[WikiEN-l] RickK leaving: adminship has become much more than "no big deal" and that's poisonous

[Alphax]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

michaelturley at myway.com wrote:
<snip>
> Part of the more general problem I see here that causes this is that
> granting administratorship at Wikipedia is meant to be "no big deal",
> yet anything that even hints at removing such, even for an hour or
> two, is the seen as end of the world as we know it.  If granting
> administrator status truly is "no big deal", it shouldn't be that
> much less common to remove it, if only temporarily.  Instead, we have
> more and more policies and procedures that excuse and insulate
> administrators from the "no big deal" portion and say "forgive the
> administrator for being mean because you really were a jerk" or
> "don't worry about the administrator driving off new users because
> he's so good at catching vandals."
> 

This is why I look forward to graduated user rights levels. The
abilities to block, delete, protect, and revert should all be assigned
individually, not as a lump sum just for "doing a few hours RC patrol,
having a bajillion edits and working on a featured article". Sure, those
things make a person a good Wikipedian, but does that justify adminship?
We seem to have a lot of hot-headed admins about (not just the rouge
ones) - and when an admin decides to throw a hissy fit, block, revert
and delete pages, and announce that they are fed up with the whole
thing, it only serves to re-inforce some people's beliefs that people
should be stripped of their admin priveleges.

> If we truly want to live up to the perception and ideal that
> adminship is "no big deal", it should be a matter of routine to
> revoke admin priviledges for a few hours for something as little as a
> single foul mouthed comment, even if provoked and egged on by peers.
> If this is done, perhaps we will see less admins defending their
> actions at any cost, and more "shrugging it off" and proceeding with
> business.
> 

Indeed; at present, it takes the intervention of a steward (which I've
always thought of as being comparable to a Herculean effort) for someone
to have admin priveleges removed; even so, it must be at the request of
said admin, or the result of an RfAr, or something equally vile. For
example, there are several Wikipedians on en who are listed as
"missing", and yet still have their mystical powers. Who knows what
would happen if they ever returned. I agree that admins should be
elected, and elected by the community; but reading the votes at RfA
gives me the feeling that members of the Cabal are elected by the Cabal,
for the Cabal, and Cabal memebership is some kind of certificate you
hang on your wall, much like a diploma. Yes, you can lose it, but it
requires breaking, entering, pillaging, and arson.

> For an example of an insulating policy, what's the point of getting
> another user to certify an RfC if it's only meant to be a request for
> <i>comments</i>?  To paraphrase a comment I posted earlier on WP,
> it's as if people think of it as two people ganging up on a third to
> administer a lashing.  It probably comes from being the first
> "formal" step of dispute resolution, but we should try to de-escalate
> the seriousness of RfC so we have a more basic forum for public
> commentary.
> 

Also, how come only users get subpages at RfC, and not
articles/policies/whatever? And why is an RfC only ever a /bad/ thing?
Why is there never a /positive/ RfC? As in "I think this is really
great, what do you think?"

> I didn't mean for this to be a rant, but I hope this is an
> appropriate place for such comments.  I also hope that anyone not
> interested will sell me an indulgence for the price of fifteen good
> edits as penance.
> 

The mailing list is the home of all good rants not unleashed at RfAr,
IRC or WP:VP :)

> Michael Turley User:Unfocused
> 

- --
Alphax
OpenPGP key: 0xF874C613 - http://tinyurl.com/cc9up
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alphax
There are two kinds of people: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done,'
and those to whom God says, 'All right, then, have it your way.' - C. S.
Lewis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFCt67z/RxM5Ph0xhMRAtscAJ929U8E2y4MqgBFFMepgIPY6tVNowCcDp1+
vga7BdZKcpc0sXT0wgL/w+E=
=HlDy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----