The Wikipedia Review: A forum for discussion and criticism of Wikipedia
Wikipedia Review Op-Ed Pages

Welcome, Guest! ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Politics 101: Remedial or Virtual?
Ottava
post Sun 13th November 2011, 11:52pm
Post #41


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(radek @ Sun 13th November 2011, 6:02pm) *

The police have the right to arrest you. They do not have the right to try, sentence and convict you (block you).


Wow that is stupid.

Convict? Admins don't put people in jail. They throw you off someone else's property. Police do that all the time. Furthermore, they can throw people in jail for a limited period of time in the United States and for years at a time in other countries. Very few countries have what we have called "due process".



Furthermore, Peter, you are really taking the piss. Police don't all have annual reviews. Very few do. Most have long term union contracts in which they need to have a major offense before they are even considered to be terminated. In addition, the only time they do end up having reviews is when they are going for a promotion.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
radek
post Sun 13th November 2011, 11:59pm
Post #42


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined: Sat 28th Nov 2009, 10:40pm
Member No.: 15,651

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 13th November 2011, 5:52pm) *

QUOTE(radek @ Sun 13th November 2011, 6:02pm) *

The police have the right to arrest you. They do not have the right to try, sentence and convict you (block you).


Wow that is stupid.

Convict? Admins don't put people in jail. They throw you off someone else's property. Police do that all the time. Furthermore, they can throw people in jail for a limited period of time in the United States and for years at a time in other countries. Very few countries have what we have called "due process".



Furthermore, Peter, you are really taking the piss. Police don't all have annual reviews. Very few do. Most have long term union contracts in which they need to have a major offense before they are even considered to be terminated. In addition, the only time they do end up having reviews is when they are going for a promotion.


I knew I was going to regret even paying attention to you and trying to take you seriously.

Don't you have a dissertation to finish?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ottava
post Mon 14th November 2011, 2:35am
Post #43


Über Pokemon
********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 2,917
Joined: Thu 31st Jul 2008, 6:35pm
Member No.: 7,328

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(radek @ Sun 13th November 2011, 6:59pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 13th November 2011, 5:52pm) *

QUOTE(radek @ Sun 13th November 2011, 6:02pm) *

The police have the right to arrest you. They do not have the right to try, sentence and convict you (block you).


Wow that is stupid.

Convict? Admins don't put people in jail. They throw you off someone else's property. Police do that all the time. Furthermore, they can throw people in jail for a limited period of time in the United States and for years at a time in other countries. Very few countries have what we have called "due process".



Furthermore, Peter, you are really taking the piss. Police don't all have annual reviews. Very few do. Most have long term union contracts in which they need to have a major offense before they are even considered to be terminated. In addition, the only time they do end up having reviews is when they are going for a promotion.


Hilarious. You put up a post that makes it appear that you are either utterly high or so far gone from reality that you haven't a clue. There is no way to claim that there is any comparable necessity for "term limits". Very few countries have term limits for -any- position, let alone for police officers.

If you want to add term limits to limit abuse, fine. But this is all about making up claims about reality that are just not true for whatever reason. You guys do yourself no favor but to make you look like clowns. Congrats.
I knew I was going to regret even paying attention to you and trying to take you seriously.

Don't you have a dissertation to finish?

User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
GlassBeadGame
post Mon 14th November 2011, 3:42am
Post #44


Dharma Bum
*********

Group: Contributors
Posts: 7,919
Joined: Sat 17th Feb 2007, 12:55am
From: My name it means nothing. My age it means less. The country I come from is called the Mid-West.
Member No.: 981



QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 13th November 2011, 5:42pm) *

QUOTE(Zoloft @ Sun 13th November 2011, 5:29pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 13th November 2011, 1:18pm) *
Just wondering, but in what country do police have "term limits" and are voted in?
Admin aren't crafting policies (laws) so why is this even a discussion?

Fuck it. I can't stay quiet in the face of such idiocy.

Officers in clubs, like the garden club or the art association, often serve terms of one year after election, subject to reelection. There's your model. The model airplane club. Rocketry club. Anime club. Whatever. Transition period for previous admins? Use the calendar date of their old RfA as the new RfA, starting one year from now.

Done.

Now I'm finished posting until the end of the month. Enjoy the respite.



"officers in clubs"? These aren't leaders.

I clearly said police. That is the only comparable thing. Are you just dumb or trolling? I suspect both.



Anyone dumb enough to try and compare admin on Wikipedia to elected positions which make laws when administrators clearly have no ability to make rules should honestly be banned from Wikipedia Review outright because there is no legitimate reason such idiocy should be allowed. That especially goes for GBG who has demonstrated such stupidity there isn't even words to describe it.



User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Vigilant
post Mon 14th November 2011, 5:35am
Post #45


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 307
Joined: Fri 24th Oct 2008, 2:04am
Member No.: 8,684

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(radek @ Sun 13th November 2011, 11:59pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 13th November 2011, 5:52pm) *

QUOTE(radek @ Sun 13th November 2011, 6:02pm) *

The police have the right to arrest you. They do not have the right to try, sentence and convict you (block you).


Wow that is stupid.

Convict? Admins don't put people in jail. They throw you off someone else's property. Police do that all the time. Furthermore, they can throw people in jail for a limited period of time in the United States and for years at a time in other countries. Very few countries have what we have called "due process".



Furthermore, Peter, you are really taking the piss. Police don't all have annual reviews. Very few do. Most have long term union contracts in which they need to have a major offense before they are even considered to be terminated. In addition, the only time they do end up having reviews is when they are going for a promotion.


I knew I was going to regret even paying attention to you and trying to take you seriously.

Don't you have a dissertation to finish?


Welcome to the largest club on WR. The "Jeffrey Peters is a fool" club.
You can pick up your jacket on the right.

The only question that remains is whether there are any active members of WR who aren't part of the club, with the exception of Jeffrey...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
radek
post Mon 14th November 2011, 5:42am
Post #46


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined: Sat 28th Nov 2009, 10:40pm
Member No.: 15,651

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Zoloft @ Sun 13th November 2011, 4:29pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Sun 13th November 2011, 1:18pm) *
Just wondering, but in what country do police have "term limits" and are voted in?
Admin aren't crafting policies (laws) so why is this even a discussion?

Fuck it. I can't stay quiet in the face of such idiocy.

Officers in clubs, like the garden club or the art association, often serve terms of one year after election, subject to reelection. There's your model. The model airplane club. Rocketry club. Anime club. Whatever. Transition period for previous admins? Use the calendar date of their old RfA as the new RfA, starting one year from now.

Done.

Now I'm finished posting until the end of the month. Enjoy the respite.


Actually, to give credit where it's due, NewyorkBrad (damn that guy, always making reasonable objections to perfectly awesome proposals) did point out a legitimate logistical problem with reelections - it'd be like 8 or 9 per week.

I don't think it makes re-election/fixed terms nonworkable just that there'd need to be a different system in place to handle it. And yes, honestly I've been a bit radical in my advocacy for fixed terms (I'm perfectly aware that it wouldn't be as easy as slapping them in place and saying "here we go!") but that's because the opposition to ANY kind of meaningful reform is so entrenched that it needs to be repeatedly slapped upside the head. Like I said, put terms on the table first, then we talk details.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Catfish Jim and the soapdish
post Mon 14th November 2011, 10:29am
Post #47


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu 10th Nov 2011, 2:10pm
Member No.: 70,329

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(radek @ Mon 14th November 2011, 5:42am) *

Actually, to give credit where it's due, NewyorkBrad (damn that guy, always making reasonable objections to perfectly awesome proposals) did point out a legitimate logistical problem with reelections - it'd be like 8 or 9 per week.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lis...strators/Active lists 726 active admins, so it would be just shy of 14 reconfirmation RfAs per week, assuming an annual reconfirmation. Add to this the 228 inactive admins (no edits in the last 3 months) and the 556 semi-active admins (less than 30 edits in 2 months) and it quickly becomes a logistical nightmare.

Having said that, I can imagine there would be a fairly large proportion of admins who would not subject themselves to a second RfA in its current form. It can be a brutally unpleasant experience, one which can lead to people leaving WP altogether.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
radek
post Mon 14th November 2011, 10:58am
Post #48


Über Member
*****

Group: Regulars
Posts: 699
Joined: Sat 28th Nov 2009, 10:40pm
Member No.: 15,651

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Catfish Jim and the soapdish @ Mon 14th November 2011, 4:29am) *

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 14th November 2011, 5:42am) *

Actually, to give credit where it's due, NewyorkBrad (damn that guy, always making reasonable objections to perfectly awesome proposals) did point out a legitimate logistical problem with reelections - it'd be like 8 or 9 per week.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lis...strators/Active lists 726 active admins, so it would be just shy of 14 reconfirmation RfAs per week, assuming an annual reconfirmation. Add to this the 228 inactive admins (no edits in the last 3 months) and the 556 semi-active admins (less than 30 edits in 2 months) and it quickly becomes a logistical nightmare.

Having said that, I can imagine there would be a fairly large proportion of admins who would not subject themselves to a second RfA in its current form. It can be a brutally unpleasant experience, one which can lead to people leaving WP altogether.


With two year terms, you'd half that. The inactive and semi active would be routine de-sysop.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Catfish Jim and the soapdish
post Mon 14th November 2011, 12:10pm
Post #49


Neophyte


Group: Contributors
Posts: 5
Joined: Thu 10th Nov 2011, 2:10pm
Member No.: 70,329

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(radek @ Mon 14th November 2011, 10:58am) *

With two year terms, you'd half that. The inactive and semi active would be routine de-sysop.


It would still be an enormous job and I'm unconvinced that it could be useful at that scale.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Detective
post Mon 14th November 2011, 9:22pm
Post #50


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu 9th Dec 2010, 11:17am
Member No.: 35,179



QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Fri 11th November 2011, 7:38pm) *

I mean, if you are against any kind of reform on Wikipedia, you are on the side of the current regime. Correct? You are, in fact, a Wikipedian.

It doesn't follow. You may believe (as I think many people here do) that if WP continues as at present, it will soon collapse. Thus, opposing reform is a tool to hasten its collapse, the opposite of being a Wikipedian. True, to those in power any reform could be dangerous. However, to at least the cleverer members of the cabal a mild reform that doesn't hurt them too much must be better than toppling the whole thing.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
jayvdb
post Mon 14th November 2011, 11:12pm
Post #51


Senior Member
****

Group: Contributors
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed 28th Feb 2007, 2:15am
From: Melbourne, Australia
Member No.: 1,039

WP user page - talk
check - contribs



QUOTE(Catfish Jim and the soapdish @ Mon 14th November 2011, 10:29am) *

QUOTE(radek @ Mon 14th November 2011, 5:42am) *

Actually, to give credit where it's due, NewyorkBrad (damn that guy, always making reasonable objections to perfectly awesome proposals) did point out a legitimate logistical problem with reelections - it'd be like 8 or 9 per week.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Lis...strators/Active lists 726 active admins, so it would be just shy of 14 reconfirmation RfAs per week, assuming an annual reconfirmation. Add to this the 228 inactive admins (no edits in the last 3 months) and the 556 semi-active admins (less than 30 edits in 2 months) and it quickly becomes a logistical nightmare.

Having said that, I can imagine there would be a fairly large proportion of admins who would not subject themselves to a second RfA in its current form. It can be a brutally unpleasant experience, one which can lead to people leaving WP altogether.


We had a discussion about this at WT:RFA. The logistics are less of a problem if we start with a six or seven year reconfirmation window, and/or only push subsets of sysops through the reconfirmation process (e.g. less than 40 voters at their RFA, or lower than 75%).

Regarding it being a brutal experience, sensible sysop who didnt want to endure what they anticipate as being a difficult reconfirmation could hand back their tools before it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

3 Pages V < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

-   Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th 10 14, 1:50am