Zoe-
I wrote this:
> I think Graham's comments can be characterized
as
> attacks, but Anthere &
> Martin seem to be trying to understand what
> happened. Graham seems to have
> some personal problems with you, which is
> unfortunate. I suggest ignoring
> him.
Then you wrote that:
GrahamN:
Yeah, we trust them to follow the rules. And to be
honest, open and straightforward in what they are
doing. If they demonstrate they can't be trusted act
like that, they should lose their sysop status
GrahamN:
I am astounded at the casual attitude that is
displayed in so many of the comments that have been
posted in this discussion. If this place is to remain
truly free and democratic then it is vital that all
sysops are accountable to the rest of us, and that
real consensus is always demonstrated before any
deletion or ban is enacted. If there were a Wikipedia
Constitution, these two principles should be in big
capital letters in first paragraph. This is a very
serious matter indeed. Why are so many people trying
to play it down? If I was prone to paranoia I would
point out that if a group of people wanted to stage a
coup and gain complete control of Wikipedia, then a
good way to start would be to spread exactly the kind
of complacency that so many users are demonstrating
here.
GrahamN:
What you are telling me is that there is some terrible
external threat to us, and the only way to protect
ourselves from it is to suspend democracy and give
absolute power to an unnacountable clique. This
argument seems curiously familiar from somewhere
Yep, I'm overreacting, all right.
I can just repeat what I already said: Ignore GrahamN.
Regards,
Erik