Adrian
Yeah, but is there anything else that has led to more problems in the eyes of more people than the lack of a proper >community< process to officially withdraw trust for a particular admin once it has expired due to certain actions, especially ones that are not immediately actionable by ArbCom?
Well, the answer to the question as posed is "yes". There have been more serious problems for enWP than public opinion relating to a handful of admins. But, what are these actions worth a desysop that are not 'actionable'? While it is obviously true that the ArbCom can only hand down Arbitration judgements, I have no idea of who it can be, who rules out serious things as actionable.
Charles
----------------------------------------- Email sent from www.virginmedia.com/email Virus-checked using McAfee(R) Software and scanned for spam
On 07/10/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Adrian
Yeah, but is there anything else that has led to more problems in the eyes of more people than the lack of a proper >community< process to officially withdraw trust for a particular admin once it has expired due to certain actions, especially ones that are not immediately actionable by ArbCom?
Well, the answer to the question as posed is "yes". There have been more serious problems for enWP than public opinion relating to a handful of admins. But, what are these actions worth a desysop that are not 'actionable'? While it is obviously true that the ArbCom can only hand down Arbitration judgements, I have no idea of who it can be, who rules out serious things as actionable.
Yes. These calls seem mostly to be "wahh, we can't actually vote out admins by getting our mates to say we don't like them" with a notable lack of detail of actual abuses in their role as an admin that require de-adminship.
- d.
David Gerard schrieb:
On 07/10/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Adrian
Yeah, but is there anything else that has led to more problems in the eyes of more people than the lack of a proper >community< process to officially withdraw trust for a particular admin once it has expired due to certain actions, especially ones that are not immediately actionable by ArbCom?
Well, the answer to the question as posed is "yes". There have been more serious problems for enWP than public opinion relating to a handful of admins. But, what are these actions worth a desysop that are not 'actionable'? While it is obviously true that the ArbCom can only hand down Arbitration judgements, I have no idea of who it can be, who rules out serious things as actionable.
Yes. These calls seem mostly to be "wahh, we can't actually vote out admins by getting our mates to say we don't like them" with a notable lack of detail of actual abuses in their role as an admin that require de-adminship.
- d.
With that rationale, why would we need a process where the community expresses trust with the tools in the first place? Trust can expire in cases of prolonged borderline behaviour that ArbCom wouldn't act on. So you're basically saying: The community is good enough to be called upon to express their trust initially, but they can never express a change of heart regarding that trust? Sounds weird.
On 07/10/2007, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
With that rationale, why would we need a process where the community expresses trust with the tools in the first place? Trust can expire in cases of prolonged borderline behaviour that ArbCom wouldn't act on. So you're basically saying: The community is good enough to be called upon to express their trust initially, but they can never express a change of heart regarding that trust? Sounds weird.
So you want this for theoretical reasons rather than because of an actual problem?
- d.
David Gerard schrieb:
On 07/10/2007, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
With that rationale, why would we need a process where the community expresses trust with the tools in the first place? Trust can expire in cases of prolonged borderline behaviour that ArbCom wouldn't act on. So you're basically saying: The community is good enough to be called upon to express their trust initially, but they can never express a change of heart regarding that trust? Sounds weird.
So you want this for theoretical reasons rather than because of an actual problem?
- d.
Both, really. I'd call it "logically and morally right" rather than "theoretical" though, and the question of actual problems with any certain user is strictly my own opinion unless there is either a pertaining RfCU / RfAr or any kind of new, community-consensus- driven process to force specific people to repeat RfA. Which leads me to my initial question: what is the merit of RfA in the first place, if the community is -as you seem to assume- incapable of determining and expressing their trust at all?
Yes, any kind of recall process would certainly attract people with an axe to grind. But I hold the opinion that since admins are officially entrusted with the tools because and only after the community has expressed its trust, the ongoing trust of the community is in fact important.
I.e. that any admin *should* be able to successfully repeat an RfA at any given time. But that's not the case. And some of those who would utterly fail will never be reprimanded by ArbCom (reprimanded meaning de-sysopped).
On 10/7/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
With that rationale, why would we need a process where the community expresses trust with the tools in the first place? Trust can expire in cases of prolonged borderline behaviour that ArbCom wouldn't act on. So you're basically saying: The community is good enough to be called upon to express their trust initially, but they can never express a change of heart regarding that trust? Sounds weird.
That presents an interesting and probably unintentional idea. What if we were to re-poll all of the same "voters" that helped "elect" a particular admin, just to see how much *their* trust has dwindled? That could produce some interesting results. I'm not going to mention any names but I can think of at least a couple of my own "support votes" which I'd very much like to withdraw.
—C.W.
On 07/10/2007, Charlotte Webb charlottethewebb@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/7/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
With that rationale, why would we need a process where the community expresses trust with the tools in the first place? Trust can expire in cases of prolonged borderline behaviour that ArbCom wouldn't act on. So you're basically saying: The community is good enough to be called upon to express their trust initially, but they can never express a change of heart regarding that trust? Sounds weird.
That presents an interesting and probably unintentional idea. What if we were to re-poll all of the same "voters" that helped "elect" a particular admin, just to see how much *their* trust has dwindled? That could produce some interesting results. I'm not going to mention any names but I can think of at least a couple of my own "support votes" which I'd very much like to withdraw.
Interesting model, that. Vote for them, probationary period, repoll everyone who voted positively the first time - but no-one else - and see if anything changes.
Not something we could reasonably implement, but perhaps worth working out on paper as a theoretical exercise for someone else to pick up.
On 07/10/2007, Andrew Gray shimgray@gmail.com wrote:
Interesting model, that. Vote for them, probationary period, repoll everyone who voted positively the first time - but no-one else - and see if anything changes. Not something we could reasonably implement, but perhaps worth working out on paper as a theoretical exercise for someone else to pick up.
It would be a useful model for probationary adminship if we vastly open up the input, i.e. everyone who's been around three months. Give 'em another three months with the tools and see what people think of them after that. We'll get a few more morons getting the tools, but it would refine expectations nicely.
- d.
On 10/7/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
David Gerard schrieb:
On 07/10/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Adrian
Yeah, but is there anything else that has led to more problems in the eyes of more people than the lack of a proper >community< process to officially withdraw trust for a particular admin once it has expired due to certain actions, especially ones that are not immediately actionable by ArbCom?
Well, the answer to the question as posed is "yes". There have been more serious problems for enWP than public opinion relating to a handful of admins. But, what are these actions worth a desysop that are not 'actionable'? While it is obviously true that the ArbCom can only hand down Arbitration judgements, I have no idea of who it can be, who rules out serious things as actionable.
Yes. These calls seem mostly to be "wahh, we can't actually vote out admins by getting our mates to say we don't like them" with a notable lack of detail of actual abuses in their role as an admin that require de-adminship.
- d.
With that rationale, why would we need a process where the community expresses trust with the tools in the first place?
Well, it makes sockpuppetry harder. Other than that, it really isn't needed.
So you're basically saying: The community is good enough to be called upon to express their trust initially, but they can never express a change of heart regarding that trust? Sounds weird.
It's not a concept without precedent. Lots of US judicial positions work that way, for instance.
On 10/7/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/7/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
David Gerard schrieb:
On 07/10/2007, charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com charles.r.matthews@ntlworld.com wrote:
Adrian
Yeah, but is there anything else that has led to more problems in the eyes of more people than the lack of a proper >community< process to officially withdraw trust for a particular admin once it has expired due to certain actions, especially ones that are not immediately actionable by ArbCom?
Well, the answer to the question as posed is "yes". There have been more serious problems for enWP than public opinion relating to a handful of admins. But, what are these actions worth a desysop that are not 'actionable'? While it is obviously true that the ArbCom can only hand down Arbitration judgements, I have no idea of who it can be, who rules out serious things as actionable.
Yes. These calls seem mostly to be "wahh, we can't actually vote out admins by getting our mates to say we don't like them" with a notable lack of detail of actual abuses in their role as an admin that require de-adminship.
- d.
With that rationale, why would we need a process where the community expresses trust with the tools in the first place?
Well, it makes sockpuppetry harder. Other than that, it really isn't needed.
So you're basically saying: The community is good enough to be called upon to express their trust initially, but they can never express a change of heart regarding that trust? Sounds weird.
It's not a concept without precedent. Lots of US judicial positions work that way, for instance.
Yeah, sounds familiar, not weird.
KP
Anthony schrieb:
On 10/7/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
With that rationale, why would we need a process where the community expresses trust with the tools in the first place?
Well, it makes sockpuppetry harder. Other than that, it really isn't needed.
Are there more people who share that opinion? I always thought RfA mattered *somehow*.
So you're basically saying: The community is good enough to be called upon to express their trust initially, but they can never express a change of heart regarding that trust? Sounds weird.
It's not a concept without precedent. Lots of US judicial positions work that way, for instance.
The status quo in US politics may not be the *gold standard* we'd want to model Wikipedia after.
There have been parts of the US where noteworthy recall elections have been held, for example California. Are we sure we want to follow that precedent either?
On 10/7/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
On 10/7/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
With that rationale, why would we need a process where the community expresses trust with the tools in the first place?
Well, it makes sockpuppetry harder. Other than that, it really isn't needed.
Are there more people who share that opinion? I always thought RfA mattered *somehow*.
So you're basically saying: The community is good enough to be called upon to express their trust initially, but they can never express a change of heart regarding that trust? Sounds weird.
It's not a concept without precedent. Lots of US judicial positions work that way, for instance.
The status quo in US politics may not be the *gold standard* we'd want to model Wikipedia after.
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 10/7/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
On 10/7/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
With that rationale, why would we need a process where the community expresses trust with the tools in the first place?
Well, it makes sockpuppetry harder. Other than that, it really isn't needed.
Are there more people who share that opinion? I always thought RfA mattered *somehow*.
Don't know, I'm only speaking for myself.
So you're basically saying: The community is good enough to be called upon to express their trust initially, but they can never express a change of heart regarding that trust? Sounds weird.
It's not a concept without precedent. Lots of US judicial positions work that way, for instance.
The status quo in US politics may not be the *gold standard* we'd want to model Wikipedia after.
I think the US judicial system has held up pretty well. Taking pot shots at anything related to the US is unhelpful.
On 10/7/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/7/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
Anthony schrieb:
On 10/7/07, Adrian aldebaer@googlemail.com wrote:
With that rationale, why would we need a process where the community expresses trust with the tools in the first place?
Well, it makes sockpuppetry harder. Other than that, it really isn't needed.
Are there more people who share that opinion? I always thought RfA mattered *somehow*.
Don't know, I'm only speaking for myself.
So you're basically saying: The community is good enough to be called upon to express their trust initially, but they can never express a change of heart regarding that trust? Sounds weird.
It's not a concept without precedent. Lots of US judicial positions work that way, for instance.
The status quo in US politics may not be the *gold standard* we'd want to model Wikipedia after.
I think the US judicial system has held up pretty well. Taking pot shots at anything related to the US is unhelpful.
Well, he said the status quo in US politics, it's not exactly a pot shot at the US judicial system. Some places the political system and the judicial system are one and the same. In the US where judges can be appointed forever the political system does play into it. And, I personally allow potshots at the US political system by any and all.
KP
So you're basically saying: The community is good enough to be called upon to express their trust initially, but they can never express a change of heart regarding that trust? Sounds weird.
It's not a concept without precedent. Lots of US judicial positions work that way, for instance.
The status quo in US politics may not be the *gold standard* we'd want to model Wikipedia after.
Not being able to easily fire a judge (in this example) is actually a quite common thing. The concept is that it goes towards the whole judicial independence thing where a judge don't have to worry about being fired for a correct but unpopular decision with the politician etc. i.e. Not making decision based on popular-ism, but rather whether the decision is right or not.
One can use the same line of argument regarding adminship. Namely that an admin shouldn't have to worry about axe-grinders when carrying out a decision.
KTC
On 10/7/07, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
So you're basically saying: The community is good enough to be called upon to express their trust initially, but they can never express a change of heart regarding that trust? Sounds weird.
It's not a concept without precedent. Lots of US judicial positions work that way, for instance.
The status quo in US politics may not be the *gold standard* we'd want to model Wikipedia after.
Not being able to easily fire a judge (in this example) is actually a quite common thing. The concept is that it goes towards the whole judicial independence thing where a judge don't have to worry about being fired for a correct but unpopular decision with the politician etc. i.e. Not making decision based on popular-ism, but rather whether the decision is right or not.
One can use the same line of argument regarding adminship. Namely that an admin shouldn't have to worry about axe-grinders when carrying out a decision.
KTC
-- Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
- Heinrich Heine
And in both instances it ignores a basic fact of human beings: we don't judge each other very well, and to expect a judge to be capable for the rest of his life on the bench is not too realistic. Do we know before the appointment that he or she won't fall into senility at a young age? Do we know he or she won't abuse his new powers? We don't know.
And we have processes to take care of these instances, processes whereby the people have a say. Outside of the processes for criminal behaviour. Although I don't know about the Supreme Court.
At Wikipedia we don't have a process whereby the editors have a say in the removal or recall of an administrator. Just processes for criminal behaviour.
KP{
On 10/7/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
Not being able to easily fire a judge (in this example) is actually a quite common thing. The concept is that it goes towards the whole judicial independence thing where a judge don't have to worry about being fired for a correct but unpopular decision with the politician etc. i.e. Not making decision based on popular-ism, but rather whether the decision is right or not.
One can use the same line of argument regarding adminship. Namely that an admin shouldn't have to worry about axe-grinders when carrying out a decision.
And in both instances it ignores a basic fact of human beings: we don't judge each other very well, and to expect a judge to be capable for the rest of his life on the bench is not too realistic. Do we know before the appointment that he or she won't fall into senility at a young age? Do we know he or she won't abuse his new powers? We don't know.
The world is not perfect; neither are our solutions to life's problems. The question is, what is least imperfect? I suspect the tenure system is least imperfect, although some economic studies do suggest that tenure in academia is a different story. (But that is for factors largely related to academia, and not the subject of tenuring human beings in general.)
And we have processes to take care of these instances, processes
whereby the people have a say. Outside of the processes for criminal behaviour. Although I don't know about the Supreme Court.
We/they (I'm not American) do? Last time I checked the US Supreme Court justices were not subject to recall.
At Wikipedia we don't have a process whereby the editors have a say in
the removal or recall of an administrator. Just processes for criminal behaviour.
We can file an arbitration case. It's tedious, but it's handled most cases of admin abuse so far fine. The question is, would permitting deadminship by vote lead to a more efficient outcome through a loosening of RfA standards (which would in turn allow more editors in general - and thus hopefully more good than bad editors)?
I think what complicates this attempt to look at Wikipedia as a political system is because we have no neat separation of powers, or proper democracy, or anything which you could use to describe a typical constitutional democracy which many Westerners think of when they think about government or policy. If you want to talk about recalling admins, you see admins as members of the executive branch; if you want to talk about tenure, you think of them as members of the judiciary. This dichotomy is quite inaccurate since admins both enforce policy and interpret policy.
Johnleemk
On 10/7/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/7/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote: And we have processes to take care of these instances, processes
whereby the people have a say. Outside of the processes for criminal behaviour. Although I don't know about the Supreme Court.
We/they (I'm not American) do? Last time I checked the US Supreme Court justices were not subject to recall.
They are subject to impeachment. In theory you're supposed to have a good reason to impeach a US Supreme Court justice. Merely making an unpopular decision isn't supposed to be enough. In practice no US Supreme Court justice has ever been removed from office.
On 10/7/07, John Lee johnleemk@gmail.com wrote:
I think what complicates this attempt to look at Wikipedia as a political system is because we have no neat separation of powers, or proper democracy, or anything which you could use to describe a typical constitutional democracy which many Westerners think of when they think about government or policy. If you want to talk about recalling admins, you see admins as members of the executive branch; if you want to talk about tenure, you think of them as members of the judiciary. This dichotomy is quite inaccurate since admins both enforce policy and interpret policy.
When admins "interpret policy", are they doing so as admins, or simply as community members? There's lots of interpretation of policy at ANI, but as it says on that page, "Any user of Wikipedia may post" there.
I've always seen Wikipedia admins as acting mainly in an executive role, basically they're the wiki-police.
On 10/7/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I've always seen Wikipedia admins as acting mainly in an executive role, basically they're the wiki-police.
Exactly, CZ got it right by calling them "constables" while we still hold on to the "no big deal" myth and talk about admins being janitors and having mops.
On 10/8/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/7/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
I've always seen Wikipedia admins as acting mainly in an executive role, basically they're the wiki-police.
Exactly, CZ got it right by calling them "constables" while we still hold on to the "no big deal" myth and talk about admins being janitors and having mops.
We really have many different admin job roles, some of which are completely mop-like, some of which involve a lot of constable-like-ness, some of which are a mixture.
Not every admin actually does every role, by far, though we're all empowered to.
Enumerating and categorizing in more detail might be useful activities. I have no bandwidth, though.
On 10/8/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Not every admin actually does every role, by far, though we're all empowered to.
Yes, I for one try to never go to AN/I if I can help it. :) You're only a "constable" if you want to be. And the corollary, non-admins can be bossy drama queens too...
On 10/8/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
Yes, I for one try to never go to AN/I if I can help it. :) You're only a "constable" if you want to be.
And we need some of them to be.
And the corollary, non-admins can be bossy drama queens too...
The big difference is that a non admin "bossy drama queen" needs a lot of other like minded "bossy drama queens" to do the same damage as a "bossy drama queen" with the admin bit. However, even without the bit, they can cause a lot of people a lot of grief. Vandals are easier to deal with.
BTW "bossy drama queen" is usually spelled d-i-c-k.
On 10/8/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
On 10/8/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Not every admin actually does every role, by far, though we're all empowered to.
Yes, I for one try to never go to AN/I if I can help it. :) You're only a "constable" if you want to be.
I'd consider most deletion to be more constable-like than janitor-like. It's not like janitors are the only people allowed to use a mop. Park ranger, maybe. What was Winston Smith's position called?
On 10/8/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/8/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
On 10/8/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Not every admin actually does every role, by far, though we're all empowered to.
Yes, I for one try to never go to AN/I if I can help it. :) You're only a "constable" if you want to be.
I'd consider most deletion to be more constable-like than janitor-like. It's not like janitors are the only people allowed to use a mop. Park ranger, maybe. What was Winston Smith's position called?
After reading the new crap for a while, I would say speedy is more mop like than janitor-like. Park rangers? It depends upon the park. Yosemite? Maids from the former Yugoslavia wield the mops there. Park rangers are in charge of everything from moving bears, investigating animal maulings, rock slides, nature guides, murder investigations, cleaning up after BASE jumpers who borrow chutes to prove a point.
KP
On 10/9/07, K P kpbotany@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/8/07, Anthony wikimail@inbox.org wrote:
On 10/8/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
On 10/8/07, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
Not every admin actually does every role, by far, though we're all empowered to.
Yes, I for one try to never go to AN/I if I can help it. :) You're only a "constable" if you want to be.
I'd consider most deletion to be more constable-like than janitor-like. It's not like janitors are the only people allowed to use a mop. Park ranger, maybe. What was Winston Smith's position called?
After reading the new crap for a while, I would say speedy is more mop like than janitor-like.
Maybe if the speedy deletion criteria were really narrow. But if the janitor at my work started throwing out papers from our office files which were obvious copyright violations, or ones which didn't explain why they were important, s/he'd lose eir job real quick.
Park rangers? It depends upon the park.
It's not a particularly good analogy, and I'm not sure there is one. I was trying to think of someone whose job involves executing vague rules on how to restrict access to a shared resource.
Maybe copyright compliance officer/office censor/middle manager? I dunno.
Anthony
On 10/7/07, Kwan Ting Chan ktc@ktchan.info wrote:
So you're basically saying: The community is good enough to be called
upon
to express their trust initially, but they can never express a change
of
heart regarding that trust? Sounds weird.
It's not a concept without precedent. Lots of US judicial positions work that way, for instance.
The status quo in US politics may not be the *gold standard* we'd want to model Wikipedia after.
Not being able to easily fire a judge (in this example) is actually a quite common thing. The concept is that it goes towards the whole judicial independence thing where a judge don't have to worry about being fired for a correct but unpopular decision with the politician etc. i.e. Not making decision based on popular-ism, but rather whether the decision is right or not.
One can use the same line of argument regarding adminship. Namely that an admin shouldn't have to worry about axe-grinders when carrying out a decision.
Tenure of high-ranking judges is quite common around the world; not so for lower-ranking judges. A magistrate can easily be removed from office, but not a Law Lord (or has the UK already switched to a Supreme Court system?).
Actually perhaps we should follow this model; make two tiers of admins, one subject to getting their mop taken away, the other immune. If we want to follow the US system, we could make only the first tier electable; the second would be appointable from the first tier, and appointed by some sort of committee. I foresee more than a few logistical problems with this, though; I'm just throwing this out for discussion.
Johnleemk