[WikiEN-l] Parker Peters's comments

Sat Oct 7 00:34:01 UTC 2006

This is similar to the system we have on Wikiversity, actually. Anyone
can nominate themselves for custodianship (our term for sysop), but a
present custodian has to accept them for mentoring, and then they
undergo a mentoring period for a number of weeks, after which the
community can comment on their performance and decide if they can
become a full sysop or not. Their actions generally come under further
scrutiny during their mentorship period, and its assumed that they'll
learn not to do anything stupid (of course, tests are acceptable and
encouraged, I blocked myself for 10 minutes during my probation period
to familiarise myself with it). It is, in essence, quite an effective
system considering Wikiversity is just coming up.

On 10/7/06, Parker Peters <onmywayoutster at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at aol.com <daniwo59 at 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 at Wikipedia.org
> > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > WikiEN-l mailing list
> > WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> > http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
> >
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at Wikipedia.org
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
>