Community de-adminship RfC enters voting, Canvassed with a Wikipedia banner Options

[Malleus]

I will oppose this and it will not be fear of accountability or whatever nonsense you want to infer. It will be because it cannot work.

I imagine you can guess what I think, which is that you are selfishly propping a corrupt system. Has there ever been an example in history of a corrupt leadership voting itself out of power?

I'd be at least as happy with term limits for administrators; at least that way the crap won't be around forever.

This post has been edited by Malleus: Tue 23rd February 2010, 8:53pm

[NuclearWarfare]

Malleus, would you like to rerun your check, this time looking at editors who have been actively editing for a year or more?

[Malleus]

Malleus, would you like to rerun your check, this time looking at editors who have been actively editing for a year or more?

That's more effort than I'm prepared to invest when the answer to the question would change nothing.

[Lar]

Would I get de-admined by such a process? Highly unlikely. Would you find 3/6/9 or even 20 editors (or even admins) in good standing willing to trigger it? No problem.

The same would go for Lar...

This may be jinxing it, but so far no 6 editors have actually come forward.

[radek]

Voted against it, partly based on the expectation that any future attempts at improving, discussing, reforming the whole admiship/deadminship process are going to be shut down with "we already have this (half-assed, ill thought out, badly conceived and mostly ineffective) policy in place we don't need nothing else!" if this was to pass.

I'm a big believer in not making the perfect an enemy of the good but this seems to run into the opposite fallacy: "Something must be done (about deadminship)! This is something. Therefore this must be done!"

I still think other proposals (requiring admins to be content creators, requiring a re-approval of the tools, requiring a periodic hiatus, setting up a completely separate committee to deal with admin tool abuse) would work much better and hopefully as time passes, things get worse, will become viable too (that's the crazy naive idealist talking)

[Malleus]

I think there's some merit in the "let's just sit back and wait until things get so bad that even the administrators realise that this is going tits up" approach.

[Jon Awbrey]

I think there's some merit in the "let's just sit back and wait until things get so bad that even the administrators realise that this is going tits up" approach.

Always the best approach to take with fascist regimes, Neville.

Jon

[Malleus]

I think there's some merit in the "let's just sit back and wait until things get so bad that even the administrators realise that this is going tits up" approach.

Always the best approach to take with fascist regimes, Neville.

I think your apparent equivalence of the Nazi threat in the late 1930s to the condition that wikipedia now finds itself in is rather telling. Do you really believe that a conflict that cost the lives of tens of millions can really be put in conjunction to a few jumped up dickheads having their beloved "admin tools" taken away from them?

Some fights are worth fighting, but sometimes there's no need to fight, just sit back and watch.

[Jon Awbrey]

I think there's some merit in the "let's just sit back and wait until things get so bad that even the administrators realise that this is going tits up" approach.

Always the best approach to take with fascist regimes, Neville.

I think your apparent equivalence of the Nazi threat in the late 1930s to the condition that wikipedia now finds itself in is rather telling. Do you really believe that a conflict that cost the lives of tens of millions can really be put in conjunction to a few jumped up dickheads having their beloved "admin tools" taken away from them?

Some fights are worth fighting, but sometimes there's no need to fight, just sit back and watch.

And he said unto them, the Kinkdum of Jimbo is like the tiny bastard seed, that cast upon a humongous heap of manure sprouts and spreads, becoming as a mighty plantation that fouls the air and casts darkness over the earth below.

Jon

[MZMcBride]

There's a balance to be struck. And arguably, the current means of removing an administrator have become too lenient. The Arbitration Committee is more than capable of handling actual administrator abuse. That isn't to say that the Arbitration Committee is competent, effective, or even necessary, but if there is actual and demonstrable abuse of the administrator position, this most recent Arbitration Committee and the group from 2009 have both made it clear they are capable and willing to remove bad administrators. This situation is the result of an evolution; the same things could not be said in 2008 or probably any year before that.

Succinctly, it makes very little sense to focus time or energy on a community de-adminship procedure when one simply isn't needed. But, hey, how else are you giving to fill an otherwise bland week?

[Jon Awbrey]

I will oppose this and it will not be fear of accountability or whatever nonsense you want to infer. It will be because it cannot work.

I imagine you can guess what I think, which is that you are selfishly propping a corrupt system. Has there ever been an example in history of a corrupt leadership voting itself out of power?

I'd be at least as happy with term limits for administrators; at least that way the crap won't be around forever.

It's been pointed out many times here that if Wikipediots were even remotely sincere about their Non-Elitism BS they would have strict term limits for all management positions — but of course we all know they are not even remotely sincere about that.

Jon

[Eva Destruction]

It's been pointed out many times here that if Wikipediots were even remotely sincere about their Non-Elitism BS they would have strict term limits for all management positions — but of course we all know they are not even remotely sincere about that.

Some are, some aren't; as I've said before, because WR is where problems are raised, it has a systemic bias towards covering the bad apples. When I was a WP admin I always argued in favor of a maximum two-year term for all management positions, and resigned as soon as I reached that limit, and I can't be the only one.

[GlassBeadGame]

Community de-adminship is the basic solution to all of Wikipedia's problems related to administrators. That some people either don't see that, or are too self-interested to care, is appalling to me. This is actually a very weak proposal--it would be necessary to obtain 65% of the vote against an admin in order to desysop him or her--but the opposition to it is centered around the belief that any system at all, even a very weak one, is too threatening to accept.

What a self serving hypocrite. If you trust the "wisdom of the community" why don't at least give liberal terms of recall for your own privileges?

[Doc glasgow]

I will oppose this and it will not be fear of accountability or whatever nonsense you want to infer. It will be because it cannot work.

I imagine you can guess what I think, which is that you are selfishly propping a corrupt system. Has there ever been an example in history of a corrupt leadership voting itself out of power?

I'd be at least as happy with term limits for administrators; at least that way the crap won't be around forever.

It's been pointed out many times here that if Wikipediots were even remotely sincere about their Non-Elitism BS they would have strict term limits for all management positions — but of course we all know they are not even remotely sincere about that.

Jon

Let me say quite categorically.

I am not interested in non-elitism. If you want to write an encyclopedia, you want the best.

I am not interested in democracy. If you want to write an encyclopedia, you want what works not what's popular.

That doesn't mean I'm interested in propping up a cabal. I do think admins being more accountable would be a good thing - providing they are accountable to suitably proven and experienced people. I also think a mechanism to make it easier to remove substandard admins is not a bad idea.

However, I oppose this because it will bring out the worst in the anti-authoritarian democratic drama-mongers in wikipedia, and will do NOTHING to remove bad admins, since the only admins it will remove are ones so bad they are currently removed.

Am I "selfish" in opposing this? No - because even if I care about the possibility of being desysopped (and I don't) there is no chance that I would get desysopped by such a process, wheras I would inevitably have my (and the community's) time wasted by being dragged through it.

Again, in the grand scheme of things, who gets to be an admin on wikipedia is irrelevant. Removing a few dozen bad eggs is also fairly irrelevant. It may improve the gaming experience of a few people here, but it does nothing to make Wikipedia a better, or less harmful, product for the reader or the subject.

This is another piece irrelevant MORPG playing by WP and WR alike.

[powercorrupts]

It's been pointed out many times here that if Wikipediots were even remotely sincere about their Non-Elitism BS they would have strict term limits for all management positions — but of course we all know they are not even remotely sincere about that.

Some are, some aren't; as I've said before, because WR is where problems are raised, it has a systemic bias towards covering the bad apples. When I was a WP admin I always argued in favor of a maximum two-year term for all management positions, and resigned as soon as I reached that limit, and I can't be the only one.

Did you put yourself back up for rfa? There is also the matter of whether some people even want to stay on being admin after a point, but for one reason or another just carry on. Adminship for a set term could be a much better sell than the status quo. I question everyone who wants to be an admin at the moment, as the company is so bad, the job is so disrespected, yet the rewards are such an arsenal. I don't they should dish out all those block tools straight away - maybe after a period

CDA on analysis has proved to be a waste of time as far as I'm concerned. Admin have to practically bugger someone online to get into trouble on a day to day basis, and the amount of cranky admin (which must be getting to breaking point now), will make CDAs mayhem in practice. Far too many admin routinely behave like surly teenagers (with as little regard for Policy they can get away with), and there is no reason they wont carry it on at a CDA, either in support of an admin of use to them, or in opposition to an admin who's pissed them off. That can't be good for wikipedia, whatever you think about it - admin just pop up, and no rules can stop them from doing what they want. It's the poor quality of administrators overall (not per individual), combined with the huge freedom they have, that makes CDA impossible to implement.

The good thing about CDA proposal is that it was just about serious enough to get people voting from across the board (including a Crat). It can't be easily ridiculed (iffy though it was as a proposal), and it will prove that there is a serious desire for change. If momentum is kept up after it fails, people could use it to force attention upon Rfa and the adminship term issue (and some kind of 'admin review' too, esp for some utter fruitcakes who have been winging it for years). Wikipedians have to fight for it though - in many respects they've got the wikipedia they deserve.

I will oppose this and it will not be fear of accountability or whatever nonsense you want to infer. It will be because it cannot work.

I imagine you can guess what I think, which is that you are selfishly propping a corrupt system. Has there ever been an example in history of a corrupt leadership voting itself out of power?

I'd be at least as happy with term limits for administrators; at least that way the crap won't be around forever.

It's been pointed out many times here that if Wikipediots were even remotely sincere about their Non-Elitism BS they would have strict term limits for all management positions — but of course we all know they are not even remotely sincere about that.

Jon

Let me say quite categorically.

I am not interested in non-elitism. If you want to write an encyclopedia, you want the best.

I am not interested in democracy. If you want to write an encyclopedia, you want what works not what's popular.

That doesn't mean I'm interested in propping up a cabal. I do think admins being more accountable would be a good thing - providing they are accountable to suitably proven and experienced people. I also think a mechanism to make it easier to remove substandard admins is not a bad idea.

However, I oppose this because it will bring out the worst in the anti-authoritarian democratic drama-mongers in wikipedia, and will do NOTHING to remove bad admins, since the only admins it will remove are ones so bad they are currently removed.

Am I "selfish" in opposing this? No - because even if I care about the possibility of being desysopped (and I don't) there is no chance that I would get desysopped by such a process, wheras I would inevitably have my (and the community's) time wasted by being dragged through it.

Again, in the grand scheme of things, who gets to be an admin on wikipedia is irrelevant. Removing a few dozen bad eggs is also fairly irrelevant. It may improve the gaming experience of a few people here, but it does nothing to make Wikipedia a better, or less harmful, product for the reader or the subject.

This is another piece irrelevant MORPG playing by WP and WR alike.

36 bad eggs - care to name them? Name and shame.

[Jon Awbrey]

It's been pointed out many times here that if Wikipediots were even remotely sincere about their Non-Elitism BS they would have strict term limits for all management positions — but of course we all know they are not even remotely sincere about that.

Some are, some aren't; as I've said before, because WR is where problems are raised, it has a systemic bias towards covering the bad apples. When I was a WP admin I always argued in favor of a maximum two-year term for all management positions, and resigned as soon as I reached that limit, and I can't be the only one.

The point is that the advertised philosophy grossly misrepresents the actual practice.

Jon Awbrey

[Cock-up-over-conspiracy]

It's been pointed out many times here that if Wikipediots were even remotely sincere about their Non-Elitism BS they would have strict term limits for all management positions — but of course we all know they are not even remotely sincere about that.

That would be a good idea ...

Use the Foundations multi-millions to employ professional and qualified editors to clean up the front end. Verified user name accounts only. All janitorial admins have to be re-elected every year. No more than 3 terms each. Any one not coming forward for review automatically, nor being employed professional editors, have their janitor status withdrawn from them.

Should keep them busy.

And cut out a lot of dead wood.

[Jon Awbrey]

It's been pointed out many times here that if Wikipediots were even remotely sincere about their Non-Elitism BS they would have strict term limits for all management positions — but of course we all know they are not even remotely sincere about that.

That would be a good idea …

Use the Foundations multi-millions to employ professional and qualified editors to clean up the front end. Verified user name accounts only. All janitorial admins have to be re-elected every year. No more than 3 terms each. Any one not coming forward for review automatically, nor being employed professional editors, have their janitor status withdrawn from them.

Should keep them busy.

And cut out a lot of dead wood.

I hereby declare a Strong Consensus‡ for this principle.

Jon

‡ This means that anyone who dissents will be banned forthwith.

[RDH(Ghost In The Machine)]

I haven't really reviewed this in great detail, but I'd be interested in a running tally and proportion of admins vs non-admins voting for and against.
At a brief glance it looked like the turkeys were handily voting against Thanksgiving =)
edit: Did a quick'n'dirty check:
42 users (53%) 13 admins (25%) supporting
36 users (46%) 39 admins (75%) opposing
6 users 2 admins neutral (not included in above calculations)

Good job!

No surprises there.
Yet another example of how impossible peaceful reform is with the inmates running the asylum.

[powercorrupts]

Nakon has created this script on the CDA results that auto-updates - http://toolserver.org/~nakon/cda.php The stats are at the top.

The amount of opposing admin (v supporting editors) is striking when you see it in list form I must admit, but if you give them reasons to oppose (as this CDA proposal does) then of course a load of them are going to do just that.

The poll is intended to run for 28 days - I cant image CDA winning, but there could be more drama yet, though no one on the CDA side seems to be great at leading the show. They've allowed the truly cranky TenofAllTrades to place reams of 'The flaws of CDA' at the top of the proposal! Cue numerous "per TenofAll" opposes.