Molu wrote:
Look at it this way, we rely upon the community to decide who will work best for the encyclopedia in the first place.
Agreed.
What miracle suddenly happens after the RfA concludes that the very admins who were chosen by the community get the power to disregard the community?
None. As I've said before, administrators can be seen as people who've been trusted by the community to Do The Right Thing.
It's like "Now you know you made a mistake and there's not a damn thing you can do about it. I AM THE TYRANT MUHUHAHAHA!!!"
It really isn't (or certainly shouldn't be). Can you actually find an example of an admin behaving like that who hasn't been desysopped by ruling of the Arbitration Committee? I doubt it.
And for the trolls complaining about corrupt ArbCom, ofcourse they whine about it because the ArbCom tends to rule against trolls. But if we have an avenue of removing those invalid criticisms without any negative effects, and have as an additional benefit the direct accountability of the admins to the community without going through the indirect and unnecessarily resource consuming process of ArbCom or even worse, Jimbo himself.
I think what would happen is:
(a) our hypothetical 'admin impeachment' page would get waterlogged by people without the time or inclination to look properly at cases like the arbitrators do.
(b) a significant minority of the contributors there would be people with grudges against individual admins or adminship in general, making it almost impossible to arrive at decent consensus.
(c) or, if by some miracle it did work properly, trolls would soon start complaining about 'admin impeachment' being corrupt.
Cheers,
N.