This idea isn't fully fleshed out yet, but a suggestion to see what people think---how about we empower unilateral sysop action on the short term, but of only a few sysops at a time in a rotating group?
As motivation, the basic problems seems to be that some things need to be done right away, but due process takes time. We can avoid due process in really clear-cut cases of pure vandalism, but that's not enough, and there are a lot of other cases left that cause significant trouble for days or weeks on end until it's decided what to do. To fill this gap, some sysops have gone out on a limb and just unilaterally banned users, sometimes with a backlash and sometimes with people approving (and sometimes with people grudgingly approving, disliking the principle of unilateral action but agreeing that something needed to be done).
One proposal to fix this is quickpolls. I like that idea, and think we should pursue it, so perhaps my suggestion (if fleshed out) could be integrated somehow as a complementary component.
I think there should be a schedule such that on any given day, there's a designated three sysops who are empowered to take short-term unilateral action, on the order of 24-hour bans. Any one of them could take action, and agreement of the other two could overrule any action (to allow for quick overruling as well as quick action). Scheduling in advance would ensure that the three can actually be present for a good portion of the day monitoring Wikipedia, so can serve as a contact point for resolving disputes. Consensus and committee stuff simply doesn't get the job done on the short term, although quickpolls could conceivably be made to work for some cases (ideas on that?). Although it has a top-down feel, I think having a rotating group would prevent power from accumulating in anyone's hands---at any given time there would be only 3 people who can do this, not the entire cabal of sysops, and each sysop would have only one day at a time in which they'd have such unilateral power. I envision dealing with these things as very quickly becoming more of a chore than some sort of privilege, so I hope people won't be making power-hungry jumps at the chance to be the person responsible for solving short-term disputes for a day.
Anyway, thoughts?
-Mark
This idea isn't fully fleshed out yet, but a suggestion to see what people think---how about we empower unilateral sysop action on the short term, but of only a few sysops at a time in a rotating group?
No, I don't really like this. All sysops should be able to, or none. Or better yet, some small group of sysops.
moink
Theresa Robinson wrote:
This idea isn't fully fleshed out yet, but a suggestion to see what people think---how about we empower unilateral sysop action on the short term, but of only a few sysops at a time in a rotating group?
No, I don't really like this. All sysops should be able to, or none. Or better yet, some small group of sysops.
I guess I disagree completely---under no circumstances should all sysops be able to ban any user at any time at their sole discretion. And having a rotating group I feel is far better than appointing a small group of sysops as permanent custodians.
-Mark
I guess I disagree completely---under no circumstances should all sysops be able to ban any user at any time at their sole discretion. And having a rotating group I feel is far better than appointing a small group of sysops as permanent custodians.
Oh, sorry, I wasn't clear. I would be against having a small permanent group. By a small group what I meant is that if *any* three sysops agree they can ban someone temporarily.
moink
On Fri, 7 May 2004 18:38:04 -0400 (EDT), Theresa Robinson robinst@mit.edu wrote:
Oh, sorry, I wasn't clear. I would be against having a small permanent group. By a small group what I meant is that if *any* three sysops agree they can ban someone temporarily.
We've had some suggestions of this nature before (the "three strikes" policy, for instance). I'd prefer to think of it as a "multilateral" block (as opposed to the unilateral ones that always get unblocked). That way if, say, three sysops got together and listed a user for blocking, he could not be unblocked until three or more sysops got together and listed him for unblocking.
Hi!
On Fri, 7 May 2004 19:06:11 -0400, Fennec Foxen wrote:
That way if, say, three sysops got together and listed a user for blocking, he could not be unblocked until three or more sysops got together and listed him for unblocking.
That sounds like a good idea, however, there is the potential problem of small groups of sysops acting togehter on everything, small cabals, if you like. Happens inevitably, and can start quite innocently by people starting ask those with whom they get along, say in the chat, or a mailing list.
I'd therefore propose (although that has probably been done before) that there is an option for getting more oppinions from other sysops, a sysop-channel on IRC, for example, which would only be accessible to sysops, and where every ban and every protection would need to find a mayoritiy of votes. Faster than quickpolls, and if the channel is logged, the decisions can be found later, too.
Greetings from Cologne Alex
Alex Regh wrote:
That sounds like a good idea, however, there is the potential problem of small groups of sysops acting togehter on everything, small cabals, if you like. Happens inevitably, and can start quite innocently by people starting ask those with whom they get along, say in the chat, or a mailing list.
Alex is right. If I were to want to ban someone for borderline reasons, I'd know right off the bat where to turn for co-operation. We all do. If I were to want to unban someone for borderline reasons, I'd also know right off the bat where to turn.
Of course with quickpolls, there is nothing to stop people from campaigning for their desired result as well. But at least *anyone* can get involved, rather than a quiet-behind-the-scenes decision made and implemented by a small group.
--Jimbo