Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Administrator/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Ombudsman
It is patently clear that the vast majority of administrators are doing a fine job at their work. Indeed, their work is vital to keeping this encyclopedia functioning smoothly. However, recent consensus seems to be that there are instances where the processes surrounding adminship need to be open to change (as evinced by this WikiProject).
- One area of special concern for some editors appears to be those rare cases where a need for additional exercise of community power over potentially mistaken administrators is needed.
- To address such concerns, a simple solution would be to appoint an ombudsman or ombudsman team. The sole function and remit of such a person/group would be to represent the interest of editors who are facing sanctions or other issues.
- Again, the vast majority of administrative actions (including blocks) are appropriate. However, the rare case where a person feels an administrator has acted inappropriately could be understandably disconcerting.
- The formalizing of an investigative and representational group such as the ombudsman would be constructive.
With the wide variety of proposals for de-adminship, administrator review, and the like, this proposal seems like a less dramatic alternative. In real life, many institutions with authority feature an ombudsman to investigate rare complaints of abuses of power. An effective strategy in this regard would likely reduce drama in the long run, and lead to the protection of the reputations of the many upstanding administrators. —Finn Casey * * * 22:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
- Interesting proposal. If you haven't already, you may also want to review similar past proposals: Wikipedia:Ombudsman, Wikipedia:Ombudsmen, and Wikipedia:Ombudsmen Committee/proposal. -- Ϫ 04:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out those areas. I noticed those proposals, and agree that the record shows that there was not signficant consensus at the time of their discussion. I am usually of the opinion that additional bureaucracy and policy creep should be avoided. It seems though, that this matter is indicative of an ongoing and reoccuring concern. That is, many editors apparently feel that administrators are not accountable enough to the general community. The Investigative Ombudsman proposal is an idea to address this perception in a way that would be seemingly less extreme than an RfDA program. The status quo is not urgently in need of reform. However the continued flare-ups of drama indicate that some reform might be needed eventually. In any case, thanks for your remarks :) —Finn Casey * * * 04:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
- I think this idea is really directed at something different than what most of this talk has been about. An ombudsman-type review of specific blocks would be of little use for dealing with admins (yes, a tiny minority) who have lost the trust of the community over the course of multiple non-bright-line misbehaviors. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out those areas. I noticed those proposals, and agree that the record shows that there was not signficant consensus at the time of their discussion. I am usually of the opinion that additional bureaucracy and policy creep should be avoided. It seems though, that this matter is indicative of an ongoing and reoccuring concern. That is, many editors apparently feel that administrators are not accountable enough to the general community. The Investigative Ombudsman proposal is an idea to address this perception in a way that would be seemingly less extreme than an RfDA program. The status quo is not urgently in need of reform. However the continued flare-ups of drama indicate that some reform might be needed eventually. In any case, thanks for your remarks :) —Finn Casey * * * 04:58, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I can see now that the proposal was probably not exceedingly practical. In the end, the current method of Arbitration Committee oversight is probably the path of least drama. —Finn Casey * * * 19:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Recent Compositions
First, in trying to explain to a complete stranger why there is a problem and how we think it can be fixed, I have created:
Secondly, to try to make sense out of all the different proposals flying around, I created:
Any tweaks, feedback, insight, etc welcome. --Alecmconroy (talk) 18:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Daily admin quota
Here's an idea: if you find yourself slacking in your admin duties set yourself some goals to reach. As an example here is a daily quota I've set for myself: [1]. Yours can be stricter or more lax, like weekly instead of daily. Either way this will help you get more work done and you'll get a sense of accomplishment at the end of a good day's work contributing to Wikipedia. -- Ϫ 10:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
- I like it. My free time is unpredictable, and I tend to do most of my editing from hotel rooms and airports, and because of this I would apply metrics that center on "areas of focus" wherein I decide to focus on one admin area for a stretch of time. Either way, we all need to step up as admins and not simply be admins for the sake of being admins. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
viva la revolcion!
Ok folks, I'm a little depressed that this is taking so long. The proposal sits in the RFC dungeon, while we have a perfect candidate to run through it right now. See the ANI thread titled "Harassment by admin." I have called at the bottom of that thread for short circuiting the endless discussion of how this would work, and just trying to go ahead and do it. This may turn out to be a "make or break" idea, so there is some risk involved, but frankly this seems like the perfect opportunity to prove that this can be done. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)