On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 01:54:04PM -0500, Poor, Edmund W wrote:
I suggest that as a general rule if anyone tries to
settle an issue that
he is involved in, he should not use sysop, bureacrat or steward power
to settle it. Especially when '''his own conduct''' is the issue.
We
expect higher standards of those who have more power (as Peter Parker
said in ''[[Spiderman]]'' :-)
"With great power comes great responsibility." :)
However, a more direct parallel might be embezzlement, or breach of
fiduciary duty. Power is not given to administrators so that they may
use it for whatever purpose they see fit. Rather, it is delegated to
them for the performance of relatively specific duties.
The treasurer of a library has the power to write checks drawing on the
library's bank account to buy books, pay the electric bill, and so on.
However, this power is not granted so that the treasurer can buy
whatever s/he wants (like a new car). It is also not granted so that
the treasurer can seize control of the library's acquisition policy, for
instance by refusing to purchase books that disagree with him/her
politically.
The treasurer's power is, rather subject to the library's bylaws as an
organization, since it is by dint of those bylaws that the treasurer
holds that power legitimately. If the treasurer uses the purchasing
power to buy a car, that is embezzlement. If the treasurer uses that
power to push his/her own political interests, that is conflict of
interest.
The treasurer's position is also not a badge of special status. It does
not exempt the treasurer from the normal rules of the library. It does
not permit him/her to make excessive noise in the library, offending
other patrons. It does not permit him/her to steal books. If s/he is
fined for not returning books, it certainly does not permit him/her to
cancel that fine, or pay it out of the library's treasury.
If he does, he ought to be curbed in some way.
Ordinary users could be
blocked for, say 3 to 24 hours. Admins could be de-sysopped for a day or
so. (We still need the technical means to permit blocked users to edit
TALK pages - at least in the non-article namespace.)
It seems to me it should be _standard procedure_ that if the Arbitration
Committee accepts a case in which wrongdoing by an administrator is a
central issue, that the administrator step down (accept removal of
administrative powers) for the duration of the arbitration.
(Note that I'm *not* suggesting that any administrator who is accused of
wrongdoing should step down -- only one whose case is *accepted* by the
A.C. Moreover, the A.C. could specifically state when accepting a case
that stepping down would not be necessary.)
The accused administrator could ask other administrators to take on
specific "mop and bucket" duties that s/he had undertaken. This would
also emphasize that administrative functions are procedural and not
personal -- countering the attitudes that a few people have shown, that
they are personally "too important to the project" to back away, or that
removal of administrative power is a "demotion".
--
Karl A. Krueger <kkrueger(a)whoi.edu>