https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=36856
--- Comment #6 from Christoffer <[email protected]> 2012-05-18 09:09:25 UTC --- I cannot see that anyone has demonstrated *why* this should be such a problematic move. In the case that a bureaucrat should demote an admin because he simply because he disagreed with him, that would be obvoius abuse and the community/community members could go to meta to have the bureaucrat removed from his position. The community could be better off after such an incident, with the dubious bureaucrat no longer having such a 'high ranking' position. In the rare case that a bureaucrat should go on a deletion/vandal spree, beyond reporting it to a steward, the only thing an admin could do is damage control by restoring/rolling back edits. If the bureaucrat is going to desysop 30 admins before he starts, he might just be stopped before before he can do any damage to pages at all. Should he keep an eye on RC for admins undoing his work, that would slow him down. In either case, the bureaucrat needs to be blocked, which is something only a steward can do, regardless of the user rights of the bureaucrat. It is more likely that an admin should go bad than a bureaucrat (this has happened frequently on en.wikt; one person repeatedly gains trust under new names so that he may delete the main page). In this case, if a bureaucrat is viewing RC, the rogue admin may be stopped swiftly. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug. You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Wikibugs-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l
