"M Roget" wrote
Can we have a rule that states that any admin who "quits" Wikipedia to protest this or that is automatically desysopped?
Not sure I want that.
The 'wiki way' has always involved the idea that if you are fed up of the wiki, you take a break. Some people make a big deal about that, which is a pity (flouncing takes some dress sense, in my experience ...)
People in standing who leave and come back should be welcomed. That's about it.
We do have an Arbitration principle that those who give up admin powers while 'under a cloud' cannot expect to resume them without confirmation.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.ntlworld.com Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software Visit www.ntlworld.com/security for more information
On 12/12/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
We do have an Arbitration principle that those who give up admin powers while 'under a cloud' cannot expect to resume them without confirmation.
Since when did arbcom set precedent?
Leaving, .. no problem. Using threats of leaving to manipulate and otherwise spread ill will.. very uncool.
I like the notion of automatic desysoping for anyone who 'quits' simply because we can handle it in a straightforward and dispassionate way. It will give people cause to pause for a moment before they bring out the hysterical reaction. ... but until we become more fair about resysoping people, I'm not sure that the results would be good.
On 12/12/06, Gregory Maxwell gmaxwell@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/12/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
We do have an Arbitration principle that those who give up admin powers
while 'under a cloud' cannot expect to resume them without confirmation.
Since when did arbcom set precedent?
Leaving, .. no problem. Using threats of leaving to manipulate and otherwise spread ill will.. very uncool.
I like the notion of automatic desysoping for anyone who 'quits' simply because we can handle it in a straightforward and dispassionate way. It will give people cause to pause for a moment before they bring out the hysterical reaction. ... but until we become more fair about resysoping people, I'm not sure that the results would be good.
Yes, Wikipedia as the brave new world, automated, automatic, automatons all. Please. (Where's my soma?)
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 12/12/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
We do have an Arbitration principle that those who give up admin powers while 'under a cloud' cannot expect to resume them without confirmation.
Since when did arbcom set precedent?
Leaving, .. no problem. Using threats of leaving to manipulate and otherwise spread ill will.. very uncool.
I like the notion of automatic desysoping for anyone who 'quits' simply because we can handle it in a straightforward and dispassionate way. It will give people cause to pause for a moment before they bring out the hysterical reaction. ... but until we become more fair about resysoping people, I'm not sure that the results would be good.
And, we've then got less potential disgruntled former admins running around screaming "omg censorship". Why is is that adminship on en: is effectively for life? While I don't think that they need to be reconfirmed, certainly people should lose it if they're inactive.
Rather, more people should be made admins.
On 12/12/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 12/12/06, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
We do have an Arbitration principle that those who give up admin powers while 'under a cloud' cannot expect to resume them without confirmation.
Since when did arbcom set precedent?
Leaving, .. no problem. Using threats of leaving to manipulate and otherwise spread ill will.. very uncool.
I like the notion of automatic desysoping for anyone who 'quits' simply because we can handle it in a straightforward and dispassionate way. It will give people cause to pause for a moment before they bring out the hysterical reaction. ... but until we become more fair about resysoping people, I'm not sure that the results would be good.
And, we've then got less potential disgruntled former admins running around screaming "omg censorship". Why is is that adminship on en: is effectively for life? While I don't think that they need to be reconfirmed, certainly people should lose it if they're inactive.
-- Alphax - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax Contributor to Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia "We make the internet not suck" - Jimbo Wales Public key: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax/OpenPGP
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l