Forum:Limiting De-sysoping forums to Admins only

I got this idea a while ago, but actually never got round to posting this. Also, I made a typo in the header: It is meant to say De-sysoping forums.

Discussion
No. When someone is worthy of de-sysoping, it has to be the community consensus, not just a handful of admins. Some of which might not have a problem with the users actions. Slowrider7 18:18, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. That is extremely exclusive and violates COD:AEAE. 18:20, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

Admins are elected via community consensus. Therefore their rights must be removed via community consensus except in extreme circumstances. 18:24, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * ohu. <3 --Slowrider7 18:26, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

As per Cal, it is not a good idea. It gives having sysop/bureaucrat rights an advantage in terms off just punishment. This is not what having flags should or was designed to deliver. Because of this, limiting who can post de-sysop forums is a bad idea. Spam and stupid forums will either be deleted or fail anyway. TheDocRichtofen (  Talk  ) 20:08, September 5, 2011 (UTC)

COD:AEAE, but then again how many de-sysop forums have we ever had? I've been through two, and they were both about Sp3c (of which I cameo'd in) so these forums come around so rarely we don't even need to think about them. 20:47, September 5, 2011 (UTC)
 * AFAIK, in all the wiki's time, there have been five forums about desysoppings - the two you mentioned, and these three. Now, on the subject of my input... I disagree with the OP. Per COD:AEAE, every user should have his/her say. Sgt. S.S. 16:54, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
 * True, and as they were so spread out IMO, we don't need to worry about de-sysoping, so when it does come along, which is rare, we should just let everyone vote. There's no need to worry. 17:16, September 6, 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't address any particular problem. It's not like we have an abundance of de-sysoping topics anyway. This sort of thing is much better handled through other methods rather than a War Room thread unless the problem is widespread. It's otherwise a public trial of an online janitor. --Scottie theNerd 12:51, September 7, 2011 (UTC)
 * ^ 00:02, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Basically what everyone else said on the page, and I especially agree with Cod4's point - Admins are elected via community consensus, so their rights would have to be removed via community consensus. (Generally speaking). -- 18:13, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed per all the above reasons.  Talk 04:21, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

New proposal
From what we've seen so far, a desysop forum has a 40% chance of failing. Considering the three forums which failed were both by what were essentially butthurt users (sorry to them), I recommend that desysop forums in future may only be made by other admins. Before anyone claims COD:AEAE (and to a lesser extent, COD:AGF, I don't really believe in that tbh but w/e), anyone with 50 mainspace edits will still be allowed to vote. The general reason for desysoping a user is a loss of confidence and so is usually first felt by other active administrators. This is not to impede the rights of the general community, but merely to prevent the random, unforeseen and completely bias desysop forums we've seen in the past. 17:42, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. 18:37, September 9, 2011 (UTC)


 * Eh, only one problem. What if the admins don't want to nominate that person? 19:09, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Then it shouldn't be necessary to nominate them in the first place. I'm not saying that administrators are always right, but if there's no clear problem with the user that the rest of the administration can see, then there should be no problem at all. 19:16, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's limit sysoping to existing admins only too. That way there won't be, for example, selfnoms by people with only 50 edits, or something, or who just failed another RfA, or something
 * And let's limit proposing big changes to the wiki, for example policies, because those could get heated up too
 * What I want to say here is that almost every subject or thread can get a negative outcome or heated up situations. If you are going to limit block threads (which I can kind of understand), and then limit desysop threads, you could as well call that "the first 2 babysteps" for limiting proposing almost anything. As almost anything can result in a negative or heated up situation, there is not much more reason to restrict this subject than restricting almost any other subject. 19:50, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, but it's the style of the thread which determines the outcome. A balanced argument is always the best approach; this isn't one most users generally tend to take, however. 21:17, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * I know exactly where you are coming from, Joey, because I feel the exact same way about images. However, desysopping forums are clear-cut and defined, and the fact that they rarely come up makes them a decent candidate for additional ruling. Shotrocket6 10:16, September 16, 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. To me any user should be allowed to start a desysop forum. Admins are voted into power and can be nominated by anybody. It just stands to reason that they can be voted out of power and can be nominated for that by anybody. Poketape Talk 21:08, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Becoming an admin is not being voted into "power", it is the gain of a set of tools to help with various tasks around the wiki. 21:15, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Can't the set of tools be considered "additional powers"? BOofficialicon.jpg Poketape  Talk 21:18, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Power is described as "the possession of control or command over others; power over men's minds," thus describing them as so implies that you would be able to lever an advantage over someone. At no point should any of the extra tools in the toolset be used as such a manner. 21:23, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Isn't blocking a user considered control over others? Aren't admins considered to be authority figures considering they're the only ones that can close discussions? What about being able to protect pages? That's using power over others' editing ability. BOofficialicon.jpg Poketape  Talk 21:24, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * However, none of your examples show someone with extra tools getting any kind of "advantage" over regular users. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 21:30, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * To me, being able to edit protected pages is an advantage over regular users. BOofficialicon.jpg Poketape  Talk 21:31, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * However does being able to edit protected pages give you an advtange in a general topic here? TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 21:33, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Me being an admin does not give me the right to control say... Diego by threatening with a block unless he does task X or Y. Furthermore, yes, we can protect pages, but it's not in our right to permanently lock a page. The tools are called user rights for a reason, with each right comes just as great responsibility to exercise them correctly. Me having "power" implies that I'm above other users. Am I? No. Administrators are role models also, and authority should only be applied on those who do not abide with wiki rules. 21:34, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * It may not be our right to permanently lock a page, but who will call for desysoping us if only admins can do that? If only admins can desysop somebody, and that somebody has perma-locked a page, then the admins have no problem with the admin's action and won't do anything. BOofficialicon.jpg Poketape  Talk 21:38, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * yayz I got mentioned <3.-21:39, September 9, 2011 (UTC)
 * Quiet you. TheDocRichtofen  (  Talk  ) 21:45, September 9, 2011 (UTC)

Admins are elected by the people ofr the people. Thus, if they aren't helping the people, then they should be able to start a De-sysoping forum. CoaZ Talk  16:34, September 10, 2011 (UTC)


 * ^This is exactly correct. We can elect people to be admins, and elect admins to be de-sysoped. Pretty much, I want my rights! 16:43, September 10, 2011 (UTC)

This is a great idea, but I never realized that Sp3c got de-sysoped what happened? TheEpicShot 00:26, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Read this. 22:27, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

I believe that regular wiki members should be allowed to start a De-sysop forum. Maybe impose an edit requirement or something along those lines, but I don't think the power to start a De-sysop forum should be limited to just admins. D_47 19:53, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me just point out that the edit requirement wouldn't be good: those people who know enough about administration and how this place runs and know someone should be de-sysopped, have many edits (or knows what they are doing), and a high edit requirement is a stupid idea. 22:27, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * The reasoning behind that idea was to prevent someone who just got here from starting a De-sysop forum over some stupid reason. It wasn't meant to impede upon users who have been here for a while. With that, I still think regular wiki members should be allowed to start a De-sysop forum. D_47 22:58, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I meant that new users won't probably start a de-sysop forum anyway. And when they're not so new anymore, they'll see if someone should be de-sysopped or not and may start a forum, but that's another story. 23:02, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you but you never know what people will do when they get mad at an admin, especially newer users. I've been raged at countless times and have had my page vandalized before and as you have stated once a person has been here a while they won't try to start a de sysop forum without good reason but an edit count could prevent new users who just get "butthurt" from starting one. Carbonite 0 15:48, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * A minimum edit requirement would violate COD:AEAE (Oh god, another user quoting a policy in a War Room thread, shoot me); all War Room, improvement drive, Articles for Deletion and featured article forums require 50 edits. Furthermore, implememting a minimum edit count won't do squat, as every user who has made a desysop forum (Myself, Darthkenobi0, Cpl.Bohater and Chia) has at least 4,500 edits to date; adding a minimum limit would itself be pointless. 16:03, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * And I'm talking about keeping it that way. I'm not saying make it 4,000 plus edits to start one. I'm saying since a desysop forum is a serious matter it shouldn't be easy for a user who has had virtually no time here to call for one. And before someone even thinks about it, I'm not violating AGF, I'm acknowledging some people can and do get all offended and want to cause trouble over stupid shit like an edit war. Carbonite 0 16:23, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I said AEAE D: (You can see for yourself what my opinion on AGF is up top :P). I'd rather just make it so only an admin to make the forum (anyone with the minimum requirements can still vote) so that there's less drama in the first place. 16:27, September 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * I know you did but people like quoting AGF as of late and I wanted to keep them from doing so. I agree with that idea, Admins make it but anyone with 50 edits can vote. Carbonite 0 16:48, September 12, 2011 (UTC)

Comment - I think a good example of where a user who is not admin might still need to be able to start such thread is the fact Drk was one of the proposers of desysoping sp3c and it passed. I suggest all users with custodian, blogpatrol or chat moderator rights are able to make such thread, or, as said by others above, set an editcount limit (or both). 09:12, September 13, 2011 (UTC)


 * Whilst he was one of the proposers, it was me, N7 and Sactage who wrote the lion's share of the forum. 20:26, September 16, 2011 (UTC)

My primary reason for opposing this idea is that users may not fully understand the circumstances of the admin's fault in question. As pointed out in Sactage's RfB, there are many admins who clearly know COD:BG through and through and would be able to make the right call, as opposed to the majority of users would not. There are too many differences in voter knowlege to have an even level of understanding; users who know nothing about the blocking guidelines or the admin in question may cast a valid vote. To avoid an AEAE dispute, I feel it is better to leave desysopping up to the admins themselves, because they are much more likely to know the right thing to do. Shotrocket6 15:23, September 25, 2011 (UTC)

Rights? Please.
I'm amused at how people are shouting DEMOCRACY for what is otherwise meant to be a bureaucratic process. Just because you vote someone in doesn't necessarily mean you can vote them out. For the record for those who are playing the democracy card: few systems allow the voter base to remove people from elected positions of responsibility -- that is usually dealt with by the board, cabinet, or whatever the governing body is; if not through enough pressure to force the elected member to step down.

That's pretty much how it ought to work here. Issues concerning admins should be dealt with through Talk pages first, not through open War Room threads. Most issues don't concern the entire community and only a limited few have any actual input into the issue. Encouraging users to create de-modding threads is practically encouraging a witch trial. And for what? Admins don't have any executive powers. They have tools that protect against vandalism, remove troublesome users, and that's pretty much it.

Remember, the process of becoming an admin is technically not a "voting" process but a "vetting" process, in which the users and admin team assess whether the candidate would be an appropriate member of the admin team. The admin team should know best about how the person in question works as part of their team. There are already channels of communication that users can direct their concerns. If you were being criticised for someone you did, would you rather have it done in relatively privacy by having someone tell their concerns via another admin or bureaucrat, or would you want to deal with the public name and shame of a War Room thread?

By all means allow community discussion of issues relating to admins, but don't dupe the system by putting it down to a public vote. --Scottie theNerd 00:54, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

We may not be a democracy, but to me removing the right to call a vote to desysop admins makes us an oligarchy. Besides, when people want to vote out somebody they can sometimes call a recall vote depending on that person's position. Even the president can get removed from office if a successful impeachment occurs and then the Senate agrees. If we were to remove users' right to call a desysop vote, then there must also be users in between the two user levels that can be voted upon to have the right to call the desysop vote. Perhaps letting users with rollback rights to the desysop vote calling pool would also help. Poketape Talk 06:19, September 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * An oligarchy implies a rule by a select few. The admins aren't rulers in any way. Additionally, the example of the president, as you have highlighted, is not a process started by a single voter but by the executive (and, if relevant, the judiciary) bodies. Thirdly, we're not "removing" the users' right to call a desysop vote because they never had that "right". The CODwiki lacks a process in which an admin can be stripped of their responsibilities. At the moment users are more prone to use the War Room to get immediate attention rather than beginning discussions with other admins. A vote should be the last step in the process, and our efforts should be more focused on the discussion of the issue rather than go trigger-happy with the support/oppose templates. --Scottie theNerd 06:51, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well yes a discussion should occur before a vote, but any user should be allowed to start that discussion. BOofficialicon.jpg Poketape Talk 07:10, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, like the senators of Rome in a way? They selected the most important figures to vote, but would that work here, or all editors are equal? 10:51, September 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * If I had a beard, I would stroke it when I read what you said. Made me feel like a scholar. BOofficialicon.jpg Poketape Talk 19:15, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Scottie. Shotrocket6 19:22, September 11, 2011 (UTC)

The only reason I could think of making desysop forums a community vote is because they were voted into a sysop position by the community, so they should be voted out of a sysop position by the community as well. I'm fine with that, but in all honesty, I would like it to be left up to the people who know best of what's expected of sysops - the sysops themselves. 09:35, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * People who are not sysop could very well know what is expected of sysops too. It's not like you learn secret info only sysops know when you get sysoped. The fact people vote to get admins means the voting people know enough of what is expected of an admin too. There should definetely be a discussion about such a huge change as desysoping someone. That change is at least as big as the change of sysoping someone. 19:04, September 13, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not entirely true... BOofficialicon.jpg Poketape Talk 19:50, September 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not entirely, but he has a point: for example, I know a lot of administration yet I've barely been one on any wiki. 19:54, September 17, 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was referring to the part about secret info only sysops know. If you've seen the movie "Independence Day" think back to the scene where they're in the plane and the main character's dad talks about Area 51. BOofficialicon.jpg Poketape Talk 02:52, September 18, 2011 (UTC)

Question
If de-sysop forums are open to non-admins as well, why is blockforums limited to them (at least that image I got from this)? It's said that "admins block, normal users don't", but then again "crats de-sysop, normal users don't". If only other one is available for non-admins, the other one should as well, or the other way around. I wanna get this clear. 17:51, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not up to the community to decide upon a ban, hence they don't have access to Special:Block. 17:59, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * They also don't have access to Special:UserRights. 18:10, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * Not that relevent, but okay. Administrators didn't even have access to it until Special:Chat came out. 18:13, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * I just meant that de-sysopping is also made with Special:UserRights, in case you didn't get it. 18:37, September 15, 2011 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't need access to Special:Block to be able to take part in a blocking vote. So for example, if we wanted to block N7 permamently, but the admins did not agree but that's what the users wanted, are you trying to imply that you'd ignore it even though that would be what the community wanted? (note that I don't want N7 banned, his name's just the easiest to type) 17:31, September 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * What? 17:33, September 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * If a bunch of users without admin rights wanted someone blocked, they wouldn't be able to start a discussion and vote in it, which would unfairly turn the tides of the vote. 17:39, September 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * Well there's the fundemental question of "Why would we need to ban N7?" The adminsitrators follow COD:BG and it's up to the discretion of the administrator team to decide whether or not they apply to the individual situation. The war room is meant to be a place for discussing wiki matters only; it is not meant to be a place where individual users fight in the arena for their rights to edit the wiki. Put it like this; are normal users allowed to close forums? 17:42, September 18, 2011 (UTC)
 * That argument doesn't work, Smuff, because users are allowed to create war room threads, and who is an admin is a wiki matter. BOofficialicon.jpg Poketape Talk 20:34, September 22, 2011 (UTC)

But it doesn't need to happen that way. If any user has an issue with another user, they are free to approach an admin and discuss the matter. It is individual admin discretion on whether action is needed. Blocks are usually the result of violations of rules or policies and all admins have the power to issue warnings and blocks as they see appropriate. It isn't up to the user to decide the punitive outcome; all they have to do is inform an admin. Blocks are an administrative issue, not a public issue -- we're not voting to ostracise a user every week. As a real-life example, a citizen doesn't have the right to determine how long someone has to spend in prison; they only report the crime and the actual punishment is decided by the court.

If we encourage users to put up ballots for blocks, we're starting a Salem witch hunt. --Scottie theNerd 02:23, September 26, 2011 (UTC)
 * That's the best I've ever heard it explained, Scottie. Bravo. 02:31, September 26, 2011 (UTC)

Limiting De-sysoping forums to admins only
Title says it all.

Support

 * "this" referring to your support, or the entire forum itself? 19:20, September 27, 2011 (UTC)
 * The support. 19:21, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

Neutral
Neutral -- While I can see the benefits of having a community discussion in regards to the removal of an administrator, I can also see how it would be much more efficient and painless to limit the discussion to other administrators. As such, I'll remain neutral unless someone can manage to convince me how one side is better than the other. 19:16, September 27, 2011 (UTC)


 * Policies such as AEAE should be treated with integrity and is subject to interpretation. AEAE is a policy that is there to protect the rights of users and is subject to change; it is not there as an automatic veto to anything that may do so. 19:29, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

--Scottie theNerd 02:49, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

--  Talk 06:19, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

Oppose

 * However, could the community not provide input on the Forum's talk page, which the administrators could take into account when having their discussion? 19:18, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

Per Xd1358. Sgt. S.S. 18:35, September 27, 2011 (UTC)

Poketape Talk 02:45, September 28, 2011 (UTC)

Comments
@Smuff, if it's a "poorer quality" forum, then an admin can close and archive it for that reason. Sgt. S.S. 18:35, September 27, 2011 (UTC)