This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request page. |
|
Content of the above proposal was merged into this discussion. My76Strat ( talk) 02:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The reason I removed the Rfa reform transclusion is because this proposal is actually totally separate and needs to be developed as an alternative. My76Strat ( talk) 03:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The proposal talks about a period of time and/or log actions. We need to define that period. I suggest 6 months and 1000 log actions. Any other suggestions? My76Strat ( talk) 04:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Note: Please remember this section is for discussion of a proposal, not an actual proposal. There's no need to support or oppose, but any suggestions would be welcome. WormTT · ( talk) 09:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I do not support this proposal for these reasons:
/ ƒETCH COMMS / 05:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as proposer, this is not admin light at all. The idea is to generate an alternative to the current path to adminship, not to generate a permanent class of "admin lights". -- Cerejota ( talk) 20:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
This idea seems to me to blend various elements of two ideas, admin lite and an alternative route to adminship. I'm not convinced that it combines them in a way that creates something better than either, in some respects it may even be worse. Admin lite with stricter criteria than adminship doesn't entirely make sense to me. I'll continue to work on both the other ideas, but whilst I'm not currently prepared to support this proposal I'm happy to give it some hopefully constructive feedback. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
If you re quoting Jimbo as supporting the idea of unbundling blocking for IPs and editors with less than 100 edits then you really ought to link to a diff of his Ϣere SpielChequers 13:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Deletion is contentious. Some members of the community think that it is good to delete loads of goodfaith but poorly formatted, unreferenced and barely notable new articles as soon as they appear. Others think we need a longer process that salvages far more of those articles and their editors. Unbundling deletion is bound to be contentious, and some will want it restricted to "Full Admins". Ϣere SpielChequers 13:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
12 months continuous contributions is OTT. The community expects that longterm editors who suddenly resurface refamiliarise themselves and get up to speed with recent policy changes before receiving userrights. But historically it has been completely unbothered by admins, editors and RFA candidates taking months off. Many actually see it as a positive if the candidate disappeared for a couple of months before their exams. You might consider Active in at least 12 different months including the last two instead. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
2 years is a longtime on the wiki. Personally I'd be happy to appoint admins with as little as 6 months experience if they are suitable. But the community expectation is more like 12 months, any less and you will get a significant number of opposess. If you are going to make this an alternative route to adminship I would suggest Active in at least 12 different months instead. Adminlight however should require less. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Raw editcount is a notoriously poor way to evaluate editors, though clearly some use it at RFA. Six thousand edits is nearly double the count of several recent new admins. That might make sense for an alternative route to adminship for over qualified candidates, but it makes no sense for an admin light proposal. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
In the proposal, it is suggested that Essentially, "Apprentice admins" would have all the tools needed for cleanup, maintenance, and general vandalism protection... In dealing with vandalism, one of the key abilities that an admin has beyond regular editors is the ability to block vandals. I would argue that G3 deletions and semi-protections as interventions against vandalism is are far less common then blocks. I realize that blocking is probably the most sensitive admin ability in the eyes of the community, but I think the toolset is seriously incomplete without at least a limited ability to do so. I would propose that Admin apprentices be given the ability to block IP contributors and Editors who are not auto-confirmed. Auto-confirmed is a very low threshold, and most good faith editors should be able to make it that far with out being blocked by even an seriously overzealous apprentice admin. Further, they could be specifically prohibited from denying talk page access, so that an unblock request would be available, and a full admin would be able to review it. I'm not sure block duration restrictions would really be useful, though block severity (in terms of autoblock etc.) should be discussed. Monty 845 14:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with adding the ability to block/unblock non-autoconfirmed users, but I do think block/unblock of autoconfirmed users has a DR component that if left in the hands of someone who has not gone through a process of scrutiny and vetting, will lead to much more drama. I purposely left this out of the proposal to generate discussion.-- Cerejota ( talk) 19:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Having read through this proposal, I think this may work; however, it does look a little like admin coaching, and I do know that several admins are against admin coaching. I do have a couple concerns regarding this proposal, though. They are:
This proposal does have its flaws, but that is expected; after all, it is new. I hope my concerns, and the concerns of other editors, can be taken care of so that this proposal can be tested. The Utahraptor Talk/ Contribs 15:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I actually quite like the look of this idea, though I thought I wouldn't as (at first glance) the length of tenure and quantity of editcount seemed strange. But, having read through the comments here, I can now see the reasons for those. It's certainly a good set of foundations to build on, though it's likely to have quite a few tweaks before it can go live. Pesky ( talk … stalk!) 08:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
An interesting proposal, but just one thing I see I'm a bit shaky on:
The proposal lists a variety of things which admins would be allowed to do but apprentices wouldn't. When we have an RfA, we ask why someone wants to be an admin: the exact question is "What administrative work do you intend to take part in?"
What if we had someone whose only interest is in doing admin work that falls outside of the domain of what apprentice admins can do? Some people might only be interested in doing wikignomery at WP:RM, say, and want to become an admin solely so they can handle RM requests that are move protected. If they are unable to move articles that are move-protected during the apprenticeship, how will the community assess their ability with that tool? Someone might simply want to work the refund desk but if they can't get to deleted edits, how are they going to show their compentence or incompetence at their chosen administrative work?
Ideally, we want to be able to see them in action without observer effects. Imagine if we just gave them all the tools and said "okay, two weeks, show us what you've got" - they'll behave themselves for two weeks, then once they pass, they hit WP:ANI and start wheel-warring and giving over-the-top blocks to all and sundry.
So, I guess my questions are:
Otherwise, interesting proposal. It reminds me of how Wikiversity handles adminship. I'm not sure whether that's a good or a bad thing! — Tom Morris ( talk) 14:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I would add an "up or out" provision. After some long period, apprenticeships expire; the idea would be that the apprentice should either apply for full adminship within (say) five years, or subside into ordinary editorship. I suppose that if somebody specifically wanted another five years of apprenticeship, they could ask for that explicitly, explaining why. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Average edits per month | Number of log actions |
---|---|
100-200 | 250-500 |
200-300 | 500-1000 |
300-500 | 1000-1500 |
500+ | 1500-2000 |
-- The Utahraptor Talk/ Contribs 22:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I was considering this possibility as it relates to the notion of a subset of tools for the apprentice. And it certainly relates to trust as well, in so much as this is ultimately a position of trust. Rather than necessitate the need for a new grouping of tools, bind the apprentice to an agreed ethic on bond of word, and remove the right upon the first, and any, breech. My76Strat ( talk) 23:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I want to include a note that effects a clause, directly upon the application for apprenticeship, where the applicant affirms that they do meet the criteria, or have disclosed in advance where they request waiver. This is another provision where a breech of trust should not be tolerated, even if an element is discovered much later, even into the full administration. Even a diligent review can miss something, and there is every reason to believe in the good faith affirmations of another. If something is missed, and then found, it won't be at the reviewers peril, but to the one who defrauded the application. As an aside, I would like to reconsider some of the things we state can never have happened, and allow for the discretion of a waiver, upon circumstances of mitigation. My76Strat ( talk) 23:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
One provision of this proposal is that all apprentices who achieve adminship by this means are bound to a standard and sensible recall. We need to develop this, so add thoughts. My76Strat ( talk) 03:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I developed an essay which I believe will augment our objective; at WP:ADMAN. I need as many people who know an ADMAN (read the essay, it's short enough), to copy the substitutable message to their talk page. You can check the link which shows users who have been contacted already, to reduce duplication. Otherwise we need to generate interest, and this essay can help. I have had positive interactions with the ones I have linked so far. Seriously, please! do this; for the good ones that you know. If nothing else, you've told them a nice thing that was also true. My76Strat ( talk) 03:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
This is bizarrely grouped under RfA reform 2011, Radical alternatives. Nothing particularly radical here. It is more or less what the process should be - experienced editor in good standing with clean history wants to do more to build the encyclopaedia, requests tools from (group of) someone with better standing. Group needs only take 5 minutes to look at a bit of edit history (talk page history usually highlights any potential issues) and grant rights or not. If editor subsequently abuses tools, simply remove them. Just the next step on from requesting rollback. Too many people have turned RfA into a bureaucratic process and made it the BIG DEAL it is not supposed to be. --Club Oranje T 08:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
From reading the comments above and also the reform I do believe that this is a good idea. You have maybe several more experienced administrators who are willing to make sure that the apprentice is making the right moves shall we say. The more experienced administrators will be able to like admin coaching watch over them but as an apprentice you are there to learn the rules of being an administrator and this needs to be made clear that the guidelines if this was to be how it was to be then they an experienced editor with a minimum of say 6 months at least and that they haven't had any problems where administrators have had to get involved. I do admit that as an apprentice mistakes will be made and the more experienced administrators will be there to point them in the right direction if they don't listen to it then the apprentice needs to think clearly why they have become an administrator and that they are trusted user. Corruptcopper ( talk) 18:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
RfA reform 2011/Sysop on request page. |
|
Content of the above proposal was merged into this discussion. My76Strat ( talk) 02:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The reason I removed the Rfa reform transclusion is because this proposal is actually totally separate and needs to be developed as an alternative. My76Strat ( talk) 03:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
The proposal talks about a period of time and/or log actions. We need to define that period. I suggest 6 months and 1000 log actions. Any other suggestions? My76Strat ( talk) 04:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Note: Please remember this section is for discussion of a proposal, not an actual proposal. There's no need to support or oppose, but any suggestions would be welcome. WormTT · ( talk) 09:55, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I do not support this proposal for these reasons:
/ ƒETCH COMMS / 05:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Speaking as proposer, this is not admin light at all. The idea is to generate an alternative to the current path to adminship, not to generate a permanent class of "admin lights". -- Cerejota ( talk) 20:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
This idea seems to me to blend various elements of two ideas, admin lite and an alternative route to adminship. I'm not convinced that it combines them in a way that creates something better than either, in some respects it may even be worse. Admin lite with stricter criteria than adminship doesn't entirely make sense to me. I'll continue to work on both the other ideas, but whilst I'm not currently prepared to support this proposal I'm happy to give it some hopefully constructive feedback. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
If you re quoting Jimbo as supporting the idea of unbundling blocking for IPs and editors with less than 100 edits then you really ought to link to a diff of his Ϣere SpielChequers 13:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Deletion is contentious. Some members of the community think that it is good to delete loads of goodfaith but poorly formatted, unreferenced and barely notable new articles as soon as they appear. Others think we need a longer process that salvages far more of those articles and their editors. Unbundling deletion is bound to be contentious, and some will want it restricted to "Full Admins". Ϣere SpielChequers 13:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
12 months continuous contributions is OTT. The community expects that longterm editors who suddenly resurface refamiliarise themselves and get up to speed with recent policy changes before receiving userrights. But historically it has been completely unbothered by admins, editors and RFA candidates taking months off. Many actually see it as a positive if the candidate disappeared for a couple of months before their exams. You might consider Active in at least 12 different months including the last two instead. Ϣere SpielChequers 13:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
2 years is a longtime on the wiki. Personally I'd be happy to appoint admins with as little as 6 months experience if they are suitable. But the community expectation is more like 12 months, any less and you will get a significant number of opposess. If you are going to make this an alternative route to adminship I would suggest Active in at least 12 different months instead. Adminlight however should require less. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Raw editcount is a notoriously poor way to evaluate editors, though clearly some use it at RFA. Six thousand edits is nearly double the count of several recent new admins. That might make sense for an alternative route to adminship for over qualified candidates, but it makes no sense for an admin light proposal. Ϣere SpielChequers 15:46, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
In the proposal, it is suggested that Essentially, "Apprentice admins" would have all the tools needed for cleanup, maintenance, and general vandalism protection... In dealing with vandalism, one of the key abilities that an admin has beyond regular editors is the ability to block vandals. I would argue that G3 deletions and semi-protections as interventions against vandalism is are far less common then blocks. I realize that blocking is probably the most sensitive admin ability in the eyes of the community, but I think the toolset is seriously incomplete without at least a limited ability to do so. I would propose that Admin apprentices be given the ability to block IP contributors and Editors who are not auto-confirmed. Auto-confirmed is a very low threshold, and most good faith editors should be able to make it that far with out being blocked by even an seriously overzealous apprentice admin. Further, they could be specifically prohibited from denying talk page access, so that an unblock request would be available, and a full admin would be able to review it. I'm not sure block duration restrictions would really be useful, though block severity (in terms of autoblock etc.) should be discussed. Monty 845 14:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I have no problem with adding the ability to block/unblock non-autoconfirmed users, but I do think block/unblock of autoconfirmed users has a DR component that if left in the hands of someone who has not gone through a process of scrutiny and vetting, will lead to much more drama. I purposely left this out of the proposal to generate discussion.-- Cerejota ( talk) 19:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Having read through this proposal, I think this may work; however, it does look a little like admin coaching, and I do know that several admins are against admin coaching. I do have a couple concerns regarding this proposal, though. They are:
This proposal does have its flaws, but that is expected; after all, it is new. I hope my concerns, and the concerns of other editors, can be taken care of so that this proposal can be tested. The Utahraptor Talk/ Contribs 15:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I actually quite like the look of this idea, though I thought I wouldn't as (at first glance) the length of tenure and quantity of editcount seemed strange. But, having read through the comments here, I can now see the reasons for those. It's certainly a good set of foundations to build on, though it's likely to have quite a few tweaks before it can go live. Pesky ( talk … stalk!) 08:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
An interesting proposal, but just one thing I see I'm a bit shaky on:
The proposal lists a variety of things which admins would be allowed to do but apprentices wouldn't. When we have an RfA, we ask why someone wants to be an admin: the exact question is "What administrative work do you intend to take part in?"
What if we had someone whose only interest is in doing admin work that falls outside of the domain of what apprentice admins can do? Some people might only be interested in doing wikignomery at WP:RM, say, and want to become an admin solely so they can handle RM requests that are move protected. If they are unable to move articles that are move-protected during the apprenticeship, how will the community assess their ability with that tool? Someone might simply want to work the refund desk but if they can't get to deleted edits, how are they going to show their compentence or incompetence at their chosen administrative work?
Ideally, we want to be able to see them in action without observer effects. Imagine if we just gave them all the tools and said "okay, two weeks, show us what you've got" - they'll behave themselves for two weeks, then once they pass, they hit WP:ANI and start wheel-warring and giving over-the-top blocks to all and sundry.
So, I guess my questions are:
Otherwise, interesting proposal. It reminds me of how Wikiversity handles adminship. I'm not sure whether that's a good or a bad thing! — Tom Morris ( talk) 14:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
I would add an "up or out" provision. After some long period, apprenticeships expire; the idea would be that the apprentice should either apply for full adminship within (say) five years, or subside into ordinary editorship. I suppose that if somebody specifically wanted another five years of apprenticeship, they could ask for that explicitly, explaining why. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Average edits per month | Number of log actions |
---|---|
100-200 | 250-500 |
200-300 | 500-1000 |
300-500 | 1000-1500 |
500+ | 1500-2000 |
-- The Utahraptor Talk/ Contribs 22:12, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
I was considering this possibility as it relates to the notion of a subset of tools for the apprentice. And it certainly relates to trust as well, in so much as this is ultimately a position of trust. Rather than necessitate the need for a new grouping of tools, bind the apprentice to an agreed ethic on bond of word, and remove the right upon the first, and any, breech. My76Strat ( talk) 23:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
I want to include a note that effects a clause, directly upon the application for apprenticeship, where the applicant affirms that they do meet the criteria, or have disclosed in advance where they request waiver. This is another provision where a breech of trust should not be tolerated, even if an element is discovered much later, even into the full administration. Even a diligent review can miss something, and there is every reason to believe in the good faith affirmations of another. If something is missed, and then found, it won't be at the reviewers peril, but to the one who defrauded the application. As an aside, I would like to reconsider some of the things we state can never have happened, and allow for the discretion of a waiver, upon circumstances of mitigation. My76Strat ( talk) 23:59, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
One provision of this proposal is that all apprentices who achieve adminship by this means are bound to a standard and sensible recall. We need to develop this, so add thoughts. My76Strat ( talk) 03:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I developed an essay which I believe will augment our objective; at WP:ADMAN. I need as many people who know an ADMAN (read the essay, it's short enough), to copy the substitutable message to their talk page. You can check the link which shows users who have been contacted already, to reduce duplication. Otherwise we need to generate interest, and this essay can help. I have had positive interactions with the ones I have linked so far. Seriously, please! do this; for the good ones that you know. If nothing else, you've told them a nice thing that was also true. My76Strat ( talk) 03:22, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
This is bizarrely grouped under RfA reform 2011, Radical alternatives. Nothing particularly radical here. It is more or less what the process should be - experienced editor in good standing with clean history wants to do more to build the encyclopaedia, requests tools from (group of) someone with better standing. Group needs only take 5 minutes to look at a bit of edit history (talk page history usually highlights any potential issues) and grant rights or not. If editor subsequently abuses tools, simply remove them. Just the next step on from requesting rollback. Too many people have turned RfA into a bureaucratic process and made it the BIG DEAL it is not supposed to be. --Club Oranje T 08:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
From reading the comments above and also the reform I do believe that this is a good idea. You have maybe several more experienced administrators who are willing to make sure that the apprentice is making the right moves shall we say. The more experienced administrators will be able to like admin coaching watch over them but as an apprentice you are there to learn the rules of being an administrator and this needs to be made clear that the guidelines if this was to be how it was to be then they an experienced editor with a minimum of say 6 months at least and that they haven't had any problems where administrators have had to get involved. I do admit that as an apprentice mistakes will be made and the more experienced administrators will be there to point them in the right direction if they don't listen to it then the apprentice needs to think clearly why they have become an administrator and that they are trusted user. Corruptcopper ( talk) 18:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)