[WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

[Ray Saintonge]

David Gerard wrote:

>On 20/02/07, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>Nobody is promoting a wholesale purge of admins.
>>    
>>
>It's entirely unclear what is being advocated. I'm seeing long
>invective-filled posts that tell me to go look for examples to support
>the ranters' positions myself, but no actual case examples. And let me
>remind you I'm one of the ones who thinks RFA is utterly broken and we
>probably need about twice as many admins.
>
Fair enough.  My focus is on how we add new admins, and that should have 
priority at this time over what we do with the problem children.  We 
probably agree on that.  I don't think that getting into actual case 
examples which name names about who should be desysopped would be 
helpful.  It would likely only result in a debate about the named 
individuals.

>>Because of their
>>leadership position they should be held to a higher standard than
>>ordinary editors, and when applicable de-adminship should come swiftly
>>and in no uncertain terms.  It could be appealed to Arbcom, but for any
>>reasonable case it should be kept off until the appeal is resolved.
>>    
>>
>Indeed. Now please give me some solid criteria, with actual case
>examples where you think someone should indeed have been de-adminned
>swiftly and also cases where you think they shouldn't. So we're all on
>the same page here.
>
I would much prefer dealing with criteria.  When Jossi referred to it 
WP:ANI I went there to see what was happenning   I was disgusted by that 
whole process; there were some possible candidates for de-adminning 
there, but I would certainly want to read things there in more detail 
before making specific recommendations. 

Admins should know better.  If they had to know the rules before being 
promoted they should not so easily forget them when they break them.  On 
that basis alone they should not need the repeated warnings that might 
be given to newbies.

Admins should not impose blocks arbitrarily longer than what it provided 
for the penalty in question.  An admin who does that should be blocked 
for as long as the excess he imposes.  No block in excess of 24 hours is 
an emergency

Admins should not engage in persistently abusive action and name-calling. 

Unless there is an emergency admins should give appropriate warning 
before taking drastic actions.

Admins should be respectful of all others, especially newbies.

There are other possibilities, but I think that it's more that admins 
know that when they behave badly there are people there willing to take 
swift but fair action.  If something like that were in force, I would be 
willing to disregard anything that happened before it came into force.

Ec