[WikiEN-l] Analysis of Request for Adminship

[David Alexander Russell]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

*Ducks for cover* the '3 admins request' you suggested would mean that
we end up with very few admins left - recent wheelwars have occured
(where more than 3 admins were involved in each side) where both sides
would be happy to use this procedure to desysop each other. I do think
we need to make it easier to desysop 'screw process'/'screw consensus'
admins, but making it a '3 admins request' would a) Make spurious
desysoppings far too easy and b) Lead to charges of cabalism - why
should admins only hold office at the pleasure of OTHER ADMIMS?

A better idea would be one of the perennial 'requests for deadminship'
proposals, but the problem with these is not creating a logjam of
automatic renominations (as the 'required to reapply every year'
proposals would do) or violating WP:VIE (as the 'petition required to
initiate new RFA') in the process. Perhaps if Arbcom was more willing to
desysop admins who annoy the community, that would solve the problem.

Cynical

Steve Bennett wrote:

> 
> Maybe we should adopt an "easy come, easy go" policy. Make it much
> easier for users to get admin rights, but make it much easier for them
> to be desysopped too (perhaps by simple request by 3 other admins?).
> Then, rather than attempting to prejudge admins, we could actually
> road-test them. Hell, give them a trial period of 2 weeks, *then* vote
> on them.
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFELS+cg8fvtQYQevcRAqpRAJ4xnTKUa9/wnoZHMCFS52LQsp4SiwCfV7Vd
FRYpXYJuOupnU1CalXFj7uY=
=Tyuf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----