-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi there,
I've today developed an extension based on Special:Makesysop that may be a solution to the problems (at least on en: ) with the process of gaining adminship. Part of the problem with adminship is that it is somewhat difficult to remove. This extension may change that. The extension, as currently configured, allows local bureaucrats to desysop a user. I believe that this is sensible. If we can trust bureaucrats to set the sysop bit, why shouldn't we trust them to remove it? Additionally, desysopping is quite a political issue, and generally requires the intervention of somebody *familiar with the situation*, not an outsider who has simply been informed. Therefore, I suggest that we use this extension to allow Bureaucrats to desysop users in serious cases of abuse of powers. A different process for desysopping may need to be developed to accompany this - and a policy on when bureaucrats may use this ability.
Questions, comments and requests for demonstrations are more than welcome.
Andrew Garrett (Werdna)
Andrew Garrett wrote:
I've today developed an extension based on Special:Makesysop that may be a solution to the problems (at least on en: ) with the process of gaining adminship. Part of the problem with adminship is that it is somewhat difficult to remove. This extension may change that. The extension, as currently configured, allows local bureaucrats to desysop a user. I believe that this is sensible. If we can trust bureaucrats to set the sysop bit, why shouldn't we trust them to remove it? Additionally, desysopping is quite a political issue, and generally requires the intervention of somebody *familiar with the situation*, not an outsider who has simply been informed. Therefore, I suggest that we use this extension to allow Bureaucrats to desysop users in serious cases of abuse of powers. A different process for desysopping may need to be developed to accompany this - and a policy on when bureaucrats may use this ability.
Questions, comments and requests for demonstrations are more than welcome.
I welcome this, and fully agree with your analysis. Any project that is big enough to have at least two bureaucrats should be big enough to establish its own policies on this.
There are really two very different cases where the right to desysop. Abuse of powers is one of those situations, as you have described. Another situation might be extended absence. In this case the individual would only need to shoe that he is back and active to the satisfaction of a bureaucrat to have the status restored.
Ec
Andrew Garrett wrote:
I've today developed an extension based on Special:Makesysop that may be a solution to the problems (at least on en: ) with the process of gaining adminship. Part of the problem with adminship is that it is somewhat difficult to remove. This extension may change that. The extension, as currently configured, allows local bureaucrats to desysop a user. I believe that this is sensible. If we can trust bureaucrats to set the sysop bit, why shouldn't we trust them to remove it? Additionally, desysopping is quite a political issue, and generally requires the intervention of somebody *familiar with the situation*, not an outsider who has simply been informed. Therefore, I suggest that we use this extension to allow Bureaucrats to desysop users in serious cases of abuse of powers. A different process for desysopping may need to be developed to accompany this - and a policy on when bureaucrats may use this ability.
There's no inherent reason why a steward should be an outsider, that's just a matter of policy. It's no accident that bureaucrats can't desysop people -- the reason, simply put, is that it was meant to be harder to desysop than to sysop. It wasn't meant to be impossible, however. I did make the assumption that stewards would competently oversee the Wikimedia projects, not be frozen by fear of the community.
Most of the actions we let people do on wikis are reversible, such as editing or deleting articles. There are two things however that are potentially irreversible -- desysopping and blocking. Both of them can easily lead to the permanent loss of contributors from the project, and so should be done only with great care. Sysops are especially vulnerable to an attack on their pride, and since they are generally wikipediholics, they are devastated by being blocked.
I'll support a move towards allowing bureaucrats to desysop people on a project-by-project basis, but I'd like to make sure it's well informed by knowledge of the likely social consequences.
-- Tim Starling
On 8/15/06, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
<snip> I'll support a move towards allowing bureaucrats to desysop people on a project-by-project basis, but I'd like to make sure it's well informed by knowledge of the likely social consequences.
I'd be in favour of a policy (or even a technical limitation) that requires two bureaucrats to agree to desysop someone before it takes effect or is allowed.
It would be nice to put such a limitation in place, but it probably isn't necessary. If the community has trusted someone to make them a Bureaucrat and give them the power to grant sysop and all the rest, there should be no problem desysopping, at least on en wikipedia. I wouldn't be so sure about the other projects.
Draicone
On 8/16/06, Death Phoenix originaldeathphoenix@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/15/06, Tim Starling t.starling@physics.unimelb.edu.au wrote:
<snip> I'll support a move towards allowing bureaucrats to desysop people on a project-by-project basis, but I'd like to make sure it's well informed by knowledge of the likely social consequences.
I'd be in favour of a policy (or even a technical limitation) that requires two bureaucrats to agree to desysop someone before it takes effect or is allowed. _______________________________________________ Wikipedia-l mailing list Wikipedia-l@Wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikipedia-l
wikipedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org