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.
I disagree with this opinion of yours. However, I will
not revert you again since Sam has expressed his
disinterest for sysophood. Otherwise, I would have, as
I consider it is not your job to prevent other people
from speaking up. You may, however, lead a campaign to
prevent Sam from being made a sysop if you wish. But
it is not your role to decide whether other people may
or may not discuss an issue.
Next time you decide to do that, please check with the
user first, make campaign, but do not decide for other
people please.
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?
Any of those would have been fine.
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.
I do not remember I put your decision into question.
If I remember well, I told you yesterday to do as you
feel like. I did not scream "nooooo, don't do it".
Though I felt like saying it.
I do not think you should feel that you have to
justify yourself about this move (unless you somehow
feel uncomfortable with it afterwards ? :-)).
However, as a ***developper***, so as someone whose
community ***trust***, you should feel yourself bound
to report such action to the community.
It is bad you take this kind of decision, and do it,
without telling the community. I entirely support your
right to do so in emergency (though in truth, the
emergency was ***gone***), however, this does not mean
you may whatever you feel like without others being
aware of it.
The arbitration committee has >not even heard his
case because he was not referred by Jimbo! This is
ridiculous.
I agree this is ridiculous Erik. I only asked twice
the arbitration committee to do something, and only
asked twice Jimbo to refer it. Plus it was seconded by
Sannse.
However, I think there is something your are
forgettting here (or possibly you do not know). The
fact is that if Mav was willing to go to arbitration,
as somehow a representant of the community to fix this
sysop abuse issue, the primarily requester maker was
168...who also had issues to fix with Mav.
So, in the end, you practiced yourself arbitration on
behalf of Mav (and by extension the community), but
168 request...are just in the trash can.
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.
As I said, the problem is not your decision, but the
lack of transparency.
You did not even remove the guy from the sysop list,
no ?
I refuse to sit idly by as our
policies are mocked.
I second on this;
I also do not appreciate the current immobilism :-)
Regards,
ditto
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you�re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com