On 12/10/2007, charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com
<charles.r.matthews(a)ntlworld.com> wrote:
"Charlotte Webb" wrote
> Blocks for edit-warring are common enough, but
has anybody ever been
> desysopped for it (i.e. for edit-warring on a non-protected page)?
> That strikes me as an unusual "remedy".
There seems to be a theory that "you can only
lose your admin powers by using them". Not quite sure where it comes from, but
it's a rule of thumb. I don't entirely agree with this theory. I suppose ArbCom
remedies are supposed to be improving matters, rather than being punitive.
Everyking, who was a MASSIVE pain in the backside for ages but only
lost his admin bit when he offered on Wikipedia Review to repost
problematic deleted material.
The usefulness is that it helps protect admins doing important but
unpopular things from an upset mob of idiots.
This does have the problem that things can't be
done for deterrent effect/pour encourager les autres. The snag there is that the more
roguish the admin, the less the available slaps on the wrist do deter.
Almost all of our admins really do seem to be fine, y'know. Many are
kids and many are imperfect, but they take the bit seriously enough.
Even people I've had severe doubts about getting the bit have done
good stuff and not done bad stuff. It's like getting on the arbcom and
discovering you actually have access to the Big Red Buttons. "Well
done, sir!" "Er. Um. Er." A suitably sobering experience.
- d.