Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections January 2006/Candidate statements/Silverback: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Updating links to Peer review archives |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
Line 53:
==Question from [[User:Sean Black|Sean Black]]==
You recently filed an [[WP:RfC]] on the "admin culture of abuse and tolerance of abuse", which was moved into your userspace following a debate at [[WP:MFD]]. I filed an outside view which referred to you as a "[[internet troll|troll]]" (for which I apologize; I disagreed with your point and presentation, but it was still valid); do you still feel strongly about the nature of the "admin culture", and do you feel that you could work well with your fellow arbitrators, most of whom are administrators? Additionally, do you feel administrators who abuse their powers are very common, and, if so, how do you feel they should be dealt with? Thank you in advance for you answers, Silverback.--[[User:Sean Black|Sean]]|[[User talk:Sean Black|Bla]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<
:Yes, I still feel strongly about the nature of admin culture, and no, I don't think those who abuse their powers are very common. There is a lot of thankless work that gets done, even by those who do abuse their power, and I am appreciative of that however, even a small minority of admins who abuse, can effect the perception (or look and feel) of the community, just as a few small percentage of rogue cops color the reputation of the Los Angeles PD, or a few abuses of international standards in the treatment of prisoners impact the reputation of the United States. Also, the small minority of admins who abuse reveal a more pervasive part of the culture, the larger percentage of admins that know about and tolerate or defer to that abuse. This deference to the rogue decisions of other admins is widespread. Here,[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACriticisms_of_communism%2Fnew_discussion&diff=27755952&oldid=27750283][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATony_Sidaway&diff=27793895&oldid=27780270], even in the glare of attention brought by my RfC which you responded to, Sidaway was admonished for unprotecting an article that was the territory of that rogue admin, who then proceded to revert to what he thought was the "right version" again. We don't need admins who can't admit they were wrong, and insist on maintaining their blatent violation of policy. The other admins and the arbcom need to step in, in such situations to let rogue admins know that they don't own articles and don't have a right to violate the rules or abuse their powers. Frankly, these cases of obvious territorialism and abuse will be the easiest behaviors to eliminate, if a couple members who publicly intend to take a stand against the double standard for such behavior. IAR will be restricted. These cases are easy because the evidence is so clear. A couple arbcom precedents will have the admins enforcing the rule in such cases on their own. More difficult to eliminate will be surrupticious communications resulting in an admin conveniently protecting the version he or his clique prefer. We need to promote a culture of service among admins, not one of status, privilege and irreverence.
| |||