:PROD to Arbcom's WP:AFD.     Notice that we use both prod and afd these days.  Friday (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Afd is the community process.  PROD is an individual saying he thinks something should be deleted, and it goes ahead if absolutely nobody objects.  If you want to see a lightweight process for desysopping in action, look what happens when admins go seriously off the rails: instant desysopping, possibly restored if the arbitration committee decides to restore.  That's what we have now. --Tony Sidaway 14:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are also presumably people somewhere who unplug the servers when they catch fire. We don't generally need to consider emergencies when suggesting improvements to processes. The emergencies get taken care of quickly, with or without a process. Not sure quite how the case was made differently then, but at one time you seemed willing to consider this sort of idea. (This stuck out in my memory because you and I came shockingly close to agreeing on something.) Friday (talk) 15:07, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

text: If you believe an admin should be desysopped, add the  template to that admin's user page.  If there are no objections after five days, the user will be desysopped.  If the template is removed, it should not be replaced.  If the issues leading to the PRODesysop have not been addressed to your satisfaction, seek Arbitration.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could go for that.  Then, except in the most egregious cases, I could remove that tag from just about every page it's been placed on.  Corvus cornix 18:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: (not blended in the sense that I'm blended... not right now, at least)
Idea (semi-stolen from Meta). We have current RfAs the way they are. At the 1 year mark, we have a reconfirmation vote (read that as "!!vote" if you will...). If everyone votes to keep them as an admin, they're kept. If not, they're gone, and they can regain the sysop bit by running through RfA again.
Just a quick (not very fleshed out) idea for the sake of throwing around ideas. Thoughts? EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blended idea

message: I think it is time to archive this thread. It has not yielded a consensus, and is unlikely to in the form it is presented. It is dominating this discussion page and frankly is too long for here. Any actual ideas still being debated could be started fresh here after the archive. Thoughts? 1 != 2 16:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thoughts on what? You archived it in the same edit you propose archiving it. Lara❤Love 17:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

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

text: I'm in favor of archiving, too.  --Tony Sidaway 23:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. 1 != 2 17:54, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archive