Wikipedia talk:Community Trust
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I think this proposal is very solid, I'd love to see some comments on it tho! --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 10:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed. I think it'd be best to address any criticism before we invite wider community discussion. // Pathoschild 10:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- I really like the idea of this proposal. Often, an editor nominates him/herself for Adminship via WP:RfA and gets turned down, not because he/she's not trusted by the community but because he/she has too few edits/too little time/one too many minor conflicts for people to feel like they can vote support. This editors on occasion leave. If this intermediate process existed then these users' confidence and self-esteem with the project would grow. We could even possibly say that you have to have "Community Trust" to be put on WP:RfA (although I'm sure at this point weveryone is crying "Cabalship, cabalship!"). As to Admins voting for their friends, well, the community has put it's trust in them so surely their friends, they trust to use the powers well? I think that that's a bit of a non-argument. --Celestianpower háblame 10:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- At this point I feel compelled to disagree. You say that editors get turned down for "too few edits," but then say these editors are trustworthy. I'm of the opinion that "too few edits" means their trustworthiness has yet to be established. Anyone can easily become an admin if they're deemed trustworthy. That's all it takes. A good editor and time devoted to the project. That's really it. How is this different than going through an RFA? This proposal seems like a way to circumvent the established policies of Wikipedia rather than to really aid it (I very much realise that this proposal has only good intentions). I'd say a good portion of the admins here use their powers for vandalism alone. Why can't these editors, with apparent "community trust" just go through the process of an RFA? K1Bond007 06:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- I disagree. RfA voters' standards are increasing rapidly - some now saying 6 months on the project and 3000 edits are necessary. Now, seeing as here we're just talking about a revert button, there is no need for such high standards here. Just a faster way of doing something that they can do already. I trust, for example, User:Vilerage, but he's been here just 1 and a half months so would never, ever pass an RfA. I see this as a good interim. --Celestianpower háblame 12:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- At this point I feel compelled to disagree. You say that editors get turned down for "too few edits," but then say these editors are trustworthy. I'm of the opinion that "too few edits" means their trustworthiness has yet to be established. Anyone can easily become an admin if they're deemed trustworthy. That's all it takes. A good editor and time devoted to the project. That's really it. How is this different than going through an RFA? This proposal seems like a way to circumvent the established policies of Wikipedia rather than to really aid it (I very much realise that this proposal has only good intentions). I'd say a good portion of the admins here use their powers for vandalism alone. Why can't these editors, with apparent "community trust" just go through the process of an RFA? K1Bond007 06:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
- I like it! This proposal would "permitting access to basic tools like the Rollback button". Perhaps a good idea to be more specific about this. Which tools precisely, besides the Rollback button. Also, the conditions for adding/removing trust are a bit vague. A slightly more formalised procedure is probably a good idea, not least to stop whining from users who claim the admin-cabal is out to get them. What kinds of actions precisely would warrant removal of trust? I'm nitpicking here, though, overall I think this is a great idea that should help the community become much more resilient in fighting vandals. Jacoplane 10:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this is really useful - the reason for editcountitis on RFA is because we need to have a reasonably large sample size of edits to ensure that we do trust the user. I agree with K1Bond007 that if you *really* deserve Community Trust, then you deserve adminship as well. (ESkog)(Talk) 07:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it's not useful. If a user is trusted by the community, he should be an admin. This is another level of hierarchy, and consequently will introduce confusion and stratification, which its (very limited) utility does not justify. Incidentally, this appears to be a slight variation on Wikipedia:Requests for rollback, which I opposed for similar reasons. — Dan | talk 04:53, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] I like it. Let's change everything!
First, I believe very much the rollback button really isn't nearly as big a deal as blocking users or editing the interface. Seeing how someone uses it could provide good information for an RFA, too. I definitely support some easy way of granting this access.
I think this proposal would do better under another name, and without calling the "rollback privilege" by another name--"community trust" has the disadvantage of a) sounding like a big deal (which it isn't) and b) not being entirely clear what it refers to. So this should be called "one-click rollback".
Secondly, instead of having admins vote (I don't like giving admins increased power to make decisions, just increased privileges to carry them out), how about a process like RFD, where petitioners (or others, doesn't matter) list their names, and after five days if there is no objection, an admin grants the rollback privilege. Demi T/C 04:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Well, the reason that admins voting looked good at the time, was for a more rapid deployment to the users. I would imagine with any real long time of voting, that this list would grow to an unmanagable length. (altho, if approved, I'd imagine that the initial rush, would be insane) IMHO, commuity trust, sounded like the most descriptinve term at the time. You are, however, correct, 'Community Trust' does sound like a big deal. It is, however, my opinion that 'Request for Rollback' or 'One Click Rollback' just don't sound good, too official, sterile, and beurocratic. Just my $0.02, however. (ya, I know, I'm violating my wikibreak) --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 05:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
- Since the rollback button is already available in Javascript, I would have no problem assigning rollback rights to users who deserve them. Radiant_>|< 13:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Allowing users to see Special:Unwatchedpages
"71% of articles are Unwatched! Special:Unwatchedpages now enabled for admins only". Maybe it's a good idea to allow users with community trust to access this page too, to reduce the workload for admins. Jacoplane 07:35, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] See also Wikipedia:Requests for rollback privileges
There's already a proposal which would grant rollback privileges to suitable candidates, via a similar process to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. What's stopping it from being implemented are bugs 3317 and 3801. Talrias (t | e | c) 17:12, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] I support this idea
I don't believe that it would be "easy" to become a trusted member of the community. If a person is coming to the encyclopedia only to vandalise, I don't think that they would want to wait a whole month and get 300 edits before they begin doing so. That is many hours and days of editing, and probably not worth their time.
However, I don't think it should be allowed for Trusted Members to be able to block other users, as this power could be easily abused. I can remember times where leaders we have trusted have gotten irritated with the community and started blocking people for no reason.
Feel free to leave comments. Link9er 14:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
