Wikipedia talk:Limited administrators

Introduction[edit]

I created this after seeing the Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges and since I have been thinking about this for a while now (and I hope I'm not copying another endeavor). There are tons of admins being created recently and while I don't know if this has any corrolation to the recent admin infighting I do find it all worrisome. I didn't add it to the page because it seemed unseemly but this is in many senses to test the waters with some people. Give them some incentive to stay and show signs of trust while saying, make more edits, do more good and you will become an admin. It almost seems like at a certain point an editor who isn't quarrelsome and has many edits and has contributed a lot deserves to be an admin. I feel like Boothy (who opposed me :D) when I say this but I think sometimes adminship is being designated by a lack to those with a lack of bad deeds. Obviously not universal but I suppose you understand. Wheel wars are not good things and this can be part of a precautionary measure for a massively growing community (and seems faster paced to me) with systems set up when the community was smaller. gren グレン 13:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Process[edit]

Suggestion A: Part of RfA. You can vote support, oppose, or limited admin if you oppose the user for adminship but think he would be served well there. It could count as an oppose for admin but a support for limited admin. Supports would count for supports for limited admin if he failed to make admin. Opposes would, of course, count for oppose to either.

Suggestion B: Stand alone. Some page with a process like RfA. Straigthforward but could be more hassle for bureaucrats.

Discuss? --gren グレン 13:24, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feelings[edit]

Please just write if you think this is a good idea, bad idea, what this idea needs to be good, etc. Just to test the waters. gren グレン 13:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a strong opinion yet on the idea, but I really do thing that adminship should be harder to get from now on. We already have plenty of admins and more than enough to deal with vandalism and disputes. I can see that a few admins have caused some large disputes in the past, but rather than having to de-sysop admins later I think it's easier to create fewer admins. Maybe limited adminship should be offered more instead of adminship and instead limited admins can be promoted to admins once they are trusted. --a.n.o.n.y.m ^t 15:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've been strongly in favor of mentorships instead of the RFA beauty contest for a long time; this seems like a more practical alternative. However, the abilities are a bit too limited to get a good feel for what a user would use full administrator powers; in particular, many new administrators help clear out AFD (which would be impossible with deletions limited to three days), and just about all administrators block vandals on sight. I'd suggest expanding the powers to deletion of articles less than 14 days old (a week to ten days on AFD, plus some wiggle room for it to have been found and nominated), and the ability to block up to 24 hours (possibly only IPs, not usernames). Of course, the whole concept is moot without a developer to implement it; while rollback and deletion powers can be individually granted, there's no provision for limiting deletion to sufficiently-new articles. (And as long as this is an open wishlist, bureaucrats should be able to revoke limited administratorship as well as grant it.) —Cryptic (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I figured the timing issue wouldn't be too difficult since it was just done for page protection. As for timings, you may very well be right. I'm not strongly set in either way. My main goal was reversibility, which I suppose it would be good if pictures couldn't be fully deleted. You are right that AfD clearing is probably highly needed, so I think I'm beginnning to agree with the idea of expanding powers more than I said. Feel free to change on the main page or something if other users don't disagree. gren グレン ^? 10:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like this approach a lot, not just as a "trial" for hopeful admins, but as a permanent position for many. We need to try and separate out "maintenance-type" duties, from "referee-type" duties. I think it's the referee type duties (like blocks and contentious AFD closes), which often cause the RfAs to be negative. --Rob 21:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
With making many of these types of poweres time limited to certain items, has anyone checked with the devs as to what would be needed to incorporate the timing functions? xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 03:41, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hesitant about this idea, only because I know it'll become a rite of passage for prospective admin and we're already straying much too far from "nothing special". Adding another hoop for prospective admins to jump through doesn't seem like the way we should go. Lord Bob 17:39, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it makes sense to first ask: do you think there is a problem? More tension between admins, more wheel wars? And do you see this as a problem that will grow? If so and you see that RfA voting seems to be done on loose knowledge and edit count / lack of wrongdoing. It seems needless to go through hoops for this... I agree, but I'm not exactly sure of a better way (besides maybe the mentorship idea). gren グレン ^? 15:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also[edit]

I wrote something similar around half a year ago, see User:Talrias/Adminship reform. Talrias (t | e | c) 04:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is interesting. I like the idea of mentors but it seems more impractical for some reason. It seems like it would take a lot of work to setup and which admins would make good mentors, etc. You may be right since it does get rid of a lot of what is disliked in RfAs which my idea didn't. About getting reform, any kind of it, do you think a page like this is the best way to go? or... what do you think? gren グレン ^? 10:54, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem with this proposal is that it's going to require a lot of technical alterations. I've had enough troubles attempting to get the tech stuff behind Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges put together, and I originally drafted that proposal in late June. This proposal requires a lot more and it's going to be a major stopping point in getting this implemented if people agree that it's the right way to go forwards. For that reason, I think it's better to come up with a solution which requires little or no software alterations. Talrias (t | e | c) 11:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You weren't poking the right devs. ;-) Rob Church (talk) 16:10, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I encourage people to poke Robchurch, he's very responsive. :) Anyway, I updated the page to note that there are a few privileges that are more or less already implemented via User access levels, and which are probably even easier to pass than being able to delete articles that are three days old. --Interiot 18:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge[edit]

I'm not opposed to a merge. Too much odd stuff is going on lately for me to really see any ideas through. gren グレン ^? 09:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]