Wikipedia talk:De-adminship

Moved from WP:RFA

I just want to say that I am not the same person as my brother. You should assume good faith and look at Principle Of First Trust and Iterated Prisoners Dilemma. Green Mountain 19:18, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

• Actually, since de-sysoping someone is so rare, we'd rather assume you're bad and make you prove otherwise. We do this by making sure you are here a reasonable amount of time. So please, don't take it personally if someone votes against you becoming a sysop - it is just a statement that we don't really trust you yet - we haven't known you long enough. Be patient, and re-request it again after you've been here a while longer. And most of all - be honest, because that's the first character trait we look for in a potential sysop --Raul654 22:28, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we just need a better de-sysopping policy then so we don't need to be so wary about making people sysops in the first place. Currently, even where a majority feel someone should be desysopped, there is no process for making that happen. Angela. 21:08, Jan 9, 2004 (UTC)
    • Uh, isn't that what a "nomination for de-adminship" (further down this page) is? --Raul654 00:17, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • No. That section is for nothing. Try it. List someone there. Nothing will happen! Until we have a policy, it's a bit pointless to have such a section as no one knows what to do about the votes once they've been made. Angela. 01:38, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)
        • I would think that we would need Jimbo's intervention to carry out one of these de-adminships before it becomes tradition. Green Mountain 00:21, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)
      • I strongly disagree. We don't require Jimbo to create sysops, so why should we require him to desysop people? I see no reason why this can't be a community decision in exactly the same way creating sysops is. Angela. 01:38, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators indicates that there are six former administrators. Have any of them been removed against their own will? -- Lord Emsworth 01:57, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

• Only one, as I recall, and (in my opinion) for less reason than was given for subsequent admins who've had "problems" and yet not had their privileges revoked. I agree with Angela, this system needs some rethinking. - Hephaestos 03:35, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think it is both the adminsip and de-adminship policies that need to be settled. Currently things likes the amount of time recommended before someone is allowed to apply is being changed every week. If there is going to be a policy, I think the following questions need to be addressed. Angela

• Adminship

1. How long should someone wait before applying?
2. How long should be left between nomination/application and promotion?
3. If sysops were given the ability to make this decision, how many sysops should be required to make it?

• De-adminship

1. Should this be voted on?
2. How many votes are required before a decision is made
3. How long should the vote last?
4. Where should the discussion take place?
5. Who should make the decision to desysop someone? Consensus of users, sysops, developers, or sole decision by Jimbo?

---

See this IRC_log for a brief conversation on this issue. -- Tim Starling 05:13, Jan 10, 2004 (UTC)

---

Just a few humble opinions to offer in response to Angela's questions. I'd say from what I've seen, the average quest for adminship is done after about 5 months (Hence, the typical phrase "I haven't been here quite 6 months, but..."). I think there should be an absolute minimum of 2-3 months before someone is allowed to apply, and (at least) 700 edits. 700 isn't too high a bar for people who write new articles (as opposed to single-word copyedits), but would help us filter out the register-and-forget mentality. The voting process should probably be capped at two weeks. That's more than enough time for everyone to express his opinion - even people who only check once in a while (like myself).

As far as de-adminship, I'd like to start by saying how great I think it is that Wikipedia has been around this time without a need for such a policy. It just goes to show how successful we have been in picking trustworthy people to be admins. With that said, I think the process should be similiar to requesting adminship. Voting should take two weeks, for the same reason as above. Discussion should take place, and the matter should be taken to a vote. However, in this case, I think that Jimbo should be the one to make the final call. Just like a trial judge, he should give strong weight to our consensus, but he does not have to abide by it (to avoid the whole mob-mentality). --Raul654 13:08, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I can't see why we shouldn't have requests for de-adminship in exactly the same was as requests for adminship. If a majority of people in the community do not feel that they can trust the user with admin powers any more, then I don't see why that is not sufficient to de-admin them. The threat of de-adminship would also be more likely to make admins more wary of not abusing their powers. ~~~~ 19:28, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)