--- Erik Moeller erik_moeller@gmx.de wrote:
Zoe-
Please view my Talk page at http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zoe, where information has been moved from the Votes for
Deletion
page. Once again, GrahamN (who is on record as
saying
"I don't like you"), MyRedDice (who never met a
vandal
he didn't like) and anthere (who seems to have problems with users on every Wiki she works on)
are
attacking me for making a sysop decision, and they
are
demanding my syspo status be taken away.
You are mischaracterizing what has been said.
Anthere: "I will not support removing sysop status to Zoe, because she is making very good work and I globally trust us, and certainly trust to do what she thinks is the best for Wikipedia. But to be honest, I don't trust very much her on the spot decision of deletions."
Martin: "Personally, I'd have just reinstated the copyvio notice, and possibly left a note on Gorged's page, rather than deleting the article. Others here have suggested additionally protecting the page. I hope that Zoe will follow one of those suggested approaches in the future."
GrahamN: "So Zoe deleted it off her own bat without nominating it to be deleted, and without even discussing it with anybody? Isn't that a blatant abuse of her sysop status? What's going on? Has she been given some special dispensation to ignore all the rules she doesn't like, or what?"
I think Graham's comments can be characterized as attacks, but Anthere & Martin seem to be trying to understand what happened. Graham seems to have some personal problems with you, which is unfortunate. I suggest ignoring him.
I think that it was a mistake to delete the page and that it should have been protected instead, and/or that the user should have been warned. I do not think that your sysop status should be revoked because of a single mistake. I do believe that you are overreacting.
Regards,
Erik
GrahamN: Yeah, we trust them to follow the rules. And to be honest, open and straightforward in what they are doing. If they demonstrate they can't be trusted act like that, they should lose their sysop status
GrahamN: I am astounded at the casual attitude that is displayed in so many of the comments that have been posted in this discussion. If this place is to remain truly free and democratic then it is vital that all sysops are accountable to the rest of us, and that real consensus is always demonstrated before any deletion or ban is enacted. If there were a Wikipedia Constitution, these two principles should be in big capital letters in first paragraph. This is a very serious matter indeed. Why are so many people trying to play it down? If I was prone to paranoia I would point out that if a group of people wanted to stage a coup and gain complete control of Wikipedia, then a good way to start would be to spread exactly the kind of complacency that so many users are demonstrating here.
GrahamN: What you are telling me is that there is some terrible external threat to us, and the only way to protect ourselves from it is to suspend democracy and give absolute power to an unnacountable clique. This argument seems curiously familiar from somewhere
Yep, I'm overreacting, all right.
Zoe
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com