On 06/10/06, Kirill Lokshin <kirill.lokshin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/6/06, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> People still complain that it's impossible to
get rid of a bad admin
> when that's manifestly false. The ArbCom is *not* happy with cases of
> clear abuse of admin powers and does act when such are brought to its
> attention.
The ArbCom also seems to take a fairly narrow view of
what constitutes
"abuse", in the sense that disruptive behavior -- even *massively*
disruptive behavior -- is ignored if it (a) seems to sort of work out
in the end, (b) can be claimed as being "for the good of Wikipedia",
or (c) both.
You mean, where they consider the "disruption" was the right thing,
they consider it was the right thing? Well, uh, yeah.
(If you don't mean that, be specific about what you do mean.)
Actually, the current RFA is fairly successful in one
respect: it's a
decent filter against people who are likely to react explosively to
pressure, which is actually pretty helpful. Having admins that lose
their composure easily is not really the best idea, for obvious
reasons.
There is a certain appeal to that at present. Mind you,
overcompensating would be bad, and I wouldn't have picked *any* of the
present participants as explosive.
- d.