My earlier comment on a possible "writer" status was kind of stupid. And it wasn't refined...
I propose that for the "editor" status (my proposal for a user right between user and sysop), one would have the capabilities to edit protected articles, view deleted revisions, and generally view admin-olny things (but not actually perform sysop actions per se). And they might have a toolbar that would allow them to nominate these things...
--------------------------------- It's here! Your new message! Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
I propose that for the "editor" status (my proposal for a user right between user and sysop), one would have the capabilities to edit protected articles, view deleted revisions, and generally view admin-olny things (but not actually perform sysop actions per se). And they might have a toolbar that would allow them to nominate these things...
That's a better idea. The protection bit could be done as a form of protection inbetween semi and full (and there could be a super-protection that can only be edited by people with oversight, checkuser and crats). Viewing deleted revisions would be good, but might cause some problems - some things are deleted because it's important that people don't see them (personal info, copyvios, etc), making more people able to see deleted revisions could be risky.
I don't agree with users who don't have sysop- or above (in the 'hierarchy') level access viewing deleted revisions.
How many users would have this permission, and how would they get it? Autoconfirm-style number of good edits + time on project = 'editor' level?
On 2/15/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I propose that for the "editor" status (my proposal for a user right
between user and sysop), one would have the capabilities to edit protected articles, view deleted revisions, and generally view admin-olny things (but not actually perform sysop actions per se). And they might have a toolbar that would allow them to nominate these things...
That's a better idea. The protection bit could be done as a form of protection inbetween semi and full (and there could be a super-protection that can only be edited by people with oversight, checkuser and crats). Viewing deleted revisions would be good, but might cause some problems - some things are deleted because it's important that people don't see them (personal info, copyvios, etc), making more people able to see deleted revisions could be risky.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 2/15/07, Gary Kirk gary.kirk@gmail.com wrote:
I don't agree with users who don't have sysop- or above (in the 'hierarchy') level access viewing deleted revisions.
How many users would have this permission, and how would they get it? Autoconfirm-style number of good edits + time on project = 'editor' level?
I am inclined to agree with Gary. If the bar for adminship has been raised too high, then lets do something to lower it - but having a discussion here isn't the way to do it. It needs to be among the regular RFA voters, and there needs to be some sort of broad consensus of what adminship should be. Coming up with a new status won't help - unless there is broad consensus, the same people are likely to vote in the same way they do now.
The "standards" for admins isn't something that can be changed top-down. It has developed in a bottom-up fashion in the community. The only way to change it is to change opinions in a bottom-up manner
On 2/15/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
I propose that for the "editor" status (my proposal for a user right
between user and sysop), one would have the capabilities to edit
protected
articles, view deleted revisions, and generally view admin-olny things
(but
not actually perform sysop actions per se). And they might have a
toolbar
that would allow them to nominate these things...
That's a better idea. The protection bit could be done as a form of protection inbetween semi and full (and there could be a super-protection that can only be edited by people with oversight, checkuser and crats). Viewing deleted revisions would be good, but might cause some problems - some things are deleted because it's important that people don't see them (personal info, copyvios, etc), making more people able to see deleted revisions could be risky.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Gary Kirk
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Guettarda wrote:
On 2/15/07, Gary Kirk gary.kirk@gmail.com wrote:
I don't agree with users who don't have sysop- or above (in the 'hierarchy') level access viewing deleted revisions.
How many users would have this permission, and how would they get it? Autoconfirm-style number of good edits + time on project = 'editor' level?
I am inclined to agree with Gary. If the bar for adminship has been raised too high, then lets do something to lower it - but having a discussion here isn't the way to do it. It needs to be among the regular RFA voters, and there needs to be some sort of broad consensus of what adminship should be. Coming up with a new status won't help - unless there is broad consensus, the same people are likely to vote in the same way they do now.
The "standards" for admins isn't something that can be changed top-down. It has developed in a bottom-up fashion in the community. The only way to change it is to change opinions in a bottom-up manner
I can understand where someone active in the RfA process would want policy revision discussions in a place that would primarily attract those who would support the status quo. This is consistent with having winning as a superior goal to getting things right. The discussions on this mailing list are much less favorable to the status quo. Broad consensus requires a broad base. Although I have never asked to be an admin on this project, this does not mean that I never considered the possibility. When I first did consider this one of the requirements for being an admin was to join the mailing list. Admittedly, given our large niumber of admins, this would no longer be practical.
I do not consider familiarity with a lot of rules for dealing with problem people to be essential to an admins job. Not everyone who wants to be an admin wants to spend his time shovelling that kind of muck. Some will indeed use the new tools in very limited circumstances to improve an area of interest where there will be a perfectly happy consesnsus to delete certain articles in favour of others, and they will do it without recourse to some kind of general list dimninated by those who have neither interest in nor understanding of the subject. There are other possibilities that are not some kind of police work.
Sometimes the most depressing thing about democracy (which, as has been repeatedly stated, Wikipedia is not) is watching it in action. It so often ignores the fundamental principles for why it exists in the first place, and becomes paralyzed because of that. I do not hide nor make any apologies for my clearly leftish political sentiments, and yet I can find more common cause with some of the right wingers around here about the governance and future of Wikipedia than I can with some of those who purport to want a more democratic system.
We haven't yet figured out how to make broad consensus scale, and until we do (probably not in my lifetime) we still need leadership. This may sometimes seem to be a top down construct, but the enemy on the other side is stagnation. Consensus is not achieved by moving the discussion into a forum where your view will prevail. The wise leader will always leave open the possibility that he may be in error, and as a consequence will take his actions with that in mind.
You say that changes should be brought about from the bottom up. Philosophically I agree, but at some point life has to go on. Saying that decisions need to be made from the bottom up does not alone succeed in bringing about those changes, because there will always be new objections.
Could we start perhaps, when we speak of "coming up with a new status", stop using the word "status", and think in terms of "privilege"?
Ec
On 2/16/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I do not consider familiarity with a lot of rules for dealing with problem people to be essential to an admins job.
Not sure I comepletely understand this sentence. Admins clearly need to be familiar with rules, but that doesn't mean they have to do all the possible admin tasks. If someone wants to stick with one task, I'm happy to allow them to do that as long as they know the rules for that specific field.
I like the idea of splitting all the powers and grant specific powers depending on what the admin in question wants to do. I do wonder what to do about newbies who are told to contact an administrator about an issue. How are they supposed to know if a certain admin can help them?
Mgm
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
Admins clearly need to be familiar with rules, but that doesn't mean they have to do all the possible admin tasks. If someone wants to stick with one task, I'm happy to allow them to do that as long as they know the rules for that specific field.
I like the idea of splitting all the powers and grant specific powers depending on what the admin in question wants to do.
That's very appealing. I know developer time is always a concern, but going from one bit to a few bits could be a pretty modest change. And that might make the RfA process less about whether the applicant is a tree among shrubs and more about their fitness for some particular purpose.
I do wonder what to do about newbies who are told to contact an administrator about an issue. How are they supposed to know if a certain admin can help them?
Would that matter much? Assuming they have found an admin directly and semi-randomly rather than going through the various filters and funnels in places like [[WP:AN]], then I'd expect the task-specific admin still would know where to send the newbie. Especially if the "welcome, new admin" guide had ways for these limited admins to get help themselves.
William
MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
On 2/16/07, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
I do not consider familiarity with a lot of rules for dealing with problem people to be essential to an admins job.
Not sure I comepletely understand this sentence. Admins clearly need to be familiar with rules, but that doesn't mean they have to do all the possible admin tasks. If someone wants to stick with one task, I'm happy to allow them to do that as long as they know the rules for that specific field.
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I agree with what you say. Unfortunately the focus these days is on disciplinary rules, and conflicted situations. This doesn't help those who just want to quietly build a better encyclopedia.
I like the idea of splitting all the powers and grant specific powers depending on what the admin in question wants to do. I do wonder what to do about newbies who are told to contact an administrator about an issue. How are they supposed to know if a certain admin can help them?
I prefer to keep an open mind on splitting powers. I'm inclined not to like it but could concede that view in order to arrive at a more congenial approach to adminship. My reservation is consistent with yours. Maybe we need a system of mentorship.
Ec