Sorry if it's in the wrong spot (it was this or editors), but I know someone who works in the K-12 academic field (I'll call this person J for reference).

The "higher ups" are like a teacher's union, and the lower ones like people who aren't in the union. How is this so?

My friend J says at the high school in their district, it was known that one of the band teachers wasn't the best in behavior and temper. He would throw chairs, have fits, and it finally took him reportedly hitting a student to remove him. There's bad teachers that have "tenure" that don't know what they're doing, but because of the union, they can't be removed without them doing something illegal.

Obviously, this can be paralleled with WP. The abusive admins keep on being abusive until the community gets too fed up with them and asks for their removal, even then it's hard, usually these are in the same group as we all know and love. But you take an admin who tries to stop them because they believe what's going is wrong, and they get booted.

Just two cents worth of thoughts.

Like a Teacher's Union, or they're members of an actual union? It's common for unionized teachers to treat non-union teachers as having a lower status - they're usually making considerably less money, not to mention their relative lack of job security. OTOH, if you're saying that a group of non-unionized teachers have formed into two distinct status groups based purely on attitude, log-rolling, trading of favors, and internal politicking, well... that isn't entirely uncommon either, but if the teachers themselves are making what amount to "tenure" decisions among their own colleagues, that's basically a union - just without the benefits of a real union.

This thread should have a different title regardless - I'm just asking because I didn't want to retitle it without asking the question.

Moderator's note: I have moved this to "general discussion," because "bureaucracy" is intended for news about ArbCom cases and similar doings. HK

I also added a subtitle so that WR readers have an inkling of what the thread is about.

yeah, sorry about the confusion and thanks for the thread move. and I meant like the US's teacher's union, pretty much.

The purpose of tenure is to protect teachers who have demonstrated their teaching abilities from the vagaries and whims of school administrators and boards, especially caving into pressure from parents and the community if the teacher expresses ideas that prove unpopular while diligently carrying out their teaching duties. But I suppose you could just accept the prejudices of libertarian Wikipedia and use the analogy as unions protect the deadwood at the expense of the noble John Galts. It's your analogy, so have at it.

Seems to me that "tenure" goes against the spirit of amateurism.

Amateurs getting together to award each other tenure is, well...

True, that's the purpose, but not always the reality, GBG. There are plenty of people in academia who abuse the tenure system, turning from Dr. Jekylls to Mr. Hydes in the space of just a year or two. I'm not saying it's endemic to the system because it isn't, but it does happen.

As I recall, High Schools don't normally have collegiate-style tenure systems, at least in the USA - in many cases, the only way they can have that kind of job security is through unionization. It may be that by using the word "tenure," Mr. One-Guy has simply made a questionable analogy without realizing it.

Then again, I haven't been a High School student in a long time...

What you're actually referring to, as far as WP admins go, is the "vested contributor" problem. From what I understand this problem occurs frequently in volunteer organizations when committed and heavily involved contributors cause problems, but can't be adequately dealt with because they are among the few doing the most to keep the whole shindig running. I believe Lar wrote an essay on this problem. The "Notable Editors" forum here in the Review shows that this problem is prevalent in Wikipedia.

Update: My mistake, Lar didn't write it.

Alright, "tenure" in the K-12 system that I know of is simply this: stay in your position for X amount of years, boom, hard to remove you, as long as you're in the union. In Wikipedia, this is "dealing with trouble users", or people who oppose the cabals. The more you do it, the more the cabal accepts you, the harder it gets to remove your bit from you for abusive actions cause the cabal will defend you till the end. In the school system, if you're a tenured teacher, the union will defend you to the end, no matter how horrible or abusive you tend to be. That's what I'm trying to say here.

Also, a lot of these guys seem to have become friends since they've basically been working together for a long time on something that's important to all of them. When it's your friend who is being accused of misconduct, especially by a stranger on the Internet, you're more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt and ask them to explain. And even if it has been proven to you, you still might consider softer sanctions and more patience since no one really wants to be in the position of actually punishing someone that they consider a close friend for fear of destroying that personal relationship.

By contrast, newer or less high-profile users don't have that network of close friends who can extend them the benefit of the doubt. Those same people who urge patience and discernment when dealing with a close friend who is making some weird decisions can reflexively ban an anonymous editor with a name like 86.178.29.11 who keeps splashing swastikas onto the [[Elie Wiesel]] article talk page.