Erik, I reverted that edit of you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&...
(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.
Do not delist candidates. Allow free speech :-)
--------
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) ?
I know not if there is a requirement somewhere, for clarity and respect of information display, mentionning that a developper unsysoping a sysop should tell the community about it, but if there is none, I think there should.
Could you update the policy for me (if it is not in the policy) ?
I am fine with a couple of users taking the responsability of enforcing rules, but I think a developer should not be a position of power, and the minimum a developer should do, would be to tell the community of any unilateral decisions he takes (especially when no one asked him to, and this even if the action is supported by rules).
Being sysop is not really a position of power, but being a developer is. When on top of it, it is the same person who 1. make/decide the rule 2. take the decision of enforcing the rule 3. technically enforce the rule
That is a question of separating some pillars of power, which usually denote a democracy.
Thanks
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster http://search.yahoo.com
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. 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
Erik Moeller wrote:
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.
Do you realise what you are saying here? You are saying that if no consensus can be reached on whether or not to delete a page, then you decide that it won't be deleted. What sort of consensus is that?
You seem to think that not deleting a page, or not granting sysop rights, is some sort of "default" value to fall back to when you think consensus cannot be reached -- is that right? If so, when and how has consensus been reached on that?
I don't mind if you remove flames, personal attacks, and anything of the sort, but I think removing a sysop nomination can sometimes come across as rather impertinent.
If they don't want sysop status, then they should remove their own nomination.
Timwi
Timwi-
Do you realise what you are saying here? You are saying that if no consensus can be reached on whether or not to delete a page, then you decide that it won't be deleted.
The current deletion policy requires consensus. Of course discussions which could result in a compromise solution should never be removed prematurely. But if it is clear that nothing will come out of a request, removing that request is entirely legitimate refactoring. That's done on VfD regularly - check the page history.
Regards,
Erik
Timwi wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
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.
Do you realise what you are saying here? You are saying that if no consensus can be reached on whether or not to delete a page, then you decide that it won't be deleted. What sort of consensus is that?
A reasonable one. ;-)
If they don't want sysop status, then they should remove their own nomination.
That should continue as their right, and would include the right to remove any discussion of the nomination.
It might be useful to have an associated list on the RfA page of Wikipedians who have declined to be Wikipedia sysops. This may keep some names from being repeatedly nominated by people who know nothing about a previous refusal.
Ec