This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Chzz (talk | contribs) at 08:23, 15 December 2011 (→Scrutiny: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 08:23, 15 December 2011 by Chzz (talk | contribs) (→Scrutiny: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Thanks Doug Dweller, looking forward to this being developed. Several items that come to my mind (and I'm hesitant to link to the item that brings this about simply because I think it a bit unkind to single out individuals) are possible reasons for resignation, and the state it was requested in.
- a discussion (perhaps on a AN or AN/I board) about an admin. who may have misused the tools. (either by accident or poor judgment)
- a proposal by the community for the removal of said tools. (was it simply one or two people with little discussion)
- a growing consensus to remove the tools by the community. Was the thread closed determining that there was consensus to remove tools?
- was an RFAR proposed and/or accepted? (I ask this because at this time I have yet to see the community be able to remove admin. rights without the declaration from arbcom)
What I'm thinking is that perhaps when and admin request the removal of their own tools now that crats have the ability to do so on a local level is that perhaps there should be a log of these actions that includes a note and/or link to the circumstances to help determine if there is a "cloud" — Ched : ? 12:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
functionary
I noticed you used the term "functionary", and while technically accurate, I don't often see that term used for an administrator or see admin listed at Category:Misplaced Pages functionaries. Should this be reworded? — Ched : ? 13:52, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Scrutiny
I was about to say same re. functionary.
But also, in a manner that is seen as an attempt to evade scrutiny - that isn't the way I view it, at all; that makes it sound like deliberate deceit. It could be, of course - but isn't always. It could just be that, during some issue, they've got so fed up they've resigned. The important point is, that there's nothing necessarily negative about the act of resigning during some issue. Several times, I've seen people resign "under a cloud" for absolutely impeccable reasons. It still, of course, means that their return might require RfA, but I don't think it is right to characterize the act of resignation as an "attempt to evade scrutiny". Chzz ► 08:23, 15 December 2011 (UTC)