With all this hubbub about admins and making more admins with no criteria and why shouldn't we just bump everyone up a level! and all that jazz, I think it is high time we evaluate what admins need to be or do to be successful. Then from there, in my opinion, we can lower the bar, leave things as they are, or continue to pursue this everyone's an admin!!! deal. (Sorry if I've inserted my POV too much into the preceding paragraph)
So. This is how I see it.
Admins must: be neutral, above all else. when they block when they protect when they delete recuse when they are unable to be neutral have the understanding of policy to know when it is objectively okay to block/protect/delete be able to judge consensus not be a timebomb
Therefore, admin candidates must: demonstrate they can participate in discussions in which they have no personal invested interest, with positive effect to those who do have personal invested interest demonstrate they know the difference between their opinion, consensus, and the Truth (which doesn't exist on wiki) demonstrate they recognize their own bias and will refuse to act upon it
To be honest, I have no idea how they would demonstrate this. But perhaps if we switched to a system of vouching, whereby different people would say "I have worked with this user and they have always been neutral in disputes and blahblahblah." like the nomination, except more of them. And no edit counts and no FAs and no namespace distribution. If one is cautious enough to always work within policy, one will always check unknown policies before doing anything one has never done before. And then perhaps once the candidate has enough people vouching for them, they're promoted.
Or maybe something completely different. But in my opinion, adminship is not edit counts and vandal fighting; it's dealing with things as a neutral agent of the 'pedia. Well, at least when one has one's admin hat on.
--keitei
Then from there, in my opinion, we can lower the bar, leave things as they are, or continue to pursue this everyone's an admin!!! deal.
If we want to lower the bar, we have to work out how to do it first. RfA doesn't use set standards, everyone decides based on their own criteria. Hundreds of possible replacements for RfA have been proposed and rejected, so it seems consensus is for a promotion system at least closely based on RfA, which makes lowering the bar very difficult.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Then from there, in my opinion, we can lower the bar, leave things as they are, or continue to pursue this everyone's an admin!!! deal.
If we want to lower the bar, we have to work out how to do it first. RfA doesn't use set standards, everyone decides based on their own criteria. Hundreds of possible replacements for RfA have been proposed and rejected, so it seems consensus is for a promotion system at least closely based on RfA, which makes lowering the bar very difficult.
There is no such consensus. The RfA system works for you because you use it, as do all the others who participate. There are far more people who just wash their hands of it., and just limit their activities to some narrow topic.
Ec
We can't lower the bar. Admins need to be neutral, have a good grasp of policy and be non-destructive. We can't grant someone admin powers without knowing if they fulfill those criteria.
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
We can't lower the bar. Admins need to be neutral, have a good grasp of policy and be non-destructive. We can't grant someone admin powers without knowing if they fulfill those criteria.
I've already mentioned this elsewhere in this thread, but I'll say this again here in response to you:
Admins need to be neutral on the whole, but individual admins need not - just like individual editors need not have good intentions (i.e. we can handle vandals). Simply de-admin those that aren't.
We *CAN* grant admin powers without knowing if they fulfill any criteria at all - knowing full well that we can remove those admin powers again as soon as they fail the criteria.
Timwi
There is no such consensus. The RfA system works for you because you use it, as do all the others who participate. There are far more people who just wash their hands of it., and just limit their activities to some narrow topic.
On Wikipedia "consensus" is used to mean "consensus of people that decided to express an opinion". We don't hold referendums on policy decisions. Every time a proposal for a new system of selecting admins has been discussed, it has been rejected. That is a consensus to keep things pretty much as they are. It's possible that some new proposal might gain approval, but none have so far.
on 2/16/07 8:21 AM, Thomas Dalton at thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On Wikipedia "consensus" is used to mean "consensus of people that decided to express an opinion". We don't hold referendums on policy decisions. Every time a proposal for a new system of selecting admins has been discussed, it has been rejected. That is a consensus to keep things pretty much as they are. It's possible that some new proposal might gain approval, but none have so far.
I realize I am straying from the main subject of this thread, but I wanted to ask a question based on what was said above. When a new proposal (in whatever area) is presented, how and where is the final decision made as to whether that proposal becomes policy or not; and who ultimately makes it?
Marc Riddell
I realize I am straying from the main subject of this thread, but I wanted to ask a question based on what was said above. When a new proposal (in whatever area) is presented, how and where is the final decision made as to whether that proposal becomes policy or not; and who ultimately makes it?
If consensus is reached, it's up to pretty much anyone to carry it out. If it turns out there wasn't consensus then we'll find out when someone reverts the changes.
Policy is determined in pretty much the same way as content in articles. It keeps getting changed until everyone is happy with (or at least willing to accept) what we've got. The principle of "Be Bold" isn't applied so much to policy - it's usual to discuss changes before you make them, rather than making them and seeing if any reverts and only discussing it if they do, but the basic process is the same.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
There is no such consensus. The RfA system works for you because you use it, as do all the others who participate. There are far more people who just wash their hands of it, and just limit their activities to some narrow topic.
On Wikipedia "consensus" is used to mean "consensus of people that decided to express an opinion". We don't hold referendums on policy decisions. Every time a proposal for a new system of selecting admins has been discussed, it has been rejected. That is a consensus to keep things pretty much as they are. It's possible that some new proposal might gain approval, but none have so far.
I made no mention of referenda. Your highly questionable interpretation of "consensus" should probably have the words "at that time" added to it. In many of these decisions the attitude is, "If you didn't know the discussion was going on, too bad, you've forfeited your right to participate anyway."
It's no wonder that any attempts at improving admin selection are rejected. Those who have a vested interest in the way things are, or who participate regularly in the RfA cabal keep a close watch on the current rules. Those who would like improvement include many who consider the present state of things hopeless, and thus never bother looking there. If a good rule change is proposed they simply don't know about it, even if there are more of them. Any suggestion that the decision making process that happens there is consensus is a load of crap.
Ec
On 2/17/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
There is no such consensus. The RfA system works for you because you use it, as do all the others who participate. There are far more people who just wash their hands of it, and just limit their activities to some narrow topic.
On Wikipedia "consensus" is used to mean "consensus of people that decided to express an opinion". We don't hold referendums on policy decisions. Every time a proposal for a new system of selecting admins has been discussed, it has been rejected. That is a consensus to keep things pretty much as they are. It's possible that some new proposal might gain approval, but none have so far.
I made no mention of referenda. Your highly questionable interpretation of "consensus" should probably have the words "at that time" added to it. In many of these decisions the attitude is, "If you didn't know the discussion was going on, too bad, you've forfeited your right to participate anyway."
It's no wonder that any attempts at improving admin selection are rejected. Those who have a vested interest in the way things are, or who participate regularly in the RfA cabal keep a close watch on the current rules. Those who would like improvement include many who consider the present state of things hopeless, and thus never bother looking there. If a good rule change is proposed they simply don't know about it, even if there are more of them. Any suggestion that the decision making process that happens there is consensus is a load of crap.
Ec
And, this, to me, is the biggest problems with admins on Wikipedia, it is a BIG deal, it's such a big deal, that no one who has ever attained it should ever have it removed--according to the lucky few who've managed to convince their peers that they're just like them. Adminship is given by people who spend most of their time on the web to others just like them, outsiders need never apply. So, is Wikipedia a general encyclopedia that anyone can edit (the best idea of its time), or is it a private club for people who spend all their time editing Wikipedia? It's the latter, now, and that will always be the entrenched ownership of Wikipedia: a small group of like-minded people who spend a lot of time online, people who, realistically, cannot be the experts or best editors for the bulk of general Wikipedia articles, because they don't go to libraries, they only use online resources, they don't know how to access resources not found in cyberspace, which is not currently the depository of all knowledge.
There is no willingness or ability to de-admin someone because in order to jump through all the necessary hoops, one has to be one of the editors who is like the ownership cabal: living in cyberspace, and these people would never risk their own future chance to join the exaulted ranks just to take down an administrator who does things that could get a regular editor permanently banned from Wikipedia.
Adminship on Wikipedia is too special, too elitist, too permanent--have the right number of edits and move directly to tenure, do whatever you want afterwards. Editors know how to admin shop--if you have a certain bias and want an article to stay with your bias, there's just the perfect admin to take it to, instead of requests for protection, if you are one of the many Wikipedia editors with nationalistic agendas, you can admin-shop to make sure your agenda is well-represented.
If it's really no big deal, it shouldn't be handed out like it is a big deal, with the knowledge that it's permanent, that you've achieved status, that you can do whatever you want, that you can now protect the pages you want to make certain that your POV is locked in.
I think that people underestimate the real damage being done to Wikipedia by the way admins are chosen, given absolute power, made an elite class, and given tenure the instant they pick up the tools. Yet, essentially there is no way to desysop a bad administrator at Wikipedia, because being an admin at Wikipedia IS a very big deal. The RfA process is a big deal, your status at Wikipedia when given admin tools is a big deal, your ability to keep that power no matter that you do things that would get an ordinary editor, the common, banned, is a big deal, and your ability to manipulate Wikipedia to suit your agenda is a big deal.
Ec is correct, there is no consensus, besides that which the ownership of Wikipedia by the cyber-living has already established. At some point, imo, it has to be decided, is Wikipedia a general online encyclopedia that anybody can edit, or is it an elitist workspace for an elitist group of people who live in cyberspace? Because this latter group is none too fond of the anybodies of the world.
KP
on 2/18/07 5:08 PM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Ec is correct, there is no consensus, besides that which the ownership of Wikipedia by the cyber-living has already established. At some point, imo, it has to be decided, is Wikipedia a general online encyclopedia that anybody can edit, or is it an elitist workspace for an elitist group of people who live in cyberspace? Because this latter group is none too fond of the anybodies of the world.
KP
This entire post is excellent and, I'm sure for some, painfully insightful, and deadly accurate. Solutions? A societal structure needs a cultural one to support it. And a culture is created, promoted and nurtured from the very top of an organization. None of this is going to change until the ethic at the top does.
Marc Riddell
On Feb 18, 2007, at 3:39 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
or is it an elitist workspace for an elitist group of people who live in cyberspace?
A common complaint by these that have much to say but show little interest in contributing of their valuable free time to keep Wikipedia ticking.
Administrators perform an admirable job and a thankless one, by the look if it.
-- Jossi
On 2/18/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Feb 18, 2007, at 3:39 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
or is it an elitist workspace for an elitist group of people who live in cyberspace?
A common complaint by these that have much to say but show little interest in contributing of their valuable free time to keep Wikipedia ticking.
Administrators perform an admirable job and a thankless one, by the look if it.
-- Jossi
Maybe so, but I do contribute some of my valuable free time to keeping Wikipedia ticking, on top of a an ungodly huge family, full time job, and a career as an artist, so your general comment does not apply to me specifically. So what's the point when it doesn't answer me or the comment? To disparage those who cannot devote huge amounts of time solely to Wikipedia?
Wikipedia cannot be what it is intended to be if designed only for those with plenty of free time to devote to keeping Wikipedia ticking, because that's not anyone, that's just a little bit of the anyone who could possibly be editing Wikipedia.
KP
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Feb 18, 2007, at 3:39 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
or is it an elitist workspace for an elitist group of people who live in cyberspace?
A common complaint by these that have much to say but show little interest in contributing of their valuable free time to keep Wikipedia ticking.
Administrators perform an admirable job and a thankless one, by the look if it.
Just because someone isn't going out of his way to make himself visible in the way that some admins do does not mean that he is doing nothing to keep Wikipedia ticking. Your attitude is very broadly disrespectful of a wide range of contributors.
Have you forgoten that this thread started with complaints about admin burnout. The general solution that was suggested was to loosen up the extreme restrictions on becoming a sysop. But those content with the present state of things argue loudly against it. You can't have it both ways. Stop complaining about being overworked, or do something about the problem.
Ec
On Feb 18, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Just because someone isn't going out of his way to make himself visible in the way that some admins do does not mean that he is doing nothing to keep Wikipedia ticking. Your attitude is very broadly disrespectful of a wide range of contributors.
Have you forgoten that this thread started with complaints about admin burnout. The general solution that was suggested was to loosen up the extreme restrictions on becoming a sysop. But those content with the present state of things argue loudly against it. You can't have it both ways. Stop complaining about being overworked, or do something about the problem.
How can my comment be disrespectful? And why you interpret my comment as "complaining"?
The present state of things, is that any editors can have as much involvement in Wikipedia affairs as any admin could. What is the difference between an editor that has contributed 20,000 edits in two years and that is not an admin, and one with the same level of involvement that is one? Absolutely *nothing*
Of course, there are perception such as yours. But these are perceptions, and not facts. These forced distinctions between admins and editors is a fallacy. Admins are also editors, and editors can do as much as an admin besides deleting an article and closing AfDs.
Rather than exacerbating the width of the perceived chasm between "admin" and "non-admin", we ought to be building bridges.
-- Jossi
On 2/19/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
The present state of things, is that any editors can have as much involvement in Wikipedia affairs as any admin could. What is the difference between an editor that has contributed 20,000 edits in two years and that is not an admin, and one with the same level of involvement that is one? Absolutely *nothing*
What is the difference between these two? The editor who is not an administrator has to live in daily fear that at any point, especially should they edit on any remotely controversial subject without the protection of another "friend" who is an administrator, they can be accosted by any administrator, their rights to edit terminated.
All this can be done at the whim of any administrator, who can then lock the talk page, who is then defended should they revert and block any other user who speaks in the defense of the blocked editor as a "sockpuppet of a blocked user."
And what will happen should this happen? Nothing at all. The editor will remain blocked, at the whim of the blocking admin. The appeals process will not happen, and no resolution can happen. The supposed "authorities" who are supposed to prevent this prefer to turn a blind eye, to dismiss complaints against administrators without ever investigating.
Meanwhile, the Admin is growing an ever larger ego, based solely on his ability to do just this. Rather than acting within policy, Administrators on Wikipedia are the equivalent of Judge Dredd - they are judge, jury, and executioner all in one package, screaming "I am the law" and doing whatever they want, confident that the other Judge Dredds will back them up if any questions of their abuses are ever raised.
Of course, there are perception such as yours. But these are
perceptions, and not facts. These forced distinctions between admins and editors is a fallacy. Admins are also editors, and editors can do as much as an admin besides deleting an article and closing AfDs.
See above. Editors cannot do nearly as much as an admin, because they do not have the protection of position.
Rather than exacerbating the width of the perceived chasm between
"admin" and "non-admin", we ought to be building bridges.
A noble concept, but completely inadequate with today's crop of admins; the goal of the vast majority of the administrators is not to build bridges or even an encyclopedia, but to consolidate their power and ensure that they have the power to be as abusive, mean, incivil as they wish to be. The rules to an admin are for the "little people", not for them.
Parker
On 2/19/07, Parker Peters parkerpeters1002@gmail.com wrote:
What is the difference between these two? The editor who is not an administrator has to live in daily fear that at any point, especially should they edit on any remotely controversial subject without the protection of another "friend" who is an administrator, they can be accosted by any administrator, their rights to edit terminated.
I would hardly consider myself to be living in fear. While most of my editing has been in fairly uncontroversial areas, I have edited more controversial ones as well. I've been around for almost 3 years, am nearing 20k edits, and had one problem with one administrator once. And by problem, I mean she was a bit rude. Very far from abuse of power or anything of the like. And I didn't exactly smell like roses during that affair either - not one of my best moments.
Meanwhile, the Admin is growing an ever larger ego, based solely on his
ability to do just this. Rather than acting within policy, Administrators on Wikipedia are the equivalent of Judge Dredd - they are judge, jury, and executioner all in one package, screaming "I am the law" and doing whatever they want, confident that the other Judge Dredds will back them up if any questions of their abuses are ever raised.
Completely not the way my experience has been. Whenever I've taken issue with an admin's action and attempted to bring it to others' attention, I've been able to get proper explanation and analysis, usually pointing to policy pages that completely support what the admin did.
A noble concept, but completely inadequate with today's crop of admins; the
goal of the vast majority of the administrators is not to build bridges or even an encyclopedia, but to consolidate their power and ensure that they have the power to be as abusive, mean, incivil as they wish to be. The rules to an admin are for the "little people", not for them.
The only people I've ever seen be abusive or mean are the ones who scream "admin abuse". Whenever I've seen incivility on the part of admins, it's gone both ways and never has it been some big mean abusive admin picking on a poor defenseless little person.
-- Jonel
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Feb 18, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
Just because someone isn't going out of his way to make himself visible in the way that some admins do does not mean that he is doing nothing to keep Wikipedia ticking. Your attitude is very broadly disrespectful of a wide range of contributors.
Have you forgoten that this thread started with complaints about admin burnout. The general solution that was suggested was to loosen up the extreme restrictions on becoming a sysop. But those content with the present state of things argue loudly against it. You can't have it both ways. Stop complaining about being overworked, or do something about the problem.
How can my comment be disrespectful? And why you interpret my comment as "complaining"?
In order to be perfectly clear I will begin by quoting back the statement that you so conveniently left out above:
A common complaint by these that have much to say but show little interest in contributing of their valuable free time to keep Wikipedia ticking.
Administrators perform an admirable job and a thankless one, by the look if it.
On what do you base the notion that those "who have much to say show little interest in contributing", or add the gratuitously sarcasrtic "valuable" to your statement. That is disrespectful of all who working to find a solution to the problem.
The series of threads did start with a very valid complaint about admin burnout. Would you have preferred that I call it "self-congratulatory whining"? :-)
The present state of things, is that any editors can have as much involvement in Wikipedia affairs as any admin could. What is the difference between an editor that has contributed 20,000 edits in two years and that is not an admin, and one with the same level of involvement that is one? Absolutely *nothing*
And the point is? That's not what you were suggesting in your previous post.
Of course, there are perception such as yours. But these are perceptions, and not facts. These forced distinctions between admins and editors is a fallacy. Admins are also editors, and editors can do as much as an admin besides deleting an article and closing AfDs.
The broken AfD process is only a small part of the problem.
Rather than exacerbating the width of the perceived chasm between "admin" and "non-admin", we ought to be building bridges.
Reducing the distinction between admins and non-admins would allow us to build easier bridges than the engineering masterpieces that your approach would require.
Ec
On Feb 18, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
The general solution that was suggested was to loosen up the extreme restrictions on becoming a sysop.
That is not a solution, Ray. That is the act of opening the proverbial can of worms. Think of the consequences.
-- Jossi
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Feb 18, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
The general solution that was suggested was to loosen up the extreme restrictions on becoming a sysop.
That is not a solution, Ray. That is the act of opening the proverbial can of worms. Think of the consequences.
-- Jossi
What consequences, Jossi? If "editors can do as much as an admin besides deleting an article and closing AfDs", then what possible consequences would there be in having many more admins?
The reality is that there are significant differences (far more than you suggested) between admins and non-admins. Deleting, viewing, and restoring articles, blocking and unblocking users, protecting and unprotecting articles...those pop to mind quickly.
But even in that reality, the vague imperative to "think of the consequences" is not helpful. If you believe there would be significant consequences, please tell us about them.
-Rich Holton User:Rholton (an admin)
On Feb 19, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Rich Holton wrote:
What consequences, Jossi? If "editors can do as much as an admin besides deleting an article and closing AfDs", then what possible consequences would there be in having many more admins?
I am not against having more admins. We have an RfA process, that although not perfect, it has served us quite well so far. Is there room for improving that process? Sure.
The reality is that there are significant differences (far more than you suggested) between admins and non-admins. Deleting, viewing, and restoring articles, blocking and unblocking users, protecting and unprotecting articles...those pop to mind quickly.
Sure, but those tasks are performed under quite strict guidelines and our performance evaluated by other editors. That is what we have WP:ANI
But even in that reality, the vague imperative to "think of the consequences" is not helpful. If you believe there would be significant consequences, please tell us about them.
That's is easy, Rich. Adminship carries some necessary and basic responsibilities based on a deep understanding of how Wikipedia works. Without such understanding, the consequences of having these extra privileges in the hands of many will be utter chaos. Don't you think so?
Those editors that want to carry the burden of the additional responsibilities of adminship, are welcome to self-nominate, or wait until a fellow editor nominates them.
-- Jossi
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 8:09 AM, Rich Holton wrote:
What consequences, Jossi? If "editors can do as much as an admin besides deleting an article and closing AfDs", then what possible consequences would there be in having many more admins?
I am not against having more admins. We have an RfA process, that although not perfect, it has served us quite well so far. Is there room for improving that process? Sure.
The reality is that there are significant differences (far more than you suggested) between admins and non-admins. Deleting, viewing, and restoring articles, blocking and unblocking users, protecting and unprotecting articles...those pop to mind quickly.
Sure, but those tasks are performed under quite strict guidelines and our performance evaluated by other editors. That is what we have WP:ANI
But even in that reality, the vague imperative to "think of the consequences" is not helpful. If you believe there would be significant consequences, please tell us about them.
That's is easy, Rich. Adminship carries some necessary and basic responsibilities based on a deep understanding of how Wikipedia works. Without such understanding, the consequences of having these extra privileges in the hands of many will be utter chaos. Don't you think so?
Those editors that want to carry the burden of the additional responsibilities of adminship, are welcome to self-nominate, or wait until a fellow editor nominates them.
-- Jossi
Jossi, you say that you are not against having many more admins, but you are against relaxing the criteria for becoming an admin. Do you have any useful suggestions for expanding the ranks?
Relaxing the criteria should have benefits beyond increasing the number of admins. It should help to eliminate the perception that being an admin is a "big thing". Yes, many non-admins overrate the prestige of becoming an admin--and many admins do as well.
I don't think it does anyone any good to minimize the real differences that exist. As an admin, I can view any deleted article any time I want with no permission, implicit or explicit, and no community review. This is a big deal to some non-admins, and there are presumed legal reasons for keeping this distinction. Just telling people to self-nominate for the current, restrictive RfA is not a viable solution to people who may have good reason to view those deleted articles. This is just one example.
If you haven't been following this list recently, I urge you to view the archives and review this thread and the thread on admin burn-out. I think it will help you to understand some of the issues that lie behind some of the recent posts.
-Rich
On Feb 19, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Rich Holton wrote:
Jossi, you say that you are not against having many more admins, but you are against relaxing the criteria for becoming an admin. Do you have any useful suggestions for expanding the ranks?
Endeavor to make at least 5 nominations this month. If we all did that ....
Relaxing the criteria should have benefits beyond increasing the number of admins. It should help to eliminate the perception that being an admin is a "big thing". Yes, many non-admins overrate the prestige of becoming an admin--and many admins do as well.
Adminship *is* a big thing, as it pertains to the level of responsibility given to us. The "prestige" thing, in my experience, is not so much an issue for us as admins, but mostly to newbies that tend to give you some kind of credence because your are an admin. Any Wikipedian *knows* that adminship is both a privilege and a burden. Are there some admins that walk with a swagger because they are admins? Sure. But that is the exception and not the rule.
I don't think it does anyone any good to minimize the real differences that exist. As an admin, I can view any deleted article any time I want with no permission, implicit or explicit, and no community review. This is a big deal to some non-admins, and there are presumed legal reasons for keeping this distinction. Just telling people to self-nominate for the current, restrictive RfA is not a viable solution to people who may have good reason to view those deleted articles. This is just one example.
That is a small point... If an article was deleted by community consensus, it should be kept deleted. What interest should an admin have to view a deleted article, beyond addressing a Deletion Review?
If you haven't been following this list recently, I urge you to view the archives and review this thread and the thread on admin burn-out. I think it will help you to understand some of the issues that lie behind some of the recent posts.
I have read that thread. And I concur with the view that we need more admins, but without making the requirements less onerous; that admins need more supporting and less bitching against them (as to encourage more editors to become admins); and that as we interact with editors and spot those that put the project first, we ask them for their agreement to nominate them for adminship.
-- Jossi
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 9:19 AM, Rich Holton wrote:
Jossi, you say that you are not against having many more admins, but you are against relaxing the criteria for becoming an admin. Do you have any useful suggestions for expanding the ranks?
Endeavor to make at least 5 nominations this month. If we all did that ....
I look forward to seeing your nominations.
Relaxing the criteria should have benefits beyond increasing the number of admins. It should help to eliminate the perception that being an admin is a "big thing". Yes, many non-admins overrate the prestige of becoming an admin--and many admins do as well.
Adminship *is* a big thing, as it pertains to the level of responsibility given to us. The "prestige" thing, in my experience, is not so much an issue for us as admins, but mostly to newbies that tend to give you some kind of credence because your are an admin. Any Wikipedian *knows* that adminship is both a privilege and a burden. Are there some admins that walk with a swagger because they are admins? Sure. But that is the exception and not the rule.
I don't think it does anyone any good to minimize the real differences that exist. As an admin, I can view any deleted article any time I want with no permission, implicit or explicit, and no community review. This is a big deal to some non-admins, and there are presumed legal reasons for keeping this distinction. Just telling people to self-nominate for the current, restrictive RfA is not a viable solution to people who may have good reason to view those deleted articles. This is just one example.
That is a small point... If an article was deleted by community consensus, it should be kept deleted. What interest should an admin have to view a deleted article, beyond addressing a Deletion Review?
You're picking at my example, rather than addressing the larger issue, which is your earlier statement that "editors can do as much as an admin besides deleting an article and closing AfDs". However, since you made that statement you have stated that "adminship *is* a big deal" (emphasis yours). So I assume that your earlier post was in error, or I misunderstood, or you've changed your mind.
We agree. As it currently stands, adminship *is" a big deal.
Because it is a big deal, it is desired by many. And many people rightly feel proud when they achieve it.
I think this is a bad thing for the project.
If you haven't been following this list recently, I urge you to view the archives and review this thread and the thread on admin burn-out. I think it will help you to understand some of the issues that lie behind some of the recent posts.
I have read that thread. And I concur with the view that we need more admins, but without making the requirements less onerous; that admins need more supporting and less bitching against them (as to encourage more editors to become admins); and that as we interact with editors and spot those that put the project first, we ask them for their agreement to nominate them for adminship.
And I think you're missing the fundamental problem that the current strict criteria creates: the notion that adminship is a big deal.
I believe that the "big deal" about being an admin is primarily a function of the strict requirements, not of the power that adminship gives you. As you did point out, most of the powers are reviewed by the community. These powers could be given to many more people, with much less strict criteria, with resulting in "chaos". Withholding these powers, which are not inherently a "big deal" does cause hard feelings and encourages the elitism (both actual and perceived) of the admin class.
Because adminship has become a "big deal", some of those who become admins do "swagger around". Some of them have a very high profile, and abuse their power. This gives admins a bad image, because the presumption is that most admins act this way. Because adminship is a big deal, we a very reluctant to remove admin powers from an admin. This encourages the view that the abusive, swaggering admins are acceptable. This leads to increased abuse of all admins. Which leads many admins to becoming less caring/more abusive in return. It's a self-reinforcing cycle.
All of this leads to many good, trustworthy contributors having no interest whatsoever in becoming admins. They don't want to subject themselves to the crazy and often humiliating process at RfA. They don't want to incur the abuse that is often heaped upon admins. And some admins will actually say that those people who don't want to go through these trials aren't fit to be admins!
We have to stop this self-destructive cycle. Admins should have respect and be respectful. We need to have effective ways of dealing with admins that get a fat head and abuse their power. We need to diminish the perceived and real chasm that exists between admins and editors.
I believe that one key way to accomplish this is to greatly relax the de-facto requirements for becoming an admin. Part of that will be more effective and more frequently used mechanisms for de-adminning. You can do the latter unless you do the former, because there is a real shortage of admins, and there is currently wailing and gnashing of teeth when any active admin leaves...even when there is general agreement that the admin was borderline abusive.
-Rich
on 2/19/07 1:33 PM, Rich Holton at richholton@gmail.com wrote:
We have to stop this self-destructive cycle. Admins should have respect and be respectful. We need to have effective ways of dealing with admins that get a fat head and abuse their power. We need to diminish the perceived and real chasm that exists between admins and editors.
Rich,
Yes! You are presenting to the condition of the culture. It is interesting, though, that when statements along these lines are made, there is a curious silence that seems to fall over the List regarding them.
Marc
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 2/19/07 1:33 PM, Rich Holton wrote:
We have to stop this self-destructive cycle. Admins should have respect and be respectful. We need to have effective ways of dealing with admins that get a fat head and abuse their power. We need to diminish the perceived and real chasm that exists between admins and editors.
Rich,
Yes! You are presenting to the condition of the culture. It is interesting, though, that when statements along these lines are made, there is a curious silence that seems to fall over the List regarding them.
I've noticed that repeatedly. Not just on this list, but in a lot of things elsewhere that have nothing to do with Wikipedia. It's as though certain kinds of comments that address fundamental issues just go flying over people's heads. It sometimes makes me feel that I know that I've said something good when nobody responds, or they divert the discussion into a trivial subsidiary issue.
One of my favorite Nietzsche quotes is, "There are no Christians alive today; the last one died on the cross." I think that other philosophers have also remarked how disciples change the nature of great ideas into something smaller. Sometimes when even Jimbo starts talking about reliability and reputation I start to wonder whether he has been smoking too much corporate air.
I still like to believe that the situation is salvageable, and that at some point bold Lancelot will come along to cast the Hinayana from the temple.
Ec
On 2/19/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
...
We agree. As it currently stands, adminship *is" a big deal.
Because it is a big deal, it is desired by many. And many people rightly feel proud when they achieve it.
I think this is a bad thing for the project.
If you haven't been following this list recently, I urge you to view the archives and review this thread and the thread on admin burn-out. I think it will help you to understand some of the issues that lie behind some of the recent posts.
I have read that thread. And I concur with the view that we need more admins, but without making the requirements less onerous; that admins need more supporting and less bitching against them (as to encourage more editors to become admins); and that as we interact with editors and spot those that put the project first, we ask them for their agreement to nominate them for adminship.
And I think you're missing the fundamental problem that the current strict criteria creates: the notion that adminship is a big deal.
I believe that the "big deal" about being an admin is primarily a function of the strict requirements, not of the power that adminship gives you. As you did point out, most of the powers are reviewed by the community. These powers could be given to many more people, with much less strict criteria, with resulting in "chaos". Withholding these powers, which are not inherently a "big deal" does cause hard feelings and encourages the elitism (both actual and perceived) of the admin class.
Because adminship has become a "big deal", some of those who become admins do "swagger around". Some of them have a very high profile, and abuse their power. This gives admins a bad image, because the presumption is that most admins act this way. Because adminship is a big deal, we a very reluctant to remove admin powers from an admin. This encourages the view that the abusive, swaggering admins are acceptable. This leads to increased abuse of all admins. Which leads many admins to becoming less caring/more abusive in return. It's a self-reinforcing cycle.
All of this leads to many good, trustworthy contributors having no interest whatsoever in becoming admins. They don't want to subject themselves to the crazy and often humiliating process at RfA. They don't want to incur the abuse that is often heaped upon admins. And some admins will actually say that those people who don't want to go through these trials aren't fit to be admins!
We have to stop this self-destructive cycle. Admins should have respect and be respectful. We need to have effective ways of dealing with admins that get a fat head and abuse their power. We need to diminish the perceived and real chasm that exists between admins and editors.
I believe that one key way to accomplish this is to greatly relax the de-facto requirements for becoming an admin. Part of that will be more effective and more frequently used mechanisms for de-adminning. You can do the latter unless you do the former, because there is a real shortage of admins, and there is currently wailing and gnashing of teeth when any active admin leaves...even when there is general agreement that the admin was borderline abusive.
-Rich
Sounds familiar, except you're missing an important part: it must be easy, also, to lose adminship. In other words, it really must be no big deal, which it currently isn't (no big deal).
And, yes, Marc Riddell is correct, "when statements along these lines are made, there is a curious silence that seems to fall over the List regarding them." And over Wikipedia in general.
KP
K P wrote:
On 2/19/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
...
We agree. As it currently stands, adminship *is" a big deal.
Because it is a big deal, it is desired by many. And many people rightly feel proud when they achieve it.
I think this is a bad thing for the project.
If you haven't been following this list recently, I urge you to view the archives and review this thread and the thread on admin burn-out. I think it will help you to understand some of the issues that lie behind some of the recent posts.
I have read that thread. And I concur with the view that we need more admins, but without making the requirements less onerous; that admins need more supporting and less bitching against them (as to encourage more editors to become admins); and that as we interact with editors and spot those that put the project first, we ask them for their agreement to nominate them for adminship.
And I think you're missing the fundamental problem that the current strict criteria creates: the notion that adminship is a big deal.
I believe that the "big deal" about being an admin is primarily a function of the strict requirements, not of the power that adminship gives you. As you did point out, most of the powers are reviewed by the community. These powers could be given to many more people, with much less strict criteria, with resulting in "chaos". Withholding these powers, which are not inherently a "big deal" does cause hard feelings and encourages the elitism (both actual and perceived) of the admin class.
Because adminship has become a "big deal", some of those who become admins do "swagger around". Some of them have a very high profile, and abuse their power. This gives admins a bad image, because the presumption is that most admins act this way. Because adminship is a big deal, we a very reluctant to remove admin powers from an admin. This encourages the view that the abusive, swaggering admins are acceptable. This leads to increased abuse of all admins. Which leads many admins to becoming less caring/more abusive in return. It's a self-reinforcing cycle.
All of this leads to many good, trustworthy contributors having no interest whatsoever in becoming admins. They don't want to subject themselves to the crazy and often humiliating process at RfA. They don't want to incur the abuse that is often heaped upon admins. And some admins will actually say that those people who don't want to go through these trials aren't fit to be admins!
We have to stop this self-destructive cycle. Admins should have respect and be respectful. We need to have effective ways of dealing with admins that get a fat head and abuse their power. We need to diminish the perceived and real chasm that exists between admins and editors.
I believe that one key way to accomplish this is to greatly relax the de-facto requirements for becoming an admin. Part of that will be more effective and more frequently used mechanisms for de-adminning. You can do the latter unless you do the former, because there is a real shortage of admins, and there is currently wailing and gnashing of teeth when any active admin leaves...even when there is general agreement that the admin was borderline abusive.
-Rich
Sounds familiar, except you're missing an important part: it must be easy, also, to lose adminship. In other words, it really must be no big deal, which it currently isn't (no big deal).
Agreed. If this wasn't clear in my long rant above, it was an omission on my part.
-Rich
On 19/02/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds familiar, except you're missing an important part: it must be easy, also, to lose adminship. In other words, it really must be no big deal, which it currently isn't (no big deal).
This is unlikely to happen - it strikes me there's not a lot of net plus in firing the experienced admins. The cases aren't symmetrical.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 19/02/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds familiar, except you're missing an important part: it must be easy, also, to lose adminship. In other words, it really must be no big deal, which it currently isn't (no big deal).
This is unlikely to happen - it strikes me there's not a lot of net plus in firing the experienced admins. The cases aren't symmetrical.
Right now it takes an ArbCom decision or direct intervention from Jimbo to de-admin someone. This is *very* asymmetric to the RfA process. Perhaps this is why there is the perceived need for the RfA to be so stringent.
If an experienced admin is "swaggering" and abusing power, then that admin is causing an asymmetric amount of damage to the project; not the kind of damage a vandal can cause, but damage none-the-less. We need to have effective and efficient ways to curtail that kind of damage, just like we need effective and efficient ways to curtail the damage a vandal causes.
I do believe the relaxation of de-facto requirements to become an admin needs to come first. But streamlining the process to remove abusive admins is also an important step.
-Rich
On 19/02/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
I do believe the relaxation of de-facto requirements to become an admin needs to come first. But streamlining the process to remove abusive admins is also an important step.
In clear-cut cases of abuse, the AC does its party-stopping impression of a ton of bricks quite efficiently. In cases of unpopularity with vocal mobs, it doesn't. I submit that if you mean the second case needs to be given more weight, that's probably not actually a good idea for getting an encyclopedia written.
- d.
David Gerard wrote:
On 19/02/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
I do believe the relaxation of de-facto requirements to become an admin needs to come first. But streamlining the process to remove abusive admins is also an important step.
In clear-cut cases of abuse, the AC does its party-stopping impression of a ton of bricks quite efficiently. In cases of unpopularity with vocal mobs, it doesn't. I submit that if you mean the second case needs to be given more weight, that's probably not actually a good idea for getting an encyclopedia written.
- d.
That's pretty binary thinking, David. Can you not even imagine the existence of other alternatives?
-Rich
On 19/02/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
David Gerard wrote:
On 19/02/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
I do believe the relaxation of de-facto requirements to become an admin needs to come first. But streamlining the process to remove abusive admins is also an important step.
In clear-cut cases of abuse, the AC does its party-stopping impression of a ton of bricks quite efficiently. In cases of unpopularity with vocal mobs, it doesn't. I submit that if you mean the second case needs to be given more weight, that's probably not actually a good idea for getting an encyclopedia written.
That's pretty binary thinking, David. Can you not even imagine the existence of other alternatives?
I can, I'm specifically asking what *you* meant. That is, please elaborate rather than saying "I dunno, think up what I might have meant."
- d.
On Feb 19, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Rich Holton wrote:
If an experienced admin is "swaggering" and abusing power, then that admin is causing an asymmetric amount of damage to the project; not the kind of damage a vandal can cause, but damage none-the-less. We need to have effective and efficient ways to curtail that kind of damage, just like we need effective and efficient ways to curtail the damage a vandal causes.
Are we editing the same Wikipedia? I have not seen such "swaggering" and "abuse of power" but in exceptional cases.
-- Jossi
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Rich Holton wrote:
If an experienced admin is "swaggering" and abusing power, then that admin is causing an asymmetric amount of damage to the project; not the kind of damage a vandal can cause, but damage none-the-less. We need to have effective and efficient ways to curtail that kind of damage, just like we need effective and efficient ways to curtail the damage a vandal causes.
Are we editing the same Wikipedia? I have not seen such "swaggering" and "abuse of power" but in exceptional cases.
-- Jossi
Without necessarily agreeing with you, I still have to ask: "And your point is...?"
-Rich
On Feb 19, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Rich Holton wrote:
Are we editing the same Wikipedia? I have not seen such "swaggering" and "abuse of power" but in exceptional cases.
-- Jossi
Without necessarily agreeing with you, I still have to ask: "And your point is...?"
My point is that you do not define rules by their exceptions. If there are exceptional cases, then these need to be dealt with separately of the norm. In our case that would be ArbCom stepping-in and desysoping these few admins that abuse power.
-- Jossi
On Feb 19, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Rich Holton wrote:
Are we editing the same Wikipedia? I have not seen such "swaggering" and "abuse of power" but in exceptional cases.
-- Jossi
Without necessarily agreeing with you, I still have to ask: "And your point is...?"
From [[WP:LA]]
There are 1,122 (as of February 19 2007) users with sysop rights (active and otherwise), 814 of them active (as of January 18, 2007).
How many of these admins, in your opinion, would fit in the category of "power abusers", "hostile to editors", etc?
-- Jossi
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Rich Holton wrote:
Are we editing the same Wikipedia? I have not seen such "swaggering" and "abuse of power" but in exceptional cases.
-- Jossi
Without necessarily agreeing with you, I still have to ask: "And your point is...?"
From [[WP:LA]]
There are 1,122 (as of February 19 2007) users with sysop rights (active and otherwise), 814 of them active (as of January 18, 2007).
How many of these admins, in your opinion, would fit in the category of "power abusers", "hostile to editors", etc?
-- Jossi
How many would you consider to be an acceptable number?
-Rich
On 2/19/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Rich Holton wrote:
Are we editing the same Wikipedia? I have not seen such "swaggering" and "abuse of power" but in exceptional cases.
-- Jossi
Without necessarily agreeing with you, I still have to ask: "And your point is...?"
From [[WP:LA]]
There are 1,122 (as of February 19 2007) users with sysop rights (active and otherwise), 814 of them active (as of January 18, 2007).
How many of these admins, in your opinion, would fit in the category of "power abusers", "hostile to editors", etc?
-- Jossi
How many would you consider to be an acceptable number?
-Rich
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Not my question, but I'll offer an answer:
(A) Probably on the order of 100 or so. Including several highly ranked and at least one Arbcom member, from what I've seen recently.
(B) That is 100 too many.
Parker
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 1:43 PM, Rich Holton wrote:
How many would you consider to be an acceptable number?
-Rich
No, Rich. The ball is in *your* court now.
-- Jossi
This isn't a game, Jossi. You asked me my opinion of something that can be proved or disproved (or at least shown to be accurate or inaccurate). I'm not going to go guessing how many might be power abusers or hostile to editors. I'm asking you something very different, that doesn't require any evaluation or guessing as to the current situation. I'm looking specifically for insight into your value system.
How many abusive admins do you consider acceptable?
I will try to find current examples of admin behavior that meet the criteria we're talking about. Will you answer my question, that requires no research on your part?
-Rich
On 19/02/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
How many abusive admins do you consider acceptable?
I think you really need to answer his question first. You're playing sophist here.
- d.
There are 1,122 (as of February 19 2007) users with sysop rights (active and otherwise), 814 of them active (as of January 18, 2007).
How many of these admins, in your opinion, would fit in the category of "power abusers", "hostile to editors", etc?
I don't know if I know 100 of those admins, but I could probably rattle off 10 abusive ones as of that date.
So my projection? Roughly 75-80.
-Jeff
Jeff Raymond wrote:
There are 1,122 (as of February 19 2007) users with sysop rights (active and otherwise), 814 of them active (as of January 18, 2007).
How many of these admins, in your opinion, would fit in the category of "power abusers", "hostile to editors", etc?
I don't know if I know 100 of those admins, but I could probably rattle off 10 abusive ones as of that date.
So my projection? Roughly 75-80.
Gee, it's worse than I thought! I was guessing 5% of the active admins, which would only be 41. But even 41 is too many.
Ec
On Mon, 19 Feb 2007 16:46:58 -0500 (EST), "Jeff Raymond" jeff.raymond@internationalhouseofbacon.com wrote:
I don't know if I know 100 of those admins, but I could probably rattle off 10 abusive ones as of that date.
Name and shame. I'll start the RfC myself. Unless I'm on the list, of course...
Guy (JzG)
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 1:25 PM, Rich Holton wrote:
Are we editing the same Wikipedia? I have not seen such "swaggering" and "abuse of power" but in exceptional cases.
-- Jossi
Without necessarily agreeing with you, I still have to ask: "And your point is...?"
From [[WP:LA]]
There are 1,122 (as of February 19 2007) users with sysop rights (active and otherwise), 814 of them active (as of January 18, 2007).
How many of these admins, in your opinion, would fit in the category of "power abusers", "hostile to editors", etc?
There is little benefit in turniong this into a numbers game. It is enough to say that such admins do exist, and if they really are the exceptional cases their influence is out of all proportion to what it should be.
Ec
On 2/19/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Rich Holton wrote:
If an experienced admin is "swaggering" and abusing power, then that admin is causing an asymmetric amount of damage to the project; not the kind of damage a vandal can cause, but damage none-the-less. We need to have effective and efficient ways to curtail that kind of damage, just like we need effective and efficient ways to curtail the damage a vandal causes.
Are we editing the same Wikipedia? I have not seen such "swaggering" and "abuse of power" but in exceptional cases.
-- Jossi
But earlier you had to discredit me personally and my contribution to Wikipedia in order to support admins, so I have to wonder if you're looking. I do think that most of the administrators on Wikipedia can be supported for the jobs they do, without discrediting casual contributors. But look around, look at user RfC and review some of the admins who have been up there. There is plenty of obvious swaggering.
Wikipedia is huge. There are places on Wikipedia you've probably never imagined. The rampant nationalism on Wikipedia is staggering. And much of it is supported by entrenched pet administrators. Although this is slowly working itself out in certain areas, for one FAR is taking some of these pages down, and others may be held up by a stricter FAC.
There are also a lot of administrators who go above and beyond the call of duty, like one poor guy who stepped in to edit an article posted for deletion, got his solid edits reverted, got personally attacked by article's owners and his 8 sock puppets, then recruited other editors to fix the article while being attacked by these idiot socks!
But he's not the problem. The problem and issue is the overall damage to Wikipedia by the presence of administrators who do abuse their power, and is the system broke, and can it be fixed if it is?
If there is a problem, denying it doesn't address it any better than attacking the messenger. Particularly when a large part of the problem is the denial of a problem, and an entrenched culture that prevents reviews and solutions to the problem.
KP
On Feb 19, 2007, at 1:43 PM, K P wrote:
Particularly when a large part of the problem is the denial of a problem, and an entrenched culture that prevents reviews and solutions to the problem.
That is, of course, your assessment and not a fact.
You speak of "entrenched culture". I speak of a culture that has produced the most amazing results in the history of on-line collaboration. I am proud to be have had the opportunity to be part of it, btw.
You speak of "denial of a problem". I speak of certain perceptions that may have been based on exceptional cases.
-- Jossi
On 2/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 2/19/07 4:50 PM, Jossi Fresco at jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
I speak of a culture that has produced the most amazing results in the history of on-line collaboration.
Is the same culture that began WP the same one in place today?
Marc
"No."
Parker
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 2/19/07 4:50 PM, Jossi Fresco at jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
I speak of a culture that has produced the most amazing results in the history of on-line collaboration.
Is the same culture that began WP the same one in place today?
Marc
Marc,
Just a sample of one, to give you some idea.
Here's the page for my RfA (Request for adminship):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Rholton
Compare that to any of the current or recent RfA's.
I'm pretty sure that, should I apply (especially self-nominate) for adminship now, I would be turned down on the basis on not enough contributions to policy discussions, or for "not needing" the tools (although, I have in just the last few days, taken some time to deal with the incoming new pages, deleting those that are obvious speedy's).
-Rich
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 2/19/07 4:50 PM, Jossi Fresco at jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
I speak of a culture that has produced the most amazing results in the history of on-line collaboration.
Is the same culture that began WP the same one in place today?
I just crossed my four-year anniversary, and while I can't speak to the beginning, the culture hasn't really changed much in my time here. The biggest change for me is the larger scale; once upon a time I "knew" most of the admins and active editors, in the sense that I had read their work and had some sense of who they were. Now I can see a mention of somebody, wonder "who is that?", and see a history of 20K+ edits in areas I didn't even know existed. So I think the culture could change simply by different groups, unaware of each other, devolving into disparate subcultures.
The webcomics thing is a case in point. From my "old-school" POV :-) , I tend to regard webcomics as intrinsically non-notable, and yet there is another part of the WP community that is intensely focussed on writing about webcomics, defining inclusion criteria, etc. On the flip side, though, when I look at how they actually go about their work, it seems very much like things we did on the early days of the ships project, back in 2003. So I think that as long as we have some ongoing cross-pollination between different specializations, that we can keep things from splintering too much.
Stan
On 2/19/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
The webcomics thing is a case in point. From my "old-school" POV :-) , I tend to regard webcomics as intrinsically non-notable,
Just curious, Have you ever closed an AFD on a webcomic? Considering your "old school POV" in the subject, could you be impartial judging consensus? The same question could be asked the "webcomic inclusionists".
Ron Ritzman wrote:
On 2/19/07, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
The webcomics thing is a case in point. From my "old-school" POV :-) , I tend to regard webcomics as intrinsically non-notable,
Just curious, Have you ever closed an AFD on a webcomic? Considering your "old school POV" in the subject, could you be impartial judging consensus? The same question could be asked the "webcomic inclusionists".
Nope, I've stayed away from webcomics stuff. I'm one of those quiet admins :-) , just do some image cleanup and the occasional vandal spanking, not least because I have a huge backlog of my own photos to upload!
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 2/19/07 4:50 PM, Jossi Fresco at jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
I speak of a culture that has produced the most amazing results in the history of on-line collaboration.
Is the same culture that began WP the same one in place today?
I just crossed my four-year anniversary, and while I can't speak to the beginning, the culture hasn't really changed much in my time here.
I thought you were here longer than that. I think the culture has changed. The Seigenthaler incident was a big turning point in that. After that the rule bound control freaks seem to have become more dominant. We had to respond to Seigenthaler, but in the process we ended up with a lot of unnecesarily restrictive procedures.
The biggest change for me is the larger scale; once upon a time I "knew" most of the admins and active editors, in the sense that I had read their work and had some sense of who they were. Now I can see a mention of somebody, wonder "who is that?", and see a history of 20K+ edits in areas I didn't even know existed. So I think the culture could change simply by different groups, unaware of each other, devolving into disparate subcultures.
Yes, I can even remember trying to predict when we would reach 100K articles. Some of the creative energy can still be there in some WikiProjects.
The webcomics thing is a case in point. From my "old-school" POV :-) , I tend to regard webcomics as intrinsically non-notable, and yet there is another part of the WP community that is intensely focussed on writing about webcomics, defining inclusion criteria, etc. On the flip side, though, when I look at how they actually go about their work, it seems very much like things we did on the early days of the ships project, back in 2003. So I think that as long as we have some ongoing cross-pollination between different specializations, that we can keep things from splintering too much.
I can take or leave webcomics, but it's still interesting to see how some of them regard Wikipedia.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 2/19/07 4:50 PM, Jossi Fresco at jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
I speak of a culture that has produced the most amazing results in the history of on-line collaboration.
Is the same culture that began WP the same one in place today?
I just crossed my four-year anniversary, and while I can't speak to the beginning, the culture hasn't really changed much in my time here.
I thought you were here longer than that. I think the culture has changed. The Seigenthaler incident was a big turning point in that. After that the rule bound control freaks seem to have become more dominant. We had to respond to Seigenthaler, but in the process we ended up with a lot of unnecesarily restrictive procedures.
That's a good point. I guess I saw it as more of a course correction than a cultural change; people were citing sources before, but if they didn't, there was less of a willingness to challenge the unsourced material. Certainly there are more process freaks today, but there are more editors of all kinds - has the percentage of process freaks gone up? I don't have any sense about that.
Another thing I wonder about is the extent to which the procedures have actually changed the culture. Article life cycle seems pretty much the same, editor interactions seem mostly the same, the mix of editor types and personalities seems the same. Lots of content is being added with nary an edit war or rouge admin dispute; I find myself missing good new material all the time, because it goes unnoticed in the RC flood, while DYK is just a small fraction of what's coming in.
Stan
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net writes:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 2/19/07 4:50 PM, Jossi Fresco at jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
I speak of a culture that has produced the most amazing results in the history of on-line collaboration.
Is the same culture that began WP the same one in place today?
I just crossed my four-year anniversary, and while I can't speak to the beginning, the culture hasn't really changed much in my time here.
I thought you were here longer than that. I think the culture has changed. The Seigenthaler incident was a big turning point in that. After that the rule bound control freaks seem to have become more dominant. We had to respond to Seigenthaler, but in the process we ended up with a lot of unnecesarily restrictive procedures.
....
Definitely agreed. We can't even sensibly discuss restoring anon page creation, despite the utter lack of evidence either way that it worked.
On 2/20/07, Gwern Branwen gwern0@gmail.com wrote:
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net writes:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 2/19/07 4:50 PM, Jossi Fresco at jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
I speak of a culture that has produced the most amazing results in the history of on-line collaboration.
Is the same culture that began WP the same one in place today?
I just crossed my four-year anniversary, and while I can't speak to the beginning, the culture hasn't really changed much in my time here.
I thought you were here longer than that. I think the culture has changed. The Seigenthaler incident was a big turning point in that. After that the rule bound control freaks seem to have become more dominant. We had to respond to Seigenthaler, but in the process we ended up with a lot of unnecesarily restrictive procedures.
....
Definitely agreed. We can't even sensibly discuss restoring anon page creation, despite the utter lack of evidence either way that it worked.
-- Gwern Inquiring minds want to know.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I think that with a working patrolling/article review/stable versioning system, it might be okay. The talk was that when patrolling/article review/stable versioning was added to the software, that anon page creation might be enabled.
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 1:43 PM, K P wrote:
Particularly when a large part of the problem is the denial of a problem, and an entrenched culture that prevents reviews and solutions to the problem.
That is, of course, your assessment and not a fact.
You speak of "entrenched culture". I speak of a culture that has produced the most amazing results in the history of on-line collaboration. I am proud to be have had the opportunity to be part of it, btw.
Boosterism aside, how has the RfA culture produced amazing results?
Ec
on 2/19/07 4:43 PM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
If there is a problem, denying it doesn't address it any better than attacking the messenger.
Or simply ignoring him.
Particularly when a large part of the problem is the denial of a problem,
Your are seeing that in action right now!
and an entrenched culture that prevents reviews and solutions to the problem.
Don't fix it - if it works for you.
Marc
On 2/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 2/19/07 4:43 PM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
If there is a problem, denying it doesn't address it any better than attacking the messenger.
Or simply ignoring him.
Particularly when a large part of the problem is the denial of a problem,
Your are seeing that in action right now!
and an entrenched culture that prevents reviews and solutions to the problem.
Don't fix it - if it works for you.
Marc
Deserving of an Austin Powers quote if ever there was an e-mail to earn one. KP
On 2/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 2/19/07 4:43 PM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
If there is a problem, denying it doesn't address it any better than attacking the messenger.
Or simply ignoring him.
Particularly when a large part of the problem is the denial of a problem,
Your are seeing that in action right now!
and an entrenched culture that prevents reviews and solutions to the problem.
Don't fix it - if it works for you.
Marc
Your post was too subtle, it appears.
KP
On 2/19/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
on 2/19/07 4:43 PM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
If there is a problem, denying it doesn't address it any better than attacking the messenger.
Or simply ignoring him.
Particularly when a large part of the problem is the denial of a problem,
Your are seeing that in action right now!
and an entrenched culture that prevents reviews and solutions to the problem.
Don't fix it - if it works for you.
Marc
on 2/19/07 7:01 PM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Your post was too subtle, it appears.
KP
KP,
In Karate there are 32 Vital Points on the human body. Some, when struck, can take as long a 10 days for the desired effect to occur ;-).
Keep the faith,
Marc
On 2/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
In Karate there are 32 Vital Points on the human body. Some, when struck, can take as long a 10 days for the desired effect to occur ;-).
The evidence suggests this is not the case. No one has managed to demostraight such abilities under controled conditions and Karate with it's pure strikeing style tends to get taken appart by say BJJ or judo. While there are exceptions the fighters in MMA contests such as PRIDE ot UFC tend to rely on Muay Thai as their primary source of stikeing skills rather than Karate.
On 2/19/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
In Karate there are 32 Vital Points on the human body. Some, when
struck,
can take as long a 10 days for the desired effect to occur ;-).
The evidence suggests this is not the case. No one has managed to demostraight such abilities under controled conditions and Karate with it's pure strikeing style tends to get taken appart by say BJJ or judo. While there are exceptions the fighters in MMA contests such as PRIDE ot UFC tend to rely on Muay Thai as their primary source of stikeing skills rather than Karate.
-- geni
No, you're both wrong, it's all in the wrists. No, wait, maybe it's all in the breathing. KP
on 2/19/07 8:51 PM, geni at geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
In Karate there are 32 Vital Points on the human body. Some, when struck, can take as long a 10 days for the desired effect to occur ;-).
The evidence suggests this is not the case. No one has managed to demostraight such abilities under controled conditions and Karate with it's pure strikeing style tends to get taken appart by say BJJ or judo. While there are exceptions the fighters in MMA contests such as PRIDE ot UFC tend to rely on Muay Thai as their primary source of stikeing skills rather than Karate.
geni,
==Sources== * http://www.ao-denkou-kai.org/leo_training.htm
Are you wanting to revert my edit? :-)
Marc
On 2/20/07, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86@comcast.net wrote:
geni,
==Sources==
Are you wanting to revert my edit? :-)
Marc
I was involved in the [[Ashida Kim]] deletion debate. I fear not your [[bullshido]].
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Rich Holton wrote:
If an experienced admin is "swaggering" and abusing power, then that admin is causing an asymmetric amount of damage to the project; not the kind of damage a vandal can cause, but damage none-the-less. We need to have effective and efficient ways to curtail that kind of damage, just like we need effective and efficient ways to curtail the damage a vandal causes.
Are we editing the same Wikipedia? I have not seen such "swaggering" and "abuse of power" but in exceptional cases.
If that's the case why are the exceptional cases dominating the conversation? Are the admins so powerless that they can't control their renegades?
Ec
On Feb 19, 2007, at 3:10 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
If that's the case why are the exceptional cases dominating the conversation? Are the admins so powerless that they can't control their renegades?
These admins are as much as *your* renegades as they are mine (if you feel part of this project, that is).
That is the problem, Ray. You keep asserting and re-asserting a chasm that may only exist in your perception.
-- Jossi
On 2/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 11:58 AM, Rich Holton wrote:
If an experienced admin is "swaggering" and abusing power, then that admin is causing an asymmetric amount of damage to the project; not the kind of damage a vandal can cause, but damage none-the-less. We need to have effective and efficient ways to curtail that kind of damage, just like we need effective and efficient ways to curtail the damage a vandal causes.
Are we editing the same Wikipedia? I have not seen such "swaggering" and "abuse of power" but in exceptional cases.
If that's the case why are the exceptional cases dominating the conversation? Are the admins so powerless that they can't control their renegades?
Ec
No! They're not so powerless. However, it's strongly to their disadvantage to do anything to control their renegades. Because .... adminship is such a damned big deal, no one who ever got it would ever risk losing it, and anyone losing it, increases the chances of scrutiny in too many ways on others who hold the power--any time any administrator loses the tools, editors notice they're not infallible, editors may question other administrators.
Adminship is not in practice what it was intended, I think, to be. I don't think it was intended to be a big deal. I don't think it was intended to be a position of power so much as an additional set of duties that certain dedicated users could control. But I think it warped into a big deal power play. And human beings have shown through history that they will do anything, up to and including destroying their own power base/country/mission to keep their personal power.
They're not so powerless that they can't control them, they're so powerful that they won't control them for fear of their own power being curtailed.
Also there's no purpose in discussing the non-exceptional cases. There are plenty of administrators who do a great job. Plenty of editors, too, who crawl around on the fringes doing a great job with articles--hopefully someone gives them a barnstar. This is the best part of Wikipedia: the anybodies who are doing great work. But I don't think Wikipedia overall is maintaining a welcoming atmosphere for the potentially huge variety of people needed to reach its ultimate goal, and part of the problem is, imo, the insufferable poweropoly of adminship. It's designed to not foster self-reflection.
KP
David Gerard wrote:
On 19/02/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds familiar, except you're missing an important part: it must be easy, also, to lose adminship. In other words, it really must be no big deal, which it currently isn't (no big deal).
This is unlikely to happen - it strikes me there's not a lot of net plus in firing the experienced admins. The cases aren't symmetrical.
Nobody is promoting a wholesale purge of admins. Because of their leadership position they should be held to a higher standard than ordinary editors, and when applicable de-adminship should come swiftly and in no uncertain terms. It could be appealed to Arbcom, but for any reasonable case it should be kept off until the appeal is resolved.
Ec
On 20/02/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Nobody is promoting a wholesale purge of admins.
It's entirely unclear what is being advocated. I'm seeing long invective-filled posts that tell me to go look for examples to support the ranters' positions myself, but no actual case examples. And let me remind you I'm one of the ones who thinks RFA is utterly broken and we probably need about twice as many admins.
Because of their leadership position they should be held to a higher standard than ordinary editors, and when applicable de-adminship should come swiftly and in no uncertain terms. It could be appealed to Arbcom, but for any reasonable case it should be kept off until the appeal is resolved.
Indeed. Now please give me some solid criteria, with actual case examples where you think someone should indeed have been de-adminned swiftly and also cases where you think they shouldn't. So we're all on the same page here.
- d.
On 2/20/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
It's entirely unclear what is being advocated. I'm seeing long invective-filled posts that tell me to go look for examples to support the ranters' positions myself, but no actual case examples. And let me remind you I'm one of the ones who thinks RFA is utterly broken and we probably need about twice as many admins.
The numbers I've seen suggest otherwise. Assumeing the number of hyperactives amoungst the new crop stays constant the increase needed is probably going to be closer to 50%. This converstation has been short on stats. Lets have some:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dragons_flight/deleterlist
Gurch was running a bot which messes the figures slightly but I think it is safe to say that ~45 admins handle ~50% of the deletions
In the top ten of those figures we appear to have lost 3.
Your 100% increase figure is more in line with this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Actionsperadmin.png
Which appears to show ~100% increase in actions per admins although with various bulk deletion and semi automation tools I don't think a 100% increase in admin power is required.
I can't prove it but going by those figures I suspect we have between 150 and 200 hyperactives who do most of the admin tasks (probably towards the 150 end)
Juding by the backlogs and the burnouts I'd tend towards the position that the hyperactives are maxed out. The upshot of this is that unless we can find more hyperactives or get more of the long tail to join the hyperactives we are going to have problems.
Lowering the standards on RFA is meaningless unless you can show we will get more hyper actives rather than more paper admins.
Increaseing the activity level of the long tail is the other option but no one appears to have any ideas on how to do this (ok we could try to start admin action countitis but people tend to object to that suggestion.
geni wrote:
Juding by the backlogs and the burnouts I'd tend towards the position that the hyperactives are maxed out. The upshot of this is that unless we can find more hyperactives or get more of the long tail to join the hyperactives we are going to have problems.
Lowering the standards on RFA is meaningless unless you can show we will get more hyper actives rather than more paper admins.
Increaseing the activity level of the long tail is the other option but no one appears to have any ideas on how to do this (ok we could try to start admin action countitis but people tend to object to that suggestion.
I would tend to look toward the long tails, and more of the "quiet admin" as Stan describes himself. I'm sure that many good admins just don't want to get involved in the constant haggling that goes on. Some might quietly go ahead and work on cleaning up non-contentious backlog, but they aren't even going to try to become admins in the current scheme of things.
Ec
David Gerard wrote:
On 20/02/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Nobody is promoting a wholesale purge of admins.
It's entirely unclear what is being advocated. I'm seeing long invective-filled posts that tell me to go look for examples to support the ranters' positions myself, but no actual case examples. And let me remind you I'm one of the ones who thinks RFA is utterly broken and we probably need about twice as many admins.
Fair enough. My focus is on how we add new admins, and that should have priority at this time over what we do with the problem children. We probably agree on that. I don't think that getting into actual case examples which name names about who should be desysopped would be helpful. It would likely only result in a debate about the named individuals.
Because of their leadership position they should be held to a higher standard than ordinary editors, and when applicable de-adminship should come swiftly and in no uncertain terms. It could be appealed to Arbcom, but for any reasonable case it should be kept off until the appeal is resolved.
Indeed. Now please give me some solid criteria, with actual case examples where you think someone should indeed have been de-adminned swiftly and also cases where you think they shouldn't. So we're all on the same page here.
I would much prefer dealing with criteria. When Jossi referred to it WP:ANI I went there to see what was happenning I was disgusted by that whole process; there were some possible candidates for de-adminning there, but I would certainly want to read things there in more detail before making specific recommendations.
Admins should know better. If they had to know the rules before being promoted they should not so easily forget them when they break them. On that basis alone they should not need the repeated warnings that might be given to newbies.
Admins should not impose blocks arbitrarily longer than what it provided for the penalty in question. An admin who does that should be blocked for as long as the excess he imposes. No block in excess of 24 hours is an emergency
Admins should not engage in persistently abusive action and name-calling.
Unless there is an emergency admins should give appropriate warning before taking drastic actions.
Admins should be respectful of all others, especially newbies.
There are other possibilities, but I think that it's more that admins know that when they behave badly there are people there willing to take swift but fair action. If something like that were in force, I would be willing to disregard anything that happened before it came into force.
Ec
Rich Holton wrote:
I don't think it does anyone any good to minimize the real differences that exist. As an admin, I can view any deleted article any time I want with no permission, implicit or explicit, and no community review. This is a big deal to some non-admins, and there are presumed legal reasons for keeping this distinction. Just telling people to self-nominate for the current, restrictive RfA is not a viable solution to people who may have good reason to view those deleted articles. This is just one example.
One way in which I would have found this useful when I was more active in Wiktionary would have been to review the history of articles that were transwikied. Such a use would have been entirely passive in that it would involve no change to the Wikipedia database. Needing to be dragged into the usual battles over deletion, blocking, etc. would be too high a price for such a privilege.
Ec
Rich Holton wrote:
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Feb 18, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
The general solution that was suggested was to loosen up the extreme restrictions on becoming a sysop.
That is not a solution, Ray. That is the act of opening the proverbial can of worms. Think of the consequences.
What consequences, Jossi? If "editors can do as much as an admin besides deleting an article and closing AfDs", then what possible consequences would there be in having many more admins?
The reality is that there are significant differences (far more than you suggested) between admins and non-admins. Deleting, viewing, and restoring articles, blocking and unblocking users, protecting and unprotecting articles...those pop to mind quickly.
But even in that reality, the vague imperative to "think of the consequences" is not helpful. If you believe there would be significant consequences, please tell us about them.
Or as the editor of a dead-tree encyclopedia might say, "Think of the consequences of letting just anybody edit."
Ec
On 2/19/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Rich Holton wrote:
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Feb 18, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
The general solution that was suggested was to loosen up the extreme restrictions on becoming a sysop.
That is not a solution, Ray. That is the act of opening the proverbial can of worms. Think of the consequences.
What consequences, Jossi? If "editors can do as much as an admin besides deleting an article and closing AfDs", then what possible consequences would there be in having many more admins?
The reality is that there are significant differences (far more than you suggested) between admins and non-admins. Deleting, viewing, and restoring articles, blocking and unblocking users, protecting and unprotecting articles...those pop to mind quickly.
But even in that reality, the vague imperative to "think of the consequences" is not helpful. If you believe there would be significant consequences, please tell us about them.
Or as the editor of a dead-tree encyclopedia might say, "Think of the consequences of letting just anybody edit."
Ec
The consequences that we should most consider, imo, are the consequences of losing anybody because our adminship is so poorly thought out and so hostile to the individual who doesn't live in cyberspace, both by creating a position of privilege unavailable to these editors, adminship, and by creating an exclusive group on Wikipedia that is oftentimes overtly hostile to these part-time editors. It was possible, just because of this atmosphere, to totally dismiss the possibility on this thread that I, as one of these outsiders, could even make a contribution to Wikipedia. I do volunteer charity work, in addition to spending time with family, job and passion--no successful charitable organization that relies upon volunteers should ever discredit people who have only a few hours to give.
What's great in Wikipedia is due to the huge variety of anybodies, not the small exclusive group of admins, and creating a body of administrators who are so incredibly like-minded, which is what the current RfA process and the big deal about adminship create, is not conducive in the long run to making Wikipedia a place where anybody can edit.
And the consequences of letting anybody edit are becoming clearer over time. Here is one of anybody's edit:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sei_Whale
Don't forget to compare Britannica's article on the same subject.
KP
On Feb 19, 2007, at 12:52 PM, K P wrote:
What's great in Wikipedia is due to the huge variety of anybodies, not the small exclusive group of admins, and creating a body of administrators who are so incredibly like-minded, which is what the current RfA process and the big deal about adminship create, is not conducive in the long run to making Wikipedia a place where anybody can edit.
I am really not following... Can you please elaborate on the contradiction you see between having a body of administrators and having an encyclopedia that anyone can edit?
Can you give concrete examples of admins being "overtly hostile to part-time editors"? And if you can produce such examples, are these the exception, or the rule?
-- Jossi
On 19/02/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
Can you give concrete examples of admins being "overtly hostile to part-time editors"? And if you can produce such examples, are these the exception, or the rule?
Indeed. List any such cases (that's the put-up-or-shut-up bit) and see if these can be dealt with by less than apocalyptic means first (that's the assume good faith in the admins as well bit).
There's a lot of unspecified accusations in this thread and very little in the way of concrete examples at all.
- d.
On 2/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/02/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
Can you give concrete examples of admins being "overtly hostile to part-time editors"? And if you can produce such examples, are these the exception, or the rule?
Indeed. List any such cases (that's the put-up-or-shut-up bit) and see if these can be dealt with by less than apocalyptic means first (that's the assume good faith in the admins as well bit).
There's a lot of unspecified accusations in this thread and very little in the way of concrete examples at all.
- d.
There are plenty of examples all over Wikipedia where admin abuse are reported, admin user RfC is an excellent example, but so is ArbCom. Unspecified accusations? What specifically is unspecified? You're stating that admins are perfect, the admin system is perfect?
I've had some incredibly ridiculous stuff said to me by Wikipedia editors and supported by admins, before I saw this situation. Part-time editors readily see it, and others who aren't won't ever see it, because they're not looking for it, or they're trying damned hard not to see it. If you want to look for particular instances to specifically discredit me, my user name is KP Botany, so feel free to peruse my edit history.
But an excellent example is that when a new or part-time editor has an issue they are required to use policy to resolve the issue, when a regular or long term editor has an issue that might require administrator intervention they feel free to gather up their friendly neighborhood administrator to take care of the matter. Look at administrator talk pages anywhere on Wikipedia and see that inspite of there being places to request page protection, vandalism, 3rr, administrators are routinely requested to do this on their talk pages. This is an unwritten rule of Wikipedia never shared with newcomers: don't bother with policy, schmooze (hope that ain't Yiddish) an admin to address any issues that you run up against.
Anything but discuss the issue, or even consider that administratorship of the elite might not be ideal for an encyclopedia with Wikipedia's aspirations: deny it, attack the accuser, ignore it. But it could never be a problem with admins on Wikipedia, could it? Run, run, run, run away from that idea.
I think a really good example, though, is the douche-bag incident, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/InShaneee And probably exactly what you are seeking, any personal beefs I may have with administrators. I don't, however, think InShaneee or Khoikhoi are that important but simply symptoms of a larger issue. And I don't think devoting time to specific issues, which is what Wikipedia RfC and ArbCom are set up for, addresses the issue, which is what this mailing list should be addressing, instead of doing anything but address the issue.
Current RfCs:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Tr%C3%B6del
Although I haven't looked it or the others over. Multiple accusations of administrator abuse all of the time on AN/I, many bogus, but some solid reports.
I think that if you don't see any swaggering by administrators, or any abuse of powers by administrators, you're trying hard not to look at it.
AN/I:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:an/i
One of the complaints that I notice is when administrators protect pages in which they are involved in edit disputes, or block users they are having issues with.
I'm not looking for it in particular, but I am very concerned about administrator abuse--it detracts highly from what I think Wikipedia should be: and encyclopedia anybody can edit. I've found my comfort zone on Wikipedia: uber aggressive--it keeps the bullies out of my face. But it makes visits to Wikipedia uncomfortable.
Administrators are complained about all the time all over Wikipedia. If you're not seeing it, you're making certain you aren't.
KP
On 19/02/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Administrators are complained about all the time all over Wikipedia. If you're not seeing it, you're making certain you aren't.
I see many complaints; how many of these are actually reasonably substantiable is an entirely different question. Please give examples of complaints you consider reasonable complaints and those you don't, so I have some idea of your sensitivity level.
- d.
On 2/19/07, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/02/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Administrators are complained about all the time all over Wikipedia. If you're not seeing it, you're making certain you aren't.
I see many complaints; how many of these are actually reasonably substantiable is an entirely different question. Please give examples of complaints you consider reasonable complaints and those you don't, so I have some idea of your sensitivity level.
- d.
I think an administrator calling an editor a douche is a legitimate complaint, the level of complaint, and the level of behaviour on the part of an administrator that should have been a call to action by other administrators--if it's the sort of action that could get an ordinary editor permanently banned without ruffling many feathers at Wikipedia, and it is done by an administrator, then it is actually reasonable, imo. However, in this matter, until the administrator turned on me, I did think that most of this administrator's questionable actions were simply due to his being willing to tackle too many of the tough, long-entrenched battles of various love-matched-in-hell editor pairs. I had to rethink this, though, once I became the target. This administrator flouts Wikipedia policy in favor of his own arbitrary actions designed primarily to enflame editors he disagrees with, the policy, blocking, the flouting, ignoring Wipedia's procedures for requesting unblocks, the enflamed, using e-mailed unblock requests to attack and mock the editor requesting an unblock--all the sort of activity that shouldn't be a surprise coming from an administrator with the power to call another editor a douche without consequences. But, again, I spent time looking around Wikipedia, following AN/I, and seeing these issues come up again and again, an administrator acts in a manner that would get an editor banned, and nothing is done.
What concerns me is the underlying issue, that I believe this occurs because being an administrator is such a damned big deal, such a huge big deal, that no one could ever risk losing it, meaning they have to, at all costs, even to the detriment of Wikipedia, see that pretty much no one ever loses it.
I do realize, particularly after viewing the cesspool of Wikipedia from the inside, that most of the complaints against administrators on the AN/I are probably unfounded, but not all of them are, and there are legitimate concerns raised there all of the time.
Let me know when you figure out which quote.
KP
On 2/19/07, Jossi Fresco jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
On Feb 19, 2007, at 2:38 PM, K P wrote:
I do realize, particularly after viewing the cesspool of Wikipedia from the inside
Sorry, but I also have my own dignity and comfort level.
I do not have to respond to people that believe that Wikipedia is a cesspool.
-- Jossi
Yawn. This is part of what administrators do, they look at the cesspool of new articles, speedy deletes, and utter vanity uploads, to make sure that Wikipedia itself isn't one. Someone on this list suggested I look at this once, to gain an appreciation for the type of crap that Wikipedia administrators are willing to wade through. It had its intended impact: it made me see how incredibly valuable it is to have a group of people willing to spend hours a day on this.
You're not serving administrators to their advantage with desperate attempts like this. People who really do understand Wikipedia and value it, don't need to denegrate editors who contribute only part-time, in order to support administrators, because they can, instead, show what administrators do of value. It's really only those who don't know what administrators or understand the benefits of all the anybodies that are at such a complete loss for showing any positive examples of administrators, that feel personally threatened and resort to personal attacks when anyone challenges the very idea that administrators are superhuman.
KP
Jossi Fresco wrote:
On Feb 18, 2007, at 11:43 PM, Ray Saintonge wrote:
The general solution that was suggested was to loosen up the extreme restrictions on becoming a sysop.
That is not a solution, Ray. That is the act of opening the proverbial can of worms. Think of the consequences.
What's amazing about this comment, sent at 8:09 (PST), is that in a message sent at 8:07 (two minutes earlier) you took me to task when you said:
Of course, there are perception such as yours. But these are perceptions, and not facts.
With your new message you not only spurn facts for perceptions, but invite us to take it further into the realm of speculation. This is a very fast conversion from belief in facts to belief in perceptions. ;-)
Ec
On Feb 18, 2007, at 3:39 PM, Marc Riddell wrote:
or is it an elitist workspace for an elitist group of people who live in cyberspace?
Jossi,
Please check the entire post; I did not write this.
Marc Riddell
on 2/18/07 11:39 PM, Jossi Fresco at jossifresco@mac.com wrote:
A common complaint by these that have much to say but show little interest in contributing of their valuable free time to keep Wikipedia ticking.
Administrators perform an admirable job and a thankless one, by the look if it.
-- Jossi
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
on 2/18/07 5:08 PM, K P at kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
And, this, to me, is the biggest problems with admins on Wikipedia, it is a BIG deal, it's such a big deal, that no one who has ever attained it should ever have it removed--according to the lucky few who've managed to convince their peers that they're just like them. Adminship is given by people who spend most of their time on the web to others just like them, outsiders need never apply. So, is Wikipedia a general encyclopedia that anyone can edit (the best idea of its time), or is it a private club for people who spend all their time editing Wikipedia? It's the latter, now, and that will always be the entrenched ownership of Wikipedia: a small group of like-minded people who spend a lot of time online, people who, realistically, cannot be the experts or best editors for the bulk of general Wikipedia articles, because they don't go to libraries, they only use online resources, they don't know how to access resources not found in cyberspace, which is not currently the depository of all knowledge.
There is no willingness or ability to de-admin someone because in order to jump through all the necessary hoops, one has to be one of the editors who is like the ownership cabal: living in cyberspace, and these people would never risk their own future chance to join the exaulted ranks just to take down an administrator who does things that could get a regular editor permanently banned from Wikipedia.
Adminship on Wikipedia is too special, too elitist, too permanent--have the right number of edits and move directly to tenure, do whatever you want afterwards. Editors know how to admin shop--if you have a certain bias and want an article to stay with your bias, there's just the perfect admin to take it to, instead of requests for protection, if you are one of the many Wikipedia editors with nationalistic agendas, you can admin-shop to make sure your agenda is well-represented.
If it's really no big deal, it shouldn't be handed out like it is a big deal, with the knowledge that it's permanent, that you've achieved status, that you can do whatever you want, that you can now protect the pages you want to make certain that your POV is locked in.
I think that people underestimate the real damage being done to Wikipedia by the way admins are chosen, given absolute power, made an elite class, and given tenure the instant they pick up the tools. Yet, essentially there is no way to desysop a bad administrator at Wikipedia, because being an admin at Wikipedia IS a very big deal. The RfA process is a big deal, your status at Wikipedia when given admin tools is a big deal, your ability to keep that power no matter that you do things that would get an ordinary editor, the common, banned, is a big deal, and your ability to manipulate Wikipedia to suit your agenda is a big deal.
Ec is correct, there is no consensus, besides that which the ownership of Wikipedia by the cyber-living has already established. At some point, imo, it has to be decided, is Wikipedia a general online encyclopedia that anybody can edit, or is it an elitist workspace for an elitist group of people who live in cyberspace? Because this latter group is none too fond of the anybodies of the world.
KP
HELLO OUT THERE! THIS IS THE POST I was presenting to originally. It has to do with attitudes - not who's doing what, or how many there are to do it. It presents to how people are regarded and subsequently treated. It presents to the very culture of WP itself. You can try to fiddle with the edges and stick chewing gum in the cracks of the problems, but until the state of the very culture itself is seriously dealt with it's going to rupture.
Marc Riddell
Keitei wrote:
With all this hubbub about admins and making more admins with no criteria and why shouldn't we just bump everyone up a level! and all that jazz, I think it is high time we evaluate what admins need to be or do to be successful. Then from there, in my opinion, we can lower the bar, leave things as they are, or continue to pursue this everyone's an admin!!! deal. (Sorry if I've inserted my POV too much into the preceding paragraph)
So. This is how I see it.
Admins must: be neutral, above all else. when they block when they protect when they delete recuse when they are unable to be neutral have the understanding of policy to know when it is objectively okay to block/protect/delete be able to judge consensus not be a timebomb
Therefore, admin candidates must: demonstrate they can participate in discussions in which they have no personal invested interest, with positive effect to those who do have personal invested interest demonstrate they know the difference between their opinion, consensus, and the Truth (which doesn't exist on wiki) demonstrate they recognize their own bias and will refuse to act upon it
To be honest, I have no idea how they would demonstrate this. But perhaps if we switched to a system of vouching, whereby different people would say "I have worked with this user and they have always been neutral in disputes and blahblahblah." like the nomination, except more of them. And no edit counts and no FAs and no namespace distribution. If one is cautious enough to always work within policy, one will always check unknown policies before doing anything one has never done before. And then perhaps once the candidate has enough people vouching for them, they're promoted.
Or maybe something completely different. But in my opinion, adminship is not edit counts and vandal fighting; it's dealing with things as a neutral agent of the 'pedia. Well, at least when one has one's admin hat on.
--keitei
Sorry, but I have to disagree. The only real criteria I can figure is that we want to avoid admins who go completely zonkers and start systematically working against the aims of Wikipedia. If we can be reasonably sure someone won't do that, then there's no reason to keep them from becoming an admin.
Of course, we need to be willing (and able) to de-admin someone when they consistently demonstrate the sort of behaviors you mention (or worse). But the whole wiki concept is one of self healing and resilience, not pre-approval. What we don't want to have is a class of users (admins) who are placed into the spotlight every time they make a mistake, or every time one of them turns out to be less than desirable.
I respect the concerns of those who want to avoid granting large blocks of admin rights to what end up as sock-puppets intent on destruction. Perhaps we do need a sizable class of users whose sole role is granting and revoking admin rights--but these users should not be themselves admins. These people should be very carefully selected, and should for the most part stay out of controversy.
-Rich
On Feb 15, 2007, at 13:10, Rich Holton wrote:
Sorry, but I have to disagree. The only real criteria I can figure is that we want to avoid admins who go completely zonkers and start systematically working against the aims of Wikipedia. If we can be reasonably sure someone won't do that, then there's no reason to keep them from becoming an admin.
Of course, we need to be willing (and able) to de-admin someone when they consistently demonstrate the sort of behaviors you mention (or worse). But the whole wiki concept is one of self healing and resilience, not pre-approval. What we don't want to have is a class of users (admins) who are placed into the spotlight every time they make a mistake, or every time one of them turns out to be less than desirable.
I respect the concerns of those who want to avoid granting large blocks of admin rights to what end up as sock-puppets intent on destruction. Perhaps we do need a sizable class of users whose sole role is granting and revoking admin rights--but these users should not be themselves admins. These people should be very carefully selected, and should for the most part stay out of controversy.
-Rich
Just for clarification: my post was to discuss the role of adminship, not the merits of making people admins easier or whatever the other thread was dedicated to. :] I'm not thinking of the one or two people who might be inclined to make huge swaths of sockpuppets, but rather those whose own personal biases prevent them from acting in the best interests of others. These are the people who I think should not be given a general managerial role such as admin, but who are perfectly adept at making Wikipedia a wonderful place.
I think the idea is that of consensus: the community agrees to delete, block, protect and the admin is only doing what the community wants. Or preempting it as the case may be, but that's more tricky. We want admins who will follow consensus; not all people do this naturally, while all people correct errors naturally.
What I think we don't want is admins who put their own input into what they do, and delete things they want deleted, and protect things they want protected. We /do/ very much want people to edit things they want edited, change things they want changed. Deleting and editing are not quite the same thing and thus shouldn't work quite the same way.
Also, I don't see how your comments were in response to mine, but it's all good. :] --keitei
Keitei wrote:
I'm not thinking of the one or two people who might be inclined to make huge swaths of sockpuppets, but rather those whose own personal biases prevent them from acting in the best interests of others.
You're forgetting several very important points when saying that:
* There is no universal objective set of criteria that define "others' best interests", or indeed "Wikipedia's best interests". * The set of criteria that define "best interests" are a mixture of the beliefs of the people who have the means to enforce them. * If it is too difficult to become admin, you will end up getting only admins who perpetuate what the already-established clique considers Wikipedia's "best interests". As a result, the set of criteria for "best interests" that are currently in force no longer reflect the set of criteria of the entire community.
Timwi
Rich Holton wrote:
Sorry, but I have to disagree. The only real criteria I can figure is that we want to avoid admins who go completely zonkers and start systematically working against the aims of Wikipedia. If we can be reasonably sure someone won't do that, then there's no reason to keep them from becoming an admin.
I agree with that. They should, of course, be willing to serve as sysops. I would de-sysop people who have disappeared completely for an extended period of time, but these could have the privilege restored on request.
Of course, we need to be willing (and able) to de-admin someone when they consistently demonstrate the sort of behaviors you mention (or worse). But the whole wiki concept is one of self healing and resilience, not pre-approval. What we don't want to have is a class of users (admins) who are placed into the spotlight every time they make a mistake, or every time one of them turns out to be less than desirable.
Again, I agree. Some people are just too quick to judge. We all make mistakes, or have moments of anger where are behaviour is less than respectable. That, however, should not be thrown back in people's faces every time they do something wrong thereafter. If the penalty for a given action is to be blocked for a week that should be the end of it That is key in any form of remedial justice.
I respect the concerns of those who want to avoid granting large blocks of admin rights to what end up as sock-puppets intent on destruction. Perhaps we do need a sizable class of users whose sole role is granting and revoking admin rights--but these users should not be themselves admins. These people should be very carefully selected, and should for the most part stay out of controversy.
I don't think so. Such a monomanic job is just another way of developing more people with a narrow outlook. I would rather see admins who can perform a variety of tasks, and know that developing articles is the most important one.
Ec
Timwi wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
I would de-sysop people who have disappeared completely for an extended period of time, but these could have the privilege restored on request.
Why this unnecessary extra hassle?
I don't view it as a hassle. It would just be a simple matter of asking a bureaucrat, and having him switch it back on.
Ec
Hi,
sorry for jumping into this thread without reading the other responses first, but here's mine... :-)
Keitei wrote:
Admins must: be neutral, above all else.
This is already wrong. An admin who does not do any blocking, protecting or deleting, is by definition harmless, but they need not be neutral (in what they secretly believe would deserve deletion or protection). You would be denying adminship to such a person even though it would not cause any harm, therefore you are turning adminship into the "big deal" again that we are trying hard not to make it.
Therefore, admin candidates must: demonstrate they can [...]
This is clearly wrong. What you are saying is that someone who cannot demonstrate that they would be a good admin before they're actually an admin, can't become admin. Catch-22!
You are also reiterating this false belief that someone who does not fit your criteria must not ever be admin even for a minute, i.e. you are acting as if adminship could never be removed again.
So, my corrected version of your assessment would look something like this:
- Admins must, *on the whole*, be neutral (in deleting, protecting, blocking)
- Therefore, an admin who deletes, protects or blocks something/someone unfairly, must be de-adminned. Everyone else can, by definition, be admin without causing harm.
Timwi
On Feb 16, 2007, at 7:48, Timwi wrote:
Hi,
sorry for jumping into this thread without reading the other responses first, but here's mine... :-)
Keitei wrote:
Admins must: be neutral, above all else.
This is already wrong. An admin who does not do any blocking, protecting or deleting, is by definition harmless, but they need not be neutral (in what they secretly believe would deserve deletion or protection). You would be denying adminship to such a person even though it would not cause any harm, therefore you are turning adminship into the "big deal" again that we are trying hard not to make it.
Therefore, admin candidates must: demonstrate they can [...]
This is clearly wrong. What you are saying is that someone who cannot demonstrate that they would be a good admin before they're actually an admin, can't become admin. Catch-22!
You are also reiterating this false belief that someone who does not fit your criteria must not ever be admin even for a minute, i.e. you are acting as if adminship could never be removed again.
So, my corrected version of your assessment would look something like this:
Admins must, *on the whole*, be neutral (in deleting, protecting, blocking)
Therefore, an admin who deletes, protects or blocks something/
someone unfairly, must be de-adminned. Everyone else can, by definition, be admin without causing harm.
I stated that incorrectly then. I meant that admins when acting as admins must be neutral in their approach to admin actions. One can demonstrate this by being neutral when approaching conflicts with others, but other than that, I have no idea how they could demonstrate it. And yes, the best way to know whether someone will be a good admin is to just let them try.
My criteria, as you put it, were just meant as what I think admin candidates ought to show (just, "I can be neutral when asked to be", no shrubberies or herrings), but there are many different ways of determining whether someone will do or be something. I'm asking if maybe our current criteria, varied and sundry though they are, are determining whether they will be good admins, or if they are just arbitrary bars. Could we lower the bar and still allow in good admins while keeping out the bad?
And then the backlogs are better, people leave less, etc etc. Hopefull.
On 2/16/07, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Hi,
sorry for jumping into this thread without reading the other responses first, but here's mine... :-)
Keitei wrote:
Admins must: be neutral, above all else.
This is already wrong. An admin who does not do any blocking, protecting or deleting, is by definition harmless, but they need not be neutral (in what they secretly believe would deserve deletion or protection). You would be denying adminship to such a person even though it would not cause any harm, therefore you are turning adminship into the "big deal" again that we are trying hard not to make it.
No one can be entirely neutral, but admins should act neutral and either enact the beliefs of the community at large (or policy in case the community ignores policy without a good reason). Acting neutral doesn't mean an admin can't have a POV.
Therefore, admin candidates must:
demonstrate they can [...]This is clearly wrong. What you are saying is that someone who cannot demonstrate that they would be a good admin before they're actually an admin, can't become admin. Catch-22!
You don't need to be an admin to prove you'd be a good one. If you edit well as a regular editor, people have plenty to look at to see if a candidate is reliable.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
You don't need to be an admin to prove you'd be a good one. If you edit well as a regular editor, people have plenty to look at to see if a candidate is reliable.
That's assuming that everyone is actually interested in editing regularly and actually interested in putting actual effort into demonstrating anything about themselves to other people for the express purpose of gaining adminship privileges.
99% of the people who would be useful admins do not fit that (quite demanding) criterion.
Timwi
Timwi wrote:
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
You don't need to be an admin to prove you'd be a good one. If you edit well as a regular editor, people have plenty to look at to see if a candidate is reliable.
That's assuming that everyone is actually interested in editing regularly and actually interested in putting actual effort into demonstrating anything about themselves to other people for the express purpose of gaining adminship privileges.
99% of the people who would be useful admins do not fit that (quite demanding) criterion.
Timwi
Assuming your figure of 99% is not intended as an exact numerical value, I agree with this 100%! And I think this is the key point that is often overlooked/ignored. You can be a useful admin even if you don't spend the bulk of your time doing admin-only tasks.
-Rich
On 2/16/07, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Keitei wrote:
Admins must: be neutral, above all else.
This is already wrong. An admin who does not do any blocking, protecting or deleting, is by definition harmless, but they need not be neutral (in what they secretly believe would deserve deletion or protection). You would be denying adminship to such a person even though it would not cause any harm, therefore you are turning adminship into the "big deal" again that we are trying hard not to make it.
I think you've misread what was written. Here's a longer quote:
Admins must: be neutral, above all else. when they block when they protect when they delete
So what this means is that whenever an admin uses the tools, they must use them in a neutral fashion. This is nothing new, and is merely the first step in the logical chain from which Keitei derives her "things we should look for in an admin".
This is clearly wrong. What you are saying is that someone who cannot demonstrate that they would be a good admin before they're actually an admin, can't become admin. Catch-22!
You don't need the buttons to show that you can behave neutrally and civilly, acknowledge your own biases etc. These are all qualities we can look for in people's editing activities.
Stephen Bain wrote:
Admins must: be neutral, above all else. when they block when they protect when they delete
So what this means is that whenever an admin uses the tools, they must use them in a neutral fashion.
I know this is what Keitei meant, and I'm saying this is wrong. An admin using the tools wrongly *DOES NOT* have the potential to bring the entire project down in a large explosion before getting de-adminned.
This is nothing new,
Indeed, it's a pretty firmly established misconception.
Timwi
Stephen Bain wrote:
You don't need the buttons to show that you can behave neutrally and civilly, acknowledge your own biases etc.
And you don't need to show that you can behave neutrally and civilly or that you can acknowledge your own biases in order to quality as someone who simply won't abuse the "buttons".
Timwi
On 2/16/07, Keitei nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
Therefore, admin candidates must: demonstrate they can participate in discussions in which they have no personal invested interest, with positive effect to those who do have personal invested interest demonstrate they know the difference between their opinion, consensus, and the Truth (which doesn't exist on wiki) demonstrate they recognize their own bias and will refuse to act upon it
I for one think this is a pretty good summary of the sorts of things we should be looking for in candidates. Not necessarily formal criteria, but guidelines of what a nominator or candidate should be trying to demonstrate to the community at RFA.
I would much more readily support a candidate who can link to, say, a couple of talk page discussions where they were able to contribute constructively even when people disagreed with them, or even better, discussions where they provided a third opinion which helped in a dispute between two parties, than I would a candidate who can only show me how many edits they made in a given namespace.
I would much more readily support a candidate who can link to some discussions where they've shown a good understanding of policy, for example, than a candidate who can only demonstrate they know how to use "VandalWhacker 2.0" or whatever software is popular these days.
That sort of thing.
Stephen Bain wrote:
I would much more readily support a candidate who can link to, say, a couple of talk page discussions where they were able to contribute constructively even when people disagreed with them, or even better, discussions where they provided a third opinion which helped in a dispute between two parties, [...]
And by doing that, you are slightly skewing the permissible sets of attitudes in admins towards what *you* consider "constructive" or "an option which helps in a dispute". This is how we got into the current situation where newcomers perceive the community of admins as an abusive cabal.
Timwi
On 2/15/07, Keitei nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
Admins must: be neutral, above all else. when they block when they protect when they delete recuse when they are unable to be neutral have the understanding of policy to know when it is objectively okay to block/protect/delete be able to judge consensus not be a timebomb
I took a quick look in RFA and noticed that most consideration seems to on number of mainspace edits. One candidate was opposed because most of his edits were policy/AFD discussions and such. Excuse me but isn't that what admins are for, "policy and such"?
I'm almost tempted to look for an IP address with thousands of edits and nominate it for admin. It would probably get the nod.