This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wizardman (talk | contribs) at 20:29, 20 April 2008 (→Is ArbCom a sufficient check and balance?: this one's easy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 20:29, 20 April 2008 by Wizardman (talk | contribs) (→Is ArbCom a sufficient check and balance?: this one's easy)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Is ArbCom a sufficient check and balance?
Currently, only the Arbitration Committee (including Checkuser outcomes) has the power to desysop an admin for abuse of the mop and bucket (excluding obvious incidents that resulted in ad-hoc removal). Do you feel that this measure alone is sufficient in acting as a check and balance against abusive admins? If not, what other process should be adopted?
Yes
- working fine. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
No
- Certainly not. Majorly (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- -- Naerii 20:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Mr.Z-man 20:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Peer review perhaps? There should be a step below arbcom for admins who don't make serious mistakes but make a large number of minor ones. Have a "recent admin action notice board" and let people review actions. Administrators who have a larger-than-normal number and percentage of negative comments across multiple admin actions can have their adminship put up for review. This peer review concept goes for any privileged function. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
- Wizardman 20:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Other
- I think it works fine the great majority of the time. But the Archtransit debacle made me see that a community desysopping process would be good... Something like a ban discussion would suffice, as long as a good number of people participate. Grandmasterka 20:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)