[WikiEN-l] Removal of adminship...

[Anthony]

On 10/7/07, Adrian <aldebaer at googlemail.com> wrote:
> David Gerard schrieb:
> > On 07/10/2007, charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com
> > <charles.r.matthews at ntlworld.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Adrian
> >>
> >
> >
> >>> Yeah, but is there anything else that has led to more problems in the
> >>> eyes of more people than the lack of a proper >community<  process to
> >>> officially withdraw trust for a particular admin once it has expired due
> >>> to certain actions, especially ones that are not immediately actionable
> >>> by ArbCom?
> >>>
> >
> >
> >> Well, the answer to the question as posed is "yes". There have been more serious problems for enWP than public opinion relating to a handful of admins. But, what are these actions worth a desysop that are not 'actionable'? While it is obviously true that the ArbCom can only hand down Arbitration judgements, I have no idea of who it can be, who rules out serious things as actionable.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Yes. These calls seem mostly to be "wahh, we can't actually vote out
> > admins by getting our mates to say we don't like them" with a notable
> > lack of detail of actual abuses in their role as an admin that require
> > de-adminship.
> >
> >
> > - d.
> >
> With that rationale, why would we need a process where the community
> expresses trust with the tools in the first place?

Well, it makes sockpuppetry harder.  Other than that, it really isn't needed.

> So you're basically saying: The community is good enough to be called upon
> to express their trust initially, but they can never express a change of
> heart regarding that trust? Sounds weird.
>
It's not a concept without precedent.  Lots of US judicial positions
work that way, for instance.