Wikipedia talk:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept/Proposals

Formatting[edit]

Would anyone object to refactoring the section headers so that it was clear in the edit summary which topic someone was referring to? For example: Primary proposal - Support, instead of just support? Monty ₈₄₅ 18:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly don't. It's annoying bouncing all over the place Worm^TT(talk) 18:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is annoying, so please do that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guide me ....[edit]

I have a kinda idea, I have no idea whether anyone else has suggested what I'm thinking of, I'm too asleep to try and search the entire 'pedia (OK, that was an exaggeration) to find it (if it exists) ...

...where could I make a suggestion about a possible process (whicih might even already exist) without me getting shot down inflames for rampant stupidity, etc.? Pesky (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm impatient, so I'll risk the possible flames, etc .... ;P Pesky (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Recommended reading[edit]

For anyone who decides to put forth a serious proposal, I recommend that you first read Wikipedia:De-adminship proposal checklist. During the CDA poll, it was brought to my attention by editors who opposed proposals of this sort. I still think that it's worth a look. If you can, really, check most of the boxes, you will end up being much better positioned to respond to criticism. And unless the community has changed more than I think it has, those criticisms will indeed present themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And please bear in mind that a large part of what ruined the last attempt at this was that everyone wanted their own pet proposal and we wound up with a ridiculous number of competing ideas, some with only minor differences from one another. If you have an idea to slightly modify an existing proposal, please just say so instead of drsssing it up like a whole new idea. the more proposals we have, the lower the chance of arriving at a consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 14:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed! --Tryptofish (talk) 15:05, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As the principal author of that checklist, I have to note that it's probably out of date—or at least incomplete. It places too much emphasis on the nuts-and-bolds procedural WP:BIKESHED issues, and not nearly enough on demonstrating necessity and utility. Since I put it together a couple of years ago, I've come to realize that virtually all such proposals are likely a waste of time (both for their development and in their hypothetical future use). The ArbCom should already have the capacity to enact a dozen or so desysopping motions per year; I presume that (most of) the authors of this latest round of proposals don't see a need for higher throughput than that.

Better reading might be Wikipedia:Community de-adminship/RfC#Simpler approaches have not been tried, which I wrote in response to the last major proposal for a new desysopping bureaucracy. (Reading my entire critique on that page would probably be helpful, but may be more than the casual visitor would want to take on.) The ArbCom has demonstrated that they will act – rapidly and by motion – when presented with a clear expression of the community's will. Further, they have demonstrated that they will do so even when an individual's misconduct doesn't involve the use of admin tools. A user-conduct RfC may be helpful in such circumstances, but has not been required or necessary in some of the cases where the ArbCom has proceeded by motion. For reference, the most recent desysopping by motion was less than a month ago: [1].

Until a credible effort has been made to use the faster and simpler solutions I outlined (two years ago!), creating a new process is just creating an attractive nuisance. It will result in very few desysoppings, and a very large number of time-wasting, drama-generating filings produced by editors who want to punish admins who disagreed with them, and an even larger number of blustery threats to file made by editors who see it as a convenient shortcut around rational discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Timing of re-affirmation discussion[edit]

I'm not sure where this idea should go, as it can be used in conjunction with several of the various proposals. It is a variation on the concept of fixed-length terms, and to some extent, the two-phase proposal. Admins would be eligible for recall, but only once every X years. If sufficient support can be garnered to hold a re-affirmation discussion, then one is held around the admin's anniversary of obtaining administrative privileges. Otherwise, the admin's term is renewed automatically. Hopefully for the majority of admins, there would be insufficient demand for a re-affirmation, and so the extra workload of re-affirmation discussions will be kept to a minimum. There will also be an opportunity for the furor over any controversial decisions to die down and for sober reflection to take place before an admin is up for re-affirmation again. This could lead to admins being more bold in the middle of their terms than towards the end, but if admins continue to be appointed throughout the year, this should be manageable. isaacl (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

v t e 2012 discussions around removal of adminship
Please note that this is an ideas phase, we are not yet looking for firm consensus
Community de-adminship proof of concept	Home (Talk) – RfC overview Proposals (Talk) – Proposals and discussions on de-adminship
Requests for removal of adminship	Proposal page (Talk) Proposal stemming from earlier discussion originally presented here, which allows for the community to request the removal of adminship.
Request for Admin Sanctions	Proposal page (Talk) – Proposal to setup a system for sanctioning administrators.
Helpful reading	2010 proposal 2009 proposal 2008 proposal 2007 proposals 1 2 3 2006 proposals 1 2 3 4 2005 proposals 1 2
Current admin count: 859 (list all), 698 of them active (as of 31 July 2012). Activity is defined as 30 or more edits during the last two months. 232 have not edited in at least 3 months. (list)