-------------- Original message --------------
Rick wrote:
Oh, please.
Why is it every time an admin does something that somebody disagrees with, it's time to get out the hounds and the torches and go raging after them with the rest of the mob?
RickK
Because admins are expected to be above ordinary users; see [[WP:RFA]] for yourself. People vote on others not only based on their suitability for janitorial tasks but also on how polite, active, etc. the users are.
That said, I do feel it's kind of stupid every time people act as if the world will end whenever an admin does something wrong AND THE ADMIN SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE IMMEDIATELY. Admins are human too.
And the world won't end if they are removed from the admin office. Those that are truly called to serve are not necessarily REDUCED to EDITING, there are plenty of opportunities to serve without admin privileges, and with less temptations to use their power personally or vindictively that they were apparently unable to resist. Of course there are temptations at the editing level too. Moves without discussing it on the talk page, violations of 3RR, etc. Adminship should be easier to get, perhaps allow it to anyone with a minimum edit experience, no 3RR or other violations for 3 months and a willingness to agree to the terms.
There needs to be an easier way to take away admin status. Perhaps anytime time there are allegations of abuse as part of an arbcom case, there should be a separate vote to accept on the abuse charge, where if that charge is ACCEPTED, presumably after an initial look at the evidence, the admin privilege is suspended, until the case is formally decided. Of course, it is possible for the admin abuse charge to not be accepted while the more normal charges go forward. It should be clear that there is zero tolerance for the abuse of the admistrator privilege of serving, and that action will be quick, and fortunately mild, they must serve in some other capacity if they want to serve.
-- Silverback
What isn't easy about applying to the Arbitration Committee or Jimbo, which is the current procedure?
On Sat, 26 Mar 2005 08:52:20 +0000, actionforum@comcast.net actionforum@comcast.net wrote:
-------------- Original message --------------
Rick wrote:
Oh, please.
Why is it every time an admin does something that somebody disagrees with, it's time to get out the hounds and the torches and go raging after them with the rest of the mob?
RickK
Because admins are expected to be above ordinary users; see [[WP:RFA]] for yourself. People vote on others not only based on their suitability for janitorial tasks but also on how polite, active, etc. the users are.
That said, I do feel it's kind of stupid every time people act as if the world will end whenever an admin does something wrong AND THE ADMIN SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE IMMEDIATELY. Admins are human too.
And the world won't end if they are removed from the admin office. Those that are truly called to serve are not necessarily REDUCED to EDITING, there are plenty of opportunities to serve without admin privileges, and with less temptations to use their power personally or vindictively that they were apparently unable to resist. Of course there are temptations at the editing level too. Moves without discussing it on the talk page, violations of 3RR, etc. Adminship should be easier to get, perhaps allow it to anyone with a minimum edit experience, no 3RR or other violations for 3 months and a willingness to agree to the terms.
There needs to be an easier way to take away admin status. Perhaps anytime time there are allegations of abuse as part of an arbcom case, there should be a separate vote to accept on the abuse charge, where if that charge is ACCEPTED, presumably after an initial look at the evidence, the admin privilege is suspended, until the case is formally decided. Of course, it is possible for the admin abuse charge to not be accepted while the more normal charges go forward. It should be clear that there is zero tolerance for the abuse of the admistrator privilege of serving, and that action will be quick, and fortunately mild, they must serve in some other capacity if they want to serve.
-- Silverback
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Vandal 82.35.37.118 has started redoing his edits still without an explanation, still without answering any questions. This constitutes a personal attack on me.
Yours
John Bradley
Loc: Flat 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK. Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238 Email: john@ontobus.co.uk WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
John Bradley said:
Vandal 82.35.37.118 has started redoing his edits still without an explanation, still without answering any questions. This constitutes a personal attack on me.
How are his edits vandalism? In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cream_%28nightclub%29, for instance, he has simply refined the category from "Liverpool" to "Arts and entertainment in Liverpool", and in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_Story he has refined the category from "Liverpool" to "Visitor attractions in Liverpool" They may not be the best edits, but they're clearly good-faith changes intended to structure the Liverpool category. I believe that the categories in question are both subcategories of "Liverpool" and of other relevant categories (such as "Arts and entertainment in the UK by locality").
As to your claim that making edits that you disagree with, without explanation, constitutes "a personal attack" on you, that's obvious nonsense.
He has been asked for his retional and has not provided. Check his talk page, you'll will find my rational written down there. What we have here is a london from Camden I think, going through catogrising things when they don't know what they are.
These things are best left in the Liverpool Catgory as explained in my outline of what I think should be happening. Why it objects to this is unknown, why it thinks removing the [[Category:Liverpool]] is unkown.
It seem people consider my lack of resposne unwiki why not this idiot?
Date sent: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 14:35:30 +0100 (BST) Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Vandli 82.35.37.118 has started redoing his edits still without an explanation, still without answering any questions. From: "Tony Sidaway" minorityreport@bluebottle.com To: wikien-l@Wikipedia.org Send reply to: minorityreport@bluebottle.com, English Wikipedia wikien-l@Wikipedia.org mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=unsubscribe mailto:wikien-l-request@Wikipedia.org?subject=subscribe
John Bradley said:
Vandal 82.35.37.118 has started redoing his edits still without an explanation, still without answering any questions. This constitutes a personal attack on me.
How are his edits vandalism? In http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cream_%28nightclub%29, for instance, he has simply refined the category from "Liverpool" to "Arts and entertainment in Liverpool", and in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Beatles_Story he has refined the category from "Liverpool" to "Visitor attractions in Liverpool" They may not be the best edits, but they're clearly good-faith changes intended to structure the Liverpool category. I believe that the categories in question are both subcategories of "Liverpool" and of other relevant categories (such as "Arts and entertainment in the UK by locality").
As to your claim that making edits that you disagree with, without explanation, constitutes "a personal attack" on you, that's obvious nonsense.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yours
John Bradley
Loc: Flat 15/22 Gambier Terrace, Liverpool, L1 7BL, UK. Phone: +44 (0)151 708 7238 Email: john@ontobus.co.uk WWW: www.ontobus.co.uk
John Bradley said:
He has been asked for his retional and has not provided. Check his talk page, you'll will find my rational written down there. What we have here is a london from Camden I think, going through catogrising things when they don't know what they are.
Well I should have thought that the nature of "The Beatles Story" and "Cream (nightclub)" are pretty obvious. But this is clearly a classical example of a content dispute, not vandalism and certainly not personal attacks. Please try not to mistake one thing for another. You may be right that the items are better off in the "Liverpool" category; it seems to me to be a matter over which there can be a legitimate difference of opinion. Have you thought of listing that category on WP:RFC to get some outside comment?