User talk:A.Z./Administrators

This is a single talk page for two pages: Administrators and Imagine.

Comments on the essay Imagine before its associated talk page was merged with this one

First comment (originally without a title)

I like this. Kamryn · Talk 09:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Subtle

It took me a little while to understand the point of this, but then I liked it. How about adding a heading that this is in response to those who don't like your RFA comments that everyone should be an administrator? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Not everyone can be an editor

This seems to assume that everyone is always allowed to edit Wikipedia. This is not true- people who are disruptive are shown the door quite regularly. Also, to put this in practical terms.. it's unlikely that a new or inexperienced user would make good use of the sysop tools. So what's the rush to hand them out to these people? I see RFA as a practical matter. Sure, in theory, everyone should be a useful editor and should have the tools. In practice, not everyone who tries to contribute has maturity or good judgment. Friday (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You miss the point, Friday. This essay doesn't advocate that we stop blocking people, and it doesn't assume that everyone is always allowed to edit Wikipedia... It's a subtle point. Alternate reality Friday would say that, in practical terms, it's unlikely that a new or inexperienced user would make good use of the editor tools. A.Z. 03:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I realize now that real Friday has in fact said that. Do you think we should start having requests for editorship? I think that giving the tools first is the best approach, just like we do now with editors, and I think it would be best if this applied to administrator tools as well. A.Z. 03:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

If everyone were an admin then this essay would have been deleted speedier than a CSD as patent nonsense. How ironic. WebHamster 22:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone were stupid enough to delete this essay, they would be warned and the essay would be undeleted by other administrators within three seconds. If they continued doing that, they would get blocked and de-sysopped. A.Z. 22:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Bad idea. Won't work

It would be impossible to work, none of the admin capabilities would even be of any use. Administrators are supposed to be trusted individuals who are allowed to have specific editing abilities. Editing abilities including banning individuals would be pointless if everyone had administrator abilities, who then would be able to ban other users? Would disruptive users ban themselves? How about protecting pages due to high amounts of vandalism? If let's say George Bush is getting a lot of vandalism from various users, then what do we do to prevent that? How do we protect the page for a short time until the vandalism passes? This would be impossible if everyone had admin capabilities, which includes deleting, protecting and editing protected pages. All of those capabilities would go out the window as well. In the end, the ONLY way in which administrator capabilities can be of any use is if only a select few have them and the general editors don't. While I AGREE that Administratorship has turned into a "big deal" and Jimbo Wales clearly didn't intend this to happen, the solution is not to allow everyone to have admin capabilities, that would not be possible in any way. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I totally changed the proposal now. It's not definitive nor perfect, of course, but it's practical and possible and it would work. A.Z. 05:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The is nothing more than a attack page. "Behavior like that required nowadays to make someone an administrator is mostly found in psychopaths" is a breathtaking implication about hundreds of good faith editors. Unbelievable, A.Z, my respect for you has plummeted. Rockpocket 05:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

All your respect for me has plummeted? I think you could suggest a way for me to express better what I want to say without attacking anyone. A.Z. 05:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed now the paragraphs trying to explain the reason of the proposal. I still want to criticize the high criteria, though, but I don't know how to it without attacking any good faith users. You know, I don't mean to be offensive, but being a psychopath is not something you choose, it's a disease, and saying that someone has a disease is not saying that they are acting in bad faith. A.Z. 05:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

What if I said "the current system does not favor those who make great efforts to act correctly, and that nonetheless make huge mistakes sometimes, and don't always recognize them as mistakes; it favors those who appear to act correctly, which many times are people that make great efforts to appear to act correctly instead of making great efforts to act correctly"? A.Z. 05:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparing the behaviour of any group of editors to that of a psychopath is not a good idea (neither, for that matter, is comparing them to Nazis). I have no idea what you are trying to say, but all you are doing is demonstrating your prejudice against over 1300 people, the majority of whom you have never met. If you disagree with the criteria, then say you disagree with the criteria - but attacking editors simply because the community decided they met that criteria is low. Anyway, your argument is a straw man, plenty of very flawed people are given the tools - have a look at my own RfA, for example. I demonstrated I am far from perfect right in the middle of my RfA, and was unapologetic for it, yet still passed. By the way, A.Z. plenty of people think homosexuality is a disease, yet we would not, and should not, permit its use to denigrate people and then claim "I don't mean to be offensive, but being gay is not something you choose, it's a disease, and saying that someone has a disease is not saying that they are acting in bad faith." Rockpocket 05:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I was just showing my prejudice and labelling it as an argument. I do have a prejudice against administrators, and I should recognize it, and I should try to avoid that it influences my actions and arguments. I don't know what else to say. I don't think you're a psychopath nor that all administrators are. I think I did try to say that the criteria, besides creating a small group and leaving most editors without admin tools because few people meet it, also selects a group of people that is not better than a randomly selected group. Anyway, I was just trying to find an explanation for why things are so wrong... I don't want to denigrate you.

I didn't pass my RfA because I thought that WP:SNOW didn't apply to it and because I suggested that every user should be able to block other users, and because people said that I didn't have too much experience, and because people said that I had conflict and didn't make enough an effort in my RfA. They called my conversation with Majorly "trolling", which it wasn't. He closed my RfA due to a stupid reason (because it was going to fail anyway), and I just asked him not to close it, even if it it was going to fail anyway. Then he removed all my thread as trolling, and other people agreed that it was trolling, which it wasn't. I tried to say that I could have pleased all those people and acted as they wish me to act, but I didn't do it, because I would be doing it not because I think it's the right thing, but to manipulate them, and I don't think that should stop me from having the tools.

I hope you accept my apologies. A.Z. 06:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, written language doesn't really show how emotional we are, and I was quite shocked and sad to learn that your respect for me had plummeted. A.Z. 06:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought you wrote it in a attempt to indicate you considered admins, as a group, to be psychotic. If that is not what you meant, and it appears that is the case, then it is no more than a miscommunication. Therefore you may regard my previous comment about my respect plummeting, I should have requested confirmation of your intent before making that sort of comment. I'm sorry. I appreciate your apology, but it is not required. Your criticisms of the process is valid - and you phrase it quite nicely and succinctly above. My advice to you is to keep your comments on process rather than referring to the flaws (real or imagined) of a diverse group of individuals. The only thing in common between these people is that (most of them) went through that process, so generalising beyond that weakens your argument. It would be prudent to leave out all the comparisons to other examples of real-life abuses (its terribly insensitive to even think of comparing admins to Nazi war criminals, and I mean that out of respect for the victims of the Holocaust). Lets maintain perspective here. Rockpocket 06:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Pretty good, but I'd add a minimum number of edits req.

Maybe 1000 edits would be enough ? StuRat 09:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Problems

The problem with a consensus for someone NOT to become an admin opposed to becoming an admin is that there needs to be some minimum amount of time or minimum number of edits made before we can ever know how they edit. We couldn't have a vote for admin right when someone joins for instance without knowing anything about them. Perhaps after 3 months of editing? 6 months? Another problem is the fact that it will probably regress into what it is now, a simple vote and people will be as likely to be nominated admin as they are now. Simply the process is reversed and the majority are not given the tools. Another problem is the sheer amount of people who will be up for discussion. 100% of editors will have to be discussed and this would be too overwhelming to ever work. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 13:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

on consensus

You don't want to make the mistake of thinking consensus can always be measured easily by a simple number. Also, I think you could be more clear by describing different ways like this:

1. One way to do it: consensus that someone is suitable for adminship is required at all times. Hence, to become an admin, there must be consensus for it. To remain an admin, there must be consensus for it.
2. another way: consensus is required to change someone's status. This makes it harder than the above to remove someone's bit- you'd need consensus for it.
3. yet another way: consensus is required for someone to not be an admin. This is the most liberal approach.

I believe the first and last ones I'm describing are what you have under User:A.Z./Administrators#Which_consensus_to_ask_for, but there's a third option too. Friday (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

The third option seems to be described under this section. It looks awkward to me that two people with the same amount of support to be administrators at a given time have different status due to the fact that some time in the past one of them had the consensual support of the community. I fail to see what could be the justifications for this to happen. a.z. 04:41, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of observations

I am not an admin, but I agree with your essay. I never want to become an admin myself, though. I wanted to give you an outside view, because it looks as though only admins are against your essay. lol. Also, I want to give you cudos on your English. It is very, very good! Keep up the good work. Jeeny ^(talk) 05:57, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you a lot for your compliment regarding my English! This means a lot to me. It's good to know that you agree with my essay. Why don't you add your support to this section? Friday actually sort of agrees with the essay, he just thinks it's a bit too liberal, I think. a.z. 06:52, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

The 3 sides to every story:

Your side My side The truth

There always seems to be a more likely story than the one that everyone is currently reading. Without a definitive leader, organizations like this will fall of their won weight/egos. There is a reason why the old "chestnut" about "too many cooks spoil the broth" is a truth. It is because it is the truth. 76.16.92.116 02:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Essay template

• Template:Essay

The template has been removed following a discussion with the closer of the MfD.

While the essay (as located in userspace) has been kept, as a category cannot provide references or explanations concerning its members, and as these reside in the userspace of an indef-blocked user, these should not be categorised with other userspace essays, as the context cannot be indicated in the category. - jc37 00:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)