Cimon Avaro wrote:
On Fri, 2004-04-16 at 20:10, Brian Corr wrote:
On Fri Apr 16 09:41:21 UTC 2004 Peter Gervai
wrote
>On Fri, Apr 16, 2004 at 11:15:14AM +1000, Tim Starling wrote:
>
>>fabiform wrote:
>>
>>>(Perl admitted he made a mistake and said it wouldn't happen again)
>>>
>>The issue is not whether or not he apologises every time he makes a
>>mistake. We know that he does apologise regularly. The issue is whether
>>he will do it again, or something similar. Perl's judgement is not
>>sufficient, he has to be watched all the time.
>>
This situation occurs on most "small" pedias quite regularly. It
is a
_good_ thing that there is an _english-language_ "pedia" to experience
this phenomenon as well...
On a small pedia the strange behaviours are much more noticeable. ...
Though perhaps not on Maori where there is nobody there to notice anything.
If someone does not feel the responsibility of the
power given then he
should not have the power itself.
I completely agree. Being a sysop is not a right, but a responsibility. It
also is not a tenured position, and while desysopping should not be done
lightly, there has already been a lot of thoughtful discussion about this
-- far more than is currently required to make someone a sysop (although I
realize a new policy is under consideration).
Wake-up call. Thoughtful discussion != due process. Thoughtful
discussion will often focus on the instance, and not the precedent or
long-term procedure it may engender. We must not fall into teh trap of
writing policy based on one anomalous instance...
Certainly. No new policy should be applied retroactively either.
Writing policy to cope with anomalous instances will result in policies
that will be ignored, or that are so burdensome that they will hurt more
good users than bad ones. Some bad users cause less harm than the
policies intended to cope with them.
>>Irresponsible but helpful people doesn't
need sysop power to submit articles
>>and changes. Neutral people doesn't need it either, there is life without
>>power. Sysopship should be *restricted to* careful, responsible people.
>>Preferably proven careful, responsible people. It is a tough goal but
>>should be tried anyway...
>>
>>I don't know perl and I am not involved. Reading all the mails here he
>>should be desysopped, and stay that way, because he is helpful but neither
>>careful nor responsible. This is valid for anyone using his/her/its power
>>irresponsibly or without maximal possible care.
>>
>Peter is correct here as well. Perl doesn't need to be a sysop to do good
>work and be helpful in fighting vandalism. And I will note that I opposed
>Perl/Alex becoming an admin on en: repeatedly because he had shown what I
>considered poor judgment, duplicity (as well as outright deception) and
>being unwilling to be more careful and moderate his behavior (despite a
>willingness to apologize repeatedly). I also opposed his self-nomination on
>the French Wikipedia (where I am an occasional, but serious, editor)
>because of his history on en: and his stated reason for wanting adminship:
>"Je voudrais devine admin pour termin(assasin les vandals comme
>papotages et micheal."
>
Wanting to be a sysop to deal with vandals would prompt my suspicions --
even more so when he names supposed vandals.
I appreciate
that we want to weigh carefully the decision to remove
someone's adminship, but it's clear to me that he received it by a
carefully planned course of action -- perhaps even "scheming" is not too
strong a word here -- and that he has not acted responsibly. While he may
end one specific problematic behavior, he often seems to find one that he
hasn't been specifically warned about. To me, he obeys the letter of the
law, but no its spirit.
It is clear to most people, but unfortunately that does not carry weight
in subsequent considerations, except as supporting evidence. If he is to
be de-sysopped, it must be done due to actions as sysop, not in gaining
the status. I am sorry, but I would defend my worst enemy to this
degree. Anything else would be most detrimental to the wikipedia spirit.
I agree with this. It's a question of living with our own mistakes.
That being said, those of us with bureaucratic priveleges on other
projects can still be forewarned about the potential problems if he
should seek the status there.
So I urge that
he is desysopped, that the current policy proposal is
reviewed by people and adopted, and that Perl can reapply if he wishes, and
that the community can make a decision.
I am very disturbed that you would request something so clearly
instance-guided, rather than useful for setting a standard for future
disputes. Sorry, but that is how I Honestly Feel.
What we really need is more objective criteria that depend less on
voting. Strong personal objections about an individual would be
considered, but only as a part of a bigger context. Length of time,
number of overall edits, participation in housekeeping, willingness to
discuss issues are all factors that could be quantified, and thus become
major considerations before a request to be a sysop is considered.
Since each project has a different culture, each would also be able to
set the numbers involved in these criteria to suit its own needs. Most
people don't mind striving for a clearly identified goal. Doing so
gives them the opportunity to exercise patience, which can be another
important virtue for a sysop.
Ec