Meta:Requests for adminship/Soxred93

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a closed Meta-Wiki request. Please do not modify it.

Soxred93

I am requesting temporary access here on Meta, so I can edit the (soon to be) protected Huggle/GlobalConfig. It may not be protected now, but most people agree that it should be, as it has the power to shut down Huggle on every project. However, once it is protected, none of the Huggle developers will be able to edit it. Reedy and I are the only Huggle developers who are admins on enwiki, and none of them are admins here. One month of access should be fine, just so we can make modifications to it once it's protected. Soxred93 22:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered putting this page on a wiki where you are an admin? — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meta is a central location. This page covers every project huggle is enabled on. It makes sense to host it here, therefore. Majorly ^talk 22:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the need to protect that page here anyways, at best it should be [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop] because admins are active on this wiki 24/7 and we don't have many vandals here,so I strongly disagree with this request.--Comet styles 22:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could say the same about the interwiki map, the spam blacklist, the front portals... etc. "Admins are active on this wiki 24/7" isn't true anyway. I have seen vandalism left way too long here before. Editing of the huggle page could really mess it up. Majorly ^talk 22:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this should be protected. Although it normally makes sense for such things to be located on meta, I wonder if it makes more sense in this case to have the page on some wiki where they can edit it. I'm not sure why Soxred93 won't need to edit it beyond one month - if it will need editing beyond then perhaps here is not the best place for it? — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably isn't, but the configuration would need changing probably so it looks at some other page instead of the one here. Majorly ^talk 22:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I seem to be full of hare-brained proposals lately, but it might not be a bad idea some time to consider rolling out the edit protected page functionality to trusted users, rather than adminship all the time. We seem to have had a lot of people asking for temporary adminship for the sole purpose of editing things. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 23:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this'd be a good idea to look into. —Giggy 00:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get why you're only requesting temporary adminship. It's going to be protected permanently (right?), so I'd have thought you'd always need a Huggle dev with adminship here (ideally... IRC works, too) in case anything screws up big time across projects. —Giggy 00:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Temporary here doesn't necessarily mean for a limited amount of time. More, it means "limited to a certain task(s)". It could be for a month, it could be forever. Majorly ^talk 00:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then let's call the group of usage-limited admins "Restricted Adminship" or "Limited Adminship" instead? I like Anonymous Dissident's proposal for this, though. Kylu 02:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, and for my own hair-brained idea (uhoh): We could authorize a role account here for the Huggle developers for one purpose: Create a user called (say) User:HuggleConfig and they could store the various global settings in a .js or .css file owned by that account. They wouldn't have to worry about stepping on anyone's toes, they'd have a protected page to edit, and wouldn't need to renew adminship. Kylu 02:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Good call - sounds fine to me. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 03:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sounds like a perfectly good idea. —Giggy 03:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I even considered this suggestion too, but then I realized a few problems. Speaking from a programmer's view here, if the program were to be changed to look at a new config file, then it would need to be put into the next version, which is not available for a while (as we just released one). So if it were to be changed, the program would not work for a while due to that. Maybe we can change it just before the next release but until then, it's going to have to be this one page. Soxred93 03:48, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I've gone ahead and created the beginnings of a proposal page for the edit protected pages user group. Meta:Full confirmation. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 03:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you trust them with editing mw:namespace and spamblacklist etc. what would be the problem in giving them all bits? instead of making yet another user group for no good reason. thanks.--Alnokta 12:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with Alnokta here. It's Meta. The solution isn't creating a new user group. It's realizing that it's Meta and going back to having adminship be no big deal. --MZMcBride 17:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adminship on Meta is a big deal I'm afraid. Given the interwiki map & the blacklist there is the potential to substantially affect all projects. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And changes to pages are logged, right? You can click the little 'diff' links and see what was changed and by whom and when. Is there any possibility that if Soxred or any an other admin abused their admin rights that they wouldn't be summarily revoked? I think not. --MZMcBride 17:17, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The BL affects all 700+ wikis and then several thousand other non Foundations sites who use the software. We obviously must agree to differ on our definitions of "big deals". --Herby ^{talk thyme} 18:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the changes to the list is instantaneous (and so are the project portals). It wasn't a big deal in 2004, but it is now. Majorly ^talk 18:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) It almost seems like an assumption of bad faith here.... I'm a sysop on several projects, but if I were given +sysop here, right now, after only 114 edits, is that any indication that I would abuse the rights? I can stop title creation on one of the most visited sites in the world (en.wiki) but you're worried about km.wikibooks being victim to a rouge admin here? That's just silly. If any admin added .* <noedit> to the global title blacklist, they would be de-sysopped. Adminship here is should be no big deal. --MZMcBride 19:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a risk I'd like to take personally. The stuff here affects every Wikimedia wiki, as well as Wikia, and other sites that use our lists. Stuff here not only affects enwiki, but Commons, dewiki, frwiki, eswiki, and of course km.wikibooks. It affects every single one, in one go. To be honest, I don't care if you're a sysop on several projects. You need to have shown some trust here, and familiarity with how things work here before gaining an admin bit. We aren't like enwiki where we demand a million edits, several years experience, and other pointless criteria. We just expect some experience and familiarity with the meta project. And with just 114 edits, you clearly aren't familiar enough with how things work, especially when you make a statement like "it should be no big deal". The regulars here disagree. Majorly ^talk 19:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal is the ideal (or used to be...). You're a bureaucrat here, want to take Jimmy's +sysop? ;-) --MZMcBride 19:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you always take something that is five years old as gospel? Consensual working is required on any wiki to me - adversarial working is unhelpful. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 20:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the arguments being presented here are a bit silly, in my opinion. It's a big deal to be +sysop here because you could affect a lot of small wikis? People are acting as though sysop actions aren't logged or visible to others. Or worse, that their actions are irreversible. People are also acting as though there's been some sort of rash of bad behavior from admins here and elsewhere that could justify this view. It's a bit bizarre. As to your point about adversarial working, I don't really understand what you mean. There's a view that +sysop is a big deal here and yet I still don't see a compelling argument being made. This is a non-content project that seems to be taken far too seriously. /me shrugs. --MZMcBride 21:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You think enwiki is a "small wiki"? I beg to differ. Think of it like this: someone commits a murder - would you say the murder is acceptable because all the evidence points to a person? Or would it not be better to prevent the murder in the first place? Majorly ^talk 21:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. :) Let's take this part of the discussion elsewhere. We're supposed to be discussing Soxred93, and this isn't doing his nomination any favors. A little bit of deviation from the theme is both accepted and expected, but we're going a bit overboard. Sorry guys. Kylu 23:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC) (who is going back to bed with some Gatorade and a big box of Kleenex.)[reply]

If he actually needs temp adminship to do his job, then fine, I trust him. But I don't know that that is the case. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 23:36, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As i mentioend above, he really doesn't need to be an admin here to update that page, usually temp adminship is for pages that are automatically protected such as the "Mediawiki:" ones and mainly for projects, not a tool, and as mentioned above, we will be more that happy to have a [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop] since editors on this wiki are trusted, unlike enwiki where new accounts are automatically auto-confirmed and can move pages almost instantaneously, meta RC is watched by so many editors/admins/crats/stewards and bureaucrats alike from 100s of projects, there is no chance of it ever being vandalised here..so as per above, I strongly disagree with this request, temp sysops are for those that actually need it, for stuff that actually needs to be protected and sadly Huggle doesn't fall in that category..--Comet styles 00:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A simple question: what is the worst that could happen to the huggle user if the configuration page is vandalised? Would the process keep going, die, or churn out garbage? Hillgentleman 06:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know if anyone knows for sure the worst that could happen, but because Huggle is a powerful tool, it playing up could have serious consequences. —Giggy 07:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was actually one of the few first people to test it when its real developer, Gurch created it earlier in January this year, and even the creator felt that in the wrong hands, this tool would be dangerous but as a precautionary measure, its configs were set to the users huggle.css page so if it gets abused, an admin can remove it from his/her monobook and protect it and since this tool will be around for a long time, temp requests is not a good idea since renewing it all time is pointless, it will be good if an admin who is well-versed with how Huggle works on meta should be the one to do it or if changes need to be made, use its talk page to update it...--Comet styles 07:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^Section break. I'd like to take the time to point out that after 6 days, consensus on whether to promote or not is seriously not clear. There seems to be differing opinions, uncertainties, ideas on how to tackle these kind of requests, but no definitive supports or opposes. Closing will not be possible, even tomorrow, after 7 days. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 13:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's partially because there's no clarity on what's being requested and if this request will work out as is hoped. But... I

Oppose granting temporary (what's the time limit being proposed, btw.?) adminiship solely for this task, and suggest the Huggle devs go ahead with the user .css page solution instead. —Giggy 13:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed For all the discussion above, I didn't find any actual consensus for granting Soxred93 temporary adminship, especially since a potential alternative to the candidate's adminship (using a central account's .js or .css userpages) was provided. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]