Commons talk:Administrators/De-adminship
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Administrators/De-adminship. | |||
|---|---|---|---|
|
|||
| Archives: 1 | |||
"some consensus for removal"[edit]
“De-adminship requests that are opened without prior discussion leading to some consensus for removal may be closed by a bureaucrat as inadmissible.”
Per community consensus a 50% majority consensus is required for de-adminship. This line however increases that to an unspecified supermajority. This was added by Patstuart in 2007. The edit summary says "see talk" but I find no consensus for this particular line in the archive.
In my opinion we should more clearly define "some consensus for removal". - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- What is your suggestion? --Krd 15:56, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Krd: I'm not sure. One way might be
"three different autopatrolled users have to agree a de-adminship request should be started and if the last de-adminship request for the admin in question was less than 2 months ago at least two new supporters are required". Details may need to be adjusted. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:01, 5 September 2018 (UTC) - Adjusting that:
"three autopatrolled users have to agree a de-adminship request should be started and if there has been a previous de-adminship request for the admin in question at least one new (autopatrolled) supporter who didn't vote "remove" on the last request is required". This makes it harder to game the system. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:12, 5 September 2018 (UTC) - To be clear, I also distinguish between supporting a request and supporting an actual de-adminship. One should be able to support the request, simply to evaluate community support for the admin in question. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:20, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- I think with such policy we'd have 200 de-admin requests the day after implementation. Three is way too few, I could imagine nothing below ten. But it's still difficult to keep the soft criteria mandatory: Talking to the admin in question, allowing him to reflect his potential problems, resolving the problem without ending up in de-admin. This is more important than actual vote count in the (pre) discussion, which isn't a vote anyway. --Krd 16:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Adjusting again:
- To start a de-adminship request, three users have to agree to starting that request. These users must:
*be autopatrolled (also includes patrollers, admins, LR, etc, not autoconfirmed)- not have voted "oppose" on the request for adminship
not have voted "remove" on any previous request for de-adminship for the admin in questionupdate again
- I don't believe there will be 200 de-admin requests, but even if you believe that, that could be solved by adding that there can be no more than three de-adminship requests running at the same time. This will only happen once anyway because the next de-adminship for the same admin needs fresh supporters.
- Currently crats decide the outcome of a de-adminship (judge) but also who is allowed to start such a request in the first place (executive) and the "law" is written without consensus by some user named Patstuart who doesn't even seem to be around anymore. It all pretends to have a separation of powers, but it obviously doesn't. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- Adjusting again:
- I think with such policy we'd have 200 de-admin requests the day after implementation. Three is way too few, I could imagine nothing below ten. But it's still difficult to keep the soft criteria mandatory: Talking to the admin in question, allowing him to reflect his potential problems, resolving the problem without ending up in de-admin. This is more important than actual vote count in the (pre) discussion, which isn't a vote anyway. --Krd 16:40, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Krd: I'm not sure. One way might be
- Asking for 70% support makes no sense, that reduces the de-adminship request to a formality because that only requires 50%. The requirements to start a request should by definition be below 50% or else the de-adminship request will be redundant. You say my suggested criteria are "not realistic". Why exactly? If you read them well, you'll see they might trigger some de-adminship requests once when they are implemented (which we should be able to handle), but no continuous stream of de-adminship requests. To translate the criteria into something easier to read: an admin has to piss off three autopatrolled users whom they haven't pissed off before. Fæ and Jcb for example? Fæ wouldn't count towards the three autopatrolled users because he voted "Remove" on one of the de-adminship requests. If anything, I'd be worried these requirements make it too hard to start a request. Reducing the number of three users to two may be more sensible.
- The perfect test would actually be: "are you willing to bet $100 on the desysop failing?". If you're not, the request should be allowed to proceed. But this isn't easy to capture in words for a policy.
- Another update, users must:
- be autopatrolled (also includes patrollers, admins, LR, etc, not autoconfirmed)
- not have voted "oppose" on the request for adminship less than 1 year ago
- not have voted "remove" on any previous request for de-adminship for the admin in question less than 1 year ago
- Added "less than 1 year ago" because I think the previous conditions actually made it too hard to initiate a de-adminship request. Further finetuning is probably still needed, but I'm trying to devise something that takes the decision out of the hands of the crats (they already judge the outcome of the request, they don't need this) while preventing small groups with a grudge from spamming de-adminship requests. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:13, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- That's why you should let go of the idea that consensus should be required to even start a request. Consensus is required for the request to succeed, thus it should not be required to start the request. If it is, the request is completely pointless. Proven by the fact 10 out of 15 de-adminship requests were nothing but a formality for what was inevitable. I tried to create the proposal in a way that would avoid requests from small groups of users with a grudge and angry newbies. I'm pretty much done with this. If the system refuses to change, sooner or later, it will be changed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:29, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- I've already opened Pandora's box. If a small group of users holding a grudge actually wants to have a futile de-adminship request once a year, you better just let them have it. In the case we have now, Jcb, it would be better for everyone, Jcb included, to have a de-adminship request. If that request results in sufficient support for Jcb, it gives him a mandate. Starting a request has to be possible with less than consensus. Exactly how that'll be determined could be discussed, with a small number of trusted users, a larger number that can also include newbies, excluding users who recently voted on a de-adminship for that admin, some percentage (like 30%) of a vote, a fixed number, whatever. But if you require a consensus for a request, just skip the request altogether. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, you have tried to open the box, and it looks bad on you. But you still do not understand. The discussion potentially leading to a de-adminship is not a vote. It is a discussion which should show if a formal vote is needed or not. That is called a consensus. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
- I've already opened Pandora's box. If a small group of users holding a grudge actually wants to have a futile de-adminship request once a year, you better just let them have it. In the case we have now, Jcb, it would be better for everyone, Jcb included, to have a de-adminship request. If that request results in sufficient support for Jcb, it gives him a mandate. Starting a request has to be possible with less than consensus. Exactly how that'll be determined could be discussed, with a small number of trusted users, a larger number that can also include newbies, excluding users who recently voted on a de-adminship for that admin, some percentage (like 30%) of a vote, a fixed number, whatever. But if you require a consensus for a request, just skip the request altogether. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:48, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
