[WikiEN-l] Erik, a couple of requests

[Erik Moeller]

Anthere-
> Erik, I reverted that edit of you.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship&
> diff=2676279&oldid=2674374

> (comment : delisting sam, too contentious and will
> only provoke extended flamewars)

> If you disagree with Sam as a sysop, please just do
> like everyone else (but you) does : vote against Sam.

No. I have removed him again. RfA is *not* a voting page, it operates by  
consensus, and when it is clear that no consensus will develop, then it is  
pointless to go through the procedure. It's the same on VfD. Cunctator has  
been much chastised for removing items on VfD, but I agree with him on  
that point.

Wikipedia is not a place for mindless flamewars. I would do the same if  
someone would list Lir on this page. I have informed Sam about this, and  
he has explicitly stated that he does not want to be an admin on [[User  
talk:Perl]]. He wrote to me personally:

"I was a bit grumpy about you removing me, but it was also the right  
decision ;) I don't like anything to do w flamers, and me being on that  
page attracts em for me."

> Do not delist candidates. Allow free speech :-)

This is not about free sprech. It's about a healthy community atmosphere.
Listing a contentious user on RfA only turns it into an "evidence  
collection" page, which is not its point, especially when the user doesn't  
even *want* to be an admin.

> Erik, when you unilaterally unsysop someone, could you
> please tell the community about it and not only the
> user in question (and me, thanks for telling) ?

Which place do you suggest? The mailing list? The Village Pump? The  
Requests for comment page? The arbitration page? The Wikimedia board?

As for whether it was justified: "168..." again acted in clear violation  
of the sysop guidelines by protecting a page in an edit war in which he  
was very much involved (see history of [[DNA]]). He had been warned not to  
do so in the past. The arbitration committee has not even heard his case  
because he was not referred by Jimbo! This is ridiculous. If there's one  
person who should not be a sysop, it's this guy. And not in 3 weeks and  
for 24 hours, NOW and indefinitely.

Many users have left over the past months because of the lack of real  
enforcement of our policies. I have desysopped users in the past for  
abusing admin powers and I will continue to do so if the arbitration  
committee fails to act in emergencies. And the protection of a
controversial article in an edit war certainly qualifies. Or do you want  
protection wars in addition to edit wars? I refuse to sit idly by as our  
policies are mocked.

Regards,

Erik