On 3/31/06, Mark Gallagher m.g.gallagher@student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
G'day David,
*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?
- As a "screw process" admin, I wonder what leads you to believe my quick'n'easy de-sysopping is necessary.
Process is the method by which the commonity can control admins. If admins wish to step outside that control another more direct method is required.
- There are not "screw consensus" admins. There *are* admins who disagree with certain wikilawyers about what "consensus" means, but then that's hardly their fault.
Wikilawyers don't really have many weapons against a recorded consensus or supermajority. Classic edit warriors do. This is because classic edit warriors work by takeing the screw process aproach.
-- geni