on 2/26/11 3:52 PM, David Goodman at dgge...@gmail.com wrote: > The actual work of helping new editors and monitoring quality does not > require an admin, and most of the people doing it are not admins. The > main thing I use admin tools for is to delete hopelessly unacceptable > articles, but almost everything I delete has been spotted by a > non-admin. However, most of what I do is not the use of admin tools, > but explaining to the authors of these who have come in good faith > what was wrong and how they can do better, & encouraging the > potentially good ones to stay. Anyone who has sufficient learned or > innate politeness & understanding can do that.
Yes! > > And anyone with politeness and understanding can pass rfa, if they > care to, if they are willing to tolerate some stupid remarks. The > ability to patiently tolerate stupidity is and ought to remain one of > the requirements for being an admin. As it is with clinicians :-). I've been called things I had to look up!:-) Yes, David, this is what I meant when I have said that a culture cannot be mandated or legislated. It must happen one person at a time, each time we communicate with another person. And the ability to interact with another person in a civil manner should be a requirement for everyone working on the Project. It then becomes the hallmark, the distinguishing feature of a Wikipedian. Marc Riddell > > On Thu, Feb 24, 2011 at 1:42 PM, Neil Harris <n...@tonal.clara.co.uk> wrote: >> Here are some more details to flesh out my proposal for new admin creation. >> >> Proposed rate of automatic new admin creation: 5% a month, until back to >> early-Wikipedia proportions of admin number relative to edit rate. >> >> Although this sounds a lot, it's only about 3 new admins a day. >> >> --------------------- >> >> State transitions: >> >> IP user >> | >> | Creates an account, passes captcha test >> V >> User >> | >> | Time passes >> V >> Autoconfirmed user >> | >> | Time passes. User gets chosen at random from pool of all editors, >> followed by machine checking for good participation. The daily rate of >> random selection is tuned to generate the correct rate of new admins >> over the long term. >> V >> Proposed new admin >> | >> | Gets message. Sends a request message to a list. Any "old admin" >> checks for human-like edits, then performs one-click action to issue >> admin bit. If they don't respond within (say) two weeks, the invitation >> is withdrawn, and they have to wait to be be drawn again at random. >> V >> New admin, with limited powers >> | >> | One year passes without being de-adminned >> V >> Old admin, with full powers >> >> ---------------------- >> >> Some possible machine-detectable criteria for "good participation", >> based on edits: >> >> * Account age: Has been a Wikipedia contributor for at least two years. >> * Recent activity: Has made at least one edit in at least X days in the >> last three months. >> * Recent blocks: has not been blocked at all in the last year >> * Responsiveness: Has edited a user page of an editor who has edited >> their user page, at least Y times in the last three months. >> * Edit comments: Has added a non-trivial edit comment to at least Z% of >> their edits >> * Namespaces: Has edited some balanced mix of articles, talk pages, user >> talk pages, and project talk pages, within the last three months >> >> Note that this is a satisficing activity -- the aim is not to find the >> best editors, or to be fair, but just to select active Wikipedia >> participants who know their way around, and are not misbehaving, and >> then select some of them by lot. >> >> The final test, for humanness, necessarily needs to be performed by a >> human being, to avoid the threat of bots gaming the system, but, if as >> suggested above, there are only about three or four candidates proposed >> each day. >> >> Note also that almost this process can be implemented in a bot, >> independently of the actual wikipedia software itself. >> >> -- Neil >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> foundation-l mailing list >> foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >> > > _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
