The circus hits town, arbcom 2009 here we go Options

[Newyorkbrad]

Shalom and Kurt running for Arbcom? When does DougsTech throw his hat into the ring?

I don't keep track of these things, but have there ever been any arbitrators who weren't administrators?

A couple in the very early days. See [[User:NoSeptember/Functionaries#Arbitration Committee members (former)]] for the particulars, if you're curious.

If a non-administrator were ever elected as an arbitrator (which I don't especially favor but is not against policy), I think we'd have to confer adminship for the duration of his or her term. It would be very difficult for an arbitrator to review some cases without the ability to review deleted revisions, for example.

(If someone objected that we shouldn't make someone an admin who hadn't passed RfA, we could require the person to use the administrator buttons only for the purpose of his or her arbitration work, not for performing the usual roles of adminship.)

[Malleus]

Shalom and Kurt running for Arbcom? When does DougsTech throw his hat into the ring?

I don't keep track of these things, but have there ever been any arbitrators who weren't administrators?

A couple in the very early days. See [[User:NoSeptember/Functionaries#Arbitration Committee members (former)]] for the particulars, if you're curious.

If a non-administrator were ever elected as an arbitrator (which I don't especially favor but is not against policy), I think we'd have to confer adminship for the duration of his or her term. It would be very difficult for an arbitrator to review some cases without the ability to review deleted revisions, for example.

(If someone objected that we shouldn't make someone an admin who hadn't passed RfA, we could require the person to use the administrator buttons only for the purpose of his or her arbitration work, not for performing the usual roles of adminship.)

I can understand that it would present practical difficulties for a non-administrator to be elected as an arbitrator, I was just curious.

It seems to me that a similar objection might be raised in the case of non-administrators commenting at AN/I though, where they may equally well not have all of the relevant information available to them. Isn't it about time this ever-increasing mish-mash of admin tools was debundled, so that you could grant only the right to view deleted revisions, for instance?

Yeah, i know it'll never happen, but just as a reference point, when you, Newyorkbrad, passed RfA, rights like abuse filters and flagged revisions didn't exist. Don't you think that it's slightly dishonest for administrators to claim a mandate for the use of tools that didn't even exist when they were "promoted", yet to deny access to them to others?

This post has been edited by Malleus: Thu 12th November 2009, 2:33am

[Kelly Martin]

If a non-administrator were ever elected as an arbitrator (which I don't especially favor but is not against policy), I think we'd have to confer adminship for the duration of his or her term. It would be very difficult for an arbitrator to review some cases without the ability to review deleted revisions, for example.

(If someone objected that we shouldn't make someone an admin who hadn't passed RfA, we could require the person to use the administrator buttons only for the purpose of his or her arbitration work, not for performing the usual roles of adminship.)

The Mediawiki software includes a "role" that has all the viewing privileges, but none of the change privileges, of an admin. Wikipedia does not avail themselves of this role, but it does exist.

It is my opinion that all arbitrators should have their rights reduced (or, as appropriate, increased) to this role for the duration of their tenure, to reduce the risk of being judge, jury, and executioner.

It seems to me that a similar objection might be raised in the case of non-administrators commenting at AN/I though, where they may equally well not have all of the relevant information available to them. Isn't it about time this ever-increasing mish-mash of admin tools was debundled, so that you could grant only the right to view deleted revisions, for instance?

Yeah, i know it'll never happen, but just as a reference point, when you, Newyorkbrad, passed RfA, rights like abuse filters and flagged revisions didn't exist. Don't you think that it's slightly dishonest for administrators to claim a mandate for the use of tools that didn't even exist when they were "promoted", yet to deny access to them to others?

It is past time that Wikipedia deubndled admin tools. There are many admins who I would trust to use some, but not all, of the tools responsibly; debundling them would make it much easier to grant these people only the rights that they can be trusted to use responsibily.

[Malleus]

It is past time that Wikipedia deubndled admin tools. There are many admins who I would trust to use some, but not all, of the tools responsibly; debundling them would make it much easier to grant these people only the rights that they can be trusted to use responsibily.

It might also make the whole desysoping thing less traumatic if administrators didn't necessarily have to lose all of their tools, only the one(s) they'd proved themselves incompetent to use,

[Casliber]

It is my opinion that....

Now why not just say, "I think that...." - although I concede the other carries so much gravitas

Debundling tools is an interesting idea - what are you proposing? All be debundled so folks can ask for any combination of bits and pieces?

[Newyorkbrad]

Shalom and Kurt running for Arbcom? When does DougsTech throw his hat into the ring?

I don't keep track of these things, but have there ever been any arbitrators who weren't administrators?

A couple in the very early days. See [[User:NoSeptember/Functionaries#Arbitration Committee members (former)]] for the particulars, if you're curious.

If a non-administrator were ever elected as an arbitrator (which I don't especially favor but is not against policy), I think we'd have to confer adminship for the duration of his or her term. It would be very difficult for an arbitrator to review some cases without the ability to review deleted revisions, for example.

(If someone objected that we shouldn't make someone an admin who hadn't passed RfA, we could require the person to use the administrator buttons only for the purpose of his or her arbitration work, not for performing the usual roles of adminship.)

I can understand that it would present practical difficulties for a non-administrator to be elected as an arbitrator, I was just curious.

It seems to me that a similar objection might be raised in the case of non-administrators commenting at AN/I though, where they may equally well not have all of the relevant information available to them. Isn't it about time this ever-increasing mish-mash of admin tools was debundled, so that you could grant only the right to view deleted revisions, for instance?

Yeah, i know it'll never happen, but just as a reference point, when you, Newyorkbrad, passed RfA, rights like abuse filters and flagged revisions didn't exist. Don't you think that it's slightly dishonest for administrators to claim a mandate for the use of tools that didn't even exist when they were "promoted", yet to deny access to them to others?

Personally, I think we approve people for adminship based on overall trust in their level of experience and cluefulness rather than with respect to the particular toolset that existed as of the moment of their RfA, so the answer to your question is no.

As I understand it, though, we don't deny use of those particular tools to qualified others. In particular, my understanding is that there would be lots more users approved as "revision flaggers" (or whatever it will be called) than just the administator corps. (And no, I have no more information than anyone else about the timing of flagged revisions.)

FWIW, following up on your earlier question, the last person seriously asked to run for ArbCom who wasn't an administrator yet was probably me. (There was a campaign to "draft" me for arbitrator in December 2006, when I'd been seriously editing for about five months or so, and which was before my RfA in January 2007. I told everyone that I was too new and was waiting a year, and got experience in '07 as a Clerk instead.)

[Malleus]

Personally, I think we approve people for adminship based on overall trust in their level of experience and cluefulness rather than with respect to the particular toolset that existed as of the moment of their RfA, so the answer to your question is no.

Then you clearly don't pay much attention to RfA. No reason why you should either, to be fair.

This post has been edited by Malleus: Thu 12th November 2009, 3:37am

[Newyorkbrad]

Personally, I think we approve people for adminship based on overall trust in their level of experience and cluefulness rather than with respect to the particular toolset that existed as of the moment of their RfA, so the answer to your question is no.

Then you clearly don't pay much attention to RfA.

I pay a fair amount of attention to it, though I'm not always in agreement with the results, but that goes for everyone.

Your original question, though, doesn't suggest what a better answer would be. If a new feature accessible to admins is introduced, do you think that all 1000+ administrators should have to pass a new sub-RfA before being given access to that feature? That would be a terrible time-sink, if it could be organized at all.

[A Horse With No Name]

Personally, I think we approve people for adminship based on overall trust in their level of experience and cluefulness rather than with respect to the particular toolset that existed as of the moment of their RfA, so the answer to your question is no.

Then you clearly don't pay much attention to RfA. No reason why you should either, to be fair.

These idiots do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal..._Drought_at_RFA

If a new feature accessible to admins is introduced, do you think that all 1000+ administrators should have to pass a new sub-RfA before being given access to that feature? That would be a terrible time-sink, if it could be organized at all.

It would also be a substantial loss of admins -- at least half of them would fail their second RfA go-round, if not more.

[Malleus]

If a new feature accessible to admins is introduced, do you think that all 1000+ administrators should have to pass a new sub-RfA before being given access to that feature?

In a word, yes. Anything else is simply dishonest.

Personally, I think we approve people for adminship based on overall trust in their level of experience and cluefulness rather than with respect to the particular toolset that existed as of the moment of their RfA, so the answer to your question is no.

Then you clearly don't pay much attention to RfA. No reason why you should either, to be fair.

These idiots do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal..._Drought_at_RFA

That talk page has got to be just about one of the most useless in the whole of wikipedia.

This post has been edited by Malleus: Thu 12th November 2009, 3:51am

[Kevin]

These idiots do: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_tal..._Drought_at_RFA

Is there a graph to show the number of admin promotions vs kilobytes of pointless talk at WT:RFA?

[Anonymous editor]

and another who's just trolling that page and I highly recomend he withdraw(Kmweber).

No, I'm not.

Yes, you are.


This is fun.

[Eva Destruction]

FWIW, following up on your earlier question, the last person seriously asked to run for ArbCom who wasn't an administrator yet was probably me. (There was a campaign to "draft" me for arbitrator in December 2006, when I'd been seriously editing for about five months or so, and which was before my RfA in January 2007. I told everyone that I was too new and was waiting a year, and got experience in '07 as a Clerk instead.)

Bullshit, it was Giano. You can't have forgotten.

That talk page has got to be just about one of the most useless in the whole of wikipedia.

cough cough cough cough cough

[Malleus]

cough cough cough cough cough

There was once a time when I thought things could be changed.

This post has been edited by Malleus: Thu 12th November 2009, 2:51pm

[Newyorkbrad]

Bullshit, it was Giano. You can't have forgotten.

You are right about Giano, of course. I'll let the readership decide whether it's more likely that something slipped my mind or that I was BSing, since of course I'm widely known for making stuff up like that.

[Jon Awbrey]

I'm widely known for making stuff up like that.

Occupational Avocational Hazard

Jon

[Happy drinker]

There are many admins who I would trust to use some, but not all, of the tools responsibly; debundling them would make it much easier to grant these people only the rights that they can be trusted to use responsibily.

I value Kelly's opinion and I suspect we have many of the same people in mind. However, by definition an admin has passed RfA hence has the trust of the community to use all the tools. If he/she abuses any of the tools there should be consideration of a desysop, removing all the tools.

If they ever do debundle, then of course you'd have RfAs for each set of tools.

[everyking]

That talk page has got to be just about one of the most useless in the whole of wikipedia.

cough cough cough cough cough

I think that's the best laugh I've had all day.

[MZMcBride]

I don't keep track of these things, but have there ever been any arbitrators who weren't administrators?

A couple in the very early days. See [[User:NoSeptember/Functionaries#Arbitration Committee members (former)]] for the particulars, if you're curious.

If a non-administrator were ever elected as an arbitrator (which I don't especially favor but is not against policy), I think we'd have to confer adminship for the duration of his or her term. It would be very difficult for an arbitrator to review some cases without the ability to review deleted revisions, for example.

(If someone objected that we shouldn't make someone an admin who hadn't passed RfA, we could require the person to use the administrator buttons only for the purpose of his or her arbitration work, not for performing the usual roles of adminship.)

There's nothing to say that an administrator must pass "Requests for adminship" to become one. In fact, there is a diff floating around somewhere from Jimmy from within the past year saying exactly the opposite.

If someone can "win" the Arbitration Committee election, there is absolutely no reason for them to not automatically be granted adminship. Adminship is about trust, after all.

That said, as far as I'm aware, it would be trivial to have a steward create a custom user group for the English Wikipedia that only included certain user rights (like the user right to view deleted content) without including the rest of the admin package.

[Nerd]

That said, as far as I'm aware, it would be trivial to have a steward create a custom user group for the English Wikipedia that only included certain user rights (like the user right to view deleted content) without including the rest of the admin package.

It would be trivial, but would it be trivial getting approval from the community to do it?