User talk:LessHeard vanU/Dead minimum

"why and how a policy for removing administrator privileges"

Support: I cannot imagine anything that is needed more at Wikipedia! --Ludvikus (talk) 23:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vision drift & Admin responsibilities

Speaking as someone who became an "Admin" in one of the first elections (had I moved just a little faster, I could have become one in response to Jimmy Wales' offer on EN-WikiL to give the bit to anyone who asked him), I think the process of being an Admin has gotten so stringent due, partly, because it is so hard for regulars to get a sense of each other anymore, but also due to the Tall poppy syndrome: many Wikipedians think to themselves "why should X be an Admin, when I'm not & I'm just as good as X?" & act accordingly. The newbies resent being at the bottom & take it out on those of us who have been around longer, even if this seniority is only by a few days.

I think one way to fix this would be to stand the process on its head: anyone who has an active account for a fixed period of time & has made a certain number of edits automatically becomes an Admin unless: (1) she/he doesn't want to be one (yes, there are people who honestly don't want it); or (2) there is a discussion & vote to prevent this -- WP:RfA in reverse, so to speak. As a result being an Admin would then return to being "not a big thing", there would be a lot less resentment towards Admins (be an Admin for a couple of weeks & you'll discover just how much power one really has), & maybe it would be a lot easier to de-Admin people.

Thoughts, or is a perennial proposal I'm not aware of? -- llywrch (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that sysop status - the ability to delete and view deleted material, later to block accounts - was once automatically conferred, and that only when the site got so big that "strangers" to a majority were getting the flags automatically that a vetting process was put in place - so what you are seeking is a return to the really early days (pre You). I could see a lot of controversial actions being taken by accounts who simply waited out the qualifying process, and with no easy desysop process quite difficult to restrain, to gain access. People still need to be shown to be trustworthy by deed rather than inaction and get the approval of their peers, and there has to be a way of removing the flags from people who are bad but not so bad as to get ArbCom interested. By making sysop privileges as removable as are editing ones you can remove a lot of the investment in being made an admin, which should make the granting of same less of a big deal. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My memory of those days is that there was very little process of any sort, so I'd be surprised if people received Admin rights "automatically". (I remember having the impression that there were only three Admins when I joined in October 2002 -- Hephaestos, Ed Poor & Jimmy Wales. I've since learned that my impression was wrong, but there were very few Admins back then, & no things weren't better in that regard.) Adminship is something that "just grew", like Topsy, with no real forethought or design. -- llywrch (talk) 20:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"not a big deal"

of course it's a big deal. Having authority, especially arbitrary authority, always is. It matters to people, and always will--both the potential to exercise authority and the actual use of it. (I can say that deleting articles at CSD can be very satisfying sometimes, when I'm in an appropriate mood--much more so than merely tagging.) We cannot expect people to readily give that up, even if they never use it. I agree completely that some of the existing admins need to be removed, and a number of others given an equivalent of a final warning--but there are a few problems. first, there is the knowledge that any admin active in most sorts of admin work is likely to accumulate enemies. second, as a result of this, admins do stick up for another, because the feeling is, next time it could be me. third, there are some people who are generally excellent admins, but use the tools badly in some one area, and we have no way of granting limited adminship. Fourth, given the rancor that even an Rfa can induce, the possibilities of escalating hostilities in any de-admin procedure would really escalate. Fifth, arb com members are carefully selected with very wide consensus, and yet many of us think they do not do all that well at this--why should we think that any community-driven process would be better? I am not encouraged by the level and accuracy of ban discussions at AN/I. I wish I had a solution. The best I can do is a request to arb com that they use desysop more readily, instead of mere admonishment (or an election of arbs who will do this), and I know that won;t be good enough. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC) `[reply]

On a couple of points - the accumulation of "enemies"; if you are doing the role conscientiously then your enemies are going to be the disruptive type of editors, and if you are working within the remit then you are unlikely to provide them with the ammunition to have a chance of desysopping you. This may not be the case for rouge admins, but this fact places the necessary restraint of allowing "rougery (piss off, spellchecker!) for the benefit of the project" to become abuse. If an admin, even if making enemies, keeps within the margins expected then they do not need to protect others who operate on the edge or beyond of them for the same reasons.

Any process can become rancorous, if it is permitted. One aspect of RfA that need not be mirrored in RfDA is the allowance of the free for all in supporting/opposing. The question is whether the participants believe, on the evidence provided (which is the purpose of the earlier part of the process), that the individual should lose the confidence of the community in their ability to perform the role of admin. To this end it is more of a vote than a discussion - and for anyone who argues that WP does not do voting (because it is evil) then it should be noted that it doesn't do desysopping either. Yet. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Issue of conflict of interests

(copied from User talk:LessHeard vanU#Issue of conflict of interests)

My experience is that it would be best if an Administrator who's an editor in a disputed article were prevented from applying disciplinary action when s/he has a vested interest in the Article remaining according to her/his views. Case in point: me. I'm currently Restricted from nine (9) articles concerning this main one: historical revisionism. The Restricting administrator contributed significantly to the content of this extremely controversial article. The instant he determined he didn't like my editing, he simply Restricted me. Not only that, but since I didn't take it lying down, like a good obedient dog, he appointed himself my truant officer and effectively put me on "probation." I think he's actually Wiki-hounding me. Of course, I do have a "dark" past. But that I think may be due to my past Good faith ignorance of Wiki culture. I've learned much over the years on how to be a better Wikipedian. However, each time I get better, the goal gets even harder. It's somewhat like the Olympics I guess. But it would be good if one's Past were not so heavily used to evaluate the Present. I'm still thinking about how "convicted" Wiki "criminals" ought to be treated on their return. Perhaps there should be a rule not to use the Past to analyze the Present in a Talk page of any Content article. Past "misconduct" should only be discussed outside of an Article's Talk page. It should not even be raised on an individual's Talk page without permission to do so. I hope these observations are helpful to you in your effort to improve the Administration of Wikipedia. Have a nice day. --Ludvikus (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe our paths first (or most recently - I am not always an admin who disregards the past, I may simply have forgotten) crossed over this matter. I understand your point, but it behoves me to generally point out that sometimes the involved administrator is the one who is able to determine if another's contribution is disruptive/fringe/undue; it is a difficult balancing act determining where an involved admin is protecting the "mainstream" npov or is promoting their viewpoint at the expense of others, especially when the subject is fairly specialist. It is also the case that often disruptive or bad faith editors return repeatedly to the same subject and edits because they do not care for the consensus/npov version existing, and attempt to "win" their argument by attrition. Noting the editing history and the block log of such contributors can give an indication of there being a pov warrior, but may also bias any reviewer too. Often it is the responses by the party that provides clue as to whether they are interested in incorporating a minority viewpoint (within WP:UNDUE) or wish to replace the npov version with their own. Again, a matter of balanced judgement.

... (content removed - per discussion at above - as not pertaining to request)LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find that very helpful at clarifying WP policy. I'm gonna think about all that. Thanks a million. --Ludvikus (talk) 16:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specific question on WP policy

I've been editing several/numerous/diverse pages since my - shall I say, forced leave of absence. I want to prevent the situation from getting out of hand. Would it be proper - consistent with WP policy - if I named an article of particular concern to so I could seek your advice, and get some pointers, telling me what, if anything I'm doing wrong? --Ludvikus (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am having connectivity problems at the moment at home, but if you wish to I will have a look at it. This is a topic, however, that is best left on my user talkpage rather than this one. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]