--- Tim Starling ts4294967296@hotmail.com wrote:
fabiform wrote:
(Perl admitted he made a mistake and said it wouldn't happen again)
The issue is not whether or not he apologises every time he makes a mistake. We know that he does apologise regularly. The issue is whether he will do it again, or something similar. Perl's judgement is not sufficient, he has to be watched all the time.
-- Tim Starling
I just like fairness, his apology and more importantly his acknowledgement that he made a mistake should be considered along with his other actions. I don't see either as often as I'd like on wikipedia.
I have no idea how he felt justified in banning someone who'd made only one edit, we don't block the obvious vandals that fast on en (not that this was even a case of vandalism). I opposed him for sysopship on en, and I'm not happy with him as a sysop on meta either (although the previous policy meant that mav was perfectly correct to grant him that).
I'm not sure though (trying to look past my bias againt him) whether my reasons for opposing granting Perl sysopships are sufficient to support de-sysoping him. Does that make sense? Somehow there seems to be a gulf between the two in my mind. Given time I suppose Perl will prove us wrong, or make it abundantly obvious that he cannot be trusted to be a sysop.
Fabi.
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - File online by April 15th http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html