[WikiEN-l] Requirements for Adminship

[Rich Holton]

David Gerard wrote:
> On 19/02/07, K P <kpbotany at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Sounds familiar, except you're missing an important part: it must be easy,
>> also, to lose adminship.  In other words, it really must be no big deal,
>> which it currently isn't (no big deal).
> 
> 
> This is unlikely to happen - it strikes me there's not a lot of net
> plus in firing the experienced admins. The cases aren't symmetrical.
> 
> 

Right now it takes an ArbCom decision or direct intervention from Jimbo 
to de-admin someone. This is *very* asymmetric to the RfA process. 
Perhaps this is why there is the perceived need for the RfA to be so 
stringent.

If an experienced admin is "swaggering" and abusing power, then that 
admin is causing an asymmetric amount of damage to the project; not the 
kind of damage a vandal can cause, but damage none-the-less. We need to 
have effective and efficient ways to curtail that kind of damage, just 
like we need effective and efficient ways to curtail the damage a vandal 
causes.

I do believe the relaxation of de-facto requirements to become an admin 
needs to come first. But streamlining the process to remove abusive 
admins is also an important step.

-Rich