On 03/03/2008, WJhonson(a)aol.com <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote:
That's right. For any action presented, there
are knee-jerk reactions from
both sides.
Both the "He was just doing his job" crowd, and the "admins are all
jerks
anyway" crowd.
Even ones just doing their job can be, um, pretty crap admins. And we
do have many crappy admins.
The arbcom is quite happy to remove the admin bit from *bad* admins as
needed, sometimes in a sudden midnight swoop. I'd say there's not a
problem in practice removing the bit from actually bad admins (as
opposed to, e.g., momentarily unpopular ones).
The problem IMO is the sorta crappy ones. Which gets subjective. And
it would obviously be better to lure them encouragingly toward
non-crapness rather than just saying "Fail. *bang*"
I mean, ideally adminship really shouldn't be a big deal - any
experienced non-insane
Wikipedian should be able to pass RFA okay. That that isn't how things
are is a self-feeding problem. But this has been discussed ad nauseam
both here and on WT:RFA.
- d.