Andrew Lih:
This is quite contrary to Wikipedia's policy to "be bold"
Before instituting these hard metrics to de-admin someone, one
should have hard metrics indicating this is truly a problem. It's not clear it is.
Wikipedia's policy to "be bold" only applies for non-admin actions. Deletions, bannings and other admin privilegied actions aren't included. Not even reversions part of "be bold" anymore I think. :)
Is this truly a problem? I don't know and it is impossible for someone without adminship to ever find out. But considering the number of mailing list posts that pop up it seem to be a problem.
It isn't. It's yet another example of a small extremist group (why is it that our inclusionists are so much more extremist than our deletionists?) who can't seem to gather consensus on VFD or VFU, and so attempt to change the policies to get around this.
Behave.
Allan Crossman
Unfair; sysops who do a lot of speedy deletions are more likely to be awarded "points". It's the ratio of mistakes to good actions that counts, not the number of mistakes.
When someone goes to a trial IRL, he or she can't say "But look! I gave the children presents! Doesn't that make up for I robbed a bank?"
Or to put it in Wikipedia terms; A productive writer will be banned just as fast as a non-productive one if both continue to personal attack their peers.
Ideally, the system maybe should include good deeds too. But that would make it way to complicated. Besides, the number of points needed for de-adminship would have to be so sufficently large that it would only affect those admins that repeatedly have failed and not learnt from their mistakes.
csherlock:
Firstly, deleted articles are not permanently deleted. We can retrieve them. See [[Wikipedia:Undeletion policy]]. Secondly, if an admin is making consistent deletions and not listening to others, they can be de'sysoped after a request from other wikipedia editors. Just go talk to the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee]]. See also [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_abuse]].
Ok. Lets talk about reality. :) Will something happen to the admin who deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geno%27s_steaks that Anthony DiPierro mentioned? A reprimand even? Or what about the unjust deletions that Charles Matthews spotted? Does anyone even know which admins did the deletions?
I'm not bloodthirsty, just think that something has to be done. In this case someone should tell the admins "You really shouldn't do that.". So that it stops.
To those who realise too speedy deletions is a problem, but do not like my proposal: Do you have a better idea?
_________________________________________________________________ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.com/
Eric B. and Rakim wrote:
csherlock:
Firstly, deleted articles are not permanently deleted. We can retrieve them. See [[Wikipedia:Undeletion policy]]. Secondly, if an admin is making consistent deletions and not listening to others, they can be de'sysoped after a request from other wikipedia editors. Just go talk to the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee]]. See also [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_abuse]].
Ok. Lets talk about reality. :) Will something happen to the admin who deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geno%27s_steaks that Anthony DiPierro mentioned? A reprimand even? Or what about the unjust deletions that Charles Matthews spotted? Does anyone even know which admins did the deletions?
I'm not bloodthirsty, just think that something has to be done. In this case someone should tell the admins "You really shouldn't do that.". So that it stops.
To those who realise too speedy deletions is a problem, but do not like my proposal: Do you have a better idea?
Yes, let's look at reality. The deletion log says that Theresa Knott speedily deleted this entry. Do you have any evidence that Theresa has done this consistently and frequently? Have you left a message on her user page asking her to consider not removing deletions so quickly but put them on VfD, as is per policy? (I notice, incidently, that Theresa realised her mistake and restored the deletion). Also, Charles Matthews has also not mentioned specifically what the article names were that were deleted. I can't investigate unless I know the article names! I can't even check the deletion log because there are far too many entries. I'm not saying it didn't happen, however perhaps if he were to say what articles were deleted without consensus from VfD then we would be able to look into these issues further.
All the talk of injustice here is really quite silly, IMO. Do you have hard figures and a long list of abuse by numerous administrators? I never saw much of an issue before I became an admin, and I was working on the board for quite some time and (apparently) contributed over 5,000 edits in that time. Another thing I'd like you to consider is that these instances of an administrator causing issues quite possibly might be examples of honest mistakes. If you notice these things happening, and you feel a bit off-put but don't want to confront an administrator, I'm quite happy to talk to the administrator who made the deletion. My username is Ta bu shi da yu. We are mostly all reasonable people who want Wikipedia to succeed. There is no need for such a fuss! I'm quite sure we can work things out and resolve these issues amicably.
My only other comment is that perhaps administrators need some more education and help with admin'ing. Maybe an administrator's messageboard, along the lines of the Irish and Australian Wikipedians' messageboard would do the trick? Currently, apart from the mailing list which I only check off and on, we don't have such a forum that I am aware of.
TBSDY
Also, Charles Matthews has also not mentioned specifically what the article names were that were deleted.
That's not what I said - I said one inappropriate marking as a speedy deletion. I deliberately didn't identify the users, one of whom was quite new.
Charles
Charles Matthews wrote:
Also, Charles Matthews has also not mentioned specifically what the article names were that were deleted.
That's not what I said - I said one inappropriate marking as a speedy deletion. I deliberately didn't identify the users, one of whom was quite new.
Charles
Charles,
Were the articles deleted? If they were not, then the process worked. If they did, which articles were you referring to?
TBSDY
Eric B. and Rakim wrote:
Andrew Lih:
This is quite contrary to Wikipedia's policy to "be bold"
Before instituting these hard metrics to de-admin someone, one
should have hard metrics indicating this is truly a problem. It's not clear it is.
Wikipedia's policy to "be bold" only applies for non-admin actions. Deletions, bannings and other admin privilegied actions aren't included. Not even reversions part of "be bold" anymore I think. :)
I strongly disagree. An admin is basically just a registered user who has proven himself/herself to have made excellent edits and conducted himself/herself in an excellent manner. These "privileges" are just extra actions made available to them. Just like how registered users have a watchlist, permanent user talk page, etc. There's a reason why admins can always override each other's actions. It's like a wiki within a wiki. While users can revert one another, admins can have their own dirty fights as well. There's little difference, just that most users don't need to prove themselves to gain access to the powers they make use of.
It's all part of the wiki philosophy. Be bold in everything. If you make a mistake, learn from it. Purposely avoiding mistakes means you will never learn. I'm not condoning the actions of admins who devalue the powers given to them, but there's a reason why admins can always undo one another's actions.
Is this truly a problem? I don't know and it is impossible for someone without adminship to ever find out. But considering the number of mailing list posts that pop up it seem to be a problem.
We're a large community. Statistics show that there will always be problems. The more people in a community, the more the problems. Show me some cold hard numbers, then we can talk.
Unfair; sysops who do a lot of speedy deletions are more likely to be awarded "points". It's the ratio of mistakes to good actions that counts, not the number of mistakes.
When someone goes to a trial IRL, he or she can't say "But look! I gave the children presents! Doesn't that make up for I robbed a bank?"
Or to put it in Wikipedia terms; A productive writer will be banned just as fast as a non-productive one if both continue to personal attack their peers.
Your analogy is fatally flawed. Robbing a bank is an intentional action; deleting an article of dubious status is not necessarily so. Rather, a correct analogy would be, "Ok, so maybe I had a mishap while driving. But I've been a good driver for 20 years." Don't courts give lesser sentences for good conduct? Don't prison systems have parole for those who conduct themselves in a good manner? Your analogy doesn't wash; robbing a bank is not tantamount to deleting an article one wasn't sure about.
Ideally, the system maybe should include good deeds too. But that would make it way to complicated. Besides, the number of points needed for de-adminship would have to be so sufficently large that it would only affect those admins that repeatedly have failed and not learnt from their mistakes.
So basically, assume I've been an admin for 10 years. I've speedy deleted a million articles (considering how fast we're growing, not unlikely). Maybe 5% of them were wrong. That's 50,000 articles. I'd get in trouble anyway. Your proposed system rewards admins who chicken out of speedy deletes. Even if 95% of their deletes were on the level, they get in trouble for the other 5%, which were easily restored by other admins. I'm sure we've all, as editors, made mistakes in at least 5% of our edits. Have we gotten in trouble for these mistakes? No, people just reverted our mistakes, and kept going. This is a wiki. There's no big deal as long as the admins are self-patrolling, which they are, since all admins can undo the actions of other admins.
csherlock:
Firstly, deleted articles are not permanently deleted. We can retrieve them. See [[Wikipedia:Undeletion policy]]. Secondly, if an admin is making consistent deletions and not listening to others, they can be de'sysoped after a request from other wikipedia editors. Just go talk to the [[Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee]]. See also [[Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_abuse]].
Ok. Lets talk about reality. :) Will something happen to the admin who deleted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geno%27s_steaks that Anthony DiPierro mentioned? A reprimand even? Or what about the unjust deletions that Charles Matthews spotted? Does anyone even know which admins did the deletions?
Why should they be reprimanded for an honest mistake? As long as they realise it's a mistake, scolding or rebuking them is not necessary any more than chiding an anon who realises his mistake and apologises for creating a substub. Again, this is a wiki. We are self-policing.
To those who realise too speedy deletions is a problem, but do not like my proposal: Do you have a better idea?
Yes, I do. See my other recent mail to the list.