Admin watch, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes Options

[Kato]

Tony debates with User:Jayron, on a subpage here. Worth reading if you are interested.

On positions of authority at Wikipedia

No system is perfect, but the motivation is there to review and fine-tune AdminReview once it starts. The two key differences between it and the existing processes are (1) its focus on relatively narrow questions of whether a breach of admin policy has or has not occurred, and (2) strict evidentiary rules to limit bloat and the duration and complexity of the process, and to maximise the likelihood of procedural fairness. You may wish to read the FAQs; the third-party/multiple complainant issue, and the arrangements for the election of coordinators, have not been fully resolved. Another difference is that AdminReview will rely on the good faith of the parties, not muscle or the will of the crowd. It will aim to attract candidates with specific skills (see Coordinators). Tony (talk) 13:35, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

At present, probably the most productive "AdminReview" comes from this site - Wikipedia Review. Over the years, despite the acres of garbage that arrives at our doors - this place has had some impact on poor behavior. Perhaps Tony's AdminReview can take some of that dismal workload off our hands? And mean that this site can get on with more productive chatter than "boo hoo I hate that meany admin" stuff.

[EricBarbour]

At present, probably the most productive "AdminReview" comes from this site - Wikipedia Review. Over the years, despite the acres of garbage that arrives at our doors - this place has had some impact on poor behavior. Perhaps Tony's AdminReview can take some of that dismal workload off our hands? And mean that this site can get on with more productive chatter than "boo hoo I hate that meany admin" stuff.

I wish he would succeed, but seriously I doubt he'll be able to keep in in the wiki database.
Perhaps he should find hosting for it elsewhere, or at least a backup.

[Kato]

According to Tony

Elections for the Coordinators are likely to be held in mid-March.

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

[Obesity]

According to Tony

Elections for the Coordinators are likely to be held in mid-March.

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

I saw that and intend to reopen the old campaign office in short order.

[GlassBeadGame]

According to Tony

Elections for the Coordinators are likely to be held in mid-March.

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

Everyone loves an election.

[Milton Roe]

In the end I think Mr Sanger had it right: "Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." Guy (Help!) 11:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A paradox. For if "Mr. Sanger" was right, how is it that he himself was shown the door not long thereafter? And then, how could he BE right? Does it not boggle your mind to think on it, Guy?

And what are we doing reading old Sanger essays, anyway? And giving him the respectful "Mr." (even if he is by now a Ph.D.) That all sounds very sneaky and subversive.

You subversive, you.

[the fieryangel]

In the end I think Mr Sanger had it right: "Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." Guy (Help!) 11:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A paradox. For if "Mr. Sanger" was right, how is it that he himself was shown the door not long thereafter? And then, how could he BE right? Does it not boggle your mind to think on it, Guy?

And what are we doing reading old Sanger essays, anyway? And giving him the respectful "Mr." (even if he is by now a Ph.D.) That all sounds very sneaky and subversive.

You subversive, you.

Well, look who's talking, oh, he who uses a fake WP user name...

[Sarcasticidealist]

This just in: The Fieryangel thinks that people shouldn't use pseudonyms on the internet. For further details (or, rather, repetition of the preceding detail), see any of a dozen or so threads.

[Milton Roe]

In the end I think Mr Sanger had it right: "Show the door to trolls, vandals, and wiki-anarchists, who, if permitted, would waste your time and create a poisonous atmosphere here." Guy (Help!) 11:13, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

A paradox. For if "Mr. Sanger" was right, how is it that he himself was shown the door not long thereafter? And then, how could he BE right? Does it not boggle your mind to think on it, Guy?

And what are we doing reading old Sanger essays, anyway? And giving him the respectful "Mr." (even if he is by now a Ph.D.) That all sounds very sneaky and subversive.

You subversive, you.

Well, look who's talking, oh, he who uses a fake WP user name...

There is no WP user Milton Roe.

I don't use a fake name on WP. If you're going to collect people who started out on WP with their own true birth certificate names from day #1, hell or high water, you're going to end up with a short list, but I'm on it.

Alas, it also contains a few people like David Gerard and Jimbo Wales. But then again, they STARTED with the mojo (a common pattern is also for people to start out with pseudos and decloak once they collect mojo). Subtract people who did something of THAT kind, and the list is shorter still. But I'm still on it. You're not.

[the fieryangel]

Alas, it also contains a few people like David Gerard and Jimbo Wales. But then again, they STARTED with the mojo (a common pattern is also for people to start out with pseudos and decloak once they collect mojo). Subtract people who did something of THAT kind, and the list is shorter still. But I'm still on it. You're not.

I most certainly am. My initial WP name was the name of my company, which lead to my website, which lead to my name, address and telephone number. I laid all of these cards on the table. So, they were clear from day one on this account's talk page. This was certainly not the best way to start playing that particular game, but it was workable back in 2006 when I started, especially in the relative calm of the "classical music" categories. All of this is much different now, of course.

The whole pseudo-anonymous culture is creating most of the problems discussed here. This particular forum is becoming more and more an actual subset of WP itself, so this problem is becoming more apparent. Since the game is being played here openly now, I really fail to see how any objective criticism can take place.

[EricBarbour]

It's still there, now called AdminReview.

No substantial edits since 17 January. Tony and a couple others have tightened up the language, but it appears as if interest is dropping off.

[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.

[Jon Awbrey]

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.

I have suggested several times that people who are really serious about all that Non-E-Litism Stuff would have Mandatory Term Limits, with no Re↑ — at least, a refractory period on Re↑ing — like many US political offices have.

But everbuddy know they ain't really serious about all that Non-E-Litism Bull — and all it would do is multiply the ranks of Admind Sockpuppets.

Jon

[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

[A Horse With No Name]

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.

I suspect that a lot of the teenage admins would get re-elected without a problem. Part of it is based on their work – on the whole, they tend to be less controversial and less confrontational. Plus, the teen admins already have plenty of friends with other teens via IRC and Simple Wikipedia, so they can easily canvass (and not get caught, hee hee).

[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]

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.

I forgot to mention, no self-noms. But yes, one could argue that the "best" admins are ones most people don't realize are admins, and whom the others knew but forgot about. In fact I'm sure it's been argued before.

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.

Ah but RFA is different than these super-user elections in that the candidate is not running against anyone other than the darker side of his or her self.

This can be a disadvantage, as RFA support is not subsidized by strategic "least worst" voting.

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 is a fair point but not a huge one. Bureaucrat is a funny job.

How many accusations of "bureaucrat abuse" have actually been leveled? I don't see a reason for any bureaucrat except possibly Deskana not to be re-elected as bureaucrat if they were required to "re-confirm" as bureaucrat (though I expect the community to disagree with me on these points as per usual, plus this will never happen anyway).

Abuse generally occurs when one knows they shouldn't do something, but they also know they'll probably get away with it, or they really don't care anymore. It's all about gray areas, things that can be explained away by some mitigating circumstance. The bureaucrat group has fewer of those than any other, yet judging by the math it is the hardest position to obtain.

In any case the next step after getting the short list (or long list if you are an idealist) is to estimate whether this group plus whoever replaces the other group would be enough to keep the show on-air so to speak.

On the other hand I'm reminded of a store I worked at when I was like 20. Everyone I know of who worked there eventually got fired for one reason or another, including myself! As a boss, he was this demented, paranoid old man who routinely accused everyone (I mean everyone) of stealing money, stealing gas, stealing groceries, stealing soda-pops, stealing cigarettes, stealing his pens and pencils, stealing time (hourly pay), sleeping, gambling, drinking, swearing, toking, even fucking on the job. So kept firing all comers but somehow always found new applicants, managing to stay in business till the day he died a few years back.

Outside of work he was as nice as can be. Like a grandparent almost. Sad really.

I guess the point of this is most of the stuff we're talking about is not rocket science but stuff anyone can learn how to do. Whether you'd find enough who actually wanted to (and not for some sinister ulterior reason, however you plan to check for that) is a more pressing concern, especially when the commodity in question is unpaid labor.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I forgot to mention, no self-noms. But yes, one could argue that the "best" admins are ones most people don't realize are admins, and whom the others knew but forgot about. In fact I'm sure it's been argued before.

Not sure of the meaning of your quotation marks, but I don't think conflating "best" with "least controversial" is a good idea. There are plenty of controversial admins who I'd place as among Wikipedia's best (as well as several who I'd place among the worst, of course).

Ah but RFA is different than these super-user elections in that the candidate is not running against anyone other than the darker side of his or her self.

Glancing through the comments in ACE2008, you see a lot more "Good candidate, just not among my chosen seven" than you see "Strategic support to prevent worse candidates from getting in." Not that that's conclusive, but it's something.

This is a fair point but not a huge one. Bureaucrat is a funny job.

I agree that bureaucrats' actions are generally far less controversial than admins'. But do you honestly think there's a lot of people supporting candidacies for bureaucrat with the mentality "Well, this guy's a lousy admin, but since bureaucrats' jobs tend to be uncontroversial I'll support here."?

[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.