Fred Bauder wrote:
I have no obligation to support administrators who
don't have a commitment to protecting other editors. Or fail in any other way to
accept the responsibilities associated with being an administrator.
Fred
A good deal of Wikipedia editors have RFA criteria that border on the
nonsensical. You're in good company.
My point is that failure to block a "vandal" or "troll" or revert or
delete an edit by such a "vandal" or "troll" isn't really a big
deal. An
admin isn't under any responsibility whatsoever to do, well, anything.
That's the beauty of the wiki system. If one editor doesn't make a
change, another one can do it. If one admin doesn't perform the block,
someone else will be along shortly.
"Responsibilities associated with being an administrator"? Don't make me
laugh. A Wikipedia administrator can realistically be expected simply to
use the tools to improve the encyclopedia in the best way they possibly
can, and not to /misuse/ these tools. Failure to use administrator tools
when one can is not a misuse of administrator tools, and is certainly
not a breach of one's "responsibilities".