Really? I don't see how it's prone to
confusing rules. They simply won't see
the option - or they'll get an error - if they try to do something they
don't have the power to do.
Part of the problem I think with admins who get on power trips is that one
day, they went from being an un-powerful little normal editor, to the next
day being able to do all these amazing things. Imagine if you one day woke
up with x-ray vision: your first thought would probably be to use it on your
hot next-door neighbor, wouldn't it?
I'd consider my proposal sort of a "training wheels" time for new admins,
so
they can work with the tools and get used to it without being able to cause
too much havoc. It wouldn't stop those who deliberately gamed the system to
get admin power, if they are determined, but it might stop some of those who
are simply in over their heads or prone to having 'bad days'.
And it might help people lower their expectations, and get more candidates,
if they weren't pushing them instantly to so heavy of a position.
Parker
On 10/6/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
The example you listed is particularly prone to confusing rules and stuff.
It's best to determine whether to give someone a specific power without
any
artificial restrictions. That way the editor can apply for some powers and
explain why they need them and show their expertise in that particular
field.
Does anyone know why the proposal failed? I seem to remember it did.
If nominations are drying up, the current system isn't scaling and if WP
is
growing we need more admins to do housekeeping.
Mgm
On 10/6/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Mgm,
I could agree with that. I think that maybe there ought to be multiple
grades of admin, who have specific abilities. Part of the problem right
now
is that so many admins wield what might as well be "absolute power" when
compared to a normal user.
For instance, why not have a "first grade" admin who have the power only
to
semiprotect articles (to protect from systemic anon-ip/newuser
vandalism),
not to lock talk pages at all (including user
talk pages) and to impose
blocks up to 48 hours but no longer? Make them ask for help if they see
anything that needs anything longer or appears to be a problem?
You could have a lot more of those less-powerful admins handling many of
the
issues without worry about whether they went nuts, because even if they
went
nuts, there's be a lot less permanent damage they could do.
Parker
On 10/6/06, MacGyverMagic/Mgm <macgyvermagic(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Some adminship requests get opposed because the user aren't familiar
in
a
specific field of administrator work. If we could
specifically give
people
> the tools they have the knowledge for, more requests would succeed.
> Perhaps
> it's time to run that plan to give people separate admin tools.
>
> Mgm
>
>
> On 10/6/06, daniwo59(a)aol.com <daniwo59(a)aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > Originally, I planned to answer Parker Peters's email. I wanted to
say
>
something, at least, but I didn't want it to be trite. I didn't want
to
> > defend
> > some admin actions while agreeing with him about others. There will
be
> > (have
> > been?) plenty of people to do that. In the end, all of that is
> irrelevant,
> > because it is his perception of the problem that really matters, not
> > whether the
> > problem is truly relevant in particular instance X or Z. It is a
> > macro-issue,
> > and it deserves macro-answers, or alternately, macro-changing in
> > our thinking.
> >
> > I think the real issue can be boiled down to a single statement:
> > "Wikipedia
> > is big ... really, really big." As of yesterday, Alexa ranks us the
> number
> > 12
> > website in the world, and we are still climbing. In English alone,
we
> have
> > close to 1.5 million articles and 6 million total pages. We have
over
> 2.4
> > million users and close to 600 thousand images. I don't know
how
many
> > edits we
> > are getting per day, per hour, per second, but I can only assume
that
> it
> > is a
> > very substantial number.
> >
> > No single person, or even small group of people, can tend to
something
>
this
> big, or even familiarize themselves with all its nooks and crannies.
Yet
> we
> have to. That is the challenge.
>
> There are 1,015 people with admin powers, and for various reasons it
is
> > assumed that the burden of responsibility lies with them (it really
> > doesn't,
> > since it should rest on the entire community, but that is a
different
>
story). Of
> these thousand or so people, some are more active than others. Some
can
be
> found patrolling the projects every hour of every day, while others
pop
> in for a
> few minutes every few months, and still others are gone for good.
>
> As such, the burden is overwhelming. There is so much to do, so much
that
> needs tending, but we've grown faster than our admnistrative
structure,
> > and the
> > fissures are beginning to show. By piling on the load, it is only
> natural
> > that admins (and here I mean people who perform admin tasks,
whether
they
> are
> admins or not) begin to feel frustrated and burn out. It is
especially
> > onerous
> > when every action is going to be viewed by people who will
challenge
>
it--and
> the admin--any way they can. Do you risk making all the rapid
decisions
> > that
> > need to be made, one after the other, even if it means that some
bad
> > decisions will inevitably be made? Do
you risk maintaining old
> > procedures, which once
> > worked quite well but are starting to buckle under the weight, or
do
> you
> > experiment with something new and untested? If there is to be
change,
> > what are
> > the priorities? If there is to be discussion about change, at what
> point
> > do we
> > end the talking and decide to act?
> >
> > These are some of the real issues that Parker Peters is raising.
Note
that
> they are dilemmas, and the nature of a dilemma is that there is no
right
> answer, except perhaps from the safety of
hindsight. And yet,
decisions
> have to be
> made.
>
> Danny
>
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
>
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: