Wikipedia:Bureaucrats will be expanded by adding the following section

==Removal of adminship==

Bureaucrats may remove the "administrator" user right from an editor's account if the editor is deemed inactive per Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators

If a bureaucrat removes the "administrator" user right from any user, they are required to notify the user in question immediately, including an explanation on why the user right was removed and how they may re-gain it.

Users who endorse this proposal[edit]

1. I support.--Kiwhan (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Yes; if the technical right is granted then this isn't even really worth voting on - we already agreed by consensus that inactive admins should be de-sysoped, to my mind the two RFC's then make it a de-facto policy :) --Errant ^(chat!) 20:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Support --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Why not? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Sensible and in line with existing policy. Ucucha 21:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. I think this is a no-brainer, we already approved of this more-or-less, and if we say crats can technically do this, this should be a non-controversial use of the tool. -- Atama頭 21:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. This should be uncontroversial now that the policy has been adopted. Jafeluv (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Saves the stewards some time and lets us keep the entries in a local log rather than a remote one on meta. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. This is a case where using local resources will help us make sure local policy is followed. After the initial passage of the new policy for this, a steward who wasn't familiar with the details desysopped a number of inactive admins based on a premature request on Meta. If this had been requested on WP:BN, the mistake probably would have been avoided. I support all four points (with the alternative for #4 below), but supporting here as a fallback in case they don't all achieve consensus. --RL0919 (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. This is consistent with the new policy. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. As noted, this policy is alreay enacted. Jusdafax 00:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Obvious. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Obvious. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Support. --Rschen7754 03:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Obviously. —mc10 (t/c) 03:49, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. jorgenev 04:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Yes to this one as I supported the linked policy. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Mos. def. Ironholds (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support, makes sense to allow bcrats to do this instead of just stewards. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Obvious. Ben MacDui 18:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support per above. Regards SoWhy 19:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. Most certainly, especially considering that we recently passed a desysopping procedure for inactive administrators. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support - though the wording needs improving; there is some ambiguity about giving bureaucrats decision power here, when following the "suspension of inactive admins" should be a boring technical job with little to no decision involved. Supporting because I don't think anyone misunderstands in the current context - but that might change down the line if it's implemented as written. Rd232 public ^talk 22:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 00:44, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support. 28bytes (talk) 01:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Agathoclea (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support Graham87 09:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support. WJBscribe (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support uncontroversial since the desysop policy for inactive admins is approved. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 15:18, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support Hut 8.5 16:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
35. AD 17:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
36. Long overdue. Skomorokh 17:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
37. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:37, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support - if they have the technical right, and the situation is clear and self-evident that the user should be de-sysopped, then there is no reason that they shouldn't do it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
40. - Dank (push to talk) 11:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support A 'crat can only act according to consensus, of which policy is a codified example. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:39, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
43.  Sandstein  19:11, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support Guy Macon (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support This would reduce admin bloat and allow veteran editors to have a chance to become admin. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 23:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support - My76Strat ^talk 23:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Of course Bob House 884 (talk) 23:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support — Edokter (talk) — 00:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support as a simple matter of enforcing existing procedure. hare j 01:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support. Tiderolls 01:39, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support Not really controversial. Gigs (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support demize (t · c) 02:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
53. --JaGa^talk 04:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support English Wikipedia should not be a place where stewards are needed for routine tasks. We've now made it, however wisely, routine to remove the tools for inactive accounts, and we should take care of that within the project. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 05:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support — Bill william compton^Talk 06:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Themeparkgc  Talk  07:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support, no issues with proposal, as worded. — Cirt (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support - kinda obvious :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
59. Straightforward. T. Canens (talk) 08:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Hekerui (talk) 08:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support. This seems to be the reason we're having this discussion in the first place, no? SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support, enables implementation of the already agreed inactivity policy. --Taelus (talk) 11:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
63. Yes fine. Herostratus (talk) 12:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support - This is why we are here. Lets make this happen. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 12:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support Tyrol5 [Talk] 12:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Non controversial use. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
67. Perfectly logical to keep the inactive removals in our rights logs locally. Courcelles 15:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support - as long as inactive admins can immediately regain it through proper channels. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
69. Support - Common-sense implementation of the inactive admin policy. TotientDragooned (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
70. Protonk (talk) 20:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
71. Net plus. AGK [•] 23:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support - Although really I am just piling on at this point... Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 01:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
73. sonia♫ 01:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
74. Jujutacular ^talk 03:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
75. —GFOLEY FOUR!— 03:52, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
76. Strong Support It is already established policy to remove inactive admins after sufficient notification thus I seen no need to involve a steward in what is essentially an administrative action.  Jim Reed (Talk)  04:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support Edgepedia (talk) 04:59, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support. I didn't support the proposal to desysop inactive accounts, but consensus didn't go my way, and that's OK with me. So as long as we're doing this, why not let bureaucrats contribute to the workload? szyslak (t) 07:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support Jebus989^✰ 08:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support - Per my reasoning in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag, I am supporting all four. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support makes sense given recent developments on desysoping of inactive admins. Bencherlite^Talk 14:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support – In order to reduce enwiki's dependence on Stewards. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support Good idea. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support. Cla68 (talk) 05:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support: To carry out the new policy smoother than non-local stewards could, I see no reason not to allow this. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support A no-brainer, as per Atama (#5) -- Alexf^(talk) 15:21, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support - this is the simplest arrangement possible. There's no need to involve stewards or anybody else. PhilKnight (talk) 16:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
88. Strong Support Makes perfect sense. All the boxes seem to be checked. Lighthead ^þ 16:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support - Bazj (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
90. Sensible in its utility and limitations. — Scientizzle 20:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support. Keeps the logs together and easier to access. Useight (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support North8000 (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support -- Alex146 (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
94. I, Dr. 'Krant' M. L. Verma, am of the same opinion and as such I endorse this policy of English Wikipedia.Krantmlverma (talk) 05:16, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support - Duh. Manning (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support. But could the wording be fixed? "If a bureaucrat removes the "administrator" user right from any a user, they are the bureacrat is required to notify the user in question immediately, including an explanation on of why the user right was removed and how they may re-gain the user may regain it." Unsure why "administrator" is in quotes, but maybe it's a technical nicety. Tony (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support - Any instance where the community has decided admin rights should be removed. GB fan please tell me what you think of my editing 14:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
98. Strong support — Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 14:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support -Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support as part of this group of proposals designed to work well together. Jd2718 (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support this logical proposed addition to the policy text. SuperMarioMan 21:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support It would make no sense to add the ability to remove admin without having this area of responsibility included with it, uncontroversial procedural de-sysops with no precedential value are entirely appropriate for this. Monty₈₄₅ 04:56, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support Makes sense, for housekeeping purposes and to advocate new administratorship. NECRAT^{Speak to me} 09:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
104. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 13:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support. As there is no discretion involved in this sort of removal, merely the checking of dates, I think that bureaucrats should be able to implement this policy. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
106. ---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support. It makes perfect sense along with the other procedural changes. Lightmouse (talk) 16:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support. As a noncontroversial, procedural action, it just makes sense. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 22:10, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
110. Mr.Z-man 00:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support. Comte0 (talk) 09:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
113. Oh Yeah!!.For the admin's who are not patient enough! If they want to re-gained the status they should examined :) Roh^G ??· 10:40, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support. As it has been decided to suspend admin rights of inactive admins, it makes sense for crats to be able to do it -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:05, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
115. Yes, says Ratibgreat (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support. -- œ^™ 00:36, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support. Cind.amuse 06:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support nothing controversial here. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support - As this would be uncontroversial and purely procedural, why not? --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:28, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
120. As long as "inactivity" is clearly and unambiguously defined, I don't see a problem. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:17, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
121. Strong Support I see this as a big help to new editors who attempt to contact an admin that is no longer active. Quinxorin (talk) 03:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:42, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support - Makes sense with existing policy and bureaucrats should be able to take on inactive admins on en wiki to allow stewards to focus on smaller projects. CT Cooper · talk 20:18, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support - Uncontroversial, sensible proposal - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:02, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support Clearly defined activity, not likely to produce confusion, abuse, or controversy. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support Being able to grant but not retract a capability is silly. One either deserves a specified level of power or does not deserve it. Ornithikos (talk) 06:52, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support - it makes sense. Ability to re-earn is a must, however. —JeevanJones (talk) 11:40, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support - sensible Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support Jehochman ^Talk 20:15, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support - clear-cut decision, saves stewards time, easy to see abuse - ProtoFire^→talk 00:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support - 12 months of no activity, notice, ability to re-sysop. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support - If you want to be an administrator, you need to administrate. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support - Of course! --Nathan2055^talk 19:19, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support No question, I still shudder when I remember one Admin I ran across who seemed to know virtually nothing about policy. Dougweller (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support Definitely, if inactive for six months then their sysop powers should be revoked and bureaucrats should be able to do this. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support Something like this exists at the Portuguese Wikipedia. - Al Lemos (talk) 23:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
138. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support per "counter"-comments in the oppose section: Stewards shouldn't have to deal with. mabdul 16:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support - seems obvious. Ale_Jrb^talk 17:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support - this is just carrying out a procedure that has already been crafted through consensus. maclean (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
142. Support, sensible. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
143. Support Why have 'crats?--Gilderien Talk|Contribs 20:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
144. Support. If they are not active, take it away. Kitty DeClaude (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
145. Support As there is provision for an admin to ask for it back should they return, I see no problem with this. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support. —Jclavet (talk) 20:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
147. Support. Blackvisionit (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
148. Support - allows Bureaucrats to perform a job that we agree needs doing. Huon (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
149. Support - frankie (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
150. Support If the bureaucrats get the ability to do this, that will mean that we already agreed that someone should remove rights from inactive admins and that bureaucrats should be able to remove rights from admins; it would be silly to agree to those things but to say that bureaucrats couldn't do it. Nyttend (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
151. Support (would even support "must remove" instead of "may remove") Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
152. Support Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
153. Support Practical Bejinhan talks 13:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
154. Support --Commander _{(Ping Me)} 15:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
155. Support -- It's policy to do it, and it's a bureaucratic task, one that probably should be done by a 'bot. --John Nagle (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this proposal[edit]

1. -Atmoz (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Prodego ^talk 20:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. - As far as I can see, a strong case hasn't been made that there are any problems stemming from leaving it up to the stewards. Rivertorch (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. - I'm with Rivertorch. --Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 13:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Stewards can and do work this job fine. Toa Nidhiki05 19:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Whilst stewards could do it by themselves; they could spend their time more productively on smaller wikis who need that extra help; while we can be self-sustaining and don't need the stewards help. --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 04:55, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Oppose The wording of this section is in conflict with the wording at Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators; it should state here that notifications should be made one month and several days before desysopping, as it does there. Otherwise it should just say "Refer to Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural_removal_for_inactive_administrators. This may seem like a nitpick, but inconsistencies irk me. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 08:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Refer to Guy Macon's much-more-eloquent statement of this point in the "Discussion" section below. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 08:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   The "per" means that they can only remove the rights in accordance with the policy. If the procedure set out in policy is not followed (i.e. the notification requirements prior to the removal of the rights have not been fulfilled), they may not remove the rights. –xeno^talk 16:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Agreed, if you specify the wording here and then it changes there, then you open this discussion up again. If you make this contigent upon the wording in the specifically defined policy, then you say, "As long as they are following the rules as defined there, then they can have this."---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:53, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Fair enough. I have struck my oppose, since it appears to be technically in order, I just think the wording could be made clearer. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 14:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

6. Oppose - I think this kind of decision should be made at higher level like Stewards. This situation is not an emergency afterall. Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Stewards shouldn't be making decisions here, period. That isn't their job. They execute, they don't judge. (I mean, they judge when they should execute, but...) If there was a system in place for removing inactive admins, we (the enwiki community) have to run thru the process, someone would have to close it (probably the 'crats), and then the closer would explicitly ask the stewards (over on meta) to remove the bit; the steward wouldn't have to judge, they'd only have to execute as a result of the process. The stewards won't/shouldn't be coming here and saying "oh, hey, you're inactive, you're no longer an admin". EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

7. Oppose. The recent bungling of inactive-admin desysopping does not give me confidence. Chick Bowen 15:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Hmm - could you clarify? That was done by non-enwiki Stewards, not bureaucrats... –xeno^talk 15:45, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I mean, I do not have confidence that the policy has been defined and will be carried out in a clear and consistent way, and thus I do not wish it to be expedited or further inscribed within more policy pages (I would have opposed the policy in the first place had I been around at the time; I only became aware of it when I noticed some old friends being abruptly desysoped). Chick Bowen 16:03, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

8. Oppose If a specific period of inactivity is the criterion for desysopping then it would best be handled by a bot. Bots can handle this task in more consistent and equitable fashion than bureacrats are capable of.I think the time and energy of our bureacrats is an important resource that would be better spent doing things that require human intervention. BrandonHoward (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Abstain/Oppose on the same grounds as User:BrandonHoward - if something is automatic with bot-compatible criteria, and doesn't require consideration of the individual situation, then it makes sense for a bot to do it without needing human intervention. Mike Peel (talk) 18:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

• "explanation why the user right was removed and how they may re-gain it" – Shouldn't this policy say how to regain it? ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Nevermind, I see the linked policy does say how to get it back. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:08, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "If a bureaucrat removes the "administrator" user right from any user, they are required to notify the user in question immediately, including an explanation why the user right was removed and how they may re-gain it." appears to conflict with the statement "Bureaucrats may remove the "administrator" user right from an editor's account if the editor is deemed inactive per Wikipedia:Administrators#Procedural removal for inactive administrators" -- which references the following statement: "The admin must be contacted on their user talk page and via email (if possible) one month prior to the request for desysopping and again several days before the desysopping would go into effect." It should be made clear that endorsing this proposal is endorsing removal after attempting to contact the admin, and not endorsing removal followed by attempting to contact the admin. Guy Macon (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that it would be better to restate here that posting two notifications is a requirement. It is stated in the inactivity policy, but putting it in the crat policy as well would leave less room for misunderstandings. Jafeluv (talk) 19:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree...I listed this as an "Oppose" reason before even reading your point; good job beating me to the punch :) -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 08:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conflict. The policy proposed here requires a post-removal notification in addition to the pre-removal notifications required in the inactivity policy. We directly reference and link to that policy, which clearly states its own requirements. Restating the content of that policy would be redundant and would make conflicts between the two more likely, not less likely. --RL0919 (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The word "per" means the bureaucrats may only remove rights in accordance with the relevant policy - so they must ensure the procedure (including notification) has been followed. And then they will still post a follow-up note once the rights have been actually removed. –xeno^talk 16:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I used the phrase "appears to conflict with" deliberately. You shouldn't have to follow a link to figure out the details of what you are voting for. If the proposal specifically mentions a requirement to notify after, it should also specifically mention the requirement to notify one month before and again several days before. Guy Macon (talk) 15:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the rationale for this - are there specific problems posed by having inactive admin accounts? Mike Peel (talk) 18:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, never mind, I found Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/suspend sysop rights of inactive admins - so the basic reasons are security, and tidiness. Mike Peel (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats will be expanded by adding the following section

==Removal of adminship==

Bureaucrats may remove the "administrator" user right by official request of the Arbitration Committee.

If a bureaucrat removes the "administrator" user right from any user, they are required to notify the user in question immediately, including an explanation why the user right was removed and how they may re-gain it. Notification is not required if the user was already notified of the removal.

Users who endorse this proposal[edit]

1. Yes- Stewards will do, simply, what Arbcom requests anyway. This cuts out some overhead without actually changing who decides on the de-sysop --Errant ^(chat!) 20:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. More the merrier. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Yeah, once Arbcom has decided that a user should be desysopped, it doesn't much matter who does it. --causa sui (talk) 21:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. I don't see the problem with this, it just means we don't have to go to a steward for the request. -- Atama頭 21:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Per ErrantX. Jafeluv (talk) 21:56, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Saves the stewards some time and lets us keep the entries in a local log rather than a remote one on meta. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:00, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Local support for our local Committee's decisions. I support all four points (with the alternative for #4 below), but supporting here as a fallback in case they don't all achieve consensus. --RL0919 (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Makes sense. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. Rschen7754 00:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. I have no issues with 'crats having this power... not explained, however, is if the power to de-admin is taken from stewards, as in my view these actions should all be on one log. One or the other. Jusdafax 00:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Stewards generally don't perform actions when local users are available to perform them, so apart from emergency situations all desysoppings covered by the crat policy would be performed by local crats if the policy is accepted. Jafeluv (talk) 07:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

11. As there is usually a crat on ArbCom, I support this in principle but would like to know whether it matters if the desysopping crat is part of ArbCom. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. I'd personally rather not have the desysoping 'crat be on ArbCom, as there needs to be some sort of separation there. This makes sense. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. Agree; we don't need meta stewards to enforce ArbCom decisions. —mc10 (t/c) 03:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. jorgenev 04:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Since this is already the main path to the controversial desysop I support this policy proposal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:37, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Certainly. Ironholds (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Completely uncontroversial. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Ben MacDui 18:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support per above. Regards SoWhy 19:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. No reason not to, as otherwise the stewards will do it, achieving the same effect. (However, this has the important benefit of keeping all logs here.) Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support' Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 00:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support. 28bytes (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support Seems logical, and might save ArbCom some work from time to time Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support Agathoclea (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Graham87 09:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support. WJBscribe (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support but agree with discussion points below that the notification should be handled by ArbCom. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 15:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. I also see ArbCom as the ones who should do the notification and explanation, with the Crat just carrying out the mechanical step. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support Hut 8.5 16:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
32. AD 17:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
33. First it giveth... Skomorokh 17:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
34. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support - if they have the technical right, and the situation is clear and self-evident that the user should be de-sysopped, then there is no reason that they shouldn't do it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
37. - Dank (push to talk) 11:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support A 'crat can only act according to consensus, of which ArbCom decisions is an example. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support. This doesn't seem controversial to me. ArbCom's decisions will be upheld either way, so we may as well let the 'crats do the actual de-sysopping. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
40. Also noting that I have copy-edited the text of the proposal to read "by official request of" instead of "as a result an official request from" (sic); this text is shorter and does not change the meaning.  Sandstein  19:14, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support Guy Macon (talk) 19:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support - My76Strat ^talk 23:44, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support Can't really find any argument against allowing them the ability to do so at request of arbs Bob House 884 (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support — Edokter (talk) — 00:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support Akin to having admins enforce ArbCom decisions. hare j 01:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support. Tiderolls 01:40, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support just simplifies things. Gigs (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support demize (t · c) 02:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
49. --JaGa^talk 04:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
50. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support This is not something that will be controversial (whether the decision was made, not the underlying issue), if they're going to have the power they should be able to carry these out. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 05:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support Bentogoa (talk) 06:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support — Bill william compton^Talk 06:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Themeparkgc  Talk  07:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support, this appears pretty straightforward. — Cirt (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support - so long as the decision has been made, it's more sensible to allow 'crats to implement it than go chasing around for a steward. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support - especially when admins apparent behavior is different in treatment of different sides in a discussion. ..असक्तः सततं कार्य कर्म समाचर | असक्तः हि आचरन् कर्म.. Humour Thisthat2011 07:58, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
58. Sounds straightforward. T. Canens (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
59. Support - I see nothing wrong with granting Bureaucrats the ability to fulfill requests from Arbcom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 12:48, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support Tyrol5 [Talk] 12:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
61. Yes OK. Herostratus (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Though I think it should be Arbcom communicating it, not the 'crat. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
63. Makes lots of sense to keep removals "for cause" easily visible in our log here. Courcelles 15:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support Hekerui (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support Sure, why not. There's no point bothering the Stewards for stuff that could be done on-en. TotientDragooned (talk) 20:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
66. Sure, so long as b-crats can refuse should they feel arbcom has their heads in their asses. Protonk (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
67. Yes, in order to transfer in full to the bureaucrats the role that the stewards presently fill. AGK [•] 23:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support. Concur with comment by ErikHaugen. Build redundancy into system, particularly for fast action on ArbComm check of administrator powers, in those rare occasions when they are subjected to de jure curtailment. GeoBard^Rap 00:47, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
69. sonia♫ 01:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
70. Jujutacular ^talk 03:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
71. Strong Support It is already established policy to remove admins pursuant to an ArbCom decision thus I seen no need to involve a steward in what is essentially an administrative action.  Jim Reed (Talk)  04:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support Edgepedia (talk) 05:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support. This is as clear-cut a case as it gets (i.e. an Arbitration Committee decision or motion has called for the removal of adminship, and therefore adminship must be removed). Even if this weren't a clear-cut case, I'd still trust a bureaucrat's judgment. szyslak (t) 08:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support Of course Jebus989^✰ 08:29, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support - Per my reasoning in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag, I am supporting all four. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support there is no harm in adding crats to the list of people who can desysop in such situations, and the slight advantage of a clearer rights log. Bencherlite^Talk 14:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support If 'crats can give admin rights per ArbCom, why can't they take admin rights away per ArbCom? --Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 13:20, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
78. Support – In order to reduce enwiki's dependence on Stewards. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support Good idea. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support. Cla68 (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support makes sense -- Alexf^(talk) 15:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
83. Strong Support Lighthead ^þ 16:42, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support - Bazj (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support - Sounds fine. --RA (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
86. Sensible in its utility and limitations. — Scientizzle 20:46, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
87. support doesn't matter who does it as long as arb com says to do it. Takes some of the load off of stewards. Chris (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support North8000 (talk) 00:36, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support -- Alex146 (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support -- this seems pretty obvious and straightforward. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support -- Well-worded, simple, and logical. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 08:37, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support - speaking as a former clerk, this is a very good idea. Manning (talk) 09:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support. But the wording?

    "Bureaucrats may remove the "administrator" user right from an administrator by official request of the Arbitration Committee. If a bureaucrat removes the "administrator" user right from any user, they are required to notify the user in question immediately, including an explanation of why the user right was removed and how they may re-gain the user may regain it. Notification is not required if the user was already has already been notified of the removal."

    Sorry to be a pedant, but if the user has already been notified, that was presumably done by ArbCom. If ArbCom can decide by itself to remove the right, why are the crats given the option of removing it or not removing it, in the word "may"? Can't have it both ways. Better: "Bureaucrats may should remove the "administrator" user right by official request of from an administrator if officially requested by the Arbitration Committee. ..." Tony (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Remember that this is a wiki. This RfC is not a permanent commitment to the exact wording. Once the material is added to the policy page, non-controversial grammar edits may be made by any editor, and mildly controversial changes can be discussed on the policy talk page. ('May' vs. 'should' has some potential to be controversial, but stuff like "was already" vs. "has already been" most likely would not be.) --RL0919 (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

94. Support - Any instance where the community has decided admin rights should be removed, this is another one. GB fan please tell me what you think of my editing 14:19, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support - Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support - increases accountability on the part of administrators within the bounds of Wikipedia. SuperMarioMan 21:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support Chaosdruid (talk) 23:59, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support Happy‑melon 00:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support execution of proper requests. Jd2718 (talk) 00:32, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support--cc 08:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
101. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 13:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support' Since the bureaucrat is simply implementing the decisions of another body and not exercising discretion of their own. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:02, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
103. ---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:24, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support. This action can be taken at this level. No need to be at a higher level. Lightmouse (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support. However, I'd rather not have the desysopping crat be on ArbCom. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 22:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
107. Mr.Z-man 00:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support. A vital tool for bureaucrats. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:33, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support. Comte0 (talk) 09:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support. If Arbcom has decided to remove someone's admin rights, having crats able to do it will simply speed things up -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
111. Yes, says Ratibgreat (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
112. Support. -- œ^™ 01:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support. Cind.amuse 07:19, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support. Seems procedural. maclean (talk) 15:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
115. I don't see a problem with this, especially as the decision is made by the arbcom and not ad hoc. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support - This seems procedural, as the bureaucrats would simply be implementing official ArbCom decisions or rulings. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
117. I support this only if there is a clear and unmistakable process in place. Ideally, this would involve an ArbCom representative (either an arb or an ArbCom clerk) to post on the 'crat noticeboard with a link to the case that clearly states a userright needs to be removed. The userright log can then just link to the ArbCom case. Voila, no confusion. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:21, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support. Psychiatrick (talk) 11:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support - I don't see why not since this should just involve following orders. CT Cooper · talk 20:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support Clearly defined activity, not likely to produce confusion, abuse, or controversy. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support Jehochman ^Talk 20:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support with a caveat - I would prefer that the sysop be notified on his/her talk page, with at least a few hours' notice, but I can go along with it as worded. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support - Makes since as well. --Nathan2055^talk 19:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
127. No reason not to support this. BigDom 21:54, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support: enforcement of arbcom decisions by bureaucrats would be most appropriate. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support It seems so obvious... - Al Lemos (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
130. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
131. Support - the power lies with ArbCom, if we give crats the technical ability, they should be able to perform this sort of request. Ale_Jrb^talk 17:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
132. Conditional support if this is handled only for explicit desysopping remedies, to satisfy concerns brought up in the oppose section below. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support As long as there just parroting arbcon I don't see any harm in it. That being said in the long run we should look into ways that this an be done directly by arbcon. BrandonHoward (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support - since arbcom have the ability to desysop someone, then it makes sense to broaden the number of people that can carry through with that conclusion. I would encourage arbcom clerks to seek bureaucrat status to utilise this ability in an efficient manner. Mike Peel (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support If ArbCom decide on this, then whether it is a Steward or 'crat does it is irrelevant. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support. —Jclavet (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support. Blackvisionit (talk) 02:47, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
138. Support allowing the Bureaucrats to do ArbCom's bidding. Huon (talk) 11:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support - frankie (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support per Phantomsteve. Bureaucrats wouldn't be doing anything requiring any personal judgement at all when they fulfill Arbcom's bidding, so this definitely won't be a problem. Nyttend (talk) 04:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
142. Support Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
143. Support Bejinhan talks 13:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this proposal[edit]

1. -Atmoz (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Prodego ^talk 20:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. This is not an emergency; it's not so time critical that we can't wait for a steward, and so common that it will cause an undo burden upon the steward (as inactive administratorship does). Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Is having a removal of adminship by official Arbitration Committee decision registered in the local userrights log not worthwhile? –xeno^talk 18:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   1) This is something I think the devs should be fixing, not necessarily policy; 2) this policy is pretty broadly worded, and I'm worried there will be too broad of an interpretation by the 'crat. Magog the Ogre (talk)

   Could you explain what you mean by broadly worded? An official request from the Arbitration Committee will be made under the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures#Removal of permissions section, after a formal motion, or as a result of a remedy in a closed case. –xeno^talk 19:43, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   I do not want a bureaucrat to broadly interpret a ruling form ArbCom (e.g., admins who edit war on protected pages are subject to deadminship): I can actually see this occurring in the right situation. I also don't want, for example, a private email from a single arbitrar to be interpreted this way. I would say only requests from ArbCom on that page should suffice: but the wording of the proposal above doesn't specifically state what exactly a formal request is. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Neither of those could be reasonably interpreted as an official request; and a bureaucrat removing administrative rights in either of this situations would likely find themselves relieved of their bureaucrat tools (and the arbitrator in the second case would likely be punted as well). That being said, it may be worthwhile to add a footnoted or bracketed explanation of "official request" for greater certainty. –xeno^talk 20:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   Bureaucrats aren't any more fallible than stewards are. If anything, they know our project's unique culture and policies, so they would be more unlikely to make such a mistake. For example, several stewards immediately got to work in removing userrights from inactive admins after we passed our recent proposal, despite clear instructions saying that at least a month's notification is required. I don't think a local, active crat who was up to date on our policies would make that mistake. NW (Talk) 23:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   As a former clerk, the procedure for de-sysopping due to Arbcom decision was pretty explicit. A formal notice, along with links to the relevant ArbCom decision (which explicitly named the admin in question) was required. I can't see that procedure changing. No-one ('Crat or Steward) would ever interpret a generalized ArbCom statement about admin consequences as giving them a free rein to make such a decision on their own. Manning (talk) 09:12, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   "This is something I think the devs should be fixing" - I believe it's been said that this is surprisingly difficult for something with relatively little benefit, and therefore so low down the list of priorities that in practical terms, it ain't gonna happen. Rd232 ^talk 22:41, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

4. - Unnecessary. Arbcom decisions don't happen in the blink of an eye, and I'm unaware of any evidence that the stewards aren't up to the job. Rivertorch (talk) 22:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Reasons stated above. Toa Nidhiki05 19:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Oppose Agree with reasons stated above. NECRAT^{Speak to me} 09:37, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. Oppose - This is not a time critical scenario. Agree with reasons stated above. Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Oppose, if this is an "external" decision, why should somebody from enwp handle the request? mabdul 16:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   There is nothing "external" about the Arbitration Committee. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

9. The wording of this is wrong, as said below in the discussion section and unhelpfully dismissed. Bureaucrats should never communicate the terms of an arbcom decision--that's the job of arbitrators or clerks. The person who flips the bit--whoever that is--should wait until arbcom has notified the admin. Chick Bowen 00:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Oppose, for purely selfish and anti-bureaucratic reasons. :) --Kooky (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

• I support this in principle, but don't see why it should be the bureaucrat's job to communicate Arbcom's decision. It makes more sense to me to have Arbcom handle that notification. Ucucha 21:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That's why it says they can skip notification if the user was already notified. I expect in most of these situations the user will already have an explanation from ArbCom before the 'crat gets to the desysopping. --RL0919 (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, but it strikes me as oddly inappropriate for the bureaucrat to be going into detail about the whys and wherefores and whatyoucandos - that's a job for Arbcom. If no notification is made prior to desysopping, the only notification the bureaucrat should leave is to say "per Arbcom request - please await details from them, or in the event that none is forthcoming within 24 hours, contact them." Rd232 public ^talk 23:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  A crat wouldn't need to go into detail if he could link to a page describing ArbCom's decision. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 21:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats will be expanded by adding the following section

==Removal of adminship==

Bureaucrats may remove the "administrator" user right from an editor's account if self-requested by the administrator.

Users who endorse this proposal[edit]

1. Yes; however we should agree on re-sysoping procedures for admins who have the bit removed in this way. I know we have some general approaches anyway, but lets be firm about it. --Errant ^(chat!) 20:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Why not. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. As with #1. I don't see why we need additional discussion on re-sysopping, since that process is already in place and I don't see why this proposal would seriously affect it. Ucucha 21:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. This should be the least controversial removal of adminship. -- Atama頭 21:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. Uncontroversial IMHO. Jafeluv (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. Saves the stewards some time and lets us keep the entries in a local log rather than a remote one on meta. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 22:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. No reason why not. --causa sui (talk) 22:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. This is the most obvious case to permit. I support all four points (with the alternative for #4 below), but supporting here as a fallback in case they don't all achieve consensus. --RL0919 (talk) 23:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. No reason not to support this one. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Rschen7754 00:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. The most obvious. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:22, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. Obviously. —mc10 (t/c) 03:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. jorgenev 04:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. Sounds very reasonable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:32, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. Seems fair enough. Ironholds (talk) 11:34, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. Support, this keeps requests on Wikipedia where they belong. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. Support Ben MacDui 18:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. Support, uncontroversial and logical change. Jusdafax 19:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
19. Support per above. No brainer. Regards SoWhy 19:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Agree with SoWhy, this is definitely a no-brainer. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:44, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. Support, bearing in mind Xeno's reminder of the existence of WP:RESYSOP provisions. Rd232 public ^talk 23:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 00:48, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. ...well then. With my concern below addressed, I can support this one. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support. 28bytes (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Nick-D (talk) 08:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Agathoclea (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support Graham87 09:58, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support. WJBscribe (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support logical jsfouche ☽☾Talk 15:22, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
31. Support. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
32. Support Hut 8.5 16:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
33. Suport  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:12, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
34. AD 17:15, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
35. With reticence towards the inevitable seesawing of dramanaut admins at BN. Skomorokh 17:49, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
36. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:41, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:40, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support - if they have the technical right, and the situation is clear and self-evident that the user should be de-sysopped, then there is no reason that they shouldn't do it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
39. - Dank (push to talk) 11:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support A 'crat can only act according to consensus, of which a self request is an example. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
41. Support. I can't see any reason why not. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:43, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
42.  Sandstein  19:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support - My76Strat ^talk 23:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
44. Support uncontroversial Bob House 884 (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
45. Support, but email confirmation of the request, conversation on talk page, ... might be appropriate lest some mischief be afoot. htom (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
46. Supprt — Edokter (talk) — 00:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Obvious and uncontroversial. hare j 01:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support. Tiderolls 01:41, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support Clearly. Sending Admins elsewhere for de-sysopping requests has always seemed silly to me. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
50. Support demize (t · c) 02:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
51. --JaGa^talk 04:05, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
52. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:07, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Again, something that won't controversial or have need discretion in carrying out. ‡ MAHEWA ‡ • talk 05:00, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support Bentogoa (talk) 06:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
55. Support Obvious and least controversial reason. — Bill william compton^Talk 06:59, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Themeparkgc  Talk  07:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support, probably the least controversial of the bunch. — Cirt (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
58. Support, kinda obvious. Provided that re-sysopping is as simple, in the event that the self-request was the result of impersonation, etc. Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
59. Obvious. T. Canens (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
60. If an admin requests removal of the tools under uncontroversial circumstances, I see no reason why a 'crat shouldn't be able to remove the tools, like how they already can restore them upon request. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support per above. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 12:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support Tyrol5 [Talk] 12:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support perfectly reasonable. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
64. OK yes, sure. Herostratus (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
65. Courcelles 15:26, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Hekerui (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support Common-sense. TotientDragooned (talk) 20:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
68. Protonk (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
69. AGK [•] 23:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
70. sonia♫ 01:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
71. Jujutacular ^talk 03:17, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
72. Strong Support It is already established policy to remove admins pursuant to a self-issued request thus I seen no need to involve a steward in what is essentially an administrative action.  Jim Reed (Talk)  04:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support Edgepedia (talk) 05:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support. This is the biggest no-brainer of them all. szyslak (t) 08:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support Agree with the above comment Jebus989^✰ 08:31, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support - Per my reasoning in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag, I am supporting all four. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support makes sense and keeps the rights log clearer. Bencherlite^Talk 14:53, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
78. YES. If admins want to handicap themselves, I say let them do that. --Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 13:23, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support – If a sysop is more comfortable asking a bureaucrat to desysop them, then they should have that right. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 16:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support Good idea. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support. I thought bureaucrats already had this role. Way overdue. Cla68 (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
83. Support yes, per #1 -- Alexf^(talk) 15:26, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
84. Strong Support If they want it done, they should have it done. Lighthead ^þ 16:45, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
85. Support - Bazj (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support - Sure, why not? --RA (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
87. Sensible in its utility and limitations. — Scientizzle 20:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
88. SupportChris (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support. Non-controversial and keeps the logs together. Useight (talk) 22:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support North8000 (talk) 00:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support I see the point of possible compromise in knowing who, exactly, is requesting the degrade, but I think that if an admin were to walk away from a public computer without logging out, then he or she deserves being degraded. -- Alex146 (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support - no-brainer. Manning (talk) 09:32, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support Obviously.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 13:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support Tony (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support - GB fan please tell me what you think of my editing 14:21, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support - Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:23, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
97. Support - why not? This all relates to streamlining a process by avoiding the requirement to cross from Wikipedia to Meta. SuperMarioMan 21:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support Chaosdruid (talk) 23:58, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support Happy‑melon 00:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support yes, unobjectionable. Jd2718 (talk) 00:31, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support I can see no reason why not, if an admin wants to have the bit voluntarily removed, why shouldn't they be able to get it done locally? Monty₈₄₅ 05:04, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support The reasoning should be justified as to why they wish not to, but ultimately, it is their choice. NECRAT^{Speak to me} 09:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
103. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 13:12, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
104. Support Because there is no discretion involved, simply the responding to an unambiguous request. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:21, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
105. ---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 15:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support. I'd even support admins being able to de-admin themselves. It should always be easy to turn off access to powerful tools. Lightmouse (talk) 16:45, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
108. Support - uncontroversial, the most obvious. — Waterfox ^~talk~ 22:14, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
109. Mr.Z-man 00:16, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support. Comte0 (talk) 09:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support. I really can't see any reason why crats shouldn't be able to handle a self-deadmin request -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
112. Yes, says Ratibgreat (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
113. Support. -- œ^™ 01:23, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support. Cind.amuse 07:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support. --maclean (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support - This is clearly uncontroversial, so why not? --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 17:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
117. It's a self-request; what's the problem? The log splitting can be a pain. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:15, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:44, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support - Again, non-controversial. CT Cooper · talk 20:49, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support No brainer - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:08, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support Clearly defined activity, not likely to produce confusion, abuse, or controversy. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 05:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support - why not Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 11:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
123. Support - This is not a complex scenario - this burden may be laid-off from Stewards. Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 14:09, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
124. Support per SoWhy. Bearian (talk) 18:01, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
125. Support seems like a no brainer Gregtheross (talk) 12:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
126. Support Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
127. Support - Yep. This makes since, too. --Nathan2055^talk 19:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
128. Support: no-brainer really. Those who are worried about "impostors", should realise that if the account of an admin is compromised then they should obviously be de-sysoped. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
129. Support. Spencer^T♦C 20:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
130. Support It makes sense to me. - Al Lemos (talk) 23:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
131. Uncontroversial. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
132. Support. mabdul 16:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
133. Support. Ale_Jrb^talk 17:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
134. Support, uncontroversial. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
135. Support. bd2412 T 18:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
136. Support. Sure, of course. Kitty DeClaude (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
137. Support That seems fine but in the long run this really needs to be something people can do for themselves through the My preferences tab. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonHoward (talk • contribs)
138. Support makes sense, although I agree with the comment above that this would ideally be done through user preferences. Mike Peel (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
139. Support although with the proviso that if it is 'under a cloud' (e.g. to try to pre-empt a RfC/U or ArbCom decision) then re-confirmation is required; if the self-request is not under those conditions (for example, I know that I will not be online for 6 months as I'm going to the Moon) then merely requesting it back should be sufficient PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
140. Support. —Jclavet (talk) 20:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
141. Support. Blackvisionit (talk) 02:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
142. Support uncontroversial housekeeping. Huon (talk) 11:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
143. Support - frankie (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
144. Support - if someone wants to opt out, let them. --Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... 20:35, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
145. Support like with all the others: this is already done by stewards, so I don't see why we should enable the bureaucrats to do it but prohibit them from doing it. Let's just keep the current provisions, that anyone's rights may be removed per self-request, that they may be restored per request at any time if the bureaucrat believe the situation to be noncontroversial, and that an RFA be always permitted and sometimes required. Nyttend (talk) 04:45, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
146. Support Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
147. Support Why not, since it is at the request of admin. Bejinhan talks 13:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
148. Support. This would act to reduce any non-arbitrary backlog. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 15:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Users who oppose this proposal[edit]

I support this in principle, but language on re-sysoping needs to be put in here specifically. People asking for temporary removal while they spend six months touring Antarctica need to be treated differently from people asking for removal as part of permanent retirement (and then want it back after four years, and both of those need to be treated differently from people asking for removal while there is ongoing allegations of misconduct or ArbCom proceedings related to them taking place. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:05, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The process for re-sysopping after voluntary relinquishment (and procedural removal for inactivity) is outlined at WP:RESYSOP; and any desired changes to that procedure should be discussed on the talk page there, or at WP:BN - not here. (And the section already has verbiage that addresses situations where rights were relinquished while there were ongoing allegations of misconduct or arbitration proceedings). –xeno^talk 14:04, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Thanks Xeno. Moving to support. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. -Atmoz (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. Prodego ^talk 20:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. - Without evidence that the stewards aren't up to the job, I fail to see the need. Rivertorch (talk) 22:56, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Unlike the other cases, this one has the possibility of an imposter putting in the request. It might be better if in the specific case of a self-request, a seven-day waiting period be imposed between granting the request and actually flipping the bit. Guy Macon (talk) 19:17, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would an imposter put in the request? Only requests from the account itself will be entertained. And if it is someone else in control of the account, it should still be desysopped... –xeno^talk 19:20, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When dealing with security issues such as this, it is a valid general principle to never assume that something like a bogus request can only have one possible cause. It's easy enough to come up with a scenario that does not involve permanent control of the account: an admin logs on using a public computer and forgets to log off. An imposter the accesses the account, and rather than doing all sorts of annoying things that would attract attention, simply tries to change the password (which would fail -- I just checked and changing my password while logged on requires knowing the old password, nor does it display my current password). He then requests removal of adminship and logs out. Another scenario: someone writes malware that does nothing but monitor internet access for activity on Wikipedia, sends a bogus request for removal of adminship, and erases itself from the system. Guy Macon (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That then would be a case of "OOUPS can I have my bit back?" Agathoclea (talk) 09:57, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The hypothetical situations raised seem rather implausible, and I would still be more comfortable seeing the request processed if it was put in by someone other than the account holder. If they return - and find their account has been compromised - they can then take steps to verify their identity and request restoration. –xeno^talk 12:52, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely; and in fact in either of the two hypothetical circumstances given the point is moot... because the sysop bit should be removed due to account compromise anyway :) --Errant ^(chat!) 15:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps there should be some sort of grace period where a user could request the authority be returned within 72 hours or some reasonable time. The main reasons I can think of for someone giving up Administrator privileges would be a change of lifestyle or work that demands more of their time. Plans can fall through. Bookbrad (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editors who self-request removal of administrative rights can ask to have them restored at any time per WP:RESYSOP. –xeno^talk 15:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thread retitled from "Emergencies (alternative)".

Wikipedia:Bureaucrats will be expanded by adding the following section

==Removal of adminship==

Bureaucrats may temporarily remove the "administrator" user right from a user's account in an emergency when an administrator account appears to be compromised.

Any emergency removal of administrator rights must be referred to the Arbitration Committee for further decision. The bureaucrat performing the emergency removal must notify the user in question to contact the Arbitration Committee to re-gain administrator rights.

Users who endorse this proposal[edit]

1. causa sui (talk) 23:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2. I think we've addressed the major concerns with the earlier version. --RL0919 (talk) 23:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
3. Per below. Jafeluv (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
4. Much more sensible than the above. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:25, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
5. ...with the knowledge that there will be hell to pay if this is abused. I can support this one. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
6. With this wording, especially the "temporary", I can support. Thanks, ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 04:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
7. with the loss of the word "only" this gets my support.Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
8. Good idea, I can support that. It lacks the requirement of the user actually disrupting Wikipedia but it compensates it by making it temporary and letting ArbCom decide immediately. Regards SoWhy 11:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
9. If there isn't support for the first version of emergency desysopping above (and it appears there isn't), I'll support this as an alternative. Robofish (talk) 13:57, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
10. Clearer versionthan the above (which i understood to have the same intent) Agathoclea (talk) 13:59, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
11. Having "more cooks in the kitchen", as Jafeluv says, is good for when there's an emergency. This wording is specific enough that there's minimal risk to implementing it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 15:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
12. No particular reason to oppose this, and in an emergency, I could seriously regret doing so. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
13. This addresses my concerns with the previous version of this proposal, and I think that it is good for a crat to have the ability to act in an emergency. The "rogue admin" who can unblock himself is a bogeyman that we worry about for a good reason, and this is better than having to go to a steward as our only option. -- Atama頭 18:24, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
14. This is much better wording than the previous example. MacMed^talk_stalk 18:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
15. A better version indeed. Ben MacDui 18:56, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
16. I'm fine with this one. Jusdafax 19:13, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
17. This is much better than the one above. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
18. I think this is a good idea. Peter 19:48, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
19. OK. MastCell ^Talk 20:50, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
20. Support. -- Ed (Edgar181) 22:41, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
21. Support, primarily because (i) blocked admin accounts still have viewdelete privileges - that can only be taken away from a potential hijacker by desysopping (ii) AFAIK admins can still unblock themselves, which gives extra potential for trouble if we assume a possibly compromised admin account is taken care of by blocking (iii) mistaken desysops under this provision should be rare, and not (I think) particularly harmful (iv) where potential compromise is happening, speed is of the essence (v) it's not written in stone; if the provision causes problems, we can change it. Rd232 public ^talk 23:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
22. Much better version that clears the ambiguity in the previous version. —mc10 (t/c) 23:26, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
23. Support Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 00:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
24. Support. 28bytes (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
25. Support - this is a very good idea Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
26. Support Agathoclea (talk) 09:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
27. Support Graham87 09:59, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
28. Support. I take the point about ArbCom, but this can relieve some burden from them in cases that are straightforward. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
29. Support in an emergency such as this one someone should be found to perform the desysop as soon as possible. Hut 8.5 17:00, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
30. Support  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 17:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
31. AD 17:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
32. Something of a leap of faith in the judgement of bureaucrats, but they probably deserve it, and any misjudgements will lead to the usual excoriations I imagine. Skomorokh 17:51, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
33. Support -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
34. Support A greater pool of authorised volunteers means that the potential damage possible with a compromised or gone bad sysop account can be limited more quickly, and the inbuilt checks means that any errors can be quickly rectified. I should not think that any good admin would be against having the risk of their access to the flags removed in error in the good faith protection of the project. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
35. Support. This version sounds acceptable. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 14:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
36. Support, but needs copyediting.  Sandstein  19:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
37. Support, pretty strait-forward. Marcus Qwertyus 23:31, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
38. Support I'm sure we can trust buros to make a reversible good faith call about this clearly defined sort of thing. Especially since any admin is already allowed to block a compromised account. Bob House 884 (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
39. Support — Edokter (talk) — 00:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
40. Support in the event of an emergency, the quicker we can get someone, the better. Bureaucrats are trustworthy and possibly a better option than having to wait on a steward. hare j 01:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming that the proposal for requests from ArbCom (above) is accepted, is this a better option than having ArbCom decide under the current policy and then forwarding the request to the 'crats? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

41. Support. Easily be reversed if misused. Tiderolls 01:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
42. Support Because of viewdelete still working even when blocked. If viewdelete did not work when blocked, I'd say to try blocking them first to see if they unblock themselves. Gigs (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
43. Support demize (t · c) 02:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
44. --JaGa^talk 04:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
45. This is fine wording. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
46. Support Seems reasonable. — Bill william compton^Talk 07:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
47. Support Themeparkgc  Talk  07:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
48. Support, seems to have appropriate wording here. — Cirt (talk) 07:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
49. Support - easily reversed if abused, saves time in any emergency. Abusers to be hacked to death with a blunt teaspoon? Pesky (talk …stalk!) 07:55, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
50. Looks reasonable. T. Canens (talk) 08:13, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
51. Support - Excellent. Lets move forward. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 12:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
52. Support appears to be short term damage limitation, I trust the crats to not misuse. Sounds reasonable. Worm^TT · (talk) 13:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
53. Support Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
54. Support – If a bureaucrat can react faster to emergencies than stewards, why not? I just hope that those entrusted with bureaucratic rights by the community are able to comprehend which situations are emergencies and which aren't (we need to raise our expectations for bureaucrats). Since this proposal includes reporting to ArbCom as a condition and user rights changes are logged, it's be easy for others to examine the rights removal for misuse. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming that the proposal for requests from ArbCom (above) is accepted, is this a better option than having ArbCom decide under the current policy and then forwarding the request to the 'crats? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess it would depend on how serious the emergency is. If a sysop account goes on a rampage, there may not be any room for hesitation, discussion, or deferral. I hoping that the users we've entrusted with bureaucrat rights have the sense to determine which situations are emergencies and which aren't. I'm hoping that this community had the wisdom to elect bureaucrats that aren't trigger-happy. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    We actually need to lower the expectations, as they are as high as stewards! ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You misunderstand. I'm asking each voter to raise their individual expectation of what a bureaucrat should be like. I wasn't suggesting that the threshold for acceptance be increased from the current 85%. Each individual voter needs to think very hard about the candidate's merits and qualifications before making a final decision. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 23:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

55. Support Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
56. Support Hekerui (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
57. Support Reasonable, though I would expect the account to be desysoped and blocked. TotientDragooned (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
58. But stewards must still be permitted to perform an emergency desysopping. AGK [•] 23:14, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
59. I was on the edge for this one, but all of the opposition points have been sufficiently rebutted in my opinion. Jujutacular ^talk 03:21, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
60. Support (Conditional) Bureaucrats are generally much closer to the community "heartbeat" and conscience than stewards in that they tend to be more active in the daily life and activity of the project and community thus a better judge of the current state and needs of them. In this case, I would further define an emergency as being any situation where specific actions have been taken by the potentially compromised account such that a delay in removing adminship would cause serious and significant harm to the nature, product, name or good will of the Wikipedia project or the Wikimedia Foundation. Merely suspecting the compromise of an account without specific facts can be the source of great problems. While bureaucrats tend to be among the most highly respected and proven trustworthy members of our community this is not a situation that should be considered or handled lightly. I support this privilege provided that in the case of a genuine emergency as defined by policy (and hopefully above), the action taken is listed in a special page that logs all details of the transaction including a required explanation by the person taking the action. The explanation should include at a minimum either the specific facts detailing how the actions taken under the suspected compromised account clearly indicate a compromised account and that those actions constituted an emergency; or that a direct communication from someone purporting to be the account owner states that the account has been compromised with sufficient documentary evidence to support a good faith belief that the person is in fact the account owner. Furthermore, an automatic review by ArbCom should occur within twenty-four hours.  Jim Reed (Talk)  04:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
61. Support I would expect this to to be the consequence if a blocked admin account unblocks itself. (Followed by a further block) Edgepedia (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
62. Support - Per my reasoning in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Granting bureaucrats the technical ability to remove the admin flag, I am supporting all four. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
63. Support, though not necessarily as written here. I would support allowing bureaucrats to remove adminship temporarily in other cases of VERY clear-cut abuse (though not with the wording originally proposed above). This should cover not only hacked accounts, but Wonderfool-style admin rampages. I trust the 'crats to apply the duck test appropriately. Whichever wording we go with, it must be abundantly clear that this is only to be done in emergencies involving severe and unambiguous abuse of the tools. szyslak (t) 10:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
64. Support. Much havoc could be wreaked with a mop in a very short time, so this does make sense. (Going to vote oppose in the other sections.) Rivertorch (talk) 22:51, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
65. Support. When an admin maketh havoc, a crat taketh his admin rights. --Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 13:26, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
66. Support Good idea. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
67. Support. Cla68 (talk) 05:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
68. Support: Wikipedians should safeguard their accounts the best they can, especially those whose rights could cause disruption. Allowing local bureaucrats to de-sysop the accounts of compromised admins means a faster response and less damage to have to fix in these hopefully rare instances. I also do not object to the bureaucratic removal of the admin rights of admins clearly abusing their tools to vandalize, disrupt, or compromise the system, though that seems no longer a part of this particular discussion. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 10:05, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
69. Strong Support this is why I supported giving bureaucrats the right to remove admin rights in the first place. It should, however, only be rarely used, and when it's completely obvious that the account is causing problems. JDDJS (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
70. Support - Bazj (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
71. Sensible in its utility and limitations. — Scientizzle 20:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
72. Support After a bit of thought and reading comments and discussion. I say the current wording is good and that having it only be temporary and pending review from ArbCom is the best way of preventing abuse of the power. Chris (talk) 21:09, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
73. Support North8000 (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
74. Support -- Alex146 (talk) 01:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
75. Support This seems to be simply an extension of what stewards have long done in this situation. I certainly trust crats to do it properly.--Chaser2 (talk) 03:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
76. Support. This could stop an erratic admin or a compromised account. I see no real downside. --Alecmconroy (talk) 05:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
77. Support If we trust them to Sysop someone, I think we can safely trust them to de-sysop someone. -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 08:48, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
78. Strong Support - Speaking as an admin - and I expect most other admins share my sentiment - if a 'crat has any reason to suspect any admin account (including mine) is compromised then I want the account shut down ASAP. As admins our first priority must be the safety of the project. If it is all a misunderstanding then we merely suffer a minor inconvenience for a few hours - no big deal and it is all easily sorted out. Manning (talk) 09:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Is a single 'crat any better than a single ArbCom member? The current procedures require that at least 3 ArbCom members must support the emergency desysoping before it can take place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
79. Support. But the wording? "... must notify the user in question to that they should contact the Arbitration Committee to ..." Tony (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
80. Support - Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:24, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
81. Support - this will allow the problems posed by compromised administrator accounts to be addressed with a minimum of hassle. SuperMarioMan 21:38, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
82. Support Though I am am a little surprised that we could not trust a crat to decide that an admin-gone-mad, deleting pages willy nilly or blocking people left right and centre after putting "retired" on their own user page, cannot be handled in the same way. Though I agree that disruptive was too grey, this version is a little too white and vandalism by a non-compromised account should perhaps have been left in. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is a single 'crat any better than a single ArbCom member? The current procedures require that at least 3 ArbCom members must support the emergency desysoping before it can take place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:13, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
83. Suppport I'm sorry, but are we seriously saying that we cannot trust a bureaucrat to desysop a compromised account? --cc 08:26, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
84. Support NECRAT^{Speak to me} 09:40, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
85. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 13:15, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
86. Support new version, since it does not require a judgment call as to whether tools are being "abused." I don't think that a good-faith mistake can be made whether an account has been compromised, however. This also relieves the stress from the stewards caseload. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 14:25, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
87. Support. Wording needs improvement. Lightmouse (talk) 16:47, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
88. Support (Moved from oppose) I see little room for abuse of this provision and support that it better serves the interest of Wikipedia than to outright oppose. I would ask for a clearer definition of an "emergency" with perhaps a requirement to link to the diffs which allegedly show cause. My76Strat ^talk 18:05, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
89. Support. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
90. Support. Changing it to a temporary action that would be reviewed by ArbCom was a very good improvement to this proposal. Totally support: it can only be good for the system. SteveStrummer (talk) 05:23, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
91. Support makes sense. --99of9 (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
92. Support Comte0 (talk) 09:38, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
93. Support. Clearly the most controversial of the proposals, but with immediate referral to ArbCom being mandated, it seems safe - if an erroneous decision is made, ArbCom should be able to overturn it quickly enough -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
94. Support. This is needed. -- œ^™ 01:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
95. Support. Cind.amuse 09:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
96. Support - In an emergency situation involving an obviously-hijacked admin account, we should not have to wait for a steward to de-sysop the account in question. Simply blocking the compromised account would be insufficient because admins have the ability to view deleted material. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
97. Very, Very Weak Support I'd rather the emergency angle only be a "oh yeah, if major shit is going down, bureaucrats won't get smacked down by ArbCom for intervening" sort of thing (because seriously, that'd be pretty lame; if I stopped a rouge admin and then got slapped by ArbCom, I'd be hella pissed). I see this as only opening up the list of people that can react to an emergency, thereby making it easier to jump on bad situations. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:27, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
98. Support Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 12:46, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
99. Support - I would not have supported the original wording, but this new version seems okay. The more people able to respond to such emergencies the better in my view, with ArbCom review being a sensible safeguard. CT Cooper · talk 20:54, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
100. Support - much better wording than the orginal - this is a reasonable policy with clear limits. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 00:39, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
101. Support Sensible, has appropriate limits and double checks. - Nick Thorne ^talk 03:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
102. Support Wars have been won because people were authorized to make realtime decisions rather than having to clear every move with Headquarters; and lost because people were still waiting for instructions when the other side went ahead and took immediate action. Ornithikos (talk) 06:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
103. Support. Bureaucrats should have broad discretion to check apparent compromise on an immediately reviewable basis. This would elevate the response so as to avoid admin-on-admin conflict, blocking and arguing being a dubious response anyway. This would also obviate the need for specific language defining "apparent compromise" in this policy: it is what a bureaucrat deems apparent compromise, subject to review by ArbCom. The bar should be high, but discretion broad. Also, ArbCom should be directly responsible for restoring admin rights to any account provoking such extrordinary concern, leaving a specific stare decisis to guide bureaucrats going forward. -SM 09:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Is a single 'crat any better than a single ArbCom member? The current procedures require that at least 3 ArbCom members must support the emergency desysoping before it can take place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:35, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Is that true even in a emergency? Is that somehow a constraint upon stewards, a guideline used by stewards, or an agreement among arbitrators not to request desysop from stewards unless three arbitrators concur? In any of those cases, I think that is way too high a bar, but take your (implicit) point that this may represent a more significant change than I might have thought.

     Re your earlier question, I am certain that (better or no) ArbCom is much more political than the Bureaucracy, and should be. Given this, I see the ideal rationale for a bureaucrat acting here because in his judgement an admin account is likely being used in a way inconsistent with the community consensus by which the sysop power was granted in the first place, and so requires immediate community review, as represented by ArbCom, the highest authority appointed by the community, who should then take political responsibility for restoring the sysop. Again, for the bureaucrat, the bar should be high, but discretion broad. Have I answered your question?

     -SM 10:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

104. Support - but the criteria for presuming an administrator account as compromised should be more stringent. Otherwise it'll be like "Too many cooks - spoil the broth". So a better version is required. - Wikiglobaleditor (talk) 14:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
105. Support - With the caveat that "compromised" be better defined. FurrySings (talk) 23:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
106. Support - Yet again, this makes since. --Nathan2055^talk 19:22, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
107. Support - makes sense and the referral to arbcom will provide a route back in case of judgement error. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
108. Entirely sensible. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:20, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
109. Support - No issues because an incorrect desysopping can be corrected easily. EngineerFromVega^Discuss 00:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
110. Support. If it is an emergency, we should let anyone help who can. Kitty DeClaude (talk) 22:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
111. Support This works just fine.BrandonHoward (talk) 13:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
112. Support if it's clearly an emergency, then increasing the number of people are available to do so makes sense. Since mistakes can easily be rectified, then there's no downside here. Mike Peel (talk) 19:16, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
113. Support As Mike Peel says just above me, the more people who can do it the better PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:31, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
114. Support. (No concerns if folks want to nail down the language more specifically, however.) --joe decker^{talk to me} 18:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
115. Support. —Jclavet (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
116. Support. Blackvisionit (talk) 02:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
117. Support emergency powers with due checks and balances. Huon (talk) 11:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
118. Support - frankie (talk) 16:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
119. Support This sounds like it would be hard to get around by a malicious bureaucrat, and it's simply common sense. Thinking back to the Robdurbar incident, imagine if the bureaucrats were contentedly and calmly removing rights from self-requesting admins but had to sit on their hands while a rogue admin unprotected the Main Page — if we only permitted bureaucrats to remove admin rights for one reason, this should be it. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
120. Support with a bit more hesitation than the other proposals. As long as this is reserved for obvious emergencies, and followed with both a ON-WIKI notification to the user about why and ON-WIKI notification to ArbCom, it should be fine. I'm considerably less enthusiastic if this becomes an email/IRC drill. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 12:50, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
121. Support. This would reduce damage to highly visible pages. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 15:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
122. Support. Of course. ugen64 (talk) 01:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]