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

[Malleus]

You have myself, Malleus, Johnbod and Mattisse in the support column, with a total of about 300k edits between us, skewing the averages. Although I suspect that when Malleus and Mattisse realize they're agreeing on something one or the other will change their vote out of general principle.

Actually I have nothing against Mattisse, and I wish her well. Not sure what she wishes me though.

This post has been edited by Malleus: Sat 27th February 2010, 3:41am

[Jon Awbrey]

So, what is the current count on MB socks, anyway?

Here, or on Wikipedia? Here it's three, but one has been unmasked and inactive for several months now, and the WP folks just recently neutralized another one, so he's down to just one usable account here for the moment. (And it's not Abd, sorry …) We should be seeing another two or three of them though, soon enough.

Oh, so you think that Another Baxter Doppelganger (ABD) is more like homage than genuine come-back?

Then again, you've been fooled before …

Jon

[Jon Awbrey]

What a ugly and nasty little rant that say nothing more than "He doesn't love Wikipedia". You feel entitled to appreciation for your "contributions" to the project, but not really. Demanding appreciation is small and unattractive.

Run of the mill Wikipediot tactic.

All designed to divert attention from the reality of Wikipedia.

Applying the word "consensus" to what goes on there is simply ludicrous.

We have seen what goes on there — and all his words cannot disguise the truth for anyone who still has eyes to see.

Jon Awbrey

[Eva Destruction]

Oh, so you think that Another Baxter Doppelganger (ABD) is more like homage than genuine come-back?

Then again, you've been fooled before …

Jon

Abd is Abd ul-Rahman Dennis Lomax (dob 24 May 1944) and a verifiable real person; while there are many things one can say about him, "Poetsock" isn't one of them.

[Jon Awbrey]

Abd is Abd ul-Rahman Dennis Lomax (dob 24 May 1944) and a verifiable real person; while there are many things one can say about him, "Poetsock" isn't one of them.

Okay, okay, I'll take your word for it — for now — but the dissemblance, er, resemblance is remarkable.

Jon

[Eva Destruction]

Oh, the irony.

[thekohser]

Oh, the irony.

awwwWWWWkkk! Sick as a parrot! awwwWWWKKK!

[RMHED]

Oh, the irony.

awwwWWWWkkk! Sick as a parrot! awwwWWWKKK!

That RFC, like all RFC's is an utter waste of time. Da 'pedia needs leadership not consensus, fat chance of that though given Jimmy's lack of a spine.

[One]

"Awbrey is opposed to consensus"

Uh, yeah, that would be a problem if you believed that a "consensus" on Wikipedia was anything other than an abuse of the word.

[Jon Awbrey]

"Awbrey is opposed to consensus"

Uh, yeah, that would be a problem if you believed that a "consensus" on Wikipedia was anything other than an abuse of the word.

It never fails —

You go to nice friendly necktie party, and there's always one joker who just has to poop it.

Jon

[BelovedFox]

Well, I would have voted in support of the proposal, but it's clear how the numbers are going to go down. I don't really see the major issues with gaming that some of the opposers bring up... 3mo/500edits x 10 would be a lot for even dedicated vendettists.

[SirFozzie]

Well, I would have voted in support of the proposal, but it's clear how the numbers are going to go down. I don't really see the major issues with gaming that some of the opposers bring up... 3mo/500edits x 10 would be a lot for even dedicated vendettists.

Then you haven't worked in areas where no matter what decision you make, you will be attacked by all and sundry (nationalist areas, fringe areas, etcetera).

[Backslashforwardslash]

That RFC, like all RFC's is an utter waste of time. Da 'pedia needs leadership not consensus, fat chance of that though given Jimmy's lack of a spine.

We should hold an RFC about who should be the Wikipedia leader.

(Elections are against Wikipedia policies).

[BelovedFox]

Well, I would have voted in support of the proposal, but it's clear how the numbers are going to go down. I don't really see the major issues with gaming that some of the opposers bring up... 3mo/500edits x 10 would be a lot for even dedicated vendettists.

Then you haven't worked in areas where no matter what decision you make, you will be attacked by all and sundry (nationalist areas, fringe areas, etcetera).

You're right, I haven't. But that's the perils of working in those areas, and greater accountability across the board is a good thing regardless. I put trust into the greater community to shut down POV pushing and revenge "hits".

[The Joy]

Why not just create an Administrator Ethics Committee or something like that to hear and dispense justice in the case of administrator abuse? It certainly would take pressure off of ArbCom hearing every single little case.

[SDJ]

I think every active administrator should have to stand for reconfirmation once per year, on a staggered basis. The reconfirmation RFAs would have a lower threshold, given that an active administrator makes a few enemies, but would still be required to get 50%+1 to be reconfirmed. I can think of numerous current admins that wouldn't even be able to meet THAT low standard. Also, every administrator account that goes inactive for more than a month should be auto-deadminned.

[everyking]

I think every active administrator should have to stand for reconfirmation once per year, on a staggered basis. The reconfirmation RFAs would have a lower threshold, given that an active administrator makes a few enemies, but would still be required to get 50%+1 to be reconfirmed. I can think of numerous current admins that wouldn't even be able to meet THAT low standard. Also, every administrator account that goes inactive for more than a month should be auto-deadminned.

It's a waste of everyone's time to hold reconfirmation votes for the great majority of uncontroversial admins. However, it would be reasonable to expect that any admin in a reconfirmation vote be able to obtain at least a simple majority.

Similarly, it's a lot of unnecessary trouble to desysop every admin account that goes dormant for a month. There is some risk associated with dormant accounts, but it's a relatively low risk. Desysopping accounts that have been dormant for over a year would be reasonable. Proposals like that have come up in the past, but as far as I know they've never been implemented.

[SDJ]

There are 888 active administrators, and about 900 inactive ones. Deadminning the 900 inactives could be automated, and would cause no trouble. When/if the accounts reactivated, they could simply ask for the tools back. As for the 888, if you staggered those, so that 80 were reconfirmed per month, you'd be finished in less than a year, and the newly-minted administrators would simply know that on x-date in 2011, they would have to post a reconfirmation at the designated area. Not hard at all.

[Abd]

"Awbrey is opposed to consensus"

Uh, yeah, that would be a problem if you believed that a "consensus" on Wikipedia was anything other than an abuse of the word.

Didn't say it was a problem. It's just an observation. Of course WP "consensus" is all too often a travesty. But I suggest that real consensus process would be how Wikipedia could realize the vision, whereas Aubrey rejects the very concept of consensus.

[powercorrupts]

Well, I would have voted in support of the proposal, but it's clear how the numbers are going to go down. I don't really see the major issues with gaming that some of the opposers bring up... 3mo/500edits x 10 would be a lot for even dedicated vendettists.

Then you haven't worked in areas where no matter what decision you make, you will be attacked by all and sundry (nationalist areas, fringe areas, etcetera).

You're right, I haven't. But that's the perils of working in those areas, and greater accountability across the board is a good thing regardless. I put trust into the greater community to shut down POV pushing and revenge "hits".

But how can the greater community shut down the POV pushing, bullying and immaturity when it comes from admin?

It's general admin 'bad behaviour' that will make CDA impossible in practice. They live outside canvassing rules, and have few clear behavioural restrictions. The are pretty-much unregulated in anything but the most extreme behaviour. Call one up and you get a gang of his 'friends' picking at you personally (and very loosely, with no concern for AGF) for unrelated incidents. It's the macho and direct way they work - because they can. Which developed-world law would allow such prejudice in court?

Bad admin bullying editors and decent admin (or just in-fighting with each other) will create problems that will out-last the CDA. You practically have to get buggered by an admin for him to into any any trouble on Wikipedia. There are no day to day controls at all. This general unaccountability makes the godless half of them behave as badly most human beings would, let alone people we know nothing about who are rewarded with an arsenal of POV-pushing weapons on an 'encyclopedia of everything'.

This post has been edited by powercorrupts: Sun 28th February 2010, 9:30am