[WikiEN-l] Moderation on this mailing list

[Ray Saintonge]

James Forrester wrote:

>On 21/02/07, Parker Peters <parkerpeters1002 at gmail.com> wrote:
>  
>
>>If Adminship were not a big deal, then losing adminship would not be a big
>>deal.
>>    
>>
>Nonsense. It's amazing (and, frankly, mystifying) to me how often this
>awfully poor logical conclusion comes up.
>
>"Being a sysop is not a big thing, anyone can become one" is
>equivalent to saying "If you are judged unable to become a sysop,
>then, wow, you really must be two nuts short of a bolt".
>
>The corollary is that if you do have your sysop bit removed, you are
>now being accused of, indeed, having a shortage of bolt-fasteners.
>
This analogy is excessively dramatic. When considering granting admin 
privileges one needs to assume good faith in the absence of evidence to 
the contrary.  That someone has improperly used his sysop powers does 
not imply that he is mad.  It would be more likely that it reflects poor 
social skills.  In time he could again show evidence of better social skills

>If we did hold sysops to some impossibly high standard - and, it
>should be pointed out, I personally see nothing wrong, and a great
>deal right, with holding Arbitrators and Stewards to this level, for
>instance - then, yes, being desysoped would not be such a big thing
>because people would fail the test all the time. But we don't, so it
>is, because they don't. See?
>
I see no problem holding a sysop to a higher standard than an ordinary 
user, and applying an even higher standard for bureaucrats and stewards.

Ec