In a message dated 11/25/2010 3:31:07 PM Pacific Standard Time, [email protected] writes:
> On 25 November 2010 22:15, <[email protected]> wrote: > > We have Geni, many ways to determine if someone is an established > editor. > > Name one that doesn't boil down to editcountitis > > > We have flags already to mark people as established editors in addition > to > > that. > > I for one have no wish to turn requests for rollback in a mini RFA > more than has already happened. > The police always think they are doing a fine job and don't need any accountability. All democracies have checks and balances. Those who do not, are police states. Our single hierarchical structure is just such a system with no checks and balances. The point of having three parts to the US Government is to ensure that if you are harassed by the police you can turn to your legislator, if you are attacked by your legislator, you can turn to a judge. Wikipedia has a single structure. If you are harassed by an admin, you have no recource except to another admin. The police policing the police. I see no justice in that system. Plenty of abuse. If you're not an admin, you have no power whatsoever over a single admin deciding to silence you. And other police simply back them up. That Geni, is the entire nature of the police state. And why a police state is not a system of government under which enlightened people wish to operate. It only takes one run-in of this sort to send the promising editor away. Suggesting this is an appropriate system to retain only shows the sort of disconnect Admins have with Editors. You assume that any editor who wants to protect themselves from this sort of abuse should become an admin. Tantamount to any citizen wishing to protect themselves from the Police should become a policeman. I find that sort of attitude to be.... alarming. Will Johnson _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
