User talk:Bovlb/Self-limiting administrators

Good job on the writing. I have made some mistakes, mostly out of being tired at a particular moment, swamped with a backlog of AIV or CSD work or just inexperience in a couple of cases. I have requested a more experienced admin help in one or two cases and have been shown a mistake or two. I would have had no problem with other admins reverting or fixing my errors as long as they left a note explaining the what and the why. Your section below says (as of this writing):

What does membership mean for other admins?

By adopting this code, the adherent is declaring that any admin may reverse his administrative actions for any reason and without prior consultation. The reversing admin is, of course, fully responsible for the reversal action and is expected to be able to justify it in the normal way. Informing the adherent of the reversal is appreciated as a courtesy, but is not required and should not cause any delay in rectifying errors. (emphasis mine)

While I agree with the courtesy aspect and definitely not delaying the action of rectifying an error, I would add the word encouraged although not required. It only happened to me once that an action was reversed with no notification. I understood why it was done but was not pleased with having found out by chance and not having received a courtesy note. Just my .02 -- Alexf⁴² 22:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. It is now "strongly encouraged". Bovlb (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And thanks for the support. Bovlb (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the general idea. However, I have a couple of concerns based on tone. I would rather see the introduction and initial explanation more focused on the participants' seeking after principles and increased harmony. ("A ban is an indefinite block that no administrator will lift" (and its variations) is a commonly mentioned example the principles involved here.) I understand the drama caused by administrative reversals can be horrific, but the rationale should be explained in mostly positive terms. You essentially should justify this proposal. We all know that problems exist with overturning some administrative actions, but why is this a good solution? What positive purpose does it serve? That's the kind of thing that "Motivation" should explain. The language in general sounds a bit formalized and stiff, even a bit preachy or haughty (please take this by no means to be a comment on the writer, just my impression of the language in the proposal). Language about violations and authorization reinforce the perception of the former descriptions. A good example of the latter descriptions would be mentioning the attempt "to replace ego with consensus, by broadening ownership of administrative actions". It just sounds a bit corporate and smug or, if you will, "high falutin'". In essence, I'd like to see less legalistic and critical language. The proposal would be much better served with a more informal tone and language, as well as the occasional injection of light-hearted commentary. Personally, I would agree to a version of this, but I would not volunteer for it under its current presentation. I certainly agree with the principle involved and if this proposal goes through in its formalized presentation, I would simply use an informal disclaimer stating the basics in my own userspace. Sorry to be so critical about the presentation, but it is something that truly matters in my opinion. Vassyana (talk) 09:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. That's given me food for thought. The language is actually how I strive for clarity, being an over-educated Brit. I'll try to rework it when I have time to sit and think, but in the meantime please feel free to make some changes yourself to illustrate your points. Bovlb (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the positive response to the criticism. I will think on it in a bit more detail and provide an example version in a subpage sandbox. I'd rather not make any such drastic changes directly to avoid disrupting the main proposal. After I write it, we can review the example and consider its relative merits in discussion. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 07:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]