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!