[WikiEN-l] Removal of adminship...

[K P]

On 10/7/07, Kwan Ting Chan <ktc at ktchan.info> wrote:
> > >> 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.
> > >
> > The status quo in US politics may not be the *gold standard* we'd want
> > to model Wikipedia after.
>
> Not being able to easily fire a judge (in this example) is actually a
> quite common thing. The concept is that it goes towards the whole
> judicial independence thing where a judge don't have to worry about
> being fired for a correct but unpopular decision with the politician
> etc. i.e. Not making decision based on popular-ism, but rather whether
> the decision is right or not.
>
> One can use the same line of argument regarding adminship. Namely that
> an admin shouldn't have to worry about axe-grinders when carrying out a
> decision.
>
> KTC
>
> --
> Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
>  - Heinrich Heine

And in both instances it ignores a basic fact of human beings: we
don't judge each other very well, and to expect a judge to be capable
for the rest of his life on the bench is not too realistic.  Do we
know before the appointment that he or she won't fall into senility at
a young age?  Do we know he or she won't abuse his new powers?  We
don't know.

And we have processes to take care of these instances, processes
whereby the people have a say.  Outside of the processes for criminal
behaviour.  Although I don't know about the Supreme Court.

At Wikipedia we don't have a process whereby the editors have a say in
the removal or recall of an administrator.  Just processes for
criminal behaviour.

KP{