[WikiEN-l] Moderation on this mailing list

[Ray Saintonge]

Parker Peters wrote:

>Ideally? I'd like for administrators not to do the things that cause
>problems. But that's not likely.
>
>So here's a few thoughts/steps:
>
Thank you for the thoughtful consideration in this post.

>#1 - Recognize that adminship, as it exists now, is a big deal.
>
>If Adminship were not a big deal, then losing adminship would not be a big
>deal. However, the bar for losing adminship is nearly impossibly high.
>If Adminship were not a big deal, the ever-growing requirements for it would
>not be ever-growing. But they are.
>
>Adminship is a big deal. It is a big deal because of the damage an
>administrator can do to the project. But it is also a big deal because of
>the control it gives an administrator: they have the ability to not only
>damage the project, but to cause major damage just to individual
>contributors at the drop of a hat, anyone with whom they have a
>disagreement... save for other administrators.
>
Then this could be solved by reducing the "big deal" that is in fact 
associated with adminship.  Opening it up would do this.

>#2 - Make it perfectly clear: administrators are NOT above the rules.
>
>here is the biggest problem with wikipedia today. Administrators are free to
>do whatever they want. Any administrator can claim something is "trolling",
>and the rest of the administrators will pop their heads up to say "sure is"
>without really looking; again, if one administrator can claim something is
>"trolling" and wield their power, it makes it easier for the next one to as
>well.
>
Simply put the rules need to be enforced sternly against all, including 
admins.

>#3 - Set clear-cut rules against the ongoing abuses of the system. ENFORCE
>THEM.
>
Good!

>#4 - STOP Abusive usage of CheckUser
>
>One of our worst items today is the CheckUser code: I wrote an email after
>seeing the output in one case, earlier.
>
>CheckUser itself isn't a bad tool. Correctly used, it can distinguish with
>some relative certainty, though not absolute certainty, whether someone is
>sockpuppeting. This is useful.
>
OK

>My solution would be: SEPARATION OF POWERS.
>
>It's quite simple. The less power someone has, the less likely they are to
>be corrupt. The problem we have today is a bunch of people running around
>who are Judge, Jury, Executioner, Court Reporter, Appeals Court, King,
>Bishop, Whatever all thrown together in one neat little package. They have
>way too much power in one set of hands.
>
>Someone who is a Bureaucrat should not be an Administrator.
>Someone who does CheckUser should not be an Administrator.
>Someone who is on ArbCom should not be an Administrator.
>
>Preferably, they should Never Have Been administrators.
>
I don't think that this is workable.  The listed sets of powers all 
include admin privileges.  It could be impossible to do these jobs 
without admin powers.  Certainly a person who has these higher duties 
should have an ability to use his regular admin privileges with 
restraint, and know when using them would compromise his decision making.

Ec