Wikipedia talk:De-adminship/IRC log

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