Tony Sidaway wrote:
On 4/19/07, Jeff Raymond jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
Tony Sidaway wrote:
Not so much that it doesn't matter, more that the perception that nobody has the balls to unblock Daniel Brandt has been graphically refuted.
When Jimbo has to be held accountable for his actions the way you or I do, then I'll agree with you. As it stands, he's above whatever gets tossed around. It doesn't take balls to act if there's no apparent way to be reprimanded in the off chance you're wrong.
Jimbo's position *is* special. He can't move like this often. He can't easily be challenged successfully because it's so useful to have a wild card. It's a kind of lubricant.
I suspect that I like having this wild card for precisely the reason you don't. You think the best thing for Wikipedia would be a bureaucracy with iron rules that are fairly rigidly enforced. It would be fair to say that I don't think this would be good for Wikipedia at all. We need mavericks.
And I think we need mavericks who try to move forward with calm reason and friendliness, who try to seek the best within everyone, and who try to work things out without a lot of fighting.
I think just about any prominent admin could have unblocked Brandt by giving the reasons I have given, and they probably would have gotten some heat about it. The real test is: how to respond to that heat? As for me, I am happy to take the heat, and intend to simply answer questions as best I can.
If I do that, then my role here is useful. If I do not do that, then I deserve to be removed from it.