Re: Administrators

--- Tomos at Wikipedia <wiki_tomos-PkbjNfxxIARBDgjK7y7TUQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
> Thomasz, Jimmy, and Anthere;
> 
> Thanks (again) for your comments.
> 
> Now I realized more or less that admins have no
> special role in 
> controversies. Certainly, deleting or freezing a
> controversial article 
> without discussing about it would not be a good
> idea.

Hello Tomos

It is not a good idea, but it is done sometimes
nonetheless. Nobody's perfect...
 
> Also, I wonder if there is any higher expectations
> for admins regarding 
> his/her behaviors in heated controversies. That is,
> if an admin is found to 
> be promoting a POV (not intentionally, but, say,
> because of lack of efforts 
> to understand other POVs), wouldn't it be a more
> serious problem than just a 
> non-admin user doing the same?

Some sysops are promoting their povs just as other
good non-sysop editors. Probably can't be help. I saw
sysops deleting pages without having these pages
listed somewhere on a list "for deletions". You are
right when you say them being sysop make it worse.
In terms of deletions, the worse thing is that *only*
sysops have the ability to *look* at the deleted pages
to be able to give the page a second "judgement". It
would not be so bad if non-sysop could look at the
page, and then complain to another sysop that the page
should be restored. But in the current system, the
non-sysop can only see that the page has been deleted,
and that's about it. The non-sysop is "forced" to
"trust" the sysop even if he was having a controversy
with him. 

Fortunately, deletions are not permanent. Pages may be
restored by *any* other sysop who care to take the
time to check what other sysops are doing. When
Wikipedia software was in phase I, the responsability
and the trust you had to put in the other sysops was
amazingly huge; No page could be recovered, and there
was not even a log of deleted pages. In phase III,
deletions is more a symbol than a real deletion, since
nothing is permanent. So, some sysops are pretty
happily deleting loads of pages, without even really
asking to others what they think, without giving time
to others to react, even without listing the pages
planned for deletions.

I see deletions more as a symbol of power sysophood
over non-sysop editors, not as mere deletions. That's
why it is very important that any wiki has several
sysops, not to let only one or even two have that
power in their hands.

This is especially true, as - as far as I know - no
sysop has ever seen his sysop status removed. So, you
need to make sure there is counter-power.

Ideally, any deletion of a controversial page by one
sysop, should be checked by another sysop.
*Especially* when the deletion was done by a sysop
involved in the controversy. The check up should be
done by a sysop not involved in a controversy.

There is something I try to do on fr.wiki, when I find
a vandalised page, I revert it, empty it, but do not
delete it. I leave the deletion to others. By that
way, I am sure that at least one person will check and
judge the vandalism after me.

That is something like a "two buttons" to push by two
different persons when you light the bomb. It avoids
mistakes and misinterpretations. 

I wonder how a sysop could have his status removed.
I mean, right now, when an editor *ask* to be sysop,
if nobody complain, or better at least one person says
it is ok, he is made sysop.
Would the reverse be true ? If *one* person ask that a
sysop be removed his status for a given reason and if
nobody complain, would it be enough for his status to
be removed ? 

Anthere



__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more
http://taxes.yahoo.com/