Community de-adminship RfC enters voting, Canvassed with a Wikipedia banner Options

[Abd]

In all its glory.

This is a fairly mild proposal, not a whole lot less cumbersome than taking an admin to RfAr, and the biggest argument against it, in my opinion, is that it might be almost useless, but it is not worse than the status quo, and might be better, and might be improved on review, which is built into the proposal, so I supported it after some thought, even though there are aspects that are inadequate.

The arguments against are featured prominently at the top of the RfC, authored by TenOfAllTrades, who has provided plenty of reason, in the past, that someone might want him removed. Right now, Oppose votes are leading, with many of them based on an impression that There Is Nothing Wrong, Everything Is Peachy Keen, I've Not Encountered Any Rogue Administrators, So If It Ain't Broke, Don't Fix It.

Which is probably true for most Wikipedia editors. Until they do encounter one or a few.

I just thought it was odd that this wasn't being discussed here, given, etc., etc.

[MZMcBride]

There's a balance to be struck. And arguably, the current means of removing an administrator have become too lenient. The Arbitration Committee is more than capable of handling actual administrator abuse. That isn't to say that the Arbitration Committee is competent, effective, or even necessary, but if there is actual and demonstrable abuse of the administrator position, this most recent Arbitration Committee and the group from 2009 have both made it clear they are capable and willing to remove bad administrators. This situation is the result of an evolution; the same things could not be said in 2008 or probably any year before that.

Succinctly, it makes very little sense to focus time or energy on a community de-adminship procedure when one simply isn't needed. But, hey, how else are you giving to fill an otherwise bland week?