[WikiEN-l] Removal of adminship...

[K P]

On 10/7/07, Anthony <wikimail at inbox.org> wrote:
> On 10/7/07, Adrian <aldebaer at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > David Gerard schrieb:
> > > On 07/10/2007, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
> > > <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Adrian
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >>> Yeah, but is there anything else that has led to more problems in the
> > >>> eyes of more people than the lack of a proper >community<  process to
> > >>> officially withdraw trust for a particular admin once it has expired due
> > >>> to certain actions, especially ones that are not immediately actionable
> > >>> by ArbCom?
> > >>>
> > >
> > >
> > >> Well, the answer to the question as posed is "yes". There have been more serious problems for enWP than public opinion relating to a handful of admins. But, what are these actions worth a desysop that are not 'actionable'? While it is obviously true that the ArbCom can only hand down Arbitration judgements, I have no idea of who it can be, who rules out serious things as actionable.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes. These calls seem mostly to be "wahh, we can't actually vote out
> > > admins by getting our mates to say we don't like them" with a notable
> > > lack of detail of actual abuses in their role as an admin that require
> > > de-adminship.
> > >
> > >
> > > - d.
> > >
> > With that rationale, why would we need a process where the community
> > expresses trust with the tools in the first place?
>
> Well, it makes sockpuppetry harder.  Other than that, it really isn't needed.
>
> > So you're basically saying: The community is good enough to be called upon
> > to express their trust initially, but they can never express a change of
> > heart regarding that trust? Sounds weird.
> >
> It's not a concept without precedent.  Lots of US judicial positions
> work that way, for instance.
>
Yeah, sounds familiar, not weird.

KP