[WikiEN-l] Re: RickK leaving: adminship has become much more than "no big deal" and that's poisonous

Tue Jun 21 06:42:17 UTC 2005

On 6/21/05, michaelturley at myway.com <michaelturley at myway.com> wrote: 
> 
> >"If you violate the three-revert rule, after your fourth revert in 24
> >hours, sysops may block you for up to 24 hours."
> 
> Come on, now.  "May" indicates that the administrator had the option to block RickK for up to 24 hours.  An administrator used that option to do so.  (The very same who had in November 2004 awarded RickK the "Order of Canada" for "past work in defending our integrity".)

But that's my whole point - folks are saying, "Well that's the law,
and no one is above the law." It's not consistent application of a
"law" by any stretch. As an admin, I've seen plenty of 3RR violations,
but I try to protect the page rather than imposing an abrupt user
block.

I would like to see article protection as a preferred first step
before blocking someone over 3RR. The 3RR would be better if it
required this.
And as much as people say, "It's just a 24 hour ban, get over it,"
most would consider it a stain on their reputation within the
community if they were blocked. As we can see from the RfA votes,
these things do get dredged up.

> Certainly you cannot be upset that an administrator used his own independent judgement and chose to use the authority granted to him by the community at large in a way prescribed by formal policy?

In terms of "authority," if you look at the Wikipedia:Administrators
page, this is what it says: "Administrators are not imbued with any
special authority, and are equal to everybody else in terms of
editorial responsibility." Either this page or the 3RR page should be
changed to be consistent.

-User:Fuzheado