Grants:IdeaLab/Rotate admins: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Joined as volunteer |
request not funded |
||
| (15 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 1:
{{Probox
|project=Rotate admins
|portal=Rapid
|summary=The worse harassment is the one originating from a bad administrator and his team of co-workers. A mean person holding for several years the post of admin, may develop behavior of ownership, autarchism and megalomania. How about setting an uper limit of 4 years of "office"?
|researcher1=Denver20
|researcher2=
|image=File:IdeaLab_beaker_and_flask.svg
|translations=Probox/
|more_participants=YES
|timestamp
|creator
|volunteer1=197.129.38.231
|volunteer2=197.129.38.231
|affiliate=WM IT
|target=Italian and English Wikipedia
|start_date=November 15
|start_year=2016
|end_date=January 15
|end_year=2017
|grantee=Luca Polpettini
|contact1=[[User:Luca Polpettini|Luca Polpettini]]
|amount_local=
|amount=500 USD
|grant_type=Individual
|organization=
|contact2=
|website=
|nonprofit=No
|idealab=YES
|status=not funded
}}
Line 31 ⟶ 48:
<!-- Want to join this idea? Add your name by clicking the button in the infobox, or edit this section directly. -->
*'''Researcher''' I vote for a certain term in the office of an Admin and withdrawal of Rights to Admin after a governed period of 2/3 Years. This would give other deserving and well contributing members a chance to make a change and also become an Admin. [[User:Denver20|Denver20]] ([[User talk:Denver20|talk]]) 14:55, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
*'''Volunteer'''
===Endorsements===
Line 60 ⟶ 77:
*{{Support}} "A mean person holding for several years the post of admin, may develop behavior of ownership, autarchism and megalomania." Who can prevent a few administrators to ban anyone who opposes them? To those who can ask for help the banned opponents? Nobody. Maybe this has happened in italian Wikipedia. I have been banned [[:it:Wikipedia:Richieste_di_pareri/Comportamenti_degli_utenti/Archivio6#Conclusione_della_vicenda|for asking to rotate admins]]. The admin, since 2004, replied to create a new Wikipedia where admins have a limit of years of office. [[User:Luca Polpettini|Luca Polpettini]] ([[User talk:Luca Polpettini|talk]]) 23:30, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
*{{strong support}} Complete surport from my side ! There's a good number of adminstrators that seem to have severe psychologic problems at wikipedia. [[User talk:Tonton_Bernardo|talk]] [[User:Tonton Bernardo|Tonton Bernardo]] ([[User talk:Tonton Bernardo|talk]]) 07:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
*{{strong support}}. Here is a quick analogy that has some degree of basis. Within the United States Department of Defense there is a statute allowing for a maximum 4 year time-on-station (TOS). TOS can be extended to 6 years but must be approved by multiple direct supervisors (Chain-of-Command). But after a 6 years the station assignment MUST change. The TOS is in place to avoid abuse of power, corruption and immoral behavior. Wikipedia should have some type of policy in place to avoid bullying (immoral behavior) within this service platform. Allowing an admin to carry on with 'no limits', makes no sense and leads to the currently acceptable 'bullying' allowed with the wikipedia ___domain. [[User:Vwanweb|Vwanweb]] ([[User talk:Vwanweb|talk]]) 22:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
*{{strong support}}. I have also seen admins behaving non constructively, being "more equal" and above the WP rules, building little states and dynasties. Such behaviour repels authors that have something to contribute, but are not part of admin circle. This must be prevented, otherwise Wikipedia content would slowly but inevitably be reduced to viewpoint of the admin. Implementation shall take care that admins cannot be exempted by themselves, or puppets, or some other scheme. I don't believe that hierarchically tying smaller or similar communities to bigger neighbors to form some "appeal process" would do any good by itself. However, having reasonable appeal process or impeachment process sounds useful. [[User:DarkoS|DarkoS]] ([[User talk:DarkoS|talk]]) 20:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support''': Love this idea. There are plenty of great administrators. But there are also plenty of lousy ones with no accountability. The worst, however, is that some people who were great candidates for adminship were shut down by other admins. [[User:DaltonCastle|DaltonCastle]] ([[User talk:DaltonCastle|talk]]) 17:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
*{{Support}} Experiments like the [http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/an-important-but-rarely-discussed-lesson-of-the-stanford-prison-experiment/ Stanford Prison Experiment] suggest that power corrupts power holders, although not everyone is corrupted to the same degree. Rotation of the power holders - in this case admins - may prevent them from 'settling' long enough for corruption to take over and abuse to be perpetrated. This system will help avoid the public humiliation of an admin being stripped of their rights due to abuse and will also bring in fresh blood into the admin barracks. [[User:Tsoukali|Tsoukali]] ([[User talk:Tsoukali|talk]]) 14:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
*{{strong support}} Absolute adminship has led to abuses that are damageable to other users and therefore to the project. And not only on small wikis. [[User:Joe McNeill|Joe McNeill]] ([[User talk:Joe McNeill|talk]]) 09:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
*{{strong support}} [[User:Texaner|Texaner]] ([[User talk:Texaner|talk]]) 19:19, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
*{{strong support}} some Admins abuse their power and other Admins can't/won't see the need to fight this behaviour. [[User:Messerjokke79|Messerjokke79]] ([[User talk:Messerjokke79|talk]]) 14:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
===Mixed===
Line 72 ⟶ 91:
:::At the end of the day, I don't disagree in principle. But what does a small wiki do if nobody else is willing to step up? [[User:StevenJ81|StevenJ81]] ([[User talk:StevenJ81|talk]]) 15:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
::::Should that unlikely situation happen in a very small Wikipedia, we do indeed need have to think of a solution. But when admins are 'bad', they usually are so to other users (not only to the content of the encylopedia), and those users would have to accept their only choice is between having the old admins rule, or step up in some kind of way. Otherwise, if the only choice is keeping them, then they should keep them as long as no one steps up.[[User:Joe McNeill|Joe McNeill]] ([[User talk:Joe McNeill|talk]]) 20:22, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
*I'm not entirely in favor of this. I believe a better alternative would be some sort of "community ban" ability, [[:en:WP:CBAN|like there is for English wiki editors]]. This way, there could be some sort of petition process (''autoconfirmed'' users click some button so-and-so many times, or something) that would auto-ban the admin (or auto-strip them of admin rights) when a certain number is reached. Of course, each user would only be allowed to do that once. There could also be an "against" button so consensus policies are upheld. This could be only allowed to non-admins in case of "conspiracy," as could be the case on smaller wikis. -- [[User:Gestrid|Gestrid]] ([[User talk:Gestrid|talk]]) 07:43, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
::Banning is one thing, rotating admins or limiting their mandate in time, another. Still, what you are eventually talking about are the ''technical means'' to stop an admin's mandate (why call it ''auto''-ban? (except for a brilliant pun in German)) like an emergency button to stop a robot; it seems like a good idea. It should indeed be allowed to non-admins.
::If I understand you correctly, you wish to facilitate the process for [[Wikipedia:Requests for de-adminship]], which is good. It should be used in case of administrator abuse and in that case only.
::<u>That is exactly why</u> those who endorse the idea on this page, are users who believe there has to be an '''automatic''' (and universal) process that 'clogs' 'absolute' adminship and (thus) prevents (some of the) administrator abuses from '''happening'''. [[User:Joe McNeill|Joe McNeill]] ([[User talk:Joe McNeill|talk]]) 09:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
==Expand your idea==
<!-- We suggest you delete this button after you expand your idea. But you can delete it, and the whole section, at any time you like. -->
Would a [[Grants:Start|grant]] from the Wikimedia Foundation help make your idea happen? You can expand this idea into a grant proposal. <div style="" class="wp-formsGadget mw-ui-button" data-mode="expand" data-type="Rapid">Expand into a Rapid Grant</div> <div style="" class="wp-formsGadget mw-ui-button" data-mode="expand" data-type="Project">Expand into a Project Grant <br/><small>(launching July 1st)</small></div>
==Project plan==
===Activities===
Support the project to Wikimedia Italia
===Impact===
Decrease the conflict between sysops and users.
===Resources===
| |||