Anthere-
Erik, I reverted that edit of you.
(comment : delisting sam, too contentious and will
only provoke extended flamewars)
If you disagree with Sam as a sysop, please just do
like everyone else (but you) does : vote against Sam.
No. I have removed him again. RfA is *not* a voting page, it operates by
consensus, and when it is clear that no consensus will develop, then it is
pointless to go through the procedure. It's the same on VfD. Cunctator has
been much chastised for removing items on VfD, but I agree with him on
that point.
Wikipedia is not a place for mindless flamewars. I would do the same if
someone would list Lir on this page. I have informed Sam about this, and
he has explicitly stated that he does not want to be an admin on [[User
talk:Perl]]. He wrote to me personally:
"I was a bit grumpy about you removing me, but it was also the right
decision ;) I don't like anything to do w flamers, and me being on that
page attracts em for me."
Do not delist candidates. Allow free speech :-)
This is not about free sprech. It's about a healthy community atmosphere.
Listing a contentious user on RfA only turns it into an "evidence
collection" page, which is not its point, especially when the user doesn't
even *want* to be an admin.
Erik, when you unilaterally unsysop someone, could
you
please tell the community about it and not only the
user in question (and me, thanks for telling) ?
Which place do you suggest? The mailing list? The Village Pump? The
Requests for comment page? The arbitration page? The Wikimedia board?
As for whether it was justified: "168..." again acted in clear violation
of the sysop guidelines by protecting a page in an edit war in which he
was very much involved (see history of [[DNA]]). He had been warned not to
do so in the past. The arbitration committee has not even heard his case
because he was not referred by Jimbo! This is ridiculous. If there's one
person who should not be a sysop, it's this guy. And not in 3 weeks and
for 24 hours, NOW and indefinitely.
Many users have left over the past months because of the lack of real
enforcement of our policies. I have desysopped users in the past for
abusing admin powers and I will continue to do so if the arbitration
committee fails to act in emergencies. And the protection of a
controversial article in an edit war certainly qualifies. Or do you want
protection wars in addition to edit wars? I refuse to sit idly by as our
policies are mocked.
Regards,
Erik