[WikiEN-l] Rename admins to janitors

[John Vandenberg]

On 3/7/07, xaosflux <xaosflux at gmail.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ray Saintonge" <saintonge at telus.net>
>...
> > MacGyverMagic/Mgm wrote:
> > > People who ask admins/sysops to make editorial decisions are simply unaware
> > > of their role. Instead of causing loads of work by renaming the position, it
> > > would IMO be more effective to educate the others. People who make editorial
> > > decisions about writing are usually called editors. Should we rename that
> > > term too?
> >
> > The name change process should not be a problem, as it would happen
> > gradually.  Admins did used to be called sysops, and that term has not
> > completely died out.  Applying to be a jamitor could be renamed "Request
> > for Brooms".
>
> I'd be fine with renaming it back to sysop if it would help specify that it
> is more of a technical role then a management one.

However, administrators are performing roles that are in effect
editorial in nature; e.g. decisions at Afd and DRV to name just two.
Changing the name of this role wont significantly decrease the
perception of power/influence; it is real and as more and more new
articles are being thrown on Afd, I expect that new users often form
their first impressions of "administrators" due to an editorial
judgement.

The current climate is at odds with [[Wikipedia:Administrators]]:

"From early on, it has been pointed out that administrators should
never develop into a special subgroup of the community but should be a
part of the community like anyone else."

I'd like to throw in a more radial idea to this renaming discussion.
Maybe we can separate the editorial roles out from the current
administrator role, and call the new role "editor at-large",
Custodian, or similar.  This separation is already in practise at DRV
where usually senior administrators make the final decision.  The role
of a sysop is then to perform technical actions where a clear policy
exists, or based on the decision of a custodian.  This role would be
primarily more attractive to a different set of people like
developers, bot operators, or people who just want to clear backlogs
and don't really want to be held responsible for having made a bad
editorial decision.

To restore the level playing field, the administrator "bit" could then
be given to anyone who has been "active" for a six months stretch (100
edits/month?), and has maintained a defined "editing rate" (100 edits
in the *last* month seems sufficient) without a formal objection being
raised by another editor.  This ensures the editor has been in regular
and recent contact with lots of other editors, so other editors have
as a collaborative group implicitly and continuously approved of the
"bit".  The first time a user gains the bit, they could be listed on a
NewAdmins list and senior admins could keep an eye on them for strange
happenings.  Less paperwork and less credibility attached to the role
also means it is less of a problem if the bit is revoked because
nobody explicitly vouched for them in an RfA.

If these ideas have been thrashed around already, could someone point
me to the previous discussions.

--
John