Erik Moeller wrote:
Jimbo, I know you like compromise, but I generally prefer consistency. If we do this in this article, we should use a phrase such as "is universally regarded as" in any sentence that falls into the same class, i.e. makes a value statement about a person that the majority sees as negative, but which is nevertheless not disputed. Is this a policy you would want?
But there are further distinguishing characteristics here, I think. Each case will be different, and so no general rule of this type is advisable.
"I'm just not ready for that kind of commitment" ;-). I think it's good for some of the more involved people to keep an eye on how it looks from down here instead of up there, if you know what I mean.
Yow, then I need to re-emphasize what sysop powers are all about.
There is no "down here" and "up there". Sysop powers are purely a technical matter, to be treated solely in that capacity. They should not be used as tools or weapons in a debate.
We are all wikipedians, meeting on the equal field of wiki. That is why people are upset at Ed Poor for protecting the page.
--Jimbo