On 03/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber <kmw(a)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.