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 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)

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)