Yes, we had admins face disciplinary action before, but there's also a large number of accusations that never even reach a stage of serious discussion, because they ask for de-sysoping on a knee-jerk reaction - merely for the admin disagreeing with them or for moving a page (which anyone can do).
Arbitration should suffice.
--Mgm
On 6/25/05, Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/25/05, Chris Jenkinson talrias@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 _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l