On 6/25/05, Chris Jenkinson talrias@gmail.com wrote:
Fine, this wasn't a necessary part of the proposal. The reason I added it was mainly due to time concerns for the Arbitration Committee - a decision appears to take a long time, and in that time the "bad" admin could do more damage.
This is still a solution desperately in search of a problem. We have one incident in recent times where this *did* occur, and the admin involved was very quickly desysopped by consensus to protect the content they were deleting, in the similar manner to the way Mr. Treason was hardbanned by general agreement. If, god forbid, such an incident occurred again, it could very easily be dealt with by the same measures. And if it is not that urgent, then it hurts none to go through due process.
-- ambi
On 6/25/05, Rebecca misfitgirl@gmail.com wrote:
This is still a solution desperately in search of a problem. We have one incident in recent times where this *did* occur, and the admin involved was very quickly desysopped by consensus to protect the content they were deleting, in the similar manner to the way Mr. Treason was hardbanned by general agreement. If, god forbid, such an incident occurred again, it could very easily be dealt with by the same measures. And if it is not that urgent, then it hurts none to go through due process.
Maybe that part of the proposal is not necessary. Your thoughts on the rest of the proposal are welcome. :)
I have rephrased and summarised some of the arguments I have made: --> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Talrias/Adminship_reform
Chris