CambridgeBayWeather (talk | contribs) |
Fix (I believe that is intended to be D.M.N. seeing as I started the discussion) |
||
Line 1,078: | Line 1,078: | ||
::(EC) First of all MHLU isn't an admin, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop&limit=5000 here]. Second putting a tag/template/warning on your talk page is hardly an example of abuse. Frankly if this is the kind of frivolous complaint that we are going to see then this project will get killed very quickly. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] [[User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Have a gorilla]] 19:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC) |
::(EC) First of all MHLU isn't an admin, see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListUsers&group=sysop&limit=5000 here]. Second putting a tag/template/warning on your talk page is hardly an example of abuse. Frankly if this is the kind of frivolous complaint that we are going to see then this project will get killed very quickly. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] [[User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Have a gorilla]] 19:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
I amend: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#SPA_account abuse by multiple people] who wouldn't even be civil enough to inform me they were talking about me. Not just that, but leaving threats (especially '''unfounded threats''') is pretty definitively a violation of [[WP:CIVIL]]. [[User:WhoWatches|WhoWatches]] ([[User talk:WhoWatches|talk]]) 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC) |
I amend: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#SPA_account abuse by multiple people] who wouldn't even be civil enough to inform me they were talking about me. Not just that, but leaving threats (especially '''unfounded threats''') is pretty definitively a violation of [[WP:CIVIL]]. [[User:WhoWatches|WhoWatches]] ([[User talk:WhoWatches|talk]]) 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:I see no threats, just a concern about you expressed by D |
:I see no threats, just a concern about you expressed by D.M.N. who is not an admin. --[[User:Malcolmxl5|Malcolmxl5]] ([[User talk:Malcolmxl5|talk]]) 20:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC) |
||
:This process has to do with perceived admin abuse. Discussing you on WP:ANI is not admin abuse, especially seeing as how the original poster is not an admin either. Nor are they required to notify you but it is suggested that they do so. Leaving a tag/template/warning on your talk page is not a violation of WP:CIVIL. However, if you think that it is then go to [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts]] which is the correct place. Agin this page is form perceived '''admin abuse''', that is the use of admin tools to abuse another user. If I was to suddenly block you that would be a form of admin abuse but saying that you are now begining to be disruptive is not. That is a comment by me as an editor and does not require the use of my admin bit. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] [[User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Have a gorilla]] 20:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC) |
:This process has to do with perceived admin abuse. Discussing you on WP:ANI is not admin abuse, especially seeing as how the original poster is not an admin either. Nor are they required to notify you but it is suggested that they do so. Leaving a tag/template/warning on your talk page is not a violation of WP:CIVIL. However, if you think that it is then go to [[Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts]] which is the correct place. Agin this page is form perceived '''admin abuse''', that is the use of admin tools to abuse another user. If I was to suddenly block you that would be a form of admin abuse but saying that you are now begining to be disruptive is not. That is a comment by me as an editor and does not require the use of my admin bit. [[User:CambridgeBayWeather|CambridgeBayWeather]] [[User_talk:CambridgeBayWeather|Have a gorilla]] 20:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 21:26, 1 January 2009
|
||
December 2008
Hope I'm not out of line by posting here, but just wanted to register my support for this project. Will you let me know when it's up please :) Ryan4314 (talk) 21:15, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Please keep at this, it's important. Some of the admins on Wikipedia remind me of the hunchbacked, bald-headed, black-uniformed henchmen in The Incal by Jodorowsky and Moebius. What irks me especially is to see new admins fresh off their RfA "make their bones" on AN/I by publicly declining an unblock request with some F-U boilerplate ("I Have Reviewed Your Unblock Request and Determined it to be Unfounded.") Blechhh. On the other hand, there are good admins who make good calls but get unfairly attacked.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you both for your support. I need to finish the draft quickly, I can see, now that word is out prematurely. Problem is, I have little time right now. Give me a few days and I'll formally ask for feedback. Tony (talk) 00:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Comments by FT2
The idea that administrator standards should be easily questioned when poor, is no bad thing in theory. I personally favor high admin standards, and this seems to be trying to prevent "gaming" or poorly founded requests, by allowing only certain categories of issue to be raised. However there are some serious issues or points to think about while developing the concept. Without supporting or opposing, some comments on the proposal:
- The single huge exposure here is "forum shopping". That is, a user has raised a complaint at ANI, on their talk page or such, this gives the appearance of "one more venue to complain at". For example a user gets blocked, do they now request unblock, or do they ask someone else to post here about the blocking admin and how biased it was? You want to be very careful to ensure it isn't hit with a large amount of that kind of thing, because claims of bad adminship by disgruntled or blocked users (that turn out spurious on checking) are quite common. A simple means might be as follows:
- all requests go into a "new requests" section for (say) up to 5 days. If any admin is prepared to endorse there's a concern, then it gets opened under the process. Otherwise after 5 days if not one admin can be found to agree, then forget it.
- put in a provision against forum shopping. "This is not an appeal process" and explain where it fits in between ANI and RFC and so on. When should users use this, and when would another process be better?
- The draft title is a problem, as is its implication. "Administrator action review" would be a more neuutral title. "Admin Watch" sounds like a stalkers paradise, and isn't really what your proposal seems to suggest anyway.
- Bear in mind many complaints may be by users who are disruptive, against quite experienced admins who are very used to spotting disruption.
- Will your "co-ordinators" have the experience to assess the admin's view? Or (worst case) will it just annoy other admins active in the crucial task of protecting editorial work against disruption, to be asked to justify what to a seasoned user is obvious stuff, that's being forum-shopped by a tendentious disruptive user, and judged by users who may not have the experience needed? (Any admin decision should be able to be justified, but just like experienced content writers "can all see obvious stuff" in an FAC, so experienced admins who deal with certain kinds of disruption can usually "see the obvious stuff" in certain behaviors.) Note: the suggestion made at #1 may basically deal with some of these issues.
- What would the qualifications of your "co-ordinators" be, or your own qualifications to choose them initially?
- Any dispute resolution process needs to consider its own stance. You will need to show ways you will ensure fairness. And avoid the risk of "lynch mob" mentality either way, developing. Will the co-ordinators themselves start to show "group-think" if it's a small closed circle? Why would a "co-ordinator" reviewing an admin be expected to be any fairer than any other user? It'll need that for any hope of credibility and use.
- Why wouldn't existing routes be adequate to the task, when a concern arises?
- Be aware that new proposals like this only have a slight chance of passing. Wikipedia is developed by users, so new ideas are worthwhile, but if after much effort, the community doesn't buy it, you would probably have to let it go at some point.
- Will this add excessive bureaucracy or WP:CREEP to the project?
- Do you propose to WP:OWN any of this process if it goes live? (Eg choosing new "co-ordinators"?) If not what will happen instead? Consider looking at the Mediation Committee or the less formal Mediation Cabal, or Wikiquette alerts for how this might better work.
- What's the conclusion of a case? How is consensus formed? What if there is disagreement by the administrator or other admins? "One of our co-ordinators looks at it"... and then what?
Some thoughts. Higher standards are definitely never a bad thing. But the above are immediate observations. Have a think about them, and see if they suggest any ways to improve the draft concept.
FT2 (Talk | email) 16:41, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Tony1's interim response: Thanks for your comments, FT2, which I have no time right now to respond to fully. That must wait about 12 hours. Just for now, I'll deal with Points 1 and 2.
Point 1: The proposed structure does indeed have a "new requests" section (Stage 1), where coordinators decide on the merits of each. The options for their actions are set out below the subtitle. Yes, there is room to write in more detail governing what constitutes a vexatious/trivial notification. The large list of behavioural requirements that have been extracted from the policy page need to be analysed from the perspective of the boundary between what is vexatious/trivial and what is not; therefore, it may be that some of those requirements need to be footnoted to examples. But I'm wary of editorialising the wording of the Admin Policy page. Policy is policy.
The idea of asking a police officer (even just one) to endorse a complaint against one of his/her fellow officers defeats the whole purpose of this process.
I think your suggestion of guarding against "forum shopping" is worth looking at. Don't forget that complainants will have to specify which of the policy tenets the admin has breached; this will need to be illustrated by diffs, and possibly diffs/text briefly reporting a history of similar behaviour of the admin. (Some of the policy wordings use words such as "repeated", etc).
On your Point 2, the title says exactly what the process is: the strongest muscle that we as civilians have (in userspace, if you please) is (1) naming and shaming, or at least putting an admin "on watch" for a specified period, and (2) ensuring that the process adheres to the two tenets of natural justice ... what are they? Um ...
- everyone has a right to a hearing; and
- justice must be seen to be done.
If "watching" is our method, so be it. If the community wants to get serious about instituting—in practice, not just in theory—the kind of punishment measures that admins mete out to civilians every day, that would be far better, but it would need to be done properly, and not be subject just to the call of admins. Tony (talk) 01:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Point 3: Forum shoppers and "tendentious disruptive users" should be dismissed in Stage 1 (that is what that stage is for; it's a filter before we take a complaint seriously). Annoying other admins is way down my list as an issue: AdminWatch, however, will try to cause little or no disruption to the project. Skills and experience of coordinators: that will be a challenge—we have to learn somehow, and we have to be brave. It's easy to see why people have done nothing about this unsatisfactory situation for so long, but the time has come. It's not a mediation service, by the way: it's to assess whether admin policy has been breached—to what extent and whether there's a history of it by the same admin. It's not punitive in intent (perhaps that needs to be stated on the page ...). Tony (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that those in favor of this process need to answer the crucial question: "how is this venue different from a block review at WP:AN/I?". Also, I agree with the naming change proposal of FT2 (point 2 above). Pcap ping 17:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- I see this as a "sharing page" for examples of sloppy adminship. Examples:
- 1) there is sometimes a problem with admins who claim policy reasons for things but refuse to elaborate, and refuse to answer even straightforward questions as to how these policies would apply in different circumstances. Putting up such examples here enables others to say either "Complainant Z is being a wiki-lawyering nuisance" or "This is the answer and Admin X should have told you" or "Admin X is trying to bully you into accepting an edit that has no basis in policy".
- 2) Another use for this board would be exposing examples of duplicity - "Admin X let editor Y off a 3RR block with a pat on the head but blocked editor Z for 3 days."
- 3) Or ... how about the sometimes severe problem of POV-pushing under the guise of policy? I came across an example of an admin who wanted one particular date (of two significant choices) used in an article. It turned out that both possibilities were in the source - but the admin claimed that was alright, because the source was RS so he could have exactly whatever he wanted there. Duh?
- It's tough being held to account for your decisions in life, but admins who do things sloppily and/or play games are damaging the product of our efforts. None of my examples are individually important enough to make a federal case - but that's why a noticeboard would be a valuable resource that might help uncover just how much of this is going on. PRtalk
- I would suspect that the information at WP:Admin abuse pointing users at WP:ANI and WP:RFC/ADMIN would handle all of the circumstances you describe rather well, as would such processes as WP:WQA, WP:3O, WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN. What benefit does this page have on all of those? MBisanz talk 19:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- MBisanz: that is very simple to answer: it won't be run by admins (or at least it won't be dominated by them). It has been made necessary because the current "official" processes are a sham. Admins support each other—hadn't you noticed? We need a NPOV process that is run by the community as a whole, not by admins, who can't be allowed to judge themselves (that would be like allowing the police to run internal investigations on misbehaviour or transgressions of policy without external review. Tony (talk) 00:45, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- I would suspect that the information at WP:Admin abuse pointing users at WP:ANI and WP:RFC/ADMIN would handle all of the circumstances you describe rather well, as would such processes as WP:WQA, WP:3O, WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN. What benefit does this page have on all of those? MBisanz talk 19:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
- How is WP:RFC/ADMIN, which is a complaint filed by any user against an admin and usually dominated by non-admin comments a process run by admins? Also, seeing as there are about 1,000 active admins and 10,000 active users, it is unlikely that any given process is dominated by administrators. Also, the similarly styled WP:OmbCom was rather strongly rejected by the community twice. MBisanz talk 00:53, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is interesting; I'll look it up later to try to learn from its mistakes. I wonder whether it failed because it started in WP space and was subject to death by committee (a committee of hundreds). Here, the advantage is that it's in civilian userspace and can be shaped by a smaller team. That might be a more effective way of setting up a good system; once the kinks are ironed out, it will succeed or fail on the basis of whether the community likes it—that is a strong incentive for us. Gotta go. Tony (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- The problem is that the final decisions about administrators are made by administrators, often with little regard given to the comments made by non-administrators. When administrators protect each other under the excuse of mutual respect or refusing to engage in wheel warring, the whole process breaks down, especially the core Wikipedia policy about consensus. And aside from this problem, there is the equally serious problem of some administrators not bothering to provide advance notice before blocking or banning non-administrators. Tennis expert (talk) 02:32, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Correcting this -- wheel warring isn't consensus (or consensus-seeking). It's the attempt to use force to obtain one's way, and to misuse tools provided for quality purposes, to do so, when it is clear there is significant disagreement. In that case what admins should do is switch to dialog and if needed, dispute resolution. It's to ensure they do, that wheel warring is treated seriously. High standards count, and "talk, don't fight" is the essence of many Wikipedia standards. "Refusing to engage in wheel warring" as a problem? No. FT2 (Talk | email) 16:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- My comments need no correction. An administrator's reversal of another administrator can have either of two motivations: (1) ensure that administrative action reflects consensus; or (2) as you suggested, "attempt to use force to obtain one's way." Too often, administrative action does not reflect consensus, and other administrators are afraid to correct that action because of the wheel warring admonition or the misguided, clubby nature of administrators in general. Tennis expert (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Tony, some comments above are a problem. We aren't engaging in civil war here, we aren't playing "police vs. civilians", and administrators are appointed at the rate of many a month based on a communal poll at which any user can have equal say (and non-administrators outweigh administrators and are not shy to speak). So as soon as these everyday users, who were deemed trustworthy by a wide range of the community, are appointed, they become "police" and need "civilians" to "watch" them? Not really. I think some parts of the idea have legs, and surely some admins need to raise their standards. But a lot of the above is seriously disappointing. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:57, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Who are the people that watch the Wikipedia "police"? Oh, right, other police. That doesn't work in the real world and doesn't work here. Tennis expert (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
- Tony's invocation of the Stanford Prison Experiment on the AdminWatch page is relevant. A modicum of real or perceived power can transform an ostensibly "trustworthy," reasonable or nice person into an abusive bully.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
AdminWatch personnel
I foresee a problem with them being initially selected by Tony. This could become a bone of contention that derails introduction of what I see as a major improvement over the present situation. It might be a good idea to think about a process for electing Watchers that attracts the best and brightest.
Apart from that, I really like the progress you are making here. Pulling together relevant information that was spread out over different pages is good. Also the focus on treating editors respectfully. The reference to the Stanford Prison Experiment is NOT hyperbole. In a pre-academic age, it was just common knowledge, known as "human nature".--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- The recruitment of coordinators was always going to be an issue. I'm not happy exposing their selection to the potential for distortion in an "election"—not yet, anyway. It's still in user-space, don't forget. I also want to get it running and refine it before making a big deal over that process. Another problem I foresee is that a community-wide election would have to exclude admins and bureacrats from election (that's the whole point), whereas I am free to invite anyone I trust at the moment. Coordinators will know that the credibility of the system depends on the maturity and even-handedness of the process. It's here to set the bar properly for admin behaviour, yes, but it's here also to bring us all together and gain more respect for adminship. Admins should like the overall outcome, even if some individuals end up being named and their admin activities monitored for a defined period of time. Perhaps you may feel more comfortable when I've written more details of how how decisions should be made; that can't be done entirely without running the system and quickly rooting out any rough edges that appear. Catch 22. Tony (talk) 01:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- I realise it's currently undeveloped, so my comments only apply to the details as they are at the moment, but I too foresee a problem with the personnel selection. I actually think that initial selection by Tony is fine; this at least (presumably) means that he will have developed a relationship of some sort with the editors and they can work together more smoothly to improve AdminWatch in its early stages. However, I think the question of continuance is important here, and the avoidance of a cabal, or accusation of it. Once editors decide that AdminWatch personnel are biased (whether they are or not), AdminWatch will suffer and a lot of effort will go into proving the accusations unfounded. In addition, co-ordinators may get tired, lazy, or burned out, considering how successful the project may be, and replacing them might not come often or soon enough to avoid stress.
- Perhaps this is an unworkable idea, but would it not be feasible to have a "rolling selection" of co-ordinators? The original four co-ordinators could have a "length of service" defined; say four months for User 1, five months for User 2, and so on, and at the end of the tenure, each retiring co-ordinator chooses their replacement, to be approved by Tony (and perhaps the remaining three co-ordinators, too). The selected replacements would always be amongst more seasoned co-ordinators, but keeping the project (hopefully) more alive and enthusiastic, and adding a new point of view. In seven months, the co-ordinators would all be replaced, and would be so every seven months, so consistent bias, or accusations of it, are unlikely to become an issue. Previous personnel could be personnel again; perhaps the length of their original tenure could also be their retirement length: so User 1, after four months, could be considered for appointment again, meaning that in a bind or a pinch, a more experienced hand is available.
- I'd be interested in hearing opinion on this idea and discussing its merits and drawbacks. Presently, I think it could be a great solution to a potentially thorny issue, so it would be nice to have my rosy view tempered with reality, if necessary! Maedin\talk 14:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks very much. I've no time right now, but will return to read your suggestions properly. (I don't have the answer yet to the longer-term selection of personnel. Also, I don't intend to be lord of this empire for too long—it needs to evolve into a community-owned system, but there are significant advantages in launching it in userspace.) Tony (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'd be interested in hearing opinion on this idea and discussing its merits and drawbacks. Presently, I think it could be a great solution to a potentially thorny issue, so it would be nice to have my rosy view tempered with reality, if necessary! Maedin\talk 14:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Now, to return to your suggestions: I'm not immediately attracted to the "rolling" idea, and choosing one's replacement will surely provoke those who would see a cabal emerging. I'm hoping that the technical, objective aspects of decision-making be paramount ... but, it will involve:
- Filtering out the unreasonable/vexatious/trivial ones at the start;
- Determining compliance or non-compliance with WP:ADMIN;
- If non-compliant, determining whether a breach is significant, and if so, how significant;
- Determining a remedy/remedies (recommendation of acknowledgement, the occasional apology, referral to ANI or mediation, occasional issues with the wording of the policy (-> WT:ADMIN?).
This will involve:
- The interpersonal skills to handle Stage 2.
- The analytical and linguistic skills to write recommendations;
See? Piece of cake. Tony (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Aah yes - "interpersonal skills"... from people on wiki... about admins...
- Piece of cake... :) --Herby talk thyme 13:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Feedback on the Specific Policy requirements section
Hi Tony1. I read over this section and read the WP:Administrators page from which it is derived. I think you've done a great job in distilling the contents of that page in an easy to read and straightforward way. There is one thing I would add (somewhere in there maybe) which reflects this basic idea in the policy: "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect."
Perhaps I might express it as: "Admins are human and they can make mistakes. When an admin screws up, he/she should own up to it, do all they can to repair any damage, and avoid making similar mistakes in the future."
blech ... I don't know. Not so good at policy writing really. But I think you catch my gist? Something about WP:AGF in the face of what might seem to be something awful, but turns out just to be a misunderstanding might be worth mentioning. That's all I have to say for now. Good work. Tiamuttalk 17:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think the frequency of administrator mistakes is more relevant than whether they stem from malice or incompetence. Thus the question should not be "was the incident an innocent misunderstanding?" but rather "how often is this administrator prone to innocent misunderstandings, compared to his or her peers?"--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- No one expects an administrator to be perfect. But one who makes a clear mistake, such as preemptively closing a discussion the outcome of which would have directly affected his own editing practices, and fails to admit and correct the mistake is quite simply not worthy of continuing to be an administrator. So, I don't believe that mistake frequency is as important as what the administrator does to rectify his mistakes. Tennis expert (talk) 23:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- Prone to issues. For example, X is an admin, Y is an editor who keeps hounding X over some perceived slight, refuses to accept it was reasonable, or their own conduct was a concern, and keeps trying to raise it with X. During the course of the thread, X has responded several times, and effectively ignores at this point, in order to not escalate disruption. Y now claims they did wrong, and are refusing to address it, and that X is "preemptively closing a discussion the outcome of which would have directly affected his own editing practices, and fails to admit and correct the mistake" and "is quite simply not worthy of continuing to be an administrator".
- This kind of scenario is the stuff that comes up routinely, so any process must be robust for it and very carefully worded to not allow scope for "gaming" and "forum shopping". FT2 (Talk | email) 19:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, and AdminWatch needs to avoid being caught between entanglement in such issues and accusations on its talk page that it's a stooge for admins or a weak process that crumbles in the face of difficulties. I can see that there needs to be a strongly worded statement about the right not to take on cases (reasons, even brief, always given). FT2's example seems to fall on the trivial side, and could be vexatious depending on the situations. Tony (talk) 01:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- (1) "Vexatious" is an unworkable criterion. Any case, meritorious or not, has the potential to be vexatious. (2) What I meant by "discussion" did not include a thread on an administrator's or editor's discussion page. I meant only a thread on a policy discussion page this is closed by an administrator whose own editing practices could have been affected by the outcome of the discussion. Tennis expert (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Problem with "vexatious"? I thought it was a fairly well-known term in the world of regulation. Please expound. Tony (talk) 13:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Suggestion regarding AdminWatch rules
You say: Who can lodge a grievance? Only registered Wikipedians who are not administrators or bureaucrats may file a grievance.
Admins and 'crats can be the victims of poor administrative decisions too. They are not permitted to use their tools to undo any action against them, personally. Therefore why would they not be permitted to use this mechanism also? Setting up a system where admins can be complained about, while specifically restricting them from making a complaint themselves, is a sure way to establish an us vs them atmosphere, and will, I predict, result in rejection by the admin community. Rockpocket 17:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
- I wondered about this very issue; I'm leaning towards your argument. Do other people have an opinion? Tony (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- An administrator or bureaucrat should be able to file a grievance against an administrator or bureaucrat but should have no role after the filing. Tennis expert (talk) 10:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree with both Rockpocket and Tennis expert here, though I can see how this can cause problems. If the stated aim of this page is to avoid the admin cabal that stalks the drama board, it could be an issue when discussing the actions of admins. For example, you may not be able to judge the merits of the complaint without access to deleted material (which only admins can access). Regards. Woody (talk) 11:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Tony1's rejoinder: There seem to be two issues here. First, I have no problem in allowing admins and bureacrats to be parties to grievance actions. As involved parties, those users would have to be able to participate in the Stage 2 discussion, along with the admin whose behaviour is the subject of the complaint.
However, whether to allow admins and bureacrats to participate in Stage 2 as third parties (i.e., those who are neither complainant nor complained about) raises the spectre (as Woody mentions) of the overwhelming of this process by cabals of these users. I hadn't thought this through, and I guess I was assuming that only non-admins would be permitted as third parties in this capacity. In addition, I hadn't completely dismissed the idea of recruiting one or two NPOV admins/bureacrats as coordinators—the credibility it would bring to the page may be an advantage.
So, of these four (possible) categories of participant, here's my take:
- Complainant: any WPian (I'm changing that bit on the page now)
- Subject of complaint: any admin
- Coordinators: selected from all WPians, but the emphasis on non-admins/bureacrats (this is very possible at the moment, but would have to be revisited/codified later, since I want to recede from ownership after the process settles down).
- Third-party participants (Stage 2): either (i) none—discussion allowed only by those named by the complainant(s) as parties, or (ii) none—discussion for those named by the complainant(s) as parties, except that third parties may be allowed to participate on application to and approval by a coordinator (reason to be given by the user applying to be a third party).
I don't know which is better—probably (i) because it's simple.
Additional options for third-party participation are likely to result in chaos, with big, long, unfocused debates; that is just what we need to avoid: (iii) non-admins/bureacrats only, without restriction; (iv) any WPian, without restriction; and (v) any WPian, but admins and bureacrats must declare their status on their first posting.
Another issue that I hadn't thought about is the difficulty of stopping anyone from commenting on a case on the talk page, as a way to participate through the back door, as it were. I suppose there could be a big notice at the top of the talk page disallowing this (prompt removal of attempts by non-participants to get around the requirements for participation), but it's getting fussy and ... a little restrictive. I'm inclined to let the talk page be free, where others can let off steam or comment to their heart's content without the status of being an on-page participant in Stage 2.
Your thoughts, Woody, Rockpocket and TE—and others, please? Tony (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Only registered Wikipedians Why? 86.44.16.185 (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Personal bias, I'm afraid. I have little time for those who want the benefits of community participation (as opposed to mere readership, ironically, our top priority) without establishing a proper wiki identity. That's the least we should ask. Why should be put resources into people who don't have proper channels of communication, talk pages, etc? Registration will take you three minutes. Tony (talk) 09:53, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Definitely a good thing, to limit to registered accounts, considering the possible sock or meatpuppeting that can go on with IPs. In any case, Tony, I think this is a good idea, and look forward to its progression. Everyone needs someone to keep them honest :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Personal bias is a good reason. The rest, not so much. People who care enough to sock or meatpuppet generally take the time to register accounts, I would assume. It would make it much easier. And nobody wants any benefits, just fair treatment by admins per policy, which i thought was what this project was about. IP editors are probably much more likely not to receive it, for reasons similar to your personal bias. As to how long it would take me to register, this is the most common answer to any issue raised by an IP about IPs in general, as if solving one instance makes it go away by some magic. Still, your project, your rules. 86.44.20.16 (talk) 23:11, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Definitely a good thing, to limit to registered accounts, considering the possible sock or meatpuppeting that can go on with IPs. In any case, Tony, I think this is a good idea, and look forward to its progression. Everyone needs someone to keep them honest :) — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think (i) or (ii). We could do without comments from the peanut gallery. Rockpocket 23:37, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- I vote for (i) because it would be far simpler. A party who needed advice or help in making his argument could always seek the advice or help independently. He could then incorporate the third party's suggestions in his argument as he thought appropriate. Tennis expert (talk) 23:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
Who?
Hi Tony, I'm just musing over a couple of things in this about scoping who can be involved how.
1) Reported issues about the behaviour of those with some sort of power in Wikipedia don't stop with ordinary admins but also covers checkusers, oversight and arbcom. (See User talk:Thatcher#Statement on the perceived need for oversight on the first two.) I think you need to be explicit on which powers and groups of users are or aren't covered by this process. E.g. you might say that this committee won't have the access proveleges to be able to review the use of checkuser or oversight powers but reserves the right to comment on the use of admin powers by checkusers. Or you might want to recruit a former Arbcommer just so that you can have someone able to review these issues.
2) Another complaint is about people being seen as collecting as many badges as possible and this committee would be another. Should the number of other roles held by coordinators be limited?
I may think of something else later.--Peter cohen (talk) 18:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Tony1's response: I'd like to keep this to admins, since (i) there is an extensive policy page governing their behaviour process, making the criteria for complaint and remedy clearer than would otherwise be the case; (ii) their behaviour constitutes a serious issue, particularly blocking; (iii) there are more than 1600 of them; and (iv) the process is quite complex enough in dealing with admins alone. Badges or no badges should be irrelevant, I suggest. I'm more concerned to find NPOV people who have the skills to address complex situations and to exclude the emotional content. Tony (talk) 12:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the reply. I suggest you make the limit to admins (and bureaucrats?) explicit in the main page.--Peter cohen (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Addition to nutshell
Greg L, a major contributor to MOSNUM, inter alia, has suggested an extension to the nutshell text (the second para):
This is a non-official process for dealing with users' grievances against administrator (admin) behaviour, in the absence of an effective official mechanism for ensuring that admins comply with the policy requirements governing their behaviour. As a non-official process, the available correctional mechanism of this process is to place offending admins on a watch list. The watch list gives bureaucrats a convenient tool to see if an admin who has come to attention might have chronic issues, The watch list also serves as "club of shame" to which admins would care not be a member. Admins can 'earn' their way off the watch list after a probationary period wherein no further substantive complaints arise.
I think this is too long for a nutshell, and I'd rather have the negative stuff less prominent. Yes, the strongest muscle we have is "name and shame", but there's something to be gained by avoiding negativity where possible (it's not entirely possible, but there is some leeway).
We can't assume that bureacrats will take notice of it as a systemic part of their role, so I'd rather not suggest that at this stage.
Let's allow this to lie for a little while and determine whether anything from this extra para might be integrated into the main text. Tony (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
What's the difference between "non-official" and simple old "unofficial"? -- Hoary (talk) 01:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- Good question, Hoary. I hadn't thought it through consciously: "non-official", I think, may bestow just a little more authority than "unofficial". Perhaps it's the sense that the page is purposefully characterised as not being official that I was after. Tony (talk)
5a
I would add to 5a something along the lines of, "in borderline cases where involvement or impartiality is unclear, it is better to err on the side of caution. If an admin action is seen as needed by others, then another will likely accept the job on the noticeboard. If not, there may be a good reason for examining whether there is need for admin action in the first place."
trying to get folks to err on the side of caution, as this has been an issue. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
- Spot on comment, Cas. I've been discussing this with FT2. My take is that I need to draft examples of cases that are close to the edge of the decision to (i) dismiss at Stage 1 or move to Stage 2, (ii) dismiss from Stage 2 / move to records / move to Watchlist for specified time-periods.
- The more the decisions can be codified, the easier the task of coordinators and the more consistent and fair the outcomes. Yes, caution is the go. Tony (talk) 14:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Projected start date
I'm thinking of the start of 2009. Major things to do, not in particular sequence:
- Write examples of hypothetical cases that (i) clearly demand a certain decision by a coordinator; and more problematically, (ii) are close to decision-making boundaries (to dismiss in Stage 1 or to promote? To dismiss in Stage 2, to put on record, or to place on Watch, and for how long? To write these examples, I'll need to draw on RL examples (anonymised); I suspect that there are quite a lot. The boundary cases will be hardest to get right; a number will be required for each boundary. These examples will be a resource for coordinators, helping us to make the process as consistent and fair as possible.
- Seek feedback on these examples, from non-admins and admins.
- Make the process as streamlined as possible: I think statements and rejoinders should be limited in number and size during Stage 2.
- Recruit suitable coordinators.
- Start a trial with RL examples.
At the same time I'm going to encourage the rewriting of the Admin policy (without substantive change, except where there are inconsistencies); it has grown into a state of disorder. To think that ArbCom has been using it, and will be using it as the basis for decisions is weird.Tony1|Tony]] (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- That's not how policy works, nor how Arbcom uses it. Quick clarification / de-confuser for you :) ...
- There is a kind of "sense of the community" in a range of areas. Although we widely disagree, there is a norm for example, that admins are expected to do certain things, and the tools are expected to be used certain ways. As principles, those change slower than policy, often lasting for years. The policy wording, that sums them up in words, can change quickly and radically. The policy is more in the form of a guide, and a summary, documenting norms that we broadly seem to have agreement on over time.
- That works surprisingly well. For example, BLP may be edited today or tomorrow, but for the foreseeable future, "do no harm" is one aspect of BLP, and we can discuss how it balances and gets used. "Edit warring is disruptive and undesirable" is another norm, we can change policies hourly but that's basically "a norm". And so on. Admin policy sums up our expectations of admins -- they should be reputable users, trusted not to abuse the tools, and act to a pretty good standard without too many bad lapses or misjudgements. How you word it doesn't matter so much. But that's been a sort of norm for a long long time. WP:ADMIN tries to sum that up, and make it the best we can as a description of the rough norm we seem to be looking for, communally. Improve it if you like :) FT2 (Talk | email) 19:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, certainly. But policies are only policies and rules here only rules or binding when the clear and/or overwhelming majority of users accept them. If Tony's project here goes live, and the clear and/or overwhelming majority buys into it, or any edits he makes to the Admin policy, then it's become policy. Valid policy (except Foundation policy) is never dictated top-down, it's always the other way around. rootology (C)(T) 20:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
Consider the pay
[adopts flat voice, reminiscent of at least one scene from The Manchurian Candidate and descriptions within Wendy Kaminer's I'm Dysfunctional, You're Dysfunctional:]
My name is Hoary and I am an administrator.
As far as I recall, I have exercised my administratorial mop twice today.
First, having belatedly realizing that Izu Kenrō is in practice an American who writes his name "Kenro Izu", I moved the crap article Kenrō Izu to Kenro Izu over a redirect. I vaguely remember that mere mortals here can't do this. If so, my ability to do it meant less of my time wasted than if I weren't an admin and had to ask one, and of course it also meant wasting nobody else's time.
Secondly, having noticed a stupid edit by User:Jesusbuttforkingchrist and having quickly looked through his list of "contributions", I decided that he was a flaming asshole and blocked him indefinitely. (The male pronoun is deliberate; rightly or wrongly, I think of all such people as male.) An administrator should be exceedingly careful when blocking, I read here: I wasn't exceedingly careful but instead acted on the strong impression that he made. And I then didn't bother to write anything on his page, because my time is too important to waste on flaming assholes. That probably violated some guideline or other. And straightforwardly referring to him as a flaming asshole (as opposed to, say, a "user exhibiting problematic behaviour") undoubtedly does too.
I don't want to take excessive care when "administering", as recommended in this proposal-in-the-making. I want to take reasonable care, and no more. (My care should "satisfice"; did I really utter that hideous word?) Despite my chronic lack of immense care, I haven't made a major screw-up yet. I will perhaps make the occasional mistake. This thought doesn't disturb me: my occasional mistake can be corrected, either by me or by somebody else. I may even apologize when appropriate.
It's imaginable that a mistake by me, compounded by lateness or lack of apology, may piss somebody off. I'm not much concerned by this. Dealing with other Wikipedia editors, I am not a salaried uniformed hotel flunky dealing with paying guests. I'm just some unpaid drudge sporadically helping to make Wikipedia not suck. If my approach doesn't please solemn new guidelines, I'll probably start by ignoring any vandalism that doesn't affect articles that happen to interest me: such vandalism can be dealt with by people who score far higher at earnestness, effort, and self-abnegation than I do. Wikipedia will get the administrators that it deserves. -- Hoary (talk) 15:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hoary and I have a well-established off-wiki line of communication, which is fun. I hope I haven't offended him. If the established policies are ill-advised, perhaps they should be changed. If ArbCom judgements are problematic, perhaps they should be revisited or updated by ArbCom. I hadn't even thought of changing those texts; I just think they should be codified and taken notice of.
- "Extreme care", I suppose, applies when the cases are not so blindingly obvious. Feel extremely free to protect us in this way, Hoary. Tony (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- Your friend outlines a popular admin philosophy (except the part about apologizing, which is a rare, possibly mythical, component of it). Admins of this stripe do not bother with policy, that's for the proles, they have "clue" and so can insult and throw their weight about. I hope you can rewrite the policy pages so that they are not so hypocritical.
- My own experience of Hoary is of his coming to an admin pal's talk page and telling me he was going to block me for being a "bore". The pal had used my (perfectly fine) editing to support an indef block of another user, on the basis that I was him. The thought of my editing being used against another editor disturbed me greatly, and I was on her talk page seeking either a rewording of her support for that block, or a presentation of her reasoning. I got neither, of course, but it was all relatively civil 'til Hoary's intervention. He didn't care, he said, about the issues, but I was a "bore". After replying indignantly to Hoary, I picked up one of those thuggish short blocks for "disruption and being a sockpuppet" from the original admin, with link to WP:DE of course.
- Given the judgment/capriciousness of sectors of the admin corps, i am amazed whenever i encounter the perception that a block log is ipso facto any kind of a black mark.
- While you're rewriting policy pages, take a look at WP:BLOCK#Block_reviews for any trace of a culture in which admins independently review blocks and form a view. Before I read it, I thought that's what {{unblock}} prompted! 86.44.20.16 (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
- IP, I'm most surprised to read that I ever told anyone I'd block them for being a bore. (Blocking somebody for boringness is the kind of thing I'd certainly do if I were the anarch of Wikipedia; but I'm not this, and so I don't even fantasize about it, let alone threaten others with it.) Still, something about blocking and the epithet "bore" rang a distant bell, and after digging around I came up with this. In it, I did indeed say that I didn't care about the issues and that the complainant was a bore. I wouldn't retract that. I made no threat to block anyone for being a bore. ¶ You add that administrators of my stripe "do not bother with policy". This implies that I don't bother with policy. That surprises me, as I think I almost always do bother with policy. It's possible that on occasions I don't. I generally check it before appealing to it, but I wouldn't be surprised if I occasionally misremember something. (Plus, as I note above in the context of "Jesusbuttforkingchrist", I skip the formalities if I'm dealing with a real fool.) Should I put more effort into refreshing my memory with policy and implementing it right? If I got substantive complaints I might well either (a) do just that or (b) resign my adminship, which is why Tony's idea seems an interesting one. ¶ I've taken a quick through your list of contributions and that of the person I called a bore; the latter includes some thoughtful looking substantive edits (here's one); do please make more like this (while observing "3RR", "RS" and the rest) and if they get you into trouble drop me a note on my talk page and I'll see what I can do. Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC) .... (PS If you're interested, Here's me independently reviewing a block and overturning it. Hoary (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC))
- You very much do threaten to block me, in the most contemptuous way, for being a bore, presumably your interpretation of asking an admin for a reword or a presentation of reasoning. I'm surprised to see you back away from the fact that you did that when the discussion is right there. "Who cares, block 'em all" is a reasonable summary of your position. Remember that GwenGale was using my editing to support an indef block against another editor.
- IP, I'm most surprised to read that I ever told anyone I'd block them for being a bore. (Blocking somebody for boringness is the kind of thing I'd certainly do if I were the anarch of Wikipedia; but I'm not this, and so I don't even fantasize about it, let alone threaten others with it.) Still, something about blocking and the epithet "bore" rang a distant bell, and after digging around I came up with this. In it, I did indeed say that I didn't care about the issues and that the complainant was a bore. I wouldn't retract that. I made no threat to block anyone for being a bore. ¶ You add that administrators of my stripe "do not bother with policy". This implies that I don't bother with policy. That surprises me, as I think I almost always do bother with policy. It's possible that on occasions I don't. I generally check it before appealing to it, but I wouldn't be surprised if I occasionally misremember something. (Plus, as I note above in the context of "Jesusbuttforkingchrist", I skip the formalities if I'm dealing with a real fool.) Should I put more effort into refreshing my memory with policy and implementing it right? If I got substantive complaints I might well either (a) do just that or (b) resign my adminship, which is why Tony's idea seems an interesting one. ¶ I've taken a quick through your list of contributions and that of the person I called a bore; the latter includes some thoughtful looking substantive edits (here's one); do please make more like this (while observing "3RR", "RS" and the rest) and if they get you into trouble drop me a note on my talk page and I'll see what I can do. Happy editing! -- Hoary (talk) 11:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC) .... (PS If you're interested, Here's me independently reviewing a block and overturning it. Hoary (talk) 11:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC))
- It's no surprise that I made the edit you refer to, since I wrote that article from scratch, and plenty of others, so forgive me if I take your suggestion that I "run off and edit articles" to be as insulting as it was the first time you made it, though this time it is not on threat of a block. As it happens I'm quite ambivalent about creating content for this place now. The pay is not good (I noted your lack of appreciation of this point in your original post) and one is pushed around and treated disgracefully based on the whims, friendships and egos of those with tools. 86.44.17.101 (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, if you are prone to ill-considered blundering into civil, meaningful discussion armed with your own presumptions in order to goad and insult "nobodies" and wave tools about, possibly out of admin solidarity or some worse cronyism, then yes, please do partake in either a) or b). I'm not at all sensitive to incivility and attacks (witness my mere eyeroll and +1 for "mythical" when you do not miss the chance to call me a bore again above) — where I come from some back-and-forth between equals is normal. But as Lightmouse gently points out below, when it is done while waving tools about (possibly even while having them behind one's back, or wearing them as a shield) then it becomes something thuggish and abusive.
- Just for kicks, of poor G.G. it must be said that she is widely-held to have socked in order to evade an arbcom restriction (she says that Fred Bauer told her to do this without his telling the rest of the committee, which is just screwy enough to be true around here), and knowingly violated COI to spam her non-notable book and bio here. Now that is disruptive, as, in a sane view free of clique-y wiki-political bullshit, was your intervention in our encounter. And I don't see you decrying GG's block of me at a point when the conversation was over in any case, just because she could (well technically she couldn't, as an obviously involved admin, but that boring stuff is for the proles. "Good block, old chap!")
- And of my comments re: unblocks, that was not directed at you, nor to suggest that independent review does not happen, but to point out the extent to which the culture mitigates against it. Though it's worth noting 3RR is somewhat of a straight up and down issue, more so than judgment call eye-of-the-beholder blocks for, say, "disruption", "civility", "sockpuppet" and the gods know what else.
- No doubt tony shall be along shortly to tell me i'm boring and disruptive and to get off his page. No block shall be necessary. 86.44.18.31 (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps his inhospitality would be less likely if you'd make suggestions for the scheme for which this is the talk page. And as for me, I understand that you feel most aggrieved, but I'll have trouble feeling sympathy until I notice that you have returned to making constructive additions to articles. -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have no need of your notice, nor of anything stemming from your back-handed, evasive and entirely dubious claimed comprehension of my "feelings", thanks. 86.44.20.121 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
I think the example illustrates one particular issue rather well, that of aggressive/abusive language. A police officer can be rude without fear of sanction but a civilian can't. Rudeness from the powerful is wrong in a world where police officers never make mistakes and it is wrong in our world where police officers frequently make mistakes. The terms quoted by Hoary are examples of language that I don't want to see in open debate. I am no prude but as a method of working, anyone with power should be more polite than somebody without power. I would be very happy if we could score all classes of editor in terms of politeness. If an admin has a low politeness score, they should not be an admin. Lightmouse (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- So I should have referred to IDs such as User:Jesusbuttforkingchrist as "users exhibiting problematic behaviour"? Could do, but I'd then find it hard to keep a straight face; I'd keep thinking of the phrase "tired and emotional". Which is not to deny that many users exhibiting problematic behaviour have innocent intentions; even I attempt to treat the huge majority courteously. -- Hoary (talk) 12:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hoary has, as usual, improved my English (lead overleaf)—just as he went through my User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a page to sharpen up the prose. He's very skilled. Tony (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- C'mon Tony: anybody with half a command of a language can pick an occasional nit within something long that was produced in a hurry by somebody with a good command of the language. But apropos of fixing the lingo, I have problems with this bit: The wording of the policy has been modified without intending any substantive change to the meaning, to organise the expectations into themes and to improve the English. The ultimate legal force resides in the wording at the policy page and in related ArbCom rulings. (My emphasis.) If the English so badly needs improving, let's go over there and improve it. If it doesn't, then let's grit our teeth and quote it as is. (And one other little nit: could you think of an easier alternative to "vexatious"? I fear it will have many users scurrying to their dictionaries.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hoary has, as usual, improved my English (lead overleaf)—just as he went through my User:Tony1/How_to_satisfy_Criterion_1a page to sharpen up the prose. He's very skilled. Tony (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
- A less facetious response to Lightmouse: It's obvious that there is a considerable middle ground between terms of abuse (even if richly merited) at the one extreme and such studied phrases as "users exhibiting problematic behaviour" at the other. Yes, the former should almost always be avoided: while I don't claim psychopathological expertise, it seems likely that the kind of person ("Grawp", etc) who merits abuse may well thrive on attention paid to him, and he'll infer plenty of attention from abuse. (Incidentally, this is the reason why I've long opposed decorative warnings [white hands on red, etc]. I've a hunch that many people who get them pride themselves on them, and perhaps show them to their RL chums. Warnings about vandalism should be informative, short, and uninteresting. Indefinitely blocked vandals should have nothing whatever to show for their work.) Further, everybody (administrators included) should try to be polite. However, nobody (and of course no administrator) should have a right to treatment carrying no risk of causing offense. Thus for example if A wastes the time of B, B should try to find a polite way out of this; but if this doesn't succeed, B should then be able to tell A to stop wasting her time. If A then squawks about impoliteness, tough. If B is an administrator and A really thinks there has been an injustice (and perhaps that B didn't bother to read and consider what A was saying), then this is the kind of area where Tony's proposed procedure can be applied. -- Hoary (talk) 01:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your second response. I was going to make the same point about middle ground and also refer you to the rules:
- lead by example and to behave in a respectful, civil manner in their interactions with others
- strive to set an example of appropriate standards of courtesy and civility to other editors and to one another
- avoid making personal attacks
- avoid incivility, specifically remaining civil—even toward users exhibiting problematic behaviour
If a powerful office does not measure politeness in its officers, the world starts to deteriorate. You make reasonable points in your second response. The vast majority of admins have nothing to fear and everything to gain from checks and balances. Admins that are found to be the most rude should not be admins. Lightmouse (talk) 11:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree completely. Tennis expert (talk) 06:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
"Registration"
Only registered Wikipedians may file a grievance.
I know what this means (or think I do), but I'm not sure that others will. I don't think that WP talks of registration; rather, it talks of creating an account and logging in before editing. (Yes, I've just now verified this by accessing WP with a browser I seldom use.)
Terminology aside, you're saying that a fixed IP with a history of edits can't complain as is, but can complain as throwaway User:Hey, fools, you want a username? Here you are then.. This isn't obviously fair or helpful. I once across a fixed IP with a pleasant little garden of a user page and a talk page with long, erudite and amicable conversations about substantive issues; this person ought to be able to make a complaint unless this would complicate matters terribly.
How about Only Wikipedians who can demonstrate that they have made substantive contributions to articles may file a grievance or something else in that general direction?
Sorry if I've missed something. -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'll change it to "Only users with Wikipedia accounts may file a grievance". I believe that having an account is the least one can expect if performing a service such as this for a user. An account suggests a certain commitment and accountability to the project (and few IP pages have any information on them). The anonymity and changeability of a mere IP address is a problem—I believe that IP complainants would be liable to drop out at any moment, wasting the investment of this process. In short, they've gotta be at least named members of the club for us to bother; I see nothing wrong with prioritising users with accounts—enought of them are treated unfairly by admins. A user with the name User:Hey, fools, you want a username? Here you are then. is not likely to be treated seriously here, unless their contribs show a bona fides. Goodwill meets goodwill.
- The idea that you've got to be able to demonstrate substantive contributions to articles means that coordinators will have to spend time assessing this aspect for every complainant. I don't think this is a good use of their time. Tony (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
- I see your point. My own suggestion was poorly expressed because it was past my bedtime (and perhaps because of my lingering evil mood, prompted by the earlier refusal of a waiter to turn down the crap muzak in the restaurant from which I then left in a huff). I hadn't thought that plaintiffs (scary word, but one syllable fewer) would have to demonstrate what you or I would consider a large oeuvre; rather, that this would be a way of weeding out people who, as usernames or IPs, had merely attempted to write one, two or three articles about themselves, their chums, their downloadable songs, etc.
- Tiny nit: There's something about the word prior that rubs me up the wrong way. It always reminds me of Pentagon talking heads and such contexts as "collateral damage" (i.e. indiscriminate homicide). "Earlier"? "Previous"? -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- I usually object to "prior". However, here it is used in the policy wording, and there's insufficient reason to change it. "Suitable previous advice"; "Suitable earlier advice" ... are they sufficient improvement to warrant changing the policy wording here? You have my sympathy concerning the musak. Some waiters seem to forget who is paying and who is being paid. Tony (talk) 14:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Tiny nit: There's something about the word prior that rubs me up the wrong way. It always reminds me of Pentagon talking heads and such contexts as "collateral damage" (i.e. indiscriminate homicide). "Earlier"? "Previous"? -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's better to phrase it differently: "Users who have <an account|200 edits|a visible history of contribution|whatever criterion> may use this process to <purpose of it all>." (As opposed to the wording you've suggested which can come across as "only you can (but they can't)". FT2 (Talk | email) 20:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- Then it has to be checked in many cases. I'm really not interested in drop-by users who don't have an account. Tony (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Just as a side note, I'd like to introduce my wikifriend, 76.117.247.55. Now, I know he doesn't seem to have a lot of edits right now, but he underwent an ISP-forced "rename" last week and was previously known as 68.39.174.238. He has over 23,000] edits under his belt and has contributed to every area of Wikipedia, but has suffered the slings and arrows of repeated demands to register, been informed that his edits were "vandalism", called a spammer; now that his IP has been changed, I'll lay odds he's going to be on the receiving end of some unpleasantness. He can always complain to me, but it would be nice if he could take advantage of this program as well. There are a few other unregistered editors with similar longterm IPs and extensive edit histories. If I can persuade someone to make a list for you, would you consider including them as editors who may register a concern here? Risker (talk) 01:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Then it has to be checked in many cases. I'm really not interested in drop-by users who don't have an account. Tony (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's better to phrase it differently: "Users who have <an account|200 edits|a visible history of contribution|whatever criterion> may use this process to <purpose of it all>." (As opposed to the wording you've suggested which can come across as "only you can (but they can't)". FT2 (Talk | email) 20:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK, I can see that I'm outnumbered, and that you people may have a point. I'll try (after my next client) to word it so that anons with a reasonble editing history are included. Does that satisfy your and Hoary's and Ft2's point? I should ask that after I've made the change. Tony (talk) 04:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I have seen some articles protected from editing by new editors. How does that work? Lightmouse (talk) 09:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's one of the page protection tools used by administrators when an article is being vandalized repeatedly by anonymous IP editors. Tennis expert (talk) 09:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I should have been more specific. I wasn't asking about why it exists. I was suggesting that we could use its definition of 'established editor'. I have now done some investigating via Wikipedia:Protect#Semi-protection. It appears to mean 'editor logged in with an autoconfirmed account'. As far as I can see 'autoconfirmed' means accounts at least 4 days old with at least 10 edits. AutoWikiBrowser says that it only gives access to editors with at least 500 mainspace edits and I imagine they also restrict access to logged in accounts that have existed for a while. I propose that we have the following criteria:
- age e.g. 4 days
- number of mainspace edits e.g. 10 mainspace edits
- account e.g. generally restricted to logged in users but exceptions can be made for IP editors.
Lightmouse (talk) 10:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
How's this wording?
#Who can lodge a grievance? Only users with a Wikipedia account, although exceptions may be made for bona fide anonymous IP users.
Tony (talk) 12:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm thick, but I don't understand what "bona fide anonymous IP users" means.
- I don't suppose I would be invited to be a "coordinator", and if invited I'd decline. And I certainly wouldn't volunteer for the job. Still, I'll try to put myself in a coordinator's shoes for a moment. If I'm to look at somebody's grievance, I have to put some work into it. Now, if somebody with very few edits claims, even credibly, to have been slighted, abused, or whatever, and wants to do well but is unhappy about the black marks, it's a lot less work for me and others to work out what to do about her complaint than it would be for her just to get a new username.
- Yes, if I as newly minted "Hoary" back in 2005 or whenever had been pissed on (short-term blocks, etc) by one or more admins after a few dozen edits, I'd have either put up with it or dropped out and reappeared as "Glory" or whatever.
- How about this: Only usernames (or, exceptionally, IP numbers) who have made contributions of some significance [rephrase that bit to your taste] contributions to articles. -- Hoary (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
We may be giving this issue more thought than we should. But I just wanted to look at it from the other direction i.e. starting with the admin rather than starting with the editor. In the section above, we discussed assessing admins on the basis of their interaction trends. In such cases, a complaint from a single good faith editor with a single good faith edit may be desirable. I like Tony's formulation and I am comfortable with the latin term but perhaps replacing bona fide with good faith might be plainer english. Lightmouse (talk) 15:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mind "good-faith", but using the English term made me realise that all grievances should be in good faith, and part of a coordinator's task to determine whether a grievance is that. It might solve the problem if we go for the simplest option:
#Who can lodge a grievance? Any editor on Wikipedia.
At the same time, I've realised the dangers of the second sentence: ("A complainant need not be involved in the scenario that is the subject of the grievance.") That seems to leave the door open for complainants to gather together their friends in launching a group action, unfairly using numbers for effect. It also would allow individual admins to be picked off by anyone. I hope you all agree that this is not a good idea. Tony (talk) 16:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
- I agree that the simpler wording Any editor is better. As far as unfair group actions are concerned, I don't think it will be a problem if we are looking for interaction patterns. If ten people complain about a single event, it is still only one event and can't be called a pattern until more evidence is available. If ten people reveal ten events, it looks like an interaction pattern. Lightmouse (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Evolutionary, not revolutionary
Obviously what Tony is after is not to turn everything upside down, uproot the "old order", and run the old elite out of town on a rail, as shown by the fact that he is basing his proposal on the admin-related policies and rulings that he carefully collated from various places on Wikipedia.
It's possible that some expectations need to be dialed down. If this project results in incremental improvement, the kind that makes the WP editing experience ten percent better for ten percent of the editors, I would consider that a major achievement. If anyone can pull it off, Tony is the guy. Some things are constants and will not change. Nasty people will continue to present problems. They will need to be warned-then-blocked or blocked immediately, depending on circumstances.
I'm not yet seeing the mechanics of a "naming-and-shaming" approach. Will there be statistics kept on the number of blocks handed out by admins? A bare naked statistic cannot distinguish between (1) a "block-happy" admin who capriciously blocks and/or threatens people and (2) a courageous admin who gets his or her hands dirty on a regular basis and braves abuse to do the right thing.
Sometimes a single block, if wrongly imposed on an editor, can do more harm than a hundred blocks that are justifiable. That single block would not really show in a statistic. Quantitative data are important as an aid towards objectivity but are not sufficient in and of themselves.
Perhaps the optimum that the new process can achieve is greater consistency, to dispel the perception that block threats and actual blocks are subject to whim and caprice. I will also add that I find the emphasis within Wikipedia on Civility and Edit Warring to be excessive. I see people peddling pseudoscientific snake oil and getting away with it for the longest time, and I see editors couching their hatreds in civil language and getting away with it.
An example: Wikipedia is much better than the average Internet discussion forum in curtailing politely worded hate speech against Jews or Israel, but it could do better. This is one area where I would like to see stricter enforcement rather than more leniency.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 22:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
Tony1's response:
"I'm not yet seeing the mechanics of a "naming-and-shaming" approach." True; I need to think through the whole mechanics carefully, then consider feedback here. Can't do much until mid-week, when I'm freeeeeeeeeeee of work for a while.
"Will there be statistics kept on the number of blocks handed out by admins?" Records on the behaviour of admins who significantly or repeatedly breach policy will no doubt be kept, but I'm keen that they not be permanent: the system should have a in-built "forgive and move on" aspect as a motivation to adhere to the policy – a probationary period, if you like. I want this system to be oriented towards healing and prevention, rather than punishment. The less it's used, the better, and if it can encourage reconciliation, apologies, and back-downs by either party during Stage 2, all the better. But clearly, this will not always be possible. The easiest cases will be where we can declare that an admin either has or has not adhered to policy, and then judge what to do about this.
It's hard to design the system in detail without an extensive program of "thought experiments", based on the examination of actual cases. This I intend to do. One spin-off is going to be a raft of queries about just what the policy means in detail. Here's an example:
- An admin should:
Now, does "suitable" mean that the diffs of the claimed offence should be included where a user has been blocked, say, for edit-warring? That seems reasonable, but already I've encountered instances where they were not supplied by the admin and where in retrospect it's difficult (even impossible) to ascertain where and when the claimed offence occurred, and exactly what it was. Is AdminWatch going to be assume that this is what "suitable" means? I think I would if I were coordinating such as case; but ultimately, this is subject to rulings by ArbCom. To what extent is AdminWatch going to make recommendations for detail to be built into the policy at WP:ADMIN on the basis of its work? Tony (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the current monitoring system is more like a gentlemans club where admins monitor admins with relatively poor data. We will all benefit from having better data. Non-admins often complain about admins, particularly following a block, and a recorded complaint is not, in itself, something to be surprised about or ashamed off. We (admins included) would all like to identify admins that rank high for any particular type of problem. Open data recording is not the same as 'name and shame', in fact it can be 'name and be proud' if you are seen to be firm but fair. Lightmouse (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Just a minor quibble
In this section, "owner" either needs to be placed in quotes and/or reworded in order to comply with WP:USERSPACE. ScarianCall me Pat! 14:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- In this section, the "f" needs to be capitalised. ScarianCall me Pat! 15:00, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Now live, nees to be in Wikipedia space
Now that this is apparently live it should be in the Wikipedia space. rootology (C)(T) 19:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Tony, FYI. rootology (C)(T) 20:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
So when (and how) is this going to be presented to the community at large to gain consensus for adoption? MFD isn't the place certainly..RxS (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'd like to get it right, first, and that will take trialling. Tony (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Enforcement...?
Although I generally like the idea, I have a question. How would decisions/discussions be enforced here? Would they then be taken to WP:ANI, WP:RFC, or what? I only made a cursory glance at this, so correct me if I didn't see it. VX!~~~ 23:17, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- There is no enforcement here, nor can there be, simply a recording. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:22, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused, but once a recording was made here it would go to perhaps something like WP:ANI? VX!~~~ 23:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Or to ANI first—it doesn't matter. This is solely about something quite narrow. You know what is probably more important than recording: it's gaining a sense of closure if an admin acknowledges that s/he significantly breached WP:ADMIN; or determining that a complaint is not sustainable, or should go elsewhere; or building a knowledge base of what parts of the admin policy wording need to be tightened up for the benefit of all. Tony (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused, but once a recording was made here it would go to perhaps something like WP:ANI? VX!~~~ 23:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
My $0.02
While I sympathize with what Tony is trying to do here, I have a concern which I imagine is shared by others. I fear that AdminWatch (assuming it gets up and running) will become a hangout of failed RfA candidates, anti-admin warriors, sockpuppets, and assorted trolls; in short, a haven for Wiki-Drama. I suggest therefore that half of the coordinators (two of four under the current proposal, if I'm not mistaken) should be administrators. This should have two effects: 1.) it should ensure that admins get a fair hearing by ensuring involvement by editors who obviously don't have an anti-admin bias; and 2.) it should help legitimize AdminWatch. The community in general (and administrators in particular) will be more open to AdminWatch if they see admins who are willing to participate in an admin-policing process. Honestly, I believe that to be successful AdminWatch has to be recognized by administrators as being a valid process, and the only way that that is going to happen is if administrators are welcomed and involved in it. Anyway, that's just my take. faithless (speak) 23:31, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem with some admins being coordinators; however, it must not be dominated by admins, as are the current procedures. Tony (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- The problem with this suggestion is how many administrators would be needed to approve AdminWatch before it is considered to be recognized by administrators generally? There will always be administrators who don't like it. And I'm not convinced that administrator buy-in is necessary for this process to be fair to everyone. I would analogize AdminWatch to a citizen committee that monitors law enforcement activity. Those committees exist in various places, and it's hardly ever the case that a law enforcement officer is a member. "Police monitoring police" keeps coming to mind. If it is truly desirable to have some administrators as coordinators, then they should be in the minority. Tennis expert (talk) 02:28, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Of course there are always going to be administrators who don't like it - that's true of every aspect of Wikipedia, among admins and non-admins alike. But since this is to be a voluntary, non-binding process (as others have put it, it has no "teeth"), administrators have to be included for it to get off the ground at all. If administrators are excluded from the process, why should they pay it any heed whatsoever? You can't very well go to an admin's talk page and say, "Hello, admin. There's this process that your kind isn't welcome to participate in, and it has no authority whatsoever, but we'd appreciate it if you would join this discussion where some other editor(s) are accusing you (most likely wrongly) of some wrong-doing. Thanks!" I can't imagine any administrator not dismissing such messages out-of-hand. If admins don't buy into this it has no legitimacy, and it dies a (probably very quick) death. It is critical (IMO) that admins and non-admins are represented equally if AdminWatch has any shot of succeeding. faithless (speak) 02:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- "Most likely wrongly", huh? That's inappropriate prejudging of this process, indicating that you don't believe this process is valid regardless of how it is structured. Would you participate? I suspect that most administrators would participate because they want to improve Wikipedia and always exercise good faith. At least, I'd like to believe that. Aside from that, self-interest may be a good motivator, i.e., the desire not to have their good names wrongly (in their view) and publicly denigrated without response. Tennis expert (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Most likely wrongly, indeed. As an administrator I can vouch for the argument Redvers made here. Administrators are constantly barraged by complaints which are completely without merit, and this will undoubtedly happen here. That being the case, I can see this playing out two ways: 1.) admins can be included, and simply put up with the unwarranted complaints as an unavoidable byproduct of Wikipedia's open structure, or 2.) admins can be excluded, in which case they'll ignore AdminWatch altogether. As for whether or not I will participate in AdminWatch, I can't yet say. Like I said before, I sympathize with what Tony is trying to do here, and I could see something of this nature working out and benefiting Wikipedia. But I'd have to see the final draft, so to speak, before deciding if it's something I could support. faithless (speak) 05:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Tony1's responses: In the best of worlds, it shouldn't matter whether or not a coordinator is an admin. I know plenty of both groups I'd trust, although convincing them to take on the role might be harder. The essence is that the personnel and the process must be trusted, by and large, by both groups—non-admins and admins. If admins take it over in project space, it will go the way of the current procedures, which are held in contempt and widely spurned (ask around if you don't believe me). Some admins may mistrust any system for forcing the issue of compliance with WP:ADMIN, but if the system is fair, most of them will be won over. Many admins already see the need for a new process; as User:faithless says: "I sympathize with what Tony is trying to do here" (couched in and expression of doubts).
Faithless: if this process were "teethless", why all the fuss over the past 18 hours? It has been instructive, though, and I'm busy trying to narrow the process further. I believe that the process has to be confined solely to whether there has or has not been a breach of WP:ADMIN (reasonably easy), perhaps how significant the breach is (harder), and recommendations for how to remedy the situation (might be easy, might be hard). In most cases where there has been a breach, what is best for the project and for editors will be simply an acknowledgement by the admin of that breach (occasionally an apology). If this presents a psychological problem for an admin, perhaps they shouldn't be an admin. After all, they're bound to set an example to all editors, and should gain strength and our trust by the occasional admission.
There may well be disagreements by admins that they have actually breached the policy. Some of these cases will provide a basis for recommending a tightening of the wording/detail in the policy, to minimise trouble in the future.
If these are the "teeth" of AdminWatch, they seem to be positive and not punitive in quality and outcome.
Tennis expert, I largely agree with what you say, but I believe that some flexibility is needed in accepting the expertise of a few admins (and perhaps the trust they may engender among their fellow admins). But they must not be allowed to dominate; we've just seen a case where a highly skilled and respected admin who is willing to identify breaches in admin policy, all too readily posted "Resolved" at the top and gave a little slap on the wrist of the offending admin. No acknowledgement of the breach by the offending admin, no sense of closure for the complainant (whatever his/her own wrongdoing—this is irrelevant here). Tony (talk) 09:19, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I just wanted to say that I think this is a great idea (and one that is long overdue), and I hope it takes off and becomes the process this project so desperately needs to deal with problematic admins. I also wanted to comment on something discussed above: Most likely wrongly is certainly a realistic view to take, however, if there is an admin or two on the panel of coordinators, those bogus complaints will most likely be thrown out, because admins do understand the completely absurd things we get complaints about. I expect the workable cases to be the serious ones, and I'm certain there is no lack of legitimate inappropriate admin actions to complain about. I think it's great that Tony1 has stated "In most cases where there has been a breach, what is best for the project and for editors will be simply an acknowledgement by the admin of that breach (occasionally an apology)." That is very true. Admins are human, thus sure to make mistakes and the occasional bad call or emotional decision. Almost all actions here are reversible and an acknowledgment and an apology are often all that is needed to resolve a situation. And I completely agree that if an admin can't swallow their pride and do those two (not so-)simple things, they're not fit for the bit. Anyway, if this process proves to be successful, hopefully that in and of itself will be enough to bring change into the admin team. If there's a process easier to use than ArbCom that shows results, then it's a process for us, as admins, to fear; and hopefully we'll see better behaved admins result from that. لennavecia 04:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
MFD
I've closed the MFD. While I agree the report that was made was important enough for a process like this to consider, it's also clear the process isn't ready or finished (per Tony's own words). Further, MFD is not an appropriate venue to discuss proposed policies, guidelines or processes. Once Tony and those working with him on this feel comfortable with attempting to gain community consensus for this process then we can hold something more formalized (if there's any need). —Locke Cole • t • c 23:54, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
- Good job. I agree with you entirely. Tennis expert (talk) 02:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- You closed the MfD because you said it was inappropriate for a proposed process. But it seems that, as I feared, Tony has no interest in running this through the route for proposed processes and wants to run it in his userspace outside of normal process approval. Based on that, I question whether the closure of the MfD was appropriate. -Chunky Rice (talk) 05:01, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Chunky Rice: Transferring it straight to project space before it is trialled is a big problem: if that happens, it will lose credibility because admins will take it over; there's a feeling among many WPians that admins should not dominate a process that determines whether their fellow admins have breached policy. Can you respond to this concern? If you have suggestions as to how coordinators might be chosen in project space, I'm all ears. Tony (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Non-admins outnumber admins by over a thousand to one. If admins dominate some areas of the project it's because of a lack of interest by most editors, not any sort of sinister plot. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- If a small group of people has aircraft carriers, tanks, and cruise missles (administrators have tools) and a large group of people has only sticks and stones (editors who are not administrators), then there's no question who would dominate. When administrators use their tools to protect other administrators, there's little that ordinary editors can do about it. That's proven on a daily basis. Tennis expert (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- That just sounds crazy and paranoid to me. If what you describe was actually the case, you, Tony and anybody who supports this thing would already be blocked and the page deleted. Also, I'm not really sure how being in Tony's userspace instead of in project space makes it immune to admin abuse. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's not crazy at all. The disruptive administrators are a little more sophisticated in their tactics than immediate blocking and page deleting. They make notes-to-themselves about particular editors, use IRC or e-mail to talk about them behind the scenes, and then wait for the right opportunity to post misleading, false, or unsourced derogatory comments about those editors or, worse, support unreasonable and unfair action by other administrators at a later date. And there's nothing that non-administrators can do about it because the disciplinary process is dominated and ruled by the "I-scratch-your-back, you-scratch-my-back" club of administrators. Tennis expert (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Forgive my hyperbole. Nevertheless, you seem to miss the point that admins are significantly outnumbered. The only reason that admins dominate certain areas of the project is that they are interested in them and most non-admins are not. -Chunky Rice (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I do not miss the point, rather I dismissed it as being misleading. Administrators naturally tend to hang out in places like MfD, and in particular AN and AN/I, which most rational editors tend to avoid until they're dragged kicking and screaming before their own kangaroo court: without any semblance of natural justice, without any effective right of appeal, and without any effective checks and balances on the administrative actions taken there.
- PS. I'll forgive your hyperbole if you forgive mine. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're still missing the point. Tony has expressed a concern that if moved to project space and subjected to normal proposed project approval, it would become dominated by admins. What I'm saying is that they only way that could happen is that if non-admins don't care about it. What happens on AN or ANI is not really relevant to this. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- PS. I'll forgive your hyperbole if you forgive mine. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 19:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- You may think whatever you like, as I hope may I. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- You really are paranoid. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- You may think whatever you like, as I hope may I. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is that another one of your opinions, or can I go to my doctor tomorrow and get signed off work based on your expert diagnosis? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Seriously, what is your problem with me stating an opinion? Every time I do, you come running in and saying "THAT'S AN OPINION!" Thanks for the heads up. -Chunky Rice (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is that another one of your opinions, or can I go to my doctor tomorrow and get signed off work based on your expert diagnosis? :lol: --Malleus Fatuorum 20:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem at all with you stating your opinions, but "You really are paranoid" is a statement apparently of fact; some might even call it a personal attack. I'd counsel caution before making any more personal remarks. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Lighten up. It was a joke based on your apparent uncertainty as to whether or not you're allowed to have your own opinions. You take yourself too seriously. (this is an opinion, not a statement of fact.) If you want to write this exchange up as a test case for AdminWatch or be my guest. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have no problem at all with you stating your opinions, but "You really are paranoid" is a statement apparently of fact; some might even call it a personal attack. I'd counsel caution before making any more personal remarks. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Are you an administrator? Did you violate any of the administrator policies or guidelines clearly laid out on this page? Why do you apparently believe that I have even the slightest interest in writing this exchange up as a test case for AdminWatch? Which of the policy guidelines do you believe that you have violated (apart from no personal attacks, of course)? So far as I'm concerned you're just another editor with an opinion I don't agree with. I'm not exactly short of those. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I am an administrator. You apparently think that I'm in violation of section 2(a) - "making personal attacks" and probably (b) "incivility." As far as I can tell, this is exactly the sort of petty crap that will soon be filling up these pages. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Are you an administrator? Did you violate any of the administrator policies or guidelines clearly laid out on this page? Why do you apparently believe that I have even the slightest interest in writing this exchange up as a test case for AdminWatch? Which of the policy guidelines do you believe that you have violated (apart from no personal attacks, of course)? So far as I'm concerned you're just another editor with an opinion I don't agree with. I'm not exactly short of those. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:33, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I really would suggest that you consider having your crystal ball serviced asap. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- You're right. It's probably best to charge blindly ahead without regard for any possible consequences of our actions. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I really would suggest that you consider having your crystal ball serviced asap. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:50, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
← A much wiser man than either you or I once said: "Nothing will ever be attempted, if all possible objections must be first overcome. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's fortunate, then, that I only wish for the reasonable objections to be addressed. And I don't understand how any of this has anything to do with why this can't be done in project space. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- You have made no reasonable objections, only unsupported conjectures. It may be that your crysral ball is correct; if it is then that's the time for an MfD. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I only have one objection. THat is that this is not appropriate for user-space. If this is a proposed process it should be tagged as such and in WP space. So far, the only objection I've gotten is that this will lead to admins dominating the page. That's crystal balling. You continue to knock down straw men without actually addressing my concern. -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Chunky, this is not acceptable: "You really are paranoid", even when the dialogue was becoming a game of spiralling joke/invective. May I remind you of the admin policy tenets 1 and 2 here? Both of you should calm down and try to respect each other's opinion. Chunky, it would be good to convince you of the merit of AdminWatch and to gain your support. Please don't regard the development of a better system for dealing with community angst as disrespectful to the excellent job you guys do. Improving the system for accountability to the admin policy will reinforce, not erode, the community's perception of that excellent job, and it will require changes in practice only of admins who are already bending/breaking the policy requirements. Tony (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Look, just answer this question: Is this a proposed process or is it something else? ALso, it's pretty tough to get on board when there's so much naked hostility towards admins here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Chunky, this is not acceptable: "You really are paranoid", even when the dialogue was becoming a game of spiralling joke/invective. May I remind you of the admin policy tenets 1 and 2 here? Both of you should calm down and try to respect each other's opinion. Chunky, it would be good to convince you of the merit of AdminWatch and to gain your support. Please don't regard the development of a better system for dealing with community angst as disrespectful to the excellent job you guys do. Improving the system for accountability to the admin policy will reinforce, not erode, the community's perception of that excellent job, and it will require changes in practice only of admins who are already bending/breaking the policy requirements. Tony (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I only have one objection. THat is that this is not appropriate for user-space. If this is a proposed process it should be tagged as such and in WP space. So far, the only objection I've gotten is that this will lead to admins dominating the page. That's crystal balling. You continue to knock down straw men without actually addressing my concern. -Chunky Rice (talk) 01:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- You have made no reasonable objections, only unsupported conjectures. It may be that your crysral ball is correct; if it is then that's the time for an MfD. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's fortunate, then, that I only wish for the reasonable objections to be addressed. And I don't understand how any of this has anything to do with why this can't be done in project space. -Chunky Rice (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I see projectiles flying around, and would just like to say that I find some of the foregoing rather unhelpful. If we are to throw around accusations of rough justice, imagery of war and conflict, kangaroo courts (on both "sides") it is just bound to harden attitudes that users are out to seek blood for injustices or admins under attack. This is the stuff civil unrest is mad of, and so I would urge all to keep a cool head here. We are not talking about war, but repairing some of the checks and balances which appear to be malfunctioning. I actually believe that Admins stand to benefit because accusations about maladministration by a few tarnish the image of all, and if the process is well conceived and the checks and balances are functioning properly, users will get the satisfaction of knowing that Admins are on users' side. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Civil unrest arises when there are no effective channels for perceived injustices to be fairly dealt with. Like here on wikipedia right now, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum 03:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, WP users have long been resigned that the judiciary is not independent and there is no-one around who wants to fix it. And then, along came Tony... Ohconfucius (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. Tennis expert (talk) 19:43, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
name and shame
I see from comments above that this is, in part, intended to be a "name and shame" process. I also see that there is to be a "probationary watchlist", but as of now I can't find it. Could someone please provide the link to the probationary watchlist so I can add myself. It'll save time in the long run and I really don't care that much about having my name on a wall of shame. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:54, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- The past few days have shown that these were unwise statements by me. As well, the process has been tidied up. It's becoming clearer that it needs to exclude everything but the immediate facts that are relevant to whether WP:ADMIN was breached or not. Please let me know if you have specific criticism of the process now. Tony (talk) 08:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The phrase 'name and shame' is negative so probably is the wrong thing to promote. Police officers, teachers, doctors etc are always prone to complaints but the principle of measurement of performance is sound. The trouble with the current (non-Adminwatch) process is that abuse of process is tolerated when other admins support the outcome. Abuse of process is not tolerable in a fair judicial system. I am hopeful that Adminwatch will put downward pressure on abuse of process. Lightmouse (talk) 12:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- OK never mind the name and shame bit, I'd still like to enter my name in the probationary watchlist to start things off. As to a criticism of the process. Well it's impossible to do but the coordinators should be made up of people who have never edited Wikipedia. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- About which, the coordinators or adding my name to the probationary watchlist? The coordinators should be made up of people who don't edit, and have never edited, but that is impossible. Having people who never edited would ensure that the investigations were free from known bias. Adding my name, of course I was serious. This is a Wiki and everything we do is watchable so adding my name to a probationary watchlist is nothing more than what is already being done and indicates that I have no concern over others checking out my actions. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
"Naming and shaming" was obviously an ill-judged phrasing, and I'm sure not what was really meant. I do think it's important though that properly validated and corroborated instances of administrator abuse are documented and recorded, if only for the reason that to lapse occasionally is only human, but to do so regularly becomes a problem. If substantiated instances are removed after a week, then those systematic patterns of abuse of authority will be no more visible than they are now. I'd suggest maintaining the record for the same length of time that peccadillos are maintained in a user's block log. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:18, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Who said anything about putting my name on the probationary watchlist for a week. I want it there permanently. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I think you're only trying to make a point. Maybe being on the watchlist should be considered a privilege: like some sort of "bad boys' club", perhaps you should start collecting ASBOs... ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 04:52, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- And the point is that it's not a big deal having my name listed as an admin that others are keeping an eye one. I should hope that other editors are keeping an eye on what I'm doing. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:59, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Re: Lead
I don't mean to be petty, but I would trust something more if it didn't have a POV and/or if it was cited. This still needs citing or at least rewording. I would recommend that you would need to prove that "most users" find them ineffectual, or remove entirely. ScarianCall me Pat! 13:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, feel free to ask me. Lightmouse (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- But, my friends, that is not the way Wikipedia works. How do you prove that "most" people find them ineffectual? You need at minimum a poll or a reliable source. It is in your opinion that they're ineffectual, opinions are not facts, friends. ScarianCall me Pat! 16:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- You may have based your argument on a false premiss, specifically that wikipedia "works" when dealing fairly with cases of abuse of administrative power. That premiss is your opinion, no more based on fact than the premiss underlying the setting up of AdminWatch. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- What?! What does that have to do with what I was talking about? Malleus, I was merely stating that the above statement needs to be sourced. Why are you trying to distract the argument? ScarianCall me Pat! 18:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Then why does anything on Wikipedia need to be cited? To be honest, you all could have AGF'd what I was doing: unsourced claims anywhere make something look weak and gossipy; by tidying up the weaker statements you could make the whole process look stronger and more smooth. But no, something must be wrong with me if I'm spouting complete "crap" like this, mustn't it? I must be totally out of my mind to be suggesting something like this! If you ever want this to be something that has influence, which I'm sure you secretly do, then you'll remove and/or cite any grandoise claims, Tony. ScarianCall me Pat! 23:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The claim in the link you provide does not say 'most users'. It says 'many Wikipedians'. Are you misquoting, or are you looking at something else? Lightmouse (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Misquoting: I do apologise. But I give up. Keep it however it works best for you, guys. I'm sure that's what matters most to the people who have had troubles with those darn awful admins in the past. ScarianCall me Pat! 00:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Many of us have had trouble with those "darn awful admins in the past", and have had no recourse other than being fortunate enough to have had a more sympathetic admin watchlisting our talk pages. A shame you can't empathise with the disempowered Scarian. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- See "darn". - Anyway, there is no such thing as "empowered" or "disempowered" on Wikipedia, and I'm afraid I must consider your views (Notice I said views and not you - emphasising for an explicit reason) on that to be naive; admins don't have any power whatsoever. If admins had power then I'm sure all their detractors would be blocked by now, wouldn't you think that would be the logical outcome of that? But it appears not have happened, clearly. ScarianCall me Pat! 01:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps there should be a citation to the MfD page; "many Wikipedians" have already voiced that belief in just two brief sessions. Tony (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Now who's being naive? "Admins have no power whatsoever"? What's the point of RfA in that case? It would be better for you (Scarian) to base whatever argument you want to make on the facts, not your own blind faith in a broken and corrupt system. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, Malleus, why don't you propose something to get rid of the position of administrator, if you despise them so? Or, perhaps, run for RfA again, and try and prove that is there is some good left in the Wiki-world and that you'll be a much better alternative to everyone else. Do you think you'll be a better alternative to everyone else? ScarianCall me Pat! 03:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- See "darn". - Anyway, there is no such thing as "empowered" or "disempowered" on Wikipedia, and I'm afraid I must consider your views (Notice I said views and not you - emphasising for an explicit reason) on that to be naive; admins don't have any power whatsoever. If admins had power then I'm sure all their detractors would be blocked by now, wouldn't you think that would be the logical outcome of that? But it appears not have happened, clearly. ScarianCall me Pat! 01:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you choose to misrepresent my position? And to make it worse indulge yourself in a personal attack against me? Perhaps you may like a few moments to reflect on the wisdom of your comments. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, sir, I must respectfully disagree with you; I did not indulge in a personal attack, I would do no such thing. But, regardless, this discussion has run its course. I did consider getting my mother involved to settle it, but, you know... I then remembered that this place, strangely enough, isn't the playground. ScarianCall me Pat! 06:25, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why do you choose to misrepresent my position? And to make it worse indulge yourself in a personal attack against me? Perhaps you may like a few moments to reflect on the wisdom of your comments. --Malleus Fatuorum 05:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Consensus
While I:
- appreciate the enormous amount of work that's gone into this
- believe that it is a noble effort to address something that is a problem
- think that considerable thought has been put into avoiding some of the more obvious pitfalls
I nonetheless believe that the MfD (whatever its ultimate results) shows that the proposal has little to no chance of achieving consensus, let alone the kind of mandate that such an important proposal would really want.
I therefore strongly recommend to the editors who've led on this proposal to rethink the proposal in its broadest terms and encourage them to ensure that their response amounts to more than mere deckchair rearranging. --Dweller (talk) 13:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is not helpful as framed, in such vague terms. What exactly did you want re-arranged, and why is a politically motivated MfD useful in predicting what the community (all WPians, not just a few admins) wants? Tony (talk) 13:57, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
The MfD does appear to be an abuse of process. Lightmouse (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Tony, I'm sorry if you found my comments unhelpful. All I am trying to do is point out the obvious... that the level of opposition to the scheme, as evidenced at the MfD, shows that this does not have and will not gain consensus, let alone a mandate (which you would ideally want) without wholesale changes. Vague terms is all I can do - what those changes are, I do not know.
- Lightmouse, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the MfD, it shows a considerable of opposition to Admin Watch, as it is currently framed. --Dweller (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Seems to me rather to show considerable support for the idea. I guess your glass is half empty, whereas mine is half full. ;-) --Malleus Fatuorum 14:37, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- Indeed. In any case, it is an abuse of process to use an MFD to measure support for an idea. Lightmouse (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Dweller, many of the "Delete" comments (I think entirely from admins) show a basic misunderstanding of the process. There seems to be a frenzied herd mentality in shooting it down. This mentality is all too common in cabals, and is extremely unhealthy. Do you go along with the "Attack page" one, for example? Tony (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't fully buy-in to any of the delete opinions. Hence I chimed in with a "Keep". But me, personally disagreeing with them doesn't mean too much. I'm just one editor. --Dweller (talk) 16:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree with Dweller here, for a process to be accepted by the community as a whole there needs to be wide spread consensus for it. That doesn't include a MFD split on the idea. This needs, at some point, a much wider community discussion showing clear consensus for it. This has not happened and you can't tuck in away in user space and expect it to go live... RxS (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's certainly a concern that most, if not all, of the objections to this process are coming from administrators. The schism which is opening up between administrators and non-administrators has reached an unhealthy level IMO. Doing nothing in some obscure wikipedia talking shop is really not an option, and nor is starting premature and vexatious MfDs. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Coordinators
Just a brief idea/question on the matter of coordinators. First, coordinators will serve for some defined period, yes? A year, three months? Also, as to the selection, here's my proposal:
- Coordinators are made up of two sitting arbitrators (selected at random from willing participants) and three non-administrator editors with a history of participation on Wikipedia.
My proposed definition of "participation" would be at least six months active as an editor on Wikipedia (possibly even a year) and at least 1000 edits (with possibly 50% of those being in mainspace). Editors would be able to opt out by placing themselves in a category (via their userpage) or via a list maintained as a subpage of the process page. Coordinators would also be free to reject their random nomination (and be included in the pool for selection next time, unless they opt out prior to the next random drawing) or resign at any point during their tenure (in which case another editor/arbitrator (as appropriate) would be randomly selected). Once a coordinator has served out their allotted time in the process (a year, three months, whatever) they would be ineligible for selection until the random pool had been exhausted. While we could have an RFA-style system of selection for coordinators I think it would be better to do it at random. Yes it's very instruction creepish, but any other method (especially RFA style) would lend itself to abuse I think. —Locke Cole • t • c 10:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- So serving administrators, other than arbitrators, are excluded from being one of the kangaroo court judges then? Well, there's justice in action. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 10:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, because issues of police misconduct should be investigated/decided/resolved by... police[this is sarcasm]. Having said that, I wouldn't object to one of the 5 coordinator positions being an administrator (2 arbitrators, 1 administrator, 2 editors). —Locke Cole • t • c 10:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, go off line for a couple of days and you never know just what's gonna happen. On the one hand I can't believe that anyone would nominate this project for deletion… on the other hand, it is all too believable (sigh). I'd like to go on record here stating my opposition in the strongest terms against any admins also serving as coordinators of the soon-to-be-renamed "AdminWatch". Absolutely positively no sitting admins, for crashingly obvious conflict-of-interest reasons. Having been an admin or arb in the past should not disqualify, however. Not any editor can be a coordinator of this project. If the consensus is that an editor requesting admin status must have upwards of 3000 edits and a minimum of one year on the Wikipedia, the requirements for a project coordinator should be upwards of 5000 edits and a minimum of two years on the WP. The type of Wikipedian that I am picturing for a post as coordinator would be, for example, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back, who recently garnered more than 50 percent supports in his (unsuccessful) candidacy for ARBCOM.
- Just a note, most of you reading here already know this, but Malleus Fatuorum is the main author of WP:WIKISPEAK, my numero uno favorite page on the entire Wikipedia. Go check it out if you haven't already (smile).--Goodmorningworld (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- So, at the first approximation, none of our existing admins can be trusted to be neutral? And all other editors can? And this kangaroo court would be run based on that basic assumption? Wow. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 12:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Speaking here strictly as an administrator, and thus as a second token member of The Enemy, I'd just like to say (i) that yes, WP:WIKISPEAK is intercoursingly good, and also (ii) "Wow" (which I haven't said much recently), though not about anything in particular. -- Hoary (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Seems like Locke is suggesting a jury service model. Whilst remaining in brainstorming mode, I feel that being an administrator per se should not be a criterion for disqualification. I think good Admins ought to be interested in seeing that "bad boys" do not tarnish the good overall standing of admins, so they also have a stake in the process. It is important that the process must be reasonably free of any "them and us" sentiment, and should certainly avoid people power evolving into a lynch mob. Determining a set of desirable qualities for coordinators may be a better way forward than picking people at random. If appointments will take a 'random' route, I'd like to consider how to avoid appointing known trouble-makers as coordinators. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ohconfucius, while I don't think that originally Tony meant it to be so, this page has taken on the "them vs. us" mentality. If you go through the discussion there are several references to "civilians" that would have been more neutral as "non-admins". Locke Cole, if the coordinators are drawn at random what happens when you get an editor that hates, for whatever reason, admins as a group, even if they have never had any dealing with the particular admin they are investigating? What happens if I am brought up on the page and then discover that one of the coordinaters is someone that I blocked several months ago? There are other problems with getting coordinators at random but without mentioning names it's a little difficult to discuss. I would think that a general vote on the coordinators would be a good thing with a pool available so that any with a conflict may recuse themselves leaving others to take their place. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:00, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm afraid I must echo the comments made by Cambridge and Redvers; both have very valid concerns. ScarianCall me Pat! 17:06, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Presumably the other four coordinators would balance it out if one were drawn that "hated all admins". As for individual issues (such as having a coordinator who had been blocked by an admin) we could either allow them to recuse themselves, or just assume good faith that the other coordinators will again balance it out. I certainly wouldn't have any issue with potential conflicts of interest being brought up (so if a coordinator had been blocked by an admin being discussed it would be appropriate to note that and ask if they wish to recuse themselves). I'm not sure if forced recusal in such a situation would be a good idea or not. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Agreed that this page has taken on the "them vs. us" mentality. However, we are all grown-ups hoping to make WP a better place, so let's all try and put the MfD and related acrimony behind us. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, go off line for a couple of days and you never know just what's gonna happen. On the one hand I can't believe that anyone would nominate this project for deletion… on the other hand, it is all too believable (sigh). I'd like to go on record here stating my opposition in the strongest terms against any admins also serving as coordinators of the soon-to-be-renamed "AdminWatch". Absolutely positively no sitting admins, for crashingly obvious conflict-of-interest reasons. Having been an admin or arb in the past should not disqualify, however. Not any editor can be a coordinator of this project. If the consensus is that an editor requesting admin status must have upwards of 3000 edits and a minimum of one year on the Wikipedia, the requirements for a project coordinator should be upwards of 5000 edits and a minimum of two years on the WP. The type of Wikipedian that I am picturing for a post as coordinator would be, for example, The Fat Man Who Never Came Back, who recently garnered more than 50 percent supports in his (unsuccessful) candidacy for ARBCOM.
- Yes, it's similar to a jury service model except the coordinators would run for months/whatever rather than being assigned for every individual case. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
The issue about 'someone that I blocked several months ago' is valid but not unique to Adminwatch as a judicial process. How is it currently handled? Lightmouse (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Tony1's comments: Redvers, I'm disappointed you have such a negative take on this. A kangaroo court, according to Encarta (quick on my desktop) involves judgement "without good evidence". WP has grown up and needs proper checks and balances to maximise goodwill among its participants. I can assure you that people will be doing their best to make it function in a professional manner, including the NPOV assessment of evidence; otherwise it will fail. Please consider supporting it rather than constructing yourself as "the enemy". Far from it: we rely on you and your colleagues to protect us from chaos. I know many admins who would do a good job as coordinators, but that's not the point: justice has to be not just done, but seen to be done, and unfortunately, that means most or all coordinator positions should be occupied by non-admins, to minimise perceived conflict of interest.
Locke raises valuable points above, and has brought us closer to determining a viable system of recruiting coordinators so that the initiative can be put to the community. (I concede that this needs to be done and the process moved to main space at an earlier stage than I'd first planned.) The following basic questions arise from Locke's post, comments by Ohconfucius and Goodmorningworld, and my own thoughts. I seek input to these questions below. Tony (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
How many coordinators should there be?
SixSix seems like a good number. Three-to-two non-admin majority is too slender, IMO. This process has to be guaranteed not to be taken over by admins, although admitting their participation at the same time. I would be more comfortable with four-to-two; there are 165 active users for every active admin. If people think six is too many, I'm OK with five, if the majority is four-to-one. Tony (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)- NB, the idea is that single coordinators take on each case, not the whole five or seven judge each case by vote: that would be impractical on a number of levels. Can you imagine the bureacracy and cross-communication required to make every decision in concert for every case? Impossible. This is why I don't understand the need for an odd number of coordinators. They won't be voting as a block. Tony (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Five. We are looking to recruit the best and brightest, and there won't be that many who meet the requirements and are willing to serve; remember we also need to keep a few people in reserve to replace coordinators who resign partway through their terms. Also you want an odd number so as to prevent deadlocks.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:31, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- An odd number would make hung decisions less likely. Lightmouse (talk) 17:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- (ec) Must be an odd number. Also there should be a backup pool in case one is required to recuse themselves. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was expecting that the coordinators would take cases on themselves, and that while they might talk with each other from time to time, they wouldn't vote as a block.Tony (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- That was also my expectation. My feeling now is that this process is being railroaded down a potentially rather unwholesome path. The MfD failed, let's try instead to destroy it from within. Colour me cynical if you must. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I note that as I write this there have been seven people who have commented on the number of coordinators. Of those seven Redvers and myself are admins. That means that Goodmorningworld, Lightmouse, Locke Cole, VX and Realist2 are all part of some scheme to railroad the proposal? I think that is rather insulting to those users, along with Redvers and myself, especially as the majority of them expressed keep comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Tony1/AdminWatch. I would suggest that rather than 5 non-admins and 2 admins trying to railroad the process that they were not clear on whether the coordinators were to work alone or together. Read through this page and there are comments that indicate both possibilities. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- That was also my expectation. My feeling now is that this process is being railroaded down a potentially rather unwholesome path. The MfD failed, let's try instead to destroy it from within. Colour me cynical if you must. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I was expecting that the coordinators would take cases on themselves, and that while they might talk with each other from time to time, they wouldn't vote as a block.Tony (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- As others suggested, odd numbers would be best. 3, 5, 7, 9, etc. In the event of recusal a process should be in place for potential "tie breaking" issues or filling recused seats. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Seven. And if one has to recuse, the remaining judges should vote on which of the remaining do not take part to make it an odd number. They would take past judgments, editing patterns, interactions and blocks into account and choose fairly who should recuse. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 23:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's an accurate description in my opinion. However, if it bothers you and you'd prefer I used a different euphemism, let me know and I will switch to it immediately. But I think "coordinator" is not entirely helpful either, so we need a third euphemism. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 23:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Your use now of the word "euphemism" appears to be deliberately provocative, as is your continued use of the term "kangaroo court". However, you are of course perfectly entitled to your opinion, so long as you continue to state it civilly. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- If I'm not being civil, please let me know where I've slipped up and I'll apologise immediately - it certainly wasn't deliberate! And I didn't mean to be provocative: my opinion is that the word "judge" applies for the role under discussion. Others prefer "coordinator". We both know what the role involves, so we need a title (a better euphemism, if you will) to apply to our new (er, overlords? Overseers? Oversighters? Magistrates? Rulers who I for one welcome? ;o) people-in-charge-of-this-process-however-they-are-selected. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 23:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I think on a standard issue there should be 5. If the issue is of utmost community importance 7 should participate, giving the outcome more authority. — Realist2 01:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- We could call them 'AdminWatch jurors' 'AdminWatch adjudicators', I s'pose. But I also tend to believe that repeated use of the word "euphemism" is a bit pointy if not downright derogative. If we have defined majorities required (as suggested by Tony above), the odd number criterion would have little importance because deadlock would be impossible if 4:2 (for example) was not reached. Ohconfucius (talk) 01:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Again, they won't block vote at any stage. This is a multistage process for each case. Coordinators will manage single cases. Tony (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Tony, I think that you need an extra section here. It appears that there is some confusion over the coordinators working alone or together and you need to ask what others think. I for one had assumed that it would be like Arbcom and the coordinators would work together. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 06:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Again, they won't block vote at any stage. This is a multistage process for each case. Coordinators will manage single cases. Tony (talk) 03:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Five: Small, odd number works for me. Less chance of a tie and it'll be quicker.Ryan4314 (talk) 10:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- After reading the "cab-rank" process down below, I think we'll need more co-ordinators, possibly even 10! Although I still think we should have an admin/non-admin share for diplomatic reasons, I can't see the practicality of it now if the cases are gonna be handled by just 1 co-ordinator. There might be a conflict of interest there, and if there isn't, then one of the parties will probably still see it that way anyways. Ryan4314 (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Status qualifications?
Should there be status qualifications for the positions (i.e., non-admins/admins)? If so, what should be the composition of non-admins and admins?
- This is the one deal-breaker for me: ordinary users should be in the majority, and thus status qualification is an essential criterion (later insertion: I now favour a five-to-one or four-to-two non-admin majority; out there it's 165-to-one). It seems risky to reserve a position for an arbitrator when none of the 13 may be willing to take on a double task; there may also be a conflict of interest if ArbCom makes rulings on AdminWatch when one of its members is in both groups. If there are six coordinators, I'm thinking of 4/2. It seems important to be include at least one admin as a show of good-will, and because admins tend to be good at process and tend to know the system well.Tony (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Tony (talk) 00:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I could see two seats out of five being reserved for former admins and no limit on the number of former admins elected, but I would not want even a single serving admin to do double duty so as to avoid conflict of interest. To current admins: Do not take this personally, it is a separation of powers kind of thing. The same goes for arbitrators, who anyway have enough on their plates already.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm repeating my initial suggestion here for the sake of discussion: my composition would be two arbitrators and three regular editors. An alternative to that would be two arbitrators, two editors and an administrator. But keep in mind that most arbitrators are already administrators as well. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Depends on the number of coordinators there are. Admins should be in the minority (2 out of 5, or 3 out of 7). All others should be non-admins. VX!~~~ 23:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mind if it's Arbs or Admins, only that they wont have the majority. So, if we have a group of 5, only 2 should have the tools. I don't think the ex-admin thing is a good idea, that'll be a conflict of interest i.e. how do they lose their tools? Ryan4314 (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Other qualifications?
Should candidature involve an explicit acknowledgement of the appropriate skills—namely, the analytical, NPOV, interpersonal and writing skills? What minimum number of edits is appropriate, and what minimum time as a WPian?
- It might be instruction creep, but RfA has a stock questions. I'm thinking that the skills required should simply be written out in a few bullets, and candidates formally agree that they have them. This sets benchmarks they know they'll be held to. I think Locke's suggestions are a little low for time and edits: I'd say
one yeartwo years and 5000 edits minimum. The record of blocks received should be disregarded. Tony (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)- Two years and 5000 edits. The bar for electing a project coordinator must be set higher than for RfAs.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- No arbitrary limits. Let anyone run to be a judge. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Tony's suggestion here is pretty good... VX!~~~ 23:17, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- The number of edits may be related to commitment to the project, but it has no bearing on the quality of contribution, nor the abilities to act as a juror. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- 2 years, 5000 edits works for me. Plus I like the bullet points idea. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Method of selection?
Admins vote for their candidates; non-admins vote for theirs. Five hundred edits are a prerequisite to vote.Candidates stand in one of two categories—non-admin and admin. Voters may vote in both categories. The four highest-scoring non-admins take on a coordinator role, as do the two highest-scoring admins. Miniature ArbCom-style election; Locke, I agree that it should be even less of a big deal than adminship, but I can't see a way around an election. Tony (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)- All editors vote for admin and non-admin candidates. A user is more likely to trust the system if they have had input into all the candidates. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- One general election for all the candidates.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Random, a jury service model (sort of) with prerequisites limiting the selection to only those who would reasonably have a good idea of what Wikipedia is about (while also having their own opinions formed about what's right/wrong). Elections are bad, IMO, because we run the risk of having an RFA-style model (which nobody likes really, but we can't seem to come up with a replacement everyone approves of). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Approval voting. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- If being an administrator is (according to Jimbo last I recall) "not a big deal", then being a coordinator here should be even less of a big deal. As soon as you start voting on things though, it becomes a "big deal" whether you wanted it to or not. —Locke Cole • t • c 22:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Approval voting has the benefit of having no drama attached. The people with the most votes, shorn of the politics by there being no negative voting or campaigning, serve as a judge. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Who would judge that consensus? This kangaroo court's existence apparently proves that we don't trust our elected administrators' judgment, and they mainly judge XfDs, so we'd need people who can make such judgments and be trusted. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 23:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- As below, I can't imagine a viable system of put-your-hand-up and be randomly selected, as much as I agree with Locke's motive in making it "a small deal". Three issues come to mind: (1) the skill-base and NPOV stance of candidates needs more prominence and scrutiny than this; (2) the system would need to be re-run every time a new coordinator was needed (relief, replacement, expansion ...); (3) randomness is not easy to apply, and someone would have to be trusted to apply it. At least an election is open. My analogy is not with the dreadful RfA system, but with ArbCom elections, but much much scaled down. Tony (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Again, that indicates that approval voting is the way to go. Everyone stands and the one(s) with the most votes becomes a judge/coordinator. That will mean that there are issues with competence (for want of a better word) but then we just need to vote on what level of competence we require in a judge. As I've said, I'd go for anyone being able to stand. Let the people here decide on who they want to run the court. How would it harm? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 00:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- A mini ArbCom style election would be the worst form of selection except for all the others. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Terms?
Should coordinators have fixed or indefinite terms; if fixed, for how long?
- Fixed. Two years? I could live with one year, too. Tony (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Either way elections should be staggered after the first one. Replacing an entire board in one go makes for problems. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Second CBW's suggestion about staggered terms, also keep in mind that some will drop out before having served out their full term. Two years, why not?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- One year, staggered nominations. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:44, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Three months. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- One year ought to be enough. VX!~~~ 23:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- We need to balance out the effective operation of the panel with the drama/disruption of holding elections too frequently. I would say a six month minimum and twelve month maximum. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'd go for a year, but would have no problem with 2. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:37, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Dismissal?
Should coordinators be subject to dismissal by ArbCom?
- Yes. I'd expect this to occur rarely. Tony (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- By arbcom or by the community? Haven't made up my mind.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Probably yes, by a majority of the active arbitrators. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- And by a vote of no confidence by editors (3 editors required to agree to a vote taking place). ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- ArbCom/Vote of no confidence. VX!~~~ 23:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support: Also what happens if one of the "non-admins" becomes an admin? Or if one of the admins desysops? Ryan4314 (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Good question, but I think the answer is "nothing". We take people as they are upon the vote. Tony (talk) 11:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Reserve list?
Should there be a reserve list of candidates in case a coordinator leaves the project, needs to reduce their commitment for a period, or is dismissed, or if there are insufficient coordinators for the task?
- Yes, the runner-up from those in each status group should be selected by ArbCom to replace or relieve a coordinator who leaves the project, takes leave or partial leave, or is dismissed. Tony (talk) 17:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Runner-ups will form the pool from which replacement coordinators will be co-opted.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes. For the jury service model, these would just be the next nominations (so if someone quits, their term expires or they recuse themselves, the same list would be used). —Locke Cole • t • c 21:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- No. Hold a new vote/select again. Otherwise how do you reflect community consensus? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, consensus does change so a new vote would probably be good. VX!~~~ 23:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, Locke, I just can't see the jury-service model working. Rather than RfA, the analogy might be with ArbCom elections, only much much less of a big deal. Tony (talk) 23:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Support: We don't wanna let red tape bog this project down. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Coordinator powers?
What powers will the coordinators have to sanction administrators found to have acted contrary to WP:ADMIN policy?
- None, at least not in the way of sanctions imposed. The authority of coordinators stems solely from the judgment exhibited by them in holding up administrator conduct to WP:ADMIN policy mixed in with a healthy dose of pragmatism.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- None, obviously they would be able to initiate an arbitration case for circumstances that require it, but this is true of any editor (coordinator or not) and would be subject to the same acceptance by the ArbCom. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- None. They are kangaroo judges taking part in a kangaroo court. Giving them powers of any sort would be asking for trouble. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- None. All points above are valid. VX!~~~ 23:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Redvers, just as giving all admins blocking power without proper oversight isn't asking for trouble? Riiiight. The coordinators would have no tools or formal power, but would derive their authority from the system in which they work (structured evidence, analysis and recommendations), their skill and NPOV stance, and consequently the trust of the community. (That, by the way Redvers, is the only way individual admins can gain trust and respect.) There are analogies; for example, featured-content reviewers who consistently show skill and NPOV gain considerable authority in those processes. It's a very wiki thing. Tony (talk) 23:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- And how will the system from which they derive their authority derive its authority? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 23:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Through gaining a reputation for NPOV, systemically and as individual operatives. It's quite different from a world of blunt tools. Tony (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- So all 1,500 current admins just bluntly use tools without judgment? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 23:38, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- The question is surely rather: "Do none of the 1,500 current admins just bluntly use their tools without judgement?" If you believe that none do, then there is no need for this AdminWatch process, I quite agree. That's not what I believe though. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Can you name the ones that don't? Because the community needs to know now if they have elected admins who we need to have ArbCom remove immediately. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 23:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- ArbCom is itself a very blunt weapon, and one of last resort. The intention of AdminWatch, as I understand it anyway, is to avoid the need for ArbCom requests for desysopping whenever possible, by giving the community a forum in which legitimate grievances can be recognised and hopefully dealt with, with as little unnecessary drama as is possible. It may also make ArbCom's job easier, in that a case can be more easily and quickly assembled if that ever becomes necessary. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- Exactly. WP needs a smarter system of nipping in the bud any trouble between admins and other users, before it blows out of proportion. ArbCom should be spared, wherever possible, fine-grained stuff like this, to concentrate on the bigger picture stuff. And just a small point: IMO, the most successful admins are those who value the "R-word"—rapport; the trouble is, rapport takes time, effort and skill. While some misbehaviour our admins have to deal with is idiotic and doesn't deserve the R-word, some does. When it happens, it's magic to the project. Tony (talk) 00:12, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, ArbCom can be used as both a sledgehammer and as a scalpel. Historically, the community has been uncomfortable with either, but up in arms with judgments that try to do both. But we're trying to establish a court to judge admins, not a court to judge ArbCom, aren't we (I may, in my defence, have missed something here)? Which are the admins we have that use their tools without judgment? They need to go in front of ArbCom now, regardless of this debate. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 00:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- To characterise AdminWatch as some kind of "court", kangaroo or otherwise, is disingenuous. It would better for you to think of it more in terms of an arbitration process, the purpose of which is to avoid the need for any court. Admins misuse their tools every single day, and as a result sometimes drive good faith editors from the site. But nobody is interested in the occasional or sporadic abuse of tools; it's easier to get that camel through the eye of a needle than it is to have an admin desysopped for what many might perceive as minor abuses of power. AdminWatch is simply an attempt to redress the balance, to support those editors who have legitimate complaints, and to hopefully help resolve those complaints before anyone has to be dragged before ArbCom, or another good editor is driven from the site. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- It might work, and if it doesn't, then all it means is that Tony's wasted some time. If there's one lesson Esperanza and the Award Center have taught us, it's that Wikipedia is generally very good at getting rid of processes that aren't working as intended. Cue a long string of "but what about Arbcom? RFA? FAC?" replies, I know… – iridescent 00:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Is FAC not working? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- See here – take a deep breath first… – iridescent 00:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I see what you're saying, Malleus, but you - and others - have said clearly that there are certain admins who are abusing their tools now. Why are we talking here about setting up processes to manage a process, to manage the process to pass on processes to another process, when there are admins who are abusing tools now? We should be naming them in front of ArbCom. This is very serious. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 16:39, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- If it is your counter assertion that there are no administrators abusing their tools or their position, then if true that will lead to the best possible outcome, no need for AdminWatch to do anything at all. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Answering my question with a question is a great debating technique, but it's also not answering my question. You, and others, have said that there are some admins that are abusing their tools now. This is serious. Very serious. You and others have asserted it several times. We, the community, need to stop them now. Please, name them in front of ArbCom. Really: this serious accusation needs to be dealt with immediately for the good of the 'pedia. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 21:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose: I can see this as being the biggest point of contention over getting this project accepted in the community. Lets get it up and running first, and if it works the community might wanna enable powers, they might not. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Conflict with other venues?
How will the new project avoid straying into the territory of other venues for resolving editor complaints about admins, i.e., ARBCOM, Administrators' Noticeboard, Administrators' Noticeboard/Incidents, RfC/U on individual admins?
- As to ARBCOM, conflict is minimized because the project has no power to impose remedies. For the other three, either a written guideline delineates respective competences, or there is a partial merger, or the respective competences are left to sort themselves out over time.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- AN and AN/I were always, as far as I know, about reporting incidents or issues relevant to administrators, not necessarily reporting administrator conduct. ArbCom is for situations which have spiraled out of control or for ongoing conduct issues. This would serve as a good first step in dispute resolution. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- This kangaroo court duplicates RfC's powers and remit, so must defer to an RfC as the process immediately above it. RfC comes below AN/ANI, where administrators and editors deal with rouge admins without the shrubbery and AN/ANI come below ArbCom, which comes below Jimbo who comes below the Foundation. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm sorry to cut across your über-hierarchical view of the world, full of its notions of "must defer to" and "deal with" and "comes below": this process doesn't need to be slotted into such a pyramid—it works through trust and skill, just as does good collaboration in content writing on WP. Tony (talk) 23:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
I've moved Redvers's topic on whether coordinators will need "judge's clerks" to his/her talk page as not relevant, IMO. Tony (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, you moved it to an obscure talk page one of my subpages, where it was not relevant and I had to delete it. You clearly don't want to talk about this subject (I don't know why not - others did and clerking issues are relevant) but that's fine. I won't edit war with you. If you don't want discussion, just say so. It's your project in your userspace, after all. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 00:20, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, and it's "his" talk page. But that's fine too :o) ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 00:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- It wont, this project has niche, in that it will be majority non-admins. Tony, post a link to where Redvers removed comment is, if anyone does want to discuss ir, then they can simply follow that link, that should shut him up ;) I would presume if this project is accepted by Jimbo etc, they'll move it to it's own page. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Ooh, not quite: the "five times" bit leads to an essay, so you then had to click a talk link, then cut-and-paste to a page marked in really big letters User talk:Redvers/Say no to Commons. It's a remarkable bit of editing-without-reading! :o) But I understand, you don't want to talk about this subject, you don't want it discussed, so it must go. I don't agree, obviously, but this is your baby, your userspace, your process - I'd be churlish to argue too much. I'm sure you know what you're doing :o) ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 16:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
The "cab-rank" model: clarifying and seeking your comments
The design hasn't changed in essence, and I apologise for any misunderstanding; it shows how devising a system can blind you to potential ambiguities. As soon as people started talking of avoiding even numbers of coordinators, I should have realised my failure to spell it out properly.
The two-stage design for the passage of each case is designed to be as simple as possible; but it is too lengthy and involved for committee decisions and block voting at each stage. Requiring all five, six or seven coordinators to liaise at each point and write group determinations (per ArbCom decisions) is not practical—ArbCom takes ages to make decisions, and it's a big deal, because they're all supposed to be involved. Involving every coordinator in every case here would be utterly impractical, inflexible, lengthy and onerous for what needs to be a simple and prompt process. What if some coordinators were too busy in a particular week, or had a conflict of interest that precluded their involvement in a case? No parties would be satisfied with an ad hoc committee-like membership on this basis.
No, AdminWatch is conceived as a cab-rank. Coordinators drop by regularly and take on a notification where they feel there is no perceived conflict of interest, and have the time and capacity to handle it. There may be room for some specialisation, e.g., in page deletion issues, block issues, where emotions are particularly fractious and need to calmed—but that is up to the individual coordinators, and should not be essential to the success of the process. This model bears an uncanny resemblance to the way judicial advocacy profession works ... and WP's mediation system, if I'm not mistaken. It's not rocket science, and to me seems like the inevitable design. The only difference that certain circumstances may require a change in coordinator during the course of a case.)
The core of the multistage design has not changed:
Stage 1: Is the complaint:
- (a) trivial or vexatious (delete promptly), or
- (b) prima face worth proceeding with (move to Stage 2)?
Stage 2: After assessing the comments and rejoinders of both sides in Stage 2, is the complaint:
- (a) not a breach after all (place in the temporary "Recent cases" section with a note exonerating the admin—regrettable and will require a sympathetic message to the admin, but it may occasionally happen), or
- (b) a breach, and if so, how significant?
For both 2(a) and 2(b), place in the temporary "Recent cases" section with the result plus conclusory comments and recommendations.
Minimal communications by the coordinator via the parties' talk pages will be necessary as a courtesy, to alert the parties to milestones (mostly by standard paste-ins). Coordinators may, rarely, need to seek further information or point out where the rules of AdminWatch are at issue (personal comments, irrelevant tracts of commentary). On rare occasions, third-party comment may be admissible with the approval of the coordinator (on application via the coordinator's talk page).
I'd appreciate comments on the structure, now that the "single coordinator" approach has been clarified. I'm hoping that this will be accepted as the practical way to go, but I remain open to criticism and suggestions. Tony (talk) 11:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- This is certainly a simple model. I like it. Lightmouse (talk) 12:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Eligibility to vote
The latest draft of the project page states, "coordinators are elected by popular vote, in which any Wikipedian with at least 1000 edits and an account at least one year old may vote". That seems too restrictive to me. If I remember right, the requirement for voting in the ArbCom election is 150 mainspace edits. I can't see why this should be different for electing the "AdminWatch" "coordinators" (and by the way, we really need to decide on a better name for the project than "AdminWatch" which is too juvenile-sounding, and a better title than "coordinators": if they manage a case by themselves they are not really coordinating a team, are they?)--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Let's try to think of better names for both. The ideal time to make the change to the page-name is when it's put into public space. "Coordinators" should be changed as soon as possible if a more appropriate term is available. Tony (talk) 14:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC) PS Eligibility: I was lost for numbers and will insert your suggestion, pending comments by others. Tony (talk) 14:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Non-binding
As a piece of constructive criticism, I suggest the text of this page be emphasised to ensure that there can be no confusion or ambiguity as to the fact that this process cannot issue any binding decision, enforcement or judgement on any Wikipedian, in the sense that it cannot place an administrator on parole, revert restrictions, block them, or desysop them. The current text of the page fails to emphasise this sufficiently, in my opinion, and thus leads to confusion (and most likely more vexatious complaints by those not understanding the intent of the process). Daniel (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks; I agree entirely. Making the changes now. Please see if you like them. Tony (talk) 13:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I like it. Daniel (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- In the nutshell bit, "behaviour" seems a bit of a loaded, POVvy-type of word and very very broad. Is there something a bit more neutral yet specific? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I like it. Daniel (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Misuse
Do you have plans for what to do with/about editors who repeatedly post vexatious or trivial complaints? AN and ANI often suffer from people coming back repeatedly with rewarmed non-event complaints, so I'd assume that a star chamber would attract a similar dispiriting problem. Or will repeated summarily moving the template from one section to another and then removing it or however it works, will that discourage it? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 16:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Someone doing that would be disrupting Wikipeida and they could then be blocked, after being warned with the correct number of templates. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 18:49, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'd rather say that someone doing that ought to be encouraged not to continue to do that, not that such behaviour provides the justification for a block. Perhaps, for instance, the reasons why that someone was behaving in that manner ought to be looked into. It may, for instance, have its roots in a past perceived injustice that once aired would solve the problematic behaviour. In any event, I wouldn't personally like to see the administrator coordinators threatening anyone with blocks because of complaints made on AdminWatch, except in very exceptional circumstances. Uninvolved administrators are of course perfectly free to take their own view on an appropriate course of action. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't recall saying the administrator coordinators would threaten anybody. I would have assumed that if the coordinators (admin or otherwise) were doing their job they would have looked into why the person was behaving like that. If they didn't, then I can't see that any Wikipedia editor will trust that particular coordinator. Anyway what happens if they refuse to stop adding the vexatious or trivial complaint after they have been encouraged not to? We just let them keep on? If you allow that then the whole process wil self-destruct right away. If you want this to run and to move forward then it's in your interest to see that an editor making repeated attempts to post vexatious or trivial complaints is stopped. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:05, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Forgive me, but it's not "in my interest", it's in everyone's interest to ensure the process works, works smoothly, and is seen to be fair. But I don't see the need to come up with procedures for dealing with every possible hypothetical situation. The process will no doubt evolve to deal whatever actually happens. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, the process will die on its arse like all other attempts at this type of thing unless these issues are addressed now. An answer is needed before launch, because without one the shreds of credibility this star chamber will have will be ripped away at the first sign of this problem. Not because admins will complain, but because editors will lose faith. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 20:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
It would be an edit war and after warning they get blocked. Hey, I block them and then I get a complaint raised about me for attempting to silence admin critics. Redvers is right though, it's easier to think of and sort out potential problems before they happen, rather than trying to react when they do. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I very much doubt that would happen, as any potential complainant would need to be specific about which of the administrator guidelines you had breached by making the block. I'm nor aware that there's any specific policy which forbids silencing admin critics; a case would need to be made that you had made the block as a punishment, for instance, rather than to prevent disruption to the encyclopedia. Something that I'm sure you wouldn't do anyway. Nobody (that I've seen anyway) is complaining, or likely to complain about use of admin tools when done in accordance with the guidelines. Blocking per se isn't a problem and is no doubt justified in some cases, perhaps even the overwhelming majority of cases. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- It's not a crystal ball, it's experience. As an admin, I dare say the people behind this process assume that I'm evil and power hungry, alas, but in fact I'm neither. What I am is experienced. I've been using this account since 2004, so I've seen this type of thing come and this type of thing go. Never quite so nakedly announcing that it intends to go for and destroy unnamed certain admins but refusing to provide evidence in advance, but nevertheless I have seen it. And previous attempts have died on their arses because nobody is willing to think of these types of issues (including the strangely verboten subject of clerking) in advance. This process-for-managing-other-processes-that-manage-processes-that-send-processes-forward-to-a-process-that-will-desysop won't die because admins will ignore it (although they will), it'll die because the exceptions haven't be thought of, or have been thought of and have been ignored, and thus editors in general will lose faith. As has always happened. Although I'm sure this will be the exception, of course. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 21:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Although, there's a point: which admin will block for someone disrupting the star chamber, since doing so would seem to guarantee being pulled up in front of the star chamber by a sock/friend of the blocked user? The judges/coordinators would need to be studiously neutral in dealing with that, but since our elected administrators cannot be trusted with that (or some of them, but unnamed, so any of them) it's clearly a tough job. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 21:28, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- You have a rather colourful turn of phrase, and an apparently vivid imagination, but it would probably be as well to stick to the facts instead of scaremongering. Your characterisation that AdminWatch "intends to go for and destroy unnamed certain admins" might be appealing at a political rally, but it has no place in a rational discourse, which I hope this is. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:40, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Maybe have a rule that means that editor X (including alternate accounts; socking to get around this restriction isn't on) can only file about admin Y once per Z months? (Maybe Z could be two or three?) Daniel (talk) 21:59, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- That could work. Who would enforce it? ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuorum, you should read through WP:AN and WP:ANI some time for multiple examples of people complaining about the use of admin tools even when used within guidelines. Here's one example, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive500#admin abuse. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- That simply indicates to me that AN and AN/I don't work for the kind of situations AdminWatch is designed to deal with. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:50, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Redvers, I'd be more than happy to block anyone disrupting the page by re-adding a worthless complaint. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Malleus Fatuorum said, "I'm nor aware that there's any specific policy which forbids silencing admin critics;..." Well perhaps there isn't a policy that forbids that but I would imagine that common senese might tell even the most clueless admin that blocking someone for being a critic is probably a bad thing. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm as trigger-happy as the best of them, but the moment someone makes a complaint about my tool usage, the buttons go (mentally) offline as policy says. And blocking someone for posting to this process would automatically lead to a complaint, so tool usage is clearly not allowed. Although I do block anyone that threatens to kill me (plenty of those - oh, but there's plenty of those) or turns up on my talk page and with their first edit has a go because I'm a queer (or other less exciting words on the same subject) which policy doesn't say is allowed. I suppose, on that basis, I should go on the star chamber's watchlist of abusive admins. Even though you'd find no admin willing to unblock and no non-abusive editor willing to complain. But I don't know if I'm already on the list of admins who are abusing their tools now, since this project declines to publish that list. I kinda hope so, actually! :o) ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I don't want to argue, but to quote you from earlier and further up: "Do none of the 1,500 current admins just bluntly use their tools without judgement?" If you believe that none do, then there is no need for this AdminWatch process, I quite agree. That's not what I believe though. So there are admins currently abusing tools now. They need to be named in front of ArbCom rather than just hinted about here. And yes, this list needs to go to ArbCom even if I'm on it myself! :o) ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- Cool enough! But, when you said "Do none of the 1,500 current admins just bluntly use their tools without judgement?" If you believe that none do, then there is no need for this AdminWatch process, I quite agree. That's not what I believe though. who did you mean? Because it's a very serious accusation. If, however, you withdraw it now, then that's cool too. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 23:23, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I don't mean anyone, I'm just applying that lost skill of "common sense". I have made no accusations against anyone, and I do not take kindly to your repeated insinuations that I have. I would counsel you to reflect carefully on your own behaviour here. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm glad you've withdrawn the accusation, although obviously I'm disappointed that you've done it with an intimated threat, this time aimed at me personally. But if you've got diffs to back up what you (aren't quite) saying, please present them as, again, it's quite serious. Probably best to do that on my talk page as it's not relevant here, but I'll go with your judgment. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 23:45, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
- First "kangaroo court", then "star chamber"; perhaps we should thank Яedvers for injecting some excitement into the planning for what strikes me as a reasonable and innocuous proposal for
machine-gunning all us evil adminsdeterring us evil admins from clicking our favorite buttons so capriciously. (It may already be having an effect: I haven't blocked anyone for days!) I'm just wondering when we'll see the first reference to Judge Roy Bean. -- Hoary (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- First "kangaroo court", then "star chamber"; perhaps we should thank Яedvers for injecting some excitement into the planning for what strikes me as a reasonable and innocuous proposal for
- Sure, there will probably be the odd attack on this page, or repeated vexatious complaints. We deal with it the same way as elsewhere: you ask an uninvolved admin to take the appropriate action within the guidelines. It's just something you have to deal with in a wiki. Tony (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Cambridge commented above: "you should read through WP:AN and WP:ANI some time for multiple examples of people complaining about the use of admin tools even when used within guidelines. Here's one example, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive500#admin abuse."
Heck, a couple of clicks and you see engaging, detailed, specific posts to this new user about their edit-warring from Karanacs and Moni3, and then a slightly frustrated, well-deserved one from non-admin SandyGeorgia (FAC Delegate). If this were the subject of a complaint, I'm wondering which policy requirements the complainant would choose and justify with diffs. I can't see why it wouldn't be dismissed pronto from Stage 1. It would be up to the coordinator, in their procedural message to the complainant, as to whether to have another quick try at persuading the user to be reasonable.
I'm more interested in thinking through the harder cases, where things are closer to the decision-making boundaries and deeper probing is required. Any examples? Tony (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- Tony, that link was only in reply to "Nobody (that I've seen anyway) is complaining, or likely to complain about use of admin tools when done in accordance with the guidelines." I was a bit surprised that Malleus Fatuorum had never seen one of the many frivolous complaints. I'm sure that a complaint like that would be removed from Adminwatch right away, but it happens all the time on ANI. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 16:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- I meant complaining here; I ought to have made that clearer. Of course I'm aware what a pit of vipers ANI is. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
- And I thought ANI was just a crazy den of pigs. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I meant complaining here; I ought to have made that clearer. Of course I'm aware what a pit of vipers ANI is. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Icon
Hi Tony, would you consider moving the icon in the "Aims" section up a bit? It's making the [edit] for the below section stick out. ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 09:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Just curious
I have blocked 6 IP's in the last few days, CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Of those two appear to have no edits and the other four have not edited in a long time. If a complaint was made would good faith be extended or not? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 03:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Tell me, is there a practice of discouraging the use of IP anon addresses in this way? 202.79.209.80, for example, appears to have done nothing wrong except for breaching MoS on changing upper- to lower-case initial at the start of a title (1 December). Is it the dormancy per se that is an issue? Perhaps I'm missing something here. Tony (talk) 06:43, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Even though I'm merely another token informal representative here of the forces of darkness, your very question puzzles me. If somebody hasn't edited recently, why block him? (Male pronoun deliberate, for a presumed male referent.) Your most recent block (the only one I bothered to look at) was of this person. As far as I can see, he has made one (1) edit since late October, an addition of rather tiresome whimsy that I have just now reverted. Wondering what I was missing, I looked at his talk page. Your block notice doesn't say why he's blocked. Matters of "faith" aside, your block looks plain bizarre. -- Hoary (talk) 11:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hoary, I assume that you checked the deleted contributions and found nothing, or little, there? That's my point though, would you both be willing to accept the fact that all of those IP's were blocked following policy or would you require more information? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I checked and found that there wasn't a single deleted contribution. I'm not offering my services as "coordinator" and would decline if (as is most unlikely) I were invited, so this is all rather unreal. I'm willing to accept that the IP was blocked in accordance with some policy but I can't imagine what that policy would be and if I were a coordinator I might very well ask (unless of course I've misunderstood what coordinators do). Certainly I wouldn't think "CBW seems a pleasant chap and is always offering a gorilla, which is most amicable of him; I shall therefore assume that he knows what he's doing and shan't ask anything of him." -- Hoary (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm a little uncomfortable, unless there's clear evidence of, say, vandalism/3RR/consistent rudeness, by these anons. There's just a chance they might say "Oh, what fate will befall me if I get an account?" We don't want to lose people who might just become valuable contributors. Tony (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I checked and found that there wasn't a single deleted contribution. I'm not offering my services as "coordinator" and would decline if (as is most unlikely) I were invited, so this is all rather unreal. I'm willing to accept that the IP was blocked in accordance with some policy but I can't imagine what that policy would be and if I were a coordinator I might very well ask (unless of course I've misunderstood what coordinators do). Certainly I wouldn't think "CBW seems a pleasant chap and is always offering a gorilla, which is most amicable of him; I shall therefore assume that he knows what he's doing and shan't ask anything of him." -- Hoary (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. The IP's were all blocked because they were adding a valid phone number to my talk/user page and making a rather unpleasant attack on another user, not me. I nver block if the attacks are on me, as I really don't care about stuff like that. The edits have all been oversighted (User talk:Alison#Talk page) or at least deleted. See User:Sidonuke/RedPenOfDoom for a partial list of the original ip and it's new friends. They were adding the number to other pages but most are semi-protected now and it's easier to have the vandalism in one place. By the way the gorilla is The Goon Show running jokes#Grytpype-Thynne's Catchphrases. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, hit save too soon. Just wanted to point out that there may be no evidence and that it's possible, not in this case, that the admin in question may not be able to comment on what has happened. There has to be some good faith shown by the coordinators if an admin says that the action was taken in accordance with policy and it can't be discussed. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla
- Whew, it's lucky that I didn't unblock him or block you for going rouge or whatever. (I don't recall ever having blocked an admin; but there's always a first time, and what a dramatic Christmas present that and the ensuing brouhaha would be for both of us.)
- I suppose this is similar to OTRS or whatever it's called. I've always appreciated that that had to be hush-hush but often chafed under the degree of its hush-hushedness.
- I still don't fully understand this. So, some lowdown dirty rat has been using various IP numbers to post what purports to be, and perhaps actually is, somebody's phone number. While I'm all in favor of short, boring block messages, I don't immediately understand why this IP wasn't blocked with a message saying something like "Blocked for one or more oversighted edits". No obvious need even to hint at the nature of these edits; anybody interested could ask. Hmm, most likely you blocked him before they were oversighted; but if so, why not revisit the talk page and add this information after the oversighting? Anyway, while I can imagine situations in which a blocking admin can and should refuse to discuss the block, I don't see why any block should have no indication of what it's for (although I'd make some allowance for the busy-ness of the blocking admin, etc). -- Hoary (talk) 01:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- I learn things every day. I agree with all that Hoary says, except that "busy-ness" is but a temporary excuse for not following the "communication" requirement (6a over the page). I expect AdminWatch would be asking for this to be followed as soon as possible, to avoid the ol' slippery slope; however, the low-down dirty rat is unlikely to come complaining here. Tony (talk) 02:16, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- The IP was blocked either before or after the pages were oversighted/deleted. Part of the problem is seeing, removing the material and blocking the next one that they use. They hang up and dial in again with a new IP, other admins would get those IP and a range block seems to be working right now. Yes, I should have gone back and at least tagged the pages with a link to User:Sidonuke/RedPenOfDoom. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:54, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
- In regards to; "admin in question may not be able to comment on what has happened", really? I know we're being hypothetical, and can't imagine every case, but surely they'd be able to explain their actions to a satisfactory amount. Like you said above earlier "IP's blocked for adding a phone number to talk/user page and attacking another user, block oversighted", I'd say that would be an adequate amount of information in your defence, it's not like you'd have to give out the phone number or anything, and you can always find a way of proving they were oversighted. Ryan4314 (talk) 02:00, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Redvers, knock it off
I count six times on this page that you've used "kangaroo court" or "kangaroo judges". This appears to be not only a derogatory comment on this project but also a slur on Tony who is from Australia – the lamest kind of personal attack.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- But after exhausting the rhetorical possibilities of "kangaroo court", Яedvers moved on to "star chamber", which is hardly Australian. (As I mentioned above, I'm waiting for him to invoke the saintly name of Judge Roy Bean.) -- Hoary (talk) 14:47, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well based on several comments above about civilians I pick drumhead court-martial. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is good. Roget would be proud. -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to agree. Since commenting here, I've been watching this page and periodically checking in on the discussion, and the exchange with Malleus was just ridiculous, Redvers. Maybe time to have a seat. لennavecia 15:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I haven't commented on this page for 2 days, Jennavecia, so warning me off now seems a bit otiose; I didn't know Tony is Australian, Goodmorningworld, and "kangaroo court" is not an Australian-derived phrase, at least according to the Wikipedia article on it; and I've already used "drumhead", CambridgeBayWeather, so I got there first.
- I've noticed that WP:AGF doesn't apply that much on this page and that several people here are happy to make ad hominem attacks against contributors whilst I've been commenting on the content. I said at the start that this process would attract a certain type of editor who would want to run it. It wouldn't bode well for this process if that was already happening, would it? Still, I'll revert to Plan A, from before I was invited to comment here: I'll simply ignore the process, as most admins will. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ in a one horse open sleigh 15:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Good to see you speaking on behalf of most admins. You weren't just commenting on content; you were personalizing comments by others, specifically Malleus, and then drawing that out into unnecessary dramatics, and you bring up AGF? Also, I didn't notice the date stamps, I just knew it was recent, regardless, it was the weekend, so it's a reasonable assumption that you may respond here again on Monday. لennavecia 16:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to have to agree. Since commenting here, I've been watching this page and periodically checking in on the discussion, and the exchange with Malleus was just ridiculous, Redvers. Maybe time to have a seat. لennavecia 15:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- That is good. Roget would be proud. -- Hoary (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well based on several comments above about civilians I pick drumhead court-martial. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 14:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Hmm, calling someone out, in a new thread, by name in the header probably not going to be the most effective way to calm things down. Additionally, I don't think a user calling something what they honestly appear to think it is (and, let's face it, it is not that far of a stretch, same as arbcom), is a slur, unless you are just trying to be dramatic. Maybe time to archive at least this section? SQLQuery me! 17:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
A sub page for current examples?
Would it be a good idea to set up a separate sub-page with current "controversies" (for want of a better term) involving complaints by editors about administrator misconduct?
I'll start with this RfC: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Law Lord. Apparently, user:Law Lord got upset about administrator actions. He put up a message box on his user page that said, "Semi-Retired" and added the words, "I have had enough of administrators who lack manners."
Rather than recapitulating the long sequence of events that followed, I would recommend you to read up on it at the RfC page.
A couple of questions come to mind.
- First of all, would this case benefit from being instead handled by AdminWatch(provisional title)?
- What service could an AW "coordinator"(provisional title) provide that the general discussion developing under the RfC structure could not?
- Would the complaint be accepted by AW in the first place or rejected as "vexatious"?
- Administrators are weighing in on this RfC and on its Talk page: are they throwing their weight behind their fellow admins (whose actions are what prompted the RfC)?
- Is the presence of these admins intimidating to the complainant and to editors who would support their point of view?
- Conversely, is there a "lynch mob" atmosphere developing on the RfC pages, in which a horde of editors brandishing torches and pitchforks are ganging up on hard-working, unpaid volunteers?
I'm sure more questions could be asked. In the end, though, it comes back to the question I first asked above: would this case benefit from being instead handled by AdminWatch(provisional title)?
If yes, why and how?
If no, why not… keeping in mind that, if the answer not only for this but also for many other examples is "No," this could be a sign that AW may not be needed after all.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, let's see, I would suggest that if Law Lord thinks some definable number of administrators have violated WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, that he file a request at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Looking at the alerts page, I see a wide variety of admins and non-admins commenting, so I don't think there is a selection issue.
- I see LL has been on WP for four years and only has 2 blocks, which leads me to believe he would not make a complaint lightly or be vexatious
- As to admins commenting at the RFC, what percentage of the comments are from admins? There are 10,000 users with an edit in the last 3 months (I think), 1,000 of whom have administrator rights. Is the number at RFC greatly at variance to a predictable ratio of some sort?
- As to what AdminWatch coordinators could provide, I'll leave that to Tony1 to define, with the caveat that I suspect if the goal is to encourage better self-regulation of administrator activity, the pronouncement of an individual coordinator or a small group of coordinators probably would not carry as much weight as a viewpoint placed at an RFC by a non-admin that was endorsed by 20 other non-admins. MBisanz talk 15:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you MBisanz. I must admit, the last point has occurred to me also. By the way, what are the opinions regarding my idea to set up a separate page for actual cases? Unfortunately I would not know how to do this if people said yeah go ahead.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I would suggest using the {{NOINDEX}} on any pages/talk pages of this project, as it is standard practice to remove RFARs/RFCs from Googledexing by either that method of using Robots.txt, in the interest of personal privacy. MBisanz talk 16:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I put __NOINDEX__ at the top of the articles I'm working on in my user space. Is there a list of what pages are routinely kept away from Google's prying eyes… I believe it is the case for the WP noticeboards already? Also, a guideline that recommends where and when to use __NOINDEX__?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well the closest we have to a guideline is the moribund proposal at Wikipedia:NOINDEX of noticeboards, MediaWiki:Robots.txt shows pages hardcoded for de-googling, but the Special:WhatLinksHere function is the only way to figure out which pages are using {{NOINDEX}}, which is something like 50,000 pages. Also, as of now the noticeboards do not appear to be de-googled. MBisanz talk 16:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- I put __NOINDEX__ at the top of the articles I'm working on in my user space. Is there a list of what pages are routinely kept away from Google's prying eyes… I believe it is the case for the WP noticeboards already? Also, a guideline that recommends where and when to use __NOINDEX__?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Also, I would suggest using the {{NOINDEX}} on any pages/talk pages of this project, as it is standard practice to remove RFARs/RFCs from Googledexing by either that method of using Robots.txt, in the interest of personal privacy. MBisanz talk 16:30, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you MBisanz. I must admit, the last point has occurred to me also. By the way, what are the opinions regarding my idea to set up a separate page for actual cases? Unfortunately I would not know how to do this if people said yeah go ahead.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 15:52, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- To specifically answer the questions, I numbered them (I hope you don't mind):
- I don't know that we can answer that now. Without knowing what kind of results will come from this, I dare say that most abusive admins will probably ignore this process...
- Again, not sure this can be answered now. Probably anything that could be said as part of AW, could be said there.
- This would probably be a borderline case. As is obvious from the RFC, some users would automatically dismiss this complaint as frivolous and move on. Others, like myself, would find misuse of administrative position.
- Well, at the point the question was asked, it was a bit lopsided. Whether or not they were backing a fellow admin or just voicing their honest opinion, AGF defaults to the latter, regardless, there's been additional input since and the support has balanced, with a few admins taking the side of LL.
- This is a good question. Does the admin participation serve to intimidate... probably, but we'd need to hear from those who felt intimidated to be sure. I would hope that wasn't the case. Although, with an admin jumping into the situation to begin with and using his tools, then other admins defending the arguably appropriate use of protection, I would think LL would feel a bit intimidated, especially wen one takes into account the talk page comments.
- I would say that the behavior by at least one non-admin and at least one admin is a bit shameful and inappropriate... also a bit hypocritical. Is it a lynch mob? Eh, don't know that I'd take it that far, but it's still bad times. لennavecia 16:54, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
Please see my comments at the AN/I page. Tony (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Tautological policy: "An admin should follow Wikipedia policies."
There is a policy: "An admin should follow Wikipedia policies.". All policy breaches will be a breach of that one. Do we need people to quote it? Lightmouse (talk) 16:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Reconcile the above with If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. :-) MBisanz talk 01:46, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
- I wondered about this—but there it is, staring out at us at the top of the "Administrator conduct" policy: "Administrators are expected to follow Wikipedia policies". I suppose that, in strict legal terms, it elevates what binds us all (the following of WP policies) to a specific admin-related policy. If an admin breaches a WP policy in such a way that is relevant to the assessment of a perceived unfair action against a complainant, it could be cited as a breach. Tony (talk) 02:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I agree that IAR should be rare for admins in general and extremely rare for any particular admin. Any admin action on the basis of IAR is, by definition, a breach of the rules. Therefore an Adminwatch claim can be brought. I think this is an important check or balance. Lightmouse (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Qualities required of coordinators
Dear colleagues: your comments are sought on the first draft of these qualities (here). I don't want to put good people off standing, and perhaps the bar is too high in terms of the way the qualities are expressed. The only thing concerning me about having six coordinators (four plus two) is that not enough people will put their hands up. The alternative might be four coordinators (three plus one)? (Remember, it should not matter to a complainant whether the coordinator who manages their case is non-admin or admin: this is meant to be a coming together of the two groups.) Tony (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
Lessons?
I just took a stroll down memory lane and reread WP:ESPERANZA.
I maintain that I appreciate the good intentions behind this particular venture, but there were also good intentions behind Esperanza. And the lessons learned there have been memorialised on the short project page. --Dweller (talk) 15:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
"Going live" suggestion
Might be worth adding a line to the nutshell box about when it's envisioned that this may "go live", even if it's just to say it's not known <grins>.
Doubly useful, because it'll help clarify that it's not already live! --Dweller (talk) 15:12, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
Problems with this proposal:
There are a number of problems with this proposal, but why not lay them out plain and simple.
- admins are universally corrupt. Therefore, they will resist anything which might lead to them losing power (or the appearance of same, or even the appearance of the possibility they will be held accountable for bad actions). "Power corrupts..." This has been proven by the attempts to have your proposal deleted, and the associated bad-faith pagemoves into project space, before it was even completed.
- admin tools exist to prevent any possibility of a user actually utilizing this space and reporting their problem. If you haven't noticed, a favorite admin tactic is to block someone (thus preventing access to WP:ANI and similar places) and then to lock user talk pages for the flimsiest of reasons to prevent the unblock template from being used. Once a user cannot talk in their own defense, there is nothing to be done, and there is no point in any other attempt - mailing list, arbitration appeal, IRC appeal, etc - because they are all, universally, staffed by the same corrupt people (see point 1 above).
- If "it is vexatious or trivial" - ALL complaints against admins, no matter their actual merit, are viewed as so whether they go to WP:ANI or anywhere else currently. Functionally, there exists NO correct path of dispute resolution that will ever get an abused user a fair hearing against an abusive administrator, because there exists no end of abusive administrators willing to protect each other from such a path's existence. You have yet to put forth anything in this proposal to indicate that this will be otherwise (indeed, quite the reverse, the moment someone's complaint was judged to have merit likely both the complaining user AND the coordinator would be blocked on flimsy reasons in order to protect the abusive administrator from having the light of day shone upon their conduct).
- We are grateful for most admins, who often work under challenging circumstances. We are all human and we occasionally make misjudgements; however, a small proportion of admins breach the policy governing their behaviour from time to time, and of them, a few step over the mark regularly. It is an unfortunate fact that the impulse to misuse power lies within all of us, as strikingly demonstrated by the Stanford prison experiment.
- "A small proportion" is understating the case dramatically. If we consider the possibility that the "best" admins are also the least heard-of, we must face the raw fact that the predominant attitude towards users by those administrators who frequent WP:ANI, WP:AIV, Recent Changes, etc... is no longer that of a janitor with a mop and bucket, but of, say, Marie Antoinette towards the peasants.
- Many Wikipedians perceive that in practice these processes are ineffective; consequently, many users do not bother with the dispute resolution process. As I point out above: the despicable abuses by most administrators make it completely impossible for an abused user to ever get near the dispute resolution process, much less see it to completion under the terms of the abysmal and tilted dispute resolution process.
- Being that this is an "unofficial" and "nonbinding" process, you are depending for its viability on the allowance and cooperation of a group of people (read: wikipedia administrators) who carry power and therefore are universally corrupted by same. Therefore, it will never actually manage to address the worst offenders (those who will simply abuse their power to stop the coordinator from investigating or the potential complainant from even reaching the page to file a complaint) and bears only the miniscule hope that those administrators who are not yet highly corrupted, will both manage to have their behavior corrected, AND will from thence remain uncorrupted rather than following the example of their far-more-corrupt fellows who they will watch getting away with murder every day.
Please do respond. I want to know your thoughts on each of these points. WhoWatches (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:54, 30 December 2008 (UTC).
- I'm sorry to see that you nurse a sense of injustice from the past; however, retrospective incidents will not form the basis of this process. Casting about extremely negative generalisations is inappropriate on a page that aims to bring admins and non-admins together so that perceived injustices can be addressed. Please try to see the matter in terms that are less black-and-white, and focus your comments on technical matters for the moment. If you wish to modify your comments so they are conducive to engagement with users here—looking forward positively rather than back negatively, please do. Otherwise, I'll be inclined to archive your post, probably by tomorrow—it's unhelpful in its current emotive frame. I suppose I'll be accused of being a stooge for admins, but this is far from the case. Tony (talk) 08:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
The diatribe above is unfair and incorrect on so many grounds I can barely draw breath. I'm tempted to blank it on grounds of WP:SOAP, just to enjoy the irony.
Instead, I'll address myself to the OP with a piece of general advice - if you makes points that are overegged beyond hyperbole, they undermine any serious points you might be making. And if you have any specific grievance you would like help with, bringing it to someone's attention with decorum and calm reason will always get you a better result than patently untrue broadbrush comments. --Dweller (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- My points are not "overegged beyond hyperbole", they were serious questions I request to see addressed. This project has already seen a concerted effort by the core of abusive, corrupt administrations trying to get it deleted out of hand. You have failed to address how this project even remotely stands a chance at dealing with those who are beyond abusive, especially the hard core of wikipedia's corrupt administration who will simply slap an indefinite block and then talkpage block on someone, then scream "sockpuppet of banned user" should they ever try to enter any form of dispute resolution (here or otherwise) about their abusive behavior at any point, no matter whether the complaint about the administrator's conduct is valid or not.
- And let's face it, the stupidest thing about allowing administrators to lock personal talkpages is that it serves not as a tool (allowing someone to calm down after an admin action) but rather a further bit of nonsense and a chance for the administrator to continue doing behavior that they know is already making the user angrier and angrier. Rather than letting the user rant it out of their system, it instead encourages users to go off, swap IP's, and become abusive dynamic-IP vandals and wastes even more time on the part of editors and administrators alike, while simultaneously draining any hope of making better editors out of the abused person or of showing the adminstrator the error of their ways. The current crop of administrators who do the bulk of unblock-request denials (I say denials only because it's been literally two years watching the logs since I actually saw a real unblock instead of an "unblock to lengthen block") also leave unhelpful, nonsensical reasons that give the abused user absolutely NO help in reaching a resolution, encouraging the placement of 2-3 unblock requests trying to figure out what the abusive admins want (not realizing, of course, that there is no right answer and no, nobody will ever do a real investigation of the situation anymore) only to get a pagelock and +1 month user block extension or longer for "abusing unblock template with repetitive requests". This is inherent abuse within the system, condoned and even nurtured by the core of abusive and incivil admins who are "most active" on wikipedia, and any proposal which purports to deal with bad administrator behavior had better have some way to deal with it.
- Final point: I was willing to modify my comment above, but since you couldn't even wait 8 hours for me to wake up in the morning to see your comment, I see no reason to do so any more. The most I'm willing to do is resummarize below. If you say I'm incorrect, then rather making a page-blanking vandal of yourself, say what you think was incorrect above. The ball's now in your court.
1. - The project lacks any way for abused users who've been abused in the worst and most common ways (block + talkpage lock + repeated "OMG blocked users/sockpuppets can't enter dispute resolution" nonsense) to successfully file a grievance and get a hearing.
2. - The project lacks any way to actually get resolution from the core of administrators, most of whom are corrupt beyond redemption. It relies on corrupt people agreeing to have their own conduct examined in the light of day.
3. - The claim that a complaint is "vexatious or trivial" is one of the worst, most abusive nonsense clauses exercised by the corrupt core at WP:ANI every day, and your project shows no indication that a serious investigation will be done before naming filed grievances as such.
4. - If an administrator doesn't like the outcome of your process, given that it's nonbinding, they'll simply ignore it.
5. - If an administrator REALLY doesn't like the outcome, threats/abuse towards your coordinators will easily become the norm.
- Well? Your response (written, or conducted) will tell me what I need to know about you, and if you are serious about trying to clean up administrator behavior or just trying to play a Zaphod Beeblebrox-level distraction game. WhoWatches (talk)
- I fixed it so your orignal post actually numbers correctly. It's kind of hard to answer them when they contradict each other. Perhaps you could fix that first then it might be possible to give you a reply. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- WhoWatches, this is a talk page in Tony's user space. As such, he can remove any discussion he sees fit to remove. Reverting someone in their own user space is in rather poor taste, in my opinion. faithless (speak) 19:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- He invited me to change it, and then - completely ignoring that people need to, say, sleep on occasion - turned around and removed it without even giving me the chance to make any changes at all. I find that to be in very poor faith and it gives me reason to question whether he is genuinely interested in reforming wikipedia's abusive administration culture or not.
- Also: please state where you feel I contradicted myself. WhoWatches (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC).
- I think WhoWatches may have assumed (incorrectly) that it was me who blanked the section...? --Dweller (talk) 20:42, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry I missed the italics and that you were quoting the page. Also some examples of corrupt admins would be useful, as would your logging in under your regular account. At the same time you need to stop making personal attacks on Tony. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- In response to your requests: first, glad to see you found where I was quoting. Second, examples of corrupt admins are all around, but Tony specifically asked NOT to have such a listing here during the corruptly-conceived MFD proceedings; I'd start the list with those who listed it for MFD in the first place if you like, and go with any who voted "yes" for it and check their behavior rigorously, and then start watching the block logs. Harder, unfortunately, is seeing the list of denied unblock requests (since no category accumulation exists and no Log behavior follows them save for catching it on Special:RecentChanges) and the bad behavior of those who feel it is their duty, not to investigate properly, but simply to clear away Category:Requests for unblock by leaving terse, nonsensical "deny" messages that give absolutely no help to an aggrieved/abused editor and fail equally to do anything to improve the behavior of those who are rightfully blocked.
- Third, please point out what you consider a "personal attack" I made at Tony and I will offer him an apology for any such if he states he is offended. WhoWatches (talk)
- Final: "as would your logging in under your regular account." I think not. The behavior of multiple people towards this project, towards other projects that have as their goal reining in those who abuse the considerable power given to administrators (and especially those administrators who long ago forgot to treat normal editors with respect), and towards my comments here has already proven that connecting my editing account with this would definitely and without warning subject me to no end of harassment, and I've no desire to see that happen. Therefore, as per WP:MULTIPLE and Wikipedia:SOCK#LEGIT for the Segregation and security (point #3 in particular) of my normal editing username, I decline your request. You may rest assured that my normal editing account is not now, and will not ever, be used to discuss in this space. WhoWatches (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 06:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC).
- Sorry I missed the italics and that you were quoting the page. Also some examples of corrupt admins would be useful, as would your logging in under your regular account. At the same time you need to stop making personal attacks on Tony. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 22:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm quite prepared for criticism, but not for the aggressive tone, the generalisation of your attacks to all admins (many of whom work hard, with skill, to protect us), and the anonymity you seem to insist on. If you believe you've been mistreated in the past, why don't you come forward and post under your regular name? Your use of a concocted name for the purpose of posting here suggests that you feel your own record might undermine your position. This is not a page for letting off steam, so unless you can come up with helpful input for the AdminWatch process, I will end up having to archive this again. Tony (talk) 08:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Now Tony this is one of those difficult areas I could foresee in User_talk:Tony1/AdminWatch#Tautological_policy:_.22An_admin_should_follow_Wikipedia_policies..22. We have an admitted sockpuppet claiming an interpretation of the sock policy that Arbcom has already soundly rejected. My normal response is to block such accounts and find a checkuser to hand out a lengthy block to the main account. This would be a violation of the concept described in 3.a since it would be using blocking as a first resort to a problem. But in the 1,000+ blocks I have applied and probably a similar number I have reviewed, I have found it not likely to be effective try and negotiate with a sockpuppet or permit them to further harass and annoy users while I go about warning and discussing their behavior with them. So what would you suggest, shall I go find a CU or just leave Mr. WhoWatches alone? MBisanz talk 09:53, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- And I was about to ask your advice on this matter. The possibly naive part of me wants to get to the bottom of why this person is so distressed, angry, resentful. It may be an admission of systemic failure that an editor now loathes the project; or it may be just an impossible case. It's hard when it's a sock. I've asked him/her to remove the overwhelmingly negative posts—can we treat this as a final opportunity? If I have to remove them again tomorrow and they are reinstated, I believe we may be in a situation where "other means are unlikely to be effective". At least we'll have tried and be seen to provided ample opportunities to engage with the community. Tony (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This section is being rewritten and reworded at the request of Tony1. The author is quite prepared to deal in good faith, but is simply NOT willing to deal with the almost certain harassment and intimidation attempts that invariably come with any proposal or discussion that shines the light of day on poor admin conduct, such as this incivil threat based on a different and contradictory portion of policy as I exercise my right to Segregation and security/#3 protection against harassment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WhoWatches (talk • contribs) 16:45, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Maybe I'm missing something - it seems as though you're saying that you're using an alternate account because you're aware that your actions here may lead to you being blocked. Am I correct? If so, that doesn't strike me as an acceptable reason to use a sock. And your claim that you are, "quite prepared to deal in good faith" is laughable coming after your assertion that, "admins are universally corrupt." Yes, some admins abuse their power; that's why we're here, to try to figure out a way to rectify the situation. Your little spiels are contributing absolutely nothing to the discourse, come across as petty, immature, vindictive, and uninformed, and are distracting us from actually addressing the problem. And if I may ask, is there any particular reason you don't sign your posts, or is it simply an oversight? faithless (speak) 16:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- No, I am using an alternate account because I have no desire to be exposed to harassing emails or phone calls in regards to this discussion. I do sign my own posts, but the difference between ~~~ and ~~~~ is a typo, and I was really intending to post a longer bit once I'd actually rewritten the section (which you can see below) so I simply forgot when I was removing the old.
- Regarding And your claim that you are, "quite prepared to deal in good faith" is laughable coming after your assertion that, "admins are universally corrupt." - I'm in much better faith than anyone who's already made a veiled threat to me here and happens to be an admin.WhoWatches (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
It is clear that WhoWatches is unhappy. But what is not clear is what he wants. I have asked this before and I will ask again. WhoWatches, What do you want? Lightmouse (talk) 17:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- What do I want? I want wikipedia, in policy and wikiculture, to be repaired to what it needs to be to function correctly. I want the "dirty harry" subset of administrators either corrected or removed from adminship. I want embedded corruption, and the policies that have been put in to support same, removed. I want to see policies that exist, but are in practice, ignored by virtually every administrator to be enforced properly, on editors and admins alike.
- A good start is to get a real grievance process for abused editors to actually be able to speak in their own defense against abusive administrators, which is what this project (even half-baked as it currently stands) has a slim chance of becoming. WhoWatches (talk) 18:30, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
I find the following problems with this proposal:
- 1 - We are all human and we occasionally make misjudgements; however, a small proportion of admins breach the policy governing their behaviour from time to time... - I disagree with the extent of the problem, particularly since by trying to institute this policy, we are admitting that the currently-existing channels to try to rein in bad admin behavior are largely meaningless and unhelpful at best. I find evidence of this given the number of bad-faith attempts already made to torpedo the proposal, such as the repeated MFD's. I further question, if the large number of administrators are indeed fair, why the "overwhelming majority" (necessarily present if a mere "small proportion" of admins breach process) do not speak up in defense of the ordinary, abused editors. I invite others who disagree with me (esp. Dweller), to explain why they think I am wrong, either here or at my talkpage, rather than making personal attacks upon me.
- 2 - Many Wikipedians perceive that in practice these processes are ineffective; consequently, many users do not bother with the dispute resolution process. This is a disturbing understatement to me. There are current, structural problems as well as wikicultural ones that make it nigh-impossible for anyone to challenge a bad administrator action.
- 3 - The proposal completely lacks a method for protecting reporting editors from admin reprisal ("how dare you report XXX, we'll get you for that"). The problem facing users today, and part of the reason that so many see the existing processes as pointless, is that even getting them entered without seeing the 100%-likely admin diatribe of "vexatious or trivial, so we'll block them for 'harassing' an admin or being 'disruptive' " (excessively common on WP:ANI even when the complaints, such as uneven application of the rules, are quite evident and easily investigated) is difficult. Whether you consider administrators to be acting in good faith or not, from the common user perspective, far too many have entered the school of "block first and don't ask questions" in the past three years, (assuming good faith) perhaps from reinforcement by the "echo chamber" of other administrators and perhaps simply from burnout.
- 4 - The proposal also completely lacks a way to interact with the common worst-case scenario of administrator abuse, or to allow users who are on the receiving end of it to enter the resolution proceedings. The most common form today is that in which an administrator blocks an account (indefinitely or otherwise) and then proceeds to lock their talkpage as well.
- This is counterproductive, because it gives the user no place to speak in their own defense. Being blocked for filing complaints to WP:ANI is bad enough (how would you feel if you went to the cops about one of their own doing 80 mph through a school zone repeatedly and were told "shut up, we don't want to hear it"???), but following up by locking a talkpage, no matter how crazy the rantings and ravings of the person (who by this time is likely feeling highly abused and needs some time to calm down and rant it out of their system), is only going to encourage them to become an IP vandal.
- Further, the common excuses given for talkpage locking cause even more trouble. Locking for "filing too many unblock requests" runs up against a systemic problem in wikipedia, which is that those who are on unblock-patrol are simply not interested in actually investigating what is going on, never take seriously the notation that the block is in violation of policy (this is even now "policy" itself as listed at WP:GAB), and are simply there to try to keep the number of listings on CAT:RFU to a bare minimum. The problem here? Once it's been "cleaned" off CAT:RFU one has to do a needle-in-haystack hunt to find it. A user can easily file 3-4 unblock requests, desperately trying to find out what it is the unblock patrollers want to hear (not realizing there is no right answer), and then see their talk page locked for "wasting our time" - a true tragedy since it, all at once, makes the users even angrier (if the stonewalling didn't already) AND gives them even more incentive to hate wikipedia and become vandals out of mere angry vindictiveness.
- 5 - I see no facility in this proposal to deal with abusive administrators who simply "humor" this process, decide they don't like the outcome, and either ignore the result, or worse yet, begin threatening the filing user and coordinator for the way the result turned out.
As for an example of admin conduct I would feel is abusive? I'll pull this one from the log:
15:41, 31 December 2008 LessHeard vanU (Talk | contribs) blocked 92.3.172.138 (Talk) (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 55 hours ({{anonblock}}: vandalism past final warning)''
Reasons that 55 hours is abusive?
- - The block is longer than the standard 24 hours.
- - The block was made with nobody doing anything but dropping templates on their talk page. Nobody could even take the time to make a simple hand-written explanation of WHY the edits were problematic, even after the block was in place.
55 hours, in this instance, is abusive. 24 hours, plus a handwritten note saying "hey, please read this and understand we're trying to follow policy here" would probably have come off MUCH better. I'll note that for some reason, administrators have all individually decided to place longer and longer blocks (see the block log); it used to be that 24 hours was the standard, now I see admins who are on 31, 55, etc... with no rhyme or reason. I submit that those who regularly exceed 24 hours probably need a reality check. WhoWatches (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I'm still reading the details, but to respond to the primary point of LessHeard vanU's block, the IP was removing an AFD template from an article. AFD templates are placed to encourage communication and ensure interested parties know an AFD is in progress so that they might comment and/or improve the article. The IP was clearly warned The next time you remove Articles for deletion notices or comments from articles and Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Waiting (Tina Moore song), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia, depending on when the AFD was timed to end, I might have blocked the IP to that time period to ensure a thorough discussion at the deletion discussion. Just my opinion though. MBisanz talk 18:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- You can't just blatantly state that admins are "abusive" just because they implemented longer blocks than you expect. Did you look at the context of the blocks? If the blocked editors were just blanking articles, then sure, 55 hours is excessive. But if they were impededing communication or posting defamatory comments on various talk pages, then a longer block may be justified. There is of course, the provision that repeat offenders (excuse the harsh wording) are subject to longer blocks. This process is intended to improve communication between admins and non-admins, not create ill feelings between them. I can't help but wonder why your experience with admins is so bad; the admins I have talked to are always polite and helpful. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Looking deeper: The AFD doesn't actually have a closure time listed (so no help there), the IP has relatively few contributions (looks like they were jumped on pretty much immediately). Again a case of WP:BITE in action, a simple 24-hour block would have done no harm and someone could always have reblocked if the offending conduct resumed. And again, a simple handwritten note (as opposed to the TEMPLATE TEMPLATE TEMPLATE TEMPLATE madness) would probably have done wonders. WhoWatches (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there are two schools of thought as to templates. One is espoused in WP:DTTR, the jist of which is that regular users already know the rules, so they don't need to have the detailed explanation of a template provides and a simple short message will do. The other is WP:TTR which argues all editors are equal and templates provide a consistent way for communicating messages. Our warning templates at WP:UTM are specifically designed to be civil and informative, something that some peoplel making warnings may fail to do in haste and thus bite a new editor. I have found that of the 1000s of warnings I have given, even experienced users respond better to a template than to a detailed personal message that they sometimes interpret as me taking too much interest in their activities and singling them out for personal admonishment. MBisanz talk 19:15, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Looking deeper: The AFD doesn't actually have a closure time listed (so no help there), the IP has relatively few contributions (looks like they were jumped on pretty much immediately). Again a case of WP:BITE in action, a simple 24-hour block would have done no harm and someone could always have reblocked if the offending conduct resumed. And again, a simple handwritten note (as opposed to the TEMPLATE TEMPLATE TEMPLATE TEMPLATE madness) would probably have done wonders. WhoWatches (talk) 19:10, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- You can't just blatantly state that admins are "abusive" just because they implemented longer blocks than you expect. Did you look at the context of the blocks? If the blocked editors were just blanking articles, then sure, 55 hours is excessive. But if they were impededing communication or posting defamatory comments on various talk pages, then a longer block may be justified. There is of course, the provision that repeat offenders (excuse the harsh wording) are subject to longer blocks. This process is intended to improve communication between admins and non-admins, not create ill feelings between them. I can't help but wonder why your experience with admins is so bad; the admins I have talked to are always polite and helpful. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have some sympathy with your position WhoWatches – I find it bizarre to suggest as Dabomb87 appears to do above that longer and longer blocks are intended to improve communication between admins and non-admins, and I could point to many cases similar to the one you've cited here – but what's done is done. AdminWatch was never intended to deal with historical events, simply to make a new start in the evolving relationship between admins and non-admins. Where I do significantly disagree with you is in your proposition that all administrators are corrupt, or have become corrupted. I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority try to do the best job they can. Admittedly that isn't always a very good job, and that's what AdminWatch is focused on addressing. It's in all our interests to make sure that incompetent, willy-waving administrators are in future held to account, openly and honestly. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Malleus, I was talking about AdminWatch improving communication. I never said that longer blocks faciliate better communication, and if I implied that, I certainly did not mean that. When I said "impededing communication", I was referring to the example of the LessHeard VanU block—although I will concede that I hadn't really looked at the entire situation when I commented then, and 55 hours probably is excessive. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:34, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I have some sympathy with your position WhoWatches – I find it bizarre to suggest as Dabomb87 appears to do above that longer and longer blocks are intended to improve communication between admins and non-admins, and I could point to many cases similar to the one you've cited here – but what's done is done. AdminWatch was never intended to deal with historical events, simply to make a new start in the evolving relationship between admins and non-admins. Where I do significantly disagree with you is in your proposition that all administrators are corrupt, or have become corrupted. I firmly believe that the overwhelming majority try to do the best job they can. Admittedly that isn't always a very good job, and that's what AdminWatch is focused on addressing. It's in all our interests to make sure that incompetent, willy-waving administrators are in future held to account, openly and honestly. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Why doesn't anyone ask the admin concerned before making the assumption of abuse (other than it might reduce the possibility of OMZG DRAMAH by providing a reason)? For an exercise in investigating before pulling out the accusations, I suggest you look at the Waiting (Tina Moore song) article edit history and have a look at what the named account a little before the ip did and was warned for, and what the ip then did... If you need to be given the answer, then you are on the wrong page... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- You mean this diff (actually collection of all three)? Seems we have two problems: the removal of the AFD template, AND the removal of other proposed sourcing later. Plus, you're still dealing with a pretty brand new user in either case. WhoWatches (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I blocked the ip, remember, not the named account. The account is able to argue their case, the throwaway ip (or drama seeking ip, if AGF'ing it was another individual) cannot revert. If JLS2 does revert again, they get blocked, but instead they have to comply with guidelines because their ip cannot edit nor create a new account to edit. Now, why don't I put all this on the ip's talkpage - well, perhaps it will be assigned to someone in due course who will be put off by reading all that, and also I want to go back to AIV to see if there are any other fools up for abusing (this is from memory, but I reckon it was AIV work, since most of my blocking stats are from doing that patrol). BTW, my usual block period is 31 hours - 1 day + 7 hours - so they don't come back and do the same edit when they log on the next day, but allows the next individual a good chance of not getting caught by the block. You will note that I stated "extended" in my message in the template; I was assuming they knew the reason for the block. When you have a problem with a judgement call, have a word with the sysop concerned - even the ones who dislike having their considerations titled "abuse" are likely to explain themselves... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Really? You mean a new user getting the same template treatment too? The standard for wikipedia is supposed to be 24-hour blocks. If a user returns after the block and returns to the same behavior (and presuming that people have actually engaged them in dialogue rather than simply playing "block and don't talk"), then it's easy enough for you or someone else to reblock. Regarding "I was assuming they knew the reason for the block" - you know the old saw about when you assume something, correct?
- No matter what else comes out of this conversation, I'd encourage you to rethink your abusive "default" 31-hour block and go to a standard 24-hour one. I'd also encourage you to actually communicate with users you block. WhoWatches (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Would you? LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Would and do. WhoWatches (talk) 17:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Would you? LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:06, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I blocked the ip, remember, not the named account. The account is able to argue their case, the throwaway ip (or drama seeking ip, if AGF'ing it was another individual) cannot revert. If JLS2 does revert again, they get blocked, but instead they have to comply with guidelines because their ip cannot edit nor create a new account to edit. Now, why don't I put all this on the ip's talkpage - well, perhaps it will be assigned to someone in due course who will be put off by reading all that, and also I want to go back to AIV to see if there are any other fools up for abusing (this is from memory, but I reckon it was AIV work, since most of my blocking stats are from doing that patrol). BTW, my usual block period is 31 hours - 1 day + 7 hours - so they don't come back and do the same edit when they log on the next day, but allows the next individual a good chance of not getting caught by the block. You will note that I stated "extended" in my message in the template; I was assuming they knew the reason for the block. When you have a problem with a judgement call, have a word with the sysop concerned - even the ones who dislike having their considerations titled "abuse" are likely to explain themselves... LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Complainant?
Proposed "AdminWatch rules" say "AdminWatch expects good faith from all parties, which precludes the use of a sockpuppet account by a complainant". In light of what Tony is trying to achieve here, I suggest we drop the words 'by a complainant'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaiwhakahaere (talk • contribs) 20:58, 31 December 2008
- How might the admin complained about have been using a sockpuppet account? --Malleus Fatuorum 21:01, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- I find that a bit confusing. Some admins have alternate accounts that are out in the open. Are you, Kaiwhakahaere, saying that all admins must now stop using these accounts? CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 21:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Same question as above: how does someone abusively blocked enter into Adminwatch proceedings? Even if they come in as an IP, AND admit to who they are, some abusive admin will just block the IP and revert them claiming they "can't edit" even to file a complaint, just like the same problem with every other dispute-resolution procedure currently in wikipedia: you have to get past the abusive-admin bouncers even to file. It is not a demonstration of "bad faith" for someone to try to seek a way to speak in their own defense. WhoWatches (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, it might be beneficial to have a checkuser actively involved in the process. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
@Malleus, 2nd par this section - If AdminWatch "expects good faith from all parties" then ref to sockpuppet account is superfluous. Adversarial too, when we are trying to offer all sweetness and light. (Sorry for forgetting to sign above. Was a long new year's eve celebration). Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- WhoWatches, an unblock template could be placed by the person concerned asking that they be unblocked for the purpose of making a complaint. If the talk page is locked because the account has been abusing it then there is always the email feature. If the email feature has been turned off because the account is abusing that by sending threating emails then I would suggest that AdminWatch has email set up with the address clearly stated so that a complaint can be sent there. It can then be posted here by one of the coordinators. It would be clearly stated that the address would be only for blocked users who have a locked talk page and email disabled, any other use would be abuse of the system and ignored. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Anything wrong with simply suggesting that a complaint under those circumstances (and only those circumstances) be emailed to one of the coordinators? I don't see the need to set up a separate email address (unless no coordinators happens to have chosen the email facility. Tony (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- Because admins can, when blocking a user, set the block to stop them from sending email using the Wikipedia email function. It's an optional box that is unchecked by default. I've not used it very often but have re-blocked with it on after getting several abusive emails. Thus there would be something like "coord at email dot com" on the project page, that is not tied into the Wikipedia system. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Anything wrong with simply suggesting that a complaint under those circumstances (and only those circumstances) be emailed to one of the coordinators? I don't see the need to set up a separate email address (unless no coordinators happens to have chosen the email facility. Tony (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
- WhoWatches, an unblock template could be placed by the person concerned asking that they be unblocked for the purpose of making a complaint. If the talk page is locked because the account has been abusing it then there is always the email feature. If the email feature has been turned off because the account is abusing that by sending threating emails then I would suggest that AdminWatch has email set up with the address clearly stated so that a complaint can be sent there. It can then be posted here by one of the coordinators. It would be clearly stated that the address would be only for blocked users who have a locked talk page and email disabled, any other use would be abuse of the system and ignored. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 23:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
How is someone even to reach here if they are blocked but their talkpage NOT disabled? For that matter, what guarantee do we have that the coordinators will actually file the requests, instead of simply sitting on/ignoring them as the various existing wikipedia mailing lists and arbcom list do now? And re: WhoWatches, an unblock template could be placed by the person concerned asking that they be unblocked for the purpose of making a complaint. - I guarantee that the current crop of unblock-request watchers would never unblock for this reason, and likely even would become punitive and increase the block length or lock the talkpage (after removing the request) merely to stop the grievance being filed. WhoWatches (talk) 00:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
"How is someone even to reach here if they are blocked but their talkpage NOT disabled?" I think that you are also talking the email function that can be turned on or off as I mention above, is that correct? If not can you explain what you mean. Any blocked user, no matter if their talk page is locked or not, can view any page on Wikipedia. Now I see that not only are you attacking admins, but Tony and now the coordinators, you really need to notch back what appears to me to be a dislike of everybody here at Wikipedia. Editors have been unblocked to file other requests and I really can't see why this process would be any different. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- WhoWatches, the success of this process will depend on whether users like you and some of the more dubious admins assume good faith and try to cooperate with a positive attitude instead of thinking about everything that can go wrong. Yes, there are going to be some bumps, but they will be eventually be smoothed out; remember that AdminWatch will intially run on a trial basis only. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'd rather be proactive rather than the usual "well we have 18 different ways to file a grievance but they all amount to two things in reality: jack and s___" setup currently existing. It's named AdminWatch, we should watch for the things that can go wrong and plan for them. WhoWatches (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Got One Already
Abusive admin: User:MHLU just did this. WhoWatches (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- User:MHLU is not an admin. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- (EC) First of all MHLU isn't an admin, see here. Second putting a tag/template/warning on your talk page is hardly an example of abuse. Frankly if this is the kind of frivolous complaint that we are going to see then this project will get killed very quickly. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 19:20, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
I amend: abuse by multiple people who wouldn't even be civil enough to inform me they were talking about me. Not just that, but leaving threats (especially unfounded threats) is pretty definitively a violation of WP:CIVIL. WhoWatches (talk) 19:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- I see no threats, just a concern about you expressed by D.M.N. who is not an admin. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- This process has to do with perceived admin abuse. Discussing you on WP:ANI is not admin abuse, especially seeing as how the original poster is not an admin either. Nor are they required to notify you but it is suggested that they do so. Leaving a tag/template/warning on your talk page is not a violation of WP:CIVIL. However, if you think that it is then go to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts which is the correct place. Agin this page is form perceived admin abuse, that is the use of admin tools to abuse another user. If I was to suddenly block you that would be a form of admin abuse but saying that you are now begining to be disruptive is not. That is a comment by me as an editor and does not require the use of my admin bit. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Process for a blocked user
I am starting a discussion here about the process for a blocked user. In the past I have said that the process for a blocked user is unsatisfactory and the response was "don't get blocked". Blocked users have to watch discussions about their case without being able to join in. Furthermore, there are technical features of blocking that are difficult to use and difficult to reverse. Comprehensive block features may be appropriate for vandals and sockpuppets but may be inappropriate for other editors and should be a last resort. I propose the following:
- by default, an editor blocked by an admin asserting a breach of policy on article content should not be blocked from discussions
- a block may be extended to non-article space by a different admin if another breach of policy occurs
Thus a blocked editor would be able to participate in Adminwatch. What do people think? Lightmouse (talk) 19:53, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Just confirm that you are suggesting that another blocking layer be added? So if I go to block someone I can choose what namespace they can and can not edit? Is something like that possible? If it is it should be turned on right now. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:12, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- No it is not, though I do remember a tool added to someones monobook that prevented them from editing certain namespaces, can't remember where it was though. Usually, reasonable editors can be unblocked if they agree to only edit a certain namespace, I can remember many an occasion where an editor is unblocked to be involved about discussion, or in some circumstances the discussion can be transcluded.
- Autoblocks are a neccessary evil, though generally it should be avoided when blocking bots due to the obvious consequences. Admins aren't infallible though and occasionally forget. Regards, Woody (talk) 20:17, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Din't think that it was, it's too useful a feature to not be used already. I that case my earlier comment would apply. The unblocking to allow an editor to take part in things like a RFC are alread done. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Namespace blocks - If it isn't technically possible, that is a shame. Worth asking.
- Autoblocks - I understand why they exist but I was under the impression that all admins used them all the time. It is good news that they are optional. I was recently a victim of an autoblock when somebody blocked my bot, I hope you are right in your suggestion that incorrect autoblocks are uncommon. I am also under the impression that autoblocks don't get lifted when the original block is lifted. Can you clarify that for me too? Lightmouse (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- special partial unblocks - I was not aware of this feature. I find the unblock process rather difficult. Fortunately, I am not familiar with it and most of the people we want to use it are likely to be unfamiliar with the unblock process. If there are such options, then they should be listed in the block template. Lightmouse (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
- Autoblock is turned on by default and ther is nothing on the blocking page to indicate that it should be turned off when blocking a bot. That would explain why you got caught. A note needs adding to the page saying that autoblock should be disabled when blocking a bot but I'm not sure where to edit it. Sometime I do notice that the autoblock does stay if the user is unblocked before the end of the 24 hour period. "special partial unblocks" is a total unblocking of an editor. They give an agreement not to edit anywhere other than the permitted space or risk being reblocked. Truthfully if you have got to the point of being indefinitely blocked, with an ongoing RFC/Arbitration or the wish to file one, then it's a good chance that you are going to know about being unblocked to take part in the process. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:42, 1 January 2009 (UTC)