-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Colleagues,
As some of you already know, I've undergone an RFA recently. Thats ok. No matter the result, I try to vote on some RFA's whenever I ask for the community do discuss me.
On the same token, I try to vote on some AFDs (or close some) whenever I submit an AFD.
As I read some of the RFAs ongoing, I discovered a trend. So I looked into the recent historical RFA votes. (Lets not get to wrapped around vote=!vote, for simplicity of this proposal/idea, I'll call all comments, discussions... votes)
I have discovered what appears to be a trend in clique mentality and power centralization. Also, I have discovered some crazy oppositions, for example "I view self noms a prima facia evidence of power hunger." This is among the craziest I've seen. Not that the editor is crazy, but the oppose is.
Here is my suggested solution:
Allow editors (those who have not already undergone RFA, desysopped under a cloud, and desysopped by Arbitration) to sysop after 2500 edits and 6 months on the project without any recent behavior related blocks. Permit the crats or admins to grant and take away adminship. If this idea has some support on the mailing list (with any suggested alterations) I think I might put up a policy page as I have done on IPBLOCKEXEMPT for discussion.
The advantages of such a system would eliminate power centralization, clique mentality, and some of these outrageous opposes.
Everyone here is an academic. We are building en encyclopedia.
Thoughts?
- -- Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
2008/7/26 Jon scream@datascreamer.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Colleagues,
As some of you already know, I've undergone an RFA recently. Thats ok. No matter the result, I try to vote on some RFA's whenever I ask for the community do discuss me.
On the same token, I try to vote on some AFDs (or close some) whenever I submit an AFD.
As I read some of the RFAs ongoing, I discovered a trend. So I looked into the recent historical RFA votes. (Lets not get to wrapped around vote=!vote, for simplicity of this proposal/idea, I'll call all comments, discussions... votes)
I have discovered what appears to be a trend in clique mentality and power centralization. Also, I have discovered some crazy oppositions, for example "I view self noms a prima facia evidence of power hunger." This is among the craziest I've seen. Not that the editor is crazy, but the oppose is.
Here is my suggested solution:
Allow editors (those who have not already undergone RFA, desysopped under a cloud, and desysopped by Arbitration) to sysop after 2500 edits and 6 months on the project without any recent behavior related blocks. Permit the crats or admins to grant and take away adminship. If this idea has some support on the mailing list (with any suggested alterations) I think I might put up a policy page as I have done on IPBLOCKEXEMPT for discussion.
The advantages of such a system would eliminate power centralization, clique mentality, and some of these outrageous opposes.
Everyone here is an academic. We are building en encyclopedia.
Thoughts?
Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
Why are you posting this off-wiki? The place for this discussion (which is a perennial one, by the way) is the RFA talk page.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Al Tally wrote: <snip>
Why are you posting this off-wiki? The place for this discussion (which is a perennial one, by the way) is the RFA talk page.
Simple Tally. This list is a working list. A place to float ideas. I can post this off wiki. I'm not asking for {{support}}, I'm asking for thoughts. Like, is this crazy, or is this a good idea?
- -- Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
2008/7/26 Jon scream@datascreamer.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Al Tally wrote:
<snip> >> > > Why are you posting this off-wiki? The place for this discussion (which is a > perennial one, by the way) is the RFA talk page. >
Simple Tally. This list is a working list. A place to float ideas. I can post this off wiki. I'm not asking for {{support}}, I'm asking for thoughts. Like, is this crazy, or is this a good idea?
Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkiLY8IACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtVdWQCeMsCTtTrLZ3f62szzT8EEfASx hoAAoKV2pchrSDBDnBQ0In1ms9P+niA4 =Gyxh -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It's crazy. RFA will never change, no matter how many ideas are proposed.
OK I lie, it will change. It's going to get worse.
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 1:49 PM, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Simple Tally. This list is a working list. A place to float ideas. I can post this off wiki. I'm not asking for {{support}}, I'm asking for thoughts. Like, is this crazy, or is this a good idea?
Yea, sometimes it makes sense to float it here for thoughts and opinions before posting it on wiki for support. That being said, here's something I have been tempted to propose to wt:rfa myself.
Some RFAs are top heavy with "optional" questions. I use the term "optional" loosely because a candidate will get an assload of opposes if he doesn't answer them. One of the most ridiculous ones was a candidate being asked to write a Haiku. Next will probably come a request for the candidate to upload an mpeg of him jumping through a hoop.
My idea is to limit "optional questions" to those specific to the candidate such as "can you explain this edit here" or "why did you use the rollback tool here". Any general questions (that is, questions that could be asked of any candidate) would have to be agreed upon by consensus on wt:rfa and added to the template. In other words, everybody gets asked about "cool down blocks" or nobody does, everybody takes an AGF challenge or nobody does. Everybody writes a Haiku or nobody does.
2008/7/26 Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com:
Why are you posting this off-wiki? The place for this discussion (which is a perennial one, by the way) is the RFA talk page.
Because [[WT:RFA]] is where good sense about the RFA process goes to die.
- d.
2008/7/26 David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com
2008/7/26 Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com:
Why are you posting this off-wiki? The place for this discussion (which
is a
perennial one, by the way) is the RFA talk page.
Because [[WT:RFA]] is where good sense about the RFA process goes to die.
- d.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
I can't say I disagree, but I don't think this list is much better.
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Permit the crats or admins to grant and take away adminship.
Can you imagine the wheel wars that can happen if admins could desysop other admins? I think the crats should be able to desysop though.
BTW, what is the logic behind "Crats giveth, Stewards taketh away? It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Is there an archive somewhere where this was first discussed?
2008/7/26 Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
Permit the crats or admins to grant and take away adminship.
Can you imagine the wheel wars that can happen if admins could desysop other admins? I think the crats should be able to desysop though.
BTW, what is the logic behind "Crats giveth, Stewards taketh away? It doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. Is there an archive somewhere where this was first discussed?
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
It doesn't make sense. We have that method on meta-wiki. AFAIK, by default all wikis are set up with bcrats being able to desysop.
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 3:51 PM, Al Tally majorly.wiki@googlemail.com wrote:
It doesn't make sense. We have that method on meta-wiki. AFAIK, by default all wikis are set up with bcrats being able to desysop.
Just to clarify. On normal MediaWiki wikis, there is no such thing as "stewards", so the bureaucrats can add/remove the rights. On all Wikimedia wikis, we have stewards and (by default) bureaucrats *can't* take away.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Thank you for your thoughts, I think I have a solid proposal to place on wiki, although comments here are still welcome and will be read.
- -- Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream]
Allowing admins to sysop other editors is an enormous centralisation of power. It'd probably rival the block as the biggest power admins possess. And make the role even more political and even less enforcer of community decisions.
Cheers WilyD
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Colleagues,
As some of you already know, I've undergone an RFA recently. Thats ok. No matter the result, I try to vote on some RFA's whenever I ask for the community do discuss me.
On the same token, I try to vote on some AFDs (or close some) whenever I submit an AFD.
As I read some of the RFAs ongoing, I discovered a trend. So I looked into the recent historical RFA votes. (Lets not get to wrapped around vote=!vote, for simplicity of this proposal/idea, I'll call all comments, discussions... votes)
I have discovered what appears to be a trend in clique mentality and power centralization. Also, I have discovered some crazy oppositions, for example "I view self noms a prima facia evidence of power hunger." This is among the craziest I've seen. Not that the editor is crazy, but the oppose is.
Here is my suggested solution:
Allow editors (those who have not already undergone RFA, desysopped under a cloud, and desysopped by Arbitration) to sysop after 2500 edits and 6 months on the project without any recent behavior related blocks. Permit the crats or admins to grant and take away adminship. If this idea has some support on the mailing list (with any suggested alterations) I think I might put up a policy page as I have done on IPBLOCKEXEMPT for discussion.
The advantages of such a system would eliminate power centralization, clique mentality, and some of these outrageous opposes.
Everyone here is an academic. We are building en encyclopedia.
Thoughts?
Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkiLYnYACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtWqDQCgn6Y05NKQitmG3hVULiuwatDO RNwAn3trfXrMPKSw29M4ky/2qXIe3UQk =9Poc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
"*Allow editors (those who have not already undergone RFA, desysopped under a cloud, and desysopped by Arbitration) to sysop after 2500 edit and 6 months on the project without any recent behavior related blocks*." Never in a million years. There are too many Admins running about with powers they don't understand, as it is. Adminship should be made harder to obtain, not easier.
Giano
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 3:12 PM, Wily D wilydoppelganger@gmail.com wrote:
Allowing admins to sysop other editors is an enormous centralisation of power. It'd probably rival the block as the biggest power admins possess. And make the role even more political and even less enforcer of community decisions.
Cheers WilyD
On Sat, Jul 26, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Jon scream@datascreamer.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Colleagues,
As some of you already know, I've undergone an RFA recently. Thats ok. No matter the result, I try to vote on some RFA's whenever I ask for the community do discuss me.
On the same token, I try to vote on some AFDs (or close some) whenever I submit an AFD.
As I read some of the RFAs ongoing, I discovered a trend. So I looked into the recent historical RFA votes. (Lets not get to wrapped around vote=!vote, for simplicity of this proposal/idea, I'll call all comments, discussions... votes)
I have discovered what appears to be a trend in clique mentality and power centralization. Also, I have discovered some crazy oppositions, for example "I view self noms a prima facia evidence of power hunger." This is among the craziest I've seen. Not that the editor is crazy, but the oppose is.
Here is my suggested solution:
Allow editors (those who have not already undergone RFA, desysopped under a cloud, and desysopped by Arbitration) to sysop after 2500 edits and 6 months on the project without any recent behavior related blocks. Permit the crats or admins to grant and take away adminship. If this idea has some support on the mailing list (with any suggested alterations) I think I might put up a policy page as I have done on IPBLOCKEXEMPT for discussion.
The advantages of such a system would eliminate power centralization, clique mentality, and some of these outrageous opposes.
Everyone here is an academic. We are building en encyclopedia.
Thoughts?
Best, Jon
[User:NonvocalScream] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkiLYnYACgkQ6+ro8Pm1AtWqDQCgn6Y05NKQitmG3hVULiuwatDO RNwAn3trfXrMPKSw29M4ky/2qXIe3UQk =9Poc -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Giacomo M-Z solebaciato@googlemail.com wrote:
"*Allow editors (those who have not already undergone RFA, desysopped under a cloud, and desysopped by Arbitration) to sysop after 2500 edit and 6 months on the project without any recent behavior related blocks*." Never in a million years. There are too many Admins running about with powers they don't understand, as it is. Adminship should be made harder to obtain, not easier.
IMO there are more editors who don't understand *their* powers than administrators. By percentage, not volume.
Still, {{fact}} to us both.
Still, finding a perfect RFA system will be very difficult, but not impossible.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Giacomo M-Z solebaciato@googlemail.com wrote:
"*Allow editors (those who have not already undergone RFA, desysopped
under
a cloud, and desysopped by Arbitration) to sysop after 2500 edit and 6 months on the project without any recent behavior related blocks*." Never
in
a million years. There are too many Admins running about with powers they don't understand, as it is. Adminship should be made harder to obtain,
not
easier.
IMO there are more editors who don't understand *their* powers than administrators. By percentage, not volume.
Still, {{fact}} to us both.
-- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Finding a perfect one is impossible. Finding one that doesn't suck the chrome off of fenders is probably possible, but evidentally hard.
WilyD
On Sat, Aug 9, 2008 at 10:56 PM, Kevin Wong wikipedianmarlith@gmail.com wrote:
Still, finding a perfect RFA system will be very difficult, but not impossible.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:58 PM, Chris Howie cdhowie@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 3:53 PM, Giacomo M-Z solebaciato@googlemail.com wrote:
"*Allow editors (those who have not already undergone RFA, desysopped
under
a cloud, and desysopped by Arbitration) to sysop after 2500 edit and 6 months on the project without any recent behavior related blocks*." Never
in
a million years. There are too many Admins running about with powers they don't understand, as it is. Adminship should be made harder to obtain,
not
easier.
IMO there are more editors who don't understand *their* powers than administrators. By percentage, not volume.
Still, {{fact}} to us both.
-- Chris Howie http://www.chrishowie.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Crazycomputers
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to stop and reflect. - Mark Twain _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l