User talk:Leifern/Adminwatch idea

Actually, a very similar idea has been tumbling in my head for some time. It originated (obviously) from TGF06UP (The Great February 2006 Userbox Purge). I have created a special place on my user page (it was called "Admin Control Panel") where I had shortcuts to the "offending" admins' contribs, deletion logs, etc to monitor their activities. The situation is cooler now, so I've commented it out, but I've been thinking of some kind of AdminWatch ever since. And while this kind of movement would certainly be of use here (Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?), I suspect a great resistance from the very beginning, backed up with words such as "divisive", "unnecessary", "spreading ill will toward admins" (this one's an actual quote) and so on. Eventually we would get banned indefinitely for this crimethink. These are my first thoughts - I'm not extremely optimistic today, sorry. ;-) Misza13 T C E 16:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that lack of optimism is in large part a result of the fact that there is no smooth way for admins to manage themselves - heck, the arb committee is already overwhelmed by lots of much more serious efforts, and the prevailing consensus is that "it mostly works, even though you don't necessarily want to see the sausage being made." I am being very serious in thinking that this should help the admins quite a bit as well. Every time they do something unpleasant to an editor, they can count on personal abuse, but if they have well-established and documented practices to rely on, it's easier for them as well. --Leifern 17:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. I think the userbox purges are pretty much over, but it would be a good idea for in the future. -- D -Day My fan mail. Click to view my evil userboxes 20:06, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think your heart's in the right place here but I fear that this would prove unworkable. In the first instance, there's something condescending about "watching" admins. That is to say, we all watch each other all the time, that's the nature of this place. The implication is that admins need more watching over and above what already goes on as a matter of course. I'm honestly not sure how I feel about that–not because I feel I have anything to hide, mind you. My contributions are browsable like everyone else's.

My other concern is one that's been enunciated already. Some admins are not particularly popular, often through no particular fault of their own. I've seen many situations where an admin intervenes to stop an edit war and becomes a target of hatred and disruption by both sides. That happens; we deal. Providing a centralized forum for discussion of admin activities invites abuse–and how will you stop it? I can imagine the uproar if someone tried to control discussion on such a page.

Your proposal seems to be aimed to two directions: providing a means to document and reign in those rare cases of actual rogue admins, and supporting those admins whose hours of toil are unsung and unnoticed. The former used to be handled by RfC, but the quality and utility of that forum has disintegrated over the past few months. I'm not going to blame it on lynch mob mentality but it clearly isn't working. If that side of this forum developed into a version of RfC that worked again that would be a real service–and not something that need be limited to admin abuse.

The other function is more complicated and erratic. Most of us struggle on for whatever reason without expectation of reward or even recognition. Indeed, most of my edits are unnoticed, and I like it that way. Wikipedia is where I try to come and blow off steam and do some good and such. What we need most, I think, and this is true for anyone here, is affirmation that we're fighting the good fight. We need to be told, now and then, that we're doing a good job and our work is respectable. I don't mind being disagreed with, I do mind being mistrusted and misunderstood. That means I'm not communicating well enough.

Anyway, those are some thoughts. Mackensen (talk) 21:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to your request for comment
Its a good idea in principle, but I think there are better ones.

Proposing a change to the adminship policy is one.

I've had a look into some of the things that are going to be coming up in wikipedia in the next few years (not by divination or anything like that, just ordinary research), and I strongly suspect there will be significantyl far better more effective ways to prevent admin abuse/corruption than this. Unfortunately we shall have to wait for this. I am not willing to expand further on this (though I encourage you to investigate for yourself), as I am not willing to provide those corrupt/abusing admins with sufficient information to prevent these things occurring (some of the things are in the delicate phase at the moment and throwing too much light on them will make them turn to dust).

P.s. if anyone reading the above paragraph thinks it is in reference to something that I, or an alleged/unalleged sockpuppet/meatpuppet of me, might be doing or involved with, you are quite mistaken. --Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 00:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Same here, I like the idea, but unless you can get a good number of users to be willing to join to get this idea to work, especially some admins, so this doesn't turn into an us against them kind of thing. I think the real solution is that it needs to be possible for admins to temporarrally lose their admin abilities.  I read a suggestion somewhere that an admin should be able to de-admin another admin for a certain time period, the catch being that both admins would lose thier admin ablities, which I find as another interesting idea. However I do realize that this proposal is far less radical, the problem I see is if thier are conflicting views within this organization. I like the idea though --T-rex 20:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Great idea
Yes, there should be some editors that watch over admins to see if they are misbehaving. A lot of them are corrupt. This sounds like a great idea, and I hope we can make it work. Dtm142 01:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, it's pretty difficult to discuss a new policy when one continues to make these kinds of remarks. There are currently 800 admins on Wikipedia (give or take). You seem to think that a sizable portion are corrupt, although you've not listed any of them nor their alleged offenses. Do you intend to take any kind of constructive action or are you just going to wander about with the proverbial armband on your sleeve? Mackensen (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2006 (UTC)