Admin watch, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes Options

[CharlotteWebb]

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).

Oh, I don't think it's a good idea either, Steve, I'm just saying that's how the community looks at it as a whole, not as individuals. My opinions and yours plus £30 will might buy us dinner for two at Lee Ho Fook's but they wouldn't help a good admin get re-elected if all of their decisions (whilst perfectly rational and supported by policy) tend to alienate 40–60% of users who give a shit about the issue.

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.

I think few would ever admit they consider the latter as a factor in their vote. Would you? Actually support votes are overall less likely to include any reason than the oppose votes, but I know that's not conclusive either.

If arbcom did not have a finite number of seats, or scheduled elections... if every candidate applied one at a time on a pass/fail basis... but everything else about arbcom was the same (the duties and term length), do you think it would grow in size?

Frankly I think it would shrink (but then I'm no idealist).

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."?

Actually I might have said that once! Really I suspect it's seen more as a status symbol than anything. I mean 1–3 people could easily handle any and all bureaucrat duty that arises and still have time to write articles.

Why do people still think we need more bureaucrats, especially if they pledge to be just like the one's we've got (except for Mackensen who promised to be completely different, and got his ass handed to him at RFB)? Could be power hunger. Could be something that looks good on your résumé when you run for arbcom "see I didn't do anything bad as a bureaucrat either <s>because I couldn't think of anything</s>!"

Course if bureaucrats could desysop Admins Gone Wild it would be a different story, we'd want to promote as many as we could trust, and distrust of a bureaucrat candidate would be more actionable at least in my mind. Now only if they could de-bureaucrat other bureaucrats things could get interesting.

[Somey]

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.

They have standards?

Realistically, even in in the unlikely event that they do something like this, they'd never allow for a system whereby existing admins would have to reapply via the "normal process." At best, they might accept something like "consensus required for non-renewal" or something of that nature, meaning it would take a roughly 75% vote to prevent someone like, well, you know, those kinds of people from getting their adminships back after the term expired. That would at least help deal with the worst of them, I suppose. It might even be enough to reduce drama-mongering in general to non-embarrassing levels, which in turn is why it will probably never happen.

Still, we can always make helplful suggestions, eh!

[Kelly Martin]

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)

I'm sure quite a lot would be. We just don't know who they are because they're the admins that don't create drama, and we only pay attention to admins who create drama.

[Bottled_Spider]

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)

I say it's time to look at the badmin problem creatively, and very, very laterally. I say the POV-pushing, abusive, ridiculous, nasty, clinically-insane admins are kept on for as long as possible. The ones that should be got rid of are the nice, pleasant, reasonable, sensible ones. Wikipedia would then end up drowning in a shitey cesspool that would eventually explode with the sheer pressure of all the degenerated gas and bile. Yes; I have a dream. Brothers! Sisters! Indeterminates! Are you with me?!

[CharlotteWebb]

I'm sure quite a lot would be. We just don't know who they are because they're the admins that don't create drama, and we only pay attention to admins who create drama.

Ah but would the same not be opposed for doing too little "adminning"? I mean, people like big numbers. RFA/RFB talk pages look more like a damn sports almanac than a discussion area.

[EricBarbour]

I say it's time to look at the badmin problem creatively, and very, very laterally. I say the POV-pushing, abusive, ridiculous, nasty, clinically-insane admins are kept on for as long as possible. The ones that should be got rid of are the nice, pleasant, reasonable, sensible ones. Wikipedia would then end up drowning in a shitey cesspool that would eventually explode with the sheer pressure of all the degenerated gas and bile. Yes; I have a dream. Brothers! Sisters! Indeterminates! Are you with me?!

I still think that if Jimbo and his top whores (Bass, Gerard etc) were all purged,
suddenly there would be more possibilities for implementing real reform,
including time limits on administrator accounts.

But nothing will change as long as Jimbo lets things fester....and allows his arrogant toadies to do the publicity for him......

[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.

[Sarcasticidealist]

I still think that if Jimbo and his top whores (Bass, Gerard etc) were all purged,
suddenly there would be more possibilities for implementing real reform,
including time limits on administrator accounts.

I'm curious: can you cite any example of Jimbo or his perceived hench-types blocking reform on Wikipedia? To the limited extent that Jimbo's a factor with regards to on-Wikipedia policy, I'd say he's a positive one (of course, that's if flagged revs comes to anything - if not, I don't even think I'd identify him as much of a factor).

[Milton Roe]

I still think that if Jimbo and his top whores (Bass, Gerard etc) were all purged,
suddenly there would be more possibilities for implementing real reform,
including time limits on administrator accounts.

I'm curious: can you cite any example of Jimbo or his perceived hench-types blocking reform on Wikipedia? To the limited extent that Jimbo's a factor with regards to on-Wikipedia policy, I'd say he's a positive one (of course, that's if flagged revs comes to anything - if not, I don't even think I'd identify him as much of a factor).

Every one of Jimbo's "non-negociable policies" is a block to reform. That phrase means: I'm not going to listen to any reason you have why this should be changed, no matter how good it is. It's NON-NEGOTIABLE."

[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.

[Eva Destruction]

[A reconfirmation process won't work…]

When an admin term expires (say two years for the sake of argument) they're desysopped for at least three months. No exceptions. If they want to come back after the three months, there's a simplified "Does anyone have any strong objection to this user being resysopped? Why?" process. (No supports and opposes, only opposes). If they get foo opposes which in the eyes of a closing crat are legitimate concerns, they don't get it back. Quick and easy. Yes, it concentrates a little more power in the hands of the crats, but you're the one who's telling us how inherently trustworthy they are. And quite frankly, I'd sooner trust a vetted elite then the gaggle of squabbling schoolkids that constitute "consensus" these days.

[Newyorkbrad]

[A reconfirmation process won't work…]

When an admin term expires (say two years for the sake of argument) they're desysopped for at least three months. No exceptions. If they want to come back after the three months, there's a simplified "Does anyone have any strong objection to this user being resysopped? Why?" process. (No supports and opposes, only opposes). If they get foo opposes which in the eyes of a closing crat are legitimate concerns, they don't get it back. Quick and easy. Yes, it concentrates a little more power in the hands of the crats, but you're the one who's telling us how inherently trustworthy they are. And quite frankly, I'd sooner trust a vetted elite then the gaggle of squabbling schoolkids that constitute "consensus" these days.

So ... I became an admin two years and one month ago. Tonight, when I review whether to accept the arbitration request against MZMcBride, I can't look at the pages he deleted?

[Eva Destruction]

[A reconfirmation process won't work…]

When an admin term expires (say two years for the sake of argument) they're desysopped for at least three months. No exceptions. If they want to come back after the three months, there's a simplified "Does anyone have any strong objection to this user being resysopped? Why?" process. (No supports and opposes, only opposes). If they get foo opposes which in the eyes of a closing crat are legitimate concerns, they don't get it back. Quick and easy. Yes, it concentrates a little more power in the hands of the crats, but you're the one who's telling us how inherently trustworthy they are. And quite frankly, I'd sooner trust a vetted elite then the gaggle of squabbling schoolkids that constitute "consensus" these days.

So ... I became an admin two years and one month ago. Tonight, when I review whether to accept the arbitration request against MZMcBride, I can't look at the pages he deleted?

I'd say that an Arbcom election counts as a de facto reconfirmation (since people are trusting you with additional powers, which implies approval of your use of current ones). If you'd passed your second anniversary on Arbcom though, certainly. I think those three year limits are insanely long in the context of a project where the average user "lifespan" is a few months.

[Milton Roe]

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.

It might be handy to require that every admin carry a NOINDEXED "complaint page". This would be something like a personnel file, except no barnstars (you can look on the user page for those). This would be for user complaints, with mandatory link to it whenever you warn or block somebody. Rules would be similar to ArbCom evidence stuff, with similar space limits, restrictions against modifying complaints by the admin (or his or her buddies) except under unusual circumstances. Equal space given to answer complaints.

All that keeps things up to do date, so we can see what problems any admin chronically has with other editors. Naturally blocking somebody doesn't keep them from posting their one-page rant about it on your complaint page-- that's what it's there for. When you come up for re-confirm, this record makes things a lot easier to review.

Naturally people will try to game this by oversighting diffs which make them look bad, or blocking people who make complaints. But I have in mind the two female police officers who were blatently stealing pants out of a store during the Katrina flood. They told the newscamera person to "Stop filming or you'll be arrested." Didn't work. Nor should it on Wikipedia.

[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.

[GlassBeadGame]

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.

Agree. Mr. Wales' greatest disservice to Wikipedia was the creation of the bifurcation between WMF and "the community." This was The Great Firewall of Irresponsibility. He then seeded the project with people from Usenet and the rest worked itself out. He couldn't put it back in bottle if he wanted to. Now he is a just another participant in a dysfunctional social networking community with a few special buttons on a downward path toward declining influence.

[Kelly Martin]

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.

This may be best seen as evidence that Wikipedia has too many administrators. If you can't handle the bureaucratic load of managing them responsibly, then you have obvious problems.

[One]

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.

Once again, I think this hits the mark. Jimbo seems unaware of contemporary community developments, and is sometimes surprised by them. He's not a mafia Don.

I'm sure quite a lot would be. We just don't know who they are because they're the admins that don't create drama, and we only pay attention to admins who create drama.

Correct. At least 1000 admins (probably low estimate) have never been mentioned on this site and never been the subject of an ARBCOM case, ANI heading, nor an RFC. Most people here are in the highest percentile of drama (I'm including myself in this category), and some of us forget that there's a whole population of hobbyists who have never heard of this site, have never logged into IRC, and generally don't care about this wikipolitical nonsense.

This post has been edited by One: Thu 26th February 2009, 4:34am

[Jon Awbrey]

Once again, I think this hits the mark. Jimbo seems unaware of contemporary community developments, and is sometimes surprised by them. He's not a mafia don.

Tweezers, Lawnmower.
Lawnmower, Tweezers.

Ja Ja