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