Wikipedia talk:De-adminship/IRC log

 the GMB and Aplank thing, coupled with Tim's deadminship page, has got me thinking... what if a requirement for being on VfD is having to disclose all prior identities  doh! i mean RfA  s/VfD/RfA/  if people have suspicions they usually demand something similar I must admit, I've always had a strange fascination with the particulars of trolls on wikipedia ... especially the speculation regarding whether user:xyz is banned user:zyx  it's a bit of a test to see how forthcoming/transparent the candidate is, and perhaps act as a filter of sorts well, we could simply make a rule prohibiting multiple user accounts, unless one declares them?  though for a determined troll/puppet, this won't do much snoyes: I don't really like that there's no real requirement for identity on wikipedia although the sysop-identity idea is good I think it's more realistic to judge a sysop by actions alone. what we really need is a procedure for de-sysopping. someone who's going to be accountable to everybody and trusted with special responsibility should be identified. not necessarily IRL but at least concretely online. silsor: well, if one doesn't want to be identified then one shouldn't create a user account  there should be a clear policy that breach of sysop policy will lead to desysopship  perhaps temporary desysopship, to start with write it in! yes, but as always the lines are fuzzy  yes, i think there should be a sysop creed of sorts, and violation of any number of them should lead to de-sysopping but that doesn't mean we shouldn't implement a code of conduct  sorry gotta run, later folks bye  bye  should people be de-sysopped for bad behaviour unrelated to sysop powers?  my last comment before leaving -- i think it's "OK" for sysops to be in edit wars... desysopping shouldonly be done in extreme cases of continual abuse * Fuzheado has quit IRC I know he's not here, but "extreme cases of continual abuse" does not sound like it should be a minimum for de-sysopping I smell a policy being written soon  I agree with him that edit wars aren't grounds for de-sysopping then there'd be very few sysops  edit wars are entirely necessary in certain cases sysops may get an aura of authority, whether we like it or not. Therefore the standards should be slightly higher, I think. with edit wars the lines are fuzzy as well nobody would argue about the impropriety of constantly reverting an anon who adds "MICHAEL IS GAY"  I think there are a few legitimate uses <TimStarling> encouraging debate, by constantly referring to the talk page in your edit summaries <TimStarling> discouraging casual vandals