Date: Thu, 13 Sep 2012 18:12:51 +0100 From: "Phil Nash" phnash@blueyonder.co.uk Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment
----- Original Message ----- From: "Matthew Jacobs" sxeptomaniac@gmail.com To: wikien-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Thursday, September 13, 2012 6:02 PM Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment
Date: Wed, 12 Sep 2012 15:12:49 -0400 From: Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment
Agreed. But how could such a mechanism be created given the existing structure of the Project?
marc Riddell
I've seen a lot of complicated RfA proposals, as well as community desysop
procedures, and I really think the simplest solution would be for Adminship to no longer be a lifetime appointment. Make it for terms of one or two years, with no limit on the number of terms, and no requirement to re-apply. It simply means that admins remain accountable to the
community,
giving them an incentive to remain polite and fair, to the best of their ability. I don't buy the arguments that "good admins will never be re-appointed", as good admins may make a few enemies, but they'll gain even more supporters. I also believe that the community could easily adapt to manage the increase in RfAs.
To be clear, there is no perfect solution, but I think that instituting admin terms would be a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, I also don't think the community will ever accept such a major change, as it's become far to conservative regarding policy.
This isn't a new idea, and has been proposed, and rejected, more than once: see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Reconfirm_adminis...
As you point out, it is open to abuse by enemies the admins may have made- which is only to be expected if they're doing their job properly, since some people, sadly, will never accept authoritative statements of WP policy. Worse (as in my case), they might receive death threats on a daily basis.
I never claimed it was a new idea. I'm aware various versions are brought up, though people often try to tinker with it and end up making it more complicated than it needs to be. I was asked what I think would help fix WP's issues, and I answered. I also mentioned that I think it's got near-zero chance of passing, as, for the most part, I don't believe the community is interested in improving WP at this point, but only protecting territory.
Any system is open to abuse. My argument is that it better enables the community to prevent and deal with abuse when (not if) it happens.
Yes, admins make enemies, but they also gain supporters. A good admin will gain more of the latter than the former.
As you pointed out, you're already receiving death threats, so how is that an argument against change? If anything, it has the potential to reduce it somewhat, as they have something they can do about their anger/frustration, whereas there's little recourse at this time.
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2012 12:14:12 +0100 From: WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] VIP Treatment
Re Matthew Jacobs and the periodic reconfirmation idea
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_reform#Periodic_reco...
There's also the point that some of us don't like the idea of admins becoming a small elite group within the community. OK we are already quite a way from the "no big deal" idea of adminship, but one of the downsides of reducing the admin cadre to a small number of fixed term admins is that the vast majority of our current 1400 or so admins have insufficient activity to get through an RFA. Many of the rest are unlikely to want to put themselves through the RFA hoops again, especially if remaining an admin means taking on a significantly larger share of the admin workload.
We need to remember that admins are unpaid volunteers doing a bunch of essential chores on the site.
We also need to remember that the fewer admins there are the more their scarcity value increases. So fixed terms might be of interest to status seekers and those exhibitionists who rather enjoy the opportunity of an RFA to have a public confrontation with their critics. But we'd lose most of the quiet and uncontentious admins who are active editors who have the tools and use them as and when they come across a situation that requires them.
Of course periodic reconfirmation would work if we made adminship a salaried position. But I'm hoping that we can find other ways to fix the RFA problem long before that starts to look necessary.
That said RFA is continuing to decline, this year, maybe even this month, may well see the first month without a new admin since October 2002. With 20 new admins so far this year compared to 52 last year we will be doing very well in the rest of the year if we manage to kepp the year on year decline at only one third. There is a real risk that 2012 could see the rate of decline steepen and only half as many new admins be appointed as the previous year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:WereSpielChequers/RFA_stats
WSC
Much of your claim as to why it's no benefit is rooted in the assumption that adminship should be permanent; that admins should continue to be reconfirmed on a regular basis. I disagree. Adminship is a job, not a person or group of people.
Part of the reason adminship became such a big deal is because it's so hard to remove it from someone once they have it. If people knew that it was only for a limited period (in addition to just holding more of them), it means motivation to make RFAs less of a big deal, not more.
You act like RFA isn't already a massive drama magnet where people play out their petty squabbles, drawing "status seekers" and "exhibitionists". It's been like that for years, and there's no reason to think terms would change human behavior, but they would reduce the motivation for these things, by spreading it out among more of them and reducing how serious a decision an RFA is. There's LESS motivation to give someone the benefit of the doubt when there's no way to undo the decision, which directly leads to MORE drama.
Yes, we already knew of the problems with the declining RFAs years ago, due to the greater and greater requirements, increased scrutiny of applicants, and highly contentious process. All of those are because adminship has become such a big deal, and a major reason for that is because it's very hard to remove.
Sxeptomaniac
On 14 September 2012 19:39, Matthew Jacobs sxeptomaniac@gmail.com wrote:
I never claimed it was a new idea. I'm aware various versions are brought up, though people often try to tinker with it and end up making it more complicated than it needs to be. I was asked what I think would help fix WP's issues, and I answered.
No, you brought it up in the context of the present discussion, but you have supplied no evidence whatsoever that it is relevant to the case there in the subject line - you've just repeatedly asserted it will be a wonderful thing. Assertion is not enough, however.
- d.