KQ wrote:
No, there's not another list, and yes, you should be reading this list (unless you find it boring). This list is *not* only for sysops.
About the secret nominations: mav has a lot of good ideas, so it's fine if he has the occasional bad one, and this one is a bad one.
Actually all I want is to make the process run a bit smoother than it is now. It is tedious to seek-out Admin candidates, ask them to apply, and then have most of them not even bother for weeks or longer. So I want to cut uncontroversial candidates out of the selection process by, in a way, auto-sysoping them. So when I imply a "secrete" proceeding all I mean is that the candidate would not have to be the one initiating the process nor would they need to participate at all. So there is no need for any secrete mailing list or anything like that.
And a technical means to "auto-sysop" would be a bad idea; like you said Lir would have been made a sysop, so would Clutch and maybe even TMC (depending on the criteria). These users would have been even more troublesome as Admins and created an even greater amount of damage (blocking IPs willy-nilly, deleting pages that should not have been deleted etc).
Some people think that society would be better if every teenager were given a gun on their 18th birthday regardless of their mental state or firearms training. I'm definitely not in that camp of thought.
-- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search.yahoo.com
On Thu, 2003-05-08 at 16:41, Daniel Mayer wrote:
And a technical means to "auto-sysop" would be a bad idea; like you said Lir would have been made a sysop, so would Clutch and maybe even TMC (depending on the criteria). These users would have been even more troublesome as Admins and created an even greater amount of damage (blocking IPs willy-nilly, deleting pages that should not have been deleted etc).
Actually, it would have made the case for banning them much stronger more quickly.
Instead of seeing possible auto-sysopping of troublesome members as a Bad Idea, it's more constructive to think about the principle of No Permanent Damage. That is, what constraints/mechanisms would be necessary for a few bad apples to be unable to make the Good Idea--of allowing useful contributors (that is, most people) to automatically gain more capabilities--a problem?
Some people think that society would be better if every teenager were given a gun on their 18th birthday regardless of their mental state or firearms training. I'm definitely not in that camp of thought.
Nor am I. But conflating sysop powers on Wikipedia with gun usage is silly and wrong. Your principled stand against disseminating instruments of death has little relevance in a discussion about Wikipedia editing.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
| Some people think that society would be better if | every teenager were given a gun on their 18th birthday | regardless of their mental state or firearms training. | I'm definitely not in that camp of thought. | | -- Daniel Mayer (aka mav)
A) Strawman argument; unworthy of you, mav.
B) Who are these tin-plated tyrants that want to make the kids wait until they're eighteen?
- -- ~ Sean Barrett | When cryptography is outlawed, ~ sean@epoptic.com | bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.