On the other hand, a fair point is raised. 172 has abused his admin
powers as thoroughly as can be - and certainly moreso than anyone I've
ever seen in my time here. He UNBLOCKED himself repeatedly, and his
unblocking summaries ("no violation of the 3RR") and ("They did not
look at the content of the last edit, just the edit summary. Now quit
wasting my time. I have one reply to make on talk, then I will go
away") suggest to me that he regards himself above the law.
It was always my impression that any sysop who had that kind of
arbitrary power would be in front of a firing squad in fairly short
order. Indeed, an arbitration case has been brought, but it's
currently sitting at 1-1, with two recusals. I find Ambi's reasoning
for rejection - and I respect Ambi very much - troubling:
"There are some minor issues, but I can't see anything overly serious,
particularly considering that 172 has had two massive articles
(relating to these topics, too) featured in this period, which
suggests to me that he is making an effort to reform. "
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration) Yes,
he's had articles featured, but he's clearly revert-warring as well,
something arbcom specifically asked him not to do. He's also abusing
his powers as an administrator. Is this not worth investigation, just
because he's had featured articles? Are Featured Articles now
functioning as Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free Cards?
Charles (Mackensen)
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:40:09 +0000, Theresa Knott <theresaknott(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This deference of the privileged to the privleged is apalling.
You are missing the point. It's not a question of deference.
172 should
have been desysopped the first time he unblocked himself.
But _who_ do you want to decide if an admin should lose his
privileges? The community or one person (Ed Poor for example)
and desysopping is not as severe as blocking
someone,which any sysop is allowed to do.
Not permanently, sysops are only able to temp block people.
It might even be a good idea to sunset
sysop powers, say every three months (although not all sysops at once) to see
if the sysop can get elected again.
I'm not sure that's a good idea at all.
172 had been engaged in other abuses of his sysop power, and had even
been disciplined by the arb committee (as a user not a sysop I believe),
but desysoping him (or her) should be been an easy and trivial addition
to the discipline at that time. It is not like sysop powers are some right.
I agree that sysop powers are a privilege and not a right. But I do
think that the AC or the community (via a RFC) should be the ones to
make the decision.
Theresa
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l