[Wikipedia-l] Re: Perl

Fri Apr 16 17:10:03 UTC 2004

On Fri Apr 16 09:41:21 UTC 2004 Peter Gervai  wrote
>On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 11:15:14AM +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
> > fabiform wrote:
> > >(Perl admitted he made a mistake and said it wouldn't happen again)
> >
> > The issue is not whether or not he apologises every time he makes a
> > mistake. We know that he does apologise regularly. The issue is whether
> > he will do it again, or something similar. Perl's judgement is not
> > sufficient, he has to be watched all the time.
>
>If someone does not feel the responsibility of the power given then he
>should not have the power itself.

I completely agree. Being a sysop is not a right, but a responsibility. It 
also is not a tenured position, and while desysopping should not be done 
lightly, there has already been a lot of thoughtful discussion about this 
-- far more than is currently required to make someone a sysop (although I 
realize a new policy is under consideration).

>Irresponsible but helpful people doesn't need sysop power to submit articles
>and changes. Neutral people doesn't need it either, there is life without
>power. Sysopship should be *restricted to* careful, responsible people.
>Preferably proven careful, responsible people. It is a tough goal but 
>should be
>tried anyway...
>
>I don't know perl and I am not involved. Reading all the mails here he
>should be desysopped, and stay that way, because he is helpful but neither
>careful nor responsible. This is valid for anyone using his/her/its power
>irresponsibly or without maximal possible care.

Peter is correct here as well. Perl doesn't need to be a sysop to do good 
work and be helpful in fighting vandalism. And I will note that I opposed 
Perl/Alex becoming an admin on en: repeatedly because he had shown what I 
considered poor judgment, duplicity (as well as outright deception) and 
being unwilling to be more careful and moderate his behavior (despite a 
willingness to apologize repeatedly). I also opposed his self-nomination on 
the French Wikipedia (where I am an occasional, but serious, editor) 
because of his history on en: and his stated reason for wanting adminship: 
"Je voudrais devine admin pour terminé (assasiné) les vandals comme 
papotages et micheal." 
<http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Wikip%C3%A9dia:Administrateur&oldid=287542#Aplank>.

I appreciate that we want to weigh carefully the decision to remove 
someone's adminship, but it's clear to me that he received it by a 
carefully planned course of action -- perhaps even "scheming" is not too 
strong a word here -- and that he has not acted responsibly. While he may 
end one specific problematic behavior, he often seems to find one that he 
hasn't been specifically warned about. To me, he obeys the letter of the 
law, but no its spirit.

So I urge that he is desysopped, that the current policy proposal is 
reviewed by people and adopted, and that Perl can reapply if he wishes, and 
that the community can make a decision.

Thanks,
Brian (Bcorr)