Wikipedia:Adminship survey/P

(07/24/03) I agree with trial adminship in principle
Not necessarily the current wording. The idea is to give admin access to somewhat-experienced users for a month upon request, if an existing admin is willing to mentor them; RFA follows after this month. That way people can be judged for what they do rather than for what we suspect they might do.

Yes

 * 1) It would be nice to be able to judge on how people use admin powers, because having to judge on how we think they will undoubtedly leads to people not passing who should. -Amarkov moo! 15:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Meh. Too blocky. List of users trusted to semi pages should be HUGE. List of users trusted to delete things should be reasonable (or we should just use realwikideletion. Blank the page, clean out all pages left blank for more than 24 hours). List of users trusted to block people should be really short. See my proposal at User:Hipocrite/Distributed. Hipocrite - &laquo; Talk &raquo; 15:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Strongly, although not in its current form. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree, it's the best way to "prove" their worth. -- Majorly  (o rly?) 16:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) If a better method can be created, this may also help understand a persons reaction to power. --Nuclear Zer0 16:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Great idea. Why having to make one big leap instead of two steps? --Edokter (Talk) 00:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Tony Sidaway 01:26, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Excellent idea.

No

 * 1) RfA is tedious enough as it is without having to research contributions twice. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Participating in XfD, RfC, etc. is enough of a trial without taking the added risk of giving the bits. Anyone who does that regularly will either demonstrate that they know how to handle disputes or they will demonstrate that they don't know how to handle them.  GRBerry 16:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) No. I think if we were to relax the standards in this way, we would need another level of "administrators" to watch for bad-faith "trial administrators." This solution creates an unnecessary level of extra police-work.  Remember, this is about writing an encyclopedia.  How many more levels of maintenance work do we want to create for ourselves? -- Renesis (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Too much work to investigate. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Either give them the mop or don't. Don't put too much ceremony on adminship, it's just a maintenance position.  We're not cops, we're not doctors, we're freakin' janitors or maintenance folks who love the project and want to keep it running. - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 17:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) In the one month, they're either going to go nuts and delete the interface messages or play it conservatively and make themselves look good until they can get adminship permanently.  This also creates an unnecessary mentorship burden on existing admins.  Ral315 (talk) 18:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) The extra complication does not seem worth the effort. As others have already said, either they're already mature enough to be trusted with the mop or they're not. If you're worried about people abusing their admin powers once promoted, you can be very sure that they won't abuse them during the trial period. This proposal won't give you any new reliable data on which to base the decision. Rossami (talk) 18:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 8) Why? Situations in which a bad pattern is visible in the first month are rare.  If current standards are too high, I suspect creating an intermediate status will only encourage people to raise their standards for "real" adminship. So what problem is this the solution to?  Chick Bowen 18:56, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 9) I see no need to add yet another proceedure and create more bureaucracy, and do not see how it would "fix" any of the perceived problems with the existing process. Agent 86 19:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 10) Don't see how that would really help.-- Birgitte SB  22:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 11) I agree with Chairboy. Yuser31415 22:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 12) No. The current process does a better job of evaluating admins.  A trial admin process is too easy to abuse. —Doug Bell talk 23:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 13) No Backdoor for newbies that get friendly with admins isn't how consesus is determined. — Moe  00:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 14) Exactly as Moe says - if you're not trusted to get it 100%, you're not at all.  Daniel.Bryant  04:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 15) Unnecessary, slow, and useless. Opabinia regalis 06:56, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 16) In almost all cases, serious admin abuses have not occurred within the first fortnight/month etc. If we're gonna trust people, let's just trust them - if they go nuts, the cleanup required will be the same as if they're full admins anyway. Such a process seems way more trouble than it's worth. Rje 00:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 17) A useless and confusing layer of bureaucracy. If a user isn't ready, they shouldn't pass RfA, much less be granted trial adminship.&mdash;Perceval 00:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 18) In principle adminship isn't such a big step, so making the process more bureaucratic won't help. feydey 22:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 19) Too much bureaucracy and process, too much opportunity for harm before the trial admin is caught, and most of the above opinions have good points. Grand  master  ka  09:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 20) No - if adminship is no big deal and RfA works reasonably well (which is does, despite the gripes) and there are systems for desysopping anyone who really steps out of line, what's to be gained? --Dweller 13:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 21) This is what RfA is for. Captain panda   In   vino   veritas  00:40, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 22) No. Just make everyone with a certain edit count who hasn't been blocked in the past couple of months the bit and make desysopping bad boys and girls a bit easier. No need for the huge fuss. Grace Note 09:41, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 23) There need not be "admin orientation." If you know how to use a mop, if you know that there are two ends of a mop (one for cleaning up after vandals, one for clubbing blocking the vandals), and if you can be trusted with the mop, then by all means use them and use them fruitfully. Adminship should not come with 30-day free-trial subscriptions. --210 physicq  ( c ) 20:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * 24) I just don't think that the idea is very good. If one admin trusts you, he should nominate you for adminship. -Royalguard11 (Talk·Review Me!) 21:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Other

 * 1) I think some sort of trial adminship would be good, but I don't know that the proposal above is the way to do it. I also don't really know what a good way to set up a procedure would be, either. Αργυριου (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) I think it doesn't make any difference. If there's a process to go through and there still are aspiring admins, they'll do what it takes (I have a strong suspicion that many of our admin candidates, particularly the vandalism reverters, are reincarnations of existing users who start reverting vandalism on their very first edit and whose only aim is to attain adminship, so this should be something they'll be able to cope with).--Domitius 16:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) A mentorship period after a regular RFA (similar to Admin coaching) would be nice, though. How to actually use the tools is a different issue than whether someone is capable of having them. Tito xd (?!?) 00:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)