[Wikipedia-l] Admins (I suspect LMS) permanently deleting things without reason

[lsanger at nupedia.com]

Tim,

As you know, on nearly all issues, I am content simply to state my opinion
and then let the cards fall where they may.  Things usually work out
reasonably well that way.  But, in fact, I do have more authority on this
project than do others.  So does Jimbo, of course.  On issue of more
importance, when a controversial or important decision must be made, my
role in this project is to make it (or delegate it) and, if necessary, to
defend it (or to justify it in advance).  As you also know, in such
situations I usually do my best to get an idea of what the community
consensus is, and my decision is almost always, if not always, to express
that consensus.

Tim, I completely reject the notion that the issue raised by Simon's post
constitutes "a blow to the harmony of the Wikipedia community."  I
honestly think most people don't care about the situation.  I think they
understand that I was engaged in an "edit war" with The Cunctator and
Simon, who mistakenly think it is *important* (that it will actually
achieve something of importance, other than a bit of "heat and noise") to
test and to call into question the limits of my authority.  That's what
they've been doing lately.  I think most Wikipedians are of the opinion
that I should be given at least as much authority as I have taken upon
myself, and that stunts by people who are doing their best to question
that *small* bit of authority that I have asserted are not particularly
interesting.

This situation is of course made all the more absurd because I have
*always* shown myself to be sensitive to the opinions of others--
particularly when they are expressed politely.  And nearly everybody knows
this.  I know full well, by the way, that this is what makes it so much
fun to press my buttons: I have been responding in earnest.  I don't want
to change in that respect, but if I have to, I will have to moderate the
sensitivity of my responses in order to stop wasting my time.

I do reserve the right to permanently delete things--particularly when
they have little merit and when they are posted by people whose main
motive is evidently to undermine my authority and therefore, as far as I'm
concerned, damage the project.  Now suppose that, in my experience, if I
make an attempt to justify this or other sorts of decisions, the people in
question will simply co-opt huge amounts of my time and will never simply
say, "Larry, you win; we realize that this decision is up to you, and
we'll have to respect it."  Then, in order to preserve my time and sanity,
I have to act like an autocrat.  In a way, I am being trained to act like
an autocrat.  It's rather clever in a way--if you think college-level
stunts are clever.  Frankly, it's hurting the project, guys--so stop it,
already.  Just write articles--please!

I confidently predict that in the indefinite future, there will be other
somewhat similar situations, in which people's pages are deleted and the
injured parties will demand justice in a public forum.  Then I will, of
course, be accused of acting like an autocrat.  In many cases, these
accusations will be raised by teenagers and college students with too much
time on their hands, and by intelligent people with mental problems
whether moderate or serious.  These people could indeed co-opt my time and
that of everyone else, if we let them.  The situation will only get worse
with time, if we let it.  But we shouldn't let this happen.

In such situations, I'm going to have to trust that you will trust that I
am acting in the best interests of Wikipedia, and indeed not abusing my
authority.

(Recently some people have written in to give me such support.  I do not
regard this as a blank check.  I regard it as a serious responsibility.)

Larry

P.S. Those of you who are still paying attention must be tired of me
making these sorts of speeches.  I'm very sorry, it's tiresome to me, too,
but it *is* necessary.  Hopefully, all such unpleasantness will be behind
us very soon.