Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-09-30/Op-ed: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
training on the job
cmt
Line 3: Line 3:
* What a good coverage of a very complex and contentious subject. I might add one other factor that exacerbates the "admin shortage" and that is that we seem to be returning to a growth in the editor corps. All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'',<small> 21:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC).</small><br />
* What a good coverage of a very complex and contentious subject. I might add one other factor that exacerbates the "admin shortage" and that is that we seem to be returning to a growth in the editor corps. All&nbsp;the&nbsp;best: ''[[User:Rich Farmbrough|Rich]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Rich Farmbrough|Farmbrough]]'',<small> 21:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC).</small><br />
* I read in several RfAs that a user was not trusted with the block button. Someone blocked is not dead, it can be reverted, - where is the danger? Can we lower the requirements - 66% percent support seem still a lot - but demand that for the first 6 months a new admin should not block without consulting a more experienced one? Same for other admin actions: more training on the job. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 21:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
* I read in several RfAs that a user was not trusted with the block button. Someone blocked is not dead, it can be reverted, - where is the danger? Can we lower the requirements - 66% percent support seem still a lot - but demand that for the first 6 months a new admin should not block without consulting a more experienced one? Same for other admin actions: more training on the job. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 21:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
*It's a good overview of the situation, but it does not get to the heart of the matter. Lowering the bar will only get us more of the kind of admins the anti-admin brigade (especially the prolific content providers) is always bleating about. --[[User:Kudpung|Kudpung กุดผึ้ง]] ([[User talk:Kudpung|talk]]) 22:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:02, 3 October 2015

Discuss this story

  • What a good coverage of a very complex and contentious subject. I might add one other factor that exacerbates the "admin shortage" and that is that we seem to be returning to a growth in the editor corps. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • I read in several RfAs that a user was not trusted with the block button. Someone blocked is not dead, it can be reverted, - where is the danger? Can we lower the requirements - 66% percent support seem still a lot - but demand that for the first 6 months a new admin should not block without consulting a more experienced one? Same for other admin actions: more training on the job. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a good overview of the situation, but it does not get to the heart of the matter. Lowering the bar will only get us more of the kind of admins the anti-admin brigade (especially the prolific content providers) is always bleating about. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]