Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 8:17 AM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: I'm not a moderator, but I've just been skipping those long posts. They are annoying, but I may one day read those posts if I have nothing better to do, and sometimes there is something interesting in there. I apologize that this letter is so long. I did not have the time to make it short. - Blaise Pascal I agree. Abd, please take the time to make your thoughts more readily parsable. Don't force your readers to work so hard in order to find your point. [[tl;dr]] is generally an odious dismissal, but it really does apply here. and this thread should go back to discussing, er, let's see: declining numbers of EN wiki admins Well, I've never applied (after 5 years of daily editing), primarily because I'm already busy on-wiki, and the tasks I'm interested in don't require blocking or protecting anything. I'd occasionally find it useful to be able to edit protected pages, or view deleted content, but there are {{editprotected}} templates and request pages that can handle my sporadic needs. Secondly, these comments from a few months ago have been stuck in my head: On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:53 PM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/12/10 Mike Pruden mikepru...@yahoo.com: Personally, I found unloading my watchlist liberating, and I would hope that more would do the same. There's always that steady stream of vandal-fighters to stomp out any clear vandalism that pops up. It's hard to explain, but I think it's a good exercise in assuming good faith that others will make constructive edits in efforts to improve pages. I gave up using my watchlist in late 2004. Haven't missed it. So /That's/ why we're so busy, and feel so alone sometimes!! :P The busy policy talkpages, really (really) need regular input from the old guard. Watch[list]ful vigilance, is the still the best way to understand, and influence, the undercurrents of consensus, afaik. There's more, but I need more coffee now, and less stress in general. HTH. Quiddity ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
On 2 June 2010 20:46, quiddity pandiculat...@gmail.com wrote: So /That's/ why we're so busy, and feel so alone sometimes!! :P The busy policy talkpages, really (really) need regular input from the old guard. Watch[list]ful vigilance, is the still the best way to understand, and influence, the undercurrents of consensus, afaik. I've mostly had my fill of the same stupidities over and over. I am pretty much unknown to the current centres of drama - those who've leveled up to admin but are still in their first 18 months - and I quite like it. I have no particular powers on en:wp and no-one knows or cares who I am except old-timers and the ones who watch TV in the UK. (And I've done almost no press this year because WMUK handle pretty much all of it.) Content, it's fun! There's more, but I need more coffee now, and less stress in general. HTH. +1 - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
David Lindsey wrote: What we need, then, is not a way to desysop more easily, but rather a way to delineate highly-charged and controversial administrator actions, and the administrators qualified to perform them, from uncontroversial administrator actions, and the administrators qualified to perform them. I will not presume to provide a full criteria for what separates controversial from uncontroversial administrator actions, but I would suggest something along the lines of the following. Controversial: Arbitration enforcement actions, blocks of established users for any reason other than suspicion of account compromise, close of AfDs where the consensus is not clear (this of course becomes itself a murky distinction, but could be well enough set apart), reversal of the actions of another administrator except when those actions are plainly abusive. Non-controversial: All others. In other words, a two-tier system of admins. Against that, I really think there is an area that should be thought through, just alluded to there. The criteria for reversing another admin's actions do matter, and it seems to me matter most. Admin actions that can be reversed (i.e. technical use of buttons, rather than interaction by dialogue) lack the sort of basic classification we need: into situations of urgency and situations that can wait; situations of key importance to the project (such as involve harassment, for example), and those that can be treated as routine; and into situations where consultation should be mandatory and those where a second admin can use judgement to override. The fact that some people might conflate those analyses illustrates the need to be more careful here. I think this is something to untangle. We need to get to the bottom of the community's fears about overpowerful admins, by talking through and delineating what a single admin can expect to face in awkward situations. I've never been in favour of restricting admin discretion, which is really what is being proposed. We can't anticipate the challenges the site will face (even though it may appear that there is little innovation from vandals and trolls). I do think admins can be held to account for their use of discretion. Right now it seems that a piece of the puzzle is missing: admins don't know clearly how they stand in relation to the actions of other admins. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
On 31 May 2010 20:00, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Interesting, AGK. Are the ideas important, or the personalities? Here, you just demonstrated my concern even further. Now I understand why you are able to write at such length. Rather than make your arguments based on facts, you run with guesswork and assumptions. Instead of stating what my position and opinion is and then outlining why thinking so makes me a terrible administrator, try actually asking me a question? I won't comment any more on your remarks against my history as a contributor, because they are largely irrelevant to the main topic of this thread. But needless to say, yes, the manner in which a point is made does count; in this instance, you acting like an insufferable jerk turns people off and makes your e-mails increasingly less appealing to read. Derailing meta-discussion with criticism of specific users stinks of axe-grinding. AGK ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
Again, this gets long. If allergic to Abd Thought, or to lengthy comments, please don't read. Nobody is required to read this, it's voluntary, and you won't hear a complaint from me if you don't read it. Actually, the mail triggered moderation, the list is set to 20 KB max, which is low in my experience, and it was rejected as too long. Therefore, instead of only needing to skip one mail, you'll need to skip two. This is part one. At 03:14 PM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 01:35 PM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote: Actually, most people who don't apply as an admin just don't apply. With ten million registered editors and a handful of RfAs, that's obvious. They don't generate evidence one way or another. It is a perfectly sensible attitude for a well-adjusted Wikipedian getting on with article work not to want to be involved in admin work. Sure. However, there is a minority who are *not* well-adjusted who would seek adminship for personal power. Yes, and the first required quality for being given such power is not to want it. Etc. But you were the one talking about getting painted into a corner. Sure. You were the one implies some argument being applied to one side and not the other. What was that? Barging ahead anwyay, I'd say that anyone sane would not want to be a Wikipedia editor unless (1) they have some axe to grind, or (2) they are neutral and simply want to help an obviously desirable cause. However, when people become highly involved, they naturally develop attachments, which is how it comes to be that even a quite neutral editor can become an abusive administrator, and this will be quite invisbile, for many, when they don't have the tools. The more boring grunt work you do, the more natural it is to think you own the project. After all, if not for you I remember reviewing the contributions of an administrator, known to all of us here, because of some suspicion that an sock puppeteer was really, from the beginning, a bad-hand account of someone, and this admin was a possible suspect. What I saw, reviewing edit timing, was thousands upon thousands of edits, for hours upon hours, a few edits a minute, doing repetitive tasks. The admin was running a tool that assisted him by feeding him proposed edits, so what he was doing, for many hours, was a few button pushes a minute to accept the edits. I was both in awe (at the dedicated work) and in wonder at how this could be done without losing one's sanity In fact, it might have been better if that work had been replaced by fully automated bot work, with processes and procedures for reviewing it and fixing problems. If he could do that for hours on end without error, probably a bot could as well, with only a little error, perhaps. But, of course, for quite good reasons, most fully automated bot editing has been prohibited. That's changing, to be sure, there is now, for example, a spambot that reverts IP additions of spam web sites, an intermediate position to blacklisting that allows possibly useful but often abused sites to be used by registered editors, and edits by the IPs become suggested edits easy to review if anyone is willing. And the IP could actually ask any registered user to do it, or register and get autoconfirmed Overall, editorial efficiency has been seriously neglected, because editorial labor was not valued. Admin labor has been valued somewhat, and some of the disparity between the real rights of administrators and those of ordinary editors comes out of assumptions about this. So, Charles agrees that wanting power is a disqualification, and I agree. (You might look at RfA/Abd 2, where I addressed this, I didn't want to be an admin, I was merely responding to a suggestion that I help clean up the place, and I was quite clear that anything that I wanted to do, personally, wouldn't be helped by being an admin, I'd just be tempted to use the tools while involved. I'm pretty sure that I'd not have aroused serious controversy over the use of admin tools, but, of course, those who later were offended by me as an editor seem to have assumed that I'd simply have blocked anyone who disagreed with me. That would have been really silly!) But if it's a disqualification at the beginning, then, we must see, it should remain a disqualification. If an administrator is personally attached to being an administrator, it's a problem. Which then exposes the contradiction of the picture being presented: supposedly people would not apply to be administrators, or perhaps would quit, if they saw that allegedly abusive administrators would lose their tools. The fact is that when controversy arises over tool use, the best administrators back up and back off, and hardly ever get taken to ArbComm, because they don't allow themselves to be the focus of the controversy. Rather, say, they blocked an editor, and the editor is
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
(continuation from Part 1, preceding.) I never sought the desysopping of JzG, as an example, and didn't argue for it for WMC. I argued for *suspension* until the admin assured ArbComm that he would not repeat the use of tools while involved. JzG's actions had been egregious, and still ArbComm was unwilling to ask for assurances. Behind this, I'm sure, was an impression that JzG would have considered it an insult. But it should be routine. Indeed, ArbComm bans editors all the time when it could simply ask for *voluntary assurances.* And even more are community banned under a similar failure. Voluntary compliance, negotiated with respect, is far less likely to build up sustained resentments, than bullying and blocking. These are all really obvious principles, but it's been amazing to see what oppositino they aroused when they were brought up before ArbComm. ArbComm remained silent on them, and on what was said in response. ArbComm mostly functions as a passive body, but then it does something different and becomes very active. It depends on whose ox is being gored. The problem, as I have defined it, is of negative voting. The sheer suspicion of those who apparently want the mop-and-bucket. (And anyway, I obviously was using well-adjusted in the sense of round peg in a round hole, not as a comment on anything else.) If it's easy to revoke, it would obviously be easier to grant. Indeed, the supermajority standard is a problem. You propose that an administrator might avoid being shot at if the admin avoids controversial areas. So, to become an admin, avoid controversial areas! But, then, we don't know how the admin will behave when involved in controversy. The same arguments that are applied to, say, required reconfirmation of administrators, should apply to granting adminship in the first place. If an editor has tacked difficulties, the issue should be how the editor did it, not how many people were offended. If the editor needlessly inflamed the topic, that's a problem, for sure, and could betray that there could be problems as an administrator. But if the editor calmed the conflict, with only a few die-hards then resenting the intervention or involvement, it should be a positive mark. There is no substitute for actually examining the record, if the record matters. In fact, it shouldn't matter much, and here is why: adminship should routinely be granted based on an agreed-upon mentorship, with an active administrator. I'd suggest, in fact, that any admin who approves of the adminship would be allowed to do what a mentor could do, but an agreed-upon mentor would be taking on the responsibility. So if anyone has a complaint about the admin's actions, they have someone to go to for review, without going to a noticeboard and some possible flame war there. They can even do it privately, by email. That's how WP DR structure is supposed to work, it's supposed to start small. I've been amazed to see how few understand this! Given administrative supervision, with any supervising admin being able to go directly to a bureaucrat or steward and request removal of the tools, if necessary, there is no reason to disapprove of almost anyone, and a discussion would only take place to the extent that it would be an opportunity to express objections. The closing bureaucrat might, indeed, review those, but numbers would not matter. What would matter would be (1) no sign of *likely* abuse, and (2) the presence of effective supervision. At Wikiversity, this is apparently done, though I don't know all the details. There is then, after a time on probation, a full adminship discussion. (There is no difference in the tool settings between the two, an admin on probation has full tools, the only difference is a responsible mentor.) But with a more detailed structure, there might not be the need for full adminship. I'd say that every administrator should have a recall committee, a set of editors who are both trusted by the admin and by the community to correct the admin if he or she veers off-course. Only when this process fails, perhaps because of too-close alignment of the admin and the recall committee, would it be necessary to escalate to broader discussions. Ultimately, we should go back and set this up for existing administrators. This should, in reality, only be a problem for administrators who believe that they should have no supervision at all. That's a problem in itself. And I'm leaving the details of how such a committee would be formed, and how admins who have become part of it are replaced as they vanish, as many do, to a later discussion and, of course, ultimately, to the community if it ever starts to go here. I'm just proposing ideas to show that there might be some possible solution, and with no pretense that my ideas are the last word. I really do believe in the power of informed consensus, and the only kind of consensus that I have a problem
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length limit on posting? Risker ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
On 1 June 2010 14:30, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Therefore, instead of only needing to skip one mail, you'll need to skip two. This is part one. Abd, have you ever considered opening a blog? :) You could write the lengthy version of your comments on various topics in a post there, and post a summary comment here on WikiEN-l (with a link to the concurrent blog post)? Just a thought. AGK ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
Risker wrote: Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length limit on posting? While I understand where you are coming from, it bears noting that some people would like a limit of length both on the short and the long side, and you would in the eyes of some, fail on the short side of the limit -- as I do often too, not being too particular either way. Not passing judgement long or short, but just noting that both are annoying, even I admit to have rarely done both... ...And I suspect I will do both again. Do note that the current person in charge of the staff serving the foundation, very specifically commended a very long post by Gregory Maxwell that in her view nicely summarised the situation on commons -- albeit that post was at the foundation-l. I don't actually agree with Sue on that particular summary being all that insightful. (Sorry Greg!) But a lengthy summary did in fact please Sue in that particular instance. So making the moderators bar posts like the one by Greg, I think serves no one. Yours, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
On 1 June 2010 15:45, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonav...@gmail.com wrote: I don't actually agree with Sue on that particular summary being all that insightful. (Sorry Greg!) But a lengthy summary did in fact please Sue in that particular instance. So making the moderators bar posts like the one by Greg, I think serves no one. The 20KB limit on wikien-l used to be a 10KB limit. Deliberately working around it is antisocial at the least; I would ask that contributors not do this, and instead take the time to rewrite more concisely when they get a bounce due to length. The writing will also undoubtedly improve. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length limit on posting? I'm not a moderator, but I've just been skipping those long posts. They are annoying, but I may one day read those posts if I have nothing better to do, and sometimes there is something interesting in there. Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
On 1 June 2010 16:17, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: I'm not a moderator, but I've just been skipping those long posts. They are annoying, but I may one day read those posts if I have nothing better to do, and sometimes there is something interesting in there. Now you know how we feel with your posts, Carch :). (I'm kidding, ofc. Your input is most valuable in part because it's so detailed.) AGK ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
At 09:38 AM 6/1/2010, AGK wrote: Derailing meta-discussion with criticism of specific users stinks of axe-grinding. I criticized an argument with an expression of concern about how an administrator might apply that argument. That remains within metadiscussion. I specicifically disclaimed any criticism of actual behavior. I have no axe to grind with AGK. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
At 09:57 AM 6/1/2010, Risker wrote: Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length limit on posting? There is a 20K limit. That's lower than usual, my experience. I think it's silly, since it is easier to ignore one 30K post than to ignore two 15 K posts. But, hey, I have well over twenty years experience with this, and there will always be people who want others to self-censor so they don't have to bother. Nobody is obligated to read any post (except *maybe* a moderator, and that can be reserved for complaints.) ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
At 10:01 AM 6/1/2010, you wrote: On 1 June 2010 14:30, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: Therefore, instead of only needing to skip one mail, you'll need to skip two. This is part one. Abd, have you ever considered opening a blog? :) You could write the lengthy version of your comments on various topics in a post there, and post a summary comment here on WikiEN-l (with a link to the concurrent blog post)? Just a thought. Sure. Now, tell me why I should go to this trouble? Absolutely, if my goal were polemic, it would be an effective way to proceed. That's not my goal. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
At 11:17 AM 6/1/2010, Carcharoth wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length limit on posting? I'm not a moderator, but I've just been skipping those long posts. They are annoying, but I may one day read those posts if I have nothing better to do, and sometimes there is something interesting in there. That's what I do with long posts that don't grab me. Some people like long posts, some don't. Some of those who don't want to prevent those who like them from receiving them. It is a very old story. I skip *lots* of posts. But I have no opinion that there is necessarily something wrong with them. Obviously. If the writer wanted to reach me, then the effort failed. But the post wasn't sent personally to me, if it were, I'd be much more inclined to read it. Now, what I do which could be a problem is to respond to an individual, thus luring the individual into reading it, but I'm actually exploring a much larger topic. Perhaps if I'm going to write something that might be taken as an attack, I should make it brief and separate it from the larger commentary -- or not send it at all. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: At 11:17 AM 6/1/2010, Carcharoth wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Procedural note to moderators: Perhaps it is time to consider a length limit on posting? I'm not a moderator, but I've just been skipping those long posts. They are annoying, but I may one day read those posts if I have nothing better to do, and sometimes there is something interesting in there. That's what I do with long posts that don't grab me. Some people like long posts, some don't. Some of those who don't want to prevent those who like them from receiving them. It is a very old story. Actually, what we have here now is thread drift. We are way off topic, so anything discussing mailing list etiquette (or even discussing Abd if anyone wants to do that) should be started in a new thread, and this thread should go back to discussing, er, let's see: declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers But maybe with a shorter title? Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 5:47 PM, AGK wiki...@gmail.com wrote: On 1 June 2010 16:17, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote: I'm not a moderator, but I've just been skipping those long posts. They are annoying, but I may one day read those posts if I have nothing better to do, and sometimes there is something interesting in there. Now you know how we feel with your posts, Carch :). (I'm kidding, ofc. Your input is most valuable in part because it's so detailed.) I wish I could say I didn't have your comment in the back of my mind when I posted on-wiki a few minutes ago, but I did and the comments were slightly longer than usual... :-P Carcharoth ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: The Wikipedia community painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it can find the exits, the paths to fix it. As this discussion illustrates rather well, the argument if you want to fix A, you'd have to start by fixing B (my pet gripe) first is routinely deployed, making for an infinite regress in some cases, and in others the generation of suggestions that are rather clearly counterproductive for fixing A, whatever they may do for B. In the real world, if you want people to do thankless and time-consuming tasks for you for no money, and much criticism, you have to rely on something more than be sure that you'll be told if we don't like you and what you do. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: The Wikipedia community painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it can find the exits, the paths to fix it. on 5/31/10 2:43 AM, Charles Matthews at charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote: As this discussion illustrates rather well, the argument if you want to fix A, you'd have to start by fixing B (my pet gripe) first is routinely deployed, making for an infinite regress in some cases, and in others the generation of suggestions that are rather clearly counterproductive for fixing A, whatever they may do for B. In the real world, if you want people to do thankless and time-consuming tasks for you for no money, and much criticism, you have to rely on something more than be sure that you'll be told if we don't like you and what you do. Yes. And thank you, Charles. Once again this points out the fact that, with the Foundation, we are dealing with a group of persons who don't have a clue how to deal with people who they see as being out of their universe-of-one. In fact, they appear to regard the Wikipedia Community as a necessary evil. Marc Riddell ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
On 31 May 2010, at 00:39, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: (1) most legitimate admin work is not controversial to any degree that would affect an admin's status in the active community, which is what counts. Blocking an IP vandal isn't going to harm that, and it will only help it. If the IP vandal then registers an account and goes after the admin, sure. But, then, as to proposals that those who supported an RfA might retract that, or cause adminiship to be suspended pending examination, are concerned, this would be useless. Legitimate administration is indeed like janitorial work. Can we imagine a good janitor getting into an argument with other employees of a school or office as to what should be thrown away? Adminship was supposed to be no big deal. When an administrator is asserting personal power over an editor, something has gone awry. Police have no power to punish, they may arrest on probable cause, but they then step aside and let the community make decisions on sanctions or release. A police officer who has become personally involved and insists on pursuing an individual might well be removed or ordered to work in other areas. Thomas may be referring to any administrator work that is at all not purely technical in nature. This work usually involves policing the conduct of established accounts (and often long-term editors) in contentious subject areas, and will almost always cause the administrator to gain enemies. AGK ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
On 31 May 2010 13:42, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: Yes. And thank you, Charles. Once again this points out the fact that, with the Foundation, we are dealing with a group of persons who don't have a clue how to deal with people who they see as being out of their universe-of-one. In fact, they appear to regard the Wikipedia Community as a necessary evil. I urge you to go back and actually read the discussion, and you will see that you are the only person to mention the Foundation and we're actually talking about the Wikipedia community here. Then you will be less likely to post responses that look like keyword-triggered cut'n'paste. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
David Gerard wrote: On 31 May 2010 13:42, Marc Riddell michaeldavi...@comcast.net wrote: Yes. And thank you, Charles. Once again this points out the fact that, with the Foundation, we are dealing with a group of persons who don't have a clue how to deal with people who they see as being out of their universe-of-one. In fact, they appear to regard the Wikipedia Community as a necessary evil. I urge you to go back and actually read the discussion, and you will see that you are the only person to mention the Foundation and we're actually talking about the Wikipedia community here. Then you will be less likely to post responses that look like keyword-triggered cut'n'paste. Actually, the Wikipedia community is in a sense a necessary evil. Without it, WP would be just another underpowered, well-meaning website. With it, people who are not natural collaborators work together effectively, if not without friction. But the reply I made was contra being painted into a corner (singular issue), and in favour of an analysis of the actual problem. I see [[Blind men and an elephant]] is an article. I won't go further in Marc's direction than saying that our discussions can seem sometimes like a post-mortem to that parable, with everyone saying, you know, I still think I was right along. But the remedies - for a bigger picture - have the disadvantages of requiring a great deal of investment of time. I believe I have tried a number of those, without yet getting a complete view of the elephant. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
At 02:43 AM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: The Wikipedia community painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it can find the exits, the paths to fix it. As this discussion illustrates rather well, the argument if you want to fix A, you'd have to start by fixing B (my pet gripe) first is routinely deployed, making for an infinite regress in some cases, and in others the generation of suggestions that are rather clearly counterproductive for fixing A, whatever they may do for B. In the real world, if you want people to do thankless and time-consuming tasks for you for no money, and much criticism, you have to rely on something more than be sure that you'll be told if we don't like you and what you do. Eh? Is this coherent? Who is the you who wants people to do thankless tasks? What is the pet gripe in the discussion? What is being discussed is declining numbers of EN wiki admins, and how to address it. In that, surely it is appropriate and even necessary to examine the entire administrative structure, both how admin privileges are created and how they are removed. So A here would be declining numbers. B, then, must be the difficulty of removal, which leads to stronger standards for accepting admins in the first place, which leads to declining applications and denial of some applications that might have been just fine. There is no evidence that there are declining applications because of fear of being criticized as an adminstrator, and the numbers of admin removals are trivial, so Charles is expressing a fear that is imaginary. If it were easier to gain tools and still difficult to lose them unless you disregard guidelines and consensus, there would be no loss of applications, there would be a gain. A large gain. What I'm seeing here, indeed, is an illustration of the problem. The attitude that Charles expresses is clearly part of the problem, and Charles is suggesting no solutions but perhaps one of ridiculing and rejecting all the suggestions for change. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
At 10:34 AM 5/31/2010, AGK wrote: On 31 May 2010, at 00:39, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: (1) most legitimate admin work is not controversial to any degree that would affect an admin's status in the active community, which is what counts. Blocking an IP vandal isn't going to harm that, and it will only help it. If the IP vandal then registers an account and goes after the admin, sure. But, then, as to proposals that those who supported an RfA might retract that, or cause adminiship to be suspended pending examination, are concerned, this would be useless. Legitimate administration is indeed like janitorial work. Can we imagine a good janitor getting into an argument with other employees of a school or office as to what should be thrown away? Adminship was supposed to be no big deal. When an administrator is asserting personal power over an editor, something has gone awry. Police have no power to punish, they may arrest on probable cause, but they then step aside and let the community make decisions on sanctions or release. A police officer who has become personally involved and insists on pursuing an individual might well be removed or ordered to work in other areas. Thomas may be referring to any administrator work that is at all not purely technical in nature. This work usually involves policing the conduct of established accounts (and often long-term editors) in contentious subject areas, and will almost always cause the administrator to gain enemies. Sure. However, administrators are, indeed, police and not judges. But, too often, they become judges and make conclusions about sanctions. An adminstrative sanction is, by design, temporary and reversible, and policing a particular user should never become a crusade for an administrator; if it does, and if it's allowed, then adminship has become the big deal, giving the admin power over the user. A police officer may arrest me, but cannot keep me in jail (the equivalent of an indef block with opposed unblock). Administrators who do the police work well will, in fact, not generally gain enemies, that will be the exception rather than the rule. But AGK is an administrator, and if he expects that police work will almost always cause the administrator to gain enemies, I rather suspect that some of his work is less than optimal. If I become an enemy of an administrator if the admin blocked me with anything like good faith, because I was engaged in bad conduct at an article, or other inappropriate conduct, I've got a problem, and I will surely have this problem with other administrators as well. One of the biggest errors I've seen on the WikiMedia wikis is admins to decline unblock requests when they also blocked the editor. They should make sure that the reasons for the block are documented, and then leave it alone. When they don't, they very possibly create an editor who now thinks of them as an enemy. Another common error is to gratuitously insult the editor as part of the block, or to otherwise behave as if the administrator is in charge, owns the wiki. No, an administrator is properly acting in expectation of consensus; for admins to act otherwise creates disruption for no good reason. Thus an admin, blocking, will always, for an inexperienced user, point to appeal process, and will be unfailingly polite. Or should be! And who polices the police? I've thought, sometimes, that there should be many more bureaucrats, and that bureaucrats should not have the ability to block or delete articles. But they would have the ability to, ad-hoc, remove admin privileges. Police for the police, independent of them. Chosen for general trustworthiness. Perhaps they would only *add* tool usage as a restoration of what they or another bureaucrat took away, or, even, it's possible, the whole RfA process could consist of convincing a bureaucrat that you'd be decent as an admin. That's much closer to the rest of the way that the wiki operates, routinely. (Bureaucrats do this on some of the other wikis. Wikiversity has probabionary adminship, which is apparently easy to get, it just takes another admin to declare and accept mentorship, and there is a discussion just to see if there are objections. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 02:43 AM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote: Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: The Wikipedia community painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it can find the exits, the paths to fix it. As this discussion illustrates rather well, the argument if you want to fix A, you'd have to start by fixing B (my pet gripe) first is routinely deployed, making for an infinite regress in some cases, and in others the generation of suggestions that are rather clearly counterproductive for fixing A, whatever they may do for B. In the real world, if you want people to do thankless and time-consuming tasks for you for no money, and much criticism, you have to rely on something more than be sure that you'll be told if we don't like you and what you do. Eh? Is this coherent? Who is the you who wants people to do thankless tasks? What is the pet gripe in the discussion? What is being discussed is declining numbers of EN wiki admins, and how to address it. In that, surely it is appropriate and even necessary to examine the entire administrative structure, both how admin privileges are created and how they are removed. So A here would be declining numbers. B, then, must be the difficulty of removal, which leads to stronger standards for accepting admins in the first place, which leads to declining applications and denial of some applications that might have been just fine. There is no evidence that there are declining applications because of fear of being criticized as an adminstrator, and the numbers of admin removals are trivial, so Charles is expressing a fear that is imaginary. If it were easier to gain tools and still difficult to lose them unless you disregard guidelines and consensus, there would be no loss of applications, there would be a gain. A large gain. Actually, most people who don't apply as an admin just don't apply. They don't generate evidence one way or another. It is a perfectly sensible attitude for a well-adjusted Wikipedian getting on with article work not to want to be involved in admin work. There are editors on the site who make the lives of those who cross them miserable: and an admin has the choice of avoiding such editors, or getting in the way of abuse. My expressed fear is very far from imaginary. You put your head above the parapet, you may get shot at, precisely for acting in good faith and according to your own judgement in awkward situations. What follows that seems to be a non sequitur. It was not what I was arguing at all. What I'm seeing here, indeed, is an illustration of the problem. The attitude that Charles expresses is clearly part of the problem, and Charles is suggesting no solutions but perhaps one of ridiculing and rejecting all the suggestions for change. Ah, but this is in line: Charles's attitude becomes something that must be fixed before recruiting more people to stand for adminship. I was actually commenting on the thread, not the issue. We should examine this sort of solution, amongst others: identify WikiProjects with few admins relative to their activity, and suggest they should look for candidates. Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
On 31 May 2010 18:49, AGK wiki...@gmail.com wrote: On 31 May 2010, at 18:21, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: But AGK is an administrator, and if he expects that police work will almost always cause the administrator to gain enemies, I rather suspect that some of his work is less than optimal. Irrelevant and incorrect. Shame, because I was starting to really like your ideas. Abd has been beaten around the head by the arbcom on several occasions, and so has an understandably negative view of power structures on Wikipedia in general - since it couldn't possibly be the case that he was ever actually wrong or anything. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
At 01:49 PM 5/31/2010, AGK wrote: On 31 May 2010, at 18:21, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: But AGK is an administrator, and if he expects that police work will almost always cause the administrator to gain enemies, I rather suspect that some of his work is less than optimal. Irrelevant and incorrect. Shame, because I was starting to really like your ideas. Interesting, AGK. Are the ideas important, or the personalities? Here, you just demonstrated my concern even further. I did not have in mind that you were an abusive administrator, and I've never had occasion to review your work. It takes a lot of time, and I've only done it when presented with an abundance of evidence, and a simple comment like you made here wouldn't even begin to approach what it would take to move me in that direction. I've certainly seen you make sound judgments, and nothing abusive comes to mind. But would I have seen it? I'm suggesting that the position you are taking reflects the kind of expectations that would arise from the experience of someone who doesn't understand how to administer neutrally and with maximal effectiveness in gaining voluntary cooperation. The tipoff is the almost always. This is high expectation, and it is almost certainly not true of skilfull administrative work in the area of behavioral policing. AGK, I hope and assume that you were teachable. Or are you too experienced to remain teachable? Hey, I'd love to review your work and be able to say, I was wrong, actually, you were very skilled and did everything you could to avoid unnecessary bad reaction and disruption, but it usually happened anyway. Well, actually, I wouldn't love one part of it. It would convince me that the Wikipedia basic design was impossible, doomed from the start, if that's the way people are. My experience elsewhere with organizations, however, leads me to think differently. With skill, real consensus is quite possible. It takes a lot of work, but once the work is done, it is self-maintaining. There is no more battleground. There is a community working together, including people who had, orginally, widely divergent points of view, and some of who may still retain those views, but they have learned to cooperate toward common and shared goals with others, and they have learned that when they do this, their own personal goals are more excellently accomplished. Most POV-pushers on Wikipedia want the articles to be what they believe is neutral. Some of them, possibly, will be unable to recognize true neutrality, they would only be satisfied if the article completely reflects their own point of view and denigrates different points of view. But those are quite rare, in my experience, and real consensus process makes such an agenda quite obvious. Most of these will withdraw, it becomes so painfully obvious. The few that remain and who continue to argue tenaciously for what has been almost universally rejected, this is the group where blocking might become necessary. It should always be considered dangerous, and the standard I propose for neutrality is a measure, not an absolute. Neutrality is reflected in the degree to which all editors agree that text is neutral. If you exclude editors from that measure, you warp it, you create the appearance of consensus by banning a position. We should always know what the true level of consensus is with articles, and that may require, even, consensus to be assessed by some means off-wiki, or with some kind of restricted participation. Scibaby's opinion about global warming should be solicited! Wikipedia might not please everyone, but it needs to know how it's doing. Or it has no way of assessing its own neutrality, and thus no way of even knowing if improvements are needed. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
Abd ul-Rahman Lomax wrote: At 01:35 PM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote: Actually, most people who don't apply as an admin just don't apply. With ten million registered editors and a handful of RfAs, that's obvious. They don't generate evidence one way or another. It is a perfectly sensible attitude for a well-adjusted Wikipedian getting on with article work not to want to be involved in admin work. Sure. However, there is a minority who are *not* well-adjusted who would seek adminship for personal power. Yes, and the first required quality for being given such power is not to want it. Etc. But you were the one talking about getting painted into a corner. The problem, as I have defined it, is of negative voting. The sheer suspicion of those who apparently want the mop-and-bucket. (And anyway, I obviously was using well-adjusted in the sense of round peg in a round hole, not as a comment on anything else.) Charles ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
On 31 May 2010 19:46, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: These are issues that I've been thinking about for almost thirty years, and with Wikipedia, intensively, for almost three years specifically (and as to on-line process, for over twenty years). So my comments get long. If that's a problem for you, don't read it. ... Has it really not occurred to you that *you're* trying to convince *us* of something? In which case, conciseness is likely more useful than defiant logorrhea ... Oh, never mind. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
Administrators differ in competence, and perhaps even in trustworthiness, but I think experience has shown that not even the most experienced and trusted of all will always correctly interpret the view of the community, and that nobody whomsoever can really trust himself or be trusted by others to be free from bias. I see no reason to think that the long-term administrators are any more likely to show neutrality or a proper self-perception as the newer ones. If anything, they are more likely to have an over-extensive bview of the centrality of their own ideas. Consequently, I think there is no other basis by which any administrator can make a decision except by consensus, implied or express . For those who are willing to read beyond the first paragraph: in general I do not think it is the business of the closer to decide between conflicting policies. Their job is to discard arguments not based on any policy, or, sometimes, by SPAs, and then judge consensus. The questions asked at RfAdmin are enough to identify admins who know enough to tell what is policy and what is not, as long as things don't get too complicated. It is not enough to identify admins who understand all policies well enough to judge which of conflicting ones to apply, or how to interpret them in difficult situations. A good thing, too, or we'd have chaos, because none of us agrees for all of that. The only people here competent to judge conflicting content policies or how to interpret them are the interested members of the community as a whole, acting in good faith. It is by the community's express consensus that BLP and Copyright trump other policies if the situation is unambiguous. But how the BLP and copyright policies are to be interpreted and applied in any particular instance is a question for the community, not individual administrators. The assumption in closing is that after discarding non-arguments, the consensus view will be the correct one, and that any neutral admin would agree. Thus there is in theory no difference between closing per the majority and closing per the strongest argument. But when there is a real dispute on what argument is relevant, the closer is not to decide between them , but close according to what most people in the discussion say. If the closer has a strong view on the matter, he should join the argument instead of closing, and try to affect consensus that way. I (and almost all other admins) have closed keep when we personally would have preferred delete, and vice-versa. . When admins delete by Speedy, it is on the assumption that what they are doing is so unambiguous that the community has given implied consensus in advance. If someone challenges this is good faith, the proper response is to simply send the article for AfD, and find out the express consensus. If I wanted a place where my view of proper content would prevail, I'd start a blog or become an editor of some conventional publication. On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 5:51 PM, David Lindsey dvdln...@gmail.com wrote: The key is not making it easier to remove adminship. This proposal gets us closer to the real problem, but fails to fully perceive it as does the common call to separate the functions of adminship. The real solution to the current (and relatively long-standing) problems with RfA and adminship in general is the marriage of the technical side of adminship with a political side, which is rarely acknowledged. Successful reform will involve separating these two aspects, rather than the more common idea to separate some technical pieces from others. The proposal below is a bit lenghty, but it's the product of years of thought, and I encourage you to read it. If you don't have the time, well then, the take away point is that we should create a distinction between those administrators trusted to intervene in highly-controversial areas and those not so trusted. The technical bits of adminship are, indeed, no big deal. With a large community of administrators and an alert body of stewards, the possible danger of obvious abuse of the administrator privileges is nearly zero. As an illustration, in the heat of the recent dust-up on commons, an administrator there went rogue and vandalized the main page. His edits were reverted in less than a minute: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Pageaction=historysubmitdiff=38894158oldid=38894141. Even in an absolute worst-case scenario of administrator abuse (for example, vandalizing the main page and then deleting a large number of pages with just less than 5,000 revisions in an attempt to lock the servers, especially abusive shenanigans in the MediaWiki namespace, or inserting malicious code into monobooks), the damage done would be reversed in under 10 minutes. Given this, it is highly improbable that any vandal/banned user would attempt to gain administrator status solely for the purpose of carrying out some such abuse. The danger
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
At 03:28 PM 5/31/2010, David Gerard wrote: On 31 May 2010 19:46, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: These are issues that I've been thinking about for almost thirty years, and with Wikipedia, intensively, for almost three years specifically (and as to on-line process, for over twenty years). So my comments get long. If that's a problem for you, don't read it. ... Has it really not occurred to you that *you're* trying to convince *us* of something? In which case, conciseness is likely more useful than defiant logorrhea ... Oh, never mind. It's occurred to me that you'd think that and claim it. I'm not writing for you, David. I'm writing for certain others who want to read this, and there may still be some left. If I considered it worth my time to write polemic, i.e, the useful conciseness that you seem to want, I'd do it. I know how to do it. It simply takes about three times as much time to cover the same topic in a third of the length. And I don't have that time. I really don't have the time to write this Or to say it more clearly, even: I don't think convincing you is a worthwhile use of my time. You are not that important, and your influence is rapidly fading. You were not personally the cause of Wikipedia's problems, though you typify certain positions that are part of the problem itself. Those positions are effectively created by the structure, or the lack of it. You could possibly be a part of the solution, but you'd have to drastically review and revise your own position, coming to understand why it is that power is slipping from your grasp or the project is becoming increasingly frustrating. No, I'm writing to this entire list, even if it seems I responding to a single post. I know there are some here who get what I'm saying, and they are the ones I care about. It's even possible that I'm writing for someone who will read this after I'm dead. I'm old enough, after all, to see that as coming soon, and I have cancer. Slow, to be sure, and I'm more likely to die from something else, but it makes me conscious of my mortality. Do you really think I care about what you think? I know myself pretty well, and I'm definitely not trying to convince you, I'm not in a relationship with you and I'm demanding nothing of you, not even that you read this. I just write what I see, it's what I've always done, and there have always been people who very much didn't like it. And others who very much like it. I don't normally write to this list, but I saw that some were really trying to grapple with the problems, so I made some comments reflecting my experience and ideas. They have always been unwelcome, largely, from those whose positions are untenable when examined closely. There have been others like me, in some way or other, who did this on Wikipedia. If they were unable to restrain themselves, or didn't care to, they've been blocked or banned. Wikipedia doesn't like criticism, but the *large* consensus is that it's necessary. Unfortunatley, the large consensus almost never is aroused, it takes something big to get their attention. To summarize a recent incident: You can take away our academic freedom, we don't really care that much about it, and those were troublesome editors anyway, but take away our pornography, you're in trouble! Same issue, really. But the meta RfC on removal of Jimbo's founder flag, based on his action at Wikiversity, was stagnating at about 2:1 against it until the flap at Commons, when editors started pouring in, and it's currently at about 4:1 for removal, last time I looked, with huge participation. And Jimbo resigned the intrusive tools (block and article delete) that he'd used. In spite of his prior threat that effectively said I'm in charge. Don't assume my position on this! I commented, though. I commented on the problem at Wikiversity in a few places, and got a confirming email from Jimbo as to what I'd said about it, and certainly no flak from him. I neither oppose consensus, nor the needs of administrators and managers of the project. I'm trying to assist, but, I know to expect this from long experience, there are always people who don't want such assistance, because it serves them that things are the way they are. If anyone actually wants assistance, write me privately. I do know pretty much what could be done. But I certainly can't do it alone! and I wouldn't even try, other than putting a toe in the water and tossing a little yoghurt in the lake to see if it's ready to take. you never know. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
At 11:19 AM 5/31/2010, Charles Matthews wrote: [...] remedies - for a bigger picture - have the disadvantages of requiring a great deal of investment of time. I believe I have tried a number of those, without yet getting a complete view of the elephant. Right. Sensible. There is a solution to that, which is structured discussion and investigation. Deliberative process, where each issue involved is examined carefully. Yes. It takes a lot of time, but with good structure, it's a collective effort and very practical. Without good structure, it's basically impossible. And what we get is one effort after another, never completely examined, rejected or fought over without ever finding true consensus, which represents, in the end, much more waste of time, whereas effort to find consensus, done intelligently -- which often requires some skilled facilitation or process assistance -- isn't wasted. It builds something that will last. The blind men can come up with a complete description of the elephant if they trust each other's good faith, and move around just a little bit, so that each one gets more than one view. It is only when they insist that their own experience must be all-encompassing that they fail to grasp the truth. What do you get when you can see from more than one point of view at a time? ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
At 02:17 PM 5/31/2010, David Gerard wrote: Abd has been beaten around the head by the arbcom on several occasions, and so has an understandably negative view of power structures on Wikipedia in general - since it couldn't possibly be the case that he was ever actually wrong or anything. My views of the Wikipedia power structure were expressed long before I appeared before ArbComm. I've been a major party for two cases only. The first was filed by Jehochman, beating me to it by maybe an hour or two, I was ready to file. My case was about admin recusal failure, and ArbComm confirmed it. That case was practically a complete victory for my position. Later, one finding, very mild, was interpreted as some kind of reprimand, though it was actually an instruction to more rapidly escalate dispute resolution. So, next time, that's exactly what I did. The next case I filed, and was also over admin recusal failure. This time, I was personally involved (I'd been neutral in the first case, actually, though I later developed a point of view contrary to that of the administrator. My POV wasn't relevant to the charge of recusal failure.) Again, ArbComm quite confirmed the complaint. I was very aware from the beginning that by taking on administrative abuse, I was risking topic bans and my account. The surprise, actually, was that it didn't happen the first time. But that case had been so open-and-shut and uncomplicated that the cabal mostly stayed away, even though they had actively participated in the preceding RfC/JzG 3. That, right there, was a clue: the RfC was narrowly filed, as well, simply showing article and other topic involvement, then use of tools for blacklisting, blocking, and deleting. But 2/3 of editors commenting supported, instead of a confirmation of the problem, that Abd should be banned. 2/3 of editors supported a position that was blatantly against policy and the ensuing ArbComm decision. But with the next case, the cabal was very much aware of the danger, and the case wasn't as clear. They knew that if they could claim that I was a tendentious editor, dispruptive, etc., they could at least get me topic banned. They piled in, and my originally compact evidence spun out of control, trying to respond. At the beginning, actually, it looked like they'd failed, the first arb to review evidence and opine was so favorable to my position that I thought that, again, I'd dodged the bullent. But then, quite rapidly, it reversed, that arbitrator was basically ignored, and entirely new proposals were made, basically reprimanding me for a series of asserted offences, not supported or barely and inadequately supported by evidence. ArbComm was more of a knee-jerk body than I'd anticipated, I'd been fooled by a series of decisions where they clearly did investigate, and carefully. Did I do anything wrong? Of course I did! I also did stuff that was exactly right, and exactly effective, and accomplished what many editors and administrators thought impossible. But my personal right to edit Wikipedia meant almost nothing to me, and standing up for the rights of legions of editors who had been abused, and I'd been watching it for a long time, and I believe that this has done and contnues to do long-term damage, was much more important. I'm just one editor, I'm nothing compared to them. Someone like Mr. Gerard may not be capable of understanding this attitude, it would be so foreign to how he'd think. Or is it? Never mind, it doesn't matter. ArbComm is not the cause of Wikipedia's problems, it's merely a symptom. Fix the basic problems, and ArbComm, or its replacement, would become far more functional. The problem is not the fault of any member of ArbComm, nor of any editor or faction, though some do stand in the way of reform, that's simply what's natural. I ddn't seek to have anyone banned, even though there were -- and are -- several who by ordinary standards, if their behavior were examined, would be, because these people would be harmless or even useful if the structure were functional. The problem, in a nutshell, is that the founders of Wikipedia did not know how to put together a project that could maintain unity and consensus when the scale became large. That's not surprising, not many know how to do this! But there are people who do, who have had experience with it. Few of them have become Wikipedia editors, and Wikipedia has not sought this expertise. Indeed, it's blocked and banned people for even suggesting solutions. And, from the beginning, as I became active, back in 2007, I wrote that this was expected behavior. I'd registered in, I think, 2005, and had other wiki experience, and was a moderator on the W.E.L.L. in the 1980s and a moderator of soc.religion.islam in the 90s -- still am, though inactive --, do you think there was any controversy there? And I've handled large meetings, an international conference, of people inclined to
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
I'm not quite sure if this responding to what I wrote or to other bits above, but it seems in part to apply to what I said, so I will respond accordingly. First of all, my proposal was not meant, in any sense, to suggest supplanting consensus with the arbitrary judgement of bureaucrats. To the contrary, it's meant to help capture consensus. The fact of the matter is that, in contoversial matters (which are the ones where admins get in trouble) it is difficult, by definition, to determine what the consensus is. Bureaucrats are a group of users in whose ability to determine consensus the community has expressed extraordinary confidence. Thus, they are ideally placed to find the consensus in these difficult areas. Secondly, there is often a legitimacy problem (more in user behavior related areas than XfDs). If one administrator of no particular standing imposes a block on someone, it appear less justified than if a user in whom the community has expressed extra confidence does the same (though, to the blocked user, both may well look illegitimate). Third, and unrelatedly, I'd like to point out another advantage of what I propose. Term limits on administrators are often proposed, but are utterly impractical, in large part because we have over 1500 admins (not all active of course). On the other hand, the number of people needed to help determine consensus in particularly contentious areas is not likely to exceed 50 or 60 people. It would be entirely practicable to term-limit a group of this size. On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 11:11 PM, David Goodman dgoodma...@gmail.comwrote: Administrators differ in competence, and perhaps even in trustworthiness, but I think experience has shown that not even the most experienced and trusted of all will always correctly interpret the view of the community, and that nobody whomsoever can really trust himself or be trusted by others to be free from bias. I see no reason to think that the long-term administrators are any more likely to show neutrality or a proper self-perception as the newer ones. If anything, they are more likely to have an over-extensive bview of the centrality of their own ideas. Consequently, I think there is no other basis by which any administrator can make a decision except by consensus, implied or express . For those who are willing to read beyond the first paragraph: ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
At 03:28 PM 5/31/2010, David Gerard wrote: On 31 May 2010 19:46, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: These are issues that I've been thinking about for almost thirty years, and with Wikipedia, intensively, for almost three years specifically (and as to on-line process, for over twenty years). So my comments get long. If that's a problem for you, don't read it. ... Has it really not occurred to you that *you're* trying to convince *us* of something? In which case, conciseness is likely more useful than defiant logorrhea ... Oh, never mind. on 5/31/10 6:17 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax at a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: It's occurred to me that you'd think that and claim it. I'm not writing for you, David. I'm writing for certain others who want to read this, and there may still be some left. If I considered it worth my time to write polemic, i.e, the useful conciseness that you seem to want, I'd do it. I know how to do it. It simply takes about three times as much time to cover the same topic in a third of the length. And I don't have that time. I really don't have the time to write this Or to say it more clearly, even: I don't think convincing you is a worthwhile use of my time. You are not that important, and your influence is rapidly fading. You were not personally the cause of Wikipedia's problems, though you typify certain positions that are part of the problem itself. Those positions are effectively created by the structure, or the lack of it. You could possibly be a part of the solution, but you'd have to drastically review and revise your own position, coming to understand why it is that power is slipping from your grasp or the project is becoming increasingly frustrating. No, I'm writing to this entire list, even if it seems I responding to a single post. I know there are some here who get what I'm saying, and they are the ones I care about. It's even possible that I'm writing for someone who will read this after I'm dead. I'm old enough, after all, to see that as coming soon, and I have cancer. Slow, to be sure, and I'm more likely to die from something else, but it makes me conscious of my mortality. Do you really think I care about what you think? I know myself pretty well, and I'm definitely not trying to convince you, I'm not in a relationship with you and I'm demanding nothing of you, not even that you read this. I just write what I see, it's what I've always done, and there have always been people who very much didn't like it. And others who very much like it. I don't normally write to this list, but I saw that some were really trying to grapple with the problems, so I made some comments reflecting my experience and ideas. They have always been unwelcome, largely, from those whose positions are untenable when examined closely. There have been others like me, in some way or other, who did this on Wikipedia. If they were unable to restrain themselves, or didn't care to, they've been blocked or banned. Wikipedia doesn't like criticism, but the *large* consensus is that it's necessary. Unfortunatley, the large consensus almost never is aroused, it takes something big to get their attention. To summarize a recent incident: You can take away our academic freedom, we don't really care that much about it, and those were troublesome editors anyway, but take away our pornography, you're in trouble! Same issue, really. But the meta RfC on removal of Jimbo's founder flag, based on his action at Wikiversity, was stagnating at about 2:1 against it until the flap at Commons, when editors started pouring in, and it's currently at about 4:1 for removal, last time I looked, with huge participation. And Jimbo resigned the intrusive tools (block and article delete) that he'd used. In spite of his prior threat that effectively said I'm in charge. Don't assume my position on this! I commented, though. I commented on the problem at Wikiversity in a few places, and got a confirming email from Jimbo as to what I'd said about it, and certainly no flak from him. I neither oppose consensus, nor the needs of administrators and managers of the project. I'm trying to assist, but, I know to expect this from long experience, there are always people who don't want such assistance, because it serves them that things are the way they are. If anyone actually wants assistance, write me privately. I do know pretty much what could be done. But I certainly can't do it alone! and I wouldn't even try, other than putting a toe in the water and tossing a little yoghurt in the lake to see if it's ready to take. you never know. Abd, Bravo! And thank you for your honesty - and your perception. Marc Riddell ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
On 31 May 2010 23:17, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: You are not that important, and your influence is rapidly fading. No indeed I'm not, and I am most pleased that it is, because I get annoyed a lot less. However, I hope I can tell the obvious, e.g. that bringing interesting ideas to wikien-l is most useful for debugging ideas - in terms of influence, you can only get consensus for changes on the wiki itself. (Something I point out to Marc Riddell when he's at his worst, and note his strange reluctance to actually engage himself with the community he champions so strongly.) So if you want your ideas to go anywhere in finite time, I would suggest you would have to convince people on the wiki. And if you want to run them past wikien-l first, knock yourself out, but epic novels are likely to get a tl;dr. You are of course under no obligation to listen to a word of this, and I fully expect you won't change your behaviour a dot. Ah well. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
At 05:51 PM 5/31/2010, David Lindsey wrote: The key is not making it easier to remove adminship. This proposal gets us closer to the real problem, but fails to fully perceive it as does the common call to separate the functions of adminship. Generally, Mr. Lindsey has written a cogent examination of certain aspects of the problem. Let me reframe part of this. What is needed is not exactly making it easier to remove adminship, but making it easier to regulate and restrain administrative action. His proposal is one approach to that, dividing actions into types. I suggested something *somewhat* similar in pointing out that bureaucrats were a group that might be trusted to make decisions about use of admin tools, i.e., to receive and judge, ad-hoc, complaints, and warn the admin when it was considered there was a problem, or, in the extreme, remove the tools. Expanding the bureaucrat role is one fairly obvious and reasonable solution, and it seems to work like this, with bureaucrats or stewards, on the smaller wikis that don't have an ArbComm. Given clear rules regarding recusal, when it's necessary, and when it's not, and what to do if there is any reasonable possibility of an appearance of bias, most admnistrators will quite properly restrain themselves voluntarily. However, I'm not necessarily exercised if a long-time user is short-blocked, because a long-time user should understand it and see it as no big deal. It all depends on how it's done. If a long-time user engages in behavior that would cause a short-time user to be blocked, what, exactly, is the problem with being blocked? If there is a problem, if the user will go away mad, abandoning years of effort because of one possibly bad block, there is, right there, a sign of a serious problem, ownership of the project or of an article. Maybe its time for that user to do something else. If it was a short block, he or she can come back any time they want, after the block expires. Short blocks are very different from longer blocks. Short blocks are true police actions, equivalent to a sergeant-at-arms conducting a disruptive member of an assembly from the room when they get too hot. It's no big deal, and nobody is sanctioned for it, unless they truly get violent in the process. If an admin blocks *any* user and abuses the user in the process, without necessity, that's a problem, and it's a problem even if the block was correct as a block. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
At 06:11 PM 5/31/2010, David Goodman wrote: The assumption in closing is that after discarding non-arguments, the consensus view will be the correct one, and that any neutral admin would agree. Thus there is in theory no difference between closing per the majority and closing per the strongest argument. But when there is a real dispute on what argument is relevant, the closer is not to decide between them , but close according to what most people in the discussion say. If the closer has a strong view on the matter, he should join the argument instead of closing, and try to affect consensus that way. I (and almost all other admins) have closed keep when we personally would have preferred delete, and vice-versa. My argument has been similar on this. Wikitheory would suggest that no admin should close a discussion with a result that the admin does not agree with, so it does a little further than what David suggests. I'd even say that an admin who, after reading the discussion and reviewing the evidence, is neutral, *should not close.* If there is a consensus, say, for Delete, and that represents true broader consensus, surely there will be an admin who agrees to close. I agree that if the admin has a strong opinion or general position making it reasonably possible that the decision will be biased (some people can actually discern this!) the admin should instead comment. Generally, an admin who comments with a position should not then return and close, I've seen this violated only a few times. With a ban discussion actually, and it was a real problem, in my view. And the reason for this is quite simple. The least disruptive way to review a deletion is to ask the deleting administrator to reconsider it. The theory suggests that the one who closes has the authority to change the decision based on new evidence or argument. When an admin closed on the basis of consensus purely, we have a closer who will often refuse to change the decision because the community made the decision, not me. But when the administrator is part of that community, and closed on behalf of that community, the administrator represents it in changing his mind, based on new additional evidence and argument. This can avoid a lot of DRV discussions! I've seen it work, and I've also seen the not my decision response. The theory of the adhocracy that is Wikipedia depends on the responsibility of the executives -- the editors and administrators who act -- for their own decisions. No decisions are properly made by voting, per se, most notably because there is a severe problem with participation bias. If we wanted to use voting, we'd need quite a different structure, which may be advisable, in fact, as a hybrid, used where it's necessary for voting to represent true community consensus. In an organization that is the size of Wikipedia, that would almost certainly be some kind of elected representative body, and there are ways to do this without actual elections as we know them. Simple ways, in fact. Short of that, we have the efficiency of ad hoc decision-making by individual administrators, expected to self-select for initial neutrality. I've seen closing admins change their mind and undelete based on new evidence and argument, and a Delete voter in the AfD discussion got upset that the admin was defying consensus. But Ive never seen such a decision reversed at DRV, nor by a new AfD with a different closer. Perhaps it's happened, but, if the admin was truly following arguments and policy, it should be rare. Thus the disruption of another discussion is avoided unless someone is really pissed and pursues it, and, after a while, this can become obvious, such editors don't last long, usually. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
At 07:34 PM 5/31/2010, you wrote: On 31 May 2010 23:17, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: You are not that important, and your influence is rapidly fading. No indeed I'm not, and I am most pleased that it is, because I get annoyed a lot less. However, I hope I can tell the obvious, e.g. that bringing interesting ideas to wikien-l is most useful for debugging ideas - in terms of influence, you can only get consensus for changes on the wiki itself. (Something I point out to Marc Riddell when he's at his worst, and note his strange reluctance to actually engage himself with the community he champions so strongly.) So if you want your ideas to go anywhere in finite time, I would suggest you would have to convince people on the wiki. And if you want to run them past wikien-l first, knock yourself out, but epic novels are likely to get a tl;dr. I'm glad that Mr. Gerard understands and accepts what's happening, because it will make it much easier for him. I have an obligation to share my ideas, but none to try to make people adopt them. Inna maa al-balagh, is the Arabic, the obligation is only to convey. I have limited capacity, so I do what I can. You are of course under no obligation to listen to a word of this, and I fully expect you won't change your behaviour a dot. Ah well. Lucky guess. After all, I'm an old dog. You want me to learn new tricks? What reward are you offering? What's the advantage for me to take the time it would take to boil down what I write? People who don't understand the process that I go through to write seem to imagine that I could just write less, just the important part, not realizing that this is *far* more time-consuming. I do it when it's needed. To just reflect on some concepts on a mailing list, to discuss as distinct from trying to convince, no. It's not worth it. I've been an editor, professionally. I know how to do it. But I was being paid. I certainly edit article content! You'll seek in vain for walls of text in articles. Part of the Wikipedia problem, in fact, is rejection of extended discussion. My solution would be to move part of that off-wiki. In theory, people could largely ignore Talk on-wiki, but perhaps it's better if on-wiki Talk is given more importance (don't revert a change if it was justified in Talk and you haven't read that!), and that more general discussion and background therefore moves off-wiki. On the other hand, more use could be made of subpages, collapse, and other techniques for organizing discussion. That genuine consensus could arise with difficult topics without massive and deep discussion, though, was a fantasy. In that kind of deep consensus process, tomes can be more efficient, not less. Skimming them might be just fine, but allowing more complete expression is essential. It's not necessary for everyone to participate in such deep discussion, just those who are interested. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
Neither they nor anyone else knows how to do this at our scale in as open a structure as ours. Most ideas tend to retreat towards one form or another of centralized control over content or to division of the project to reduce the scale. That it is possible to organize well enough to do what we've done on our scale, is proven by the result--an enormously useful product for the world in general. That we could do better is probable, since the current structure is almost entirely ad hoc, but there is no evidence as to what will work better. Intensely democratic structures have one characteristic form of repression of individuality, and controlled structures another. The virtue of division is to provide smaller structures adapted to different methods, so that individuals can find one that is tolerable, but this loses the key excitment of working together on something really large. My own view is that we should treat this as an experiment, and pursue it on its own lines as far as it takes us. On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 6:52 PM, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: if the structure were functional. The problem, in a nutshell, is that the founders of Wikipedia did not know how to put together a project that could maintain unity and consensus when the scale became large. -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
[WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
Re the theory that making it easier to get rid of admins could be a solution to the decline in their active numbers. This is one of those perennial theories that often sidetracks any attempt at WT:RFA to reform the process; But has at least once failed to get consensus for change - not least because many of its proponents seem unaware of how easy desysopping can now be and are therefore hazy as to how much easier they want it to be. I like counterintuitive theories, and the idea that to get more admins you should get rid of some of us and put the rest under greater stress is IMHO counterintuitive. But I see the following flaws. 1 Concerns about the difficulty of desysopping admins long predate the RFA drought that we've been in for the last couple of years. 2 It may have been true in the past that desysopping was difficult and always traumatic for the community, but the reality of the last few months is that whilst some desysoppings are highprofile and dramatic, others are almost discrete and are only noticed by those who watch Arbcom or those like me who keep an eye on the total number of admins. I suspect that perceptions of the difficulty of desysopping are based on the highprofile and contested cases, not the barely noticed ones. Any theory to explain the RFA drought needs to account for the phenomenon of standards inflation at RFA, and explain why those arbitrary expectations have continued to rise whilst desysopping has if anything become easier. I've approached a number of possible candidates in the last few months, several have declined to run either because the standards are so arbitrary or because they don't want to be treated the way they've seen others treated at RFA. As for the idea that we should move to Hi, I noticed that you speedy-deleted some files that do not appear to meet the CSD criteria; your SysOp staus has been removed _while we discuss it_. I've done over 4,000 speedy deletions, and very probably there are more mistakes amongst them that I know about, but if someone thinks I've deleted something in error I'd expect a first approach along the lines of would you mind having another look at [[deleted article]], I don't see how it was an attack page. Maybe I've made a mistake, maybe so much has been oversighted that it no longer looks like an attack page, maybe there are words involved that have very different meanings to a Yank and a Brit. But a desysop first and ask questions later strategy would in my view generate far more drama than would be justified by the results. WereSpielChequers IMHO, etc... The fundamental problem is the difficulty in *removing* SysOp, which *makes* it a big deal. If it really was no big deal, RfA wouldn't need to be such an ordeal; if a user is competent, reasonably experienced and no DRAMA, we should +SysOp them (AGF). If they fuck up, remove it (No big deal). We block our precious new users at the drop of a hat, but an admin has to do something pretty damned horrific to even consider removing their status, and even then it takes months. Imagine if it worked more like blocking - if an admin fucks up, remove their SysOp and have a chat about it. Hi, I noticed that you speedy-deleted some files that do not appear to meet the CSD criteria; your SysOp staus has been removed _while we discuss it_. No big deal, the admins shouldn't mind. If that were the case, there would be no need for the depth of analysis and horrible trial that is our current RfA. Sadly, AGF is missing from RfA. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
On 30 May 2010 11:36, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@googlemail.com wrote: As for the idea that we should move to Hi, I noticed that you speedy-deleted some files that do not appear to meet the CSD criteria; your SysOp staus has been removed _while we discuss it_. I've done over 4,000 speedy deletions, and very probably there are more mistakes amongst them that I know about, but if someone thinks I've deleted something in error I'd expect a first approach along the lines of would you mind having another look at [[deleted article]], I don't see how it was an attack page. Maybe I've made a mistake, maybe so much has been oversighted that it no longer looks like an attack page, maybe there are words involved that have very different meanings to a Yank and a Brit. But a desysop first and ask questions later strategy would in my view generate far more drama than would be justified by the results. Indeed. The first - and, I would have thought, jawdroppingly obvious - result would be that no-one at all would go near such work in any circumstances. The problem with RFA has long been arbitrarily increased standards, and in recent years the abusive nature of the gauntlet. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
The reasonable people here who discuss this are not the admins about whom there is a problem. There are many admins who make errors and refuse to discuss them, and a few who deliberately and intentionally ignore the restrictions of deletion policy. I have so far not even attempted the various ways of calling them to account, because WP process tends to sweep in the innocent along with the guilty, and the result tends to be decided on the basis of popular vs. unpopular. If there should be someone whom I thought was causing significant ongoing harm, and whom i personally disliked in addition, I would still not initiate formal process, because the conclusion is as likely to be their vindication as their censure. On Sun, May 30, 2010 at 6:43 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: On 30 May 2010 11:36, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@googlemail.com wrote: As for the idea that we should move to Hi, I noticed that you speedy-deleted some files that do not appear to meet the CSD criteria; your SysOp staus has been removed _while we discuss it_. I've done over 4,000 speedy deletions, and very probably there are more mistakes amongst them that I know about, but if someone thinks I've deleted something in error I'd expect a first approach along the lines of would you mind having another look at [[deleted article]], I don't see how it was an attack page. Maybe I've made a mistake, maybe so much has been oversighted that it no longer looks like an attack page, maybe there are words involved that have very different meanings to a Yank and a Brit. But a desysop first and ask questions later strategy would in my view generate far more drama than would be justified by the results. Indeed. The first - and, I would have thought, jawdroppingly obvious - result would be that no-one at all would go near such work in any circumstances. The problem with RFA has long been arbitrarily increased standards, and in recent years the abusive nature of the gauntlet. - d. ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l -- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
On 30 May 2010 11:43, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Indeed. The first - and, I would have thought, jawdroppingly obvious - result would be that no-one at all would go near such work in any circumstances. Exactly. The big problem with community desysoppings is that any admin doing their job properly will have enemies. The longer you do the job, the more enemies you will have. Whenever you block someone, you annoy the blockee. Whenever you delete an article, you annoy the creator. Whenever you protect an article, you annoy the person whose version you didn't protect on. If you let those people be in charge of the desysopping process, we won't have any good admins left doing even slightly controversial work (which, as I've explained, is pretty much all admin work). ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
At 01:58 PM 5/30/2010, Thomas Dalton wrote: On 30 May 2010 11:43, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote: Indeed. The first - and, I would have thought, jawdroppingly obvious - result would be that no-one at all would go near such work in any circumstances. Exactly. The big problem with community desysoppings is that any admin doing their job properly will have enemies. The longer you do the job, the more enemies you will have. Whenever you block someone, you annoy the blockee. Whenever you delete an article, you annoy the creator. Whenever you protect an article, you annoy the person whose version you didn't protect on. If you let those people be in charge of the desysopping process, we won't have any good admins left doing even slightly controversial work (which, as I've explained, is pretty much all admin work). These are the arguments that have maintained the dysfunction. But: (1) most legitimate admin work is not controversial to any degree that would affect an admin's status in the active community, which is what counts. Blocking an IP vandal isn't going to harm that, and it will only help it. If the IP vandal then registers an account and goes after the admin, sure. But, then, as to proposals that those who supported an RfA might retract that, or cause adminiship to be suspended pending examination, are concerned, this would be useless. Legitimate administration is indeed like janitorial work. Can we imagine a good janitor getting into an argument with other employees of a school or office as to what should be thrown away? Adminship was supposed to be no big deal. When an administrator is asserting personal power over an editor, something has gone awry. Police have no power to punish, they may arrest on probable cause, but they then step aside and let the community make decisions on sanctions or release. A police officer who has become personally involved and insists on pursuing an individual might well be removed or ordered to work in other areas. Whenever you delete an article, you annoy the creator. Well, it might seem that way. But admins aren't supposed to be deleting articles in the presence of the creator's objection, unless there is a critical issue, and, by the rules of adminstrative recusal, they should only do this once, personally, absent true fire-alarm emergency. It better be good! For anything further, they'd go to the community and not use tools to gain an advantage. And I've seen admins violate this, causing a lot of unnecessary disruption because, indeed, the editor then gets seriously pissed off. That's as to speedy deletion. As to regular deletion, an admin is assessing arguments and consensus at an AfD, and, if doing this well, doesn't delete unless there is consensus for it, or, alternatively, the arguments are clear and evidenced. And if the creator objects, the admin politely considers the objection, and, if the admin can't reverse, suggests DRV and is done. Seriously done. Probably not a good idea to even argue for deletion at the review, the admin's reasons should have been given with the original closure. Being reversed should be no shame. (2) good recusal policy requires an admin to stand aside and not pursue an individual editor. An example of how this could work was what happened when Iridescent blocked me in 2008. It was indef, but she wrote, indef as in indefinite, not as in infinite, or something like that. And then she made no attempts at all to *keep* me blocked. She presented her reason, and that was that. It was then between me and the community, not me and her. As a result, I had no sense of serious opposition to or from her, and no enmity. I still think she made a mistake, but administrators are volunteers and will make mistakes. Am I unusual? Maybe. But if an editor is, say, blocked for a day by an administrator who then leaves unblock template instructions and even wishes the editor well, and does it all politely and correctly, it's going to be very visible if this editor then embarks on a crusade against the admin -- unless the admin truly was involved and shouldn't have touched the block button. Sure, it happens. And it's very visible if anyone looks! Indeed, this editor is likely to stay blocked or to be seen as seriously biased against the administrator and possibly as genuinely dangerous to the project. I was blocked by a horrible monster is very much not a way to get unblocked, it rarely works. (3) community desysopping, per se, is a really Bad Idea. It should be and must be much easier, and community discussions tend to be very much a popularity contest, and waste huge amounts of editor labor. Rather, some kind of administrative recall, as an easy process that could result in *suspension* of administrative privileges, and even without some presumption of actual misbehavior, merely in undoing, temporarily, what was done with the RfA, makes much more sense. Involving those who approved
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
On 31/05/2010, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: As to regular deletion, an admin is assessing arguments and consensus at an AfD, and, if doing this well, doesn't delete unless there is consensus for it, or, alternatively, the arguments are clear and evidenced. Actually it's not supposed to be about consensus at AFD. If you use consensus it's far, far too easy to stuff the vote; people can email their friends or use socks, and in common cases it's almost completely undetectable. Too many AFDs I've seen, in practice, work as a straight vote; that just doesn't work at all. That's why it's supposed to be about who has identified the valid policy for deletion or keeping it. You can't stuff the vote by identifying valid policy. -- -Ian Woollard ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
At 06:43 AM 5/30/2010, David Gerard wrote: On 30 May 2010 11:36, WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@googlemail.com wrote: As for the idea that we should move to Hi, I noticed that you speedy-deleted some files that do not appear to meet the CSD criteria; your SysOp staus has been removed _while we discuss it_. By arguing in this way those with elevated status have maintained it, thoguh that seems to be falling apart. Consider the situation described. Obviously, the one writing this is a bureaucrat, highly privileged. If we think that there is a bureaucrat would would casually *remove* admin status over some simple errors, we have a problem with that bureaucrat, and, as with anyone else, perhaps process should be initiated! Bureaucrats, though, would only remove status, absent emergency, if proper process had been followed. Certainly that notice would not be the first notice to the admin! Or if it was, and if removal was immediately, the admin was massively deleting, in a way making undoing it burdensome, and the desysop was as an emergency, and would normally be temporary until the admin agrees to stop. By taking proposals for efficient and easy desysopping to ridiculous extremes, suggesting nightmare scenarios that would be highly unlikely to occur, many in the community have been able to prevent the system from being improved. It's obvious. And it demonstrates that there are editors who have a concept of an oligarchical core, to which they belong, with the continued power of this core, even when it's against true consensus, being critical to the future of the project. And that's a problem. I've done over 4,000 speedy deletions, and very probably there are more mistakes amongst them that I know about, but if someone thinks I've deleted something in error I'd expect a first approach along the lines of would you mind having another look at [[deleted article]], Â I don't see how it was an attack page. That's right and that's quite what happens, and the existence of speedy suspension process (much better and much less punitive than 'speedy desysop') would not change this at all. Â Maybe I've made a mistake, maybe so much has been oversighted that it no longer looks like an attack page, maybe there are words involved that have very different meanings to a Yank and a Brit. But a desysop first and ask questions later strategy would in my view generate far more drama than would be justified by the results. I.e., straw man. The first step in a process might be a request to suspend usage of tools in some area. It would never be punitive, i.e., You made a mistake, therefore you are no longer a sysop. What idiot would propose that? Rather, the legitimate concern would always be the likelihood of repetition. When it becomes likely that an admin will make many errors, such that cleanup becomes more work than allowing the sysop to continue with tools, *then* removal of tools becomes appropriate. I would assume, instead, that suspension requests would be handled routinely, and normally, a reasonable suspension request would be handled with little fuss, it would be much more like what David describes as what he expects. It is only if the admin contests this and insists on personally using tools in the area, against maintained opposition by other editors, and, then, particularly by editors who might be eligible to take part in some formal process to suspend (partially, with voluntary compliance) or remove tools (i.e., if voluntary compliance isn't forthcoming), would there be an issue of conflict and actual removal. And then the (now former) admin might get that note from a bureacrat who reviewed the process and concluded that removal was appropriate. Indeed. The first - and, I would have thought, jawdroppingly obvious - result would be that no-one at all would go near such work in any circumstances. Of course. It would be even worse if we chopped off the hand of any admin who blocks, say, another admin or makes any other error, as we think. But why in the world would we imagine that an efficient and fair removal process would look like this? Look, if I'm offered the position of volunteer custodian at my daughter's school, but I find out that some other volunteer made so many mistakes that they were asked to stop, would I decline on that basis? Losing tools is not a flogging, indeed, it's only like a flogging if one resists it and believes it's the end of the world if one can no longer block editors, delete articles, and the like. It's not even an important part of most editor's work, but, unfortunately, it does become an important part of some admin's work. Some have suggested that admins should be required to maintain good article work. I disagree, because some people might be *better* as admins than as article aditors. But better doesn't mean that they control the articles, and, indeed,
Re: [WikiEN-l] declining numbers of EN wiki admins - The theory that making it easier to get rid of admins is a solution to the decline in their active numbers
At 08:14 PM 5/30/2010, Ian Woollard wrote: On 31/05/2010, Abd ul-Rahman Lomax a...@lomaxdesign.com wrote: As to regular deletion, an admin is assessing arguments and consensus at an AfD, and, if doing this well, doesn't delete unless there is consensus for it, or, alternatively, the arguments are clear and evidenced. Actually it's not supposed to be about consensus at AFD. If you use consensus it's far, far too easy to stuff the vote; people can email their friends or use socks, and in common cases it's almost completely undetectable. Too many AFDs I've seen, in practice, work as a straight vote; that just doesn't work at all. That's why it's supposed to be about who has identified the valid policy for deletion or keeping it. You can't stuff the vote by identifying valid policy. Of course. Wikipedia is a bit schizophrenic about this. If it's not consensus, why is canvassing prohibited? Surely that would simply be soliciting better arguments, and getting a multiplicity of arguments that arent' better would simply irritate the closing admin! The policies and guidelines, however, supposedly represent consensus. A good closing admin explains the application of policy, and will then hear arguments from editors to reverse the decision, with equanimity, and at a certain point may say, well, there is DRV if you continue to disagree. And will then stay out of DRV, where there is a different closing admin. Plus you go to the deleting admin and ask for the article to be userfied, and the admin might suggest it. If you'd like to improve the article so that it might meet standards, I can place a copy in your user space. Would you like me to do that. Most, I'd say from my experience, will do it on request, unless it's actually illegal content. Or they will email wikitext. If a deleting admin cooperates as possible, it defuses personalization of the decision, it's just an opinion. You know that you've run in to an attached administrator with a personal axe to grind if he or she refuses, saying that the topic could never possibly be appropriate and the text is pure garbage. Even if it's true, that would be a gratuitous insult! Rather, a good admin might point to the relevant policies and suggest a careful review. And then bug out, having done the job well. *Even if he's wrong.* A full discussion of Wikipedia practice would take a tome, that's part of the problem by refusing to develop better and more specific guidelines, Wikipedia tossed it all in the air, and nobody really knows what to expect. That's a formula for endless conflict, not for the flexibility that has been imagined will result. Flexibility is a part of any good administrative system, in common law it's called public policy, which trumps otherwise expected decision. But nobody is punished for violating public policy, in same systems, only for violations that could be anticipated reasonably. Punishing people for doing what they should have known when Wikipedia avoided documenting this is often quite unjust, and is why modern criminal codes generally don't allow ex-post-facto laws that punish. Wikipedia is back in the dark ages in some respects. And developing thos cleare guidelines is largely impossible because of the distributed decision-making structure. The Wikipedia community painted itself into a corner, and it's entirely unclear to me if it can find the exits, the paths to fix it. Maybe. I have some ideas, but few want to hear about it. I'm not even bothering on-wiki any more, which was apparently a desired result for some. Personally, I'm grateful, it's freed up a lot of energy. And then I can edit some random article whenever I notice something, but I'm not likely to invest major work in a topic where I have expertise, it's too dangerous a place to put that. I'm having much more fun elsewhere. And I can watch the mess and sit back and say, not only I told you so, but, I did everything I could to point this problem out. And I feel that I did. I've watched the community, in a few cases, adopt as consensus what I'd proposed to jeers and boos, there is some satisfaction in that ___ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l