Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Bureaucrat Unchecking/Poll

Modify Proposal
I think the main objection of two of the three opposers centers around community deactivation. Perhaps the proposal should be amended to remove that as it is not a valid reason to remove the bit. Generally when the community calls for it, an RfC or ArbCOM case is initiated and offending Admin agrees to step down. They do so to avoid the ArbCOM case, but they choose to relinquish the bit in light of the criticism they receive. Thus, I would propose reqoding the proposal to get rid of Community Deactivation as it is not currently an accepted rationale.--- Balloonman  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my addition to the nutshell; is that sufficient? -- Avi (talk) 22:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the page already state "and potentially in cases of WP:CDA, should that be implemented)" (emphasis added)? I think Avi already clearly specified that the possibility to de-sysop/de-crat is not associated with the reasons why it could happen. If people still want to oppose for "because CDA is a stupid idea" despite the proposal clearly not connecting it with CDA, no change to the proposal will stop it. We could at most add another sentence that this is not about the "why" of a de-sysop but only about the "whether the crats should perform it if...". But imho it already says so. Regards  So Why  22:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)