Charles Matthews wrote:
Ed Poor wrote
I had thought that any of the 415 admins, having
the "ability" to block
signed-in users, were "authorized" to use that ability to enforce the
rules - such as:
[[Wikipedia:No personal attacks]]
There is a policy about removing personal attacks. That there is policy
about 'removing' those doing the attacking is news to me. I wouldn't dream
of using admin powers in this way.
Ed Poor shoots from hip, once more. Exactly what kind of place would
Wiki-en be if say, 100 of our sysops took this line, on a daily basis?
I don't want to find out. Others please support me, in saying that Ed is
out of line here. Policy can't just be made on the hoof, any more. The
scare quotes round "authorized" tell me just about all I need to know.
Civility is a big plus on WP, but enforcement of this kind goes way beyond
what I would accept. Out of hand bans for vandalism, yes.
If I were to judge Ed solely by many of the substantive positions that
he takes, we should be bitter enemies. :'( Ed does indeed shoot from the
hip, but with one big difference. When he realizes that he has made a
mistake he is quicker than most to admit it. Yes, Ed was out of line,
but so what? I do not support making policy on the hoof, there is
already far too much of that. Ed did not do that; he enforced what he
believed to be policy, and did his best to undo the damage when he found
his mistake. His actions are perfectly understandable when you see the
unending parade of shifting policies. Nobody but policy geeks can keep
up with it, and policy geeks are notorious for losing sight of project
goals.
I don't see any need for further action on this. Ed's repentance tells
me all I need to know. Unless we take a forgiving attitude towards this
kind of error how can we expect to be forgiven ourselves when the tables
are turned.
Ec