[WikiEN-l] Office actions

[Ray Saintonge]

geni wrote:

>On 12/21/06, Ray Saintonge <saintonge at telus.net> wrote:
>  
>
>>Sure.  I think we first need to recognize that an OFFICE action is an
>>emergency action by a person who is faced with a crisis and must act
>>immediately.  Powers exercised in an emergency have a greater likelihood
>>of being wrong than those which have been subject to consultation and
>>reflection.  The errors do not impugn the good faith of the person
>>exercising the power.
>>
>>Extraordinary powers require extraordinary safeguards against both their
>>intentional or accidental abuse.
>>    1. OFFICE actions should automatically expire after a week unless
>>there has been separate positive efforts to extend for a further period
>>of one week.
>>    
>>
>I would argue for 2.
>
The length of time is a negotiable detail.

>>    2. Key admins should be notified of the reasons for the action, and
>>asked to initiate a cleanup.
>>    
>>
>Can see problems with this one. I would argue that letting arbcom know
>after 2 weeks would provide a significant measure of protection.
>
They probably have their hands full, and I would respect their autonomy 
to choose what cases they will take on.  In any event I wouldn't want to 
assume that there is a greater conflict than what there in fact is.  The 
problems will most likely be repairable with easy agreement from the 
offending editor(s).as long as the required fix is clearly explained.

>>    3. Disciplinary sanctions for defying the action  should not be the
>>responsibility of the office.
>>    
>>
>Who else is there? Stewards? Generaly stay away from en.
>
Ordinary admin action should be enough unless things get nasty.  Taking 
it out of the hands of the Office is akin to not blocking people when 
you are a party to the argument.  The purpose is to protect Danny from 
the crossfire.

Ec