The best practical way to audit admin actions is to become an admin oneself. Admins have just as many conflicts among them as any other active people here. There are people I watch, and people who watch me.
David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG On Sat, Sep 19, 2009 at 4:01 AM, Ray Saintonge <sainto...@telus.net> wrote: > George Herbert wrote: >> People who are causing a problem but have "aware friends" - people who >> know them and know AN and ANI and policy ok - rarely get driven off. >> Their friends post an ANI thread if they're blocked excessively, or go >> to the admin and advocate moderation, or go to another administrator >> and advocate moderation, etc. >> >> Once one becomes known to someone in that set of people, actually >> "driving someone away from Wikipedia" becomes exponentially more >> difficult, if anyone supports the problem case at all. >> > > In the real world that might be called corruption, or in some cases > nepotism. Perhaps when there is a dispute between an admin and a > non-admin leading to disciplinary action for both being at fault, the > penalty for the admin should be doubled. >> I almost wish we had an admin action review board, whose job it was to >> say just quickly look at some fraction (10%? 1%?) of all admin >> actions and see if they're documented, justified, reasonable etc and >> give the admins feedback, request more writeup, ask for >> reconsideration etc. >> > > That's a possibility. Included among these sins could be impersonal > behaviour and messages full of jargon. >> Key question - in terms of hostility, do people think that hostility >> to new editors is more from admins, more from self appointed >> gatekeepers, more from normal users interacting hostiley in a small >> article space? >> >> >> > Probably a combination of the first two. The gatekeepers will often see > themselves as future admins. If they know about the RfA process they > will quickly learn what it takes to become an admin. The gauntlet that > must be run there imparts adminship with highly prestigious status. > Oldtimers can keep repeating that adminship is no big deal, but the > actual process tells a different story. I would place the bulk of the > responsibility for perpetuating hostility with the admins. They should > know better; they should set the example; if they fail to do so they > should be treated more harshly. The "normal" user expressing hostility > within a narrow set of articles is less of a problem; his adversaries > are often as well versed in the topic area as he is. His biases are > more easily identifiable, in contrast with the one who reacts > impersonally across an unlimited range of articles seeking strict > application of rules over areas where he knows nothing. > > Ec > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
