Anthere-

Erik, I reverted that edit of you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&...

diff=2676279&oldid=2674374

(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.

I disagree with this opinion of yours. However, I will not revert you again since Sam has expressed his disinterest for sysophood. Otherwise, I would have, as I consider it is not your job to prevent other people from speaking up. You may, however, lead a campaign to prevent Sam from being made a sysop if you wish. But it is not your role to decide whether other people may or may not discuss an issue.

Next time you decide to do that, please check with the user first, make campaign, but do not decide for other people please.

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?

Any of those would have been fine.

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.

I do not remember I put your decision into question. If I remember well, I told you yesterday to do as you feel like. I did not scream "nooooo, don't do it". Though I felt like saying it.

I do not think you should feel that you have to justify yourself about this move (unless you somehow feel uncomfortable with it afterwards ? :-)).

However, as a ***developper***, so as someone whose community ***trust***, you should feel yourself bound to report such action to the community.

It is bad you take this kind of decision, and do it, without telling the community. I entirely support your right to do so in emergency (though in truth, the emergency was ***gone***), however, this does not mean you may whatever you feel like without others being aware of it.

The arbitration committee has >not even heard his

case because he was not referred by Jimbo! This is ridiculous.

I agree this is ridiculous Erik. I only asked twice the arbitration committee to do something, and only asked twice Jimbo to refer it. Plus it was seconded by Sannse.

However, I think there is something your are forgettting here (or possibly you do not know). The fact is that if Mav was willing to go to arbitration, as somehow a representant of the community to fix this sysop abuse issue, the primarily requester maker was 168...who also had issues to fix with Mav.

So, in the end, you practiced yourself arbitration on behalf of Mav (and by extension the community), but 168 request...are just in the trash can.

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.

As I said, the problem is not your decision, but the lack of transparency.

You did not even remove the guy from the sysop list, no ?

I refuse to sit idly by as our policies are mocked.

I second on this; I also do not appreciate the current immobilism :-)

Regards,

ditto

__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com