Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 488:

:(edit conflict) I'll give you some credit, as it was a good judgement. Also, this may have already been addressed, but can it not be argued that the 60% result showed there was no consensus to remove adminship from said editor? I see it as essentially a request-for-deadminship, as the adminship was not removed by consensus in the first place. Also, it has to be said, that if every admin had an RFA right now, ''many'' would fail, because being an admin does not make you any friends, and yet the system still manages to work somehow. [[User:Bluemoose|Martin]] 12:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

::I disagree that "the system still manages to work somehow". No it doesn't. Many admins would fail? Only those would fail whose actions are rejected by community. As long as Wikipedia is democracy, all admins should be reelected. If it is a tyranny (as Tony and Kelly like to see it), then we should abolish talk pages and shut up. --<font color="FC4339">[[User:Ghirlandajo|Ghirla]]</font> ^{<font color="C98726">[[User_talk:Ghirlandajo|-трёп-]]</font>} 13:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

"We believe that special consideration should be given to anyone that Danny likes". "The rest of you can just stuff your heads down a hole." -[[User:Splash|Splash]] - [[User talk:Splash|tk]] 13:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)