SmashWiki talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
SmashWiki talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 1 (view source)
Revision as of 14:44, August 24, 2008
, 15 years ago::Hi all. There's no Wikia-wide policy on de-adminship. It basically comes down to community consensus, but I'd suggest waiting until the current issues have cooled down a little before rushing into a
(::Hi all. There's no Wikia-wide policy on de-adminship. It basically comes down to community consensus, but I'd suggest waiting until the current issues have cooled down a little before rushing into a) |
|||
| Line 169: | Line 169: | ||
:Will do; thanks for the suggestion. – [[User:Defiant Elements|<font color="black">Defiant Elements</font>]] 21:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | :Will do; thanks for the suggestion. – [[User:Defiant Elements|<font color="black">Defiant Elements</font>]] 21:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
:EDIT: I've emailed Angela. – [[User:Defiant Elements|<font color="black">Defiant Elements</font>]] 21:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | :EDIT: I've emailed Angela. – [[User:Defiant Elements|<font color="black">Defiant Elements</font>]] 21:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC) | ||
::Hi all. There's no Wikia-wide policy on de-adminship. It basically comes down to community consensus, but I'd suggest waiting until the current issues have cooled down a little before rushing into a decision. Even on Wikipedia, there's no simple process but some pages you can look at where people have discussed ideas for de-adminship are [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Administrator recall|Wikipedia:Administrator recall]], [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship|Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship]], and [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests for comment|Wikipedia:Requests for comment]] (which used to include [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Requests for review of administrative actions|"Requests for review of administrative actions"]]. [[User:Angela|Angela]]<staff /> ([[User talk:Angela|talk]]) 18:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC) | |||
=== Arbitrary page break === | === Arbitrary page break === | ||
Since I was asked for my thoughts, I thought I'd go on the record with them. I don't support this proposal as suggested, specifically because it would be mandatory for all sysops. I am not aware of any policy on this wiki, on Wikia, or even on Wikipedia that would subject sysops to a mandatory recall. (Sysops on Wikipedia can be removed, but only by an elected panel of higher-ups, as I understand it.) Given that, I don't think it's fair to institute such a policy without some consensus at least among sysops, which there is not. It's also unclear as to what policy would be used to determine the success of a reconfirmation--the current policy leaves things up to whether "consensus" is reached, and proposed policies would either work purely on votes received (one that has its share of opponents, and one which I oppose myself on the basis that it's too much like a popularity contest) or on the determination of a bureaucrat (which would be difficult to do if the bureaucrats are also being recalled). | Since I was asked for my thoughts, I thought I'd go on the record with them. I don't support this proposal as suggested, specifically because it would be mandatory for all sysops. I am not aware of any policy on this wiki, on Wikia, or even on Wikipedia that would subject sysops to a mandatory recall. (Sysops on Wikipedia can be removed, but only by an elected panel of higher-ups, as I understand it.) Given that, I don't think it's fair to institute such a policy without some consensus at least among sysops, which there is not. It's also unclear as to what policy would be used to determine the success of a reconfirmation--the current policy leaves things up to whether "consensus" is reached, and proposed policies would either work purely on votes received (one that has its share of opponents, and one which I oppose myself on the basis that it's too much like a popularity contest) or on the determination of a bureaucrat (which would be difficult to do if the bureaucrats are also being recalled). | ||