[WikiEN-l] I've Kicked the Process Habit

[dmehkeri at swi.com]

> > It's okish for editors and a really bad idea for admins. Editors
> > actions can be undone by pretty much anyone. Admin actions cannot. An
> > editor doing something annoying will merely result in them being
> > reverted. Admins actions can affect far larger numbers of people. Most
> > people accept WP:OWN applies to edits. A section of admins keeps
> > trying to claim that it does not apply to admin actions making it even
> > harder to revert the things. Admins are meant to serve the community.
> > The powers were only given by the community in order to do what the
> > community wanted. They were not given for you to do whatever seemed
> > like a good idea at the time.
> >
> > IAR is ok for content but admin actions apply to people rather than  
> > content.
> 
> Yes - this is a good point about IAR.
> 
> Rules protect people from the abuse of power. I'm not so worried
> about protecting content, as it can always be restored.
> 
> Once a person has gone, that's it.
> 

I almost entirely agree. Some admin actions are in a fundamentally different
class. The use of IAR should be tempered, and for exactly the reasons given.

But, I would add "some" before "rules protect people". There are, unfortunately,
other times when the rules act to bite people. I wish admins would do a bit more
IAR in those circumstances. Bloody hell, a LOT more. And again, for exactly the
reasons given.

I'm going to go further and suggest that, at the current time, on the english
wikipedia, the people bitten by strict enforcment of rules outnumber the people
bitten by admins abusing power.

The flagship cases on the one side are certain bureaucrat actions to re-sysop,
certain out-of-process project-page speedy deletes, certain wheel wars, and
possibly others I'm not aware of or have forgotten. These generate an awful lot
of uproar, but, even taken all together, how often do they happen?

On the other side, my flagship case is the set of rules on WP:U. It suggests
that admins can permablock certain new accounts instantly, even when there is no
obvious malicious intent, and there are some admins who take this to heart. For
many, this means a ban until the autoblock wears off. Strict applications of
this ruleset generate little protest, and often no protest at all, but last I
checked, this by itself happens several times a day.

Regards,
Daniel Mehkeri