[WikiEN-l] Wikipedia's administrative system

[geni]

On 6/17/06, Dabljuh <samw at student.ethz.ch> wrote:
> If blocked, in error or abuse, or even legitimately, an editor has basically no chance to >revoke the block. He can no longer edit the relevant pages such as the Administrator's >Noticeboard for Intervention. Thus, even though the policy explicitely and >uncompromisingly forbids abusing blocked or disruptive users, regardless of their past, an >user, once blocked, is realistically considered free game for all sorts of false accusations, >abuses, personal attacks and libel.

That simply isn't the case

>
> Because of the factionalizing mechanics of the administrative system, a blocked user >has basically no chance to get an abusive ban lifted. The policy quite clearly states that >the originally blocked user is meant to lift blocks he invoked himself. An abusive sysop >will simply not do so. And nobody else will. WikiEN-l is a mailing list mostly read by the >administrative system itself, who again, naturally, almost always will side with the >administrator they know rather than a random editor.
>

In most cases the block will simply expire.


> If the wrongly blocked user then decides to ignore the block, and proceeds with the trivial >technical task of evading the block, in order to protect himself from false accusations, >personal attacks, or - dear lord - continuing to edit mainspace articles or talk pages, this >is actually seen as an invitation to administrators to resort to personal attacks, vandalize >the user at will - more even than before he becomes "free game", easily resulting in >blocks lasting to the end of time, literally forcing an user that wants to contribute to >Wikipedia to evade or leave the project.

Whixh is why the sane option is the wait out the block
>
> Ignorance and indifference to policy are normal in today's administrative system of >Wikipedia.

Not true.

>Completely unfair and unwarranted blocks occur on a daily basis,
personal attacks, >vandalizations of the userpages of unpopular
editors - a strong pecking order.

Not true

>The policies are ignorable, the only thing that counts is "Don't piss
off the sysops that >have real power".
>

If you manage to piss off sysops (multiple) it suggests you are doing
something wrong

> All of this also undermines the basic content policies of Wikipedia. Adherents of a >different POV can be removed easily (although no administrator would ever be caught >dead with banning an user on the basis of POV). Not to mention it removes strong editors, >and replaces them with weak ones compliant to the POV of increasingly sociopathic >administrators having an interest in the article.
>

There is a faint posibilty that argument might hold up if all admins
had the same POV. They do not.

> Currently Wikipedia is too much of an MMORPG: If one editor has 500 edits, and another >has 20'000, and they have a dispute, the editor with 20'000 edits always wins - especially >so when he is a sysop himself, the chances for which increase almost exponentially with >the number of posts.

That would be because they are generaly right.

>This is not a way to find consensus: Consensus must be found in
debate. And debate is >the hardest of all ways to fight an opposite
POV - It is almost always the more successful >strategy to get the
opposite side blocked than to actually get down and find this sacred
>consensus (or compromise).

There is no compromise on NPOV.

>
> Why are administrators needed in the first place? "To combat vandalism" would most >answer.

Dealing with copyvios, stuff in the mediawiki namespace, dealing with
the results of XFDs and various other ods and ends.

>But interestingly, popups, applications, bots, etc are all much more
effective than the >administrative power to block and to protect an
article

False. If I block you you have to mess around chnageing IP. If I use a
range block you have to get a new ISP.

If I hard protect there is nothing a vandle can do.

>These are either trivially easy circumvented by a determined vandal,

So are bots. In fact it would be generaly posible to know out even
determided vandels but it is rarely worth the extra effort to do more
than repeatedly spaping them down.

>or undermine the most basic idea of Wikipedia: That everyone can edit
it - the very idea >that made Wikipedia so popular, and what it is
today.

Take away blocks and you very soon find that no one can edit. Ever
hear of spambots?

>Regular editors can patrol RecentChanges just as much as administrators can.

They can only revet. They can't stop vandles.

>The only real necessity for privileged users is the management of the
front page - And it >doesn't take thousands of administrators to do
that.
>

So you support the protection of the front page. So much for your
anyone can edit stance.

> The solution to the system is to simply remove all administrative privileges, short of >maybe a dozen "hard core" people needed to manage the front page, and instructed not >to use their powers for anything in the mainspace.

The main page is in the main namespace.


> Would the removal of all administrators result in more edit warring? Yes of course. >Because no longer would one party simply get the opposite party blocked. But edit >warring is not effective, it is indeed mutually assured destruction:

I'm failing to see any destruction

>If two parties simply revert each other all the time, they would
never get anywhere - >Ultimately even the most stubborn POV warrior
realizes he will have to arrange with the >other side.

Why? If the other side is older than him he just has to wait.

> Personal attacks? Don't listen to it and grow a skin. Copyvios? Give regular users the >ability to remove pictures.

Um no. how do we prevent them from removeing pictures we don't want
them to remove?

> Delete and undelete? Merely a technical problem.

huh?




-- 
geni