Parker Peters wrote:
Ideally? I'd like for administrators not to do the things that cause problems. But that's not likely.
So here's a few thoughts/steps:
Thank you for the thoughtful consideration in this post.
#1 - Recognize that adminship, as it exists now, is a big deal.
If Adminship were not a big deal, then losing adminship would not be a big deal. However, the bar for losing adminship is nearly impossibly high. If Adminship were not a big deal, the ever-growing requirements for it would not be ever-growing. But they are.
Adminship is a big deal. It is a big deal because of the damage an administrator can do to the project. But it is also a big deal because of the control it gives an administrator: they have the ability to not only damage the project, but to cause major damage just to individual contributors at the drop of a hat, anyone with whom they have a disagreement... save for other administrators.
Then this could be solved by reducing the "big deal" that is in fact associated with adminship. Opening it up would do this.
#2 - Make it perfectly clear: administrators are NOT above the rules.
here is the biggest problem with wikipedia today. Administrators are free to do whatever they want. Any administrator can claim something is "trolling", and the rest of the administrators will pop their heads up to say "sure is" without really looking; again, if one administrator can claim something is "trolling" and wield their power, it makes it easier for the next one to as well.
Simply put the rules need to be enforced sternly against all, including admins.
#3 - Set clear-cut rules against the ongoing abuses of the system. ENFORCE THEM.
Good!
#4 - STOP Abusive usage of CheckUser
One of our worst items today is the CheckUser code: I wrote an email after seeing the output in one case, earlier.
CheckUser itself isn't a bad tool. Correctly used, it can distinguish with some relative certainty, though not absolute certainty, whether someone is sockpuppeting. This is useful.
OK
My solution would be: SEPARATION OF POWERS.
It's quite simple. The less power someone has, the less likely they are to be corrupt. The problem we have today is a bunch of people running around who are Judge, Jury, Executioner, Court Reporter, Appeals Court, King, Bishop, Whatever all thrown together in one neat little package. They have way too much power in one set of hands.
Someone who is a Bureaucrat should not be an Administrator. Someone who does CheckUser should not be an Administrator. Someone who is on ArbCom should not be an Administrator.
Preferably, they should Never Have Been administrators.
I don't think that this is workable. The listed sets of powers all include admin privileges. It could be impossible to do these jobs without admin powers. Certainly a person who has these higher duties should have an ability to use his regular admin privileges with restraint, and know when using them would compromise his decision making.
Ec