On 6/25/05, Chris Jenkinson <talrias(a)gmail.com> wrote:
An obvious flaw, so far, with this system, is that a
potential
malicious user can go through the adminee period, get nominated
without a hitch, and then cause trouble. This is why a deadminship
procedure would need to be created - abuses of power should /not/ be
tolerated. Currently there are irrevocable actions admins can take -
these must either be fixed in code, or more appropriately, it made
absolutely clear that anyone who takes malicious actions as an admin
will face severe disciplinary action.
This is the case now. We've had three admins face disciplinary action
over admin abuses before, all leading to de-sysopping, and more
recently, one that was emergency de-sysopped after going on a deleting
rampage. This sort of thing is specifically what the arbitration
committee is for. There is no need to create an additional lynch mob
so that a handful of users can settle scores with people who - they
freely admit - have done nothing wrong, but they just don't like.
-- ambi