Admin watch, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes Options

[Peter Damian]

Apologies if this is already on another thread

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tony1/AdminWatch

The talk page is quite funny

[Kato]

There are still debates going on in the talk page, and elections are due in March.

On another thread, someone here talked about implementing mandatory desysoppings of admins after two years of service. And after that, the admin has to reapply via the normal processes if they wish to continue being an admin.

That would probably be a better way of ensuring that Admins stay within boundaries during their tenure and don't go on the rampage against others. It would devolve power away from cliques, and act as a reminder that if admins didn't behave, they would face the grim prospect of an inevitable unpleasant RFA on the horizon.

But it is unlikely to be supported, even though it would be a good thing. Political Wikipedios would quickly start quoting an Alphabet Soup Contradiction of WP:IGONRE ALL RULES and WP:NOT and any other crap they could think of. Such a proposal would be scorned, and the abuse would continue without interruption.

[CharlotteWebb]

On another thread, someone here talked about implementing mandatory desysoppings of admins after two years of service. And after that, the admin has to reapply via the normal processes if they wish to continue being an admin.

That would probably be a better way of ensuring that Admins stay within boundaries during their tenure and don't go on the rampage against others. It would devolve power away from cliques, and act as a reminder that if admins didn't behave, they would face the grim prospect of an inevitable unpleasant RFA on the horizon.

But it is unlikely to be supported, even though it would be a good thing. Political Wikipedios would quickly start quoting an Alphabet Soup Contradiction of WP:IGONRE ALL RULES and WP:NOT and any other crap they could think of. Such a proposal would be scorned, and the abuse would continue without interruption.

(I agree that it will probably never happen, but let's suppose for the sake of argument that this system is adopted)

Which current admins other than Newyorkbrad you think would successfully be re-elected after two years? (wow, has NYB been an admin that long? I had to go check actually)

Maybe this could be split into a separate thread as I'd like to hear other's opinions too, if anyone else wants to seriously answer this question.

Actually let's broaden it to "one year standing" so the result doesn't look so much like AfterMASH. Anything less than that and we'll mostly get names of people who can't be evaluated well due to lack of opportunity to screw up administratively.

I'm not asking for who anyone personally thinks is a good admin, though that would be an interesting discussion also as nobody ever talks about that here, only about the admins they have a problem with.

In a nutshell, who (once again, not named "Brad") would pass a re-confirmation RFA after one year or two years or whatever (with no intermediate time off to "reform" and "repent" whatever kind of sins they have accrued)?

I can't think of any offhand I'd bet money on, but I'll keep trying.

[Sarcasticidealist]

In a nutshell, who (once again, not named "Brad") would pass a re-confirmation RFA after one year or two years or whatever (with no intermediate time off to "reform" and "repent" whatever kind of sins they have accrued)?

A majority (even without the effective lowering of RFA standards that would probably result), especially of those who we never hear about. Just considering those in the Canadian politics neck of the woods, I don't think any of GroundZero, Bearcat, Cambridge Bay Weather, or Arctic.gnome would have anything to fear. Considering WR regulars, I think Irridescent, LHvU, CHL, and Random832 would manage. SirFozzie and Neil probably would too, actually, albeit with more opposition. If I'm being completely honest, I think I could as well, though I'm obviously not able to look at that objectively.

To add to those, all of Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, and Rlevse just exceeded 70% in the Arb Comm election, so it seems counterintuitive that they wouldn't manage to do so in an RFA (of course, that could change after years or Arb Comm service takes its toll on their popularity). Versageek, Lucasbfr, Luna Santin, Mailer Diablo, Daniel Case, Evula, EdJohnston, MBisanz, and DerHexer all just exceeded 70% in a checkuser or oversight election, so the same is probably true of them. We manage to promote bureaucrats, who typically need much more than 70% support and who have almost always been admins for at least a year, so there's more evidence.

This post has been edited by Sarcasticidealist: Wed 25th February 2009, 3:46pm

[JoseClutch]

In a nutshell, who (once again, not named "Brad") would pass a re-confirmation RFA after one year or two years or whatever (with no intermediate time off to "reform" and "repent" whatever kind of sins they have accrued)?

A majority (even without the effective lowering of RFA standards that would probably result), especially of those who we never hear about. Just considering those in the Canadian politics neck of the woods, I don't think any of GroundZero, Bearcat, Cambridge Bay Weather, or Arctic.gnome would have anything to fear. Considering WR regulars, I think Irridescent, LHvU, CHL, and Random832 would manage. SirFozzie and Neil probably would too, actually, albeit with more opposition. If I'm being completely honest, I think I could as well, though I'm obviously not able to look at that objectively.

To add to those, all of Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, and Rlevse just exceeded 70% in the Arb Comm election, so it seems counterintuitive that they wouldn't manage to do so in an RFA (of course, that could change after years or Arb Comm service takes its toll on their popularity). Versageek, Lucasbfr, Luna Santin, Mailer Diablo, Daniel Case, Evula, EdJohnston, MBisanz, and DerHexer all just exceeded 70% in a checkuser or oversight election, so the same is probably true of them. We manage to promote bureaucrats, who typically need much more than 70% support and who have almost always been admins for at least a year, so there's more evidence.

In fact, I would be surprised if there were a dozen admins who would not be re-elected. I am not sure I could even name one I am confident would not make it.

[CharlotteWebb]

In fact, I would be surprised if there were a dozen admins who would not be re-elected. I am not sure I could even name one I am confident would not make it.

I respect your opinion on this but I'd like to know:
How much of this (your viewpoint) hinges on adminship suddenly matching the "no big deal" description more closely because it is no longer "adminz-4-lyf" or what have you?

That is, do you think there would be a measurable drop in standards.

I mean I wonder if it ever comes down to this, we might get an influx of "scabs" if you will who would not otherwise be nominated, much less stand a chance, except that they've expressed a willingness to handle the tasks of fill-in-the-blank because so-and-so (the main sod doing it now) is not likely to pass re-RFA (because even though they've been doing does a good job of it they are more widely known for using too many swear words, etc).

Of course it all comes down to what one means by "standards". Really the only standard we should need is "user is not likely to fuck up too seriously or too often" but that's a lead-pipe pipe-dream if I ever saw one, because it then requires us to exhaustively provide the community every possible definition of "fuck up", which would be a joke in any case as there are an infinite number of ways.

[JoseClutch]

In fact, I would be surprised if there were a dozen admins who would not be re-elected. I am not sure I could even name one I am confident would not make it.

I respect your opinion on this but I'd like to know:
How much of this (your viewpoint) hinges on adminship suddenly matching the "no big deal" description more closely because it is no longer "adminz-4-lyf" or what have you?

No, I mean even without that.

Could you actually name an admin who you think would not pass an RFA today to become a sysop for life? Maybe MZMcBride, but in a month and a half, I think he will be right back where he was. A few might have skeletons that could be drug up - for instance, Jayjg's missent email to enwiki-l might be enough. But who else? I can not guess anyone else very reliably.

[Newyorkbrad]

In fact, I would be surprised if there were a dozen admins who would not be re-elected. I am not sure I could even name one I am confident would not make it.

I respect your opinion on this but I'd like to know:
How much of this (your viewpoint) hinges on adminship suddenly matching the "no big deal" description more closely because it is no longer "adminz-4-lyf" or what have you?

No, I mean even without that.

Could you actually name an admin who you think would not pass an RFA today to become a sysop for life? ...

There are 1600 administrators on the English Wikipedia, as of the last time I checked. If we assume for the sake of discussion that half of them are active and would request reconfirmation when the two-year terms were up, and that the reconfirmation discussions/votes would be equally spaced over the next two years, that would be 8 RfR's (requests for reconfirmation) each week.

It is difficult to predict what sort of norms might arise in the RfR process, which would require a pretty significant commitment of community time in order to operate properly. One possibility is that a group of "regulars" would emerge who would "!vote" to support reconfirmation of pretty much any admin who hadn't committed a blatant transgression. Another possibility is that after a few weeks of reconfirmation votes, people would lose interest, and the RfR pages would be dominated by whoever has a grievance or grudge (reasonable or unreasonable or debatable) against the particular administrator, rebutted by whoever took the admin's side in the original dispute.

I can foresee at least three predictable side-effects if an RfR system were to be adopted. One would be that at least some admins, as their terms were near expiring, would step away from controversial or high-profile actions. This could be a positive (if the high-profile actions would have been inappropriate), but could at least as likely be a negative. A second side-effect would be the routine re-airing of ancient grievances about long-forgotten disputes of little current relevance ("I oppose Admin:X's reconfirmation because he gave me a 3RR warning a year and a half ago"). A third side-effect would be a sharp increase in the number of discretionary calls made by the bureaucrats, including potentially controversial calls resulting in "drama" and disputation, assuming that a "consensus" as opposed to strict numerical standard were applied in deciding whether an RfR had passed or not.

My hunch is that most admins would be reconfirmed without too much problem, a few with serious issues might be voted out, and then there would be at least one RfR a month that turned into a slugfest with a seriously disputed outcome.

[EricBarbour]

It is difficult to predict what sort of norms might arise in the RfR process, which would require a pretty significant commitment of community time in order to operate properly.

You mean, it might take admin time away from more important things?
Like pushing POV, or arguing with bloggers who criticize Wikipedia?

I can foresee at least three predictable side-effects if an RfR system were to be adopted. One would be that at least some admins, as their terms were near expiring, would step away from controversial or high-profile actions. This could be a positive (if the high-profile actions would have been inappropriate), but could at least as likely be a negative. A second side-effect would be the routine re-airing of ancient grievances about long-forgotten disputes of little current relevance ("I oppose Admin:X's reconfirmation because he gave me a 3RR warning a year and a half ago"). A third side-effect would be a sharp increase in the number of discretionary calls made by the bureaucrats, including potentially controversial calls resulting in "drama" and disputation, assuming that a "consensus" as opposed to strict numerical standard were applied in deciding whether an RfR had passed or not.
My hunch is that most admins would be reconfirmed without too much problem, a few with serious issues might be voted out, and then there would be at least one RfR a month that turned into a slugfest with a seriously disputed outcome.

And how is that worse than the crap we have now?........

can you cite any example of Jimbo or his perceived hench-types blocking reform on Wikipedia?

His Wiki-buddies do it for him. They serve at his whim.


This post has been edited by EricBarbour: Wed 25th February 2009, 10:50pm

[Sarcasticidealist]

His Wiki-buddies do it for him. They serve at his whim.

It is tempting to place the blame for everything that's wrong with Wikipedia in a single pair of identifiable hands, but I've seen very little indication that Jimbo has any idea what's going on on Wikipedia most of the time. If he can be blamed, it's for laying a really shoddy foundation for the project; but it's that ungovernable foundation that's to blame. You can search through that closet for a bogeyman as long as you like, but all you'll find is some bent wire coathangers.