On 4/20/06, Kelly Martin <kelly.lynn.martin(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On 4/20/06, jkelly(a)fas.harvard.edu
<jkelly(a)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