[WikiEN-l] Re: Thoughts on the process of requesting adminship

[JAY JG]

>From: Timwi <timwi at gmx.net>
>
>JAY JG wrote:
>>>
>>>What tanglble (not philosophical) benefits in terms of creating a better
>>>encyclopedia would being able to edit freely provide? Well, duh, you
>>>have more freedom and therefore are better able to help.
>>
>>So, nothing specific comes to mind then?
>
>I think I've been specific enough, but fine, I'll be more specific. 
>Fighting vandalism using the rollback button, using "delete" to be able to 
>move page to where a lonely redirect is sitting, protecting pages where 
>other people are having an edit war, blocking users with obvious violations 
>of 3RR, ...  That enough yet?

None of that actually helps write an encyclopedia, but rather, it helps 
administer it (or in the words of one list member "dominate other editors").

>>It's easy to refute strawman arguments; that's the reason people make them 
>>in the first place.
>
>From what you wrote later in the e-mail, I assume you think this is a 
>strawman argument because you are supposedly not actually assuming anyone's 
>guilty. But then my other argument kicks in that you have no reason to lock 
>someone out of something that would be useful to them for helping Wikipedia 
>if you don't even believe they're guilty of anything.

They're not locked out of anything that helps them create or edit 
encyclopedia articles.  They simply don't have access to admin functions.  
To use a rather extreme analogy, there's a reason most countries have fairly 
strict gun ownership restrictions, even though they don't consider most 
citizens guilty of anything, or likely to go on shooting sprees.

>>New users are, in fact, able to completely modify just about any part of 
>>Wikipedia they want.  This is a huge amount of trust that already creates 
>>huge vandalism problems.  What you are asking for is for them to be given 
>>special powers to do things like easily reverting pages and blocking 
>>users.
>
>No, I am not asking for that. My proposal does not include anyone gaining 
>administrative privileges without trust from any existing admin (quite in 
>contrast to the editing privileges, which you get without anyone's trust).

Since, under your proposal, adminship will be open to just about anyone, it 
amounts to the same thing.

>The reason we can't make them part of the "basic package" is that there 
>always needs to be a level "above" which isn't part of the "basic package".

A level above?  Whatever happened to "assume good faith"?  Why, that's 
positively un-wiki!

As soon as you argue that there is *any* reason to restrict these powers, 
all your arguments about Wikipedia "assume good faith" principles fly out 
the window.  Now what you're really arguing is not that these restrictions 
violate Wikipedia principles, but that in your opinion the bar for admins is 
set too high; that's an entirely different argument.  And once you start 
talking about principles, "Assume good faith" is just one.  "Consensus" is 
another.

>That doesn't mean that we need to treat the "top level" as such an elitist 
>position as we do.

Right.  Your argument is about the bar being set too high. As I have pointed 
out many times, with over 500 admins already, the bar clearly isn't set all 
that high.

>(Yes, I know, there's also the level of "developer", but it doesn't count 
>because it has powers to do irreversible things.)

There's a level above admin and below developer as well, bureaucracts, who 
have the ability to create and (I believe) uncreate admins.  Since that's 
also "reversible", shouldn't that be added to the abilities?

>>No, not "guilty until proven innocent". Rather "reserve judgement, because 
>>the jury is still out".  That's simply prudent commonsense.
>
>It's the same "prudent common sense" that makes people who don't know about 
>wikis sceptical that such a system would work. There is no need to "reserve 
>judgement" if you can just test the person, by giving them the privileges 
>and seeing if they abuse them or not. Then you can pass judgement based on 
>actual facts rather than guessing. Reserving judgement about granting the 
>privileges makes sense only if the privileges allow you to do something 
>irreversible.

No, it also makes sense if the abilities are not ones needed to create or 
write articles, but rather merely needed to administer the project.  Very 
little is truly irreversible, but the amount of effort it takes to repair 
damage goes up exponentially with each power added; prudence balances the 
damage that can be done with the benefit the power adds.  Adding admin 
powers to hundreds of new editors, who have gone through almost no vetting 
process, will inevitably create all sorts of damage which will almost 
certainly outweigh any tangible benefits to the project.

>You are repeating the same argument that you made above: "We shouldn't make 
>more people admins because we already have enough."

Nonsense.  I'm saying we don't need to change the process for making admins, 
because we have enough for now, and we are making lots more all the time.  A 
year from now we will have well over 600 admins, in two years likely well 
over 800.  We're making people admins all the time.

>But not only have I refuted this argument already (it doesn't hurt to have 
>more if they don't abuse it),

You can't "refute" an argument by inserting a huge (and likely erroneous) 
conditional statement in your "refutation".  Yes, it doesn't hurt to have 
more IF they don't abuse it; but the whole process of creating admins is 
geared towards ensuring that new admins will not be the ones likely to abuse 
admin powers, and that's just the process you want to remove.

>>>>and there is a process of voting them in which ensures that they are
>>>>generally quite sensible.
>>>
>>>Again, so you're assuming that people are "unsensible" until you're 
>>>convinced otherwise.
>>
>>No, I simply don't know if they're sensible.
>
>Right, but you're also denying them the chance to show you that they are.

Nonsense.  They can edit productively and comment sensibly, and in so doing 
build a track record that indicates they are likely to be a sensible admin 
as well.

>>I do know that the majority of new editors are "not sensible" in that
>>they are not familiar with Wikipedia policies and norms, and
>>therefore regularly violate them.  Some editors learn the ropes
>>quickly; others never do, even after tens of thousands of edits,
>>either because they are unable to learn them, or unwilling to do so.
>
>Right, so just because some of these people exist, others should be denied 
>adminship because there is a vague chance they might be one of them. Is 
>that what you're saying?

What is this "denied adminship"?  You say it as if its a fundamental right.  
As for "vague chance", try "high likelihood if we relax they requirements in 
the way you suggest".

>>>I do have my reasons for posting this proposal; I believe that there *is* 
>>>a problem. Of course most current admins won't see the problem because 
>>>they're already admins. If it's too hard for a new user to become admin, 
>>>current admins wouldn't have to care, but it means there *is* a problem.
>>
>>Huh?  The problem is it's too hard for new users to become admin, 
>>therefore it *is* a problem?  That's entirely circular.
>
>You're making it sound circular, but it isn't. As soon as someone who 
>deserves admin powers (because they know the policies, they won't abuse any 
>powers, they always act in good faith, etc.) cannot get them (because 
>people vote "oppose -- not enough edits"), there is a problem.

Nonsense.  No-one "deserves" admin powers; this is some sort of spillover 
from modern Western society's culture of entitlement, and sounds 
uncomfortably like those editors who get on Wiken-l and complain that their 
"right" to edit Wikipedia and rights to free speech on Wikipedia are being 
suppressed.  And if editors haven't edited very much, then we can't tell if 
they "know the policies,
"won't abuse any powers", and "always act in good faith," because we haven't 
seen them in enough situations to be able to make an informed decision on 
that.

How far would you take this argument?  Would you say that someone who has 
made 20 edits, none of them policy violations, deserves admin powers?  How 
about 1 edit?  But no, you're not saying that, because you've already said 
that new editors should not automatically get them.  Again, it becomes 
apparent that your argument is not that any fundamental principles are being 
violated at all, but rather that the bar is being set too high for your 
liking.

>>>>Changes to current processes which are currently working well make no
>>>>sense,
>>>
>>>If a user with >600 edits, >1.5 edits per day, nominated by an existing 
>>>admin, and absolutely no history of trouble or ill-behaving for over a 
>>>year, cannot become admin, the current process is clearly *not* working 
>>>well.
>>
>>Why not?
>
>Because this user should be an admin.

Again, I remind you that assertions are neither arguments nor proofs.

>It seems to me (please correct me if I'm wrong) that most of your 
>argumentation is to oppose the idea of abolishing the adminship votes 
>altogether.

Yes.  That, and breaking up admin functions and adding them to the basic 
package.

>But what do you think about my first proposal, to just make it so that you 
>cannot vote "oppose" based on number of edits or any other criterion that 
>isn't indicative of bad faith or other problematic behaviour?

As stated above, the former is shorthand for "I don't know enough about this 
editor yet to trust him with admin powers", and the latter is highly 
subjective and easily gamed.  I would only support this if "support" votes 
were subject to the same restrictions.

Jay.