User talk:Werdna/Sysop Accountability Proposal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Ambiguities
- "Sysops will often block willy-nilly, or for very silly reasons, or simply as a power-trip."? Is this true? —Centrx→talk • 09:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- I, too, would like to see some evidence for this allegation. (Radiant) 17:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- This is a statement of opinion. I'd find examples, but I would really rather not throw around blame and get into the business of arguing each individual example case (which I'd have to do — it seems fundamentally wrong to say something nasty about someone and not back it up with evidence). Suffice to say that my opinion is not exclusively held by me. — Werdna talk criticism 13:21, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
-
- If blocks are not for punishment, why should desysopping be for punishment? —Centrx→talk • 09:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- How is the tribunal selected? Is the "vote" a vote along the lines of RfA, or is it only a vote by tribunal members? —Centrx→talk • 09:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] 24 days to resolve a petty complaint
I don't see how this fills a role fundamentally different from RfC and ArbCom. If someone has a problem with an admin's action they can file an RfC. Besides, ArbCom might actually be faster than this. 48 hours for sysop to respond + 3 day cooling off + 3 day discussion among advocates + 3 day cooling off + 3 days for community comment + 3 days cooling off + 7 day voting period. Assuming none of the parties has died during this process it could take 24 days to resolve a petty complaint. My God, this is a ridiculous amount of process. Totally unnecessary in my view, but certainly way too heavyweight for petty complaints. No. —Doug Bell talk 10:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, this much bureaucracy makes my eyes glaze over, and it doesn't explain what need this fulfills that RfC and RfAR doesn't. It misses the point that any admin action can be instantly reversed (prohibitions against wheel warring aside) and are frequently much less of a big deal than people make out. Consequently admins only need to have their buttons taken away if they are grossly and/or consistently incompetent. Preventing admins from doing their job for any length of time for single mistakes - which all of us make - is completely disproportionate. --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Obviously, my proposal is too heavyweight on process. However, the principle is, in my opinion, sound. A major problem is that RfC and ANI threads generally turn into a big pile of opinion, with no attempt to actually sort through and find a resolution. RfAr is far too heavy for petty complaints. — Werdna talk criticism 13:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- And desysoping is too severe for petty complaints. If the complaints are valid enough, ArbCom is the route to take. If they're not, this to me is just a way to harrass admins. —Doug Bell talk 19:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Problem
The problem is that any disgruntled user who has an ally to veto the motion for dismissal can file complaints which will then, if I counted correctly, have to pass through a 24-day process. I've seen arbitration cases close quicker than that. And the disgruntled user can do it again, and again, and again. First, this lengthy process will likely be stressful for the admin involved. And second, after a couple such processes, neutral onlookers may conclude that where there's smoke, there's fire, and conclude that since the admin is so often complained about, there is probably a reason for those complaints. In other words I believe this proposal is far too easily abusable. (Radiant) 17:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Make your own proposal!
If you don't like my proposal, feel free to come up with alternatives, or suggest changes, rather than just pointing out problems. — Werdna talk criticism 04:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- We should have a committee of users selected by Jimmy Wales with an advisory vote by the community who act in extreme cases. Seriously though, I cannot see any situation in which an admin should be desysopped where Arbcom would not desysop. Arbcom was set to desysop two more admins today—but are delaying and re-considering because of a reaction from the community that would supposedly be responsible for the other kinds of desysopping proposed here and elsewhere. —Centrx→talk • 04:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Some people are just not born admins. I will freely say that, after three failed requests for adminship, I have seriously considered the fact that I am in this category. There are people who do not have the characteristics required of an admin, whether those characteristics be intelligence, "clue" as many users like to call it, patience, or simply "cool, calm and collected"-ness. I don't subscribe to the "everybody can be an admin if they just do x, y and z" philosophy, as it implies that adminship is a predetermined eventuality for every editor who wants it. This is ridiculous — if everybody was suited for sysop, we could just give everybody the sysop bit after about a month, and remove it if they cause troubles. Seeing as the regular dwellers of the requests for adminship process are unwilling or incapable of changing their process from the fickle popularity contest it is now to something that actually evaluates sysops based on their merits and abilities, it is important that we find a way to remove sysop access for repeated errors. Having sysop access revoked or removed should be no big deal — there are plenty of other things that people can do that are useful. Of course, this can be quite an ego-damaging event. The reason it's ego-damaging is because lots of people see adminship as a type of trophy, diploma or prize for their service to Wikipedia. I think this is absurd.
Obviously, we need a better way to find and desysop/discipline those admins who are not suited for the job. Evidently, my proposal is too process-heavy to work properly. I hope that somebody can find a good way to go about this
