[Foundation-l] Bunners at the bottom of every page

[Dan Rosenthal]

We allow the emergency desysopping of rogue admins who are deleting  
main pages and such. Why then, would we not allow the emergency  
desysopping of the only admin on a project who is ruling by fiat and  
screwing with the media wiki interface in a clearly negative way, and  
edit warring over that?

I firmly believe that common sense trumps everything. Even the "golden  
rule" you mention. This IS an emergency, since there is nobody to  
oppose him on the project. If there were a dozen admins there, one  
could simply block him, and we'd be done with it. But there are not.

-Dan
On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:18 AM, Guillaume Paumier wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On Jan 7, 2008 2:59 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Agreed. Stewards can use common sense as well, as community members,
>> and the right choice would have been to desysop this user.
>
> No. Stewards do not decide. This is a golden rule.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_policies#Don.27t_decide
>
> Some stewards would personally be happy to desysop this user. But they
> must not do it. There is no emergency, we are not talking about some
> compromised sysop account deleting the en:wp main page over and over.
>
> If you want to change steward rules, see
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Rewriting/Stewards_policy . But I
> doubt you will find many people to write in the policy that they can
> desysop who they want without any community decision. And by community
> decision, I am not talking about a few users agreeing on a mailing
> list.
>
> -- 
> Guillaume Paumier
> [[m:User:guillom]]
> "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you
> have imagined." Henry David Thoreau
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l