Erik Moeller wrote:
If adminship is meant to be no big deal, there are a number of things that should be changed, I think.
- Rename adminship to "trusted users" and greatly relax the criteria
for becoming a TU (certainly in terms of minimum number of edits, which is getting excessive)
I don't know how much the name matters, but the real criterion, as Erik indicates, is *trust*. And I agree that the adminship process is seriously afflicted with edit-counting disease.
- Make all TU actions reversible, and possibly require quorums for some
Isn't reversibility already built into all admin privileges? (Image deletion being an exception for technical reasons.)
Quorums are problematic because they require time to form, and part of the reason we grant privileges is to help processes go more quickly. Plenty of things that require admin attention are backlogged as it is. And some situations really do call for swift action, with deliberation to follow afterward.
It might be a very good idea, however, if some quorum was required to repeat any admin action that got reversed. I don't know if it would be possible to implement this by technical means, but I'd settle for it as a social expectation.
It's also a big deal because "administrator of Wikipedia" is a nice title. I think the name "bureaucrats" is very clever in comparison.
I didn't like it when chosen, but it's interesting to reconsider a negative as perhaps having some positive effect after all.
I believe that the way to make adminship "not a big deal" is to flatten the power structure of Wikipedia tecnically and socially and to atomize privileges.
Breaking up the various admin privileges into their component "atoms" will not necessarily flatten the power structure. It can just as easily encourage people to collect as many of the "atoms" as possible, and that kind of attitude would reverse any flattening effect by creating new ways to define the stratification of Wikipedia society. The art of social engineering is filled with unintended consequences.
--Michael Snow
Michael Snow:
Isn't reversibility already built into all admin privileges? (Image deletion being an exception for technical reasons.)
Image deletion is quite serious. History merging isn't reversible either at the present.
Quorums are problematic because they require time to form, and part of the reason we grant privileges is to help processes go more quickly.
Yes. It all depends on the implementation. For example, automatic notifications can be used to quickly get users who are online involved. The process where I would most like to have additional safeguards is blocking. It might be preferable to have a temporary "review phase" where editing privileges are suspended, but the block is not yet finalized. The finalization could require a quorum, no objections from other sysops, or a similar process.
The reason is simple. A user who feels they are unfairly blocked once may never come back. Angela says that this, too, can be an example of an "irreversible" action. That is quite a drastic possible outcome, and we should strive to reduce that possibility while not giving one inch to spammers and vandals.
It might be a very good idea, however, if some quorum was required to repeat any admin action that got reversed. I don't know if it would be possible to implement this by technical means, but I'd settle for it as a social expectation.
Interesting idea. I see you have the right mind for working on solutions to these kinds of questions. Please join the http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Research_Network and help us to find and specify ways to improve the existing methods.
Breaking up the various admin privileges into their component "atoms" will not necessarily flatten the power structure. It can just as easily encourage people to collect as many of the "atoms" as possible,
Generally people should get the whole package. Atomic operations, especially when granting privileges, should be the exception. But they should be possible.
I strongly agree with your "unintended consequences" bit. Evaluation, testing, discussion, trial are essential for changes like this.
Erik
Yes. It all depends on the implementation. For example, automatic notifications can be used to quickly get users who are online involved. The process where I would most like to have additional safeguards is blocking. It might be preferable to have a temporary "review phase" where editing privileges are suspended, but the block is not yet finalized. The finalization could require a quorum, no objections from other sysops, or a similar process.
The reason is simple. A user who feels they are unfairly blocked once may never come back. Angela says that this, too, can be an example of an "irreversible" action. That is quite a drastic possible outcome, and we should strive to reduce that possibility while not giving one inch to spammers and vandals.
Temporary blocks are already 24 hours. How are you going to build a review phase in that? The sheer option of being considered for a block is enough to send a lot of people over the edge.
Generally people should get the whole package. Atomic operations, especially when granting privileges, should be the exception. But they should be possible.
Yes, it only makes finding an admin to help you with certain actions harder for newbies.
Also, someone said something about the cabal choosing the cabal when it comes to RFA. Personally, I find this ridiculous. The only reason admins are voting, is because they are already trusted and have the experience to see who makes a good admin. Besides, admins make up 1% of the Wikipedia population at most, if you made some effort to involve other users, you could easily have more non-admins join in such discussion. -Mgm
Also, someone said something about the cabal choosing the cabal when it comes to RFA. Personally, I find this ridiculous. The only reason admins are voting, is because they are already trusted and have the experience to see who makes a good admin. Besides, admins make up 1% of the Wikipedia population at most, if you made some effort to involve other users, you could easily have more non-admins join in such discussion. -Mgm
Admins may make up 1% of the comunity but they are by far the most active part. Fortunety getting admin consensus on anything is near imposible.
On 6/21/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Besides, admins make up 1% of the Wikipedia population at most, if you made some effort to involve other users, you could easily have more non-admins join in such discussion. -Mgm
Non-admins who get involved in policy discussions -- especially those relating to administrators -- have a tendency to become administrators.
Kelly
But that's again because being an administrator is supposed to be "no big deal" or whatever Jimbo said about it. It generally just means "this person has been around for awhile and does not have some sort of pathological editing problem that makes large amounts of people hate them." It is not a title that is supposed to relate to any particular POV except "Wikipedia is a good thing" which even then you can find some variety in. And I think people who don't share that POV probably shouldn't be taken too seriously in discussions about its policies or future -- its the axiom from which good editing and good decision-making derives.
FF
On 6/21/05, Kelly Martin kelly.lynn.martin@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/21/05, MacGyverMagic/Mgm macgyvermagic@gmail.com wrote:
Besides, admins make up 1% of the Wikipedia population at most, if you made some effort to involve other users, you could easily have more non-admins join in such discussion. -Mgm
Non-admins who get involved in policy discussions -- especially those relating to administrators -- have a tendency to become administrators.
Kelly _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Fastfission wrote:
But that's again because being an administrator is supposed to be "no big deal" or whatever Jimbo said about it. It generally just means "this person has been around for awhile and does not have some sort of pathological editing problem that makes large amounts of people hate them." It is not a title that is supposed to relate to any particular POV except "Wikipedia is a good thing" which even then you can find some variety in.
If being an administrator is no big deal then removing that status should be no big deal as well. Perhaps being desysopped should be automatic for everybody afte maybe a year. There could then be a three month waiting period before being readmitted. Three months of enforced humility might be good for some people. Since this would apply to ALL admins there could be no claim of descrimination.
Ec
On 6/22/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If being an administrator is no big deal then removing that status should be no big deal as well. Perhaps being desysopped should be automatic for everybody afte maybe a year. There could then be a three month waiting period before being readmitted. Three months of enforced humility might be good for some people. Since this would apply to ALL admins there could be no claim of descrimination.
Oh, come off it, Ec. You treat sysop status like it's being elected President of the United States. It is a mop and a broom that occasionally proves to be somewhat useful. It isn't a source of power or any such thing. It is just that taking that mop and broom away without a damn good reason - in effect, punishing people, is not helpful, as in a volunteer project, punishing people without good reason will make them leave. Or alternatively, having privileges that in many cases are never used controversially taken away for three months for no apparent reason ("enforced humility" counts as no apparent reason in my book) would likely have the same effect. Seriously, guys. Why not stop trying to fight the power, and go write an encyclopedia?
Rebecca wrote:
On 6/22/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If being an administrator is no big deal then removing that status should be no big deal as well. Perhaps being desysopped should be automatic for everybody afte maybe a year. There could then be a three month waiting period before being readmitted. Three months of enforced humility might be good for some people. Since this would apply to ALL admins there could be no claim of descrimination.
Oh, come off it, Ec. You treat sysop status like it's being elected President of the United States. It is a mop and a broom that occasionally proves to be somewhat useful. It isn't a source of power or any such thing. It is just that taking that mop and broom away without a damn good reason - in effect, punishing people, is not helpful, as in a volunteer project, punishing people without good reason will make them leave. Or alternatively, having privileges that in many cases are never used controversially taken away for three months for no apparent reason ("enforced humility" counts as no apparent reason in my book) would likely have the same effect. Seriously, guys. Why not stop trying to fight the power, and go write an encyclopedia?
I'm glad to hear you prove my point. US presidency? Don't you think that the world would be well served by having GWB take three months off? :-)
If being a sysop is not a source of power they won't miss it, and they won't be missed since at any given time there will always be enough left to wield the mop and broom. How is it that being required to take a vacation is "punishing"?
You say that it isn't a source of power, but then ask people to "stop trying to fight the power." Isn't that just a little inconsistent?
Ec
Rebecca a écrit:
On 6/22/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If being an administrator is no big deal then removing that status should be no big deal as well. Perhaps being desysopped should be automatic for everybody afte maybe a year. There could then be a three month waiting period before being readmitted. Three months of enforced humility might be good for some people. Since this would apply to ALL admins there could be no claim of descrimination.
Oh, come off it, Ec. You treat sysop status like it's being elected President of the United States. It is a mop and a broom that occasionally proves to be somewhat useful. It isn't a source of power or any such thing. It is just that taking that mop and broom away without a damn good reason - in effect, punishing people, is not helpful, as in a volunteer project, punishing people without good reason will make them leave.
Prayer of the evening.
May the holder of a broom and a mop In my house feel welcome To take care of spider nets and dust The mopper just fired herself.
I
On Tuesday, June 21, 2005 7:10 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If being an administrator is no big deal then removing that status should be no big deal as well.
Fatal exception: Parse error.
Getting to be a sysop is "no big deal" because it just means that you've gained our trust, and almost everyone in the world could probably do that, if they wished to do so. Thus, by removing sysop status means telling the target that they have failed to live up to this oh-so-easy thing. It is, in fact, an absolutely massive thing to do.
I can't see how this isn't absolutely obvious to everyone, really - perhaps they live in non-Euclidian spaces? :-)
Yours,
James D. Forrester wrote:
On Tuesday, June 21, 2005 7:10 PM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If being an administrator is no big deal then removing that status should be no big deal as well.
Fatal exception: Parse error.
Getting to be a sysop is "no big deal" because it just means that you've gained our trust, and almost everyone in the world could probably do that, if they wished to do so. Thus, by removing sysop status means telling the target that they have failed to live up to this oh-so-easy thing. It is, in fact, an absolutely massive thing to do.
I can't see how this isn't absolutely obvious to everyone, really - perhaps they live in non-Euclidian spaces? :-)
And I was under the impression that the Wiki had done the same thing to encyclopedias that Lobachevsky had done to Euclidean space. :-)
Ec
On 6/21/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If being an administrator is no big deal then removing that status should be no big deal as well. Perhaps being desysopped should be automatic for everybody afte maybe a year. There could then be a three month waiting period before being readmitted. Three months of enforced humility might be good for some people. Since this would apply to ALL admins there could be no claim of descrimination.
Yes, people who are doing their job well deserve to lose it.
Kelly
Kelly Martin wrote:
On 6/21/05, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If being an administrator is no big deal then removing that status should be no big deal as well. Perhaps being desysopped should be automatic for everybody afte maybe a year. There could then be a three month waiting period before being readmitted. Three months of enforced humility might be good for some people. Since this would apply to ALL admins there could be no claim of descrimination.
Yes, people who are doing their job well deserve to lose it.
For them consider it a vacation with full salary.
Ec
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Kelly Martin wrote:
Yes, people who are doing their job well deserve to lose it.
For them consider it a vacation with full salary.
I would rather have a 20% raise, personally.