* Nick Boalch wrote:
I don't think that is a particularly fair test.
I can't speak to 'fair' only the realities of the situation. Our
documentation says that admins have extra powers because they are trusted
by the community. Should we change that to 'users who were ONCE trusted by
As is obvious, admins
are occasionally called upon to perform actions that upset people -- I
don't think admins should shrink from making those hard choices.
Neither do I... but there is a difference between making hard choices and
disrespecting the community. Couldn't those "solid admins" you mention,
who have become 'controversial or unpopular' have handled things in a
different way to avoid the animus? Mightn't they have been more likely to
if there were clear consequences of not doing so?
To put it another way... if something would have been so disruptive as to
prevent a person from ever being appointed an admin in the first place why
is it suddenly ok AFTER they become an admin? It makes the 'community
appointment' of admins into something of a smokescreen... community
approval is required for seven days, and not a minute more.