On 3/31/06, Mark Gallagher <m.g.gallagher(a)student.canberra.edu.au> wrote:
G'day David,
*Ducks for cover* the '3 admins request'
you suggested would mean that
we end up with very few admins left - recent wheelwars have occured
(where more than 3 admins were involved in each side) where both sides
would be happy to use this procedure to desysop each other. I do think
we need to make it easier to desysop 'screw process'/'screw consensus'
admins, but making it a '3 admins request' would a) Make spurious
desysoppings far too easy and b) Lead to charges of cabalism - why
should admins only hold office at the pleasure of OTHER ADMIMS?
0) As a "screw process" admin, I wonder what leads you to believe my
quick'n'easy de-sysopping is necessary.
Process is the method by which the commonity can control admins. If
admins wish to step outside that control another more direct method is
required.
1) There are not "screw consensus" admins.
There *are* admins who
disagree with certain wikilawyers about what "consensus" means, but
then that's hardly their fault.
Wikilawyers don't really have many weapons against a recorded
consensus or supermajority. Classic edit warriors do. This is because
classic edit warriors work by takeing the screw process aproach.
--
geni