At 06:43 AM 5/30/2010, David Gerard wrote:
>On 30 May 2010 11:36, WereSpielChequers
><werespielchequers(a)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....