On 4/20/06, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/20/06, jkelly@fas.harvard.edu jkelly@fas.harvard.edu wrote:
While we're engaging in this critique of Danny's response, it might make sense to ask whether or not Danny, and the other office people, are aware that there exists some large segment of the admin population who regard it as routine to undo other admin actions without discussion because they were "out of process", or "obviously wrong", or whatever. Can we imagine the possibility that some people might interpret that as inexplicable, or even hostile, interference, if they aren't used to this?
Perhaps the real problem is that a large segment of our admin population needs not to be admins anymore.
Kelly
If you have gripes with some of our admins, start an RfC on them. As soon as there are legitimate issues, even borderline-looney barely legitimate issues, someone always starts an RfC.
We have, what, 4000 new articles a day, something like that. Something like half gets speedied, and a chunk goes to Afd or gets {{prod}}ed. We need every single admin we can get.
Simply disagreeing with someone, or thinking that they break some policies are not enough for desysopping. Such an action is never punitive, which means that an admin can (and should) only lose their status for misuse of their priviliges. Can you name anyone lately? I mean, other than Eloquence. If you can't then stop writing these inflammatory messages, that serve no point whatsoever. If you can, then do something about it, and stop writing these inflammatory messages that serve no point whatsoever.
--Oskar