User:Mcginnly/Sandbox/Policy ideas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] The problem to be addressed

There is ill feeling amongst some editors that they are particularly vulnerable to abuses of administrative power by those who have not contributed so much encylopedic content to the project and their contributions, erudition and scholarship are not formally recognised or rewarded. This is resulting in the haemorrhaging of talented editors and experts.

[edit] Premises

  1. Most trolling and vandalism is perpetrated by unregistered or newly registered users. Someone who has been happily contributing to the project for some time is unlikely to suddenly become a liability in this respect and if they do a) The cases are rather small in number and b) There is usually a complex set of events and reasons underlying the behaviour.
  2. The primary way in which administrators attract claims of abuse of position is by the improper use of the blocking mechanism.
  3. Administrators should have good personal and intellectual qualities.

[edit] Suggestion

  1. The creation of a formal 'Established user' status. This will be awarded to any user who, after xyz length of time, has demonstrated a commitment to improving and expanding encyclopedic content. The bar will be set fairly low (Not 1FA or even 1GA) - details to be resolved.
  2. All current admins will automatically be given established user status together with current contributors.
  3. Only established users will be able to apply for adminship.
  4. Only established users will be able to vote in WP:RFA.
  5. Administrators will retain their power to block non-established users.
  6. Administrators will need the formal agreement of Xno. (5?) other administrators to block an established user.

[edit] Intentions and Benefits

  1. Incentivise encyclopedic contributions from the start of a users participation in the project.
  2. Protect established users from rogue administrative abuse.
  3. Retain the ability to block problem users - it just requires a little more time and reason to block established users.
  4. Retain and value content building users.
  5. Loss of established user status can be a further diciplinary sanction
  6. The stock of administrators is improved by having demonstrated both the capability and intent to add content.

[edit] Unintended consequences - Problems to resolve in the policy

  1. Conflict with Jimbo's mission statement-
    "Newcomers are always to be welcomed. There must be no cabal, there must be no elites, there must be no hierarchy or structure which gets in the way of this openness to newcomers. Any security measures to be implemented to protect the community against real vandals should be implemented on the model of "strict scrutiny".
    "Strict scrutiny" means that any measures instituted for security must address a compelling community interest, and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective and no other."
  2. Danger that the assessment process for "Established user status" becomes a RfA lite - Who will decide if the bar has been reached? Can we formulate a set of criteria that can be met automatically - Eg. FA or GA automatic pass as long as there are no objections to the users behaviour. No. of edits is a poor guide and probably prone to abuse.
  3. Danger that if a group of 5 admins are required to block users this will encourage factionalism and cabals.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/c/g/User%7EMcginnly_Sandbox_Policy_ideas_0ef2.html"