Daniel R. Tobias wrote:
On 1 Jun 2007 at 10:01:36 +0200,
"MacGyverMagic/Mgm" wrote:
>Slim
Virgin wrote:
>
>
>>Risker, the situation was that a bunch of admins had been removing
>>links to attack sites for about 18 months. Not in any kind of
>>systematic way (i.e. not hunting them down so far as I know), but just
>>removing them if they noticed one. That was the de facto policy.
>>*That's how policy develops, by admins doing things.* It just wasn't
>>written down anywhere.
>>
>>
Not even all admins agree. That's a very small group to base a
concensus
around.
There's an obvious solution to that... impose political litmus tests
within the RFA procedure on prospective admin candidates to make sure
that nobody with the politically incorrect position on a sensitive
issue ever becomes an admin.
Some might believe that failing to engage in vandal fighting is
politically incorrect.
Ec