De-adminship/IRC log

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

See other meanings of words starting from letter:

D

DA | DB | DC | DE | DF | DG | DH | DI | DJ | DK | DL | DM | DN | DO | DP | DR | DS | DT | DU | DW | DX | DY | DZ |

Words begining with De-adminship/IRC_log:

De-adminship/IRC_log