[WikiEN-l] Admin status: we are asking the wrong question

[The Cunctator]

On 5/7/03 9:28 AM, "Toby Bartels" <toby+wikipedia at math.ucr.edu> wrote:

> Tannin wrote in part:
> 
>> The question to be considered here is not whether a generally
>> reasonable, cooperative, and always hard-working contributor in 172
>> should be given admin status. The question is why a persistently
>> uncooperative, unreasonable and - let us face the facts here -
>> persistently and unrepentantly dishonest contributor should retain such
>> status.
> 
> I'm not a fan of Fredbauder -- and certainly 172 should become an admin --
> but I don't think that it's wise to set a precedent for
> taking admin status away from people because they're bad contributors.
> The reason for doing that should be an *abuse* of admin *power*.
> You haven't alleged this in the case of Fredbauder (in this post);
> do you allege it now?
> 
> If so, that's a very serious discussion that should be separated from 172
> (a case that we probably ought to decide first, to avoid conflating them).
> 
I'm just going to chime in and say that I think that the attacks on Fred are
unsubstantiated.