We desysoped a couple of people in the past year. Some on en, a serious lot on de, very recently on ja. And a good bunch of tired wikipedians in need of a break.
In short, except for urgency, no desysoping should take place on the english wikipedia without first arbcom decision.
This deference of the privileged to the privleged is apalling. 172 should have been desysopped the first time he unblocked himself. It is not a difficult evidentiary matter, and desysopping is not as severe as blocking someone,which any sysop is allowed to do. After sysop powers are just a privlege, an opportunity to serve. It might even be a good idea to sunset sysop powers, say every three months (although not all sysops at once) to see if the sysop can get elected again.
172 had been engaged in other abuses of his sysop power, and had even been disciplined by the arb committee (as a user not a sysop I believe), but desysoping him (or her) should be been an easy and trivial addition to the discipline at that time. It is not like sysop powers are some right.
-- Silverback
This deference of the privileged to the privleged is apalling.
You are missing the point. It's not a question of deference.
172 should have been desysopped the first time he unblocked himself.
But _who_ do you want to decide if an admin should lose his privileges? The community or one person (Ed Poor for example)
and desysopping is not as severe as blocking someone,which any sysop is allowed to do.
Not permanently, sysops are only able to temp block people.
It might even be a good idea to sunset sysop powers, say every three months (although not all sysops at once) to see if the sysop can get elected again.
I'm not sure that's a good idea at all.
172 had been engaged in other abuses of his sysop power, and had even been disciplined by the arb committee (as a user not a sysop I believe), but desysoping him (or her) should be been an easy and trivial addition to the discipline at that time. It is not like sysop powers are some right.
I agree that sysop powers are a privilege and not a right. But I do think that the AC or the community (via a RFC) should be the ones to make the decision.
Theresa
On the other hand, a fair point is raised. 172 has abused his admin powers as thoroughly as can be - and certainly moreso than anyone I've ever seen in my time here. He UNBLOCKED himself repeatedly, and his unblocking summaries ("no violation of the 3RR") and ("They did not look at the content of the last edit, just the edit summary. Now quit wasting my time. I have one reply to make on talk, then I will go away") suggest to me that he regards himself above the law.
It was always my impression that any sysop who had that kind of arbitrary power would be in front of a firing squad in fairly short order. Indeed, an arbitration case has been brought, but it's currently sitting at 1-1, with two recusals. I find Ambi's reasoning for rejection - and I respect Ambi very much - troubling:
"There are some minor issues, but I can't see anything overly serious, particularly considering that 172 has had two massive articles (relating to these topics, too) featured in this period, which suggests to me that he is making an effort to reform. " (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration) Yes, he's had articles featured, but he's clearly revert-warring as well, something arbcom specifically asked him not to do. He's also abusing his powers as an administrator. Is this not worth investigation, just because he's had featured articles? Are Featured Articles now functioning as Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free Cards?
Charles (Mackensen)
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:40:09 +0000, Theresa Knott theresaknott@gmail.com wrote:
This deference of the privileged to the privleged is apalling.
You are missing the point. It's not a question of deference.
172 should have been desysopped the first time he unblocked himself.
But _who_ do you want to decide if an admin should lose his privileges? The community or one person (Ed Poor for example)
and desysopping is not as severe as blocking someone,which any sysop is allowed to do.
Not permanently, sysops are only able to temp block people.
It might even be a good idea to sunset sysop powers, say every three months (although not all sysops at once) to see if the sysop can get elected again.
I'm not sure that's a good idea at all.
172 had been engaged in other abuses of his sysop power, and had even been disciplined by the arb committee (as a user not a sysop I believe), but desysoping him (or her) should be been an easy and trivial addition to the discipline at that time. It is not like sysop powers are some right.
I agree that sysop powers are a privilege and not a right. But I do think that the AC or the community (via a RFC) should be the ones to make the decision.
Theresa _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Charles Fulton wrote:
On the other hand, a fair point is raised. 172 has abused his admin powers as thoroughly as can be - and certainly moreso than anyone I've ever seen in my time here. He UNBLOCKED himself repeatedly, and his unblocking summaries ("no violation of the 3RR") and ("They did not look at the content of the last edit, just the edit summary. Now quit wasting my time. I have one reply to make on talk, then I will go away") suggest to me that he regards himself above the law.
Nothing wrong with setting the facts straight in the face of 3RR zealots.
Are Featured Articles now functioning as Get-Out-Of-Jail-Free Cards?
There is some merit in that idea.
Theresa Knott wrote:
This deference of the privileged to the privleged is apalling.
You are missing the point. It's not a question of deference.
True that would be an advocacy for elitism. On the other hand there are others who would be happier if ignorance deferred to ignorance.
It might even be a good idea to sunset sysop powers, say every three months (although not all sysops at once) to see if the sysop can get elected again.
I'm not sure that's a good idea at all.
It's a horrible idea that would give the lunatics control of the asylum..
Ec