At 06:43 AM 5/30/2010, David Gerard wrote: >On 30 May 2010 11:36, WereSpielChequers ><werespielchequ...@googlemail.com> wrote: > As >for the idea that we should move to "Hi, I >noticed that you > speedy-deleted some files >that do not appear to meet the CSD criteria; > >your SysOp staus has been removed _while we discuss it_".
By arguing in this way those with elevated status have maintained it, thoguh that seems to be falling apart. Consider the situation described. Obviously, the one writing this is a bureaucrat, highly privileged. If we think that there is a bureaucrat would would casually *remove* admin status over some simple errors, we have a problem with that bureaucrat, and, as with anyone else, perhaps process should be initiated! Bureaucrats, though, would only remove status, absent emergency, if proper process had been followed. Certainly that notice would not be the first notice to the admin! Or if it was, and if removal was immediately, the admin was massively deleting, in a way making undoing it burdensome, and the desysop was as an emergency, and would normally be temporary until the admin agrees to stop. By taking proposals for efficient and easy desysopping to ridiculous extremes, suggesting nightmare scenarios that would be highly unlikely to occur, many in the community have been able to prevent the system from being improved. It's obvious. And it demonstrates that there are editors who have a concept of an oligarchical core, to which they belong, with the continued power of this core, even when it's against true consensus, being critical to the future of the project. And that's a problem. > I've done > over 4,000 speedy deletions, and > very probably there are more mistakes > amongst > them that I know about, but if someone thinks > I've deleted > something in error I'd expect a > first approach along the lines of > "would you > mind having another look at [[deleted > article]], Â I don't > see how it was an attack page". That's right and that's quite what happens, and the existence of speedy suspension process (much better and much less punitive than 'speedy desysop') would not change this at all. > Â Maybe I've made a mistake, maybe so > much > has been oversighted that it no longer looks > like an attack page, > maybe there are words > involved that have very different meanings to > a > Yank and a Brit. But a desysop first and > ask questions later strategy > would in my view > generate far more drama than would be justified by > the results. I.e., straw man. The first step in a process might be a request to suspend usage of tools in some area. It would never be punitive, i.e., "You made a mistake, therefore you are no longer a sysop." What idiot would propose that? Rather, the legitimate concern would always be the likelihood of repetition. When it becomes likely that an admin will make many errors, such that cleanup becomes more work than allowing the sysop to continue with tools, *then* removal of tools becomes appropriate. I would assume, instead, that suspension requests would be handled routinely, and normally, a reasonable suspension request would be handled with little fuss, it would be much more like what David describes as what he expects. It is only if the admin contests this and insists on personally using tools in the area, against maintained opposition by other editors, and, then, particularly by editors who might be eligible to take part in some formal process to suspend (partially, with voluntary compliance) or remove tools (i.e., if voluntary compliance isn't forthcoming), would there be an issue of conflict and actual removal. And then the (now former) admin might get that note from a bureacrat who reviewed the process and concluded that removal was appropriate. > Indeed. The first - and, I would have thought, > jawdroppingly obvious - result would be that > no-one at all would go near such work in any circumstances. Of course. It would be even worse if we chopped off the hand of any admin who blocks, say, another admin or makes any other error, as we think. But why in the world would we imagine that an efficient and fair removal process would look like this? Look, if I'm offered the position of volunteer custodian at my daughter's school, but I find out that some other volunteer made so many mistakes that they were asked to stop, would I decline on that basis? Losing tools is not a flogging, indeed, it's only like a flogging if one resists it and believes it's the end of the world if one can no longer block editors, delete articles, and the like. It's not even an important part of most editor's work, but, unfortunately, it does become an important part of some admin's work. Some have suggested that admins should be required to maintain good article work. I disagree, because some people might be *better* as admins than as article aditors. But "better" doesn't mean that they control the articles, and, indeed, it should mean the opposite. It would mean that they encourage cooperation among editors, defuse disputes, using blocks judiciously and without inflaming and expanding disputes with them. We allow, in the U.S., police to wear guns. But any police officer who is firing the gun, or even just pulling it out of its holster and pointing it at someone, frequently, is liable to be dismissed or worse as dangerous. Administrators are supposed to have no special privileges as to deletion of articles, personally, as to their own vision of what the project should be. But some admins do, in fact, use their tools to further their own agenda and POV, and I took that one to ArbComm and prevailed, and it was useless in the end. The admin was admonished, and then, not being desysopped, retired. And then returned and requested return of tools. Because they were not removed "under a cloud," technically, he was able to get his tools back. I've seen no similar violations from him, though, but having admin status has allowed him to have influence in the community that has been, on occasion, just as damaging. Pursuing the same POV as before. Administrators are, in fact, specially privileged over content and behavior, and adminstrators frequently engage in behavior that would get another editor immediately blocked. That's part of the problem. Jimbo, even, tried to address it, and a huge fuss was raised, by admins who don't want any restraint on their power, and by those who support those admins. > The problem with RFA has long been arbitrarily > increased standards, and in recent years the abusive nature of the gauntlet. That's part of the problem. But it is because it is so difficult to remove the tools that the "gauntlet" became so abusive and the standards so apparently increased. It was pretty stupid, because there is no way to anticipate how an ordinary editor will behave with the tools, or, at least, it's extraordinarily difficult. There is an obvious solution that, however, will be opposed by those who have gained admission to the privileged group, because it will dilute their power. It's natural and instinctive as a response, I don't necessarily blame them. We can see this in the votes on the community desysop proposal. (Which was, by the way, a lousy proposal in my view, far too reliant on our heavily dysfunctional discussion process. DGG has it right.) It looked like the proposal was being massively rejected, but when administrator !votes were set aside, it was about fifty-fifty. My guess is that a better proposal might even pass. And the solution is to make removal much easier, so that when it's approved in the first place, that approval can be undone *by those who approved it.* Under Robert's Rules, it's called Reconsideration. And a motion to reconsider must be made by someone who approved the motion in the first place. That's designed to avoid frivolous requests for reconsideration.... I'd suggest something like this: a standard "admin recall" agreement is worked out. This could be *very* efficient and at the same time very unlikely to be abused; having those who support an RfA become some kind of recall committee is one idea. If that approving number is smaller because it becomes easier to pass RfA, I'd only be worried about it becoming a factional committee planning on using the admin to further factional goals, but this would not be the only way for an admin to lose tools, in the first place, but also there would be ways to avoid that, and it's possible that a closing bureaucrat would, for example, appoint a committee from among those who approved and who were willing to "monitor" the situation with the admin, at least for a while. I won't go into more detail, but will note that I can anticipate piles of objections, and the problem won't be fixed until we realize that *any proposal can generate objections,* but some of the objections might easily be met with features, and some are merely imagination as with the idea that someone would just remove tools, as an individual, as described above, without there being some safer process. (But, of course, any bureaucrat or other highly privileged user can already do this, and sometimes they do, on an emergency opinion.) Then, perhaps a consensus develops that not only new admins but also all admins should agree to this process. Nobody would be punished, per se, by refusing, but refusal would then call attention to the admin, and the admin's actions might be reviewed.... and I could imagine some case filed at ArbComm requiesting the removal of tools en masse from administrators who had not agreed to a community consensus on recall process. Exceptions could then, obviously be made, but if "removal" was merely a default suspension, overcome by agreeing to the "pledge," I fail to see how it would actually be harmful. There would be no denial of the already-existing and valuable contributions of the administrator, only a realization by the community that different standards may be appropriate for the future. There might not even be an actual removal, but an admin might be treated as if the pledge were in effect, i.e., that process might be followed anyway, and it would be up to a bureaucrat whether or not to respect it, with appeal being possible to ArbComm. The same ad hoc process that often works with articles could work with this as well. Expect many existing administrators to make sure to vote against any such proposals. Part of the problem is that the active core is top-heavy with administrators and wannabe administrators.... However, many admins are realizing how impossible the status quo is, so it's always a possibility that sanity will appear and prevail. Unfortunately, most of the admins who wake up and realize how bad the situation has become instead retire, they may have burned out before realizing the problems. Others simply become abusive in frustration.... _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
