Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/TheCatalyst31: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 182: | Line 182: | ||
== SandyGeorgia response to Lambanog == |
== SandyGeorgia response to Lambanog == |
||
#: Ah, here I was hoping you asked the question for better reasons :) No mention of whether IPs know how to find ''article'' talk pages? No response about why the admin never went to the IP's talk page? No mention of [[WP:BITE]] or how to deal with new editors? It's not ''all'' about whether or not we block; how about how we treat clueless newbies who are only trying to add to the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" and may not yet know how to do it? No, the response doesn't account for "what do I do about the editors?" It gives a rude admin an advantage over a clueless newbie. It makes admins above the behaviors we should all know. Admins aren't here to fix content; they're here to regulate ''misbehavior'', and the hypothetical admin behaved *wrong*. Of course* the "IP is no longer making the problematic edits"; it was chased off, while the admin survives to do the same to another IP. Rather than doing the content work him/herself, Catalyst might have dropped a friendly note to the IP, and a trout to the admin. The response shows that Catalyst either thinks admins are above the expected behaviors on Wiki, or doesn't know them. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy< |
#: Ah, here I was hoping you asked the question for better reasons :) No mention of whether IPs know how to find ''article'' talk pages? No response about why the admin never went to the IP's talk page? No mention of [[WP:BITE]] or how to deal with new editors? It's not ''all'' about whether or not we block; how about how we treat clueless newbies who are only trying to add to the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" and may not yet know how to do it? No, the response doesn't account for "what do I do about the editors?" It gives a rude admin an advantage over a clueless newbie. It makes admins above the behaviors we should all know. Admins aren't here to fix content; they're here to regulate ''misbehavior'', and the hypothetical admin behaved *wrong*. Of course* the "IP is no longer making the problematic edits"; it was chased off, while the admin survives to do the same to another IP. Rather than doing the content work him/herself, Catalyst might have dropped a friendly note to the IP, and a trout to the admin. The response shows that Catalyst either thinks admins are above the expected behaviors on Wiki, or doesn't know them. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
#:{{ec}} Re the non-supports over Q4 - the "blind eye" is exactly what many admins would have done in this circumstance. In my view, the admin should be blocked or at least reported to 3RR - the admin has broken 3RR and potentially driven away a new editor. But I can't fault an RfA candidate for exercising the same hesitation that many admins would. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 02:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
#:{{ec}} Re the non-supports over Q4 - the "blind eye" is exactly what many admins would have done in this circumstance. In my view, the admin should be blocked or at least reported to 3RR - the admin has broken 3RR and potentially driven away a new editor. But I can't fault an RfA candidate for exercising the same hesitation that many admins would. --[[User:Mkativerata|Mkativerata]] ([[User talk:Mkativerata|talk]]) 02:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
#:: Yes, well no mention of 3RR either, but one could assume that's because it was a trick question about a BLP. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy< |
#:: Yes, well no mention of 3RR either, but one could assume that's because it was a trick question about a BLP. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
#::That many admins can't tell their arses from their elbows is no reason to support another one who can't. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 02:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
#::That many admins can't tell their arses from their elbows is no reason to support another one who can't. [[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus]] [[User_talk:Malleus_Fatuorum|Fatuorum]] 02:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
#'''Oppose''', per my struck neutral. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy< |
#'''Oppose''', per my struck neutral. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
#:Would you reconsider if the candidate addressed Q4 further? On a separate note you've been here a long time and are as experienced as anyone so I would presume you are familiar with [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]]; I am correct to presume you disagree with it? I also note you haven't found it necessary to become an admin yourself, so I am wondering is that because you respect the role too much and not because you don't think it important enough to apply for? {{(:}} |
#:Would you reconsider if the candidate addressed Q4 further? On a separate note you've been here a long time and are as experienced as anyone so I would presume you are familiar with [[WP:NOBIGDEAL]]; I am correct to presume you disagree with it? I also note you haven't found it necessary to become an admin yourself, so I am wondering is that because you respect the role too much and not because you don't think it important enough to apply for? {{(:}} <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Lambanog|Lambanog]] ([[User talk:Lambanog|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Lambanog|contribs]]) 14:52, October 25, 2010</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> |
||
<s>'''Neutral'''</s>, looking for experienced thorough editors for the admin corp, and the "miss" in Q 4 is disappointing. Equally disappointing are more than half a dozen supports ''after the response was added'' without pointing out anything amiss in the response to Q 4. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy< |
<s>'''Neutral'''</s>, looking for experienced thorough editors for the admin corp, and the "miss" in Q 4 is disappointing. Equally disappointing are more than half a dozen supports ''after the response was added'' without pointing out anything amiss in the response to Q 4. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
: Continued disappointment. We ''all'' make mistakes, and we can't ask potential admins to know everything, so I lodged a neutral pending Catalyst's response. But, although Catalyst has edited this RFA since the response to Q 4, there has been no explanation. At FAC, we do our darnest to put articles through the wringer so we can put Wiki's best work on the mainpage, but while good content contributors are trying to work, some abusive admins at worst make their work harder, or at best, don't make it easier. While FAR is a process for defeaturing FAs that have deteriorated; there is no easy process for desysopping abusive admins; RFA should be taken with the seriousness it deserves, at least akin to FAC. Yes, it is "hell week", but adminship ''is a big deal'' and does create a semi-permanent class of superusers, so candidates should take this process with the importance it deserves. Since Catalyst has not responded to explain the oversight, I am moving to Oppose, noting that had s/he not edited this RFA subsequently without addressing the concern, I would have stayed neutral. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy< |
: Continued disappointment. We ''all'' make mistakes, and we can't ask potential admins to know everything, so I lodged a neutral pending Catalyst's response. But, although Catalyst has edited this RFA since the response to Q 4, there has been no explanation. At FAC, we do our darnest to put articles through the wringer so we can put Wiki's best work on the mainpage, but while good content contributors are trying to work, some abusive admins at worst make their work harder, or at best, don't make it easier. While FAR is a process for defeaturing FAs that have deteriorated; there is no easy process for desysopping abusive admins; RFA should be taken with the seriousness it deserves, at least akin to FAC. Yes, it is "hell week", but adminship ''is a big deal'' and does create a semi-permanent class of superusers, so candidates should take this process with the importance it deserves. Since Catalyst has not responded to explain the oversight, I am moving to Oppose, noting that had s/he not edited this RFA subsequently without addressing the concern, I would have stayed neutral. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 13:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
=== Response === |
=== Response === |
||
| Line 197: | Line 197: | ||
Why haven't I become an admin? Partly because the abuse I've endured makes it a club I don't want to be part of. Partly because I like being on the side of the fence that has to obey the rules, and there is plenty of evidence at the circus that is ANI that there are double standards in the enforcement of the rules for admins vs. regular editors. But more importantly because of other reasons that won't be helpful to discuss here, but I believe I can be more effective at FAC without being an admin. |
Why haven't I become an admin? Partly because the abuse I've endured makes it a club I don't want to be part of. Partly because I like being on the side of the fence that has to obey the rules, and there is plenty of evidence at the circus that is ANI that there are double standards in the enforcement of the rules for admins vs. regular editors. But more importantly because of other reasons that won't be helpful to discuss here, but I believe I can be more effective at FAC without being an admin. |
||
Would I reconsider this case? If the concerns over Q 4 hadn't been ignored by the candidate: absolutely. We all make mistakes. Because he ignored the concerns, it would now take a very strong argument to convince me to reconsider. RFA should be a place where important issues are taken seriously. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy< |
Would I reconsider this case? If the concerns over Q 4 hadn't been ignored by the candidate: absolutely. We all make mistakes. Because he ignored the concerns, it would now take a very strong argument to convince me to reconsider. RFA should be a place where important issues are taken seriously. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Thank you for taking the time to respond. My apologies if I caused an unnecessary rehashing of bad experiences. I admire your strong defense of content contributors at FAR. I've had my own encounters although not that bad yet. I was starting to think I was being a little too strict in some of my previous opposes but it's useful to be reminded there's reason for it. [[User:Lambanog|Lambanog]] ([[User talk:Lambanog|talk]]) 15:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
:Thank you for taking the time to respond. My apologies if I caused an unnecessary rehashing of bad experiences. I admire your strong defense of content contributors at FAR. I've had my own encounters although not that bad yet. I was starting to think I was being a little too strict in some of my previous opposes but it's useful to be reminded there's reason for it. [[User:Lambanog|Lambanog]] ([[User talk:Lambanog|talk]]) 15:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
:: FAC and FAR generally work because they value and further extreme scrutiny on article content; until RFA and desysoppings become or have the equivalent of FAC and FAR, we will continue to have a "superclass" of editors where power can lead to abuse. It doesn't take four months to get a deficient FA defeatured; it shouldn't take the more than a year it took me to see an abusive admin desysopped. The abuse in that case was egregious enough that it should have been simply handled by the arbs, without me having to endure same for more than a year or take three weeks of my time to follow a four-month case. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy< |
:: FAC and FAR generally work because they value and further extreme scrutiny on article content; until RFA and desysoppings become or have the equivalent of FAC and FAR, we will continue to have a "superclass" of editors where power can lead to abuse. It doesn't take four months to get a deficient FA defeatured; it shouldn't take the more than a year it took me to see an abusive admin desysopped. The abuse in that case was egregious enough that it should have been simply handled by the arbs, without me having to endure same for more than a year or take three weeks of my time to follow a four-month case. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
::: I've made some [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators&diff=392806949&oldid=392594123 minor changes to NOBIGDEAL;] we'll see how quickly they're reverted. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy< |
::: I've made some [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators&diff=392806949&oldid=392594123 minor changes to NOBIGDEAL;] we'll see how quickly they're reverted. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<span style="color:green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 15:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
I'm also starting to have doubts about NOBIGDEAL. It really was no big deal at the beginning when everyone could use them, and when the tools became selectively granted it still wasn't that big of deal. However the English Wikipedia has grown a lot, it seems like the potential damage that could be done to a site this size makes it obvious that it is a big deal. --'''[[User:Kraftlos|<span style='font-family:"Tempus Sans ITC"; color:#5342F'>Kraftlos</span>]]''' ''([[User talk:Kraftlos|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kraftlos|Contrib]])'' 00:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC) |
I'm also starting to have doubts about NOBIGDEAL. It really was no big deal at the beginning when everyone could use them, and when the tools became selectively granted it still wasn't that big of deal. However the English Wikipedia has grown a lot, it seems like the potential damage that could be done to a site this size makes it obvious that it is a big deal. --'''[[User:Kraftlos|<span style='font-family:"Tempus Sans ITC"; color:#5342F'>Kraftlos</span>]]''' ''([[User talk:Kraftlos|Talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Kraftlos|Contrib]])'' 00:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
Latest revision as of 08:18, 24 March 2022
Username: TheCatalyst31 User groups: autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker First edit: Jul 12, 2007 21:04:22 Unique pages edited: 13,563 Average edits per page: 1.51 Live edits: 19,750 Deleted edits: 686 Total edits (including deleted): 20,436 Namespace Totals Article 12954 65.60% Talk 2872 14.54% User 415 2.10% User talk 1135 5.75% Wikipedia 521 2.64% Wikipedia talk 8 0.04% File 9 0.05% File talk 4 0.02% Template 1700 8.61% Template talk 28 0.14% Category 100 0.51% Month counts 2007/07 103 2007/08 265 2007/09 316 2007/10 621 2007/11 841 2007/12 408 2008/01 417 2008/02 237 2008/03 241 2008/04 190 2008/05 106 2008/06 610 2008/07 598 2008/08 373 2008/09 715 2008/10 542 2008/11 714 2008/12 463 2009/01 232 2009/02 225 2009/03 186 2009/04 286 2009/05 776 2009/06 568 2009/07 697 2009/08 789 2009/09 473 2009/10 590 2009/11 629 2009/12 448 2010/01 315 2010/02 1424 2010/03 731 2010/04 213 2010/05 766 2010/06 1007 2010/07 764 2010/08 397 2010/09 232 2010/10 238 Top edited pages (hide)Article 83 - List_of_political_and_geographic_borders 41 - St._Ignatius_College_Prep 38 - Chicago_White_Sox_all-time_roster 36 - List_of_Los_Angeles_County_Metro_Rail_stations 35 - Wisconsin_Highway_131 33 - San_Diego_Chargers 27 - List_of_inventors 25 - Pulaski_(CTA_Orange_Line) 25 - List_of_Metrolink_stations 25 - List_of_unincorporated_communities_in_Illinois (hide)Talk 5 - Cumberland_(CTA)/GA1 5 - List_of_Chicago_'L'_stations 4 - List_of_political_and_geographic_borders 4 - Town_of_Pines,_Indiana 4 - Cumberland_(CTA) 3 - List_of_MBTA_Subway_stations 3 - William_F._Walsh_Regional_Transportation_Center 3 - Purple_Line_(Chicago_Transit_Authority) 3 - Pulaski_(CTA_Orange_Line) 3 - Pink_Line_(Chicago_Transit_Authority) (hide)User 216 - TheCatalyst31 41 - TheCatalyst31/Sandbox 22 - Nyttend/ZIP/IL 20 - TheCatalyst31/Wisconsin 18 - Nyttend/ZIP/CA 15 - Nyttend/ZIP/WV 11 - Nyttend/ZIP_archive_box 10 - Nyttend/ZIP/MN 9 - Nyttend/ZIP/AL 7 - Nyttend/ZIP/ID (hide)User talk 10 - DanTD 10 - TheCatalyst31 8 - Nyttend 6 - RFD 5 - PatrickJ83 4 - Wuhwuzdat 4 - Btilm/archive_4 4 - Royalbroil 3 - 68.197.45.186 3 - Master&Expert (hide)Wikipedia 25 - Requested_moves 21 - Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism 16 - WikiProject_Trains/Todo/Write 11 - Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Los_Angeles_Count... 9 - WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Shields_task_force/Requests 8 - Pages_needing_translation_into_English 6 - Articles_for_deletion/Kodhiyar_(2nd_nomination) 4 - WikiCup/History/2010/Submissions/TheCatalyst31 4 - Requests_for_adminship/TheCatalyst31 4 - Articles_for_deletion/List_of_highway_route_number... (hide)Wikipedia talk 2 - WikiProject_U.S._Roads 1 - Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Assessment 1 - Flagged_revisions/Trial 1 - AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage 1 - Chemical_infobox 1 - 2010_US_Census 1 - Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-07-12/Discussion_report (hide)File 2 - 1977LoopCrash.jpg 1 - Wiki_cheerios.jpg 1 - Highland_Park_Metra_train_070915.jpg 1 - Glenview_seal.jpg 1 - Glenview_railroad_station.JPG 1 - Horseshoe_Lake_Illinois.jpg 1 - Plant_cell_structure_svg.svg 1 - Dc_three_1.svg (hide)File talk 3 - CTA_map.png 1 - Metrolink.png (hide)Template 47 - Mercer_County,_West_Virginia 46 - Raleigh_County,_West_Virginia 42 - Greenbrier_County,_West_Virginia 35 - Fayette_County,_West_Virginia 33 - Sussex_County,_Delaware 28 - Virginia_towns 27 - Logan_County,_West_Virginia 24 - San_Bernardino_County,_California 23 - Pocahontas_County,_West_Virginia 23 - Boone_County,_West_Virginia (hide)Template talk 26 - Did_you_know 2 - Sussex_County,_Delaware (hide)Category 2 - Mount_Prospect,_Illinois 1 - Bartlett,_Illinois 1 - Evergreen_Park,_Illinois 1 - Ford_Heights,_Illinois 1 - Hanover_Park,_Illinois 1 - Elgin,_Illinois 1 - Elk_Grove_Village,_Illinois 1 - Berwyn,_Illinois 1 - Blue_Island,_Illinois 1 - Bolingbrook,_Illinois
SandyGeorgia response to Lambanog
[edit]- Ah, here I was hoping you asked the question for better reasons :) No mention of whether IPs know how to find article talk pages? No response about why the admin never went to the IP's talk page? No mention of WP:BITE or how to deal with new editors? It's not all about whether or not we block; how about how we treat clueless newbies who are only trying to add to the "encyclopedia anyone can edit" and may not yet know how to do it? No, the response doesn't account for "what do I do about the editors?" It gives a rude admin an advantage over a clueless newbie. It makes admins above the behaviors we should all know. Admins aren't here to fix content; they're here to regulate misbehavior, and the hypothetical admin behaved *wrong*. Of course* the "IP is no longer making the problematic edits"; it was chased off, while the admin survives to do the same to another IP. Rather than doing the content work him/herself, Catalyst might have dropped a friendly note to the IP, and a trout to the admin. The response shows that Catalyst either thinks admins are above the expected behaviors on Wiki, or doesn't know them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Re the non-supports over Q4 - the "blind eye" is exactly what many admins would have done in this circumstance. In my view, the admin should be blocked or at least reported to 3RR - the admin has broken 3RR and potentially driven away a new editor. But I can't fault an RfA candidate for exercising the same hesitation that many admins would. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:18, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, well no mention of 3RR either, but one could assume that's because it was a trick question about a BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- That many admins can't tell their arses from their elbows is no reason to support another one who can't. Malleus Fatuorum 02:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose, per my struck neutral. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Would you reconsider if the candidate addressed Q4 further? On a separate note you've been here a long time and are as experienced as anyone so I would presume you are familiar with WP:NOBIGDEAL; I am correct to presume you disagree with it? I also note you haven't found it necessary to become an admin yourself, so I am wondering is that because you respect the role too much and not because you don't think it important enough to apply for?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambanog (talk • contribs) 14:52, October 25, 2010
- Would you reconsider if the candidate addressed Q4 further? On a separate note you've been here a long time and are as experienced as anyone so I would presume you are familiar with WP:NOBIGDEAL; I am correct to presume you disagree with it? I also note you haven't found it necessary to become an admin yourself, so I am wondering is that because you respect the role too much and not because you don't think it important enough to apply for?
Neutral, looking for experienced thorough editors for the admin corp, and the "miss" in Q 4 is disappointing. Equally disappointing are more than half a dozen supports after the response was added without pointing out anything amiss in the response to Q 4. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Continued disappointment. We all make mistakes, and we can't ask potential admins to know everything, so I lodged a neutral pending Catalyst's response. But, although Catalyst has edited this RFA since the response to Q 4, there has been no explanation. At FAC, we do our darnest to put articles through the wringer so we can put Wiki's best work on the mainpage, but while good content contributors are trying to work, some abusive admins at worst make their work harder, or at best, don't make it easier. While FAR is a process for defeaturing FAs that have deteriorated; there is no easy process for desysopping abusive admins; RFA should be taken with the seriousness it deserves, at least akin to FAC. Yes, it is "hell week", but adminship is a big deal and does create a semi-permanent class of superusers, so candidates should take this process with the importance it deserves. Since Catalyst has not responded to explain the oversight, I am moving to Oppose, noting that had s/he not edited this RFA subsequently without addressing the concern, I would have stayed neutral. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:33, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Response
[edit]Yes, I disagree with NOBIGDEAL, and have since I was subjected years ago to an extreme personal attack by a subsequently desysopped admin, with my views reinforced over the years from observing how frequently admins get away with abuse and how difficult it is to get them desysopped. I had to spend three weeks preparing evidence for an ArbCase that took over four months to see that admin desysopped. Admins are a "superclass" until/unless there is an easier process in place to get abusive admins desysopped: ANI is a circus where admin abuse is routinely endorsed and tolerated and double standards are evident, RFC/U doesn't work because other admins will simply close ranks to defend each other, and ArbCom cases take too long and place an undue time burden on those who bring the cases (and I participated in one case where several arbs chastized content contributors who were trying in vain to get the arbs to see the issues). So, no I don't believe we have an effective process anywhere in Dispute Resolution for dealing with abusive admins, and I don't think enough scrutiny is placed on candidates at RFA, and that this trend has been exacerbated by the current shortage of admins.
Why haven't I become an admin? Partly because the abuse I've endured makes it a club I don't want to be part of. Partly because I like being on the side of the fence that has to obey the rules, and there is plenty of evidence at the circus that is ANI that there are double standards in the enforcement of the rules for admins vs. regular editors. But more importantly because of other reasons that won't be helpful to discuss here, but I believe I can be more effective at FAC without being an admin.
Would I reconsider this case? If the concerns over Q 4 hadn't been ignored by the candidate: absolutely. We all make mistakes. Because he ignored the concerns, it would now take a very strong argument to convince me to reconsider. RFA should be a place where important issues are taken seriously. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you for taking the time to respond. My apologies if I caused an unnecessary rehashing of bad experiences. I admire your strong defense of content contributors at FAR. I've had my own encounters although not that bad yet. I was starting to think I was being a little too strict in some of my previous opposes but it's useful to be reminded there's reason for it. Lambanog (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- FAC and FAR generally work because they value and further extreme scrutiny on article content; until RFA and desysoppings become or have the equivalent of FAC and FAR, we will continue to have a "superclass" of editors where power can lead to abuse. It doesn't take four months to get a deficient FA defeatured; it shouldn't take the more than a year it took me to see an abusive admin desysopped. The abuse in that case was egregious enough that it should have been simply handled by the arbs, without me having to endure same for more than a year or take three weeks of my time to follow a four-month case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- I've made some minor changes to NOBIGDEAL; we'll see how quickly they're reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
- FAC and FAR generally work because they value and further extreme scrutiny on article content; until RFA and desysoppings become or have the equivalent of FAC and FAR, we will continue to have a "superclass" of editors where power can lead to abuse. It doesn't take four months to get a deficient FA defeatured; it shouldn't take the more than a year it took me to see an abusive admin desysopped. The abuse in that case was egregious enough that it should have been simply handled by the arbs, without me having to endure same for more than a year or take three weeks of my time to follow a four-month case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm also starting to have doubts about NOBIGDEAL. It really was no big deal at the beginning when everyone could use them, and when the tools became selectively granted it still wasn't that big of deal. However the English Wikipedia has grown a lot, it seems like the potential damage that could be done to a site this size makes it obvious that it is a big deal. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 00:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)