Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ Bureaucracy _ Town Sheriff

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

There's a new function being proposed called Wikipedia:Town sheriff. It's not clear to me whether this will have a net negative or positive impact. The one detail which is bound to be a sticking point is "Sheriffs who are appointed to a page may be removed the same way, by a consensus of the community."
Your thoughts?

Posted by: Kelly Martin

It looks like someone wants something that's more than a user but less than an admin, and tasked to do what, honestly, admins should be doing, but aren't. At least this isn't a solution in search of a problem (like so many Wikipedia proposals).

I doubt that this will ever get much traction; either the sheriffs will be powerless, or else they'll be admins. It's remotely possible that something like this (if implemented) could possibly lead to a change in the cultural expectations of admins, but that's all the more reason why it will not be implemented. Plus if it is implemented it's a virtual certainty that "successful" service as a sheriff will become a prerequisite for adminship, and thus there will be endless streams of clueless teenage boys strapping on their virtual gunbelts and virtual tin badges to dispense justice on the wikifrontier.

The most potentially interesting thing about this proposal, I think, is the opportunity for insight into the mindsets of those who are championing it, and objecting to it. Unfortunately, most of what we're getting is redundant information; we already knew that most Wikipedians are teenaged boys with a strong preference for social hierarchy and well-marked (and well-lit) paths for advancement.

Posted by: Kevin

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 10th February 2011, 3:56pm) *

There's a new function being proposed called Wikipedia:Town sheriff. It's not clear to me whether this will have a net negative or positive impact. The one detail which is bound to be a sticking point is "Sheriffs who are appointed to a page may be removed the same way, by a consensus of the community."
Your thoughts?



It is hard to imagine how another level of bureaucracy controlled by some community consensus can be anything other a negative overall. Of course, being a plan to give power to the selected few, no consensus to implement will ever arise.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 10th February 2011, 12:56am) *

There's a new function being proposed called Wikipedia:Town sheriff. It's not clear to me whether this will have a net negative or positive impact. The one detail which is bound to be a sticking point is "Sheriffs who are appointed to a page may be removed the same way, by a consensus of the community."
Your thoughts?

Seems to be the project of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=Ludwigs2, who appears to have a type-Abd personality. laugh.gif

Posted by: Kelly Martin

"Requests for Sheriffcy"? Yet another jargon term; I've never heard of such a term and a Googling for it reveals a tiny scattering of hits, mostly pages saying that there's no such word.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey



Sanger insisted on deputizing “Constables” in Citizendium.

It was the beginning of the end as far as adult projects go.

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: lilburne

The project is screwed because it has no focus, a slipshod understanding of notability, a woefully poor understanding of causality, and a bevy of fuckwits in swanning about it creating drama. Adding yet more fuckwits into the pot won't improve it.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(lilburne @ Thu 10th February 2011, 9:12am) *

The project is screwed because it has no focus, a slipshod understanding of notability, a woefully poor understanding of causality, and a bevy of fuckwits in swanning about it creating drama. Adding yet more fuckwits into the pot won't improve it.

I don't think they're shooting for more fuckwits, just giving more of the fuckwits some pretty badges to show that their fuckwittery is appreciated. rolleyes.gif

Posted by: thekohser

Sound like a great idea, once they define "community" for us.

Posted by: Zoloft

Community would be defined as a shy garage attendant, a barber, a school teacher, and a maiden aunt who watches over your young son.

You would be an honest arbiter of justice, known for your plain ways, folk wisdom, and craggy smile.

But your deputy sheriff is a bit of a rabbity dingbat, so you only allow him one bullet, kept in his shirt pocket.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Zoloft @ Thu 10th February 2011, 9:23am) *

Community would be defined as a shy garage attendant, a barber, a school teacher, and a maiden aunt who watches over your young son.

You would be an honest arbiter of justice, known for your plain ways, folk wisdom, and craggy smile.

But your deputy sheriff is a bit of a rabbity dingbat, so you only allow him one bullet, kept in his shirt pocket.

That last would be Barney Sidaway, sometimes known as the incredible Mr. Limpetmine. He drops into each episode to provide comic relief with this anxious and bizarre ideas, and you can't get rid of him.

And watch that young son-- he might grow up to be a famous producer and tell the story of it all...

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Thu 10th February 2011, 12:56am) *

There's a new function being proposed called Wikipedia:Town sheriff. It's not clear to me whether this will have a net negative or positive impact. The one detail which is bound to be a sticking point is "Sheriffs who are appointed to a page may be removed the same way, by a consensus of the community."
Your thoughts?


This stuff makes Facebook so much more fun to play on. ermm.gif

Posted by: Jaranda

I don't see it working, it's a stereotype example of process creep, giving powers to people who shouldn't have powers and the things it supposed to do is already under control by adminstrators, meditators, and others in the proper noticeboard, this is laughable really. It doesn't have much support in the talk page other than a few non-admins.

Posted by: Cedric

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 10th February 2011, 7:53am) *

"Requests for Sheriffcy"? Yet another jargon term; I've never heard of such a term and a Googling for it reveals a tiny scattering of hits, mostly pages saying that there's no such word.

Bah. It should be labeled "Requests for Ensheriffment". Another non-existent word that is even more pretentious, and therefore perfect for Wikipedia, the let's-pretend encyclopedia. No Google hits at all. happy.gif

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Cedric @ Thu 10th February 2011, 9:03pm) *

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 10th February 2011, 7:53am) *

"Requests for Sheriffcy"? Yet another jargon term; I've never heard of such a term and a Googling for it reveals a tiny scattering of hits, mostly pages saying that there's no such word.

Bah. It should be labeled "Requests for Ensheriffment". Another non-existent word that is even more pretentious, and therefore perfect for Wikipedia, the let's-pretend encyclopedia. No Google hits at all. happy.gif

How about just requests for "enreevement?" (they could get immediate bereevement counseling if they make it-- or don't make it).

What superpowerz do our new reeves get? Do we tell the Christopher reeve and George reeves that they're not Superman? The Steve reeves that they're not Hercules?

The amusing part of all of this, is that we're still recapitulating feudalism, and have made it now to the 14th century, perhaps. The lords of the wiki-mannor are getting bored by doing the nitty gritty oversight and accounting of the serfs, and want to hire out the managerial tasks without letting go of any powerz. So they look for shire reeves. Alas, it's still volunteer job, and just as dirty.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

Will they be sporting a tin barnstar?

Posted by: Lar

Seems a bad idea to me but I could be confused.

Posted by: Sylar

They should also appoint town outlaws and grant them extra powers also.

Posted by: Text

Everyone on Wikipedia is a sheriff without guns to enforce anything...

Posted by: bi-winning

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Thu 10th February 2011, 5:53am) *

"Requests for Sheriffcy"? Yet another jargon term; I've never heard of such a term and a Googling for it reveals a tiny scattering of hits, mostly pages saying that there's no such word.

"Sheriffship" sounds better to me, and Google seems to support.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(bi-winning @ Sat 5th March 2011, 3:44pm) *
"Sheriffship" sounds better to me, and Google seems to support.

Welcome to WR, Mr. Bi-Winning! smile.gif

I always thought the term was "Sheriffhood," but I looked it up just now and you seem to be right, "Sheriffship" is also considered a proper word, and largely interchangeable with "Sheriffhood." It also sounds a bit less archaic, so I suppose they'd probably prefer that, too.

Posted by: Herschelkrustofsky

QUOTE(Cedric @ Thu 10th February 2011, 8:03pm) *

Bah. It should be labeled "Requests for Ensheriffment".
I still like this one. But I might also offer "Sheriffication" or WP:S.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Herschelkrustofsky @ Sat 5th March 2011, 3:42pm) *

QUOTE(Cedric @ Thu 10th February 2011, 8:03pm) *

Bah. It should be labeled "Requests for Ensheriffment".
I still like this one. But I might also offer "Sheriffication" or WP:S.

Trivia: we might note in passing that the very idea of "town sheriff" is an oxymoron. Sheriffs and their deputies (at least for the past few centuries) are in charge of law enforcement at the county level, never town level. Which means alongside city-cops inside cities and towns, and alongside state troopers on state and federal highways, but "by themselves" primarily off-highway in the unincorporated county BETWEEN towns and cities.

The word they really wanted here, was "marshal." Which was once employed both at the town and federal state and territorial level. I guess they wanted the Old West feel of "sheriff," but forgot that in the old west, sheriff also was a county position, even though of course the sheriff always had his offices in some town (nobody expected him to live out in the sagebrush, even if he often worked there). Usually the sheriff had offices in the county seat (or territorial seat if it was a territory) and his deputies in other major cities of the county.

I personally lay blame for this bit of dunderheadedness entirely on 20 years of TV's Gun Smoke. Poor Marshal Dillon has to do not only the U.S. marshal job for Kansas, but the city marshal job for Dodge also. And despite the fact that Dodge City is a county seat, we never see hide nor hair of the Ford Co. sheriff, either. Bleh. confused.gif

Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 5th March 2011, 5:14pm) *
Trivia: we might note in passing that the very idea of "town sheriff" is an oxymoron. Sheriffs and their deputies (at least for the past few centuries) are in charge of law enforcement at the county level, never town level. Which means alongside city-cops inside cities and towns, and alongside state troopers on state and federal highways, but "by themselves" primarily off-highway in the unincorporated county BETWEEN towns and cities.

The word they really wanted here, was "marshal." Which was once employed both at the town and federal state and territorial level. I guess they wanted the Old West feel of "sheriff," but forgot that in the old west, sheriff also was a county position, even though of course the sheriff always had his offices in some town (nobody expected him to live out in the sagebrush, even if he often worked there). Usually the sheriff had offices in the county seat (or territorial seat if it was a territory) and his deputies in other major cities of the county.
Indeed, the term "sheriff" is itself a corruption of "shire reeve", where a "shire" is an ancient unit of government in England roughly comparable to what we in the US call a county (why we call them "counties" and not "shires" here is itself a long and convoluted story), and a "reeve" is a generic term for an official. The term itself predates the Norman conquest of England and came to the United States loaded with literally centuries of cultural and legal baggage, none of which I suspect was known to the proposers of this notion even though Wikipedia has half-way decent coverage of it in its articles on "sheriff", "shire", "county", and "reeve".

Sheriffs often provided law enforcement in the small Western towns of the US in the 19th century for the simple reason that either (a) those hamlets had not formally incorporated and thus had no authority to employ a marshal or (b) the town was too poor to, or simply unwilling to, employ a marshal. The sheriff's duty to enforce the law throughout the county which is his charge is not ordinarily abated in incorporated places within the county.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Sat 5th March 2011, 5:02pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sat 5th March 2011, 5:14pm) *
Trivia: we might note in passing that the very idea of "town sheriff" is an oxymoron. Sheriffs and their deputies (at least for the past few centuries) are in charge of law enforcement at the county level, never town level. Which means alongside city-cops inside cities and towns, and alongside state troopers on state and federal highways, but "by themselves" primarily off-highway in the unincorporated county BETWEEN towns and cities.

The word they really wanted here, was "marshal." Which was once employed both at the town and federal state and territorial level. I guess they wanted the Old West feel of "sheriff," but forgot that in the old west, sheriff also was a county position, even though of course the sheriff always had his offices in some town (nobody expected him to live out in the sagebrush, even if he often worked there). Usually the sheriff had offices in the county seat (or territorial seat if it was a territory) and his deputies in other major cities of the county.
Indeed, the term "sheriff" is itself a corruption of "shire reeve", where a "shire" is an ancient unit of government in England roughly comparable to what we in the US call a county (why we call them "counties" and not "shires" here is itself a long and convoluted story), and a "reeve" is a generic term for an official. The term itself predates the Norman conquest of England and came to the United States loaded with literally centuries of cultural and legal baggage, none of which I suspect was known to the proposers of this notion even though Wikipedia has half-way decent coverage of it in its articles on "sheriff", "shire", "county", and "reeve".

Sheriffs often provided law enforcement in the small Western towns of the US in the 19th century for the simple reason that either (a) those hamlets had not formally incorporated and thus had no authority to employ a marshal or (b) the town was too poor to, or simply unwilling to, employ a marshal. The sheriff's duty to enforce the law throughout the county which is his charge is not ordinarily abated in incorporated places within the county.

Appears you missed my riff on be-reeve-ment above.

But yes, some towns in the US were too small to pay for their own marshal or constable and had to rely on the nearest sheriff. But nobody ever called that guy a "town sheriff". That phrase requires a tin ear for history. It has the sound of one of those words that comes out of dime novels like "riding shotgun" or "gunslinger" that were made up by writers a long time later, but never used by people living in the place and period in question. Can you imagine Marshal Dillon saying: "Yo, homie. What up?"

Did you know that villain has the same root as village? And even ultimately, villa? The idea is basically a peasant or serf who worked around the lord's villa, but didn't own the villa or any land, and thus was not likely to be "chivalrous." In other words, (see root of chivalry) did not have a high horse to get up on. It's pretty much the same idea as editor/peon vs administrator/noble. smile.gif Wikipedia has a good article on the etymology. Wonder if it was written by an admin?