On 10/7/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/7/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
David Gerard schrieb:
On 07/10/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@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