Thread:Project:Current issues/User:MZMcBride and sysopping of User:Fram/reply (111)

He does not deserve the benefit of the doubt.

Consensus here was clearly against adminship (about 2/3 of users against it - it is not fair to allow the dissenting 1/3 to filibuster this). This is especially relevant given that 50% opposition to a sysop is enough to remove his/her access on Wikidata, a project that is usually lax with adminship (although RfAs are obligatory for all). Given that Fram has no need for the tools, there's no reason to give them to him.

We already have enough sysops for the most part, so I feel like we do not need to at all relax our requirements. I would have a laxer stance if local bureaucrats could desysop, but because they cannot, an error (like this one) would require sysadmins or stewards to be involved, creating tons of unnecessary drama. If desysopping were much more trivial (not requiring the involvement of stewards or sysadmins), then I would be much more willing to agree with you, although I think this is an extreme case that either way was not a proper sysopping. If adminship should not be a big deal, desysopping should not be, but desysopping currently is (the proposal to allow -sysop for 'crats did not pass).

If people have to jump through hoops for adminship, I think they should - not at the level of enwiki, but a block for incivility should be an automatic disqualification for adminship, especially when it is so fresh.

To be fair, I do not exactly agree with Tim's particular requirement, per Isarra. But I feel like RfA-less sysoppings (can) cause needless drama when applied to non-developers.