* Brian Corr BCorr@NEAction.org [2004-04-16]: ... (long snip).
I appreciate that we want to weigh carefully the decision to remove someone's adminship, but it's clear to me that he received it by a carefully planned course of action -- perhaps even "scheming" is not too strong a word here -- and that he has not acted responsibly.
Notice that this is a very strong personal attack, even though you may have thought carefully about it (of what I am sure). Especially because it judges intentions (basically he wanted consciouly to deceive). This is what I DO NOT see as a proper reason for desysoping. However:
While he may end one specific problematic behavior, he often seems to find one that he hasn't been specifically warned about. To me, he obeys the letter of the law, but no its spirit.
Now this is a good reason, no intentions, no hidden motives. I agree that *if this is the case*, de-sysoping him ought to be taken as a serious possibility. But I fear there are no adverts at his talk pages but since today or yesterday and I fear taking action against someone without using the proper channels will end up in a nasty and awful precedent. This is for me the main reason to ask
a) That Perl not be de-sysoped for now b) That if someone feels a sysop is misbehaving, (s)he be told AT HIS/HER talk page.
So I urge that he is desysopped, that the current policy proposal is reviewed by people and adopted, and that Perl can reapply if he wishes, and that the community can make a decision.
Thanks, Brian (Bcorr)
Pedro.