The question to be considered here is not whether a generally reasonable, cooperative, and always hard-working contributor in 172 should be given admin status. The question is why a persistently uncooperative, unreasonable and - let us face the facts here - persistently and unrepentantly dishonest contributor should retain such status.
It is a very simple matter: if a regular contributor in good standing like Abe is *not* considered worthy of trust, then it is clearly absurd to *maintain* that same trust in an admin who has repeatedly demonstrated a gross lack of respect both for others here and for balance in reporting. Anyone who has not made themselves familiar with the history of this user should do so: there is an ample number of examples. One need only read Fred's recent comments in this list, and then comare them to his *actual edit record* in "Communist state" to see very clearly that the standard he is asking Abe to live up to is one that Abe generally maintains but Fred himself does not attain, nor even (it seems) aspire to.
As a general rule, being trusted with admin responsibility makes people *more* careful, *more* cooperative with others: it sets them on their honour. Fred's recent behaviour is an exception to this, however we should not let that conspicuous exception blind us to the general rule.
Tannin wrote in part:
The question to be considered here is not whether a generally reasonable, cooperative, and always hard-working contributor in 172 should be given admin status. The question is why a persistently uncooperative, unreasonable and - let us face the facts here - persistently and unrepentantly dishonest contributor should retain such status.
I'm not a fan of Fredbauder -- and certainly 172 should become an admin -- but I don't think that it's wise to set a precedent for taking admin status away from people because they're bad contributors. The reason for doing that should be an *abuse* of admin *power*. You haven't alleged this in the case of Fredbauder (in this post); do you allege it now?
If so, that's a very serious discussion that should be separated from 172 (a case that we probably ought to decide first, to avoid conflating them).
-- Toby
On 5/7/03 9:28 AM, "Toby Bartels" toby+wikipedia@math.ucr.edu wrote:
Tannin wrote in part:
The question to be considered here is not whether a generally reasonable, cooperative, and always hard-working contributor in 172 should be given admin status. The question is why a persistently uncooperative, unreasonable and - let us face the facts here - persistently and unrepentantly dishonest contributor should retain such status.
I'm not a fan of Fredbauder -- and certainly 172 should become an admin -- but I don't think that it's wise to set a precedent for taking admin status away from people because they're bad contributors. The reason for doing that should be an *abuse* of admin *power*. You haven't alleged this in the case of Fredbauder (in this post); do you allege it now?
If so, that's a very serious discussion that should be separated from 172 (a case that we probably ought to decide first, to avoid conflating them).
I'm just going to chime in and say that I think that the attacks on Fred are unsubstantiated.
I wrote in part:
I'm not a fan of Fredbauder --
The nice thing about getting posts in digest form is that I can look over them again with a fresh mind. ^_^
This comment is too personal, and as such is stronger than I intended. All I mean is that I often find that I disagree with Fred when he gets into conflict with other editors in Wikipedia (even though I rarely get involved myself, of course), at least in those situations that I've looked at. So I am not his partisan in conflicts with Tannin (who I was replying to above).
Nevertheless, it seems obvious that Wikipedia is better for him -- as it is better for every one of the people on this list -- so in that sense at least, I am of course his fan.
-- Toby