Forum:CT:De-adminship process

This page is an archive of a community-wide discussion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made in the Senate Hall, this page's talk page or new Consensus Track pages rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was deadminship process adopted. —Silly Dan _(talk) 01:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Several users, myself included, wish to see a sort of de-adminship process. So I propose the following:

Wookieepedia:Requests for removal of adminship

An extreme measure against administrators and bureaucrats that, over prolonged periods of time, have worked deliberately against Wookieepedia, have displayed undesirable behavior that causes substantial harm to the image of the Wookieepedia community, and/or abused their powers.

Requirements:

1. There exists substantial proof that the admin or bureaucrat has worked deliberately against Wookieepedia, engaged in behavior that has damaged the image of the Wookieepedia community, and/or abused their powers.

   Links to said proof must be provided. Edits to Wookieepedia, comments on other web sites and IRC chat logs may be used as evidence.

2. Participating registered users' votes must have a 2/3 supermajority for adminship to be removed (Only users who have been registered for over a month—from the day the nomination is put forth—are counted).
3. Participating administrators' votes must have a 2/3 supermajority for adminship to be removed.
4. Participating bureaucrats' votes must be unanimous for adminship to be removed.

Discussion

That's all I can think of for now (it's 3:30 AM), feel free to post your thoughts and let's brainstorm a real proposal, then have a vote. --Imp 02:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• I think the requirements are too stringent. Even a two-thirds supermajority of users and admins would probably only happen if someone was really screwing up and needed to be relieved, but if that seems too lax, 75% should be more than sufficient. Heck, even if Crumb was an admin I don't think he could get the necessary votes to be dislodged under the current requirements. jSarek 03:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Modified. --Imp 03:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
    • I think even the 75% for users might be too much. Two-thirds is much better. Overall, I have to agree with the need for such a process. Havac 04:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Don't lower it to two-thirds. 75% is the minimum I would say is necessary for removing someone's admin status. It's supposed to be hard to have admin powers revoked. Taking an example from real life, in most places with impeachment or recall procedures for elected officials, it's a lot harder to get someone out of office than to get someone into office. Atarumaster88 ^{(Audience Chamber)} 18:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
        • But Wookieepedia doesn't run like reality :P; it takes a different philosophy from that of politics, though it may share some similarities. Hm, how about 70%? —Mirlen 23:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm not going to push the issue, but I think two-thirds is reasonable. People have to work very hard to gain adminship, and should work equally as hard to keep it. --Azizlight 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• I think we need to expand the requirements a little more, to cover undesirable behavior that causes substantial harm to the image of the Wookieepedia community. I'm not sure that's really covered in "abuse of his/her powers." Any thoughts? --Azizlight 23:30, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Added it. =) --Imp 23:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
• I'm fine with that. Similar requirements to becoming an Admin, except 3/4 for users and 3/4 of admins (vs. 2/3). It should be tougher to de-admin someone. -Fnlayson 23:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Just to be sure, I added it to the actual requirements, as well, so they match up with the definition. jSarek 00:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
    • The restriction placed on user votings was a good measure to add. The requirements seem fine; I can't think of anything else to add. —Mirlen 04:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
• I am thinking it should be the same as with gaining admin, which is by design difficult to do, also. The main difference with this and a political office is that there is no term: once an admin, always an admin (unless you really screw up). In a political office, if people don't like you, they can likely just wait 2,4,6 years and things will change. Anyway, to sum up, I say we keep it the same 2/3 users, 2/3 admins, 3/3 beureaucrats. This would require that at least a third half of the people who thought you would make a good admin now think you have not lived up to the standard. WhiteBoy 20:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually, half. Havac 22:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
    • You're right. My bad. WhiteBoy 02:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
• I assume that the 75% and unanimity above is a fraction of users/admins/bureaucrats voting, right? Also, would the admin under review have his or her vote count? —Silly Dan _(talk) 02:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Seems like a good idea, but the fine print might need to be tweaked some. —Xwing328^(Talk) 17:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Ditto to Silly Dan, so we can prevent another situation like at Sikon's bureaucrat hearing. I propose that the 75% and unanimity above be applied only to the votes casted and not the total number; and that the admin in question not be able to vote. Kuralyov 04:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
    • There wasn't much of a situation with Sikon becoming a bureaucrat. People had enough respect for me that they wanted to hear my opinion on the matter. And that was much appreciated. WhiteBoy 19:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
      • If misguided. Kuralyov 22:01, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
        • Play nicely, everyone. Havac 00:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a question. Under the current system, it looks like the number of bureaucrats will increase significantly. Should the "unanimous bureaucrat vote" still be enforced in that event? Seems unfair that one bureaucrat - possibly a "non-founder" bureaucrat - will have veto power over three or more other bureaucrats plus everyone else. --Azizlight 05:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• One reason why we should be very discriminating in who we choose to be bureaucrats. WhiteBoy 21:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, this is off-topic a bit, but five bureacrats is the maximum we should have, in my opinion. Chack Jadson 01:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Anything else?

Now that we have resolved the above issue, is there anything else anyone would like to add/remove/comment? --Imp 21:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new thread.