On 23/08/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
What criteria for deadminning are you thinking of? "Unpopular for deleting 1000 fair-abuse images" or something that'll be usable for that shouldn't be amongst them, for instance.
The same at the criteria for a block. Violating policy. When such a violation requires action and what action is required should be at the discretion of the crat, just as it's at the discretion of the admin for blocks.
The criterion for a block is actually preventing damage - not punishment, which is why mere past policy violation isn't reason for a block and blocks for old 3RRs are ill-favoured.
So presumably de-adminning would also be for prevention of damage.
Examples would be useful as well, so we aren't talking entirely in the abstract. Probably with names removed.
- d.
The criterion for a block is actually preventing damage - not punishment, which is why mere past policy violation isn't reason for a block and blocks for old 3RRs are ill-favoured.
So presumably de-adminning would also be for prevention of damage.
Well, yes. Violating policy is how "damage" is determined. If there is no reason to believe that there will be future violations, then action isn't required. That is where the admin/crat discretion comes in.
Examples would be useful as well, so we aren't talking entirely in the abstract. Probably with names removed.
I'd rather avoid real examples. Even with names removed, people will be able to identify most of them, and it will cause upset. At the moment this is a friendly civilised discussion. I'd like to keep it that way. Fictional examples would be fine, and possibly helpful, though. We have to be careful to avoid making things too rigid, though. If examples end up in the final formulation of the policy, crats will be expected to follow them, even if circumstances dictate otherwise, which would be a problem.
I've watched as ArbCom has made de-adminning decisions that were blatantly improper. I have zero faith that a group other than ArbCom is going to do any better of a job.
Admins have a thankless job. Many of them are regularly treated like crap by new and regular users alike. To have them do their jobs, and then have a sword hanging over their heads by a thread is against our purposes here.
If there's ever a need for a larger de-adminning process than that of ArbCom we can discuss it then. As is, there isn't any clear need in any respect.
-Durin
On 23/08/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
If there's ever a need for a larger de-adminning process than that of ArbCom we can discuss it then. As is, there isn't any clear need in any respect.
We're discussing because there will be a need if we relax adminship requirements. We know there isn't a need now.
I'm not entirely convinced there will be significantly more of a need if RFA is told to quit it with the demands for shrubberies - such a need that we would need rules in place first, rather than defining them as the need shows up.
The need hasn't been shown as yet.
- d.
I'm not entirely convinced there will be significantly more of a need if RFA is told to quit it with the demands for shrubberies - such a need that we would need rules in place first, rather than defining them as the need shows up.
The need hasn't been shown as yet.
There's a big difference between getting rid of some of the more excessive requirements at RfA and handing out the mop to anyone that's been around long enough without getting blocked. The first shouldn't require any major changes in desysoping process. The latter definitely would.
On 23/08/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not entirely convinced there will be significantly more of a need if RFA is told to quit it with the demands for shrubberies - such a need that we would need rules in place first, rather than defining them as the need shows up. The need hasn't been shown as yet.
There's a big difference between getting rid of some of the more excessive requirements at RfA and handing out the mop to anyone that's been around long enough without getting blocked. The first shouldn't require any major changes in desysoping process. The latter definitely would.
Mmm, quite possibly. OTOH I think it's unlikely we'd get to that in a single step.
- d.
On 8/23/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
We're discussing because there will be a need if we relax adminship requirements. We know there isn't a need now.
Maybe, but better to wait and see I think. No reason to make new policy that *might* be needed. Let's make it *if* it's needed.
Judson [[:en:User:Cohesion]]
On 23/08/07, cohesion cohesion@sleepyhead.org wrote:
On 8/23/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
We're discussing because there will be a need if we relax adminship requirements. We know there isn't a need now.
Maybe, but better to wait and see I think. No reason to make new policy that *might* be needed. Let's make it *if* it's needed.
I don't think there is any "might" about it. If we relax admin requirements, we will get more bad admins and will need to desysop them. Going through a full arbcom case for each and every one is far too slow and time consuming, and unless arbcom changes their point of view (which, admittedly, they might if we relaxed requirements), unlikely to work until things have already gone too far.
On 8/23/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think there is any "might" about it. If we relax admin requirements, we will get more bad admins
Putting aside the issue of whether or not we should, if we wanted to relax admin requirements, how would we do it? It appears that those saying "support" and "oppose" are the ones who decide admin requirements and I don't see them responding favorably to a "pretty please don't !vote "oppose" for reasons X, Y, and Z" request.
Changing admin requirements would mean changing the way we pick admins and I don't see that happening either.
On 24/08/07, Ron Ritzman ritzman@gmail.com wrote:
On 8/23/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think there is any "might" about it. If we relax admin requirements, we will get more bad admins
Putting aside the issue of whether or not we should, if we wanted to relax admin requirements, how would we do it? It appears that those saying "support" and "oppose" are the ones who decide admin requirements and I don't see them responding favorably to a "pretty please don't !vote "oppose" for reasons X, Y, and Z" request.
Changing admin requirements would mean changing the way we pick admins and I don't see that happening either.
going back a little bit on this post Rfa is probably very bad - lets look at it another way - statistics tell us that in any given week there are around 4000 regular registered editors (on en). 10pc of those are probably admin (or if the theory is true 25pc). I personally dont think that 2000 of the regular editors want to get involved. so of the remainder you have fair wether editors who want to get stuck in (and want to be admin now, yesterday), editors who will bide their time with a goal of clocking up and playing the WP says this and guidelines says this. The rest are too frightened to try or do try and then leave the project once Rfa is snowed.
How to make it good? I will never say that all admins are good but why not a revolving commitee of 20 admins at random who decide based on applicatants edits, communication, GF blocks etc - make it a real vote. open - no need for candidates to screw themselves by answering every post.
mike
Putting aside the issue of whether or not we should, if we wanted to relax admin requirements, how would we do it? It appears that those saying "support" and "oppose" are the ones who decide admin requirements and I don't see them responding favorably to a "pretty please don't !vote "oppose" for reasons X, Y, and Z" request.
Changing admin requirements would mean changing the way we pick admins and I don't see that happening either.
That's being discussed in the "No RFAs in progress" thread. This thread was branched off to discuss deadminship.
On 8/23/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think there is any "might" about it. If we relax admin requirements, we will get more bad admins
Putting aside the issue of whether or not we should, if we wanted to relax admin requirements, how would we do it? It appears that those saying "support" and "oppose" are the ones who decide admin requirements and I don't see them responding favorably to a "pretty please don't !vote "oppose" for reasons X, Y, and Z" request.
Changing admin requirements would mean changing the way we pick admins and I don't see that happening either.
On 8/23/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think there is any "might" about it. If we relax admin requirements, we will get more bad admins and will need to desysop them.
I was just saying we should wait and see. I don't really think there is a huge problem anyway. People that discuss this on the mailing list are not representative of every editor. There is a bias to think everyone wants to be an admin, that's simply not true. If you make people admins based on some criteria you will get a lot of people that have the tools to cleanup admin backlogs but lack the desire, as they were happily editing articles on bridges, or Nevada, and will continue to do so.
I think people that become admins should be somewhat self-motivated, they should *want* to be admins. BUT it shouldn't be hard. Just have a new system where people ask to be admins, a bureaucrat looks at their history to make sure they are generally ok and decides, and then in 3 months there is a retrospective discussion. If the discussion has consensus to deadmin, do so. Easy. While we're at it let's rename admin to custodian or curator :)
cohesion wrote:
On 8/23/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think there is any "might" about it. If we relax admin requirements, we will get more bad admins and will need to desysop them.
I was just saying we should wait and see. I don't really think there is a huge problem anyway. People that discuss this on the mailing list are not representative of every editor. There is a bias to think everyone wants to be an admin, that's simply not true. If you make people admins based on some criteria you will get a lot of people that have the tools to cleanup admin backlogs but lack the desire, as they were happily editing articles on bridges, or Nevada, and will continue to do so.
I think people that become admins should be somewhat self-motivated, they should *want* to be admins. BUT it shouldn't be hard. Just have a new system where people ask to be admins, a bureaucrat looks at their history to make sure they are generally ok and decides, and then in 3 months there is a retrospective discussion. If the discussion has consensus to deadmin, do so. Easy. While we're at it let's rename admin to custodian or curator :)
I think there is alot of truth to what you say here. But if you want to be an admin you will get slapped around at RfA. Remember, we only want people who do not want the job ;).
Bryant