User talk:Moreschi/Proposal

That is far too much power in the hands of admins. Admins are editors with soem extra buttons, not judges. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. My solution to that, not proposed here, would be to make far more admins. The admin corps, currently, is far too small. Circa 1000 barely keeps the backlogs clear. 5000 would be a far better number. That would also probably cure some of the distrust of the admin corps that circulates, which is rather irrational. If the vast majority of admins can't be trusted, then aren't we in a bit of a mess? Moreschi ^Talk 21:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change from "admins" to "Editors in good standing, where good standing involves a minimum of six months of editing, 1000 article edits, and no history of prior ArbCom or community sanctions" ? ~Kylu (u|t) 22:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about it. I don't see that this is a massive increase in admin powers, though. This is kind of speeding up what can - at least in theory - happen at CSN, and the people commenting on discussions there are darn near always admins anyway. Either way, given that there's an expiry time of six months on this - do we really trust our admins so little? Moreschi ^Talk 22:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's "do we trust our admins so little" as much as "do we care to take matters of community interest out of the hands of the community"? If I hadn't run for admin, I'd still expect to be able to do the same sorts of things that I do know except where admin capabilities are prerequisites. Closing AfD's when they're delete results, for instance. Anyone can close a keep, since it doesn't require admin capabilities. Far too often we try to sneak decisions out of the hands of the community when there is no valid reason. ~Kylu (u|t) 22:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason I am concerned is that 4 admins is a very small number. I do not imagine, for example, that those who work on either side of the Israeli-Palestinian wars which rages without end would have difficulty in raising 4 admins on some obscure page somewhere and then imposing their decision. This idea sets for major drama, and to what end? To save time? The speedy close system was implemented for that very reason and I think it is obvious to everyone that it is now regularly abused and takes up far more time than it has ever saved any of us and creates even more bitterness between opposing factions. This is a bad idea. We need to get rid of processes which people can abuse and where people can cry foul in an endless cycle of destruction, hatred and fighting, not create more of them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 23:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see this issue as a real problem, while Dev's first objection is not so important. Israel-Palestine and India-Pakistan can probably both support admin cliques of at least 4 on both sides of the question. On the other hand, this is mostly a method of formalising something which already goes on at AN/I, so I'm not sure it's that bad. If there was a good way to screen out "involved" admins, 4 would be a good number. Otherwise, it may need a higher number. Argyriou (talk) 22:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard, another failed project. Plus giving a liberum veto to any other admin would make it useless in most cases - POV pushers can often find a defender who agrees with their POV.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 14:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why wait 48 hours to let someone express a problem? If four admins agree, that's good enough for me.Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 02:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds good to me if none of these administrators has previously been involved in editorial conflicts (e.g. mutual reverts) with the user, and if the user receives an official warning prior to the sanctions. Let's give it a try. Including "editors in a good standing" to help the admins (but not necessarily with all admin's powers) is also an excellent idea. A possible set of criteria to select such users might be the following: (a) at least 5,000 edits and no less than a year of WP experience; (2) no blocks during last year; (3) at least four administrators should support such user. Biophys (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]