Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept

One of the most frequent comments at RfA reform 2011 regarding the high benchmark at RfA was that it is too hard to remove an incumbent administrator: once elected, it is a job for life. This topic has recently come up again, at both WT:RfA and User talk:Jimbo Wales.

Per the essay on removing administrator rights, there are currently five methods for removing administrator rights. Three of the five (1–3) are under the control of the administrator themselves; 4 and 5 are not:
 * 1) Resignation – any administrator can request the removal of their own rights at any time;
 * 2) Inactivity – if an administrator makes no edits in the space of 12 months, their rights can be removed, though they can be replaced on request at a bureaucrat's discretion;
 * 3) Administrators open to recall – an administrator can set up criteria for their own recall, they agree to resignation if the criteria is met. However, this is unenforceable and relies on the administrator's discretion.
 * 4) Arbitration requests – either by motion or by a full case. Significant requirements before a case is accepted, e.g. other methods of dispute resolution have been attempted.
 * 5) Emergency situations – in an emergency, a bureaucrat, a steward or Jimbo Wales can remove permissions.

The purpose of this RfC is to decide whether some form of community de-adminship process should be created, to discuss a number of concepts associated with community de-adminship, and to provide a place for suggested methods and commentary on those suggested methods. Once this RfC is complete, it should allow further discussion on the most likely methods of community de-adminship, if any.

General discussion

 * Comment I've always been of the opinion that adminship should be easy to obtain and even easier to lose. Admins should not fear the community. Yes, they might be concerned about individual editors, but they should not be concerned about the whole community. Wikipedia works because the good out number the bad by a significant proportion. A number of admins take the stance "You can have my bit when you pry it from my cold dead hands" and that's contrary to the spirit of cooperation that makes Wikipedia work. When admins view the community as The EnemyTM, it sets up a conflict which doesn't help the cooperative spirit of building an encyclopedia. The project should function in such a way that it's easy for us to get more than enough admins to do the job—and at the same time—be able to remove admins that are not well suited for the role. 64.40.54.64 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC) NOTE: IPs can't create pages, so if somebody wants to move this to Requests for Comment/Community de-adminship proof of concept/General discussion then please do. 64.40.54.64 (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am dismayed that, as well as this RFC, we now have two competing proposed policies. Please people, let's keep this discussion centralized in one place.  We do a disservice to the community, as well as the concepts, by creating multiple proposals across multiple pages to be considered all at the same time.  This division of consideration will almost certainly result in the community failing to get behind any of the proposals.  I urge the authors of the proposed policies to withdraw them or bring them to this page to give the community the opportunity to give them serious consideration.  Risker (talk) 04:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I would disagree with you Risker. I am a fan of boldness, particularly when it breaks a cycle of endless discussion, and this topic has been talked about for years, with no firm action.  I'm happy to take the first tangible step towards a real solution.  I think competing ideas are healthy, as it allows the community to see two different methods, live.  In the end, the ideas are competing with each other, not against, and it allows for more rapid development.   The idea behind RfAS is that must be more than binary options, and in order to be fair to the admins, we have to be open minded and allow for circumstances and the process shouldn't be a harsh "all or nothing" affair.


 * A large section of the community has made it clear that there must be more options, that sometimes others sanctions might be needed, that a temporary break from admin'ing should be considered. Jimmmy Wales made this clear with Bwilkins recently, for that matter.  The goal isn't to lose admins, it is to recognize the stresses involved, which sometimes mean they need to step away, or be strongly asked to do something different.  It is about solutions, not punishment or mob "justice".  And having Bureaucrats involved only makes sense, as they have the highest threshold for acceptance, arguably the highest trust and respect in the community, and determining consensus for adminship is already part of the job.  And of course, this reduces the load for ArbCom while giving them absolute and complete control over the process.  More importantly, WP:RAS is a fair and balanced approach that has strong but reasonable checks and balances against abuses, and is flexible enough to deal with any situation in a sensitive fashion.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 10:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Like Risker, I'm concerned about multiple discussion pages too. I looked over my watchlist today, and realized that I had to add even more pages to it, in order to follow everything that is going on. It's getting to where it's just too complex to keep track of everything. On the other hand, I see Dennis' point of view, that we need to be bold in considering a variety of options. If we were, now, at the stage where the community were choosing whether or not to implement a new proposal, it would indeed be unworkable. But I accept that we are, now, in the idea-gathering stage. So let me suggest this: someone really needs to put some effort into creating some sort of effective navigation guide, in one place, that links non-confusingly to every page where discussion is going on. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:08, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do.  Worm TT( talk ) 15:19, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made a navbox - and added it all over the place.  Worm TT( talk ) 16:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That is fine, and moving the parts of the discussion about the whole here is perfectly fine. I still feel that having live proposed policies that can be worked on individually is a benefit, not a detriment.  One way or another (or yet another), it is time for something to actually get done.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   Join WER 16:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the navbox. It's very helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:58, 31 July 2012 (UTC)