[WikiEN-l] Who monitors Wikipedia?

[David Gerard]

On 03/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw at armory.com> wrote:
> On Sunday 02 March 2008 18:56, David Gerard wrote:

>  > The arbcom is quite happy to remove the admin bit from *bad* admins as
>  > needed, sometimes in a sudden midnight swoop.

> Admins are servants of the community, not the Arbitrary Committee; thus,
>  de-adminning is properly a community decision.


And the arbcom is the elected power of last resort in en:wp, and has
the power of deadminning when it is needed. This may be a good or bad
thing, but it's how things presently stand.


>  > 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).

> I realize we're not necessarily talking about my particular proposal here, but
>  there's a reason why it requires that someone fail to meet the threshold for
>  two consecutive weeks (and that number is, well, just a number--change it if
>  need be; the principle remains the same).


A system like this has been proposed many times before. Why did it
fail those times? What can we learn from history?


- d.