All those concerns are addressed by the idea I proposed where people can do temporary admin actions (obviously this ability would be swiftly taken away if abused) that are later confirmed or reversed by a "full" admin. I think the overhead would be worth it, along with some real metrics to judge people by when they run at RFA for the full flag. The problem is finding a developer to: (a) say whether it is feasible; and (b) to actually write the changes needed, including the code for making these "temporary" admin actions appear in a separate log (with the logs capable of being suppressed if needed as with any logs) and only appearing in the permanent logs if approved. If reversed, the actions would probably look like "suppressed" actions. Obviously, the details would need working on, but now that suppression and revdel is at a more mature stage, it shouldn't be too hard to adapt the code to this sort of purpose (though obviously with a different name and so on).
Carcharoth On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 3:18 PM, WereSpielChequers <[email protected]> wrote: > I appreciate that your suggestion is not to have admins. But aside > from the issue that juries will be slower and less efficient than the > current system for dealing with attack pages, what is the error rate > for admin deletion of attack pages and blocking of vandalism only > accounts? There are areas where admin decisions are sometimes > challenged or contentious, but in my experience the deletion of attack > pages and the blocking of vandalism only accounts rarely if ever > involves admin errors. So this proposal would replace a system that > works well with one that at best would achieve comparable results but > more slowly and less efficiently. > > As for blanking attack pages, yes patrollers can and do do this. But > that doesn't stop people cyber bullying by emailing a diff of the > attack page, nor does it help when as so often happens the name of the > attack page is itself an attack. > > WereSpielChequers > >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 >> >> On 21/08/2010, Carcharoth <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Is it possible to have the ability to blank an attack page and keep it >>> locked until an admin looks at it and deletes it? >> >> The point is not to have admins. >> >> You could just have it so that the vote blanks/unblanks the page, in >> real time, whenever the total is a majority for blanking. You would >> have to make sure that juries are taken from well-established editors, >> and that it's understood that people that vote to blank for bad faith >> reasons would get permanently blocked (if another jury found that you >> had done that). >> >>> Carcharoth >> >> -- >> -Ian Woollard >> >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> [email protected] >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> >> >> End of WikiEN-l Digest, Vol 85, Issue 28 >> **************************************** >> > > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list [email protected] To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
