Thomas Dalton wrote:
Warn them on their talk page the first time, take them
to RFC the
second time (often a waste of time, but it's a hoop you have to jump
through) and ArbCom the first - 3 chances is more than enough. I think
ArbCom would take action - at the very least a stern warning such that
they won't have any room for excuses the next time and will get
desysopped.
I've been burned enough by RfC already and made the issue known in enough
places that I think I'll be avoiding that, but you've pretty much nailed
my plan of attack on this point. I've just got to wait for time to slow
down a bit so I can actually focus.
Perhaps we need a new system to take the place of RFC
in cases like
this - a Motions to Censure (MTC) page where anyone can take reports
of misuse of admin tools (I would at least start it as only for
admins, but if it goes well it could be expanded to problems with
anyone).
I think CN could work well for this sort of thing, but something should be
done about RfC, too.
There is an argument for only allowing admins to
!vote. It would carry
more weight if it's admins keeping control of each other, and it would
stop people trying to censure admins every time they protect the wrong
version.
This would never work, they're too busy protecting eachother. This isn't
a cabalism thing, but a simple fact that, unless it's egregious abuse,
you'll likely have enough friends to stop by and stand up for you even if
you were completely off track. I've seen it happen too many times at this
point.
Opinions? Is it worth writing this up as a proper
policy proposal?
(Try saying that three times quickly! ;))
I'll pitch in where I can, certainly.
-Jeff
--
If you can read this, I'm not at home.