--- Fennec Foxen fennec@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:08:45 +0100, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
We are trying to, but I don't think that's really
possible. We cannot
deny that sysops have additional privileges
(that's the whole point).
This, almost by definition, triggers what I have
outlined above.
I disagree. Sysops don't have additional priveleges, but they have additional powers.
<SNIP!>
The sysop, ideally, does not do anything requiring general approval like deleting or banning. They're there to implement community decisions, not to make them.
In theory, anyway. In theory, practice is the same as the theory, but in practice it is not. :) The point where this boundary becomes fuzzy is the cutting edge of Recent Changes, where it is clear that the community has decided that vandalism is bad and vandals should be blocked after being warned, but it's not entirely clear who is a vandal and what is vandalism (in some cases). Moving further away from this idealized little circle, we find the newly registered-for-trivial-vandalism username, simple trolls wanting trouble (naming themselves to confuse themselves with sysops, for example), and it continues on from there. Some of the actions taken in this area are not so much against policy as outside of policy, while some are clearly disallowed.
Add things like determining the outcome of a vote on VfD, making changes to the front page and other protected content, deleting unwanted user subpages, etc. I guess in many ways a sysop is like a police officer. They do not make the laws, but they enforce them. However, what one person calls a power another may call a privilege.
For many, enforcement itself is a privilege.
In general, we must all trust that sysops are doing a good job -- and it seems that for the most part they are. But where there is trust, there must also be accountability. Individual decisions of sysops can be judged -- although sometimes even this is challenging. When a page is deleted immediately, who checks that it should have been?
Even so, most individual decisions of Sysops can be reviewed. (Do we really want to do that?) But there is not really any way of reviewing a Sysops decision trends. Does a sysop have a systematic bias against certain users, certain article types (recipes? conlangs?) or certain perspectives?
Are we doing a good job of maintaining accountability for our Sysops? Are our methods scalable? Is there a better method than periodic elections?
At the same time, are we giving our sysops the support that they need to do their jobs? Do we have clear, enforceable policies? Is the sysop's job well defined? Do we recognize sysops who consistently do their jobs well?
-Rich Holton [[User:Rholton]]
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger. http://messenger.yahoo.com/