Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2018-05-24/Op-ed: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
two links |
Give me a single reason... |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
*Just a personal opinion, but I'd speculate that there is a real reluctance to apply for Administration for fear of epic failure. Any missteps made early in one's editing career will be brought up again for defense. An editor's contributions might be limited to a few subjects and the consensus might consider that too narrow a niche for access to the Admin tools. And there is the expectation that one will be active on the encyclopedia daily. (A resonable expactation as what is the point of being an Admin if one isn't here to act as such?) It's a corundum. You need active administrators who understand and respect the power that they have been given. But is the process so onerous that otherwise qualified editors will see no point of putting themselves through the RfA process? <span style="color: blue">[[User:Blue Riband|Blue]] [[User talk:Blue Riband|Riband►]]</span> 16:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC) |
*Just a personal opinion, but I'd speculate that there is a real reluctance to apply for Administration for fear of epic failure. Any missteps made early in one's editing career will be brought up again for defense. An editor's contributions might be limited to a few subjects and the consensus might consider that too narrow a niche for access to the Admin tools. And there is the expectation that one will be active on the encyclopedia daily. (A resonable expactation as what is the point of being an Admin if one isn't here to act as such?) It's a corundum. You need active administrators who understand and respect the power that they have been given. But is the process so onerous that otherwise qualified editors will see no point of putting themselves through the RfA process? <span style="color: blue">[[User:Blue Riband|Blue]] [[User talk:Blue Riband|Riband►]]</span> 16:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
*I have always imagined that if the situation became severe enough, the tools would be unbundled in much the way as other standalone permissions. This is [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_95#New_user_right_proposal.|not]] a [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_219#Unbundling_the_tools|new idea]] and certainly not without its own problems, but I have always thought it was one of the more realistic changes that would be taken under consideration. One of the biggest issues and something I attribute the increasingly high standards put upon candidates has been the wide range of functions included in the sysop toolkit. The community seemingly requires demonstrate-able expertise from candidates in a vast number of areas to show they can be trusted, despite candidates often expressing an interest in only a few areas or tools. The common argument is that they are given the full tool set and may freely explore other administrative areas at any time. Therefore community has insisted that candidates should be almost over-qualified in all aspects of adminship as a safeguard. Separating the blocking tools from something such as the page protections tools may allow experienced editors to help distribute the workload without requiring those editors also be vetted for tools that require a relatively higher degree of responsibility and care. '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''</sup>]] 16:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC) |
*I have always imagined that if the situation became severe enough, the tools would be unbundled in much the way as other standalone permissions. This is [[Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_95#New_user_right_proposal.|not]] a [[Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship/Archive_219#Unbundling_the_tools|new idea]] and certainly not without its own problems, but I have always thought it was one of the more realistic changes that would be taken under consideration. One of the biggest issues and something I attribute the increasingly high standards put upon candidates has been the wide range of functions included in the sysop toolkit. The community seemingly requires demonstrate-able expertise from candidates in a vast number of areas to show they can be trusted, despite candidates often expressing an interest in only a few areas or tools. The common argument is that they are given the full tool set and may freely explore other administrative areas at any time. Therefore community has insisted that candidates should be almost over-qualified in all aspects of adminship as a safeguard. Separating the blocking tools from something such as the page protections tools may allow experienced editors to help distribute the workload without requiring those editors also be vetted for tools that require a relatively higher degree of responsibility and care. '''[[User:Mkdw|<span style="color:black;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">Mkdw</span>]]''' [[User talk:Mkdw|<sup>''<span style="color: #0B0080;text-shadow: 4px 4px 15px white, -4px -4px 15px white">talk</span>''</sup>]] 16:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC) |
||
* Re: "Address and encourage experienced users": OK, I am an experienced user. "Address and encourage" me. Give me a single reason why I would want to go through the hell that is RfA in order to gain the dubious privilege of doing some of the most disagreeable work I can think of, all for zero pay, zero credit, and pretty much zero thanks. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 17:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 17:10, 24 May 2018
Discuss this story
- Just a personal opinion, but I'd speculate that there is a real reluctance to apply for Administration for fear of epic failure. Any missteps made early in one's editing career will be brought up again for defense. An editor's contributions might be limited to a few subjects and the consensus might consider that too narrow a niche for access to the Admin tools. And there is the expectation that one will be active on the encyclopedia daily. (A resonable expactation as what is the point of being an Admin if one isn't here to act as such?) It's a corundum. You need active administrators who understand and respect the power that they have been given. But is the process so onerous that otherwise qualified editors will see no point of putting themselves through the RfA process? Blue Riband► 16:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have always imagined that if the situation became severe enough, the tools would be unbundled in much the way as other standalone permissions. This is not a new idea and certainly not without its own problems, but I have always thought it was one of the more realistic changes that would be taken under consideration. One of the biggest issues and something I attribute the increasingly high standards put upon candidates has been the wide range of functions included in the sysop toolkit. The community seemingly requires demonstrate-able expertise from candidates in a vast number of areas to show they can be trusted, despite candidates often expressing an interest in only a few areas or tools. The common argument is that they are given the full tool set and may freely explore other administrative areas at any time. Therefore community has insisted that candidates should be almost over-qualified in all aspects of adminship as a safeguard. Separating the blocking tools from something such as the page protections tools may allow experienced editors to help distribute the workload without requiring those editors also be vetted for tools that require a relatively higher degree of responsibility and care. Mkdw talk 16:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
- Re: "Address and encourage experienced users": OK, I am an experienced user. "Address and encourage" me. Give me a single reason why I would want to go through the hell that is RfA in order to gain the dubious privilege of doing some of the most disagreeable work I can think of, all for zero pay, zero credit, and pretty much zero thanks. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
← Back to Op-ed