--- Fennec Foxen <fennec(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 04:08:45 +0100, Timwi
<timwi(a)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/