[Foundation-l] Bunners at the bottom of every page

Mon Jan 7 15:16:34 UTC 2008

We allow the emergency desysopping of rogue admins who are deleting  
main pages and such. Why then, would we not allow the emergency  
desysopping of the only admin on a project who is ruling by fiat and  
screwing with the media wiki interface in a clearly negative way, and  
edit warring over that?

I firmly believe that common sense trumps everything. Even the "golden  
rule" you mention. This IS an emergency, since there is nobody to  
oppose him on the project. If there were a dozen admins there, one  
could simply block him, and we'd be done with it. But there are not.

-Dan
On Jan 7, 2008, at 9:18 AM, Guillaume Paumier wrote:

> Hello,
>
> On Jan 7, 2008 2:59 PM, Dan Rosenthal <swatjester at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Agreed. Stewards can use common sense as well, as community members,
>> and the right choice would have been to desysop this user.
>
> No. Stewards do not decide. This is a golden rule.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_policies#Don.27t_decide
>
> Some stewards would personally be happy to desysop this user. But they
> must not do it. There is no emergency, we are not talking about some
> compromised sysop account deleting the en:wp main page over and over.
>
> If you want to change steward rules, see
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Rewriting/Stewards_policy . But I
> doubt you will find many people to write in the policy that they can
> desysop who they want without any community decision. And by community
> decision, I am not talking about a few users agreeing on a mailing
> list.
>
> -- 
> Guillaume Paumier
> [[m:User:guillom]]
> "Go confidently in the direction of your dreams. Live the life you
> have imagined." Henry David Thoreau
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l