Project:Requests/RfC/Proposal to allow bureaucrats revoke sysop

Proposal to allow bureaucrats revoke sysop
I think it would be useful, because giving a permission which is hard to revoke is always problem. You take a high responsibility while giving someone a permission that can have some negative potential and you aren't even able to stop that person, in case of misuse. What do you think? I guess we are big enough to deal with these matters, without asking stewards. Petrb (talk) 20:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I support this change, but you should see meta:Talk:Limits to configuration changes, 33879 and 35258. -- Krenair (talk &bull; contribs) 21:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support. In fact, users in the sysadmin global group in CentralAuth can already change all userrights. Given that many of them are bureaucrats or otherwise have high permissions on this wiki, this would be a non-issue.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose: We are a small(ish) wiki, I see no need or point for this change, There is generally enough people around that can deal with the "mess" till it can be dealt with by someone with the appropriate user rights. Peachey88 (talk) 23:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I could give you example of a bureaucrat action where wrong person was given sysop, the bureaucrat couldn't fix it and had to contact stewards to change it. Question is what is a benefit from restricting this ability? I agree that bureaucrats should be careful when giving the permissions, but I don't see any benefit in restricting possibility to revert their own actions (either in case of mistake, or request by sysop who wants their permissions revoked, or misuse, which I doubt would happen though) Petrb (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral: with the high proliferation of sysops on this wiki, having the ability for the wiki to police itself is a boon. This wiki has not been and likely never will be very policy-oriented, and forcing your way through red tape to get a steward to desysop seems antithesis to the laissez-faire way the rest of the wiki operates. That said, I don't feel that bcrats actually need the ability to desysop. From what I've seen, myself and other bcrats carefully judge who we hand +sysop to in order to avoid future issues, and I can't think of a single case where a sysop went rogue here on mediawiki.org. The only other use I can think of is to desysop inactive people, which was proposed and withdrawn above. -- Skiz zerz  23:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the idea that rights on a wiki should only be given to those who need them. It seems so pointless to deny small extra rights to perfectly trustworthy and capable users just because we can't see a use case for them in advance. I definitely wouldn't consider it valid grounds to oppose such a change. -- Krenair (talk &bull; contribs) 00:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Small extra rights", I don't see how Delete, Block to name a couple are small rights to be given away. And if we don't see a use case for the person getting them in advanced, I don't see one for them using them after getting them…. Peachey88 (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to quite understand. I'm not claiming admin rights are small extra rights. Bureaucrats having the right to remove those admin rights are though. -- Krenair (talk &bull; contribs) 00:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Per Peachey88. Sorry, but this proposal doesn't win me over. I'd prefer to let stewards do this kinda task. -- Frigotoni ... i'm here ; 09:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Neutral as per User:Skizzerz. Personally needed sysop help only once or twice; this change makes sense especially if local sysop rights could be granted by bureaucrats without a formal RfA process. Did we ever had any case of revoking sysop access here? Or are we solving a non-issue? « Saper // talk »  13:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Some people might be given sysop right temporarily, this isn't much possible right now because it's not possible to revoke them. There were some cases where we needed to revoke sysop, it was due to mistake when incorrect person was filled in the form. I think it makes a lot of sense to make it possible for crats to fix their own mistakes. Petrb (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally opposed to fixing things that aren't broken. Not to mention a significant portion of our admins are shell users or in the staff group and (in theory) are all powerful... Bawolff (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)