Wikipedia talk:Community de-adminship/Archive 1

I support this, but expect a lot of opposition once the admins find out about it. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also support this. The community needs a way to remove adminship without having to go running to our parents to ArbCom. The requirement of 10 editors in good standing is a high enough threshold to avoid frivolous or malicious requests. Fences&Windows 01:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy for this to be in place - if I do something outrageous, I should be recallable Fritzpoll (talk) 12:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apoc2400 - I'm possibly the longest serving admin still active and I have NO issue at all with this process. I just read the guide and whoever wrote it (apologies for not researching who that was/they were) has clearly put some deep thought into what is a much-needed and long overdue process. At the moment I can't see any concrete objection I have to any of it. Sure the process is at some risk of WP:CANVASS type attacks, but then what WP process isn't? The only people who might object are the clerks (of which I am one) because of the increased workload. (But choosing the clerks to handle the paperwork does make good sense, given the remit of the clerks in general.) Well-done to all concerned. Manning (talk) 05:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been around nearly as long as Manning Bartlett, but I am hardly a noob and I am an admin, and I support this. I never cared for "recall" as it was too easy to game. Not naming any names, but the criteria on some of the recall pages is impossible to meet. I second all of Manning's statement above (btw ty for writing that out!) and feel this is a step in the right direction. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 00:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a relatively new admin., but I have no objections to this. I left a note for Uncle G., that you/we may want to list this over at: Wikipedia:WikiProject Administrator. There are several efforts going on directed in this area - and I think if everyone works together, it might help improve things. If we all work together, to learn, grow, and make the in and out of "Admin." a bit less dramatic - perhaps it can improve the overall state of the project. — Ched :  ?  05:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, if we get enough admins supporting this - one of the few times I'll say that this is more important than non-admins accepting it - then perhaps we can get a critical mass. I think editors without +sysop might leap at any process that isn't going to be quashed as "too easy to game" by administrators. I suggest gradually (very gradually) inviting other people over to look at this, and make any necessary tweaks before making it more widely known. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet gone through the details, but I have no doubt at all that the general principle - that admins must be subject to community sanctions if they fail to meet the standards required - is important and that some such system is necessary. Doubtless there will be admins who will disagree, but I think you will find that there are many who support the idea. Ben MacDui 19:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC) (admin)[reply]

I'd rather see this than anything else put forth, but I'm still a bit skeptical of it. Honestly, I'm not sure why what we've got doesn't work—ArbCom seems even more likely than in the past to desysop when needed, and honestly, I think the amount of deliberation and warning that leads up to that point is probably a good thing, as is having a body accustomed to dealing with the unavoidable complexities of such matters. So, my questions before supporting this would be: What is the actual problem, and why is this (rather than taking the offenders to ArbCom) the optimal solution? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]