[WikiEN-l] To: Jimmy Wales - Admin-driven death of WIkipedia

[Molu]

So you are saying Guerdlam's accusations are actually true? In that case it is a cause for concern! If a certain admin will not pass a RfA today, he has no business whatsoever being an admin. An admin is a person who has been entrusted with some additional abilities by the community because he is trusted to make good use of them and entrusting those abilities to all users has too much potential for disruption.
   
  If however an admin ceases to be popular within the community, that means he has overstayed his welcome and immediately needs to be kicked out, call it a lynchmob if you will. An admin is a janitor, not the member of some elite aristocracy and if they perform actions unpopular to the majority of the community then they are abusing their powers.
   
  Molu


    On Mon, 29 May 2006 12:36:51 +0100 Nick Boalch wrote:
  
>I don't think that is a particularly fair test. As is obvious, admins
>are occasionally called upon to perform actions that upset people -- I
>don't think admins should shrink from making those hard choices.

>I can think of several thoroughgoingly solid admins, people who temper a
>good knowledge of policy with a healthy dose of knowing that what we're
>here to do is write an encyclopaedia, who I doubt would pass an RfA
>because they've done things that have made them controversial or
>unpopular in certain sectors of the community.

>The community giveth, and the community taketh away -- but it taketh
>away under the auspices of proper consideration by the arbitration
>committee, not by having unpopular admins strung up by a baying lynchmob.

>Cheers,

>N.

		
---------------------------------
Feel free to call! Free PC-to-PC calls. Low rates on PC-to-Phone.  Get Yahoo! Messenger with Voice