Wikipedia talk:History of de-adminship proposals

Archives

Adminship term length

That vote was ridiculous. It's like asking chickens whether they're OK with a KFC. Synotia (moan) 17:56, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The vote wasn't limited to admins, not that there are as many admins around these days. If you want to restart the debate and try to get a different result you could open a new RFC on it. But I'd suggest reading the arguments and trying to modify the proposal to accommodate some of the reasons why the last proposal failed. Even if you are minded to ignore arguments by admins, there were plenty of non admins who pointed out flaws in the proposal. Simply dismissing the consensus view as ridiculous might leave some people thinking that you aren't engaging with those arguments, let alone rebutting them. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:54, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional historic discussions

Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 9 (January 2004)
Wikipedia talk:De-adminship (January-March 2004, merged into the below)
Wikipedia talk:Possible misuses of sysop rights (January-December 2004)
Wikipedia talk:Requests for review of administrative actions (January-June 2004)

The latter three are discussions which got lost when pages were moved around. As Raul654 said at the time: Too many page moves...head hurting... — Hex • talk 14:24, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]