[WikiEN-l] A BADSITES RfA piling-on

[Chris Howie]

Slim Virgin wrote:
> On 5/28/07, Blu Aardvark <jeffrey.latham at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Admins have no obligation to protect other editors.
> 
> That is where we fundamentally disagree. Admins are there to protect
> the encyclopedia and the people who create it. We can't offer much
> protection, it's true, but we *can* remove links to websites set up
> for the sole purpose of making those people feel miserable.

And I'd be interested to know which of the admin tools has one bit to do with
this point.

An admin's job is to use the extra tools to improve the encyclopedia.  End of
story.  Not using the extra tools is *not a crime* and has *absolutely nothing*
to do with removing text (fully-protected pages aside, and then consensus is
needed for a change anyway).

This notion that admins must agree with everyone and know policy like the back
of their hand is bullshit of the highest order.  Those things would certainly
help an admin, particularly in the trust area, but take my case.  I don't agree
with quite a few people.  I probably know less than one quarter of Wikipedia
policy.  Why was I given adminship?  Because I was dedicated to the one quarter
of policy that I do know, I stated that I would only use the tools in areas I
was extremely familiar with, and the community trusted that I would do so.

In short, I was given sysop because people trusted me to not abuse the extra
tools, and to my knowledge I haven't ever.

Will Gracenotes abuse the tools?  I don't think so.

That's enough for me, and if it isn't enough for you then I suggest you read
[[WP:ADMIN]], specifically the sentence: "Wikipedia practice is to grant
administrator status to anyone who has been an active and regular Wikipedia
contributor for at least a few months, is familiar with and respects Wikipedia
policy, and who has gained the trust of the community."

(Note "familiar with," not "has memorized."  I am familiar with a lot of
Wikipedia policy, but only deal with the areas that I feel familiar enough with
to not err when enforcing.)

Of course if you think he'll abuse the tools, feel free to oppose.  But if he
disagrees with you on something that has nothing to do with the tools, and you
have no reason to believe those tools will be abused, you are simply causing
disruption.

(I do understand and sympathize with those of you who have been through a great
deal regarding attack pages, but realize that blocking an RfA is not the right
way to get attack links off the 'pedia.  Form a policy draft and try to reach
consensus.)

-- 
Chris Howie
http://www.chrishowie.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/IT d-(--) s:- a-->? C++(+++)$> UL++++ P++++$ L+++>++++ E---
W++ N o++ K? w--$ O M- V- PS--(---) PE++ Y+ PGP++ t+ 5? X-
R(+)>- tv-(--) b- DI+> D++ G>+++ e>++ h(--)>--- !r>+++ y->+++
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/attachments/20070529/b5cdc61b/attachment.pgp