ArchiveOrangemail archive

English Wikipedia


wikien-l.lists.wikimedia.org
(List home) (Recent threads) (101 other Wikimedia lists)

Subscription Options

  • RSS or Atom: Read-only subscription using a browser or aggregator. This is the recommended way if you don't need to send messages to the list. You can learn more about feed syndication and clients here.
  • Conventional: All messages are delivered to your mail address, and you can reply. To subscribe, send an email to the list's subscribe address with "subscribe" in the subject line, or visit the list's homepage here.
  • Low traffic list: less than 3 messages per day
  • This list contains about 110,831 messages, beginning Sep 2002
  • 0 messages added yesterday
Report the Spam
This button sends a spam report to the moderator. Please use it sparingly. For other removal requests, read this.
Are you sure? yes no

An alternative system to work alongside RFA

Ad
Ron Ritzman 1176510801Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:33:21 +0000 (UTC)
On 4/10/07, Steve Bennett wrote: > To be quite honest, is there any reason why the community should even > have a say in appointing admns? Why not just have candidates be vetted > by bureaucrats (or some similar group if preferred)? Would the project > be worse off?
I don't think that RFA should be replaced by such a system but this post got me thinking about an alternative way of selecting admins to operate alongside RFA. I would call it "Plan B" and here's how it would work. It wouldn't be an "open nomination" system like RFA. A candidate would be selected and vetted by "some group of experienced wikipedians". Bureaucrats, your "similar group", stewarts, the foundation, a group of admins, Jimbo's secret cabal (tinsc) etc. The point is that the candidate would be somebody that "insiders" have investigated and believe would make a good admin. The candidate is then presented to the community for discussion. The presentation could be paraphrased something like this "This is user:JoeShmoe. He has been on Wikipedia since $DATE, has worked on $THESE_PROJECTS and done $THESE_THINGS. We think he would make a good admin and we trust him with the tools. The community would then be invited to comment. It would not be a vote and there will be no "questions". The only way that the candidate would not become an admin is if somebody in good faith presents a "DAMN GOOD REASON" why JoeShmoe should not be given the tools, perhaps something that the nominators had missed about his past behavior. What would not be considered is anything that the nominators have already considered such as his edit count, his work or lack of on a FA, his votes in AFD/RFA, his experience in article space vs policy discussions. Irrelevant or ambiguous comments would not be considered such as "no need for the tools" or "He's a Scorpio" :) When should "Plan B" be used? I don't know, that could be decided later.
geni 1176511453Sat, 14 Apr 2007 00:44:13 +0000 (UTC)
On 4/14/07, Ron Ritzman wrote: > When should "Plan B" be used?
When you are on a project other than wikipedia probably Citizendium. Wikipedia is community based. This is something that should be embraced rather than opposed. Additionally the odds of any such committee being able to process RFAs at the pace required is minimal.
gjzilla at gmail.com 1176514963Sat, 14 Apr 2007 01:42:43 +0000 (UTC)
On 4/13/07, geni wrote: > On 4/14/07, Ron Ritzman wrote: > > When should "Plan B" be used? > > When you are on a project other than wikipedia probably Citizendium. > > Wikipedia is community based. This is something that should be > embraced rather than opposed. > > Additionally the odds of any such committee being able to process RFAs > at the pace required is minimal. > > -- > geni
I don't think this should be rejected *out of hand*. However, who would pick them? That would probably be a dealbreaker. ~~~~
Ron Ritzman 1176516496Sat, 14 Apr 2007 02:08:16 +0000 (UTC)
On 4/13/07, gjzilla at gmail.com wrote: > On 4/13/07, geni wrote: > > Wikipedia is community based. This is something that should be > > embraced rather than opposed. > > > > Additionally the odds of any such committee being able to process RFAs > > at the pace required is minimal.
I didn't suggest this as a "replacement" for RFA. That would still be there in all its glory (or brokenness) and work just as it does now. It would be another way of picking admins, hence the term "Plan B".
> I don't think this should be rejected *out of hand*. However, who > would pick them? That would probably be a dealbreaker.
It might be easier to pick them if RFA still existed. It just might be a case where the "bureastewards" or a group of swamped admins say "hey, we could use just a few more admins then are currently getting through RFA, let's submit a few good people to "Plan B". I do think that one thing that "Plan B" should not be used for is to make someone admin who has failed his RFA. That would look "cabalish".
Guettarda 1176520335Sat, 14 Apr 2007 03:12:15 +0000 (UTC)
On 4/13/07, Ron Ritzman wrote: > > On 4/10/07, Steve Bennett wrote: > > > To be quite honest, is there any reason why the community should even > > have a say in appointing admns? Why not just have candidates be vetted > > by bureaucrats (or some similar group if preferred)? Would the project > > be worse off? > > I don't think that RFA should be replaced by such a system but this > post got me thinking about an alternative way of selecting admins to > operate alongside RFA. I would call it "Plan B" and here's how it > would work. > > It wouldn't be an "open nomination" system like RFA. A candidate would > be selected and vetted by "some group of experienced wikipedians". > Bureaucrats, your "similar group", stewarts, the foundation, a group > of admins, Jimbo's secret cabal (tinsc) etc. The point is that the > candidate would be somebody that "insiders" have investigated and > believe would make a good admin. > > The candidate is then presented to the community for discussion. The > presentation could be paraphrased something like this "This is > user:JoeShmoe. He has been on Wikipedia since $DATE, has worked on > $THESE_PROJECTS and done $THESE_THINGS. We think he would make a good > admin and we trust him with the tools. > > The community would then be invited to comment. It would not be a vote > and there will be no "questions". The only way that the candidate > would not become an admin is if somebody in good faith presents a > "DAMN GOOD REASON" why JoeShmoe should not be given the tools, perhaps > something that the nominators had missed about his past behavior. What > would not be considered is anything that the nominators have already > considered such as his edit count, his work or lack of on a FA, his > votes in AFD/RFA, his experience in article space vs policy > discussions. Irrelevant or ambiguous comments would not be considered > such as "no need for the tools" or "He's a Scorpio" :) > > When should "Plan B" be used? I don't know, that could be decided later.
If someone is unlikely to be opposed, there is no reason for "Plan B". If, on the other hand, someone is unlikely to pass RFA, then a "back door" method of promotion isn't likely to be worth the disruption it causes. On the other hand, if there was an emergency need for admins, additional admins could be promoted on a temporary basis by Jimbo, the bureaucrats, or the stewards. The key point being promoted on a temporary basis. The key issues is one of need. Is there a situation in which we would need more admins on an emergency basis? If there is such a need, why could it not be met by the existing pool of "reserve admins" - people who are admins, but rarely perform admin duties, and people with admin powers who aren't active? If there were a short-term emergency need for admins, it would be easy to activate existing admins. If it were some sort of a long-term need for more admins, it should be possible to communicate that need to active RFA participants. As for Plan B - any non-RFA promotions should be done on a temporary basis. Temporary promotions for a specific purpose would be far less controversial. Of course, I don't know what sort of emergency situation might require this.
Home | About | Privacy