[WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 08:14 PM 5/30/2010, Ian Woollard wrote:
>On 31/05/2010, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax <abd at lomaxdesign.com> wrote:
> > As to regular deletion, an admin is assessing
> > arguments and consensus at an AfD, and, if doing this well, doesn't
> > delete unless there is consensus for it, or, alternatively, the
> > arguments are clear and evidenced.
>
>Actually it's not supposed to be about consensus at AFD.
>
>If you use consensus it's far, far too easy to stuff the vote; people
>can email their friends or use socks, and in common cases it's almost
>completely undetectable.
>
>Too many AFDs I've seen, in practice, work as a straight vote; that
>just doesn't work at all.
>
>That's why it's supposed to be about who has identified the valid
>policy for deletion or keeping it. You can't stuff the vote by
>identifying valid policy.

Of course. Wikipedia is a bit schizophrenic about this. If it's not 
consensus, why is canvassing prohibited? Surely that would simply be 
soliciting better arguments, and getting a multiplicity of arguments 
that arent' better would simply irritate the closing admin!

The policies and guidelines, however, supposedly represent consensus. 
A good closing admin explains the application of policy, and will 
then hear arguments from editors to reverse the decision, with 
equanimity, and at a certain point may say, well, there is DRV if you 
continue to disagree. And will then stay out of DRV, where there is a 
different closing admin.

Plus you go to the deleting admin and ask for the article to be 
userfied, and the admin might suggest it. "If you'd like to improve 
the article so that it might meet standards, I can place a copy in 
your user space. Would you like me to do that." Most, I'd say from my 
experience, will do it on request, unless it's actually illegal 
content. Or they will email wikitext. If a deleting admin cooperates 
as possible, it defuses personalization of the decision, it's just an 
opinion. You know that you've run in to an attached administrator 
with a personal axe to grind if he or she refuses, saying that the 
topic could never possibly be appropriate and the text is pure 
garbage. Even if it's true, that would be a gratuitous insult! 
Rather, a good admin might point to the relevant policies and suggest 
a careful review.

And then bug out, having done the job well. *Even if he's wrong.*

A full discussion of Wikipedia practice would take a tome, that's 
part of the problem.... by refusing to develop better and more 
specific guidelines, Wikipedia tossed it all in the air, and nobody 
really knows what to expect. That's a formula for endless conflict, 
not for the flexibility that has been imagined will result. 
Flexibility is a part of any good administrative system, in common 
law it's called "public policy," which trumps otherwise expected 
decision. But nobody is punished for violating "public policy," in 
same systems, only for violations that could be anticipated 
reasonably. Punishing people for doing what "they should have known" 
when Wikipedia avoided documenting this is often quite unjust, and is 
why modern criminal codes generally don't allow ex-post-facto laws 
that punish. Wikipedia is back in the dark ages in some respects.

And developing thos cleare guidelines is largely impossible because 
of the distributed decision-making structure. The Wikipedia community 
painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it 
can find the exits, the paths to fix it. Maybe. I have some ideas, 
but few want to hear about it. I'm not even bothering on-wiki any 
more, which was apparently a desired result for some. Personally, I'm 
grateful, it's freed up a lot of energy. And then I can edit some 
random article whenever I notice something, but I'm not likely to 
invest major work in a topic where I have expertise, it's too 
dangerous a place to put that. I'm having much more fun elsewhere. 
And I can watch the mess and sit back and say, not only "I told you 
so," but, "I did everything I could to point this problem out." And I 
feel that I did. I've watched the community, in a few cases, adopt as 
consensus what I'd proposed to jeers and boos, there is some 
satisfaction in that....