The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![]() | This RFC is about the policy which will be required if Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag succeeds. |
If there is consensus that bureaucrats should be granted the technical ability to remove the administrator permission from user accounts at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag, the use of that ability needs to be governed by a policy specifying in which cases bureaucrats should be allowed to do so.
Currently there are four different scenarios in which stewards are authorized to remove the administrator permission from user accounts:
This discussion was started to determine which of those cases should be handled by bureaucrats on this project directly instead of requesting the stewards to do it.
Note: The implementation of this proposal is dependent on bureaucrats having the technical ability to remove the administrator permission. If Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag fails to achieve consensus, the policy proposed in this RfC is moot.
RFC started: 20:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
If multiple proposals for separate situations gain consensus (e.g. for self-requests and inactive accounts) but the proposal for all situations does not, only the proposals with consensus in their favor will be added to the policy. In this case, !votes in favor of the "all situations" proposal will be counted as !votes in favor of all four separate proposals, unless the !voting user clearly specifies that they only support a policy that includes the complete "all situations" proposal or who specified that they disagree that their !vote is counted this way.
Proposals are being discussed individually; any that carry will be combined into a coherent section upon the closure of the RFC.
SNOW-closed in lieu of discussing each situation individually below |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
The statement "If a bureaucrat removes the "administrator" user right from any user, they are required to notify the user in question immediately, including an explanation why the user right was removed and how they may re-gain it." appears to conflict with the statement "Bureaucrats may remove the "administrator" user right from an editor's account if the editor is deemed inactive per Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators" -- which references the following statement: "The admin must be contacted on their user talk page and via email (if possible) one month prior to the request for desysopping and again several days before the desysopping would go into effect." It should be made clear that endorsing this proposal is endorsing removal after attempting to contact the admin, and not endorsing removal followed by attempting to contact the admin. Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the rationale for this - are there specific problems posed by having inactive admin accounts? Mike Peel (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
"Bureaucrats may remove the "administrator" user right from an administrator by official request of the Arbitration Committee. If a bureaucrat removes the "administrator" user right from any user, they are required to notify the user in question immediately, including an explanation of why the user right was removed and how they may re-gain the user may regain it. Notification is not required if the user was already has already been notified of the removal."
Sorry to be a pedant, but if the user has already been notified, that was presumably done by ArbCom. If ArbCom can decide by itself to remove the right, why are the crats given the option of removing it or not removing it, in the word "may"? Can't have it both ways. Better: "Bureaucrats may should remove the "administrator" user right by official request of from an administrator if officially requested by the Arbitration Committee. ..." Tony (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Crazynas t 16:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Unlike the other cases, this one has the possibility of an imposter putting in the request. It might be better if in the specific case of a self-request, a seven-day waiting period be imposed between granting the request and actually flipping the bit. Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be some sort of grace period where a user could request the authority be returned within 72 hours or some reasonable time. The main reasons I can think of for someone giving up Administrator privileges would be a change of lifestyle or work that demands more of their time. Plans can fall through. Bookbrad (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
SNOW-closed in lieu of #Emergencies (v2) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
|
SUPPORT all. But why is Wiki so hard to edit? Opening four different windows, the tiny edit box, that I have then then scroll through, typing the # symbol. It's unreasonable. Every other forum has commenting and voting without all this wasted manual formatting work.TCO (reviews needed) 13:35, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
Two thoughts - what about deceased admins? Also, I'm assuming that de-cratting would still need to go through a steward? --Rschen7754 06:22, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I, for one, would not mind seeing most of those assholes fired! The vast majority of admins that I have come across are jerks who are only interested in pushing their own POV. I think that admin powers should expire automatically every six months and then a vote held to see if the dude should get his admin powers back, with a certain number of minimum votes required and if that minimum is not reached, even if the guy has the majority of the votes, he is still denied admin powers. General Zukov (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
As an FYI, I've initiated a discussion concerning emergency desysopping at Wikipedia talk:Bureaucrats#Emergency desysopping (v3). –xenotalk 01:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)