User:Tim Trent/Sandbox

Plea for Simplicity

What we do here sets a huge precedent for the way TSW will operate in the future. If we make adminship a thing with huge hoops to jump through we will still get good and bad admins. If we make it very easy we will still get good and bad admins.

But making it unbureaucratic, straightforward and transparent means that we get our forthcoming admins thinking along the right lines.

I have one vote, one opinion, call it what you will. I have no greater influence as the "owner" than any other.

My opinion is that I would like TSW to be correctly constituted as a community, with sufficient rules and guidelines to ensure legality, and then for people, admin and editor alike, to display friendship and common sense.

So we must simplify, simplify and simplify again.

And we must remind people that adminship is a pain, and has no extra "authority", and that it is "giving something back" to the community.

I don't mind if every user becomes an admin, frankly, as long as they know what they are doing and we recognise that we can all trust them to work for the community and use the tools properly.

I'd be very happy to hear other thoughts. I may not be right.

Tim Trent ^{Talk to me} 20:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I too think that it could be simplified. I am just trying to get around to it!!!

What might be better is if someone wants to be an admin, they put their name down, and say why. Then, every other admin (or user) has a vote as to whether or not they should be admind up. And it has to be complete in 5 days.

Just an example below!

User:Bluegoblin7

Why?:Because I love all Trains and do lots on maintenance!

Support

1. Bluegoblin7 20:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
2. Test
3. Test1

Against

1. Test2
2. Test3

The above example would pass...

Bluegoblin7 20:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

obviously the user wanting to be an admin cant vote!!!

No implied criticism. And it's really hard to simplify the thing. I like your simple scenario. I think we also need as maany active members as possible to share their opinions here. Tim Trent ^{Talk to me} 20:36, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I think what i will do is messag all the active useser (edited in past week), to see what they think.

Oh, and Tim: Could you add this to the welcome message? I don;t know how to word it!

New to a wiki? Why not consider adoption?

cheers,

Bluegoblin7 20:38, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Im new to this wiki but I think a wikipedia style RfA simply promotes bureaucracy. On Wikipedia adminship has become a status which can be gained through a long voting process in an almost hierachical system. Often "voters" on Wikipedia look at number of edits, experience, participation in various admin related areas, past experiences with the user etc as well as trustworthiness. This makes the process seem like one of promotion to a higher status. In the early days of Wikipedia, adminship was something all users had. The RfA system was only supposed to filter out users who may abuse the tools but this had instead turned into a vote based on various factors described above. In my opinion adminship should be something which all users either have or can get as long as they can be trusted by the community to avoid vandals and unconstructive editors getting admin tools. In other words, adminship is no big deal. The only process required is to filter out users who are likely to abuse admin tools. This is more likely to encourage a community where everyone can work together well. Tbo 157 21:25, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I never knew the early stages of WP. "All users as admins" is a scary concept, you know! But I am equally happy that, if it is the will of this community, that it happens. The one "rule" I really like from WP is "consensus". The early admins were appointed on my whim. If we end up with new admins being appointed by whim of other admins, that works for me too. I do not want admin to be seen as privilege or status. It's actually labour instead.

In other words, this is everyone's community. We, Bernd and I, supply the resource. The adverts pay a lot towards the upkeep and are as unobtrusive as we coudl design them while prominent enough for folks to click, and you, we, design ghe rest together.

This means that TSW gets the structure it deserves because it has decided on it.

Tim Trent ^{Talk to me} 22:21, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well yes on Wikipedia all users were admins but as you say this is a bad idea. However what I am trying to make a point of is what you mentioned - adminship is no big deal - it is a way to help out the community and shoudl certainly not be a status of any kind. So I mean all users could be admins as long as they can be trusted by the community. What I am trying to say is that a candidates suitability for adminship should be judged on trustworthiness rather than edit count, quality of work, participation in admin areas etc. In other words as I mentioned above - a way to filter out users who may abuse the tools. As Wikipedis has proven RfAs promote a system where voters use much more than trustworthiness to review a candidate thus turning ths system into what I described above. Tbo 157 22:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent)I prize ability and trust far higher than time served. I think we should ask potential admins simple questions, the answers to which demonstrate an understanding of good sense, but I want to trst or admins above all other attributes (though I prize careful edits and a helpful attitude highly too).

But whatever the system is to be, it is for everyone to design, and to make the place what it should be. Simple and easy to understand and live with. Tim Trent ^{Talk to me} 23:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have the equivalent of a community portal where this can be discussed? Tbo 157 17:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We have the station cafe. Feel free to copy (or migrate) any and all of this discussion there. One of the sections will be right.  :)

Renaming proposal

Can I propose to rename this process to distance it from the WP process. Tbo 157 22:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Please do... --DP67 (^talk/_contribs) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The current name is there for pure convenience pending a change to whatever we want. I have no particular opinion, save that it should imply nothing about "status" and everything about the fact that it is a task and a responsibility. Tim Trent ^{Talk to me} 23:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

You're going to have to 'go some' to find a simpler name. The 'RfA' name used by WP summarises its process in three words, and is pretty unambiguous.

It may be that, having decided on a Spotting World process, a suitable name will make itself known...

EdJogg 01:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Weel lets try and find a simple name which reflects the simplicity of the process. i.e. candidates are only judged on trustworthiness. We want to try and throw out the junk in WP such as editcountitis. Tbo 157 12:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Stage 1 - What is an Admin?

We have the Trains:Administrators' reading list and the Trains:Administrators' how-to guide, both of which are somewhat incomplete, but aren't these 'page 2' and 'page 3'? Shouldn't we have an initial page defining what an Administrator is expected to do?

EdJogg 01:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

yes, we do. I think we need to make it clear that adminship is a maintenance task. Tbo 157 12:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Idea for the Process...

1. User is either self-nommed or nommed by editor with good standing
2. User asked max 3 qs (needs to be clarified)
3. Users invited to Support/Oppose depending on:
   1. Answers to qs
   2. Trustworthiness
   3. Edit Quality (even if only made 1 edit, and it was brilliant, then this passes - don't care about edit count!)
4. Decision then made!

So it would look like this:

Test nom - Bluegoblin7 (talk · contribs)

Nominated by:Self nom Questions:

1. What do you think adminship is about?

I dunno

1. Why should you be an admin?

It doesnt matter it's only a test

1. --

Support

1. Bluegoblin7 13:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Oppose

1. test
2. test1

Trustworthiness? + Edit Quality

This talk page is getting rather chaotic -- suggest a sub-page for example proposals as it is impossible to continue a conversation after them.

"Trustworthiness" has been mentioned several times. How is this going to be gauged?

For a WP admin, once the '3Qs' were answered OK, the WP admin status should be sufficient to nod them through.

But what about anyone else? If we're not giving blanket admin rights to every user, then there must be some other selection criteria. I'm not suggesting huge hoops to leap through, I just think it will simplify the process if a person has to have clocked-up a minimum number of edits (which could be as low as ten, if they are sufficient to gauge quality) and a minimum length of time as a registered user (which could be as short as a couple of weeks, if a prolific editor!)

We can afford to 'set the bar lower' than at WP, but we do need a bar, and the higher it is, the more information is available to assess trustworthiness.

Also, 'one edit' is not sufficient to gauge quality. This process must not only weed-out potential troublemakers, it must also weed-out anyone who is not careful with their editing. Poor admin-level edits or maintenance tasks can require further remedial work by other admins, which we want to avoid if at all possible.

EdJogg 13:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If my opinion counts, I personally don't like the self nomination route at all. I also recommend that Admins should be the ones voting on the nominations on as you say a quality, not quantity basis (I'm assuming your one edit wonder was purely an extreme example.) and not User:John Q Public's opinion of the nominee. If admins are the ones doing the work it should minimize opposer's from soiling the carpet for off-topic reasons or personal vendettas. (e.g. he/she dissed me on IRC.. Who cares!) I also believe that most anyone on a personal quest for power will abuse it. I'm not saying everyone, but most will. It's best they don't know they are being watched as a potential admin. If they meet the criteria then an admin or an appointed scout could approach them and ask if they are interested in being nominated. I think that would help weed out some of the shameless self promoters. Thats my 2p..

--DP67 (^talk/_contribs) 13:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

a), yes your opinion does count!

b), i admit my idea does need to be streamlined - i will put it up when i get around to it.

c), yes I was using extreme examples!

d), it probably does work best if only admins can vote, and only admin nominated users can nominate (does that make sense?)

Bluegoblin7 13:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Everyone's ideas count. What we want to achieve, I think, is a community that creates what it wants to have. And nothing need be set in stone if there is a good reason to change it.

Regarding self nominations, I see nothing wrong with opting to being considered for nomination, if a pure self-nomination is rejected. There's nothing that I can see that would be objectionable with a category that contains those who feel they can add something, especially if that made it clear that adminship, and, if we choose, bureaucratship, is a task, not a privilege. Tim Trent ^{Talk to me} 14:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I prefer admins to be self noms. Adminship is a task which is hard work and so I believe it is something which users should nominate themselves for and show that they can be trusted themselves. Its rather like getting a job. Most people will prove to employers that they are worthy of the job and not many would be nominated for a job by another person. Nominations by other users make it seem like a promotion rather than hard work and most people on WP ask to be nominated anyway. Those that are offered it by chance tend to refuse. So IMO we need another way to filter out those who will simjply abuse the power or simply want it for power. Tbo 157 14:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It would seem we have two distinct alternatives so far. The more radical is that existing Admins watch user activity and approach those who might 'fit in' -- no self-nomination. The other is more conventional, requiring only self-nomination.

Either way, could we start to build some agreed policy around the following?

• Only admins would be able to 'vote' (I think I was always assuming that anyway), and it is only a small extension to say that only admins can comment on nominations.
• Only allowing one type of nominations simplifies the process, as we can ignore the more complex procedures for other methods.

That's about as far as I've got!

EdJogg 19:08, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Thats probably a good way to keep it simple. Tbo 157 19:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) One potential problem of allowing self-noms and only allowing established admins to vote is that some might see it as a cabal (there is no cabal) like the lumber cartel (there is no lumber cartel). It can work if those expressing opinions provide sound reasoning. I think restricting to admin-only nominations would only serve to enforce the cabal. Slambo 19:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

How about users who have been here for a certain amount of time and haven't been blocked?Tbo 157 19:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Gone Live...

RfA went live on 26th December 2007, with the first nom DP67. BG7 11:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)