On Sunday 02 March 2008 08:04, Raphael Wegmann wrote:
I share that view. IMHO there should be a
mechanism to desysop
those who act like they're masters. Since administrators should serve
the community, they should not select their representatives
for a lifetime. Instead those administrators who loose public support,
should loose their administrative powers as well.
In order to avoid permanent elections, we could implement a system,
in which every registered editor can choose his/her administrator.
After some phase-in period, those administrators who loose all
their supporting editors should loose their admin powers as well.
I've suggested something similar in the past:
For their initial confirmation, administrators are required to reach a
certain, objectively-defined and absolute threshold of votes (not
a "discussion", not "consensus", but an outright vote), discounting
SPAs,
socks, and maybe a few others. A week after their confirmation process
begins, if they meet that criteria they are admins.
From then on out, they must maintain that support.
A page is maintained for
each administrator. It begins with the original
confirmation request, and
from that individual users may add or withdraw their support for that
administrator as they see fit. Once a week, on the same day as the admin was
initially confirmed, someone checks to see if they still meet that threshold.
If they fall below the threshold for two consecutive weeks, they are
de-adminned (requiring two consecutive weeks rather than just a single week
helps give admins a chance to explain why they did what they did, in the
event of a particularly controversial action that may nonetheless have been
the best thing to do in a particular situation).
I support the principle, even if I
would approach the details
differently. I have in the past raised something of the sort in
relation to policy adoption in general.
Permanent elections or permanent votes are just fine. They more easily
reflect changing times and attitudes without having to compete with the
inertia that accompanies established decisions. A lot of the people who
are most vexatious about the strict application of rules seem like the
kind of people who like to decide on a rule and go on without ever
having to reconsider the issue again.
Ec