Wikipedia talk:Ostracism

Name
Great proposal but the name won't fly. Make it sound more like fluffy bunnies and sunshine. Haukur 15:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Awful name. Adminship is supposed to be no big deal, we neither want to equate promotion with a reward, nor demotion with exile.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I chose the name with deliberation, first because it pretends classical learning for a change ("the encyclopedia that slashdot built..."), and because ostracism was not a punishment (read ostracism!) -- it was something like "you are a great guy, but we really feel the system will work better without you at this point, have this nice villa out of town and see you in a couple of years, no hard feelings" which is exactly what I intend here :) of course I will be happy with any other name as long as just the spirit of the proposal is somehow implemented... dab (&#5839;) 15:20, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I get that, but our friendly dictionary defines ostracism as "banishment, exclusion or disgrace". If we were chiseling our 'pedia onto stone tablets in ancient Greek, I'd agree with you; but modern interpretation has deviated.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * What he said. The provenance is very apt but using this name would be handing a sword to Wikipedia's critics who would misrepresent it and write Wikipedia-is-a-cult articles. Haukur 15:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Right. I like the idea myself, but the word "ostracism" is used in the modern vernacular for something far harsher than what you're proposing here. If I had a choice in the name, I might prefer something like "admin recall", or "admin confirmation polls", which both carry the same basic meaning but are also a bit more direct. It also, at least to my eyes, holds open the door for regaining adminship a bit more explicitly than "ostracism" does, which the confirmation RfA might well give in several cases. Lastly (yea, he's almost done!), I have reservations about having a number as low a number as five admins being required, because it's so small that it holds open the possibility of "partisan" recall. Maybe it would be possible to have the current requests for confirmation posted on an admin board and a set percentage of active admins (3% or 5% maybe) going along with the recall RfA proposal. Badbilltucker 14:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Abuse
I think this idea is seriously lacking any protective measures that would prevent admin cliques from forming and dominating discussions, admins may feel the need to ally themselves just to avoid this proccess. There needs to be checks and balances to prevent abuse and this seems much to simple at this phase. --NuclearUmpf 15:38, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Your reaction is natural but represents too pessimistic a view of human nature or, at any rate, the nature of the average Wikipedian. Making an encyclopedia which absolutely anyone can edit was wild-eyed and dreamy but it's working reasonably well. Admins won't request people's bit just because they disagree with them or because they're not a part of the right clique. Systems similar to this have proven themselves on other Wikipedias and even on this one. We have a Category:Administrators open to recall with a bunch of members and there hasn't been any abuse of that at all. Haukur 15:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You do not run into abuse there because who it is that is open to recall, those admins are ones that often do not get into conflicts with people, mainly because they use more civil discussions then others. If a proccess can be easily abused I think it needs to be refined to stop such abuses not brushed under the run because we want to believe that people come here just to edit. People do come here just to edit, I dont think anyone ever woke up thinking I need to find an encyclopedia to vandalize, but not addressing easily exploitable flaws is just digging your head in the sand (not specifically you) --NuclearUmpf 10:15, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The category includes such veterans to conflict as Aaron Brenneman, Piotrus and Herostratus. Haukur 12:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * part of the reason for choosing the "ostracism" name is that this sort of process has stood the test of time in a real-life egalitarian society. And because I'd rather compare WP to ancient Athens than to the Soviet Union :) dab (&#5839;) 15:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * well, if five admins gang up and ostracize me, so be it. I'll happily submit to RFA, and if the community feels that the ostracism is abusive, I'll pass with flying colours (and the bad faith nominators will lose prestige). I'll then have three months peace. So I don't see the problem. If admin cliques will form, they will form anyway, but I doubt they will form as a result of this process. The important thing is that such re-submission should not be seen as something to be avoided at any cost, but as a slight bother at best, and a chance to get community feedback. I do hope that any admin that feels the community wants to be rid of them would be willing to give up their button, that's simple AGF as they only ever got their buttons at the behest of the community. dab (&#5839;) 15:47, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

NuclearUmpf said exactly what I would. Five admins is too small a number. 100 is better. I suggested this at another de-adminning idea that I've always thought that the best idea is if an admin is bad, is that there be a wall of shame for all their bad deeds somewhere. I don't feel like proposing this, I just want to suggest it. Anomo 17:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Mob rule, here we come. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be obvious there's a difference between consensual discussion (which is what this is abuot) and lynch mobbing (which is the perennial straw man).  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  09:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * re-submitting to RFA is no big deal at all. I will re-submit to RFA, without feeling I am being lynched, if one admin comes to my talkpage and requests so in good faith. If an admin has five such requests on his talkpage and still refuses to stand down (if it comes to that, there is some serious problem somewhere), we are looking at a 'rogue admin', or at someone in serious denial. In such a (rare) case, this will make the admin in question listen to community opinion, that's all. dab (&#5839;) 11:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

But isn't this the point of other mediation channels? The Arbcomm can definitely make this happen. Even better, remember Uncle Ed? Seems like policy for policy sake. I think most admins take their adminship very seriously and will do nearly anything to clear the air - but this, as zoe says seems like mob rule. -Visorstuff 18:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)