In Wikien-l, you wrote:
I've already explained this elsewhere, so I'll only give a quick summary here. Wikipedia does something _right_ by letting everyone edit. The underlying philosophy is that everyone starts out as innocent, and is blocked from editing only if they show misbehaviour. Adminship is the wrong way around. Users start out as being viewed with caution and suspicion, and must "earn" their admin "privileges" by fulfilling some ridiculous set of criteria. The _right_ way would be to demote the ones who misuse it, not to prevent the constructive ones from being constructive.
Have you seen my proposal for adminship? It's on my blog at http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2006/10/proposal-for-adminship-on-...
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote:
Have you seen my proposal for adminship? It's on my blog at http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2006/10/proposal-for-adminship-on-...
Nice. You appear to be going in the same direction as me, but I want it even more radical. :) In particular, your system still requires people to _ask_ for adminship (which, again, would be analogous to requiring them to apply for editing privileges instead of just letting people register freely), and I find one month a bit excessive. Other than that, I think you hit the nail on the head :)
IMHO, it should be easier to get adminship as a) it's No Big Deal(r) and b) all actions can now be reversed - and users can quickly be dysopped. The three month tenure, however, I find silly - if someone was good enough and behaved well for those three months then obviously they should be allowed to continue. Desysopping after three months would turn the whole RfA process into a lottery-like game - "if it's no big deal, why can't I continue as an admin?".
I also disagree with not allowing users to object to more than one RfA every three months - Wikipedia is not a democracy.
On 2/9/07, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
Have you seen my proposal for adminship? It's on my blog at
http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2006/10/proposal-for-adminship-on-...
Nice. You appear to be going in the same direction as me, but I want it even more radical. :) In particular, your system still requires people to _ask_ for adminship (which, again, would be analogous to requiring them to apply for editing privileges instead of just letting people register freely), and I find one month a bit excessive. Other than that, I think you hit the nail on the head :)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
There's a reason why adminship isn't given to everyone. If you do it the other way around, abuse can cause a lot more damage before the person abusing the rights get blocked which will result in a lot more housekeeping to undo damage. It's nice in theory, but it simply doesn't work in practice.
People who get adminship should display knowledge of the rules. If any newbie got those powers, this would be anarchapedia.
Mgm
On 2/9/07, Gary Kirk gary.kirk@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, it should be easier to get adminship as a) it's No Big Deal(r) and b) all actions can now be reversed - and users can quickly be dysopped. The three month tenure, however, I find silly - if someone was good enough and behaved well for those three months then obviously they should be allowed to continue. Desysopping after three months would turn the whole RfA process into a lottery-like game - "if it's no big deal, why can't I continue as an admin?".
I also disagree with not allowing users to object to more than one RfA every three months - Wikipedia is not a democracy.
On 2/9/07, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
Have you seen my proposal for adminship? It's on my blog at
http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2006/10/proposal-for-adminship-on-...
Nice. You appear to be going in the same direction as me, but I want it even more radical. :) In particular, your system still requires people to _ask_ for adminship (which, again, would be analogous to requiring them to apply for editing privileges instead of just letting people register freely), and I find one month a bit excessive. Other than that, I think you hit the nail on the head :)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Gary Kirk
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 2/10/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
People who get adminship should display knowledge of the rules. If any newbie got those powers, this would be anarchapedia.
Many newbie admins readily admit they don't understand policy or how to perform most of their duties. They start slowly, and watch other admins for guidance. How is this harmful?
Steve
On 10/02/07, Steve Bennett stevagewp@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/10/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
People who get adminship should display knowledge of the rules. If any newbie got those powers, this would be anarchapedia.
Many newbie admins readily admit they don't understand policy or how to perform most of their duties. They start slowly, and watch other admins for guidance. How is this harmful?
I'm a big fan of enculturation for admins - I've seen it turn admins I was somewhat concerned about into very good admins.
I need to proceduralise getting new admins onto #wikipedia-en-admins. Get 'em used to sanity-checking and peer review.
- d.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
There's a reason why adminship isn't given to everyone. If you do it the other way around, abuse can cause a lot more damage before the person abusing the rights get blocked which will result in a lot more housekeeping to undo damage. It's nice in theory, but it simply doesn't work in practice.
Where's your evidence for that last sentence?
As far as I'm aware, this theory has never been put to practice, so I don't see how you can make such a claim.
Where's your evidence for that last sentence?
As far as I'm aware, this theory has never been put to practice, so I don't see how you can make such a claim.
I think the amount of effort we have to put in to cleaning up regular vandalism is evidence enough. Using the same system for assigning admin powers as we use for assigning editing powers *will* result in large amounts of admin vandalism, that's just simple extrapolation. Saying that cleaning up admin vandalism will be harder than cleaning up regular vandalism is a logical deduction, it's not based on evidence, you're right, but it is based on very solid reasoning.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Where's your evidence for that last sentence?
As far as I'm aware, this theory has never been put to practice, so I don't see how you can make such a claim.
I think the amount of effort we have to put in to cleaning up regular vandalism is evidence enough. Using the same system for assigning admin powers as we use for assigning editing powers *will* result in large amounts of admin vandalism, that's just simple extrapolation. Saying that cleaning up admin vandalism will be harder than cleaning up regular vandalism is a logical deduction, it's not based on evidence, you're right, but it is based on very solid reasoning.
I didn't contest any of that. I contested the (fallacious) conclusion that "it doesn't work in practice".
Everyone thought that about editing too, until Wikipedia proved everyone wrong.
Timwi
Everyone thought that about editing too, until Wikipedia proved everyone wrong.
Wikipedia didn't prove them wrong by showing that vandalism doesn't happen, it proved them wrong by showing that vandalism can be dealt with. The way we deal with it involves having some people with more power than the vandals. You can move the goalposts wherever you like, you still end up needing some people with more power than the vandals.
On 2/12/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Everyone thought that about editing too, until Wikipedia proved everyone wrong.
Wikipedia didn't prove them wrong by showing that vandalism doesn't happen, it proved them wrong by showing that vandalism can be dealt with. The way we deal with it involves having some people with more power than the vandals. You can move the goalposts wherever you like, you still end up needing some people with more power than the vandals.
Actually, no. You need more positive contributors than negative contributors.
Giving the positive contributors more power makes their work easier, but it's not necessary.
Actually, no. You need more positive contributors than negative contributors.
Giving the positive contributors more power makes their work easier, but it's not necessary.
I disagree. Vandalising is easier than cleaning up vandalism, so without the ability to block vandals, we would need far more vandal-fighters than there are vandals, and with more vandal-fighters you get diminishing returns. I don't think Wikipedia could exist these days without blocks, and all these proposals basically remove blocks.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I disagree. Vandalising is easier than cleaning up vandalism,
This is a false assumption.
It may be true in some cases, and it may well be the case that the admin features in MediaWiki happen to be such cases. But it is not true in general, and MediaWiki is still in active development.
and all these proposals basically remove blocks.
Well, I don't know about other proposals, but mine doesn't. Quite to the contrary, I am proposing to have several levels of blocking. The first is that which is currently called "de-adminning".
Timwi
I disagree. Vandalising is easier than cleaning up vandalism,
This is a false assumption.
Major vandalism is as simple as writing a vandalbot in pywikipedia, which, if you know python, is a 5 minute job. Fixing that vandalism requires reverting each of those edits, which may be spread between multiple accounts.
Fixing subtle vandalism is even harder, because you have to find it first.
Well, I don't know about other proposals, but mine doesn't. Quite to the contrary, I am proposing to have several levels of blocking. The first is that which is currently called "de-adminning".
I've already explained why desysopping won't work for your proposal.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
I disagree. Vandalising is easier than cleaning up vandalism,
This is a false assumption.
Major vandalism is as simple as writing a vandalbot in pywikipedia, which, if you know python, is a 5 minute job. Fixing that vandalism requires reverting each of those edits, which may be spread between multiple accounts.
Ah, but fortunately we have anti-vandal-bots, too, automating much of that work. If necessary we could run a lot more of them, tuned to catch a lot more vandalism, but it's not a big enough deal (yet, anyway).
-mark
Ah, but fortunately we have anti-vandal-bots, too, automating much of that work. If necessary we could run a lot more of them, tuned to catch a lot more vandalism, but it's not a big enough deal (yet, anyway).
A half-competent vandalbot writer could write a bot that the anti-vandal bots wouldn't spot. Virus scanners need to be constantly updated to keep up with new viruses, our anti-vandal-bots would need to be constantly updated just the same, and the damage that could be done before the update is finished would be too great.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Everyone thought that about editing too, until Wikipedia proved everyone wrong.
Wikipedia didn't prove them wrong by showing that vandalism doesn't happen, it proved them wrong by showing that vandalism can be dealt with.
Yes, exactly.
The way we deal with it involves having some people with more power than the vandals.
This is wrong. Wikipedia was working right from the start, even before adminship existed.
You can move the goalposts wherever you like, you still end up needing some people with more power than the vandals.
You're also forgetting that Wikipedia is not the only wiki, and that MediaWiki is not the only wiki engine. Most other wiki engines do not have an "admin" user level at all, and last I checked the Pattern Repository was still working just fine.
Timwi
This is wrong. Wikipedia was working right from the start, even before adminship existed.
It only worked because the vandals hadn't found it yet. If you removed adminship from Wikipedia now, we would not be able to control the vandalism. Obviously, I have no way to prove that, but I'm confident it is the case.
You're also forgetting that Wikipedia is not the only wiki, and that MediaWiki is not the only wiki engine. Most other wiki engines do not have an "admin" user level at all, and last I checked the Pattern Repository was still working just fine.
The English Wikipedia is by far the biggest and best known wiki, and as such is the biggest target for vandalism.
On 2/12/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
This is wrong. Wikipedia was working right from the start, even before adminship existed.
It only worked because the vandals hadn't found it yet. If you removed adminship from Wikipedia now, we would not be able to control the vandalism. Obviously, I have no way to prove that, but I'm confident it is the case.
Don't need anything particularly drastic to prove it. Any mediawiki installation that isn't locked down or supported by a strong admin presence will be spammed into oblivion in short order. See:
http://www.wikiindex.org/index.php?title=Category:Spammed
On 12/02/07, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
You're also forgetting that Wikipedia is not the only wiki, and that MediaWiki is not the only wiki engine. Most other wiki engines do not have an "admin" user level at all, and last I checked the Pattern Repository was still working just fine.
As much as it saddens me to do so, I have to make a correction on that point. A couple of years back, we started getting our first dedicated abusive users on the WikiWikiWeb, after a decade of largely peaceful existence. Since then, Ward has implemented a steward privilege level with certain administrative abilities, issued to some specific invited users (full disclosure: including me). They deal with the occasional odd extreme case that WhyWikiWorks[1] can't deal with.
I think the PPR community has been lucky over the years to have not attracted the attention of the fringe too much, probably because the we have a very narrow scope. A generalist site such as Wikipedia is going to appeal to a much wider audience, and draw more fire as a consequence. Still, that it took over ten years for us to have to implement an "admin" user level says a lot about the strength of the wiki principle.
[1] http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WhyWikiWorks - relevant to a large part of this thread.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Everyone thought that about editing too, until Wikipedia proved everyone wrong.
Wikipedia didn't prove them wrong by showing that vandalism doesn't happen, it proved them wrong by showing that vandalism can be dealt with. The way we deal with it involves having some people with more power than the vandals. You can move the goalposts wherever you like, you still end up needing some people with more power than the vandals.
Is this true? I thought the primary way Wikipedia dealt with vandalism is by treating it as just another edit, the bad ones of which are more likely to be nixed by subsequent edits.
My personal experience is that a tiny percentage of vandalism requires more power to solve. Is that not the case?
Thanks,
William
Is this true? I thought the primary way Wikipedia dealt with vandalism is by treating it as just another edit, the bad ones of which are more likely to be nixed by subsequent edits.
My personal experience is that a tiny percentage of vandalism requires more power to solve. Is that not the case?
That is exactly the case, however a tiny percentage of a very large number is still quite a large number. Most vandalism doesn't require admin intervention, there is still quite a lot (often the worst kinds) that do need blocking or protection to stop them.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Using the same system for assigning admin powers as we use for assigning editing powers *will* result in large amounts of admin vandalism, that's just simple extrapolation.
Extrapolation is indeed the logic of the simple. Had we depended entirely on extrapolating the visible world of Newtonian physics, Einstein's relativity might never have been discovered.
Saying that cleaning up admin vandalism will be harder than cleaning up regular vandalism is a logical deduction, it's not based on evidence, you're right, but it is based on very solid reasoning.
Wow! Do you understand what you said? You have managed to undermine the entire 17th century debate between rationalism and empiricism. =-O
Ec
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Wikipedia is not an experiment - the scientific method does not apply.
This is just plain wrong.
It is true that Wikipedia is not an experiment in a lot of things (incl. online democracy, anarchy, etc.), but Wikipedia *is* and has always been an experiment to create an encyclopedia using a wiki. A lot of things have changed in Wikipedia because people realised at some point that certain aspects didn't work very well (e.g. the CamcelCase convention was removed because people eventually realised that having articles titled "DemocracY" and "TelephonE" is stupid). There is no reason to believe that Wikipedia has now reached a perfect state and requires no further changes to the way it works.
Timwi
On 2/14/07, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
There is no reason to believe that Wikipedia has now reached a perfect state and requires no further changes to the way it works.
True, but that doesn't even come close to implying that this particular crazy idea should be implemented. I concur completely with the need for *some* users with a higher access level. I can revert, warn, block, and clean up after a dozen vandals in an hour, but suppose just one of them suddenly has admin capabilities and blocks me? What's the line of defense, then? What's the line of defense when somebody lines up 20-30 admin socks, blocking and desysopping everyone in sight, resysopping each other and retaliating when anyone tries to stop them? You would need -- literally *need* -- somebody with a higher access level. Whether that implies adding more bcrats, a level between admin and bcrat, I don't know, but unless and until you add that provision, this sounds mostly like a suicide pact.
Which isn't to say that I don't appreciate the discussion. Ideas are valuable, especially the original ones.
-Luna
Luna wrote:
There is no reason to believe that Wikipedia has now reached a perfect state and requires no further changes to the way it works.
True, but that doesn't even come close to implying that this particular crazy idea should be implemented.
You are right; however, it *does* refute the previous argument that tried to justify that it "should not" be implemented.
The reason it should be implemented is because nobody can currently know whether it will work better than the current situation or not because no-one's tried it before. If it doesn't work out, we can still go back to the old system, but then we'll at least *know* that it didn't work and can address whatever problems came up. I have given several ideas why I think it might work, and why the proposal addresses existing problems.
What's the line of defense when somebody lines up 20-30 admin socks, blocking and desysopping everyone in sight, resysopping each other and retaliating when anyone tries to stop them?
Surely this is the same old argument that also says that wikis can't work because anyone could rack up 20-30 socks and keep reverting their favourite articles to their favourite biased version.
If you let more people be admins, there *will be* enough admins around to block 20-30 misbehaving accounts. Notice that if one of them gets blocked (desysopped) for good reason, one of the socks resysopping him would also qualify as misbehaving; eventually all of the socks will be blocked (desysopped). Vandals will soon realise that it is not worth it, and after a short initial rage, people will stop even attempting to create 30 sockpuppet accounts.
Timwi
On 2/15/07, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Surely this is the same old argument that also says that wikis can't work because anyone could rack up 20-30 socks and keep reverting their favourite articles to their favourite biased version.
Want to fight against 30+ socks without admin backup?
If you let more people be admins, there *will be* enough admins around to block 20-30 misbehaving accounts. Notice that if one of them gets blocked (desysopped) for good reason, one of the socks resysopping him would also qualify as misbehaving; eventually all of the socks will be blocked (desysopped).
Wouldn't bother with resysopping. Just keep up the attack with the next sock. or wait a few days and use that one. either way by the time all the sock are blocked it is too too late.
Vandals will soon realise that it is not worth it, and after a short initial rage, people will stop even attempting to create 30 sockpuppet accounts.
Because that has been what has happened with 100% of our vandals so far.
geni wrote:
Want to fight against 30+ socks without admin backup?
Not sure what you're talking about there, "without admin backup"?
Wouldn't bother with resysopping. Just keep up the attack with the next sock. or wait a few days and use that one. either way by the time all the sock are blocked it is too too late.
Too late for what?
Vandals will soon realise that it is not worth it, and after a short initial rage, people will stop even attempting to create 30 sockpuppet accounts.
Because that has been what has happened with 100% of our vandals so far.
Yes, precisely.
Timwi
On 2/15/07, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Not sure what you're talking about there, "without admin backup"?
What I say. do you want to go up against 30+ socks without an admin to be able to throw around protection and blocking?
Wouldn't bother with resysopping. Just keep up the attack with the next sock. or wait a few days and use that one. either way by the time all the sock are blocked it is too too late.
Too late for what?
To prevent the damage.
Because that has been what has happened with 100% of our vandals so far.
Yes, precisely.
[[Irony]]
geni wrote:
On 2/15/07, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Not sure what you're talking about there, "without admin backup"?
What I say. do you want to go up against 30+ socks without an admin to be able to throw around protection and blocking?
Why are you talking about a situation without admins? I don't know where you got this from.
Wouldn't bother with resysopping. Just keep up the attack with the next sock. or wait a few days and use that one. either way by the time all the sock are blocked it is too too late.
Too late for what?
To prevent the damage.
OK, maybe you don't know this yet, but all changes in MediaWiki can be undone. There is no such thing as permanent damage.
Because that has been what has happened with 100% of our vandals so far.
Yes, precisely.
[[Irony]]
The irony lies in the fact that your ironically-meant statement is actually true. (Well, almost. Of course there are negligible numbers of people who are truly persistent. But on the whole, very close to 100% of all vandals give up.)
Timwi
Why are you talking about a situation without admins? I don't know where you got this from.
Your proposal to make almost everyone admins is effectively a proposal to remove admins.
OK, maybe you don't know this yet, but all changes in MediaWiki can be undone. There is no such thing as permanent damage.
You can't revert bad press, or hurting someone's feelings, or someone leaving Wikipedia because of stress, etc. There is definitely such a thing as permanent damage.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Why are you talking about a situation without admins? I don't know where you got this from.
Your proposal to make almost everyone admins is effectively a proposal to remove admins.
So the wiki idea is effectively an idea to remove editors?
OK, maybe you don't know this yet, but all changes in MediaWiki can be undone. There is no such thing as permanent damage.
You can't revert bad press, or hurting someone's feelings, or someone leaving Wikipedia because of stress, etc. There is definitely such a thing as permanent damage.
Your creativity is taking wings! No-one so far has talked about bad press or hurt feelings. In particular, no-one so far has suggested that my proposal would increase the incidence of such. Much less has anyone provided any *actual evidence* that it would -- it might just as well reduce it (and I have already provided arguments why it might). But your innovative invention of specious arguments is truly remarkable, I must say!
Timwi
Thomas Dalton wrote:
So the wiki idea is effectively an idea to remove editors?
Yes. Wikis make no distinction between editors and readers. Just as your proposal would make no distinction between editors/readers and admins.
That is correct. That is very different, however, from saying "There are [effectively] no admins". That would be like saying "On a wiki, there are [effectively] no editors". That's just absurd.
Timwi
That is correct. That is very different, however, from saying "There are [effectively] no admins". That would be like saying "On a wiki, there are [effectively] no editors". That's just absurd.
It's just a difference in the definition of admin. Is an admin a person with access to what we call "admin tools", or is it a person with access to tools not available to everyone else? When we say we need admins to deal with major vandalism, we are using the 2nd definition. You are using the first.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
So the wiki idea is effectively an idea to remove editors?
Yes. Wikis make no distinction between editors and readers. Just as your proposal would make no distinction between editors/readers and admins.
If you're so hostile to wikis why do you waste your time with them?
Ec
Yes. Wikis make no distinction between editors and readers. Just as your proposal would make no distinction between editors/readers and admins.
If you're so hostile to wikis why do you waste your time with them?
Who said I'm hostile to wikis? I never said that making no distinction between editors and readers is a bad thing, I just said that it's what wikis did.
On 2/16/07, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Why are you talking about a situation without admins? I don't know where you got this from.
It's the closest analogue of an admin vs admin conflict available that you could really understand.
OK, maybe you don't know this yet, but all changes in MediaWiki can be undone.
There are attacks that would take a lot more effort to undo than to do.
There is no such thing as permanent damage.
I could put the goatse on every page tubgirl on every watch list and lemon part on the main page. Throw in some stuff from the pain series on the block page as a little surprise for whoever tried to stop me.
The irony lies in the fact that your ironically-meant statement is actually true. (Well, almost. Of course there are negligible numbers of people who are truly persistent. But on the whole, very close to 100% of all vandals give up.)
WOW? Communism Vandal? Mr treason? General Tojo? Squidwad? how many of these would you be happy to have their hands on admin powers?
Timwi wrote:
geni wrote:
Because that has been what has happened with 100% of our vandals so far.
Yes, precisely.
[[Irony]]
The irony lies in the fact that your ironically-meant statement is actually true. (Well, almost. Of course there are negligible numbers of people who are truly persistent. But on the whole, very close to 100% of all vandals give up.)
Most vandals have one character trait that works in our favour - their short attention span.
Ec
Timwi wrote:
Luna wrote:
There is no reason to believe that Wikipedia has now reached a perfect state and requires no further changes to the way it works.
True, but that doesn't even come close to implying that this particular crazy idea should be implemented.
You are right; however, it *does* refute the previous argument that tried to justify that it "should not" be implemented.
The reason it should be implemented is because nobody can currently know whether it will work better than the current situation or not because no-one's tried it before. If it doesn't work out, we can still go back to the old system, but then we'll at least *know* that it didn't work and can address whatever problems came up. I have given several ideas why I think it might work, and why the proposal addresses existing problems.
That's why I suggested a random sample of 100 - subject only to some fairly low level conditions that indicate a willingness to stick around, and no obvious signs of dementia. Track that 100 for three months to see what happens. Also track the 100 most recent RfA appointments and compare the statistics for the two groups. Why should anybody object to controlled results?
What's the line of defense when somebody lines up 20-30 admin socks, blocking and desysopping everyone in sight, resysopping each other and retaliating when anyone tries to stop them?
Surely this is the same old argument that also says that wikis can't work because anyone could rack up 20-30 socks and keep reverting their favourite articles to their favourite biased version.
If you let more people be admins, there *will be* enough admins around to block 20-30 misbehaving accounts. Notice that if one of them gets blocked (desysopped) for good reason, one of the socks resysopping him would also qualify as misbehaving; eventually all of the socks will be blocked (desysopped). Vandals will soon realise that it is not worth it, and after a short initial rage, people will stop even attempting to create 30 sockpuppet accounts.
The idea that there could be 30 sockpuppets in a random sample of 100 users is out of touch with reality.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
That's why I suggested a random sample of 100 - subject only to some fairly low level conditions that indicate a willingness to stick around, and no obvious signs of dementia.
But that way you are already skewing the statistics. Someone who is *not* intending to stick around, but would still end up sticking around, would fall through your sieve.
Timwi
Timwi wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
That's why I suggested a random sample of 100 - subject only to some fairly low level conditions that indicate a willingness to stick around, and no obvious signs of dementia.
But that way you are already skewing the statistics. Someone who is *not* intending to stick around, but would still end up sticking around, would fall through your sieve.
Are you suggesting no conditions at all? What I'm suggesting is really low level stuff. If somebody stuck around for 2 or 3 daya a month ago, and maybe put together a good series of edits, but we haven't seen him since what's the point of making him an admin if we're not going to see him around again.
I'd like to see the whole system liberalized so that it works. I'm sure willing to allow a few easy conditions for the sake of having it happen. That's a lot more important than making some ideological point.
Ec
Timwi wrote:
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Wikipedia is not an experiment - the scientific method does not apply.
This is just plain wrong.
It is true that Wikipedia is not an experiment in a lot of things (incl. online democracy, anarchy, etc.), but Wikipedia *is* and has always been an experiment to create an encyclopedia using a wiki. A lot of things have changed in Wikipedia because people realised at some point that certain aspects didn't work very well (e.g. the CamcelCase convention was removed because people eventually realised that having articles titled "DemocracY" and "TelephonE" is stupid). There is no reason to believe that Wikipedia has now reached a perfect state and requires no further changes to the way it works.
Absolutely. In relation to scientific method, it is not something that you turn on and off as you go through the laboratory door. We do well to alternate bouts of empirical observation and logical reasoning in everything that we do.
Ec
Absolutely. In relation to scientific method, it is not something that you turn on and off as you go through the laboratory door. We do well to alternate bouts of empirical observation and logical reasoning in everything that we do.
Observation is not the same as experimentation. Experimenting requires doing something and then observing the results. Observing what happens in the real world and using that as a basis for out decisions is always a good idea, I agree, but experimenting can do more harm than good.
In science, experimenting is always the best way to reach a decision, since the purpose is simply to gain knowledge. We are not here to learn how to run Wikipedia, we're here to actually run it, which means we have to accept that we can't always learn everything we want to.
On 2/14/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is not an experiment - the scientific method does not apply.
This is a bizzarre statement. Wikipedia may not "be" an experiment, but it can certainly conduct experiments to find out the best way of operating.
Steve
Wikipedia is not an experiment - the scientific method does not apply.
This is a bizzarre statement. Wikipedia may not "be" an experiment, but it can certainly conduct experiments to find out the best way of operating.
If Wikipedia were a type of science then experiments would be the only way to find out the best way of operating. However, we are not a type of science, our aim is to operate as well as possible, not just to find out what the best way is. That means doing the experiment could be extremely damaging - this isn't the kind of proposal that can be tested on a test wiki, it must be tested on the real thing, and it could be horribly wrong. In situations were it isn't practical to test a proposition, we have to use logical arguments to work out which is best without actually doing it. It's not ideal, but in some cases it's the only way of finding out without the risk of it going wrong - I feel this is one of those cases.
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
There's a reason why adminship isn't given to everyone. If you do it the other way around, abuse can cause a lot more damage before the person abusing the rights get blocked which will result in a lot more housekeeping to undo damage. It's nice in theory, but it simply doesn't work in practice.
People who get adminship should display knowledge of the rules. If any newbie got those powers, this would be anarchapedia.
I'm afraid that any evidence to support this is purely anecdotal or outright guesswork. If you are personally dealing with the problem cases all the time, and have no reason to deal as much with the good admins your view of the amount of problems is bound to be distorted.
Ec
That's your hypothesis. As it hasn't been tested, it's not possible to say whether you are correct.
On 2/9/07, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
There's a reason why adminship isn't given to everyone. If you do it the other way around, abuse can cause a lot more damage before the person abusing the rights get blocked which will result in a lot more housekeeping to undo damage. It's nice in theory, but it simply doesn't work in practice.
People who get adminship should display knowledge of the rules. If any newbie got those powers, this would be anarchapedia.
Mgm
On 2/9/07, Gary Kirk gary.kirk@gmail.com wrote:
IMHO, it should be easier to get adminship as a) it's No Big Deal(r) and b) all actions can now be reversed - and users can quickly be dysopped. The three month tenure, however, I find silly - if someone was good enough and behaved well for those three months then obviously they should be allowed to continue. Desysopping after three months would turn the whole RfA process into a lottery-like game - "if it's no big deal, why can't I continue as an admin?".
I also disagree with not allowing users to object to more than one RfA every three months - Wikipedia is not a democracy.
On 2/9/07, Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
Have you seen my proposal for adminship? It's on my blog at
http://nonbovine-ruminations.blogspot.com/2006/10/proposal-for-adminship-on-...
Nice. You appear to be going in the same direction as me, but I want
it
even more radical. :) In particular, your system still requires people to _ask_ for adminship (which, again, would be analogous to requiring them to apply for editing privileges instead of just letting people register freely), and I find one month a bit excessive. Other than
that,
I think you hit the nail on the head :)
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Gary Kirk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
In message C1F24F19.16BF%michaeldavid86@comcast.net, Marc Riddell michaeldavid86-Wuw85uim5zDR7s880joybQ@public.gmane.org writes
on 2/9/07 3:49 PM, Gary Kirk at gary.kirk-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org wrote:
Wikipedia is not a democracy.
What is it then?
It's an encyclopaedia. Everything else is purely coincidental.
Marc Riddell wrote:
on 2/9/07 3:49 PM, Gary Kirk at gary.kirk@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia is not a democracy.
What is it then?
A free encyclopedia. See [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not]].
Gary Kirk wrote:
IMHO, it should be easier to get adminship as a) it's No Big Deal(r) and b) all actions can now be reversed - and users can quickly be dysopped. The three month tenure, however, I find silly - if someone was good enough and behaved well for those three months then obviously they should be allowed to continue. Desysopping after three months would turn the whole RfA process into a lottery-like game - "if it's no big deal, why can't I continue as an admin?".
You may even be right about what happens after a three month tenure. In that case we would be able to drop the probationary provision.
Choosing a first random batch of 100, and reporting after 3 months about what happened to this group would support the radical concept of basing later choices on facts. Thus: 1. How many refused the nomination outright? (This group could be immediately replaced by new nominations.) 2. How many went nuts? 3. How many stopped editing within 1 month and within 2 months? 4. How many continued editing without using admin powers? 5. Which admin powers did they use? 6. other questions?
Ec
Choosing a first random batch of 100, and reporting after 3 months about what happened to this group would support the radical concept of basing later choices on facts. Thus: 1. How many refused the nomination outright? (This group could be immediately replaced by new nominations.) 2. How many went nuts? 3. How many stopped editing within 1 month and within 2 months? 4. How many continued editing without using admin powers? 5. Which admin powers did they use? 6. other questions?
6. How many people that didn't get chosen complained loudly about/left completely because of/started vandalising in revenge of the unfair way admins were chosen?
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Choosing a first random batch of 100, and reporting after 3 months about what happened to this group would support the radical concept of basing later choices on facts. Thus: 1. How many refused the nomination outright? (This group could be immediately replaced by new nominations.) 2. How many went nuts? 3. How many stopped editing within 1 month and within 2 months? 4. How many continued editing without using admin powers? 5. Which admin powers did they use? 6. other questions?
- How many people that didn't get chosen complained loudly about/left
completely because of/started vandalising in revenge of the unfair way admins were chosen?
A question that cannot be answered now, or as a result of this test:
How many vandals exist NOW because of the ludicrous way that admins are chosen, the fundamental discrepancy between an "anyone can edit" encyclopedia and a "only zealots need apply" adminship? Any suggestions on how to get a handle on that number?
-Rich
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Choosing a first random batch of 100, and reporting after 3 months about what happened to this group would support the radical concept of basing later choices on facts. Thus:
- How many refused the nomination outright? (This group could be
immediately replaced by new nominations.) 2. How many went nuts? 3. How many stopped editing within 1 month and within 2 months? 4. How many continued editing without using admin powers? 5. Which admin powers did they use? 6. other questions?
- How many people that didn't get chosen complained loudly about/left
completely because of/started vandalising in revenge of the unfair way admins were chosen?
I get the impression that you completely misconceive the idea of statistical sampling.
Ec
Nice. You appear to be going in the same direction as me, but I want it even more radical. :) In particular, your system still requires people to _ask_ for adminship (which, again, would be analogous to requiring them to apply for editing privileges instead of just letting people register freely), and I find one month a bit excessive. Other than that, I think you hit the nail on the head :)
Basically, you are suggest removing the concept of administrators entirely, giving everyone access to all the tools, and then introducing a new kind of block that take some tools away from users that do something wrong.
The system we use for editing pages (the one you think should be extended to admin powers) results in an enormous amount of vandalism, which takes a lot of effort to clean up. It's considered worth it, so we just shut up and get on with it. Using the same system with admin powers would result in an equal amount of admin vandalism, which takes more effort to clean up, does more damage, and is not at all worth it.
Also, if adminship is opened up that much, we would have to introduce a new level of admin anyway to handle blocks (which would actually be desysopings, as everyone would be able to unblock themselves), and then all the problems of RfA just get moved to Requests for Super-adminship, so we have absolutely no gain at all.
On 2/9/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The system we use for editing pages (the one you think should be extended to admin powers) results in an enormous amount of vandalism, which takes a lot of effort to clean up.
Exactly. It's bad enough when vandals make giant penises float over the main page. I'd rather not have random vandals blocking /16s, unprotecting [[Main Page]] (or even deleting it), and creating other public relations nightmares -- just imagine the media field day. Wikipedia is already an amazingly open site, in just about every sense -- some people already say we're *too* open, and while I don't think I'd go that far, I'm not eager to give too many people access to tools which have the capacity to do a great deal of harm, when used inappropriately.
When I consider adminship, I don't think of it as a big deal. It's a useful tool. Admins aren't the heart and soul of the wiki, by any means -- we are involved in its upkeep, yes, but I know every minute of vandal patrolling I do would be flat-out *useless* if not for the countless hours spent by our fantastic writers.
I think I just need evidence that somebody: (a) is reasonably aware of policy and practice, (b) is reasonably dedicated to the well-being and ideals of the project, and (c) is reasonable, period.
How we determine those three points, I figure is up to some interpretation.
Just my take on it, -Luna
Luna wrote:
On 2/9/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
The system we use for editing pages (the one you think should be extended to admin powers) results in an enormous amount of vandalism, which takes a lot of effort to clean up.
Exactly. It's bad enough when vandals make giant penises float over the main page. I'd rather not have random vandals blocking /16s, unprotecting [[Main Page]] (or even deleting it), and creating other public relations nightmares -- just imagine the media field day. Wikipedia is already an amazingly open site, in just about every sense -- some people already say we're *too* open, and while I don't think I'd go that far, I'm not eager to give too many people access to tools which have the capacity to do a great deal of harm, when used inappropriately.
When I consider adminship, I don't think of it as a big deal. It's a useful tool. Admins aren't the heart and soul of the wiki, by any means -- we are involved in its upkeep, yes, but I know every minute of vandal patrolling I do would be flat-out *useless* if not for the countless hours spent by our fantastic writers.
I think I just need evidence that somebody: (a) is reasonably aware of policy and practice, (b) is reasonably dedicated to the well-being and ideals of the project, and (c) is reasonable, period.
How we determine those three points, I figure is up to some interpretation.
Just my take on it, -Luna
How is (a) related to your concerns about "random vandalism"?
-Rich
Thomas Dalton wrote:
Basically, you are suggest removing the concept of administrators entirely, giving everyone access to all the tools, and then introducing a new kind of block that take some tools away from users that do something wrong.
Essentially yes, except that I'm not entirely opposed to the idea that the admin tools would not be available immediately (just like the "autoconfirmed" state is not granted immediately). My only gripe is that the process is not automatic, i.e. adminship is decided by people, and as a result people are able to (and do) put ridiculous criteria in place, thereby actively stopping most people from ever getting a chance to play with the tools.
The system we use for editing pages (the one you think should be extended to admin powers) results in an enormous amount of vandalism, which takes a lot of effort to clean up.
I don't deny that some changes to the software would be nice that would make reverting a user's actions easier. Until we have those, I would agree that admin vandalism is difficult to clean up, but it's not an insurmountable problem. Remember we used to have huge problems with page-move vandalism because it was difficult to revert? So now we have new features to revert it more easily. The same will happen to reverting admin actions or mass actions if we need it badly enough.
Using the same system with admin powers would result in an equal amount of admin vandalism, which takes more effort to clean up, does more damage, and is not at all worth it.
You have not provided any evidence for that.
Also, if adminship is opened up that much, we would have to introduce a new level of admin anyway to handle blocks (which would actually be desysopings, as everyone would be able to unblock themselves),
There are two flaws in your logic. First, if your adminship bit is removed, how do you "unblock" yourself? So no, you don't need an extra "super-admin" level to do de-sysoppings, you can just allow admins to do it. Second, your argument would equally apply to page deletion (you can publish any crap because if anyone deletes it you can just undelete it!), and yet admins can all delete *and* undelete and it still works (because they largely follow a certain policy).
Timwi
There are two flaws in your logic. First, if your adminship bit is removed, how do you "unblock" yourself? So no, you don't need an extra "super-admin" level to do de-sysoppings, you can just allow admins to do it. Second, your argument would equally apply to page deletion (you can publish any crap because if anyone deletes it you can just undelete it!), and yet admins can all delete *and* undelete and it still works (because they largely follow a certain policy).
So not only do you want to make everyone admins, you want to make everyone stewards? If anyone can desysop anyone else, then all it takes is one bot to remove everyone's sysop bits, and we have to wait for a dev, or steward, or whatever rank is high enough to avoid the bot's grasp, to revert it (which could be made quite easy, but it could be a significant wait until someone is available to do it). The cleanup of the damage the bot has done in this time (or, probably multiple bots to make it harder to undo) couldn't start until this dev had been found.
Whatever way you look at it, you're going to need a significant number of people with greater powers than everyone else, it's unavoidable. At what level of power you draw the line can change, but you still have to draw the line somewhere, and wherever that is, you'll have the same problems with selection.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
There are two flaws in your logic. First, if your adminship bit is removed, how do you "unblock" yourself? So no, you don't need an extra "super-admin" level to do de-sysoppings, you can just allow admins to do it. Second, your argument would equally apply to page deletion (you can publish any crap because if anyone deletes it you can just undelete it!), and yet admins can all delete *and* undelete and it still works (because they largely follow a certain policy).
So not only do you want to make everyone admins, you want to make everyone stewards? If anyone can desysop anyone else, then all it takes is one bot to remove everyone's sysop bits, and we have to wait for a dev, or steward, or whatever rank is high enough to avoid the bot's grasp, to revert it (which could be made quite easy, but it could be a significant wait until someone is available to do it). The cleanup of the damage the bot has done in this time (or, probably multiple bots to make it harder to undo) couldn't start until this dev had been found.
Whatever way you look at it, you're going to need a significant number of people with greater powers than everyone else, it's unavoidable.
See, this last conclusion of yours is a fallacy. All you (strictly) need to prevent this (very hypothetical) scenario you described is either enough admins so that there's always someone around to stop such a bot quickly enough, or a cap on the maximum number of blocks (i.e. desysoppings) that any one user can do in a fixed amount of time (let's say, one per hour).
Timwi
See, this last conclusion of yours is a fallacy. All you (strictly) need to prevent this (very hypothetical) scenario you described is either enough admins so that there's always someone around to stop such a bot quickly enough, or a cap on the maximum number of blocks (i.e. desysoppings) that any one user can do in a fixed amount of time (let's say, one per hour).
You can't block an adminbot, so we're talking about desysoppings, not blocks. If anyone can desysop anyone else, then you'll get malicious desysoppings, which would need to be undone, either by some higher rank, so by allowing everyone to make sysops. If everyone can make sysops, then a vandal with a handful of sockpuppets can do constant vandalism, always resysoping any of his accounts that are desysopped.
If you code a cap on desysoppings, the vandals simply have to use sockpuppets. If you code a global cap on desysoppings by any account, then simply having one more vandalbot than that cap makes you untouchable.
Whatever ideas you come up with, in order for them to work, you end up having a higher rank. You can keep proposing ideas if you like, and I'll keep telling you where the higher rank is required. I'm confident there will always be one.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
If everyone can make sysops, then a vandal with a handful of sockpuppets can do constant vandalism, always resysoping any of his accounts that are desysopped.
If everyone can edit pages, then a vandal with a handful of sockpuppets can do constant vandalism, always reinstating any of his edits that are reverted. Nice, you're refuting yourself :-)
Whatever ideas you come up with, in order for them to work, you end up having a higher rank.
It doesn't become any truer the more often you say it.
Timwi
If everyone can make sysops, then a vandal with a handful of sockpuppets can do constant vandalism, always resysoping any of his accounts that are desysopped.
If everyone can edit pages, then a vandal with a handful of sockpuppets can do constant vandalism, always reinstating any of his edits that are reverted. Nice, you're refuting yourself :-)
Nonsense. We handle vandals with multiple accounts all the time. It just requires multiple blocks. He'd have to have a very large number of sockpuppets to get around them, and an easy way to change IP address frequently to avoid being stopped by autoblock. If he tries to edit anonymously, or create new accounts, we can semi-protect the page. There are all kinds of things we can do, but only because admins have powers that vandals don't. If you remove that advantage, then vandals can pretty much do what they like.
Thomas Dalton wrote:
If everyone can make sysops, then a vandal with a handful of sockpuppets can do constant vandalism, always resysoping any of his accounts that are desysopped.
If everyone can edit pages, then a vandal with a handful of sockpuppets can do constant vandalism, always reinstating any of his edits that are reverted. Nice, you're refuting yourself :-)
Nonsense. We handle vandals with multiple accounts all the time. It just requires multiple blocks. He'd have to have a very large number of sockpuppets to get around them, and an easy way to change IP address frequently to avoid being stopped by autoblock. If he tries to edit anonymously, or create new accounts, we can semi-protect the page. There are all kinds of things we can do, but only because admins have powers that vandals don't. If you remove that advantage, then vandals can pretty much do what they like.
What's the harm in NOT allowing admins to unblock themselves?
-Rich
On 2/13/07, Rich Holton richholton@gmail.com wrote:
What's the harm in NOT allowing admins to unblock themselves?
Someone hits the server with 1111 block requests and their socks become unstopable.
We've been over this ground and everything else in this thread see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archives
2007/2/9, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
The system we use for editing pages (the one you think should be extended to admin powers) results in an enormous amount of vandalism, which takes a lot of effort to clean up. It's considered worth it, so we just shut up and get on with it. Using the same system with admin powers would result in an equal amount of admin vandalism, which takes more effort to clean up, does more damage, and is not at all worth it.
Can wrongly merged page histories be demerged?
/habj
On 2/19/07, habj sweetadelaide@gmail.com wrote:
Can wrongly merged page histories be demerged?
Yes. Would take hours/days of solid work in the case of long histories.
--- Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
I've already explained this elsewhere, so I'll only give a quick summary here. Wikipedia does something _right_ by letting everyone edit. The underlying philosophy is that everyone starts out as innocent
This is equivalent to saying existing users have superior knowledge to new users. That may be in terms of wikitech, wikilawyering, wikipolitics, etc., but not knowledge of whatever articles they happen to be editing. You're claiming that the same thing you claim is wrong about the admin approval, to be suspicious of the admins intent, reliability, and knowledge, is actually being applied, at the very least, to every new user.
It seems the ruling policy, NPOV, is inherently suspicious and it's not really a problem to be suspicious from the ground up.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Expecting? Get great news right away with email Auto-Check. Try the Yahoo! Mail Beta. http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/mailbeta/newmail_tools.html
Cheney Shill wrote:
--- Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
I've already explained this elsewhere, so I'll only give a quick summary here. Wikipedia does something _right_ by letting everyone edit. The underlying philosophy is that everyone starts out as innocent
This is equivalent to saying existing users have superior knowledge to new users.
I'm sorry, I don't understand how.
You're claiming that the same thing you claim is wrong about the admin approval, to be suspicious of the admins intent, reliability, and knowledge, is actually being applied, at the very least, to every new user.
Well yes... who else do you think it is applied to? Clearly not the admins :-p
It seems the ruling policy, NPOV, is inherently suspicious and it's not really a problem to be suspicious from the ground up.
I honestly don't see what NPOV has to do with anything in this thread. What you're saying is not making much sense to me I'm afraid.
Timwi
Timwi timwi@gmx.net wrote:
Cheney Shill wrote:
--- Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
I've already explained this elsewhere, so I'll only
give a quick
summary here. Wikipedia does something _right_ by
letting everyone
edit. The underlying philosophy is that everyone
starts out as
innocent
This is equivalent to saying existing users have
superior knowledge to new users.
I'm sorry, I don't understand how.
Look up the word innocent. If Kelly's underlying philosphy is that you're a child and she's an adult, where does that leave you on the knowledge tree?
You're claiming that the same thing you claim is wrong
about the
admin approval, to be suspicious of the admins intent,
reliability,
and knowledge, is actually being applied, at the very
least, to every
new user.
Well yes... who else do you think it is applied to? Clearly not the admins :-p
Ahhh, to be an admin with a free ride to edit with a complete disregard for policy.
It seems the ruling policy, NPOV, is inherently
suspicious
and it's not really a problem to be suspicious from the ground up.
I honestly don't see what NPOV has to do with anything in this thread.
If the underlying policy of Wikipedia is suspicious, then what's the problem with applying suspicion to deciding who becomes an admin? You'll have to read Kelly's post for this to make sense. If it still doesn't, ask Kelly to explain what her post has to do with this thread.
~~Pro-Lick http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/User:Halliburton_Shill http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pro-Lick http://www.wikiality.com/User:Pro-Lick (now a Wikia supported site)
--spam may follow--
____________________________________________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
On 2/9/07, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
Users start out as being viewed with caution and suspicion, and must "earn" their admin "privileges" by fulfilling some ridiculous set of criteria.
I agree that the current process is broken; the criteria are increasingly unreasonable. One way to address this would be to whitelist the list of valid criteria, rather than allowing every user to come up with their own.
Another approach would be an Admin Appointment Board that would complement the existing process, but follow a more liberal philosophy and find consensus more quickly simply by being smaller.
I don't like your specific proposal much because I think the constant re-appointed would be process overkill, as would be the restriction on objections. Wikis don't scale that well to accommodate processes above a certain complexity.
Erik Moeller wrote:
I don't like your specific proposal much because I think the constant re-appointed would be process overkill, as would be the restriction on objections. Wikis don't scale that well to accommodate processes above a certain complexity.
I get the impression that you did not quite understand my proposal then, because I don't quite see how it increases process or the complexity thereof. Under my proposal, RfA would go away, and a process to desysop (hopefully) already exists and is obviously applied to a vastly smaller set of people (only those who misbehave as opposed to everybody).
Timwi
On 2/10/07, Erik Moeller erik@wikimedia.org wrote:
I agree that the current process is broken; the criteria are increasingly unreasonable. One way to address this would be to whitelist the list of valid criteria, rather than allowing every user to come up with their own.
Agreed, but the regular voters at RFA are very insistent about their right to set their own parameters for what makes a good admin. It gives them a feeling of power, I guess.
Steve